Bowsite.com

"Malone countered by observing that, wildlife officials in Idaho and Montana report increased hunter success since wolves were introduced there."

Can anyone speak to this? I was just curious how success could go up? Regardless of the predator, either more human or wolf or bear, wouldn't success go down as more "predators" are competing for the same prey? I can understand how disbursement could potentially increase by not having such large concentrations in a specific area, but I could also see an argument that disbursement on public land could potentially decrease as you would have to assume most wolves would be living/hunting on public land and not primarily on private. (thats assuming a rancher or landowner would either SSS or use other means to keep wolves from their property.)

Any thoughts from anyone who was at the meeting? Whats the next steps for decision making?

http://www.theheraldtimes.com/reintroduction-of-wolves-to-colorado-is-the-topic-of-dec-7-sierra-club-meeting-in-steamboat/rio-blanco-county/

If you look here, you can see the comments of Denny Behrens. It sounds like there was opposition. https://www.facebook.com/biggameforevercolorado/ If you read his comment, any reintro would require legislative approval.

Yep, and for many it's only a part-time or vacation home, they don't really live there. We did some work for one of those in Aspen a few years ago, who lived 9 months of the year in NY City, but considered herself 'all colorado'...she was a nutcase!

1.The 2nd link that Grasshopper listed says that a reintroduced population is able to be managed. A migrating population that comes naturally is considered a endangered species and cannot be managed. Any truths to that? If so, wouldn't we rather have a management plan available as an option rather than no plan at all? I mean if they are here or coming one way or another, I think we would all rather be able to hunt them than let them walk freely.

2. Right now we as sportsman pay 1 million+ dollars each year in game damage claims to ranchers and landowners. I personally would rather pay a rancher for sheep that a wolf ate, rather than pay him for hay that the elk ate because he doesn't allow hunters and they know its safe.

3. I dont know exactly the habitat we are looking at here, but would wolves be a possible "solution" to our wild horse issues? Maybe two different habitats that dont support wolves, but maybe two birds with one stone here? Get a huntable population of wolves that generates revenue from license sales, reduce wild horse populations naturally without taxpayer dollars, increase the quality of habitat for elk and deer in that area as well.

4. I already mentioned my "redistribution" thoughts. part of me thinks wolves would only push more animals to private property but I could also see that the wolves are going to go where the elk are, so if the elk are on private, that means they would be hunting them on private and pushing them off. So perhaps more of a localized, area by area factor there.

5. I think its fair to say some of us would like to cross wolf hunting off the bucket list..As long as the wolves were turned over to be managed like every other predator and game animal..and still brings in tag revenue, is it all bad?

Again guys, not advocating for wolves and not trying to say they are 100% bad, just trying to have a constructive conversation so some of us guys who dont know the facts can form an opinion based on solid data, not bias information. I am probably more of an elk hunting junkie than most, so believe me if the wolf is truly a detriment to our populations, then im 100% against it too. But..if they are coming one way or another, like they have in many of the other states, we might as well be proactive and get a workable plan in place rather than be caught with our pants down.

My only first-hand experience with them was this year in WY. A pack moved into a drainage I was hunting and had scouted and the elk went away. Like, totally. Then they moved to the next big drainage and those elk went away. Game and Fish biologists were in there trying to figure out how many there were. When I did finally find elk to hunt they were so far back in and so scattered that I wouldn't have been able to get one out on foot of I did manage to kill one.

Am I thinking selfishly? Hell yes. I 've contributed a ton of money toward elk management and conservation and hunt hard, work hard all year round to live on elk protein. If I can't enjoy the same benefits as these federally-protected, artificially-stocked Canadian predators, as in hunt year round on private and public with no restrictions, then I don't want to have to compete with them. They don't contribute a nickle toward winter range or migration corridor habitat preservation. The people who love them don't contribute a nickle either.

Wolfies are dying to get them reestablished in CO as a lever against hunting. With our fragmented habitat it will be a serious mess and will wreck big game hunting in many areas. It's not like they can be trained to stay in RMNP, and as we learned up north, whatever constitutes "recovery" is a political concept, not biological.

277,000 elk %70 reduction 83,100 elk left.

A wolf was killed by a car near Idaho Springs, and it was the only one in the state!!!

CPW already has a wolf management plan, it doesn't allow hunting.

If you want to hunt wolves, you don't even need a license to cross the border into wyoming and hunt them in the predator zone. Please do it so they don't come here.

Interestingly - While legislation would be required, The Colorado legislature has an animal welfare caucus. It was chaired by Steve Lebsock. If you have been following the news, I believe one of his accusers is the HSUS rep from Fort Collins. This caucus was up in arms last session about the CPW study that plans to reduce lion and bears to see if it has a positive impact on our ailing deer herds. You can bet the wolf project folks will be there this session pushing wolves. Last year, the animal welfare caucus room was packed, and the sportsmans caucus had less than 10 sportsman in attendance.

While some are discussing the impact on elk, the deer herds could be seriously harmed with another predator on the winter range.

Its already like pulling teeth to get something on the plus side changed for bowhunting in Colorado, imagine what it would be like when we have a new player that hunts 24/7/365 and takes double what our slice of the available surplus is.

I actually supported wolf reintro when it first came around. Then after it was too late to go back, they increased the minimum numbers. Then WY, ID & MT hit that new number and it was still many years and many lawsuits before they were allowed to manage them. I will never support wolf reintro in Colorado. Not because I hate wolves, because we would be crazy to welcome the Federal over-reach and damage to our successful wildlife management.

When the plan was 10 breeding pairs and 100 total wolves in each State, I was ok with the reintro to the North. Fool me once...

"Do they impact deer and elk numbers? For sure. That is what wolves do, they eat deer and elk.

Wolves become a great excuse for every person who fails to fill a tag. It is almost comical what wolves get blamed for.

All that said, I am not in favor of wolves being reintroduced anywhere under the current laws and remedies provided to litigants. The mechanisms that would provide state management are currently all in favor of those who do no want state management authority. Once the wolves are on the ground, the lawsuits begin and the only animals not managed are wolves, allowing the wolves to grow unchecked.

I trusted that the deal in MT/ID/WY would be honored. It was not. The states had to finally go to Congress to get the management authority that was promised them in the original reintroduction agreements. None of those mechanisms have changed and Colorado would be subject to the same lawsuits that delay or deny management authority.

I wish it was different, but it is not a balanced manner in which wolves are asked to fit into any landscape. The other species take the brunt of the impact while the lawsuits continue in what seems perpetuity."

I read a blog this summer from a "famous" granola-muncher who said he would rather be killed and eaten by a grizzly than cause it discomfort by spraying it.

Evergreen colorado has resident elk herds that live in the neighbor hoods. Right on the golf courses, the grounds crew will be shoveling and mopping up blood and remains from the courses. Put the wolves there.

Rocky mountain National park lots of elk, they live in Estes park, a town. Put the wolves there. Im sure the wolves will respect the Park boundaries and stay in the the park.

2004 a collared wolf was killed on I-70 a major highway when practically no wolves were in colorado????

Wolves are already in colorado and in established numbers. Falsely introducing more wolves so they can get killed on the highway, shot by ranchers, shot by hunters. If some one really cared about wolves they would not put wolves into a meat grinder here in colorado and those people have no respect for them at all.

The lady that spoke in steamboat has a house around aspen, she lives there 2 months a year. Not one rancher wants wolves in colorado. She wants to bring in a problem, let it loose and then leave all the working people to clean up her shit storm!

People in the front range want wolves, they drive up I-70 for the weekend and recreate in the mountains. "Ohh I heard a wolf!" It doesn't impact the front-rangers, but people living in the mountain towns and they're pocket book and lifestyle!! CPW officers cant even handle all the bear complaints in aspen and carbondale???

There is no room for a reintroduction of Wolves in COLORADO.

Worthy read for those thinking about all of this.

Their media ad campaign will be beautiful and idyllic with cuddly wolves howling peacefully in the moonlight. This is where our side can and should go hard for the emotions of voters and grab them by the throat. Literally.