Update on wolf initiative
Contributors to this thread:Colorado
From: Jaquomo
15-Dec-19
Jaquomo's Link
Very informative and balanced article on the status. Even if it passes, its far from a done deal. Defenders and EarthJustice will sue USFWS in court to keep them listed, and unless they are delisted, this vote is moot. Ironic, eh?
From: Glunt@work
15-Dec-19
If they stay listed, I hope Colorado follows the Feds lead and uses that as an excuse to be unable to enact the introduction. We didn't pay much attention to the Feds when it came to weed. I'm generally in favor of less centralized government and more local but this issue may have folks on both sides ending up with strange bedfellows.
From: Huntosolo
15-Dec-19
Lou, thanks for posting. The article provided me a glimmer of hope. Growing-up in Southwest Montana, I saw firsthand the damage inflicted by wolves left unchecked.
From: Grasshopper
15-Dec-19
I doubt defenders and Earthjustice would sue, they likely want wolves in Colorado. They will have to pick their poison. Defenders just lost their suit against CPW on the predator study though, and it probably is how they make their $$. They can appeal the study decison, and try to get a more favorable and friendly judge.
If you google worldwide population of wolves, it says 300,000. I get it is a bunch of subspecies but there is just a sh#@load of them. Not even close to endangered.
Lots of moving parts, hopefully nothing happens in the remainder of my hunting lifetime which is in the late 3rd or 4th quarter.
From: Surfbow
16-Dec-19
Interesting wrinkle in the saga...
From: Paul@thefort
18-Dec-19
Hope to be passing out this brochure to the uneducated.
Hope to be passing out this brochure to the uneducated.
From: Jaquomo
19-Dec-19
Why a beef calf instead of a cute little moose calf? City people don't relate to livestock. Sigh... Behrens and Co. just can't grasp reality.
From: Stix
19-Dec-19
Because those folks are cattlemen and ranchers who just happen to be hunters. The motivation for any of their wildlife campaigns has always been to protect their $$$ with the support from the deep pockets of sportsmen.
From: Jaquomo
19-Dec-19
Stix, I understand their motivation. What is infuriating is their blindness to the dynamics of this issue and how to relate to voters who will decide it. They appear to be living in a bubble.
Meanwhile, the Beyond Meat stock price has been soaring since the IPO.
From: CO Oak
19-Dec-19
Paul, just curious if you received permission from CPW to use their logo? It may be worth asking to avoid trouble.
*Edit - Never mind, I see it’s not your brochure.
From: >>>---WW---->
23-Dec-19
I thought Paul's picture was an add for a sack of calf manna when I first saw it.
How about a picture of a half eaten family pet. Maybe that would get the attention of the hockey moms and golf dads in the big cities. After all, that's where the vote on this thing will be coming from.
From: Thomas
23-Dec-19
The cow reaks of more special interest, and thus counterproductive.
From: Surfbow
26-Dec-19
^Yes, but it's the special interest group in the fight with the most $$$$, so they need to be placated
From: Thomas
27-Dec-19
I hate to admit it, but $$$$ might be the saving grace.
From: Glunt@work
27-Dec-19
It's like any political issue/election. You raise money from your base and spend money trying to sway voters who aren't already supporters.
Fundraising efforts should appeal to the loyal. When trying to win votes you appeal to those who you might win over.
Ag and hunting interests should take a backseat on messaging between now and the vote. Swaying undecided is what might help.
From: Paul@thefort
29-Dec-19
FYI, there are now 20 Colorado Counties that have developed and then signed a County Resolution against the forced introduction of the wolf to Colorado. Working on more to sign in the near future. Elbert and Douglas Counties were the last two to sign up. my best, Paul
From: PECO
29-Dec-19
Are those western slope counties?
From: Jaquomo
29-Dec-19
Paul, just curious, what good will it do for the counties to sign the resolution?
From: Paul@thefort
29-Dec-19
Lou, Exactly, and I hope to have an answer shorty. I know how the initiative process works but not sure of the TOTAL process after an initiative is voted on by majority or super majority of Colorado voters. . ie, then what? the Governor or first, the State Legislature? I might expect that if enough counties vote against the Introduction, that action may affect the final outcome with the Governor and or State Legislature. And then throw in the fact that the wolf in still protected by the USFWS until they delist. my best, Paul
From: Jaquomo
29-Dec-19
Paul, if it passes, it passes. If wolves are delisted then CPW will be forced to move forward with a reintro plan by 2023 unless the courts stop it (this happened with another initiative that passed but was later ruled unconstitutional). There will be a public comment period during the process, which is sure to be contentious. If they aren't delisted, then the legislature will need to pass it into law and be signed by Polis, and then the USFWS can potentially intervene in a test of federal control vs. state's rights (see legalized pot....) Legislative approval is pretty much a given if Dems keep control, especially when it passes by 65-35.
I can't imagine resolutions by the rural 1/3 of counties, almost all "red", would influence anything. Simply a feel-good exercise. Sure had no effect on Dems ramming-in the oil and gas rules that voters just rejected. There have been more than a dozen attempts to modify the bear initiative, all introduced by rural representatives. Not one has even made it out of committee.
From: Glunt@work
29-Dec-19
Counties can have some sway on issues where the Sheriff will be doing a lot of the enforcement.
It doesn't hurt to have support, but on this issue it wont be a big impact.
From: Orion
30-Dec-19
Unless those counties are planning on wolf proof fencing their borders it is nothing more then some feel good piece of paper that will do nothing to stop introduction
From: Orion
31-Dec-19
Pretty bad when your flyer has a coyote on it and not a wolf
From: Paul@thefort
31-Dec-19
One aim of the County Resolutions, once supported by the County Commissioners , is to encourage the voters of the county to look into the wolf issue and gain a more educated stance prior to voting and just not vote with emotion. Can not hurt.
Currently 21 Counties have sign on , 5 being Front Range Counties, Moving towards 10 more. my best, Paul
From: Glunt@work
31-Dec-19
Thats no coyote
From: Orion
31-Dec-19
Here is the pic they used and it is a coyote
From: Glunt@work
01-Jan-20
My bad. I thought the pic I posted was the same elk just a few moments before or after the brochure pic. :^)
From: Paul@thefort
01-Jan-20
Coyote, Wolf picture??????????????so what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The point is just that, the point!
From: >>>---WW---->
03-Jan-20
Yep! That's just a big coyote in the picture. So I suppose that makes it legal to shoot!
From: Matte
08-Jan-20
From: Surfbow
08-Jan-20
^This may throw a serious wrench in the works!
From: Dirty D
09-Jan-20
Here's one I found curious. I was looking for some of the better wolf/carnage videos on Facebook. Found one but noticed it was copyrighted and figured what the heck, I'm going to reach out to the owner and see if they'd be willing to share. Here's the response I got back.
"I do have it and yes its my video. But made it private because I was told to basically die because of the video. So I am not currently sharing it because of all the negativity. I appreciate you reaching out though!"
From: tramper
09-Jan-20
I doubt any local TV station will play any part of a wolf carnage video. They "warned" the audience the other day when they showed the elk carcass having to do with the pack of wolves recently spotted in northwest CO. That needs to go out via social media. Getting ALL the county commissioners west of the Front Range voting against wolves and signing the "stop the wolf" petition would be a good step. It tells the Front Range that the rest of Colorado does not want wolves. It's not right that Front Range voters (4.6 million of them) can tell the West Slope that they will have wolves introduced. This, to me, is a travesty in and of itself.
From: Glunt@work
12-Jan-20
From the CPW website: "Although gray wolves no longer exist in the wilds of Colorado, they can be found in captivity in zoos and wildlife parks."
I sent an email asking this be updated since its wrong and citizens may be surfing for info during this ballot process.
From: Paul@thefort
12-Jan-20
To your ponts Trapper, currently 27 Colorado Counties have signed a County Resolution in OPPOSITION to the forced introduction of the gray wolf into Colorado, and more to come.
Glunt--- good find and reply
From: cnelk
12-Jan-20
CBS 4 Denver recently had a poll on their FB page about wolf reintroduction. Here is a screen shot of the votes
From: RT
12-Jan-20
Hopefully those figures hold when it's vote time.
From: >>>---WW---->
12-Jan-20
Tramper's quote: ( It's not right that Front Range voters (4.6 million of them) can tell the West Slope that they will have wolves introduced. This, to me, is a travesty in and of itself ).
Unfortunatley, This is how the State of Colorado is ran.
From: Jaquomo
12-Jan-20
Re: the CBS poll - all that means is that the RMEF and STW got the word out better. Millennials and Gens who will decide this don't do Facebook. That's just for old people to show friends photos of what they're having for breakfast on their cruise.
From: Jaquomo
12-Jan-20
Also curious as to why STW didnt notify supporters about this poll, or about anything else they are doing. With the push of a button they can use Mail Chimp to quickly keep supporters (and those of us who donated) informed. Then again, if they won't reply to emails, it's probably too much to ask of them to be proactive...
From: Paul@thefort
12-Jan-20
Here is a good article to read that was written by the 2009 Rocky Mt Nat Park Superintendent. If I understand correctly, using wolves in the park was never really taken seriously by the park officials but only taken seriously by the pro wolfers that attended the public meetings and suggested wolves as part of the plan. To "appease" the prowolfers, the addition of the subject of the wolf, was then added. In reality, after many "hunter organization" publicly opposed the use of Federal Sharp Shorters to thin the elk and then bury the dead elk in the park at an est cost of 20 million dollars over a 19 year period, finely, Citizen Culling Teams were developed,(hunting is not allowed in the Park) educated to the purpose , and accompanied/instructed/mentored by park officials, in various parts of the park to thin the elk herd, all cow elk. A number of cow elk herds were eliminated. As far as I remember, this action has not been used in the Park for the past 5-6 years.
As the Superintendent stated, "Rocky Mountain National Park is not Yellowstone"
Here is the link to the article.
https://www.denverpost.com/2009/02/12/wolf-reintroduction-it-wont-work-here-like-in-yellowstone/
