Wolves delisting imminent

[Dave N]

3...

 

[JLS]

So somewhere between ballot harvesting, ultra running, and hemorrhoids, we'll find a solution to wolf classification and management+

 

[Ben Lamb]

So somewhere between ballot harvesting, ultra running, and hemorrhoids, we'll find a solution to wolf classification and management+

There's an SSS joke in here, but I'm far too erudite & cultured to make it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

So serious question does this effect Colorado’s wolf ballot measure, ie would a new Colorado wolf population be delisted or would it not be covered under this order?

 

[VikingsGuy]

So serious question does this effect Colorado’s wolf ballot measure, ie would a new Colorado wolf population be delisted or would it not be covered under this order?

I don't think it affects their re-introduction, but would not afford the introduced wolves ESA protections once in place.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't think it affects their re-introduction, but would not afford the introduced wolves ESA protections once in place.

So any reintroduced population segments would be under immediate state control, so similar to PA/MN/MI elk?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Smarter naturalist minds than I have to speak to the broader issue, but close to home, we have property where the existing wolve population is 2-3 times higher than the target population and there needs to be some sort of solution. I don't care if it is a hunt or some type of state management, but there is NOT eco-balance in our neck of the woods. I would also like to be able to protect my hunting dogs from attack while grouse hunting without having to choose between a felony and SSS. This is all a little ridiculous - high population bubbles need to be managed, (even if it offends ultra-runners).

 

[VikingsGuy]

So any reintroduced population segments would be under immediate state control, so similar to PA/MN/MI elk?

Yup. For example, in MN, if this stands, the rules would revert to MN pre-listing rules unless until the MN DNR or legislature does something different.

 

[rwc101]

even if it offends ultra-runners

Especially if it offends ultra-runners.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Especially if it offends ultra-runners.

I’m offended.*

*what qualifies?

 

[Djfan]

It's about time.

 

[BWALKER77]

it is still an important law that does what it is supposed to do: prevent a species from going extinct.

That said, there needs to be an honest effort to change how we use it, especially in light of the way some courts interpret the law.

Tell that to woodland caribou in the lower 48. The courts have taken a good thing in the ESA and transformed it into a stinking pile of political garbage.

 

[rwc101]

I’m offended.*

*what qualifies?

I don't think they will ever accept you into their ranks because you eat meat. Unfortunate since you've nailed their general un-likability so well (and we all know, somehow, that you have the short shorts).

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't think they will ever accept you into their ranks because you eat meat. Unfortunate since you've nailed their general un-likability so well (and we all know, somehow, that you have the short shorts).

Guilty on all acounts

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't think it affects their re-introduction, but would not afford the introduced wolves ESA protections once in place.

What about States Rights? The new SCOTUS will surely let Colorado take the lead on that.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Smarter naturalist minds than I have to speak to the broader issue, but close to home, we have property where the existing wolve population is 2-3 times higher than the target population and there needs to be some sort of solution. I don't care if it is a hunt or some type of state management, but there is NOT eco-balance in our neck of the woods. I would also like to be able to protect my hunting dogs from attack while grouse hunting without having to choose between a felony and SSS. This is all a little ridiculous - high population bubbles need to be managed, (even if it offends ultra-runners).

So you might not know about this but wolves save rivers; have you heard of Yellowstone? it’s this place in MT or WY maybe... anyway

 

[VikingsGuy]

What about States Rights? The new SCOTUS will surely let Colorado take the lead on that.

If just snarky, then haha. But if serious, I don't see any legal reason CO can't protect various species not covered by ESA within its own borders for its own reasons - no SCOTUS needed.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So you might not know about this but wolves save rivers; have you heard of Yellowstone? it’s this place in MT or WY maybe... anyway

I am missing a few steps in logic, how does having too many wolves in my county (to the extent that they depopulate whitetails to historic lows and turn on every other thing walking the land for an alternate source of food) help Yellowstone. Do tell, as I want to do my PL best.

 

[mtmuley]

Wolves save rivers. Jesus...… mtmuley

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I am missing a few steps in logic, how does having too many wolves in my county (to the extent that they depopulate whitetails to historic lows and turn on every other thing walking the land for an alternate source of food) help Yellowstone. Do tell, as I want to do my PL best.

Well see there are lots of willows, well were... the elk ate all them.

Cause there were so many elk. So then there weren’t any beaver or coyotes... and then