kwyeewyk
Well-known member
My understanding is Colorado doesn't have any kind of state environmental review process, so I assume no state issued ROD, in theory that should be part of the NEPA for 10j, done by USFWS.
ID refuses to send wolves to CO, joining WY and MT.
- Thread starter elkduds
- Start date
They are intentionally skirting the NEPA by placing on State and private land.
Edit: disregard, thankfully a filing to the U.S. Disctrict Court kicked them to the curb on this and were ordered to comply with 10j NEPA.
Originally posted from the following:
"The plan does not propose releasing wolves on federal land, due to the “time and financial constraints” required under National Environmental Policy Act rules for federal land, Odell said." (Odell is or was the CPW wolf conservation Program Manager).
Another note:
www.fws.gov
Edit: disregard, thankfully a filing to the U.S. Disctrict Court kicked them to the curb on this and were ordered to comply with 10j NEPA.
Originally posted from the following:
"The plan does not propose releasing wolves on federal land, due to the “time and financial constraints” required under National Environmental Policy Act rules for federal land, Odell said." (Odell is or was the CPW wolf conservation Program Manager).
Another note:
USFWS Initiates Process for State-Led Reintroduction of the Gray Wolf in Colorado | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
DENVER — To assist the state of Colorado in their reintroduction of gray wolves into the state, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is initiating the process to develop an experimental population rule to provide the authority and flexibility needed to manage the reintroduced wolves...
Last edited:
So do they have to prepare and EIS thru NEPA now? I thought it was a timing thing and that is why they didn't do it. No way a full NEPA review would be done in less than a year. My gripe with the original plan was the skirting of NEPA by releasing on state and private. No doubt wolves would move to public and potentially have significant environmental impacts.
I'm not a resident anymore, so not paying nearly as much attention.
You're a little confused on the process. The 10j NEPA has nothing to do with NEPA for wolf release on federal land.
You mean Odell is a little confused with his comment to avoid NEPA by placing on State / private land, correct?
"Releases will occur on state or private lands. The plan does not currently contemplate releases on Federal lands because CPW does not have the staffing or financial resources to undertake the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis prior to any federal land management agency authorizing releases on federal lands. CPW will attempt to select release areas that are likely to promote successful wolf recolonization, while also considering the potential for livestock or human conflicts. Specific release locations will not be made public in this Plan in order to protect private landowner information and sensitive species locations, but targeted outreach will occur with potentially affected stakeholders prior to release."
As for the link between 10j and NEPA, specific to Colorado forced re-introduction:
"Development of this 10(j) rule is considered a major federal action requiring review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This EIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508). The Service has prepared an EIS for this proposed action due to the level of public interest in the State Plan to reintroduce gray wolves to Colorado and the potential for public controversy."
No, I mean you're confused. The 10j ruling has nothing to do with releasing wolves on federal land (vs. state or private). It's a separate NEPA action that was undertaken by FWS. If CPW wanted to release on federal land, there would have needed to be the analysis described by Odell.
The 10j and NEPA are seperate but linked comments, as I shared above.
You are suggesting he was correct??? If released on private and State land, they would legally bypass NEPA?
Let me clarify so you do not mistake what I am saying... Based on your comment, If they wanted to release on [only] Federal land, a NEPA would be required?
I'm not @Oak, but hopefully this helps:
The 10J is like Dark Side of the Moon.
The release on Public Land is like The Wall
NEPA is like Pink Floyd's Sound Engineer (post Syd Barrett)
Pink Floyd )post Syd Barrett) is the USFWS in this shenanigan.
Syd Barrett is like the current House of Reps - Loony and on more LSD than anyone ever should be.
Therefore, the 10J and release on public land are not the same, and would considered separate bodies of work, even if it's the same artist (e.g. NEPA).
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
So glad to see these states refusing. I saw a video by Cliff Gray that basically pointed out the impetus behind all this wolf crapola. I didn't realize this, but it made it perfectly clear. Cliff is in CO. These law firms, in need of billings start a non-profit to push this wolf crap so they can raise big time money from the Lib suckers in Hollywood and all over. The non-profit they created hires the law firm to handle all the legal stuff and voting measures. It's all about the money!! It disgusts me.
Last edited:
Put down the beautifully hand crafted, clay peace pipe, Ben.
As mentioned... and I mention again. Seperate though linked...
@Ben Lamb , I'll add to this, NEPA is required whether release of wolves is done on State or Federal land... I'll politely offer a, "?". for chits n grins.
Last edited:
Let me try this another way.
Let's say you wanted to take a poop in the woods, but the FS required NEPA first. So you completed the require NEPA and take your poop. But then you decide that you want to burn your poop with flames. The FS requires you to complete separate NEPA first. The first NEPA was for your primary action. The second NEPA was for how you chose to handle the mess once the primary action was accomplished. You could poop on private land without NEPA, but if you wanted to burn the poop there, you would still need the second NEPA.
Let's say you wanted to take a poop in the woods, but the FS required NEPA first. So you completed the require NEPA and take your poop. But then you decide that you want to burn your poop with flames. The FS requires you to complete separate NEPA first. The first NEPA was for your primary action. The second NEPA was for how you chose to handle the mess once the primary action was accomplished. You could poop on private land without NEPA, but if you wanted to burn the poop there, you would still need the second NEPA.
Some choose to poop in a plastic bag and burn it in their camp fire….
Hah! Never ending...
"If the reintroduced gray wolves are downlisted to a threatened, non-essential, experimental status, the 10(j) rule would allow those wolves, identified by geographic location, to be “hazed, killed or relocated,” but only if they kill domestic animals and only if there’s proof."
Interesting, let the fear of the Center for B.S. Diversity set it's gauntlet down amidst threatening suit against US Forest Service to block wolf hunting along Wyoming border w/ Colorado...
"Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Aspen Journalism that the draft 10(j) rule has left out three key components. First, he said, the rule fully authorizes killing wolves that kill livestock with no restriction on the number of wolves to be killed, even on public lands. “The (Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan) and (draft 10(j) rule) have no limits on killing wolves on public lands,” he said. “What that means is the same level of negligence that is permitted throughout the state also applies to public lands. If wolves kill livestock on public lands, wolves will get killed also.”
Secondly, he said, “Ranchers do not have to take preventative measures.” Neither the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan nor the draft 10(j) rule requires non-lethal control or coexistence methods, such as range riders, lights, noise or fladry (the use of flags on a fence to scare off predators), prior to killing a wolf that may be threatening or killing livestock. “Right now, it’s voluntary,” said Robinson."
"Robinson added that the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado is being set up for failure as a result of the combination of no requirements for preventive, non-lethal measures and generous payment for livestock loss. “It’s a perverse incentive to facilitate wolves killing livestock and for more wolves to be killed,” he said. “The livestock industry, having failed with a big-money campaign to defeat (2020’s Proposition 114), has worked to subvert it through a wolf plan that includes the absence of a requirement for preventative measures.”
Huh? The livestock industry promoted 10(j) now? Love how the Center promotes the B.S. portion of their wildlife "diversity"... Continuous lies to advance donor funding.
www.vaildaily.com
Swear, CBD is going to name woofs to tug donor $ hearts....
"Bambi, the beautiful black wolf was shot to death for trophy sport because she stepped across a human imaginary border Bambi didn't know existed! Please donate $$$ now so we may stop the terror upon our canine pets of the wilderness!"
"If the reintroduced gray wolves are downlisted to a threatened, non-essential, experimental status, the 10(j) rule would allow those wolves, identified by geographic location, to be “hazed, killed or relocated,” but only if they kill domestic animals and only if there’s proof."
Interesting, let the fear of the Center for B.S. Diversity set it's gauntlet down amidst threatening suit against US Forest Service to block wolf hunting along Wyoming border w/ Colorado...
"Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Aspen Journalism that the draft 10(j) rule has left out three key components. First, he said, the rule fully authorizes killing wolves that kill livestock with no restriction on the number of wolves to be killed, even on public lands. “The (Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan) and (draft 10(j) rule) have no limits on killing wolves on public lands,” he said. “What that means is the same level of negligence that is permitted throughout the state also applies to public lands. If wolves kill livestock on public lands, wolves will get killed also.”
Secondly, he said, “Ranchers do not have to take preventative measures.” Neither the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan nor the draft 10(j) rule requires non-lethal control or coexistence methods, such as range riders, lights, noise or fladry (the use of flags on a fence to scare off predators), prior to killing a wolf that may be threatening or killing livestock. “Right now, it’s voluntary,” said Robinson."
"Robinson added that the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado is being set up for failure as a result of the combination of no requirements for preventive, non-lethal measures and generous payment for livestock loss. “It’s a perverse incentive to facilitate wolves killing livestock and for more wolves to be killed,” he said. “The livestock industry, having failed with a big-money campaign to defeat (2020’s Proposition 114), has worked to subvert it through a wolf plan that includes the absence of a requirement for preventative measures.”
Huh? The livestock industry promoted 10(j) now? Love how the Center promotes the B.S. portion of their wildlife "diversity"... Continuous lies to advance donor funding.
Will rule allowing for killing of wolves that attack livestock sink Colorado’s reintroduction efforts?
Editor’s note: This is the second installment of a two-part series from Aspen Journalism on wolf reintroduction. As the final steps fall into place before wolves are officially reintroduced to Colorado, policies governing both lethal...
www.vaildaily.com
Swear, CBD is going to name woofs to tug donor $ hearts....
"Bambi, the beautiful black wolf was shot to death for trophy sport because she stepped across a human imaginary border Bambi didn't know existed! Please donate $$$ now so we may stop the terror upon our canine pets of the wilderness!"
Last edited:
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 472
Yep. Expect the Center for Biological Diversity to gain even more leverage in Colorado wildlife management soon. Their "alumni" now hold two seats on the 11 person CPW Commission. That will most likely increase as Gov Polis makes more CPW Commission appointments throughout his term.Hah! Never ending...
"If the reintroduced gray wolves are downlisted to a threatened, non-essential, experimental status, the 10(j) rule would allow those wolves, identified by geographic location, to be “hazed, killed or relocated,” but only if they kill domestic animals and only if there’s proof."
Interesting, let the fear of the Center for B.S. Diversity set it's gauntlet down amidst threatening suit against US Forest Service to block wolf hunting along Wyoming border w/ Colorado...
"Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Aspen Journalism that the draft 10(j) rule has left out three key components. First, he said, the rule fully authorizes killing wolves that kill livestock with no restriction on the number of wolves to be killed, even on public lands. “The (Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan) and (draft 10(j) rule) have no limits on killing wolves on public lands,” he said. “What that means is the same level of negligence that is permitted throughout the state also applies to public lands. If wolves kill livestock on public lands, wolves will get killed also.”
Secondly, he said, “Ranchers do not have to take preventative measures.” Neither the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan nor the draft 10(j) rule requires non-lethal control or coexistence methods, such as range riders, lights, noise or fladry (the use of flags on a fence to scare off predators), prior to killing a wolf that may be threatening or killing livestock. “Right now, it’s voluntary,” said Robinson."
"Robinson added that the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado is being set up for failure as a result of the combination of no requirements for preventive, non-lethal measures and generous payment for livestock loss. “It’s a perverse incentive to facilitate wolves killing livestock and for more wolves to be killed,” he said. “The livestock industry, having failed with a big-money campaign to defeat (2020’s Proposition 114), has worked to subvert it through a wolf plan that includes the absence of a requirement for preventative measures.”
Huh? The livestock industry promoted 10(j) now? Love how the Center promotes the B.S. portion of their wildlife "diversity"... Continuous lies to advance donor funding.
Will rule allowing for killing of wolves that attack livestock sink Colorado’s reintroduction efforts?
Editor’s note: This is the second installment of a two-part series from Aspen Journalism on wolf reintroduction. As the final steps fall into place before wolves are officially reintroduced to Colorado, policies governing both lethal...
Swear, CBD is going to name woofs to tug donor $ hearts....
"Bambi, the beautiful black wolf was shot to death for trophy sport because she stepped across a human imaginary border Bambi didn't know existed! Please donate $$$ now so we may stop the terror upon our canine pets of the wilderness!"
MattinCO
Member
Some good news that CPW can manage wolves as needed, including lethal.
www.fws.gov
USFWS finalizes designation of gray wolf experimental population in Colorado | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
DENVER — In support of a statewide voter-led initiative passed in November 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has finalized the designation of an experimental population of gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Colorado under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act.
Khunter
Well-known member
SNEAK PEEK OF THE WEEK
Wolves are at the gate. Get ready Pitkin and Summit counties.
“The hardest part about living with wolves around is the stress.”
— North Park cattle rancher Don Gittleson
4,203
Margin of votes in Pitkin and Summit counties that supported wolf reintroduction in 2020
Hey Pitkin and Summit counties, get ready for wolves.
With 16,569 voters in those two Western Slope counties approving the 2020 ballot question that supported the reintroduction of gray wolves in Colorado – versus 12,366 opposed – they will be the first to host the 10 to 15 predators.
Beginning next week Colorado Parks and Wildlife will begin capturing Oregon wolves, with plans for releasing them somewhere between Glenwood Springs, Vail and Aspen. A second potential release location would be farther south of Aspen, in a region bordered by Creede, Gunnison and Ridgway.
One lesson that seems hit/miss: Place your $ where mouth shouts...
Would $50-$250k additional opposition dollars have shifted the Titanic's course?
50.91% vs 49.09%.
Amazing with double the $ they squeaked by with .92% of the Colorado resident votes.
I would have been MUCH more interested buying $20-50 raffle tickets from RMEF and others for guns, gear, clothing, and hunts to support the opposition funding than - a beanie and skinning knife. Ya, Ya... I "donated" $ for the schnazzy beanie.
BTW - Top "Donor" of all individual and organizations: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation w/ $369,500.
Would $50-$250k additional opposition dollars have shifted the Titanic's course?
50.91% vs 49.09%.
Amazing with double the $ they squeaked by with .92% of the Colorado resident votes.
I would have been MUCH more interested buying $20-50 raffle tickets from RMEF and others for guns, gear, clothing, and hunts to support the opposition funding than - a beanie and skinning knife. Ya, Ya... I "donated" $ for the schnazzy beanie.
BTW - Top "Donor" of all individual and organizations: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation w/ $369,500.
