This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
Livestock associations sue Colorado, U.S. Fish and Wildlife to delay gray wolf reintroduction
The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association filed the federal lawsuit Monday
By KATIE LANGFORD | klangford@denverpost.com | The Denver Post
PUBLISHED: December 11, 2023 at 8:50 p.m. | UPDATED: December 11, 2023 at 8:51 p.m.
The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association and Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association sued Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this week to delay the reintroduction of gray wolves into Colorado.
Through a lawsuit filed in federal district court Monday, the industry organizations are seeking a court order to delay the release of gray wolves into Colorado by Dec. 31, a deadline required by the state’s Gray Wolf Introduction Initiative narrowly approved by voters in 2020.
The complaint alleges the two agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not conducting an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement on the “environmental consequences of reintroducing gray wolves to Colorado.”
Previous environmental impact studies released this fall did not address those issues, the lawsuit states.
The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, which represents 6,000 members, has long opposed the ballot measure to reintroduce gray wolves, with officials describing it as a threat to humans, domestic pets, livestock and wildlife.
Under the state’s reintroduction plan, up to 10 wolves will be brought to Colorado from Oregon by plane or truck and released in Summit, Eagle or Grand counties by the end of the year, where they will likely disperse by up to 70 miles.
The agency plans to bring up to 50 more wolves to Colorado over the next five years.
But despite years of planning and development, state and federal wildlife officials did not take the required steps to analyze the impact of gray wolf reintroduction as required under the National Environmental Policy Act, the lawsuit alleges.
In a statement, Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association President Andy Spann said concerns raised by the group during the reintroduction plan’s development were not sufficiently resolved.
“We believe that much of our input, and that of many others across Western Colorado, was diminished by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission,” Spann said. “We regret that a course of litigation on this and other issues seems to be the only recourse left to have these concerns legitimately addressed.”
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the federal and state wildlife agencies violated the law by renewing an Endangered Species Act agreement without preparing an environmental impact statement on the reintroduction of gray wolves and a court order to delay reintroduction until it is complete.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials could not be reached for comment late Monday night.
^ it is interesting. but gut tells me they won't get their injunction.
the 10(j) rule designating this an experimental population changes things and allows for some side steps around federal law as i loosely understand it.
10(j) is good though, for sure.
far from an expert in convoluted federal law and environmental policy but I think, emphasis on "think", 10(j) makes their NEPA concerns somewhat without legal merit.
While I did have a small farm as a kid with some animals (but didn't get compensated for any animal/fowl kills) and spent some time working on one later I'm not a rancher currently, but I understand the concern.
With respect to wolves currently, don't ranchers get reimbursed for some or all of the expenses associated with prevention of wolf predation (fences, etc) and then compensated up to 100% of FMV for confirmed kills due to wolves? I believe this also applies to other predators. It appears sometimes there's a gray area on acreage amount and confirming kills especially with animals that are "missing".
California has a program that reimburses ranchers for more qualitative issues such as Wolf-induced stress of livestock also. Is that applicable here as well?
For anyone who is a rancher currently it'd be interesting to hear from you to see your view or what's not being reimbursed (time, effort?) relating to this program.
I wonder if the Colorado Cattlemen’s and Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Associations would also like to see an environmental impact assessment conducted on the “environmental consequences" to the planet's rising temperature as a result of raising cattle. The loss of a handful of livestock from wolf reitroduction would no doubt be a net benefit.
Can see your point but for the purposes of more immediate relevant responses on the original topic from the original poster, probably better to stay on point rather than make this about climate change which will only invite tangential vitriol and probably get the thread shut down.
thetoddman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:12 am
I wonder if the Colorado Cattlemen’s and Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Associations would also like to see an environmental impact assessment conducted on the “environmental consequences" to the planet's rising temperature as a result of raising cattle. The loss of a handful of livestock from wolf reitroduction would no doubt be a net benefit.
ohhh pleeeez. You driving to a TH causes more environmental consequence than a handful of livestock.
interloper wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2023 6:49 pm
Our state is far more urban and is going to continue to become even more-so as long as developers and local governments continue to collude to squeeze every last drop of water out of the mountains and into tract houses and strip malls along I-25.
About 90% of our water is used for ranching. 1.6M acre feet is used for alfalfa alone, out of 5.3M acre feet total. So about 30% of the state's water goes to growing alfalfa. 7% of water is used by municipalities. I was shocked when I first learned those numbers, so I thought I'd add it to this discussion.
nyker wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 4:43 pm
With respect to wolves currently, don't ranchers get reimbursed for some or all of the expenses associated with prevention of wolf predation (fences, etc) and then compensated up to 100% of FMV for confirmed kills due to wolves? I believe this also applies to other predators. It appears sometimes there's a gray area on acreage amount and confirming kills especially with animals that are "missing".
thetoddman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:12 am
I wonder if the Colorado Cattlemen’s and Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Associations would also like to see an environmental impact assessment conducted on the “environmental consequences" to the planet's rising temperature as a result of raising cattle. The loss of a handful of livestock from wolf reitroduction would no doubt be a net benefit.
according to the USDA, there are "29.4 million beef cows in the United States as of July 1, 2023"
according to The Nature Conservancy, "It is estimated that 30 million bison were wandering the plains when Columbus landed on the eastern shores."
anyway..
“To walk in nature is to witness a thousand miracles.” – Mary Davis
thetoddman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:12 am
I wonder if the Colorado Cattlemen’s and Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Associations would also like to see an environmental impact assessment conducted on the “environmental consequences" to the planet's rising temperature as a result of raising cattle. The loss of a handful of livestock from wolf reitroduction would no doubt be a net benefit.
according to the USDA, there are "29.4 million beef cows in the United States as of July 1, 2023"
according to The Nature Conservancy, "It is estimated that 30 million bison were wandering the plains when Columbus landed on the eastern shores."
thetoddman wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 9:12 am
I wonder if the Colorado Cattlemen’s and Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Associations would also like to see an environmental impact assessment conducted on the “environmental consequences" to the planet's rising temperature as a result of raising cattle. The loss of a handful of livestock from wolf reitroduction would no doubt be a net benefit.
according to the USDA, there are "29.4 million beef cows in the United States as of July 1, 2023"
according to The Nature Conservancy, "It is estimated that 30 million bison were wandering the plains when Columbus landed on the eastern shores."
anyway..
I'm confused as to what the point of this is?
Am guessing she is suggesting that before Europeans came over and settled, and then raised beef cows to the eventual tune of 29.4 million; prior to that, 30 million bison lived in natural harmony with wolves. Seems there’s some irony in that somehow. But that’s just my guess
