[perrygeo]

Thanks David. I'm just a few miles downhill (Masonville) and I agree that it's a complex issue. The intentional introduction of any species raises many ethical questions. Humans have completely altered the ecosystem by removing wolves over the last 100 years. We understand this now, and the "reintroduce wolves to restore the ecosystem" reaction is a very reasonable public response. But it's only a start, let's not get distracted by charismatic megafauna.

We cannot pin ecosystem health on the presence/absence of a single species. This is not ecosystem restoration, it's a political accounting trick to manage species counts ... and pretend that's a proxy for a balanced ecosystem (without understanding habitat fragmentation and loss, energy and nutrient cycling, climate change pressures, etc). So the challenge is, can we sustain an ecosystem to support new wolves and ourselves?

To those of us who want to produce the land for economic gain - I applaud you, homo economicus. But when our market demands every last watt of productivity be directed to human markets, there's not much room to allow wolves to roam amongst livestock. If you're competing in the modern financialized agriculture markets, you're already under debt pressure and committed to a full-scale unconditional war against every non-human species - reintroduction of wolves is a direct attack.

I'm not for or against wolf re-introduction. I'm for ecosystem restoration and a sane economy. I'm for humans taking care of the land, meeting our needs AND carving out areas where wolves and other large mammals are allowed to "make a living". And that goes much deeper than just busing a few wolves into Colorado.