Subjects to avoid at Thanksgiving dinner are traditionally politics and religion. But another, more obscure issue can provoke equally heated arguments.  
While rarely discussed at Thanksgiving gatherings, this debate nonetheless provokes strong emotions that are revealed in countless articles, books and meeting rooms. Few species of wildlife spur divisive dialogue as much as the gray wolf.
Because the gray wolf is still listed as endangered in Colorado, management of wolves that migrate into the state are under the purview of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which provides protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Groups like Wolves for Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project are working to gain support for proactively reintroducing the wolf to Colorado.
Minnesota scientist and professor David Mech has studied wolves since 1958 and concluded that there are “regions that could be examined for livestock-free areas and areas of positive, or least-negative, public attitudes toward wolves. Individual states, then, could decide whether to reintroduce wolf populations.”  
Wildlife biologist Carlos Carroll believes that certain Colorado regions can support a population of at least 1,000 wolves, particularly in public lands near Aspen, the San Juan Mountains and the Flattop Mountains.
The difference between a reintroduction of an endangered species and the natural migration of that species into the state is significant in terms of state policy and wildlife management.
In 2016, the Parks and Wildlife Commission reviewed requests to reintroduce wolves to the state. The resulting assessment states, “While surveys of Coloradans about wolves have reflected general public support for wolves living in Colorado, the cost of having and managing wolves will fall squarely upon farmers, ranchers and sportspersons. That fact must be considered when the future of wolves in Colorado is contemplated. Wolves and wolf management is costly, and currently no funding source to pay to support wolves has been identified.”
This verdict was a disappointment for wolf advocacy groups, but they have vowed to continue to bring the issue before the Colorado citizens and policy-makers.
Equally vehement in their opinions about wolves are hunters and ranchers, who view the animal as a threat to their incomes and ways of life.
Hunters argue that wolves compete for the harvest of game animals, which can affect license revenues and other economic benefits associated with hunting. The original extirpation of the canids was determined by many factors, but protection of livestock was perhaps the most predominant one.
Ranchers want the right to be able to remove wolves that attack their cattle and sheep.
Stakeholders are dogmatic in their views, not easily swayed by opposing arguments. Perhaps as the wolf controversy continues unabated, a pair of wolves will enter the state, choosing a safe bit of Colorado wilderness, and do what wolves do best — hunt, procreate, play, raise their young, and howl at the moon, all without human interference.
For now, glimpses of wolves in Colorado are largely limited to sanctuaries like the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg, where Keona, Raven & Yukon live. These wolves were rescued from a so-called wildlife education display inside an Iowa mall, where they were caged for years.
Few people can remain indifferent about the wolf, so unless you are ready for a rowdy, provocative interaction with the family, perhaps stick to safer discussions at the dinner table, like Benjamin Franklin’s disdain for the bald eagle as the symbol of our country and respect for the turkey, which he describes as “a little vain and silly” but also “a bird of courage.”