CPW = Colorado Parks & Wolves
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
cnelk 09-Dec-22
KSflatlander 09-Dec-22
Thornton 09-Dec-22
[email protected] 09-Dec-22
Grasshopper 09-Dec-22
[email protected] 09-Dec-22
HDE 09-Dec-22
ND String Puller 09-Dec-22
Huntcell 09-Dec-22
Dollar 09-Dec-22
Orion 09-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 09-Dec-22
[email protected] 09-Dec-22
Jaquomo 10-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 10-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 10-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 10-Dec-22
thedude 10-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 10-Dec-22
bowyer45 10-Dec-22
wyobullshooter 10-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 10-Dec-22
wyobullshooter 10-Dec-22
bowhunt 10-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 10-Dec-22
DonVathome 10-Dec-22
Jaquomo 10-Dec-22
wyobullshooter 10-Dec-22
KSflatlander 10-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 10-Dec-22
Jaquomo 10-Dec-22
cnelk 10-Dec-22
Groundhunter 10-Dec-22
Cazador 10-Dec-22
Groundhunter 10-Dec-22
badbull 10-Dec-22
fishnride 10-Dec-22
badbull 10-Dec-22
Jaquomo 10-Dec-22
billygoat 11-Dec-22
[email protected] 11-Dec-22
Stix 11-Dec-22
KSflatlander 11-Dec-22
Stix 11-Dec-22
KSflatlander 11-Dec-22
Stix 11-Dec-22
WV Mountaineer 11-Dec-22
KSflatlander 11-Dec-22
Buglmin 11-Dec-22
Stix 11-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 11-Dec-22
[email protected] 11-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 11-Dec-22
WV Mountaineer 11-Dec-22
HDE 11-Dec-22
Stix 11-Dec-22
walking buffalo 11-Dec-22
WV Mountaineer 11-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 11-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 11-Dec-22
[email protected] 11-Dec-22
Jaquomo 11-Dec-22
WV Mountaineer 11-Dec-22
wyobullshooter 11-Dec-22
Stix 11-Dec-22
KSflatlander 11-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 11-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 11-Dec-22
joehunter 11-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 11-Dec-22
KSflatlander 11-Dec-22
[email protected] 11-Dec-22
joehunter 11-Dec-22
Jaquomo 11-Dec-22
KSflatlander 11-Dec-22
Mule Power 11-Dec-22
KSflatlander 11-Dec-22
[email protected] 11-Dec-22
HDE 11-Dec-22
joehunter 11-Dec-22
Grasshopper 11-Dec-22
Jaquomo 11-Dec-22
grasshopper 11-Dec-22
[email protected] 11-Dec-22
cnelk 11-Dec-22
bowhunt 11-Dec-22
Mule Power 12-Dec-22
KSflatlander 12-Dec-22
Brijake 12-Dec-22
HDE 12-Dec-22
KSflatlander 12-Dec-22
6pointbull 12-Dec-22
cnelk 12-Dec-22
Michael 12-Dec-22
[email protected] 12-Dec-22
[email protected] 12-Dec-22
KSflatlander 12-Dec-22
Stix 12-Dec-22
[email protected] 12-Dec-22
[email protected] 12-Dec-22
Mule Power 12-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 12-Dec-22
Mule Power 12-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 12-Dec-22
Mule Power 12-Dec-22
smurph 12-Dec-22
HDE 12-Dec-22
KSflatlander 12-Dec-22
Mule Power 12-Dec-22
Smurph 12-Dec-22
Smurph 12-Dec-22
Stix 12-Dec-22
KSflatlander 12-Dec-22
Mule Power 12-Dec-22
Smurph 12-Dec-22
Smurph 12-Dec-22
Grasshopper 12-Dec-22
Mule Power 13-Dec-22
Stix 13-Dec-22
Mule Power 13-Dec-22
bowhunt 13-Dec-22
Bake 13-Dec-22
bowhunt 13-Dec-22
Stix 13-Dec-22
[email protected] 13-Dec-22
KSflatlander 13-Dec-22
smurph 13-Dec-22
Stix 13-Dec-22
Stix 13-Dec-22
KSflatlander 13-Dec-22
bowhunt 13-Dec-22
cnelk 13-Dec-22
[email protected] 13-Dec-22
Jaquomo 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
bowhunt 13-Dec-22
walking buffalo 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
Jaquomo 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
Michael 13-Dec-22
Mule Power 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
Mule Power 13-Dec-22
[email protected] 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
wyobullshooter 13-Dec-22
Jaquomo 13-Dec-22
Mule Power 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
cnelk 13-Dec-22
Mule Power 13-Dec-22
Mule Power 13-Dec-22
Orion 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
Jaquomo 13-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
Jaquomo 13-Dec-22
Jaquomo 13-Dec-22
Mule Power 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
KSflatlander 13-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 13-Dec-22
Michael 13-Dec-22
Jaquomo 13-Dec-22
bowhunt 13-Dec-22
Old School 13-Dec-22
Mule Power 13-Dec-22
Jaquomo 13-Dec-22
bowhunt 13-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 13-Dec-22
[email protected] 13-Dec-22
Ambush 13-Dec-22
cnelk 13-Dec-22
KSflatlander 13-Dec-22
WapitiBob 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 13-Dec-22
Grasshopper 14-Dec-22
Orion 14-Dec-22
WV Mountaineer 14-Dec-22
Mule Power 14-Dec-22
Knifeman 14-Dec-22
Cazador 14-Dec-22
Jaquomo 14-Dec-22
Old School 14-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 14-Dec-22
[email protected] 14-Dec-22
Old School 14-Dec-22
[email protected] 14-Dec-22
Old School 14-Dec-22
Jaquomo 14-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 14-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 14-Dec-22
cnelk 14-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 14-Dec-22
wyobullshooter 14-Dec-22
Mule Power 14-Dec-22
Ambush 14-Dec-22
KSflatlander 14-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 14-Dec-22
WV Mountaineer 14-Dec-22
KSflatlander 14-Dec-22
Mule Power 14-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 14-Dec-22
WV Mountaineer 14-Dec-22
Jaquomo 14-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 14-Dec-22
KSflatlander 14-Dec-22
[email protected] 14-Dec-22
KSflatlander 14-Dec-22
Jaquomo 14-Dec-22
WV Mountaineer 14-Dec-22
KSflatlander 14-Dec-22
Iowa booner hunter 14-Dec-22
Mule Power 14-Dec-22
Mule Power 14-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 14-Dec-22
KSflatlander 15-Dec-22
Jaquomo 15-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 15-Dec-22
Mule Power 15-Dec-22
Mule Power 15-Dec-22
KSflatlander 15-Dec-22
Old School 15-Dec-22
KSflatlander 15-Dec-22
Mule Power 15-Dec-22
KSflatlander 15-Dec-22
WapitiBob 18-Dec-22
Mike Ukrainetz 18-Dec-22
cnelk 18-Dec-22
Mule Power 19-Dec-22
WapitiBob 19-Dec-22
KSflatlander 19-Dec-22
KSflatlander 19-Dec-22
Mule Power 19-Dec-22
KSflatlander 19-Dec-22
Mule Power 19-Dec-22
KSflatlander 19-Dec-22
Quinn @work 20-Dec-22
Quinn @work 20-Dec-22
Mule Power 20-Dec-22
Mike Ukrainetz 24-Dec-22
walking buffalo 24-Dec-22
Mike Ukrainetz 24-Dec-22
walking buffalo 24-Dec-22
Jaquomo 24-Dec-22
Basil 24-Dec-22
Old School 24-Dec-22
Basil 24-Dec-22
KSflatlander 25-Dec-22
Rocky D 25-Dec-22
Basil 25-Dec-22
Orion 25-Dec-22
cnelk 25-Dec-22
Old School 25-Dec-22
Old School 25-Dec-22
Mule Power 25-Dec-22
Basil 27-Dec-22
Hackbow 27-Dec-22
Orion 27-Dec-22
Mike Ukrainetz 28-Dec-22
Basil 29-Dec-22
WV Mountaineer 29-Dec-22
wyobullshooter 29-Dec-22
KSflatlander 29-Dec-22
Basil 29-Dec-22
Mule Power 29-Dec-22
Sivart 29-Dec-22
groundhunter50 29-Dec-22
walking buffalo 30-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 30-Dec-22
KSflatlander 30-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 30-Dec-22
Basil 30-Dec-22
Old School 30-Dec-22
KSflatlander 30-Dec-22
walking buffalo 30-Dec-22
Basil 30-Dec-22
KSflatlander 30-Dec-22
Old School 30-Dec-22
Orion 30-Dec-22
Grey Ghost 30-Dec-22
Old School 30-Dec-22
Jaquomo 30-Dec-22
KSflatlander 30-Dec-22
Basil 30-Dec-22
Old School 30-Dec-22
Basil 30-Dec-22
Basil 30-Dec-22
Mule Power 30-Dec-22
Mule Power 30-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 30-Dec-22
Bigdog 21 30-Dec-22
KSflatlander 30-Dec-22
Jaquomo 30-Dec-22
cnelk 30-Dec-22
KSflatlander 30-Dec-22
RK 30-Dec-22
Mule Power 30-Dec-22
walking buffalo 31-Dec-22
Orion 31-Dec-22
wyobullshooter 31-Dec-22
Basil 31-Dec-22
Hackbow 01-Jan-23
KSflatlander 01-Jan-23
Basil 01-Jan-23
Orion 01-Jan-23
Basil 01-Jan-23
Hackbow 01-Jan-23
KSflatlander 01-Jan-23
Bowbender 01-Jan-23
KSflatlander 01-Jan-23
Basil 01-Jan-23
Orion 01-Jan-23
KSflatlander 01-Jan-23
Mule Power 01-Jan-23
groundhunter50 01-Jan-23
WV Mountaineer 01-Jan-23
KSflatlander 01-Jan-23
Mule Power 01-Jan-23
Orion 01-Jan-23
KSflatlander 01-Jan-23
SBC 01-Jan-23
Jaquomo 01-Jan-23
SBC 01-Jan-23
bowhunt 01-Jan-23
walking buffalo 01-Jan-23
[email protected] 01-Jan-23
Groundhunter 01-Jan-23
Jaquomo 01-Jan-23
Mule Power 01-Jan-23
Basil 01-Jan-23
Basil 01-Jan-23
Mule Power 01-Jan-23
Jaquomo 02-Jan-23
Basil 02-Jan-23
cnelk 02-Jan-23
Orion 02-Jan-23
SBC 02-Jan-23
Jaquomo 02-Jan-23
Basil 02-Jan-23
Mule Power 02-Jan-23
Basil 02-Jan-23
Ambush 02-Jan-23
Grey Ghost 02-Jan-23
WV Mountaineer 03-Jan-23
WapitiBob 05-Jan-23
Jaquomo 05-Jan-23
Bigdog 21 05-Jan-23
Missouribreaks 05-Jan-23
bowhunt 05-Jan-23
[email protected] 05-Jan-23
Missouribreaks 06-Jan-23
Missouribreaks 06-Jan-23
Orion 19-Jan-23
Missouribreaks 19-Jan-23
Jaquomo 19-Jan-23
Orion 19-Jan-23
[email protected] 19-Jan-23
fishnride 19-Jan-23
Orion 19-Jan-23
fishnride 19-Jan-23
ohiohunter 19-Jan-23
[email protected] 19-Jan-23
[email protected] 19-Jan-23
From: cnelk
09-Dec-22

cnelk's Link
See link

From: KSflatlander
09-Dec-22
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.

From: Thornton
09-Dec-22
Can't wait to shoot one.

09-Dec-22
CPW and USFW have been in sync since the ballot measure passed.

From: Grasshopper
09-Dec-22
Hop skip and jump to the front range, and the rest of the state. The hay day of hunting moose, elk, and deer is sure over. I guess it was a good run while it lasted. Private land hunting prices will be going up, cause that's where the elk will be. Sad news.

09-Dec-22
If they start off with 20 next year that's 400 elk to feed them for a year.

It takes 3700 archery tags to equal that.

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

From: HDE
09-Dec-22
S S S...

09-Dec-22
These flipping hippies need to get a clue. The wolves were removed for a reason. What good will this bring? Beside less need for hunters/guns 2nd amendment. They are playing the long game...probably the same crap with CWD hysteria.

From: Huntcell
09-Dec-22
Which way will Colorado go?

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

From: Dollar
09-Dec-22
Ultimate goal is no hunting

From: Orion
09-Dec-22
we've turned too blue to have a season. We will be lucky to keep our bobcat and mountain lion seasons this next election.

From: Bigdog 21
09-Dec-22
How many elk are in the state ? How many hunters per year? How many taken by hunters per year ? Mountain lion , wolves and coyotes have been reduced by far in the state. Colorado has the biggest elk population, est. 280,000 with 250,000 hunters culling 50,000. Over grassing is a problem. Are hunter not doing there job and waiting for a trophy bull that never comes by ? And not shooting first elk that comes by ? Alot of un-field tags . Why?

09-Dec-22
Well, I will concede that "over grassing" has contributed to Colorado's problems.

From: Jaquomo
10-Dec-22
"Mountain lion , wolves and coyotes have been reduced by far in the state". What? "Overgrassing is a problem." What, again? The only "overgrassing" problems are from ranchers leaving cattle on the elk range for way too long and not adhering to their lease rule.

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.

From: Bigdog 21
10-Dec-22
Rocky my elk foundation, for starters then a link to co. Gov.

From: Bigdog 21
10-Dec-22
And yes co. And wy.

From: Bigdog 21
10-Dec-22
Maybe you are part of the problem loui you got blinders on

From: thedude
10-Dec-22
Dipshits gonna dipshit

From: Grey Ghost
10-Dec-22
It's always amusing when some guy who lives in Illinois professes to be an expert on wildlife management in Colorado.

Matt

From: bowyer45
10-Dec-22
Like said above game management will become allot tougher with wolf packs working the mountains. The elk will go where the wolves aren't.

10-Dec-22
You can certainly tell when the trolls sneak on the computer when mommy isn’t looking.

From: Bigdog 21
10-Dec-22
The numbers show it hunter vs kills. No one spending money to shoot a cow are small bull. How many shoot the first elk to walk by cow are small bull.? Hunters are not turning in the numbers needed. So other alternatives quite hunting in co. When rancher past and his son told me it was going cost me big money to hunt there also med bow WY always seen elk. Quite there when cabins in Riverside started costing to much.

10-Dec-22
“So other alternatives quite hunting in co. When rancher past and his son told me it was going cost me big money to hunt there also med bow WY always seen elk. Quite there when cabins in Riverside started costing to much.”

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

From: bowhunt
10-Dec-22
Very hard to understand your posts big dog.

From: Grey Ghost
10-Dec-22
"No one spending money to shoot a cow are small bull. How many shoot the first elk to walk by cow are small bull.?

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

From: DonVathome
10-Dec-22
I do not even know what to say to this. It is bad news that is for sure. I cannot believe that CO has to reintroduce wolves. The inmates are running the asylum.

From: Jaquomo
10-Dec-22
DonV, this is what happens when city people manage wildlife through the ballot box, and Left wing media pushes one side of the issue to the voters.

10-Dec-22
“I cannot believe that CO has to reintroduce wolves.”

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

From: KSflatlander
10-Dec-22
Birddog- where are you getting the data that habitat is overgrazed by elk? I assume you’re talking about national forests as there is no data for private property. Besides the wolf reintroduction had nothing to do with controlling wild elk to counter overgrazing. It only had to do with feel good public opinion and vote. A public vote has nothing to do with wildlife or habitat management. It has more to do with Disney on on end of the spectrum and the SSS idiots on the other.

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.

From: Grey Ghost
10-Dec-22
To add insult to injury....

"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

From: Jaquomo
10-Dec-22
Adding more insult to injury... the rancher has to prove wolves killed the animal, vs feeding on an already deceased carcass. Ranchers in the other wolf dump states have discovered how difficult this is to prove.

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.

From: cnelk
10-Dec-22
I found it interesting that only one wolf per pack will be collared.

From: Groundhunter
10-Dec-22
Social science, what is acceptable to the whole, plus wildlife science, is the new norm. The North.American Model and old mgt is done.

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

From: Cazador
10-Dec-22
I simply can’t understand with all the money sportsman throw at orgs like the elk foundation, MD foundation, and similar orgs, even the CDOW etc, that not one (that I’m aware of) has filed a lawsuit to slow this down. All the millions of dollars used in research, population studies and expansion etc all on borrowed time once they are placed into the ecosystem. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

From: Groundhunter
10-Dec-22
Exactly. I said that to RGS, Ducks Unlimited etc and never got a response Same with the NRA, a not happy member but a membet

From: badbull
10-Dec-22
I bowhunted elk in Idaho before wolves were reintroduced in the mid 1990's. It was a great place to hunt elk in those days. After wolves were reintroduced, elk populations were reduced 80 percent in some areas (20k to 4k in one area that I knew of ). You can look it up on the internet. Very sad that this may happen in Colorado! For those uninformed on this wolf issue, please educate yourself.

From: fishnride
10-Dec-22
This makes me sad. It’s awesome that we get to do what we get to do here but the good old days are truly coming to an end. I’ve hunted all over the state the last few years and I’ve never seen more variety of game, especially moose and they will probably be the most significantly effected.

From: badbull
10-Dec-22
Fishnride, l am afraid that you may be right. Some of the pro wolf croud might think a little differently if they saw how a pack of wolves takes down a moose. Badbull

From: Jaquomo
10-Dec-22
Dr. Valerius Geist predicted the extinction of Shiras moose everywhere Canadian wolves are dumped, except CO and UT . That was before the idiotic CO vote.

From: billygoat
11-Dec-22
Make moose tags OTC now!

11-Dec-22
Not a bad idea. Like when they allow fish salvage before draining a reservoir.

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

From: Stix
11-Dec-22
Just curious,... how come back in the day of Lewis & Clark, 1800's etc, there were reports of tge abundance of game, elk, deer, but also an unchecked wolf population?

A quick check turns up that healthy populations of big game thrived while apex predators existed because the game had instintive defenses a on evasion of these predators, and because of it the game populations were much healthier. In most cases, the apex predators preyed on animals that were sick, etc.

Big game will eventually develop these instinctive defensive mechanisms that will allow the species to not only co-exist, but thrive. Maybe not in our lifetime. I have watch videos of a healthy cow elk defending itself against a wolf.

Hunters are supposed to be the chief conservationists. Hunters should not be "what's in it for me". It's much more rewarding to be able harvest an animal that has not had it's natural defenses quelled by years of species management developed solely for maximum harvest.

I personally am notin favor of wolf reintroduction due to the catastrophic results to ranchers and their stock. But I find it hippocrtrical that hunters take the attitude that the game animals are solely for their recreational consumption and are not interested in supporting healthy and robust herds. We claim whenever hunting ballot initiatives come up that science should be the chief method for managing herds, but if that science coonflicts with the short term ability to harvest an animal, then hunters are against it. To most hunters, the act of hunting has degraded into the killing of antlers of mature healthy animals, not game managment. If that were the case, there would be alot more antlerless animals harvested, not the fixation on antlers.

From: KSflatlander
11-Dec-22
Stix- I get your point but a lot has changed since 1804.

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.

From: Stix
11-Dec-22
I wasn't referring to hunters being hippcrital to eating meat, I was referring to preaching science only when in the short term, it doesn't affect their ability to hunt.

From: KSflatlander
11-Dec-22
Nothing you posted was related to science. Not a single wildlife biologist would say that wildlife management should be a popular vote of that top predators should go unchecked and not managed. I am for reintroduction of top predators as along as they are managed to allow hunting of the same big game species. The problem is it never turns out that way and hunters have been burned by wacko preservationist and environmentalists and the court systems.

From: Stix
11-Dec-22
I'm looking at proven history. That large healthy herds of big game animals existed when in the presence of apex predators. Science is based on theory, proven historical data is factual.

11-Dec-22
There weren’t hundreds of thousands of domesticated sheep, cattle, and horses competing with those big game animals. There weren’t hundreds of thousands of people sharing the woods with the prey either. And, in my historical readings, there weren’t 340 million people living in this country.

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.

From: KSflatlander
11-Dec-22
That’s true in balanced ecosystems without human influence and impacts. Those systems are no longer in existence in the lower 48. There are pockets but that are not large enough or contiguous enough to bring balance without wildlife management including management of top predators. Apex predator management has been a debacle in my lifetime due to both preservation and hunter extremists. You can’t manage big game and not manage top predators too. It gets unbalanced in a short time. That why you see some elk units plummet in some reintroduction areas. The wildlife biologists have their hands tied by lawsuits and courts. I don’t blame hunters for calling foul about wolf introductions because they have been burn. I think most hunters would be fine with it if the wolf populations were properly managed to sustain big game hunting too.

From: Buglmin
11-Dec-22
Colorado hasn't had the elk numbers CPW is saying for years and years now. And in all respect, CPW doesn't count every head, the do estimates based on what they see and what they've seen in the past. When local herds, that once wintered on Indian land and area ranchs that were in the 1000's that are now below 150 head, even the local CPW officers say we've got problems.

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...

From: Stix
11-Dec-22
True WV, and population, ranching, development, are the kinds of issues and the reason I oppose reintroduction, but a temporal loss of big game herds and hunting opportunity until they naturally "right size" is not a rational reason to oppose. The non-hunting public doesn't consider it a rational argument either.

Isn't the right size of the herd what conservationists and hunters profess to achieve based on habitat carrying capacity? Hunters profess that this is why hunting is needed as a management tool to properly manage herds to carrying capacity.....

From: Grey Ghost
11-Dec-22
That large healthy herds of big game animals existed when in the presence of apex predators. Science is based on theory, proven history is based on fact.

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

11-Dec-22
Wolves also had millions if bison as a prey base in much of the West. We must have forgotten to re-establish them before adding back in an apex predator that ate them.

From: Bigdog 21
11-Dec-22
Stix spot on. Buglman from what your saying then shouldn't they and all hunters push for less hunting tell the population of all come back . We sure don't want to drive them into extinction.

11-Dec-22
Yep. The one thing all the modern wolfies forget is the millions of bison that were roaming around before the west was settled.

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.

From: HDE
11-Dec-22
KSflat - that's funny. An idiot calling me an idiot. Even funnier if you think that's who I am. Better for you to just be silent and thought a fool instead of opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

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

From: Stix
11-Dec-22
WV, Nobody is suggesting that, but one must look on how predator and prey co-exist in other areas. I've hunted northern b.c. where there are both unabated predators, along with healthy big game herds. As well seen as all the western Canadian provinces and Alaska. There is no shortage of big game. Their management activies are more consistent with the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and the need to harvest food. There is no real fixation among on trophy hunting for antlers amongst those hunting for food, like recreational hunters in the US. For the most part, hinters in the US are recreational hunters fixated on antlers, not meat.

11-Dec-22
Stix, you need to read Lewis and Clark's accounts.

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.

11-Dec-22
Stix, the Colorado Rockies ain’t in BC. Comparing the two is absurd.

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?

From: Grey Ghost
11-Dec-22
I agree, Justin, Stix is really grasping at straws. First, he compares the 1800s to modern times, then he compares BC to CO. Both comparisons are ridiculous.

Matt

From: Bigdog 21
11-Dec-22
WB go back to the coffee shop and ask why there was no buffalo, and who destroyed the food chain. And why the wolves had to go. ..And there not releasing 1000s of wolves plans are to manage and release a small under 15-50 yearly for 4-5 years with goal of 500 that will managed starting on the north west front around Gunnison. ..To many different stories some say no elk other say there on Private land and sanctuaries.. the ideal is to use the wolf to disperse them from these areas and get them back to roaming animals like they use to and not stay and overgraze areas . So hunter will see more game and manage them better... One even said local heard ? there should be no local heard they should be dispersed and roaming. If hunter can't get to them.. wolves will move them. Does anyone else have a better plan.

11-Dec-22
Bigdog states Oh sorry, LittleDog. "the idea is to use the wolf to disperse them from these areas and get them back to roaming animals like they use to and not stay and overgraze areas ."

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.

From: Jaquomo
11-Dec-22
Bigdog, you do know the elk population is down roughly 100,000 animals from the peak, right? Without wolves. Managed using sound biology and the NAMWC.

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?

11-Dec-22
Big dog is the same guy who got mad at Jonny Blackwell for killing his limit of does in TN. Stating, “How many deer do you need?”. So, I don’t suspect he has much quota set aside for human hunters in his Disneyland.

11-Dec-22
Bigdog, every time you post you make it more clear how totally clueless you are when it comes to wolves being shoved down our throats…oops, I mean wolf “reintroduction”. It took over 20 years of bulls**t lawsuits by the pro-wolfers before the State of Wyoming was finally given control of wolf management by the Court of Appeals. The written opinion of that court stated that Wyoming’s wolf management plan was completely acceptable from the beginning…back in the damn 90’s! In the meantime, we had our elk and moose populations decimated in the NW part of the state. Unfortunately, with Colorado’s political climate, they won’t be so lucky until it’s too late. The only time that state will realize what can of worms they’ve opened is when the elk and moose are gone and those cute cuddly wolfies start munching on Fluffy and Fido.

From: Stix
11-Dec-22
WV, wolves have been seen close to population centers in BC, remainder of Candian provinces and Alaska also. There is and will continue to be huntable big game in these areas. At my in-laws place in Kelowna, BC, wolf sightings happen nearly as frequently as bear sightings near town. Big game are seen regularly. Why? Because the big game populations have developed over centuries their natural instincts of defense against Apex predators.

Jaq, the main contributors to elk herds being down are diminishing habitat due to the population expanding and development into forested areas, as well as harvesting of game with liberal tag quotas. The tag quotas were set with decreasing the herd as the objective and it's proof that is being accomplished.

There's a big misconception amongst hunters that wildlife management has to prioritize recreational hunting. It's merely a tool to help achieve objectives.

This is a hard pill to swallow for some, especially since hunting and fishing licenses fund game management. In reality, sportsmen are not paying just to be consumptive users, but also to be stewards of the resources.

This is why my opposition to reintroduction is rooted in the conflict with ranchers and livestock, and the human dimension of the reintro, not the potential to temporal reduction in big game herds. That view is a losing position, especially to the non-hunting public.

From: KSflatlander
11-Dec-22
“ Bigdog, you do know the elk population is down roughly 100,000 animals from the peak, right”

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.

From: Bigdog 21
11-Dec-22
Stix another plus. You think they will are even know Colorado Carters to the non resident for big game lic. sales. Why? Same reason to not wanting the wolves $$$

From: Bigdog 21
11-Dec-22
Ks yes funny how the heard is down 100,000 but lic. sales increase hmmm. Why?

From: joehunter
11-Dec-22
Same old issue. People from out side of the region, state, and even country chiming in as know it all experts on how "things" should be managed when they do not have to live with the consequences. Pretty bad when it comes from hunters here on Bowsite!

From: Grey Ghost
11-Dec-22
Ryan, Colorado’s elk population peaked around 2000, IIRC. It’s been declining ever since. Some areas are down as much as 50%. SW CO has been hit particularly hard. Some recent studies concluded human encroachment and loss of habitat were the main causes.

Matt

From: KSflatlander
11-Dec-22
Matt- I was checking to see if Lou had a source so I could read it. I wasn’t doubting him as he typically doesn’t pull things out of thin air and is versed on such things.

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.

11-Dec-22
Wolves eat other stuff too. Mule deer are over 200,000 down from the peak. I doubt getting "dispersed" and reawakening their fear of wolves will help with that.

From: joehunter
11-Dec-22
My point was really directed at the fact that most of our wildlife management decisions are made by those that live far away in the city. A couple of examples of what I am trying to point out is here in Michigan the fine people of the Upper Peninsula are subject to the voters from the city down in Southern Michigan. Much like the people of IL are subject to the voters in Metro Chicago. When wildlife management decisions are made by those that have no skin in the game things usually end up impacting the locals negatively.

From: Jaquomo
11-Dec-22
Ryan, I was using CPW published data from 2018, which showed a reduction of 70,000 from the 2001 peak (after I went back and looked). I mistakenly thought it was around 100K.

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.

From: KSflatlander
11-Dec-22
Joehunter- got it. I thought you were talking about posters here. My bad.

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

From: Mule Power
11-Dec-22
My favorite scene in Yellowstone is when they mow down the wolves for terrorizing the cattle then float the collar down the river on a chunk of wood.

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.

From: KSflatlander
11-Dec-22
“Season or no season if you see a wolf the ethical thing to do is shoot it.“

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

11-Dec-22
Lets do the math, ie, CPW will reintroduce 30 to 50 wolves in total over the next 3 - 5 years (10-15 animals per year). Based on data that states a wolf pack can increase by 30% per year.

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 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

From: HDE
11-Dec-22
"...if you ever do get a hunting season the reason you’ll get it approved is because it will be too late."

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

From: joehunter
11-Dec-22
Paul your math is probably close. Only thing you forgot is the wolf population that is already in Colorado and any new movement into Colorado. Your estimate is most likely low.

From: Grasshopper
11-Dec-22
If you look at May data, every year, on the commission web site, when they set quotas, this year they said we have 309,000 elk.

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.

From: Jaquomo
11-Dec-22
If the post hunt estimate was 309,000, that exceeds the supposed "peak" number of 301,000 in 2001. But raw data doesn't tell the whole story. In the past 20 years there has been a massive shift in elk population distribution. Huge herds of 100-400 roam private land all summer and fall, where little or no hunting is permitted. Where it is allowed, it is expensive even to shoot a cow. Then the ranchers collect game damage compensation for downed fences, hay loss, you name it.

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.

From: grasshopper
11-Dec-22
I agree, the decline of big game hunting is coming quickly.

Luckily, you can teach me fishing.

11-Dec-22
When we hit that 200 wolf mark. That's 4000 elk per year to feed them. That's double muzzleloader season or double 4th rifle.

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.

From: cnelk
11-Dec-22

cnelk's Link
Yesterday (12/10) there was an article the the ‘wolfies’ want higher numbers of wolves in the introduction plan - see link

From: bowhunt
11-Dec-22
Oregon has population of around 200 “known wolves”.

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

From: Mule Power
12-Dec-22
KSFlatlander… no contradiction at all. Ethical means it’s right. Illegal means some how some way some group of self serving people with lots of money and friends in politics made a rule saying you can’t do that even though the state and it’s biologists say it IS the right thing to do.

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!

From: KSflatlander
12-Dec-22
Mule Power- with your logic anything can be justified. Imagine if private property owners decided to kill all elk grazing on their property. Because it’s their land. Or someone kills every elk they see simply because they want to eat it. They justify it because they are eating it so they think it’s ethical. What if 10 people decided to do that. What about 100, 1000, 10000? What if 300000 people in Colorado decide to kill an elk this winter outside of season just because they wanted to eat it. I mean what more ethical than killing and eating your own food. It’s your right to do that as you please. Right?

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.

From: Brijake
12-Dec-22
Excuse my lack of education on this subject here and hoping someone can educate me, but why were the wolves exterminated in the first place? Was it science or hatred of an apex predator? Pioneers were just bored and needed something to shoot and kill to feed their blood thirsty ambitions?

From: HDE
12-Dec-22
"Imagine if private property owners decided to kill all elk grazing on their property."

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

From: KSflatlander
12-Dec-22
They allow them to do it without tags because they think it ethical? It’s completely unregulated? Apparently you don’t understand context.

From: 6pointbull
12-Dec-22
Stupid is as stupid does......I cannot imagine this working any different than the disasters in other western states that have introduced wolves. Anyone that pays attention closely in Mt, ID, WY have seen the hunting change immensely and not for the better. Good luck, but CO is pretty much screwed.

From: cnelk
12-Dec-22

cnelk's Link
Yes. There are some states that allow landowners to use depredation of elk due to crop damage.

Most recent was Nebraska - see link

From: Michael
12-Dec-22
200,000 to 250,000 gray wolves and people think it’s cool to have them on the Colorado landscape. All under the banner of endangered species.

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.

12-Dec-22
It was (and still is) a big fight getting management of wolves in MT, ID and WY. Those states are more conservative than Colorado by a long ways and fought for it. Rural parts of CO will try but the front range and State Government won't be with them.

12-Dec-22
So Brian, what is your point. per Education

From: KSflatlander
12-Dec-22
cnelk- I understand perfectly about depredation tags/permits. From your link:

“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.

From: Stix
12-Dec-22
"Excuse my lack of education on this subject here and hoping someone can educate me, but why were the wolves exterminated in the first place? Was it science or hatred of an apex predator? Pioneers were just bored and needed something to shoot and kill to feed their blood thirsty ambitions?"

That's a question that wont be answered honestly by the antler killing crew.

12-Dec-22
I'll answer. You can decide if it's honest or not. I'm a poor example of an antler hunter though.

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.

12-Dec-22
Why did settlers feel wolves were a threat in the early 1900s? Wolves quickly learned that docile cattle and sheep made easy meals. Suddenly, colonists found their livelihoods in danger, and they lashed out at wolves, both with physical violence and folklore that ensured wolf hatred would be passed down from one generation to the next. I.e. late 1800 and very early 1900s. Population of Colorado was 1.2 million.

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.

From: Mule Power
12-Dec-22

Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
KSFlatlander… first of all I’m not an outfitter. I haven’t been since 2012. Second and more importantly you’re comparisons are a stretch. ALL other game is properly managed , or as best as possible. Only one other than grizzlies are not. One. Wolves. I personally will not tolerate that. Not when you have situations like the state of Montana setting season dates and selling licenses only to have the whole management plan derailed by one judge bought and paid for by people who couldn’t possibly care less about any other animal.. or people for that matter. THAT IS UNETHICAL! They don’t care if elk become extinct. They really don’t. They don’t care about livestock and livelihoods. They don’t care if wolves kill a human being. They worship wolves and they have the funds to do what they’ve done which is actually a pretty remarkable accomplishment really. You can’t say any of those things about elk or any other animals. Only wolves and they are the only animal I would suggest shooting. Call it poaching if you want. The states are on my side.

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.

From: Bigdog 21
12-Dec-22
And you forgot to mention fur traders and settlers killed of all the bison and hunted all the elk ,and sheep,deer. To very low numbers was said elk was down to 8000 in the state. such low numbers that it took away food from the wolf's food chain so to survive the wolves turn towards the cattle. It was conservationist decided to save and have the game animals rebound the wolf had to go.

From: Mule Power
12-Dec-22
Bigdog stfu. It’s 2022. That crap is all irrelevant. Back then people did what they needed to survive and make a living. They weren’t educated about conservation at all. And.. politics and groups of weirdos with millions of dollars weren’t involved in wildlife management.

From: Bigdog 21
12-Dec-22
They ask why the wolf was a danger tell the hole story not just the side that makes it look bad.

From: Mule Power
12-Dec-22
*Whole

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.

From: smurph
12-Dec-22
Well said Mule Power.

From: HDE
12-Dec-22
"They allow them to do it without tags because they think it ethical? It’s completely unregulated? Apparently you don’t understand context."

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...

From: KSflatlander
12-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
HDE- it went way over your head apparently. Your comprehension skills need some tuning. Go back and read my posts then maybe you will get it. Did I not say killed illegally multiple times? Are depredations tags legal? They have a tag puddin head so it’s legal and regulated. I understand depredation tags for the last time and that’s not what we are talking about. You’re either missing or ignoring context. Or maybe you just don’t know what a rhetorical question is.

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.

From: Mule Power
12-Dec-22
I’m irrational for the right reasons. Science based management is the way to go. Irrational pro wolf people are emotion based. That and profit driven. Big difference.

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.

From: Smurph
12-Dec-22
Kansas, I think you are figuring it out. We are already a country that selectively follows laws. Nothing new here. We have looters and rioters here in Portland that the local prosecutors openly admit they have no interest in pursuing . Damn the private property owners trying to just live in peace. Homeless camps on sidewalks in clear violation of house codes, not to mention sanitation. Laws are a joke or worse political tools. Why does anyone think shooting a few extra wolves is so bad given the biased enforcement of law in this country. At least Mule might accomplish something beneficial, as opposed to smashing widows and luting stores.

From: Smurph
12-Dec-22
Kansas, I think you are figuring it out. We are already a country that selectively follows laws. Nothing new here. We have looters and rioters here in Portland that the local prosecutors openly admit they have no interest in pursuing . Damn the private property owners trying to just live in peace. Homeless camps on sidewalks in clear violation of house codes, not to mention sanitation. Laws are a joke or worse political tools. Why does anyone think shooting a few extra wolves is so bad given the biased enforcement of law in this country. At least Mule might accomplish something beneficial, as opposed to smashing widows and luting stores.

From: Stix
12-Dec-22
Was the erradication of wolves science based management? How about the near erradication of various big game species, elk included, by market hunters.

What everyone fails to admit is no one in the lower 48 hunts for survival or substinence. We are all recreational hunters. Period. You all need to stop the denial of this and admit it to yourselves.

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.

From: KSflatlander
12-Dec-22
“Season or no season if you see a wolf the ethical thing to do is shoot it.“

“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.

From: Mule Power
12-Dec-22
Who said anything about hunting? I enjoyed watching elk all year long and in the national parks just as much as any non hunter. I liked watching and photographing the moose and sheep too. I enjoy just knowing they are up there. It was nice seeing moose along the trails in Montana instead of piles of bones. And when I’m hunting I don’t always shoot legal game just because I can.

From: Smurph
12-Dec-22
Kansas, I think you are figuring it out. We are already a country that selectively follows laws. Nothing new here. We have looters and rioters here in Portland that the local prosecutors openly admit they have no interest in pursuing . Damn the private property owners trying to just live in peace. Homeless camps on sidewalks in clear violation of house codes, not to mention sanitation. Laws are a joke or worse political tools. Why does anyone think shooting a few extra wolves is so bad given the biased enforcement of law in this country. At least Mule might accomplish something beneficial, as opposed to smashing widows and luting stores.

From: Smurph
12-Dec-22
ks, my point is that we already selectively follow and enforce laws. You missed my point completely. The disgraceful situation in Portland was just an easy example, definitely not meant as a red herring.

From: Grasshopper
12-Dec-22
"Was the erradication of wolves science based management? How about the near erradication of various big game species, elk included, by market hunters. What everyone fails to admit is no one in the lower 48 hunts for survival or substinence. We are all recreational hunters. Period. You all need to stop the denial of this and admit it to yourselves."

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?

From: Mule Power
13-Dec-22
I’ll take science based over “Dudes wolves are so cool. I have a picture of one airbrushed on my van. I love just watching them, even though I’ve never seen one. And it’s totally awesome listening to them howl, even though I’ve never heard one. I’m don’t work but I send my disability checks to Howling for Justice. We should all vote to have more wolves everywhere”

That is the current management plan.

From: Stix
13-Dec-22
Grasshopper, since you say there is scriptural precedent for this then you should also know that the scriptures also say you shall not murder, and you shall not covet. But you only wish to apply it to the actions of our settlers AFTER their piliging of the land and resources, not their prior actions that led to their being the land owners and homesteaders.

Let's then look at facts. The ranchers, prospectors, home steaders who invaded this land both coveted and murdered to take over the land from the original inhabitants. The decendents of these murdering, covetous people also led to the near erradication of both big game and predatory wildlife.

Again one has to admit to themselves that the taking of wildlife in this day and age and this part of the US is purely a recreational opportunity, not an act of substinence as in other parts the world. And the desire to have more recreational opportunities without a temporal reduction in big game herds is not a valid reason to erradicate predators.

The original inhabitants of this land not only coexisted with all predators, but wildlife thrived with them as well. It was only after the killing of the original inhabitants that the victors (our ancestors) decided next the predators had to go in order for them to survive in the exact same place that the original inhabitants survived without erradicating predators.

From: Mule Power
13-Dec-22
Did it ever occur to you that without the money raised from both subsistence and recreational hunting we could afford wildlife management and some species would be endangered or even extinct? Hunting pays the bills. And now it pays for lawsuits.

From: bowhunt
13-Dec-22
I’m honestly not sure if you’re a hunter stix.

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.

From: Bake
13-Dec-22
Good grief. I don't get the emotion these stupid animals invoke, just because they look like a dog and are cute and cuddly looking. . . .

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 . . . .

From: bowhunt
13-Dec-22
I also don’t know why you keep bringing up how you think wildlife populations were in North America before the 1700s or 1800s.

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

From: Stix
13-Dec-22
Oh I hunt, and mostly eat game meat while my supplies last. But it's not a neccessity for my survival. It's a preference for me and family. It's also a big part of our lives, but not for survival, but for preference and desire. On years I am not fortunate to take game, the local butcher gets our business.

We are recreational hunters, not substinence hunters.

13-Dec-22
The wolfies who fight proper wolf management constantly are every bit as much to blame as the "kill every wolf" crowd when it comes to low tolerance for wolves.

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.

From: KSflatlander
13-Dec-22
Glunt X2

From: smurph
13-Dec-22
GluntX3!

From: Stix
13-Dec-22
Recreational hunting IS the foundation for FUNDING wildlife mgmt. Nobody here denies that. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is the foundation for IMPLEMENTING wildlife management, and exterminating predators is not found in it. Recreational hunting is one of the tools to manage herds using the model. AS seen by earlier (2000's-2010's) liberal elk tag quotas to bring down numbers to proper levels. The elk herd is down by this method, and we can thank hunter funded management for achieving this.

Predation also plays a part in the overall management scheme, as well as habitat. You have to know this as a recreational hunter going into it. It's not completely about maximizing recreational opportunities for hunters. It's about where does recreational hunting fit in the management scheme. It's not the #1 priority that us recreational hunters would like it to be.

From: Stix
13-Dec-22

Stix's Link
Here is a links to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which contains the 7 tenents that are the FOUNDATION or wildlife conservation. Tell me where it says exterminating predators to maximize opportunities for recreation opportunities is encouraged. .... It doesn't

From: KSflatlander
13-Dec-22
I don’t see SSS or “kill them illegally if you can justify it” in there anywhere.

• 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.

From: bowhunt
13-Dec-22
I guess we have moved away from the last bullet point.

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

From: cnelk
13-Dec-22
The last bullet point is fixed:

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.

13-Dec-22
Also, the tenent about state and federal management. The CO wolf ballot issue was in direct opposition of the State's wildlife managers plan.

From: Jaquomo
13-Dec-22
^^^ and as I understand it, also in opposition to the USFWS plan for natural self migration to CO, not forced dumping.

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.

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
Last I read Yellowstone is suppose to be doing better in it's environment. ?

From: bowhunt
13-Dec-22
What did you read last Bigdog 21?

13-Dec-22
Any sources of Baleen in Colorado?

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

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
Yellowstone org.

From: Jaquomo
13-Dec-22

Jaquomo's embedded Photo
Jaquomo's embedded Photo
If exactly half the number of elk now, and very few Shiras moose remaining since wolves were dumped constitutes "doing better", then yes it sure is.

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.

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
There still plenty of both but the ecosystem is starting to make a comeback. Over grazing is not Good for everything else, rivers, fish,plants, trees birds are part of the system that is being lost because of over grazed places . Elk and deer, are starting to act more like cattle. Then roaming about. Hunters are only moving them around for a few months . The rest of the time they graz and not roam. This is a problem.

From: Michael
13-Dec-22
Wouldn’t that be something if these wolves headed to Colorado took a wrong turn and ended up in Illinois.

From: Mule Power
13-Dec-22

Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
He read the article that's already been disproven where they said that by eating… or more accurately killing (because they don’t eat everything they kill) so many elk the brush along streams is improving the water quality and the trout are now thriving. Wolves are good for trout? Lmmfao!

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.

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
It sure is. It's about more then the elk and moose. But I wouldn't expect elk alcoholics to get it. Hunters only help for a few months then they are gone for 8-9 months. know who is going to keep things going in the back country pushing these animals around. For 9 months?

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
Are coyotes play hell on rabbit and deer, turkey. We lose a lot of newborn fawns. But they are still needed.

From: Mule Power
13-Dec-22
They aren’t in the back country the other 9 months Einstein. They’re up to their balls in snow on winter range where they’re even more vulnerable. You have an answer for everything. But none of those answers are based on actual experience. Or even facts. So Bigdog… you tell me… is Colorado going to experience the same things as everywhere else with Canadian timber wolves? Or will things be different this time. Let me guess… the trout fishing is going to be world class. Dumbass.

13-Dec-22
Wolves were native to most of the US. I hope everyone takes their share.

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
I know one thing for sure stocks are going to pay good. Just remember the ecosystem that get destroyed will make a full circle back to your elk.

13-Dec-22
“Elk and deer, are starting to act more like cattle. Then roaming about. Hunters are only moving them around for a few months . The rest of the time they graz and not roam”

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”?

From: Jaquomo
13-Dec-22

Jaquomo's Link
Bigdog, pass the bong. "Plenty of both"? Shiras moose are almost extirpated- only 100-200 left in Yellowstone now, vs. thousands before wolf dumping, and decreasing every year. The pre wolf EIS promised to a 7-15% decline. This was an obvious lie, and they knew it at the time.

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..

From: Mule Power
13-Dec-22

Mule Power's Link
Here ya go Bigdog. Yes you are living the dream. That’s all it is.

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.

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
Wbs seen plenty elk lived in meeker ,also jualsburgre co. Spent every day driving threw back country. Built the compressor station NW of meeker worked on the Rock express pipe line. Built station in jualsburgre also. Spent a couple years out there and in the best places everyday . Hunted more in WY. Mexican Bow.

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
Medicine bow

From: cnelk
13-Dec-22
How many people on this thread have ever actually seen one? “I have. Several. We had many wolf interactions on our cattle/horse farm in N Minnesota. None were good.”

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

From: Mule Power
13-Dec-22
The only thing you’ll see around the Virginian Hotel in Mexican Bow are antelope and mulie does. Maybe jack rabbits.

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

From: Mule Power
13-Dec-22
You put your time in outside Brad. It doesn’t surprise me at all that you have some actual experience with wolves. But we are by far the minority. I’ve hunted Quebec and Alaska and never saw one. I’ve only seen the refugee wolves. The illegal aliens. Lol

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.

From: Orion
13-Dec-22
Some of the comments on this thread are flat out scary. At least it's easy to see who has or would vote for wolves

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
Mule power go back to your AccuWeather page lol and click the link at bottom of page for Yellowstone science. First thing you will see is celebrating of 20 years with wolves in yellow stone.. cant believe you get your info from AccuWeather. Well maybe I can better then the coffee shop I guess.

From: Jaquomo
13-Dec-22
MP, you may find me lurking around the Virginian. Lots of great memories.... Back in the day, Harry Chase's daughter was a bartender there and used to flirt with me and my best bud whenever we were in there, which was regularly. She wasn't a looker even by Medicine Bow standards after a liberal amount of lubrication, but her dad owned the Chase ranch....

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.

From: Grey Ghost
13-Dec-22
I can’t wait for the wolf dumpers to target Illinois. I’m sure Bigdog will be leading their charge.

Matt

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
Mp lot of elk in Medicine Bow and stayed in Riverside cabins.

From: Jaquomo
13-Dec-22
Bigdog, MPs article published on the Accuweather page cites real data and quotes real unaffiliated researchers. Dan McNulty and Tom Hobbs are studs in their field, and not affiliated with the Federal Government. Accuweather is not the "source", in case you are easily confused.

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.

From: Jaquomo
13-Dec-22
The only elk around Medicine Bow are those coming through in the backs of trucks from Shirley Basin. Bigdog, I was right, you are very easily confused.

From: Mule Power
13-Dec-22
Omg Bigdog and who may we ask writes the words of wisdom that help you form your uneducated opinion?

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!

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
GG of there ever needed. coyotes and wild dogs do a good job here. We hunt them when we start seeing to many. Open season on them all year round. No tag needed. Come and shoot some for practice.

From: KSflatlander
13-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
Mule Power- to blindly disregard the direct impact of top predators on their prey and indirect impacts on prey forage is what is laughable. If you can’t acknowledge there is a trophic impact then you are saying that predators, prey, and forage are not interrelated. That’s elementary school biology stuff. You can’t say in one hand that wolves will eliminate elk (hyperbole) and on the other say they have no impact on the ecosystem. That is saying elk have no impact on the ecosystem. Which is it?

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.

From: Grey Ghost
13-Dec-22
I think wolves would do great in Illinois. The state has over twice the number of deer as Colorado has elk. We need to get those deer up and roaming around, after all, right? LOL. What a tool.

Matt

From: Michael
13-Dec-22

Michael's embedded Photo
Michael's embedded Photo
Seen this buck just outside of Medicine Bow when I was there doing a site visit for a future project back in 2017. Ate lunch at the Virginian and had the pre site meeting there. Pretty cool place.

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

From: Jaquomo
13-Dec-22

Jaquomo's embedded Photo
Jaquomo's embedded Photo
These two rascals and their surly mom are right outside my back door right now. We're enjoying them while we can, because as Dr. Valerius Geist predicted, they will be "goners" as soon as wolves take hold here. Trading moose for wolves. Damned shame.

From: bowhunt
13-Dec-22
Below is a quote from one of the researchers at the University of Wyoming.

“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.

From: Old School
13-Dec-22
No Lou - they will be just fine as they don’t look like they are sick, diseased or old. Definitely not wolf food ;-)

From: Mule Power
13-Dec-22

Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
Flatlander I know that! But changes in an ecosystem takes years. Decades. A century in some cases.

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….

From: Jaquomo
13-Dec-22
MP, we live on the eastern slope, so no worries because the wolf packs will all stay in the wilderness areas across the Divide, or so we've been promised. So far we've only had a few singles or pairs wander down from WY.

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.

From: bowhunt
13-Dec-22
Jaquomo, that's the same game they play with everything.

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.

From: Grey Ghost
13-Dec-22
Come on now, Lou, why ignore how well the aspens have done since the Yellowstone wolf dump. You know, those "trees", which are actually a large bush with a common root system, that grow like weeds regardless of how many elk chew on their bark? Yeah, the second largest living organism on earth, second only to a coral reef, needed protection, and wolves were the answer, right?

Matt

13-Dec-22
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...

From: Ambush
13-Dec-22
In BC we have lots of experience with wolves, controlled and uncontrolled. Particularly lately with caribou herds.

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.

From: cnelk
13-Dec-22
When I went to Alaska last fall moose hunting I was for sure to purchase a hunting license which allowed me to shoot wolves.

Limit was 10 per DAY.

From: KSflatlander
13-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
“Flatlander I know that! But changes in an ecosystem takes years. Decades. A century in some cases.”

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.

From: WapitiBob
13-Dec-22

WapitiBob's Link
2023 will be year 6 in an Oregon Wolf unit. This one ran a calf Elk past me then killed it about 100 yards away.

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
Wapitiboy thanks. Enjoyable. hope everyone clicks on the wolf's on Yellowstone at the end of your video.

From: Bigdog 21
13-Dec-22
Wolves of Yellowstone.

From: Grasshopper
14-Dec-22
Man if we spent half the money we are gonna spend/lose for wolves on curing mental illness, and homelessness we would be making progress. Instead we vote for mind altering mushrooms, wolves, family leave that reduces take home pay by ~20 %, and paying for plastic grocery bags. 6 more years before I can flee,, just a short couple thousand or so more.

I guess they legalized weed and shrooms in Illinois too.

From: Orion
14-Dec-22
Grasshopper with the mic drop

14-Dec-22
This is as simple as third grade math. 1+3=4.

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.

From: Mule Power
14-Dec-22
This is all you really need to know:

[email protected]: “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.

From: Knifeman
14-Dec-22
WI sold us on 350 total, after that we get to control them by means we agreed on. Now it is a free for all and no season. They number in the thousands.

From: Cazador
14-Dec-22
So, again, where are all the hunting orgs on this? It’s hard to believe mint one has struck up a lawsuit to put this in the courts

From: Jaquomo
14-Dec-22
Unfortunately, our governor and his anti-hunting, animal rights husband are so in love with wolves and so in bed with the out-of-state wolf advocates that "worst case scenario" we envision now may end up being the best we can hope for.

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.

From: Old School
14-Dec-22
Think about it - how do you really “manage” wolf numbers? I’m just thinking of coyotes in comparison. Here in the Midwest they are everywhere and there is open season and no bag limit on them - there’s no “managing” them. Why would sportsmen ever believe that anyone could control the wolf numbers - once they are introduced how do we really think we can control that number?

From: Bigdog 21
14-Dec-22
Old school really!!. How did they go extinct in 1920. You don't think we have the way are means to do it again? If needed

14-Dec-22
OK guys, I can only hope you all take this energy you are now expressing to the right direction and to the CPW Commission and comment on the Colorado Wolf Plan Draft now before the Commission. Meetings are scheduled for public comment and or email comments. You know the Pro wolfers will do so. Sportsmen better also.

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

From: Old School
14-Dec-22
Well duh - sure, if we are allowed to poison them we could wipe them out and every other “non targeted predator/scavenger.

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?????

14-Dec-22
It's entirely possible to exterpate wolves again. Recreational hunting and small, targeted culling like what happens now won't ever result in that and just makes a little dent.

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.

From: Old School
14-Dec-22
Glunt - x2. That’s exactly my point.

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.

From: Jaquomo
14-Dec-22
Bigdog, what we have now that we didn't have in the 20s is wealthy anti-hunting liberals contributing tens of millions of dollars toward lawsuits brought in front of leftist activist judges. We have an ESA they can use as a cudgel.

Educate yourself on what is happening here.

From: Grey Ghost
14-Dec-22
"How did they go extinct in 1920.

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

From: Bigdog 21
14-Dec-22
But Matt if they have always been there why did they not multiply into thousands. As they say will happen.

From: cnelk
14-Dec-22
Because of 1080

From: Grey Ghost
14-Dec-22
Bigdog, are you 6 years old, or just dumb as a rock?

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

14-Dec-22
Bigdog, I’m beginning to think you come up with your over-the-top nonsense just to get a rise out of people. Surely you can’t actually believe it. Then again, maybe I’m giving you WAY too much credit.

From: Mule Power
14-Dec-22
TBM is that you?

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!

From: Ambush
14-Dec-22
Why can't we have several million buffalo wandering around like not that many years ago?

From: KSflatlander
14-Dec-22
“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.”

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

From: Bigdog 21
14-Dec-22
Ks I wonder what keep the native wolf from not breading as fast . Could be a science breakthrew. :)))

14-Dec-22
Might be’d there was no natives wolf left aftre early sett lers figured out they kilt ebery thang that they tryed to growed. that wood b my guess.

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.

From: KSflatlander
14-Dec-22

From: Mule Power
14-Dec-22
Let me rephrase that for you KSWolfhugger

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!

From: Bigdog 21
14-Dec-22
Hint. Stocks in Kleenex and Gold Bond are going to be a good investment

14-Dec-22
Joe, it’s always those that cherish their schooling that tend to lack the confidence to trust what common sense presents them.

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.

From: Jaquomo
14-Dec-22
It's going to get real interesting when the wolves make it down on the Front Range where thousands of elk live right in the towns along with kids and pets. Looking forward to the CPW public meetings to advise people about what to do with these machines raging around in their neighborhoods.

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!

From: Grey Ghost
14-Dec-22
Lou, imagine when the first elk gets taken down in the golf course in Estes by wolves. I can’t wait.

From: KSflatlander
14-Dec-22
“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?“

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.

14-Dec-22
If Colorado wolves travel about 1/2 as far as WY wolves do, it likely means the end of the Mexican wolf. It's a distinct sub-species and there are about 200 left in NM and AZ. Smaller and likely will be bred out by the much bigger wolves used for introductions.

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

From: KSflatlander
14-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
Correction of my first post.

“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.

From: Jaquomo
14-Dec-22
"You won’t find the other subspecies he listed specifically protected."

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

: -)

14-Dec-22
It kills me when intelligence misses the mark.

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.

From: KSflatlander
14-Dec-22
Jaquomo lol. It wouldn’t be a violation under the ESA but I’m guessing it would be against state law. But you would get credit in the biology books for finding a subspecies that no longer exists ;)

14-Dec-22
I’m sure glad we got that straight

From: Mule Power
14-Dec-22

Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
KSwolfhugger…ok we can skip the speech after your Googling. Go back and read Glunts post that I quoted. I want to hear your comments on that. Wolfers always pretend they didn’t hear facts like that.

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.

From: Mule Power
14-Dec-22

Mule Power's embedded Photo
Mule Power's embedded Photo
Another fav. Top of their list. And Brady Stamps was on my payroll when he made number 2 on the list. Caught them taking down a perfectly healthy cow elk at last light. Went back in the morning and splat splat. I’ll send you a picture of the ones with your name and Bigdogs on them. Lol Don’t worry for every one we deflate 8 more are born.

From: Bigdog 21
14-Dec-22
Well if the elk population is down so much 100,000 like some have stayed and hard to find,maybe they are headed the wrong direction? maybe just end elk hunting for the next 10 years ? Could work. elk could make a great comeback.

From: KSflatlander
15-Dec-22
Mule- Repost it whatever it is you are talking about. If it’s about the 300 wolf goal then also post a link to where that number comes from. The actual source of the number and not some article about it. If you want to deal in facts then go get the facts first.

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

From: Jaquomo
15-Dec-22
Elk numbers in CO were down in 2018, now back up again overall. But still way down in some DAUs. The targets are set based on carrying capacity, managed by biologists, not wolves.

From: Bigdog 21
15-Dec-22
How does Montana keep there elk population so good? over there target number for the last couple years been climbing the last 10 . According to there DNR.

From: Mule Power
15-Dec-22
Bigbrain… maybe the statewide average. There aren’t many wolves on the east side. If you want an accurate picture look up unit 250 where wolves actually live. Population is only half of the goal. That unit went from unlimited non res elk licenses to a quota of 25. With a 10% non res cap that means 2. Two!

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.

From: Mule Power
15-Dec-22

Mule Power's Link
Here I’ll make it easy since you can’t spell the words unit 250 elk population to Google it. The region summaries say at objective because the units with no wolves make up for the ones below the population goals.

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”.

From: KSflatlander
15-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
Mule Power- I completely agree you can’t look at the statewide population and claim no impact by wolves. But you can’t also select a single unit and say wolves are decimating elk in Montana. There are more elk units within the range of wolves that are at or above elk population objectives than below. See link.

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?

From: Old School
15-Dec-22
KS - We agree that wolves need to be managed, the problem is the pro wolfers don’t want them managed, (proven by their unwillingness to trust game biologists) they want them “re-introduced” and then allowed to go unchecked. You know like they used to be in 1900 ( what an ignorant mentality) That’s my whole issue and the one that causes me to be against any “re-introduction”. It’s a complete farce and science isn’t going to be allowed to guide us, emotion and ignorance is. Once “re-introduced” it’s going to be a free for all for the wolves.

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.

From: KSflatlander
15-Dec-22
Old School- I don’t disagree with you.

From: Mule Power
15-Dec-22

Mule Power's Link
KSF… who listens to a non resident’s opinion after a 1 week hunt anyway? Anyone who does isn’t very wise.

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.

From: KSflatlander
15-Dec-22
Thanks Mule for the info. I’m not much on preaching to someone one a hunt especially if they have more experience. I’m there to hunt and maybe get some different perspectives on hunting and life would be a bonus. And as always, have some laughs.

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.

From: WapitiBob
18-Dec-22
2023 will be year 6 or 7 in an OR wolf unit. Wolves haven't eaten all the Elk, nor will they, but they can sure move them around and hunters are slow to react, if at all. Most are creatures of habit and hunt their same spots every year; not the best tactic. Colorado will survive and the hunters that adapt will have good fun hunts. Get out, scout, and worry about things that you can control; wolves under Federal and State protections aren't one of them.

18-Dec-22
CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO PROPERLY MANAGE WOLVES? KSflatlander perhaps, he seems to be knowledgeable about it?

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.

From: cnelk
18-Dec-22
^^^ Mic drop

Thread should be closed

From: Mule Power
19-Dec-22
Yep… boom!

From: WapitiBob
19-Dec-22
"CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO PROPERLY MANAGE WOLVES?"

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

From: KSflatlander
19-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
Here we go again. Your own personal reality is contrary to 26 years worth of harvest data in Alberta.

“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.

From: KSflatlander
19-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
Here’s a link the the actual scientific journal peer reviewed paper so it’s not filtered or biased by a reporter.

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?

From: Mule Power
19-Dec-22
KS I see a pattern here. There are people who spend LITS of time actually living in wolf country with actual experience. Most of them seem to have had the same experiences. And then there are people who get their information from the internet.

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.

From: KSflatlander
19-Dec-22
I don’t doubt your observations and I’m not calling you liars. I’m just giving you scientific information that is contrary to your observations as things aren’t always what they seem. Your observations may be real but the conclusions you are drawing are not supported by the best data they have. Notice that in 26 years of data that hunter success is actually increasing.

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?

From: Mule Power
19-Dec-22
“Hunter success is actually increasing” Dude… you found it on the internet! Perhaps in places. Perhaps the places without wolves. I know areas with only half as many elk and 1/100th of the licenses than pre-wolves. How can hunter success increase when elk are scarce and nobody is hunting them?

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

From: KSflatlander
19-Dec-22
It’s not the “internet.” It’s not a forum or personal observations. It’s a scientific study that was peer reviewed by scientists and statisticians to vet their methods, results, and conclusions. It wouldn’t have been published if it wasn’t peer reviewed and was sound science. They looked at 26 years of harvest information including hunter success rates, hunter efforts, predator populations, etc. There’s a big difference between forum opinion from an individual, or around a campfire, and a peer reviewed scientific paper that has been vetted by other scientists who weren’t involved in the study. People with Doctorates in biology, ecology, and statistics. You keep trying to equalize a single persons, or several people’s observations, against vetted 26 year data sets and their conclusions drawn from it. They aren’t equal. Whether you like it or not that’s science based management using scientific methods. That’s the best method humankind has ever come up with and it’s served us well. There’s nothing better out there. Certainly not personal observations. Are you saying there’s no way your conclusions could be wrong? There’s a chance that the scientific paper is wrong but the probability is less than your anecdotal observations.

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, [email protected], 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.

From: Quinn @work
20-Dec-22
TLDR= Too long did not read.

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

From: Quinn @work
20-Dec-22
How many of these wolves will be in Kansas any time soon?

From: Mule Power
20-Dec-22
“If wolves are introduced to Colorado and not properly managed (hunted) then there will be negative impacts “

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.

24-Dec-22
KSflatlander, thank you for that link to the study. Despite the incredibly misleading title, the study shows that the elk numbers and harvest success has decreased in the mountains where the wolves and grizzlies freely roam, zone 4. It is a huge area that covers the western mountainous part of Alberta.

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…

24-Dec-22
For a double tap, Alberta elk, moose and mule deer, which were thriving in our mountain zones have been reduced to 10-20% of historic levels, the decline beginning when government poisoning of wolves was ened in the 1980's. Up to the early 1990's these animals were hunted on unlimited otc tags, now it is all on very limited draw, often at the legal minimum of 10 tags per zone, a threshold used to keep the option to hunt in the future. Areas that used to have thousands of elk now only have a few hundred, and it has been this way for 20+ years now.

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.

24-Dec-22
Well summarized, Walking Buffalo!

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.

24-Dec-22
Another issue with wolves in Alberta's mountains. Not only have wolves driven ungulates into a predator pit where it will take decades to recover, there is also the loss of ungulate migration knowledge.

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.

From: Jaquomo
24-Dec-22
They know that in CO. COW has been strongly opposed to wolf forcing here, in a state with 6+ million and on the way to 10 million. It was the citiots who voted to bring wolves to CO, and the campaign was heavily funded by California-based animal rights groups.

From: Basil
24-Dec-22
It’s a shame to see another state going this route. I grew up in Northeast Minnesota. In the 60’s & 70s we had wolves in reasonable numbers. Deer & moose herds were awesome. Hunting was awesome & wolves were tolerated. It was a treat have a fleeting glimpse of a wolf and they do have their place. I feel privileged to live in a state wild enough to have them. These days in the political climate our biologists agree wolves have recovered in the tristate area as laid out in the federal plan. Certainly enough to be managed on the state level as promised. However our illustrious governor refuses to allow a hunt. Endless litigation helps his cause. The state now manages NE Minnesota for moose which basically means to exterminate the deer herd. I think the goal is less than 2 deer per square mile. I doubt the numbers are that high. Sad to see generations of hunting camps closed up with some of them not killing a deer for several years. My daughter started hunting right when the numbers started to plummet. It’s a shame & we haven’t bothered to hunt there for years now. Even the town deer are wiped out by increasingly bold wolves. Fawns are wiped out as soon as they hit the ground. Coyotes & bears get their share. Only silver lining is wolf numbers seem to be down up there. They’ve eaten themselves out of house & home. They seem so do well hunting beaver as nearly every wolf dropping I see in open water season has beaver hair in it. Hard water season when the beaver are safe the wolves have little else to eat. Years ago nearly every moose you saw had twin calves. Saw my 1st set of twins in YEARS last summer. Young hunters don’t have the interest with such a low chance of success. Take a ride around the forests in the winter & it’s like a track free biological wasteland. Thank your Minnesota DNR. “do nothing right”. Worst part is the condescending attitude of the deer biologists who ignore all public input. One said this summer “all I hear is complaints. We must be doing something right”.. I do have a BS in fisheries biology & many wildlife courses to my credit. I however do not need a “peer reviewed study” to tell me what I’ve seen is true.

From: Old School
24-Dec-22
Basil - sad times for sure and even sadder is that some here would consider yours and everyone else’s experience anecdotal- you know, you need an expert peer reviewed study in order for it to be accepted. And they choose where they look to find these peer reviewed studies and then claim “science”.

From: Basil
24-Dec-22
Amen

From: KSflatlander
25-Dec-22
Great. Now we have came back full circle to wildlife management by popular opinion/popular vote.

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.

From: Rocky D
25-Dec-22
KS, the comment below is currently posted on the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. I am sure that their position is based on scientific studies.

“Grizzly bears have been shown to be particularly effective predators of moose calves from birth to about 2 months of age and often kill adult moose in the spring. In this regard, one grizzly bear is equivalent to many black bears. Not all bears are equal, however, and some bears seem to become specialists at killing both adult and calf moose. Black bears have been found to be the most important predator of moose calves in some areas of Alaska where grizzly bears are uncommon. In these areas, black bears killed about 40% of all moose calves that were born. Most predation was by adult males. Biologists expect that significant reductions in bear numbers (either black or grizzly or both) will also lead to higher numbers of moose for harvest. For example, in areas of Canada and the northern states where moose coexist only with wolves, moose are often found at high densities that fluctuate with weather and habitat (e.g. Isle Royale). Numbers of grizzly bears have probably increased in Interior Alaska since the 1950s. We base this on incidental observations by older hunters, local residents, cabin owners, and Native elders, who all indicate that grizzly bear numbers have increased. This is corroborated to some degree by modern studies. For example, grizzly bears were recently found to be significant predators of moose calves on the Yukon Flats and are commonly seen by local residents, whereas 20-30 years ago, observations of grizzly bears were rare. In the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas, where wolves and bears are not common, moose are abundant.”

I currently trust no scientist, politician, or anyone who stands and touts science as the answer but doesn’t apply it to their own philosophical approach except when it fits their narrative!

LGBTQ, has zero scientific support to survival of the species. Moral decay has always been a detriment to humanity!

Putting your finger on the scale when it comes to social justice follows no scientific model to perpetuate and thrive as a species!

Your support of the current administration is based solely on your bias and not on what’s proven.

You have repeatedly denied the Democrats involvement in the Russian collusion, FBI’s role, and now I am sure that you are not a fanboy of Elon Musk.

Your bias continues overwhelm your discussion. I guess you are good with Stanford University saying that we shouldn’t call ourselves Americans just like your support of drag queens for America’s children.

Oh by the way, is the border still closed?

Actually, I used appreciate many of your post but now cannot take them seriously!

Personally, I think we are doing a lot of management based on popular opinion and yes the irony is thick!

From: Basil
25-Dec-22
I’ve purposely avoided controversial posts for years. Watched the same people argue their point on topic after topic. Everyone else is wrong & no one else’s opinion or experience matters. Endless condescending drivel. Very tiresome. My friends in the Minnesota DNR are handcuffed by book smart people in management positions when they all know it doesn’t follow science but rather an agenda. Tough for hard working field employees to be told “ your job is to document the decline of hunting/fishing in Minnesota”. While not being allowed to do anything that might actually help. Smart top notch employees that cannot be promoted unless their race, gender or orientation checks some box. Actual qualifications seem irrelevant. In college it was all about kissing butt & developing your network in hopes of finding a job. I personally never wanted to be part of the club that bad.

From: Orion
25-Dec-22
I'm so glad the guy from Kansas knows more about wolves and western big game management then anyone

From: cnelk
25-Dec-22
^^^ of course he does. He’s book learned from a liberal indoctrination center

From: Old School
25-Dec-22
KS - I rarely read or respond to your posts since they are so predictable and simultaneously irrelevant.

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

From: Old School
25-Dec-22
Perhaps next time a game and fish agency sends me a survey about the area I hunted and what I’ve personally observed I’ll tell them “why are you so intent on gathering anecdotal evidence - just call Flatlander, he will point you to a peer reviewed study out of California, NYC or Chicago which will be FAR more accurate.”

From: Mule Power
25-Dec-22
In Pa there used to be a group call the Stump Sitters. No formal qualifications were needed to belong. The only requirement was that you spent a considerable amount of time in the woods. The game commission used their journals as a trusted source of information to make management decisions. I would bet that a good number of people in that group couldn’t even read a survey or peer reviewed study. If you can’t grasp the value of actual long term hands on experience in the trenches then you’re not as smart as an IQ test might suggest.

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

From: Basil
27-Dec-22
About 10 years ago Minnesota did a moose calf mortality study. Can’t remember exact numbers but collared just over 40 calves. In days well over half had perished and within 30 days the majority were gone. A few died from abandonment from being handled. Nearly all the rest from wolves. They repeated the study the next year with similar results. The governor forced an end to the project because they didn’t like the results. The DNR grudgingly admitted the majority of losses were from wolf predation. Bears & global warming were also mentioned. IMO the study didn’t fit the agenda so it was ended. Similar study by the Grand Portage band of Chippewa last spring did a similar study last spring & lost 100% of calves. Too many wolves are not a positive in any game population.

From: Hackbow
27-Dec-22
"Great. Now we have came back full circle to wildlife management by popular opinion/popular vote."

The move (as proposed by beauracratic scientists doing biggov-sciency things with the peer approval of their other beauracratic sciency friends) to "re-introduce" wolves into CO is 100% based on the "popular opinion/popular vote" of actual, science-denying libtards. Feelings over facts is their way of life in every single thing.

We go grouse hunting in Northern WI every few years. We put many miles on our boots. In every subsequent trip, we see more wolf tracks and scat and less deer/deer sign. Bear sign has remained fairly consistent. No real point in recounting this as it is simply anecdotal and hasn't received the degreed stamp of approval from someone who has met the criteria to speak.

Basil, when the studies don't fit their agenda, they either change the verbiage or conclusions (fabricated "science") OR, as in your cited case, do away with the study altogether. If there is no study, there is no "science". And no "science" means those in power get to rule over the rest 'for their own good'.

From: Orion
27-Dec-22
I'm sure flatlander still believes in Fauci's "science" also

28-Dec-22

Mike Ukrainetz's embedded Photo
Mike Ukrainetz's embedded Photo
Mike Ukrainetz's embedded Photo
Mike Ukrainetz's embedded Photo
Perhaps Dr. Valerius Geist, who has studied wolves extensively in North America and all over the world can convince KSflatlander but probably not. The pro-wolfers have tried hard to silence and discredit Dr. Geist and his scientific and extensive field work.

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.

From: Basil
29-Dec-22
I really don’t think pro wolf these groups had the foresight to know what wolves would do to big game populations. Plenty of areas where it’s hardly worth hunting & tag numbers are already reduced. You can bet your bottom dollar they know now. If wolves reduce game populations to where hunting can no longer be justified it’s a win win for them. Watch hunting opportunities & gun rights fall like dominos.

29-Dec-22
I’m still amazed by the number of hunters who argue more wolves doesn’t mean less tags for hunters.

29-Dec-22
^^^^ it shouldn’t be a surprise. Most that think like that live far away from the insanity…yet somehow think they have all the answers.

From: KSflatlander
29-Dec-22
Mike- Please post any scientific peer-reviewed journal research that Dr. Valerius Giest published on wolves and ungulate interactions. I can't find one research study on wolves and deer published by Dr. Giest. I can find plenty of articles, books, and podcasts but not a single publication that was reviewed by his peers (sorry but that is how science has worked for hundreds of years). His OPINIONS (articles, books, and podcasts) were based on time spent living in retirement on Vancouver Island. He discusses his personal experience with wolves causing deer to "disappear" around his house and his wife's fear of wolves on their property...and other anecdotal observations. He admits that his personal observations shaped his OPINION. Not once did he do any legitimate scientific research to back up his opinion that could be scrutinized by other Mammalogists. While I do not doubt any of his experiences, Dr. Giest was expressing his opinion. I also have no doubt that having wolves approach your wife at your home and her resulting fear would shape your opinion and biases. I'm certain it would mine. I believe his opinion carries more weight than others, but it was still opinion based on personal experience.

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.

From: Basil
29-Dec-22
I really don’t think pro wolf these groups had the foresight to know what wolves would do to big game populations. Plenty of areas where it’s hardly worth hunting & tag numbers are already reduced. You can bet your bottom dollar they know now. If wolves reduce game populations to where hunting can no longer be justified it’s a win win for them. Watch hunting opportunities & gun rights fall like dominos.

From: Mule Power
29-Dec-22
Show me peer reviewed journal research.

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.

From: Sivart
29-Dec-22
Its really not worth arguing with this troll. You could say the sky is blue, and he'll ask for a peer reviewed survey published on that? D bag.

29-Dec-22
Lots of BS on this thread. I live with wolves... Amazing animal, but a killing machine, We manage all predators but the wolves...... KS you have no idea, because they are not in your back yard..... Wonderful animal, but it needs mgt,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, end of story Most of those who post here on wolves, dont know shit,,,,, when the wolves live in your neighborhood, you can have a say,,,, if they dont Shut Up

30-Dec-22
Geist retired quite a while ago.. Most of his published research papers are available behind paywalls or from the institutions that published them, for a fee. Those that are unfamiliar with his writings should read what they can find. Use caution if you are afraid of logic.

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.

From: Grey Ghost
30-Dec-22
I have to agree with Mule Power here. IMO, people who live with and observe wildlife daily are just as qualified to speak about their behavior as any paid-for research group of biologists.

Matt

From: KSflatlander
30-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
“I gave you a lead, a published peer reviewed research paper, to back up what I said "with science". “

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…

From: Grey Ghost
30-Dec-22
The only "scientific" ( I use that term loosely) wildlife studies I've ever been involved with were two annual bighorn sheep counts that the CPW conducts to determine tag allocations for the following year. Both times I had drawn a tag in the unit and had already done extensive scouting prior to the organized event. The program basically consisted of driving around with a CPW officer to well-known vantage points to glass and record every sheep that we saw.

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

From: Basil
30-Dec-22
Endless condescending drivel

From: Old School
30-Dec-22
Matt - you’re making far too much sense, but unfortunately it’s all “anecdotal” ;-)

From: KSflatlander
30-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
No offense Matt but you too are making some big assumptions about bighorn sheep management in Colorado. The link is to the Colorado Bighorn Sheep Management Plan. On Page 25-26 they discuss how then do sheep counts. The assumption you are making is that big horn sheep populations are determined by ground surveys in poor visibility only and that their counts are wrong, and your count or knowledge is better. They don't use one method or year to estimate populations. They use helicopter surveys, fixed-wing surveys, and ground-based surveys as stated in the management plan. They have sightability correction factors build into the estimate based on mark-recapture studies. We do similar things when estimating in our wildlife studies. They also do not use one individual count in any given day or year. They have years of data collected by various methods and they also have an understanding of fecundity rates, predation rates, disease impacts, hunting harvest data, etc. based on other research done over decades. You are drawing the conclusion that the count you participated in was the only data source. It is not. You don't have to make that assumption as all the information and data is publicly available. I'm also guessing that there are defined parameters for when and where counts should be conducted. I'll bet that visibility due to weather is one of those parameters. It's possible that conducting a count in the conditions you describe may or may not have been defined in the survey methods. I can't imagine that it wasn't. If the CDOW person you were with didn't understand the "formula" then they may not have understood the methods either. That is a problem, but people are not infallible. That is also why they don't put all weight on one count on any given day. They will have multiple counts on various days over years to help reduce errors like this. They would have to in order to get defensible data otherwise their statistical analysis would be outside of target confidence intervals (i.e., they wouldn't have enough data to draw defensible conclusions).

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.

30-Dec-22
Alberta Yaha TInda migratory elk are now extirpated, from a population of over 4000. A place I have visited for 40 years.

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.

From: Basil
30-Dec-22
My degree is just a piece of paper. I don’t wield it to feel important. IMO my life experiences are far more valuable than that degree. Just a lifetime of watching & being totally obsessed with hunting, fishing, trapping and all things outdoors. All worthless anecdotal observations.

From: KSflatlander
30-Dec-22

KSflatlander's Link
"Alberta Yaha TInda migratory elk are now extirpated, from a population of over 4000."

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.

From: Old School
30-Dec-22
I mistakenly started reading KS’s posts back when this thread started. If he’s one thing, he is consistent - arrogant, condescending and stubbornly wrong. We all have choices of who we will interact with and allow into our lives.

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.

From: Orion
30-Dec-22
I'm bookmarking this post so when we lose a big percentage of our moose, elk, and deer hunting opportunities and the only thing that changed was the introduction of wolves we can ask the flatbrimmer and his peer reviewed studies.

From: Grey Ghost
30-Dec-22
Ryan, both of the sheep count's I was involved in were over 15 years ago. They didn't involve just one person's count, but rather multiple teams, which were each assigned a specific portion of the unit. At that time, there was never any mention of aerial surveys. Perhaps that has changed since then. I certainly hope so.

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

From: Old School
30-Dec-22
Orion - save yourself the exercise because when you prove you are correct and KS is wrong, he will obviously go find a “peer reviewed” article that proves it wasn’t the wolves that caused the decrease in big game.

From: Jaquomo
30-Dec-22
Orion, "studies" on the dramatic demise of Shiras moose in the Yellowstone wolf dumping area try to pin it on "climate change", ticks, development, burning of habitat, hunting, and down at the bottom of the list is "predation" as an afterthought.

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.

From: KSflatlander
30-Dec-22
Orion- please do. In the meantime, please point to anywhere on this thread where I said wolves would not have an impact. Actually I stated several times that if wolves are reintroduced to Colorado and not managed properly that there will be impacts. Show me anywhere were I said wolves won’t have an impact.

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.

From: Basil
30-Dec-22
I elk hunted elk quite a few years in Idaho pre wolves. Elk hunting was plenty good. Over those 4 hunts in a 10 year span I went 4 for 4 on nice bulls solo public ground. Not bad for a novice from the Midwest. In spite of being warned not to bother I went back to my old haunts about 10 years ago. Checked 4 familiar areas & several new ones over 14 days. Virtually void of elk & moose sign. Talked to a few local hunters, woodcutters & ranchers. All were absolutely wild about the wolves & what they had done to game herds & their cattle. Since then I’ve handed my old marked up topo maps to some hard charging young guys. They’ve been there with the same poor results. I the early 80’s I saw my 1st grizzly in that country. They were relocating some problem bears from Yellowstone. That was probably the beginning of the end. Grew up with black bears being thick as thieves. Never a worry, grizzly make for an uncomfortable sleep alone in a tent. Funny how if I can draw a New Mexico tag I can have a top quality hunt. The difference???? No wolves yet.

From: Old School
30-Dec-22
All anecdotal evidence Basil - will be duly noted and disregarded. In reality you probably just became a poor hunter and couldn’t find the elk that were really there.

From: Basil
30-Dec-22
My contacts in northern New Mexico are already dreading the inevitable spill over from Colorado reintroductions. Wolves have feet you know & they don’t abide by state lines.

From: Basil
30-Dec-22
Was in SE Alberta mule deer hunting several years ago. Big news was that one of the ranchers had just shot a wolf in the same spot his grandfather killed the last one 70 years before. Likely another wanderer from Montana reintroductions. Locals were not impressed there either.

From: Mule Power
30-Dec-22

Mule Power's Link
I read an article yesterday that said that educated people are actually more likely to believe all of the propaganda because of the way it is presented. In peer reviewed studies. I literally laughed out loud.

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

From: Mule Power
30-Dec-22

Mule Power's Link
Oh man this is a really good and very important one too. These are a bit lengthy but extremely good reads. Well worth the time to check out.

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

From: Bigdog 21
30-Dec-22

From: Bigdog 21
30-Dec-22
Go to Idaho fish and game.. state of deer and elk. Straight from the fish and game department. Dec.2022

From: KSflatlander
30-Dec-22
You said it Mule Power, they are just articles. Actually they are less, they are just conversation transcripts and a letter.

From: Jaquomo
30-Dec-22
I wish every study listed the funding sources and political alignments of the "scientists" that produced them, and also the funding benefactors and political alignments of each of the "peers" that reviewed them.

From: cnelk
30-Dec-22
Guys. Guys. Guys. Again… KSflatlander has a pedigree from a liberal indoctrination center. Reasoning isn’t part of their curriculum

From: KSflatlander
30-Dec-22
Cnelk- how do you know where I went to college? Where did you get your degree?

From: RK
30-Dec-22
That's Funny KS. Anyone that wants to know where you went to College, where you live , who you are married to, who you work for, etc etc etc. it's a simple search away.

That's probably not a good defense.

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

From: Mule Power
30-Dec-22
I’d appreciate if you actually read it and made a civilized comment.

31-Dec-22
Kansas,

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.

From: Orion
31-Dec-22
That can't be true walking buffalo ks flatlander didn't post it and it wasn't peer reviewed

31-Dec-22
and…it doesn’t fit his agenda.

From: Basil
31-Dec-22
Read up on what happened to the last & furthest South herd of caribou. Michipicoten island on Lake Superior in Ontario. Unusually cold winter in 2014 the wolves walked out to the island in a rare event where the lake froze over. Wolves got out there & in just a couple years the caribou were completely wiped out.

From: Hackbow
01-Jan-23
peer reviewed science = agenda-driven echo chamber

This is what passes for science to libtards.

From: KSflatlander
01-Jan-23
Walking Buffalo- you reply with “Kansas” first then say you’re not replying and then reply. Ok.

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.

From: Basil
01-Jan-23
Ontario Caribou on Lake Superior were a prized & highly studied population of animals. They were located on just a couple islands on the North end of Lake Superior. Slate Islands had a herd. Somehow the wolves reached the Island & completely wiped out all the caribou in a few years. Presumably all the wolves either starved out or swam to the mainland & none remained. Few years later in 2014 wolves walked out to Michipicoten Island in a rare ice event. In a few short years the Caribou were wiped out with no recruitment. Ironically in a bold albeit late effort to save the herd they captured the last remaining animals, 4 bulls. After discussing options they were transported to the Slate Islands where no wolves or caribou remained. In this strange new world maybe one of these bulls is a birthing mother & the population can recover ;) Interestingly relocating these animals to Isle Royal in the USA was discussed. They Feds pushed back stating you can’t artificially manipulate populations in a National park. The Isle Royal wolf/ moose are one of the more highly studied relationships. Wolves were struggling on the island due to inbreeding. Only a couple non breeding wolves remained. Moose & beaver populations were recovering nicely with less predation. Ironically they decided to relocate wolves (interfere with nature) from 3 states to improve genetic diversity & reestablish a breeding population. Ironically as well moose from a struggling Minnesota moose population were killed & dumped in feeding stations on the island to help these newly relocated wolves acclimate. F…ing unbelievable. Uncontrolled wolves anywhere are never a positive.

From: Orion
01-Jan-23
Flatbrimmer one simple question are Colorado's elk and moose herds going to do better or worse with wolves?

From: Basil
01-Jan-23
Another side note. One of these collared Isle Royal transplants walked back across the ice to mainland Minnesota. It was promptly shot & killed. Outrage ensued & no stone would be left unturned until the perpetrator was brought to justice. The story quietly died when it was discovered the wolf had been killed by a member of the Grand Pottage band of Ojibwa with a pellet gun while protecting his sled dogs in the yard.

From: Hackbow
01-Jan-23

Hackbow's embedded Photo
Hackbow's embedded Photo
The entertainment value of watching what passes for science to the politically woke would be high if the consequences were not so high. The movie Idiocracy is being played out, issue by issue, right in front of our eyes by the libtards and their RINO apologists.

Agenda-driven "scientists" employed by profit-driven global corporations working in conjunction with power-driven politicians continue to trot out narratives of fear, backed by their peer-reviewed sciency stuff (that the gen pop is told they can't possibly understand). The resultant policies created end up disrupting the natural order of things and we end up with "women" that look like this monstrosity in the picture.

To libs, up is down, right is wrong, ugly is beautiful, and gender is fluid. Wolves are not more important than other species. They are a tool used to seize control of state wildlife policies which historically have weighed heavily in favor of game management that pleases their constituencies - you know, the people too stupid to manage their own life, so the Big Bro machine will manage it for them.

The real wolf problem is those dressed up in scientists' clothing having the ear of fedgov bureaucracies.

From: KSflatlander
01-Jan-23
“Flatbrimmer one simple question are Colorado's elk and moose herds going to do better or worse with wolves?“

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

From: Bowbender
01-Jan-23
“Sure it can affect local drainages or GMUs. I’m not saying it wouldn’t”

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.

From: KSflatlander
01-Jan-23

KSflatlander's Link
Show me where I stated impact’s would be in one drainage or even one GMU. I think there will be at least some drainages in 2023 where they release the wolves that will be affected. One of the drainages could be where I hunt in 2023. But I’m not going to conclude that the elk are “extirpated” (old schools definition) or claim the wolves ate all the elk and they are gone.

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.

From: Basil
01-Jan-23
The issue is the pro wolf groups won’t allow control. Minnesota had 2 hunts several years back. Has been tied up in courts ever since. Even after court battles are won in favor of a hunt the Governor won’t allow one. Wisconsin has legal challenges over their hard fought hunt after the mentioned hunt went over the set numbers. The success & high kill rate implies to me there are several times more wolves in Wisconsin than they are telling us. Seems to be political/career suicide to say anything other than wolves are good.

From: Orion
01-Jan-23
So flatbrimmer the wolves will only affect a few select drainages and units? Are you serious?

From: KSflatlander
01-Jan-23
That depends on how the wolves are managed and how far in the future you are talking now doesn’t it?

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

From: Mule Power
01-Jan-23
A stable population of a couple hundred wolves?

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!

01-Jan-23
I participated on 2 wolf hunts with dogs..... man that is how it gets done,,,, talk about fun,.. better than running bear in my opinion,,,,,,, just set a quota and manage them,,,,, Never going to happen under the current dribble administration in this country,,,,

01-Jan-23
200 wolves likely means at least 10-15 packs. With home bases measured in double digit square miles per pack, there’s going to be more than a few drainages and gmu’s affected.

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.

From: KSflatlander
01-Jan-23
For the 10th time I don’t doubt what you seen or experienced. I have issues with your overstated conclusions, hyperbole, and stating opinion/assumptions as fact. I don’t think you even understand the difference in opinion and fact. For example:

“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?

From: Mule Power
01-Jan-23
Those of us in the real word occasionally use words to make a point that might confuse a bookworm. Extinct to him means there are zero in the area. Not that the entire species is non existent.

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.

From: Orion
01-Jan-23
The flatlander has been talking out both sides of his mouth this entire thread. One post wolves have not hurt deer or elk populations his next post well they might if they are not managed but only in one drainage or unit.

From: KSflatlander
01-Jan-23
Mule Power- that’s the most nonsensical BS I’ve seen in a while. Honestly, I get where you are coming from. I understand you have more experience than me with wolves. I understand why you are emotional about wolf reintroductions and it’s not unfounded. I understand your experience with wolves has shaped your opinion and is probably warranted too. I get your point of view and opinion. You need to understand that I don’t always share your opinion. Also understand that I didn’t vote for wolf reintroduction in Colorado. Had I been able to I would have voted against it because CDOW biologists that know the most about Colorado wildlife were against it. They know more than I ever will and I trust their judgement. My leg is too tired to kick this dead a%% horse anymore. Carry on but leave me out of it. I hope you have a great hunting season in 2023 especially if you go wolf hunting.

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?

From: SBC
01-Jan-23
In the long run, and I do mean long run, wolves will cause the big game herds to become more resilient as they will once again develope natural defense abilities that they once had when wolves freely roamed the landscape. This will undoubtedly take several generations and we will likely not see it in our lifetimes.

The argument that hunters use of a temporal loss of big game populations unfortunately is a by-product of the "we need more elk for hunters to kill" argument that in itself is not good science.

Striving for a balanced ecosystem is the goal of a true conservationist. Proper balance of prey, predator, food, cover, water achieves this in a natural setting, with well regulated hunting to achieve what nature cant.

Also imortant to note, A man-made reintroduction of a non native species, like the mexican grey wolves is not good science either.

From: Jaquomo
01-Jan-23
There is no such thing as a "natural setting" or a balanced ecosystem in a state with over 6 million people, growing to 10 million within the next few years. Colorado isn't the GYE, isn't WY or MT or ID. By the time the full dumping/reproducing experiment is fully established, we will have an unresolvable mess here.

From: SBC
01-Jan-23
I can agree with that. Millions of people inhabiting a landscape is by itself unnatural. There are alot of people out there that think man can do a better job managing wildlife than the creator can.

From: bowhunt
01-Jan-23
Man IS part of the eco system

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.

01-Jan-23
Regardless of Humans, there is no such thing as a "balance of Nature".

All of Nature is in a constant competitive flux.

01-Jan-23
The population objective for Colorado is "Phase 4" and no number has been set. "Phase 3" is 200 wolves or 150 wolves counted for 2 consecutive years.

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.

From: Groundhunter
01-Jan-23
Colorado does not need any wolves..... what for.... I lived in Dryden Ontario as a kid, what do you want them for...... they are as useless as mosquitoes........

From: Jaquomo
01-Jan-23
Groundhunter, "we" don't want them. Massive California money and activists from other states convinced the Front Range voters that wolves would be a wonderful thing, so they voted them in. 51 out of 64 counties voted against the dumping plan.

From: Mule Power
01-Jan-23
I understand your point of view and way of thinking too. It’s wrong.

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.

From: Basil
01-Jan-23
One sad story from a friend in Northern Minnesota. Cold winter night this old couple let their beloved wiener dog out before bed. The beloved pet went out the front door in a hand knit doggie sweater. Dog generally would scratch at the door as soon as it was done. This time it didn’t. They opened the door to see a wolf shaking it like a rag doll. Watched the wolf run off with the dog never to be seen again. Lots of similar stories in NE Minnesota

From: Basil
01-Jan-23
Actually hate to say it. Might be Karma if some of those ideological wolf lovers could experience similar heartache.

From: Mule Power
01-Jan-23
I understand your point of view and way of thinking too. It’s wrong.

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.

From: Jaquomo
02-Jan-23
Basil, that's what most of the state is hoping for. Unfortunately it will be awhile since the wolf dumping plan puts them as far from the Front Range voters as possible.

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!".

From: Basil
02-Jan-23
Buddy had a pair of labs. Wolves kill one of them & after that he kept a close eye on the other. One day in broad daylight he was doing dishes while watching his dog in the yard. He saw a big wolf, head up coming at his dog on a fast trot. He scrambled to get his rifle while watching out he window. His dog went towards the wolf & did that submissive dog thing. Lay down & exposed his belly. The wolf immediately grabbed him by the chest & killed him while he was scrambling out the door.

From: cnelk
02-Jan-23
Our family lost a few dogs to wolves up in Lake of the Woods County.

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.

From: Orion
02-Jan-23
No way cnelk if it wasn't peer reviewed it didn't happen

From: SBC
02-Jan-23
Funny thing is the wolf reintro passed as a statute,not a constitutional amendment.

I remember a few years back the voters voted in favor of an initiative that protected drilling, fracking, etc by statute. But then the legislature passed a law to tighten restrictions on those activities, because they know better than the voters, and going against the will of the voters.

Why then can't someone introduce a bill to prevent the wolf reintro?

From: Jaquomo
02-Jan-23
"Why then can't someone introduce a bill to prevent the wolf reintro?"

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.

From: Basil
02-Jan-23
Soudan, Minnesota they were luring dogs away from people walking dogs in town. Same deal one would lure them away into a trap with more wolves. Evil cunning bastards.

From: Mule Power
02-Jan-23
Lion hunters run a big risk every time they turn their hounds loose. We would drive a road all the way in and out making sure there were no wolf tracks before even thinking of putting them on a cat track. Some days we’d have to drive 6 or 8 roads before we could find one without wolf tracks. That’s during December when all the deer and elk were down low. Friends turned 4 dogs loose in Idaho by the Dworshak Reservoir and before they could get to the tree all 4 were dead. Fish and game confirmed it was wolves. At an average of $2500 for solid lion dogs that’s a big loss but unlike cattle and sheep ranchers there is no reimbursement from the state for that.

From: Basil
02-Jan-23
Wisconsin bear hunters are losing hounds to wolves as well.

From: Ambush
02-Jan-23
^^^^ Same in BC.

From: Grey Ghost
02-Jan-23
Over 300 elk winter in my neck of the woods, which happens to be livestock country, as well. I see the elk almost daily this time of year. I have no doubt wolves will be in my backyard within a few years of the dumpings. I have to admit, if they kill any livestock, or pets in my neighborhood, I won’t hesitate to become a SSS advocate.

Matt

03-Jan-23
Better get ready Matt. Wolves protected from their main predators, act like any other prey animal that has protection from its main predator. They flourish. The more wolves, the more likely they’ll key on domesticated food.

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.

From: WapitiBob
05-Jan-23
"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."

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.

From: Jaquomo
05-Jan-23
The reasons (not an excuse) an initiative petition would be futile are because 70% voted to end spring bear and baiting back when CO was almost red. Today it would lose by a greater margin. And any campaign would be out-funded 100:1 by big west coast animal rights money just like the trapping vote and the wolf vote, and the soon to be decided lion and bobcat hunting initiative. It takes big money to win a statewide election. Their side has it. Our side does not. This is the reality.

From: Bigdog 21
05-Jan-23
In reality hunting is about over. The end is in site. Only 5.1% of the population are hunters. And not viewed very well by most.

05-Jan-23
And unfortunately hunters have earned a very poor reputation. Trespassing, social media posts, Bubba language, poaching, attacking private landowners, and trophy hunting are all viewed in a negative light by non hunting voters. These voters are not anti hunting, but we tend to keep them from being pro hunting. We make it easy for them to cast a negative vote.

From: bowhunt
05-Jan-23
^^^

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!

05-Jan-23
Here I thought that the 10th rounds to try to elect a House Speaker was crazy. And here we still are, the 100th round, still talking/arguing about the reintroduction of wolves into Colorado; that's too crazy also.

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

My best, Paul

06-Jan-23
You can also include YouTube videos in my list. Since when are trophy hunters a small fraction? And remember, the idiots are the ones who get the liberal press.

06-Jan-23
The greater fraction gets zero press, remember that.

From: Orion
19-Jan-23
Well at least the wolfers came out in droves to the meeting today. They want 750 wolves and no lethal means of management. We are so F'd

19-Jan-23
Too bad, but exactly what most Americans voted for with their liberal mindset.

From: Jaquomo
19-Jan-23
It's what 13 counties out of 64 in Colorado voted for. Of course, they voted to dump the wolves onto the people who voted against them. Colorado is totally screwed, and the super- blue legislature is just getting started in their effort to turn us into California as quickly as possible.

From: Orion
19-Jan-23
Lou did you watch the meeting?

19-Jan-23
The last Wolf Reintroduction public input meeting, last of four, will be held in Denver at the CPW Hdq on Wed, Feb. 22. I plan on attending. The draft plan is available on the CPW website. I will hope that the CPW staff sticks to their plan and the CPW Commission support that.

From: fishnride
19-Jan-23
750 is an unbelievable number! If I remember correctly the original carrying capacity of the entire Yellowstone ecosystem which is all of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah was around 1250 total!

From: Orion
19-Jan-23
Yeah no kidding those people are out of their minds but that is what they proposed and what they told CPW their models say the carrying capacity is. They have also started massive fundraising efforts its crazy. They are also pushing for no lethal management whatsoever, ever.

From: fishnride
19-Jan-23
750 is an unbelievable number! If I remember correctly the original carrying capacity of the entire Yellowstone ecosystem which is all of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah was around 1250 total!

From: ohiohunter
19-Jan-23
I have my assumptions but have never heard what exactly is their argument for the introduction?

19-Jan-23
The ballot issue that caused introduction was because hard core leftys know that wolves mean only good things if you want less hunting, less commercial use of resources, less ranching, and to give a middle finger to conservatives.

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

19-Jan-23
It is my understanding that those CPW staff members, in charge of the Colorado Wolf Plan have to listen to all proposals. The prowolfes plan/proposal was just that. This surely does not mean that the CPW will adopt that particular proposal or any part of it. Our hope is that CPW stick to their guns, and follow the intention of the drafted plan and beyond. Yea, yea, prowolfers take Colorado to court if they do not get their way? We will see but if history repeats itself...............................!

  • Sitka Gear