The simpson-Tester delisting rider was to reissue the 2009 delisting rule that carved Wyoming out, and put a prohibition on judicial intervention. It was a dangerous gambit that worked well, because of the inability to remove a recovered species from areas that lived up to the obligations and requirements of the ESA to produce plans that would result in the continued propagation of the species. If Wyoming hadn't wasted a dozen years going down the road they did, we would have had wolves delisted in 2004 or 5, with a final delisting (post-litigation, etc), by 2007, IMO.
Colorado wolves
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
The simpson-Tester delisting rider was to reissue the 2009 delisting rule that carved Wyoming out, and put a prohibition on judicial intervention. It was a dangerous gambit that worked well, because of the inability to remove a recovered species from areas that lived up to the obligations and requirements of the ESA to produce plans that would result in the continued propagation of the species. If Wyoming hadn't wasted a dozen years going down the road they did, we would have had wolves delisted in 2004 or 5, with a final delisting (post-litigation, etc), by 2007, IMO.
Mudranger1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,892
So news reports today say it is officially qualified for the general election ballot 2020
WapitiBob
Well-known member
Great; another flurry of wolf pics on Facebook, followed by mass emails asking to “join the fight”.
Cerebral Stalker
Active member
I say the majority of the wolves be placed where the highest density of pro-reintroduction voters lie. You want 'um so bad, you get 'um. I see this reintroduction thing as an anti-hunter move all the way.
Prime example of City folk controlling an area they enjoy skiing one season out of the year and, well... Those photos of cute cuddling pooches.
Then again, see if you can get Randy to place billboards telling them they're in the Titanic and they see the damn iceberg dead ahead...
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think that's a bit hyperbolic, we often forget how much more engaged we are with the topic of wildlife management than your average citizen.
I was born and raised on the western slope, my family didn't hunt. If I hadn't found hunting as an adult I would have likely been a staunch supporter of reintroduction. On a macro scale having a full suite of predators makes a lot of sense. I think any intelligent person will a decent background in biology and environmental science would be right to think it's a great idea. The problem, as we all know, is how difficult it is to manage that predator prey interaction. Most folks, even the one's who spend and incredible amount of time in the woods, don't understand integral hunting and our dollars are to wildlife management, they don't understand that it's a house of cards. I've found that a simple break down of how things are funded, why they can't be funded differently, and providing a basic framework of how hunting in NA works, i.e. there are rules (season, limits, tags, what sex you can shoot, etc) demonstrates the complexity of the problem and that reintroduction must be approached carefully.
Pretty much everyone has watched that Yellowstone wolf youtube at this point. I don't care who you are, you're not as compelling as that video and you're not going to refute it, but you can explain that there were ~18,000 elk in Yellowstone prior to wolves ~5,000-10,000 now and that Rocky Mountain only has 600-800, that the Rocky herd has been below or at objective for a decade. GSNP has more elk, but those are hunted. You can explain there just isn't a Yellowstone in CO, there is no giant area, that you can't hunt, with a massive herd of elk "going unchecked and destroying the environment". Our biggest herd is the flat tops 35,000 hunters kill 7,000 elk there every year. Wolves will be a destabilizing factor, injected into a stable well managed landscape.
Much to my dismay, most of the arguments presented by our side are either stupid, or woefully weak. Wolves are gonna kill your pets... well my pets and I have lived with bears, lions, coyotes, etc in a rural area for 20+ years and never had an issue
. Wolves are gonna kill livestock... well ranchers get compensation, lots of things kill livestock, domestic (feral?) dogs, kill a lot of livestock. These are the most common arguments articulated against wolves and honestly the just don't pass most people's give a shit test, even in rural areas.I get that you can't put wildlife management on a billboard, but I've never had a conversation go well where I insulted a persons intelligence. An overarching theme seems to be that the hunting community does a terrible job at PR, honestly the facts are on our side 90%+ of the time, we just need to truthfully present them and let folks make up their own minds.
I think Stars in the Sky is the gold standard in this conversation, (if only it hadn't been buried on that asinine viewer, can we start a go fund me or something to put it on youtube? Even if I want to share it with folks it's near impossible).
Randy's films are also phenomenal and the only reason I put them slightly below Stars in the Sky is that they don't provide the full introduction to hunting.
Rain Deer
Selfless
Uncommon Ground
Last edited by a moderator:
T
tjones
Guest
Much to my dismay, most of the arguments presented by our side are either stupid, or woefully weak. Wolves are gonna kill your pets... well my pets and I have lived with bears, lions, coyotes, etc in a rural area for 20+ years and never had an issue
Add in the Lobo Watch rhetoric kids are gonna get kilt and elk will be wiped out and ya that side (not my side) looks real silly. Continuing to beat this drum in the face of the non hunter (not the anti) which make up the majority of the total population does not help the hunter.
Last edited by a moderator:
marksjeep
Well-known member
@wllm1313 Agree largely with your content however, the landmine not viewed in the market parking lot are the incredible battles it took for MT, ID, and WY to finally manage wolves.
While it says CPW will manage, it details FWS ESA and would define as "non game wildlife".
Hyperbolic content comes from those who held the clipboards outside X supermarket location / and their parent websites... They have a target audience and Denver, Aurora, Boulder, Lakewood, Thornton, and of course, Lafayette... etc and ripe with low hanging signatures.
To share the speech for selling this ballot;
Too many elk? Seems current objectives are within the 10% threshold, based on CPW. Though bet Dink, Oak, yourself, etc could shed objective light for the over populated elk challenges faced. Maybe they should stage wolves on private property to push elk out... #inserthumorforbanter.
I bet on this forum there are a few who, for sake of argument, would agree / financially support a few of these force reintroduction wolf organizations.
While you may find Randy and (or) Jim Heffelfinger content exaggerated (hyperbolic), I disagree. Randy's use of the Titanic headed towards an iceberg analogy was just that. Hyperbole? I can see your perspective though we disagree.
Forget the, "stupid" antics... There are Toby Bridge and Jay Mallonee knuckleheads in any debate. It's their soapbox playground. Hunt talk members posting their crap is a diversion rouse used by the extremes here and elsewhere. (Edit added: and, I should add, for the humor they offer
)
The Center For Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Wolf Justice, Rocky Mountain Wolf Project... etc, etc are focused on this forced re-introduction as a massive spanse of YNP-like Federal protections for the grey wolves.
The fight ID, MT, and WY struggled through is simply not worth it. Let them naturally route.
While it says CPW will manage, it details FWS ESA and would define as "non game wildlife".
Hyperbolic content comes from those who held the clipboards outside X supermarket location / and their parent websites... They have a target audience and Denver, Aurora, Boulder, Lakewood, Thornton, and of course, Lafayette... etc and ripe with low hanging signatures.
To share the speech for selling this ballot;
Too many elk? Seems current objectives are within the 10% threshold, based on CPW. Though bet Dink, Oak, yourself, etc could shed objective light for the over populated elk challenges faced. Maybe they should stage wolves on private property to push elk out... #inserthumorforbanter.
I bet on this forum there are a few who, for sake of argument, would agree / financially support a few of these force reintroduction wolf organizations.
While you may find Randy and (or) Jim Heffelfinger content exaggerated (hyperbolic), I disagree. Randy's use of the Titanic headed towards an iceberg analogy was just that. Hyperbole? I can see your perspective though we disagree.
Forget the, "stupid" antics... There are Toby Bridge and Jay Mallonee knuckleheads in any debate. It's their soapbox playground. Hunt talk members posting their crap is a diversion rouse used by the extremes here and elsewhere. (Edit added: and, I should add, for the humor they offer
)The Center For Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Wolf Justice, Rocky Mountain Wolf Project... etc, etc are focused on this forced re-introduction as a massive spanse of YNP-like Federal protections for the grey wolves.
The fight ID, MT, and WY struggled through is simply not worth it. Let them naturally route.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@Sytes I agree the rhetoric that those groups that pushing the measure are using is factually incorrect.
Wolves won't have any net effect on CWD, populations already within objectives (below in most of the SW... hence the predator removal study), reintroduction will be paid for by the department, payments on lost livestock will come from the department, and CPW will have their budget impacted by the reduction in herds due to wolf depredation.
All leading to the fact that, since wolves are here, we should let nature run it's course, move slowly and allow CPW the time it needs to adjust to a new variable in the equation.
A lot of the orgs that the individuals you mentioned work with haven't made public statements on the issue. Perhaps a measured, factual response could be...
"There is strong evidence wolves have entered the state of Colorado from Wyoming. These individuals and or packs have been found in units 201 and 2. Given these wolves proximity to DAU 2 and DAU 6, large management units with over-objective herds, and two of the units that would most likely be the sites of any introduction effort, it is our believe and reintroduction is not warranted and that wolves should be allowed to naturally expand their range."
DAU-6 Objective
DAU-1 Objective
DAU -2 Objective
Wolves won't have any net effect on CWD, populations already within objectives (below in most of the SW... hence the predator removal study), reintroduction will be paid for by the department, payments on lost livestock will come from the department, and CPW will have their budget impacted by the reduction in herds due to wolf depredation.
All leading to the fact that, since wolves are here, we should let nature run it's course, move slowly and allow CPW the time it needs to adjust to a new variable in the equation.
A lot of the orgs that the individuals you mentioned work with haven't made public statements on the issue. Perhaps a measured, factual response could be...
"There is strong evidence wolves have entered the state of Colorado from Wyoming. These individuals and or packs have been found in units 201 and 2. Given these wolves proximity to DAU 2 and DAU 6, large management units with over-objective herds, and two of the units that would most likely be the sites of any introduction effort, it is our believe and reintroduction is not warranted and that wolves should be allowed to naturally expand their range."
DAU-6 Objective
DAU-1 Objective
DAU -2 Objective
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...
cpw.state.co.us
OverlordBear
Well-known member
Probably in flat top or west elk wilderness with at least one pack in Rocky Mountain national park
T
tjones
Guest
Wyoming is as much to blame for holding up the delisting in MT and ID as the folks abusing the ESA with lawsuits.
Wyoming IS the reason for the delayed delisting. They gave the anti-hunting groups everything they could have asked for in a state plan.
WY was reactionary. Anti-ESA organization activists held hostage with far greater $$$ loss and time to ID and MT than WY ever created. They created a crap fight that we were able to part from though to suggest they were greater is... We'll, I disagree. 
Life of forums.
Wait til CO has to fight (hopefully it's a vote NO though I doubt it) for State control managing wolves. ID, MT, and WY do not hold city populations to compare with CO. Will be a far greater challenge especially for the Senators reelection. MT, ID, and WY far different.
Heck, going back to the Center for Biological Diversity statement about Tester, in CO... That would be much more powerful!
“With Democrats like Tester, who needs Republicans?” asked Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Jon Tester’s job creation agenda is concerned with only one job — his own. With the help of the White House and Senate leader Harry Reid, he has sacrificed wolves and the Endangered Species Act to cynical, self-interested politics.”
Life of forums.
Wait til CO has to fight (hopefully it's a vote NO though I doubt it) for State control managing wolves. ID, MT, and WY do not hold city populations to compare with CO. Will be a far greater challenge especially for the Senators reelection. MT, ID, and WY far different.
Heck, going back to the Center for Biological Diversity statement about Tester, in CO... That would be much more powerful!
“With Democrats like Tester, who needs Republicans?” asked Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Jon Tester’s job creation agenda is concerned with only one job — his own. With the help of the White House and Senate leader Harry Reid, he has sacrificed wolves and the Endangered Species Act to cynical, self-interested politics.”
T
tjones
Guest
WY was reactionary. Anti-ESA organization activists held hostage with far greater $$$ loss and time to ID and MT than WY ever created. They created a crap fight that we were able to part from though to suggest they were greater is... We'll, I disagree.
Life of forums.
Wait til CO has to fight (hopefully it's a vote NO though I doubt it) for State control managing wolves. ID, MT, and WY do not hold city populations to compare with CO. Will be a far greater challenge especially for the Senators reelection. MT, ID, and WY far different.
Heck, going back to the Center for Biological Diversity statement about Tester, in CO... That would be much more powerful!
“With Democrats like Tester, who needs Republicans?” asked Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Jon Tester’s job creation agenda is concerned with only one job — his own. With the help of the White House and Senate leader Harry Reid, he has sacrificed wolves and the Endangered Species Act to cynical, self-interested politics.”
I don't have the time or energy to hit this hanging curve, Lamb will park it if he chooses to take a swing.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Honestly, that I'm not worried about. CPW is typically pretty good about crossing Ts and dotting I's and our management plans are usually pretty thoughtful and extensive.
I'm sure Colorado will take the Montana approach and while groups will sue, they won't have standing as the process will be followed through to the letter.
We'll, thank you for your time and energy responding. I'll return the wasted time...
