This is not a thread confined to wolves or
hunting or guns. It's just not.
It might have started that way, but look at all the extraneous political opinion content that has been gleefully added and allowed to flourish. It's now filled with straight-up political rants, posing (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) as Wolf-hunting/guns.
In reality, it has become an open forum to bash Colorado's marijuana policy, education policy, our Governor, and our voters' decision to mandate a scientific approach to wolves, taking into account, by law, fair compensation for actual losses sustained by ranchers. With a few cheap shots thrown in at Liberals in general. So many opinions, and so few facts or scientific studies.
Many of you guys have come to Colorado because of our amazing public lands. And because of the amazing wildlife we have, which is so easily accessible as compared to, say, Alaska, or, Africa. And everyone with a lick of common sense can see that, obviously, most of you want to continue coming here. Fine, I have no problem with that.
But, I say, if you enjoy the wildlife, then you had bloody well better get behind protecting the habitat. And the migration corridors. And whatever else the professional biologists tell us the wildlife needs. Also, if you enjoy your access to it all, then you had better stand behind public ownership. Hunting should not, can not, must not, be reserved to eletists !! And that translates to government ownership. Plain and simple, end of story. Moreover, I would say that applies to all states, not just Colorado. And if We The People of Colorado say we want to restore some wolves as part of the wildlife in our state, then you need to respect the decision that we have made for our own state. Or hunt elsewhere. Period.
We all hear a lot of talk these days about privatization of public lands, or selling off public access, or privatization of lands held by the federal or state governments. Wouldn't it be great? Get a deal on 500 acres of formerly federal land? Just to one's self? Exclude everybody else but friends and family? That pernicious philosophy lead to the present state of affairs back East, where there is so precious little public access for hunting, and where those rare public lands are overrun, unless you either know somebody or pay somebody for access. And because of this, we all see so many peoples' interest in coming out west to hunt. There is no free lunch.
Y'all are verbally ****ing all over my state, from the Governor, to the decriminalized marijuana, to our voter initiatives, to the way we have conducted our democracy, to the comparisons with California (which are not about Wolf policy) and I must say I don't much enjoy or appreciate it.
There will be far more deer and elk killed in Colorado by motor vehicles in the coming years than by wolves. So please stop the pathetic use of this topic (wolves) to circumvent the rules here on political posting.
You like the New Hampshire or Ohio state of things? Fine, go find and pay for a hunt there. You prefer Alaska wildlife? Fine, block out a month and go there. (It's kind of been a dream of mine as well.)
In the 1930's, my great-grandfather expressed his opinion that Colorado was then getting overrun with people. The problem here is people, not wolves.
. The difference is game biologists employed by the state already could have studied whether to reintroduce, and when. Since the wolves are here and are beginning to establish themselves in the remotest regions, one approach that could have been studied would have been to allow existing wolf packs to disperse naturally, in balance with the availability of prey and remote range. Another issue that biologists would have studied is how the sudden introduction of wolves will impact the growing and in some regions fragile population of moose - a species whose habits make them particularly vulnerable to large, pack-based predators. Those questions will not be studied now because the reintroduction is mandated. 
