Part 2 of 8: THE BUFFALO COMMONS SPECIAL REPORT

An investigation by High Country Advocate hat tip to Cory Gaines of the Colorado Accountability Project

Institutional Capture: How Environmental Activists Gained Control of Colorado’s Wildlife and Land Policy

Governor Polis’s systematic placement of environmental activists in key positions raises questions about conflicts of interest and the future of Colorado agriculture

When Colorado voters elected Jared Polis governor in 2018, they knew they were getting a progressive with strong environmental credentials. What few anticipated was how systematically Polis would transform the state’s wildlife and land management apparatus by appointing environmental activists to nearly every position of authority over these policy areas.

An investigation reveals a coordinated network of individuals with overlapping roles, shared ideology, and mutual financial interests who now control Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the State Land Board, and the funding mechanisms that support conservation efforts. The result: state agencies that should balance competing interests instead serve a single agenda—one that treats Colorado’s $40 billion agriculture industry as an obstacle rather than an asset.

The Appointment Pattern

Governors appoint people who share their values. But the Polis administration’s approach goes beyond typical political preference. Nearly every appointment controlling wildlife and land management shares not just progressive politics, but a specific ideological commitment: rewilding, removing livestock from lands, and restoring Colorado’s grasslands to a pre-settlement state.

Nicole Rosmarino, co-founder of WildEarth Guardians—a litigation-focused environmental group—now directs the Colorado State Land Board, controlling lease decisions for 2.8 million surface acres.

Jay Tutchton, appointed to the CPW Commission in 2020, simultaneously works as Preserve Manager for Southern Plains Land Trust, an organization buying ranchland to remove from production. He also sits on the Great Outdoors Colorado board, which distributes public lottery funds—including grants to his employer.

Mark Harvey and James Pribyl, appointed to the State Land Board alongside Rosmarino, both bring environmental law and conservation backgrounds. These aren’t moderate conservationists—they’re activists whose careers opposed the very industries that depend on the lands they now control.

Nicole Rosmarino: From Activist to Authority

Rosmarino’s appointment as State Land Board Director in 2023 placed someone with documented hostility toward ranching in control of decisions affecting whether ranchers can continue operating. She co-founded WildEarth Guardians, which has sued federal agencies dozens of times over grazing permits and land use. Before her appointment, she wrote for the Great Plains Restoration Council, explicitly advocating for the “Buffalo Commons”—depopulating the Great Plains to restore native prairie.

Controversially, Rosmarino publicly praised the 1998 arson at Vail Ski Resort, a crime that caused $12 million in damage. In 2020, she advised Governor Polis on wolf reintroduction despite fierce rancher opposition. Now she controls whether those same ranchers maintain access to state grazing leases.

The Alamosa Carbon Lease: Ideology Over Fiduciary Duty

In October 2025, Rosmarino’s State Land Board approved Colorado’s first biological carbon lease—a decision that reveals how environmental ideology now trumps the Board’s legal duty to maximize revenue for public schools.

The Board leased 480 acres of state trust land near Alamosa for carbon sequestration. The project claims it will sequester 10,000 metric tons of CO₂ over 15 years. But independent analysis by the High Country Advocate found the site’s conditions—sparse vegetation, alkaline soil, minimal precipitation—support only about 1,300 tons of sequestration, roughly 13% of what’s advertised.

The financial terms are equally troubling. The lease generates just $720 per year in base rent, plus potentially $1,333 annually if carbon credits actually sell—for a maximum of about $2,000 per year. A comparable grazing lease on 160 acres typically generates $1,500-2,000 annually. The carbon lease locks up three times the acreage for similar or less revenue, with a 40-year commitment that removes the land from productive use for generations.

The Board approved the lease unanimously after a brief presentation, with no recorded public comments and no independent review of the sequestration claims. This is a State Land Board whose primary legal obligation is maximizing revenue for Colorado schools, now accepting questionable science and minimal returns to advance a climate agenda.

The precedent is alarming. If carbon leases become standard practice across the Board’s 2.8 million acres, vast areas of state trust land could be locked into 40-year agreements that generate minimal school revenue while eliminating grazing access ranchers depend on. Rosmarino isn’t just managing state lands—she’s using them to implement the rewilding vision she advocated before taking office.

The Lake Fork Ranch Model: Rewilding State Trust Lands

If the Alamosa carbon lease reveals Rosmarino’s priorities in miniature, the Lake Fork Ranch acquisition shows her vision at scale. In late 2024, the State Land Board acquired the 800-acre Lake Fork Ranch west of Leadville in Lake County—not to maximize revenue for Colorado schools through traditional agricultural leasing, but to transform it into what board officials call a “living laboratory for nature-based enterprise.”

The acquisition reveals how state trust lands—which legally exist to generate revenue for public schools—are being redirected toward experimental conservation finance models rather than proven agricultural income. Lake Fork Ranch will implement a “phased business plan” focused on mitigation banking, soil carbon sequestration, biodiversity credits, agritourism, and ecosystem services. The Board plans to invest $2-3 million in infrastructure to support these ventures.

Compare this to traditional state land management. A typical grazing lease on comparable acreage generates $1,500-2,000 annually per 160 acres through straightforward livestock operations. The Alamosa carbon lease generates potentially $2,000 annually while locking up 480 acres for 40 years. Lake Fork Ranch will require millions in upfront investment to pursue speculative revenue streams from emerging conservation markets that may or may not materialize.

The language used to describe Lake Fork reveals the ideological shift. Board officials emphasized “non-extractive ventures,” “nature-based enterprise,” “biodiversity voluntary market projects,” and “ecosystem-services projects.” Traditional agricultural use—the actual proven revenue generator for schools—becomes secondary to experimental conservation finance.

Rosmarino’s quote about the property captures this perfectly: “Lake Fork Ranch exemplifies how we’re building a more resilient and forward-looking land portfolio for Colorado’s public schools. It’s an investment in both the economic and ecological future of our trust lands—balancing water, recreation, and natural-capital assets that will generate returns for generations to come.”

Translation: The State Land Board Director who co-founded WildEarth Guardians and wrote for the Great Plains Restoration Council is now using her authority over 2.8 million acres of state trust lands to implement the same rewilding vision she advocated before taking office. Lake Fork Ranch is the pilot project. The Alamosa carbon lease is the template. If this becomes standard practice across the Board’s vast holdings, Colorado schools will receive minimal revenue while vast acreages get locked into decades-long conservation experiments.

The pattern is unmistakable: environmental activists appointed to control state lands are using their authority to advance rewilding agendas rather than fulfill their fiduciary duty to maximize school revenue. Lake Fork Ranch isn’t in southeastern Colorado—it’s near Leadville on the Western Slope. This isn’t just about the eastern plains. Rosmarino’s vision is statewide.

Jay Tutchton: The Stunning Overlap

If Rosmarino’s appointment raises concerns, Jay Tutchton’s dual role should trigger alarms. He serves simultaneously as: a Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioner, setting wildlife policy for the state; Preserve Manager for Southern Plains Land Trust, buying ranchland to convert from agriculture to wildlife habitat; and GOCO board member, distributing public lottery funds as conservation grants—including to SPLT, his employer.

This institutional overlap is stunning. A state official determining wildlife policy sits on a public funding board while working for a private organization that benefits from both.

The Circular Pipeline

CPW Commissioners set policy direction, approve regulations, guide spending, and influence the State Wildlife Action Plan—determining which habitats receive conservation attention. When the Commission identifies southeastern Colorado grasslands as critical priorities, when it directs resources toward habitat protection in Baca and Bent Counties where SPLT operates, Jay Tutchton has a vote.

Southern Plains Land Trust has protected over 60,000 acres in southeastern Colorado, acquiring ranchland to eliminate livestock grazing and restore native prairie. According to its materials, SPLT has “dramatically increased our pace of land acquisition” as ranchers face economic struggles.

Great Outdoors Colorado distributes $50-60 million annually in lottery proceeds for conservation. Its board includes both Tutchton and Dan Gibbs, DNR Director—Tutchton’s boss at CPW. GOCO has awarded grants to Southern Plains Land Trust.

The circularity is breathtaking: Tutchton helps determine that southeastern grasslands need conservation attention. CPW policies that restrict ranching make ranching economically harder. Struggling ranchers become more likely to sell. SPLT acquires that land. GOCO, where Tutchton sits, provides grants to SPLT for those acquisitions.

At every point, Tutchton has influence. He helps create conditions serving his employer’s interests, sits on the board distributing public money to that employer, and faces no requirement to recuse himself. Colorado’s ethics framework permits this arrangement, but that doesn’t make it acceptable—it makes the framework inadequate.

Institutional Capture

When nearly every position controlling wildlife policy, land management, and conservation funding is filled by environmental activists with rewilding agendas, when the same people appear across decision-making and funding chains, when public money flows to organizations where board members work, and when rural voices are systematically excluded—that’s not normal political preference. That’s institutional capture.

These appointments have consequences: Ranchers lose generational grazing leases. Agricultural land converts to “conservation” uses. Wildlife policies favor predators over livestock. Colorado’s $40 billion agriculture industry gets treated as an obstacle rather than an asset.

The Buffalo Commons concept—depopulating the Great Plains to restore native prairie—has existed since the 1980s. What’s different now is the mechanism. It’s not being imposed by federal mandate. It’s being implemented through state-level political appointments, one position at a time.

Rosmarino writes for the Great Plains Restoration Council advocating prairie restoration, then gets appointed to control state land leases. Tutchton works for an organization buying ranchland to end grazing, then gets appointed to set wildlife policy and sits on a board distributing conservation funding. The carbon lease gets approved with questionable science and minimal revenue. GOCO funding flows to organizations removing land from agriculture.

Connect the dots: a coordinated network advancing a shared vision, using political appointments and public funding to implement an agenda rural Colorado never voted for.

The question isn’t whether these officials believe they’re doing good. The question is whether their vision should be implemented over rural communities’ objections, without democratic accountability, through a network of overlapping appointments and conflicts of interest that would be unacceptable in any other context.

Ranchers aren’t asking for special treatment—they’re asking for fair treatment. For state agencies that balance competing interests rather than serving single agendas. For officials who don’t have financial stakes in outcomes their decisions affect. For policies made transparently rather than through informal networks of ideologically aligned appointees.

They’re asking for government that serves all Coloradans, not just those who share the governor’s environmental priorities.

This network exists. It operates openly, through official appointments and public boards. The conflicts, while troubling, don’t violate technical ethics rules. The ideology isn’t hidden.

But networks can be challenged. Appointees can be questioned. Conflicts can be exposed. And voters can demand better.

The Buffalo Commons isn’t inevitable. It’s a choice being made by a small number of appointed officials with outsized power over Colorado’s future.

Rural communities deserve a voice in that choice. It’s time they had one.