Bob Edwards recently had his arguments for wolf introduction published in the Independent. His advocacy group is located in Denver and Lafayette, Colorado. Mentioned by him was The Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence, located at CSU in Ft. Collins. Another source, The Journal of Animal Ecology is based in Britain. They are all geographically safe from what comes naturally to the non-native, never threatened Canadian Timber wolf so no need to fret about their livelihood, livestock, or pets. (If Mr. Edwards was a sheep or cattle rancher or hunting outfitter, would he be such an advocate?)

Our society has become one of emotion and feelings, discarding facts and reality. Initiative 107 will most likely pass and become law over the Front Range majority’s romantic notion of being able to visit the Western Slope and hear a wolf howl. They would feel righteous voting to “restore the balance of nature” but that “restoring the balance” becomes unthinkable when someone suggests “reintroducing” prairie dog towns and herds of bison to Denver and the rest of the Front Range.

Mr. Edwards points to our “ancestors’ short-sighted decision to eradicate wolves.” Being short-sighted meant our ancestors’ very survival. To them, hearing wolves howl was not romantic but meant their livestock, living and they were in danger from an apex predator.

He also claims those against introducing wolves have an “outmoded way of thinking about nature” and he has “the enlightened one.” Would his next enlightened project be restoring grizzlies into their former habitat, perhaps Aspen?

If one wants to see wolves and hear them howl, there is the Denver Zoo. It has a high fence to keep those wolves contained for a reason. The Mesa and the San Juans are not zoos and have no fences.

Leonard Maki

Cedaredge

Load comments