Pro-Wolf-Anti Hunting CPW Commissioner Appointed.

[Oak]

i think the only thing we can do to save our interests is build our base, get involved, and act responsibly. i've met lots of hunters who, when they talk about hunting, hunting issues, wildlife issues, and public land issues, and present these things in their words, don't make me want to be in favor of hunting or hunters either - we need to change that. but frankly we also need to fight fire with fire.

It's important to nurture and grow relationships in times of good so that there is a level of knowledge and trust of each other when issues of contention arise. Too often hunters only speak up when the rocking chair is on their tail.

 

[Ben Lamb]

yeah, almost unfortunately, but yeah

i mean, until the laws change the wildlife are the property of the people of colorado, obviously, we all know that

the commission is supposed to represent that to some degree, and while i appreciate that state wildlife commissions are tilted in favor of hutners across the nation *generally* non hunters do deserve a voice

i know you know these things too ben

i think the only thing we can do to save our interests is build our base and act responsibly. i've met lots of hunters who, when they talk about hunting, hunting issues, wildlife issues, and public land issues, and present these things in their words, don't make me want to be in favor of hunting or hunters either - we need to change that. but frankly we also need to fight fire with fire.

Absolutely with you here.

IU would also say that in order to change the hearts and minds of those whom we disagree with, we need to be open to their input as well. Here's my example:

WHen I worked in WY and was doing a lot of commission work, there was a COmmissioner, Kerry Powers, who hated wolves, and was a rancher and real estate agent. We butted heads a lot, often times with less than kind words. After his 4-6 years we ended up being friends, because we would sit down and talk, and most importantly, we would listen to each other. Not in the sense of listening to respond, but listening to learn why the other person was advocating for what they were. At the end of my time in Wyoming, we were pushing an in-stream flow bill that we all knew was dead in the water. It was the 10th time or so that we had tried this bill, but the farm bureau, farmers union & stockgrowers would just kill it in committee. I asked Kerry to breakfast, and he, myself and Trout Unlimited sat down and talked about why in-stream flows were good for ranchers, not for trout, but for people. Once he saw what live water does to property values, and for livestock, he changed his mind on the issue and helped push the bill out of committee.

If I had spent the previous years fighting his fire with fire, we would have not made any progress. We both still disagreed on a ton of issues, but we were friends enough to find that middle ground and get something good done. The bill came out of committee, and died on the floor. We expected that, but getting it out of committee was the goal, as was turning a few no votes into yes votes for the future effort to establish better stream health.

 

[cedahm]

Absolutely. I while I disagree with the positions he took with regard to bears and wolves, I'm sure we would be allies on protecting elk range, wetlands, etc.

What about hazing neighborhood coyotes? https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-may-11-na-coyotes11-story.html

Greenwood village is close to me - I wish they'd haze some coyotes back over here as our local population is gone after a mange epidemic a few years ago and we now enjoy a plague of cottontails. I'd rather have the coyotes back as they don't eat my wifes garden or sh*t all over the place and drive my dog insane.

i think the only thing we can do to save our interests is build our base and act responsibly. i've met lots of hunters who, when they talk about hunting, hunting issues, wildlife issues, and public land issues, and present these things in their words, don't make me want to be in favor of hunting or hunters either - we need to change that. but frankly we also need to fight fire with fire.

100%. Optics and statements matter more than ever in this world where a lot of people not only get most of their 'news' from social media, but also tend to read headlines only (see this thread title - which I know was created in jest - as Exhibit 'A')

 

[TOGIE]

It's important to nurture and grow relationships in times of good so that there is a level of knowledge and trust of each other when issues of contention arise. Too often hunters only speak up when the rocking chair is on their tail.

absolutely we need to get involved, shouldn't have left that out

i would say i more forgot to mention that, but my forgetting to mention does show that getting involved needs to be more at the forefront of our minds

 

[Wildabeest]

I don’t think increasing nonresident hunting opportunity in the west is the answer to declining hunter numbers back east, especially where it causes increased strain on the resource. I will always side with taking care of the resource first.

This is totally speculation on my part, but I’d opine that increasing tag sales does not mean more hunters. Especially NR tags. I’m doubtful that many “new” hunters are doing NR hunts in states where they don’t live. New hunters are more likely to hunt their own state when they are still determining whether it’s really for them or not - mostly due to better odds on actually getting a tag as well as the lower cost. They may be starting with small game hunts as well. I’d wager that increases in applications and tags for NR hunts in the west are the result existing hunters doing more hunts in multiple states each year.

 

[TOGIE]

Absolutely with you here.

IU would also say that in order to change the hearts and minds of those whom we disagree with, we need to be open to their input as well. Here's my example:

WHen I worked in WY and was doing a lot of commission work, there was a COmmissioner, Kerry Powers, who hated wolves, and was a rancher and real estate agent. We butted heads a lot, often times with less than kind words. After his 4-6 years we ended up being friends, because we would sit down and talk, and most importantly, we would listen to each other. Not in the sense of listening to respond, but listening to learn why the other person was advocating for what they were. At the end of my time in Wyoming, we were pushing an in-stream flow bill that we all knew was dead in the water. It was the 10th time or so that we had tried this bill, but the farm bureau, farmers union & stockgrowers would just kill it in committee. I asked Kerry to breakfast, and he, myself and Trout Unlimited sat down and talked about why in-stream flows were good for ranchers, not for trout, but for people. Once he saw what live water does to property values, and for livestock, he changed his mind on the issue and helped push the bill out of committee.

If I had spent the previous years fighting his fire with fire, we would have not made any progress. We both still disagreed on a ton of issues, but we were friends enough to find that middle ground and get something good done. The bill came out of committee, and died on the floor. We expected that, but getting it out of committee was the goal, as was turning a few no votes into yes votes for the future effort to establish better stream health.

it's funny you bring up instream flows

good example in my personal life. i've worked in water rights in colorado for some time, still am invovled with water rights but less directly, and i always use to view instream flow as stupid hippy crap and people getting their water is what matters. i mean human livelihood right? i never had issues finding places to fish

then i started hunting, that changed my views on ISF big time that were largely borne of nothing than political affiliation and a hatred for hippies. maybe rinella helped me too as he would always harp that "wildlife need a voice"

i think if i've learned anything in my still somewhat short time since graduating college is that the world is not so black and white (it almost feels gross saying that) - something my dad tried time and time again to tell me for years and i wouldn't listen; he always assured me I would "gray with age though". sure enough

 

[Wildabeest]

Just FYI, I wasn’t saying I loved any given makeup, but that it is the current rule. I tend to think that the concept is directionally correct - analogous to mixed use on NF and BLM - but certainly there is substantial opportunity for gaming when the potential (and reality) for crossover between the groups is very high.

I think that’s a good makeup for an Advisory Board, as it will allow a variety of perspectives to be put on the table in a somewhat structured manner, but it’s a horrible makeup for a decision making body. The whole thing is basically setup to encourage backstabbing politics and under the table deal making that really aren’t in the best interest of the asset the body is setup to promote and protect.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I think we can all agree that hippies are awful though.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think we can all agree that hippies are awful though.

Guess that depends on if your in the mood for a grill cheese and a dead concert or not.

 

[Ben Lamb]

 

[Zach]

View attachment 146174

I think the South Park meme is perfect!

 

[Sytes]

I hope that he sees his position...

Former Lead Council attorney for Wild Earth Guardians and your above statement.

Brings "hope" to a whole new level...

Landmark Victories

WildEarth Guardians is an effective, top-rated non-profit vetted by Charity Navigator. Learn about our mission, vision, and history.

wildearthguardians.org

 

[HONEYBADGER]

Your state is definitely not the same as it was 10 years ago, that's for sure. Serious question: Do the voices of people who think differently than us deserve to have a seat at the table when it comes to wildlife management?

I don't mind if they think different if they have an open mind. This guy is a zealot, zealots do not have an open mind. Thankfully he has little power.

 

[WyoDoug]

Got to consider who the governor of Colorado is and then you should understand the type of people he will appoint.

 

[Oak]

Got to consider who the governor of Colorado is and then you should understand the type of people he will appoint.

The Governor also hired Dan Prenzlow as director of CPW, a career wildlife "hook and bullet" guy with a strong propensity for managing predators and a clear ally of hunters. It's difficult for your broad brush to cover that. Dan and I have had our disagreements, but he was clearly the best candidate for the job from the perspective of those who post on this forum.

 

[WyoDoug]

The Governor also hired Dan Prenzlow as director of CPW, a career wildlife "hook and bullet" guy with a strong propensity for managing predators and a clear ally of hunters. It's difficult for your broad brush to cover that. Dan and I have had our disagreements, but he was clearly the best candidate for the job from the perspective of those who post on this forum.

Which was surprising because Polis is so anti-gun it aint funny. There are exceptions but in general when Polis appoints someone they generally lean heavy to the liberal side. I would be happy if he just picked people who were more moderate.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The Governor also hired Dan Prenzlow as director of CPW, a career wildlife "hook and bullet" guy with a strong propensity for managing predators and a clear ally of hunters. It's difficult for your broad brush to cover that. Dan and I have had our disagreements, but he was clearly the best candidate for the job from the perspective of those who post on this forum.

Great point... and here is the rub, CO has wolves and there are multiple ballot issues about wolves. Like it or not wolves are going to be a big issue for CPW to deal with in coming years.

WY, MT, and USFWS have been taken to task over state management of wolves and bears.

Seems like it could actually be a brilliant move on Polis's part to appoint one of the folks who wrote the book on suing the government about their wolf policies to CPW.

If you want a bullet proof management plan, Tutchton would be the guy you would want to help you create it.

I guess if I had the opportunity I would ask Tutchton, "Do you support state management of wolves in CO?"

 

[JLS]

This guy is a zealot, zealots do not have an open mind.

The same could easily be said about some within the hunting community as well. Open minds are pretty important for anyone to partake in critical thinking.

 

[TOGIE]

Great point... and here is the rub, CO has wolves and there are multiple ballot issues about wolves. Like it or not wolves are going to be a big issue for CPW to deal with in coming years.

WY, MT, and USFWS have been taken to task over state management of wolves and bears.

Seems like it could actually be a brilliant move on Polis's part to appoint one of the folks who wrote the book on suing the government about their wolf policies to CPW.

If you want a bullet proof management plan, Tutchton would be the guy you would want to help you create it.

I guess if I had the opportunity I would ask Tutchton, "Do you support state management of wolves in CO?"

this could be a silver lining

and in any event he'll obviously be outvoted if he's the only one against state management

i fear though, how very fertile the soil is in this state for another ballot initiative many many years down the road for banning wolf hunting without ever even getting started on delisting

 

[Zach]

Great point... and here is the rub, CO has wolves and there are multiple ballot issues about wolves. Like it or not wolves are going to be a big issue for CPW to deal with in coming years.

WY, MT, and USFWS have been taken to task over state management of wolves and bears.

Seems like it could actually be a brilliant move on Polis's part to appoint one of the folks who wrote the book on suing the government about their wolf policies to CPW.

If you want a bullet proof management plan, Tutchton would be the guy you would want to help you create it.

I guess if I had the opportunity I would ask Tutchton, "Do you support state management of wolves in CO?"

My guess is there are enough private land owners that are going to keep wolves in check, albeit off the books.