Audrey Nelson: Wildlife: Wolf reintroduction is the will of the voters
We have all heard that two dogs were recently killed by the only two wolves in Colorado. So, can we expect every wolf to kill every dog? Data from Idaho, Montana and Wyoming tell us that from 1999 to 2016, 1,700 wolves killed an average of 8 dogs per year among those three states. Most were hunting dogs, running loose, baying, chasing lions or bears, and announcing their “trespass” to territorial wolves.
Wolves are the least dangerous large predator in North America. In the last 100 years, one woman was killed by wolves in Alaska in 2010, where 10,000 wolves live, and one man was reported killed by wolves in Saskatchewan in 2005. Canada has 60,000 wolves. In Colorado, in 2017, there were 34,933 stray dogs. Meantime, CDC reported dog-bite-related fatalities — in the United States from 1979 to 1994, attacks by dogs resulted in 279 deaths of humans in the U.S.
The passing of Colorado Bill 114 said the voters want wolves reintroduced to Colorado. Please look at the success of the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone.
Governor Polis, I call on you to veto SB 256.
By changing the legal underpinnings of wolf reintroduction, SB 256 could compel the Fish and Wildlife Service to redo its environmental review process, in turn causing a delay in its issuance of a 10(j) rule for Colorado to co-manage reintroduced wolves.
“Make no mistake: despite amendments to the text of this wolf-delaying bill, its text still contains legal poison pills that threaten to disrupt and delay federal-state cooperation around the voter-mandated return of wolves to Colorado,” said Michael Saul, Colorado director for Western Watersheds Project and longtime environmental attorney. “We expect nothing less of our legislators than to respect the will of the voters in passing proposition 114, and work to make Colorado’s wolf reintroduction the historic conservation success it should be.”
Audrey Nelson, Boulder
Susan Kampe: Policing: Council vote expands protections for well-to-do
I wish the Police Oversight Panel well in their efforts to establish some protections against fear-mongering (Bob Greenlee’s 5/11/23 commentary) and interference from anyone rich enough to afford a lawyer to create barriers to function in any meaningful way. I was more than disappointed by the City Council’s vote to remove Lisa Sweeney-Miran despite their rationale for supposedly voting against their own wishes and beliefs. Didn’t they simply encourage the well-to-do elite to expand protection of their interests above all others in the city?
Susan Kampe, Boulder
Bill Franz: Politics: We must ask our presidents why they want to lead
Why does anyone aspire to be president of the United States? Why would anyone want to place themselves and their families under a microscope and open themselves up to overwhelming scrutiny and ridicule to the point where honest mishaps, stumbles and human deficiencies turn into out-and-out lies to persuade and manipulate the populace against them? Considering the past two decades, five presidents certainly had opportunities where they could utilize their skill sets, education, and wealth, to build secure careers for themselves and their families in relative obscurity. So, it seems to me wealth, success, safety and security do not serve as rational justification to want the job.
The ability to have power over others serves as a rationale for some to climb to the top in every profession, not just politics. From a public perspective, vindication can be another. Another could be a means to an end.
Then there are those who honestly believe in duty and being of service to others. It is part of their DNA makeup and shows itself throughout their lives. This seems justifiable and believable. All our 46 presidents served in either government, the military, or both prior to holding the office of the president; except one. So, from a purely statistical perspective, duty and the sincere desire to serve others in some form seems valid.
I think an honest and believable answer to the basic “why” question is extremely significant and deserves our deepest analysis and scrutiny. The answer must be believable and demonstrated over time. Candidates must be able to convince us, not through their diatribes but through a lifetime of demonstrated actions that support their answer to this question. It simply cannot be something as petty as taking the time and opportunity to lower their handicap or dodge political and legal bullets.
Bill Franz, Loveland
