Colorado Wolf Intro - Its Started
General Topic
The problem is here and now....
Does SSS apply to the petition circulators? :-)
If it doesn’t, it should!
Now that there are established packs in Oregon there is a push for bringing the grizzly back! They won’t stop.
Should we all apply to be signature gatherers? I bet if I tried really hard I could get 0 signatures to support this cause and make $108 doing it.
Hell, bring back the T. rex and velociraptors! With all this “global warming” the dinosaurs should be loving it! Bet that would clean that cesspool in LA up quick!
I am sorry. This is bad news for Colorado Elk Deer and day good by to your Moose!! Fight it as much as we can . Send me a email . Hunt
Is this the same as other petitions where if 1 fake signature shows up the whole page is void?
Anti hunting liberal bags of Sh... pushing their agenda.
So if I snuff a couple out, there will be a tree hugger nearby monitoring me?
Idiots! It never ends....
Sign me up! I will take their money and sit there but I will have very few signatures. Because I will tell people the other side of the story.
Got to love the liberal mind,$106 for 6 hours of work.Don't even have to put in a full day. I bet if they sit in front of starbucks for 6 hours they'll never come up short on the quota and probably get a free cup of coffee.
If they succeed, it should be insisted upon that they only introduce pure strains of the original species. Otherwise they are invasives.
I truly feel sorry for you guys, coming from a hunter from a place that is culling wolves simply so caribou don't go totally extinct. And moose have become the scapegoat.
The liberal way things are going in this country they will no doubt have them in Colorado soon and probably east of the Mississippi River too.
Sign up, fake it, throw the paperwork in the trash, blow them off when they call you back, cash the check and donate it to RMEF, file a workman's comp claim.
Us Wyoming folks will at the border waiting patiently for them to cross over then they'll be shot since there considered predators. Real stupid move on Colorados part, but it doesn't surprise me.
If somebody can whip up a resume with some Clinton Fund and Obama Campaign background, I’ll give them a runaround like they’ve never seen.
Here's the Sierra Club's release. Bet they'll find a bunch of longtime ranchers signing up to gather signatures, lol!
For the first time, Coloradans - not politicians, not bureaucrats – "We, The People", may decide whether to reintroduce gray wolves to Colorado. We will only have this choice, though, if we can get the gray wolf on the 2020 ballot.
State officials recently approved our ballot proposal, Initiative 107, that if passed would:
Direct the State of Colorado to restore gray wolves to public lands west of the Continental Divide Require our Colorado Parks and Wildlife to implement a science-based wolf restoration plan Fairly compensate livestock owners for livestock losses caused by wolves Now, we need your help to get the wolf on the 2020 ballot ... We must collect at least 160,000 petition signatures by December 2019 to put the measure before Colorado voters.
We need wildlife lovers – tree huggers and elk hunters, birders and anglers, backcountry enthusiasts and long-time ranchers – everyone who loves Colorado’s wild lands – to help to collect the 160,000 signatures needed.
Lou, the interview will finally give you a chance to use those Birkenstocks.
Just to clarify, the company posting the job opening isn't pro-wolf necessarily. They are a company that you can pay to gather signatures for all sorts of stuff or to canvass for candidates, issues. If they weren't already hired by prowolfers they may have been open to being hired to support our side.
Thats the way it works. You need X amount of signatures? OK, that will be $X and they will go get them. What your ballot issue is doesn't really matter other than it may cost more or less depending on the issue. Given the current make-up of Colorado, this one probably wasn't the most expensive issue.
I wonder if the State of Colorado is taking into account the financial ramifications of decimating it's elk heard? The non-residents paying ~$700 for an OTC tag is a significant chunk of recurring money for the state...as a non-resident why would I spend all that money to goto Colorado when my chance of success declines substantially? I won't be paying that for a chance to snap a picture of a wolf and I can guarantee my friends won't either.
I know, I know, the public is making the choice here...but Colorado Parks and Wildlife employees need to fight this initiative any way they can. Decreased collections from tags equates to decreased budgets which equates to decreased jobs and decreased compensation. I have yet to meet an anti-hunter who spends anywhere near what I spend on hunting in a year. The soccer mom that occasionally googles "wolf puppy pictures" to make herself feel good certainly isn't paying the state of Colorado what I do. There are substantial financial implications to this.
And just like that the PP problem is solved
Parks and Wildlife is prohibited by statute from taking a position on political issues. CPW knows full well the consequences, from lost revenue to having to spend millions dealing with them, compensating ranchers, etc.. Thats why the Commission voted unanimously to reject the petition to reintroduce wolves.
Thanks for the additional color, Jaq. The fact these groups have a viable workaround is disheartening to say the least. I wonder if these same groups are taking into account the financial ramifications on all of wildlife by doing this. The old adage of "What's good for elk is good for everything else" comes to mind. Doubtful, but I wonder?
I'm sure there is a clause in there somewhere about managing the population....kinda like what was done with the Yellowstone re-introduction. Insert eye roll.....
60 wolves in the Weminuche... If a female can have just four pups a year.... dang it man!! It blows my mind what's gonna happen. Dick Ray, Lobo Outfitters say it's gonna be a heck of a battle just trying to control them if it happens. And when the elk and moose migrate down in the winter, the wolves will follow, and some will stay. Wonder how many cows the ranchers will loose? Saddest thing is, they don't want them on the east slope.
Its normal to have common sense reactions to this issue. Unfortunately, although valid, common sense, fact-based positions should matter, they won't be deciding this for us here in CO.
Wolves are mystical symbols of the wilderness. Thats about the end of it for many.
I don't know if a guy should be depressed or pissed when issues like this can gain traction thru initiative and referendum. Can only hope that the voters in the end will have common sense, but the numbers seemed stacked against us. You know what we're dealing with in Minnesota with the thousands of wolves and attempts to reopen season here keep getting blocked. And the wolves here were never introduced or reintroduced. We always had lots. I don't know, I wasn't born for these times.
I spent nearly 2 years working in Meeker around 2009...Hunted there as well. Killed bulls both years easily on an OTC archery tag. Them wolves will keep those sheep herders busy. Wolves won't have to chase elk, those hills are filled with thousands of sheep each summer.... now when winter comes. Be another story. Sad to see. It's time for a major pr campaign to be launched educating the masses..
Los Angeles basin had Saber Tooth cats, Dire wolves, short faced bears and other carnivores. Bring them back. This crap is ridiculous.
SMH. I literally cannot believe how deceitful humans can be to get what they want.
Lots of bitching and smart ass comments. No real solutions or action. I get it, we are all employed, taking care of our families, living our lives and don't have the time or resources. Too bad its come to this. Just know these folks are crazy and willing to fight. Don't worry, we'll all have lots of extra time when hunting seasons are gone. Maybe then we will have some action against this but it will be too late. Frustrating situation. Sorry to hear it.
Don’t worry SBH, there’ll be another thread pitting hunter against hunter in the baiting debate too.
Guess this still won’t be a wake up call for a lot of hunters.
You can help here: https://www.stopthewolf.org/
Nobody inside the USFWS has said a ballot initiative will compel them to do anything, and they're the ones in charge. It takes all of 60 seconds to get the Regional Directors phone or email and ask the question.
I moved my post from the Colorado thread here because it is the same issue. Urban voters deciding issues for the rest of is.
Colorado has joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPV). Eliminating the Electoral Collage and allowing the coasts and city’s to control all national elections. The US constitution reads “Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors.”
The NPV supporters argue this also allows the state legislators to ignore their states voters and appoint electors based on the national popular vote.
No state would do this unilaterally, so NPV has a trigger. It only takes effect if adopted by enough states to control 270 electoral votes.
So far 14 states and Wash DC have signed on. Including CO. This totals 189 electoral votes. Delaware and Oregon May soon join. Of course California and New York are charter members.
The point is, in the very near future the urban areas could be deciding national elections also.
The liberals also want to “pack”. Increase the total number of Supreme Court justices, so they can add more liberal judges if they win the presidency. Why wait for one to die. Just add how ever many you need to be the majority. Nothing limits how many justices there can be.
There aren't any broad-based campaigns happening yet. Their side is mobilizing their base through Facebook and email blasts, while starting the signature gathering process.
Our side is alerting the base, starting fundraising. They don't need funding for their campaign - lots of big East coast organizations lining up. Remains to be seen what hunting-agriculture organizations will kick in $ on our side. SCI likely will help. BHA definitely will not. CBA and CTAS are in.
A year from now, summer of 2020, is when the real battle begins. The fight will be for voters in the "middle". Our middle is now left of center, nature lovers, wildlife "watchers" (out the Subaru window) and consider themselves "green". This initiative is likely to pass.
However, as Bob notes, there will be so many complications and lawsuits that the introduction may never occur, even if the initiative passes.
Thanks for the link Kadbow! Just donated.
You'll have to learn how to judge shop and articulate injunctions, just like they do.
The "introduction of an invasive species detrimental to native species" angle might be a good sart. THEY have to prove that only geneticly pure strains of grey wolf are being RE introduced. You sure don't want our Canadian wolves!!
Lou, I would think RMEF would be a big anti-wolf supporter as well.
To be honest I'm surprised that the "restoration" of an entire species of animal is even allowable as a petition... Wonder if Game and Fish could get a ahead of it by putting in a policy/law that restricts introductions of species only by order and approval of Game and Fish, Biologists, & Governors Office, etc...
Montana was one of the first states to deal with this crap. We saw wolves and let them walk because we were ethical hunters waiting for the management plan to go into effect. But then we learned after they wolf humpers filed lawsuit after lawsuit and that cost us lots of elk, deer, moose, and livestock. Do yourselves a favor down there in Colorado. If can’t stop the reintroduction put your own management plan into effect IMMEDIATELY before 40 wolves become 80 and 80 wolves become 800!
Brotsky, RMEF has already come out against it.
Just wait until everyone hears about the Center for Biological Diversity's plans to put Grizzlies back in Colorado.
MP, I understand what you’re saying, but no need for anyone to risk massive fines, loss of hunting privileges, etc. Nothing illegal about prodding them into Wyoming with a good old fashioned wolf drive. As Boyboy points out, they’ll have a welcoming party waiting for them.
I personally think the stage has been set. And if this goes wrong, Mule power pretty much summed up my feelings on it.
Lou, is it east coast money or, is it west coast funding that will drive the Wolfe’s push?
It’s going to take another civil war in America....This is just one more way of life liberals want . Look at illegal immigration it’s almost to the point of acceptance because we’re being over run with it....politicians care more about votes than about America !! Just think of what Colorado once was and look at it now. Look at gay marriage, a lot of people did not want it, me included, but got it anyway. Look at religion that’s fading fast too. The liberals that have taken over Colorado want wolves ? They’ll get them. No doubt in my mind. If you think I’m wrong you’re BSing yourself !!
If 'other states' don't see the writing on the wall, ie. what happened in Montana and surrounding states and form some serious opposition NOW, 'they' can kiss a large percentage of the ungulate herds and hunting revenues goodbye! It won't stop with CO if the promoters win... One possible benefit to wolf re-popuation...there won't be as many coyotes... ;)
I just spent three days moving my cows in the mountains close to home, I saw a total of two mule deer in about thirty miles of ground. The elk and deer have taken a huge hit here in sw montana, wolf depredation on livestock is increasing by the month. Colorado is making a huge mistake, these people are crazy. People are making decisions based on ignorance, 99 percent of them will never see a wolf in the wild and the impact wont cost them a dime, just so they can get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing they've screwed us good!
My question is why couldn’t the CDOW, RMEF, or some other group use the courts to stall this if it passes? We see it constantly being used against us, why can’t we flip the tables? Seems the right group could put that in the works easily.
'...wolf depredation on livestock is increasing by the month...' and as the wildlife dwindles further, this will continue to increase. Then it will go to sheep, horses, house pets, and eventually increased negative human encounters. I was lucky/fortunate...I lived in Montana before the re-intro began, and about the time it happened, I moved to WA. The game numbers were high and I got the best of hunting there. No wolves in WA and game was at an all time high there too. Just lucky. Now wherever the wolves are, big game hunting is going to hell. Don't let this happen in the rest of the Rockies nor the Cascades. A good place to start is joining RMEF...Power in numbers.
You can join the RMEF, you can sign petitions, you can write senators or whatever else you think will help. But again look at Montana. One judge, Judge Malloy, didn’t care what hunters, any organization, or even Montana FWP had to say. He sided with the wolf huggers and everything went to hell. He knew what he did and even when game populations plummeted he stuck by their side backing all of the reasons why wolves were still “endangered” and couldn’t be managed based on facts and science. When he retired he reserved the right to get back on the bench specifically to handle wolf issues. I’m telling you guys it isn’t looking good. When, not if but when they start dumping off Canadian timber wolves and you see one you best take ethical wildlife management into your own hands. If you don’t it will be like watching water fill a leaking ship. The result is inevitable. Your ship WILL sink!
15 years from now they will be saying "We need to further reduce elk herds to increase habitat for the endangered Shiras moose" while wolves proliferate all along the rockies.
Chad, you can bet there will be all sorts of lawsuits filed the day after this passes, if it passes. And our side can "judge shop" too. Even if it passes, which I believe it will, it will be fought and delayed for years and years. It probably will end up in the Supreme Court.
What really shocks me from an outsiders view is the fact that Colorado sportsmen seem surprised that this is happening. Its the price u pay for turning blue as a state. Lead bullet bans and grizzlies r soon to follow. On a positive not at least New mexico is gona go down in flames with u. Very sad to see a beautiful state with limitless natural resources join cali
Surprised? Not me. I've had the displeasure of watching what was an amazing state slide for years.
Yikes. I know it’s coming. Scary. I’d rather them introduce grizzly than wolves personally. Scary thing is just like the spring bear ban gonna get a bunch of city people voting on wolve reintroduction
I don’t understand how the wildlife officials can’t make the decisions on things like this. Why in the world Is it up to the public who has no clue on anything wildlife related
A dem senator from Montana and a very successful entrepreneur/podcaster from NYC knows what's best for Colorado and the rest of the western states.
Denver 9News has a story about this today - see link
Sounds like they should drop the first truck load of wolves off in the middle of Denver.
So, how is that the "will of the people", who are mostly blind, and simply putting a pen to a paper, would know what the "natural balance" is supposed to be? Dumb.
"Who do you think is teaching in the natural resources fields today?"
The same people teaching general studies in public schools. I see it first hand
cnelk, at least the Denver 9news told a little bit of both sides of the story.
When, not if but when they start dumping off Canadian timber wolves and you see one you best take ethical wildlife management into your own hands. If you don’t it will be like watching water fill a leaking ship. The result is inevitable. Your ship WILL sink!' I'd like to think that would work. But this is just shooting the 'hole'. It usually has the effect of making the 'hole' bigger, if discovered. Word of an inadvertent discovery of something like this (SSS), and the ship will end up sinking faster. There must be a better way. Not all the old school bios. and F&W Mgrs are dead yet. Get together and educate the ones who will listen (which IMO is still a majority) and put a stop to this nonsense before it happens. Wishful thinking probably, but illegal means usually end up with bad results.
When science and common sense becomes outdated and overrun by politics and personal agendas the true conservationists, hunters, must do what is ethical. Do your part given the opportunity or I assure you that you will regret it. Close your eyes for a minute and imagine no deer... no elk, no moose. No hunting. That is the agenda. Class dismissed.
I work in downtown Denver and see people collecting signatures all the time. The ones collecting signatures are all 70 year old, overweight cat ladies that have likely never stepped foot in the woods, and those signing are no better. If they acquire 200,000 signatures, I would bet 175,000 of those who signed have never stepped foot in a wilderness area.
There was a post on the Denver subreddit about this Tim Ferris podcast and someone mentioned that the states that have reintroduced wolves have all increased their elk harvest numbers and hunting has never been better. The person who typed that has probably also never been in the woods. This issue has been driving me nuts and I feel it is impossible to argue with 90% of these people. When I ask if they value wolves more than elk and moose, most people respond by saying elk and moose are overpopulated because they'er all over the place in RMNP.
I'm not sure if you all have read Aldo Leopold's stance on wolves or not but he was for wolf/predator reintroduction as a way to control large herbivores that can have major impacts on ecosystem plant diversity. Most old school wildlife biologists (including myself) are not against large predators in ecosystems in which they always have been. Being a hunter alone does not make you a conservationist. Nor does it make you ethical concerning wildlife management. I think some confuse conservation and true wildlife management with game management. Advocating for game management does not make one a conservationist. I think wolves have a place in ecosystems in which they have always been. But I think there must also be predator control. I do agree when the preservationist wackos get involved and think that wildlife management means you just release wolves into CO and that makes everything all better. That is not the case. Could releasing wolves be good for all CO ecosystems...yes. Wildlife bio study's have proven many times that predators can improve a herds health and the overall ecosystem health. Fact. Could wolves hurt herds and ecosystem...yes if left unchecked. But I get the point that we have seen the environmental extremists get involved and things go south. I've see it also go south with hunting advocates too.
As an old school biologist (23 years), I'm ok with wolf reintroduction in CO as long as there is a management plan (fully funded) in place that values both sustainable wolf populations and the overall health of the herd/ecosystem. And the plan is agreed upon by all major stakeholders before one wolf is released. The management plan should be in place before a vote IMO.
This is looking to be an absolute disaster! Regardless if a management plan is agreed upon it doesn't stop the wolf lovers from filing a lawsuit and holding things up in Court. Who defines "sustainable"?
You want a great read, go buy "The Real Wolf". Very interesting!!
"I'm ok with wolf reintroduction in CO as long as there is a management plan (fully funded) in place that values both sustainable wolf populations and the overall health of the herd/ecosystem. And the plan is agreed upon by all major stakeholders before one wolf is released. The management plan should be in place before a vote IMO."
And that was exactly what happened when wolves were re-introduced in the GYA. Ink wasn't even dry before the lawsuits and court injunctions started to prevent any type of wolf management.
In this day and age, the best way to control wolves is to NOT reintroduce them.
People are stupid... I am amazed at how many people live in fantasy land. What I really find odd, is in the article the pro-wolf fools state that the CPW has been opposed to wolf re-introduction in the past, but if they can get it on the ballot, they can bypass that.. umm??? so the state biologists and wildlife officials think this is a bad idea, but lets do it anyway... wack jobs
KSflatlander... fool us once (Montana) shame on you. Fool us twice (Idaho) shame on us. Fool us 5 times... Wyoming, Wisconsin, Minnesota and I would think even an old school biologist would see the writing on the wall. We had management plans prior to reintroduction. After the tree huggers we’re done spending their time and money on reintroduction they spent it on lawsuits to snuff the plan. And it worked!
Your post sounds like retro 2001. Seriously! Gone are the days of sound management when it comes to large predators. Give them an inch and they’ll take miles and miles. They already have.
Some folks can get hit in the side of the head with a brick, over and over again...and still never get it!
Introducing Wolves into the Fray, always makes "intelligent" management of ungulate herds basically impossible. Colorado DOW is well aware of that.
Elkmtngear I read an article about the benefits of getting hit in the head with a brick. It softens your skull allowing the brain to grow larger. You are just anti brick! Sometimes one brick in the noggin doesn’t do the trick either. 5 or 6 may be needed for optimum results so be sure to give it a fair chance. Be open minded! Lol
"Introducing Wolves into the Fray, always makes "intelligent" management of ungulate herds basically impossible." I disagree. Black bears is a good case in point. Black bears and elk have been around in good numbers since I can remember. And black bears eat elk calves as much (or more) than the next predator.
Headed to Idaho this year to hunt elk. Last I heard the wolves haven't eaten all the elk. I know my opinion is not popular on this but as a biologist I'm willing to share my hunting areas with predators. I don't think the "kill'em all because I want more big game species" paints us hunters in a good light either. We loose a lot of credibility in that argument. That's not wildlife conservation either IMO.
Agreed that wildlife management should be left to biologists. If you believe that then don't just dismiss the decisions of state wildlife managers because you don't agree with them.
Answer this question...would you be ok with wild non-captive wolves in Colorado in any capacity or do you prefer that they were extinct?
I'd prefer no wolves before unmanaged wolves.
I'd prefer the wolves extinct before hunting extinct.
I don’t mind a managed number but the question is pointless because as stated above... it’s all or nothing. Montana FWP and Wyoming F&G saw what was happening. A total imbalance. They did everything to support a wolf hunt. But a single judge tied their hands. Since that is a possibility the answer is NO!
And extinct? Come on dude! They are flourishing all over the place here and in Canada, the Yukon, Alaska etc. Extinct in Colorado... is that the new extinct you’re referring to. Have another glass of the Kool Aid. Pardon my bluntness but I’ve lived it. I’ve experienced the reality of it. You sir have not. I’d like to see world peace and I het you would too. But I’m a realist so I’m not looking for signatures or anything. You?
KSflatlander.. I will answer your question... I prefer that we let wolves migrate here naturally. Not this 'reintroduction' crap. And to comment on Idaho... Its not necessarily the wolves are killing all the elk, but they are for sure pushing the elk out of the backcountry on the ranches and farms which causes crop damage, fence damage, pasture damage, etc. If you want a wolf license in Idaho while your there, just ask.. Last I read, the Idaho G&F were practically giving wolf tags out as you crossed the state line... Also, while your there ask them how their 'reintroduction' has gone.. the answer is not good.. I believe it was this past winter that they were issuing a bounty on wolf hides to trappers, $1000 and you keep the pelt. If wolf reintroduction doesn't work in a state like Idaho, with a far less population of people. It wont work in Colorado. The CPW is against it and so is the Fed F&W.. So I guess we should listen to the biologists and the professionals and stop letting the pro-wolf push an agenda b/c they think wolf pups are cute and cuddly.
How exactly are wolves extinct if there are 60,000 of them running around in Canada alone?
According to the 9News segment they are halfway to the 200,000 sigs needed. To their credit the anchors commented and supported the fact that these types of issues should probably be left to those that know what are going on and NOT to the general public.
I wish the CPW would step up and speak out about the facts of why they don't support this... I think it could go a long way with the general public in understanding the facts and science behind NOT introducing wolves to Colorado.
Ever notice how these folks only ever want to reintroduce large, apex predators, and nothing else? Show me the petition to reintroduce bison to their entire historical range in the US, and I'll be the first one to sign it! :)
Hahaha anybody see the irony of a 'latlander telling up highlanders how to manage colorado wilderness areas..
PA.... its b/c they know that it will devastate big game populations and impact hunting... At the end of the day, its a guise for an anti hunting agenda. But what they fail to realize is the most effective to properly manage wildlife is through hunting/conservation.. not introducing apex predators to wipe out a population and impact livestock.
I’m not implying they are going extinct. Maybe asking if you prefer they we eliminate off the face of the earth because you want them gone.
I got my wolf tag for Idaho.
Bingo PAbowhunter1064!!! Wolf & griz reintroduction is at 100% core goal of eliminating the need for human hunters.
99.9% of the fools collecting signatures and signing will never see a wolf or griz, or even go to the woods to try. They feel good "just knowing they are out there". Can't we just TELL them they are out there, let them feel good about it, and move on? LOL
No one here is advocating, or even wishing that wolves would be "wiped off the face of the earth". I believe the general concensus is that they NOT be transplanted back into areas where they were killed off for a reason. Wolves don't have seasons and bag limits, and once all the moose, elk, and deer are gone, I don't think they'll become vegetarians.
KSflatlander extreme talk like that makes me wonder who sent you here. Nobody ever said “eliminate them from the face of the earth”. Most are just saying don’t mess with mother nature because the impact can be catastrophic and irreversible. If they migrate here fine we will manage the population. But don’t dump a few truck loads off in people’s backyard where there are ungulates who have not been exposed to a predator like that for many generations.
That’s another subject. Animals that live where wolves have always lived have been taught how to survive under those circumstances. By the time a Colorado elk is being chased by multiple wolves there’s no time for a learning curve. But hey.... the grass will grow higher right?
"Answer this question...would you be ok with wild non-captive wolves in Colorado in any capacity or do you prefer that they were extinct?"
That isn't the only choices available.
"But hey.... the grass will grow higher right"?
And don't forget about the "willows and beavers"...! ;^)
Funny how Yellowstone is now being celebrated, for crap that I can see just walking down to the River in my Hometown. Used to be epic!
KS: in a perfect world would I be ok with wolves in Colorado? Yes.
But we don’t live in that world. In the one we are in, the antis are in control with money and lawsuits. That is a fact. So no, in the real world wolves don’t work.
My opposition to introducing wolves has less to do with wolves than it does people.
Common sense, sound science and reason get thrown out the window.
Well said Glunt! I have nothing personal against a wolf. But those people I would love to eliminate from the face of the earth.
"KSflatlander extreme talk like that makes me wonder who sent you here." Nobody sent he here. Are you inferring that I'm a troll. I've been on the bowsite since the 1990s. "But don’t dump a few truck loads off in people’s backyard where there are ungulates who have not been exposed to a predator like that for many generations." That is extreme talk as reintroduction is not dumping them in peoples yards.
Txhunter, glunt, mule...I agree with your last statements. My point to the choice was to see if some here just hate wolves no matter what in any situation or hate them in their back yard/hunting area.
There is one extreme that humanize wolves as cuddly stuffed animals and think reintroduction is easy. There is the other extreme that says death to all wolves. And the set to yelling at each other. I just don't like taking the wild out of the wild because it might mean I don't fill a tag. I think we are better than that if we brand ourselves as conservationist because we are hunters.
You’ll probably end up with some BC wolves that are already pros at wiping out ungulates.
You see, we are culling them in a desperate attempt at saving mountain caribou and allowing moose numbers to rebound. In the study areas where they are killing them, it is working in undeniable numbers. Now the antis would much rather have them transplanted than killed and with elections coming around, politicians are eager to go for the win-win. Save ungulates and wolves which = votes.
When they have decimated your elk, moose and deer, they will live on most anything else (including bears, so not all bad) until the “balance” can start all over again.
But take heart. There will only be partially eaten carcasses stinking up your landscape until the prey numbers have dwindled to a point where they clean up a whole elk in a couple of days. No fear of bumping a grizzly on fresh kill. These wolves know all about grizzlies and how to run them off.
And there’ll be none of your puny grey wolves running around either.
Enjoy. Send for more any time you like.
KS, I think you are glassing over the real issue. I have seen no one that is against wolves as a species. I see plenty that are against unmanaged, unchecked populations of wolves. It has been proven time and again that if you get wolf numero uno on the ground that you've already lost. Injunctions, lawsuits, petitions, etc will prevent you from ever having meaningful control over that population. The few states that have wolf hunts fought tooth and nail for them and fight still to keep them! There is no balanced management, only emotion.
Sorry did someone say they would trap Canadian wolves to bring to Colorado? Where do I sign? ;) Best bet is to relocate all of them. Our caribou and moose numbers could use some help.
"I just don't like taking the wild out of the wild because it might mean I don't fill a tag. I think we are better than that if we brand ourselves as conservationist because we are hunters."
KSflatlander
Tell me the impacts of wolves in Yellowstone. Moose and elk populations now vs before. Listening
Also, tell me the impacts of wolves into WY/MT/ID areas where wolves now roam for the first time in 100 years. Elk/deer/moose populations
For me? Yes, wolves are not worth sacrificing 50% of game animals or even 10% of game animals. I don't think wolves are worth that - when you consider everything that comes with them. I don't live out west, used to, probably will in the future, I've hunted there a lot ..... I don't hate wolves, I love them in Canada/AK, that's great places for them to be.
Brotsky- That's why I asked about eliminating wolves or if anyone would be ok with reintroduction in any capacity. Are there really some bowhunters that don't want wolves simply because they are competition? If yes, then IMO they aren't wildlife conservationists. I understand that the issue is not with reinduction but the environmental wackos that want no management. I agree with that.
Why must we "Introduce" another apex predator, when many of the herds are nowhere near their carrying capacity?
Just how exactly does that figure into "Conservation"?
"Fairly compensate livestock owners for livestock losses caused by wolves "
"Supported by elk hunters and ranchers" "Done under a sound management program" "They only kill the weak and sick..." "They only kill what they can eat...." The list is endless.
All right up there with "the check is in the mail".... and a few other select, um, "misrepresentations of reality and intentions"
Liars. Knowing lies. Justified for the Cause. Once more "all for your own good ya know..." Talk to the ranchers who find they now have to PROVE (as in witness) a wolf killed those scraps of hide and scattered bones on the ground to get some meager compensation that was promised.
Millions of dollars to introduce (paid out to who??? follow the money....) and the millions upon millions more to "manage". All money that could be used elsewhere. All managed AFTER they have gotten out of control. "Management" plan indeed, we have seen their idea of management. WY has a management plan. The rest of the "plans" involve tax payer dollars, work and effort to kill them back AFTER decimating game in their area..... not some Fairyland Disney Fantasy of "natural balance" they use to get a foot in the door.
It's the typical liberal "but no, really, THIS time our ideas will work.... we just need the right people/plan in charge...." Time and time again they lied to get what they wanted, (like "we only want a few, just X number and then we'll delist them....) got what they wanted and promptly FUBAR..... then slink away like it wasn't their fault. It would have worked, they just didn't have... A) enough money B) enough control C) enough support D) enough brains to differentiate between real world effects/results and emotional Disney Fantasy wishes. E) all of the above....
Always hear "it's not political". BS. Stop it already. Facts are ALWAYS facts. Feelings are always just.... feelings. If a person can't see the ideological differences, the same players and the cause and effect to all this going on around you it's intentional blindness, nobody is that naive. The constant "compromise" is one sided, only one side is doing any giving. Taking away chip by chip is not "compromising". It's still taking.
The liars need to be held accountable for their knowing lies. The failures need to be pointed out, not swept under the rug like it never happened. If it's a good idea it stands on it's merits... it's facts. It's true results. The results and impact on those who are directly affected. Not warm fuzzies by people who do not have to live with or be affected by them.
Fact: There is NO biological "need" for these wolves to be introduced into islands of habitat. None. At all.
Anyone who says otherwise is lying. They haven't been there in these islands of habitat for a hundred years and the modern success story of wildlife management and recovery across the country took place WITHOUT them. A good deal of it BECAUSE they were not present. In fact herd recovery programs all across NA are finding they need to spend millions of dollars and resort to aerial control of the wolves to effect recovery. Their uncontrollable impact is exponential when introduced into literal islands of habitat. Animals in recovery mode such as moose will be most dramatically if not permanently affected.
Where does the Fashionable Fishermen Chapter of the Sierra Club stand on all this?
The mountains are a back yard to many. But ask any rancher in wolf country and he’ll tell you they landed squarely in his back yard. Your dream is admirable KS. Like I said I definitely do NOT hate wolves. But the dream of harmony and coexistence will never happen. And that’s not speculation. Google up Yellowstone or Idaho elk populations. Or Montana unit 250. From unlimited elk tags with either sex elk hunting down to 25 bull only tags. That equates to a max of 2 NR licenses. Facts.
KS, many here are surprised at your positions because they never read what you used to post all over on the Community Forum. You're so often wrong, on so many issues that you sometimes seem to be arguing just to stir things up.
On the off chance that you actually believe the stuff you are posting here: ("I just don't like taking the wild out of the wild because it might mean I don't fill a tag."). I'll add this: THE 'WILD' (wolves) WERE ALREADY TAKEN OUT OF THE WILD, WHAT IS BEING ARGUED HERE IS THE IDIOCY OF BRINGING IT BACK! Particularly in light of what has happened in ID, and MT, and WY and the Great Lakes States.
The citiots in CO are collecting signatures so they can force the CO government to piss down our backs and tell us it's raining. We've seen this before, and sometimes people decide: NO MORE!
I suspect a lot of guys will be sighting in their 'coyote rifles'.
"Fact: There is NO biological "need" for these wolves to be introduced into islands of wilderness. None. At all." NOT FACT. Quite laughable actually. What if the biological objective was to increase plant diversity or other non-game species? Isn't that a biological reason? See link.
It's not my dream. I just don't go overboard about the implications of wolf reintroduction from a elk hunters prospective. I'm ok with hunting along side predators in the ecosystem as long as biologist are managing the control the populations for predator and prey. As many have said, when politics get involved then it goes south. How many objections on this thread are political and how many are scientific/biological?
In the name of grass I present you with this success story.
I just have a different opinion on wolves than many here based on my understanding of wild population dynamics. But carry-on with bashing anyone with a dissenting opinion.
One more try.... This should enhance your understanding of wolf dynamics. Any questions?
Anyone who thinks Colorado needs wolves has absolutely no clue about the "dynamics" in this state.
You should see all the bunny huggers on my NextDoor App that seriously have no clue about wildlife in any capacity.
Wasn’t part of the reason for reintroducing wolves in Yellowstone to reduce elk numbers?
Show me that document. If so it was to eliminate the late hunts.... and put outfitters out of business. Surprise it worked. If that was the case why not simply increase the quota of hunting licenses around the park.... an an action that is easily adjusted or eliminated as needed???
KS I'm not going to bother arguing with you or respond to you after this post. Others have driven home the point and obvious you're not going to change your mind. Pls mind your own business and stay in your KS Flat Land.
Nobody, or almost nobody on this threads wants wolves eliminated from the planet. But it is a FACT based on numerous track records in every state where wolves have been "reintroduced" that they will NEVER be managed based on biology. Lawsuits will never stop and ultimately game populations will dwindle to the point where human hunters are no longer needed.
Believing that wolves can be reintroduced and management will be all hunky dory is every bit as naïve as believing that the Disney view of nature is real.
There is no shortage of wolves, globally there are plenty. Again I come back to why is it that ONLY "apex predators" (and they ignore that humans are actually the apex) are pushed for reintroduction? The bison is every bit as iconic and regal as any wolf or grizzly, but none of the tree huggers are pushing for that. Reintroduction of pronghorn or bighorn or you name it, would be beneficial in habitat many areas, but none of the tree huggers push for those species either. Why?
You live in a fantasy land every bit as much as the tree huggers gathering signatures in Denver....
"But carry-on with bashing anyone with a dissenting opinion".
KS, you should be used to this, after all the "discussions" you used to have on the Community Forum...I realize your right leg is a little long, do you have to cant your bow to the left as well, to compensate for the "lean"? ;^)
It's a tough gig, being a Leftist Bowhunter...but, to your credit, you usually do provide good data to back your position.
hey CAflatlander what if they want to drop a few truckloads of wolves in your favorite Kansas whitetail woods would you support that also? They were “native” to Kansas too we better get em back on the landscape. I feel like this is a simple case of as long as it’s not my back yard I’m all about it....
I’ve never poached an animal in my life. But if CO reintroduces wolves, I WILL become a poacher.
Matt
Guys! Guys!
Introduction!
No “re” about it!
Please keep that straight. The wolves introduced in Yellowstone and Idaho were not the original species.
They should be removed from ID, WY, MT, WA, and OR as the noxious, non-native, invasive, destructive vermin that they are.
I just checked and they forgot to reestablish a few million bison that the original wolves used for food before putting these new wolves in.
Not sure how they missed that. Someone should let them know.
SMARBA gets it....KS not so much. Colorado needs wolfs as much as the world needs another Walt Disney.
Ok. Tree hugger, leftist, so on and so on. I get it. Maybe I just see the wilderness we all love through a different perspective than you. Maybe I value wild things differently then most of you. That doesn’t make you or me wrong...just different. I still love bowhunting and wish everyone success this elk season. If you have a wolf tag I hope you fill it. Maybe I’ll fill mine too.
If all your friends must agree with you all the time eventually it’s just you. I don’t get the emotion with wolves on both sides of the issue.
Mule- I stand corrected. The main biological purpose of the reintroduce of wolves in yellowstone was not to control elk numbers. It was recover them to get them off the endangered species list. Which is the USFWS’s duty by law. However, they understood that the reintroduction would affect overall elk numbers. See link.
As far as releasing wolves or bison in KS. It’s apples and oranges as 90% of the original tall grass prairie ecosystem is gone in KS. It takes more than just prey to support a predator. But I would not complain if a wolf walked under my stand. Honest truth. Bison...that’s a question I have wondered myself. What about prairie dogs? They only occupy less than 5% of their former range. Im not a tree hugger so you can ask them why they don’t care. True I don’t live on the west, don’t ranch cattle, or live with wolves. Point taken. But I do have 23 years of wildlife biology experience.
You don’t like me cause I value wolves different from you. So be it.
For the record I never said I’m for wolf reintroduction in CO. I said I’m not opposed to it if there was a management plan based on biology and it was funded. Which means wolves are managed by hunting based on biology. There’s a difference.
Treelune is correct. These giant wolves have easy DNA markers that cam ne tracked. Have large % Artic wolf in these super hybrid.
Correct not re-introduction.
Super Hybrid Introduction.
Dont become an outlaw over a dog!
H
Attic wolf, gray wolf, red wolf, Mexican wolf are all subspecies of the Canis lupus species. They would not taxonomically/biologically be considered hybrids as they are the same species.
No different than a rocky mountain elk and Roosevelt elk. Key deer, cous deer, and whitetail deer. Blacktail deer and mule deer.
???? Ever seen a muley whitetail cross? I've seen a bunch of mule deer blacktail hybrids. Or in canines a coydog? Much less other mutts. They very readily and often cross breed. Hybrids. As with many species.... it's more an opportunity thang than biology.
Pretty sure the wolves introduced so far weren't hybrids though......they've been those big ol purebred Canadian monsters out of Mackenzie(?) But I believe the point trying to be made was the wolves that will be, or have introduced already are not the same wolves that were native to the area.
A fun is fact there were many separate subspecies recognized prior to the "Consolidation", such as the Timber wolves, which were "scientifically" (politically, no real scientists wanted it on a scientific basis.) consolidated in the late 70's all as the "grey wolf" along with the much larger Canadian. Those doing the introductions consolidated those Canadians as grey into where the much smaller (both in physical size and pack size) Timber wolves who were the true native wolves. Done so specifically for and by the ESA. Made things much easier, you know, to explain to the rubes. Kinda like "Global Warming" morphed into "Climate Change". I mean, what's the difference between a t-rex and a velociraptor? Both predatory dinosaurs....maybe if they hybridized....
Great idea though, this introduction.... if your goal is to eliminate man from exercising his rightful place in the natural order. (Man bad) After the wolves decimate the game in the area...... then you will have the wolves to deal with or the herds will take decades to recover.....and now are faced with having to manage wolves on top of everything else, that doesn't seem good. Well, unless you don't care if the herds ever recover in your lifetime.... then it's not a problem.
They don't "help" in wildlife management. They are a destructive uncontrollable year round killing, eating, puppy making machines, a factor that must be dealt with at some point in these islands of habitat they want to drop them into. I. E. now you have to pay crews in helicopters to go out and kill most of the critters you purposely introduced. So as to bring back the animals you had pretty much dialed in already management wise. Not to mention attempt to mitigate the damages done to personal property. All unnecessary. It's the common theme it seems. The touted "balance" is along the same lies as "sick and weak", etc.
Yellowstone? Wolves as a management tool may be viable there, possibly considered "necessary"..... only because man as as management is essentially forbidden. In other words, if ALLOWED (the key word) man can and would manage things just fine without them. Wolves still 100%.... unnecessary. As they have been for more than a century.
WY has it right, management wise. My heart goes out to my friends in CO who will likely not have such options given the political climate in the state..... outsiders moved in.... no respect for the culture they moved to, bringing the culture that essentially ruined where they came from in the first place. It's an uphill fight, I see it every day. I feel their pain.
My heart does not. Theese folks from greater Denver area which are Hybrids (I guess) or Just big ol purebreds from CA that are going let wolves eat as much or most likely more than humans do.
Look for big changes to seasons and bag limits as wolves get first crack at good area's like 201. So, you got 27 preference points? Wolves don't need any. That's 30 yrs of putting in. Monies that were used in rebuilding habitat, etc. All null and void. The Hybrid (grey, Canada, artic cross) are getting free rights to CO and the spillage into rockies elsewhere.
H
ok so you supposedly ONLY support the introduction if they are managed by Science well we both know that’s NEVER EVER going to be a possibility in this place so just shut up and quit poking the bear huh? On top of that my comment about putting them back into KS is just as valid as putting them into Colorado yup habitat isn’t what it was when KS had wolves guess what it ain’t what it was here either.... so again like I said before it looks to me like your just another as long as it’s not in my back yard wolf humper...
There is reality, then there is KSflatlander's talking points. The reality is that no matter how much he wants to dream up the perfect scenario where we put in place a management agreement that gets followed, that just isn't going to happen. It's been proven over and over again in recent history. Unicorns and flying pigs are pretty cool I suppose.
The biggest issue is that the people who want wolf re-introduction, dont live - or have never lived - in wolf country.
I have. You dont get re-reimbursed from the state when wolves attacked your livestock and leave them chewed and bloody - but alive - leaving you with a hefty vet bill.
You dont get reimbursed from the state when the wolves completely devour a foal or calf as there is no evidence for a claim.
Even when there is evidence of a wolf kill, the hoops you have to jump thru is ridiculous.
Your local deer herd is decimated. Your family dog gets eaten.
These are all true facts that I have experienced.
You want em? Put them in your state.
Who here has hunted wolf? Anyone. . .
Savor those CO elk hunts CNELK
H
TD.... since elk migrate out of the park hunters can and have played a role in managing the population of the Yellowstone herd. Just thought I’d mention that.
Have hunted and shot them. Will shoot them whenever I get a chance just to minimize the damage they do.
Appears more horsepower is being added to the pro-wolf side. Would love to hear an intelligent debate between Tim Ferriss and a prominent anti-wolf advocate.
We're fighting an uphill battle fellas. They have more money and already have the signatures. It will be on the ballot and pass easily
It will be on the ballot and it will pass. I dont know how the process will go from there between the State and the USFW but it's a safe bet it will be expensive and common sense won't be part of the equation.
Common sense left when they can bypass CPW and put anything they want on ballots. Next it will be a ban for bobcat and lions. They already tried bobcat earlier this year.
It will be on the ballot and it will pass. I dont know how the process will go from there between the State and the USFW but it's a safe bet it will be expensive and common sense won't be part of the equation.
glunt is exactly right...
I was in Fort Collins Sunday with my wife. I was approached on the sidewalk by a man asking if I was a registered voter. I said yes then he asked me if I wanted to bring the wolves back to Colorado. I responded with a quick “hell no I like elk”. I asked why they wanted them back but he couldn’t come up with much more than “they used to be here” I didn’t give him much more of my time.
