elkduds
Well-known member
| ||
|
Last edited:
Formal opposition to CO wolf reintroduction ramping up. Are you in?
- Thread starter elkduds
- Start date
WapitiBob
Well-known member
I’ll pass.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
In, forced reintroduction will be an absolute dumpster fire for management, let them come on their own like they already are...
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's opposition to the forced re-introduction says volumes.
www.rmef.org
Randy's podcast on the forced re-introduction says volumes.
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
Randy's podcast on the forced re-introduction says volumes.
Last edited:
Wolves will be in Colorado soon without reintroduction.
This push, like everything these groups do, is to raise money.
They don’t have to do a single thing and they will have their wolves and have them with a lot less animosity and controversy, but that isn’t lucrative.
This push, like everything these groups do, is to raise money.
They don’t have to do a single thing and they will have their wolves and have them with a lot less animosity and controversy, but that isn’t lucrative.
Khunter
Well-known member
I am against reintroduction of Denny Behrens into any wildlife mgt issue or discussion.
Also against wolf introduction in my state.
Also against wolf introduction in my state.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think the kind of rhetoric this group is using is going to do more harm than good.
Elk and deer numbers, cattle depredation; those are topics that are only going to find resonance with folks that are adamantly opposed to wolf reintroduction already. The challenge and goal should be to convince those on the fence that wolf reintroduction rather than natural migration is problematic. Urban voters don't care about livestock or elk, they likely think wolves deserve a place on the landscape and they probably operate under the assumption that hunters should just kill less deer and elk and that it's a necessary cost of business for ranchers, especially as the state is going to reimburse them for predator loss.
I've talked to a number of different people about this issue who are pro-wolf, at least pro-wolf in principle, and explaining the economics of elk hunting, funding of CPAW coupled with a discussion of TABOR, and the fact that if we don't fund the agency who is going to pursue wolf poaching, etc etc seemed to be the only effective argument.
In my experience people are able to understand the nuance of our situation if the details are explained to them, they have very little tolerance of the big bad wolf narrative.
If CPAW and RMEF are really serious about this topic they are going to work with CPR, Radio Lab, etc and produce a segment for public radio that gets into the nitty gritty and explains that this isn't a emotional stance based on some antiquated hatred of predators and rather the complex relationship predators have with the North American model and the funding structures of our management agencies.
Elk and deer numbers, cattle depredation; those are topics that are only going to find resonance with folks that are adamantly opposed to wolf reintroduction already. The challenge and goal should be to convince those on the fence that wolf reintroduction rather than natural migration is problematic. Urban voters don't care about livestock or elk, they likely think wolves deserve a place on the landscape and they probably operate under the assumption that hunters should just kill less deer and elk and that it's a necessary cost of business for ranchers, especially as the state is going to reimburse them for predator loss.
I've talked to a number of different people about this issue who are pro-wolf, at least pro-wolf in principle, and explaining the economics of elk hunting, funding of CPAW coupled with a discussion of TABOR, and the fact that if we don't fund the agency who is going to pursue wolf poaching, etc etc seemed to be the only effective argument.
In my experience people are able to understand the nuance of our situation if the details are explained to them, they have very little tolerance of the big bad wolf narrative.
If CPAW and RMEF are really serious about this topic they are going to work with CPR, Radio Lab, etc and produce a segment for public radio that gets into the nitty gritty and explains that this isn't a emotional stance based on some antiquated hatred of predators and rather the complex relationship predators have with the North American model and the funding structures of our management agencies.
elkduds
Well-known member
Hoping to see some feedback here on the 'wolves will kill precious reintroduced moose' angle and video I linked. Ron Velarde in the video is politically a touchstone for rural/hunting/older/native residents. He swings a lot of weight, and if he influences those that influence others, that could change some minds. However he is unknown to many recent immigrants. I find resonance in the argument that east slope voters will potentially inflict wolves on west slope citizens who will get all the problems, a sort of good-neighbor stance. A lot of voters like myself have lived on both sides of the Great Divide, and bunches of Front Rangers recreate or work often on the West Slope. So there may be, should be empathy for the concerns of the west siders The pro-reintroduction folks are savvy @ social media, so opposition will have to master that to be successful. Sadly, more than ever the media is the message.
As noted above, engaging each other in real discussions about this issue is essential. I see the risk of this issue being Facebooked into passing, which is why I'm so peeved BHA won't use its campus level influence to oppose reintroduction. I wonder who would be a powerful social media spokesperson for the opposition?
As noted above, engaging each other in real discussions about this issue is essential. I see the risk of this issue being Facebooked into passing, which is why I'm so peeved BHA won't use its campus level influence to oppose reintroduction. I wonder who would be a powerful social media spokesperson for the opposition?
| 10:03 AM (12 minutes ago) | |||
|
|
Last edited:
Zach
Well-known member
Can't wait to apply for a wolf tag once they are established....
They are here, they will increase in numbers. No "reintroduction" needed.
They are here, they will increase in numbers. No "reintroduction" needed.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@elkduds No offense but I don't think Veladre was very effective in that video. "I think we should leave management to the professionals," is a poor argument on it's face. I agree that we should but you have to unpack that idea and your primary points can't focus on ranchers or hunters. If that's your argument you will lose.
Also moose are non-native and wolves are native... so even as someone who doesn't want wolves re-introduced I feel that argument is total BS.
Further you want to know what the argument was against introducing moose back in the 70's.... you guessed it they would impact ranchers and would compete with elk and deer which would be bad for sportsman.
Also moose are non-native and wolves are native... so even as someone who doesn't want wolves re-introduced I feel that argument is total BS.
Further you want to know what the argument was against introducing moose back in the 70's.... you guessed it they would impact ranchers and would compete with elk and deer which would be bad for sportsman.
MO Betta
Well-known member
I had a fairly long post written up about how all the intricacies and logic are ignored any time large predators are part of the conversation (in general, not specific to the HT crowd), but being frustrated and trying to type a week after PRK surgery I'll just say that it's like filling an empty room with 30 kindergarten students and placing a single toy in the middle.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
...a tag which will be much harder to get if forced reintroduction occurs and CPW is not allowed all the tools they want to manage a wolf population.
elkduds
Well-known member
None taken whatsoever. It matters not to me who knows the answer, I am committed to being part of whatever works to stop this, including constructive discussion. There are a boatload of examples from CO and other states about what has or has not worked. Your moose example is a good one, to me it has succeeded in the eyes of the voting public far beyond expectations, regardless of its non-native status. I see the voters who have already decided on this issue established in their separate camps. The battle is for the undecided voters. Sounds familiar, right?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Absolutely agree.
Along those lines I'm curious what other effective arguments people have heard or thought of other than economic impact on the CPAW, depredation, and the declining numbers for deer and elk. @Big Fin has discussed the topic of wolves and bears in Montana a number of times and the pitfalls that have occurred.
I'm wondering if there is something in the Montana story that really stands out or could be used as a discussion topic. I'm just really not seeing the pure "predator" impact message carrying water with Colorado voters.
Zach
Well-known member
Fixed it for ya
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
In the podcast offered above, with Randy Newberg hosting Jim Heffelfinger, Science Coordinator for Arizona Game & Fish made some solid observations regarding the forced large grey wolf re-introduction in Colorado would be a threat to the Mexican wolf ESA project in AZ. Main portion begins @ 51:00 re: Colorado ballot for grey wolves and the disastrous effect that may pose for the actual Northern AZ ESA Mexican wolves "...and the strong marketing campaign to bring wolves to Colorado"
Heffelfinger discussed their published scientific paper in Biological Conservation, <Heffelfinger> "...peer reviewed journal so that information is out there, I'm sure people are trying to ignore it and not pay any attention to it but we've laid out in a really good comprehensive paper all the problems recovering Mexican wolves too far north and that same thing applies to bringing big Canadian wolves down too far south..."
Randy Newberg best put it in common folk language, "hm-huh, Well, I almost want to go to Colorado and start saying, 'Hey! Someone read this because you guys are headed down a path here' --- I feel like they're in the Titanic and that everyone knows the iceberg's there..."
There is so much more to the podcast discussion and likely more value than the small excerpts shared above.
Last edited:
one ate E grain
Active member
This is a vid of Steve Yamashita who was the area wildlife manager in the area with the highest and earliest concentration of CWD. Steve discusses the idea that wolves would somehow slow or limit CWD and pronounces it "just not true" which is strong language for Steve, he goes on to suggest that wolves by being coursing predators covering long distances could actually help spread the disease.
Zach
Well-known member
No, but based on population density I went with the big 3.
elkduds
Well-known member
A series of presentations for the rural eastern plains etc.
| ||
|
