Bowsite.com

If they remain listed, there will be no intro anyway under Trump. If Trump is not reelected, all bets are off.

If delisted, and no lawsuits prevent it, then an intro could be forced.

Lots of what if's

That picture looks like the tracks are headed north on the west side of the Vermillion...

Might need to go poke around up that way on a few weekends. Got calls and a good rifle...

No license required and no season on the north side of the line...

Every officer I talk to is opposed to them. But they don’t get to decide what happens in regards to Wildlife

Now if we could have them managed

Yes, I know what wolves look like. No they werent coyotes. I heard them coming thru the timber to our calls. We never saw an elk that weekend.

They've been here quite often. Has anyone done a Open Records Request for wolf tracking data in Colorado?

Wish we could get our ey back from them..

''Due to wolves listed on the endangered species act, the USFW has authority in this matter. Their policy states if wolves currently reside in a state, they cannot be introduced by force '... done and done"

If this statement is true, we have no worries about reintroduction. And the guy in charge of STW will just have to find some other way to collect money for his next drugstore dude cowboy hat and boots.

"In 2007, video footage of a black, wolf-like animal was taken near Walden in North Park. While wildlife experts who viewed the video said the animal appeared to be a wolf, it was not wearing a radio collar, and its identity could not be verified."

Their side engages in judge shopping for all enviro issues they want to force. Our side should too.

The personal attacks on Denny Behrens is completely uncalled for. I've worked with Denny for years and he is my friend and I'm not going to sit back and let a friend get personally attacked on social media with derogatory "drug store cowboy" comments and the like.

You may not agree with Denny's politics and that is fine. He and I don't agree on everything, but I know for a fact he is doing what he thinks is right and he is actually doing something, unlike most. Being a social media post blogger doesn't make anyone an expert on anything and if you aren't offering alternative solutions, then your criticism has no merit either.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Being part of the solution doesn't mean following along like blind sheep, but if you have nothing more to offer than casting insults towards hunters trying to make a difference, then I hope your keyboard provides you with fulfilling friendships to last a lifetime.

We must be better than this!

Todd Brickel

When the hand came out.... I saved my money

Todd, I agree with much of what you posted. What is frustrating is no one from STW will respond to emailed questions about their strategy and future plans. Crickets. Only emails and snail mail asking for more money. And we contributed in the beginning so I believe the least we could expect is a quick email reply to honest questions. No one I know who has emailed has received a response.

Meanwhile I'm writing letters to editors of newspapers, and have educated more than 1000 mostly nonhunting families through our mountain community social media site. From where I sit, that's 1000 more nonhunting families than STW has reached.

BTW, it is easier to convince a mind in the beginning than to change one once it's made up.

Just because one owns season tickets to the 49ers, doesn’t mean Kyle Shanahan is going to share his Super Bowl game plan with you.

Wolves in sheep’s clothing are everywhere and to publicly layout one’s strategy shows too many cards to the opposition.

Years ago when I served as DOW rep for CBA I wrote a critical article of SINAPU in our news letter. I stand by what I wrote, but received calls and a lawyer letter from them. They joined CBA to gain access to our thought process. Lurkers hang out here too.

I understand that may come across as secretive, but controlling strategy is important.

Either you trust Denny and The Stop the Wolf group or you don’t. They may win or lose, and we may win or lose, but we all know hunters are our own worst enemies. I have no doubt many have good ideas, and getting involved would be appreciated, but there is a plan and a strategy.

The CBA has donated $10,500 so far and due to trusted relationships both Paul and I are invited to weekly calls to listen and influence, but neither of us are going to come on here and outline for all to read.

We may be right or wrong, time will tell but this isn’t some one man show, begging for money, lining his personal pockets.

Everyone has to decide for themselves, but again you are either part of the problem or part of the solution, you decide.

Todd

But I do very much trust you and Paul to do the right thing. Some other folks, not so much.

Todd

They are usually not aware of the CPW stance or many facts about wolves or what happened the last time around in WY, ID, MT.

Anti-wolf positions probably wont play well. Pro-biologist/CPW has traction.

Democratic Sen. Kerry Donovan’s bill would delay wolf management to study and fund compensation for lost livestock. It would also cancel a plan to bring back the predators if a “self-sustaining population” is confirmed. • PUBLISHED ONJAN 24, 2020 1:07P The Vail Democrat, who represents seven Western Slope counties, has crafted legislation she hopes to submit on Friday that allows Colorado Parks and Wildlife to manage wolves, but would postpone any reintroduction efforts until money is found to reimburse ranchers who lose livestock to wolves. The bill would cancel reintroduction outright if wildlife officials determine that the state already has a “self-sustaining population” of gray wolves. The bill is a detour around a question on November’s ballot that asks voters to direct Colorado Parks and Wildlife to reintroduce about 10 wolves a year into Western Slope wildlands starting in 2023. Donovan’s legislation delays possible reintroduction until the last day of 2025, after state agriculture and wildlife officials work together to measure potential damage caused by wolves and determine how to pay for lost livestock. It also comes as wildlife officials have confirmed a pack of six wolves roaming Moffat County in northwest Colorado. Colorado state Sen. Kerry Donovan, D-Vail, speaks on Feb. 1, 2019, at a town hall meeting in Frisco. (John Ingold, The Colorado Sun) “This initiative allows for a certain amount of conversation,” Donovan said Friday. “But with an issue as complex as this, which seems to be in flux with a pack moving into the northwest, I think it’s appropriate to take the deliberative process the general assembly allows and apply it to wildlife management in Colorado.” “This bill should give us a forum for a discussion,” she added, “and I don’t know if we are having that level of dialogue around what is a very complex issue for the Western Slope. I don’t think that happens with two opposing campaigns, which does not always provide the right forum for the discussions and compromises that these kinds of complicated issues require.” Donovan’s bill calls for a study group convened by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the state’s department of agriculture to develop a report on the impacts and costs of wolves by Jan. 1, 2022. Under Donovan’s plan, a “sustainable reintroduction, recovery and management plan” would include a wide variety of methods — including the issuance of hunting permits — to promote a sustainable population of wolves, and minimize damage to livestock and provide compensation to ranchers who lose livestock to the predators. “Whatever the method is, we want to make sure the department has full capability to manage the population with the tools they think are best suited,” she said. The compensation issue is tricky for Donovan. It’s an issue that concerns her constituents on the Western Slope, she said. Her bill, she said, allows cattlemen and wool growers to work with wildlife officials to craft a system that not only identifies a funding source for compensating ranchers who lose livestock to wolves but outlines how ranchers can be reimbursed. “I could easily see a concept where you take a picture of your cow that has been killed and send it to us and we’ll send you a check for a couple hundred dollars. That sounds incredibly reasonable to people who haven’t run animals in the mountains. But it’s not that easy,” she said. “I want to make sure we get very realistic scenarios from people who work in these landscapes, the cattlemen and wool growers.” A gray wolf. (Photo provided by Grizzly Creek Films) George Edwards, the executive director of the Montana Livestock Loss Board, has spent 11 years paying ranchers in Montana for livestock they’ve lost to wolves, grizzly bears and mountain lions. In 2008, when Montana estimated there were 497 wolves in the state, his board paid $87,317 to ranchers who lost 238 animals to wolves, including 74 cattle, 149 sheep and four llamas. In 2019, with wildlife officials estimating Montana’s wolf population around 900, he paid $76,108 to ranchers for 53 cattle, 20 sheep and two horses. For the last three years, his office has paid record amounts to ranchers as losses from grizzly bears grow. Last year the Montana legislature increased his budget to $300,000 from $200,000. Edwards has visited several states across the West to explain his state’s compensation program, which pays ranchers market value for each animal his team confirms was killed by predators. “It’s interesting to hear ranchers’ perspectives in places like Northern California. I hear the same thing regardless of where you go. Once wolves move in, ranchers feel limited in what they can do to prevent loss,” Edwards said. “Once you have wolves, ranchers know their losses will grow.” But that’s not what Donovan is hearing from the Western Slope. Opponents of the measure have collected resolutions from 29 rural counties across the state opposing the reintroduction of wolves. “One of the concerns I keep hearing about is that a bunch of city folks are going to vote to approve wolves and we are going to have to deal with item” she said. Donovan’s bill says reintroduction efforts would be cancelled if wildlife officials determine there is a “sustainable population” in the state. So how many is that? “I’m not going to define that because there are people who are better versed for that,” Donovan said. “They are going to do the work to find out what a sustainable population is. We will let science determine what a sustainable population is.” Rick Enstrom, a former wildlife commissioner who worked with a wolf study group that crafted a management strategy for the Colorado Wildlife Commission in 2004 that did not support reintroduction, applauded Donovan’s legislative strategy for wolf management. “It seems pretty sensible to me. These issues are too complex to solve with a simple ballot measure,” he said. “Hopefully this will calm everybody down.” Passage of legislation and a ballot measure could set up a conflict. Legislation does not automatically override voter-approved initiatives. “I think we can say history has shown that when a compromise is reached inside the (Capitol) building that often results in initiatives being pulled off the ballot,” Donovan said.

There are no specific numbers in the 107 language. RMWAF probably mentioned that number hoping people will think "well that's ok, that's not too many." Of course we know that if this passes, CPW will be sued by the wolfies at every turn of the process. Not enough wolves released each year, not putting them in enough areas, not high enough target population, nothing less than a bazillion wolves is self-sustaining, blah, blah, blah. This will cost way more than the $700k/year they say in the article. The attorneys are drooling all over themselves waiting for a piece of the action.

And on another note, did anyone here read, prior to it being certified, the Initiative language that they were passing around for signature? I could swear the petition said funding for the reintroduction and reimbursement for livestock was to come from the wildlife fund. I clicked the link in the article to read the Initiative language again and it says NOT from the wildlife fund. Maybe my CRS is flaring up. ;)

A BILL FOR AN ACT: Concerning the management of the gray wolf in Colorado, and , in connection therewith, authorizing the REINTRODUCTION OF GRAY WOLVES.

The bill authorizes the management and, if necessary, the reintroduction of the gray wolf in Colorado pursuant to a plan adopted by the park and wildlife commission. The reintroduction is to begin by Dec 31, 2015 but..................

I will try to post this bill asap. Paul

I am opposed to intro, but the bill may have some "kill pills". It starts out with, "if neccesary". What if it is never neccesary?

It also says suitable habitat. What if they never find suitable habitat?

It is interesting that the Bill never mentions Initiative 107 as the reason for this.

If not this bill, then what? A bill exempting CPW and putting all the decisions in the hands of a "citizens advisory panel"? Be careful what you wish for. We learned a hard lesson from the loud "no compromise" voices back during the bear hunting battle. Some of those same loud "no compromise" voices are now leading Stop The Wolf...

This bill is the lessor of two evils but not sure it gets rid of the other one. Any help clarifying is appreciated.

I want neither, but I do have a realistic view of our chances with 107.

Does our new confirmed pack help us with keeping 107 from being initiated?

What if this bill and 107 overlap each other?

CPW/CWC has already made the "if necessary" determination and it was a "No". Adding "self-sustaining" likely changes that.

Is there enough room in this bill for CPW to never initiate an introduction and is that the angle CPW sees?

What do they say about the fat lady singing?

Flashback to '92 and the bear compromise we were offered, to keep fall baiting and hounds in exchange for ending spring hunting.

Some of the same prople running STW helped convince the Commission to reject that compromise and allow voters to decide. We know how that turned out. Deja vu.

Matt

The enemy is not STW, it is prowolfers.

107 is not a constitutional amendment, it changes CRS. The legislature can change CRS at any time in the future if they deem necessary, and have the votes.

Will 107 pass? Guys seem to think so, but I am going to remain a glass half full guy. If 107 passes, can it be legally challenged? absolutely. If the legislature passes an introduction bill, and 107 fails, wouldn't that be a bummer?

I heard rumor the bill sponsor may have a conference call to explain to conservation orgs just what she was thinking and why we have this bill. No one knows yet who is the wolf wearing sheeps clothing.

I would have expected this bill to have the cattlemen requesting the legislation. That appears not to be the case, and I find that odd. That does not give me peace of mind.

But it is a wolf intro bill. I'm watching and will support what my best guess is to get the best (least worst) outcome. Too soon for me.

My crystal ball sees 1992 happening all over again, with some of the same players involved. I sure hope I'm wrong.

I would not have an issue if this bill was presented 10 plus years ago when the DOW, (Division of Wildlife) Commission was over seeing Colorado's wildlife.

When the DOW was changed to the CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) my faith in the Commission to represent Colorado's wildlife/hunters diminished some, as half of the Commission was Parks Commission members and I contend that some of these members did not (minimal knowledge) represented Colorado's wildlife as well as in the past.

I have heard recently that the Colorado Governor might be considering changing the makeup of the Commission to represent more Colorado citizens and organizations.

Hard to tell if this happens, just how a future Commission might respond to an issue like this, and then being , "authorized to manage the reintroduction of the gray wolf".

I am still holding my breath on this bill and will wait for more information after this 30 person, conference call, including author, is completed. Paul

Total "for" $1.4 Million

Total "against" $66.00

$10,125 against initiative 107

The cost of the Yellowstone/central Idaho wolf project was $200,000 to 1 million dollars per wolf according to a report.

In the bill there are two outs. Not finding new funding for depredation payments (TABOR issue?) delays introduction or if wolves populate themselves to the undefined self-sustaining level in 5 years. In 107 the only out is wolves populating themselves in two years, so no real way out of forced introduction.

Throw in lawsuits from either side, USFW listing issues and the bill and 107 both passing, and I really have no idea how this shakes out.

Don and Lou both, good overviews

I bet the Wolf Project is scrambling.

If I had any influence with Senator Donavan, I'd suggest she should support keeping them listed, which would be consistent with her base supporter's views and values, while bolstering her standing with conservative hunting voters. Win win for her, politically, and for Colorado hunters, in general.

Matt

Ideally, an order to delist where they have met numbers takes care of the upper midwest (since they passed that years ago) and keeps them listed here which screws up 107 being implemented.

Here is an example, on page 3. : Economic Impact-- Game Species, such as deer and elk MAY become prey for grey wolves, if these wolves are reintroduced. No mention of moose. MAY BECOME PREY. daaaaa.

I am so tired of the SOFT pedaling of this forced reintroduction.

Not sure if earlier, now, or after the vote is the right time, but legal challenges to the ballot initiative should be at the top of the list for groups fighting this.

I'm assuming the 3-4 groups with more than a few thousand dollars who are against this have already had a lawyer go over things with a fine tooth comb or are in the process.

Lawsuits need to be ready to go the day after the vote.