HuntStand Hunting App
Pro wolf hunter...
Elk
Contributors to this thread:
Ucsdryder 14-Oct-20
Twinetickler 14-Oct-20
Pete-pec 14-Oct-20
Ucsdryder 14-Oct-20
Pete-pec 14-Oct-20
g5smoke21 14-Oct-20
GF 14-Oct-20
Ucsdryder 14-Oct-20
Bowbender 14-Oct-20
drycreek 14-Oct-20
LBshooter 14-Oct-20
Twinetickler 14-Oct-20
Bowsiteguy 14-Oct-20
GF 14-Oct-20
Lost Arra 14-Oct-20
LBshooter 14-Oct-20
GF 15-Oct-20
Bowbender 15-Oct-20
Lost Arra 15-Oct-20
Dave 15-Oct-20
KC9 15-Oct-20
MichaelArnette 15-Oct-20
WapitiBob 15-Oct-20
From: Ucsdryder
14-Oct-20

Ucsdryder's Link
Shocker. He’s a college professor. I’ll use the term “hunter” loosely. Sounds about as anti-hunter as you can get.

From: Twinetickler
14-Oct-20
So in other words this dude wants to get rid of hunting and let the wolves manage big game? He's not a hunter he's a granola munching liberal that has no idea what wolves will do to the ecosystem IMO

From: Pete-pec
14-Oct-20
I'm certainly not pro wolf, but they can not possibly do more harm to the ecosystem than modern man already does. The reason I don't like wolves or coyotes, is because we are the alpha predator, and wolves and coyotes are no longer necessary as far as management tools. As far as wolves overharvesting or harvesting more than modern man could ever do, is plain silly. If you dig deep, you'll probably realize your disdain for them, is what most of us share. We don't want another predator taking from our quarry. The same reason we don't particularly like other hunters, hunting deer where we do. Of course someone will chime in, and say they love other hunters (including wolves), but they are anomalies in my opinion. As a whole, we are pretty selfish.

From: Ucsdryder
14-Oct-20
Pete, it’s not a competition to see who can do more damage. We already know humans will do more and the ironic part is, the pro-wolfers who are buying and building their summer homes in the mountains which are impacting migratory routes are probably the worst offender on impacting wild animals.

I will agree with your point, there is no longer space for wolves in Colorado. Yes They were here, but so were dinosaurs and there’s no longer room for either of them.

From: Pete-pec
14-Oct-20
My reply was to twinetickler talking about impacting the ecosystem. That said, I live in Wisconsin. They reintroduced them here. Certainly a mistake.

From: g5smoke21
14-Oct-20
Take a look at wisconsin's wolf depredation map at the amount of hunting dogs and pets killed by wolves each year. Huge mistake to introduce them and not MANAGE them correctly. Hunting my dog this week and have found a great spot for some grouse only to run across a bunch of fresh wolf sign. No thank you. Her life is much more valuable than a few birds. Our norther deer population has also seemed to be greatly impacted

From: GF
14-Oct-20
“ So in other words this dude wants to get rid of hunting and let the wolves manage big game?”

Ummmm.... Hard No on that. Did you even read the article?? (Rhetorical question, because Obviously)

If this guy wants to make a point that Elk are too frequently harassed and that that is what is driving calf mortality from a Naturally Typical” 50% to an Artificially High 80%, I don’t see how adding 24/7/365 hunting pressure is going to help that.

And he’s way off base about ML season; CO requires iron sights, powdered propellant and full-bore bullets, which makes a top-of-the-modern-line ML as close to the ballistic equivalent of a genuine antique as you could reasonably ask for, and coon-skin hats off to the CMLA for that. As far as precision goes, I’ve shot 1-hole, 50m groups (6 shots, less than 1” wide) with a .54 PRB and period-correct buckhorn sights. Anybody here who thinks that an uglier rifle can beat that?

Of course he DOES have a point about archery season, because a compound is the ballistic equivalent of a stickbow to about the same degree that a scoped, sabot-&-smokeless in-line is the equivalent of my .54 roundballer.

JMO, he has an entirely valid point. Leopold saw the devastation to the landscape wrought by overpopulated deer/Elk herds and recognized that the population densities typically favored by human hunters are flat out unsustainable from a landscape perspective. The changes in the Yellowstone ecosystem are pretty self-explanatory.

I have a gut sense that most human hunters would soon quit if the herds were generally in balance with the landscape, but I don’t think that wolves are the tool of choice. Nobody in the pro-wolf camp 30 years ago would have predicted that the Yellowstone population would explode as it did; nobody had ever seen packs that size or pup survivorship rates like what happened there, because wolves had never been dropped into a heavily stocked pond and sent fishing with no limit. The problem with the “balance of nature” argument is that the concept is a long-term average, and most people think it’s supposed to be a steady state.

The article quotes Leopold - “Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf... “ We humans do not have the patience.

If wolves are dropped into High Elk Density areas, there is a quite foreseeable probability that these will very shortly become High Wolf Density areas, and when the Elk get suitably thinned out, the wolves will seek their sustenance elsewhere.... causing all manner of issues, most likely. One of which is the fact that apex predators tend to view all other creatures as either Food or Potentially Food, and the idea that wolves “instinctively” fear humans is childish. They either Learn to fear humans or they will explore those fat, slow, 2-legged creatures as a potential food source.

And I’d rather not be on the menu. If I were a rancher, I’d rather that my livestock stayed off the menu as well.

There is room Out There for wolves, but (JMO) they need to be managed to numbers where they won’t decimate a public resource that provides recreational and economic opportunities for huge numbers of people.

From: Ucsdryder
14-Oct-20
If you think wolves are a good idea and that soon we’ll have wolf management to control their numbers look no further than california and lions. No hunting, no management, voted on by the wildlife experts of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Hell, you can’t even get a depredation permit anymore.

From: Bowbender
14-Oct-20
"Nobody in the pro-wolf camp 30 years ago would have predicted that the Yellowstone population would explode as it did; nobody had ever seen packs that size or pup survivorship rates like what happened there, because wolves had never been dropped into a heavily stocked pond and sent fishing with no limit."

Pure, unadultered horseshit. They knew. They were told what would happen. They CHOSE not to believe the scientific facts laid out before them. Woles were being reintroduced in the GYA, cost be damned. The ink wasn't even dry, and the challenges started to managing the wolf populations.

They knew. They didn't care. Just like the reintro in Colorado. The clown even states the CPW supports it. Pretty sure the CPW doesn't support ballot box wildlife managment.

From: drycreek
14-Oct-20
Well, I read the article and it sounds like he likes to hear himself talk. “Wolves hunt diseased and weak animals” is hogwash. Any wild predator is an opportunist, he catches and kills what he can. That one phrase stinks up his entire article IMO.

From: LBshooter
14-Oct-20
I want to hear the howls when out in the wilderness, and wolves and coyotes have a place. However, they need to be strictly controlled as far as their numbers. I don't believe biologists can count wolf populations accurately and hunting/trapping will certainly keep their numbers check.

From: Twinetickler
14-Oct-20
GF I did read the article and I summarized what was said. Reading your follow up post was like trying to follow a blind man through a swamp. So are you pro wolf? You seem to be agreeing that you wouldn't mind seeing the reintroduction happen? What does how well you shoot a muzzleloader have to do with wolves being reintroduced in CO, just curious?

From: Bowsiteguy
14-Oct-20
I think Ryder is right. Pro wolf or anti wolf is not the issue here. The real issue is the bait and switch being foisted on the public. “Well ... look here. Elk hunters are for the wolves too.”

He wears a wide brimmed hat and a turquoise bolo tie. In addition ... like Sam Elliot ... he wears a big mustache that also helps him act like a cowboy.

His schtick is that he’s a professor who is a little edgy because he’s not only a cowboy kind of guy ... but he is also an elk hunter. Whoa! He’s not really of course in the way we think of one. But it helps him get to write pro wolf articles as goofy as this one and probably helps his business .. “tour guide and expert witness.”

Weak.

From: GF
14-Oct-20
“ They knew. They were told what would happen. They CHOSE not to believe the scientific facts laid out before them. ”

What “facts” would those have been? You can’t use facts to predict something which is unprecedented. I don’t know who you discussed it with or where or when, but the people I was talking to on a daily basis back then were a mighty sophisticated bunch, and they pretty neat all hunted and to my knowledge not a one of them had any expectation whatsoever the the wolf population would blow up the way it did. Yes, there were people predicting that the sky would come crashing down, but a lot of honest scientists had looked long and hard at the data and most of them found the alarmists to be unconvincing. Which means that they all now have to agree that they collectively underestimated the wolf’s capacity to exploit the situation.

That’s the great thing about objectivity; you’re allowed to learn from your mistakes and move on.

Near as I can tell, anyone who endorses reintroducing wolves without a control plan in place has learned nothing from the Yellowstone experiment .

And anyone who thinks that wolves aren’t coming to Colorado whether they get introduced or not is clearly not paying attention.

I don’t think they should be eradicated, and I know for sure that they shouldn’t be welcomed back without a management plan in place. But I do believe that we’re wasting time, energy and resources arguing against reintroduction when we could put all that to better use getting a solid management plan in place for when they show up on their own. Which they may well have done already.

Time to stop screaming about what we don’t want and have a productive conversation about what we DO want. There is big money on our side - cattlemen, sheepmen, tourism, guides and outfitters... Even politicians will listen to reason if there enough money involved, and I trust the wildlife biologists to figure it out. Not so much fan of anti-hunting conspiracy theories.

From: Lost Arra
14-Oct-20
LBShooter: do you think wolf hunters will have any more success at controlling wolf numbers than coyote hunters have controlling coyote numbers? I don't see hunting as an effective predator control tool.

From: LBshooter
14-Oct-20
What would the coyote pop be if there was no hunting? Hunting and trapping is part of the equation, but it's clear you can't let them run without controls. Plus , I believe a wolf pelt is far more valuable than coyote pelt, would add incentive.

From: GF
15-Oct-20
@Lost Arra - FWIW, I’d bet that a LOT of deer and Ekk hunters would buy Wolf tags and would be highly motivated to fill one, given the chance. Coyotes probably not so much; you can kill them ANYWHERE...

Anyway, unlimited tags and an annual quota would go a good ways, as would authorized trapping on private land.

I just think it’s inevitable that they will need to managed, and the tools & manpower are standing by....

From: Bowbender
15-Oct-20
"....but the people I was talking to on a daily basis back then were a mighty sophisticated bunch, and they pretty neat all hunted and to my knowledge not a one of them had any expectation whatsoever the the wolf population would blow up the way it did."

Wait. What? You mean this "sophisticated" bunch had no clue that dropping wolves in a food rich environment, with challenges being made to manage the wolf population, would result in an exponential increase. Sophisticated. You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

"...and I trust the wildlife biologists to figure it out."

Except it ain't the wildlife bioligists figuring it out. It's on the ballot. Wildlife management by ballot box. By emotion, not science. And the biologists won't have a say in the management. The courts will. See GYA.

"I just think it’s inevitable that they will need to managed, and the tools & manpower are standing by...."

Except they are a federally protected species. The big $$$ you mention...pales in comparison to the $$$ behind the enviro groups. With an all to complicit media on their side....Wolves will never be managed as they should.

From: Lost Arra
15-Oct-20

Lost Arra's Link
A lot of deer and elk hunters might buy wolf tags and shoot one if the opportunity presented but dedicated wolf hunters are few and it takes experience and a lot of hard work to actually fill that tag. If wolf success was similar to deer or elk I don't think bounties would be necessary or government shooting/trapping. My point is the typical deer and elk hunter is not a reliable means to control wolf populations. There is a lot of internet outrage over wolves but not much action to control them even though the hunting opportunity exists.

From: Dave
15-Oct-20
This guy is an ignorant moron, much like the rest of the wolf-lovers. First off, to claim that the calf survival rate is related to hunter-harassment is absurd. Hunter harassment has ZERO to do with calf survival rates with the exception possibly of units which allow cow harvest and that's a very small percentage. On the other hand, calf survival rate is DIRECTLY impacted by predators such as wolves, bears, lions, etc. Obviously, this clown has never seen the wasteful destruction caused by wolves. Wolves do not just kill for subsistence. They kill for "fun" or whatever their reason is. They often kill pregnant cows and eat only the fetus or kill animals and eat very little off of them, leaving the rest to rot. They don't just hunt "sick and diseased" animals as he claims. And, even when they do kill a sick or diseased animal, how do you think they determined that?? I'll tell you how. They go after the herd and see which one can't escape or keep up with the rest--the very "harassment" that he claims is resulting in lower calf survival as a result of hunters. If I had the time, I'd send the guy a lengthy email but I suspect it would fall on deaf ears as guys like this are so clueless, they are never able to be objective. I'll wager 100:1 I know who this guy votes for next month. What an ass-clown!

From: KC9
15-Oct-20

KC9's embedded Photo
KC9's embedded Photo
Sick and diseased. Found this in Idaho on a spring bear hunt. Found it lying next to two cow elk carcasses on a gated road(gated Dec. through June) He doesn't look like he was sick.

15-Oct-20
That article was unbelievable

From: WapitiBob
15-Oct-20
How did you conclude a wolf killed that bull?

  • Sitka Gear