Now that the election's passed Colorado Dems' gas "fee" can be collected. A novel look at wolf reintroduction: a study on the benefits. If you value your 2nd Amendment rights, speak up.
An April Fool's joke of sorts ... on your wallet
Well, jokes on us 'cause the fees they delayed in time for the election are back now. See the screenshot attached from the article below for the list.
One last little bit of context. To quote the article:
"The fuel and road-usage fees are the subject of a lawsuit filed in Denver District Court by conservatives who argue the charges were illegally imposed. Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights requires that voters approve all tax increases, but fees can be imposed by the legislature as long as the revenue goes to a set purpose. Colorado also collects a 22-cent tax on each gallon of gas sold. The state’s gas tax is among the lowest in the country."
I wish them luck but I don't hold out much hope. Our State Supreme Court has made it clear that TABOR didn't mean what we have all said it meant. Yet another joke on us I suppose.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/04/07/colorado-gas-fee-begins/
An interesting report sent by a reader about attitudes/costs regarding wolf reintroduction.
I had a reader share the following with me and thought I'd pass it along to you.
It's an interesting look at wolf reintroduction in that it examines the benefit to people along the Front Range by surveying 400 adults as to their willingness to pay for wolf reintroduction. There is a lot more context here which you can find in the report or in screengrab #1.
**Let me introduce a great-big caveat here: I am somewhat skeptical about the numbers here. There's a whole lot I'm not familiar with about the study method (and don't have time right now to investigate), I think I should also note there is a wide gulf between saying what you'd pay and how much you'd pay when it's time to crack open your wallet. Given those, I think I'd take the specific numbers with a grain of salt and pay more attention to trends.
I'll leave it to you to go through the full study, but here are some highlights that stuck out to me:
1. Quoting the study: "The most frequently mentioned reasons that survey respondents said they voted yes for reintroductionincluded: 1) to restore a balanced ecosystem/environment; 2) to keep wolves from going extinct; and 3)that protecting and returning wolves is the right thing to do." Whether you agree or disagree, I think it's important to be familiar with the other side's views. I struggle with this because I vehemently disagree with reintroduction and it's hard for me to connect on a visceral/emotional level with why the above would be important. Nonetheless.
2. Those in support were willing to pay (in various amounts) the costs to reintroduce wolves, to compensate for losses (both by kills and reduced yield due to lost pregnancies or lack of weight gain due to stress), but oddly enough, not willing to pay to share the costs of non-lethal management of wolves (say, helping ranchers pay for range watchers to help them stay clear of wolves). An odd and interesting disparity. The authors said it was "...indicating a dislike or lack of understanding of our description." Could be. Seemed pretty clear in the description to me.
3. Something which has skipped my notice until now is the magnified impact of wolf kills on the relatively small and scattered small producers. I'm aware of the loss, but hadn't noted til now that, as the author's note, the costs on small, individual producers can be "devastating"; if a group of wolves repeatedly (or in great enough numbers) concentrates its efforts on one rancher, that's it. He's done.
4. An intriguing idea pops out of the authors' introductory statements. To quote: " It was a private group, the Defenders of Wildlife, that first provided funding to compensate producers for predation losses in the famous wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone and Idaho in the mid1990s." Given the huge asymmetry here in terms of benefits to those in the Front Range vs. costs to cattle producers, one would think that things would go a hell of a lot smoother if groups that feel strongly about having wolves in this state put their money where their mouth was and ponied up some dough to help ranchers deal with the wolves. I'm not saying (and this is not the study author's contention either) that there would be no problems in that case, but can you imagine the goodwill it would engender? The problems it might help solve?
What sticks out to you in the report? Please add to comments if anything does.
https://csuredi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/REDI-Report-Apr23-Wolf-Reintroduction-1.pdf
**Related: In REDI report above it mentions "fladry fencing" as a temporary deterrent to wolves. I don't know about you, but I had to look that one up myself.
The little Wikipedia thing linked below on the topic gives some context, but the definition's pretty simple. Attach red flags which flap in the wind to a wire. See the screengrab.
It mentions in the Wikipedia entry that this works temporarily (they said 3 to 4 months).
I'm not at all surprised at that. There are a few places around where I live that have put up plastic owls to deter pigeons. I have to laugh when I see them because the pigeons happily roost and crap all over the owls.
Remember nature is not a single-player game and for every move is a countermove. For every strategy employed, a counterstrategy.
Keep that in mind if you read or talk to a wolf advocate who extolls all the manifold nonlethal methods to protect livestock/hunting game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fladry
If you've been on the sidelines and kept quiet about your rights under the Second Amendment, I strongly urge you to do something and speak up now.
The past couple of days have had some big jumps in terms of gun law in this state.
--The gun lawsuits bill is moving forward
--There will be a measure to ban so-called ghost guns (right now I'm pretty ambivalent about this one until I see more details, frankly). See the link below.
--The "assault weapons" ban is up for its committee hearing in a week. See the screenshot attached.
This is on top of the other 3 things that have come up re. guns and gun usage in this Assembly session alone.
At this point I'd like to remind you that we are only in year 1 of what will likely be a 4 year Democrat majority in Colorado.
If you've not testified, if you've not emailed, if you've not donated to those who will take the fight to the courts, now is the time.
Please join me in standing up for our rights. If you do not, and things continue at this pace, what bit of your freedom, your right to defend yourself, will you have left?
https://coloradosun.com/2023/04/12/ghost-guns-legislature-colorado-serial-numbers/
***Related: Take a look at the article below about Polis working on the gun lawsuits bill.
Two takeaways here:
1. When Polis is asked how his "centrist" policy fits with signing all these bills, part of his defense will be what you see in the article. "Oh, but not for me, the law would've been much worse".
2. Remember the below when you see Polis' blandishments about how he's sitting back and letting the legislative process play out. He doesn't. He hasn't. He likely never will. He is deeply enmeshed with legislation from the beginning.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/04/11/colorado-gun-lawsuits-bill-pared-back/?fbclid=IwAR0NYkv5J0wRhii2dfQioiMGNPmBvgI0tjRMItA0o_dIHwVbpfCW6S6O2rQ