Big cats and the Dem machine. What is big cat hunt actually like? Bad parole policy and the intersection with Prop 128. LSPWCD's double taxation violated TABOR, end of story (finally).
Big cats and the Democrat political machine.
Shortly after my newsletter about the swampiness on wildlife policy in the Polis administration (see the first link below for a refresher), a reader sent me some things relating to Initiative 127, the big cat hunting ban. I linked to the sponsor website second below if you want to see what the backers of this effort think.
A good deal of what the reader sent was related to the campaign manager for Initiative 127, an environmental advocate by the name of Samantha Miller. She came back to Colorado after having worked in Washington (the state, not DC) for a number of years.
The reader had used the Wayback Machine (an internet site you can use to find things that used to be on the internet but are not anymore) to send me screenshots of Ms. Miller's now-erased website.
Screenshots 1 and 2 are her CV (resume?) from that site. I haven't seen the site itself (or its remnants but I gather from the context of the screenshots that this was Ms. Miller selling her consulting services).
What I wanted to highlight about this in this post is not so much a connection between Washington's wildlife policy and Colorado's, but more the connection between how politics HAPPENS there and here.
Revisit screenshot 1 and take another look at the text I highlighted. What you see here is another example of what I mention in my previous series about Polis and wildlife management, another example of the strategies employed as outlined in the book "The Blueprint"
You see the interplay between government and NGO's, the interplay of government and well-funded outside groups. I point you in particular to the last three bullet points at the bottom of the red box. Note how polls are used, how board appointments are used, and how professional advocates are used in ways to have a direct hand in policy.
If you get the feeling here in Colorado that you as a citizen, trying to advocate and trying to get your government's attention, are facing down a well-oiled political machine, I don't blame you. I join you in that feeling.
As was the case in Washington, so goes Colorado I think. How much success are environmentalists and animal-rights groups having in stuffing boards with people friendly to their agendas? How much coalition building is being done in this state? How much can you do when trying to work against those who make it their full time job?
Don't get me wrong, this is not meant to tell you that trying is futile. Quite the opposite actually. I'm writing this to tell you that you should be speaking up. You should be getting involved.
If you care about balance in this state, you should be doing what you can to toss a handful of grit into the carefully calibrated and oiled political machine in this state.
When you see the connections among and between your government and these kinds of groups, call them out. Share that information.
And do so not just with friends but with policy makers. If you want ideas on how to do that, please ask. I'm not the world's expert, but I can usually think something up and I have a few connections here and there.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/swampiness-in-wildlife-policy-and?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://catsarenttrophies.org/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFyZopleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHe23-_twI9Z7QYNI7aXYbKHNpXYMF-IwZMzdgwL_7AAuQi4l3AOBvVfngA_aem_Q9_wYHjN4_gebA3F7owP1Q
https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/06/colorado-parks-and-wildlife-new-director-jeff-davis/
Don't know much about the actual hunting of lions?
A reader sent me the video link below and it was an interesting watch, particularly for someone like myself who has never hunted (let alone hunted a predator).
Worth a look!
Bad parole policy and the intersection with Prop 128
The first link below is to a CBS article from about mid-September. It details some findings out of the Department of Corrections Inspector General's report.
Among the findings listed in the CBS article...
--10% of felony parolees are on "abscond" status, meaning they are not meeting their requirements and/or the parole office doesn't know where they are.
--Parole officers sent out to track down parolees who don't meet their requirements were, for a time at least (the requirement now having been changed), not allowed to wear anything with the label "Police" or have marked vehicles.
--Perhaps most relevant in terms of its connection to Prop 128 which will be our ballots this November, is the following quote:
"A verbal directive was issued by then-interim director of parole which stated that 'community parole officers would not file charges against any parolee, except in cases of unauthorized absence or when the parolee was in possession of a firearm in violation of state statue.' According to the report, that order was followed by the release of an updated version of an administrative regulation, signed by the head of the department. It states that when 'CPOS have reason to believe that an offender (parolee) has committed a new criminal act, the supervisor will notify the appropriate law enforcement agency of the offense committed a new crime they should notify their supervisor who in turn will notify a local law enforcement agency.'"
Put all the three bullet points together and think through what this means. We have a startingly high number of parolees (some percentage of whom cannot but be violent felons) not following the rules. On top of that we make it harder for parole officers to apprehend them, and then we make it harder to file any kind of charges for violations.
What kind of message does this send? How well do you think that people do following rules if they don't believe in sure and certain consequences for breaking them?
If the State Parole people can't get the job done, this gives me yet more reason to be in support of Prop 128. It won't fix the department, but it will cut down on the number of, and speed with which, violent felons that are allowed back out on the street.
I put a link to the electric Blue Book second below, in case you wanted to do a quick read up. Put some careful thought (esp given the above) into your vote on this measure.
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/internal-investigation-colorado-department-corrections-parole-division-flaws-community-safety/
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024-blue-book-english-accessible.pdf
A final answer on whether The Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District's (LSPWCD) double taxation violated TABOR.
I was tempted to end the sentence above with an ellipsis and then a question mark in the grand tradition of B-grade monster movies.
You know, something to reflect the fact that this saga, the neverending court battle over whether or not LSPWCD violated TABOR by doubling their taxes without voter consent, felt like the movies where the rubbery, fake-looking monster just would. not. die.
I hope that the link below details the actual, real-deal final chapter: the Colorado State Supreme Court refused to hear LSPWCD's appeal and thus the disposition of the case here is that LSPWCD violated TABOR and thus they cannot follow through on their tax increase.**
I'm going to end with a quote from the essay because it says it better than I could. Quoting,
"The unanimous victory [unanimous here referring to the unanimous appellate court ruling which is the final disposition with the CO Supreme Court's refusal to take up the case] therefore stands with a clear rule: if government officials want more tax money, they must put it to a vote of the people."
Damn straight.
**The essay linked here alludes to refunds and attorney's fees for the taxpayers in the district (I'm in the district but a relative newcomer). This is well beyond my pay grade to understand, so I'll leave it here: there's more involved here than just the court saying "knock it off" and it'll probably be a while in fully unwinding.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/10/07/colorado-high-court-sides-with-taxpayers-over-doubling-of-water-district-taxes/