Push to reintroduce wolves in Colorado gains momentum with delivery of 211,000 signatures for ballot initiative

Voters could get chance to override state policy if 124,632 signatures are validated



National Park Service, via The Associated Press file Proponents of a ballot measure to require the reintroduction of the gray wolf, similar to the wolf seen in this undated photo, in Colorado submitted their signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2019.
By BRUCE FINLEY | bfinley@denverpost.com | The Denver Post

PUBLISHED: December 10, 2019 at 10:22 am | UPDATED: December 10, 2019 at 8:46 pm

After months of collecting signatures, backers of a controversial ballot initiative that would reintroduce wolves in Colorado on Tuesday presented state officials with 211,093 signatures, more than enough, they hope, to put their measure before voters next year.

This initiative — reflecting rising urban demands for ecological integrity — would ask Coloradans whether to require state wildlife commissioners to reintroduce gray wolves by the end of 2023 on public land west of the Continental Divide and set up a fund to compensate livestock owners for any losses.

The proponents contend introducing what likely would be a few hundred wolves across 17 million acres would help restore ecological balance by bringing a much-needed predator for out-of-kilter deer and elk herds. Wildlife advocates see Colorado as a missing link in efforts to connect wolf habitat from the Arctic to Mexico.

But Colorado livestock groups already have rallied local leaders in a dozen counties to oppose the measure. They’re raising funds and have enlisted former Colorado natural resources director and Club 20 business group president Greg Walcher, who argues that wolves — unlike lynx, moose, prairie chickens and other previously seeded species — “simply cannot peacefully coexist in a state with almost 6 million people.”

A voter-driven introduction of wolves in Colorado would break new ground for direct democracy ballot initiatives as an alternative to legislative and government agency processes. Colorado voters in 1992 set a precedent by banning the spring hunting of bears just emerging from hibernation. And voters in 1996 prohibited hunters in Colorado from using leg traps.

This wolf initiative, if it qualifies for the November 2020 ballot, would mark the first time voters in any state have considered ordering the reintroduction of a species.

Wildlife survival and ecosystem health have emerged as priorities for both urban and rural voters in Colorado amid population growth and a development boom that has led to increasingly dense, paved-over cities and fragmentation of habitat.

Colorado government officials for years have rebuffed popular efforts to bring back wolves. In 2016, state wildlife commissioners passed a resolution committing the state to oppose any reintroduction.

AAron Ontiveroz, The Denver PostRob Edward speaks at the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2019. More than 200,000 signatures were dropped off in hopes of getting gray wolf re-introduction on the November 2020 ballot.

Collecting signatures
Wolf advocates for months have been gathering signatures at Colorado Front Range recreation centers, zoos, farmers markets and festivals, relying on paid campaigners and 310 volunteers. They have raised more than $1 million and are preparing to accelerate their efforts, said Rob Edward, president of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund.

“We need wolves to restore the balance of nature in western Colorado,” Edward said.

Wolf reintroduction in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico “has not happened in Colorado because there are other interests at work that have a lot of political capital,” he said. “This was the only way, our last play. To do it this way wasn’t our first choice.”

“It’s not going to happen otherwise because special interests have more power that the conservation nonprofits and others at the forefront of this effort. Colorado’s legislative system has been set up since the 1800s in such a way that there’s tremendous power given to rural areas, which translates into certain agricultural interests having more political weight than the urban areas.”


Bruce Finley
✔
@finleybruce
Colorado wolf advocates just turned in 211,093 signatures to Secretary of State in effort to put voter initiative on 2020 November ballot to require wolf reintroduction by end of 2023

4
11:06 AM - Dec 10, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Bruce Finley's other Tweets
Whether voters get a chance to weigh in on wolves depends on validation by Colorado elections officials of at least 124,632 signatures, the amount required under state ballot initiative process. Over the next month, staffers in the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office say they will collect a random sample of 5% of the signatures submitted Tuesday and compare the names and addresses against those on voter registration rolls. If fewer than 90% of the signatures are deemed valid, the measure wouldn’t make the November 2020 election ballot.

Federal protections at risk
A century ago, wolves roamed western Colorado. But by 1900, ranchers and others had hunted them mostly out of existence in an effort to promote grazing domestic livestock, including cattle and sheep. Colorado’s last wild wolf howled in the early 1940s.

But wolves since 1983 have received protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. This has compelled reintroductions by the federal and state governments in the northern Rocky Mountain states, the southwest and Great Lakes region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data shows the gray wolf population in the lower 48 states has reached more than 5,680.

Federal officials in March proposed to “de-list” gray wolves to remove that protection. A previous effort to de-list wolves under President Barack Obama died in the face of a fierce public backlash.

The proponents of bringing wolves back to western Colorado said suitable habitat likely could be designated in the Flat Tops areas in northwestern Colorado, the Grand Mesa south of Interstate 70, the San Juan Mountains and parts of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains near New Mexico.

They say wolves will help deer and elk herds by targeting sick and weak animals and revive ailing ecosystems where natural predators are rare. And proponents say benefits may include reduction of the chronic wasting disease that infects elk and deer, though the science on this isn’t conclusive.

AAron Ontiveroz, The Denver PostSigned petitions are stacked in boxes at the Colorado Secretary of State’s Offices on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2019. More than 200,000 signatures were dropped off in hopes of getting gray wolf re-introduction on the November 2020 ballot.

Reintroducing species via ballot box
Agricultural groups are fighting the wolf advocates.

“They have some momentum,” said Colorado Farm Bureau vice president Shawn Martini, referring to ballot measure backers. “But we’ve got a plan to grab donors, grab additional support, and take the message to Colorado voters that it is not appropriate to circumvent the scientific process and reintroduce species through the ballot box.”

“They’d be introducing the Canadian gray wolf, which is larger and much more aggressive than the wolf that we had here,” said Denny Behrens, co-chair of the Colorado Stop the Wolf Coalition. “We don’t believe it’s fair to bring that Canadian wolf down here into Colorado. We’ve got almost 6 million people here. It’s going to be conflict from Day One.”

Funds for the ballot initiative have come from “out-of-state radical environmental groups,” he said. “The majority of Colorado does not want the wolves. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has put forth resolutions saying no wolf reintroduction. So why are we going to circumvent the professional wildlife mangers? It is absurd.”

City people really do not have a clue.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
City people really do not have a clue.

Or raise livestock.

Or hunt.

Wolves are a sign of wilderness, which we all crave to a degree. That being said I go off the rails when I’m missing just a chicken. Hopefully they are introduced and managed with hunting and trapping. Don’t hold your breath.

So many of these DNR/F&G agencies are run by "committee" vrs by science based long range planning. Colorado Fish and game is in the apex predation business, selling licences for same. It's there single biggest revenue source. When their elk herd crashes, who pays the bill? It will not be the petition signers.

Eco terrorism

I wish that every wolf in the west was extinct! The Canadians can keep them

crane:

There's NO such thing as
CO Fish and Game!

It's been changed years ago
to: CO PARKS and Wildlife
or CPW

More holes to dig in the boonies.

This is just another way to END
hunting. End run again.
George

quote:

Wolves are a sign of wilderness,

BS

They are and will live happily in non wilderness areas.

Like they do around my place and a lot of Wisconsin.

BS yourself, they don’t live where I live or within 300 miles. Coyotes live in town. Wolves don’t live in town.

The fallacy is believing that bunny huggers would be satisfied with establishment of any kind of stable population.

Using the Endangered Species Act, wolves were (re)introduced into several western states. Then when the populations grew to the number proscribed in the recovery plan and the FWS tried to de-list them - the animal rights folks turned to the courts to prevent any hunting, trapping or population control. This shows clearly that ecosystem management was never the aim.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Here's the source of the mischief right here:
"rising urban demands for ecological integrity."
This would be funny if it weren't so serious.
"Urban" by its very nature means anti-environment.
I had the great misfortune to pass through the Colorado Springs-to-Fort Collins corridor on I-25 on a weekday afternoon last month and it was bumper to bumper traffic just creeping along. What an overpopulated hellhole.

From time to time, when I'm dropping the kids off at school, I get behind a little SUV. A large sticker in the back window of this SUV reads "Colorado Needs Wolves".

This brainless twit lives in Illinois and, I'm guessing, has never had to deal with wolves or any other predator in their lives.

They banned baiting and hound hunting of black bear. They also passed banning of leg hold traps. I'm sure if it gets on the ballot it will pass also.

The elk herd is in decline across the whole state south of I-70. Quite a few locals have even called for the stopping the elk season for a few years hoping they will recover. Many have even stopped elk hunting altogether---me included.

Bob, the liberal idiots in Portland banned hound hunting of bears and cougars in Oregon years ago, with predictable population results that they don't have to live with, although a cougar did kill a female hiker a couple of years ago near Mount Hood.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
BS yourself, they don’t live where I live or within 300 miles. Coyotes live in town. Wolves don’t live in town.

If you don't have wolves with in 300 miles then you are one of the lucky ones.

I have them in the front yard at my place.

I have many game cam pictures with in a mile of my place.

I can see fresh wolf tracks any day with in 2 miles.

I have seen at least 10 this year.

I hardly live in the wilderness.

Wolves will live next to people as long as they are not harassed.

Northern. Wis. is proof of that

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
BS yourself, they don’t live where I live or within 300 miles. Coyotes live in town. Wolves don’t live in town.

I don't have the links, but search the wolves of north Ironwood or Munising MI. They may not be living in town, but they head there to pick up vittles.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
BS yourself, they don’t live where I live or within 300 miles. Coyotes live in town. Wolves don’t live in town.

If you don't have wolves with in 300 miles then you are one of the lucky ones.

I have them in the front yard at my place.

I have many game cam pictures with in a mile of my place.

I can see fresh wolf tracks any day with in 2 miles.

I have seen at least 10 this year.

I hardly live in the wilderness.

Wolves will live next to people as long as they are not harassed.

Northern. Wis. is proof of that

Same deal here in NE Wi,plus Cougars that the State denied existed in NE Wi until one got killed on Hwy 8.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
City people really do not have a clue.

Voters could get chance to override state policy if 124,632 signatures are validated.

Democracy can be dangerous

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
BS yourself, they don’t live where I live or within 300 miles. Coyotes live in town. Wolves don’t live in town.

Check out Europe, that would invalidate that argument.

Grizz

OH BUT, they look so pretty in the coffee table books though.
First stock them and establish breeding populations in the large parks in every large city.

coyotes live in town because they don't want to get eaten by the wolves... or the Mtn. lions.
we get a few Mtn. Lions in town each year then the coyotes vacate the area.
they usually note that they left before we notice the cats.

if Colorado wants some wolves I know we would be more than happy to donate ours to them.

wolf tags are 12$
Elk tags are 40$ anyway.

But the Fish and Game department being over ruled by the legislature and the initiative process has worked so well in California it should work equally well in Colorado. Plus in CA the Fish and Game Dept has been taken over by bunny huggers so no doe season in the past 60 years and lions are protected. What could go wrong?

Coyotes live in town because they don’t want to get eaten by wolves? Ain’t no wolves here...and coyotes live in town. Fact is the coyote is more adaptable. Current populations of each makes this irrefutable. If you don’t see wolves as a sign of wilderness you’re head is in the sand. Far and away wolf populations thrive in....you guessed it, wilderness. Large populations of large ungulates are required for wolves,and they all require large areas, and they’re not found in suburbs. Coyotes on the other hand seem to thrive everywhere. How many wolves are seen at dumpsters? Not very fucking many. Shit man there’s coyote hunting competitions around here and they still seem stable to growing. Wolves won’t tolerate too much human contact. Humans won’t tolerate too much wolf contact. Been that way for centuries. End of fucking story.

Nearly all people yearn to feel connected with nature. The vast majority of urban dwellers have almost no connection with nature, and as close as they will ever get to regaining this connection to nature looking at photos or watching TV shows. The people I am referring to don’t camp, hunt, fish, visit wilderness area, bird watch or do any activity that actually puts them in touch with nature, yet they still yearn for that connection. It stands to reason that given the chance to vote to reintroduce wolves they will overwhelming vote “yes”.

That “yes” vote is as close as they will ever come to actually being connected to nature. In their minds it allows them to believe that they still have some connection to the wilderness from which we all originated.

Unless we figure out a way to do something about this we had better start planning on having wolves in most all of the areas we hunt.

quote:

posted 16 December 2019 01:25 Hide Post
Nearly all people yearn to feel connected with nature. The vast majority of urban dwellers have almost no connection with nature, and as close as they will ever get to regaining this connection to nature looking at photos or watching TV shows. The people I am referring to don’t camp, hunt, fish, visit wilderness area, bird watch or do any activity that actually puts them in touch with nature, yet they still yearn for that connection. It stands to reason that given the chance to vote to reintroduce wolves they will overwhelming vote “yes”.

That “yes” vote is as close as they will ever come to actually being connected to nature. In their minds it allows them to believe that they still have some connection to the wilderness from which we all originated.

Unless we figure out a way to do something about this we had better start planning on having wolves in most all of the areas we hunt.

Jason

First, Wolves will exist mostly on public land. Are you claiming superior rights to what happens there? Second, all of Canada has wolves and a bunch of us in the US go there specifically because the hunting is better. Third, there has never been a time in Minnesota when we did not have wolves in documented history. It my be presumed that during glacial periods there may have been very few of them in Minnesota.

I have lived and hunted in areas where there were no wolves closer than 100 miles and very few deer. During the time I have lived here we have acquired wolves and a simultaneous overpopulation of deer. Over population to the point in one area where we had 3 packs inside ten miles of deer camp and an early antlerless season in which we could kill 2 and a regular season in which we could kill five deer. Over population in which we killed 24 deer or so on the roads and at least four additional hunting off a 1/2 section of land. Wolves during that time had a pack about five miles away.

Wolves, or any predator for that matter do not necessarily mean bad things for game populations. Africa being a prime example.

quote:

Wolves won’t tolerate too much human contact. Humans won’t tolerate too much wolf contact. Been that way for centuries.

By the way where to you live.

Really come here and tell the wolves that I don't think my local wolves understand English.

Then tell the federal courts.

quote:

Originally posted by miles58:

First, Wolves will exist mostly on public land. Are you claiming superior rights to what happens there? Second, all of Canada has wolves and a bunch of us in the US go there specifically because the hunting is better.

———————————————————

Wolves, or any predator for that matter do not necessarily mean bad things for game populations. Africa being a prime example.

No, I’m not claiming superior rights. My post was an attempt to gently assert that we will be getter my more wolves in the lower 48, like it or not.... So we might start looking at ways to deal with them.

As to your second point, I agree and Alaska could be added as another example in addition to Canada and Africa which you already mentioned.

BTW, I live on the North slope of Alaska and we had a wolf and a grizzly in our village last year(pop 400). The wolf injured a dog that had to be put down. This year we are in Barrow and there are polar bears coming within 200 yards of my house several times a week.

I’m in Ohio. What I stated is indisputable. No, people don’t move in and wolves suddenly leave. But eventually...they gone. The historical record bears this out. Either from lack of prey or shoot shovel shut up. They eventually... gone.

Don't get me wrong, I am not all that in favor of wolves. I think probably the best thing that can happen to both people and wolves would be to remove them from protected status and allow anyone to kill wolves anywhere at any time in any manner short of poison. Wolves are smart, by nature extremely man shy, and also by nature their own worst enemy. It's likely that in places where it is legal to kill wolves it is likely that wolves kill at least as many wolves as people do. Wolves exposed to trapping and being shot at are much, much more man shy than protected wolves that don't get shot at or trapped. I would say it's near impossible to extirpate them in decent habitat by normal hunting/trapping methods. It takes a surprisingly small amount of shooting at them to adjust their behavior to avoiding people very stringently.

quote:

Originally posted by miles58:

quote:

posted 16 December 2019 01:25 Hide Post
Nearly all people yearn to feel connected with nature. The vast majority of urban dwellers have almost no connection with nature, and as close as they will ever get to regaining this connection to nature looking at photos or watching TV shows. The people I am referring to don’t camp, hunt, fish, visit wilderness area, bird watch or do any activity that actually puts them in touch with nature, yet they still yearn for that connection. It stands to reason that given the chance to vote to reintroduce wolves they will overwhelming vote “yes”.

That “yes” vote is as close as they will ever come to actually being connected to nature. In their minds it allows them to believe that they still have some connection to the wilderness from which we all originated.

Unless we figure out a way to do something about this we had better start planning on having wolves in most all of the areas we hunt.

Jason

First, Wolves will exist mostly on public land. Are you claiming superior rights to what happens there? Second, all of Canada has wolves and a bunch of us in the US go there specifically because the hunting is better. Third, there has never been a time in Minnesota when we did not have wolves in documented history. It my be presumed that during glacial periods there may have been very few of them in Minnesota.

I have lived and hunted in areas where there were no wolves closer than 100 miles and very few deer. During the time I have lived here we have acquired wolves and a simultaneous overpopulation of deer. Over population to the point in one area where we had 3 packs inside ten miles of deer camp and an early antlerless season in which we could kill 2 and a regular season in which we could kill five deer. Over population in which we killed 24 deer or so on the roads and at least four additional hunting off a 1/2 section of land. Wolves during that time had a pack about five miles away.

Wolves, or any predator for that matter do not necessarily mean bad things for game populations. Africa being a prime example.

According to this I should have deer crawling out of my ass.We have Wolves,coyotes,bobcat, lynx,bear and Cougar and I have pics of all of them on my game cameras.20 years ago when there was no lottery for bobcats,liberal bear seasons and no wolves I alone took 2 bucks and 2 does from my property a year plus turkeys spring and fall.I saw NO Deer this Rifle season and have not seen a turkey here for at least 5 years.I have relatives who farm in Minn, and they tell me a quite different story than yours.

I have observed that deer have been taught by timber wolves to read. That is correct, deer can be taught to READ!

In far northern Wisconsin there is a very small town called Land o Lakes, it is on US Highway 45. To the east of there is a really nice lake, Lac Vieux Desert. Between Hwy 45 and the lake was a deer yard, a winter habitat that deer migrate many miles to. 30 years ago, it was common to see some deer and many trails there. We used to make several trips a winter to ice fish Vieux Desert.

Someone decided to post some yellow caution signs informing the deer that this area was now classified as 'Wolf Habitat'. Official, reflective highway department signs. Well, the deer read the signs and decided to move to different areas. You can drive the area now and there is no deer tracks. There are no wolf tracks either.

By observing this, it is obvious the deer can read... or else the wolves ate them all up and moved on to other areas.

There is an undeniable truth that wolves and people do not get along. A wolf is a lousy neighbor. People are in fact the apex predator, capable of adjusting their surroundings to their advantage.

I certainly hope that the people of Colorado can keep the wolves away.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
I’m in Ohio. What I stated is indisputable. No, people don’t move in and wolves suddenly leave. But eventually...they gone. The historical record bears this out. Either from lack of prey or shoot shovel shut up. They eventually... gone.

You really do not know what you are talking about.

Wolves are living very well in northern Wis MN MI among people and are increasing numbers.

If you are allowed to hunt them legally trap them with out undue restrictions.

Then you might change how and where wolves live.


But with the total protections they have now they live among us with out problems.

If wolfs are so important to the eco system, why is there no push to introduce wolfs into Eastern Colorado?

To close to major population centers? To dangerous for the nibs living in or near those population centers?

Or just another progressive push to eliminate all possibility of hunting while also finanially hurting "those folks who don't think like them"?

Perhaps hunting organizations should push legislation to introduce wolf populations into city parklands so that urban dwellers could enjoy their howling at night without the need to drive hours from home to do so. Just think of the amount of CO2 that would be eliminated by just this single action along with the favorable benefit to "climate change issues"...

The ignorance displayed in this thread is astonishing.

I live and hunt in East Central Minnesota. Literally just across the river from several of these people. I know for a fact that there's still a hell of a lot of deer between Superior and St Croix Falls, and that's almost end to end jack pine barrens, mostly very poor habitat for deer at best. There's also wolves just about to the outskirts of St Croix falls on occasion. There's wolves from Duluth down to Wyoming on the other side of the river. The place I spoke of with the 2 antlerless and five deer limits is right across the river from Danbury. When I was younger I hunted N/W of Park Rapids where the wolves were never eliminated.

In the 60's and 70's there were damn few deer West of Danbury and there wasn't any wolves then. During the time the limits on deer were so high in that area it was common to drive around the 4 section area I hunted in and count 40-60 deer in the evening. I kept logs of just that. That was during a time when we had a lot of wolves present from those three packs. Wolves have never prevented the periodic eruptions of deer populations. Nor have they eliminated deer in anything but very small areas, and that came as much from moving them as much killing them.

What can happen as does happen along the north shore of Superior is the deer will move down out of the higher ground and close to the lake where it's warmer. The deeper snow from the lake effect impedes the deer and the wolves can get more of them more easily and they do. BUT... The are places where researchers have created deer exclosures around small areas to test the effect of the deer on the vegetation and that difference is startling The density of the vegetation is immediately obvious even to children. Another classic example of this is around Eagle Lake near Dryden. The white cedar along the shore contiguous to land or large islands with deer populations have a very pronounced browse line with virtually no green branches within 7 feet of the ground.n With all the wolves present there they haven't got a prayer of keeping the deer down. Even a five deer per year limit in that area and allowing baiting the deer are winning.

I hunted them and trapped them when there was a bounty.

My relatives live just out of Hibbing.They raise sheep.A half a dozen lost to predation a year is common.Ride between Hibbing and Ely and you can count the number of deer seen on one hand.You will see plenty of wolf and are lucky to see a moose.I live in NE Wi.No where near where you say you hunt so don`t know what you are flapping your gums about.I also have shirt tail relatives in Walker .They are not bragging about how many deer they shoot either.

Ahh wolves, nothing stirs up controversy like they do. I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but P Dog, nowhere in history has man and wolf lived close together for any length of time. This is a fact. It is indisputable.

The increase in deer numbers has nothing to do with wolves.

The problems with uncontrolled wolf numbers and unlimited protection is the other problems they cause.

I have neighbors who have lost dogs to them.

I have neighbors who lost live stock to them.

I believe there have been two confirmed cases in Wis. of attacks on humans.

I know people who have been shadowed by them myself included.

I have had wolves within 15 yards of me unafraid.

It is the unlimited protection that is the problem in the Midwest.

Hunting and trapping them will make them a lot more respectful of humans.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Ahh wolves, nothing stirs up controversy like they do. I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but P Dog, nowhere in history has man and wolf lived close together for any length of time. This is a fact. It is indisputable.

What length of time are you referring to.

The last 20 plus years in northern Wis. would prove you wrong.

Only where wolves can be hunted and trapped and do not have unlimited protection.

That your statement has some truth to it.

They have total protection in the Midwest unless attacking a person.

Do you know that if a wolf is attacking your pet or live stock you can not legally shoot it.

Doing so would put you are risk of being charged with a federal felonry.