Colorado Parks and Wildlife employees are in the crosshairs, caught between mountain lion lovers on the left and anti-wolf advocates on the right. The news this week that CPW employees are facing a variety of threats from radical elements in both groups of Coloradans strikes us as ironic sad — and frightening.

But in the face of unnecessary radicalism, we urge policymakers not to entrench themselves in their positions but to take a moderate approach that accepts the reality that, on both sides of the issue, there is ground to give.

CPW acting director Laura Clellan told The Colorado Sun that her staff has received anonymous threats over two mountain lions who were euthanized following a fatal attack on a runner. And after the release of 15 gray wolves into Colorado, CPW staff were followed during operations and threatened with violence.

We expect healthy and robust debate about Colorado’s wildlife management practices, but both sides of these issues have gone crazy. This outlandish and harassing behavior must stop.

Hunting is a vital part of our wildlife management, our economy and our Western culture as is Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s ability to euthanize animals who pose a threat to humans. The Denver Post editorial board opposed a ban on mountain lion hunting in 2024’s Proposition 127. But we also supported the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado in 2020’s Proposition 114. The wolves are native to Colorado and could help our ecosystems find the right balance between predator and prey.

From this middle-ground position, we can call for both sides to simmer down.

Because from our vantage of impartiality, we can see plainly that mountain lion hunting needs much more regulation to protect the apex predator from being overly culled. The ban simply went too far.

And we can see plainly that the reintroduction of wolves has not gone well for the wolves or for the ranchers whose livelihoods have been impacted by wolf depredation.

Neither of those realizations requires a revolution. A strongly worded letter to state officials or reintroduction of ballot measures to change state law could suffice in both instances of policy failure.

Accusations that CPW staff is acting inappropriately or that they are out to get Coloradans who have different ideas for how our wildlife should be managed are both inappropriate and inaccurate. There is no conspiracy to protect mountain lion hunters or the guides who make money pursuing the big cats for clients. There is no conspiracy to chase Colorado ranchers off of public lands with marauding bands of gray wolves.

What we do know is that a Colorado woman was recently killed by a mountain lion while on a heavily used trail near an established neighborhood in Estes Park. The tragic death followed months of reports of mountain lions that appeared to no longer fear humans. Euthanizing those animals was the right decision.

Hunting lions can contribute to the animals retaining a natural fear of humans and dogs. Not banning hunting was the right call. However, the tragic death also shouldn’t lead to vehement anti-lion sentiment like we are seeing with gray wolves.

Apex predators are a critical part of our ecosystem, and while they always pose a risk to humans, managing them, not eradicating them, is the right path.

A city agency tasked
with leading Oahu’s economic development has not implemented many of its programs nor shown transparency in its multiyear financial budgets, a recent city audit asserts.

The Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization,
attached to the city Managing Director’s Office, has a stated mission to build a strong economy that improves the quality of life for every community, small business and family on the island.

With the 20-person agency’s latest budget pegged
at more than $2.2 million, OER programs involve sustainable food systems and agriculture, workforce development, innovation and technology, regenerative tourism, and aiding immigrant and underserved communities.

OER was established
via a prior Honolulu City Council resolution in 2020.

Focused on the agency operations from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2025, the Office of the City Auditor
asserts that since its inception OER has fallen short in many areas.

“Despite its creation in 2020, OER has only recently begun to establish actual program implementation,” Acting City Auditor Troy Shimasaki wrote in a Jan. 15 memorandum to the Council. “OER’s priority was to create staffing capacity over economic recovery and revitalization.”

He noted the audit
determined “a lack of transparency, particularly with program budgetary information and reporting” at OER.

“Although the (Council) established OER in 2020, the agency did not report a budget in the Honolulu Operating Budget until fiscal year 2025,” Shimasaki wrote. “In the Office of the Managing Director, the former Office
of Economic Development (OED) and OER coexisted simultaneously in staffing records until fiscal year 2025.”

He said city budget records do not list OED and OER staffing as separate from city management, even though other programs under the Managing Director’s Office report staffing separately.

“Complicating staffing counts further, budget documents and personnel numbers differ from internal OER staffing records due to funding source discrepancies,” Shimasaki wrote. “As a result, accountability and transparency related to OER’s staffing and funding was reduced.”

He asserted OER has not fully met the responsibilities outlined in the legislative resolution that created it. “While the (City Charter)
establishes eight specific
requirements for the office and its executive, our review found that OER has only accomplished or made measurable progress toward three of the eight resolution responsibilities” or 38%, he wrote.

OER has demonstrated activity in economic response and recovery,
identifying and management of funds for economic revitalization, and small business support, Shimasaki wrote.

But he noted the audit found OER “has not fully established or implemented the remaining five required functions including economic development and investment, economic improvement projects, a business resource hub, sector-specific economic support, and economic revitalization commission.”

“As a result, OER has not fully met the intent or operational scope envisioned by the resolution, limiting its ability to provide comprehensive economic revitalization leadership for the city,” he wrote.

In response to the audit’s findings, OER Executive Director Amy Asselbaye acknowledged her agency’s deficiencies.

“OER accepts the audit’s finding that transparency and budget reporting were insufficient,” Asselbaye wrote on Jan. 9. “At the same time, it is important that the public record fully reflects the scope and scale of the nearly $350 million in economic relief programs administered by OER from 2020 to the present.

“OER remains committed to strengthening transparency and improving budget and external funding reporting practices going forward,” she wrote.

The OER was established under former mayor Kirk Caldwell’s administration. “The office was tasked to coordinate the city’s near-term COVID-19 economic response and recovery efforts and guide long-term strategy and economic development, diversification, and investments for the city,” the audit states.

“Over the five-year period of FY 2021 to FY 2025, OER expended over $324.3 million, which consisted of federal, private, and city general funds,” the audit states.

The audit determined a lack of transparency in itemizing OER “salaries, current expenses, equipment, and full-time employee counts.”

But the audit could not determine budget information for OER’s general, special projects and federal grants funds for fiscal years 2021 to 2024. By fiscal year 2025, those same fund amounts partially totaled more than $2.673 million, the audit states. “OER’s
Proposed Operating Budget for FY 2025 … reported no staff, no authorized funding, and no expenditures in FY 2023 and FY 2024.”

In its budget briefing to the Council in 2023, “OER reported FY 2023 appropriations at $1.6 million and FY 2024 proposed budget at $1.9 million. FY 2023 and FY 2024 amounts were shown at zero for full-time equivalent positions, salaries, and funding sources,” the audit states.

“This discrepancy within the budget documents was due to the lack of an official re-organization making its way through the process with other city departments,” the audit asserts. “The department explained that the administration had been in the process of completing the reorganization for the last 2.5 years, and intends to complete the re-
organization after the FY 2028 budget is approved.

“As a result of the lack of organizational formality and budget integration, we found that OER lacked sufficient transparency and accountability during our review period,” the report states.

The audit also noted the slowness with which the city ramped up OER programs.

“Although OER was established in 2020, substantive program activities … did not occur until FY 2023,” the audit states. “The slow ramp-up in program activities was caused by the city administration’s focus on organizational set up over actual program implementation. As a result, program accomplishments and value to city taxpayers were slow to realize.”

The audit performed an internal risk assessment of OER’s economic revitalization program too, which prioritized organization and administration functions. The city auditor identified five risk categories arising from prioritizing organizational setup over timely program implementation.

“The two highest-risk
areas are fiscal sustainability and program effectiveness, each rated Critical,” the audit states.

“OER’s choice to prioritize staffing and capacity-
building — along with rental relief — over timely economic recovery and
revitalization program implementation led to critical risks in fiscal sustainability and program effectiveness,” the audit asserts. “It also heightened risks in transparency/accountability, financial reporting accuracy, and moderate governance/control weaknesses.”

And “despite receiving over $325.4 million in city, federal, and private funding across program areas from FY 2021 to FY 2025, OER’s program outcomes remain limited,” the audit states.

The audit makes five
recommendations to OER as well as to the Economic Revitalization Commission — the nine-member body that recommends strategies to the city to encourage economic development on Oahu.

Those recommendations include having OER establish a long-term sustainability plan; provide an annual performance report aligned with the department’s own key performance indicators; and evaluate programs and services that are shared with other city departments and the state for cost efficiency and to avoid duplication.

OER also should ensure it meets five required responsibilities including economic development.

The audit states the Economic Revitalization Commission should establish a five-year strategic plan in accordance with OER’s mandated responsibilities.

Let’s talk about attack ads. You know the ones—ominous music, grainy photos, and a narrator who sounds like they gargle gravel for a living. We’ve all seen them. We’ve all heard them. And at this point, we’re anesthetized. Political Novocaine.

Enough.

Montana deserves better than campaigns that treat voters like raccoons rummaging through ideological trash cans. We deserve ideas, not insults. Debates, not drive-by smear jobs. Sunlight, not sludge.

And that brings us—unavoidably—to incumbent Sen. Steve Daines.

Rather than showing up in Montana for public town halls, rather than standing in front of voters and answering unscripted questions, Daines has perfected a different approach – absence. He won’t hold a public town hall. He won’t face constituents. Instead, Montanans get something else entirely—well-financed, vicious attack ads, launched long before an election and even before a candidate has formally declared.

That’s offensive.

If you won’t show up, don’t send a hit piece in your place. Montana is not a focus group. Democracy is not a mailer campaign. And an attack ad is not a substitute for showing your face and answering hard questions.

Daines should show up. Sending a slick, cynical attack ad instead doesn’t cut it.

Now let’s be honest about what just happened—because it tells us everything we need to know.

University of Montana President Seth Bodnar resigns his position, and before he even announces a campaign, before he files for office, before he says a word about running, Republicans launch a vicious attack ad.

Day. One.

That’s not confidence. That’s fear.

You don’t unload the attack ads that early unless you’re scared stiff.

No welcome. No thanks for service. No “let’s debate the issues.” Just straight into the gutter, guns blazing, facts optional. Misleading claims. Flat-out untruths. The political equivalent of throwing a punch before the bell rings.

Shame on them.

This is exactly why Bodnar is such a compelling candidate. The very speed and savagery of the attacks are the tell. When the ideas are weak, the attacks get loud. When the record can’t compete, the mud comes out early.

Here’s a radical thought: What if candidates held 56 debates across Montana? Fifty-six. One for every county. Let voters ask questions. Let candidates explain who they are, what they’ve done, and what they actually plan to do—rather than explaining why their opponent is apparently the third cousin of Satan.

Crazy, right?

Attack ads don’t persuade; they poison. No one watches one and says, “Wow, that really enriched my understanding of public policy.” They say, “I hate all of you now.” These ads ruin television, make public service unattractive, and convince good people that running for office isn’t worth the personal abuse.

Attack ads are why decent people stay home and cable news stays rich.

This isn’t the Montana way. Or at least, it didn’t used to be.

Which brings me back to Bodnar.

Under his leadership, UM stretched to new heights: roughly $300 million in infrastructure improvements—much donor-funded; R-1 research status (a very big deal); rising enrollment; better retention. He took on a tough job and exceeded expectations.

Now, according to reports, Bodnar may run for the U.S. Senate—as an independent. And suddenly the political establishment loses its mind.

Let’s pause on something important: Bodnar is a real public servant. Full stop.

First in his class at West Point. Rhodes Scholar. Truman Scholar. Green Beret. Multiple combat deployments. Lieutenant Colonel in the Montana National Guard—still serving. Leadership under fire isn’t theoretical for him; it’s lived.

This guy didn’t read about leadership—he graded it.

He taught economics at West Point. He served as a senior executive at General Electric. He knows how large, complicated systems work—and how to fix them.

So what do the attack ads do? They lie.

They claim Bodnar raised tuition by 30%. False. Tuition is set by the Board of Regents, appointed by Gov. Gianforte. If you’re angry, aim accordingly.

What Bodnar actually did was create the Grizzly Promise: Students from families earning $50,000 or less attend UM tuition-free—about a quarter of undergraduates. The average Montana student paid around $3,000 a year in tuition. That’s not an increase. That’s a lifeline.

They claim he’s anti-woman. Also false. His record includes hiring and promoting accomplished women across campus leadership—law, business, conservation and beyond.

Montana deserves truth—not attack-ad garbage. Not politics as a blood sport. Not tribal stupidity served with gusto. 

Public service should not require body armor.

This is a call for higher integrity and higher discourse—from every party and every candidate. Tell us your vision. Tell us your ideas. Tell us how you’ll make Montana stronger.

And if you’re already in office, show up. Face the people you represent.

Just spare us the lies, the fear-mongering, and the political junk food.

Montana deserves better. And we should demand it—loudly.