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

[Aerosith]

One up ya...

Figure statistics...

Each wolf accounts for approx 20 elk kills per year.

"The wolves only kill the young, old, and injured animals"

 

[Gus Chiggins]

OK, the ODFW biologist is a science denier, so why not file a lawsuit in CO to stop the introduction?

Because unkess you get lucky, youre not going to have enough “science” to get a temporary or permanent injunction against reintroduction.

Its too divisive of an issue and the pro wolf and anti hunting groups would have more than a few experts in their corner (plus Colorado would also be in the fight saying they have to implement the will of the voters). Itd be a very expensive fight and would not stop the initial introduction anyway.

Hope im wrong.

 

[Sytes]

I believe we, those opposed to "the iceburg dead ahead" - Randy Newburg quote from his podcast, underestimated the intensity of the woof support - international funding and promotion.

It was 50.91% of the voting population that made this happen. They spent an approximate $2.5 million (international $ into a State issue), whereas RMEF, among others spent $600k. Had we tipped our hats another $200k, would that have offset the .91 to -.92 thus, 50.01% vote opposed?

It's amazing the lies spread that slurped the mothers exiting the shopping markets, approached by clipboards for them to sign with cute woof pups playing in snow, etc throughout metropolis Denver spanning into Boulder, etc. Wolves will cure CWD, etc! Hah!

 

[TOGIE]

there's just not much ground to sue on i don't think. i'm not an expert here, but you'd need to convince the court of evidence that the new law is in fact in conflict with existing law or is in conflict with the rights of citizens to get an injunction. the initiatives spend time in legislative and legal review at the capitol prior to being voted on which will often eliminate this from being a problem once they pass.

and, i'm sure any entity that would sue has realized it's a waste of money.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

Because unkess you get lucky, youre not going to have enough “science” to get a temporary or permanent injunction against reintroduction.

Its too divisive of an issue and the pro wolf and anti hunting groups would have more than a few experts in their corner (plus Comorado also in the fight saying they have to implement the will of the voters). Itd be a very expensive fight and would not stop the initial introduction anyway.

Hope im wrong.

3 out of 4 states refused to send wolves to CO based on their decades of science. A "battle of the experts" is not uncommon in court. Then you have states like MN and the Dakotas and their decades of experience.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

I believe we, those opposed to "the iceburg dead ahead" - Randy Newburg quote from his podcast, underestimated the intensity of the woof support - international funding and promotion.

It was 50.91% of the voting population that made this happen. They spent an approximate $2.5 million (international $ into a State issue), whereas RMEF, among others spent $600k. Had we tipped our hats another $200k, would that have offset the .91 to -.92 thus, 50.01% vote opposed?

It's amazing the lies spread that slurped the mothers exiting the shopping markets, approached by clipboards for them to sign with cute woof pups playing in snow, etc throughout metropolis Denver spanning into Boulder, etc. Wolves will cure CWD, etc! Hah!

Sounds like misrepresentation in the initiative process.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

there's just not much ground to sue on i don't think. i'm not an expert here, but you'd need to convince the court of evidence that the new law is in fact in conflict with existing law or is in conflict with the rights of citizens to get an injunction. the initiatives spend time in legislative and legal review at the capitol prior to being voted on which will often eliminate this from being a problem once they pass.

and, i'm sure any entity that would sue has realized it's a waste of money.

Doesn't the ESA prohibit the transport of endangered/threatened species; except with Fed. permission? And wasn't there a ruling in February 2022 relisting wolves as endangered/threatened throughout the lower 48 in MN? If so, wouldn't OR's transportation of wolves over state lines (without permission) to CO be in violation of the ESA? Does OR/CO have permission?

 

[TOGIE]

yes the feds are in the loop. 10j has even been approved i believe.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

yes the feds are in the loop. 10j has even been approved i believe.

Ah yes, section 10j does waive section 9. Thanks for the reminder.

So, I guess that takes CO folks back to when the ROD becomes final (last/this week?) and then challenging it. Seems odd that CFW issued an ROD without having any states agreeing to provide donor wolves. How can a scientist assess the environmental impact without knowing where the wolves are coming from. Seems rushed.

 

[Sytes]

there's just not much ground to sue on i don't think. i'm not an expert here, but you'd need to convince the court of evidence that the new law is in fact in conflict with existing law or is in conflict with the rights of citizens to get an injunction. the initiatives spend time in legislative and legal review at the capitol prior to being voted on which will often eliminate this from being a problem once they pass.

and, i'm sure any entity that would sue has realized it's a waste of money.

Never stopped enviromental extremists, i.e. EarthJustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for B.S. Diversity, etc... They file injunction motions endlessly (it's a simple process for attorneys) to promote their cause for their next $$$ donor drive.

The issue, IMO, there is not a collective international, "pro enviromental science collective" able to pull the heartstrings of naive New York, Los Angeles, Denver/Boulder city dwelling $ donors. "They are like the wilderness home of our beloved family dogs".

In the end, Lucky Lep, no... the ballot vote spoke for the State. Hire an attorney to file an injunction. It will get quashed, likely quickly though it will hold for a few. The problem with that route - you're doing it for a purpose other than cuddly woof's next international newsletter donor funding.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Ah yes, section 10j does waive section 9. Thanks for the reminder.

So, I guess that takes CO folks back to when the ROD becomes final (last/this week?) and then challenging it. Seems odd that CFW issued an ROD without having any states agreeing to provide donor wolves. How can a scientist assess the environmental impact without knowing where the wolves are coming from. Seems rushed.

Oregon has agreed to donate 10 wolves to CO because we’re buried with them. Havent heard whether any “oregon based” groups have sued to stop the donation but you never know.

 

[TOGIE]

Seems rushed.

rushed in every way a thing could be rushed. the voters spoke and gave cpw a deadline, and cpw is bound by law to follow through and meet the deadline.

 

[Sytes]

Ah yes, section 10j does waive section 9. Thanks for the reminder.

So, I guess that takes CO folks back to when the ROD becomes final (last/this week?) and then challenging it. Seems odd that CFW issued an ROD without having any states agreeing to provide donor wolves. How can a scientist assess the environmental impact without knowing where the wolves are coming from. Seems rushed.

They are coming from Oregon, another State similar to Colorado where the metropolus runs the entire State as Colorado who had 13 of the 64 counties vote in support.
Also, if not Oregon, The Idaho Tribal commision was in financial and logistical arrangements to provide wolves, contrary to Idaho though tribal is tribal.

Life. Colorado sewed it, now time to reap the good and bad of the re-introdution.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

They are coming from Oregon, another State similar to Colorado where the metropolus runs the entire State as Colorado who had 13 of the 64 counties vote in support.
Also, if not Oregon, The Idaho Tribal commision was in financial and logistical arrangements to provide wolves, contrary to Idaho though tribal is tribal.

Life. Colorado sewed it, now time to reap the good and bad of the re-introdution.

So long as after wolf reintroduction theres smart management, things may ok.

But if eventually there are more hunting restrictions on other predators, and wolves keep populating and expanding, Colorado will see see quite a decline in big game numbers. That would take quite a few years, but its what has happened in parts of Oregon.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

Never stopped enviromental extremists, i.e. EarthJustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for B.S. Diversity, etc... They file injunction motions endlessly (it's a simple process for attorneys) to promote their cause for their next $$$ donor drive.

The issue, IMO, there is not a collective international, "pro enviromental science collective" able to pull the heartstrings of naive New York, Los Angeles, Denver/Boulder city dwelling $ donors. "They are like the wilderness home of our beloved family dogs".

In the end, Lucky Lep, no... the ballot vote spoke for the State. Hire an attorney to file an injunction. It will get quashed, likely quickly though it will hold for a few. The problem with that route - you're doing it for a purpose other than cuddly woof's next international newsletter donor funding.

I can't file a suit, not a resident. But if I were, I would.

 

[Cogreeny]

Wait until the lion hunting ban is on the ballot in 2024. The morons that live here will vote to ban it. Mule deer will pay the price. Then the same morons will say we don’t need hunters on the landscape the apex predators are controlling herd numbers. It’s all part of the master plan. Get what you vote for.

 

[Lucky_Lep]

Wait until the lion hunting ban is on the ballot in 2024. The morons that live here will vote to ban it. Mule deer will pay the price. Then the same morons will say we don’t need hunters on the landscape the apex predators are controlling herd numbers. It’s all part of the master plan. Get what you vote for.

I heard about that recently too. Voter initiatives are not written in stone. They can, and are, changed at the pleasure of the people. From earlier posts sounds like there is a persuadable group in the middle of all these changes.

 

[grasshopper]

So long as after wolf reintroduction theres smart management, things may ok.

They designated them as nongame in the ballot initiative. There will be no legal wolf hunting by hunters. There may be removal by payments made to USDA wildlife services. But management, no, not for the foreseeable future.

 

[Cogreeny]

I heard about that recently too. Voter initiatives are not written in stone. They can, and are, changed at the pleasure of the people. From earlier posts sounds like there is a persuadable group in the middle of all these changes.

People thought that in ‘96 too when we had trapping on the ballot. Voters voted boom no trapping. The state has moved waaaaaaay more left since then. Watch and see what happens if and when it’s on the ballot.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

They designated them as nongame in the ballot initiative. There will be no legal wolf hunting by hunters. There may be removal by payments made to USDA wildlife services. But management, no, not for the foreseeable future.

Or never.