ID refuses to send wolves to CO, joining WY and MT.

Ben Lamb said:
And hunters wonder why their support nationally is dropping.
Click to expand...
Oh Ben, revamping the spin factor falls short for your character...

How do you feel about the iceberg Colorado is about to impact, using Newberg's quote regarding the forced re-introduction?
 
All of this commotion and they didn't even have a source for wolves lined up. Typical govt.

Hey everyone in Colorado should vote on the next ballot that you want to become a millionaire. Then Colorado can figure out where the money is coming from once they have passed it.
 
I don't think it's a cooked issue if there's the use of public support in opposition to the farce international woof funding used on metropolitan Colorado naivety to force a ballot pass.

It's interesting, we have people here who vehemently press for Americans to voice their opinion on subjects as residents and non residents... Issues cooked that need to be changed or altered, etc.

Continue to oppose, continue to press for State refusal to share our problem with those Colorado-ans(?) Who have been subjected to the internation woof lover $$$ forced re-introduction.

But hey, this is a hunt forum. We all have our opinions.
 
Sytes said:
Oh Ben, revamping the spin factor falls short for your character...

How do you feel about the iceberg Colorado is about to impact, using Newberg's quote regarding the forced re-introduction?
Click to expand...

bayoublaster7527 said:
Interesting. Hunters support is dropping nationally because ID and WY refused to send wolves to CO? Or is it because hunters believe ballot initiatives are a poor vehicle to make and implement wildlife management decisions?
Click to expand...

C'mon boys. The rhetoric around wolves even in this thread, and on just about every other thread on the internet is one that is

1.) dismissive of other people's ideas of wildlife management.
2.) Claims of doom, gloom and elk population crashes
3.) Attitudes of unacceptance of wolves in any form.
4.) Randy's skepticism is always couched in a way that seeks to find common ground, rather than further divide people.
5.) This thread will at some point have someone say something inherently idiotic like "try that in a small town."

When hunters are perceived as having no empathy for other critter, especially those that have large and robust advocacies, it just feeds the fire the anti-hunting acolytes truly want fed.

If hunters in Montana truly believed that ballot initiatives were the worst thing for wildlife, why did they pass the game farm initiative and I-161, as well as the weed tax imitative? Why did they show up enmass in 2021 & 2023 to defend that funding?

Hunters in Michigan passed Prop G in the 90's, kicking the legislature out of policy decisions around wildlife (simplified). Prop 5 in Utah in '98 made it so a 3/4 legislative majority had to vote affirmative to change wildlife policy.

Are ballot initiatives bad? Not inherently. It's the content of an initiative that makes it good or bad. The power of the people to have a direct link to changing the laws when the legislative branch refuses to react is a cornerstone of our democratic republic.

Will wolves cause untold management headaches for Colorado? You bet your sweet bippy they will. Does the hyper-politicization and propensity for making this an urban/rural divide culture make that management even more difficult?

Yes. Yes it does.

Does the political theater of states deciding pre-emptively they won't send wolves to a state that hasn't asked for then help diminish the reputation of hunters? Yes, especially when we openly celebrate a lack of collaboration in wildlife management.


Every one hates the political management of wildlife, until it's their "team" doing to politicizing.

@Oak is 100% spot on.
 
My concern is that having F'ed over the people of Colorado, they will now loose the lawyers and force the existing wolf states to waste money defending themselves in court.
This for saying no to a request Colorado had no right to make.

Another full employment program for CBD attorneys.
 
Oak said:
They'll get them from somewhere. Appreciate all the passion on the issue, but maybe focus it on something for which you can affect the outcome? This issue is cooked.

View attachment 285174
Click to expand...
Cooked indeed, but still being seasoned. I heard a confident statement from CPW wolf staff that 10J is expected to pass, influenced by factors such as NM, AZ and UT's 0 tolerance for CO gray wolves getting anywheare near Mexican wolves, which are highly endangered and would be decimated by interbreeding. 10J designation gives the state the right to use lethal control measures for wolf management.

I have not heard any interest in CO litigating to force states to send wolves, that would be politically counterproductive.

WA and OR have agreed in principle to supply wolves to CO. Release sites for this coming winter are being considered. No releases within 50 miles of state lines, as wolves can disperse 50-80 miles after release. My impression is that Flattops wilderness vicinity is a likely starting point for release.
 
Last edited:
Ben Lamb said:
C'mon boys. The rhetoric around wolves even in this thread, and on just about every other thread on the internet is one that is

1.) dismissive of other people's ideas of wildlife management.
2.) Claims of doom, gloom and elk population crashes
3.) Attitudes of unacceptance of wolves in any form.
4.) Randy's skepticism is always couched in a way that seeks to find common ground, rather than further divide people.
5.) This thread will at some point have someone say something inherently idiotic like "try that in a small town."

When hunters are perceived as having no empathy for other critter, especially those that have large and robust advocacies, it just feeds the fire the anti-hunting acolytes truly want fed.

If hunters in Montana truly believed that ballot initiatives were the worst thing for wildlife, why did they pass the game farm initiative and I-161, as well as the weed tax imitative? Why did they show up enmass in 2021 & 2023 to defend that funding?

Hunters in Michigan passed Prop G in the 90's, kicking the legislature out of policy decisions around wildlife (simplified). Prop 5 in Utah in '98 made it so a 3/4 legislative majority had to vote affirmative to change wildlife policy.

Are ballot initiatives bad? Not inherently. It's the content of an initiative that makes it good or bad. The power of the people to have a direct link to changing the laws when the legislative branch refuses to react is a cornerstone of our democratic republic.

Will wolves cause untold management headaches for Colorado? You bet your sweet bippy they will. Does the hyper-politicization and propensity for making this an urban/rural divide culture make that management even more difficult?

Yes. Yes it does.

Does the political theater of states deciding pre-emptively they won't send wolves to a state that hasn't asked for then help diminish the reputation of hunters? Yes, especially when we openly celebrate a lack of collaboration in wildlife management.


Every one hates the political management of wildlife, until it's their "team" doing to politicizing.

@Oak is 100% spot on.
Click to expand...
Ben,

I don't totally disagree with you, hunters do need to put our best foot forward and at times we do have a public image issue. However, we also have to stand up and defend ourselves against powerful and well-funded forces intent to tear down the NAM and end legal hunting practices.

1.) dismissive of other people's ideas of wildlife management.- Could you be alluding to the Governor of Colorado completely shutting hunting, fishing, and wildlife conservation organizations out of the CPW Commission appointment process and intentionally appointing commissioners unfamiliar with and unfavorable to hunting and fishing?

5.) This thread will at some point have someone say something inherently idiotic like "try that in a small town."- Are you predicting the future posts of others on Hunttalk? Are you attempting to associate Hunttalk posts with violence? I believe you are really reaching here and purposefully making an inflammatory association. You really are better than that.
 
bayoublaster7527 said:
Ben,

I don't totally disagree with you, hunters do need to put our best foot forward and at times we do have a public image issue. However, we also have to stand up and defend ourselves against powerful and well-funded forces intent to tear down the NAM and end legal hunting practices.

1.) dismissive of other people's ideas of wildlife management.- Could you be alluding to the Governor of Colorado completely shutting hunting, fishing, and wildlife conservation organizations out of the CPW Commission appointment process and intentionally appointing commissioners unfamiliar with and unfavorable to hunting and fishing?

5.) This thread will at some point have someone say something inherently idiotic like "try that in a small town."- Are you predicting the future posts of others on Hunttalk? Are you attempting to associate Hunttalk posts with violence? I believe you are really reaching here and purposefully making an inflammatory association. You really are better than that.
Click to expand...

How you engage in standing up for your beliefs is just as critical as standing up.

As to #5

1690219932116.png
 
How much are they willing to pay? And, you think I could get away with sending some semi-feral huskies instead? Would they really know the difference?
 
Talk about forgetting to fact check the other side before reporting. Proof that its always possible to use any sort of stats in your favor to prove a point.
 
Oak said:
Meanwhile....

coloradosun.com

Zornio: Trophy hunts and poaching of Colorado’s big game need to go extinct. Hunters should show some pride.

If hunters were good enough at fair chase, they wouldn’t need to resort to cheap tactics and breaking the law
coloradosun.com coloradosun.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting, this is the real threat to hunting and countering this false narrative is where we should all focus our efforts. I instantly regret wasting any bandwidth on the wolf discussion. This article is full of so many falsehoods, vague associations, and loose generalizations that it can only be described as an intentional hit job on hunters. The more acute goal is to associate all forms of hunting with poaching in hopes of shifting public opinion in favor of a mountain lion/bear/sheep hunting ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,940
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474

Share this page

Back
Top