Estes+Park+Resident

Stakeholder: Estes Park Resident
**Caroline   R **11/17/08 **Position ** As an Estes Park Resident, I am undecided on whether or not wolves should live in Rocky Mountain National Park. Some of my concerns as an Estes Park resident are making sure that wolves aren’t on my land, knowing they won’t harm anyone, ensuring a balanced ecosystem and strengthening the economy. I also want the best for the wolves, Rocky Mountain National Park, and its visitors. I hope we can find a way to re-introduce wolves into Rocky Mountain National Park, but keep them a safe distance away from visitors. As an Estes Park resident, I moved to Estes Park because of my love for nature and the outdoors. This is one of the reasons I would like to see a balanced ecosystem, so that all the animals are happy. It is extremely important to have wolves in parks like Rocky Mountain National Park. If we don’t have wolves, the elk population in Estes Park will continue to spiral out of control. The wolves eat the sick elk, and if nothing kills these elk, they will reproduce and end up with more sick elk. Since there are so many elk, the shrub population is diminishing. This means that eventually, the elk will run out of food. Wolves complete the circle of life. Re-introducing wolves into Rocky Mountain National Park would help the local economy.  Wolves have helped the economy in Yellowstone National Park. Wolves in Yellowstone National Park make more than $35 million annually for local economies. They also play an increasingly important role in the Northern Rocky Mountain region's economy. There are roughly 151,000 people who come to Yellowstone National Park annually to see wolves. They bring in $35 million annually to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. This has multiplied several times within the local economies. Nearly four percent of Yellowstone National Park's 2.8 million annual visitors say they would not have come to Yellowstone if wolves didn’t live there. We can then assume that if we brought wolves into Rocky Mountain National Park, they would obtain more visitors. This would benefit many people including Wayne Newsom, a realtor in Estes Park, tourism companies, shops and restaurants, hotels and more. On the other hand, there are over three million visitors in Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park each year which includes campers. If wolves were to live Rocky Mountain National Park they could be dangerous to campers. Also, if wolves were to drift into the town of Estes Park from Rocky Mountain National Park, they could be hazardous to cars and people. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have wolves, just that we should keep in mind that they could be dangerous towards humans. Although I am worried about safety, the chances of being injured by a wolf are slim. The chance of a human being hurt by a wolf in an area inhabited by wolves is less than dying of a bee sting, being struck by lightning, o r being killed in a car collision with a deer. Also, all wild animals, not just wolves, have the potential to injure a human. The chance of being harmed by a wolf is very insignificant. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">http://www.northernrockieswolves.org/idaho/people.html <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Allies ** <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">People that agree with me on the safety aspect of having wolves in Rocky Mountain National Park are recreationalists and tourism companies. Recreationalists want don’t want to be attacked while out hiking and tourism companies don’t want their clients to be attacked or injured by wolves because it’s bad for their business. Some people that agree with me on the aspect of having a balanced ecosystem and wanting the wolves to be in Rocky Mountain National Park are defenders of wildlife and animal rights activists. Defenders of wildlife want the best for the ecosystem, which means they are pro-wolves. Animal rights activists want wolves because if they are naturally migrating to Rocky Mountain National Park, they want to live in the National Park. They want the best for the wolves and the ecosystem. **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Compromises ** <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">I am willing to make a few compromises. I am willing to compromise and let wolves be re-introduced under the condition that if they become a safety hazard or too large in population, then I would support hunters trying to bring the wolf population down**.** This may mean tranquilizing or killing a trespassing wolf. I am open to this because I don’t want the wolf population to be over- populated and make the ecosystem unbalanced again. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">This compromise would please defenders of wildlife, animal rights activists, tourism companies, hunting guides, private hunters and ranchers. Although this not might please animal rights activists and defenders of wildlife because of the hunting portion, it would please them because they want wolves to come into the park upon their own decision. Tourism companies would like this because they don’t want an over-populated amount of wolves either. This would work for private hunters and hunting guides because they are allowed to kill the wolves if they over populate. In addition, this will please the hunters because although they don’t want wolves so they can hunt elk, they don’t want an unbalanced ecosystem where there aren’t enough elk. Ranchers would be happy with this decision because they will have a fence around their cattle and sheep so they aren’t attacked by a wolf. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">  I am also willing to compromise on how much space of the park is the wolves’ territory. Although I would like wolves to be able to run freely throughout the entire park, I think we should have a few parts of the park without wolves. There would be a fence so tourists that aren’t interested in wolves don’t have to always see them. Different stakeholders that would like this compromise include: defenders of wildlife and animal rights activists, because the wolves still get to be in most of the park. Recreationalists will like this because they want a few places in the park free of wolves for safety issues. Tourism companies would be fond of this because there will be places for the clients that are afraid of wolves to be within. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Ideal Mediation Results **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">An ideal plan for wolves in Estes Park would be to re-introduce wolves, but find some way to keep them a safe distance away and make sure the population is under control. I suggest a non- electric fence of some sort that would make sure the wolves are contained in their area of the park. This plan is excellent for Estes Park residents because it will be good for the ecosystem and the local economy while keeping wolves secure and contained. I hope that we can find a way to re-introduce wolves into Estes Park. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> Nicole 11/17/08
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'"> Rationale and Evidence **

I am an Estes park resident. On the subject of wolves, on one hand I feel like the wolves are a tourist attraction, which brings in money. But on the other hand it is bad for ranchers. It is also dangerous for children. Wolves don’t know boundaries, they could walk right up your street by accident. But after all my research, I decided that having wolves in the area was a bad idea because Estes Park is to small for wolves. wildlife balance requires predators and prey. Coyotes tend to prey on deer and small animals. Wolves are effective in controlling elk populations because the prey on the elk, but also keep the herds moving and dispersed. The last wolf in the area was killed in 1952. Re-introduction of the wolves has been proposed, but as a resident, I am opposed to wolves because we are a community, more heavily populated than in 1952 with children, senior citizens, tourists, dogs, cats, etc. Wolves are a great tourist attraction, but could actually scare people away from Estes Park if there was a wolf incident. Residents feel safe, even with bears and mountain lions, but wolves need a greater wilderness area than we offer to coexist with the residential population. I have allies with the ranchers because they also don’t want wolves because wolves eat their cattle which also eats their money. They may even be run out of business. I also have allies with the environmentalist because its not the wolves fault we came onto their land, and wolves also help hold the elk population to a minimum. I will have to compromise with the tour guide companies, because they want wolves because thats what keeps them in business. I will compromise with them by having them take a certain route for their tours where we will make a boundary that the wolves can go. The kind of wolf management plan for me would be to have a limited amount wolves. We could bring in a certain amount of wolves, and count them every so 2 months and if the wolves have gone up by 50% then we would have to take some to other places. For the mediation, I would make an agreement to every stakeholder by having wolves in certain areas. I would agree to have a certain number of wolves. I would also agree to wolves if necessary.
 * Position**
 * Rationale**
 * Allies**
 * Compromise**
 * Wolf management plan**
 * Mediation**

reilly 11/17/08 <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">I am an Estes Park Resident and when I first started looking up wolves I was undecided about whether or not they should be in Colorado. After much research I now want wolves in Colorado. **<span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">Evidence and Rationale ** <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'"> <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">Some of the reasons, are you would have a bigger chance of being hit by lighting or stung by a bee than being attacked by wolves which means you would not have to worry about the wolves on your land. <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'"> Wolves are good for the environment. With the wolves there, the Aspen and the willow are recovering after decades of over browsing by the elk and deer. Wolves have also decreased the population of coyotes which leads to increased population of other animals, such as the red fox and antelope. <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">Finally, having wolves in your state brings additional tourism 2.8 million people said they would not5 have visited the national parks in Colorado if it weren’t for the wolves being there. **<span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">Compromise **<span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">If the wolves were to come here, ranchers should be allowed to protect their livestock on their property without getting in trouble or being fined. **allies** <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">I think other groups that would agree with me would be the wildlife foundation, tourism companies, and environmental groups. **<span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">I think other groups that would agree with me would be the wildlife foundation, tourism companies, and environmental groups. **<span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">Conclusion ** <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'"> <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">After finding all this information about wolves, they don’t seem that bad after all. Wolves actually seem very good for the environment because they help preserve the forests and help balance out the animal population. <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">
 * position**
 * <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT','serif'">Allies

Jack As an Estes Park resident, I believe that wolves in Colorado is not a good idea but it would not kill me if they were here. For instance I think that wolves would enhance education of kids and it’s what a wildlife state needs. Except if wolves get introduced to Colorado again they could wander in to people’s property and may result in pets or maybe even small children dying. Some evidence is that RMNP (Rocky mountain National Park) is only 416 square miles; Yellowstone National Park is four times the size (However I will admit wolves do not read and they do not know people’s property). If wolves where in Colorado, it would bring tourist to Colorado/RMNP which could bring business to where I work. It also keeps the cycle of wolves, plants and elk sustainable. If there were too many elk, the plants would die and tourists would not come because of the scenery. But wolves could bring too many people to RMNP and could result in making the animals more comfortable near people and could move in towards the town and too many tourists could possibly make more traffic. Ask yourself some of these questions: Can wolves wipe away their fear of humans? How far will wolves go for food? What will they eat? A reintroduction could cause an imbalance in predator prey relationship. Like in Yellowstone, the wolves were already coming back and a reintroduction caused that imbalance. Wolves are coming to Colorado; there have already been a few sightings. One wolf was hit by a car just outside of Idaho Springs with a Yellowstone National Park reintroduction tag on it. And I believe that if wolves get re-introduced it will be like Yellowstone because the elk have not had a big predator in a long time and they will not be ready for them, they will lose population drastically. Some of my allies are ranchers because they live in the area and they believe in wolves not coming. Ranchers and most every stakeholder lives in Estes Park but their job might want or need wolves, and ranchers do not want wolves because of many reasons. They kill their money and the world’s meat. If a wolf kills a one hundred pound sheep, they will only eat five pounds of the sheep while the rest of the sheep rots. According to the food pyramid you need five point five ounces of meat and beans a day to keep a healthy diet (Although it is true that you can have a healthy vegetarian diet). A compromise between me and other stakeholders could be let the wolves naturally come into RMNP and if it takes more than five years, they can get reintroduced. When they are, we would monitor (use tags/GPS in wolf) where the wolves go and if there is more than twenty livestock/domestic pet deaths caused from wolves, we should put some wolves down and move some of them back into the park.
 * Position**
 * Rationale/Evidence**
 * Allies**
 * Ideal mediation compromise**

Estes Park Resident Kyle 11-5-08 Rational I as an Estes Park resident am undecided on whether or not we should have wolfs in Estes Park. I know allot about wolfs, and it is clear that they are not going to eat me but they could be a danger to my pet. If wolfs are naturally moving down from Rocky Mountain National Park I would not interfere. I would just have to take extra precautions with my pets. In Estes Park we do need a way to keep the elk population down and to kill the sick elk, and wolfs do that naturally so I think that over all it would be beneficial to the beauty of Estes park. But say I was a realtor, I think that people mite be scared to buy the house that I was selling in Estes park because of the wolves. That could be a problem for me Especially if they had small children or pets. It would bee very hard to convince them that wolves wont eat there kids and pet would be pretty worrying to people it would be a nucense for people to have to keep there pets inside Evidence The problem with having wolves in Estes Park would be that there are numerous campers in Estes Park. They would probably not mix well with the wolves. The park would probably loose business, but considering I don’t work there it probably is not my problem. Although if wolves went into Rocky Mountain National Park and they tried to exterminate them for the sake of business, (hypothetically speaking) I think a lot of people would be angry. I also think that humans can almost relate to wolves because they are very alike in some ways. Wolves almost have a form of hierarchy they have one leader and allot of subjects and it works really well. These animals are truly amazing and to not let them into Colorado would be a shame. But sadly I can’t do much about it because I am not really in a position of power and it would be very hard to get people to listen to me. If I wanted to do any thing about wolves in Estes Park, I would first have to talk to someone in power like the mayor. Then he could do something about my problem. Another problem is that I don’t think that allot of people that live in Estes Park are aware that wolfs will eventually be in Estes Park, so for now business will be the same. I don’t even know whether or not people will react differently to wolves but my prediction would be that at first people would be worried, but after being educated I think they would get used to it. In my opinion I think that wolves would be an excellent addition to Rocky Mountain National Park. Recreationalist wanting to see wolfs would want to come and see wolves and wolf packs I think it would bring in business if anything. I would definitely want to come and see wolfs. The people at Rocky Mountain National Park were once deciding wither or not they should put wolfs in Rocky Mountain National Park to stabilize the number of elk in the region. But later on they discovered that if they did put them in there would not be enough room (this information was given to me by Wayne Nosome) so they never did what is going to be interesting to me is what they will do when they naturally move down. I do hope however that they will let the situation work its cores because we already mad that mistake once. Allies/compromise I think that most would be satisfied with the wolves if the wolf population got out of hand hunters would be able to lower them. Recreation lists would be able to see them in packs and naturalists can study them in Colorado. If they let them in animal rites activists would be happy as well. Maybe ranchers and Estes park residents could reach an agreement like they are aloud to shoot a wolf if it shows up on their propriety more than once or some thing in that general area. Conclusion Now I hope that in the mediation people will relies that wolves should be in rocky mountain national park, but they should be kept under control. Altho Estes Park Residents have quite different views I think that we can all agree that wolfs are a valued part of allot of eco systems and they should not be exterminated.

= =

= Wolves in Colorado An Estes Park Resident's View   = = By Molly November Seventeenth, 2008  =

//Estes Park residents have many opinions//  about wolves coming into Colorado  //  throughout the community. Some believe wolves should be reintroduced, while some think they should migrate on their own. Therefore, the average Estes Park resident’s opinion would be undecided. // //  Since Estes Park is the gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park, the suggestion to reintroduce wolves into the Park has brought up a large controversy, even though the town’s government has no official opinion on the matter. // //  Large herds of elk have roamed the national park and the Estes Valley without any predators for decades. Currently, about three-thousand elk, which is tripe the amount the landscape can sustain, are consuming Aspen trees and willows and disturbing Estes Park lawns and golf courses, upsetting the victim residents. // //  The herds of roaming elk are a sign on an ecosystem out of whack. The National Park Service is seeking to limit elk population, with suggestions from scientists and wildlife activists to reintroduce wolves to restore the disturbed ecosystem. Reintroducing wolves would keep the elk herds mobile, reduce elk herd numbers, and re-establish the Park’s predator base. With Rocky Mountain National Park authorized to look at the natural processes, which in this case, are wolves. // //  At Mary’s Lake, an Estes Park campground and RV camp, employee Ruth Mutshler approves of wolves being reintroduced into Colorado. She stated, “They are nature’s way of controlling wildlife population.” She believes that wolves only kill to eat, not just for the joy of killing. At Mary’s Lake, they hold wolf shows using injured and human-attached wolves to educate the visitors about wolves and wolf safety. //  //With wolves, the willow and Aspen trees//   will recover  //  after decades of over-browsing. They create a better habitat for native birds, fish, beaver, and other species. These carnivores have reduced the Park’s coyote population in some areas, which led to increased population of pronghorn, antelope, and red fox. Their presence improves native biodiversity and healthy ecosystems, making the environment stronger. //   //However, residents are worried that the wolves will wander outside the Park grounds and create more problems than they solve. Recently, they have had coyote troubles. Some residents have even had encounter//  s  //  with mountain lions. These encounters do not suggest wolves being wanted nearby, in sake of the resident’s pets and small children. // //  There are multiple allies Estes Park residents can stand by. If a Defender of Wildlife was one of their allies, a great compromise would be made. The Defender’s could introduce a few wolves in the Park and see how the residents react to them. If the wolves cause no problem, more wolves could be reintroduced. //  //Another ally could be the Nation//   al Park R  //  epresentatives. The compromise would be that wolves would be introduced in small packs and wolf protection would be enforced, such as fences. Precaution could be taken by keeping pets inside and small children near, even if there is a bigger chance of getting struck by lightning than being attacked by a wolf. // =// Upcoming Mediation Results //= //  The upcoming mediation results will end in a strong compromise. With many stakeholders joined together, many different opinions will be presented. By predicting the results, the stakeholder’s will ideally compromise on having wolves in Colorado, meet each other’s needs. // //  At the mediation, the board of stakeholder’s will meet a hunting guide and a private hunter’s needs by letting them hunt the wolves once they become over-populated, but only allowing two to three wolves per hunter. This would keep the wolf population balanced, but would satisfy a hunter. // //  To meet the Defenders of Wildlife and the Nation Park Representative’s needs, the wolves must be protected once reintroduced into the Park. Keeping them on the Endangered Species List, the wolves will be safe to reproduce. The wolves will be able to repopulate without being hunted. //  The e  //  nvironmentalist’s needs would be met by having wolves to balance out the food chain. These stakeholders want to study their behavioral patterns and the wolves themselves, creating better knowledge about these carnivores and their imprint on the environment. // //  The rancher’s situation with wolves is quite the dilemma. The wolves come onto their farmland and eat their cattle, reducing their income and produce count. The compromise would be to build fences around their land to keep the wolves out and their cattle safe. However, they would be allowed to shoot a wolf if they had proof that it came through the fence and killed their cattle. //  A t   //ourist//   c   //ompany//   o  //  wner’s needs would be met by keeping the wolves around. They make their money off of these creatures, giving tours for visitors to view wolves in a safe way. With wolves in the Park, the tourist company owners would benefit the Estes Park Resident’s, who rely heavily on tourism to support their economy. //   A r  //  ecreationalist’s needs would be to have safety from the wolves while sporting in the wilderness. These stakeholders are afraid of mountain lion attacks, and having wolves in the area will just contribute to their fear if there is not a safety alternative. If a fence was put up at the boundary of the park adjoining the populated areas, the recreationalist’s would feel safer while protected from the carnivores. //   //An//   a   //nimal//   r   //ights//   a  //  ctivist’s needs would apply to other stakeholders as well. They want wolves to be protected and not hunted in Colorado. They want the wolves to stay protected under the Endangered Species Act, keeping the creatures save and the environment healthy. // //  The mediation will turn out well if each stakeholder’s needs are met and compromises are made between each position. The mediator will have to make sure that each stakeholder is satisfied with the results and a final decision is made about wolves coming to Colorado. // =// Conclusion //= //The subject of wolves raises a significant predicament. With many different opinions from each stakeholder, wolves in Colorado will effect them all. There are many different options to decide from, each coming from a different stakeholder. Multiple compromises surround the matter, but will wolves be reintroduced into Colorado? That is the question our state must answer.//