Ballot for Reintroduction of Wolves

[PJ88]

Yes
1,437,207 50.2%
No
1,428,405 49.8%

Updated: 21 minutes ago
87% reporting

This is reallllyyyy close.

[nyker]

hmm, lot of close races today

[montanahiker]

YES
1,437,528
50.1%

NO
1,429,173
49.9%

Updated: 3 minutes ago
87% reporting

I wonder which precincts make up the last 13%.

[two lunches]

YES
1,437,528
50.1%

NO
1,429,173
49.9%

Updated: 3 minutes ago
87% reporting

I wonder which precincts make up the last 13%.

WOW. that is a close race.

[LURE]

quite shocked. i thought it would be a relative blow out

automatic recount territory if things don't change much, no?

[SurfNTurf]

I was expecting something in the realm of 65% for, similar to Prop 115. Definitely a shock. I've talked to a lot of "no" voters one-on-one the past few days to try to understand, and combined with the replies on this thread, unfortunately it does seem that the anti-wolf propaganda was very effective. I'm not a huge radio or cable guy, but anecdotally it felt like the anti-wolf ads (largely fueled by dark money donors from out of state) were far more prevalent than pro-wolf ads based on my limited exposure.

Several outdoorspeople I know voted against because they are afraid of encountering wolves in the wild, which is verifiably baseless. Wolves simply don't attack humans. Statistically, a cow is more likely to kill you on the trail. A cow. The other most common argument I've encountered is that "they're already here" and thus Prop 114 is a waste of money, which was pushed heavily by the anti-wolf campaign. It's also not true. The only verified pack, a small group that moved into northern Colorado only just this year, had three members shot and killed mere weeks before the election. That news of those killings wasn't covered nearly as much as when the pack was first verified, which led to a lot of unintended voter ignorance. Many people filled out their ballots assuming that pack still existed.

I read last night somewhere that an automatic recount is triggered if the final count ends up within a margin of 7-8,000 votes. The anti-wolf groups are already pushing for it, whether or not the final tally is within that range. Even if Prop 114 passed in a landslide, it was always destined to get tied up in litigation. Let the court battles begin.

Not to sound all Q-Anony here, but if you're confused by this issue or dead-set against it, I'd encourage you to read and research the topic a bit more on your own. Our understanding of wolves has changed a lot in the past 40-50 years. Many anti-wolf sentiments are rooted in stories and ideas that were proven false decades ago. Pro-wolf literature can get a little touchy-feely and anthropomorphic, but here are some good reading suggestions that at least attempt to cover the issue from multiple angles:

Of Wolves and Men by Barry Lopez (start here!)
American Wolf by Nate Blakeslee
The Rise of Wolf 8 by Rick McIntyre (verges on anthropomorphism, but it's written by a guy who's spent more hours watching wolves in the wild than anyone else alive)

[LURE]

it felt like the anti-wolf ads (largely fueled by dark money donors from out of state) were far more prevalent than pro-wolf ads based on my limited exposure.

lol

as if the pro wolf ads are from in state

the proposition itself originated with a group in DC, like anything ever does anymore

the pro and anti arguments are absurd across the board for the most part, your bias is showing hard here. which all is irrelevant because election day is pushing two days ago

[mtree]

I voted against it for one simple reason. I don't think spending oogles of money is in the best interest of anyone... other than those employed by the wolf reintroduction effort.

The wolves are already in Colorado and their population will grow on their own. That's like spending money on groceries you already have.

[montanahiker]

I'm not a huge radio or cable guy, but anecdotally it felt like the anti-wolf ads (largely fueled by dark money donors from out of state) were far more prevalent than pro-wolf ads based on my limited exposure.

According to ballotpedia.org: "The campaign supporting the initiative had raised $2.28 million in contributions. Opponents of the initiative had raised $871,110." - https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Propos ... ive_(2020)

The top funders against were the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Colorado Farm Bureau.
The top funders for the supporters were Richard Pritzlaff (AZ), Tides Center (CA), Defenders of Wildlife, Tim Ferriss (TX).

The only ad I saw against reintroduction mentioned that CPW has regularly opposed reintroducing wolves. I don't know the story there but if we're supposed to follow the "experts" on everything it sounds like they think it's a bad idea. But hey, if you can get out of state people and organizations to convince voters on the Front Range that won't be impacted by the issue (compared to the local communities) to vote yes then I guess you win.

[Cygnus X1]

I'm not a huge radio or cable guy, but anecdotally it felt like the anti-wolf ads (largely fueled by dark money donors from out of state) were far more prevalent than pro-wolf ads based on my limited exposure.

According to ballotpedia.org: "The campaign supporting the initiative had raised $2.28 million in contributions. Opponents of the initiative had raised $871,110." - https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Propos ... ive_(2020)

The top funders against were the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Colorado Farm Bureau.
The top funders for the supporters were Richard Pritzlaff (AZ), Tides Center (CA), Defenders of Wildlife, Tim Ferriss (TX).

The only ad I saw against reintroduction mentioned that CPW has regularly opposed reintroducing wolves. I don't know the story there but if we're supposed to follow the "experts" on everything it sounds like they think it's a bad idea. But hey, if you can get out of state people and organizations to convince voters on the Front Range that won't be impacted by the issue (compared to the local communities) to vote yes then I guess you win.

Here's a link to some details of the voting. Only 13 of 64 counties were in favor. Biggest factors were Denver and Boulder Counties which came in with approximately 160,000 more votes for than against.

https://results.enr.clarityelections.co ... etail/1131

[SurfNTurf]

In the interest of full transparency, my reference to dark-money donors was specifically about late-stage campaign donations. According to the RMWAF itself (a poor source, which I’m admitting), some of the October anti-wolf radio spots were the result of big anonymous donations that came in last minute, likely because they knew the vote would be so close. I don’t claim to not have bias here, but I do try to work with facts, keep my mind open to alternate viewpoints, and have respectful conversations free of emotional attacks.

In the grand scheme, yes, the pro-wolf campaign raised way more money than the anti-wolf campaign. Much of it was a grassroots effort based on small, individual contributions. The donations from the anti-wolf lobby, as mentioned on that Ballotpedia page, tended to come in lump sums from organizations.

I’ve said it a few other times in this thread already, but CPW being against it isn’t necessarily a reflection of the consensus of wildlife experts. The agriculture industry enjoys a heavy majority on the CPW state board, and CPW relies on hunters for a large amount of its revenue. Take that for what you will.

At the end of the day, it’s likely going to pass. A heavy citizen outreach and education effort is a necessary next step, and if our neighboring states to the north are any indication, the next few years are going to be very emotionally charged. Let’s try to treat each other with respect as much as possible.

[Chimera]

I voted against it for one simple reason. I don't think spending oogles of money is in the best interest of anyone... other than those employed by the wolf reintroduction effort.

The wolves are already in Colorado and their population will grow on their own. That's like spending money on groceries you already have.

Unfortunately this isn’t right. They don’t have a genetically viable population in Colorado. 1-3 wolves can’t create a population of genetically diverse, healthy wolves. And in Wyoming they can be shot on sight outside of National Park boundaries, so they are not crossing that stretch any time soon.