‘Ballot box biology’ is derisive

To the Editor;

I am a private citizen who advocates for wolves. Generally, I find articles about Proposition 114, which calls for wolves to be reintroduced to the Western Slope of Colorado, published regionally but, thanks to the internet, find them throughout the country. I was sad to see Mr. Reynolds’ recent mischaracterization of the issue.

The term “ballot box biology” is nothing if not derisive towards those of us who spent countless hours engaging in democratic process. Yes, we placed the issue on the ballot. But only because of a decades-long effort by our own state government to foil the will of the people. Poll after poll demonstrated Coloradans’ strong interest in having a viable population of Canis lupus.

Ideally, I agree with Mr. Reynolds’ assertion that biological decisions should be left to biologists. However, let us note that the decision to preclude establishment of wolves in our state has been subject to both “bar-stool” and “political” biology. The policymakers he mentioned, in this case the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (CPWC), are unelected political appointees who have been beholden to monied interests rather than the public they serve.

The CPWC had every chance to implement wolf recovery on their own, and after decades of stone-walling people like me felt that there was no other recourse but to take our efforts directly to the electorate. We have not “unilaterally” forced anything on anyone.

As for wolves recolonizing Colorado on their own: Why, given that a quarter of a century has elapsed since wolves were restored to Yellowstone National Park, has it not happened? The “significant gray wolf pack” alluded to contained six wolves, three of whom were killed legally this past summer when they stepped to the north into Wyoming.  No confirmed breeding was documented. With all due respect, wolf numbers are not “increas(ing) naturally without reintroduction.”

What was left out of the article is that in 85 percent of Wyoming, including every last foot of our shared state-line, the wolf is classified as a “predatory animal.” That means that anyone can kill as many wolves as they like without permit, by any method they choose, at any time and they don’t even have to make use of the carcass. Does that sound like anybody’s idea of “fair chase?” I doubt very much that Colorado’s wolf numbers will increase naturally, as suggested.

I don’t know about Maine, but in Colorado the wildlife “rightfully” belongs to all citizens. Regardless of the cause, when a government consistently refuses to address the concerns of the people then there are consequences. If Maine’s government isn’t complying with the will of the people then I would expect pushback there, too.

Tom Zieber

Gunnison, Colorado