NO SUPPORT FOR BILL 121
Colorado
FACT CHECK: No Support! It seems that the CPW's support for Bill 20-121 is just a rumor and or hearsay. I have found NO evidence of any statement of support from the CPW. I did find on Bowsite that someone stated, "that the CPW did support this Bill" and when questioned, stated they might have seen this in the Denver Post or in another article.
I spoke with a local CPW manager who actually called me today for another reason, and I questioned him about the CPW's support. He stated he had not heard of any support and we both agreed that a State Statute prohibits the CPW from making any statements towards this bill, or initiative.
The support statement for this bill might have come from, in an op-ed, an X-CPW Commissioner who stated he thought this bill was a "good compromise".
Did anyone hear of any information regarding the conference call with 30 stakeholders the writer of this bill had? Any news of her motives or how this is benefits wildlife or cpw?
I will hear of this conference call at the all day CBA BOD meeting today as there was a CBA representative invited to participate along with others.
Thanks, please post info when you receive it.
Thanks, Paul. It would be good to know what sort of legislative fix is being considered to neuter the ramifications after 107 passes, and put more control back into the CPWs hands. As we learned with the energy setback initiative, this legislature has no problem overturning the will of the voters. But since this wolf thing is clearly a Left vs Right issue, I'm concerned the legislature (and Polis) will welcome it enthusiastically.
The "no compromise" position cost us fall bear baiting and hounds. Hopefully a lesson was learned from that screwup.
Did you see Marlon on TV recently? He opposes culling of the 5000 geese destroying Denver parks, and wants to be a voice for the geese who don't have one. This is the guy asking for feedback on Facebook as to who should be on the wildlife commission.
Remember, a governor veto is possible with any bill.
It was suggested that the Senator revise the bill for further consideration.
Wolves aren't opposed to eating geese. The solution seems obvious.
ˆˆˆWolves in metro Denver would create all kinds of issues...it would be fun to watch the politicians trip over themselves if any outlandish kind of action like that were to be proposed!!!
But...but...wolves in Denver would help restore the precious and mythical "balance of nature". Libs should be all for it.
Not to mention getting the "campers" out of the Denver parks.
Pretty good article in the Coloradoan today. Hopefully makes any thinking person consider some of the finer point of reintroduction. I love how they point out that the backers of 107 don't support 121 because it gets into who's going to be footing the bill. Crazy anyone would concern themselves with those little details :)
Sorry it won't let me post the link :(
Not one mention about the impact wolves will have on Colorado's wildlife.
Six paragraphs devoted to Rock Mt Wolf Project manager Rob Edwards
One paragraph devoted to one rancher
States that "ranchers and sportsmen largely oppose wolf reintroduction" NEVER mentions that the CPW and the CPW Commission is opposed to wolf reintroduction.
Never mentions that by State Statute, CPW is prohibited to express public opinions concerning this ballot issue.
Sad, Sad, Sad. my best Paul
Hello Miles, (Coloradoan News, Fort Collins) While you gave an interesting overview of the Bill 121 and Initiative 107, you left out some important facts that the reader might want to know.
1. Not one mention about the impact wolves will have on Colorado's wildlife. A fact your readers need to know.
2. Stated that "ranchers and sportsmen largely oppose wolf reintroduction" BUT you never mention once that the Colorado Park and Wildlife Commission, who are entrusted with the management of Colorado's wildlife are OPPOSED to the intentional release of the gray wolf into Colorado. (CPW Resolution 16-01). YES OPPOSED! A fact that your readers need to know.
3. Never mentions that by State Statute, the CPW Commission and staff are prohibited from expressing public opinions concerning this ballot initiative issue. A fact your readers need to know.
4. Never mentioned that the Stop the wolf Coalition, stopthewolf.org. and 29 Colorado Counties are in opposition to the reintroduction. A fact your reader need to know. I would suggest you contact the stopthewolf.org website for more facts and even speak with them on this issue.
I did notice that six paragraphs were given to Rob Edwards, the Rock Mt Project manager, and only one paragraph devoted to one rancher giving the impression that the reintroduction is all about ranches trying to get compensated for predator loss.
I do believe your readers deserve a more balanced article so they can make a educated vote on November 3, than one with limited facts. As we both know, this issue can be a very emotional issue, but this issue needs to focus on the facts.
My best, Paul Navarre, Ft. Collins, avid hunter and fisherman and supporter of the CPW
Interesting that both the pro and anti wolfies are against this bill.
But for different reasons. It has been suggested she revise the bill (suggestion from the good guys)
What revisions were suggested? No communication from STW about it.
