View Full Version : RMEF Warns of Colorado Wolf Reintroduction Ballot Initiative
Shooter45
04-16-2019, 15:47
MISSOULA, Mont.?The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is signaling a warning about an organized ballot initiative effort just underway in Colorado seeking to forcibly introduce gray wolves into the state.
?To be clear, RMEF strongly opposes the forced introduction of gray wolves to Colorado,? said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. ?We have witnessed 20 plus years of lies and litigation in the Northern Rockies concerning wolves. This Colorado effort is driven by the same groups using the same tactics to accomplish their agenda.?
In the Northern Rockies, initial recovery goals were established and agreed upon for the introduction of gray wolves that took place in 1995-96. Those goals were reached in 2002 but final delisting did not occur in Idaho and Montana until a congressional fix in 2011. Wyoming did not receive the ultimate ability to manage wolves until 2017. Animal rights and environment extremist groups used litigation and propaganda to delay the delisting time after time. (Scroll down to view a full listing of lawsuits and a timeline.)
Fortunately, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is already on record (https://www.summitdaily.com/news/wolf-reintroduction-in-colorado-faces-new-obstacle/) in opposition to a forced reintroduction. CPW has a wolf management plan in place and is prepared to effectively manage the already occurring natural colonization of wolves to Colorado. The ballot initiative is nothing more than a propaganda and fundraising-based effort by environmental extremists.
?A forced introduction of wolves to Colorado would cost untold amounts of taxpayer dollars, redirect already limited wildlife management resources and would have a significant negative economic impact to the state,? said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. ?In Colorado, you are dealing with about a third of the land mass of the Northern Rockies? states but almost double the human population. A forced reintroduction would trigger the potential for real issues in the state.?
In addition, elk populations in southwest Colorado are already struggling (https://elknetwork.com/elk-population-ailing-in-southwest-colorado/). Researchers are working to find the cause of poor calf recruitment and low elk numbers. A forced reintroduction of wolves would be catastrophic to this work and the established elk and deer herds in the area.
Environmental groups continue to claim wolf reintroduction would ?restore natural balance,? yet science (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190403122429.htm) shows that is anything but a given. Research also directly disputes the assumption that reintroducing wolves trigger what is termed trophic cascade (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20957967?) or that the wolf?s presence automatically benefits biodiversity.
?It is one thing if wolves naturally return to Colorado, but it is something completely different if they are artificially placed on the landscape to complicate a system that is already complicated by human population and development,? added Weaver.
https://elknetwork.com/rmef-warns-of-colorado-wolf-reintroduction-ballot-initiative/?fbclid=IwAR3GgqQj3ugczvE-C94Y--1TdOHYWSBLRNSsgeu9nYEo7M4j8vXQOo3oaW0
Would not destroy hunting in Colorado. This is a bunch of BS hysteria.
Little Dutch
04-16-2019, 16:36
I'm not convinced that introducing wolves to CO is going to be the disaster that some are claiming. I'm not a farmer, but I do have some horses I'd be mildly concerned about. I also have neighbors with rifles that don't tolerate predators too well, so it's probably a moot point.
I heard they were pissed that we forcibly reintroduced Moose in CO too...
https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMeeting2019-3.aspx
Yeah, its my understanding that when wolves were initially introduced in to yellowstone they saw a drop in Elk numbers but over the years as Elk learned how to deal with wolves that there was once again an upward trend in Elk populations.
I think the natural progression of wolves in to the state is going to happen and would be the best as a slow build up would allow the local deer and elk to naturally respond in a way that wouldnt be a total shock to the system.
In the end I wonder more about where this ultimately leads in the long game as an argument by the side that wants introduction as a way to reduce hunting as they are currently going for an initiative to end cat hunting in the state. I could see them using the natural balance argument to limit hunting and ultimately end it for all species involved.
Shooter45
04-16-2019, 16:38
Have you been up to Yellowstone recently and seen the elk or moose? They're nearly non existent now.
Have you been up to Yellowstone recently and seen the elk or moose? They're nearly non existent now.
They might not be where people are, but I doubt they're gone. There will always be an adjustment period when a predator is reintroduced, but it won't last forever. It didn't help that the elk and moose in Yellowstone aren't allowed to be hunted so knew they could just lounge around by the visitor centers and have less contact with predators.
Further, while wildlife extremist groups DO hold stuff up in court in bullshit ways, and DO want to end all hunting, that is in no way an excuse to prevent restoring all of the wildlife back to the state.
Maybe some bills about hunting and eating all the wild horses in Colorado should be presented and give the animal people something else to concentrate on.
Didn't realize there were so many with Wildlife Management degrees on this site.
Site is going to be a pretty boring place since we can't discuss things outside of our degrees.
I don't have a degree so maybe that qualifier wouldn't be all bad for the site.
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/58149160.jpg
Would not destroy hunting in Colorado. This is a bunch of BS hysteria. So do you think that the introduction of wolves will help alleviate the lack of big game tags for hunters in this state? Hard enough to get a tag as it is without having a top predator hunting 24/7/365 for the same big game animals.
The amount of money that Colo. spends already, to reimburse land owners for damage caused by big game, is bad enough as it is, wolves won't help that out any either.
Some think that we will just get a hunting season for wolves and control their numbers. Think again. Don't have to look any further than WY, MT., ID. to see how well that works. First it takes years and years of court battles just to get a season, and then wolves are dang hard to successfully hunt.
OTC bull elk tags are available every single year.
Let's get something right out in the open right now. Most people who say they care about elk, don't. They only care that there will be an elk for them to kill. Some people think it's a shame that most animal conservation only happens because people want them to be around to hunt, and that is NOT the argument I'm trying to make.
It just seems like a childish argument to me. "Whaaaa, a wolf/cat/out-of-state hunter might kill a game animal before I do." Anything new people will find reasons to bitch about, even if they have to make up the reasons.
"I won't be able to find any elk or deer." - walk further and hunt longer.
"The liberals tie everything up in court or try to outlaw hunting" - donate to organizations that fight them, or otherwise do something else to fight for what you want.
I'm honestly not trying to sound as shitty as I'm coming across, but I don't have a better way to express my opinion. It's just my opinion. We can all still be friends. Half my hunting partners probably disagree with me. I'm trying not to make judgments, just expressing my opinion.
Wolves slaughter 19 elk in 'sport killing'
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/us/wyo...ter/index.html
(CNN)In what appears to be a case of "sport killing," a pack of wolves slaughtered a herd of elk in one night, Wyoming wildlife officials said Friday.
Nineteen elk, mostly calves, were found dead several days ago at a feeding ground near Bondurant, a town southeast of Jackson, said John Lund of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. A contractor delivering feed to the herd discovered the dead animals.
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160325214417-wyoming-elk-slaughter-exlarge-169.jpeg
Good article on the history of the introduction of Canadian wolves to Yellowstone, and their subsequent destruction of native wildlife species.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/77682 (https://canadafreepress.com/article/do-you-realize-now-what-you-have-done)
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/153743-Wolf-reintroduction-in-Colorado?highlight=wolves
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/71663-Wolves-in-Colorado?highlight=wolves
Yep, predators kill prey. I remember that event, mostly because there aren't many reported other ones to blur my memory.
OTC bull elk tags are available every single year For now, how about moose tags? Or do wolves only eat elk?
You're right, I like big game hunting and I don't see a reason to introduce another critter that kill the same animals I want to hunt. BUT, I also realize that with wolves come many other problems/conflicts that will end up costing way more than lack of MY hunting resources.
It’s a lie that wolves don’t kill just for fun (https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/cowboy_common_sense/article_1fa1a495-101f-5d24-8d79-c0658c8679c9.html)
Firehaus
04-17-2019, 11:13
For now, how about moose tags? Or do wolves only eat elk?
You're right, I like big game hunting and I don't see a reason to introduce another critter that kill the same animals I want to hunt. BUT, I also realize that with wolves come many other problems/conflicts that will end up costing way more than lack of MY hunting resources.
What about Muley populations already down so far you can?t get a tag in certain areas to hunt them? Gunnison area die off after a hard winter? White tail deer out breeding them/ hybridization of them causing sterile males locking up female mule deer reducing breeding?
Wolves are bad, no matter what that hippy dippy feel good yellowstone video would have you believe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The MeatEater podcast released today is all about wolves. Has a biologist who specializes in wolves, Diane Boyd, on a the guest. Pretty balanced conversation. Pretty much puts to bed all the bullshit from both sides of the wolf issue, including a lot of the things mentioned in this very thread. Give it a listen if you're interested learning something besides stuff you hear in a bar.
http://themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-166-hunting-with-teeth
I didn't listen from front to back, BUT I did catch where they discussed Colo.
No doubt that wolves won't wipe out any one species, much like coyotes, their numbers fluctuate following their prey base. Less prey to eat, less coyote pups that live to maturity. Same with wolves. But we still have to manage their numbers to keep the number of conflicts to a low roar. Can you imagine if coyote hunting was banned. Sure, they wouldn't wipe out the antelope, or the rabbits, or the mice, or the cattle, but a guy could guess with a high probability of being right what would happen if their numbers weren't kept in check. And we all witnessed how the other states battled years and years to even get a season open to hunt wolves. This state won't be any different.
Also, we have to remember too that Colo. has a much higher human population then any other state that currently has wolves. ...CO 52 people per square mile, ID 20 per, MT 7 per and WY 6 per. The human interactions with wolves will increase as our population increases and could be expected to be worse then in any of the other states currently.
I wonder, if/when wolves are reintroduced in Colo., who will foot the bill? Hunters dollars? Tax payers dollars?
Do you think if the money all comes from the CDOW&P that hunters will be happy about it? Being like cutting your nose of in spite of your face. As a hunter, I hate that it takes years to get a quality tag as it is, with wolves being brought in it won't make it any easier.
Coyotes are different than wolves in that the more we kill them, the more coyotes there are. If there were no coyote hunting, there would be far less coyotes.
I didn't listen from front to back, BUT I did catch where they discussed Colo.
No doubt that wolves won't wipe out any one species, much like coyotes, their numbers fluctuate following their prey base. Less prey to eat, less coyote pups that live to maturity. Same with wolves. But we still have to manage their numbers to keep the number of conflicts to a low roar. Can you imagine if coyote hunting was banned. Sure, they wouldn't wipe out the antelope, or the rabbits, or the mice, or the cattle, but a guy could guess with a high probability of being right what would happen if their numbers weren't kept in check. And we all witnessed how the other states battled years and years to even get a season open to hunt wolves. This state won't be any different.
Also, we have to remember too that Colo. has a much higher human population then any other state that currently has wolves. ...CO 52 people per square mile, ID 20 per, MT 7 per and WY 6 per. The human interactions with wolves will increase as our population increases and could be expected to be worse then in any of the other states currently.
I wonder, if/when wolves are reintroduced in Colo., who will foot the bill? Hunters dollars? Tax payers dollars?
Do you think if the money all comes from the CDOW&P that hunters will be happy about it? Being like cutting your nose of in spite of your face. As a hunter, I hate that it takes years to get a quality tag as it is, with wolves being brought in it won't make it any easier.
Minnesota has 66 people per square mile and the highest population of wolves in the lower 48, 2278 vs Idaho at 770.. how many times have you heard in the news about wolf issues in Minnesota?
as for wolves in Colorado, they are already on their way. I favor a natural introduction as prey animals will have time to adapt. There is no reason to rush something that is already happening naturally.
Coyotes are different than wolves in that the more we kill them, the more coyotes there are. If there were no coyote hunting, there would be far less coyotes. That's not a true statement. Coyotes do have the ability to have larger litters when food supply is high and visa-versa, BUT if we stop hunting them there won't be less, UNLESS their food supply declines, which would have to include everything they eat, and what they eat is a very wide variety from insects, fruit, and anything of meat. About the only two events that I've ever seen have a great impact on coyote numbers is disease and severe drought.
I challenge you to find any cattle rancher that wants no coyote hunting on his land because he believes no hunting will lead to fewer coyotes. You would think if no hunting equaled fewer coyotes, a rancher would be the first to know it.
Back when we extricated wolves from the US, they had bounties on wolves and coyotes. Every year the population of wolves dropped, and so did the number of bounties paid out. Every year the population of coyotes stayed the same and the bounties paid out on coyotes remained the same. Not only was hunting pressure not effective in lowering coyote populations, but it pushed coyotes into areas that they did not inhabit before. There are coyotes in every single major US city and that was not the case when settled this country. Yellowstone is a great resource for watching what happens with many species let alone with zero hunting pressure. The coyote population in Yellowstone initially rose, then leveled off and has remained the same since (well until the wolves came back anyway).
I'm not advocating that people shouldn't hunt coyotes, only that hunting is not an effective method of population control. Cattle ranchers can and do believe what they want, but hunting coyotes doesn't put a dent in the population. It's pretty much the same with pigs. People who say they are hunting them to control the population are either lying to justify their love of hunting pigs/coyotes, or are misinformed in the effect their hunting is having. Again, I don't care either way, just pointing some things out.
Here is a historical reference about coyote bounties in Kansas. Kansas paid out so many bounties year after year that they first raised the price, then had to lower it because they couldn't afford to pay. At some point they suggested building a fence along three sides of the state to keep coyotes from Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma out of the state, and even birth control.
https://www.kshs.org/publicat/history/1997autumn_antle.pdf
Here is another paper: https://mdc.mo.gov/blogs/more-quail/bounty-hunter
and this excerpt that reads:
Do they work?
The short answer is "no," at least not if the goal is to reduce a predator's population, recruit new hunters or improve game populations. In addition, there may be unintended consequences and your time can be spent doing better activities.
Let’s look at what happened in Missouri when we had a bounty system on coyotes from 1936-1947. A study of this bounty system showed that while it resulted in the destruction of large numbers of predators, it did not reduce the damage to livestock or the number of complaints. “Eleven years of bounty figures offers no evidence that the population of coyotes has been reduced thereby.”
They also compared the bounty system to hiring “government trappers” to respond to landowner complaints of coyotes killing livestock. They determined it was effective in reducing problem-causing coyotes, but was too expensive for the counties to continue and did nothing to reduce the overall coyote population. It was noted at that time the most cost-effective method is what the Department does presently, train landowners to trap problem predators which are killing livestock.
That's not a true statement. Coyotes do have the ability to have larger litters when food supply is high and visa-versa, BUT if we stop hunting them there won't be less, UNLESS their food supply declines, which would have to include everything they eat, and what they eat is a very wide variety from insects, fruit, and anything of meat. About the only two events that I've ever seen have a great impact on coyote numbers is disease and severe drought.
I challenge you to find any cattle rancher that wants no coyote hunting on his land because he believes no hunting will lead to fewer coyotes. You would think if no hunting equaled fewer coyotes, a rancher would be the first to know it.
Actually it has been shown that when you kill coyotes they have larger litters and unlike wolves they will split packs and disperse in singles and pairs, wolves will die as a pack. When coyotes do their howling late in the evening just after sunset they are doing a sort of roll call. When populations dip and some coyotes do not respond they naturally produce larger litters and in extreme conditions they split off from their groups and spread. Coyotes historically only existed in the South West US, over the last century as the government waged their war on coyotes the only thing that was accomplished was that they are now found in all lower 48 states. These responses are documented in the book “Coyote America” by Dan Flores. After reading about some of this I did a bit of research online about ranchers and coyotes which led me to some farming and ranching forums and the general consensus on coyotes was that any time a coyote scavenged calf was found the calf had died of natural causes and the coyotes were scavenging the carcass.
I'm not advocating that people shouldn't hunt coyotes, only that hunting is not an effective method of population control. Cattle ranchers can and do believe what they want, but hunting coyotes doesn't put a dent in the population. It's pretty much the same with pigs. People who say they are hunting them to control the population are either lying to justify their love of hunting pigs/coyotes, or are misinformed in the effect their hunting is having. Again, I don't care either way, just pointing some things out. I agree with all of this, BUT this is far from what you stated earlier. I know very well that hunting in general really has little impact on the coyote population in general. It's a temporary reduction, at best. I read a study some where that showed that 70% of a coyote population would have to be killed annually, to have an actual impact on numbers. Hunting can't do that. That's why many ranchers pay for government airplane gunning and trapping.
Now did hunting push coyotes into big cities, or did the coyote adapt to an area where they have plenty of food, and yes, no hunting pressure. Did at one time cites allow shooting within the city limits, and now they don't? To say that hunting pushed coyotes into the suburbs is arguable. IMO, they adapted to an area where they find lots of easy food and eventually they lose their fear of man. Plenty of coyotes in cities now that have no concept of hunting pressure, but yet they certainly have no reason to move back out in the country.
So if you were a rancher would you stop all coyote hunting on your property? Knowing what you know! Would you be willing to let the coyotes have a few calves each year, because after all, they're just doing what they do when they kill and eat a calf, or three. OR would you rather make an attempt to reduce their numbers in hopes that instead of killing 3, they don't kill any calves?
One other thing, not all coyotes are calf killers, BUT once they start there's only one way to stop them. So again, if you're a rancher do you leave em alone until after you start finding dead half eatin' calves, or do you try to be pro-active and prevent the problem from starting? Or maybe you find a good source of rabbits and bring them in and release them, you know, in hopes that the coyote changes it's preferred food source. Sarcasm....
coyote population follows food source available, they don't adjust for any other reason. Killing them and them having larger litters is because fewer coyotes equals more food for the remaining coyotes. In other words, killing them doesn't make them adjust litter size, abundant food or lack of food has far more impact.
So now we are to believe that coyotes don't even kill calves. They probably don't kill antelope or deer fawns either.
several years ago I was back home in Kansas on a hunting trip. My brother, who hunts coyotes a lot, got a call from a farmer that had never allowed any coyote hunting on his land. It was calving season and the farmer had all his cattle brought in close to his house so that he could monitor them regularly. He had stepped out of his house on his way out to check them one last time before he went to bed and he heard a cow making a heck of a ruckus. He hurried out and in his headlights of his pickup he saw the coyotes scatter and he thankfully got there before they had killed the 3 day old calf. He took the calf in his house to doctor it and do his best to save it that night. When he went back out the next morning he found that the calves momma had been killed and partially eatin'. Now, I suppose those coyotes didn't kill that cow, it was weak and about to die anyways?
Plenty of farmers and ranchers have stories much like that one. Calves that were a few days old found nearly completely eatin' over night. If you think coyotes only clean up still borns amd don't kill healthy young calves, you really have no clue.
No one is saying that ranchers, or anyone else, shouldn't shoot coyotes. Of course ranchers should protect their heard. Shooting problem coyotes is ideal because it temporarily reduces the very local population and buys the calves time to grow up. All I'm saying is that hunting is not an effective form of coyote population control.
The most important part of this thread so far, and the part that is true, is that when the wolf population can sustain it, there should be a hunting season for them. It sounds like wolves do a much better job controlling the coyote population than we do (they actively seek out coyote dens, dig up their young, and kill them, whereas they are not that aggressive with each other), and wolves are much easier for us to control the population. Smart ranchers would welcome most wolves (as long as they aren't protected) since they'll keep coyotes down and wolf populations are easier to deal with.
I agree, there should be a hunting season for wolves, but to say wolves are easier to control, certainly not by hunting. By trapping and aerial gunning, maybe.
A hunting season is the hard part. In this liberal leaning state, how many years do you suppose it'll take, past the point of "sustainable wolf numbers", to get a hunting season established? This state is on the brink of stopping mtn. lion and bobcat hunting, do you think that it'll be easy to get a wolf season established? I don't, not for one second.
I'd say you're right that just a hunting season alone is not necessarily going to control wolf populations, but I guess we don't really know in this state since it hasn't happened before. I'm sure there is some data in other states, but I've not looked at that or heard. As long as ranchers are able to eliminate problem wolves, then I think things will be manageable. I agree that the future of hunting in Colorado looks dismal politically.
What is the benefit to introducing wolves to Colorado?
That's a good question. I guess it's similar to asking what the benefit of having grass around your house.
I personally like the idea of having all the animals on the landscape that were here when we got here. If we're going to actively select how wild our wilderness is going to be, might as well just pave every forest imo.
Bailey Guns
05-06-2019, 12:42
I don't know enough to have an informed opinion buy it seems to me letting nature take it's course in terms of wolves might be a better option. I know, for the most part, wolf re-introduction in Idaho wasn't very popular. People here hate them.
My neighbor saw two wolves on the hillside above our, and their, home a few months ago. Wish I could've seen them.
That's a good question. I guess it's similar to asking what the benefit of having grass around your house.
I personally like the idea of having all the animals on the landscape that were here when we got here. If we're going to actively select how wild our wilderness is going to be, might as well just pave every forest imo.
Then you'll be ripping up that Kentucky Bluegrass or whatever you have? Cus unless you are running true wild grasses, it's not the case. The modern lawn is a post-ww2 accretion which needs to die. It's an egregious misuse of water in states like CO.
The reality is man is master over nature.
Wolves are vicious creatures which deserve no quarter. The love affair will end when they start killing people and everyone remembers why they were practically eradicated to begin with.
They were eradicated to begin with because when the Europeans got here, they just kept doing what they'd always done and people didn't understand that things were not infinite. Further, every wild animal is vicious. More people are probably injured by deer in car accidents than will ever be killed by wolves.
As to Bailey's point, it really seems like all these issues are mostly social. There are always those who are for or against and usually the issues are made up. Idaho has under 1,000 wolves and people hate them? I'd have to say that those people are morons. The wolf to people interaction has got to be so infrequent.
Haven't you heard, the state of Colo. takes in more money for "wildlife viewing" then they do from the hunting industry. I read some where, where a wolf lover said, "a living wolf is worth more than a dead one", based on what someone has decided "wildlife viewing" brings into the state. I suppose any NR that drives through this state is considered a "wildlife viewer"..
I'm not sure that the number is accurate, but I read on another site that the pro-wolf movement people are targeting 1000 wolves in Colo. That lady on the podcast said that a typical wolf needs between 7 and 8# of meat a day. The math, 1000 wolves multiplied by 365 days a year eating an avg. sized elk of about 650# = about 4500 elk a year.
I wonder, where will they find 1000 wolves to transplant and who pays for it?
Obviously wolves aren't going to live on just elk alone, but you're correct that those numbers matter.
That 1,000 number doesn't seem real. Even with a forced introduction, I doubt they'd try for a number that high. I think you're right. By the time they trapped 1,000 wolves, they could have two established packs. Wish real info were more easily accessible.
Bailey Guns
05-06-2019, 15:23
As to Bailey's point, it really seems like all these issues are mostly social. There are always those who are for or against and usually the issues are made up. Idaho has under 1,000 wolves and people hate them? I'd have to say that those people are morons. The wolf to people interaction has got to be so infrequent.
I don't know that I'd say they're morons. Most of the wolves are in the panhandle...probably a third of the state. Most of the complaints come from ranchers and farmers that lose a significant amount of livestock to wolves or those in the hunting industry who say they've decimated ungulate herds in the area. Anecdotally, I'd say there is at least some evidence that's true. I live basically on the edge of two of the biggest wilderness areas in the state and I've spent a significant amount of time in the back country. I've not yet seen an elk in Idaho. I've seen them in SE Washington.
You're right about the number of wolves in the state. Estimates of 90 packs at 6 to 9 wolves per pack are common. Fish and Game has to wage a PR battle they don't wanna wage with the population. It's not so much that people are against wolves. It's that they were given a number and said that's where the population should roughly remain...150 to keep them off the endangered species list. But now there are 5 times that number and pro-wolf activists want even more. It's a big political thing here.
Personally, I think they're magnificent animals...just like elk. I wouldn't want to kill one. On the other hand, my livelihood isn't related to them.
In March 2015, Idaho Fish and Game reported that 19 wolves were culled along the Lolo range straddling the Idaho Montana border in an effort to improve elk survival. Elk numbers in the Lolo Zone dropped from 16,000 elk to about 2,100 animals in 2010, and wolves were deemed to be the biggest predator to elk cows and calves.
In some cases they're allowing the wolves to basically do to elk as what people did to wolves.
I don't have the answer.
I feel comfortable walking back my statement that people are morons for hating wolves in general. I will comment on the elk heard number in Montana though as it was specifically addressed in the podcast I posted. Two bad winters killed 80% of that elk population, which was apparently above average, not wolves. That quoted sentence is misleading because wolves may well be the biggest predator of elk, but it wasn't wolves that killed 14,000 elk in two years.
The other thing that podcast mentions is that cats kill elk as well, and there are just as many or more cats, but no one cares about them because they've always been there. People tend to attribute any and every change to whatever is the newest factor in the equation.
Basically from what I've gathered listening to a bunch of different podcasts with wild life biologists is that winter kills more of everything than wolves do. Wolves are like 1911's in WWI and winter is like the mud.
Bailey Guns
05-06-2019, 15:53
double tap
Bailey Guns
05-06-2019, 15:54
That quoted sentence is misleading because wolves may well be the biggest predator of elk, but it wasn't wolves that killed 14,000 elk in two years.
Yep...fair enough. I meant that as proof of the declining elk population in general but didn't make it clear by inserting that quote where I did.
I believe the first documented wolf was vowed right where 16th street mall is currently at. So that is where the first ones should be released.
Second was in of all places in downtown boulder.
I say let em loose with those guidelines!
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Instagram page just posted photos of a collared wolf in Jackson County that they say their biologists are working to verify. They also say there have been reports of a sighting in Grand County.
Thats a 200.00 coyote to the fur buyer. Like always just kidding.
Can see pictures here. https://www.instagram.com/p/BztG-e4he0G/
Shouldn't have to log in or anything.
TheSparkens
07-09-2019, 20:16
We were up in the Kenosha's about 5 years ago and saw what we were positive was a wolf and when we were on our way down we ran into a ranger. This is how my buddy approached the conversation.
My buddy: Hey we saw a wolf about two miles up the hill.
Ranger: There is no wolf in Colorado.
My buddy: Cool then you won't mind if when I see it again that I shoot it because I can take a hybrid.
Ranger: In a very stern voice said " I wouldn't advise you to shoot that wolf or you will have a big problem with me " now can I see your ID's and licenses, please.
We found it a bit odd that he said don't shoot that wolf just after telling us there was no wolf in Colorado.
.455_Hunter
07-09-2019, 22:00
Pretty sure one of the Yellowstone females got hit on I-70 in Idaho Springs not too long after re-introduction. That got swept under the rug pretty quick.
The CPW is going to deny the presence of wolves as long as possible because once they admit that they are here the state will then have to come up with management plans, environmental impact statements, laws and everything else that comes with having a protected species within your state.
No different than all of the states that claim that they have no mountain lions even though its obvious they do.
Weird that they'd post pictures of a wolf on their instagram page if they're going to deny it.
What states deny that they have mountain lions? Are mountain lions a protected species?
The current story with CPW is that “we dont have any wolves but every once in a while a wolf crosses the border from Wyoming, isn’t that neat?” Anyone in Steamboat will tell you that if you camp north of town in the Mt Zirkel Wilderness Area that you will hear wolves.
As for mountain lions, Minnesota (my home state) has continued to deny that they have any mountain lions yet they have been photographed on a regular basis there ever since the late 80s. Are they a protected species? In some states like California and the current push by some groups here I would say yes to a point. They may not be protected per say but if a state that does not have them determines that they are there then they still have to come up with all the regulations and management procedures that come with it. A state strapped for cash doesn’t want to hire additional staff that would be needed to do regular species counts and deal with the issue when they can deny they exist and if a farmer or anyone else has to kill one they can say well isnt that odd, it must have walked here from somewhere else.
I think it's pretty cool that they're coming back to their natural environment. If they've documented a couple, you know there have to be more.
From what I've read, wolves help limit Chronic Wasting Disease. Apparently the disease leads to elk making poor decisions when being pursued by wolves which results in them being killed and eaten. The healthy elk survive.
ETA: Here's a couple of articles on the subject;
Colorado Public Radio - Is The Fight Against Chronic Wasting Disease Another Argument For Wolf Reintroduction? (https://www.cpr.org/2019/07/09/is-the-fight-against-chronic-wasting-disease-another-argument-for-wolf-reintroduction/)
Public News Service - Predators: Possible Allies in Fight Against Chronic Wasting Disease? (https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2018-12-10/endangered-species-and-wildlife/predators-possible-allies-in-fight-against-chronic-wasting-disease/a64857-1)
December 10, 2018
HELENA, Mont. – Could wolves and other large predators be border guards in the fight against Chronic Wasting Disease?
One biologist believes so, as CWD, an infectious neurological disease that affects deer, elk and moose populations, spreads in the Mountain West.
Biologist Gary Wolfe, a former Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks commissioner, says large predators such as wolves have an innate ability to sense disease in prey populations.
He says halting recreational hunting of large predators like cougars or wolves in areas with emerging CWD outbreaks could curb the disease.
"I think it'd be worthwhile to curtail the recreational hunting for those large predators if, at the same time, you're trying to address a[n] emerging outbreak of Chronic Wasting Disease and see whether or not those large predators could assist in containing that disease," he states.
Wolfe says a study on mountain lions (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19864271) found they selectively prey on CWD-infected mule deer, showing that predators likely would target diseased animals.
But he adds that there would be major pushback from hunters if recreational hunting were cut back.
Currently, the main approach for containing the disease in many states is recreational deer hunts in areas where CWD has been identified to reduce the deer population and its chance of spreading.
Wolfe says the fact that predators tend to sniff out the weakest prey, and also hunt around the clock, would make them better candidates for selecting infected animals.
"Those predators can be more effective at taking out weakened animals from the population than the hunter will be by randomly taking animals out of the population," he states.
Wolfe says there's some evidence that wolves might already be helping prevent CWD's spread.
He says if you place a map of wolf population distribution over areas where the disease has been detected in the Mountain West, you'll find there's very little overlap.
"That's circumstantial evidence, but to me that's a piece of circumstantial evidence that says that wolf predation can help slow the spread of the disease," he states.
Removing a top predator from the ecosystem can lead to other problems with animal populations. Yellowstone is seeing a comeback in the beaver population. The overpopulation of elk was apparently destroying the young trees that beavers use for food due to over-grazing.
there's been hundreds of wolf sightings in Colo. over the years, just very few with documented pics. to verify.
in 2004 a wolf was killed on I-70
in 2007 a trail camera captured a wolf on image
2009 a dead wolf was found near Rifle
2015 a wolf was killed by a coyote hunter
2019 there have been to sightings verified with pics.
They know they are here, we know they are here, so why push for reintroduction when the wolves are doing it on their own?
Seems that would be the easiest way, if it would shut up all the whiners who oppose introduction to start. People forget that we had to reintroduce elk to Colorado (and I think deer), but no one ever bitches about that.
Wolf seen in Jackson County confirmed to be from Wyoming pack (https://kdvr.com/2019/07/10/wolf-seen-in-jackson-county-confirmed-to-be-from-wyoming-pack/)
JACKSON COUNTY, Colo. — A wolf recently seen in Jackson County and captured on video came from Wyoming, Colorado Parks and Wildlife said Wednesday.
Wyoming Game and Fish said it was a dispersing male gray wolf from the state.
The collared wolf is from the Snake River pack and was last recorded by transmission signals on Feb. 12 near South Pass.
On Tuesday, Gov. Jared Polis released video of the wolf.
Jared Polis
✔
@GovofCO
Wolves haven’t roamed Colorado since the mid-1940’s. This past weekend, a private citizen captured a wolf on video in Jackson County in northern Colorado.
@COParksWildlife officials are working to verify the sighting as well as another in Grand County.
1,085
2:44 PM - Jul 9, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Embedded video
280 people are talking about this
Colorado Parks and Wildlife said it will monitor the area but is not pursuing the wolf’s location.
Probably because elk don't kill other animals for fun, nor do they have a propensity towards attacking humans while roaming in bloodthirsty packs.
Probably because elk don't kill other animals for fun, nor do they have a propensity towards attacking humans while roaming in bloodthirsty packs.
People like to bring up wolves killing for fun, but every time the same one or two events is cited. Not that it matters why wolves killed something. House cats kill far more animals "for fun" than wolves, but since house cats don't kill deer or elk, no one cares. Further, when it comes to killing animals for fun, nothing even comes close to people. Doesn't seem like a strong argument when framed in that context.
Elk DO transmit Brucellosis to domestic cattle herds. I don't know, but I have a feeling that the risk to the domestic cattle industry is a much greater risk than losses from wolves. Brucellosis started in domestic cattle herds, then spread to elk. It took 75 years of management to get rid of Brucellosis in domestic cattle and I can't imagine that it was cheap, or easy. This article cites immunizing every single calf against the disease. That doesn't sound cheap, but maybe it is. Anyway, now elk spread Brucellosis back to domestic cattle, which is likely a much larger industry than hunting, but does anyone care about that aspect of elk? Maybe ranchers, but you'd never hear about it unless you went looking for the info.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/19/12/13-0167_article
Bovine brucellosis, caused by Brucella abortus, is a global zoonotic disease primarily infecting cattle, in which it produces abortions, retained placentas, male reproductive tract lesions, arthritis, and bursitis. In humans, brucellosis can cause recurrent fever, night sweats, joint and back pain, other influenza-like symptoms, and arthritis. In animals and humans, it can persist for long periods. During the 1930s, a state–federal cooperative effort was begun to eliminate the disease from livestock in the United States. From an initial estimated prevalence in 1934 of ≈15%, with nearly 50% of cattle herds having evidence of infection (1,2), the United States now has no known infected livestock herds outside of portions of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, adjacent to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. This area, referred to as the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), also encompasses state and federal feeding grounds in Wyoming where elk are fed during the winter. Considered a spillover disease from cattle to elk and bison, brucellosis now regularly spills back from elk to cattle. Although bison-to-cattle transmission has been demonstrated experimentally and in nature (3,4), it has not been reported in the GYA, probably because of ongoing rigorous management actions to keep cattle and bison spatially and temporally separated.
I’m fine with wolves coming in on their own, its going to happen and it will be a good way for the prey animals here to ease in to the transition with minimal impact vs just dropping off a few packs all at once. In places where wolves have been introduced yes populations of deer and elk dropped but even the decimated elk herd of yellowstone that is often cited is now learning how to deal with wolves and the herd size has been expanding again after years of losses.
Eventually the state will be forced to publicly acknowledge that they are already here but it will be advantageous for CPW to delay that anouncement as long as possible. CPW is already complaining about lack of funds and raising license fees, just wait until they have to expand to meet all of the requirements needed to manage a protected species.
I’m fine with wolves coming in on their own, its going to happen and it will be a good way for the prey animals here to ease in to the transition with minimal impact vs just dropping off a few packs all at once. In places where wolves have been introduced yes populations of deer and elk dropped but even the decimated elk herd of yellowstone that is often cited is now learning how to deal with wolves and the herd size has been expanding again after years of losses.
Eventually the state will be forced to publicly acknowledge that they are already here but it will be advantageous for CPW to delay that anouncement as long as possible. CPW is already complaining about lack of funds and raising license fees, just wait until they have to expand to meet all of the requirements needed to manage a protected species.
I think you're correct in that the reality of what needs to happen as far as proper management, and the reality of pressure from adverse groups and the realities of the budget will lead to less than desirable outcomes. State managed vs Federal managed is a much more complicated issue than people realize.
I enjoy this discussion very much. Hope no one thinks I'm doing anything but having fun volleying stats and ideas about this topic.
If they want to bring them in immediately, then a hunting season needs to start immediately as well.
That’s the balance I’d be ok with.
And ranches have open fence grazing where cattle can be almost anywhere on national forest with the proper permits, they also need to be able to shoot predators on sight
Same with private property, wolves come down during calving season and starting eating the calves as their born, license to shoot on site.
It wouldn't make sense to have an immediate hunting season with only a handful of wolves unless there is one tag available and it requires six points.
Usually I get irritated when cattle are grazing at 10,000 in State Trust Lands that are closed year round except for hunting season, but maybe it would curb whining to point out that the Castle are sharing the space with the wolves primary food source. OR maybe if ranchers were that worried about it, they'd graze their cattle somewhere else.
Actually, I take that back. Want to try and run a for profit business on public lands? Suffer the risks of loss from predators that are also a public resource, or take your cattle operation to some communist country that loves bullshit job protection.
I’m not a fan of hunting near cattle buts it’s been going on since ranchers and farmers settled out west, since the 1880s it’s nearly open range other than fencing them out. And I think they pay permit fees to graze them on federal or national forest lands and I know they pay to lease state trust lands. I also don’t think they get compensated for lost or killed livestock from the feds or state unless it was the feds or states fault, reintroduction of wolves would definitely be blamed on the state.
Wolves were eradicated around 1940 and I’m perfectly happy not seeing them or worrying about them when I’m hunting. Same with grizzly/brown bears.
I got to wondering if there is such a thing as cattle insurance. I mean I know there is because I've heard from Farmers how that is abused. I wonder if there is a specific exclusion for predation, or predation on public lands. Predation pretty much falls under the scope of "sudden and accidental" so you'd think it would exist. Well, with a $1,000 deductible per claim, it'd only be worth it for losing lots of animals.
Not sure on that one. I’m sure there is insurance offered but if it is worthwhile is a whole other question.
In the fires out eastern Colorado a while back cattle were being burned alive, the ranchers that shot them to put them out of their misery were not compensated as they were the ones that killed them, not the fire. Now I’m not sure if they eventually got paid but initially their claims were denied for any with bullets in them.
I would hate to have to deliver the news that I can't cover their cattle because they put it out of its misery. If I had to do that, every other sentence in my report would start with "per Manager's Name...."
CPW is already complaining about lack of funds and raising license fees, just wait until they have to expand to meet all of the requirements needed to manage a protected species. No doubt about it. CDOW already brings in more revenue than any other western state, yet they are constantly looking for more money. Now add on a "high maintenance" critter that will require man and money resources to manage, and the obvious result will be the need for yet MORE revenue.
It should work like this. The group that pushes the issue to introduce the wolves also get to foot the complete and total bill to manage them. They only get the bill, they don't get any say in HOW the wolves are managed.
?Like something out of a horror movie?: Camper saves family of four from savage wolf attack'
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/like-something-out-of-a-horror-movie-camper-saves-family-of-four-from-savage-wolf-attack/ar-AAFNbOa?ocid=ientp
Inside the now mostly collapsed dwelling, an intense tug-of-war was unfolding. Elisa wrote that the animal had ?started to drag Matt away? and she was holding on to his legs.
?I cannot and don?t think I?ll ever be able to properly describe the terror,? she wrote.
Meanwhile, as Fee ran toward the tent, carrying only the lantern his wife gave him, he devised a hasty plan.
?I just kind of kept running at it and I just kicked it ? in the back hip area like I was kicking in a door,? he said on the radio show. ?I booted it as hard as I could.?
The kick may not have done much physical damage, but Fee said it was enough to startle the wolf into letting Matt go. Then, the animal emerged from the tent and Fee said he ?immediately regretted kicking it.?
?I felt like I had kind of punched someone that was way out of my weight class,? he said.
But before Fee had to think of another way to take on the wolf solo, he said Matt, whose ?whole half side was just covered in blood,? came flying out of the tent. The two men began screaming at the wolf and hurling rocks about ?the size of a head of cabbage? at the animal to drive it back, Fee said. Soon, the wolf was far enough away that the group was able to flee to Fee?s campsite, where they hid in his minivan.
On Facebook, Elisa wrote that her husband was transported to a hospital where the puncture wounds and lacerations on his hands and arms were treated.
?We are pretty traumatized but ok,? she wrote.
Park officials announced Friday that Rampart Creek Campground was closed because there was a wolf in the area. Parks Canada staff located a wolf about a half-mile from the Rispoli family?s campsite shortly after the attack and euthanized it, the Calgary Herald reported. Parks Canada said on Tuesday that DNA tests confirmed the wolf that was put down was the same one that had sent Matt to the hospital, CBC reported. The campground reopened earlier this week.
Well.. wolf attacks are on par with bear and mtn lion attacks, honestly I've read more stories on bear attacks over the years than wolves, someone got his head munched through the side of a tent in Boulder a couple hears ago. Next in line would be mtn lion. Other than this attack when was the last wolf/human attack?
Wolf attacks are a fraction as common as mass shootings, which means that we should all be quivering in our boots and demanding the government to ban wolves.
Rucker61
08-14-2019, 21:36
Wolf attacks are a fraction as common as mass shootings, which means that we should all be quivering in our boots and demanding the government to ban wolves.
Speaking of boots, I'm getting me some of them wolf-butt kicking boots for backcountry hunting.
I'm also in search of new boots. First season is a month away and I need to get off my ass. Might even start another thread about it.
I’m trying to figure out a trip to get some new boots. I think I’ll get them made in the Yukon. Made from a couple wolves
A wolf hat would be sick! I'd like a full wolf mount to go with my full coyote mount. Minnesota has wolf hunting seasons right?
whitewalrus
08-16-2019, 20:51
went to the library yesterday and there was someone trying to get me to sign a petition to reintroduce wolves to CO
Did you tell them that as long as there is a hunting season after a certain threshold of population is reached?
Did you mention how you bet they'd get different responses if they were at a mountain library?
whitewalrus
08-16-2019, 21:17
Just said that it sounded like a bad idea to me and kept walking. In a hurry, so didn't want to get into an argument that would get nowhere
Yeah, talking to petitioners is kind of pointless because they are already entrenched in how they feel.
This was in the news in the past week - was up in Canada.
A family on a camping trip woke up to a wolf attacking them. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-camping-trip-woke-wolf-attacking-them-they-were-saved-n1043071)
A New Jersey woman said her family's camping trip in Canada turned into a scene "out of a horror movie" when a wolf ripped apart their tent as they slept and tried to drag her husband away — before a man at a nearby campsite heard their screams for help and came to their rescue.
Elisa Rispoli, her husband, Matthew Rispoli, and their two young boys were at Rampart Creek Campground in Banff National Park in Alberta when she said they were attacked.
"Matt literally threw his body in front of me and the boys, and fought the Wolf as it ripped apart our tent and his arms and hands," she wrote in an August 9 Facebook post.
Elisa Rispoli said her husband tried to pin the wolf on the ground, but the animal started to drag him away.
"I was pulling on his legs trying to get him back," the post read. "I cannot and don't think I'll ever be able to properly describe the terror."
A man, identified by local media as Russ Fee, was at a nearby campsite and ran over to help after hearing the family screaming for help, Elisa Rispoli wrote.
Fee, who is from Calgary and was camping with his family, told the Calgary Eyeopener that when he arrived at the Rispoli's site "their entire tent had mostly collapsed" and he could see the wolf trying to pull Matthew Rispoli away.
Fee told the outlet that he ran toward the animal and kicked it as hard as he could.
"It startled it enough that it let Matt go," he said. "Matt came flying out. His whole half side was just covered in blood."
Matthew Rispoli and Fee started screaming at the wolf and throwing rocks at it to scare it away as everyone ran to Fee's campsite.
Elisa Rispoli said incident "was something out of a horror movie." It lasted only a couple of minutes, but "felt like an eternity," she wrote.
"It could have been so so much worse, and we are just feeling so thankful that we are all still sitting here as a complete family," her Facebook post read.
Matthew Rispoli was treated at the hospital for injuries to his hands and arms and is doing fine, she said.
Rampart Creek Campground was temporarily closed following the attack, a spokesperson for Parks Canada said in a press release. It reopened on Monday following an investigation into the incident.
The wolf believed to have attacked the family was tracked down and killed "to ensure public safety," spokesperson Lesley Matheson said.
"Veterinary tests have confirmed that the wolf was in poor condition and likely nearing the end of its natural life span. The wolf’s condition was likely a contributing factor for its unusual behavior and this remains a very rare incident," Matheson said.
Dave posted that 11 posts ago in this thread. ;)
I guess it wasn't any better the 2nd time around?
This wolf story is similar to the mountain lion attacks recently. Old, emaciated wolf with worn down teeth. Good thing it wasn't in good health, but if it were, would it have done this? We'll never know.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/wolf-involved-in-rare-banff-national-park-attack-was-old-and-in-poor-condition-1.4548695
Stuart-Smith said a wildlife officer found the wolf about a kilometre away from the campground and killed it after he got out of his vehicle and it started to approach him.
"It's very unusual behaviour," he said.
The results of a necropsy confirmed that the wolf was the same one involved in the attack.
"The animal was in very poor health -- it was very emaciated, it was only 78 pounds (35 kgs), whereas an adult male wolf could be 150 pounds (68 kgs) or more," said Stuart-Smith. "Its teeth were very worn."
A rabies test on the animal was negative, he added.
He said the condition of the wolf could explain why it was aggressive, but stressed that wolf attacks are extremely rare.
Stuart-Smith said the family did everything right.
"They had no attractants in their tent. They were very bear aware so they were very careful to manage their campsite properly," he said.
"They did follow what our recommendations would be in a ... rare situation where someone is attacked by a wolf: to fight back."
The campground, which was closed immediately following the attack, reopened Monday.
Was picking out our new pup down in Florissant today. He was mentioning how high their mountain lion population is right now. The cats are typically solitary, but they've been seen hunting in groups on residential security cameras. That could make things entertaining.
Story about wolves killing hunting dogs in Wisconsin. I've heard stories of cats killing hunting dogs. I also wonder what the rate of attrition to bears is.
http://m.startribune.com/anderson-some-wisconsin-bear-hunters-are-seeing-brazen-attacks-on-dogs/562085952/
Wolf pack confirmed in CO.
https://www.outtherecolorado.com/wolf-pack-confirmed-in-colorado-for-first-time-in-recent-history/
Fuck a buncha wolves, smoke a pack a day!
JMHO.....
We'll get to vote on the subject this year:
What to know about the gray wolf, whose fate in Colorado could be decided by voters (https://abcnews.go.com/US/gray-wolf-fate-colorado-decided-voters/story?id=68116923)
Colorado voters soon will have the unique opportunity to help decide the fate of an entire species.
A question on whether to reintroduce the gray wolf, a species widely eradicated in the western United States in the 1940s, has been added to the ballot.
The gray wolf, or Canis lupis, once roamed freely throughout much of the U.S. but was extirpated from most of the lower 48 states by the 20th century, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The last gray wolf native to Colorado was killed in 1945, at the end of a 70-year campaign spearheaded by the federal government on behalf of the livestock industry, said Rob Edward, president of the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund, the leading campaign in support of reintroducing the species to the state. Prior to that period, the gray wolf was a "keystone species" in the West, according to the organization.
Shooter45
01-09-2020, 10:59
Colorado Wildlife Officials: ?We Have No Doubt that (Wolves) are Here?
8th January 2020
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) confirms an active wolf pack is now living in the northwest corner of the state. The verification flies in the face of extreme environmentalists behind a ballot initiative seeking to forcibly introduce wolves onto the Colorado landscape.
?It is inevitable, based on known wolf behavior, that they would travel here from states where their populations are well-established,? said JT Romatzke, CPW northwest regional manager. ?We have no doubt that they are here, and the most recent sighting of what appears to be wolves traveling together in what can be best described as a pack is further evidence of the presence of wolves in Colorado.?
79844
In late December 2019, hunters came across a bull elk carcass (see photo) in Irish Canyon, located in Game Management Units 201-202, ?ripped to pieces.?
?At the site, CPW officers observed several large canid tracks (see photo) from multiple animals surrounding the carcass,? Mike Porras, CPW public information officer, told the Craig Daily Press. ?The tracks are consistent with those made by wolves. In addition, the condition of the carcass is consistent with known wolf predation.?
79845
Porras believes there are least six wolves in the pack.
In October 2019, an eyewitness reported seeing six wolves in the same general area near the Utah and Wyoming borders and even captured two of them on video (see above).
?The sighting marks the first time in recent history CPW has received a report of multiple wolves traveling together,? said Romatzke. ??In addition, in the days prior, the eyewitness says he heard distinct howls coming from different animals. In my opinion, this is a very credible report.?
Additionally, in July 2019, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department confirmed a collared animal spotted in northern Colorado as a wolf.
?The latest sightings add to other credible reports of wolf activity in Colorado over the past several years,? said Romatzke. ?In addition to tracks, howls, photos and videos, the presence of one wolf was confirmed by DNA testing a few years ago, and in a recent case, we have photos and continue to track a wolf with a collar from Wyoming?s Snake River pack.?
?To be clear, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation strongly opposes the forced introduction of gray wolves to Colorado,? said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO.
Among other things, the ballot initiative circumvents the authority of CPW, Colorado?s wildlife management professionals, which is already on the record several times over the years as ?opposing the intentional release of any wolves into Colorado.? CPW currently has a management plan in place for naturally migrating wolves.
?We will not take direct action and we want to remind the public that wolves are federally endangered species and fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As wolves move into the state on their own, we will work with our federal partners to manage the species,? Romatzke added.
RMEF maintains that state agencies should manage wolves just as they manage elk, bears, deer, mountain lions and other wildlife.
Ballot initiative proponents submitted 215,000 signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State?s office, which later verified enough signatures to place the issue on the 2020 ballot even though it declared an estimated 76,000 (or 35.3 percent) of them as invalid.
If the initiative passes, a legislative report indicates a forced wolf introduction would cost Colorado taxpayers a cumulative amount of approximately $6 million eight years into the effort.
https://elknetwork.com/colorado-wildlife-officials-we-have-no-doubt-that-wolves-are-here/?fbclid=IwAR33c5vRp3LAvLU1ShVJq22qy4K-jXDdYSx_dcc7k957_8AEeTjWFNNQ_Cc
The wolves will expand their numbers back into their native habitat. I personally believe it should be allowed to happen naturally/gradually so as to not flood the ecosystem with predators in significant numbers. Everything will adapt.
.455_Hunter
01-09-2020, 11:32
Putting wildlife and predator management into the hands of urban hipsters and soccer moms is never a good idea.
Drop them off on 16th street mall first. They should survive quite well there.
Drop them off on 16th street mall first. They should survive quite well there.
Should thin the herd a bit...
spqrzilla
01-09-2020, 20:10
Since this is on the ballot, its too late. This silliness will be voted in by the dipshits in the cities.
hurley842002
01-09-2020, 20:14
Drop them off on 16th street mall first. They should survive quite well there.
For the win.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wolves were spotted on the NE border near Wyoming a couple weeks ago (inside CO), by a friend. Lifelong hunters who have killed dozens of 'yotes. One was a big black s.o.b.
They sent a picture to DOW (or was it CDW, idk...) who said they were all "Coyotes" [LOL] The State media is pretty weak here in controlling the desired narrative.
Sadly, don't have a pic myself atm, but I did see the original photo.
I give it 5 years max before they are naturally well established in at minimum, the north and west 1/4 of the state, up to the plains. Make sure you carry out and about because there are already some isolated ones here and there in our mountains, and you cannot absolutely rule out encountering a small pack even now.
TheSparkens
01-10-2020, 22:08
They have been spotted for over five years in Park County the norm is to not admit that they are wolves. I know avid hunters who have seen them and they know what they are looking at. More old news.
They have been spotted for over five years in Park County the norm is to not admit that they are wolves. I know avid hunters who have seen them and they know what they are looking at. More old news.
Can you ask those hunters if any of them have seen my rangefinder?
whitewalrus
01-22-2020, 22:59
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/01/22/colorado-wolves-return/
Guess we don't need to reintroduce them....
doesn't seem that they need any "reintroduction" to me, they're already here. So now, the feds need to step in and tell these people that are wanting to do a forced reintro that they are too late and that the Feds will be placing the existing wolves on the "federally protected" list and the state can then start forming a plan to manage them.
I chuckled reading the article. Colorado is kind of a sanctuary state for wolves I guess.
Interesting.. Because CPW is a Government agency and the wolf issue has been approved to be on the ballot they are no longer legally able to express an opinion one way or the other on the matter. Everyone that lives in Northern Co knows that wolves are already around. I know people that camp in the Mt Zirkel Wilderness area and they claim they have been hearing wolves up there for years as well as I know people that have heard them in the Flattops area. I wonder if this article is a news dump put out by CPW to maybe take some steam out of the wolf ballot or move the debate in a direction that will give them some authority of their own down the road? I mean if they suddenly declare they are here and go through the needed regulatory steps then the ballot initiative which removes their authority on management goes by the wayside. Could be a preemptive strike?
If they get forced in, an immediate hunting season needs to be opened as well.
More evidence that this all of a sudden realization that there are wolves in Colorado by CPW may be an end around to the forced introduction ballot initiative?
https://the-journal.com/articles/166143
DNA tests confirm 4 wolves are living in northwestern Colorado (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dna-tests-confirm-4-wolves-are-living-in-northwestern-colorado/ar-BBZYxwW)
Colorado Parks and Wildlife unveiled the results of genetics tests Thursday that confirm the presence of wolves — three females and one male related to each other — in the northwestern part of the state.
State biologists received a notice confirming that four scat samples collected last month near a scavenged elk carcass in Moffat County came from wolves. CPW officials said the evidence suggests the wolves, the first group documented in Colorado since the 1940s, likely are siblings. DNA testing did not determine ages.
“We don’t know where or when they were born,” CPW’s species conservation program manager Eric Odell said in a statement Thursday morning. “But that there are closely related wolves is a pretty significant finding.”
State wildlife officers investigating a cow carcass found evidence of at least six wolves, following an earlier report by hunters of a group wolves that agency biologists deemed credible.
And Gov. Jared Polis in January announced he was “honored to welcome our canine friends back to Colorado after their long absence.” Polis added that “it is important that people give them space.”
There may be more than four wolves, CPW officials said, and their agency is waiting to receive more DNA test results from scat samples collected in January.
DavieD55
03-02-2020, 08:01
It is not ideal to introduce wolves in Colorado. Sometimes endangered species and protected animals are used as a tool to take over and control private property too. Especially private property that holds valuable resources.
sounds like the pack of six was spotted again recently and have moved south a few miles from their last known location. Heard this on the radio earlier today.
If they know there are "some", then there are more than they think.
JohnnyDrama
06-10-2021, 11:50
If they know there are "some", then there are more than they think.
This article shows this.
https://news.yahoo.com/1st-gray-wolf-pups-80-172425962.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.