Funding plan for wolf introduction
Colorado
Contributors to this thread:
Been thinking about a semi-fair way to cover costs for this. Here is my plan- hope it will be forwarded to appropriate folks if it looks fair.
Funds will be generated by a wolf fee added to users of State Parks in those counties that supported (50% or better) the wolf introduction. You wanted it, now pay for it!
Hunters are probably gonna pay for it...
Legislature would never approve a plan like that. State parks are used by people from all over the country. Hunters and fishermen will pay for it unless the legislature approves some supplemental funding out of the General Fund, and that is unlikely to happen either.
My sources tell me CPW already developed a plan to go before the legislature to get an alternate source of funding and they are confident legislature will approve.
If anyone has connections with people on Sportsmans roundtable, I think it would go a long way for them to ask CPW to propose an alternate funding source from legislature.
As hunters we could sue them claiming that we shouldn't have to pay for it as hunters
Just heard on the radio that lawsuits are already being prepped. I would contribute to a legal fund so long as Behrens and the clowns from STW aren't involved.
I believe in the blue book it called out that the funding would be from hunting and fishing licenses...
Anyone that hunts or fishes in this state that voted for wolves should be ashamed.
How about an "adopt a wolf" program. Maybe the folks who favor introduction could be thus called upon to pay for it. I know, it's a pipe dream. :)
The antis are laughing their asses off, right now. Not only did they get 114 voted in, which effectively is a proposition aimed to eliminate hunters, but they also got it funded by hunters and fisherman. Front range voters can kiss my ass.
Matt
I also will contribute to any lawsuits that rethink wolves and STW and SEI are not part of. Those organizations leaders are probably on a beach with my donation money to stop the wolf.
I suggest hunters and fisherpeople will pay for it because I've seen what happens when non consumptive users are expected to pay for state trust land access. If its $5, $10 or the cost of the licence, they complain until they somehow get their way.
They have really figured out how to play the game!
Force wolves into the system that will reduce big game numbers using the ESA that pulls money from hunting license fees for recovery.
Reduce big game populations to the point that human hunting is reduced.
End hunting by people.
You can get food at the store!
Why do you need those guns?
tax front range man bun covers. it will fully fund all of it.
here's a thought to pay for it a gold tip hunter freely administered from PSE brute
As Grey Ghost says, wolves will eventually eliminate the need for hunters, and that is these groups ultimate goal. So I see a couple things happening
1) less game, and eventually less hunters 2) less license revenue for CPW 3) higher tag prices across the board.
Keeping my fingers crossed Biden doesn’t reverse the endangered species status. If it is just a “wildlife infraction” to shoot a wolf, that doesn’t have a lot of teeth. But shooting an endangered species could be bad for violators.
So, if wolves will destroy hunting, and all of us understand they WILL have a huge impact, and we have to fund the reintroduction, we can dry up their funding. We can either take the hit now by voluntarily not hunting/fishing while this is on the table, or later when there's nothing to hunt. The money we save by not hunting, can be put toward legal battles.
Another objective of these psycho groups is removal of cattle and sheep from federal lands.
8 more years until my last one graduates, then I am out of here. In 10 to 20 years this will be caliorado, every day it is happening.
Sadly, I think the cidiots just turned a lot of law abiding hunters and ranchers into poachers. I won't hesitate to SSS, if a wolf shows up on my property.
Matt
"In 10 to 20 years this will be caliorado..."
Steve, that is such a simplistic, easy target, scapegoat. Put politics aside for a moment. Arguably, from a climate, and geography perspective, both California and Colorado have the best "livability", hunting, and outdoor activity opportunities, than any other states. They are a sportsmen's paradise. The reality is, there are many more ways to enjoy the outdoors than just hunting, and all those enthusiasts will flock to those opportunities. So whether liberal or conservative, crowding and competition is the result. In fact, if it were all conservative, with the likely result of many more hunters in the population, our hunting would be far more adversely impacted. It's bad enough all ready, with all the non-hunting folks crowding the back country more and more every year. It's also true, that more people choose to live in and around cities, and that just promotes a more liberal way of thinking. Would you rather they spread out in ranchetts all over the countryside? We can complain all we want, and pick an "easy" target to blame, especially since NO ONE is prepared to address the real problem. But that won't return us to what we would like to see as far as hunting goes. We need to educate non-hunters and use convincing arguments to support hunting, NOT continue on an us vs them path.
I think many of us have thought about relocating, but who really wants to endure winters farther north, or to unbearable summertime areas, especially as we get older?
"more people choose to live in and around cities, and that just promotes a more liberal way of thinking."
Why is that, though? I grew up in the suburbs of south Denver. At that time, the front range was still predominately conservative. Over my lifetime, the population of Colorado has quadrupled, and the front range has shifted to predominately liberal. If it's not the transplants that created that shift, then what was it?
"since NO ONE is prepared to address the real problem."
What is the "real problem", in your opinion?
Matt
Staying and trying to fix things is one option. Its a great State geographically.
I hope it works out. My plan is to be watching how it goes from a place with folks who are a lot closer to my world view, with less people in general and great hunting. Yes, the winters will be rough but life is full of trade-offs.
We have some career and kid raising to finish up here and there are certainly worse places to live. Watching it constantly change in the wrong direction is a daily irritation.
I have my hands full raising a family, keeping the bills paid, hunting and minding my own business. I will have to bow out of trying to fix Colorado.
Sadly its the future generations that will never know what magic they actually missed....
It's foolish to think you are going to save this state. I'm on the glunt plan as well. This place is only going to get worse not better. I'm sure after the wolf victory they will get bobcats and lions on the next ballot since it was shot down last winter.
Hopefully the wolf thing doesn’t happen for a long time.
I’m gonna die fighting back. Can’t just roll over and give them the state.
Fortunately I live in a republican county in the mountains.
The real problem is the liberal indoctrination in our school systems that starts in elementary and carries all the way through universities. Tends to skew concepts of right and wrong from what it was not that long ago.
Combined with an ever expanding disconnection by urban society from the basics that allow for their standard of living - farming, ranching, mining, logging, hydrocarbon production, commercial fishing, etc.
I don’t know that I can remain where I live based on the majority of the signs in yards where I live now.
Wyoming or Alaska tend to float to the top of the list...
By saying Caliorado, I meant it is way more then hunting and fishing. We just voted for family leave, everyone wants their free stuff but no one took the time to read about the cost. 24% increase to employment taxes. Electoral college gone because dems put forth false ads. WTF? Our voters either have really low IQ's, no motivation to objectively research, or mental illness.
Many parts of Utah have a similar climate, one can also summer in the north, and winter in the south. My RV is paid off.
I was looking at CPW regulations since the wolf was delisted. Wolves are classifieds as a nongame species, meaning you can't hunt or shoot them. If you shoot one, it is poaching under current regulations even though federal penalties no longer apply. Not sure what the fine is or if that is a sampson violation, but loss of hunting privilege's in 49 states is in play. It does say you can shoot them if your life is threatened, and livestock owners can shoot them if they are attacking livestock.
"Yes sir, Mr. Game Warden, that wolf was stalking me and I felt threatened, so I shot it. Any other questions?" I think most game wardens would say "good enough for me".
Matt
Yes sir, Mr. Game Warden, that wolf was stalking me and I felt threatened, so I shot it. Any other questions?" I think most game wardens would say "good enough for me".
Depends on if it8 Arnold time game warden or one of the young, hyperzealous do-gooders being produced by our university programs now. C.S.U. no longer offers a degree program in Wildlife Management. Now it's called "Conservation Biology".
Too bad, but pretty sure the conversation wouldn’t be:
Mr. Game Warden: “Good shot! Not a lot of guys could hit a running wolf at 596 yards. Good thing you got him before he got you! Have a nice day!”
Maybe in Wyoming or Idaho...
Colorado_Dave's Link
The money really isn't hard. For example, check out the Colorado 2019 Game Damage Claims report - They budgeted over $1.2Million and only spent half. That SAVINGS alone would cover 3/4 of the wolf cost estimate of $800K. Again, that is what they budgeted but DID NOT spend... the rest is easy...
CPW brings in more revenue than any two western states combined, no? They’ll have plenty of money to give to ranchers when wolves take down their livestock. Thanks CPW for looking again!
As the supply of big game dwindles, CPW will have to reduce tags and get rid of OTC, unlimited hunting. How much will they have to raise tag fees to recover the lost revenue? How much are you willing to pay?
Dave, correct, but that game damage money they spent (and didn't spend) came from hunters. So it will be hunters funding this unless the legislature kicks in money. CPW is already preparing their funding request to the legislature, because they'll need to start the studies right away.
10-20 years? This place is already Colofornia, been that way for the last 10, and it most certainly is from the transplants and the indoctrination in our schools.
In 10 more years it will be commie-rado...
"We need to educate non-hunters and use convincing arguments to support hunting, NOT continue on an us vs them path."
...... good luck with that. Have you ever met a anti-anything who ever admitted they could possibly be wrong about anything? Their narcissism does not allow for opposing thought.
States that have ballot initiatives listed below. I was thinking that since the wolf initiative passed in Colorado, other states that allow a ballot initiative to effect wildlife management, might be next in line for wolf reintroduction via a vote from the states citizens. Looking over the list there is none that might qualify for wolf reintroduction that already has wolves. So I would guess and be 99.9% correct, now that Colorado has fallen to public opinion that other species like the mt lion, bobcat, (hunting in general) and maybe others, will be on the Prowolfers (Defenders Of Wildlife, Colorado Serra Club's schedule to place before the citizens to eliminate, now that they have had a taste of glory with the wolf issue, and trapping and bear hunting in the past. Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Florida Idaho Illinois Maine Maryland (Veto referendum only) Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico (Veto referendum only) North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Utah Washington Wyoming District of Columbia
Trublu, huge difference between nonhunters and anti hunters. The vast majority are nonhunters who either approve of hunting on some level, or are totally ambivalent about what we do. It is that 70% which keeps us hunting, and can be swayed with facts. Unfortunately, there was no visible, persuasive campaign on our side against 114.
Rethink the Wolf ie, Coloradans Protecting Wildlife and Stop the Wolf Coalition, and STWPAC did everything they could with their legal power and finances and man power, to be visible and persuasive against 114. The vote was nearly 50/50 and was lost by 39,000 votes out of more than 3 million voters. If C19 had not happened, more action from both groups would have happened as well as money raise to fight against Prop 114. The CSU study showed almost 80% of Colorado Voters supported wolves but we know if they knew the facts, as happened, that 80% dropped to nearly 50%. TV ads became out of the question because of lack of funding and the cost of even a 30 sec ad.
It was a hard loss for all of us involved but hopefully in the future, the CPW will be able to develop a plan that will off set this loss. I plan on attending many of the wolf public planning meetings. my best, Paul
Paul, good points, and we appreciate your efforts. But I am curious - how much did STW spend on producing those slick four-minute videos that nobody saw? Could that money have been better spent focusing on getting the message out to voters, rather than to supporters? Honestly, the only thing I saw from STW was from you, your truck and yard signs.
One other question - why was the effort fragmented between Coloradoans Protecting Wildlife vs. STW? CPW had some serious groups as partners - RMEF, SCI, Colorado Farm Bureau, etc... Two organizations fighting the same battle, both demanding donations from the same groups and individuals , is a very inefficient way to wage a campaign. Would be really interested in learning why the two diverged rather than combining and focusing resources.
Paul, my comments and questions are in no way directed at you. You did more than your part and as far as I can see, you were the only rep of STW with a pulse. I attempted to discuss these concerns with STW leadership after you prodded one of them (not Behrens) to call me back after my repeated attempts to contact them sent unanswered.
His response was - You aren't a donor (we sent our money from Paige's account), we have a secret campaign plan so shut up and wait for it, and "You are either with us or against us". That was it. I knew right then that I wanted no part of working with this organization, or donating more money to them.
Lou, I have no info I would share on this site. We can discuss this in private some time.
I understand, but a bunch of people on Bowsite contributed to these clowns because pleas for donations were being made on the Bowsite. They are all wondering the same things. Guess we'll be more careful if these same people are involved in the campaign to keep mountain lion and bobcat hunting, likely on the ballot in 2024.
Now I feel the real issue here is, how can we as sportsmen insist that the general public help pay and cover part of the cost of reintroduction of wolves, also the general public should take part for reimbursing the loss of livestock to ranchers. Sportsmen need to be able to speak un to our wildlife commissioners and say we do not want any increase in hunting/fishing license in the future to pay unless the general public contributes also. What can be done so the general public cannot bring issues for a vote that should be left in the hands of our CPW officials, some day we might loose our right to hunt.
Why is it so secret on where all the money went? And why didnt these groups work together?
You can see general info about money coming in and spending on Colorado Tracer website. Search Committees.
I looked through STW, Coloradans Protecting Wildlife (Rethink Wolves), and RockyMountain Wolf Action Fund.
so that says stop the wolf only spent 48,000 and some change and that they still have a little over 114,000 left. Why wasn't all the money spent? What are the plans with whats left of the balance?
RD, commissioners can't raise license fees. Only the legislature can do that. The legislature can also appropriate funds to help offset the wolf forcing costs. I understand that CPW is preparing to make that request.
Is there a minimum number of wolves that have to be introduced? Also I thought if one of the exclusions in the bill was if there were already wolves here. Doesn't that pack in the northwest corner qualify?
I'm guessing the money was spent other than some left for closing up shop unless they plan to do something in the courts. The next statement will show through November. May be invoices from the last week before the election that haven't been done yet.
As for wolf numbers its not specified other than a "self sustaining population". Our one pack wouldn't meet that standard but what number does isn't set in stone. In WY, ID and MT the nation's foremost wolf biologists sold the entire plan on numbers that were suddenly too low after it was too late to stop it. Basically about 100 wolves per state or 10 breeding pairs was the plan throughout the public input process, regional meetings, etc. That would mean 300 give or take a few between WY, ID and MT. Numbers are over 2000 now.