I'm torn on Colorado prop 114.

txhunter581

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
330
Location
Texas
“Any other Colorado Roksliders feeling conflicted?”

No

I am sorry, but the people behind this are not doing it to “restore nature” but to eliminate hunting. And they will eventually succeed if allowed to win these battles.

Ask yourself why would people need to hunt in that future? They wouldn’t. Nature will eliminate the need. That is why the people behind this movement are ALWAYS opposed to ANY hunting of wolves no matter how many there are. Because they want to eliminate all hunting.

No, the city people that will vote YES don’t really feeL that way. But the people pushing the agenda do

I think it is fantastic to have wolves in Yellowstone, but I am very ok with us being the apex predator outside the park. It works and serves us well
 

ODB

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
1,330
That prop hits all the right rhetorical nerves for an easy pass...

Reintroduction = they’ve been here before and it’s our fault they aren’t now

statewide hearings= everyone will have an input

Scientific data = science is never wrong and people against this are science deniers and science deniers are evil

fairly compensate = don’t use your “loss of livestock” as an excuse to vote against it...

any questions how it’s done?
 

ElkHunter88

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2016
Messages
20
I love wildlife and think wolves are cool. However ballot box biology is always a bad idea. I do not see the need for a forced reintroduction of wolves in Colorado when we have wolves here. There have been many confirmed sightings and kills over the last few years. No need to reintroduce them. They are already here.
 

Buffinnut

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
90
Sure introduce wolves, as long as anyone who wants to can go up in a helicopter with a belt fed machine gun and shoot all the wolves they want.
 

ReddingArcher

Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2014
Messages
653
Man, it’s sad that, one, a hunter feels torn on whether or not to introduce wolves and two that it comes down to letting the citizens decide how state fish and game is run instead of the biologists that should be making these decisions. Ask yourself why Colorado biologists have been issued a gag order? As someone from California, who’s desperately wanting to get the hell out of here, where there’s effectively zero predator management I can see the writing on the wall. The democrats running the state don’t want hunting and are willing to decimate wildlife populations in order to put a stop to hunting. The same is about to happen to Colorado!

This really shouldn’t even be a question as to how a Colorado hunter should vote, vote no and educate your non-hunting friends and family on the consequences of introducing wolves to the state.
 

Titan_Bow

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
476
Location
Broomfield, CO
Again though, it’s not about convincing the hunters, it’s about convincing the yuppy urbanite and suburbanites who don’t know shit about hunting, wildlife or the natural world. This is why I hate this amendment so much. They are letting the uneducated masses make a decision that impacts funds that NONE of them contribute to. It is [email protected]&cking insane!
I will be absolutely shocked if this doesn’t pass, I don’t see it having a chance in hell of defeating it. I’ve NEVER seen a convincing ad, flyer, bumper sticker etc. that I felt could sway a non hunting suburbanite, NOT ONE!! I was east hunting last weekend and on the rural conservative local radio channel they are running a lot of about voting NO. Really??? That’s preaching to the choir for the most part. Where’s the ads on YouTube like I get every time I watch a video?? Where’s the messaging to the people that we need to sway?? Unfortunately I feel like we lost this battle before it ever really started....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Poser

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
Durango CO
Again though, it’s not about convincing the hunters, it’s about convincing the yuppy urbanite and suburbanites who don’t know shit about hunting, wildlife or the natural world. This is why I hate this amendment so much. They are letting the uneducated masses make a decision that impacts funds that NONE of them contribute to. It is [email protected]&cking insane!
I will be absolutely shocked if this doesn’t pass, I don’t see it having a chance in hell of defeating it. I’ve NEVER seen a convincing ad, flyer, bumper sticker etc. that I felt could sway a non hunting suburbanite, NOT ONE!! I was east hunting last weekend and on the rural conservative local radio channel they are running a lot of about voting NO. Really??? That’s preaching to the choir for the most part. Where’s the ads on YouTube like I get every time I watch a video?? Where’s the messaging to the people that we need to sway?? Unfortunately I feel like we lost this battle before it ever really started....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Ute tribe has been spending money on FB ads against reintroduction.
 

tt_johnsclist

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
260
I think the responses to this thread alone make it clear that if hunter conservationists aren’t willing to accept wolves on the landscape then you should vote no based on the social issues alone.
 

chasewild

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
530
Location
San Juans
Not torn in the slightest.

From a legal perspective and ecological perspective, prop 114 is absolutely asinine. I've fielded so many calls from non-hunters that begin like this: "how is this a good idea" And my response is "you're asking the right questions. If you look hard at Colorado, it's landscape and its current wildlife issues, there is no way a wolf is going to improve anything."
 

street

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
355
From the ballot:

"Shall there be a change to the CO Revised Statutes concerning the restoration of gray wolves through their reintroduction on designated lands in CO located west of the continental divide, and, in connection therewith, requiring the CPW commission, after holding statewide hearings and using scientific data, to implement a plan to restore and manage gray wolves; prohibiting the commission from imposing any land, water, or resource use restrictions on private landowners to further the plan; and requiring the commission to fairly compensate owners for losses of livestock caused by gray wolves?"
 

ODB

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
1,330
Again though, it’s not about convincing the hunters, it’s about convincing the yuppy urbanite and suburbanites who don’t know shit about hunting, wildlife or the natural world. This is why I hate this amendment so much. They are letting the uneducated masses make a decision that impacts funds that NONE of them contribute to. It is [email protected]&cking insane!
I will be absolutely shocked if this doesn’t pass, I don’t see it having a chance in hell of defeating it. I’ve NEVER seen a convincing ad, flyer, bumper sticker etc. that I felt could sway a non hunting suburbanite, NOT ONE!! I was east hunting last weekend and on the rural conservative local radio channel they are running a lot of about voting NO. Really??? That’s preaching to the choir for the most part. Where’s the ads on YouTube like I get every time I watch a video?? Where’s the messaging to the people that we need to sway?? Unfortunately I feel like we lost this battle before it ever really started....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus the problem with initiatives. Frankly it’s subverting anything “scientific” or reasonable by using ignorance and feelings....
 

3forks

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
358
I’m opposed to reintroducing wolves for all the same reasons many others have already stated.

But, I’d also contend that a reintroduction of wolves in Colorado would be unfair to the wolves as many of the people in Colorado who would vote in favor of this reintroduction are basically just too stupid and self centered to not create issues for wolves they voted to reintroduce.

A lot of people recreating in Colorado have zero consideration for anything but their own interests.

CPW has had to close trails because people were trying to take close up selfies of sow bears with their cubs. People leaving trash out for bears to get into. Unleashed and untrained dogs on trails and chasing wildlife. *Just the other day cyclists in Boulder County were impeding the evacuation of residents fleeing the fires in that area by riding on the roads going into the those same areas.

The list could go on and on, but my point is that people on the front range of Colorado are just too oblivious and self centered to not impact this wolf reintroduction in a way that would create additional issues other than what we know the wolves will do anyway. CPW can’t possibly manage the wolves, but I think their bigger problem would be trying to mitigate the issues caused by people viewing wolves as a novelty or some Disney type of benign critter.
 
Last edited:

MTElk1987

Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
53
Location
Montana
If you're curious as to what the future of your big game herds will look like with wolfs on the landscape, look no further then MT, WY and ID. Vote NO!
 

Pro953

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
370
Location
California
Always vote no on propositions. They are designed to use money to buy the votes of the misinformed often though misinformation to pass things that could not succeed in the proper legislative process.

Wolf reintroduction would not pass through the appropriate legislative process as the representatives of the Ag driven and more rural areas would fight it. So the interest group circumvents that process and runs a proposition where it can pass by popular vote based on higher density in the urban areas that would support reintroduction.

Propositions are a way of circumventing the whole process. Vote no on that principle alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top