Stop Hunting CO? Bankrupt DOW?
Colorado
I'm full of piss and vinegar these days getting ready for this ridiculous tax season so after getting one of my threads taken down in the main forum would like to pose an question. Would hunters boycotting (though I get it that this is the anti's objective so spare me the comments) Colorado for the next several years, putting extreme pressure on DOW budgets get the point across that wolves do not belong in Colorado? I also understand that this is a far stretch, but what would they do if they did not have license fees for this?
Maybe you can get enough people to follow along so I can snag a couple draw tag for less points.
Figured that would be the way folks go....
First, CPW no longer has a say on weather or not this introduction is going to happen, it was voted and made law by the people of front range LA. So boycotting CPW will only hurt CPW budget and hunting in the long run. What we need to do is put pressure on the Polis to back off trying to push the intro date up, and let the studies by CPW happen, this could be our only means of curbing/slowing the introduction.
These ideas are all highly unlikely to work. I'm doing something proactive that will make a difference. I'm verifying my drops out to 1000+ for a 143gr ELD-X and practicing my howl. Wolves getting established here is a done deal. I will be ready when the first tags happen. Cool thing is that leftys are always complaining that us deplorables don't pay attention to science. So, I'm confident that when our wolves pass whatever magic number the CPW comes up with, there won't be any issue listening to the biologists and letting the hunt begin...right?
I'm pushing for relisting. After today, I've decided to unify and support my leftist comrades.
To more directly answer your question: CPW is on record as opposing wolf reintroduction. They are being forced to because of a ballot initiative. You are blaming/ hurting the wrong people.
Smart answer Jaquomo. I see you're starting to fall in line... :)
The CPW was against it. It’s the governor and people that live in the cities of Colorado. I’d go after them if possible. But I think not hunting doesn’t help anything.
OK. I'm heading out for late season cow this weekend. Doing it just to help the CPW treasury by paying the non-resident fee. That's just the kind of guy I am. ....
You’d be putting pressure on the wrong entity, they had nothing to do with, just eastern colorado voters. I figure I’ve got ten or so good years of hunting left, I’ll not waste one of them on a futile gesture.
legislative road block would be the best slow down but getting anyone in the capitol to push against CLAW would be an accomplishment. enjoy the last few years of hunting as you know it and start looking into the best camera you can afford cause that's the only way your gonna shoot wildlife in Calirado!
Starving CPW will be a slow burn. It will end up as more of a surrender than a boycott. As wolves (and other predators) increase, hunting opportunities will decrease and the cost of paying livestock depredation will go up. At the rate we're going, I believe ranchers grazing livestock on public land won't be around much longer either.
Punish CPW for something they are against and had no control over? Why??
This issue forces the CPW to create more rules and regulations, their not at fault. Defunding the CPW plays right into the hands of the "hug a tree" agenda.
I have plenty of issues with the CPW but the antis see (or at least portray) the CPW, agriculture and hunters as a good old boys club that keeps the whole hunting industry going for profit and puts the real needs of wildlife as less important than keeping the machine running.
The reality is different but there is a kernel of truth in that. We will fair much better if we recognize that.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Please read and Send this to everyone you know. Lastly, email everyone on the list below. This is the only way to save Colorado’s wildlife for future generations.
Colorado Wildlife Needs your help:
James Tutchton was the lead attorney who sued to keep wolves on the endangered species list even though they had achieved recovery levels. He continues to support the efforts of extremist groups that do not follow scientific wildlife management conservation. Colorado's Governor, Jared Polis, appointed James Tutchton as a wildlife commissioner for CPW just before the forced wolf reintroduction was passed. HOWEVER, in order for James Tutchton to become a commissioner he must be affirmed by the Senate Ag Committee which meets in early February to make a decision to affirm him or not. Please put together a thoughtful, respectful and articulate email asking the committee NOT to confirm James Tutchton as a CPW commissioner.
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Talking points:
Doesn’t follow the science: Sued to keep wolves on the endangered species list even when they reached recovery levels set by the federal government. Promotes inaccurate science like trophic cascades which has already been proven false. Unprofessional behavior: Makes disparaging comments about hunters by comparing hunters to wolves who surplus kill. Lack of predator management knowledge: unfamiliar with mountain lion conservations for management practices which have delayed mountain lion/human conflicts in the Aspen area. Unwilling to work with ranchers: seems to not be willing to reimburse ranchers for wildlife losses. Lack of integrity: after setting the rules for wolf recovery in Yellowstone and other regions he went against the agreement and sued to keep them listed.
This article will illustrate what affect wolves will have on ranching.
https://idrange.org/range-stories/north-central-idaho/unforeseen-impacts-caused-by-wolves-in-idaho/
What I don't get is how people who do NOT pay into the system are requiring Hunters and Fisherman to pay for the introduction of wolves? If there is no budget also supplied, I don't see how the CPW has to do so and the CPW should NOT be taking funding from Hunting and Fishing license revenues for this. We definitely need a CPW commissioner with a backbone to say no until the state provides the budget for it.
Just a thought but, if you somehow bankrupted CPW, what would the current administration put in its place? I don't think that would be a good thing for hunters.
ya right. 24 elk pts and I'm not going to hunt co. get real
"Would hunters boycotting (though I get it that this is the anti's objective so spare me the comments) Colorado for the next several years, putting extreme pressure on DOW budgets get the point across that wolves do not belong in Colorado?"
CPW is required by law to develope a wolf introduction plan by the ballot initiative that passed. It's not their policy.
Your logic is the same a not shopping at a store because you are required to wear a mask inside. The store is required by law to have it's customers wear masks inside. It's not their policy.
Your idea makes no sense.
Is the mask mandate a law?
"We definitely need a CPW commissioner with a backbone to say no until the state provides the budget for it"
CPW Commission doesn't have the authority to do this under the new law. They already voted against wolf forcing, which is why this was on the ballot. The law says hunters and fishermen have to pay for wolf forcing and all the collateral damage resulting from it.
The state legislature could fix a lot of this, but they won't. And if they tried, Janet Polis would veto it to please his ARA husband. Our state is so f#*ked.
Yep. Enjoy the stuff we can while we can. We can fight but you can't bail fast enough to save a sinking boat when you have a Dixie cup and 2 other passengers are dumping water into the boat with buckets.
Constitution is the law of the land, Bill of rights is the law, Fed and State both have constitutions and bill of rights, arguing whats fair or not isn't the issue. Every law passed or proposed should be examined based on if it goes against the constitution. That's the only way to fight and win. The General Misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. the US. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid must be in agreement. it is impossible for a law which violates the constitution to be valid. " All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137,174,176,(1803).
Not one word in the Constitution or Bill of Rights about hunting.
its in the constitution, it dosen't say anything about hunting, it tells you how to not let the Gov control you and when you elect people to control you that's the over reach you get. the process is already set, manage wildlife through the ballot box. they are way ahead and know how to politically control hunting. better brush up on your constitutional studies.
IVL, I won't get into an argument with you about the Constitution (I took college-level Political Science), but your last post makes no sense, is somewhat incoherent, and is irrelevant to this thread topic. Ballot referendums as a voter tool have already survived many court challenges as to the constitutionality. Individual referendums can be challenged, and have been ruled unconstitutional. Ballot box biology of an individual species is not unconstitutional. Wildlife management is not in the Constitution either. I strongly disagree with it, but our elected officials have the power to change it and will not. If we don't like that, we can vote them out. That's how it works in a Constitutional Federal Republic.
IVL, I won't get into an argument with you about the Constitution (I took college-level Political Science), but your last post makes no sense, is somewhat incoherent, and is irrelevant to this thread topic. Ballot referendums as a voter tool have already survived many court challenges as to the constitutionality. Individual referendums can be challenged, and have been ruled unconstitutional. Ballot box biology of an individual species is not unconstitutional. Wildlife management is not in the Constitution either. I strongly disagree with it, but our elected officials have the power to change it and will not. If we don't like that, we can vote them out. That's how it works in a Constitutional Federal Republic.
You made the point, and the argument.
