Bowsite.com

Never mind biology, never mind practicality. If Barry Soetero is reelected, he'll start implementing stuff like this by Executive Order to pay back his radical enviro supporters.

Just send your $$$ to the big scam SFW/BGF 'Charity Paycheck' fella's.....

They will get it all taken care of for ya.....

10--12 years from now....

Check out the screwing they have in Wyoming from these clowns.

Good luck, Robb

The "Valley", which the Baca is a part of, is sort of its own little world down there. I'm guessing there are some salty old ranchers and potato farmers putting AR-15s on their Christmas list if this happened.

Lots of UFO activity down there. Maybe we could talk the aliens into mutilating elk instead of cattle as option "D".

As bullelk stated "This is real", and I hope you act now to stop it. The way these wolves are expanding, it might not be a bad idea to start putting a management program in place.

My favorite is to...S.S.S.

The whole reintro was one of worst examples of Federal intrusion. It was wrong to do it the way they did and it was completely bungled. Forcing an apex predator on the States without the ability to manage them within the existing structure and then waiting until the wolf population far exceeded appropriate and agreed upon numbers before delisting.

The elk can bounce back in a couple decades if its caught soon enough. Losing our freedoms and allowing more and more Government intrusion in our lives is a train with no reverse.

I have no issue with wolves. They are just a pawn in this whole mess. But, there is no way I will support any Federal steps to have them in Colorado. The modern West doesn't have millions of bison for wolves to eat. It can support a small population, but until its allowed to be done correctly, having none is the better choice. Thats sad, but its not the fault of hunters.

Josh

11 Feb 2009, 1:12am Deer, Elk, Bison Wolves by admin

Wolves Reducing Elk Populations In Montana A new study of wolves and elk was released last week by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks that showed the MT wolf population has been increasing exponentially since 1995 at rates of approximately 10% to 34% annually. The best estimate as of December 2007 is that there were a minimum of 422 wolves (73 packs) and 39 breeding packs within the State boundaries of Montana.

The study, entitled Monitoring and Assessment of Wolf-Ungulate Interactions and Population Trends within the Greater Yellowstone Area, Southwestern Montana, and Montana Statewide by Kenneth L. Hamlin and Julie A. Cunningham, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, found that wolves killed approximately 7 to 23 elk per wolf in winter (November through April). Summer kill rates were not estimated.

11 Feb 2009, 1:12am Deer, Elk, Bison Wolves by admin

Wolves Reducing Elk Populations In Montana A new study of wolves and elk was released last week by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks that showed the MT wolf population has been increasing exponentially since 1995 at rates of approximately 10% to 34% annually. The best estimate as of December 2007 is that there were a minimum of 422 wolves (73 packs) and 39 breeding packs within the State boundaries of Montana.

The study, entitled Monitoring and Assessment of Wolf-Ungulate Interactions and Population Trends within the Greater Yellowstone Area, Southwestern Montana, and Montana Statewide by Kenneth L. Hamlin and Julie A. Cunningham, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, found that wolves killed approximately 7 to 23 elk per wolf in winter (November through April). Summer kill rates were not estimated.

During winter, nearly all elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are losing weight, said Scott Creel, ecology professor at MSU, and lead author on the study which appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Essentially, they are slowly starving," Creel said. "Despite grazing and browsing during the winter, elk suffer a net loss of weight. If winter continued, they would all die, because dormant plants provide limited protein and energy, and snow makes it more difficult to graze efficiently."

With the presence of wolves, elk browse more - eating woody shrubs or low tree branches in forested areas where they are safer - as opposed to grazing on grass in open meadows where they are more visible, and therefore more vulnerable to wolves.

Browsing provides food of good quality, but the change in foraging habits results in elk taking in 27 percent less food than their counterparts that live without wolves, the study estimates.

"Elk regularly hunted by wolves are essentially starving faster than those not hunted by wolves," said Creel, who shares authorship on the paper with his former doctoral students John Winnie, Jr., and David Christianson.

The decline in the Greater Yellowstone's elk population since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 has been greater than was originally predicted. In the three winters prior to the reintroduction of wolves, elk on Yellowstone's northern range numbered roughly between 17,000 and 19,000. In the three winters prior to 2008, annual elk counts had declined to between 6,738 and 6,279.

Obviously, wolves kill elk, and direct predation is responsible for much of the decline in elk numbers, but the rate of direct killing is not great enough to account for the elk population declines observed since 1995 in the Northern Range, the Gallatin Canyon, and the Madison-Firehole herds, all well-colonized by Yellowstone wolves. In addition to direct predation, the decline is due to low calving rates, which are a subtle but important effect of the wolves' presence, Creel said.

Two studies following radio-collared elk calves found that during the calves' first six months of life, relatively few of them were killed by wolves, Creel said.

"We knew the presence of wolves caused lower calf-cow ratios, but we didn't know why," he said. "Radiocollaring calves revealed that calf numbers were low immediately after the birth pulse, suggesting that a decline in the birth rate was part of the population decline."

The birth pulse is that time in spring when most cow elk have their calves.

This suggestion was confirmed when the researchers found that elk facing high levels of predation risk had substantially decreased progesterone levels prior to the annual birth pulse. Progesterone is necessary to maintain pregnancy, but a question remained: what was responsible for the decrease in progesterone?

There were two competing theories: One suggested elk suffered from chronic stress due to the wolves' presence. In all mammals, stress causes the release of cortisol, a hormone that helps free up energy to either fight or flee. But too much cortisol from chronic stress can cause the immune and reproductive systems to shut down.

The other theory was that the elk weren't getting enough to eat because they were always on the run from the wolves and spending more time in the forest, where food is sparse compared to grassy meadows. For wintering elk that are already on the edge of starvation, anything compromising nutrition could also cause the reproductive system to shut down.

The MSU researchers did chemical analysis of 1,200 fecal samples collected over 4 years, as well as urine samples for the study. They did not find the elevated levels of cortisol that would support the chronic stress theory. However, they did find that those elk living in the presence of wolves had lower levels of progesterone, a hormone necessary to maintain pregnancy, than those elk that didn't live with wolves.

"The elk are trading reproduction for longevity," Creel said. "Elk are potentially long-lived, and many prior studies have shown that, in species like this, natural selection favors individuals who do not compromise their own survival for the sake of a single reproductive opportunity."

If predators commonly affect the reproduction of their prey, it will change the thinking about predator-prey dynamics, and might change how wildlife managers plan for the reintroduction of predators, Creel said.

"This research shows that the total effect of a predator on prey numbers can be larger than one would determine simply by looking at the number that are killed," he said.

Until now, it would have seemed obvious to conclude that a herd losing many of its number to predators would decline faster than a herd where predators were less successful, Creel said.

"However, now it is conceivable that the herd with the lower direct predation rate could decline faster, if it spends more of its time and energy avoiding being eaten and less on reproduction," Creel said.

Creel and his current doctoral student Paul Schuette are seeing if the theory holds up with other prey-predator populations, with a study of lions, spotted hyenas and a diverse array of prey animals on a Maasai Community Conservation Area in the South Rift of Kenya.

The study of Montana elk ruled out weather as the cause of poor calf production, because elk populations that were exposed to little or no wolf predation had good calf production during the study period, which was typified by winters with little snow accumulation -- ideal for elk.

The study also considered grizzly bears.

"It is true that grizzlies prey on elk calves, and grizzly numbers have increased in the region," Creel said. "However, the increase in total grizzly numbers has mainly been due to geographical expansion, rather than increases in the number of bears in places where they were already well-established at the time of wolf reintroduction."

###

The work by Creel, Winnie and Christianson was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd Suffers Major Decline MATTHEW BROWN 01/12/11 08:25 PM ET Associated Press Adorable BILLINGS, Mont. — An acclaimed elk herd in Yellowstone National Park took a major hit last year, with biologists saying almost one in four of the animals were lost, mainly to predators and hunters.

As recently as 1994, the northern Yellowstone elk herd was the largest in North America with almost 20,000 animals that migrated between the park and parts of southern Montana.

But those numbers have plummeted sharply since wolves were reintroduced 15 years ago, adding to threats that already included mountain lions and grizzly bears.

Figures released Wednesday showed the Yellowstone herd down to a minimum of 4,635 elk. That's a 24 percent drop from last winter, and wildlife officials said the decline was unexpected because the herd in recent years showed signs of stabilizing.

"Either we counted them poorly this year, predator effects were stronger, the big snow event made us miss more elk, or more elk were harvested," said Park Service biologist Doug Smith. "Usually the best answer in ecology is all of the above."

He said there was no reason to suspect a continued decline, and that a smaller herd is healthier in some ways because it gives the animals room to thrive.

Bill Hoppe, an outfitter near Gardiner, said harsh weather in the park in late November pushed many of the animals to lower elevations in Montana. He estimated several hundred bull elk from the herd were killed by hunters in the last part of the season – one of the most successful harvests in years.

Yet in the 1990s, several thousand elk were killed in some years. Hoppe believes the herd's best days are gone, and a local hunting industry that already was ailing will collapse.

"There's coyotes and there's wolves and there's bears and there's mountain lions. (The elk) may come back, but it's going to be slow," said Hoppe, who is also president of a group called the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd.

The Park Service has no set population target for the herd, but the latest count falls below those of Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.

The state's elk management plan calls for 3,000 to 5,000 elk in parts of Montana just north of the park, said Fish, Wildlife and Parks spokesman Ron Aasheim. This year's count included 2,236 outside the park.

You do not need a doctoral paper and/ or science to see the affects of wolves since being introduced. BTW, Do you need science to tell you wolves need to eat? DO you need science to tell you that they kill other animals?

As to address your argument of declining animal numbers where wolves are not located is simply irrelevant. The fact is their are wolves.

How did packs expand so quickly? What are they eating? How much does a wolf need to eat in a years time? Multiply that by the number of wolves now wild. Do that on your math on your science calculator. I suppose you need science to prove a wolf needs to eat as well?

Pig headed

Hunter in Colorado if you start to see wolves or if they are introduced stop killing cows immediatly or you will be in the same boat as Montana

If someone came to me last month and asked me about elk reduction in areas with wolf reintroduction, I wouldnt know the facts.

We all just need to be a bit more educated and sharing facts and keeping white hot emotion to a minimum is a good place to start...

We all get in disagreements everyday in our own lives but it’s important to remember that Smart people don’t ARGUE, they debate... The difference between the two is that an argument is a highly emotional difference of opinion, where the purpose is just to make the other person feel insulted and ashamed all in the name of making your point. A debate on the other hand, is about using logic and reasoning to prove a specific point of view on a subject.

Argue all we want...the debate is coming, are we Coloradans ready?

Happy Hunting, Yrovikle

All you have to do is go back and research the license quota decline for elk and moose in the areas that have taken the brunt of wolf reintroduction. Talk to ranchers and outfitters in the affected areas. I think they're a little more credible than "What me and Joe seen".

I'll concede that wolves may not be the sole culprit, but to question whether or not wolves are one of the main, if not THE main, reason is naive at best.

I'm not one bit bashful to say it wouldn't hurt my feelings if every last wolf was exterminated. When the feds shoved them down our throats and didn't let the states have any control as we watched, and continue to watch, our herds get decimated, my tolerance disappeared.

Scientific studies would only support a biological argument. Anyone who has paid attention to this fiasco would know it has NOTHING to do with biology...it is strictly political, and we are losing. Either fight back now, or your kids and grandkids will be reading about elk and moose reintroduction in the future.

No biologist, but will give you a high school level theory on biology, history, and economics-

Wolves eat elk (biology), and if you look out the window to the north, you will see at a fairly alarming rate (history). Elk numbers go down, so do tag numbers and associated revenue. Then taxpayers can foot the bill for managing the wolves and damage, like they do for bears here in CO (economics).

If you are a hunter and want wolves, you aren't just a fool, your a really stupid fool. Prowolf Studies, don't believe what they say, they're not true. I'm a 46 year old man, I've had some great times over the years of my hunting. What we have learned here in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming is that our next generations and the generation after that aren't going have the same opprotunites that we had. Now we need to work really hard to have any opprotunties to rebuild is to fight. The only way to this is to stop what is going on in Washington, DC, there for lets start by stopping the reintroduction the wolves to Colorado. I don't even live there, but I wouldn't want what to home montana to happen to those who live Colorado.

Two years ago they brought another reintroduction idea to the table but it was quickly dismissed.

IMO wolves have already changed quite a few states game plans and will continue to due so. Who looses out the average Joe hunter, communities that count on the revenue from hunters, game departments etc. When the old-timers back in the day eradicated them they knew what they where doing and now we have some dumb special interest group that think they know what their doing is right, but most don't have any real scientific data to back up what their selling.

Next they'll be reintroducing grizzlies to every state.

Lech gave some great advice. When the wolves show up (and show up they will) stop your either sex seasons. Move the bar up for the number of elk your willing to tolerate. Montana and Idaho are in sad shape mainly because of our political desire to kill the elk down to objectives that were picked by the livestock industry. In Montana we are still over objective levels in 66% of the hunting districts. I live in wolf central too. Western Montana, (Bitterroot Valley) with all of our wolf problems, we are still at, or over elk objectives for the Valley in 3 of 4 hunting districts. Go figure that one.

RUN A VOTED INITIATIVE ... GET YOUR CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO OPPOSE IT ... GET YOUR GOVERNOR TO OPPOSE IT ... DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO STOP IT NOW!

It just blows my mind...

I'll be a prophet: No matter the studies, witness, logic: they will introduce them anyway.

Good posts folks. " Guess who we listened to?? It was the folks who would come in with reasoning, facts, figures"

'fawn, if you can't discern the truth amid the clamor here... and just rely on the cool headed "experts" all I can say is... may God have mercy on us all...

YOU are absolutely the worst kind of "hunter" there is, as you refuse to listen to what is being stated by the those who have "been there, seen that".

Obviously you have done absolutely no research what-so-ever! Bullelk spent 5 minutes on the computer and came up with several FACTS, and yet you refuse to open an ear.

PLEASE, pull your head out - do some research - if you still feel the timmber wolf is doing no harm to the Elk population, then I sugest you hang up your hunting equipment!

Because of people like you, most likely all of us will be done hunting with-in the next ten, or so, years as well.

Looks like I better try to get my Colorado tag drawn soon.

Nathan

After 12 years on a board in which you represent us COLORADO you should come to the meeting prepared. Panties in a wad??? You were the third individual to respond to this thread, so it is evident you frequent here. So it should be evident you know of the post-videos others have sent in regarding the slaughter of both wild and domestic animals by wolves on both private and national park lands! To ask us for proof..................beyond comprehension. If you were elected to represent Colorado as a chair for our wildlife resources in some capacity we should have "Our panties in a wad", at ourselves, because you do not belong

Scoot, I know about the parachute gig as I have over 600 skydives and was, in my day, on a regional championship parachute team.

Butts, I must have done a reasonable job representing the taxpayers of my district as I won the first election as a "Write In" garnering only a handful of votes less than the ones who were published on the ballot and then was re-elected to two more terms, the max allowed under CO law.

I know plenty of people that can be politically correct, are good speakers and can baffle their audience with BS, spewing numbers and facts left and right. Unfortunately, sounding smart is more important than living and dealing with the issues at hand on a daily basis and being able to give an eye witness testimony. In those situations the constituent is too emotional to give a rantional opinion.....

Best of Luck, Jeff

Thank you for contacting me regarding the conservation of wolves. I appreciate hearing from you. You should know I share in your concern that species conservation efforts are critical as habitat loss continues to affect many sensitive animals like the timber wolf, the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf, the Mexican wolf, and the Texas gray wolf. Knowing that wolves have historically used a variety of habitats, we’ve also learned that they are sensitive to human disturbance. To protect and ensure long-term conservation for these four subspecies of wolf most common in North America, responsible management is needed. While Colorado is part of the gray wolf’s native range, according to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources it is extirpated in Colorado. However, I understand your discomfort with what appears to be failing recovery goals for wolf populations, and trophy game management areas that affect wilderness ecosystems in our neighboring states. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service give state wildlife professionals the authority to regulate limited trophy game, and aid in promoting safety in order to maintain healthy wolf populations. The Endangered Species Act has also been a critical safety net for wolves. As you may know, an animal or plant may be a candidate for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act if, according to the Secretary of the Interior, a significant economic or growth-related factor is threatening its livelihood. Due to decreasing numbers in the species population, many forms of wolf populations have been protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1967. While gray wolves have rebounded to some degree in the Northern Rockies in recent years, several recent court decisions have recognized the continued importance of protecting this species and prevented delisting efforts by both the Bush and Obama Administrations. As you may know, during the 112th Congress, legislation supporting decreased protections for the gray wolf has been introduced in both the Senate and the House. In the Senate, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah introduced S. 249, a bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that the Act shall not apply to any gray wolf (Canis lupus). S.249 would remove any protections granted to the gray wolf by the Endangered Species Act. Also, Senator Max Baucus of Montana introduced S. 321, the Delisting Gray Wolves to Restore State Management Act of 2011. S. 321 would identify the Northern Rocky Mountain population of the gray wolf as distinct and revise the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Both bills have been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for further consideration. In the House, Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana introduced H.R. 509, to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that the Act shall not apply to the gray wolf (Canis lupus). In addition, Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan introduced H.R. 1819, the State Wildlife Management Act of 2011. H.R. 509 and H.R. 1819 would remove any protections granted to the gray wolf by the Endangered Species Act. They have been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. I am not a member of the committee considering S. 249 and S. 321. However, should either piece of legislation come before the full Senate or additional legislation regarding protections for wolf management or the commonly known gray wolf, I will keep your thoughts and concerns in mind. As a Senator from a state that is known for its natural treasures, I firmly believe that we have to protect the land, water, and wildlife that surround us. Our wildlife and plant resources belong to all of us. And encouraging the welfare of imperiled species is a shared responsibility. It’s up to us to be good stewards to protect our natural environment, so that future generations can enjoy the greatness of the natural treasures we have. I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering a wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that affect our natural resources. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns. For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov. Again, thank you for contacting me. Sincerely, Michael Bennet United States Senator

- Find out the game numbers in ALL districts of MT/ID/WY that have wolves. Are they falling/steady/rising? In that time, find out what the wolf population has done in that district. Be able to explain the areas that don't fit your expectation (i.e. anticipate what others will say).

- For a given district with wolves, what does the rate of kill in elk/deer do over time? This question relates to how the western elk/deer react to another predator in their midst. Does the kill rate start out high when you have an unprepared population, but then level out when the elk/deer get better at avoiding wolves?

- Find out the elk reaction to introduced wolves. There has been anecdotal evidence on bowsite that elk are quieter and hide better once wolves are in an area – find a study that backs that up.

- Find/document the other causes of elk/deer reductions in each district. For example, in MN, studies show that the wolves eat 8-10% of the deer population each year. When we have a bad winter (1995-96 & 2007-08), there are less deer, but the wolf ratio of kills doesn’t rise. To listen to MN hunters now, they blame wolves for all their deer issues – we have had the same number of wolves (~3000) for the last 10 years – winters, DNR decisions, weather during rifle season, etc. also influence the total population. In the elk districts, are the winter feeding areas holding steady or do they continue to shrink with housing developments?

- Find out what the game numbers would have been without the introduction of wolves. (This may seem counterintuitive, but, here in MN and WI, there was a decade-long decision by the DNRs to lower the whitetail numbers by issuing extra doe permits. Now we have less deer (DNR goal based on general public comments). Were those same decisions done in elk districts based on rancher/farmer/public input?

- Find out the cost of the wolf introduction if there are lower game levels. For this, find out the average amount that a hunter spends while hunting elk/deer. Compare that to the average amount spent by a wolf watcher.

All these things should be available to you from state game officials. If not, ask when they will be studied? There are probably 100 other questions that should be asked with this starting point – but each question needs to be asked for EVERY district that has wolves. Cherry picking data in one or two districts is what gives people like huntingbob et al the impression that the science behind the arguments is biased.

Idaho Fish & Game is giving wolf trapping classes all over the state. Two hours and a bunch of that is spent listening to the BIOLOGISTS and government trappers telling us that WE NEED to get after the wolf population fast! The fact is we have lost a lot of hunting already because of the wolf, and we stand to keep losing if we cannot get them under control.

Fawn, I really is hard to believe you don't have any more knowledge on this subject than you portray......

I'd say offhand that yes, "they" learned that their introduction worked very well...... It has already began reducing hunting opportunities in many areas in just a few short years. Just ask an unemployed outfitter/guide from the Yellowstone regions. I doubt you'll get many scientific studies, but you will get what is the truth, if you care to listen to them. Personally I give boots on the ground quite a lot of weight.

WRT wildlife biology and science, can anyone come up with any solid evidence that the game herds and wildlife NEEDED the wolves at all? That the introduction was necessary? Any? That human game population management (hunting) was failing in any way?

No. There was no "need" for the wolf introduction, only some emotional fantasy of some wild utopia were none exist any longer. Not in the management of what are essentially "islands" of wildlife that are surrounded by man, his uses and priorities.

There was a reason they were nearly eliminated in areas (never have been endangered over all as a species, just certain areas). It wasn't just a hobby or something to do. They not only saw the effects of wolves, they had to live with the effects of wolves.

Won't even go into Glunt's point as I've already used up my bandwidth, but he's spot on. The federal government way overstepped the boundary of states rights and reneged on the original written agreement at almost every step of the way.

Condescend: to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.

You guys are soooo screwed..... it's a done deal. "Hearings for Public input" are one of the last polite formalities in government. It means they've already made up their minds and this is just something they have to do becasue that's the way the law is written. They don't really want some grand debate on the matter. You could march 10,000 anti wolf people through theses meetings and it will make no difference. Just a formality.

Actually much too late for wadded panties. Shortly after your "hearings" said panties will be relocated to where the sun doesn't shine in a collusion between your fed and state government. Already done behind closed doors. Already decided.

"We're from the government and we're here to help...."

We here in NM have been lied to for 13 going on 14 years now with the pen raised Mexican wolves. We aren't giving up the fight and right now and for quite along while, are on the "no wolf" mode. Now their stated goal is to have 1200-1300 wolves here instead of 100.

Benjamin Tuggle the main wolf man in the USFWS is on a mission to have wolves in all of the west. He is the lowest of low and a smooth talking liar. He reminds me of Obama. They are both wolves in sheep's clothing.

The whole program is nothing more or nothing less than to rid the consumptive users including ranchers and hunters, from the public land. The wolves are a pawn.

Thank you for contacting me regarding the conservation of wolves. I appreciate hearing from you.   You should know I share in your concern that species conservation efforts are critical as habitat loss continues to affect many sensitive animals like the timber wolf, the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf, the Mexican wolf, and the Texas gray wolf. Knowing that wolves have historically used a variety of habitats, we’ve also learned that they are sensitive to human disturbance. To protect and ensure long-term conservation for these four subspecies of wolf most common in North America, responsible management is needed.   While Colorado is part of the gray wolf’s native range, according to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources it is extirpated in Colorado. However, I understand your discomfort with what appears to be failing recovery goals for wolf populations, and trophy game management areas that affect wilderness ecosystems in our neighboring states. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service give state wildlife professionals the authority to regulate limited trophy game, and aid in promoting safety in order to maintain healthy wolf populations.   The Endangered Species Act has also been a critical safety net for wolves. As you may know, an animal or plant may be a candidate for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act if, according to the Secretary of the Interior, a significant economic or growth-related factor is threatening its livelihood.   Due to decreasing numbers in the species population, many forms of wolf populations have been protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1967. While gray wolves have rebounded to some degree in the Northern Rockies in recent years, several recent court decisions have recognized the continued importance of protecting this species and prevented delisting efforts by both the Bush and Obama Administrations.   As you may know, during the 112th Congress, legislation supporting decreased protections for the gray wolf has been introduced in both the Senate and the House.  In the Senate, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah introduced S. 249, a bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that the Act shall not apply to any gray wolf (Canis lupus).  S.249 would remove any protections granted to the gray wolf by the Endangered Species Act.  Also, Senator Max Baucus of Montana introduced S. 321, the Delisting Gray Wolves to Restore State Management Act of 2011. S. 321 would identify the Northern Rocky Mountain population of the gray wolf as distinct and revise the list of endangered and threatened wildlife.  Both bills have been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for further consideration.   In the House, Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana introduced H.R. 509, to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that the Act shall not apply to the gray wolf (Canis lupus). In addition, Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan introduced H.R. 1819, the State Wildlife Management Act of 2011. H.R. 509 and H.R. 1819 would remove any protections granted to the gray wolf by the Endangered Species Act. They have been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.     I am not a member of the committee considering S. 249 and S. 321.  However, should either piece of legislation come before the full Senate or additional legislation regarding protections for wolf management or the commonly known gray wolf, I will keep your thoughts and concerns in mind.   As a Senator from a state that is known for its natural treasures, I firmly believe that we have to protect the land, water, and wildlife that surround us. Our wildlife and plant resources belong to all of us. And encouraging the welfare of imperiled species is a shared responsibility. It’s up to us to be good stewards to protect our natural environment, so that future generations can enjoy the greatness of the natural treasures we have.   I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering a wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that affect our natural resources. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.   For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov. Again, thank you for contacting me.     Sincerely,   Michael Bennet United States Senator

HOWEVER, to think that this is somehow clear cut and all the numbers and science back this up would be foolish. In a matter of 5 minutes I came up with following statistics.

Total Elk harvest by State

ID 2000….8,677

2010….11,794

MT 1999….18,209

2002….22,447

2007….23,195

WY 1999….21,830

2000…23,727

2010…25,672 (and Yes, I do understand that these increases are mostly due to population increases outside the wolf zone)

Also some of the studies mentioned above (and a lot of the numbers showing the great impact on the elk herd) all reference the Yellowstone elk herd. This “crash” in numbers could easily be attributed to the overpopulation of the herd, which is well documented in numerous studies done on the over-browsing done by this population.

I am in no way trying to minimize the harm that wolves have done, but studies and numbers do back up the other side as well.

Results are the same, an out of control menace to game populations that are also a direct threat to ranchers and other livestock/pet owners.

“They are trying to take a Nineteenth Century ECO System and put it into a Twentieth Century World.”

Excellent point. I would only add that 19th century ecosystem they fantasize about would be trying to fit in a 21st century world now.

WRT Mike's numbers , remove all stats from areas with no wolves as they are meaningless to that "study" and cannot be applied. (Unless you use it as a control group to further point out the differences in wolf areas to non-wolf areas.)

Only count the areas where wolves have multiplied. See what you come up with. I remember doing that just a couple years ago and the differences were pretty dramatic. Lolo zone, Yellowstone areas, etc.

Elk aren't the only ones being affected by the wolves that were shoved down our throats.

The moose harvest in Wyoming has declined from 1225 in 2001, to 682 in 2005, to 485 in 2010. There are 7 moose areas that are currently closed. 6 of those areas are located in wolf "ground zero". Of course, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

The 2 top areas in the state are producing great bulls, and the moose population is healthy and growing. Those 2 areas just happen to be wolf-free...at least for the moment. I'm quite certain that is just a coincidence as well.

Idaho Elk Harvest

1990 21,500 2000 20,200 2010 17,470

The report is available on the IDFG home page.

I suppose those with vast political experience in county government could question my facts, but this is what they are...

As a species they have never been endangered, not one bit, much less threatened with extinction. Unless you consider the Rocky Mountain wolves a different species?

Please, somebody make that argument, because the wolves they released are the Canadian Grays. So out of one side of their mouths they say they were "endangered" and out of the other side they say the introduced wolves are the same, no difference. A wolf is a wolf....

Modern western wildlife management is a huge success story, all without wolves in the picture. There was no ecological need for the wolves, just someones idea of a romantic or esoteric fantasy. No need for them UNLESS you take man and his ability to manage by hunting out of the equation. When a person gets their mind wrapped around that one then you will have the real reason for introduction. To eliminate man.

Here's an idea, let's sign a deal with the wolves. We'll share. Just like us they will have self imposed rules, limited seasons, limited licenses (only so many wolves/hunters) limited tags (only so many game animals taken) age/sex specific depending one the zone (mature males only or either sex).

What? Can't sign a deal with wolves? Really? Huh...

The states signed a deal with the Feds WRT the introduction. (as just one example) Pretty much the same result.

Fool me once shame on you.... fool me twice....

"Scoot, I know about the parachute gig as I have over 600 skydives and was, in my day, on a regional championship parachute team."

"Butts, I must have done a reasonable job representing the taxpayers of my district as I won the first election as a "Write In" garnering only a handful of votes less than the ones who were published on the ballot and then was re-elected to two more terms, the max allowed under CO law."

"me and Joe seen"

I sure hope you have some ointment for your arm from reaching around and patting yourself on the back!

Your comments are indicative of a selfrightious, uninformed, politician, who talks out of both sides of your mouth spewing uninformed dribble and refusing to listen to facts. This issue is about introducing wolves into CO. NOT about you being a woman who feels macho because she (you) THINK you are holding your own. ON the contrary, the more you post the more your ignorance and arrogant attitude comes out.

You are a mirror of the radical PETA members .. "you are right and the rest of the world is wrong, no matter how many facts are put in front of you"

illegal or not, I've become a wolf hater, and if hunters don't control them, they will contribute greatly to the death of western hunting

If you are passionate about elk hunting and live or hunt in Colorado, you better speak up or forget about elk hunting in your state.

"Funny thing is that most of the time those "claims" are not founded. I just believe that it is just jealousy over allowing another hunter in to hunt "MY" elk!"

Why don't you get off your couch and do your own research before coming here and acting all better than though, pointing fingers and then acting superior. Clearly you made no effort to educate yourself,just make claims that the other side is a bunch of uneducated hacks with unfounded claims and experiences. And then act like it was for our own good by teaching us about politics...really?

I'm an easterner with little first hand knowledge of wolf issues but I can read. And I have experienced my share of coyote issues. I have great sympathy for those who live in the areas of reintroduction.

[email protected]

Link to the planning schedule:

http://www.fws.gov/alamosa/planning/index.html

Link to alternatives for the plan:

http://www.fws.gov/alamosa/planning/slv_ccp_update2_web2.pdf

Alternative C, mentions the wolf as a viable form of pop control.

I hope this is sarcasm! If not, I'll send you some info and save you money.

Yes the SFW and BGF comment is sarcasm.

I read the proposal and I believe I only saw it as a third proposal and mentioned wolves once. I think that the orgs mentioned above are giddy at everyone's panic. Do I think we should sit idle? nope.

In Kentucky and some eastern states, we "re-introduced" elk. Since elk are not endangered as a species, they were not given federal protection where they couldn't be managed by the North American model. The states then did what they felt was necessary.

Was this an effort by the feds? Idk. I couldn't find anything saying different. Was it welcomed? Well, just recently I saw a raffle for a Kentucky elk hunt so I assume so.

Since wolves are not endangered as a species, then let the state manage them. If they want to put their nose in the States business, then they reap what they sow.

I think the real battle is States rights. The wolves are coming. That is fact. What we need to do is step up and get our rights back.

it is just like private land. they own the land, not the wildlife.

All you have to do is look at Wis. . The deer herd is ravaged in the north and the hunters are saying they are all done hunting up there. When the hunters stop hunting they sell their guns, end of the story.

In my opinion the argument should center on the how the declining ungulate populations will effect the people that live in the area.

The economy is a huge item in the political arena right now. In my opinion we could garner a lot of opposition from the non hunters if the economic impact of wolves were better known.

Tell me though, why can't States use their power to trump the gov? That is what our gov revolves around, right?

I love it when FAWN (a liberal politican) said she? wanted to educate us, an insult to our male inteligence. Bring up skydiving? guess what she is an expert at that too? HHmmmmmmmmm?

Why do politicans always want to educate us? we understand what we need to do. Can anybody truly tell us how many wolves where around 20,000 years ago or even 100 years ago??? but what we do know right now is that something needs to be dona and said, do cooler heads prevail YES. other than that I STAUNCHLY DISAGREE WITH EVERTHING MISS,MRS,MR?? FAWN HAS SAID.

If we continue to give in to government and special interests groups we as AMERICANS have squandered all our freedoms and believe me if we let Government educate us on this or anything else it is only a matter of time before we will call each other comrads rather than friends. GET OUT AN VOTE,VOTE,VOTE THIS 2012. Use the Washington battle cry.

Vote and vote often.

God help us!

I love it when FAWN (a liberal politican) said she? wanted to educate us, an insult to our male inteligence. Bring up skydiving? guess what she is an expert at that too? HHmmmmmmmmm?

Why do politicans always want to educate us? we understand what we need to do. Can anybody truly tell us how many wolves where around 20,000 years ago or even 100 years ago??? but what we do know right now is that something needs to be dona and said, do cooler heads prevail YES. other than that I STAUNCHLY DISAGREE WITH EVERTHING MISS,MRS,MR?? FAWN HAS SAID.

If we continue to give in to government and special interests groups we as AMERICANS have squandered all our freedoms and believe me if we let Government educate us on this or anything else it is only a matter of time before we will call each other comrads rather than friends. GET OUT AN VOTE,VOTE,VOTE THIS 2012. Use the Washington battle cry.

Vote and vote often.

God help us!

Elkslaya,

If you think that wanting less Government is a liberal ideaology, you are wrong too.

All I am saying is that we CANT beat the federal gov unless we beat them at their own game. States need to put their foot down and get their rights back.

See the latest Bowsite feature.

Does this seem like a good idea?

Back to work for me now, so no more research until this weekend.

"sound conservation practices produce tangible economic benefits"

" Since its inception in 1934, the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (also known as the duck stamp) has generated more than $750 million, enough to add more than 5.3 million acres to the National Wildlife Refuge System."

"Studies have shown the economic impact of fishing, hunting and wildlife-watching activities to Colorado is $3 billion annually, supporting 33,800 full-time jobs in the state."

Email them or write letters. If public meetings are held, plan to attend and speak with facts and figures.

My question as well is Huh? I am not sure what that means. I am not being a jerk, I just dont understand what you are writing.

If it is in reference to my quote of "The 2nd Ammendment doesnt give us the right to keep and bear arms for hunting. If that is what you think it is for, youre wrong" then yeah, The right to keep and bear arms is not for us to hunt. It was implemented, in short, to keep the Gov from becoming too powerful. If the citizens had the means to fight back, then the President wouldnt become a dictator, king, or something of the same. Like I said, thats the short version but hunting had nothing to do with that ammendment.

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Looks like the FWS wants to put more wolves into New Mexico and Arizona. If you believe their numbers there are 12 packs with 58 wolves total in these 2 states.

this link to send comments does not work for me. anyone else having issues with this link? i get a message that says the email address is not formatted properly.

Why not dinosaurs? Gosh, maybe because they became extinct due to some other reason than man. Wolves demise was not due to anything other than man. No other apex predator has a significant impact on the wolf, but man tried to completely eradicate the wolf because it competed with his $$ interest and no other reason. Why don't you look as the introduction of wolves as another hunting opportunity? I didn't see any of you lining up to oppose the introduction of moose to CO, nor the desert bighorn nor the mtn goat..... I've never said that wolves should be introduced and given carte blanche. They should be managed just like any other game animal. Just like the management of all other game animals throughout the US. What I do see is in the hunting community is there is no agreement on how many of what animals should exist and how many hunting licenses should be given out. Typically "wildlife management" is more prone to being based on "people management" and the wolf issue is absolutely no exception.

and what ever happened to the big game animals being managed within their respective borders by the states. is federal land within the states an exception to the rule regarding deer and elk? or does the fed pick and choose when it is convenient for a bunch of tree huggers to start managing game? i will trust the fed when they start managing crooked lying politicians in DC correctly and not a second before then. and that goes for former politicians too. i don't trust them any further than i can spit either because the nature of a politician is to lie to get votes and once they get in that habit they don't stop unless they are sent to prison. i was once told that an honest politician will only be in office for 1 term because they don't bow down to corruption and therefore will not run for a second term and i believe that was a true statement.

Bcause animal rights groups use activist judges to keep hunts from happening. How many years ago were the objectives in the Yellowstone area for reintroduction met? Why didn't the fed. govt. keep up their end of the agreement to allow managemnt by hunting when objectives were met?

It's simply a matter of trust....and right now I don't trust them to do the right thing.

How do you manage elk,moose,and deer when the apex predator runs free under federal govt protection?

Here's a glimpse in to the mindset of animal rights groups. "Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the animal rights organization HSUS, blogged recently that: “Of course we saw some setbacks and tragedies in 2011, too, such as removing federal protections for wolves in the lower 48 states…” Really? they were set to be delisted when XX number of breeding pairs were met. This was accomplished a few years ago.

But, sound game management isn't the goal with groups like PETA and HSUS. They want the wolf to multiply and kill as many animals as possible to eliminate hunting. They couldn't give a rats azz about wildlife. Eliminating hunting at all costs is their goal. Even at the cost of the animals themselves.

What did it take to get them delisted?

"A provision included in the 2011 federal budget bill would remove gray wolves from their protected status under the Endangered Species Act.

The provision, pushed by Rep. Mike Simpson (R- Idaho) and Sen. Jon Tester (D- Montana), would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to reinstate its 2009 ruling that removed wolves in Idaho, Montana and parts of Oregon, Utah, and Washington from the protections of the Endangered Species Act. If approved, the bill would clear the way for these states to begin managing wolf populations that have become an increasing threat to big game populations and livestock.

Despite wolves having far exceeded their recovery goals, the 2009 delisting was overturned by U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy. The budget bill includes language to prevent courts from similarly stopping the delisting in the future."

Fawn, perhaps you can explain again how this is a great idea?

Last time I checked moose and desert bighorn don't kill other animals for sport and cause rapid decline in elk and deer herds.

Yes wolves should be managed like other game animals. That is the problem here. We have been lied to for 10 years now. We were told in the 90s during the introduction there would be management to keep the numbers around 350. We now have over 1500 and a bullshit plan in place that will only guarantee even more than that. They have lost my trust in they're ability to manage the wolves within reason. It is out of control and now we are seeing that they never ever intended to do as they originally stated. That is why we are up in arms. The decimation of our elk herds and no end in sight. Yes they are "our" elk herds. They are not the wolves elk herds.

You guys seem to have a real issue with anyone who you deem as a "politician" and that they must inherently be a bad person. The position I held was elected but non-partisan so DEM and REP parties weren't in the mix to get anyone elected. You don't stay on a local board, at least around here, by playing politics. You stay on the board by managing the money that they entrust to you and providing the service that those monies go for.

BTW, ALEK, may I have coyotes for $100, please?

""September 27, 1994 - Fish and Game Director Jerry Conley submits a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expressing support for proposed experimental, nonessential population rules, which would give Idaho more management flexibili...ty than if endangered gray wolves return naturally or are reintroduced in Idaho under the full protection of the Endangered Species Act. The letter says Fish and Game will work with the Fish and Wildlife Service, only to the extent allowed by Idaho law, to reintroduce wolves in Idaho under the experimental population rules.

Wildlife manager Tom Reinecker issues a special permit to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service setting specific conditions under which wolves would be brought into Idaho as an experimental nonessential population. The permit is a courtesy by Idaho Fish and Game in accordance with state law, and with the Idaho wolf management plan currently being drafted by Idaho Fish and Game and the Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee.

Letter - PDF, 312 KB """" FOR ME....This is going to be the MOST Entertaining FOIA out of the 16 that I sent in last week. All Correspondence between Director Jerry Conely and Wildlife Manager Tom Reinecker. LOL

the same thing will happen in colorado if hunters don't stop it.

"It is the same one in the other picture I posted only a whole lot closer. BTW, they were both done without any trick photography or computer adjustments. They are, except for resizing for the sake of download space, just as they came from my camera."

Fawn "you had better come in with a nice, neat presentation with lots of supporting facts and figures. I have seen what happens at the CO Commission meetings when whiners show up."

One picture appears to be on a horizontal plane with the (Wild and free roaming) Wolf in the brush, the other picture looks to be elevated on a dirt road, same Wolf?

An individual does not just happen upon a Wolf, so you had to be somewhere observing for "your" intended pursuit or addition.

Where does one find these lounging Wolves?

You imply we are Whiners...we imply you are a Wolf proponent for introduction into CO no matter what facts are presented

Guys like Fawn and his ilk are the reason this bullshit is pushed on us hunters.

There are thousands of educated idoits out there that think like Fawn and they like to elect and promote the ideas that are ruining the ecology, economy, and livelyhood of the west.

Get your money and your phones and point in place to fight at the political level.

Also, keep your rifles ready and roll every wolf you see...end of subject...

Garo

FEDS CONSIDERING WOLVES IN SOUTHERN COLORADO Sportsmen and women-- I am passing this along from Ryan Benson. Please take the time to read and take action. Introduction of wolves in Colorado and the other western states will be the death of our big game populations. If you don't think that they are not already here in Colorado, think again. Several have been hit by cars on I-70 and I know of hunters who have actually seen them in North Park this past hunting season. They move and you can not legally shoot them in CO now. Lets fight to keep them out of our states. Brett Axton Colorado Chapter of SCI Folks, I am sending you the official plan from the federal government to place wolves in the Southern Rockies. Every sportsman in America needs to see this plan. These plans will spread wolves into 97.5% of all elk in America. Here is what they are doing: Baca National Wildlife refuge in Southern Colorado will have wolves transplanted in 2012 if portions of this plan are implemented. Baca is much, much smaller than Yellowstone. It is only 70 Miles from Northern New Mexico. It is only 250 Miles from Southern Utah and Northern Arizona. Wolves can travel that far in less than a week. Yellowstone National Park was used to introduce wolves to the Northern Rockies. Without your help, history will repeat itself this year in the Southern Rockies. See the official plan for yourself at the link below (look on page 8, bottom of the first column where they mention the introduction of wolves in Colorado's Baca National Wildlife Refuge). http://www.fws.gov/alamosa/planning/slv_ccp_update2_web2.pdf

Mule Power, I was not looking for friends or enemies on here when I post, just saying that I am not jumping on a bandwagon that has an out of control team leading it.

hntn4elk, Wrong gender! I do have a set of balls to stay here and take a view contrary to others.

Let me turn things around and ask a question. Since most of you are totally convinced that no matter what, wolves will be introduced in CO, aside from "kill 'em all on site", what mistakes were made in the Yellowstone wolf introduction and how can they be avoided?

They did not manage wolves as was stated in the original Environmental Impact Study(EIS). Had they followed the EIS there would have been far fewer problems.

No there is far less trust of the FWS and nothing they say will be taken creditable by these people on the "bandwagon."

78,080 – 92,000 acres (Baca NWR) 11,169 acres (Alamosa NWR) 15,831 acres (Monte Vista NWR) 2,222,080 acres (Yellowstone NP) 8960 acres average wolf pack territory 12 packs 5-11 animals per pack

According to the planning update the USFWS would like to introduce the American bison, maintain waterfowl numbers protect the already endangered animals that are on the different refuges. Additionally the USFWS would like use domestic cattle to graze the land to keep noxious weeds to a minimum in addition to controlled burns. I am sure the question has been asked before but who is going to tell the wolves they cannot prey on the other endangered species and the bison that are now and will call the SLVNWFC home. Yes I did take the time to read the entire planning update, sometimes more than once just to understand what the USFWS would like to do.

In my option the USFWS has itself to blame in the elk mess on the SLVNWRC as they are the ones who do not currently allow hunting on the complex. I would additionally place some blame of the CDPW for some of their game management practices.

Like the management system put in place in Idaho?

I'll one up you...don't let them get a toe hold to begin with. Then there is no need for a mis-management system at all.

You are clueless........

But, the wolves are still increasing and they will still eat what they need to eat. They may have to work harder and travel more, they may substitute more deer, moose, antelope, sheep, etc., but they will eat 15-20 head of big game or livestock a year per wolf one way or another. This will continue until the available prey base crashes and then the wolf population crashes as well. We don't have the massive herds of bison to support wolves like before we were here.

Huge crashes in a big game species isn't a fit for the way wildlife management is approached today. Local economies, funding for State agencies, and the desires of hunters and wildlife viewers all are served by a fairly steady, sustainable population model.

Waiting 20 years for a species to recover from a crash is a square peg.

Even if all that were to be addressed, the way the wolf intro was handled makes the answer "no" to purposely introducing wolves in Colorado. Fool me twice.

Honestly, that's the first post you've made that makes sense.

"I believe that the loss of elk to wolf depredation is due to one main factor...the tactics to evade wolves have been "unlearned".

Do you honestly believe the "stuff" you post, or do you just enjoy playing Devil's Advocate to the point of being ridiculous?

Elk range is miniscule now compared to when wolves were part of the natural ecosystem. They are now sitting ducks for your cuddly little buddies. Not to mention that the wolf that has been "reintroduced" is a larger, more aggressive species than what was originally present in said ecosystem. Elk evade man, bears, mountain lions, etc, etc, etc, but they are being devastated by wolves simply because they "unlearned" about them? WTF! Perfect example of political rhetoric.

Loss of elk, moose, and deer is due to one factor and one factor only. The feds shoved them down the states throats, then failed to allow the states to manage this problem that was shoved down their throats. You obviously have become one of their pawns.

http://www.russellcountry.com/White_Wolf.html

You did however answer the question on the Colorado site, quote....

"Heck, my personal agenda is that wolves should be introduced, but managed to keep the ungulate population at hunting levels while providing the wolf as another big game species.

Mule Power: You ever find the remains of that horse after the wolves got through with it? Sure made for a wild ride-grin! Sounds like you need to bring fawn into the real wilderness of the Bitteroot and see how she react to wolves then.

"The elk populations would be reduced on the refuge complex primarily through hunting and kept at a level that would foster recovery and improve the long-term health of native plant communities. The Service would explore the potential for wolf reintroduction for balancing wildlife populations."

The *first* sentence says that elk populations would be reduced ***PRIMARILY THROUGH HUNTING***! The second says they would *explore* the potential for wolf reintroduction. That is a FAR cry from promoting the introduction of wolfs with no controls (as happened up north). And this is only ONE of the preliminary proposals!

"What do you think they should do differently in Colorado to avoid the same outcome as Montana, Idaho, and the Yellowstone area?" Simple, set in place wolf population management tools from the very beginning! If management tools (like hunting) can't control the wolf population from the beginning, than we are all doomed anyway because they WILL expand into Colorado anyway.

Yes, now it a good time for everyone to send their input (which is what they are asking for) and state that the wolf is an efficient predator and reintroduction should not even be considered unless adequate population control measures are in place from the beginning. However, that is a far cry from ranting about how ALL wolves are bad and everyone is crazy for even thinking about them (remember, they have to present the main alternatives that came up and you can be sure predators to control populations definitely has and will come up).

Alaska and Canada have plenty of wolves and plenty of hunting. With proper management (like we do for lions and other predators), they can exist. The MAJOR problem is that management controls were not allowed in the northern states when the wolves were introduced. THAT is a recipe for disaster and that is exactly what happened. You simply cannot introduce a major predator that is on a “protected species” list and not allow proper management! But remember, “people” wiped out wolves before (and they had a lot less efficient weapons). I just can't see how they would be totally uncontrollable now – given proper management from the **beginning**!

Golly gee, ranchers used to say that the only good eagle was a dead eagle because they sometimes took young livestock. We now look back and say that was extreme and crazy. To say that the only good wolf is a dead wolf is just as crazy in my mind. And to further blame it on a specific administration just moves that person further into the "nut" category IMHO.

Grey wolf packs were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and Idaho starting in 1995 - gee, who was in the White House at that time???? And in WHOSE administration was the whole idea developed??? Some people would blame the "current" administration (Republican OR Democrat) if it rained! STICK TO THE TOPIC!

If you want to be listened to, you have to at least "seem" to be a reasonable, intelligent person. Fawn at least tries to look at this from an open minded prospective. Others just want to close their eyes, cover their ears and yell “BAD, BAD, BAD…”.

BTW, I have hunted for over 45 years (and will continue until I die) and have a degree in Wildlife Management so don’t even THINK to label me as an uninformed bunny-hugger!

You do not need a degree in Wildlife Management, to see the aftermath of multiple failed attempts.

You stated :"With proper management (like we do for lions and other predators), they can exist. The MAJOR problem is that management controls were not allowed in the northern states when the wolves were introduced. THAT is a recipe for disaster and that is exactly what happened. You simply cannot introduce a major predator that is on a “protected species” list and not allow proper management!"

What makes you think the federal government is going to use "proper management" and not repeat the same mistake? Really? I doubt you are that naive....

I would never promote the introduction of wolves (or any other predator) UNLESS proper target populations were established (and that does NOT have to be zero) AND that proper population monitoring and controls be in place from the start! In many situations, that might make the reintroduction of wolves a nonstarter (should have been the case in Yellowstone due to the lack of hunting). They are an efficient predator and need to be handled differently than other species.

I'm simply saying that Colorado doesn't HAVE to be like the northern states. Since hunting is already in place in this area AND because hunting is mentioned predominately, even in this proposal, I don't think the situation is anywhere like what happened in the north AS LONG the Endangered Species Act doesn't get in the way. Again, that might make this a nonstarter, but you will get MUCH farther stating "possibly with the following restrictions..." than just saying "NO" (even if they end up with the same result).

The degree simply tells me that management *could* be possible, not that it will necessarily work in this situation. Montana simply tells me that management tools HAVE to be in place first, not that it is never possible!

The response needs to be OVERWHELMING! No more wolves!!

It is better to prevent introduction of wolves.

"Wolves will not be reintroduced to San Luis Valley

There has been some recent speculation that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intends to reintroduce wolves in the San Luis Valley to help manage elk and other species. It is important to set the record straight, the service in fact has no plans and no intent to reintroduce wolves in the valley.

The confusion about the service’s intent arose from a draft plan to manage overabundant elk populations affecting vital wildlife habitat on the San Luis Valley’s National Wildlife Refuges. The draft plan references a suggestion by some members of the public that the service consider wolves as a potential management tool.

By law, the service is required to analyze the comments and suggestions we receive. We do not, however, believe that wolf reintroduction is the appropriate management strategy for this area. We have instead put forward three other options including public hunting, which we believe will help ensure that the wildlife refuges in the San Luis Valley continue to provide high quality habitat for elk and other species — as well as recreational and economic benefits for local communities.

We encourage members of the public and our partners to review and comment on this important draft plan as we work to finalize it over the next two years. We’re committed to ensuring that the San Luis Valley’s land, water, and wildlife remain the pride of Colorado and the nation for years to come.

STEVE GUERTIN - Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver"

...Attached is the link to the paper - but you'll need to scroll to the bottom to see this.

Chris Roe - Roe Hunting Resources

Perhaps I am gun-shy because of the public referendums here in Colorado that were passed by the nonhunting public that eliminated our spring bear season and baiting for bear anytime.

I don't for a minute think that the hurdles (restrictions/limitations) I placed on the possible reintroduction of wolves would ever result in their coming back. However, not seeming like a fanatic goes a LONG way with nonhunters. Again, education is the key and listing the fiasco that happened up north when limitations were not in place hits home with most nonhunters I have spoken with. If you simply say "No wolves, kill 'em, kill 'em, kill 'em" you will get nowhere with them.

I think all hunters should send comments that stress that introducing a major predator, like wolves, can NOT be done without checks in place to limit their population growth. As far as lawsuits go, those will and do happen regardless of what the USFWS does. The best you can do is have reason, logic and scientific proof on your side (and that is no guarantee you will win, at least at first).

Wolves can have a devastating effect on other wildlife populations if left unmanaged and unchecked. However, can anyone show me a study where wolves were introduced AND managed from the beginning where their populations grew anyway and had a major detrimental effect on elk numbers (for instance)? I have been out of the wildlife business for a while and if someone knows of such a study or situation, I'll gladly jump on Pat's bandwagon and JUST SAY NO. Otherwise I will try a more reasoned approached.

Read the last letter on the attached link. It was in the Grand Junction CO Sentinel today. I think that Steve Guertin, Regional Director for the USFWS would know what the REAL story is.

For those of you who don't want to click on the link, here is the letter,

Wolves will not be reintroduced to San Luis Valley

There has been some recent speculation that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intends to reintroduce wolves in the San Luis Valley to help manage elk and other species. It is important to set the record straight, the service in fact has no plans and no intent to reintroduce wolves in the valley.

The confusion about the service’s intent arose from a draft plan to manage overabundant elk populations affecting vital wildlife habitat on the San Luis Valley’s National Wildlife Refuges. The draft plan references a suggestion by some members of the public that the service consider wolves as a potential management tool.

By law, the service is required to analyze the comments and suggestions we receive. We do not, however, believe that wolf reintroduction is the appropriate management strategy for this area. We have instead put forward three other options including public hunting, which we believe will help ensure that the wildlife refuges in the San Luis Valley continue to provide high quality habitat for elk and other species — as well as recreational and economic benefits for local communities.

We encourage members of the public and our partners to review and comment on this important draft plan as we work to finalize it over the next two years. We’re committed to ensuring that the San Luis Valley’s land, water, and wildlife remain the pride of Colorado and the nation for years to come.

STEVE GUERTIN Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver

Thanks; Terry L. Zink

As far as the question of “what will be different this time?” - the tremendous amount of data that has come from the northern states about what happens when wolves are introduced WITHOUT population restrictions in place, that is what is different! We now know EXACTLY what will happen without management from the beginning. If wolf introduction cannot happen without those restrictions in place (because of their being listed as an endangered or threaten species for example or put in an area where hunting is not allowed), then we can *prove* the devastation that will occur.

Both the fact that it is only ONE sentence in the entire document and the statement Chris quoted tells me that they are putting this as far back on the burner as is legally possible. The same “recommendation” for wolf introduction was presented to the Rocky Mountain National Park people to help them “solve” their elk population problems. That was rejected in favor of government shooters killing elk. They even had more reason to go the wolf route because hunting is not allowed in the park and never has been (like Yellowstone). I may be naive, but I actually believe that people have learned from the destruction up north. Just because the word “wolf” is mentioned, it does not mean it is a done deal! Not all government employees are idiots.

Thanks; Terry L. Zink

Wolf introduction was rejected in RMNP and I believe it will be rejected this time as well. However, that does not keep me from expressing my concerns to the "powers that be" everytime it comes up.

Also Mule, don't confuse me with trick questions! I have a hard enough time with normal ones...

I think that you guys would be very surprised to know that we are not very far apart on our thinking about wolves. Heck, even Mule Power states that he doesn't believe that all wolves should be killed. The problem with a site like this is that you read what you want to read without having all the other things that a face to face conversation allows.

Since you don't seem to want to listen to the approach that I have proposed, then listen to The Yode. He is right on target on how to handle issues like this. Funny thing is, he said the same thing as I did, make a slow, tactful, well informed presentation.

Sometimes it takes saying things in a different way or waiting until the initial juices have boiled down.

I think everyone, including you, agrees that the approach to wolf introduction taken up north was a FIASCO and should never be repeated. The difference seems to be in how to approach a proposal where the word "wolf" is mentioned and if this particular situation is one that we have to start "beating our chests" about just yet.

We must be diligent, but the sky didn't fall in when it was proposed to RMNP and I don't think it will fall this time either. Again, I actually believe some in power have learned a lesson from Yellowstone! I see hope that learning from past mistakes might actually happen in the government (NOT Congress of course!).

To Rikki & Ken: Would you bet your life savings that a wolf reintroduction will not happen here, or better yet, swear on the lives of your loved ones? If the answer to either of those questions is "no", then I think there IS a potential problem. I bet at one time the reintroduction in the Northern Rockies may have seemed like a pipe dream as well.

What proof do you have that a reintroduction, even with immediate management in place, can be successful, as you suggest?

I for one believe the wolf is a magnificent animal and would love to see a few in the wild. However, I am a realist. Look around you, and I think you will agree that we are no longer in the 18th Century. Habitat and resources are constantly dwindling, and this will always be the case, unless some radical changes are made which none of us can foresee. They simply do not fit within today's conservation efforts when unmanaged, and possibly do not fit in at all on a broad scale. Even if a management plan could be successful, you have absolutely zero guarantee that it will be executed properly. This is what happens when trust is violated, which the feds have shown they can and will do.

I hate to see a group of bowhunters at odds with each other, but c'mon, how can you belittle those who have witnessed first hand what can happen? You may dismiss this as just another rant from someone "not in the know", but it just goes to show that even someone 1000 miles away can see the writing, so why can't you?

They look just like big yotes to me..... just too hard for poor lil me to tell the difference..... and despite their politically correct support and status, they should be treated as such. The WY plan. Year round, shot on sight.

Nothing "special" about them in any way, just another varmint like a raccoon or coyote. Some folks lend them special status and think of them like their pet dogs. Which wolves would kill in an instant given half the chance. I think most would change their minds after watching Fluffy get ripped to pieces....

BTW, the general public could give a rats wrinkles if anyone ever gets to hunt elk or moose again. It's not on their radar. Personally, if wolves cause one lost tag it's one tag too much and not worth the bother. There hasn't been any need for them in the lower 48 for a hundred years or more and there is still no need for them. Only in romantic fantasies.

Good for CO if they have dropped any plans of introducing them. You can bet there must have been an uproar or they wouldn't feel the need to make an announcement of that part of the plan being dropped, especially so soon.

Seems wadded panties get things done..... before you have to waste all the time and effort to correct the mistake, like in MT, ID and WY. It could take decades to get some areas back to where they should be. If ever.

Now all you have to do is worry about is taking care of those big ol coyotes that are running around here and there....

1)Do you believe we should manage wolves at the exclusivity of other native animals?

2)Do you understand what an island ecosystem is?

The fact that wolves were listed as an option tells me they could have been seriously considered and might be on the next list of options for some other project.

If I was at the meeting and suggested purposely infecting the elk herd with CWD, would it have been option "D"? Of course not. CWD is hard to control, spreads far beyond the target area, could wipe out way more animals than intended, and would be deemed ridiculous by an reasonable person who has been tuned in the last 10 years...hmmm, sounds alot like some other option.

I'm thankful prions aren't furry and don't have cute offspring that roll around in front of a den or maybe they would make the list.

If the State of WY, Co, or any other State decides it wants to protect its wildlife from invasion of a new predator, then it has every right to do so. The governors of these States need to get some hair on their nether-regions and make a stand. A federal judge can make all the decisions he or she wants, but can they enforce them?

If the grasslands need protecting from the elk herd, then issue more tags. I'd rather see helicopter shoots of specific numbers of elk than the wreckless abandon of hungry wolves.

One point of clarification – I think ***EVERY*** hunter should send in input about this!!! I don't care if you agree with me or not, SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS!

The difference between myself and some others is that I don’t want to go off ranting at this point about how wolves are the ultimate evil and to even consider the idea is a disaster.

I prefer to reinforce that wolves are a prolific predator and should *not* be considered for reintroduction unless some major safeguards are in place before the first wolf sets a paw in Colorado! I would point out the disaster that happened up north because those safeguards weren’t in place or were totally inadequate.

To me this is a more reasoned approach and will carry more weight *at this point* in the process. A similar proposal on wolves has already been TURNED DOWN in Rocky Mountain National Park here in Colorado. The main guy in charge of *this* proposal has stated on public record that wolves will not be introduced but that they were required by law to list it as a possibility since if came up (probably a lot) from the public. This is the time to let them know we are watching this closely, but not the time to act like war has been declared.

No one yet has been able to show me a study or area where proper safeguards and control measures were in place AT THE BEGINNING of a wolf introduction and yet the wolf population still got out of hand and damaged their prey populations. Because of that, I feel we come across as reasonable and thoughtful recommending precautions even though they (and we) know that the precautions necessary are really impossible given the reality of our current system (Endangered Species law and ARA lawsuits).

Do you listen to the person who yells in your face and won’t listen to a thing you say or do you listen to the person who talks to you and listens, but has a reasoned argument for everything that you bring up? The first person you will dismiss out of hand and the second, you will at least listen to.

I’ll certainly yell when I have to, but at THIS point in the process, I want to be the second person. I am a hunter and I already ignore any comments from someone that says we should kill *all* of any wildlife species! To me they are a nut job reacting strictly from emotions and not a reasonable person who “supposedly” cares about wildlife.

Just because it hasn't turned out like folks like you thought it should have, does not mean that it can't be done. Studies into what happened, why, what was done and what wasn't done need to be carefully evaluated so the same mistake won't be repeated.

So why should we repeat this??? Why continue down a road that we know will cause great harm to our ecosystems?

You know what I find most ironic. It has been common knowledge for quite a while that the uncontrolled introduction of wolves by cults like the Defenders of Wildlife, and PETA would cause the demise to western hunting. To that point, in areas where wolves have gone unchecked this has occurred. Towns that relied on hunters each fall to fuel their economy have suffered from the loss of a managed renewable resource. Do you want to know who the greatest benefactors are? Oil companies,Timber companies, Mining interests, and large cattle operations who consequently were the only one's able to provide jobs for those out of work and needed permit fees to keep the forest service doors open. So we traded an environmental friendly economic situation for one that is not sustainable for long term protection of wildlife. Long before these religious enviro groups existed, it was the sportsman and hunter who were the true conservationist of this country. We advocated for sound management because we saw value in wildlife and intrinsically understood the need for wild lands. These johny come lately enviro cults are not responsible for the protection of our nations wild lands.

Don't believe me, go read some history regarding Teddy Roosevelt. He was a naturalist, hunter, game manager, US President, and the father of the american park system. He was also very conscious of what he called the "environmental movement run afoul"- ergo Defenders of Wildlife, PETA, etc.. For he knew they would close all lands off and that in time no one would find value in them other than the mining, timber and oil industries. How profetic eh?

Today it is hunting, then fishing next then it will be bike riding, "remember the roadless rule?, and then hiking. A slippery slope. The use of the wolf is a political tool to reach and end that is completely unacceptable to me on so many levels.

I said it once but I guess it bares repeating. It does not matter how good the plan is, nor what you have learned in the past. Once you introduce wolves, you've opened Pandora's box.

I used to naively believe that the plaintive in a lawsuit could only be reimbursed for legal costs if they won the lawsuit. Pro-wolf organizations have nothing to lose when they challenge management of wolves by suing the government. Even when they lose they will simply ask the courts to have the defendant (taxpayers) reimburse their legal costs.

Fact: each wolf that exists in the wild must take down an ungulate every three days. Every trained biologist understands this.

Your robbery straw man is laughable as is your true stance, which is baseless.

Original population target = 300 wolves

Current population = 1700 wolves

Wolves in ID, MT, & WY are eating 500+ head of elk or other big game species every week.

Next time, start removing wolves when they get 10% over the target population. If you don't have the inclination, legal authority, or suspect something could keep you from doing that, please refrain from introducing them.

There, millions of study dollars saved. :^)

I asked this question on the CO forum. Since the root of all this "evil" is "the feds", just who the heck is this "fed" you are referring to?

I have asked several times, what's going to happen when they recolonize in Colorado anyway? Nobody debating this thread will answer this. It's going to happen, just as it did in Montana and Idaho. Most of our wolves came down from Canada, and there wasn't a chain link fence there to keep them out. It's my contention that wolves will be in Colorado within 5 years. Without a plan, history is destined to repeat itself. I think a plan to deal with them when they arrive is a must. Fighting to keep them out isn't an option.

Griz, are expanding all over Montana. As it sits right now, there's no hunting going on, their still listed as Endangered. Some counts are at 1300 in Montana, more than double the wolf numbers. They are coming and we aren't ready to deal with them. Same thing going on. Heads are in the sand, or somewhere not so nice.

Lack of information available on the issue? or lack of information on the issue to your liking?

You don't need a comprehensive plan laid out in front of you outlining how you could possibly get hurt if you step out in the street in front of oncoming traffic....you can come to a reasonable conclusion based on historical events.

The burning question that remains in my mind...What is the possible benefit of introducing wolves anywhere in the lower 48? Where is the actual proof that there is any kind of benefit whatsoever. It seems to me that there is everything to lose and nothing to gain.

The tread is about introduction, but this is not a "one-front-war."

The best plan to slow down the "colonization" of wolves in CO from the north was put forth by the governor of Wyoming.

The plan is obviously designed to keep wolves in the Yellowstone basin as was originally intended. Wolves would be a non-game species in the majority of the state. Near Yellowstone they will be a season, and of course in the park no hunting is allowed. What Colorado sportsmen need to do is support the efforts in Wyoming.

Well said, Pat!

For countless generations elk have lived without such an efficient predator as the wolf hunting them and then BAM next thing they know they're surrounded by them.

I believe the animals were made for man. Man is to rule over the animals and yet some people speak as if man is the interloper.

I am against the reintroduction of wolves because the elk are at a huge disadvantage, especially learned behavior to avoid wolves and habitat loss which makes that avoidance that much more difficult.

Reintroducing the wolves does not turn back the clock on what the world and habitat looks like today as compared to 200 years ago.

The days of the wolves roaming free on the lower 48 is a fantasy and not practical.

If I have to chose man over wolf..to enjoy the elk...I will always chose man as the management tool.

Also, you ask about the study showing failure of a wolf reintroduction when management techniques were implemented immediately. I do not know if there is one. Many times the people doing such studies are hired by the government, and the government will not likely pay someone to contradict themselves. (although it sometimes seems they may be dumb enough). However, as I stated in my above post, "What proof do you have that a reintroduction, even with immediate management in place, can be successful, as you suggest?". Where is that study?

I do not consider this a pissing match, it is just a discussion for me. I hope you don't think I'm "yelling" like the "first person" from your post.

You seem like a reasonable person who thinks things through at least. Fawn on the other hand..... I wouldn't bother with.

I believe wolves were eliminated from the lower 48 for good reason; people did what they had to do, to be able to make a living. They did not go to extremes, because it was an effort just to survive; so they did only what had to be done. Killing wolves meant survival for the ranchers, farmers, and outfitters.

"State endangered species lists

Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act provided funding for development of programs for management of threatened and endangered species by state wildlife agencies.[62] Subsequently, lists of endangered and threatened species within their boundaries have been prepared by each state. These state lists often include species which are considered endangered or threatened within a specific state but not within all states, and which therefore are not included on the national list of endangered and threatened species."

I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the "Wolves kill and eat other animals" argument? Is this an attempt to jump into the ‘emotional’ side of the discussion (and if so, isn’t this what you find most offensive in the ARA stance? Is it that you are offended that animals eat other things when they still are alive? If so, I hate to break it to you, but most of the animal kingdom will start eating live critters if they are not a danger to them. I can’t imagine you are happy with a good portion of the fishes (albeit, to be fair, the sea horse has been known to poop out live critters, so you might be flip-flopping on your approval).

I can understand the economic argument (especially for you outfitters), but this one has me baffled.

My particular point with the last photo, has nothing to do with wolves "killing and EATING other animals".

There are very few animals in the animal kingdom that I am aware of, that simply kill for the joy of killing (unfortunately, some of us humans fall into that category).

I think everyone needs to see the devastation that wolves are causing first hand, you can discuss it until you are blue in the face, but sometimes seeing the truth, can sway an opinion, especially if you truly love animals and do not want to see them suffer.

Do these photos make you uncomfortable?

Instead of a case-by-case defense, I personally think the best solution is the passage of a law or amendment to the Endangered Species Act that states: "No apex predator that is on the Endangered Species list in any state shall be reintroduced anywhere within the United States."

It does not involve the killing of ANY animals (so I think it would greatly eliminate the reason most lawsuits are filed by ANR nuts). It is clean and simple and says that predators are unique and should only be allowed to increase in numbers or territory though normal management/reproduction/expansion. I think it would be easy for nonhunters to understand and support as well. Pictures of dead wolves would not apply.

However, until such a law is passed we HAVE to fight on a case-by-case basis. I still stand by my approach to go in with reasoned, factual support for not reintroducing wolves. I also believe in starting off at the EARLY phase like this in a more quiet manner and ramp up as needed if it ever gets past this preliminary stage. The simple inclusion of the things necessary to even "think" of allowing it makes us look reasonable and we will be listened to (or at least have the best chance of that, IMHO). The requirements I would list would not be possible to implement due to the current Endangered Species law so, DUH, the reintroduction should not occur!

Some of you have said, even though you don't agree with me, that I seem to be a "reasonable person who thinks things through". I thank you for that and simply want us all to be seen in that light when we address something as important as this!

Folks,

A letter was sent from US Fish and Wildlife Service clearly explaining that NO wolves will be introduced into Colorado's Baca National Wildlife Refuge or other portions of the San Luis Valley. It appears that this letter hit the Colorado press on February 6, 2012.

It's amazing what can happen when sportsmen get ahead of the curve and take action on important issues affecting wildlife. Supporters of Big Game Forever sent over 15,000 messages to members of Congress and the administration expressing their concern about Option "C" that would include the possibility of using Wolves to manage elk on the refuge. Thank you for taking the time to express your concern regarding the idea of introducing wolves into Southern Colorado.

"Dear ***,

I have been an avid hunter for over 40 years and have been a wildlife professional as well. I am very concerned with the problems reintroducing wolves into some of the northern states has caused. Resident ungulate populations have been decimated and wolf numbers are increasing beyond control. This has also had a dramatic impact on the economic situation in those areas that depend on ranching, hunting or any wildlife related recreation.

I firmly believe that apex predators, like the wolf, should not be treated in the same way as other endangered/threatened species.

I would humbly ask you to propose or support the following amendment to the Endangered Species Act –

“No apex predator that is on the endangered/threatened species list for any state shall be introduced or reintroduced into any area of the United States.”

This does not kill any existing animals, it simply points out that predators have far greater impacts than other species and should be treated differently in terms of reintroduction. Current management plans to increase their populations so they could be taken off the list are also not impacted.

I do not want the problems that the northern states are enduring to spread anywhere else. Please help us put common sense into the act concerning predators.

Thank you for your time."

I would hope that this would nip the "reintroduction" problem in the bud and would allow us to concentrate on how to manage existing wolf populations and their expansion.

copied from Big Game Forever

Give'm hell boy's and girls.......

Al

The antis are using "pictures of a deer with 3 arrows hanging out of it" daily to try to recruit non-hunters, animal lovers, etc.

You are saying, indirectly, that we need to sit back and let them build their ranks.

The letter from Steve Guertin is a testament to the power of numbers; the more people we can get on our side, the more power we have over the outcome.

I'm suggesting that it might be a huge mistake; we can sway opinions if we act. Like you said, pictures can be very powerful.

Best of Luck, Jeff

I agree we must have credibility, but in the end, I believe this "battle" will be won by sheer numbers

Houndy, now that a new legislative session has started, how is it looking in regards to those anti-hunting, anti-fishing, anti-big game, anti-public access republicans you voted in two years ago???

Since I have hunted (and lived) in N MN which has the highest density of wolves in the world, I am not particularly offended by dead animal pictures. Although, someone asked me on another forum if I had seen partially eaten animals in MN and in 30 years of hunting -- I haven’t. Granted, here in MN the kill might go undisturbed and the wolves might return to it until it is eaten – not sure.

The ‘Joy of killing’ (I have heard ‘kills for the fun of it’ also) statement is another emotional argument that I have heard a lot of – it doesn’t makes a lot of sense to me. First off, you are attempting to put human emotions onto an animal – something the ARAs do – and that seems absurd. Any animal needs to kill (other animals or plants) to survive – when you do something every day of your life, the joy/fun probably has a much different meaning. I have seen moose break off/kill numerous trees to get to the buds on top – does that constitute a ‘joy killing’? (the answer is obviously not – just a survival technique.) Second off, does anyone have any idea what percentage of a wolf’s yearly kill is what you refer to as joy killing? The only time I have heard of it in MN was when deer were yarded up in severe winters (we have only had 2-3 in the past 20). This would make the percentage here tiny – hardly something that deserves a lot of print time when arguing against wolf introduction.

Again, I understand the economic impact argument that houndy, mule power and you are making – that, to me, seems like the argument that has the most validity. I like someone’s suggestion that the monies for administering the introduction and upkeep of wolves needs to be split among hunters and the groups that are pushing the spread.

BTW – for each of you that want to hunt wolves, MN is opening up 6000 chances this year! Come fill up the MN coffers for the small fee of $295 (the more out-of-state hunters, the better). We have so many here that you just need to sit on any tree-stump and a wolf will wander by in a couple of hours. (I figured it out one time that I saw wolves on average of once every 3-4 years. Even 3,000 in a third of our state means they are pretty hard to see.)

financially no, they couldn't, the cost of buying them, transporting them, the manpower involved, etc

Hunters are tens of thousands strong, Game Wardens are very few as are the people who can police the wolves.

When did the game populations change in the US ? When hunters killed all the predators, that's when. Heck there use to be bounties on them .... and the result of few predators were booms in game species not seen in centuries.

I hate breaking the laws and rules and reg's ..... but when wolves are reintroduced, that is against everything a Game and Fish stands for IMO and they're forcing the hand of sportsman.

You can have great hunting and no wolves, or poor hunting and wolves ..... those are your choices and right now you're being forced to poor hunting and wolves. Kill the wolves, shoot, shovel and shut up and you'll be doing a great deal for everyone who hunts by doing it

Amoebus what is the deer density in northern MN ? on a normal day would you expect to see how many deer? moose? I bet compared to non-wolf areas, your game animals are not nearly as dense are they?

Good question (see map). About the top 1/3 of the state has wolves - it leans toward the NE more than the NW. Some of the areas have more than 24 deer/sq mile. The area that I grew up in (179) has 19-23 deer/mile. The area that I choose to hunt in has 1-7 deer/mile. Our choice has more to do with lack of people rather than numbers of deer - we hunt partially in the BWCA which isn't necessarily good for high numbers of deer.

If you look at the map, it is tricky to decypher - it looks like the areas that have wolves (excluding the far SE) also have the most deer. But the western 1/2 of MN is mainly farmland/prairie so that doesn't hold as many deer. The belt with the most deer is mostly wooded with mixed in smaller farms. The far NE is almost all BWCA-type land - more suited for moose/caribou (now pushed further north).

So, in MN, the deer have figured out the wolves and vice versa. The wolves take their 8-10% and, without an extreme winter, that leaves ~200,000 deer killed in a year.

And oh by the way wolves and the fire management are not mutually exclusive.

Theres a reason we had 13,000 people fighting it and spent 120 million dollars. People died and without weather intervening it could have kept going. It was hardly something the Feds or anyone had any control over or could be looked at as a success story to justify the wolf reintro. A controlled burn program would have cost a lot less.

Fire is a natural thing and of course can be very healthy in the long run as could wolves. That doesn't mean its wrong to require a reasonable expectation of controllable results before we start fires or introduce wolves.

As Mule power stated, introducing wolves in Colorado now would be like starting a forest fire in Rocky Mtn Nat park right when the Yellowstone fire was at its peak and no one knew when, where, or how it would be stopped or what the total impact would be.

The sky isn't falling here, but a big chunk of it fell and damaged our neighbors house pretty bad. Thats reason enough to be against sawing holes in it over our house.

Here is an indisputable fact: With wolves, there will be fewer elk in Colorado.

Except for hunters, no one really cares.

The tofu crunchers and liberals will be more than happy to have fewer hunters.

There will also be fewer outfitters and a lot of people losing incomes but they don't care about either. They see it somewhat like a strip miner going out of business. They are sad that some folks lose their incomes but it is "for the greater good" in their eyes.

Somehow, we need to get non-hunters to care. Note: I did not say anti-hunters. They are already decided but a small minority. Somehow, we need to get the non-hunting majority to care...

Every hunter should shoot and kill on site any wolf they see and walk away,dont walk over to it,dont touch it,just walk away.If you use a semi auto pick up your brass and leave! We have taken the place of wolves in wildlife management and all the wolf will do for us, is for the same corrupt anti hunting fools to outlaw hunting because of low animal numbers the wolf has produced.That will be there argument,and they will get away with it.Hunt the wolf down and eliminate them as we did before and perhaps you will still be able to take your Son or grandson hunting in the future.

My point on Yellowstone is that most folks jumped on the bandwagon about what a terrible thing the fire was and that the park service should never have let the fires burn to the point they did before starting to try to control them. What has ended up happening is that what so many saw a basically the end of Yellowstone for generations was a HUGE rebirth with an ecosystem that is stronger and healthier than ever before.

However, as stated, we have replaced wolves outside Yellowstone as the large predator to keep elk in check. I see nothing wrong with that system.

Fact: wolves outside Yellowstone = less hunting/harvest opportunity. Sure, with aggressive hunting of wolves outside the park they could be controlled so their impact is minimal, BUT in today's PC political arena THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

I like it, and I like those Governors!

Except for hunters, no one really cares. "

which is why hunters need to deal with it

I guess that is the general welfare clause again,right?

The ESA should be repealed, and individual states should again take up their sovereign power to regulate animal species in their borders. If Alabama wants gators and Mississippi doesnt, when the animal crosses the border, then the Miss folks should shoot em on sight. Animals know where their safe zones are and if they were protected in an area, they would stay there.

If the feds dont like it, lets see them take the political risk invading a state to force a court ruling.

Terry L. Zink

The Group lead by the CMA, recommended that the General Assembly (and Division of Parks and Wildlife) reexamined the wolf issue/current recommendations, and any existing policies, in Colorado, sooner than later.

Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho all agreed to have the wolves reintroduced based on the EIS. If I recall correctly. They agreed because they believed once the agreed upon numbers of breeding pairs had been established, they were to assume management responsibilities. Which has only happened this year. Several years after they were suppose to do so.

But bottom line is, if I recall, they agreed to it.

By Dave Skinner, 02-15-12 A couple weeks ago, the Missoulian reported University of Montana’s Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (CWRU) landed a three-year, $150,000 grant from the Regina Bauer Frankenberg Foundation. The money will enable a team led by UM research associate David Ausband to “study how wolf deaths affect pack stability and population growth.” Good! As a sportsman, I’d like to know that, too.

Ausband, a canid biologist, has used past Frankenberg grants (two of $75,000 each), adapting hair sampling programs to count wolves, plus developing a “howl box” to call and then voiceprint response howls.

But I’d never heard of Frankenberg – the first thing I learned got my attention: The foundation’s full name, listed on IRS tax forms, is the Regina Bauer Frankenberg Animal Welfare Foundation – which the UM-CWRU press release didn’t mention.

Regina Bauer Frankenberg was a wealthy New Yorker, big in “animal welfare” circles. Miss Bauer was president of the Committee for Humane Legislation (CHL) when it successfully sued (with animal-rights group Friends of Animals) in the 1970s to end tuna purse-seining – i.e., dolphin-safe tuna. Furthermore, according to documents related to a 1987-88 financial lawsuit involving sweetheart self-dealing at the Humane Society of the U.S. (a virulently anti-hunting group), Miss Bauer sat on HSUS’s board of directors.

Miss Bauer died in the early 1990s, apparently without heirs or living relatives who shared her views. It seems her HSUS experience caused her to set up a perpetual trust with specific instructions on how and where her money would be spent long-term … rather than give directly in a lump to be sweethearted away.

Her foundation today is under sole trusteeship of J.P. Morgan Chase’s Philanthropic Services department (which charged $172,020 in 2010 to administer a $21 million “corpus” – a job the IRS form shows requires three hours a week). Chase employee Jacqueline Elias runs the foundation at present, overseeing about $1.2 million a year in grant distributions.

To qualify for grants, “organizations must be exclusively for the care of animals” – entities such as: Earthjustice, the wolf-and-everything-else lawsuit people, $50,000 in 2009; Defenders of Wildlife, more wolf-lawsuit folks, $50,000 in 2009; Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), $100,000 each of the past three years.

Friends of Animals also enjoys $100,000 from Frankenberg each year. That money officially supports “spay-and-neuter” programs, but in reality, such funding frees up other donations to support Friends’ litigation and lobbying efforts – for example, the Friends lawsuit over scimitar-horned oryx. Nearly extinct in Africa, oryx are plentiful (and hunted for big dollars) in Texas.

But, as Friends president Priscilla Feral insisted to CBS 60 Minutes, hunting is “unnecessary,” a “degrading and disrespectful way of treating an animal” – even if you eat it. Friends “believe that eating vegan is the most direct and life-affirming form of animal-rights activism.”

By the way, the Committee for Humane Legislation still exists. Its most recent IRS tax return (2009) shows income of $10 and assets of $61, after making a “gift” of $5,198 to Friends of Animals. Considering CHL shares a mailing address and board of directors with Friends of Animals, are you surprised?

I’m not, but I am a bit surprised and a lot concerned that a multi-agency, multi-state, long-established program like CWRU (even one at a university justifiably branded by the public as a “tree-hugger” institution) would accept wildlife research funding from a foundation that supports anti-hunting and animal-rights organizations. That’s like taking cigarette money to fund lung cancer studies.

Is money really that tight, and if so, are the risks to CWRU’s credibility worth it?

Several years ago, I was assigned to write about a full-blown academic and political war over timber salvage “science.” Long story short, I interviewed Robert Buckman, PhD, who prior to 17 years of teaching at Oregon State University, had spent 10 years as Deputy Chief of Research for the entire U.S. Forest Service. Dr. Buckman was kind enough to cut right to the guts, explaining the battle wasn’t “about science, but about value questions.”

Buckman admitted bringing a value system to his work. But, aside from ensuring their findings are “repeatable, verifiable and defensible,” Buckman warned that scientists can’t mix their value systems in with their science – if they do, “the science loses its value.”

Reintroducing them will accelerate there expansion but it's a matter of time before they get to Colorado decade maybe? Less ?