https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2016/01/30/in-defense-of-releasing-wolves-in-colorado-wilderness/40679/&ct=ga&cd=CAEYASoTNTM5MjczODUzOTM4NDc1MjY1ODIaZGE5N2NmOTQ3ODA0Njk5YTpjb206ZW46VVM&usg=AFQjCNF_qLr9VlTy6ouN8VEOuQzaAv5tvQ
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiioNLasdTKAhUL-GMKHcRZBEAQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnn.com%2Fearth-matters%2Fwilderness-resources%2Fblogs%2F7-inspiring-quotes-aldo-leopold&usg=AFQjCNFHoyxu0mt3YcY4pGrav8mfO7OsCA
Colorado wildlife officials recently ruled against the release of gray and Mexican wolves in the state. (Associated Press file)
Re: “Colorado cannot afford release of wolves,” Jan. 24 guest commentary.
Intangibles of whole and functioning ecosystems and wildness in Colorado are legacies for future generations that cannot be easily quantified into dollars. Nate Gilbert’s opinion that “Colorado cannot afford wolves” reduces Colorado’s rich natural heritage to a few selected industries and commodities, where only the market value is considered and not greater quality of life that is so valued by our citizens.
Restoring missing pieces of wildlife such as the wolf greatly enhances a natural, functioning ecosystem (that includes man). Gilbert’s laundry list of wildlife species doing well is not an excuse for passing up an opportunity to make natural diversity and processes even better.
This is not a zero-sum game where there can be only be ranching and hunting or wolves. I urge the legislature to consider both economic and intangible benefits of restoring wolves. Colorado can’t afford to let its wildness erode — it’s our soul.
Suzanne Stutzman, Golden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado cannot afford release of wolves
Trevor Starr holds his sign in support of the introduction of wolves into Colorado at the Colorado Parks and Wildlife offices on Jan. 13 in Denver. Protesters for and against a resolution to ban any introduction of wolves into Colorado, mainly the Mexican wolf. (Brent Lewis, The Denver Post)
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on Jan. 13 voted to adopt a resolution to oppose any wolf reintroduction efforts in Colorado. The adoption appears largely symbolic to some as the real decision will come from the state legislature, which maintains authority over the reintroduction of species.
Painting wolves into our picture has no measureable, beneficial impact not already provided by other thriving species, including the mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, lynx, and, yes, man. Mountain lion populations alone have surged dramatically in the past few years, thanks largely to efforts by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, an organization with strong focus on hunting and fishing opportunities for Colorado residents and visitors.
Claims of significant economic impact from "wolf tourism" strain credulity in Colorado. Even if other states were able to report significant tourism dollars from wolves alone — as in, "I came to the state just to see the wolves and would not have done so otherwise" — Colorado does not suffer from waning tourism interest.
Wolves would have a severe and noticeable impact on Colorado elk-hunting opportunities. Those who tout the supposed $35.5 million benefit from wolf tourism conveniently overlook (or more likely, purposefully omit) the fact that hunters spend $465 million annually in Colorado, with an economic ripple effect of $763 million. These numbers include significant populations of non-residents who consider Colorado a dream hunting destination.
It may be easy to forget in our cozy Denver bubble, but farming and ranching serve more than a historical role in the Colorado economy. Even if, as recently claimed, only 1 percent of cattle alone in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho were reportedly killed by wolves after their reintroduction efforts, that's more than 60,000 cows, according to the latest published data from Beef2Live. In Colorado, 1 precent would mean more than 24,000 cows gone from our herds.Compromising an industry that provides a potential billion-dollar impact for a few tourism dollars in a state with absolutely no problem attracting visitors is a fool's errand. Is it honestly the position of those working to reintroduce wolves that there is a subset of tourists who are avoiding Colorado because we don't have significant wolf populations?
With current cattle trading prices, conservatively assuming $2,000 per head, that is a staggering $48 million in projected loss from wolf reintroduction in the Colorado cattle ranching sector, versus a supposed and unsupported claim of $35.5 million in "wolf tourism." I hope that the grocery stores will be able to line their coolers with cuts of prime tourism.
As it stands currently, the tradeoffs fail to meet a minimum standard of acceptability to be considered worth it for the citizens of Colorado. Wolf reintroduction compromises cornerstone Colorado industries for paltry gains that have yet to be demonstrated. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has taken the first step in curbing these projected losses. We can only hope that the legislature sees the wisdom in blocking wolf reintroduction efforts.
Nate Gilbert is a Denver attorney specializing in hunting and fishing law
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 inspiring quotes
by Aldo Leopold
Let's tip our hats to the
ecologist who defined wilderness.
Aldo Leopold and some of the landscapes he helped conserve. Landscape images via sources below. (Photo: Image of Aldo Leopold courtesy/Aldo Leopold Foundation)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment