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
Cygnus X1
Posts: 187
Joined: 12/19/2016
14ers:summits25 
13ers:summits11 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by Cygnus X1 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:31 am

LURE wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:19 am
onebyone wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:41 pm

It's all in the eye of the beholder and there is a lot of propaganda pushing one view or the other. Fact is that we have a heavily managed ecosystem in Colorado, everything from the animals themselves to 4 wheelers to hikers to hunters and so on. There is no reason why wolves can't be part of our managed ecosystem. You can't say we're playing God with wolves but not with everything else.
It often comes down to self interest and what things people should take priority over other things. There really isn't a 100% right answer and it's all heavily subjective imo.
this is a good point, minus a problem:

one issue i foresee down the road is we'll never really be able to manage wolves in this state, or rather, we will, but at significant monetary cost. maybe like tens of millions of dollars in litigation?

the prime case study exists, we don't have to postulate: look at wyoming/idaho/montana. took over a decade to delist the ESA-recovered (very successfully recovered at that) wolf population due to constant suing by environmental organizations. ultimately congress had to delist the wolves

i don't like the funding mechanism of the ballot initiative, that's basically my main problem with it. i want it to come out of the general fund. if the "people" want wolves, they should pay for it. not hunters and fishermen and women.

and if people think it's already expensive as planned, just wait until the US fish and wildlife service recommends delisting the wolves in colorado as an endangered species due to their radically successful expansion, to the point where there are too many. at which point the state will want to control their population a little bit (code for kill some). this then gets met with fierce opposition from environmental groups who want use the endangered species act as a tool to prevent the management of animals. it will spend up to a decade in court or longer at the costs of many many many millions of state and federal tax dollars. all while the state continues to doll out money for dead cattle

i'm fine with wolves. but these issues are not addressed in the initiative. and perhaps cpw will navigate some things well, though there are some inevitabilities here that worry me. this all played out in montana/idaho/wyoming starting in the early 90's, and it was a disaster from that perspective. i think we can expect it to be a disaster from that perspective for us.

wildly successful from the wolves perspective however.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that the lawsuits will begin well before a wolf is even released. CWP will be sued on the plan itself because for those pushing the reintroduction, CPW's plan, whatever it is, won't be good enough. Their arguments will be the plan doesn't target enough breeding pairs, target number of packs is to low, need to release them in more locations, long range target population is too low, etc, etc, etc. History will repeat itself and millions will be spent beyond just the actual cost of trapping wolves and releasing them here.

And yes Lure, by requiring that funding for this comes out of the CPW budget (read: license fees) and not from all taxpayers, the initiative basically tells hunters, the vast majority of whom oppose the measure, to shove it up your @$$ and pay for it.
User avatar
SamWerner
Posts: 65
Joined: 12/18/2018
14ers:summits32 winter2 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by SamWerner » Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:42 am

shelly+ wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:14 pm
Dave B wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:03 pm
shelly+ wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:28 pm
i've no interest in discussing science on science's terms.
Excellent strategy, why bother defending your world view when you can simply dismiss others' as irrelevant.
quite the contrary!! i accept that you have a worldview that is different from mine. are you willing to step outside the parameters of scientific thinking to understand my point? i'm seeing the *particular* and *specific* randomness in my experience of nature (or, in my other example, the unpredictability of collateral effects in genetic engineering). you're seeing the conceptual patterns in systems. math in no way predictably tells me where the weeds will grow in my garden. you're describing human ways of understanding nature from a scientific perspective. is it possible to see nature from different perspectives? yes. human cultures have all had different ways of interpreting nature that don't rely on science. are these all invalid in your view?
Jumping in here just to say that it seems like you two are arguing different points. On a large scale, nature works in more predictable ways. We can say that winter will be colder than summer, or make fairly accurate predictions about elk activity. Within this though, there is a certain amount of pseudo-randomness; it's not truly random because we could theoretically predict it if we had information and models for everything, but to a human (or any other animal), it's as good as random. A statistical model probably won't be able to tell you where the weeds will grow in your garden, but it will be able to tell you which types of weeds can grow in your climate. Similarly, models can make predictions on what the trajectory of wolf reproduction and spread throughout Colorado would look like, but there are events that are impossible to predict. Maybe a rancher will shoot a pregnant wolf, or a tree falls on a litter of cubs. Just because science can't perfectly predict every phenomenon doesn't mean it shouldn't be used as our framework for understanding the world, upon which we can discuss where uncertainties may lie.
onebyone
Posts: 482
Joined: 7/27/2012
14ers:summits58 ski1 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by onebyone » Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:45 am

There is one thing I can assure you, if this thing passes, it will be many years before a single wolf is reintroduced in Colorado. My guess is that we will have a breeding pack here in Colorado before any wolf is actually reintroduced and this plan will be used to manage existing wolves versus reintroducing new wolves.

And that is if it even passes.

They are going to need a plan either way no too long in the future.
User avatar
LURE
Posts: 1198
Joined: 6/28/2011
14ers:summits32 
13ers:summits11 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by LURE » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:06 pm

onebyone wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:45 am
There is one thing I can assure you, if this thing passes, it will be many years before a single wolf is reintroduced in Colorado. My guess is that we will have a breeding pack here in Colorado before any wolf is actually reintroduced and this plan will be used to manage existing wolves versus reintroducing new wolves.

And that is if it even passes.

They are going to need a plan either way no too long in the future.
technically cpw has a wolf management plan already. roundtable recommendations adopted by the commission as a resolution in 2005. I think i've posted this in this thread already: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Wildl ... ations.pdf

i'm operating under the assumption that it's a foregone conclusion this thing passes - one quick glance at the demographics of colorado tells me that

i think the language of the initiative stipulates wolves on the ground by year three, no?

it'll be interesting how it develops. even if a pack is incontrovertibly established on it's own in that timeframe, i'm sure it will be up to the courts to decide how cpw can/will/should/or not proceed with reintroduction. thank god judges have wildlife degrees :roll:
onebyone
Posts: 482
Joined: 7/27/2012
14ers:summits58 ski1 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by onebyone » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:37 pm

Years in the courts.

They’ll wait until year 3 to drop even more lawsuits, delaying it even further
User avatar
stephakett
Posts: 708
Joined: 5/30/2014
14ers:summits28 
13ers:summits34 
Trip Reports (1)
Contact:

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by stephakett » Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:47 pm

LURE wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:19 am
onebyone wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:41 pm

It's all in the eye of the beholder and there is a lot of propaganda pushing one view or the other. Fact is that we have a heavily managed ecosystem in Colorado, everything from the animals themselves to 4 wheelers to hikers to hunters and so on. There is no reason why wolves can't be part of our managed ecosystem. You can't say we're playing God with wolves but not with everything else.
It often comes down to self interest and what things people should take priority over other things. There really isn't a 100% right answer and it's all heavily subjective imo.
i don't like the funding mechanism of the ballot initiative, that's basically my main problem with it. i want it to come out of the general fund. if the "people" want wolves, they should pay for it. not hunters and fishermen and women.
this was one of two reasons i personally declined the initiative. our natural resource departments are underfunded as-is. until the general public is actually willing to pay for conservation efforts we do not need to further burden strained resources.

the second reason was because the wolves are already here. let's set up the funding needed ^^ to deal with the negative repercussions of wolf/human/livestock interaction so that we are better-prepared with BOTH the resources AND the public need when they arrive.
“My father considered a walk among the mountains as the equivalent of churchgoing.” (Aldous Huxley)
User avatar
LURE
Posts: 1198
Joined: 6/28/2011
14ers:summits32 
13ers:summits11 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by LURE » Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:03 pm

stephakett wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:47 pm

this was one of two reasons i personally declined the initiative. our natural resource departments are underfunded as-is. until the general public is actually willing to pay for conservation efforts we do not need to further burden strained resources.

the second reason was because the wolves are already here. let's set up the funding needed ^^ to deal with the negative repercussions of wolf/human/livestock interaction so that we are better-prepared with BOTH the resources AND the public need when they arrive.
i wish, hope?, there are more people in this state than i am currently predicting that think critically like you do

i wish it wasnt so dogmatic and polarizing like everything is
User avatar
ClimbandMine
Posts: 384
Joined: 4/4/2007
14ers:summits57 
13ers:summits47 winter1 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by ClimbandMine » Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:15 pm

Pretty simple No from me.

Why spend money reintroducing something that is already here?

I've seen two wolves in Colorado. They are here, in the front range and NoCo.

Waste of money and a stupid ballot initiative.
I don't care that you Tele.
onebyone
Posts: 482
Joined: 7/27/2012
14ers:summits58 ski1 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by onebyone » Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:18 pm

ClimbandMine wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:15 pm
Pretty simple No from me.

Why spend money reintroducing something that is already here?

I've seen two wolves in Colorado. They are here, in the front range and NoCo.

Waste of money and a stupid ballot initiative.
Front Range, huh. #1s or get out.
User avatar
espressoself
Posts: 26
Joined: 2/17/2020
14ers:summits8 
13ers:summits4 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by espressoself » Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:54 pm

I don't want to wade too deeply into this thread, as I am not entirely sure how I feel about this measure myself (though I will say I disagree that hunters and fishers should foot the bill for this project). However, I've done some reading on this, and it seems like there is some skepticism that packs that migrate here will be able sustain and grow in numbers. Part of the issue is the legal status of wolves between Colorado (where they are protected by the Endangered Species Act), and Wyoming (where you can kill them without a permit). If they wander back north, they can be shot on sight, which may have already happened to some of the pack in Moffat County.

I don't stand firmly one way or another on this, but I think their chance at reestablishing themselves seems relatively slim.
User avatar
prairiechicken
Posts: 23
Joined: 7/29/2018
14ers:summits2 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by prairiechicken » Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:54 pm

Cygnus X1 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:10 am
These are statewide population per square mile numbers -
Wyoming - 6.0
Montana - 6.8
Idaho - 19.8
Colorado - 55
Oregon - 35.6
Arizona - 45.2
Washington - 101.2
All of these states are now home to wolf populations, and have higher population densities than the ones you mentioned.
Also, wolves and grizzlies have been able to recover in much of Europe, which has far higher population density than Colorado: https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/929104.Chapron_2014.pdf
User avatar
Cygnus X1
Posts: 187
Joined: 12/19/2016
14ers:summits25 
13ers:summits11 

Re: Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

Post by Cygnus X1 » Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:19 pm

prairiechicken wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:54 pm
Cygnus X1 wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:10 am
These are statewide population per square mile numbers -
Wyoming - 6.0
Montana - 6.8
Idaho - 19.8
Colorado - 55
Oregon - 35.6
Arizona - 45.2
Washington - 101.2
All of these states are now home to wolf populations, and have higher population densities than the ones you mentioned.
Also, wolves and grizzlies have been able to recover in much of Europe, which has far higher population density than Colorado: https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/929104.Chapron_2014.pdf
Did you read the last paragraph of my post?
Locked