I'm torn on Colorado prop 114.

Their plan was multiple breeding pairs throughout the state first focusing on wilderness areas. There was also an exclusion of wolves in Estes and Rocky Mountain National Park. There is still a thread on bowsite that is a good read about how they were planning to keep them out of Estes and Rocky Mountain Park.
 
Their plan was multiple breeding pairs throughout the state first focusing on wilderness areas. There was also an exclusion of wolves in Estes and Rocky Mountain National Park. There is still a thread on bowsite that is a good read about how they were planning to keep them out of Estes and Rocky Mountain Park.
That’s very unfortunate, if anything they should put them all there and do their best to keep them all there. I would love nothing more then to see a pack of wolves rip up open a cow elk in the front lawn of the Stanley Hotel.
 
Last edited:
I've handled them just fine thanks. By the way you never answered the question as to why you or your son were even considering re-introduction
Putting words in other people's mouths is another habit of yours apparently.

Oh look, people on this thread are daring to have a conversation about reintroduction. Better get busy and let everyone here know they are "the problem."
 
The voters pay for those wildlife mgt. actions, so they have a right to vote on them. In fact, most state wildlife councils or boards of directors are made up of politicians and celebrities that don't have any more experience with wildlife management than the people who are paying for it.

Would we prefer to leave things in the hands of professional wildlife managers? Sure we would, until they make a decision we don't agree with. LOL Don't forget that not all professional wildlife managers see wolves on the landscape as a problem. Some see them as a solution.

The voters don’t pay for wildlife management in Colorado, it’s funded by the sales of hunting and fishing licenses. That is a point about this proposition that pissed me off, we are letting the urbanites of the front range make a decision that doesn’t impact them at all, with moneys that they do not contribute to..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The voters pay for those wildlife mgt. actions, so they have a right to vote on them. In fact, most state wildlife councils or boards of directors are made up of politicians and celebrities that don't have any more experience with wildlife management than the people who are paying for it.

Would we prefer to leave things in the hands of professional wildlife managers? Sure we would, until they make a decision we don't agree with. LOL Don't forget that not all professional wildlife managers see wolves on the landscape as a problem. Some see them as a solution.
Well shit! Since the voters are now the experts maybe they should be in charge of setting hunting season, methods of take, managing the elk, deer and moose herds, and setting the 5 year structure. We don’t even need cpw or biologists! Hell, let’s get rid of Congress and the president and we’ll just let the uninformed voter decide everything! It’ll be great!!!!
 
Putting words in other people's mouths is another habit of yours apparently.

Oh look, people on this thread are daring to have a conversation about reintroduction. Better get busy and let everyone here know they are "the problem."
At least bring facts to your conversation the voters of Colorado don't pay for wildlife management they are solely funded on license sales so unless all of them bought a license they shouldn't vote on wildlife issues. I see your still dodging my question
 
The voters don’t pay for wildlife management in Colorado, it’s funded by the sales of hunting and fishing licenses. That is a point about this proposition that pissed me off, we are letting the urbanites of the front range make a decision that doesn’t impact them at all, with moneys that they do not contribute to..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The CPW isn't subsidized at all by general revenue?

 
The CPW isn't subsidized at all by general revenue?

I don’t believe so. That has been my understanding. Might a few percentage points somewhere.
 
More fuel on the giant dumpster fire that is Colorado. The wolves took care of the moose population in MN in a matter of a few years. Then the Twin Cities libs blamed it on ticks and global warming(even though Isle Royale just offshore in Lake Superior has highest moose levels ever and lowest wolf levels...hmmm). This will be the story there too.
 
I believe now anyone who enters a state park must have a hunting or fishing license if you're over 18. Im not sure if thats a good thing for hunting and fishing or not.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20201105-175939_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20201105-175939_Chrome.jpg
    91.3 KB · Views: 0
Plenty of non-liberals voted for it, just read the wolf threads on here. CO isn’t blinded by party loyalty, socially liberal but against higher taxes. No reason to be ashamed of people who think vs just check one side of the ballot.
A state against higher taxes, but still goes blue for that dipshit with a horrible tax plan and can hardly form a sentence that makes sense. Sorry, I digressed off the subject...thats a topic for another thread. Carry on.
 
Vote breakdown. Green is for and red is against. Got this from 9news website.
 

Attachments

  • 8052B9B1-FA0C-416C-B308-F073A29AC31E.jpeg
    8052B9B1-FA0C-416C-B308-F073A29AC31E.jpeg
    310.2 KB · Views: 1
A state against higher taxes, but still goes blue for that dipshit with a horrible tax plan and can hardly form a sentence that makes sense. Sorry, I digressed off the subject...thats a topic for another thread. Carry on.
We’ve definitely shifted more liberal but clinging to some conservative values when it comes to taxes. I don’t see Colorado becoming more balanced anytime soon.
 
I believe now anyone who enters a state park must have a hunting or fishing license if you're over 18. Im not sure if thats a good thing for hunting and fishing or not.
Yep can’t wait to see the “fee” increases coming. I just think they have been able to work off hunters but IMO when programs are anti-hunter they should be looking at other sources or revenue for those programs.. on the plus side hunters know their value to the CPW budget and should leverage that when appropriate.
 
The voters don’t pay for wildlife management in Colorado, it’s funded by the sales of hunting and fishing licenses. That is a point about this proposition that pissed me off, we are letting the urbanites of the front range make a decision that doesn’t impact them at all, with moneys that they do not contribute to..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This seems to be the biggest objection. Circumventing the typical process.. I live in a rural farming area and commute to work downtown. I had a lot of coworkers ask me about it since they know I hunt which was encouraging. I think there is just a rural urban divide that keeps getting bigger and not sure how to get people in cities to see rural communities perspective. The sad thing is a lot of people thought it would be cool to see a wolf while hiking and are going to be pretty disappointed.
 
Instead of letting the CDW or biologists make these decisions they let people who don't have a clue whats about to happen is crazy. Ballot Box Biology doesn't work! Colorado has spent millions of dollars to build the elk, deer and moose herds to where they are now and they will will be carved up by probably the most Apex hunter in the US. Sad!
 
Just come to MT and see what its like, at first you can get a wolf tag then its 5 then its we should start trapping them...

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top