The Colorado Wildlife Commission has a formidable task this week. It not only has to give a meaningful voice to the state’s wildlife in the face of rampant energy development, the commission also has to decide whether the egregious habit of using a live animal for target practice should be continued.

There are some onlookers who might argue the two topics aren’t that separate, but there is a distinction.

Wednesday’s meeting, devoted to a commission resolution outlining how energy development should address wildlife impacts, is a half-day affair starting at 1 p.m. at the Elks Lodge, 249 S. Fourth.

The meeting will continue Thursday at 8:30 a.m. at the Holiday Inn, 755 Horizon Drive.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission already has posted its version of some proposed draft rules on its Web site, http://cogcc.state.co.us/. Two hearings on the draft rules are set for June, including one in Grand Junction on June 10 at Two Rivers Convention Center.

Emphasizing that he was talking only as a single commissioner, wildlife commission Chairman Tom Burke of Grand Junction gave reserved approval to what he’s seen in the draft regulations.

“But I’m not sure they’ve gone far enough when it comes to timing restrictions for critical mule deer winter range and (for protecting) sage grouse habitat,” Burke said. “And reclamation ... is always going to be a big issue.

“But by and large, I’m comfortable with what’s come out so far.”

The commission’s role was outlined last year in House Bill 1298, which directed the state Oil and Gas Commission to balance energy development with public health and safety, wildlife and the environment.

This includes working with the wildlife commission on development decisions affecting wildlife and wildlife habitat.

The legislation also says the Oil and Gas Commission should use “best management practices” to avoid unnecessary effects on wildlife resources.

Energy companies have publicly complained that some of the proposed regulations might cause them undue losses, but after hearing major oil companies report record profits and seeing the eagerness with which they greet each new lease sale, it’s a tough argument to make.

The wildlife commission’s move comes just as conservation groups are decrying another public lands give-away to energy companies, this time a proposal by the Bureau of Land Management to lease more than 175,00 acres of public land, including 40 percent of the Rio Grande National Forest.

The leases include critical lynx habitat in southwest Colorado, along with big-game winter range and migration routes, headwaters for native trout streams and key sage-grouse breeding areas.

According to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the BLM’s decision to lease these parcels was made without consulting the Colorado Division of Wildlife, a move that ignores a conservation agreement signed in 2003.

“The BLM keeps opening areas to energy developers without consulting state wildlife monitors,” said TRCP Senior Vice President Tom Franklin. “The BLM’s pattern of missteps is resulting in substantive, on-the-ground impacts to fish and wildlife populations and habitat — the very resources it’s charged with managing as part of the public trust.”

Energy companies love to say they play by all the rules, including following National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act protection regulations.

But they’ve been given generous relief from some key major environmental provisions, including parts of the Clean Water Act, by the Bush administration.

What overall effects on energy development the state wildlife commission might have is unclear, given that energy companies have proven time and again that they are driven by their economic bottom line, not by concerns about wildlife or environmental protection.

Burke, of course, is cognizant of that but he says it’s the commission’s role to carry a voice for those would rather see an elk than a drilling rig.

“It’s certainly not my contention to make this so onerous we can’t continue with natural gas development,” Burke said. “We just need to be cognizant of the fact that we have a huge constituency base that expects us to do what we can to protect Colorado’s wildlife.”

Once the resolution is adopted, it will be passed on to the Department of Natural Resources, where Executive Director Harris Sherman will decide how it fits with the state’s overall plan.

Sherman has a foot on both sides of this fence, since his office oversees both the wildlife commission and the oil and gas commission.

No one expects to get everything they seek, that’s the nature of resolutions and wide-ranging development plans, but Burke says the wildlife commission has to make it plain that wildlife interests come first.

“I think it’s our job to be stewards of Colorado’s wildlife and sometimes that may put us at odds with other interests,” he said. “But it’s incumbent on us to hear about all the biological impacts and make our own determination about what we think about some of the different regulations or potential rules.

“So we’re going to do what’s necessary to provide the necessary protection for our wildlife.”

Thursday’s meeting will be enlivened by the discussion of a citizen’s petition to ban using live animals, specifically prairie dogs, as targets.

In part, the petition, brought by the conservation group WildEarth Guardians, calls prairie dog hunting an “affront to both non-consumptive wildlife advocates and actual hunters” and says using animals for target practice isn’t protected by exemptions given hunting under Colorado’s animal cruelty laws.

And of course the mere mention of controlling what some people might consider hunting has elicited the expected knee-jerk response from the National Rifle Association.

You can be sure there will be more, much more, on Thursday.

•

E-mail Dave Buchanan at dbuchanan@gjds.com.