Bowsite.com

It takes 3700 archery tags to equal that.

In 5 years, when we have hundreds of wolves...

like Wisconsin and Minnesota no season or Wyoming and Montana with liberal seasons and tag numbers.

You know this how? Provide data, please, before you post stupid statements. I live here on the CO Front Range. The entire habitat is at max saturation with mountain lions. Coyotes are everywhere. Deer fawn mortality is over the top from predators. And now they are about to dump truckloads of mega-predators.

How many elk have you killed in CO? Have you ever hunted elk in CO? The reason there are a lot of unfilled tags is because elk hunting is damned HARD, tens of thousands of elk spend the seasons on big private sanctuaries, and the overall elk hunting population is aging and unable to get to where many public land elk live due to so many road closures in National Forest.

Friggin' clueless keyboard experts. SMH.

Matt

Would you please take the time to repost that so we can understand what you’re trying to say?

As a native of Colorado and life long hunter (60 years), I know of plenty of hunters who will shoot the first legal elk they have an opportunity at. The problem is, those opportunities are becoming few and far between for the reasons Lou outlined. Your simple-minded "hunter vs kills" analysis doesn't even scratch the surface of the challenges involved in hunting elk in Colorado.

Matt

I cannot believe that CO uses the word reintroduce when they’re already there.

I wish when barstool biologists post stuff here they would back it up with scientific and wildlife journal papers. Something that is peer reviewed. Without it it’s just anecdotal dribble.

"Under the proposal, ranchers would have a pair of options if they can prove wolves killed a sheep or calf. The livestock owner could ask the state to pay five times the market value of the lost animals — or seven times the value if they took steps to minimize conflicts between wolves and livestock."

And we all know who will be picking up that bill.

Matt

People from the city have no idea how large a summer grazing area encompasses, and ranchers aren't living with those NF cattle all summer. So their count comes up 30 short in the fall when they bring them down to winter range, and that's just too bad, say the wolf lovers.

Read the new wolf plans of Wis and MI, this is the new world.

But no, we will just watch them dwindle and it will be blamed on everything but wolves.

First- Habitat is limited much more so the ecosystems have a hard time getting in balance.

Second- you claim hypocrisy with ranchers and hunters but I assume you eat steak, potatoes, corn, ect. Even going vegan indirectly results in land conversion and loss of habitat. You’re a contributor to the problem just like me and everyone who is alive and consumes.

Third- conservation means to conserve what you can. The idealism of preservationists is a dream world. You can’t preserve everything. There is a cost to everything even your own existence. I agree most hunters are not conservationists but more proponents of big game management. However, hunting of big game animals is a conservationist tool in an unbalanced and impacted ecosystem. Regardless if some hunters aren’t conservationists.

I believe wolves should be conserved and have no problem with it as long as wildlife biologists are calling the shots and are allowed to manage top predators. Management that matches what the ecosystem can handle. And that includes big game hunting. Cause without hunting and the $$$ that hunters contribute then ecosystem would suffer. Inevitably preservationists bring there idealistic fallacies to court and conservation loses.

I do agree that SSS idiots are not conservationists in the least. In reality the are promoting poaching. Look at Thornton and HDE’s posts. It’s an embarrassment to the whole hunting community.

Stix, I often wander where you get these ideas. Now, I’m certain it comes from a place that has very little consideration of reality. You live in a fairy tale world.

Man owns the top spot on the predator scale. We were given that domain by God himself. Choosing to exercise that right isn’t wrong. It’s the only correct answer. And, if that means wolves no longer roam in places that now human inhabit in a way that prevents it, then so be it. The wolf can live else where. Which they do readily.

If you were right, parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming would't be having the issues they're having now. And you seen to have forget, that years ago, before the anti's came to Colorado, we had huge influences in the control of bear, lion and even coyotes. Now, when the success rate for bear in less then 6% in units, and those bear are lil 100 pound bears, and we can't trap and control the coyotes, and gmu's have quotas on lions so low that they're filled in weeks. I suggest, instead of reading about stuff on the internet, to get out with the cpw officers and spend time with them as they do counts, and talk about low populations, and they're concerns about the wolf introductions. Funny that the cpw officers don't seen to agree with you on that subject...

Ummm....the US population was a mere 5 million people in 1800. It's 335 million now. Don't you think loss of habitat has something to do with the lack of large healthy herds and apex predators?

Matt

It’s a fallacy to suggest the west can be like it once was. With huge herds of prey and predator. Modern wildlife management takes aggressive management by humans on predator species in order to maintain a sustainable level of all entities Involved.

But hey, you're mouthy punk so...

Game was completely absent in areas, which nearly starved the expedition.

Analysis of Lewis and Clark's accounts show that game was typically found near human settlements, where predators (bears and wolves) were hunted.

Stix, the western front in CO isn’t BC. I don’t know why you even compare the two. You live in a fairy tale world. Complete and utter nonsense.

FWIW, if BC has such a thriving wolf population, why do they need to be introduced back into Colorado?

Matt

So who's "idea" was this. The prowolfers? Prior to the ballot initiative, the CPW and the Commission was total against the reintroduction as they knew that might happen to the elk and deer herds, including the moose populations in Colorado. They feared that some ranches would suffer cattle, sheep, etc loses and the cost of managing wolves would be in the millions of dollars. Recent estimates with will cost 2.5 - 3 million per year to manage wolves in Colorado.

Yes, the better plan was, just let wolves migrate naturally into Colorado but not a forced reintroduction as we are now faced with.

You do understand that the original wolf dumping plan was to manage for a small population in and around the GYE. That was the promise the Feds made to the states. Now there are at least 10X the number of wolves that the plan called for. Wolves will never be lethally "managed" in CO. Those 500 wolves you mention will turn into 1000, then 2000 very quickly. In a state with 10 million people by then. This will be a terrible mess and the biologists with CPW know it, the USFWS knows it, which is why the introduction plan was nixed many times. It took a totally misleading campaign filled with lies and false promises to get dumbass mall chicks, soccer moms, and golf dads to vote them in.

BTW, where did you study wildlife management/ecology to become so knowledgable about the Colorado wild ungulate carrying capacity?

Lou- where do you get this info? Down compared to when or what? CDOW objectives? I haven’t seen that number before and I’m curious.

Matt

Joehunter- I guess I didn’t realize this thread was only for Colorado residents. The thesis of this tread is wolf impacts on Colorado hunting. I hunt Colorado same as you and Jaquomo and Gray Ghost. With your logic I guess only women can have an opinion on women’s issues.

Most of the reduction was due to issuance of more cow elk licenses to reduce herds because of development and fragmentation of the winter range, which reduced the overall carrying capacity.

Lou- 70,000 is close enough in my book. Your point still stands. I’ll try to find data from 2018. Thanks.

Bigdog you are about as clueless as they come. Your spelling and grammar clearly depict the source. You’re probably a candidate for a role on Moonshiners.

People can talk about wolves all day long. When hey get to a neighborhood near you you won’t believe the devastation. Season or no season if you see a wolf the ethical thing to do is shoot it. If you ever do get a hunting season the reason you’ll get it approved is because it will be too late.

There’s a contradiction in terms. Make sure you have soap on a rope if you do.

1. first year, 15 wolves on the ground and I understand they will be introduced the "soft way" which means, each wolf will be dispersed individually and not as a pack or family or will they be kept in captivity before introduction. So in the first breeding season, based on a 30% growth, the following year we might have 20-25 wolves on the ground.

2. Second year, 15 more wolves are introduced, same way and same birth data. so after the breeding season, 20-25 more wolves are in Colorado, now we have 40-50 wolves.

3. Third year, same as above, ad that to the existing wolf population of 40-50 wolves, we now have 65-70 wolves on the ground that make up 4-5 packs.

So by year four, Colorado now has add another 15 wolves and birth rate, = nearly 100 wolves across the western part of Colorado.

Keep applying the birth rate to the existing packs and in a few more year, we will have close to 200 wolves in the first 8 years for sure.

PS, this is from my, sort of, uneducated guess but based on some reality. It will be very interesting, once the Colorado Wolf population hits 200, what will be the plan to keep that population stable without any means of control like hunting and trapping. We know for sure, the Pro Wolfes will be heading for the Courts as they have in the past to prevent any lethal control. And that is a Reality Check! A Colorado wolf plan is only that, but the wolves have not read it nor have the Prowolfers, as they have their own plan and lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Yep. Hopefully these wolves will get a rampant case of mange through its population and the cluelessness will self correct...

That number is top of range, and the margin if error is fairly ridiculous, if I recall.

In 2017, Eagle and Pitkin counties E-16 were reported to have 4600 elk, so they shut down OTC archery. Now in the May data they are projecting 8600 elk. Huh?

I think there is info that is never shared publicly as to what, why, where, and how. The story in E-16 was trails, and unprecedented back country use causes calf to expend summer energy to the point toe fail to survive. Yea, right. Same trails, same rec, and the elk herd is nearly doubled. When will they study that? Never, because it doesn't align with the agenda.

You guys can spew science based management all you want, it really doesn't matter if the politics/agenda don't align. You get the science they want funded.

Our biologist told me this is a big dilemma and they've tried everything from basically unlimited PLO cow tags starting in August,, to cracker shells, air cannons, etc to try to move the elk back onto public land where they are huntable. It isn't working. If wolves will have a positive impact on this, or whether they will just push the giant herds around from ranch to ranch remains to be seen.

One thing is for sure - the wolfies insist the wolves will stay on the west slope and only terrorize ranches "over there", but they don't respect the Continental Divide any more than they didn't stay inside the GYE. Within 10 years the wolves will be out of control, hunting still won't be allowed in this woke mess of a state, and the wolfies will be overjoyed.

Luckily, you can teach me fishing.

Then in 3 or 4 more years of multiplying, it's bigger than archery season or any single rifle season.

If we keep going up to 1700-1800 wolves, they eat more elk than all hunting combined.

That’s with no reintroductions, just natural migration and reproduction here.

What took almost 30 years to happen here, will probably happen in 7-10 years for you guys with the reintroduction .

Sadly for the guys that hunt where they are dropping the wolves, your best days are in the rear view mirror

They can take their pick… if there’s a season and the legal limit is one per hunter you should shoot one. But if they say you can’t shoot any then you should shoot as many as you can. It makes up for people who cave in to that kind of thing. If you spent any substantial amount of time in an area and watched the moose, deer, and elk herds drop to next to nothing you’d agree.

Put it this way: If you had cancer and treatment was available but not legal what would you do? Wolves are cancer to big game animals! Treatment is available!

No, What you are doing is promoting poaching. No matter how you want to spin or justify it…it’s poaching. What’s more, killing an ESA listed species is a felony and you will go to prison. If you’re so bold to profess a felony here, they can and will use this thread to prove premeditation. You don’t want to go there as it can mean prison and fines up to $100K..

I get that you are an outfitter and emotions run high when you mess with someone’s livelihood but telling others to illegally poach wildlife doesn’t help the situation or bowhunting. It’s an embarrassment for the hunting community. And great fodder for anti-hunters.

There are states that allow them to do just that. Do some research next time...

Most recent was Nebraska - see link

There is already talk of low calf recruitment in the SW part of the state. But hey let’s dump some wolves down there. That won’t hurt that situation any.

Point creep is bad now. Throw in talks of reducing non resident quotas it’s going to get even worse. But hey let’s add more fuel to that fire and add a few hundred wolves to the landscape over the next 10 years. Point creep is going to be through the roof.

Of course hunters are going to be selfish. How can you not blame them when eventually they won’t be able to draw a tag.

“Permits will be available to residents, nonresidents and landowners owning at least 80 acres within the hunting area. Landowners must hunt their own land.”

This activity is regulated as there is a permit involved making it legal. We are talking about illegally killing wildlife out of season and without a permit. AKA poaching. My point still stands. Telling anyone or advocating to kill wolves illegally (SSS) is poaching by definition whether you value wolves or not.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s most folks were poor. Meat, and income, came from raising livestock and hunting. If a wolf killed a steer, there wasn't anyone writing a check. Game was sparce so a wolf eating an elk or two every month was a big deal.

Wolve's value was less than their benefit when looking at it through that lens. So, less wolves was a a good thing in most folks view.

I would be fine with a symbolic population that didnt greatly impact the big game successes we created, but it's silly to believe that will be the result. I would have to ignore the reality of how it has gone in other States.

I was naive the first go-round in our neighbor states. Not any more.

2022, Colorado's population is closing in on 6,000,000 and the loss of wildlife habitat is increasing. Tourism is at an all time high bring million more people to Colorado that spread out over the landscape. The western way of life is decreasing just with the increase of the human population and the pressure on the natural resources, year around. Not fair to the wolves that are being forces into Colorado just to appease those that believe that the wolf will "bring back the critical balance of nature to Colorado", as state in Ballot Initiative 114.

Hunters are the number one conservation group. We pay the bills. If those assholes want to tie our hands behind our backs they can pay the price. Like I said if they’d go away and allow us to implement a management plan and that plan sets a limit of one wolf per hunter then so be it. I’ll abide by that. But if they want to shove their agenda down our throats then there is no limit!

Soap in a rope? Let me ask you this… do you think there are wolves killed illegally each year? I’ll answer for you, yes. And how many people have you heard about being prosecuted? Zero. I’m sure if someone were arrested for illegally killing one it would be all over the media. So soap on a rope won’t be necessary brother. Times are changing. For the worse. But you as an individual don’t always have to accept the changes. Some people from California telling me I can’t hunt when the damage is catastrophic is something I never did stand for. Well I did for a long time. But I regret that. Not anymore. I tell myself I didn’t kill that wolf. They did!!’ The anti hunters.

The wolves are not the problem. Not at all. Like Paul at the Fort said it’s really not fair to wolves to dump them off where they don’t belong. The problem is the tree huggers that are using wolves to eliminate hunting. I’d much rather gut shoot them.

Oh my hell. Here we go again. You pretending you think you know the hell what's going on and you don't.

Yes. They think it's ethical, otherwise they wouldn't allow them to do it unregulated. They do it because the elk consume a limited resource for either livestock graze or money crop. No different than the killing of a predatorial parasite consuming a limited resource when needed. Man, you are a special kind of a puddin' head...

Mule Power- you’re just as irrational as the pro-wolf group except you’re the other side of the coin. Sure there are wolves killed illegally and people don’t get caught. You think that makes it ok. Then it’s ok for anyone to poach elk as long as they think it’s ethical because they can justify it. You willing to take that chance? Go for it but know that make you a POACHER by definition. They you have the gall to be angry that some people want elk extinct (which is hyperbole on your part) yet you clearly profess you want all wolves gone. Oh the irony. You are exactly what you hate.

You want to encourage others to kill wolves illegally and be poachers. That’s no solution and it hurts all hunters in the long run. No matter how much your twisted logic tries to justify it. You promote poaching and justify it just like every other poacher does. Or ever other criminal does. We are all law and order until we disagree with the law then we are aloud to break the law. That’s some life philosophy.

Say one of my family members is killed in a car crash because they hit an elk (happens a lot more than wolves killing people). I decide that I’ll be ethical and kill every elk in Colorado to protect people from future car elk collisions. I mean there’s too many elk in my opinion and people get killed every year hitting them in the roads. I think it would be ethical for me to kill them all. I don’t care about tags or your value in elk. Would you support that? That’s your logic in practice.

You like the “what if” scenarios huh? Yours is also emotional. You’re going to exterminate elk because you’re mad at them. Don’t worry pretty soon you won’t have to worry about a family member hitting an elk in their car in Colorado. Lol

Now if the elk/car collisions cut the population of Colorado residents down by say 50-75% then I’d say you should probably go kill a few. That’s a little more in line with the wolf/elk scenario.

“Science based management is the way to go”

“I’m irrational for the right reasons”

“Irrational pro wolf people are emotion based.”

I’m emotional about this lol. Yeah, ok. Being irrational is emotional and you are all over the board. You don’t blame wolves then you advocate poaching them and kill them all. You say you will kill them illegally and then blame someone else. It’s someone else fault you broke the law. It’s because your logic is irrational just as you stated yourself. And you’re far from a conservationist. You you help conserve by happenstance. You don’t call for the extirpation of a native species in its historical range in the U.S. just because you put more value in another species if you’re a conservationist. That’s an oxymoron.

Elk/moose/deer and wolves and hunting are not mutually exclusive if there is proper science based management. But I agree that it hasn’t worked in practice due to non-biologist taking management away from wildlife biologists. If wolves aren’t properly managed in Colorado it will negatively affect big game hunting no doubt. That still doesn’t justify poaching of any species involved.

Smurph- if you want to talk biased politics then take your red herring fallacies somewhere else. Pat, Jaquomo, and others made it clear this site is for discussing bowhunting…and I agree.

The argument that wolves cause a loss of a recreational opportunity by causing a temporal drop in big game populations by predation holds no merit."

You off your bipolar meds again Stix? Removal of wolves was Bible based management. Science based management doesn't hold a candle to the "love your neighbor" command, stix. Who is your neighbor? Anyone in need, including ranchers, and hunters. Wolves weren't eradicated completely (over 200k left WW), but where they were removed was because peoples prosperity used to matter more. It should. Wolf introduction causes hardship on people, its undeniable.

Median income in much of Colorado is near poverty levels. Costilla county, one of the poorest in the nation. Pueblo county is 27k a year. Mesa county 29k. Folks can't afford netflix, but hey, its all good cause we will introduce wolves, reduce your food source, and call it science based management. Eat Ramen noodles, and enjoy more songbirds, and butterflys. Life will be great.

If I ever put the ecosystem, science based management, the environment, or wolves ahead of my neighbor in need, kindly slap me upside the head. The world has lost something, a concern for their neighbors. Is that what your discipleship to the homeless preaches? Science based management? Does that help anyone?

That is the current management plan.

In my household we eat the deer, elk, and or bear meat pretty much on a daily basis. It’s not that uncommon for me to have the animals I hunted for a meal 2 times in one day. I think you make assumptions about other peoples ways of life.

For lots of hunters, it’s a part of their life daily. I can’t remember a day where I wasn’t thinking of going fishing or hunting/scouting as far back as I can remember. It’s something the family is involved in. If you read many of the stories on Bowsite, it’s obvious hunting is a huge part of many peoples lives. You see family and close friends involved in the hunts, pack outs, butchering, and wild game meals after the hunts with smiling family and friends.

In almost any culture hunting /fishing is a tradition that is taught and passed in to the next generation.

It sounds like hunting to YOU is something different.

All I know is I need a big elk. Because it's going in such a way that I'm not going to be able to hunt them very much going forward. Can't get a tag in most states. The OTC states are going to get a lot worse. And guided hunts are out of my budget. I'm double digit points in UT, AZ, and hoping to cash in soon. I may not get back into the point game after I draw . . . .

That’s irrelevant to today.

Things change.

There used to be dinosaurs. It was during an extremely warm time period.Then there was one of many drastic cooling periods. The planet froze. The dinosaurs were gone. Other animals evolved over the years. This warming cooling period has happened approximately 11 times.

As far back as science can study, life in earth has been changing.

It seems like now days there’s a push for a “human neutral” planet. On this “human neutral”planet, the humans in charge want to freeze the ever changing planet at a certain point of its evolution THEY believe is how things should be.

The crowd that wants no human impact on the earth(not possible), also seems to have a crazy theory that uncontrolled predators like wolves are good for all wildlife.

I hate to break it to you, humans are one of the species on this planet.

Some of us are hunters

Normal conservation minded people, including hunters and ranchers, could support some wolves around. Many don't because politics makes proper management impossible.

Recreational hunting is the foundation of wildlife management and a healthy way of life for many. Protecting it isn't a bad thing.

• Wildlife as Public Trust Resources: Natural resources and wildlife on public lands are managed by government agencies to ensure that current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.

• Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife: Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations. The Lacey Act, which the Service has a role in enforcing, prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold.

• Rule of Law: Laws and regulations developed by the people and enforced by state and federal agencies will guide the proper use of wildlife resources.

• Opportunity for All: Every citizen has an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada. This differs from many other countries.

• Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose: Individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and fur, self-defense, and property protection. Laws prohibit the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns or feathers or the wanton waste of game meat.

• Wildlife as an International Resource: Because wildlife and fish freely migrate across boundaries between states, provinces, and countries, they are considered an international resource.

• Scientific Management of Wildlife: The best science available will be used as a base for informed decision-making in wildlife management. It’s important to note that management objectives are developed to support the species, not individual animals.

Good post Stix.

Management is starting to be driven by feelings and lies, not science.

Non- Scientific Management of Wildlife: The best non-science available will be used as a base for un-informed decision-making in wildlife management. It’s important to note that non-management objectives are developed to support the species, not individual animals.

Ballot box biology in a sick blue state like CO has the potential to completely wreck the NAMWC if out of state groups pour enough money into campaigns to outspend the opposition 10:1, and produce dishonest, misleading campaign ads targeting urban voters.

Imagine if they put elk hunting on the ballot. CPW would be prohibited from taking a position on it during the campaign and if it passed, it would be a disaster of Biblical proportions.

The wolf lovin' Indians know why.....

Wolf huggers try to blame the loss of moose on multiple factors, and at the very end of every list is "predators". However, where I live we have all those same factors - development, fires, human encroachment, moose ticks, "global warming" (we are way further south), yet our Shiras moose populations are expanding. Hmmm.. the only thing we don't have....yet...are Canadian timber wolves.

Listen you pro wolf knuckleheads… here’s the deal:

We had an agreement. A population goal for wolves which included the number of breeding pairs. Once that number was reached the states were supposed to get the green light to manage them like any other predator or ungulate. We honored our part of that deal.

It might surprise you assholes to know that most if not all of us were cool with that. We were excited to see wolves. To hear them. The thought of pulling the trigger never crossed our minds. We believed that we could achieve a balance just like we did with bears and lions. After all even when those critters were doing great so were the elk, moose, and deer.

But the pro wolf aka anti hunters did NOT keep up their end of the agreement. As soon as the word hunting hit the fan here they came along with their attorneys. After all regardless of how many wolves there were the population didn’t have enough “genetic diversity”. Judge Malloy slammed his gavel and that was the end of any management.

Within a couple years the elk and deer along the Idaho/Montana border were decimated. At the same time we got news that Minnesota and Wisconsin weren’t doing much better and still no hunting or trapping.

When the wolves focused on livestock fish and game would take out packs. Still no hunting or trapping. The big game in the back country especially the wilderness areas was in really bad shape and getting worse by the day. So was the cost of lawsuits. Instead of spending money to improve the well being of the state’s wildlife we were spending it in court. Wtf

While that was all going on the anti hunters were working on reintroducing wolves anywhere and everywhere else they could. They have an agenda. A goal. And nothing including facts is stopping them.

My point is we gave legal ethical science based management a more than fair chance. And we got screwed. We paid a huge price too. And as the saying goes for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What was shoved down our throats was not ethical. It wasn’t even legal. Those courtroom verdicts were bought and paid for. So unfortunately in light of the efforts of the filthy rich anti hunters we have to take management into our own hands.

Nowhere did I ever say or even suggest killing them all. Wolves are extremely hard to hunt or trap. You can’t tree them or bay them up Like bears or lions. They’re mostly nocturnal. How many people on this thread have ever actually seen one? Those who have could you have had an actual shot opportunity if you were holding a tag? How many of you have ever killed one?

The point is that even if hunters shot at every wolf they saw it wouldn’t put a dent in the population. Look at coyotes. Hardly any rules. 24/7/365 hunting and trapping and they are more widespread and in higher numbers than ever. So before you put words in my mouth go back and read my actual words instead of hearing what you want to hear.

One more thing: Stix you seem like a somewhat intelligent guy. Do you think that it’s possible that not everyone hunts for the same reason as you? What are your thoughts on programs like Hunters for the Hungry where processors charge nothing to process animals because they are donated to people who need the food. Need, not want. The cost of beef is through the roof. Not to mention the fact that it’s full of growth hormones, antibiotics, artificial coloring and who knows what else. We live on elk. I’m not the biggest fan of deer meat. See the chart and you’ll see why I think everyone should be living on elk.

Covid didn’t help most people’s bank account balances either. To assume or suggest that everyone is like you and hunts purely for fun is ridiculous. Weak arguments like that make you sound like every anti hunting wolf hugger. That kind of talk won’t gain you much respect around here. But you probably don’t care. You’re only here for recreational purposes.

Bigdog, I’m convinced not only haven’t you ever hunted an elk or mule deer, from the nonsense you keep spewing out I seriously doubt if you’ve ever even seen one. And when’s the last time you’ve set foot in Yellowstone where you’ve seen “plenty of moose”?

Elk and mule deer move and roam constantly in normal ecosystems that are hunted and grazed. The deer that summer around my house are now on the winter range 20 miles and 2000' below us. Same with the elk. The problem with Yellowstone was that human wildlife management was prohibited. Hunters didn't "move anything around".

In Colorado, human management is what maintains the carrying capacity of our big game species, and what funds. The only overgrazing by elk takes place in RMNP, where hunting is not allowed. But RMNP is not part of the wolf dump plan. Adding unhuntable wolves to the mix here will be a disaster for the moose, and will reduce deer and elk hunting opportunity. Never mind the impact on family ranchers just trying to survive.

Not sure where you studied wildlife management and ecology, but it was at a different university than the one I attended. Low Information voters like you should not be allowed to vote on wildlife management issues. Yet here we are..

Wolves helped beavers and chipmunks and fish. That’s hilarious. Why haven’t they told us about the beavers and trout in the Selway Wilderness or the Bob? How about the Lolo? The fishing is the same as ever and the rivers look the same. How do I know? I actually went fishing there! Actual experience. Imagine that.

Those who have could you have had an actual shot opportunity if you were holding a tag? “Absolutely”

Let me guess… you read an article saying that the rabbits there have bounced back because of the wolves 600 miles away in Yellowstone.

Bigdog be sure to read that article and come back and comment on it. Or you could pretend it doesn’t exist. That’s usually how you people handle facts.

One night old Harry himself came in, half shnockered, and Cindy introduced us. She told him we were good guys and he should give us permission to hunt and fish on the ranch. A couple shots later, he did. I still have the permission note he wrote that night, as a souvenir.

Matt

Anything from the NPS in that link at the bottom of the article is pure biased federal government propaganda. If you believe the garbage they publish, you probably also believe they will be delisted after 10 breeding pairs are established, as the NPS stated in their 1997 published glorification of the dumping.

The article was written shortly after morons like you believed the one it has disproven. The one you practically quoted.

Lou my family knew the former owner of the Virginian. I used to stare at the monster muley bucks he had on the walls. Eventually he gave my dad permission to hunt his property. He never let anyone hunt it. I spent weeks at that hotel chasing mule deer and antelope. The good ol days for sure!

The link in the paper that you posted about the positive trophic impact of wolves on aspens. The person referenced in your link directed readers to the paper. See page 68. What the scientists were commenting on was that the video was over the top and spun as propaganda and they are correct. They are not saying wolves had a negative impact on YNP ecosystem. Actually they are saying the opposite.

You want to debate how much ecosystem impact wolves have that’s valid because it’s very complex science. It’s very hard to quantify one single piece of the puzzle as the most impactful. But to say that ecosystem impacts of top predators is laughable is childish and lack simple understanding of ecology.

And where did anyone get the idea because you simply seen a wolf it makes you an expert. For the record I have seen wolves in the wild outside of a park while bowhunting.

Matt

Didn’t see any elk in the sage and grass around there. Did drive northeast 50 + miles to find some though.

“We need more studies,” he says. “More tests of this ‘assumption of reciprocity,’ as we call it -- particularly via rigorous experimental studies -- would be really helpful. This is hard data to get, but we really do need it before we can credibly claim that large carnivores restore ecosystems. They might not.”

“We also think that large carnivore reintroduction should be pursued for its own sake,” Alston adds. “Large carnivores are great, but using their effects on ecosystems to justify reintroduction might not hold up to scrutiny and could be counterproductive in the long term.

“We hope we set up a nice framework for thinking about large carnivore introduction and invasive species removal that others can run with. We want to raise an important question, but it’s going to take lots of folks to provide a definitive answer. This is an unfinished story.”

The University Of Wyoming has done a lot of the studies on wolves, the effects of predators on ecosystems ect. in Yellowstone.

I have seen a lot of magazine articles and websites imply things based on these studies., but they leave out the actual conclusion of the studies.

You actually need to go to the source, and then read the entire study. These other magazines and websites usually leave out the "maybe", "possibly", or "might" in the end of the study out of their article. The science isn't always settled like some folks lead people to believe.

The article is just a stretch. A big one. It’s a fictional article written for a purpose. Period.

I’ve observed much more over the years than just seeing a wolf or three. Much more. Like humans living in fantasy land. Ungulate populations plummeting. The end of the Decker Flats hunt. City people deciding what’s best for everyone else. People like Bigdog and AZhunter actually believing the things they say.

The world going to $h1t!

Lou if there are wolves anywhere near those moose the they’re doomed. In the Bitteroot the moose were the first to go. We’ve all seen how moose behave. Very laid back. They don’t run. Not afraid of a human or a coyote. Also they winter up high lots of the time living on the tips of branches and bark. They can get by on that. They can tolerate deep snow. But it makes it nearly impossible to escape from a pack of wolves. I’m serious when I say we used to see moose every day. Up high, down low. I haven’t seen one there in years. Just their bones along the creeks. The beaver ls and the streams haven’t changed at all. That really confuses me….

That there were thousands of moose in the GYE before 1995, and now somewhere between 100-300, and the only variable that has changed is...wait for it....wolves, is pretty telling. I love how the wolfies try to spin it until they twist into knots, while downplaying or ignoring the big flashing neon sign.

Big game populations in lots of the western states are pretty much under attack. These people fight to protect the predators from any type of management.

After the new predators are introduced, or after the predator populations can no longer controlled there's always another boogey man causing the deer, elk, or moose population crashes.

Its always just a coincidence that the ungulate population crashes start when predator population management stops.

Matt

Current population is around 2900 wolves. That's why I will never support wolves being introduced again. Fool me once...

Uncontrolled they will definitely decimate the ungulates populations. Near the end of a wolf population high, they will turn to eating anything else they can to survive. In central BC some packs have become adapt at killing black bears including digging them out of the dens.

The “balance” of nature is usually some pretty extreme pendulum swings.

Limit was 10 per DAY.

So it’s not laughable now? The wolves have been in YNP for decades.

“ The article is just a stretch. A big one. It’s a fictional article written for a purpose. Period.”

That article was referenced by the biologist (Utah State University ecologist Dan McNulty) that was in the article you linked. You know the ecologist you were using to back up your point. So now he isn’t credible? He’s your source. By the way, I love that you end it with “Period” as if you have final say or its fact. LMAO. Period.

“I’ve observed much more over the years than just seeing a wolf or three.”

You keep saying this like it gives you more credibility than wildlife biologists/ecologists and the quantitative data they collect. How many scientific wildlife studies have you designed, collected the data, and analyzed? You know why personal observation is the lowest/least credible data in science. Because it’s not repeatable and you can’t scrutinize and analyze it. If it were credible then Bigfoot and aliens would be in biology books. You spout BS here and run people down because you have an audience. If you’re so smart and sure of what you know then present a paper of your findings on wolf and elk relationships and the effects on the ecosystem at the next Society of North America Mammalogists. The audience is a bit different than here where the you get a backslap for name calling and are emboldened to spread BS and poaching propaganda. I put value your personal observations but none in the conclusions you’re drawing from it as you are completely biased in one direction. Just like the some of pro-wolf folks.

“ In the Bitteroot the moose were the first to go.”

Is that a fact. Bitterroot moose are just all gone. See the link. The title is “ Bitterroot Valley moose population holding steady” from December 2022. (Full disclosure I did not vet the article).

Lastly, I’m neither pro or anti-wolf. I’ve stated from the outset on BS that popular vote biology is wrong. I disagree that wolves should be reintroduced to CO by popular vote. It’s insane. I put my faith in the CDOW wildlife biologists. Sadly, the courts may get involved and overrule their management. However, I do value wolves and elk/moose/deer and hunting. But if the courts don’t listen to the CDOW wildlife biologists then at least two of those three things I listed and value will have negative impacts.

I guess they legalized weed and shrooms in Illinois too.

If you manage for maximum predators, the prey numbers decrease as predators increase. Vice versa after they’ve killed the glutton off and moved on. Or, as disease curtails predator numbers, etc…. It doesn’t take an ecology study to predict and claim that. And, I was a practicing forest ecologists. For 20 years.

Glunt@work: “The original WY, MT, ID plan was 300 wolves total or 10 breeding pairs/100 wolves per state. It was expected there would be more as a safety net to stay above the 300 number. So maybe 20% or 360 total. Current population is around 2900 wolves. That's why I will never support wolves being introduced again. Fool me once...”

If you live or hunt in Colorado you should think about this and don’t wait until it’s too late. Nearly 10X the number agreed on. Give them an inch they take ten miles. Pardon me for thinking it’s ethical to help bring the number back down to what the anti hunting pro predator folks said they wanted.

With four more years to wreck this state, those two could stack the Commission with pro-wolf anti-hunters tasked with revolutionizing wildlife management more toward eco-tourism and away from the NAMWC.

The governor doesn't believe there is an urban-rural divide in this state. One look at how the counties vote, and voted on the wolf issue, loudly dispels this myth. When wolves become a serious problem and they are still protected from any sort of control, the next governor will find out just how wide this chasm truly is in CO.

Once the 200 wolf population is achieved, there better be in place, a way to hold that number, ie, hunting and trapping. If not, there will be NO control and the Prowolfers will get their way, as planned. They will use the Courts as they have done in the past. They will bring law suits as in the past. They will lie and cheat as in the past.

Yep, you better show up or shut up. My best, Paul

Come on man - you have a reading comprehension problem for sure. On top of many others.

Did I say extinction - didn’t think so. I said “manage”. How do you “manage” to keep their numbers at 300?????

If/when Colorados wolf population gets big and we somehow get the green light to start taking them, we don't have trapping like other States so our dent likely won't be very big.

Pro wolfers know this but they have no problem lying to get their agenda thru. Once they are introduced in Colorado the goal posts will continually move while the wolves decimate the moose/elk/deer.

Educate yourself on what is happening here.

Umm...not to state the obvious, but wolves have never been "extinct". You can't "reintroduce" an extinct species. You really should think before you post, if that's possible.

Matt

By definition, "extinct" means they are no longer in existence, anywhere. Yes, they were hunted, trapped, and poisoned out of some of their territories, but wolves have never been extinct. Words matter, and you aren't very good with them.

Matt

I can’t figure out what a guy that calls himself Bigdog and fights tooth and nail to protect wolves is doing on this forum calling himself or herself a hunter.

Maybe the wolves, the original native wolves that have been here all along behave differently than the larger non native ones that were relocated to the lower 48. Good point BD. And since we already had wolves maybe we didn’t need to “reintroduce” more? Actually you can’t really use the word reintroduce when something is already here and alive and well. Maybe there was a reason other than the saving of an extinct species. Maybe it was to eliminate hunters from the picture. Maybe it’s working. Maybe you are part of the problem. Now read that again without the maybes!

This is more BS but at least you’re consistent. Carry on.

awesome speell ing and grammere goes hand in hand with awesome ideas.

I don’t care who you are, that is funny stuff right there.

Maybe due to their size they aren’t capable of the same level of big game devastation. They never preyed on livestock. Elk were fine.

Maybe if we reintroduced grizzly bears to Kansas or anywhere black bear populations are down you’d get the picture. A bear is a bear right?

WV you made me laugh. These are the rocket scientists that are calling us unedumacated. I’ve always wondered about people who can’t even spell the words they say.

Dem dang wolfs dint do nuttin rong! You guys is stoopid!

Science is always in the eye of the beholder. But, I’m done with nonsense. It’s wasn’t a worm, parasite, or anything else killing moose at an exponential rate. It was introduced wolves. The same with the mule deer. The same with the elk. Etc….

When you add in higher cat numbers, higher bear numbers, and wolf mortality, there is simply no way around that the predator management anti hunters love and lobby for, is purposely being used to eliminate the human hunter.

They’ve never hidden it. They’ve even declared it. Yet, you still have hunters among us arguing this time it’s going to be different. In a far more liberal state!!!! Yeah right.

But, the real irk in all this is those same hunters preach science as the reason for release. When science has nothing to do with it.

It doesn’t take a genius to understand if they release a predator into a buffet, with no real intent, means, or ability to keep that predator population in control, it’s going to get ugly real fast. No science needed, peer reviewed journals, or stupid papers written to justify the slaughter that is about to occur. And, the ones lobbying for the scraps are going to be the human hunters.

I’m just tired of apologizing for what we are. We are the Alex predator. We are in charge of who gets what on down the line. We shouldn’t give up our stake to a predator that hasn’t taken it from us. That doesn’t mean I advocate slaughtering wolves. It means if they want to live with us, they take what we allow. Not the other way around.

That’s natural. That’s biblical. And, it’s the only way we all coexist peacefully.

Colorado ain't WY, MT, or ID. That's why USFWS resisted dumping wolves here. The initial dump site is only about 125 miles from the towns. Buckle up, because this will get really fun!

Maybe so. But I don’t thing corn fields are great grizzly bear habitat. In addition, Kansas is 98.1% private and contiguous public land away from densely populated communities is nonexistent in relation to grizzly bear home ranges. By the way, we do have black bears in KS.

No a bear is not a bear. You claim you want science and you don’t understand the difference in species.

Black bear (Ursus americanus)

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos)

Gray wolf (Canis lupus)- the same native species historically that was extirpated. The same native species that is REintroduced. The same native species listed on the ESA.

You should change your handle to flipflop. Either you want science or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.

WV- “ Science is always in the eye of the beholder.” That sums up you perfectly. It’s actually…science is always in the eye of the beholder’s. And that’s a big difference. It’s not an individuals perspective. It’s everyone’s perspective who test hypothesis, do experiments, and get results. It’s not science until you repeat the process using the same method and get the same results. It’s called peer review. It’s called the scientific method. It’s not to say mistakes aren’t ever made or the wrong conclusion aren’t sometimes draw. But it’s the best we got and it’s work for a long time.

Jaquomo X2.

The big ones have already made the trip from WY to the Grand Canyon and that's a lot farther than from CO to the current Mexican wolf range.

All are Canis Lupus. The exterpated Colorado wolf was Canis Lupus Irremotus and Youngi. It was removed as a subspecies in 2000 after the introductions of Canis Lupus Occidentalis in WY, ID and MT

“Colorado Division of Wildlife will need an ESA Incidental Take Permit. That’s no walk in the park to get. Unless the USFWS is actually doing the trapping and relocating. They well get sued before the release IMO.”

I did a little more digging. The Colorado reintroduction is designated as an “experimental population” under the ESA; therefore, it will not have the full protection of the ESA against Take. I’m guessing that law enforcement may be up to CDOW. However, they may still need a Take permit if they are capturing other U.S. populations that are already threatened or endangered under the ESA. I’m not 100% sure on all of this but it will be interesting who is actually taking the lead on management and law enforcement.

The link has all the official documentation for the gray wolf under the ESA. Maybe Glunt will notice that the ESA listing is for Canis lupus. You won’t find the other subspecies he listed specifically protected. The Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is listed separately as it is a distinct population.

Sooo, if I were to come upon a Canis lupus youngi, it would be ok to sorta poke a hole in it?

: -)

Everything I typed had particular meaning. Singular speech in particular.

I’m also well aware of the procedures in science. So well that it doesn’t hurt me to say what I did about it. And, anyone who’s made a living at it understands how it works. And, nobody needs a blabber mouth reciting a punchline because it makes him feel smarter.

I thought that was obvious. But, I guess not. I know one thing that is though. The steps and length some people will go to in order to be told they are relevant, is amazing. To the extent It ends up showcasing their inept personalities and inability to be considered anything but relevant.

I’ll keep it simple. Northwestern Montana has always had wolves. I won’t attempt to theorize why because it just gives you and Bigdoghugger something to feed on. But those wolves never did the damage that the Canadian ones did. They never reproduced like rabbits and spread like wildfire. I’ll leave it to you scholars to tell us why there is such a difference.

Take permit! Haha. Fool me once, grant me immunity. . Again I have nothing against wolves. To me all animals are innocent. Just like young kids. Wolves are just being wolves. They don’t wake up every evening and say let’s do our part to eliminate hunters. It’s the people pushing there agenda that are the problem. Selling their propaganda to unknowing non hunters. I remember looking at one in the crosshairs and saying to myself this one is for the fine folks at Howling for Justice. Next time it’ll be this one is for KSFlatlander and his buddy Bigdog. Splat! Just like all the other people who are part of the problem that’s what you get for participating in the propaganda.

One of my favorite pics. It’s not often you get 2 in one day.

Invite me along and I’ll shoot it then you won’t have to shoot it for me. Then we can celebrate together.

Colorado has prime wolf habitat from east to west. That’s why the state has the highest number of elk. This should be interesting to watch unfold.

Or you could just go have a look at hunt report threads from people who thought the Selway, the Bob, the Lolo, the Cabinets, the Idaho Panhandle etc etc would be a great place to hunt elk. Several of those areas have rifle hunting during the rut. It’s not uncommon for those threads to include the words “never saw a single elk”.

I absolutely disagree that you can put any credibility in what other hunters say on an Internet forum on elk populations in a unit. How many NR “hunters” actually get more than a 1/2 mile from camp. Just this year I ran into a couple hunters that claimed there were no elk in the area. We were into elk most days in the same area. When I questioned them they said they hike a popular trail for 2 miles and camped along the trail for 2 days and hike out. Only scouted from known trails. No kidding they didn’t see any elk. Personally, if it were you, Jaquomo, Grey Ghost, Elknut, or other good successful elk hunters on here who I ran into that said there were no elk in the area then I’m turning around immediately and going to a new area. If archery success is typically 10-20% then there are 80% that didn’t get an elk. I’m guessing 1/2 of those 80% didn’t even get out of camp or really hunt…and “didn’t see an elk.” Maybe more.

Wolves will have an impact on local elk populations no doubt. Unchecked and unmanaged wolves will have a bigger impact and likely affect hunting tag availability (as you stated). I agree it will be interesting to see what happens. I just hope science wins out and they listen to the wildlife biologists at CDOW. They do some really good things and have some great biologists that and deeply invested in Colorado’s wildlife and sound management. If they leave wolves unchecked then I hope the wolves take down some elk in the front yards of those who voted for the reintroduction and think that Disney cartoons are documentaries.

I don’t know why you constantly try to lump me in with the pro wolf crowd. I value wolves no different than elk. I believe elk and wolves should be managed and hunting is an effective management tool.

So are we going on a wolf hunt or not?

Once they get into areas like the Great Lakes, the pro wolfers and their millions of dollars will prevent sound biological management. It will be victory by ballot box and judge shopping for them. And sadly those who used to enjoy deer camps in northern MN, WI and MI are now forced to simply remember “the good old days” since the wolves have decimated the deer herds there.

Maybe try this: Walk into any bar in Montana or Idaho wearing a shirt with a picture of a wolf on it and ask people who live and work there year round how the reintroduction thing is working out for them. You’ll be singing Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Gimme Three Steps!

I don’t think the wolf hunt is a good idea. Especially if you’re bringing Bigdog. Taking him places where a body would never be found is just too tempting. I can see you guys preaching to me. I don’t give a rat’s ass about charts hugggers use to prove their point. Same goes for anything you guys say here. I’ve lived among the wolves. Watched what they did over a period of 20 years. So I might get irritated with you two and have to SSS. Lol Kidding of course. About you anyway. But I’d welcome the opportunity to go hiking with a man who chooses to call himself Bigdog. You’re a bit more level headed. And you can spell. I like that.

Now scroll back up and read Mitch’s (Old School) post. To us it’s like anyone who thinks wolf reintroduction, or the previous ones is ok is saying “Ok sorry about that we won’t do it again. Promise. Just give us one more chance.” Um… no thanks. The outcome is obvious.

One more thing.. someone above mentioned how difficult it is to manage wolves. There was a comparison to coyotes which are basically hunted and trapped with little to no regulation and yet are thriving. It’s nearly impossible to control wolves for several reasons. And when lawsuits cost us a year or 2 or 3 it’s like letting a disease go untreated until a person is on their deathbed and then beginning treatment expecting them to live happily ever after. Look at the track record! It’s horrible. Apparently someone forgot to tell the wolves to stop breeding once they reached a certain number. We’re talking Mother Nature. She knows nothing about politics or courtrooms. And that’s why hunters should serve justice every chance they get.

Want to go wolf hunting? The guy on the left in the above picture owns my old outfit. He does wolf hunts and would be more than glad to take you. Super nice guy. Really hard worker. He used to offer lion hunts but the wolves killed his hounds. The ones in this article were his. He guided over there for Reggear Outfitters. AND.. unlike livestock there is no compensation from the state for $2000-$3000 dogs.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to associate me so definitively with Bigdog? Well, that’s not true. I know why you do it. I don’t know him and have never interacted with him here. It was me (only me) who suggested a wolf hunt since you said you’d shoot one for me. I stand on my own two feet and only represent my own opinion. If you want to play that game there I guess I just lump you with poachers on that other thread since you advocated for poaching here. But that would be a cheap shot so I won’t do it. C’mon Mule, enough of the grade school gaslighting games.

In Alberta we are allowed to kill wolves year round, we are allowed to bait them in and shoot as many as possible, no tags, unlimited quota. A private landowner can kill every wolf he sees on his land. If a rancher can prove a wolf killed a domestic cow he can get the government fish and wildlife agents to load the dead cow up with poison and try to kill the whole pack. They do this because the wolves in that pack will continue to kill cattle. (The fish and wildlife officers have been slow to act on this in the last 10 years and it’s becoming a big problem for cattle and big game.) We have thousands of square miles where they have been killing all wolves from helicopters for 40 years in a vain attempt to save the caribou.

While all this is going on the wolves have almost totally wiped out the big game from the Alberta mountains where the cows can’t escape wolves and protected grizzly bears as they calve out. They used to control the wolves much better with poison, snaring, and trapping when fur prices were higher, and we had abundant elk, deer and moose in the mountains.

The only two places where elk do well with wolves is in the open foothills and prairie regions close to ranching operations where there is good grass and they can get in big herds and overwhelm the predators. And they do well in the farmland/forest fringe areas where they can calve out in small wooded patches, near roads, houses and guns, and get their calves up to 2-3 weeks old before they go to the big woods, wolf areas.

The habitat is nothing like it was in the 1800’s, it’s a ridiculous comparison. Colorado is screwed, be prepared for very low elk and deer populations, and virtually no moose in any of the mountain areas and even rampant shoot, shovel and shut up won’t help.

Sorry, KSflatlander, no scientific studies for this post, just reality.

Thread should be closed

You can't when they're under state and federal protection ....

“All but one wildlife management zone saw an increase in the elk population as well as an increase in hunter success, despite differences in geography and hunting conditions in each zone. The sole area that saw a decline was Zone 4, in the mountainous part of Alberta, linked to the fact that grizzly bears are no longer hunted there.”

But I’m sure your response will be you don’t care what the science data says cause you seen all of it in every zone in Alberta.

Science…because it’s better than making s#%t up.

Mike- I guess the Ecologist (Mark Boyce) at the University of Alberta disagrees with your personal observations.

I guess Mark Boyce gets the mic drop. Eh cnelk and Mike Power?

I’m pretty sure both sides can find something on the internet to support their opinion. But it’s kinda hard to cast doubt on people who just telling it like they see it. Do you think myself and Mike are lying or over exaggerating to put it nicely?

Mike gave legitimate reasons why elk might have a better survival rate in certain areas. That makes sense too. So there will always be different scenarios such as WapitiBobs experience. I don’t doubt him one bit either.

What some of us have seen is that even without federal protection…. Even with hunting and trapping AND fish and game taking out packs (since hunters couldn’t) we still can’t manage wolves effectively.

I also notice a pattern. You want science based management until the science doesn’t agree with your personal observations. In the 26 years I’ve been doing wildlife studies there have been many times the data we collected did not agree with my personal observations. That’s because my observations are biased by my preconceived notions. Mike’s observations in Alberta are only a tiny fraction of the data needed to draw sound conclusions. He may hunt a few drainages and not see any elk and some wolf tracks. That doesn’t mean that wolves have killed all elk. It may seem really real to you and you just know it to be true. However, there are many other plausible conclusions for your observations.

Did you even read the article or the scientific paper? Do you just disregard their methods, data, and conclusions?

The study you used shows single digit increases. But that’s only in a sample area. Where? Who knows. Not where Mike is I can surely tell you that. If a study was done where he is and the results matched his what would you conclude?

Who believes everything they find on the net? Like I said I believe WapitiBob and anyone else who I know to an extent. I don’t hunt wolf areas anymore. My success has gone up. Actually the internet says there are wolves where I hunt. I beg to differ. I know where the nearest ones are. But there are none where I hunt or to the south of me. If you went around from camp to camp and asked you’d hear the same thing. On the internet…. we’re surrounded by them. The net stuff from people who got more than half of what they know from someone else on the internet. Lol

Even Einstein came up with the theory of relativity through personal observations and then backed it up with scientific data that proved him correct. The science community held him to the same standard. You have your personal observations and I’m providing you information that contradicts the conclusions you are drawing.

I don’t care. Keeping believing what you believe but it doesn’t make you right. It also doesn’t mean that your observation aren’t valid but just in context. But I’m going with the biologists and their data over you or Mikes conclusion based on anecdotal observations. You want to push things that are easily disproven with vetted publicly available scientific data. Go ahead. But I promise you the pro wolf people will do it too and they can easily discredit you which just water down all hunters credibility.

If you read the paper you will notice the only zone they seen a negative trend in big game populations was the zone where grizzly bears are not hunted. That’s something we could use to argue against pro Wolfers and their “no season” philosophy on top predators. It shows if you don’t hunt and manage predators they can have a negative impact. That’s what Jaquomo, Paul@thefort, Grey Ghost, WapitiBob, and a few others are saying and I agree with them. If wolves are reintroduced in Colorado and not properly managed (hunted) then there will be negative impacts. This is the same thing you are saying I think. Science data backs that up and so does your personal experience. That’s a valid and legit argument. Focus on that and you’ll probably get more neutral or independents to stop supporting stupid a#% wildlife management by popular vote.

The shoot them illegally and SSS crap does more harm than good for hunter credibility. Then you claim hunting predators doesn’t control them at it. You say it does no good. Then why do you want to shoot every wolf you see if it does no good? It’s just more double speak.

I’m done because you obviously have made up your mind and there’s no science that’s going to tell you otherwise. I’m not your enemy as much as you want me to be because I disagree with you. Label me a pro wolfer if it makes you feel better. Good grief. Best of luck to you in your hunting endeavors.

I see KSFlatbrimmer is here. No need to waste time reading it.

They won’t be properly managed. Hunting does not manage them.

“They looked at 26 years of harvest information”

Our “studies” were for 26 year’s too.

“Why do you want to shoot every wolf you see if it does no good”

It does at least some good. Every dead wolf is 20 less dead elk. Disclaimer: That number is just a guess. AND someone has to try to reduce the population. People sitting at home Googling up “How to manage wolves” are definitely not going to shoot one.

“I’m done”

I doubt it.

The rest of Alberta, about 80+% is the foothills and prairies where the elk numbers and harvest success has increased in most of the zones. Every wolf can be easily killed on sight in these areas. Excellent link, it agrees with my real life assessment. Good to see!

I’m sure the elk will be fine on the eastern plains of Colorado as long as you can kill all wolves that you see…

Very simply, wolves, and to a lesser degree grizzly bears, have nearly extirpated elk, moose and mule deer from the Alberta mountans.

Yes, elk, moose and mule deer are thriving on the Alberta prairies, without wolves.

More reality is that the Mountains of Alberta had dozens of Outfitters in each Wildlife Management Unit in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s running mainly elk hunts, but also deer, moose and sheep. It was known as the Mecca for Alberta big game hunting. Now each of those zones has one or two outfitters scratching out a part time living guiding elk, deer and moose hunters. Sheep have continued to do ok, they can escape wolves, cougars and bears more easily but it has had a negative effect on them too.

Hebblewhite documented this quite thoroughly for his doctoral thesis. The Yaha Tinda/Banff National Park migratory elk herd was thousands strong. It was phenomenal! This area of Banff adjacent to Yaha Tinds was the calving and summer range, Yaha Tinda is the winter range. Several thousand elk, over four thousand in the 80's would migrate from deep in Banff to Yaha Tinda every fall, where unlimited hunting of bulls did not effect the population or age structure. Many many huge bulls were killed here ever year.

Then the government eliminated the provincial wolf cull due to non-resident criticism.... international lobbyists. And the wolf population exploded. This is not an area where trapping or hunting has any effect on wolf numbers as it is too remote to do financially or impossible in the National Park.

The migratory elk herd was completely wiped out! It is completely gone. This area of Banff is void of elk. There is a small (2-300) elk herd that now lives year round near Yaha, and they are continuously being displaced east towards the foothills. This area has been reduced from hundreds of bulls tagged every year to three or four, with only ten tags given out on a draw basis. People don't draw this to hunt a big bull, they only do it for the location.

So, remember this, if elk migratory knowledge and behavior is valued by biologists and wildlife managers, they better be aware that wolves can quickly eliminate it, completely and perhaps forever.

No need to stupid wildlife studies, just let Mule Power, Mike U, old school, walking buffalo, and Basil manage based on observations and intuition. What could possibly go wrong?

The irony is thick around here. LOL.

You simply choose to throw out what numerous sportsmen observe for one reason - it doesn’t fit your liberal agenda. It’s honestly that simple. And most everyone on this forum would agree with a few exceptions - I guess that would just be anecdotal evidence as well - although if we did a peer reviewed study, in this case it would return the same result. Lololol

Hunters say there’s no game. Study says everything is just fine. Hello!!!

He spent months living in the wilderness where there was abundant big game populations and high levels of bio diversity which also included wolves. But the wolves were aggressively managed by todays standards, and as soon as the wolf management was weakened the wolf population took off, the big game numbers plummeted and bio diversity also dropped.

Dr. Geist also predicted that wolves would extirpate deer from Vancouver Island. He also said 30 years ago that mule deer would go extinct due to hunting and white-tailed deer breeding. He said that wolves would spread worms and cause massive infections in humans. That has not happened in any locations in NA. He said that wolves in Colorado would reduce CWD infections. Those were also his opinions, and he never conducted one study to back up his opinions even though he had all the knowledge (and means) to do so.

Personal observation is powerful and is definitely part of everyone's bias. That is why it's not accepted as fact in the world of science of wildlife management. It may be a good starting point but in itself is not science. By the way Old school, one person's observation is the definition of anecdotal. The collection of observations from enough individuals is a poll. A survey of "did you harvest an elk" "yes or no" is a poll (unconfirmed) and check station information are data (confirmed). Hunter survey polls are valuable but not as valuable as check station data. Both are used by wildlife biologists as one data point along with many other data points (aerial surveys, population estimates, fecundity estimates, predation estimates, birthing and calving rates, predator populations, habitat surveys, land use data, winter survival rates, disease rates, ect.) to make decisions on how best to manage wildlife populations.

You can rant and rave and post more opinions but that is just the way it works. By the way, can any of you show me where any federal, state, NGO, or any other wildlife management group manages based solely on personal opinion or anecdotal evidence? I'm not talking about game farms. I'm talking about regional or statewide wildlife management. You know what is happening based on opinion...wolf introduction into Colorado and that is on public opinion. It's no way to manage wildlife. No different than your own personal opinion. Regardless, if it hurts your insensibilities.

Is that all you can say? Is that the only thing that matters to you?

We are peers. There are lots of guys on here who live hundreds or even a thousand miles apart who live among wolves who all have similar if not identical observations. Observations as in with their own two eyes. How can you call yourself a hunter or say you’re not a wolf hugger when you completely discredit every word your peers say while holding a piece of paper written by people you don’t know who’s objectives haven’t even been discussed or questioned? You give zero credit to us as well as actual numbers showing reductions in herd numbers and a resulting loss of hunting licenses.

Give me a minute and I’ll find a really good article from Dr Geist.

It's been a while since I've communicated with Val. So sad that he passed recently. He taught generations of scientists, and will be greatly missed.

Kansas, you are trying too hard and making yourself look foolish.

You are focused yet careless. You don't see detail that reveals what's important. I gave you a lead, a published peer reviewed research paper, to back up what I said "with science". But you were too worried about winning to understand.

Matt

Walking Buffalo- you did no such thing. You mentioned some research by Hebblewhite and his students (peer reviewed research journals) and mischaracterized the conclusions. Why not just post a link to the exact paper you’re talking about? Not only that, you blatantly made misleading statements. Such as:

“The migratory elk herd was completely wiped out! It is completely gone.”

The herd wasn’t wiped out completely. It was the migratory behavior that changed. You try to infer that wolves killed all the elk. Hebblewhite’s didn’t say the wolves wiped out the elk. He said wolves were one of many factors that affected elk migratory behavior. Some of the elk stopped migrating. You forgot to mention that winter range habitat improvements were a factor. They didn’t need to migrate or migrating was more risky then staying put. See link.

I didn’t respond to your post above about Hebblewhite’s research as it wasn’t really worth the time. You either don’t understand the research, are cherry-picking, purposely using it to mislead, or just intellectually lazy. Not worth the time but since you brought it up a second time…

On one of those occasions is was a dark and rainy day, and visibility was awful. We only counted a fraction of the sheep that I knew existed from my previous scouting trips. When I asked the CPW officer how they could possibly set tag allocations based on our incredibly inaccurate count, she rolled her eyes and said they used some sort of "formula" to account for the sheep that we didn't see.

That's when I first realized that wildlife management is far from an exact science, and that sometimes my own personal observations and data was more accurate than that of the departments who are tasked to manage the wildlife.

Matt

Estimation of wildlife populations is not as simple as just counting them. Yes, they have to make some assumptions, but those assumptions (like searcher efficiency) are based on many research studies from various sources over time). For example, they may know exactly how many bighorn sheep are in Rocky Mountain National Park. They will do counts (aerial and ground) using their methodology and come up with a number. They will compare that to the control group (known quantity) and determine how many they missed. They will use that as a sightability correction factor. And they may do this many many times in various places over decades to solidify the correction factor. My statement here is hypothetical and greatly simplified but you get the point.

Sure, wildlife management is not an exact science like physics. They are living organisms and they are full of unpredictable surprises and there are always outliers. However, that does not mean that CDOW doesn't know how many bighorn sheep there are in Colorado because one person counted sheep from the ground with poor visibility on a given day.

You know what Basil, if you are willing to give it then you better be willing to take it. Drivel lol...I haven't seen you post one thing here other than opinion and stories (drivel). You have a degree in biology so prove it.

And Kansas has the nerve to tell me and all Alberta hunters and biologists that they just chose to move somewhere else. Ignorant and arrogant.

Walking buffalo- where do you get these numbers? The link it to the Ya Ha Tinda Elk Project Annual Report. You say this herd is extirpated. That is not what Hebblewhite and his researchers say. Their data says that some elk in this herd still migrate (30-40%) just not as much as 10 years ago (60-70%). Migration has fluctuated from year to year since 2002 (page 20-22). They conclude it is due to many factors including habitat improvement, ranching practices, and predation. The elk are not gone they just don't need to migrate from Banff National Park because they can survive in the winter there. Hebblewhite says there are 400-600 Ya Ha Tinda migratory elk (page 8). Where do you get 4000 Ya Ha Tinda migratory elk?

Grey Ghost- they also use aerial surveys, ground surveys, radio telemetry, and GPS studies to determine populations. Interestingly, they also use elk dropping density (pellet plot surveys; page 12) to as another data source to help determine population estimates. Would you say that method is literally full of s$%t?

I'm not saying anyone here did not see or experience what they say they did. I'm not saying that personal experience and observations are worthless. Personal observation is usually what leads to really good research thesis. I'm just saying that just because you hunted a drainage or area that you know from personal experience has always had elk and you don't see any on this year but you did see a wolf does not mean for certain that wolves killed all the elk. It's plausible guess but it is not fact. I also agree that many bowhunters know wildlife taxonomy and behavior better than most biologist who don't spend time there. But that does not mean their personal observations more carry more weight than scientific research and factual data collected by biologists (ecology) in the same area. That just is my opinion. You have a different opinion.

When I find someone who won’t listen to logic and just has old worn out non-logical perspectives such as dismissing true sportsman's perspectives as being “anecdotal” and favors elites “peer reviewed” documents instead, I chose to ignore that person. Haven’t read his responses the past few posts he’s made because I honestly don’t care. He’s been proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and he isn’t man enough to admit when he’s wrong.

Of course he will throw out the straw man argument of non-educated, anecdotal, etc… without knowing any of my/our background. That’s ok - I won’t see it or care anyway.

Wolves are not the enemy - the liberals who are pushing them upon us are. They are known liars and deceivers. Once “re-introduced” They will use the courts rather than biological science to further their agenda and block any sound management - see the Great Lakes “reintroduction” as a prime example.

Once “reintroduced” to Colorado they will decimate big game populations and further exacerbate the point creep in other states as people look for somewhere else to hunt elk.

Sadly - sound logic is lost on most of the public - they’d rather be driven by “influencers”, actors, the media and feelings. You know, all the honest people.

Many on this thread are spot on with their concerns for big game in Colorado once the wolf is “reintroduced”. Sadly it will be too late to change the inevitable outcome of this disastrous decision.

Instead of trips out west, it will be time to find an intriguing game animal to pursue in the Midwest.

Have a good day gentlemen - time to organize my hunting clothes in the basement. Getting clothes out of totes and dressers and assembling a closet type organizer with shelving and a hanging bar.

My point was, at that time, my anecdotal data was far more accurate than the data collected on that day. I knew the unit better than the CPW officer who was assigned to our team. To be honest, the whole event was a waste of taxpayer's money. I participated because I was hoping to learn more about the unit. Instead, I learned that the CPW's methods were anything but scientific or comprehensive. Again, I certainly hope they've improved since then.

Matt

Funny, but here in CO we have rapid development all over in moose habitat (moose don't care they live right among the homes), climate change, ticks, massive fires, hunting, predation by bears and lions, all of the factors present in the GYE except.....wolves. Our moose are increasing in population and expanding their range. Hmmm.......

As Elon Musk tweeted yesterday, "follow the science, which necessarily includes reasoned questioning of the science". Reasoned questioning of "wolf science" has been shouted down by the wolf apologists and advocates, and when it falls on deaf ears (as with biologists from the states), the advocates simply find a sympathetic judge to make wildlife policy, or as in CO, spend tens of millions of dollars on a deceptive campaign to convince Denver mall chicks that wolves are a wonderful thing - in someone else's backyard.

Grey Ghost- I’m not saying that your observations on that day weren’t better than CDOW. I’m saying that I disagree with the conclusions you are drawing from it. Based on the CDOW management plan they have evidently changed their methods. Or maybe the did aerial surveys then and you didn’t know about them. Their methods are the same as what most wildlife biologists are doing in general and it’s scientifically defensible and accepted.

It will NEVER cease to amaze me how a person who is otherwise somewhat intelligent can look facts right in front of them and cling to what they believe in or believe in something other than the facts. Do they think we make this stuff up? I couldn't have made half of it up if I tried.

I didn't know anything about wolves until 1999. Like any animal lover when I saw my first one I was in awe. Wow look! I heard they were going to be putting them in the area but didn't know if I'd ever actually see one. That went on for 9 years. By then seeing and hearing them wasn't uncommon at all. But we had faith that once things got to where the agreement considered them stable or recovered we'd be able to hunt them. Cool! But before that happened things got bad. Then they got worse. Then the state set a season and sold licenses. The wolfies were furious. We hunted them for one season but not many if any were killed. In the meantime the huggers got their wolf shit together, lined up their lawyers and their own biologists, bought a judge and the following year we went to court. The wolf fantasizers claimed that regardless of the number the wolf population lacked genetic diversity. I had learned about wolves for nearly a decade by then. Now I was about to learn about wolf huggers. Anti hunters! We lost in court. I said to myself and told many people we are already in trouble. We can't afford to lose another year by not doing something about the problem. How did I go from an animal lover to realizing that the ethical thing to do was to do what the state was trying to do? By actual experience!!! If all I ever did was Google and read up on the subject I wouldn't have a clue. It would be hard to imagine what was going on in wolf country. Now when I read stories from guys like Mike and hunters from Minnesota etc I just shake my head and say yep... ditto. I know that everything they say is true. They are the peer reviewers. Why would anyone doubt them or me? Why would anyone doubt pro wolf organizations? LOL... if you have to ask you're hopeless. Because they have NEVER kept their word. Because they spend millions to stand in the way of states managing the animals held in trust for the people who want them managed. Scientific management. Because their agenda is as clear as gin. That's why.

Anyhow here ya go KSHugger. A really good article for your reading pleasure that actually begins with a list of the peers and their positions and qualifications. LOL Enjoy

Further up in this thread we talked about how even though we have always had wolves we never had problems. Nothing like the ones that began after they did the reintroductions in Idaho and Montana.

I can already hear the reasons why these articles aren’t accurate or acceptable. You’re gonna get a migraine from all of the facts KS! Haha

That's probably not a good defense.

But not all of that has been peer reviewed. LMAO!

Understand that I am not responding for you, but for others to see that you just don't get it.

From your link. The latest survey in 2021 counted 328 elk, down from their count of 700 in 2001. The "balance" of Wolves is still decimating this herd of Elk.

If you had any knowledge of the history of the Yaha Tinda Elk herd you would know that this herd was over 4000 in the Eighties to the Nineties. This paper simply does not mention this fact.

As I mentioned before, this herd was hunted under a unlimited general license until the government stopped lethal wolf control programs, which was by poisoning. Hunting and trapping of wolves continues, but it is not sufficient to control the wolves. For many years now, this area is only hunted under a very strict draw system with 10 licenses issued per year. There is some Treaty hunting occurring here too. A fraction of what it was because there just aren't many elk left. Due mainly to wolf predation, licensed and Treaty hunting has been reduced to 1-2% of what it was just 30 years ago.

I'm glad to see that a few elk are now migrating back into Banff. This is an improvement from a few years ago when there were none. (Again, another scientifically published event that you are ignorant of.) However having less than a hundred migratory elk returning to Banff when the number was in the thousands, is hardly anything to be confident in.

Did you see that wolves are the number one cause of death to these elk? Only 2/3 of deaths are given a determined cause, with hunting being nearly 100% accounted for due to logistics of hunting here. Wolf predation is likely much higher than officially noted.

With this Elk population still quickly diminishing, a continuous decline over the last 25-30 years, another 10-20 years of this trend and the elk will be completely extirpated, both migratory and resident.

Alberta has become a place where you used to hunt elk in the mountains, but that is over due to wolves. We now hunt elk in the ranchland foothills and on the prairie.

First you say the Ya Ha Tinda migratory elk herd is “extirpated.” I believe “completely gone” was how you phrased it. You infer that wolves killed all the elk. Not true based on the source (Hebblewhite) you provided. I know nothing of Ya Ha TInda elk nor Banff National Park nor ever even been to Alberta. I go look at your “source” and link it showing that what you said is not true. Now you just say you’re glad they are migrating again. Huh? They never stopped or were “extirpated.”

Then you say there were 4000 migratory elk in the 80s and 90s and they were greatly reduced (you infer wolves are to blame when bears and cougars kill more than wolves combined). I ask you where do you get that number because I can’t find any sources about Ya Ha Tinda elk numbers in the 80-90s. You say you just know. Maybe you are exactly right but forgive me for not taking your word for it based on your past statements of fact.

Here’s the point and only reason I post on threads like this. Some of you often talk in hyperbole when it comes to predators. Make unfounded and outlandish claims because of your personal experience or what you hear others say. That’s opinion not fact. Mule Power is good at this and so are his sources. The pro Wolfers are good at this too. I post links to scientific data/research relating to things you are passing as factual because I have no specific experience with the exact information you’re talking about. I find credible sources, post it, and you all reply with personal attacks. Some only post attacks (cnelk and RK for example) and nothing else. When the personal attacks start I’m going give as good as I get. Don’t then whine about it. You or others think that is condescending then that’s your problem. If you’re going to go there then don’t cry when others defend themselves.

Hackbow- your post speaks for itself on your science illiteracy. Just blatantly stupid a#% comments. Why would i expect less of you LMAO. You’re a special piece of work. Thanks for the laugh. Now you all know where flat-earthers come from. They share Hackbow’s logic and lack of reasoning.

Happy New Year.

Short answer is yes but that’s a loaded question. What is better? If you mean will the eat elk and moose? Yes, they will. If you ask Dr. Geist (Mule Power’s source) then wolves may help with CWD infections. But that also is just his opinion as I haven’t seen any studies from him on that. Multiple times I’ve stated that uncontrolled wolf populations in Colorado will negatively impact elk populations. We know this through studies on the Lolo population in Idaho, Yellowstone studies, etc. A stable population of a couple hundred wolves in Colorado overall wouldn’t have much of an impact IMO. Sure it can affect local drainages or GMUs. I’m not saying it wouldn’t. But I agree with everyone on this thread that pro Wolfers will sue the first time CDOW calls for control or hunting seasons.

You go Hackbow lol

Yes, you are. It won’t stay in one local drainage. THAT’S the issue. And when folks relay what has happened in multiple “local” drainages in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, British Columbia, Alberta, the antecdoal evidence doesn’t need peer reviewed. It’s a living testimony to poor game management.

Mule Power will counter by saying wolves (based on his experience) are uncontrollable…BS. More hyperbole. WI met their wolf quota in 48 hours…162 wolves. See link. WI isn’t CO but if humans want wolves controlled they certainly can.

“It’s a living testimony to poor game management.”

Agreed. The courts are never good game managers.

Flatbrimmer lol. You think of that all by yourself in the locker room shower. Need a backslap Manchild? Feeling a bit insecure? Lol

That depends on how the wolves are managed?

You just don’t get it do you? You never will. There is no such thing as a stable population because there is no management. There is no management because the pro wolf folks can afford to stop it. You don’t see that???? Those organizations should have to reimburse the states for the losses of revenue and to restore elk moose and deer populations back to where they were before the started this mess.

People hunt trap and poison coyotes 24/7/365 and their populations are booming nationwide. As long as there is food they will thrive just like wolves.

Nice to know you’re thinking about me. But why is it that myself and others tell you what we have seen with our own two eyes but it cannot possibly be a fact? Just worthless exaggerated opinion to you. I talked to a friend who is an outfitter in western Montana yesterday. He said the deer there are now extinct just like the moose were years ago. He is in the hills from August to the end of the year. What does a guy like that have to do for you to consider his opinion a fact???

You should go back to college and ask for a refund based on the fact that you’re dummer than you were before you went there. That’s a fact reviewed by my peers here on Bowsite.

Happy New Year!

And, That’s only if the anti’s decided to follow the original population objective. Which no one believes that they will.

The only science study that potentially exists about this release, would be if the results in Colorado didn’t mimic the Yellowstone debacle.

“He said the deer there are now extinct just like the moose were years ago.”

Deer are extinct? Which species? Moose were extinct and now they aren’t. How does that work? And you say I’m dumb.

Happy New Year to you too.

“ That’s only if the anti’s decided to follow the original population objective.”

What exactly is the stated wolf population goal for Colorado?

Wolves were never extinct in the lower 48 so why are we even having this conversation? Because they serve a purpose. Anti hunters want hunters to become extinct. So if you didn’t like your neighbor and had several million dollars laying around you could have great white sharks reintroduced to his swimming pool and have them protected under the ESA. Same thing.

Orion- you just can’t help yourself can you. I didn’t realize obtuseness was genetic. Mischaracterize all you want. Have at it but I stand behind everything I said. Do you know what the Colorado wolf population objectives are?

People that try to create a pipe dream or utopia without man is UNNATURAL.

This is the problem with a lot of peoples thoughts today. They want some utopia where man is taken out of the equation.

Man is one of the species on this planet.

All of Nature is in a constant competitive flux.

Many pro-wolf groups have united and are pushing for a minimum of 750 before delisting and for Colorado to become an example of wolf management without lethal methods.

IF we only had a couple hundred and IF they stayed in specific areas and IF we managed them properly everything would be just peachy.

It’s no longer an experiment. None of those three things happen.

And as far as the current generations of elk adapting to coexisting with such a predator. They don’t live long enough for that to happen. What happens is we end up with small remnant herds living on lower elevation private properties. Elk might learn not to be as vocal and to seek refuge near humans but they still smell like elk and if the wolves find them there’s only one survival tactic. Run. For as long and far as you can. But since wolves hunt as cooperative teams that hasn’t kept large numbers of perfectly healthy elk from being killed.

I had a neighbor who came up his driveway and saw a wolf chasing his horse around in the fenced pasture. This was in the early years and nobody dared to shoot a wolf. While the one was chasing the horse around another wolf sat and watched. Then the one came up the hill and sat down and the other one took over the chase. The guy continued ip the drive to get a rifle to scare off the wolf but by the time he got back the horse was dead. Teamwork.

In regards to the “we need more elk for hunters to kill” We have always hunted. And not just for recreation. And we pay the bills for wildlife management. And these days for lots of legal battles. Wolves might replace us as hunters but they don’t pay the bills.

IF we only had a couple hundred and IF they stayed in specific areas and IF we managed them properly everything would be just peachy.

It’s no longer an experiment. None of those three things happen.

And as far as the current generations of elk adapting to coexisting with such a predator. They don’t live long enough for that to happen. What happens is we end up with small remnant herds living on lower elevation private properties. Elk might learn not to be as vocal and to seek refuge near humans but they still smell like elk and if the wolves find them there’s only one survival tactic. Run. For as long and far as you can. But since wolves hunt as cooperative teams that hasn’t kept large numbers of perfectly healthy elk from being killed.

I had a neighbor who came up his driveway and saw a wolf chasing his horse around in the fenced pasture. This was in the early years and nobody dated to shoot a wolf. While the one was chasing the horse around another wolf sat and watched. Then the one came up the hill and sat down and the other one took off ver the chase. The guy continued up the drive to get a rifle to scare off the wolf but by the time he got back the horse was dead.

Teamwork is what sets wolves apart from all other predators.

In regards to the “we need more elk for hunters to kill” We have always hunted. And not just for recreation. And we pay the bills for wildlife management. And these days for lots of legal battles. Wolves might replace us as hunters but they don’t pay the bills.

But mountain lions kill dogs all the time, and those same voters are going to vote to outlaw lion hunting. Lions killed at least 15 dogs in one small area of Boulder county last month. People are demanding the CPW "DO SOMETHING!".

One wolf would entice the dogs away from the house. Then, 2-3 others wolves would come in behind them and get between the dogs and house so they couldn’t retreat.

Killed them just beyond the yard.

Same reason more than a dozen proposed bills to reinstate spring bear hunting and fall baiting have never made it out of committee. CO legislature is way too Blue and the governor is a strong wolf advocate, so he would likely veto it anyway.

Matt

I truly do hope they make Denver under federal protection. Once they make Loveland pass and get down close to Denver, they’ll have lots of elk and deer to feed up on around all the homes. Let the citioits have front row seats to see what they voted for.

Quit introducing legislation and bypass them with an initiative petition, but that doesn't work in CO anymore than it does in OR. Hunters won't get off their thumbs any longer than it takes to come up with an excuse for why it won't work.

Completely absurd post.

The things you list are done by a TINY group of the total hunters.

WE have definitely NOT earned a very poor reputation.

Whenever I talk to non hunters on the trail, or if it’s brought up at a social gathering people are always very interested. I’ve run into random strangers in the mountains of lots of western states. I’ve never had anyone give me a dirty look, or talk trash to me. Even in multiple wilderness areas in Northern California!

Anytime I see non hunters on a hiking trail I smile, and strike up a conversation about how their trip is going ect. Almost every time, they begin to ask about the hunt, how it’s going, and just questions about hunting.

I honestly can recall a time the encounter didn’t end with me wishing them a good trip, and them wishing me good luck on my hunt!

You know, you are all correct, and then somewhat, equally all wrong!

My best, Paul

The run of the mill lefty or ignorant nonpartisan people who passed it just think wolves are cool and mystical.