Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
Please do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website. For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Locked

Should wolves be reintroduced into the mountains in Colorado?

Yes
128
51%
No
101
41%
Undecided
20
8%
 
Total votes: 249
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 428
Joined: 10/15/2009
14ers:summits58 winter7 
13ers:summits767 winter100 
Trip Reports (38)

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by Boggy B » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:17 pm

teamdonkey wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:03 am
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.
User avatar
cottonmountaineering
Posts: 449
Joined: 5/11/2018
14ers:summits58 ski6 winter18 
13ers:summits156 ski18 winter24 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by cottonmountaineering » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:21 pm

Boggy B wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:17 pm
teamdonkey wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:03 am
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
User avatar
prairiechicken
Posts: 23
Joined: 7/29/2018
14ers:summits2 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by prairiechicken » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:25 pm

Boggy B wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:17 pm
teamdonkey wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:03 am
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.
User avatar
SurfNTurf
Posts: 1871
Joined: 8/20/2009
14ers:summits58 winter26 
13ers:summits109 winter9 
Trip Reports (47)
Contact:

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by SurfNTurf » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:27 pm

cottonmountaineering wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:21 pm
Boggy B wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:17 pm
teamdonkey wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:03 am
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
Not that it's a 1:1 comparison, but yeah, we have plenty of recent case studies from other regions that prove wolf reintroduction is possible without "going tits up."
“There are two kinds of climbers: those who climb because their heart sings when they’re in the mountains, and all the rest.” - Alex Lowe

"There have been joys too great to describe in words, and there have been griefs upon which I cannot dare to dwell; and with those in mind I say, 'Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste, look well to each step, and from the beginning think what may be the end.'" - Edward Whymper
User avatar
Boggy B
Posts: 428
Joined: 10/15/2009
14ers:summits58 winter7 
13ers:summits767 winter100 
Trip Reports (38)

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by Boggy B » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:02 pm

prairiechicken wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:25 pm
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.
My ulterior motive for expressing these thoughts is to not waste precious public dollars.
My secondary motive is to not cause unknown harm to existing ecosystems. I don't hunt, so I'm not familiar with that whole chunk of the debate beyond what has been said recently here.
My tertiary motive is to not see your children and pets (I have neither) eaten by wolves in the summer when it's not possible for them to be further than 10 or 12 miles from a human, much less a road. I don't farm, so I'm not familiar with that part of the debate either, though I can see why ranchers would not be stoked and I certainly don't think public money should be used to subsidize wolves' diets.

The examples of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are similar to each other and different from Colorado in ways that should be considered strongly relevant to this issue, particularly in terms of human population density (and probably the size and diversity of existing prey and predator herds--that's an educated guess).
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 1867
Joined: 6/14/2010
14ers: List not added
Trip Reports (9)

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by Dave B » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:16 pm

shelly+ wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:48 am
Barnold41 wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:31 am

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.
Agree that attempts to manipulate the environment typically fail.

Disagree that nature works in entirely stochastic ways. All natural science fields rely on either statistical correlations - linear or not - or process-based models that represent the underlying physics in a structured way. Randomness contributes to, but does not drive, processes and often times what we consider "random" is due to poor understanding of underlying driving factors, or an inability to measure them.
Imcp
Posts: 41
Joined: 9/4/2012
14ers:summits30 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by Imcp » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:21 pm

I don't have a strong opinion about this but I voted yes on it because it includes reimbursement for lost livestock and requires Colorado Parks and Wildlife to make a plan for wolf-prey conservation. Neither of those things will happen in a "wolves reintroduce themselves" situation. CPW doesn't want to touch the wolf issue which means no conservation plan for the wolf-prey ecosystem until it has become a big problem. And ranchers will have a lot of incentive to be killing "coyotes" if they aren't getting reimbursed. Polls were showing roughly 75% support for the bill with minimal change based on location and population density according to ballotpedia.org
User avatar
cottonmountaineering
Posts: 449
Joined: 5/11/2018
14ers:summits58 ski6 winter18 
13ers:summits156 ski18 winter24 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by cottonmountaineering » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:00 pm

A question to the people voting no

Elk were near extinct in Colorado in the early 1900s, and were reintroduced from Wyoming. If it were elk being reintroduced instead of wolves on the ballot, would you support the bill? Why?
User avatar
shelly+
Posts: 313
Joined: 6/15/2018
14ers:summits23 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by shelly+ » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:04 pm

Dave B wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:16 pm
All natural science fields rely on either statistical correlations - linear or not - or process-based models that represent the underlying physics in a structured way. Randomness contributes to, but does not drive, processes and often times what we consider "random" is due to poor understanding of underlying driving factors, or an inability to measure them.
yes, but that's exactly the point. the natural sciences are human frameworks for understanding nature. they're models which describe and predict patterns, but they are not absolutes. science has a way to describe plant reproduction as a general system, for example. however, if i have a plant in my yard which flowers and goes to seed, it's totally random where the seed will fall or where it will be blown by the wind; random whether a bird will eat it before it germinates; random whether enough water will make the seed germinate; random whether it will thrive and reproduce. one plant under the same conditions as another will often fail for no discernible reason. you could say that the process of plant reproduction is not random and, instead, it's the other factors which are random (rain, wind, soil, birds). but that's human error to see one aspect of nature as divorced from all the others. the problem of randomness plagues the GMO food industry because the collateral effects of engineering plants turns out to have unpredictable effects elsewhere. anyway... i take your point about science and agree that you've described "science" but not "nature".
User avatar
XterraRob
Posts: 795
Joined: 7/20/2015
14ers:summits41 winter7 
13ers:summits12 winter1 
Trip Reports (4)

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by XterraRob » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:17 pm

There should be no compensation for ranchers who lose livestock to natural predators. Either watch your herd, have someone else watch it, or submit to nature.

Bring back Wolves, & Brown Bears!
Restore the Balance: Re-introduce Grizzly Bears into Colorado
RIP - M56
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 1867
Joined: 6/14/2010
14ers: List not added
Trip Reports (9)

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by Dave B » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:39 pm

shelly+ wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:04 pm
Dave B wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:16 pm
All natural science fields rely on either statistical correlations - linear or not - or process-based models that represent the underlying physics in a structured way. Randomness contributes to, but does not drive, processes and often times what we consider "random" is due to poor understanding of underlying driving factors, or an inability to measure them.
yes, but that's exactly the point. the natural sciences are human frameworks for understanding nature. they're models which describe and predict patterns, but they are not absolutes. science has a way to describe plant reproduction as a general system, for example. however, if i have a plant in my yard which flowers and goes to seed, it's totally random where the seed will fall or where it will be blown by the wind; random whether a bird will eat it before it germinates; random whether enough water will make the seed germinate; random whether it will thrive and reproduce. one plant under the same conditions as another will often fail for no discernible reason. you could say that the process of plant reproduction is not random and, instead, it's the other factors which are random (rain, wind, soil, birds). but that's human error to see one aspect of nature as divorced from all the others. the problem of randomness plagues the GMO food industry because the collateral effects of engineering plants turns out to have unpredictable effects elsewhere. anyway... i take your point about science and agree that you've described "science" but not "nature".
But none of those examples are random. Nature, whether big "N" nature or scientific nature behaves in predictable patterns. Some patterns are difficult to measure or determine, but that does not make them random.

If rainfall was random it would be plausible for your neighbor to have 100" of precipitation per year while you only get 20". It would be equally as likely for your neighbor to have soils or bird species more similar to Panama than similar to your back yard. But we all know that's not the case.

If randomness really drove all processes the earth surface would be an inconsistent patch work of random collections of climate and biological drivers with arbitrary boundaries and no discernable patterns; you'd have desert next to rainforest, next to subalpine, next to prairie. We know that's not the case. Patterns exist and can be summarized using math which makes it, by definition, not random.
User avatar
shelly+
Posts: 313
Joined: 6/15/2018
14ers:summits23 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by shelly+ » Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:28 pm

Dave B wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:39 pm

If rainfall was random it would be plausible for your neighbor to have 100" of precipitation per year while you only get 20".
if you live in albuquerque, this isn't implausible. sometimes it rains on my block and doesn't rain at all on the next block over. just saying.

yours is the perspective of a scientist. mine is not. i've no interest in discussing science on science's terms. that's not to say i reject science. my point is simply that humans organize the unpredictability of nature to fit their own values and beliefs, whether these are determined by science or otherwise.
Last edited by shelly+ on Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked