Dirk Diggler's Link
Those (Rock Mt Wolf Project,etc) who WANT to Force the reintroduction of the Gray Wolf into Colorado found a “loop hole” in that Colorado is a ballot initiative state & that wildlife issues can be tested before the general public & many times against the recommendations of the Colorado Wildlife Commission. Those forcing the issue, have already spent nearly one million dollars to get Ballot Initiative 107 to the voting public in November of 2020. It has been reported that 99% of those monies came from out of state sources. Ballot Initiative 107, many believe, is full of FALSE narratives as follows: 1. Wolves will only be introduced on Public land. 2, Wolves will only be introduced west of the Continental Divide. 3. Once established, the Gray Wolf will bring back the critical balance of Nature to Colorado. 4. Wolves were eliminated in Colorado over 80 years ago; & while that is true, only 1.2 million persons resided in Colorado at that time; currently Colorado is pushing 6 MIL residents statewide. Colorado has twice the population of Idaho, Montana & Wyoming combined where some wolves reside today.
Thirteen years ago, the Parks and Wildlife Commission approved a plan entitled, "Findings & Recommendations for Managing Wolves which Migrate into Colorado," which was in response to the reintroduction of the gray wolf by the USFWS into the Yellowstone National Park area. That same year a migrating wolf from Wyoming was found dead on Colorado's West I-70, & others have been observed since then in Colorado. The above plan (CPW Resolution 16-01) was developed by a group with various interests in Colorado, ie., Colorado Wolf Management Working Group, made up of environmentalists, sportsmen, local government, wildlife biologists & livestock producers. The results were comprehensive & not anti-wolf at all but developed a Colorado Wolf Management framework as follows:
1. accepting a (migrating) 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 wherever found, providing they are not causing problems 4. taking measures to avoid conflicts through non-lethal methods if possible & if wolves cause problems, manage them to resolve the problem 5. recommending that funding for wolf management come from sources other than hunting license sales, & then, the Resolution concluded that: "any introduction or reintroduction of the wolves into Colorado is a potential conflict with the State's livestock industry and current big game management efforts."
The current Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, appointed by the Governor, and then approved by the State Legislature, for the past 100 years, is mandated to oversee and then using current scientific big & small game management practices here in Colorado (not Ballot Box Biology), resolved the following: "That the (current year 2016) Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission affirms its support of the Wolf Working Group's recommendations adopted by the Wildlife Commission in May 2005, OPPOSING the intentional release of any wolves into Colorado......" (adopted, January 13, 2016) Most Colorado citizens believe in the legitimacy of the Colorado Wildlife Commission & the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director and staff to scientifically manage Colorado's big game populations & we should follow their lead and recommendations concerning this FORCED wolf introduction issue. If you understand & believe in the science of Colorado’s big game wildllife management and the North American Conservation Model, you will support their recommendations.
Currently, there are 21 Colorado Counties which have signed a County Resolution opposing the forced reintroduction of the gray wolf into Colorado. (Five are Front Range Counties) These counties have studied & examined the effects that forced introduction of the gray wolf may have on its communities, its citizens, its wildlife and its livestock, both commercial & domestic. No doubt the subject of the wolf can be a very emotional subject & the voting public needs to EXAMINE all sides of this Colorado issue before voting for or against the Forced Introduction of the gray wolf to Colorado.. I would recommend visiting the Colorado Parks and Wildlife website & also visit the Stopthewolf.org website & see for yourself that there is more to this Wolf issue than one can imagine.
THe other Loup Hole in the process is that once the Initiative 107 was filed and approved by the SEC of state, the CPW.Commission is under a "gag" order to not speak, testify, report on the issue. Too bad.
Paul Navarre, Ft. Collins Co
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 to sit around talking about how bad wolves are...it's 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 sent an email to their 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
You would think people would fight for their jobs and pensions.
What's different about this issue is that just like us dumb hunters who's pictures/video end up on social media, so do the wolves, who's life revolves around carnage. I think with some well articulated points and the power of social media wolves aren't a foregone conclusion.
That evidently is BS that we have been led to believe. According to 9 news last night, they researched that provision, and found that the CPW CAN comment. They just can't spend more than $50 to promote their opinion. In other words, if asked, they CAN respond in an official capacity. However, 9 news also reported that they (CPW) chooses NOT to comment. If this is true, we have been tossed under the bus during the bear issue, and are about to be again by CPW.
As a result, CPW employees are prohibited from reporting to convey and 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 or against a ballot Initiative. * Public moneys include, copiers, computers, orth supplies, staff time, and state vehicles and other facilities. 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 that employees cannot do. Employes can not express a personal opinion on a ballot issue or measure or candidate campaign during work time. Employees can not work on a ballot initiative during work time.
