elkduds
Well-known member
The law is in place, so comments expressing concerns or planning suggestions are all they will consider @ this stage.
Anger @ CPW for wolf reintroduction is uninformed. Voters decided to reintroduce wolves.
Wolf plan online comments due in 10 days, here is the link
- Thread starter elkduds
- Start date
The law is in place, so comments expressing concerns or planning suggestions are all they will consider @ this stage.
Anger @ CPW for wolf reintroduction is uninformed. Voters decided to reintroduce wolves.
From a NR position, how would you like our opposition addressed?
Anger due to CPW (hands were mostly tied) and eco extreme organizations linked to many outlandish events in CO and elsewhere are the reason this transformed from a petition to law though not relevant to the objective...
Also, does CPW, Commission(?), State use a .org website for public comments?
Anger due to CPW (hands were mostly tied) and eco extreme organizations linked to many outlandish events in CO and elsewhere are the reason this transformed from a petition to law though not relevant to the objective...
Also, does CPW, Commission(?), State use a .org website for public comments?
shootbrownelk
Well-known member
I told them to come and take some or all of ours here in Wyoming. Thanks for the link Elkduds.
The law is in place, so comments expressing concerns or planning suggestions are all they will consider @ this stage.
Anger @ CPW for wolf reintroduction is uninformed. Voters decided to reintroduce wolves.
Last edited:
elkduds
Well-known member
CPW contracted w a reportedly nonpartisan entity called Keystone, not affiliated w the beer brand. The current phase of the process is called Interest-Based Focus Groups, w this stated objective: Create an in-depth roundtable discussion with invited leaders to understand attitudes and perspectives on planning topics and additional issues unique to various communities, sectors and interests.
One such focus group was the semi-annual meeting of the CPW Sportspersons' Roundtable, held last weekend in Grand Junction. The facilitator did her best to distill input from members into salient points, which is my understanding of how all these meetings have been structured. She did not edit anything out, rather helped put similar comments together.
When time permits I will summarize my notes about that discussion.
CPW emphasized that the consistent level of anger voiced in these meetings is noted but cannot undo wolf reintroduction legislation. The process is going forward, so input useful to this planning process is preferred. What hasn't worked in other states is being included, along w perspectives of ag business, outfitters, hunters, county governments, and others. To preview my future write-up, some themes are how to fund this project without using license fees, compensation for livestock owners, what size of wolf population fits CO's situation as compared to ID or MT with much more undeveloped habitat.
Way past my bedtime. So use the link to have your input. I am passing along information I got from the CPW horse's mouth. Complain, object, propose ideas. identify as NR hunters: it all goes into the hopper.
elkduds
Well-known member
Here is a summary of the facilitated CPW Wolf Reintroduction Focus Group I attended 8/7/21.
The interest group in this case was members of the CPW Sportspersons' Roundtable, including delegates and caucus representatives from the 4 CPW regions (NE, NW, SE, SW). CPW staff was present, answered questions, did not offer opinions. They are legally precluded from doing so, which a lot of wolf opponents take as CPW supporting reintroduction. Before voters narrowly passed reintroduction legislation, CPW's Wildlife Commission formally recommended against wolf reintroduction on two occasions. When legislation passed, that legally prevented CPW from expressing any further opinion.
Frequent emphasis was made seeking input from the web link:
Discussion of including 10-J permission for the state to kill problem wolves. This rule only applies to species on the federal list of endangered species. Gray wolves are not currently listed. If/when they are relisted, 10-J could be an aspect of the plan.
Agricultural interests are all concerned about game damage, wolves killing livestock. CPW's current process is considered by ranchers to undervalue calves, ewes, young livestock, and to be administratively cumbersome. One commenter suggested accurate records of weaning weights by ranchers would be more important with wolves present.
The law mandates "a sustaining population," discussion of meaning of that term. Some states define that as 2 packs successfully breeding for 2 consecutive years, another standard says 3 years. Commenters emphasized CO has less isolated acreage where wolves could avoid human conflict than some other states inhabited by wolves. Some discussion of selecting wolves for relocation from settings similar to those targeted in CO's plan.
CO's planners are actively consulting w wolf experts from MT, ID, WY and other states.
Wolf predation on CO's recently reintroduced moose population is a concern, as yet unquantified by planners.
One modeling predictor being considered is whether elk herds are over, @ or under population objectives. This may argue against reintroduction in DAUs like SW CO, Eagle county, others where herds are below objective and declining.
Decreasing elk license availability is a tool used by MT (cow tags) to counter wolf predation #s. Most research says to allow for one elk kill per wolf per month, statistically (not literally). Decreasing cow license #s in advance of wolf presence can be a means of "stockpiling" elk to maintain herd size when wolves are present.
Input from each regional caucus report was that anger and criticism toward CPW for allowing wolf reintroduction is nearly universal.
Sportspeople have also expressed opposition to license dollars funding wolf reintroduction, including game damage compensation. Planners are considering other sources of funding. The CO legislature has authorized about $1 million of tax funds for the 1st year of the study. Organizations such as SCI have expressed willingness to donate tracking technology for wolf monitoring.
Concerns were expressed about closing access to wolf reintroduction areas. Many are interested in opportunities to hunt wolves in CO.
One speaker with experience in wolf reintroduction and management encouraged avoidance of litigation whenever possible.
County governments in CO have "opted out" of wolf reintroduction. These are primarily symbolic statements, CPW is not bound by those county declarations and must follow state and federal laws. However, such objections will be included in the planning process.
The interest group in this case was members of the CPW Sportspersons' Roundtable, including delegates and caucus representatives from the 4 CPW regions (NE, NW, SE, SW). CPW staff was present, answered questions, did not offer opinions. They are legally precluded from doing so, which a lot of wolf opponents take as CPW supporting reintroduction. Before voters narrowly passed reintroduction legislation, CPW's Wildlife Commission formally recommended against wolf reintroduction on two occasions. When legislation passed, that legally prevented CPW from expressing any further opinion.
Frequent emphasis was made seeking input from the web link:
Discussion of including 10-J permission for the state to kill problem wolves. This rule only applies to species on the federal list of endangered species. Gray wolves are not currently listed. If/when they are relisted, 10-J could be an aspect of the plan.
Agricultural interests are all concerned about game damage, wolves killing livestock. CPW's current process is considered by ranchers to undervalue calves, ewes, young livestock, and to be administratively cumbersome. One commenter suggested accurate records of weaning weights by ranchers would be more important with wolves present.
The law mandates "a sustaining population," discussion of meaning of that term. Some states define that as 2 packs successfully breeding for 2 consecutive years, another standard says 3 years. Commenters emphasized CO has less isolated acreage where wolves could avoid human conflict than some other states inhabited by wolves. Some discussion of selecting wolves for relocation from settings similar to those targeted in CO's plan.
CO's planners are actively consulting w wolf experts from MT, ID, WY and other states.
Wolf predation on CO's recently reintroduced moose population is a concern, as yet unquantified by planners.
One modeling predictor being considered is whether elk herds are over, @ or under population objectives. This may argue against reintroduction in DAUs like SW CO, Eagle county, others where herds are below objective and declining.
Decreasing elk license availability is a tool used by MT (cow tags) to counter wolf predation #s. Most research says to allow for one elk kill per wolf per month, statistically (not literally). Decreasing cow license #s in advance of wolf presence can be a means of "stockpiling" elk to maintain herd size when wolves are present.
Input from each regional caucus report was that anger and criticism toward CPW for allowing wolf reintroduction is nearly universal.
Sportspeople have also expressed opposition to license dollars funding wolf reintroduction, including game damage compensation. Planners are considering other sources of funding. The CO legislature has authorized about $1 million of tax funds for the 1st year of the study. Organizations such as SCI have expressed willingness to donate tracking technology for wolf monitoring.
Concerns were expressed about closing access to wolf reintroduction areas. Many are interested in opportunities to hunt wolves in CO.
One speaker with experience in wolf reintroduction and management encouraged avoidance of litigation whenever possible.
County governments in CO have "opted out" of wolf reintroduction. These are primarily symbolic statements, CPW is not bound by those county declarations and must follow state and federal laws. However, such objections will be included in the planning process.
They're bound to fulfill the measure. Is this misplaced or is there something else to it? Distribution points? Kinda, "Not in my backyard" type frustration or?
elkduds
Well-known member
My best guess is this is anger over the urban/rural divide in CO politics. The wolf ballot initiative stated wolves must be placed on the western slope. The vast majority of wolf proponents live in the urban centers of Denver metro, Boulder, Ft. Collins. In effect, "We want wolves. We want you country cousins to keep them for us so we can know they are there but not have to worry about them. And thanks for the water we divert from your side of the Divide so our cities can outgrow the water available on the east slope. Can we build some more reservoirs and diversion tunnels? You don't need all that water for agriculture. We have tens of thousands of new toilets to flush over here every year."
Last edited:
marksjeep
Well-known member
Well put. Thanks for your time and efforts on this.
Similar threads
