Signatures Delivered to Colorado for Wolf Ballot Initiative

[Okhotnik]

Just out of curiosity, what did the other states do wrong and what can Colorado do to succeed?

Other states like Or, Wa,MI,WI, MN outlawed management of wolves.Based on the left wing demographics in Co they will follow suit if wolves are introduced.

 

[sneaky]

they just let it happen.
Colorado got it shut down first time around and now it is on the ballot funded via out of state money. Their is not a strong opinion either way even after at least a decade of pro-wolf propaganda and presentations with caged wolves throughout the state. If hunters and other sportsmen engage and speak to each other to firm up a NO position we can win.

BS. Idaho didn't "just let it happen" . They were forced to take them from the US Fish and Water Snake service. There's not a person here who wanted them, and there were already wolves moving freely back and forth across the border with Canada. This was all put on Idaho without them having a say so on the matter. This is akin to these morons on the Front Range inviting a serial killer to dinner, then whining when their kid goes missing.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[brsnow]

BS. Idaho didn't "just let it happen" . They were forced to take them from the US Fish and Water Snake service. There's not a person here who wanted them, and there were already wolves moving freely back and forth across the border with Canada. This was all put on Idaho without them having a say so on the matter. This is akin to these morons on the Front Range inviting a serial killer to dinner, then whining when their kid goes missing.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

what organization, protest, steps where taken to fight?

 

[sneaky]

what organization, protest, steps where taken to fight?

There weren't any steps because this all happened without the state's knowledge until after the fact. The Feds declared Idaho was going to have wolves and that was that. Have you read ANYTHING on the Idaho introduction? I'm guessing that's a no.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Customweld]

The Idaho Legislature forbid Idaho Fish and Game to contribute anything towards re-introduction. FWS and Dept. Of Interior partnered with the Nez Perce tribe to conduct management of the re-introduction. Idaho Fish and Game upper echelon came out as in favor of re-introduction because it was common knowledge that the wolves were already coming south out of Canada on their own. IFG figured that they were better off to live with the rules of re-introduction rather than the ESA that would apply to wolves moving in on their own. Idaho fought wolf reintroduction tooth and nail and ultimately lost to the feds.

 

[BuzzH]

There weren't any steps because this all happened without the state's knowledge until after the fact. The Feds declared Idaho was going to have wolves and that was that. Have you read ANYTHING on the Idaho introduction? I'm guessing that's a no.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Playing rip vanwinkle from the late 80's until 1994 is the only way to believe that.

The states of Idaho, wyoming, and Montana all were fully aware and had representatives from all states coordinating with the wolf recovery all along. They all developed state plans via citizens advisory committees. The EA/EIS process had more public involvement than any other issue under NEPA. More comments received from the public than any other EIS. The public comment period was extended at least a couple times. Public comments received heavily favored reintroduction by a landslide, including comments received from Montana and Idaho. Wyoming had the slimmest amount of support from the comments received from it's citizens, but still a majority favored reintroduction.

These facts aren't hard to find...it's all in the FEIS.

It's fine that people didnt like reintroduction, but that doesn't excuse bald faced lies regarding the facts.

Every state and every citizen that was alive, breathing, and read a newspaper or listened to news was fully aware of what was going on the whole time. Fact.

 

[brsnow]

Correct

 

[Beendare]

These facts aren't hard to find...it's all in the FEIS.

thing, and read a newspaper or listened to news was fully aware of what was going on the whole time. Fact.

Yes, the public was involved, BUT ....THE PUBLIC WAS MISLED BY THESE [supposed] 'EXPERTS' .....and this we now know is an absolute fact. So many consequences they glossed over or were too stupid to anticipate.

These same supposed experts didn't tell the public they were getting $$$$$$$ funds from anti hunting and outside lobbying for their biased "research"

These [Supposed] Experts were clueless when it came to multiple unintended consequences that we are now saddled with....at a huge cost to the F&G, the economy and hunters.

Who won in this? The lawyers...and the anti hunters.

In any other business those experts would be FIRED for corruption or poor due diligence.


....

 

[Beendare]

Why is this even coming to a public vote anyway?

It floors me that we would 'End Around' the F&G depts responsible for managing the game populations.


....

 

[wapitibob]

Why is this even coming to a public vote anyway?

It floors me that we would 'End Around' the F&G depts responsible for managing the game populations.


....

It's coming to a vote because it's a revenue generator, for both sides of the issue.

State law doesn't take precedence over the ESA, if it did, states would be hunting wolves without a management agreement with the USFWS.
Section 6 of the ESA deals with the states.

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/section-6.html

 

[JG358]

Why is this even coming to a public vote anyway?

It floors me that we would 'End Around' the F&G depts responsible for managing the game populations.


....

CPW already addressed it and they didnt like the answer.

Or more simply.... dad said no, I'm gonna go ask mom

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

Yes, the public was involved, BUT ....THE PUBLIC WAS MISLED BY THESE [supposed] 'EXPERTS' .....and this we now know is an absolute fact. So many consequences they glossed over or were too stupid to anticipate.

These same supposed experts didn't tell the public they were getting $$$$$$$ funds from anti hunting and outside lobbying for their biased "research"

These [Supposed] Experts were clueless when it came to multiple unintended consequences that we are now saddled with....at a huge cost to the F&G, the economy and hunters.

Who won in this? The lawyers...and the anti hunters.

In any other business those experts would be FIRED for corruption or poor due diligence.


....

Not true at all...it's more than apparent you never read the EA, DEIS, or FEIS. The FEIS was full of the potential impacts and all considered during the process, hardly "glossed over". That included impacts to big game, livestock predation, impacts to local economy, etc etc...all there if you would have ever bothered to read it.

Even the very likely lawsuits that happened were no surprise to anyone that was actively involved.

Unlike you, I'm not forced to guess...I was involved through the entire process and lived it.

Your distorted opinion/views don't reconcile with the facts, at all.

 

[cnelk]

Here’s good article in The Fence Post from yesterday-

The price of ballot box biology: Forced wolf reintroduction in Colorado

The howl of a wolf in a moonlit forest carries far more romance than the economic blow the forced reintroduction would mean to Colorado taxpayers. Mark Holyoak, director of

www.thefencepost.com

 

[BuzzH]

Why is this even coming to a public vote anyway?

It floors me that we would 'End Around' the F&G depts responsible for managing the game populations.


....

Because we live in a representative republic that allows referendums to be introduced by it's citizens via ballot initiatives as well as through their legislature.

The public process is used all the time by hunters, fishermen, big business, etc etc. Exactly why I spend countless hours attending legislative committee hearings, legislative sessions, lobbying lawmakers, and representing wildlife and sportsmen every year.

It's how the public process has worked in the United States for the last couple hundred years.

 

[Customweld]

Wolf numbers grew to levels at least 10 times what was promised, they didn’t stay inside the wolf-recovery zone as outlined in the Central Idaho wilderness, and the impacts caused by wolves have been much more severe on livestock and ranching than anticipated. Nowadays, wolves are mainly living in Ag-Wildland interface areas in Idaho, where large numbers of elk are living, and they are causing unprecedented damage to livestock, private property and rural economies, officials say.
Since 1995, wolves have killed more than 982 cattle, 3,150 sheep, and 53 guard dogs, causing $1.6 million in damages and impacting 435 ranchers statewide. Smaller numbers of llamas, border collies, horses, goats and other animals have been killed by wolves as well. Federal officials predicted that wolves would kill 10 cattle, 57 sheep and up to 1,650 big game animals per year.

 

[realunlucky]

Because we live in a representative republic that allows referendums to be introduced by it's citizens via ballot initiatives as well as through their legislature.

The public process is used all the time by hunters, fishermen, big business, etc etc. Exactly why I spend countless hours attending legislative committee hearings, legislative sessions, lobbying lawmakers, and representing wildlife and sportsmen every year.

It's how the public process has worked in the United States for the last couple hundred years.

Lobbying lawmakers isn't what a republic was designed to become. Sheer greed by EVERYONE involved. Wolves invoke the opening of wallets on both sides perfect for everyone especially those groups that are supposed to represent sportsman. Finally the motherlode money issue!

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[wapitibob]

Yep, and people forgot or ignored BGF’s attempt to derail the legislation that allowed MT and ID to manage wolves.

 

[Okhotnik]

Buzzh

once again ( for the tenth time) have you ever received any compensation from pro wolf, anti hunting left wing environmental groups?

 

[mt100gr.]

I just read this whole thread and I feel it's important to point out that, in the case of the initial reintroductions, wolves were considered "experimental / non-essential" the pro-wolf side viewed this as an asset as "the additional management flexibility afforded through the experimental population provision will enhance public acceptance of wolf recovery..."

In my opinion, that was deceptive. As were the ever -changing "recovery goals" as wolves quickly adapted and colonized greater area.

Federal protection only fortified the wolf's obvious recovery and after way too many years in court, here we are.

Colorado is in trouble with this being a ballot issue. Public acceptance by a public without a clear understanding of all the implications is dangerous. Be very leery of how the wolves are categorized/ designated when the population "goals" are brought to the table. "The actual differences between managing wolves as an endangered population and as an experimental one were miniscule. Such details held meaning for lawyers, not wolves."

Wolf recovery has been successful. Period. Further introductions anywhere in the west are absolutely part of a different agenda.
Colorado will see plenty of wolves through natural dispersion. "Experimental reintroduction (in CO's case it's transplanting or relocation) would restore wolves more quickly, with much greater assurance, and at less cost than would a highly uncertain natural recovery."

 

[S.Clancy]