CO: RMEF urges opposition to initiative for introducing wolves.

[WyoDoug]

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is one of the leading supporters of keeping public lands in public hands, the strongest voice for the enhancement of habitat to support elk among many other big game species.

Benefits vs loss. To each his / her own.

RMEF Warns of Colorado Wolf Reintroduction Ballot Initiative
MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is signaling a warning about an organized ballot initiative effort just underway in Colorado seeking to forcibly introduce gray wolves into the state.

“To be clear, RMEF strongly opposes the forced introduction of gray wolves to Colorado,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “We have witnessed 20 plus years of lies and litigation in the Northern Rockies concerning wolves. This Colorado effort is driven by the same groups using the same tactics to accomplish their agenda.”

RMEF Warns of Colorado Wolf Reintroduction Ballot Initiative

April 16, 2019 RMEF Warns of Colorado Wolf Reintroduction Ballot Initiative MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is signaling a warning about an organized ballot [...]

www.rmef.org

I oppose wolf reintroduction as someone who grew up on a farm and hunted since I was 16.

As well intended as the efforts may be, messing with Mother Nature produces unexpected results. Wolves also engage in a lot of recreational killing of both livestock and wild animals. They also are forced to adapt to diets they are not used to.

 

[Kbbond]

I’m still curious how such an initiative would work. Colorado can’t just buy wolves and let them go. Glad RMEF is opposed and hope it doesn’t pass.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife opposes the introduction of wolves to Colorado. However, wolves fall under federal regulation. Therefore, if enough people vote on the matter, the federal government (USFWS) would be releasing wolves into the state.

 

[Pelican]

Colorado Parks and Wildlife opposes the introduction of wolves to Colorado. However, wolves fall under federal regulation. Therefore, if enough people vote on the matter, the federal government (USFWS) would be releasing wolves into the state.

State ballot initiatives have no authority to make the federal government do anything. Supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution = federal law is the law of the land.

 

[Kbbond]

State ballot initiatives have no authority to make the federal government do anything. Supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution = federal law is the law of the land.

States and organizations can petition to have the federal government introduce wolves under the ESA.

 

[Oak]

Colorado Parks and Wildlife opposes the introduction of wolves to Colorado. However, wolves fall under federal regulation. Therefore, if enough people vote on the matter, the federal government (USFWS) would be releasing wolves into the state.

State ballot initiatives have no authority to make the federal government do anything. Supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution = federal law is the law of the land.

The governor appoints the Parks and Wildlife Commission, which is the body that makes decisions on behalf of CPW. So while the CPW staff might not be supportive of reintroduction, the Governor may feel compelled to act on such if a ballot measure supporting reintroduction passed. The makeup of the Commission is different than it was in the past when they voted to oppose reintroduction.

 

[BrokenArrow]

It won't in my opinion. It's a donation tactic that works, and is working on the opposition side as well. I'm stunned at how easily people are separated from their money.

Well said. Living in a sleepy SW Colorado college town, I got to hear many people jumping on the re-introduction wagon when it was the hot seat in other states. Now that it's being talked about in CO, it's a whole new level around here. Example: A $5 donation to wolves is nothing to someone who drinks from the party keg along with all the other intoxicated. Especially if you have nothing to lose. It's something to brag about at the party.
Basically when I hear this rhetoric, I mention "simple things" like Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson Acts (decades of funded and coordinated conservation) and the very popular Domestic/Wild sheep interface debate that we currently have fired up down here and most of the re-introduction folks change their tune pretty quickly. Or at least they stop to consider the outcome. Why work so hard to save wild sheep when simultaneously re-introducing wolves will severely cripple all the other locally established species? Sheep might keep the wolves out! It's encouraging to see folks think about it who are still on the fence.

Is there a group that can launch a campaign stating - "Save our elk! (from re-introduced wolves!)". Is that BHA? Or RMEF with enough data from Mr. Fin (thanks for all your hard work, btw)? Who carries that torch, because it seems time is running out quickly to catch folks before they make a decision and separate from their money^^^? I'm happy to help wherever I can

What is the main argument for re-introduction? Help me understand what their main argument is in CO? Is there a podcast for that?
This article states that the Ecosystem Regeneration theory has not been proven true: http://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_8fed2e5a-66c6-11e9-8fa8-3383cbd97ef4.html
The big argument for me based on that article is re-introduicng wolves in CO to try and "eventually" back up more inconclusive data from the yellowstone study is not worth the the price of losing the Mexican Grey Wolf to our south, or crippling our statewide/local game species.

 

[375H&H]

Also worth noting, Jim Heffelfinger mentioned on one of Randy’s podcasts that CO wolf introduction could/would ruin Mexican gray wolf recovery efforts in Arizona as their population spreads.

Jim also believes in the “Canadian super wolf” theory...

 

[Sytes]

RMEF released yesterday.

https://elknetwork.com/effort-begins-to-forcibly-place-wolves-into-colorado/

All I hear are Steamroller Blues... Feel for you guys & gals.
Naive city folk donning their cool, hip Patagonia clothing to fit the concrete jungle "outdoors", slurping up their propaganda and $$$ funded efforts to relocate wolves into the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Buy their clothes, put your $ into their efforts.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

QUOTE: "Initiative 79 would place wolves on the ground in western Colorado by December 31, 2023. Extreme environmentalist groups behind I-79 foresee a wolf population of at least 1,000 and are firmly against hunting and trapping. Translation: they want a wolf population that is unmanaged and will have a tangible and yet drastic impact on elk, moose and mule deer populations as well as the outdoor industry that spends more than $3.5 billion annually in Colorado."

Only 1,000? Seems low!

 

[Krs1219]

Would the delisting of wolves stop this "recovery/ reintroduction"?

 

[bushman13]

Might as well call a spade a spade. They are anti hunting and for every wolf running around, there are exponentially less hunters needed for game management.

Well said. Living in a sleepy SW Colorado college town, I got to hear many people jumping on the re-introduction wagon when it was the hot seat in other states. Now that it's being talked about in CO, it's a whole new level around here. Example: A $5 donation to wolves is nothing to someone who drinks from the party keg along with all the other intoxicated. Especially if you have nothing to lose. It's something to brag about at the party.
Basically when I hear this rhetoric, I mention "simple things" like Pittman-Robertson/Dingell-Johnson Acts (decades of funded and coordinated conservation) and the very popular Domestic/Wild sheep interface debate that we currently have fired up down here and most of the re-introduction folks change their tune pretty quickly. Or at least they stop to consider the outcome. Why work so hard to save wild sheep when simultaneously re-introducing wolves will severely cripple all the other locally established species? Sheep might keep the wolves out! It's encouraging to see folks think about it who are still on the fence.

Is there a group that can launch a campaign stating - "Save our elk! (from re-introduced wolves!)". Is that BHA? Or RMEF with enough data from Mr. Fin (thanks for all your hard work, btw)? Who carries that torch, because it seems time is running out quickly to catch folks before they make a decision and separate from their money^^^? I'm happy to help wherever I can

What is the main argument for re-introduction? Help me understand what their main argument is in CO? Is there a podcast for that?
This article states that the Ecosystem Regeneration theory has not been proven true: http://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_8fed2e5a-66c6-11e9-8fa8-3383cbd97ef4.html
The big argument for me based on that article is re-introduicng wolves in CO to try and "eventually" back up more inconclusive data from the yellowstone study is not worth the the price of losing the Mexican Grey Wolf to our south, or crippling our statewide/local game species.

 

[pojoaque40]

Let's make a deal. For every wolf that gets imported, a Californian gets exported.

 

[TheJason]

Would the delisting of wolves stop this "recovery/ reintroduction"?

I don't know how or why it would. An EIS is still likely required, regardless of whether they are still federally listed or not.