Two things I think could be done that might have an impact in this fight:
1. Stop the Wolf needs to create short video "commercials" showing an elk calf being torn limb from limb by wolves. The one thing every single Coloradoan (from the biggest libtard to the most right-wing hunter) has in common is we ALL love our elk (and deer and moose, etc.) This commercial, and others similar to it, could be shown on tv on the front range and used on every social media platform ad nauseum. It's one thing to make a video of a bunch of credentialed folks sitting around talking about how bad wolves will be for Colorado...it's entirely another to see wolves in action. Nobody would forget that visual.
2. Stop the Wolf should also compose a concise email, which could be copied and pasted from their site, that every hunter could (and should be encouraged to do so) send to family and friends in the state explaining why this is such an important issue and urge them to vote "no" in November. Most of us have folks in our sphere of influence that are not informed and "neutral" on this matter, but not knowing any better will likely vote yes. Many of us may feel we can't articulate this argument in a coherent and concise way, so having an email available to send would allow folks to easily, accurately, and effectively inform those around us. Imagine the potential impact if every hunter (or even half of us) sent an email to our uninformed friends and family.
Unless these steps, and likely others, are taken I believe we have ZERO chance of avoiding wolves. Doug Dillingham Ohio City, Colorado
Just saw a segment on local news in Denver. Showed a woman with a wolf being licked on face like the animal is some tame, loveable, pet dog. This is the kind of stuff that needs to be countered with the reality you spoke of.
Dogs being chased by wolves would be much more effective than showing an elk being torn "limb from limb" as suggested. I think dogs would get more sympathy than elk.
cnelk has a solid point. The video can't be too gory or it simply won't be shown on TV.
Maybe a better approach would be more like this: the Canadian Timber Wolves won't have much room to roam in Colorado due to development and they are much better off and happier in their current homes. Furthermore, how would your dog feel if you moved to a house with a much smaller yard?
Ugh! I hate even saying, "better off and happier in their current homes" but it will resonate with the general nonhunting (and pet owning) public better. I also hate asking how your dog would feel, but it gets the point across.
cnelk is right, no video that would have the emotional impact our side desires regarding wolves will ever see the light of day on TV. The matter has to be approached through social media channels and online streaming like youtube. Organizations with large social media presence need to take the forefront of the fight. RMEF, WSF, MDF, and BHA to name a few. I have seen things posted on RMEF's social media platforms, not sure about WSF or MDF. I can only imagine that the girl being licked on TV by the wolf was wearing a BHA hat and a Patagonia sweater.
People need to purchase private billboards in prime locations with these graphic images. They will be seen by 1000`s daily. This is being done by private citizens in the Midwest for other issues. It`s effective.
I think it’s insulting to people’s intelligence to show a video like that. Everyone knows wolves will eat elk. The same with arguing that wolves will eat the children. It’s simply not true and ruins any credibility when it’s used.
A more effective approach would be to explain that wolves are naturally filtering into the state already and that reintroduction is not necessary. Letting this process happen naturally will give the elk/deer/moose more time to adapt to new predators on the landscape and allow Parks and Wildlife to adjust their management as necessary. Logic and common sense is the right strategy.
"no video that would have the emotional impact our side desires regarding wolves will ever see the light of day on TV."
I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly. First of all, isn't it at least worth trying? Shouldn't Stop the Wolf at least put together a well thought out video and then see if tv stations will play it? If they won't, and I'm betting they will, we've got a video to begin our assault on social media. We've got a video to send with an email to your uninformed friends and family. And just for the record, I don't give a rip if wolves kill every dog in Colorado...but I care deeply about Colorado's ungulates...because I hunt them.
EA, I'm all for a quality video to be shared on social media and via e-mail, etc. Just don't think you'll find a willing liberal TV station in Colorado that will air it. The video with the wolves killing dogs would be perfect as it would elicit the most emotional response.
NoWiser is right. The entire strategy used by Stop The Wolf is condescending and will be ineffective.
We should be focussing on the financial and biological ramifications of this introduction rather than trying to demonize the wolves themselves.
The financial ramifications will be CPW budget shortfalls that will occur due to lower tag numbers after ungulate populations collapse. This will result in less habitat being protected through purchases of new state wildlife areas; less funding for parks and less funding for law enforcement.
Forced introduction will be a massive jolt to the biological system verses naturally filtering in on their own. Another point I don't see being brought up is the downward spiral of our mule deer herds and the effects that wolves will have on this problem. A comparison of the up trend in wolf numbers verses the downtrend in deer number nationally would be enlightening for many.
The only way to change the mind of environmentally minded people on this issue is to convince them that this is a step in the wrong direction ecologically.
CK - In general, Homo sapiens as a species is stupid and lazy. Very few of the uninformed people in Colorado are going to read one sentence to learn about the "financial" and "ecological" ramifications of wolf introduction. But they can be forced to see an innocent elk calf being torn to shreds by wolves. That image would be incredibly impactful. I'm not discounting your desire to talk finances and ecology, but good grief, can we at least be real enough to agree that a VAST majority of people in Colorado wouldn't get through the first two words of your explanation.
Elk Ass assin, your state ment about dogs, even if you feel that way, is counter productive to the cause of preventing elk predation by forced wolf re introduction. Alot of other people who like dogs will dis credit you based on such declarations, so I wouldn't record it if you want to glean support.
Trapper-What I'm saying is there are a lot of people who don't love dogs, myself included. Everyone, with the possible exception of ranchers, love elk. Everyone...period. So why not go with elk? This idea that dogs are somehow going to elicit a more visceral response is not at all true.
With the popularity of National Geographic and similar shows the majority of people have already seen the brutality that comes with apex predators. Showing them more of this with images of elk being killed by wolves won't change the way that the majority of people vote.
Just seen the story on a educational channel over the weekend . To me a video depicting the wolf in its natural environment doing what wolves do would be better than blooded dogs ,cattle etc. The message is to recognize that we eradicated the wolf out of fear and commerce many years ago but are happy to say it's clear they are re populating themselves back in to our state at a pace that aligns best as predators and prey. Let's not make another mistake and interfere with the natural balance animal's do on their on . Will have to show there will be some bumps along the way with people , pets and live stock the video will show the wolf looking at horses, cattle, alpacas and looking out over a neighborhood active with people and pets . The video and message have to work in union Little different angle , but you're after a hole lot of people who only know what they see on TV about wolves .
CK - I'll just agree to disagree with you on this. There is a reason Tyreek Hill is currently playing in the NFL, while Ray Rice isn't. Ray Rice's indiscretion was on video, and the people who viewed it were horrified. People who see an elk calf being ripped to shreds will be horrified and, coupled with the email that you and I are going to send our friends and family, it will absolutely change the way people vote.
What about a commercial on local TV showing a very cute elk calf playing around and then the next shot showing it in multiple pieces then a caption that says "what did this?" and then show a picture of a wolf.
There's a lot of ways to go about educating the public, finding somebody to do it seems to be the problem.
People would rather see a wolf kill to survive than a hunter kill for fun period. The demographic shift over the last 40 years from the majority of people living in cities vs rural means the vast majority of people are a couple of generations removed from the hunting culture. It’s purely a numbers game that does not favor hunting.
"Back in the 90's when Leg-hold trapping went to the Colorado voters, all we saw was a coyotes tugging away with a trap on its leg on TV."
So, the videos were effective. People saw coyotes suffering and voted with their heartstrings. You've basically made my point for me here...we need videos showing elk calves being ripped to shreds. That is what would be effective.
Meanwhile, you have people thinking this is what will happen and that wolves are necessary. This YouTube clip gets sent to me all the time through some fly fishing circles. Some people think wolves are necessary to balance nature...
Elk A, Yup, or even more than two videos to cover all the bases. Couple other things, even here in C NY, there are alot of hunters and peopme who don't hunt but eat game meat or otherwise support hunting. Videos in support of hunter management of predators, thus instilling FEAR of man in them, and limiting wildlife predation and human/pet negative interaction, would even be effective in CO where liberalism is increasing but has not completely consumed the state yet. Try to get support from people who are still undecided because that is probably a larger faction than the radical left wolf-no-matter-what crowd, at least at this juncture.
"the public really dont care about what happens to elk" JTV - I don't at all disagree with you that we need to make this personal, and if dogs fit the bill then we should do it, but the above statement just simply is not true...at all.
I've been through the loss of spring bear and trapping when Colorado was less blue than it is now. My budget for the wolf issue is going into a new rifle. I cant see winning without a budget similar to what beat the prop 112 oil and gas issue
Why don't the surrounding states fish and wildlife and ranchers sue the sh*t out of the state of Colorado for lost revenue due the future spread of the reintroduced wolves? Antis have stopped hunting in the same way. Fight them the way they fight us. Lawsuits suck but it seems the only way to get attention to something , especially if it's only a vocal minority trying to stop something.
Sue Colorado for future losses due to wolf depredation.
At least it may hold it up in court for a few years to get new people in place to take it off the ballot completely.
I might be completely off base but that seems like the only way to get people's attention. A LOT of $$$$$.
My brother is a horticulture prof and researcher. He has cards for all his students to sign. On it are all the drugs listed that ever involved animal testing. It also calls for no killing of any living organism. That includes bacteria, mice, rats, viruses, etc, though viruses are merely RNA. By signing, they refuse any procedure or medicine which ever involved animal testing or would cause the death of even the most lowly of organisms. The students eagerly take the cards but for some reason won’t sign them and hand them back. Selective compassion.
Sad deal, but I think you're gonna have to get used to having wolves, and learn to "manage" them. In this day and age if it sounds crazy, or makes no damn sense at all, that is exactly what they will do! You already voted to make pot legal so I gotta believe importing wolves will be a piece of cake to get passed. California, Minnesota, and Colorado have to be the three worst states that were once outdoors paradises to places invaded by liberals and ruined by their stupid touchy feely ideas. Sucks, but it's the wave of the future.
South Farm is right. This country will be unrecognizable in a few years. Someday some young person will find an old history book that didn’t get destroyed by the thought police and read what this country used to be. That will spark a revolution. We have lasted almost 300 years. It’s been a good run but we are rotting from within.The cleansing will come eventually, by blood. The sticker will be if the liberals are able to destroy us and turn America over to our enemies in the name of diversity and secularism. They know not what they do as there may be no America to resurrect.
cnelk, that’s th video I was thinking about when this thread started. So how about this for a commercial? You have a little girl sitting by the fire with her two dogs. A medium sized black dog and a slightly larger yellow dog. As she’s petting them her mom and dad...or mom and mom or dad and dad, (must be as all inclusive as possible to get the liberal media to air it!)... are on the couch talking about the billboard they saw about the wolf reintroduction. As they talk one dog heads to the door to be let out to do its doody and the other dog follows. Little girl gets up and heads to the door. As she does her mom/dad says. It would be really cool to see a wolf and “THEY” say it is the natural order of things and good for the environment. At that moment the little girl gets to the door and lovingly pets her dogs and giggles as they lick her face...just before she opens the door to let them out. Cut to cnelks video he posted! End of commercial.
1. Antis and wolf lovers do not care about livestock, pets, elk, deer, or your children. They detest the idea that we hunt. Many are vegetarians. 2. Everyone loves money and we have to educate the public about the huge loss of revenue if hunting, fishing, etc. are lost. That includes stores, places like Cabelas, etc. I live in a huge snowmobile, kayak/canoe area. Hikers, kayakers, canoeists bring nothing to our economy. A hiker arrives with a pair of shorts and a twenty dollar bill and never changes either. Snowmobilers, atvers, hunters, buy gas, supplies, beer, food, and pay a heavy registration fee. No fee for canoes or kayaks. Make them register like boats. People need to know that wolves will decimate not only elk and deer, which they favor, but their economy, which will raise taxes and put people out of work. 3. As damage or death occurs, the organizations pushing this agenda need to be facing multiple expensive lawsuits. Starve the beast. We have to organize, big time, and not little non-profits, one big organization with monetary clout. That is what we are trying to do up here with the fed land grab. Injunctions work both ways. We are trying to line up when the next CCP comes out and tries to shut down “our” land. Volunteer lawyers are ready to drag them through court for decades. 4. Term limits. We have to get rid of the fecal matter that continues to pander to every extremist group in order to suck this country dry.
This is a wild deal for sure. Reading this, a few things jumped at me. 1.) People volunteer to watch wolves tear apart animals on basically every nature show ever done. BBC (as shown above, Discovery, Nat Geo, PBS, etc) all show wolves shredding living critters in basically every show involving a place on earth where wolves live. As a result, I think that would just be a zero burger. Even the most vegan of vegans know's that wolves kill things and that nature is not kind in death.
2.) The number of environmentalists pushing off the rails strategies, like that wild prof noted above, are not huge. We here about or see in the media stories of the off the rails folks, the outliers. The reality is the outliers are not normal, they just get more of the headlines or story's told. That prof clearly is not following their own education, for example. Dont try and change minds, when you have an assumption that EVERY person on the other side is 1.) unhinged and 2.) uninformed to reality. If they have different ideas, that does not mean they are either unhinged or uninformed. Dont let your first suspicion guide your thinking there.
3.) It feels like the best thing, is to remind folks of the obvious. There are wild wolves living near by and they will steadily (but slowly) expand in range and the result will be wolves in CO (and elsewhere). But the WOLVES will be more adapted to the challenges of living in CO given the ones that actually survive as they move will tend to be the ones most equipped for the environment there and thus, the strongest and sturdiest and best suited for life there. It also, allows the other native species to "remember" wolves and adapt simultaneously. Sure, it's not as fast, but it's a more ecologically stable approach and more "natural".
I dont think people will ever say "no" to reintroduction if the argument is largely "wolves will eat your pets, could harm people and will kill a bunch of elk and deer." Because people will simply look at that set of points and say: "No kidding, wolves eat other animals, I know that, Im open to reintroduction though so do you understand that I GET THAT already. Tough nuggies hunter, you have grocery stores, the wolves have deer and elk and mice and pica's and marmots and whatever else. And the odds of anyone getting killed or hurt by a wolf are probably lower than a lightening strike, and there are a LOT of those in CO every year and yet not many folks get electrocuted. So... Bring on the wolves!"
It really feels, like if you do not want them, or want the fewest of them, you appeal to folks with the reality of natural expansion and natural selection along the way yielding a better situation for the entire ecosystem overall.
In that case, you are at least debating to what they want, and offering an alternative that could appeal to all without ticking folks off and driving fence sitters the other way.
It's a pretty intense and challenging debate it sounds like. Hopefully a good strategy will be found in the end which keeps the ecosystem in a good spot, and the people who live in that system in a good spot as well.
Will - A really good and thoughtful post, and I fully agree that much of what you said should be part of our argument...and I think along with the things in my original post, they absolutely should be a part of a multi-pronged strategy. The problem is you can't say what you want to say in 2 sentences or less, and IMHO the average uniformed voting Coloradoan isn't going to invest the time to read more than 2 sentences about wolves.
A compromise is the only way to solve this matter in my opinion. Wolves are going to be reintroduced and there is nothing hunters can do to stop it. The cute cuddly side of wolves is way to powerful to the general public and plain and simple hunters are just out numbered. So, maybe if hunters get on board and try and compromise the introduction with a management hunting season guareenteed to happen after the wolves have established x amount of numbers. Otherwise, left unchecked they will certainly hurt the pop of other big game animals which brings in huge amounts of dollars each year. . I live in the suburbs of Chicago, and we are over loaded with coyotes, and dogs and cats are going missing daily. They cruise the neighborhoods all day and night long, not scared of Humans whatsoever and actually lay out in front lawns. City officials do nothing about it and it is just a matter of time til one goes after a child, then it's to late. So rather than trying to stop the introduction, work with it to make it sensible with a strong management plan to go along with the intro.
Delisting is the ONLY way wolves will be managed in Minnesota. The average deer hunter is not going to risk shooting a wolf and getting a $10,00 fine and few years in jail. Making the penalty less sever like a misdemeanor would mean more deer hunters would be taking matters into their own hands. Most deer hunters in northern Minnesota see wolves while deer hunting.
In addition to countering the forced reintroduction efforts in CO with the natural migration and selection argument, I think hunters should also promote a proactive plan to manage the wolves once they get established at specific levels and in specific areas. I highly doubt that Wyoming's management plan, in which wolves can be shot on sight 24/7/365 in 85% of the state, will ever fly in Colorado.
I think if hunters showed a willingness to allow wolves to naturally migrate and populate in CO, while promoting a reasonable management plan that would keep hunters, ranchers, and the wolfies happy, we could win this battle. The "only good wolf is a dead wolf" attitude will only harm our image with non-hunters. I don't worry about the rabid anti-hunters because we will never change their minds. But I think we can win over open-minded non-hunters with a reasonable compromise to forced reintroduction.
Elk Assassin - That's a good point, and a frustrating one. Complex issues can not be solved and should not yield big decisions off of 2 sentences, which simply can not address the challenge at hand. Be it wolves or anything else, that 140 characters or less mentality of folks today and the associated lack of nuance to our thinking is a big issue.
Man, I wish society would slow down... so we could all figure out how to workout these things as well as possible.
What you guys are going to see is what we have up here with our big coyotes which have a lot of red wolf genetics. The prey control the predator, therefore, we have a very low deer density. As far as wolves, you will see them introduced. They will destroy the elk population until the carrying capacity equalizes. Coyotes manage to survive up here because they eat anything. You will have to have heavy restrictions on ungulate permits as the wolves matter more to the public than hunters. Where you have grizzlies, wolves have a harder time as the bears claim their kills. That forces the wolves to kill even more. If I were a resident of Colorado, I would be pushing for residents to have more preference for the scarce permits you are going to see in the future. We are seeing cutbacks up here in game management as the coyotes manage the herd and license sales drop. Face it guys, we have elected people that align themselves with non-hunters as they are the majority, aka votes. All our fed reps and senators in my state are souther state female libs. They couldn’t give a rat’s ass about us up here on the border. We get what we vote for. Good luck, but with the influx of Californistan libs, Colorado is screwed. Winter helps us up here as they move up in the summer. When the temps go to -40 and we still have snow in May, they are ready to go nuts. Trouble is, our meager conservative votes mean nothing.
That's the exact line out off "Living with Wolves" from the Jet setters in Idaho's rich and Famous. Tooltime Teter sure you ar not jus a no kill River Runs Thru it fly caster?
You guys here need to look at who your dealing with here. This Teter guy is a full blown Liberal Wolfer. Oh, but he says " I don't want the Wolf" Chit, C'mon man. We know who you are. Living with Wolves life member.
"while promoting a reasonable management plan that would keep hunters, ranchers, and the wolfies happy, we could win this battle." That's almost a perfect summery of the Wolfie movement. Incremetalism til your nads are in their well funded and popular leaf licker vice. You don't win wars by losing every battle Hiro!
Some history on this issue: So about the same time, 1994) the USFWS was mandating that Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho would be part of the Northern Rocky Wolf Management Recovery Program, and that Colorado was never intended to be part of the mandated wolf recovery program, Colorado,in their best interest, took action to address the possibility of migrating wolves into Colorado.
The state developed a Wolf Study Group made up of environmentalists, sportsmen, local governments, wild life biologists and livestock producers and concluded the following and this study was later approved by the state of Colorado and the Colorado Wildlife Commission, with the added phrase, OPPOSED to the intentional release of the gray wolf into Colorado.
The study, not an actual wolf management plan stated the following: (Remember the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf are still under Federal Control.)
1. accepting a migration wolf presence in Colorado with conditions.
2. urging that wolves migrating into Colorado be allowed to live with "no Boundaries" where they find habitat.
3. advocating that wolves be left where ever found, providing they are not causing problems/
4. recommend funding for wolf management come from sources other than from hunting and fishing license, ie, Game Cash fund.
So the State, the State Wildlife Commission is on record," opposed to the intentional (forced) released of the gray wolf into Colorado." One might then believe the issue is solved and written in stone and done with. Not so! THe State Wildlife Commission and the CPW staff is under a "gag" order not to public comment on this issue once approved by the Sec of State.
Not at all, the Loup Hole to Force the wolf on us. Since Colorado in a Ballot Initiative state, it seem like any issue can make it to the ballot if funded and approved. So now we have Ballot Initiative 107 (wolves or no wolves), funded and approved, and it will be on the November 2020 ballot for the 3 million Colorado Voters to see and to take action on.
While there may be some good suggestion made on this post, what actual action will be made?
THe only group I see taking ANY action against the Forced Introduction of the Gray Wolf into Colorado, is the Stopthewolf.org coalition and I would hope that all of you would support them as best as you can and communicate with friends and family using the talking points presented on the stopthewolf.org website. You may disagree with some of the actions taken by Stopthewolf, and how they are conducting business, but it is what it is at this time.
Personally, I will be presenting info to the Larimer County Commissioner next week at their public input meeting, and with info provided, hopefully they will support the other 21 Colorado Counties (more to come) opposed to the forces introduction. I will also be at the Stopthewolf booth at the ISE show this week, to learn more of what future actions will take place. Remember, the Colorado Sec of state just approved Initiation 107 last week so prior to that time, a total public campaign may have been pre mature.
So, why are the CPW and Wildlife Commission under a "gag" order, when their official position on forced reintroduction is on public record and approved by the State? Who issued that gag order, and why? It seems to me some of those officials should be the most outspoken on the subject. Does anyone at the State offices truly think "Ballot Biology" is a good idea?
"Colorado Parks and Wildlife's position on Initiative 79
Colorado Parks and Wildlife is statutorily required to adhere to the Colorado's Fair Campaign Practices Act (CRS § 1-45-117) which restricts:
• the use of public money, • CPW’s ability to spend public money (which includes staff time) and, • the ability of CPW employees to spend public money
As a result, CPW employees are prohibited from purporting to convey any opinion on any ballots on behalf of the State, the Department of Natural Resources or CPW.
THE GENERAL RULE: CPW cannot expend public moneys from any source, nor make contributions, to urge electors to vote in favor of or against a ballot initiative. • Public moneys include: Copiers, computers, other supplies; staff time; and, state vehicles and other facilities. Employees cannot use state email to voice personal opinion. • Contribution means: Money (whether it’s given directly or loaned, or a loan guarantee); things (gifts or loans of property); anything else of value given for the purpose of promoting the ballot initiative. • Urge means: To advocate; taking a position favorable or opposed to; and, conveying the message that the ballot initiative should be approved or rejected.
Things employees CANNOT do: • Employees can’t express a personal opinion on a ballot issue or measure or candidate campaign during work time. • Employees can’t work on a ballot initiative during work time"
"Employees can’t express a personal opinion on a ballot issue or measure or candidate campaign during work time."
Thanks for that, Glunt.
So, If I read that correctly, nothing should prevent employees from expressing an opinion during OFF-work times. I think they only work 40 hour weeks, so that should leave plenty of time for them to legally express their opinions when not working.
Sikorsky helicopters makes some for the military in Connecticut. They used to test them there. At that time the guy who rules the fed lands up here ruled a small wildlife refuge there. He took Sikorsky to federal court because of a certain bird their testing upset. Sikorsky now sends their military choppers 145 miles away, disassembled, to be tested at an increase in price for the taxpayer of almost a million bucks. As orionsbrother’s post shows, human lives and taxpayers wallets, jobs, homes, etc, mean nothing when compared to animals judged superior by these leeches of society. When I began my fight against the feds up here, Sikorsky invited us down there and showed us all the paperwork and we were briefed by one of their lawyers. We have a very powerful tyrannical government run by unelected bureaucrats, and the main goal of any bureaucracy is to grow like a cancer. You have to elect people who will slash appropriations and starve that cancer. Good luck with that with over half this nation living off the less than 50% who work for a living. Until we have economic disaster, government will continue to metasticize.
As I mentioned in my post the other day, just a matter of time until a coyote attacks a child, didn't think,it would happen this quick. Yesterday's two attacks time to start trapping coyotes in the cities. When wildlife has no fear of humans and become over populated bad things happen.
I can't find it, but know it exists.... There is a video of wolves digging at base of a cyclone fence in MT or Idaho at a playground where kids are playing. Only one I know of that might get some attention. It was actually a local TV station. I feel bad for our CO brothers, you may still have the largest elk population, but it is going to drop like a rock. Shoot everyone you see, band together and help ranchers, put sugar and secret sauce on your gut piles, ice fishing is better over a staked road kill and live by SSS. Sorry for those of you who don't like the harshness of the reality of what we are dealing with.
I hate to be a Debby Downer here, but wolves are already in your state. Whether they continue to disperse on their own, or whether more are introduced, in fifteen years how they got there isn't going to make a lot of difference.
Going all froth-mouthed crazy over the inevitable and comforting yourselves with outrage and SSS slogans isn't going to change a thing and only cements into the minds of wolf lovers and anti-hunters that hunters only care about something they can shoot.
Go to a Donald Trump rally, and raise the signs, Delist the Wolves....... in all reality, this could be done by the house and Senate with support, but first the leadership must push for this,,,, it can be done by legislation, without the courts, as I understand it.... would not hold my breath
Unfortunately, delisting will allow for Colorado to dump wolves in this state without Federal control.
We already have high apex predator populations in this state with limited ability to reduce them. Thats due to the very vocal anti-predator hunting groups in the state (supported and encouraged by out of state interests).
Wolves are currently protected in Colorado. No hunting allowed.
Be assured that the anti-predator hunting groups will ensure that wolves will have untouchable status until enough we’ll advertised confrontations occur on the fringes of the front range metropolis that the urban population decides to vote to start controlling them.
By that time, the state will be infested with wolves and our elk, moose and deer will be depleted to the point that big game hunting in Colorado will be a long lost memory.
The signs at the Trump Rallies would better say “Eradicate The Wolves Again!”
Ground hunter- we all agree that ballot box biology is a bad idea. But you are OK with politicians doing biology. Can you see the hypocrisy?
Even if you got your wish and a president tried to list or delist a species from the ESA it would end up in court and the president would lose. It’s violation if the law...the Endangered Species Act. Not sure where you get your info but you might want to find a different source. It’s not reality.
You’re right science was not a part of eradicating wolves. Lol.
Yes, there have been many mass extinctions. Is that you’re justification for making the wolf extinct? Why stop with wolves? Maybe farmers want deer and elk extinct because they damage their crops. Why not those species next? Who gets to decide? Why not conservative all you can? You’re logic is absolutely painful.
Bison...I think bison were reintroduced to Yellowstone for ecological reasons. Same as wolves. There are 150,000 bison in America with wild populations in large contiguous public land areas that can support them.
There are Bison on 1/50th of there lower 48 range.
Science of today ( one theory) says: The northern large grazers that roamed the worlds Artics along with wildfire is what kept those areas as grasslands. Thereby keeping the regions permafrost frozen. Bast areas now have trees (heat trapping).
More predators may only make these grazers numbers dwindle more.
Maybe more peat fires and less wolves will bring balance to those areas?
Free range Bison forced into Kansas may be a good start for that balance.
You think the Wolfers will stop with dogs. Haha. Thats just the begining. There food hooved food sources are next.
“In 1902, they purchased 21 bison from private owners and raised them at the historic Lamar Buffalo Ranch. Eventually, these animals began to mix with the park’s free-roaming population and by 1954, their numbers had grown to roughly 1,300 animals.“
You got me Big Fin. They were not reintroduced. Their population was so low they had to bring some in. I guess technically you are correct. You’re right...facts and the truth matter. My bad.
Do you think wolves should be forced to extinction like HH? If yes then why shouldn’t farmers be able to force elk to extinction?
Bison are coming in a big way to Montana and you can thank the American Prairie Reserve, and hunters. Yes, supportive white hunters. Wolves will expand their range ( with help) to control the bison with a very few tags issued to white hunters. In the meantime millions of acres will eventually become off limits to most hunters and the elk, deer, antelope and buffalo will be table fare for the wolves. And yes, this area will eventually become a National Park. One of the dumbest hunter backed concepts in the history of modern day hunting. Not that Parks are all bad, but hunters actually backed the concept thinking they were gaining long-term hunting opportunity for the general hunting public.
I’m pretty sure the modern love affair with the way things were in the earlier west, is just a novelty. Yes, there is room for wolves, cats, bears, etc.... But, man has long since replaced them in the food chain hierarchy. Which means natural science says they must work around our needs as hunters. Not the other way around.
All these other predators need to be allowed to earn their place. Not be given ours. That’s natural. As humans are a natural variable in the ecosystem. Why that has become uncool to say is beyond me. But, rest assured, the natural order of things say we are the top dog. And, the natural order of things says everything else gets what we allow.
This wolf problem isn’t about science at all. It’s the exact opposite of it by definition.
It all comes down to common sense and basic conservation . Room for all the predators, but you need control and mgt....,. It has been proven for a long time, if you want to save species of animals put a hunting season on it
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Ted Harvey 720-394-4833
Former State Senator Ted Harvey to Lead Stop the Wolf PAC Issue Committee Against Initiative 107
Denver, Colorado: Today, Denny Behrens, co-Chairman of the 501c4 non-profit Colorado Stop the Wolf Coalition, announced the addition of long-time Colorado political operator Ted Harvey to run Stop the Wolf PAC, the Colorado Issue Committee set up to defeat Initiative 107, a forced wolf introduction ballot measure scheduled to be on the November ballot. State campaign laws require an Issue Committee to be filed with, and report to, the Colorado Secretary of State when opposing a Colorado ballot measure.
“As Campaign Director for the Stop the Wolf PAC Issue Committee, Ted Harvey brings the extensive election experience and wildlife policy knowledge needed to win the campaign against Initiative 107,” said Behrens.
Ted Harvey graduated from the University of Colorado Denver with a Master’s Degree in Public Affairs with a concentration in Environmental Law and Policy. He has spent 13 years in the Colorado State House and Senate, serving of on the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Mr. Harvey also runs his own political consulting company that specializes in social media, fundraising, voter mobilization, and advancing pro-liberty and free-market issues in the public square.
“Stopping the forced introduction of wolves will be a key issue in Colorado this year, not just because wolves are already here but because of the irreversible and devastating impact it will have on our wildlife, economy, and communities across the state,” said Harvey.
“I encourage every Coloradan to listen to the credible experts who agree that forcing non-native wolves into our populated state is an absurd idea that should be soundly rejected by voters,” concluded Harvey.
Hope all get on board to help in CO as HH has it right, with the way they get managed (allowed to go above original breeding pair goals, not hunting, etc) it's black or white - you either want deer/elk or wolves, can't have both in balance as it doesn't exist (see northern WI deer herd and Idaho elk population)