Wolves in Colorado (officially soon)

oswald2581

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
40
Location
Denver, Colorado
And who within the USFWS says the ballot initiative will force them to introduce wolves?
I didn't really think about that, they are still considered endangered species in Colorado and management should fall under USFWS. I don't understand the legal side and what can and cant be done, but if Colorado votes to reintroduce, then CPW is forced to come up with a reintroduction plan, I assume it has to be approved by USFWS prior to anything being done? In all reality, why would USFWS not approve? And if they don't approve, how much money would it cost and how long would it get strung along in court due to them being sued?

The population in the has been proposed for delisting, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A00D should this happen, then CPW would be forced to manage them if the state votes to reintroduce. However, I don't see them being delisted any time soon due to legal battles.
 

WapitiBob

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
2,241
Location
Bend, Orygun
I emailed a USFWS deputy director and asked him how the measure would affect them and his reply was they don't know if it will force them to do anything.

Colorado will have to come up with an approved management plan regardless of how wolves get there. And an approved plan doesn't always transfer management to the state. We (oregon) had to have an approved plan, a population large enough/stable enough to be delisted, and only after delisting did the feds transfer management, and only that population east of 395. The area of the state west of 395 hasn't been delisted and the USFWS is still in control. And the USFWS didn't introduce a single wolf to Oregon; they walked in or were born here.

I posed the question because it seems the people asking for your money (stopthewolf, BGF, etc) are the ones who started the whole "wolves will be forcefully introduced" language. Knowing how the process went here, those groups are doing nothing that will get Colorado closer to managing wolves at the state level. I have yet to see those groups talk about the process, delisting, and how the state can gain management authority. All they talk about is defeating a ballot measure which does nothing for managing wolves that walk into the state.
 

theat

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
600
Location
NW Montana
I posed the question because it seems the people asking for your money (stopthewolf, BGF, etc) are the ones who started the whole "wolves will be forcefully introduced" language. Knowing how the process went here, those groups are doing nothing that will get Colorado closer to managing wolves at the state level. I have yet to see those groups talk about the process, delisting, and how the state can gain management authority. All they talk about is defeating a ballot measure which does nothing for managing wolves that walk into the state.
I don't trust anything that BGF or SFW say or do. They actually fought against the bill that congress passed removing wolves off of the endangered species list in Montana and Idaho. Not only did they fight against it, they lied to members of congress and their staff about other organizations including the NRA and SCI also being against the bill. They got called out on it too as you can see in the press release below. These groups make a ton of money off of hunters by creating and maintaining a fear of wolves. Once wolves were off of the endangered species list and able to be hunted and trapped, they lost the ability to get hunters to send them money to "fight to get wolves off the list".

110291
 

MTGomer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
2,351
Location
MT —> AZ
. I hope sportsmen and sportswomen never lose sight on what the enviros end game is: to end hunting and fishing.

Bingo.
I have been looking at public comments on past management proposals and designations in different places.

As just one example: in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, you will find groups that submitted comments advocating for the removal of wildlife waters because they degrade the natural character of the area and are a ‘threat’ to indigenous cultural resources. Yet, you will find the same groups advocating for ‘exclusion zones’ to enable the ‘industrial scale development of renewable energy’

4x8 ft drinker bad. A couple square miles of desert cleared for photovoltaic panels good.

This is the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club.
Animals are better off extinct. At least that way we can’t kill them.
 
Last edited:

Gila

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
107
Location
New Mexico
Just a little overly cynical, I think, MTGomer. Just a little.
NOT AT ALL......Those groups would not let us maintain the drinkers that were there. That was worse then not having them. We had Desert Bighorns dying off because of it. But they are a game species aren't they? Their solution is to remove the drinkers. Their agenda has nothing to do with wildlife management or the science behind that management. Go to a state game comission meeting, in any state. They proudly announce their presence. They always wear birchenstocks, khaki shorts, ball cap carrying a day pack . Their version of an Environmental Impact Report has nothing to do with management of the ecosytem. All they do is throw out endangered this, endangered that, keep off the grass.
 
Last edited:

Gila

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
107
Location
New Mexico
Back to the wolf debate...

Take a look at this bill to have the Gray Wolf delisted under the ESA. Colorado people take note on what can happen when wolves are introduced. Sports people, organize, go to game commission meeting, hollar and scream. This is the fight: https://defenders.org/newsroom/18-million-americans-speak-out-against-stripping-federal-protections-wolves

Senator Flake
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,490
Location
Montana
The anti ESA enviros are the ones petitioning, supported via funding by companies such as Patagonia, etc. Flipping gears here, the Sportsmen groups did not participate in the creation of the initiative to force introduction of wolves.

Sport groups (the ones who, in large, fund the wildlife conservation efforts) are opposed to the initiative and supportive of State Management.
 

Gila

Active member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
107
Location
New Mexico
This is how South Dakota manages the wandering wolf issue: http://news.sd.gov/newsitem.aspx?id=12603

Soon, the Interior Secretary is expected to endorse the FWS recommendation to delist the Gray Wolf in the lower 48 states. Then SD West river management would the same as East river management. The CPW Commission is a civilian panel appointed by the Governor. The way I see it, the enviros would have to get the state legislature to completely dissolve the entire commission first, and then relinguish the Governor's power. If you look at the Colorado State Constitution that ain't likely to happen. I don't see how a ballot initiative could come about?
 
Last edited:

MTGomer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
2,351
Location
MT —> AZ
out and out baloney.

Here’s a newly released podcast you should listen to.

One particular quote caught my attention as the guest was challenging Ben’s position that it isn’t about the individual animal and it’s ‘right’ to life, but the overall health of the population- in this instance the mallard population and it’s habitat....

The guest states:
“Minimizing suffering...whether that’s zero mallards or 1 billion mallards, that’s what we’re after”
 
Top