Colorado Announces Plans to Release “30 to 50” Gray Wolves Along the State’s Western Slope

[cheeser]

Colorado Announces Plans to Release "30 to 50" Gray Wolves Along the State's Western Slope

If approved, the plan will direct the transfer of wolves trapped in other parts of the Rockies to Colorado's Western Slope.

www.fieldandstream.com

 

[maxracx]

Great idea...... .

 

[rmyoung1]

Someone more knowledgeable than me hopefully can comment on this: Doesn’t the plan to release wolves on private/state lands, as a means to circumvent an EIS, open this to litigation? I mean, the pro-wolf camp litigates at every opportunity. Doesn’t this nefarious ploy open them to the same legal obstructionism?

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Yikes. Once the toothpaste gets squeezed out of the tube, it can't be put back in

 

[ammo]

Did they pick that number on purpose????

30-50 Feral Hogs

Feral Hogs refers to a hypothetical argument made on Twitter defending the ownership of assault rifles which posited that such weaponry would be necessary to combat the "30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play." After the tweet was posted in early August...

knowyourmeme.com

 

[nrpate05]

Someone more knowledgeable than me hopefully can comment on this: Doesn’t the plan to release wolves on private/state lands, as a means to circumvent an EIS, open this to litigation? I mean, the pro-wolf camp litigates at every opportunity. Doesn’t this nefarious ploy open them to the same legal obstructionism?

Yea that definitely stood out to me in the plan. Wolves will occupy federal land and that should trigger a review in my mind. It is a very odd situation because CO statute says the agency has to have wolves on the ground at the end of the year and that is not long enough for the feds to do any sort of analysis, so this is a way to get around it and why they went that route I presume. I imagine if someone sued they would have a good case.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

this will be the end of colorados big elk herds in a few years.mark my words.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

im sure idaho or montana has plenty to send to colorado and would be happy to get rid of them///look at the devastation they have caused there//colorado will be cryin in a few years

 

[kwyeewyk]

Someone more knowledgeable than me hopefully can comment on this: Doesn’t the plan to release wolves on private/state lands, as a means to circumvent an EIS, open this to litigation? I mean, the pro-wolf camp litigates at every opportunity. Doesn’t this nefarious ploy open them to the same legal obstructionism?

Only federal actions require NEPA, since CPW is not a federal agency there is no requirement for an EIS unless feds contribute funding. Colorado does not appear to require environmental review for state or private actions.

 

[rmyoung1]

@kwyeewyk Thanks for the clarification.

So, if I own some private ground close to the release site, I’m free to introduce some parvo-positive pooches on my property, I suppose. No EIS necessary.

 

[Sytes]

Colorado’s draft wolf reintroduction plan released - High Country News

Beginning in 2024, 30 to 50 gray wolves will be transferred into the state over the next three to five years.

www.hcn.org

Wolves will be managed under the state’s threatened and endangered rules with cooperation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wolves are listed as endangered by both the state and federal government.

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.

Federal involvement with Colorado:

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...

www.fws.gov

 

[kwyeewyk]

@kwyeewyk Thanks for the clarification.

So, if I own some private ground close to the release site, I’m free to introduce some parvo-positive pooches on my property, I suppose. No EIS necessary.

No EIS required but you might want to check local laws. Also I think those parvo-positive pooches need...

 

[Laelkhunter]

What GMU are in that area?

 

[Sytes]

I'd be interested in the general thought regarding intentionally placed wolves on State and private land with the obvious understanding the wolves will be on federal lands soon enough. Side stepping NEPA seems to counter the intent of NEPA...

 

[Sytes]

And... As expected The Center for BS Diversity released this statement:

This week the Center for Biological Diversity notified the Forest Service of its intent to sue, arguing the agency should do more to protect wolves and ban wolf hunting and trapping in Wyoming’s Medicine Bow Routt National Forest, where Colorado wolves may roam.

 

[DWarcher]

Chris Roe's last three podcasts were focused on this issue. It sounds like it's going to be pretty devastating.

 

[kwyeewyk]

I'd be interested in the general thought regarding intentionally placed wolves on State and private land with the obvious understanding the wolves will be on federal lands soon enough. Side stepping NEPA seems to counter the intent of NEPA...

A talented attorney might argue that because wolves are federally listed, and USFWS will be coordinating on the release via the experimental population designation, that would constitute a "connected action" and create "federal nexus" therefore triggering NEPA. I have no knowledge of previous case law for something like that so no idea what a judge would think of that argument. Could go sideways though because the experimental population designation is important to being able to manage with "take".

 

[Deleted member 20812]

And... As expected The Center for BS Diversity released this statement:

This week the Center for Biological Diversity notified the Forest Service of its intent to sue, arguing the agency should do more to protect wolves and ban wolf hunting and trapping in Wyoming’s Medicine Bow Routt National Forest, where Colorado wolves may roam.

I agree with @kwyeewyk. This may very well blow up in their faces. If the FS is obligated to take action as part of this release, then it’s pretty hard to argue NEPA shouldn’t be a part of it.

Not to mention, the general overall stupidity of the argument. It’s quite possibly dumber than the Canadian super wolf argument.

 

[Buffs35]

It's funny to me that posters are shocked when folks that earned their self-appointed biology degrees from watching slanted YouTube videos aren't concerned with following the law.

 

[Sytes]

I agree with @kwyeewyk. This may very well blow up in their faces. If the FS is obligated to take action as part of this release, then it’s pretty hard to argue NEPA shouldn’t be a part of it.

Not to mention, the general overall stupidity of the argument. It’s quite possibly dumber than the Canadian super wolf argument.

I believe they are viewing this the same as their successful social media blitz, famed wolf quotas vs science for 1-2 wolf quotas bordering GNP and YNP.
If success strikes with an inch, go for a mile.