Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

[Boggy B]

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?

If elk had been extinct since 1900, I'd vote no.

If, as in circa 1900 (according to the article posted above), there were an estimated 500-1,000 remaining in CO, and the ballot initiative were as then to introduce 310 dead ringers from Wyoming, I would support the bill, because: herd already being managed, species not already locally extinct, native ecosystem not fully gutted for 100 years, same elk (ish).

If it were grizzlies being reintroduced instead of wolves, would you support the bill?

If it were bison, would you support the bill? I wouldn't. Not even in retribution for the Front Range voting in the wolves. I love bison but things have changed a lot since they roamed Pearl Street.

[disentangled]

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?

[onebyone]

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?

If elk had been extinct since 1900, I'd vote no.

If, as in circa 1900 (according to the article posted above), there were an estimated 500-1,000 remaining in CO, and the ballot initiative were as then to introduce 310 dead ringers from Wyoming, I would support the bill, because: herd already being managed, species not already locally extinct, native ecosystem not fully gutted for 100 years, same elk (ish).

If it were grizzlies being reintroduced instead of wolves, would you support the bill?

If it were bison, would you support the bill? I wouldn't. Not even in retribution for the Front Range voting in the wolves. I love bison but things have changed a lot since they roamed Pearl Street.

We actually had a moose on Pearl Street a few years ago. Damn reintroduced mooses from wyoming.
Not to mention endless mountain lions and bears. We're still doing okay down here.

[cottonmountaineering]

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?

If elk had been extinct since 1900, I'd vote no.

If, as in circa 1900 (according to the article posted above), there were an estimated 500-1,000 remaining in CO, and the ballot initiative were as then to introduce 310 dead ringers from Wyoming, I would support the bill, because: herd already being managed, species not already locally extinct, native ecosystem not fully gutted for 100 years, same elk (ish).

If it were grizzlies being reintroduced instead of wolves, would you support the bill?

If it were bison, would you support the bill? I wouldn't. Not even in retribution for the Front Range voting in the wolves. I love bison but things have changed a lot since they roamed Pearl Street.

in all cases (elk, wolves, grizzly, bison) they were driven to extinction by humans. id like to bring all back but i dont think there would be enough suitable habitat for bison, i dont think bison can hop fences either, grizzlies im sure would flourish as well as wolves

[EZsummits]

Does anyone know of similar environments with the density of people living and playing in the same areas that have wolves? Lots of people live and visit Colorado, the Southwest part of our state becomes a mini Texas retreat every year. Unlike Montana or Idaho there will be many more encounters between humans and wolves. Seems like the relevant question is how will current recreation with families and pets intersect with more consistent encounters with wolves and will everyone be okay with the results. Also, the abundance of pets will make for interesting dynamics as wolfs are aggressive toward domestic dogs - probably more dogs in Colorado than Montana, Idaho and Wyoming combined.

Food habituation from humans is already an issue and wolves won't be immune to it. Are we setting the wolves up to succeed or are we saying people rarely encounter wolves in Alaska so they should be fine here

This link is to a PDF from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game regarding wolf safety.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... T8H6PjcFmz

My take away is we don't know s**t about what we're doing which normally means it will turn out well.

[9patrickmurphy]

Does anyone know of similar environments with the density of people living and playing in the same areas that have wolves? Lots of people live and visit Colorado, the Southwest part of our state becomes a mini Texas retreat every year. Unlike Montana or Idaho there will be many more encounters between humans and wolves. Seems like the relevant question is how will current recreation with families and pets intersect with more consistent encounters with wolves and will everyone be okay with the results. Also, the abundance of pets will make for interesting dynamics as wolfs are aggressive toward domestic dogs - probably more dogs in Colorado than Montana, Idaho and Wyoming combined.

My hope (however misguided it is) is that a new element of danger in the backcountry will make people less willing to visit in droves, or at the very least force people to be more educated about the places they are visiting. Both unlikely and a tall order, but that is my wish.

[LURE]

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.

[cottonmountaineering]

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 believe this is pretty much CPW's stance at the moment as well, in an ideal world wolves would migrate down in small numbers from wyoming without being killed by ranchers, the population would reach a sustainable level, and control would be handed over to the the state to manage after being removed from the endangered list

[Cygnus X1]

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).

These are statewide population per square mile numbers -
Wyoming - 6.0
Montana - 6.8
Idaho - 19.8
Colorado - 55

Habitat statistics are also quite different in Colorado vs WY, MT, and ID. The "success" (whatever that is) of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone is what is most often pointed to by those supporting the reintroduction here. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is approximately 22,000,000 acres. Looking just at YNP, GTNP, and the surrounding nearly contiguous wilderness areas, these encompass about 6,300,000 acres. In Montana, the Bob Marshall and Glacier National Park together are over 2 million acres of contiguous wilderness, and there is more on the Canadian side of the border. In Idaho the Frank Church, Gospel Hump, and surrounding roadless area is around 3,300,000 acres. In Colorado, wilderness is very fragmented. There are approximately 3.7 million acres total in 37 designated wilderness areas and 4 national parks. Colorado's largest wilderness area is the Weminuche at 492,000 acres. The largest somewhat contiguous wilderness area in CO includes the Collegiate, Hunter-Fryingpan, Holy Cross, Maroon-Snowmass, Mount Massive, Raggeds, and West Elk wilderness areas and they total about 825,000 acres.

Does all this mean wolves can't survive here? No, not at all. But it does mean that people that support reintroduction shouldn't expect that "success" would look anything like what it does in those other states.

[Cygnus X1]

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.

[SamWerner]

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]

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.