Colorado Wolves Reintroduction

[justiner]

I think he was being sarcastic.

[interloper]

I read it as though he was implying that I’m a MAGA Republican, not him being serious about what he wrote.

I should probably just drop it all.

[nyker]

putting sides aside...the wolves reintroduction topic is as unfortunately inseparably interwoven with politics as any issue can be, perhaps less of a direct red/blue issue but more rural/urban issue.

[Istoodupthere]

The fun is just beginning. Here in Michigan, the wolves are eating all of the once over abundant deer in the UP. So now the UP is losing a ton of revenue due to the lack of hunters. Wolf hunting was banned 9 years ago with most of the votes coming from cities like Detroit. In the past couple years, judges have ruled that the wolves are an endangered species so livestock owners can’t shoot the wolves. If they eat all of their livestock, too bad, there is nothing they can do about it. Sit back and enjoy the news articles in the upcoming decades. You’re in for a wild ride

[SkaredShtles]

The fun is just beginning. Here in Michigan, the wolves are eating all of the once over abundant deer in the UP. So now the UP is losing a ton of revenue due to the lack of hunters. Wolf hunting was banned 9 years ago with most of the votes coming from cities like Detroit. In the past couple years, judges have ruled that the wolves are an endangered species so livestock owners can’t shoot the wolves. If they eat all of their livestock, too bad, there is nothing they can do about it. Sit back and enjoy the news articles in the upcoming decades. You’re in for a wild ride

You sure it's the *wolves* that are responsible for this precipitous decline in the UP deer population?

[jrs1965]

Welcome to the imperfect reality of democracy? Wyoming and Delaware shouldn't have the same number of US Senators as California or Texas, but here we are. Political boundaries have to be drawn somewhere, urban/rural divides exist in every state, and we are all prisoners of history. The vote on reintroduction only served as political cover for what should have been done anyway as I said earlier.

You can't say most people will never see a wolf yet vote for them and at the same time say we will get overrun by wolves and those same people will regret their vote.

I should probably just stay out of this thread...

Yep, Democracy in action. The Colorado front range votes to reintroduce wolves. Hunters in Wyoming lure them across the state line and into Wyoming where they are legal to hunt year round...

https://denvergazette.com/outtherecolor ... 505f3.html

[Jorts]

Over 95% of mammal biomass in the world is humans and our livestock. Will wolves be an inconvenience and detriment to ranchers? Sure. Mainly cause there are so many of us humans and ranchers. Did we extirpate many fellow mammals including wolves that were once native to this land? Definitely. We'll have to adjust and adapt to living alongside wolves instead of just reflexively killing and dominating them like we have historically done in the name of continuous, unrelenting economic growth.

[Tony1]

Another way to word "the wolf referendum barely passed due to the Denver/Boulder folks voting yes" is something along the lines of "the wolf referendum barely passed due to a significant minority of rural folks voting yes" as both are true. If rural folks were actually as against it as some people claim, it would probably have failed. Food for thought.

[interloper]

Another way to word "the wolf referendum barely passed due to the Denver/Boulder folks voting yes" is something along the lines of "the wolf referendum barely passed due to a significant minority of rural folks voting yes" as both are true. If rural folks were actually as against it as some people claim, it would probably have failed. Food for thought.

If you look at a map for the results you'll see that this is actually what happened - practically every single rural county aside from the wealthier ski area enclaves voted no. But the population of Colorado skews massively urban, so the rural voters really never had a chance, honestly. Convincing urban voters to vote the other way was how to defeat it.

Not to beat a dead horse, but most rural folks in Colorado are against this. Not that it matters anymore, though. I'll get off my soapbox. The wolves are here to stay!

[k_fergie]

Another way to word "the wolf referendum barely passed due to the Denver/Boulder folks voting yes" is something along the lines of "the wolf referendum barely passed due to a significant minority of rural folks voting yes" as both are true. If rural folks were actually as against it as some people claim, it would probably have failed. Food for thought.

If you look at a map for the results you'll see that this is actually what happened - practically every single rural county aside from the wealthier ski area enclaves voted no. But the population of Colorado skews massively urban, so the rural voters really never had a chance, honestly. Convincing urban voters to vote the other way was how to defeat it.

Not to beat a dead horse, but most rural folks in Colorado are against this. Not that it matters anymore, though. I'll get off my soapbox. The wolves are here to stay!

What I think Tony is pointing is that the margin was 41k votes. So you could have had a flipped result if just 21k rural voters (a tiny, tiny fraction) voted against it that actually voted for it. He's pointing that even though it skewed rural/urban on the aggregate, you could also "blame" those many thousands of rural voters that did vote yes for reintroduction just as justifiably as "blaming" the thousands of urban voters that voted for it. He's pointing out that many rural voters did vote for it (a minority, but a plenty large one that it could have made a difference), even though they likely conversed/debated/whatnot with their rancher/rural neighbors and will certainly feel similar impacts as those that did ultimately vote against. Why isn't that demographic discussed more than aggregate skew?

IE, many, many people in rural areas voted for reintroduction and by distilling it down to a 'Denver vs rest of the state narrative', you (not targeting you specifically, just the communal "you") are discounting many, many people that did not vote according to the skew

[interloper]

IE, many, many people in rural areas voted for reintroduction and by distilling it down to a 'Denver vs rest of the state narrative', you (not targeting you specifically, just the communal "you") are discounting many, many people that did not vote according to the skew

Yeah, I get what you're saying. That is a different way of looking at it and you're not wrong.

[Cygnus X1]

"So you could have had a flipped result if just 21k rural voters (a tiny, tiny fraction) voted against it that actually voted for it."

We can come up with all kinds of "what ifs", it doesn't change the outcome. You can change "rural" to "urban " and the statement would be just as true. You could say if Denver and Boulder Counties, which passed it by 66.3% and 67.8% respectively, had only passed it by the same percentage as the other 11 Counties that passed it (52.1/47.9%), it would have failed 48.2% for to 51.8% against.

The urban/rural divide is real.