Bowsite.com

Where are the counter points?

Check this out, on Youtube. ( Ft. Collins Colorado TV, Cross Currents wolf issue). A panel discussion per the subject of the reintroduction of the wolf to Colorado. this is being run every week since Feb. Paul

Colorado residents are going through tough financial times due to corona. An elk harvested by a hunter can feed a family for most of the year. Help struggling families by protecting elk from invasive wolf populations.

And the gray wolf suffered for it.

Here are some details worth understanding.

Though most Americans think of the place as the Louisiana Purchase, that is a mistaken assumption. The term “Louisiana Purchase” applies only to the business transaction between two nations.

TOP ARTICLES 3/5 READ MORE Lovelanders spread joy during lockdown with sidewalk and window art

Once America took possession of the land, Congress named it the “District of Louisiana.” When Louisiana became a state the remaining area was renamed the “Territory of Missouri”; when Missouri became a state the area was formally known as the “Unnamed Lands.”

In less than half a century, Americans were crossing over and settling into the Unnamed Lands to acquire wealth from mining silver and gold. Territories were formed and within 30 years of being so recognized, the name “Unnamed Lands” disappeared.

Both industry — logging, mining, railroading — and the human population grew much faster than did either local agriculture or the means for expediently shipping food from the East.

Big companies hired hunters to provide meat for their laborers, meals being a benefit of employment. Meat markets developed in the towns and cities, and everything from robins and meadowlarks to deer and elk were sold as meat for human consumption.

In his 1866 book, “Colorado: A Summer Trip,” Bayard Taylor wrote of how every tree within miles of Central City and Blackhawk had been cut down. Forty years later, Enos Mills wrote and lectured on the burning of surviving forests so that two or three years later sheep and cattle could graze the grass and wildflowers that were growing back.

Year round hunting, extensive logging, mine tailings, development of agriculture, and most egregious of all, slaughtering bison as a way to subdue Indians, collectively devastated Colorado’s wildlife populations.

The last wild bison not managed as livestock in Colorado were killed in 1897. By 1910 Colorado’s elk population had been reduced to 1,000 or fewer animals. By 1918 our pronghorn population had declined to fewer than 1,000. Bighorn sheep also dwindled to precariously low numbers in scattered, disjunct populations.

Neither moose nor mountain goat occupied Colorado during this period.

As a consequence of the large mammal wildlife decline occurring simultaneously with a large mammal livestock increase, gray wolves were forced by human activity to take what prey they could find. A sheep or a cattle became the only food available to them.

And yes, I mean “a cattle.” Technically, “cattle” is the name of the species and “cow” is the term for females of the species. If the species is called “cow,” then a male would be a “bull cow,” which is linguistically absurd.

Like the difference between Louisiana Purchase and District of Louisiana, the difference between using “cow” and “cattle” indicates attention to information detail. In the discussion about restoring the gray wolf to Colorado, historical detail matters.

Yes, historically, wolves preyed on livestock, but they did so because people destroyed their food supply. To argue that wolves don’t eat livestock ignores historical fact. To argue that wolves only prey on livestock and do so excessively likewise ignores historical fact.

Colorado’s big mammal populations have recovered well enough to feed the wolves.

From what I have been hearing in Idaho and Montana, the wolves have decimated the big game populations while killing livestock and pets...

Sometimes writers with a good education and writing ability do not have any "street smarts". my best, Paul

Can’t re-introduce something that’s already here.

1. Stopthewolf.org Go to this website. I am the Larimier County Colorado team leader

2. Rethinkwolves, ie, Coloradans Protecting Wildlife. Livestock producers

Currently, 39 of the 62 Colorado Counties has signed a Resolution in opposition to the reintroduction of the wolf into Colorado.

Stop The Wolf has a Political Action Committee that will be running a social media campaign shortly.

NRA has joined as a sponsor and will notify NRA members to support the effort. See other sponsors on the stopthewolf.org website.

There are other things going on behind the scenes prior to the election date.

As individuals you can respond when you see an op ad in the newspaper, just be factual of that you speak. You can address this issue by notifying friends of the issue. Get talking points from stopthewolf.org.

“ Surplus Killing When prey are vulnerable and abundant, wolves, like other carnivores, kill often and may not completely con- sume the carcasses, a phenomenon known as "surplus killing" (Kruuk 1972) or "excessive killing" (Carbyn 1983b). The amount of each carcass wolves eat depends on how easy it is to kill prey at the time, but sometimes they leave entire carcasses (Pimlott et al. 1969; Mech and Frenzel1971a; Peterson and Allen 1974; Bjarvall and Nils- son 1976; Carbyn 1983b; Miller et al. 1985; DelGiudice 1998). Surplus killing of domestic animals lacking normal defenses against wolf predation may not be unusual (Young and Goldman 1944; Bjarvall and Nilsson 1976; Fritts et al. 1992), but it is rare for wolves to kill wild prey in surplus. All cases of surplus killing of wild prey reported for wolves have occurred during a few weeks in late winter or spring when snow was unusually deep. In 30 years of wolf-deer study, Mech observed this phe- nomenon only twice (Mech and Frenzel 1971a; L. D. Mech, unpublished data), and in forty winters of wolf-moose studies, it was seen in only three winters (Peter- son and Allen 1974; R. 0. Peterson, unpublished data). DelGiudice (1998) recorded it during only a few weeks in one of six winters.”

They are predators and do what predators do. To demonize them for it is silly and ridiculous. Making claims like that does not help your cause.

In 2020, I don't believe that exists anymore.

And the balance that everyone likes to point at is nothing more that a series of wild swings.

We are talking about Colorado voters.

Are mother's going to have time or take the time to read long ass boring as hell science based studies? Where in their busy schedules will they find the time?

The issue will be settled with 20 second blurbs on TV, radio and other media. The pro side will show puppies. Hopefully STW shows blood and family dogs attacked.

No, I have not read the book and never claimed that I had. It does not matter if Frank Glaser was pro-wolf or anti-wolf, biologist or trapper, government employee or not. He may have known wolf habits very well for the area he trapped/worked in...possibly better than anyone at the time in Alaska but it is still anecdotal experiences. If he as very proud of his wolves as you say can inject bias. Making the claim that your conclusions about wolves must be correct by reading one book or that Frank Glaser's experience with wolves in Alaska 80 years ago is a red herring. Wolves are not the conscience blood thirsty "killers" you make them out to be. Nor are coyotes, black bears, griszzly/brown bears, etc. They are predators and a part of the ecosystem.

Bowbender- I'll take it. I am pro-wolf. I'm also pro-elk, pro-predator, pro-prey, pro-wildlife, and pro-hunting. I value all wildlife and ecosystems and think we should conserve as much as we can for the benefit of future generations. I don't only value wildlife we hunt or expect all ecosystems to be managed just for hunting benefits. So yes, I do value wolves along with all other wildlife.

If someone wants to make wolves out to be the myths of fables it is not going to help "stop the wolf" because there is plenty of biological studies out there that says they are not "will keep on killing elk long after they have enough to gorge themselves and their pups."

Grasshopper makes a great example of why ballot box biology is a bad idea. So your counter to pro-wolf propaganda is anti-wolf propaganda and that makes you better than them? Facts be damned just push your agenda by any means necessary because you think the ends justifies the means. I don't buy it. Hell, why not just tell the public that wolves in CO will increase their chances of becoming werewolves. I don't think it will help your cause to go the the anti-wolf myth route of propaganda is going to help your cause. There are legit reasons why wolves should not be reintroduced in CO. For one, they are already in CO.

Those (Rocky Mtn. Wolf Project, Rocky Mtn. Wolf Fund, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, etc.) who WANT to force the reintroduction of the Gray Wolf into Colorado found a “loop hole” because Colorado is a ballot initiative state & wildlife issues can be tested before the general public, & against the recommendations of the Colorado Wildlife Commission as in this case. Those forcing the issue have already spent nearly 1.3 million dollars to get Ballot Initiative 107 to the voting public in November of 2020. It has been reported that 99% of those monies came from out of state sources. And according to a recent Sierra Club report, they are willing to spend 4 million more dollars to get it passed.

Ballot Initiative 107, many believe, is full of FALSE narratives as follows: 1. Wolves will only be introduced on Public land or designated private lands. 2, Wolves will only be introduced WEST of the Continental Divide. 3. Once established, the Gray Wolf will bring back the critical balance of Nature to Colorado. 4. Wolves were eliminated in Colorado over 80 years ago. Yes while true, only 1.2 million persons resided in Colorado at that time; currently Colorado is pushing 6 MIL residents statewide. Colorado has twice the population of Idaho, Montana & Wyoming combined where good populations of delisted wolves reside today. Some may use the Yellowstone National Parks as a great comparison to why Colorado needs wolves but YNP has 2.2 million contiguous acres and NO hunting seasons to control big game species. Colorado is not Yellowstone! Some have suggested that wolves need to be introduced into the Rocky Mtn. Nat Park and other areas to control the elk herds. The former Superintendent of the Park, Vaughn Baker, wrote an article for the Denver Post, 2009, titled, “Wolf reintroduction: It won’t work here like in Yellowstone.” and gave many reasons why not. The reasons given can be used statewide as reasons for the OPPOSITION to the forced introduction. The USFW Service did not include Colorado as part of the Greater Rockies Wolf Recovery Project thirteen years ago, and at that same time, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission approved a plan entitled, "Findings & Recommendations for Managing Wolves which Migrate into Colorado," which was in response to the reintroduction of the gray wolf by the USFWS into the Yellowstone National Park area. That same year a migrating wolf from Wyoming was found dead on Colorado's West I-70, & others have recently been observed in Colorado since then. The above report/findings (CPW Resolution 16-01) was developed by a group with various interests/backgrounds in Colorado, ie., Colorado Wolf Management Working Group, made up of environmentalists, sportsmen, local government, wildlife biologists & livestock producers. The results were comprehensive & not against the wolf being in Colorado at all. This group developed a Colorado Wolf Management framework as follows:

1. Accepting a (migrating) wolf presence in Colorado with conditions. 2. Urging that wolves migrating into Colorado be allowed to live with "no boundaries" where they find habitat 3. Advocating that wolves be left wherever found, providing they are not causing problems 4. Taking measures to avoid conflicts through non-lethal methods if possible & if wolves cause problems, manage them to resolve the problem 5. Recommending that funding for wolf management come from sources other than hunting license sales, & then the Resolution concluded that: "any introduction or reintroduction of the wolves into Colorado is a potential conflict with the State's livestock industry and current big game management efforts."

The current Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, appointed by the Governor, and then approved by the State Legislature resolved the following: "That the (current year 2016) Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission affirms its support of the Wolf Working Group's recommendations adopted by the Wildlife Commission in May 2005, OPPOSING the intentional release of any wolves into Colorado......" (Adopted, January 13, 2016)

Most Colorado citizens believe in the legitimacy of the Colorado Wildlife Commission & CPW Wildlife Director and staff to scientifically manage Colorado's big game populations. Voting citizens should follow their lead and recommendations concerning this wolf introduction issue. IF YOU UNDERSTAND AND BELIEVE in the time/tested management of Colorado’s big game species and also the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, YOU WILL SUPPORT the Wildlife Commission’s recommendations AND OPPOSE THE FORCED INTRODUCTION OF THE WOLF INTO COLORADO, by outside groups.

Currently, there are 39Colorado Counties which have signed a County Resolution OPPOSING the forced reintroduction of the gray wolf into Colorado. (Nine are Front Range Counties) These counties have studied & examined the effects that forced introduction of the gray wolf may have on its communities, its citizens, its economy, its health, its safety, its wildlife and its livestock, both commercial & domestic. The subject of the wolf can be a very emotional subject & the voting public needs to EXAMINE the facts of this Colorado issue before voting concerning the Forced Introduction of the gray wolf to Colorado. I would recommend visiting the Colorado Parks and Wildlife website & also visit the Stopthewolf.org website & see for yourself that there is more to this FORCED Wolf issue than one can imagine. Paul Navarre, Fort Collins CO

In a perfect world, I suppose a person could be pro-wolf, as well as pro-elk, pro-moose, pro-deer, etc. However, it has been proven time, after time, after time, that we certainly don't live in a perfect world. If wolves were allowed to be managed by those that actually get paid to manage wildlife, i.e. state game & fish departments, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, in most cases, wolf management is left in the hands of clueless politicians and liberal, tree-hugging judges. They obviously crawl in bed with those that see wolves as nothing more than harmless, cute, and cuddly little creatures that wondrously howl at the moon. Not only does this guarantee elk, moose, deer, etc, take a severe beating, they also make damn sure the state's have to waste valuable time and financial resources to respond to their incessant, nonsensical lawsuits.

Unsolicited so forgive me. I would lose the all caps words as it seems too emotional like you are yelling. It distracts from your well made argument you have put together IMO.

We failed completely and miserably!!! Sometimes You have to fight on the field and with the weapons your opponent chooses. Is that really “.. stooping to their level” or just smart strategy?

Jane Goodall, the monkey lady, told one of the ardent pro-wolfers that the battle will be won in the heart not the head, use emotion.

They set the stage for the battle.

Is there any reason at all why Colorado won’t follow this same path? Only one that I can think of. Hunters have always talked about the pressure there. How even in the back country it was like an army out there. If that army wages war on wolves it could be the silver lining to having so many hunters. I sure hope that Colorado is able to snuff out the “re”-introduction if wolves. But if not do yourself a favor if you live or hunt in Colorado and do the ethical thing. It’s a shame to have to say that but since politics has over ridden sound game management it’s the right thing to do.

My fear it that the liberal Colorado State Legislature/Governor might develop and then vote in a wolf reintroductin bill.

And as far as pro-wolf groups wanting the “natural balance”, what could be more natural than natural migration? Wolves filling in where they can naturally survive?

But no, they want a human engineered and forced “natural” process. Bit of a dichotomy.

Pro wolf equals anti hunting! At all costs. Period!

So in answer to your other question, no, I'm not in favor of more wolves being dumped into Colorado. And honestly, I'm sick and tired of hearing the word "reintroduction" being tossed around. You can't reintroduce something that's already there.

FYI- I think that pro-wolf groups keep moving the goal posts is a good argument to make.

I simply posted because I'm tired of the "wolf is the devil" crap (and it is truly crap) people post and try to pass off as generalized fact for all wolves. The biological data does not support it. You want to label me as "pro-wolf" to attach some kind of stigma or sling the "if your not with us your against us" BS go right ahead. And I am against the wolf ballot initiative. Yes, I do see value in wolves the same as with bears, coyotes, foxes, wolverines, cougars, etc. The same as I do with elk, deer, sheep, goats, caribou, etc., other flora and non-game fauna, and ecosystems in which they live in. The same as I value hunting some of those animals in their ecosystems.

Treeline- If I did live in CO I would vote "no" but feel free to make me out to be the enemy.

And for clarification it’s not specifically the wolves that sensible people are claiming are the devil.... it’s the wolf huggers and politicians who have done nothing but lie to us as they dump millions into their cause, their hidden agenda. It’s not actually the wolves who show up in court.

Here I’ll sum it ip for you: Lie to us once shame on you. But lie to us 5 times (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Minnesota) and shame on us if we fall for that crap again.

I’ll shorten it up even more: No good can come of it!

Again, Ground hunter- exactly where is your point counter to my statements? Please post a link to the "study" you are talking about.

Also, where did you get the 2000 wolves in WI number?

There are nearly (probably over) 1000 wolves in Wisconsin. Triple the number you mentioned that they mentioned. What more do you need to know other than deer hunting has diminished to nothing in areas there?

"The Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee settled on a management goal of 350 wolves, as a minimum number, and as a reasonable first attempt.

The management goal falls about half way between delisting # (250 wolves) and the perceived biological carrying capacity of 500 wolves in the state."

So as shown above, the estimated # of wolves in Wisconsin 2018-19 were 914 -978 and yes nearly 1000, and according to the Plan, twice the perceived biological carrying capacity. And still under USFWS control. That population seems to have stabilized according to reports.

"There are nearly (probably over) 1000 wolves in Wisconsin. Triple the number you mentioned that they mentioned. What more do you need to know other than deer hunting has diminished to nothing in areas there?" I think you missed the point. Ground hunter made it seem like the WI plan would maintain 350 wolves. It clearly says the goal was to reach 350 wolves or greater. It also says the feds will manage the wolves until they are delisted from the ESA. Which they did. Now they are back on the list.

Try reciting a science based report to my wife. She will give you 15 seconds before she shuts you down. No free time.

Our ballot in 2020 will be full of crap including whether we should retain the electoral college as written or let Los Angeles, & NY pick the president. In Colorado the ballot will ask whether or not district court judges should be retained. What percentage of voters take the time to investigate whether a district court judge aligns with their values? About the same percentage who will look at facts on wolves. 20 seconds of mindshare is all you will get with most.

Reciting science only works for a small slice of voters.

107 will pass easily because within 9 seconds Front Range voters will decide (most have already) that wolves are cool. Science? Meh. Statistics? Move along. Revenue? So what. Wolves are cool. We want them. Next item on the ballot...

I think the money issue could one of the best ways to defeat 107.

The Economics according to the email from chair of the commission are we might incur 16 million a year in expenses, and see a 50 million dollar annual revenue stream decline to much less over lost licenses, and diminished interest. That is the science that matters most, and makes the world spin - budget science.

This thread is proving this point over and over again.

I enjoy bowsite, I get to hang with like minded bowhunters - but the message needs go beyond the bowsite congregation. Step up, get on facebook, and other platforms where voting soccer moms hang out.