If all you displaced New Yorkers want to move to another Democrat Wasteland, there's always Colorado...

Yup, don't come to Colorado guys, it sucks👍
Stay far, far away and do us a favor, do not drive I-70 during the winter. We know you texas plated ass is gonna go off the edge and close the f**king highway during peak ski season.

True! We're blue enough.

Nice to see a fellow citizen of the most beautiful state in the union. That being said, I bet I can piss you, as a conservative Coloradan, off with 1 sentence: Prop 114 was a good idea and wolf reintroduction is worth it:)

How did you know? But not to worry, since the Front Range decided to reintroduce only West of the Continental Divide, we on the Western Slope are doing an initiative to reintroduce grizzly bears to Cherry Creek and Boulder. After all, the journals of early miners note the presence of grizzlies in the Denver metro area. (LOL)
Just an aside, I grew up on a farm in NE CO. In the 70s the rabbit population exploded and the coyote population expanded in proportion. There was a big rabbit die off due to disease and the coyotes became packs. As packs, when cows lay down to have their calves, the coyotes would eat the calf as it was being born and eat the hind quarters off the cow as she was defenseless. We had to euthanize a lot of cows, part of our livelihood, and it was a hit that affected income for years, you don't sell a calf born today for almost another two years.
Lone coyotes are no problem, perfect balance of nature, but like getting a bunch of boys into a pack (gang), they cause a lot of trouble. Wolves are pack animals, they don't prey on the weak, they make their prey weak by running them to death. They don't only kill what they need, they are nature's effective killing machines. Front Range voters created a focused wolf attack primarily one ranching family who has suffered the most impact. That cow killed today, was your income for next year, and possibly the next 10 years. The calves miscarried were to be your income and replacement stock 2 years from now.
But you know the worst part of this reintroduction? When wolves, which are not endangered- they moved north away from human conflict and thrive- roamed the forests of Western Colorado, the population of the area was less than 100,000, the whole state was less than 1 million. Now we are approaching 6 million. Reintroducing wolves only exposes them to intense human/wolf conflict, not fair to a limited number of families, not fair to the wolves.

An actually sane response that's not just "shoot them"
First thing first, wolves as a species are not technically endangered but regionally they are.

I agree, wolves belong in Colorado however the circumstances of increased chances for human-wolf encounters means that it is almost impossible to do right.

And there's the slight problem of wolves not being able to perceive human boundaries at no fault of their own. We draw a line on a map and expect them to understand not to cross it. It just leads to dead wolves and dead livestock.

One of the things I can't understand though is when ranchers allow their cattle to graze in national forests and then act surprised when some get preyed on by all sorts of predators, not just wolves. You put a walking hamburger into their fridge and blame them for eating it.

And one final thing, wolves absolutely shit their pants if they sense a human anywhere near them(might be because we dropped their population from the millions to a couple thousand in a century) so no self respecting wolf would even think of attacking a human unless they were rabid.

I wish we could get together for a cup of coffee, I'd have a blast talking with you. Just to give you background, Forest Service and BLM land is designated as multi-use by their Congressional charters, that means highest and best use, in some cases recreation is that highest and best use, others grazing, others selective logging (there has been no "clear cutting" since the 1940s, people see a 5 acre strategic fire break and scream "CLEAR CUTTING!!!!!!!!"), other areas for mineral development. Ranchers pay for highly regulated grazing rights, managed by the appropriate government agency. Predation losses are calculated in and expected. My grandfather had a bear skin from a bear that broke about 30 sheep off from his flock. He tracked it for a couple weeks, seeing that it herded the sheep from one meadow to the next as they needed more feed and killing and eating as it needed feed. When wolves attack, they don't single out, they go after the entire herd of cattle, so the entire herd is stressed. A friend of mine worked on the Alaska Pipeline. They were working about 40 miles from the man camp (housing), and driving to the jobsite the crested a hill and a cow moose almost came through the windshield. Behind her was a pack of wolves. They drove over her tracks in the snow for almost 30 miles, seeing where various members of the pack would drop out and take a shortcut for rest while other wolves kept up the pursuit, in relay fashion. Finally they saw where the cow came out of the woods, who knows how long they had been chasing her before that point. The point being, wolves don't just feed on the weak, old and sick like the romantic version pitched by the 15/16ths wolf crowd. They make their prey weak. The problem for cattle, beside being slower and dumber than moose is that they are restrained by fences, so the wolves just run them to death in a limited space, easy, unnatural pickings with less effort required. These wolves aren't in a natural environment with natural limitations like they were extracted from for displacement. They go into a shooting gallery and no longer kill what they need, but kill because that's what they do.
I broke down once and had to self rescue, walk out of the situation. I was stalked by a pack of wolves for about 7 miles, not a good feeling, and I didn't see any signs of rabies, just top predators trying to do their job. Peter and the Wolf wasn't just a Disney creation, the original Russian story was a cautionary tale to children.

Damn, ran out of letters. The original story is pretty graphic. Wolves do attack people. Quiet secret, most dog kills human incidents around 20 years ago were people killed by wolf/dog pets, 15/16ths dog, 1/16th wolf to "preserve the wolf DNA." I had an acquaintance who had several wolf dogs a few decades back. She moved from our area (ranch in remote Western Colorado) and I read a year later she had been killed by her wolf dogs and eaten at her new home. I emphasize wolf dog, they have the worst traits of both, again, not fair to the wolf, not fair to the dog parts. The ways wolves kill is not very pretty, I've seen kill sites where blood is spread over 20 acres in the snow.
Just briefly back to the Highest and Best Use doctrine. There was a very good balance for decades, but from the 1970's forward the USFS first became populated with environmentalists, not stewards, and as demand for use of the forest grew, primarily for recreation, the Forest Service instituted a policy of closures. Beautiful old campgrounds were closed and no replacements opened, roads closed, areas closed, logging closed, you name it, they closed it. 40 years ago I was VP of an economic development group, and we sat in on public hearing regarding Louisiana Pacific and aspen harvest. The Western Colorado Congress demanded an end to logging aspen for environmental reasons, and though the seasoned foresters presented research that aspen has a lifespan of 80 to 110 years, and that much of the aspen LP was harvesting was 70 to 90 years old, the environmentalist faction of the USFS prevailed in shutting down aspen harvesting. Aspen comes up from the roots, when it is logged, a healthy new forest takes it's place. So now, we have thousands of acres of dead standing aspen creating a fire load that will be catastrophic. So now we have more people wanting to enjoy the forest and no place to go but the already crowded areas and we are going to have catastrophic wildfires that would have been prevented with reasonable management. I know , wah wah wah too bad so sad.

Thanks for having one of the single most productive conversations I've ever seen on this stream.

I 100% agree on the idea that forests need managing, not babying. If this summer taught us anything, it's that we should take as much precautions as possible to prevent uncontrolled burns(I watched as one of my favorite places in the entire world, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, was almost destroyed by the South Rim Fire).

We have a duty to protect this world and we have to do the best we can with the cards we are given. Sometimes what seems like a good idea for conservation becomes a bad one when too many variables being introduced, that being said, I don't think removing the wolves is the right solution. The best we can do for both sides is educate people on wolf behavior and how to stay safe.

The Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center in Divide is amazing at that, I'd recommend visiting. They were pretty much my entire childhood every time I went to Denver. They may be a bit more on the side of "let wolves run through downtown Aurora" but it's an absolute blast.

Also speaking of wolf-dogs, I agree. They are only bred for people who wanna look tough our get a few likes on social media. What most people forget when the get them is that they are half wild animal and if forces human-wolf interaction in ways that are extremely detrimental to both sides. Wolf-dogs should not exist, get a husky.
My final takeaway from all this is a little slogan that I hope everyone can get behind: "Keep Wildlife Wild".