Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

[teamdonkey]

i dont think many of us agree about the way government agencies allocate funds, im just saying this is a drop in the bucket from a budget standpoint. it's my view (as a hunter) that introducing wolves will indeed reduce the amount of big game, but it's probably necessary to reduce the amount of disease in big game populations/prevent overgrazing and will benefit us in the long run. Without predators elk will also just stagnate on land that they feel safe on https://www.bouldercounty.org/open-spac ... -elk-herd/

Fair enough, but it's the long run that concerns me most. Reason suggests that these creatures will not behave the same in Colorado as they do in the environment from which they'll be transplanted. Notable among many obvious differences is the fact that we don't have big, aggressive bears with which they're accustomed to contending for prey. How will the lack of other big predators, less diverse prey resources, and proximity to humans change their behavior? Our bears have grown soft from many years of free meals campside. How will the sudden presence of such a predator affect their temperament (if not their population)?

We have the opportunity to vote against playing God in yet another way that is likely to bite us in the ass (no pun) down the road. Unfortunately since most of our voters prefer to look at the mountains from afar, this measure will pass. I just hope these fears are unfounded, or that implementation is a short-lived disaster, so that we don't pass the burden of yet another great stupidity on to future generations.

I guess I see the risk of things going tits-up as pretty low. Or more accurately, the risk of big long-term consequences is low. If it turns out wolves in Colorado was a really bad idea (which is possible! who knows), just kill them off again. Sounds like there's no shortage of people willing to help out.

[Barnold41]

if the bill passes, it might deter ranchers from killing wolves in fear of legal repercussions, having a livestock reimbursement plan in place would help things

I disagree. Have you met ranchers out here? They are generally willing to shoot anything that messes with their money. Especially on remote parts of their land.

did you read the first half of my reply?

Yes, and I still don't think it will deter them from protecting their property, regardless.

As stated above, we need to stop playing "god" and focus on things that will actually help restore our environment, not reintroduce animals to see what happens.

[prairiechicken]

As stated above, we need to stop playing "god" and focus on things that will actually help restore our environment, not reintroduce animals to see what happens.

Eliminating the wolf was "playing god." It's our job to fix it.

What we really should do to protect our environment is close all national forests between June and November to prevent wildfires.

[Ptglhs]

As stated above, we need to stop playing "god" and focus on things that will actually help restore our environment, not reintroduce animals to see what happens.

Genetically engineering a virus that is as lethal as MERS and as infectious as measles would be a good start. Ditto no one eating meat they didn't kill themselves, using hot water, or a clothes dryer. No heating homes above 60 or cooling them below 90. Living within 2 miles of work and rationing fuel would help.

Since none of that will happen... Let's bring wolves back and let them play in the forest for a while. before it burns to the ground.

[Barnold41]

As stated above, we need to stop playing "god" and focus on things that will actually help restore our environment, not reintroduce animals to see what happens.

Eliminating the wolf was "playing god." It's our job to fix it.

What we really should do to protect our environment is close all national forests between June and November to prevent wildfires.

I don't disagree that eliminating them was playing god, but trying to reintroduce is still playing god as well. This is humanity's biggest flaw, with everything. We think we have some sort of special importance in the universe, some given right if you will, to try to control things around us because we think we are different from other living things. Nature doesn't resort to the same ideology of control, nor does it include some sort of self-importance or reasoning behind doing what it does. It just does what it does without proclaiming it as something greater than itself.

[highpilgrim]

It just does what it does without proclaiming it as something greater than itself.

That's a good strategy: mindless acceptance of eliminating species and screwing the planet without concern is the natural way. Am I misreading you on that?

You blinded me with your science.

[Dan_Suitor]

...Without predators elk will also just stagnate on land that they feel safe on https://www.bouldercounty.org/open-spac ... -elk-herd/

I'm actually for wolves in Colorado, I'm just don't think they are going about it the right way. A lot of emphasis is on balancing the echo system. You referred to elk management in Boulder. Other areas where elk herds are not in-check are Rocky Mountain National Park, Evergreen, and numerous front rage communities. However, this bill will only introduce wolves west of the Continental Divide. If they really want a balance they should be introduced where they are needed most. I can only assume they chose west of the divide so that they can get the NIMBY vote from people who live in the front range.

[disentangled]

I don't disagree that eliminating them was playing god, but trying to reintroduce is still playing god as well. This is humanity's biggest flaw, with everything. We think we have some sort of special importance in the universe, some given right if you will, to try to control things around us because we think we are different from other living things. Nature doesn't resort to the same ideology of control, nor does it include some sort of self-importance or reasoning behind doing what it does. It just does what it does without proclaiming it as something greater than itself.

and the key is that nature does what it does *randomly*....with no trajectory or linearity. humans fail to understand this crucial aspect of nature. it's why our attempts to manipulate the environment will most always fail.

[cottonmountaineering]

...Without predators elk will also just stagnate on land that they feel safe on https://www.bouldercounty.org/open-spac ... -elk-herd/

I'm actually for wolves in Colorado, I'm just don't think they are going about it the right way. A lot of emphasis is on balancing the echo system. You referred to elk management in Boulder. Other areas where elk herds are not in-check are Rocky Mountain National Park, Evergreen, and numerous front rage communities. However, this bill will only introduce wolves west of the Continental Divide. If they really want a balance they should be introduced where they are needed most. I can only assume they chose west of the divide so that they can get the NIMBY vote from people who live in the front range.

Wolves were pretty much gone in the entire lower 48, the packs spread after reintroduction, they will not just stay west of the divide
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es ... re%202.jpg

[Boggy B]

I guess I see the risk of things going tits-up as pretty low. Or more accurately, the risk of big long-term consequences is low. If it turns out wolves in Colorado was a really bad idea (which is possible! who knows), just kill them off again. Sounds like there's no shortage of people willing to help out.

Does human meddling in nature go tits-up:
A) Never
B) Rarely
C) Sometimes
D) Often
E) Always

By the time it has turned out wolves in Colorado was a really bad idea, relocating them will be damage control and will neither undo whatever harm caused us to pull the plug nor unspend our money.
Conversely, it's possible this is a good idea that will do wonders for our ecosystem (more resilient, healthier game herds sounds great), but given our track record of ecological underperformance I'm dubious on the likely outcome.

[cottonmountaineering]

I guess I see the risk of things going tits-up as pretty low. Or more accurately, the risk of big long-term consequences is low. If it turns out wolves in Colorado was a really bad idea (which is possible! who knows), just kill them off again. Sounds like there's no shortage of people willing to help out.

Does human meddling in nature go tits-up:
A) Never
B) Rarely
C) Sometimes
D) Often
E) Always

By the time it has turned out wolves in Colorado was a really bad idea, relocating them will be damage control and will neither undo whatever harm caused us to pull the plug nor unspend our money.
Conversely, it's possible this is a good idea that will do wonders for our ecosystem (more resilient, healthier game herds sounds great), but given our track record of ecological underperformance I'm dubious on the likely outcome.

what has happened in wyoming, montana, idaho is that wolves have been taken off the endangered species list after successful re-establishment, hunters are then used to manage wolf populations

[prairiechicken]

I guess I see the risk of things going tits-up as pretty low. Or more accurately, the risk of big long-term consequences is low. If it turns out wolves in Colorado was a really bad idea (which is possible! who knows), just kill them off again. Sounds like there's no shortage of people willing to help out.

Does human meddling in nature go tits-up:
A) Never
B) Rarely
C) Sometimes
D) Often
E) Always

By the time it has turned out wolves in Colorado was a really bad idea, relocating them will be damage control and will neither undo whatever harm caused us to pull the plug nor unspend our money.
Conversely, it's possible this is a good idea that will do wonders for our ecosystem (more resilient, healthier game herds sounds great), but given our track record of ecological underperformance I'm dubious on the likely outcome.

I can't see what harm would come from this other than a small amount of livestock fatalities.
On the other hand, harm was done by removing them.
When loggers plant trees after a clear-cut, no one gets mad at them for "meddling in nature." The same goes for when native cutthroat trout are reintroduced to a stream. People only bring up this argument because there is some other reason they don't want this to happen.