I dont understand the hostility towards wolf reintroduction in Colorado

[jtevanMT]

Bravo. Worth the less than 2 minute watch.

I have to disagree with this assessment and the content/message of the video. Peer reviewed science is the foundation for discovery and separates an opinion articles from hypothesis driven scientific discovery. Yes, scientific breakthroughs often come from the fringes of a field, but these are also peer-reviewed. Science, especially biological sciences, is constantly changing and adapting a new discoveries as publications are released. However, non-peer reviewed articles are opinion's offered by scientists should be taken with a grain of salt. Companies or special interest groups sometimes fund "research" and publish biased articles without peer-review. These are used by special interest groups to sway public opinion and are often times based on inaccurate scientific methods and heavily biased data that would not hold-up to the rigors of peer review. Peer-review is not perfect, and often times results in disagreements between the authors and reviewers that must be resolved or the article will be rejected from the journal. MANY manuscripts are rejected by top-tier journals. Some are later modified and published by lower tier journals. Thus, the quality and importance of the science is often reflected by the journal quality (impact factor score of the journal).

 

[woods89]

I hunt an area that will have wolves (occasionally it already does). I think they are cool animals, but the reintroduction is wrong place/wrong time.

You have to understand that there has been some real disingenousness around management in the WY/MT/ID wolves. Management has been delayed way longer than promised, and once management is allowed, really doesn't seem to have much effect.

This would be a much different conversation if we had a clear pattern on how they could be managed, and reason to trust that the goalposts wouldn't move when trigger numbers are hit. Unfortunately neither of those things exist, if the past is at all an example.

 

[svivian]

I don't really like to participate in these types of threads unless it's to post memes, but this is a perfect example of why wolf introduction had no business being on a ballot for the general public to decide.

To expect the people of Colorado to make an actual informed decision on something like this is ridiculous and shows how poorly our state is being ran in regard to wildlife management.

A much better path would have been to manage the wolves that were already in Colorado that naturally migrated down instead of pretending they did not exist for years. I don't think many would have had too much of an issue if there was proper management.

 

[COLD SMOKE]

Golfers don’t want more golfers

Snowboarders don’t want more snowboarders

Concert goers don’t want more concert goers

Surfers don’t want more surfers


Why can’t hunter not want more hunters?

Don’t tell me we need to grow our sport or it’ll get voted out…we’re a tiny fraction of the voting community and we can double or triple the outdoor community and it’ll have ZERO outcome at the ballot box.

We do need to grow our sport and here’s why:

1. When you connect with someone over sportsmanship ( hunting, golf, surfing, any pursuit that has etiquette and unspoken rules of conduct )

If you can pass on what you know and respect then the next generation,

Then there is a lineage and a tradition that comes from YOU. That’s important.

You create your community, you participate in the world you want to live in.

Does any traditional way of life matter if you think In terms of ballot boxes and voting ?

Does any traditional way of life matter in the things that count most in life ?

We can all
Choose to live as we please in America that’s why it is the greatest country.

Choosing your values and sharing them is important ( to me at least ) I encourage anyone who has any interest in hunting to take a safety class, get a licenses, and experience it as they see fit.

gatekeeping has never worked out well in my opinion.

 

[isItFallYet]

Finally understand the hate for flat brimmed hat wearers, bro!

 

[Ucsdryder]

I don't really like to participate in these types of threads unless it's to post memes, but this is a perfect example of why wolf introduction had no business being on a ballot for the general public to decide.

To expect the people of Colorado to make an actual informed decision on something like this is ridiculous and shows how poorly our state is being ran in regard to wildlife management.

A much better path would have been to manage the wolves that were already in Colorado that naturally migrated down instead of pretending they did not exist for years. I don't think many would have had too much of an issue if there was proper management.

Spot on…

CPW hid the wolves. I assume because they thought they’d naturally expand their habitat and NATURALLY reintroduce themselves. It turns out that was a major blunder on CPW part. As soon as talk of the wolf introduction ballot initiative was announced, CPW should have started spreading the word about the NATURAL reintroduction that was taking place.

 

[Michael Rankin]

Golfers don’t want more golfers

Snowboarders don’t want more snowboarders

Concert goers don’t want more concert goers

Surfers don’t want more surfers


Why can’t hunter not want more hunters?

Don’t tell me we need to grow our sport or it’ll get voted out…we’re a tiny fraction of the voting community and we can double or triple the outdoor community and it’ll have ZERO outcome at the ballot box.

I never said anything about needing more hunters???

 

[Ucsdryder]

I never said anything about needing more hunters???

I think I read your post wrong then. My apologies, my statement still stands though! Go take up golf and hold up the 4some behind you. (not referring to you)

 

[fwafwow]

I have to disagree with this assessment and the content/message of the video. Peer reviewed science is the foundation for discovery and separates an opinion articles from hypothesis driven scientific discovery. Yes, scientific breakthroughs often come from the fringes of a field, but these are also peer-reviewed. Science, especially biological sciences, is constantly changing and adapting a new discoveries as publications are released. However, non-peer reviewed articles are opinion's offered by scientists should be taken with a grain of salt. Companies or special interest groups sometimes fund "research" and publish biased articles without peer-review. These are used by special interest groups to sway public opinion and are often times based on inaccurate scientific methods and heavily biased data that would not hold-up to the rigors of peer review. Peer-review is not perfect, and often times results in disagreements between the authors and reviewers that must be resolved or the article will be rejected from the journal. MANY manuscripts are rejected by top-tier journals. Some are later modified and published by lower tier journals. Thus, the quality and importance of the science is often reflected by the journal quality (impact factor score of the journal).

Maybe I was too focused on medical peer review publications when I was watching the clip. I can't speak about science in general.

With respect to medical journals, this is one of my favorite (unfortunately) quotes:

"“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” Marcia Angell

 

[Jbehredt]

Spot on…

CPW hid the wolves. I assume because they thought they’d naturally expand their habitat and NATURALLY reintroduce themselves. It turns out that was a major blunder on CPW part. As soon as talk of the wolf introduction ballot initiative was announced, CPW should have started spreading the word about the NATURAL reintroduction that was taking place.

You’d think that the biologists opinions would have been central to the debate. But they were forcibly silenced.

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

Something tells me that OP runs with a pretty liberal crowd.
Makes me wonder if he had the opportunity to vote for the reintroduction to wolves, and now he finally thought about the effects for the first time.
Just a typical sad sight seen everyday nowadays, people thinking/voting with nothing but shear emotion based thoughts or propaganda driven into them, never once stopping to think what the real consequences might be.

 

[Ucsdryder]

You’d think that the biologists opinions would have been central to the debate. But they were forcibly silenced.

When the governor appoints your boss and the governor’s husband loves furry wolves you keep your effing mouth shut!

 

[Loo.wii]

Finally understand the hate for flat brimmed hat wearers, bro!

i like my hats tightly curved

 

[MuleyFever]

side bar.... how does ones retina get detached and not notice it. i dont image its a peaceful process

It can be very peaceful, apparently, because my wife didn't even know hers was becoming detached. She went in for her normal eye exam and the Dr caught it.

 

[jmez]

I have to disagree with this assessment and the content/message of the video. Peer reviewed science is the foundation for discovery and separates an opinion articles from hypothesis driven scientific discovery. Yes, scientific breakthroughs often come from the fringes of a field, but these are also peer-reviewed. Science, especially biological sciences, is constantly changing and adapting a new discoveries as publications are released. However, non-peer reviewed articles are opinion's offered by scientists should be taken with a grain of salt. Companies or special interest groups sometimes fund "research" and publish biased articles without peer-review. These are used by special interest groups to sway public opinion and are often times based on inaccurate scientific methods and heavily biased data that would not hold-up to the rigors of peer review. Peer-review is not perfect, and often times results in disagreements between the authors and reviewers that must be resolved or the article will be rejected from the journal. MANY manuscripts are rejected by top-tier journals. Some are later modified and published by lower tier journals. Thus, the quality and importance of the science is often reflected by the journal quality (impact factor score of the journal).

This should be written in the past tense. This is no longer the case.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

 

[Loo.wii]

Something tells me that OP runs with a pretty liberal crowd.
Makes me wonder if he had the opportunity to vote for the reintroduction to wolves, and now he finally thought about the effects for the first time.
Just a typical sad sight seen everyday nowadays, people thinking/voting with nothing but shear emotion based thoughts or propaganda driven into them, never once stopping to think what the real consequences might be.

My liberal friends tell me im to conservative. my conservative homies tell me im too liberal. I didn't live in CO during the ballot initiative. But the huge flaw to me is that there is no plan for management so i would not have voted for it. I hate the tribalism associated with either label but i guess since im on a hunting forum i have to put on my red hat.

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

The beauty of it is there never is a management plan. They will pretend there is some sort of management, but they just run wild and take over, like Idaho. Idaho is lucky enough to hunt and trap them, but its too little too late, the game populations have already taken a massive beating.

 

[ozyclint]

no game = no hunting

4 words and you're at the crux of the issue.
Anti's love wolves for a reason.

 

[jmez]

Nothing from the "pre-expansion west" applies today. You can't talk about a return to those times without also removing the expansion. Make a National Park out of the whole thing, it doesn't matter. It is still not the pre-expansion west, and never will be.

The OP openly admits favoring wolf reintroduction. Openly admits not being up on the ecology of the situation. Openly admits not understanding or even having researched issues for those affected. Is firmly opposed to not being able to manage the population.

Please explain how you support reintroduction?



Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

 

[ddd-shooter]

i like my hats tightly curved

Did you ever supply scientific reasoning that supports your opinion, bro?
Not on the brim of your hat, but the wolf issue, lol