I'm torn on Colorado prop 114.

[alpinewanderer]

I'm going to open this can of worms. I'm very torn about voting yes or no on Colorado's prop 114 which would direct CPW to develop and implement a plan to reintroduce the gray wolf to Colorado by 2023. Here's why:

On the one hand, I like wildlife. All of the creatures great and small. The more types of animals, in more places, in greater numbers, the better is where I stand a personal level. If we could all live in giant, condensed, futuristic cities with vertical farms built in glass and steel to heights as tall as the empire state building and let all the agricultural and suburban land return to wilderness that would be a sci-fi dream. Hunt the millions of bison and elk and whatever else you have a tag for in that futuristic world would be so cool. That's my personal, emotional, stance. More animals in Colorado, even the wolf is a tiny step towards that vision of a 200 year future. BUT.

On the other, America is pretty divided right now. I don't get a sense that much of the Front Range voter base knows or cares about the nuances of conservation, ag production, or who and how conservation is funded in our state. I also think that a vote yes would be a vote to place the true burden of life with wolves on the livelihoods of people living on the western slope, and that's not fair. I don't live in that part of Colorado. The consequences wouldn't really impact me beyond me having to switch up some elk hunting tactics in the fall and that's a far cry from what others would have to deal with so a YES vote feels wrong. Additionally, with most of CPW being funded by hunters, prop 114 seems like it would effectively be asking hunters to pay for this reintroduction. If a californi-fied Front Range had a greater understanding and gratitude for what we do for conservation I would feel a lot better about footing the bill, as someone who has put thousands and thousands of dollars in over the years. However, I don't get the sense that there is that appreciation or understanding yet. And to be humble, it's my fault. I haven't really been reaching out and telling our story to the urban crowd...

And so I'm torn.

Any other Colorado Roksliders feeling conflicted? How are you navigating your decision making process on this?

 

[Chesapeake173]

As someone who lives and deals with wolves in Michigan daily there should be zero conflict. Vote NO!

Wolves are cool and I don’t begrudge them. What isn’t cool is the fact that there are zero checks and balances for their control. None. Out bird hunting with your dog and a wolf attacks? Sit back and watch. Illegal to kill the wolf. Ripping calves from the womb of the cow. Sit back and watch. I’m sure there’s a few wolves in Colorado already and give it 10 years there will be more.

You really don’t want to speed that process


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HuntNTag]

Well, I used to live in Colorado. Personally, I’d listen to the professionals in the division of wildlife, biologists, etc. also, lots of opposition with the major outdoors groups, RMEF is a big one.

Since they are saying it’s a bad idea, then I’d agree with their professional advice.
Seems strange to listen to someone’s opinion and “feelings” as the way to manage wildlife by putting it at the ballot box versus the professionals that do it every day.

The other side is that there are already wolves in Colorado that have been documented. Over time they will be there in bigger and bigger packs so why add more when they are already there. Management will evolve with their evolution naturally, instead of adding more to it.

I live in Michigan and we have them here with no way to control them. Not a good combo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

Not from Colorado but lived in Idaho through this. All you need to do is look to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming as examples as to why you dont want this.

 

[KHNC]

First thing i thought when i read your post "This guy must be from California"

 

[ODB]

this is an initiative brought about by an advocacy group that probably paid signature gathereARs outside of grocery stores to get enough signatures to get a item on the ballot that 95% of people do not understand and will vote yes or no at the same time they are probably hearing about it for the first time. Close?

 

[backcountry_hunter]

most G&F departments aren't funded enough as is.... I'm not opposed to re-intro of any specie when sound science says it's okay or even neccessary but if there aren't resources allocated to manage it then the re-intro is almost always a bad idea.

 

[fishslap]

Not torn. Vote no. Anti hunting groups will find a way to prevent effective predator management and the wolf population will adversely impact wildlife and our hunting future.

 

[stonewall]

vote no. I would if I could

What no one seems to be talking about is how this will impact the mexican grey wolf. Newberg had a good podcast about that. check it out

 

[Overdrive]

I will be voting NO on Prop 114, this will force the CPW to come up with a management plan, a plan that won't include hunting as a means of management. Who funds CPW? You guessed it Hunters and Fisherman through license sales. So if it passes expect resident and non-resident licenses to increase yearly until they have the budget to "Manage" the reintroduction of wolves. IF in the writing of Prop 114 it clearly stated that there would be an increase in taxes (property, sales) to ALL residents for the forced introduction/management, do you think people on the fence would still vote for it?

 

[street]

Its not a tough choice for two reasons:
1. wolf reintroduction has proven, on a large geographic scale, that it cripples ungulate populations to the point they cannot recover.
2. Those populations can't recover because wolf management is politically hamstrung.

Gradual wolf migration and eventual wolf management by hunters is the way to go. Any hunter with a small game license should be allowed to take a wolf in CO. Imo

 

[Brightwhite]

I am in Colorado and am not conflicted at all. Voted No as soon as my ballot showed up in my mailbox.

The govt officials will never manage it correctly, they will be slow (if EVER) to open hunting seasons to manage them, wolves will be quick migrate into the park where you cant hunt them even if they do open it, and who the hell pays for all of this? We do. It will undoubtedly fall on hunters and outdoorsmen and women to fund. Until there is a $100 annual hiking/camping/public land usage pass required for the recreationalists it will fall on us to absorb paying for it while deeply impacting the quality and ability to find good hunting.

The livestock thing I can only imagine being a rancher or a sheep herder out west... I cant imagine trying to get the state to refund you for lost livestock. What a nightmare that would be.

Not no, but hell no. I will be praying to the man upstairs on this one, because I think we are screwed, unfortunately.

 

[Brightwhite]

Its not a tough choice for two reasons:
1. wolf reintroduction has proven, on a large geographic scale, that it cripples ungulate populations to the point they cannot recover.
2. Those populations can't recover because wolf management is politically hamstrung.

Gradual wolf migration and eventual wolf management by hunters is the way to go. Any hunter with a small game license should be allowed to take a wolf in CO. Imo

Nailed it with the "politically hamstrung" comment. Perfect way to sum this whole deal up. This isn't biology, its politics.

 

[WhiteOak]

If we could all live in giant, condensed, futuristic cities with vertical farms built in glass and steel to heights as tall as the empire state building and let all the agricultural and suburban land return to wilderness that would be a sci-fi dream. Hunt the millions of bison and elk and whatever else you have a tag for in that futuristic world would be so cool. That's my personal, emotional, stance. More animals in Colorado, even the wolf is a tiny step towards that vision of a 200 year future. BUT.

Damn that's a terrifying future, what about the souls that dont want to live in cities packed on top of each other.

 

[TheCougar]

I’d say your position on wolves is not the crux of the issue. Wildlife management should not be a ballot issue. This is how you lost almost all of your good bear hunting. This is how you will lose wolf hunting, hunting with hounds, lion hunting, and eventually the erosion of any hunting privilege you hold dear. Wildlife management should be conducted by science, which inherently should be nonpartisan and based on facts, not ignorance and politics - which is how this ballot measure is being decided.

 

[Vandy321]

Choice is clear to me...if you want your children to be able to hunt thriving elk and deer populations in CO in the future, vote no.

CPW has confirmed wolf kills in NW CO already this year. they are here already...no need to help them along, especially with no plan in place to manage the population in the future.

 

[Fatcamp]

WI, MN, WY, ID, MT. How anyone can look at what has gone on in those states and be confused is beyond me. It just has to be some form of willful ignorance.

 

[alpinewanderer]

I will be voting NO on Prop 114, this will force the CPW to come up with a management plan, a plan that won't include hunting as a means of management. Who funds CPW? You guessed it Hunters and Fisherman through license sales. So if it passes expect resident and non-resident licenses to increase yearly until they have the budget to "Manage" the reintroduction of wolves. IF in the writing of Prop 114 it clearly stated that there would be an increase in taxes (property, sales) to ALL residents for the forced introduction/management, do you think people on the fence would still vote for it?

That's a constructive response. Thanks Overdrive. You're right does not clearly state that does it. I did notice on the full proposal that it has language that does instruct the state house to look into how to pull money from the broader tax base. It seems like pretty non-committal language though. Perhaps a No vote would say, nice idea but "revise and resubmit and then we'll talk.:

 

[Ratbeetle]

Damn that's a terrifying future, what about the souls that dont want to live in cities packed on top of each other.

Sounds awful, doesn't it.

 

[alpinewanderer]

Sounds awful, doesn't it.

It could be, but I see it as a trade. People need to get more psyched about living in cities or in a few hundred years we'll all be living in some sort of suburbia. Hell I already do. So if I change my mind and move to the western slope, which I'd love to, and build a nice place on a plot of land how will that change things? Imagine that process going on over and over and over for hundreds of years. That sounds awful to me.