I'm torn on Colorado prop 114.

[Vandy321]

90% reporting
50.4% - in favor
49.6% -against

Not sure which counties are late to report/count, hoping it's the western slope, but doubt we're that lucky.

 

[Stalker69]

Well wolves on the way. A bunch of city people deciding on an issue they should never have been involved in.

 

[ndbuck09]

I'm sorry to say this but did the biggest hunting conservation groups really press in on this issue?? I sure didn't see anything about being against it from the hunting industry through all the mountain dew commercials.....the fastest growing hunting conservation group is frankly scared to make any definitive actions against this attack on the "North American Model of Conservation". Worst part is this has failed previous in Idaho, MT and Wyoming, now Oregon and Washington. Does the industry learn? Death by a thousand cuts or should I say fangs.

 

[live2huntelk]

It’s official: Voters decide to reintroduce wolves in Colorado

Unleash the hounds. Proposition 114 was decided Thursday as votes from heavily populated Front Range counties pushed the wolf reintroduction plan to victory. The measure, which tasks Colorado Parks and […]

coloradosun.com

 

[live2huntelk]

Colorado Proposition 114, Gray Wolf Reintroduction Initiative (2020)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[Rick M.]

The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife has resisted this four times in the past. Why should this be a public voter issue? Do we only believe in listening to the scientists when they are advising conservatives?

An activist group from San Francisco fought to get this put on the Colorado ballot, and Coloradans will now pay 800k in taxes to watch the best elk and deer habitat in the country be decimated while the San Francisco wolf-loving activists are 1200 miles away in their high rise apartments.

Some issues really shouldn't just be dropped onto a ballot for bleeding hearts to vote on. It undermines years and years of education and research by conservationists and natural resource managers. I love wildlife just as much as the next guy, and that is exactly why I defer to experts. This was a mistake.

 

[dr.mooseknuckles]

Well, that sucks.

Shoot, shovel and shut up comes to mind.

 

[HighUintas]

Well, that sucks.

Shoot, shovel and shut up comes to mind.

Yup

 

[blicero]

Interested to see what if any groups are willing to file a suit get this invalidated in court.

It seems off-base to me that voters can directly order state agencies to implement specific policies, especially when those policies are in direct contradiction to the mission of that agency. Would it be legal if a Colorado ballot initiative passed that forced the Colorado Department of Health to deliberately infect everyone in the state with Coronavirus? Would the response be "oh well, I guess that's what the voters want".

 

[orionthehunter1]

It will be interesting down here for sure. The Southern Ute Indian tribe strongly opposed any wolf re-introduction. They will probably file a suit and with a net worth close to 4 billion they have enough money to win or get it tied up for a while.

 

[11boo]

They made sure to make it West of the divide, those *s.

 

[Pro953]

The ideal situation would be to find a group that will file a suit to protect the Mexican wolf based on ESA protections. This will divide the environmental groups and not make it a hunter rancher vs. Enviromental groups. Instead enviromental group vs environmental group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

I'm sorry to say this but did the biggest hunting conservation groups really press in on this issue?? I sure didn't see anything about being against it from the hunting industry through all the mountain dew commercials.....the fastest growing hunting conservation group is frankly scared to make any definitive actions against this attack on the "North American Model of Conservation". Worst part is this has failed previous in Idaho, MT and Wyoming, now Oregon and Washington. Does the industry learn? Death by a thousand cuts or should I say fangs.

RMEF did.

 

[ODB]

I love it how one certain political party yells “get money out of politics” unless that money is stuffing their pockets and forwarding their agenda....

 

[ODB]

The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife has resisted this four times in the past. Why should this be a public voter issue? Do we only believe in listening to the scientists when they are advising conservatives?

An activist group from San Francisco fought to get this put on the Colorado ballot, and Coloradans will now pay 800k in taxes to watch the best elk and deer habitat in the country be decimated while the San Francisco wolf-loving activists are 1200 miles away in their high rise apartments.

Some issues really shouldn't just be dropped onto a ballot for bleeding hearts to vote on. It undermines years and years of education and research by conservationists and natural resource managers. I love wildlife just as much as the next guy, and that is exactly why I defer to experts. This was a mistake.

It shouldn’t be a voter issue, period. These initiatives are subversive and evil.

 

[justin davis]

Crazy. It’s the same as the bear ban. Groups got it to a public vote. And they banned spring bear hunt. Now Colorado has a bear problem and hundreds of bears are killed by park and wildlife and wasted because they are causing problems. Instead of hunters killing them and all the money that comes with hunting.

 

[brsnow]

Vote breakdown. Green is for and red is against. Got this

I'm sorry to say this but did the biggest hunting conservation groups really press in on this issue?? I sure didn't see anything about being against it from the hunting industry through all the mountain dew commercials.....the fastest growing hunting conservation group is frankly scared to make any definitive actions against this attack on the "North American Model of Conservation". Worst part is this has failed previous in Idaho, MT and Wyoming, now Oregon and Washington. Does the industry learn? Death by a thousand cuts or should I say fangs.

Very few people were at the town hall meetings either.

The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife has resisted this four times in the past. Why should this be a public voter issue? Do we only believe in listening to the scientists when they are advising conservatives?

An activist group from San Francisco fought to get this put on the Colorado ballot, and Coloradans will now pay 800k in taxes to watch the best elk and deer habitat in the country be decimated while the San Francisco wolf-loving activists are 1200 miles away in their high rise apartments.

Some issues really shouldn't just be dropped onto a ballot for bleeding hearts to vote on. It undermines years and years of education and research by conservationists and natural resource managers. I love wildlife just as much as the next guy, and that is exactly why I defer to experts. This was a mistake.

it seems in general it is popular to attack science.

 

[CorbLand]

Crazy. It’s the same as the bear ban. Groups got it to a public vote. And they banned spring bear hunt. Now Colorado has a bear problem and hundreds of bears are killed by park and wildlife and wasted because they are causing problems. Instead of hunters killing them and all the money that comes with hunting.

The individuals that support this dont care if they get killed or not. Its all ideological. I use to work in an office with a lady that was anti hunting. I showed her the stats for the number of mountain lions that have been killed in California since the ban. She responded with "as long as hunters arent the ones killing them I don't care."

 

[justin davis]

The individuals that support this dont care if they get killed or not. Its all ideological. I use to work in an office with a lady that was anti hunting. I showed her the stats for the number of mountain lions that have been killed in California since the ban. She responded with "as long as hunters are the ones killing them I don't care."

Yea that’s the sad part. They really don’t care about the animals. Only care about if hunters are hunting them or not

 

[ODB]

The individuals that support this dont care if they get killed or not. Its all ideological. I use to work in an office with a lady that was anti hunting. I showed her the stats for the number of mountain lions that have been killed in California since the ban. She responded with "as long as hunters arent the ones killing them I don't care."

This is a very important and often overlooked point. some Hunters think that they can change opinions with flat brim hats, pretty girls hunting, IPAs, being “woke”, well-told stories, well made meals, field-to-table, etc etc etc. Nope.

this is as much a study in sociology as anything. You have to counter an argument using the same argument, not a different one. That’s something we are not great at. When they say “no hunters killing animals” and we say “we eat the meat.,” we are not arguing a point that will resonate with them.