National+Park+Representative

=Stakeholder: National Park Representative= **__ Position and Rational __** As a National Park Representative I would like to have wolves back in Colorado. I say this because they keep the elk population stable, they are great to study, and other states have them and it is befitting them. In my mind wolves say adventure, excitement, studies. My mind is saying yes to wolves in Colorado. **__ Evidence __** By the end of the year 2007 there was at least 171 wolves and 11 packs in Yellowstone National Park. In the year 2006 there were a lot less packs in Yellowstone National Park. Then we made a big increase in pack size in 2007. If Wyoming can make a big jump for the environment then so can Colorado. In Wisconsin there are 127 people who volunteered to help gather information about the animals in the Wisconsin central forests such as wolves. The information they are gathering is for the wildlife biologists. This means that at least 127 people care enough for wolves to study them. If we let them back in Colorado we can study them. Elk are herbivores and herbivores only eat plants and grass. If Colorado lets wolves back here the wolves will eat the elk that eat the grass and plants. Therefore the grass and plants will have a chance to grow back. Then the valleys where the elk graze will be more beautiful. It will also let the other animals have a turn to eat the plants. There are many other states that have wolves. They are not falling apart or going through something horrible just because wolves are at their presence. If wolves are in Colorado we will have a chance to have great benefits form them just like some of the other states. **__ Allies __** I have a few other organizations that would like to have wolves back in Colorado, such as; Animal Right Activist, Tourism Company, Defenders Of Wildlife. The Animal Right Activist wants wolves because they are here to protect wolves and be kind to them and to study. It would be helpful for them if they were in Colorado. The Tourism Companies want wolves because wolves are very popular to see and if they we here it would bring in more Tourists, therefore brining on more money. The Defenders Of Wild Life want wolves because they defend the wilderness and they would want a very great creature to be living in the wild. **__ Compromises __** I have some offers to make to; Hunters Guide, A Estes Park Resistant, and a Rancher. A Hunters Guide doesn’t want wolves because they will eat the animals that the hunters want to hunt, therefore making fewer hunters paying them to take them out. I make an offer saying that if you let Colorado have wolves then the government will pay for every lost business deal. An Estes Park Resident wouldn’t want wolves because they could be on their property or eat a small child or pet. I said to them that if you let wolves back in Colorado we would reintroduce them slowly and steadily and slowly so that you can get used to them. A Rancher would not want wolves because they will eat their cattle and make them spend a lot of money for each dead one of a fence. The compromise we made is we will let the wolves back in Colorado if the government pays for the dead cattle and a fence. **__ Ideal Mediation __** From what I said before I think that we let wolves back in Colorado and let the government pay for the damages caused by the wolves. It would make the ranchers and the hunter’s guides happy and the Estes park residents. It also would make the defenders of wildlife happy and the animal right activist. I say give wolves a chance
 * Stakeholder Analysis **
 * Tempel H. 11/18/08 **

Position** I’m a Rocky Mountain National Park representative. Some Citizens will not agree with my response that wolves should be at Rocky Mountain National Park. I believe that keeping wolves in Rocky Mountain National Park will keep the park more sustainable. There are many reasons why one might believe that wolves should of should not be in Colorado. One of the reasons they should be here is because they might keep the park more sustainable. By killing off the excess and thus letting the plants come back. A reason they should not be here is because they may cost farmers thousands of dollars. In Colorado we are still trying to decide if we should or shouldn’t have wolves at Rocky Mountain National Park. Not many people are concerned about the wolves being in the park but the difficulty is the fish and wildlife service do not believe reintroducing is needed currently in this part of Colorado. The members of the park do wish the wolves were here and they want to get the permit from the USFWS (U.S fish and wildlife service). The permit will give them the permission from the government that wolves can be in Colorado. In Alaska, the wolves are safe at Glacier Bay National Park but some Alaskan residents are trying to save the wolves outside the park. Some residents, mainly http://www.wikispaces.com/_/2008101600/i/c.gifprivate hunters, have been hunting the wolves in the area. Even though they are hunting the wolves the park and Alaska have been sustainable, because they have a healthy number of wolves. A good number of people in Alaska love the presence of the wolves so they will reintroduce the wolves if they “evaporate” from the park. Another reason they would reintroduce the wolves is because they are one of the main keys to keep the environment sustainable. Without the wolves the elk population would immediately rise and destroy all the plants in this section of Alaska. The only concerns outside the park are that the wolves may eat the farmers’ livestock, but this is not a big concern currently. So in Alaska the people love wolves and I think this area will not ever let go of their wolves. By the Teton National Park in Wyoming there are barely any wolves. In the Teton Mountain Range there are only a couple hundred wolves and there is only one known pack. The residents in the Teton Mountain Range do not believe that wolves are that big of a problem and they think they would live fine without the wolves in the vicinity. The reason nobody in the Tetons is concerned about them is because Yellow Stone is just a couple hundred miles north. In the Tetons the residents will protect the wolves because they’re beautiful creatures, but if they flee the area they will not reintroduce them because they are not needed. In the Tetons they have wolves and it helps the environment not greatly but it still helps. Wolves should be reintroduced into Colorado. They keep the environment sustainable by killing all animals not needed or animals overpopulating thus saving the area from an Eco Disaster. Almost all the parks in the U.S. have wolves and in each park with wolves they negatively keep the park more sustainable by killing all animals that are not needed or are affecting the environment. So in every park the wolves keep the park more sustainable. I think that now Rocky Mountain National Park needs this sooner than later. My allies as a Rocky Mountain National Park Representative could almost be anyone. The Estes Park residents are probably most like us Rocky Mountain National Park Representatives. They can be undecided like us and they are residents of the area like most of us Rocky Mountain National Park Representatives. Even though personally I’m for the wolves, all the stakeholders for the wolves are: environmentalists, private hunters, tourists, recreationalists, animal rights activists, hunting guides, tourism companies and the defenders of wildlife. These Stake Holders are like me because they all are going for the wolves and trying to save them. The only Stakeholders against me are ranchers and possibly residents in the vicinity of the park. They believe the opposite of me because they own animals and possibly little children and are worried about their animals being eaten and losing money, and even the danger to their children. I hope that our solution will eventually be that we can have wolves in the park. Then the park could pay for any injuries/ deaths from the wolves. I believe this would be a fair compromise. The park would get enough money to pay the fine from the tourists that visit the wolves. If that compromise does not work we could ask for the farmers to put a fence around their cattle that’s high enough wolves cant jump over. If they do not buy the fence we will not pay for any injuries because that was there own fault they didn’t buy a fence. In my opinion, wolves should be at Rocky Mountain National Park. The compromises I suggested would be fair for farmers and residents. If we did this I bet even the farmers would some times like to come to the park and look at the magnificent wolves. I’m afraid if we do not put wolves in the park soon the whole park will die off and be overpopulated with elk and be horrible for the environment. I hope this is what the compromise will end up being.
 * Calvin Stakeholder Analysis 11/17/08
 * Rationale & Evidence**
 * Allies**
 * Compromise**
 * Mediation Result**

Zach 11/7/08 I am undecided but leaning towards having wolves. As a national park representative the decision of reintroducing wolves is an aspect that is still undecided. There are many pros and cons of having wolves in Colorado. Wolves would be a benefit to some but not very beneficial for others. Rationale As a national park representative we share responsibility with the government and we have to decide whether to have them or not but we have to take into account other stakeholders opinions. Without this variable this would be an easier decision because we wouldn’t have to establish rules to keep them content with having wolves as opposed to not having them. People may like having wolves like a tourism company to bring money to their company because lots of people love to see the wolves and it makes a profit for them and for the park, but there are also people who may not like having wolves such as a cattle or sheep rancher because if they don’t use their money to protect their livestock they would loose lots of money when their livestock is killed by a wolf and they make their living off of these animals. There are some great benefits if you have wolves in a national park such as: good balance in the park’s ecosystem, they attract many tourists and recreationalists, and they keep prey populations down, etc. But there are issues about having wolves: cattle/sheep ranchers would not like wolves to be in their area because they will lose a lot of money if a cattle/sheep is killed by a wolf; a private hunter or hunting guide may not want wolves because they kill elk and there is less for them to hunt, etc. In Glacier National Park they have wolves and the wolves provide an important balance to the ecosystem. The wolves there also make a major difference by helping the prey populations from exploding. In Glacier National Park the wolves’ main predator has been humans other than that they have done very well in the park. There are several problems with wolves in Colorado as stated by the information office at Rocky Mountain National Park: one, the state will not allow a reintroduction at this time; two, they do not believe that a reintroduction is needed; and three, ranchers really don’t want wolves at this time. Wolves will be allowed to stay in the park when they do come though. As a national park representative my allies are my fellow stakeholders and almost everyone else. My solid allies are my fellow stakeholders but I agree with ranchers with some of their views and I disagree with their views on non-lethal deterrents, this is how I feel with everyone around the table they have things I back them up on and some things I argue with. My best ally other than national park representatives is private hunters. There are some people where I disagree with their opinions and ideas, but since I am undecided I can find common ground with everybody. My compromise is to not have wolves for now because of the ranches that live close to the park, but when wolves do end up in the park they would be allowed to stay and rules would be established to keep the ranchers from losing their livestock. I would say that ranchers could choose what they would do with wolves but we would have rules to control this and regulations to tell them what they can use. If everything were to go my way in the mediation, we would not have a completely solid conclusion on bringing wolves into Colorado but we would be leaning toward having them. We would conclude that when we have wolves that the people who didn’t want them would be provided with some supplies to accomplish what they would like.
 * Position**
 * Evidence**
 * Allies**
 * Compromise**
 * Ideal Mediation Result**

Stakeholder Analysis By Ilinca Date: 11/09/08 I am a national park representative and I believe that wolves are extremely important for the environment. They have a major impact on the ecosystem and they are needed to keep it balanced. Wolves are also keeping the rivers and forests clean for the other wildlife in the area. I believe they are magnificent animals that would attract many tourists to come visit national parks. Representatives in Yellowstone National Park believe that wolves are very important for the environment. For nearly seventy years, wolves were extinct in Yellowstone National Park. It was noticed by many workers that during the wolves’ absence, the environment was not sustainable. The elk and other herbivores overpopulated. Since herbivores eat plants, there was not enough vegetation in the park because the high population of herbivores ate too many plants. So, without the wolves, the ecosystem in Yellowstone was not sustainable. The park representatives had about fourteen wolves brought from Canada (in mid January, 1995) to restore order and balance to the environment (http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/wolves.html). Representatives of Olympic National Park believe that wolves are not treated fairly. In Olympic National Park, the park representatives say that even though wolves do not have the best reputation, they do not threaten people. They told that in Montana, Minnesota, Michigan, Idaho, and Alaska, where people coexist with wolves, a healthy wolf has never killed a person in the wild. They also say that the wolves are misunderstood animals. Many people are very scared of them, but actually, wolves are more scared of people than people are of them. ([|http://community.seattletimes]. nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970208&slug=2522870). In the Olympic Peninsula, the Representatives say that wolves keep the environment clean. There, wolves were extinct in the 1920s. A short time after they were gone, huge problems started appearing in the ecosystem. It is said that there, the wolves were keeping the forests clean and unpolluted. If an animal died in the forest, it would be unhealthy for the other animals in the forest to live with the dead body around. If there wolves are there, they would eat the dead animal and keep the air clean in the forest for the other animals. When they became extinct, the ecosystem in the Olympic Peninsula was no longer as clean or as balanced. The elk and other herbivores that wolves eat overpopulated and ate too much vegetation too quickly. Many years after that, they were successfully reintroduced in the ecosystem to restore order in the environment (http://crosscut.com/2008/10/20/animals-wildlife/18574/). Wolves can also improve a national park’s economy. When wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone, there were many more tourists visiting the park than before. The Yellowstone economy gained sixty million dollars per year since the wolf reintroduction in 1995. That was very good for all workers of Yellowstone because they would have bigger salaries (http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2007/11/watching-wolves-yellowstone-national-park). People should have respect for wolves, just like they respect other wildlife. Wolves have the right to live in a national park area, especially now, when they are endangered species. Unless they attack people’s livestock, they should not be hurt by anyone around a national park if they are endangered in that area. If they are killed, they will be extinct, and no longer able to keep balance to an ecosystem (Mr. Dennie Hammer, a Cody Information and Education specialist from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department). First, I have interviewed an environmentalist. Zīle said that wolves should be reintroduced to Colorado. She believes that if there would not be wolves in the environment to keep it balanced, then the whole food chain in the ecosystem would drop. We both believe that it is important to have wolves in the environment because they keep it balanced. I could support her by sending a group of people monthly in the wild for a few days to research on the population of wolves and other species she might be interested in studying. She could support me by studying the population of wolves and other predators that have a huge impact on the environment (that she might possibly be interested in studying). Second, I interviewed a recreationalist. Sam also believes that it is important to have wolves in the environment. She believes that they are interesting creatures and a lot of tourists would enjoy seeing them in their natural habitat. If there are wolves in a national park (in Colorado), they would be a great attraction to tourists and more tourists will come to visit the park. We both believe that having wolves in the ecosystem would attract many more tourists. I could support her by finding unique attractions (wolves for example) about my national park and publishing them in the newspaper and on tourist sites. That would attract many people to come and visit my national park. For me, she could let other tourists know about my national park and its interesting features with wolves. Next, I interviewed a private hunter. Rebekah is undecided about the wolves’ presence in the environment. As a hunter, she believes that it would be great to hunt wolves, but if there are no wolves, there are many other animals that could be hunted. We both believe that it might be good to have wolves in the environment (the private hunter because they are valuable animals to hunt and me, the national park representative because they are important in keeping the environment of my national park balanced). She could support me by only hunting in the areas permitted by my national park, only hunting in certain seasons, and only killing the amount of wolves permitted. I can support her by allowing her to hunt in my national park and giving her a free permit if she follows all the hunting rules. However, if wolves are endangered in the area of my national park, I will allow her to hunt any other animals that are not endangered, not wolves. Lastly, I have talked to Mr. Dennie Hammer, a Cody Information and Education specialist from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. He believes that if wolves are in Colorado, they would keep the elk population balanced. However, if they have a healthy pack, than they might reproduce and eat too many elk. Also, he says that if wolves are brought to a certain region, odds are that they will not stay there. They might move to take over another territory. As a national park representative, I could make sure that the wolves do not overpopulate by sending workers monthly to study the wolf population. If they do overpopulate, I will allow hunting seasons to begin.
 * Position**
 * Rationale and Evidence**
 * Allies and Compromises**

I believe that it would be important to have wolves in Colorado. They would keep the elk population balanced and the environment in my national park would have a good balance. Wolves will prevent the herbivores from overpopulating and keep the forests clean- a safe place for other animals to live. There is no reason why I would not like wolves to live in my national park. They are beautiful creatures and many people would be attracted to come and visit my national park if there were wolves in it. If there would be more tourists, then the park will have a larger budget and my workers and I will have larger salaries, too! In conclusion, I believe that it would be fantastic to have wolves in any national park.
 * Ideal result from mediation**

__National Park Representative__ __Benediktas__ __6th of November 2008__ __Position__ I am the national park representative and we want the wolves to come to Colorado. My position on the issue is very important because we represent the national park. __Rationale and Evidence__ The national park want the tourists to come on the way to the national park, when the tourist visit the national park we receive the funds. With the money paid we would like to develop further the parks. However, there is more to this than making money, we need to keep everything sustained, the elk are eating all the aspen; furthermore, the aspen population is decreasing. WildEarth people from New Mexico say with the intention that they want wolves in Colorado, because they believe the aspen is being chomped down by the elk and the elk are increasing; moreover they want the elk to be killed by the wolves. A Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman stand by the wolf recovery plan. I e-mailed the United States National Park organization and they said the reintroduction of wolves at this moment is not essential. This is because it is extremely hard to reintroduce the wolves and it costs a great amount of money. I also e-mailed the Idaho National Park and they said the precise exact letter as the US National Park service. Mark De Gregorio works with the National Park service, he believed that if the wolves just came into Colorado it wouldn’t help that much help that much because it would just frighten the elk away to another location instead of eat them. __Allies__ Allies I suppose in this time are not obligatory because I believe we are capable of doing this work on our own. I think it will be much easier if we don’t add a additional stakeholder interfering with us. But that is my personal opinion, if we have to choose to become allies with another stakeholder then it’s different. We should become allies with the Cattleman Association, I believe we should become allies with the cattleman because they have a lot of land and some of the land might go into the National Park, therefore if we become allies we can share the land. Animal Rights activists are a bit crazy about saving animals, we should become allies with them because they are the ones who believe that no wild animal should be killed. So if we become friends with them they can put up signs advertising the Animal Rights activist then people will know what the animals mean to them and why people shouldn’t hunt them. The tourism company I strongly believe we need to be allies with because we need tourists, having a tourism company accompanying us would be fabulous. If they became allies with them the tourism company would bring them in by bus and take them out by bus. Also they would get a lot of money from them paying to get on the bus, but if the tourists don’t come by bus then the tourist company could help show the way to places and give people tours. These are the three big stakeholders that we should become allies with. __Compromise__ The stakeholder I believe we need to compromise is with the recreationalists. I feel this because recreationalists are somehow nosy, we need to compromise with them because if they are biking or riding there ATV’s and destroy plant life or kill wildlife then they should be fined. The compromise is to find a good fine for destroying or killing wildlife. We should also compromise with the private hunters because although they can’t kill anything on our land if they did then we should fine them, the compromise is finding a good fine. These are the only two stakeholders we should compromise with because all the other stakeholders are not a big deal to us. __Wolf Management__ An ideal wolf management plan would when the wolves are moved to Colorado every 15-20 years to even out the elk population or just move some elk away. This ideal wolf management plan is ideal because the overpopulation of elk means more waiting for them to cross the road and more aspen going away. Do we want an overpopulation of elk? I don’t, because an overpopulation is like pigeons where they just stand there and do nothing. The hunters would do a spectacular job if the 15-20 years doesn’t work and they’ll be reducing it more quickly. This the perfect ideal wolf management plan. __Mediation Outcome__ The mediation came out very well, we were all able to compromise with some people. At some points it got very argumentative and people would shout out comments. Compromises were made and some were not. Questions were reached and some were not. But the mediation was really fun and I had a great time.

Stakeholder Analysis – Caroline B. – 11/17/08 __ Position and Rationale  __ Hello my name is Caroline Berzins. My stakeholder in this mediation is a national park representative. To be more specific, I represent Rocky Mountain National Park (R.M.N.P). A stakeholder is a person or group that would be impacted by a certain decision or approach. Being in this position I believe that we should have wolves in Colorado, or as a start introduce them into Rocky Mountain National Park. This is because it is important to have a balanced ecosystem and every animal has the right to live in its natural habitat. __ Evidence __ Around the 1930’s the wolf was wiped out of Colorado after being shot, trapped and poisoned by ranchers, government agents and others. Since then the elks, whose natural predators is the wolf, have multiplied by the hundreds and are now beginning to overgraze so much that other animals are being affected by the loss of habitat and food. This relates to my belief that every animal has the right to live in its natural habitat. The aspen bark is one of the elks’ favorite foods. They are simply devouring these trees and many other plant species. The problem isn’t so much that there are too many elk. It is just that there aren’t any natural predators to keep them mobile. One of the park’s options in order to control this issue would be to reintroduce the wolf to Rocky Mountain National Park. I think that about two to three packs would get the job done because each pack would kill about three elk every other day according to The Rocky Mountain News website. Wolves would keep the elk moving from one area to another and certain areas wouldn’t be overgrazed. To find out more about the current plan at Rocky Mountain National Park, I e-mailed Mark De Gregorio. He is a national park representative and gave me the inside scoop on what R.M.N.P. is doing now. He told me that introducing a small pack of about 14 wolves was an option considered as a part of the parks Elk and Vegetation Management Plan. In order for the park to do this, they would need to get permits from individual states. Also all of the wolves would need to be fitted with a radio collar which could be costly. In this plan, allowing the wolves to migrate to the park on their own was also an option. An example showing that this may already be happening was that a female wolf was hit by a car near Idaho Springs. Although the wolf was killed, her radio collar proved that she had come from Yellowstone National Park, a park where in which the decision to introduce wolves has already been made. Also, a large black wolf was thought to be sighted in the R.M.N.P. area and tracks about the same size as a wolf paw were found but scientists are still looking for DNA samples to make sure it wasn’t a hybrid. I am sure that various other national parks have had this same problem. If you look at Yellowstone National Park, the willows are significantly healthier This is because in 1995 they decided to reintroduce the wolf species to the area. Since the elk would eat most of the trees, the introduction of wolves kept the elk population lower allowing the willows time to grow larger and healthier. At the same time, introducing wolves is not the only option the park has. A culling program or the decision to shoot the elk is another but less natural option. This would be part of a plan involving fencing, restoring trees and redistributing elk, but this solution also has a down side. Not only would it cost quite a bit of money, but an anonymous group supporting wolves has threatened to sue the park over its decision to hire sharpshooters to kill up to 200 elk annually. This type of lawsuit would be a problem and compromises would have to be made. __ Allies __ My allies would be other people who believe in having wolves in Colorado. Obviously, the other stakeholders who are national park representatives are my allies Even though they may not have the same opinions as me, we still have similar amounts of power and we can work together. A few examples of different stakeholders who would be my allies are an environmentalist and an animal rights activist. Since an animal rights activist is for animal rights, they too might believe that the wolves have the right to live in their natural habitats. An environmentalist would also have the same view as me because they want to have a balanced ecosystem since that is good for the environmentalist. There could be many others who share the same opinions and could work with me. Estes Park residents will have some ideas that they agree and disagree with when it comes to the wolf situation. Supposedly there are so many elk (an estimated 3000) in that area that they have begun grazing on lawns and golf course greens. Many of these residents may agree with introducing wolves to keep the elk away from this area. One of the disagreements they may have is that the wolves could potentially be harmful to their property and their pets. The park would have to consult with the wildlife managers of the area who think this animal will create more problems than they solve. __ Compromises __ In order for the park to make this decision to reintroduce wolves to Colorado, it would have to be considered by the government and with a strong input from ranchers and people living in the area. Personally, I think that the reintroduction of wolves is the best plan to keep the elk population balanced. In the mediation, as a National Park representative, I would have to make several compromises with other stakeholders, particularly the ranchers since many of them may have land near the boundaries of Rocky Mountain National Park. I think that instead of a rancher killing a wolf if one of their cattle is attacked or killed, they would have the right to tranquilize or temporarily disable that wolf. If several consecutive attacks by the same wolf are noted they would have the right to kill that wolf. __The Ideal Management Plan__ The ideal wolf management plan would be to introduce a small pack of wolves into the park area. This would be a trial to see the effects that they have on the environment. Like in the current plan they would all have radio collars enabling us to keep track of them if they ventured outside of the park boundaries. That way we could find them and bring them back. With this plan, residents of the surrounding area would not have to worry about the safety of their pets and property. Also included in my plan would be ideas for solving the problem of wolves killing livestock. The ideal solution to this disagreement would be to have the ranchers not kill the wolves, but instead temporarily disable them. If all goes well we could stop collaring them and let them roam free in the whole state of Colorado. In conclusion there are many sides to this issue. Although I think that the re-introduction of wolves is the best idea, there are multiple other options that the park has that may not require compromises, but overall the wolf would keep a more balanced ecosystem and possibly attract more visitors to the park.

Wolves in Colorado  By Shayna G   November 4, 2008 Position/Rationale Wolves in Colorado. That’s a big topic. My stakeholder was a National Park representative. A “stakeholder” is a person or group that has an investment, share or interest in something like a business or industry. A National Park representative is someone that works and studies wildlife. We were paired up into groups and we had to research wolves. My partner and I decided that as National Park representatives we think that wolves should come back to Colorado. We think that they are great to study and a part of nature. Position/Rationale Evidence When we e-mailed the National Park representatives they had very different ways of explaining their beliefs.. Some explanations were longer than others. However, their answers were all the same. They all want wolves back in Colorado. Allies To make the National Park representatives have a greater chance of winning the agreement/issue, they would have to work with other stakeholders. The three main stakeholders I would work with are The Estes Park residents, the Defenders of Wildlife and the environmentalists.They all want wolves in Colorado. We all want the same results but for different reasons. The Estes Park residents want wolves because elk can get overpopulated and they can annoy people who live close to the woods or nature. They believe that wolves will keep the elk population down. The Defenders of Wildlife want the same outcome, but for a different reason. They like wildlife and think that wolves should be in Colorado because wolves are part of Colorado’s history. The environmentalists believe that the wolves are interesting creatures and can easily be studied in their natural environment and are good for nature because of the food chain. All of these reasons they want wolves in Colorado tie into my reasons. Non-Allies You may be asking yourself why I wouldn’t want to pair up with the other stakeholders. The other stakeholders don’t want wolves in Colorado or they do but for the wrong reason. The ranchers don’t want wolves in Colorado because wolves kill their cattle but we can solve that problem. The way the National Park representatives will compromise is by not killing, but temporarily disabling them. The reason I wouldn’t pair up with the private hunters is because they do want wolves in Colorado but they want to kill them for sport and sometimes money. The reason I wouldn’t pair up with the hunting guides for the same reason as the private hunters. The other allies I can’t either work with or not work with they are just part of the agreement/issue. Compromise Most National Park representatives are fine with having wolves come back to Colorado. So why can’t we do it? There is always another side to the story and in this case, the ranchers are the other side of the story. Ranchers don’t want wolves in Colorado because wolves kill their cattle. As much of a problem this is to ranchers, it is also a problem to us, the National Park representatives. To solve the problem, you have to make deals. Ranchers don’t want wolves in Colorado because they kill their cattle and they want to kill wolves. But here are some of the compromises I came up with. For every head of cattle that is killed, the National Park representatives will give the ranches a certain amount of money or pay for a fence that is high enough and wide enough to keep the wolves away. If the ranchers say ok then, good for our stakeholders. If they say no, then we will have to keep trying. Conclusion All the stakeholders have different opinions on whether wolves should be in Colorado. I personally want wolves in Colorado. They are good for the environment and are interesting to study because they are a part of nature. If there were no wolves, then what would we do? All the animals they hunt will get overpopulated. So many places in the USA have wolves so why shouldn’t we? If I were to do this project again, I would have not chosen a different stakeholder. I believe we should restore wolves to their natural home. 