Let the shit storm begin!
If so, that is GREAT news!!!
Mark
Good for them, its honest.
Enjoyed Dr Gary Wopner telling them how they are biased and wrong and he has a PHD and no one knows more than him. That did not go well for him.
Enjoyed hearing them make no commitments on backing out of their lawsuits. Showed their true colors well.
The New York lady was best of all. We need wolves because they're killing all the elephants and her grandson has a stuffed wolf toy that he loves. Priceless!!
Glad the Commission put him and his phony "poll" where he/it belongs. The Commissioner who called it right, didn't get his name - that for the wolf people, "Compromise" means doing exactly what the wolf people want. He got that one on the money.
ElkNut1
Grant no compromise. In anything called "compromise," you will lose, just like we did in MT, ID, and still in WY. Our Governors and the USFWS struck a deal, a deal that the Clinton Administration needed to get the blessing from the environmental crowd before finalizing.
Deal was that states would get control when we reached 100 wolves 10 breeding pairs in each state. At that time, delisting would start, with expectation of meeting the goal in 2001. As projected, recovery goals were met in 2001 and state plans were crafted, submitted, and approved by late 2002. In 2003 the USFWS started the process of delisting.
Not wanting to honor the agreement, the drive-by litigators fired up their legal teams and the wolf issue was in court until 2009. We got a short season, then back in court for 2010. Finally, Congress had to intervene in 2011, but Wyoming still does not have state management authority.
Before the ink was dry, the enviros were planning their lawsuits, picking what judge would be sympathetic to their cause. They proved the current system of any species governed by the ESA is a broken system.
Given the track record as recent example, with a lot more agony and detail than I provided here, any hunter who agrees to expansion or reintroduction of a species covered by the ESA is asking to get his teeth handed to him. The current table is slanted so far in their favor that no trust can be placed in promises made or recovery goals established. Meet the goal, move the marker; meet the goal, move the marker; repeat for eternity.
Take the momentum of today and build on it. With the crazy testimony given as an example of where these folks are headed, the money to be made by these litigating groups, and the disconnectedness of the average voter, expect this to be on your ballot soon.
They would not be popular in western Kansas or Nebraska, at all.
Lets hope the the USFWS doesn't bypass the commission's stance as they did in the other Western states, NM didn't want the Mexican wolf, but they got it anyways. Only time will tell on which direction the Feds. will go from here.
:-)
Our governor is a Dem and he supports Alternative 2. This resolution was essentially in support of his recent letter to the Feds opposing forced introduction, as I understand it. I have not seen a draft of the letter but it was referenced numerous times in the meeting.
I'm more or less pro-wolf, but not without solid provisions to manage them, and as Big Fin points out, that can be mighty hard to come by.
Trouble is, the 2-legged hunters generally speaking want the 4-legged prey base to remain at unsustainable levels... that's our idea of a "quality hunt".... and that's a problem that will take a lot of attitude adjustment to work it all out.
Anyway, JMO, the bigger threat is CWD. You don't hear so much about it anymore, but if we can't figure out how to keep the herds at levels which do not promote transmission, there will be hell to pay sooner or later.
All in all.. very glad to see that my native state is taking a cautious and measured approach to the whole idea....
I DID win, didn't I? I bought a ticket so I must've!
I am very happy to hear the news, but shocked. I can't believe the commission held their ground.
Wait, which universe is this?
Prototypical example of the Boulder Mentality!
Blew my mind.
So, what's your point? Neither do human hunters, or other predators. Just sayin.
Big, bad wolf. lol
The point is.....hunters are limited with tags, permits, licenses and game laws when we hunt game species. The wolf is not even limited by sound game management.
my best, Paul
When humans kill more than they can eat and freeze/preserve it for later, it is considered wise planning; when wolves kill more than they can eat and end up "scavenging" those same carcasses later, it is pointed to as evidence of their wanton bloodlust.
Not a direct quote. Trying to recall who wrote that. Probably Leopold. Might've been Mowatt.
I resisted the urge to say "Oh I thought this was the sign up sheet for wolf licenses."
All I said was I supported the sound biological fact based science and management of all wildlife.
If you care about all of Colorado's wildlife get involved!
One public display at one meeting is not a win. There will be a new deep look at this entire issue and sportsmen need to get and stay involved.
Sandbrew
I'd like to hear more about this statement. Sounds like it's good for a laugh.
By no means is it a major win or victory. It is simply good to see that our wildlife board still has a majority that is pro-hunting and has not been dismantled in the way that boards along the west coast have.
I am intrigued by the idea of using Colorado as a buffer zone and trying to prevent northern wolves from getting to the southern wolves. That was a new concept.
The lady had no answer and instead went off about elephants and how she wanted one as a child.
Also loved the point in which they asked if compromise meant they would with draw lawsuits.
then lastly loved the point when they point the guy from Ft. Collins in his place.
As another Wisconsinite who has seen the devastation caused by wolves I would hate to see it happen in Colorado.
It was interesting when the wolfies kept talking about "compromise" and finding "middle ground", the Commission reminded them that the original "compromise" called for 300 wolves within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to be considered the recovery goal, and now there are nearly 1,700 (likely more than that due to dispersion), and they continue to press lawsuits against state management.
Gary Wockner's insistence that CO could support 1,100 gray wolves is ludicrous and biologically unsupportable. Calling the CPW lead biologist names and insulting his intelligence and integrity didn't help.
1100 wolves X 20 = 22,000 elk per year (that would be 1/2 of the total current harvest in CO)
Currently, those 22,000 elk mean about 110,000 hunters buy tags and get to hunt elk. Thats a lot of license money and even more dollars in gear, lodging, supplies, guides, access fees, fuel, etc.
So, yes...Colorado could support 1100 wolves (for one season) but at the expense of cutting the elk license revenue in 1/2, removing the economic impact 110,000 hunters pump into the economy, eliminating 1/2 the elk hunting opportunities and accepting whatever happens long term to wildlife numbers when the budget and ability to manage harvest rates goes in the toilet.
Throwing an apex predator on top of a pretty well managed wildlife program is only a good idea if your goals don't include that program continuing to be successful.
You think its hard to get a moose tag now? If wolves were to be introduced, the easy pickings moose would be first on the diet.
Gary Wockner
Dear Friends of Colorado Wolves!
We were soundly defeated last night. In that defeat I offer some perspective and encouragement.
When this issue arose in front of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (CPW) 7 weeks ago, I took a look at the makeup of the Commission and I figured it would be a 7 – 4 vote to oppose wolf reintroduction. I counseled my good friends in the movement that we were very likely to lose, and I’m not happy to have been right, but saw it coming nonetheless.
The anti-wolf sentiment that has power in Colorado politics is very entrenched and long-standing. The vote last night was about power, politics, and money, not science and the public’s will. What disappointed me most was the presentation made by the CPW staffmember – it was absurdly biased and filled with misinformation, anti-science, and false statements. When the staffmember actually said that not introducing wolves into Colorado would create a “better outcome for wolves in Colorado,” I about did an outloud gag-choke knowing that indeed George Orwell is alive and well in Colorado politics.
Watching the testimony, I knew the vote had already been sealed. The temperament of the anti-wolf testifiers was cool and calm, while our side (including me) was a bit squirming and pleading. The anti-wolf people had done their work when the Commission was appointed, and so all they had to do was make the calls, line up the votes, and enjoy the outcome. As a two-decade veteran of many political battles and public testimonies, the outcome of a vote is almost always pre-ordained and our public displays are almost always symbolic at best. The Chair of the Commission would not have brought this resolution forward if it would not have passed.
What I was most proud of last night was the passion and professionalism of all of you! You filled the lawn in the rally before the meeting, you filled the room inside, nearly a hundred of you waited outside or were turned away for lack of space inside, and when inside you waited quietly and patiently for the issue to come up. Further, even though almost none of you got to actually speak to the Commission, you were professional and respectful during the entire hearing.
You did wolves proud! And it is that professionalism and passion that will ultimately bring the wolf back to the State of Colorado. Wolves were here once, they will eventually come again, and you will be able to look back in some number of years and know that it was your work and passion – over years of effort – that helped heal the landscape, restore wolves, and pave that path for environmental justice in our state.
As we move forward I offer four suggestions for action:
1. Keep professionally and respectfully growing the movement here in Colorado to restore wolves. The public’s will must eventually be heard and the Colorado landscape is yearning for wolves.
2. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decides to reintroduce wolves into Colorado, support them in that effort. If they don’t, they should have, and you have every right to legally intervene to force them to.
3. Prepare for a statewide ballot initiative – that’s the best way to make sure the public’s voice is heard in Colorado’s future.
4. If you happen to be in Yellowstone, and happen to be driving a truck, and a breeding pair of wolves happens to jump in the back of your truck, and you happen to drive back to Colorado, and that pair of wolves happens to jump out of the truck and starts a wolf pack here, please know that it is highly illegal to transport wild and endangered wildlife across state lines, and for the record know that I strongly counseled you against it. smile emoticon
Keep Howling, Friends, and Thank You For Your Work! Gary
Keep Bugling Friends and thank you for your work! Brian
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29382051/colorado-turns-cold-shoulder-endangered-wolves
Colorado wildlife commissioners took a stand Wednesday night opposing the release of wolves in the state, overriding a blitz by pro-wolf groups pressing for ecological benefits of predators.
Colorado's new posture represents a pre-emptory challenge to court-ordered U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service efforts to save wolves, an endangered species. Cattle and sheep industry leaders backed the resolution — commissioners voted 7-4 — banning release of both Mexican wolves and gray wolves.
Colorado still has a policy that it will take care of any wolf that wanders into the state on its own. The issue is intentionally releasing them.
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioners said they wanted to support Gov. John Hickenlooper, who on Nov. 13 joined governors of Utah, Arizona and New Mexico in a letter telling Interior Secretary Sally Jewell they oppose Mexican wolf recovery efforts on land where Mexican wolves historically did not exist. That likely includes parts of southwestern Colorado that federal biologists are considering as habitat.
"This does not represent Coloradans. It does not serve Colorado," WildEarth Guardians biologist Taylor Jones said. "And it is un-necessarily antagonistic to wolf recovery." Federal officials declined to comment. They're not required to seek state blessings as they develop a Mexican wolf recovery plan by the end of 2017 to prevent extinction.
Hickenlooper's concern was "with their process in developing a recovery plan," spokeswoman Kathy Green said. That concern is separate, she said, from resolutions state parks and wildlife commissioners considered.
"We are pro wildlife," state spokesman Matt Robbins said before commissioners heard from both sides. But pro-wolf demonstrators doubted that, carrying signs and howling in front of commissioners' facilities in Denver.
"We should kick out cattle. Wolves belong here," said Kia Bridges of the Boulder Rad-ish Collective. "If you bring back a predator, it puts an ecosystem back the way it is supposed to be. It would get prey animals moving."
Sierra Club regional wildlife team leader Delia Malone argued that "Colorado needs wolves and wolves need Colorado." The Sierra Club proposed an alternative resolution: that Colorado should invite introduction of Mexican wolves and re-introduction of gray wolves on habitat in the state.
Colorado Cattlemen vice president Terry Fankhauser supported the state stance. "Colorado is not appropriate wolf habitat," Fankhauser said. "Our human population is too high. And the deer population here is not robust enough to support wolves, which would drive them to eat livestock and pets."
Interesting to note the problems Oregon is having right now...and on top of that they have a sanctioned wolf population just taking hold....talk about stupid.
Now a report out of UCLA has been published claiming they were, in fact in CO at one time. CO and the other Game agency biologists aren't buying it and sticking to their guns
One battle was won....
Mark
and no, I don't care if its illegal or not
Where we go from here is to educate people. As someone who has always worked as a consultant in the environmental field, the best way to sway public opinion is to present non-emotional facts in an open forum and let those interested decide the outcome.
I work in the oil/gas industry now and have been educating people about the benefits of fracking. Once I explain the process and debunk the misinformation, most will see the logic and support your viewpoints.
Try writing letters to the editor of your local paper. Attend public meetings to discuss topics. A word of warning though. The people on the other side of the aisle are just as passionate about their cause as you are about yours. Present facts, non-emotional statements, and keep it short and to the point.
Mike
We need to make mall chicks and soccer moms hate and fear wolves, picturing their child as that poor little moose calf. Have a mom holding a child narrate the ad while the video plays in the background. When we start talking facts, the sway voters start looking down at their phones.
If/when this gets on the ballot, Gary Wockner will be extremely dangerous. Even though we in Fort Collins know him as a dishonest, unethical, biased, agenda-driven Eco-whore, the unsuspecting liberal news outlets will love him. He'll be on every news show, in the TV ads, and he will be come the "expert" face of wolf reintroduction.
CPW biologists will be prohibited from doing the same, because they aren't permitted to get involved in political issues. So the "facts" bombarding the public will be coming from this semi-handsome, very persuasive, articulate PhD with a background in wolf biology.
Tom Beck did this to us in the bear hunting election. He was a former DOW bear biologist who jumped ship to Coloradoans United for Bears (CUB). Another whore. The media loved him, showing photos of him hugging cubs and railing about how unethical it was to hunt bears. Then they went for the gut with our own hunting videos showing bears stuffing themselves out of a barrel with fat guys in camo looking on and laughing before the bear was shot.
But you make good points - fight fire with fire. A professional narrated type "commercial" would be quite compelling. Maybe focus test it - you may not want to show it completely to the end - maybe you do.
Even the simple pic above speaks volumes!
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you my friend. The best way to sway public opinion is to start off small with the facts and then build on those facts. Once you have the facts and science laid out, then emotion can come into play.
That is the time that you present to the soccer moms the more gruesome side. In my humble experience, that has worked the best. Otherwise, we sound like the other side with no biological background and nothing to stand on. Present the facts first.
Mike
However, show them the emotional side of this and, we will win it. Show them the Wolf boxes at school bus stops in New Mexico. Show them the live stock mortality in Idaho and Montana. Show them the economic losses suffered by the people living among these wolves. Show them the emotions of the people that live in the wake of these animals. And, then tell them it is going to be the same for them too.
Best of all, being emotional about the approach to this, ensures you accomplish the doing so while being truthful. The time for restrained negotiation has been gone for a long time. Show the sway voters what they are voting for. And, most definitely include the crying, screaming new born calf that hasn't even been cleaned yet. Show it all while being emotional about it.
Facts boasting only the truth has lost this battle every where it has been fought. Because the sway voters have zero accountability for knowing this is what they are going to be getting when they vote for it. So, by all means show them what they are going to be voting for.
God Bless men
Like Mtn Lion hunting in California? Wolves in Yellowstone? Fall turkey hunting in Arkansas? Ontario spring black bear ?
We can create a very long list of things that are done without facts - playing on emotions and using something as an advantageous political tool.
Obama uses it every school shooting to further gun control, anti-confederate flag people used Charleston shooting to further their agenda, a black person being shot by a white cop will be headline news for days to further agenda's (while black on black, black on white murders are ignored)
if sportsmen don't want wolves - kill them every time you see them ......... WE pay for the wildlife, it wouldn't be here if it wasn't for us and damned the G&F commissioned and Govt agencies that try to force what we don't want IMO
We lost bear hunting by a 69-31 margin. The other side used only raw emotion. 69% of voters didn't care about facts and scientific data. They voted with their hearts.
Four years later, they did it to us again. Bigger landslide. All it took was that one video of the crying fox with his foot caught in a trap to counter all our facts and figures. Over and over we had to watch that thing on TV. We didn't learn our lesson from the bear debacle and got slaughtered.
"The vote last night was about power, politics, and money, not science and the public’s will".
Well, it WAS about hard science, not science based on some mythical perfect ecosystem somewhere.
And yes...it WAS about money, and should come down to money in the end. When the granola munchers can prove that they can offset the loss, we deserve to lose. But, they will not give up their monthly weed allotment and EBT cards to throw down that kind of cash. Hopefully, the CPW will always look at the bottom line.
Hopefully, voters are smart enough to look at the potential loss when making a decision about something like this. I always do when I vote on a proposition, but hey, I'm different I guess...
This makes as much sense to me as anything I have ever read.
God Bless men
Mike
Been in CO since I was born in 1967. I will likely never leave. In 1992, I was a dumb liberal college student who would have most likely been institutionalized into the whole wolf reintroduction landscape. Even though I grew up hunting, the overall sentiment being taught is that meat comes from the store, which is somehow more ethical than harvesting from the wild.l
Fortunately for me, one of my wildlife biology professors was not quite so anti-hunting and opened my eyes. When you introduce an apex predator into an ecosystem that has not lived with that type of pressure year round, the results will be catastrophic. Not only economically to the taxpayers, but to the prey themselves.
Solution--delist the wolves from the ESA and allow an open season for hunters. If the wolfies want to bring them back, then there should at least be an effective means to keep there population in check.
Mike
But we can dream, and keep on with the battle.
But, as what was once said..... you're starting off 47% in the hole...Emotion ruled the day. Taking the high road, using facts which were totally ignored, the worse president in modern history was RE-elected by people who don't care about facts. Many who will turn away to AVOID them.
Your elephant lady with the stuffed wolf toys was guaranteed an Obama voter. I'd bet my first born son on it. (or you could have em anyway... he's behind on his rent...)
The folks running these kinds of campaigns have literally used commercials of folks pushing their grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. You can try to whisper in the public ear.... but these days of the LIV you have to punch em in the gut just to get their attention. Make them understand? They don't WANT to understand. Just give them a 10 second you-tube that will stick in their head for a few days....
Good for you folks. Like coelker said... FIRST DOWN! Don't expect a touchdown for some time as they will try to move the goal line with everything they have.
Not familiar with CO law, but I know some states have written into their constitution how outdoor sports and sportsmen have protections and any plans or programs for public land have to include them in the planning. Have a right to hunt written into the state constitution. That's reeling in the goal line and scoring a touchdown. Not the game, but a score.
I am on your side , just trying to get people involved because Lungshot asked where do we from here? Get off your butt and stop complaining about the situation and make a difference. That is the only way that anything will change. Strength in numbers.
Mike
People have been occasionally "introducing" hybrid wolves in CO for years. They don't do well in the wild and show up around ranches looking for food. Doesn't bode well for them, usually.
A pack of wolves take Fido from the backyard for their midnight snack.
anti-hunters and non-hunters are a very few minority
popular votes we will always lose
The Fish and Wildlife Service has already told the NM Game Dept. and Commission that they will move forward with their expansion of the Mexican Wolf program irregardless of their cooperation.
The governors of all four states have told them they don't want them. The States of Utah, Colorado , Arizona and New Mexico will not prevail. The Federal Endangered Species Act takes precedence over all states desire and wishes and laws.
The AZ/NM Coalition of Counties and combined groups of plaintiffs have spent almost $100,000 already in a lawsuit against the Mexican Gray Wolf Expansion program and we haven't even had the initial court hearings as of yet. SCI filed a similar suit and together we hope to prevail although the case is going into the 9th Judicial District (liberal bad court) with the Biological Diversity Center and Wild Earth Guardians countersuits all being lumped together.
My wife and I and my outfitting business are part of the co plaintiffs in the AZ/NM Coalition suit and through the hard work of the NM Council of Outfitters and Guides, we were instrumental in getting SCI involved and their resulting lawsuit.
We are fighting like hell here in NM and AZ and can't emphasize enough that we need a whole lot more support from the hunting community. Utah and Colorado hunters had better join the fight because these pro wolfers won't relax until they get wolves established in all of the western states.
Currently our battle may be fragmented. my guess.
Paul
The right people can be put in place to slow down if not shut down a good deal of this with the right people at the helm. Without the support of higher ups in DC none of this happens. Higher ups can be replaced in elections.
You people that "aren't political" had best get political. Unless you really don't give a rip and hunting (among dozens of other things) doesn't mean anything to you.
Sitting on thumbs or heads in the sand is less than worthless. Pull your head out of... the sand... and get with it. It's not just supporting these things at a state/local level. The people in DC need to be flushed and new folks put in place.
