bascott1
WKR
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2018
- Messages
- 387
Took 5 tries to get to an actual reason (expense), and then they repeated it for #6. And it's not an actual reason if it's supported by the majorty of the state taxpayers.
If I recall correctly the initiative has no funding provisions included, also IIRC the CPW doesn't get any (or much) funding from the tax payers. Most (all?) is via license sales. So its a legit statement unless the ballot initiative includes a tax approval along with it to cover the expenses incurred, voters should put their money where their mouth is if trying to expedite this situation (which is already naturally occurring, wolves are already in CO) rather than pass their virtues onto the wallets of sportsmen.
(dons flameproof suit...)
"forcibly?" Dishonest premise from the beginning.
Pitiful examination of the actual effects, if any.
Took 5 tries to get to an actual reason (expense), and then they repeated it for #6. And it's not an actual reason if it's supported by the majorty of the state taxpayers.
"proponents are pushing theories on the public as if they are established scientific truth..." - Pot, meet kettle. LOL
Enjoy your propaganda tho. Sure is slick.
CPW is not funded by taxpayers, they are funded by license sales.
Newto, so why don't we just let the general public determine all game management?
sheesh...what a stupid idea....
_________
My reference was that "forcibly" was a dishonest characterization if it is the will of the voters. Now, if CPW doesn't want it, then yes, that's "forcibly" but that isn't the context that was used in the video as I understood it.Newt, if the cpw is against the idea and they are forced to do it based on a vote then what do you call it? “Forcibly” sounds pretty spot on to me. It amazes me that there are “hunters” that are pro-wolf forcible introduction.
Agreed, to a point. The citizens of the state are still stakeholders. It will affect them to some degree. Also, some folks may think that there will be tourism revenue generated by the presence of wolves (there very well may) and that will benefit all citizens of the state.Newt I can buy that. My frustration comes from the fact that we are allowing the voting public to decide matters that should be left to the experts (biologists). Someone who has no experience, background, or knowledge of wolves and their impact on the environment should not be allowed to decide if they are introduced into Colorado.
Shared in VA. You guys need Joe Rogan to repost this.
Rogan, who just started hunting and is a multi millionaire, hunts on private high dollar ranches with no wolves and doesn't care.
Where's the BHA Colorado chapter on this? crickets
Rogan has been a pretty big proponent of not introducing wolves. I believe he already said some of his thoughts on his last Cam Hanes interview.
Regardless, I don’t think he’d sway the whole CO public vote. I just won’t ever understand the average person’s fascination with wolf numbers. I remember when the last American caribou herd disappeared here in north Idaho in 2017. Where were all the people up in arms over that? That was a true tragedy right there.
Rogan, who just started hunting and is a multi millionaire, hunts on private high dollar ranches with no wolves and doesn't care.
Where's the BHA Colorado chapter on this? crickets
It's possible that this is true, and he's certainly not doing the kind of hunting most guys on here are. It is definitely true, however, that Rogan is both a passionate hunter and a pretty open-minded guy, and if he made an effort to acknowledge the issue, there would be thousands of times as many people reached as the above video. It could, quite literally, change the course of events on this thing. If we as sportsmen want things to go our way in 2020, we're going to have to learn to keep company other than the NRA and Jim Shockey.