Colorado possible wolf reintroduction

[Beendare]

Buzz, first let me say I appreciate your tactful level headed response. I would agree that an emotional discussion from either side is a step backwards.

I checked your link....and those stats back your premise.

In my experience, reports like that don't tell the whole story....thus my comments regarding the unintended consequences. Its my understanding that a lot of ranchers won't deal with this reporting, for many reasons, which I'm sure you know...the one being they have to prove predator loss....which sometimes ain't all that easy. So much of what goes on never makes it to the media and/or these reports. I know that for a fact as I've been on the other side of that having done depredation work for F&G many years.

You glossed over animal predation don't you think? The massive decline in elk herd numbers in Yellowstone are glaring.

My problem with wolves; We know from experience in other locations the many problems they cause....a big one being its a huge burden on the F&G resource wise and financially especially with the lawsuits. These are resources that can be devoted to keeping healthy ungulate populations that benefit humans as a natural protein source.

Now the Animal rights folks would have a problem with my reasoning- sure, the essence of our disagreement is they value animal rights over (or equal to) human rights.

Lastly, we ALREADY HAVE a good management tool for animal populations; HUNTING which provides 3 huge benefits; 1) its exceptionally controllable, 2) its a $$$ benefit to the economy and 3) it provides food for families...just seems silly to me to upset the apple cart for a predator that takes away from all 3 of those positives.

..

 

[Timeee123]

I hope its around meeker. Those boys can shoot

 

[ridgeroamer]

Wolves in central park sounds like a better idea. Grizzlies in Chicago as well.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, first let me say I appreciate your tactful level headed response. I would agree that an emotional discussion from either side is a step backwards.

I checked your link....and those stats back your premise.

In my experience, reports like that don't tell the whole story....thus my comments regarding the unintended consequences. Its my understanding that a lot of ranchers won't deal with this reporting, for many reasons, which I'm sure you know...the one being they have to prove predator loss....which sometimes ain't all that easy. So much of what goes on never makes it to the media and/or these reports. I know that for a fact as I've been on the other side of that having done depredation work for F&G many years.

You glossed over animal predation don't you think? The massive decline in elk herd numbers in Yellowstone are glaring.

My problem with wolves; We know from experience in other locations the many problems they cause....a big one being its a huge burden on the F&G resource wise and financially especially with the lawsuits. These are resources that can be devoted to keeping healthy ungulate populations that benefit humans as a natural protein source.

Now the Animal rights folks would have a problem with my reasoning- sure, the essence of our disagreement is they value animal rights over (or equal to) human rights.

Lastly, we ALREADY HAVE a good management tool for animal populations; HUNTING which provides 3 huge benefits; 1) its exceptionally controllable, 2) its a $$$ benefit to the economy and 3) it provides food for families...just seems silly to me to upset the apple cart for a predator that takes away from all 3 of those positives.

..

I normally bow out of these discussions mainly because they're a massive waste of time and emotion almost always takes these threads into the chitter.

But, in this case, I do believe we're trying to have a discussion without it...and with that said.

I didn't gloss over anything and I agree with you that any report or data is never going to be perfect. However, based on my experience, I find the APHIS data pretty damn accurate based on my personal knowledge and experience with those providing it. If you know of a better source, then by all means, I would gladly take a look.

I also didn't gloss over the predation issue at all. Since you specifically brought up Yellowstone, and since I lived in Montana up until 2000 and also hunted that country for elk...I'll tell you what I know and believe to be the case with the elk decline there.

I think a good source to look at before you respond can be found HERE:

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/managementPlan.html

A few things to look at are the elk population objectives and the historic elk populations around Yellowstone. You'll note a couple important things: 1. The elk population in Yellowstone has been lower when wolves were not there, than they are with wolves. 2. The NYE herd has always fluctuated wildly, perhaps more than any other herd in Montana.

I think another important item to consider is that the objective number of elk in Yellowstone, as defined by the EMP is 4000 elk. Whether or not you and I agree or disagree on the acceptability of that number, Montana, is bound by State Statute to manage elk at or below objective. In other words, wolves, lions, bear, etc. aside, Montana is bound by state law to kill elk any way they can at those levels. So even in the case of total predator removal, which isn't going to happen, Montana would use any means necessary to kill elk down to 4k in that herd.

In the case of the rapid decline in Yellowstone, I agree it was drastic, but any attempt to over-simplify the decline strictly to wolves is intellectually dishonest and in spite of what happened. The Montana FWP continued to kill a metric chit load of elk around Gardiner well past wolf reintroduction. In fact, in the winter of 1996-97 they killed 2500 elk alone in the late hunts...and if you recall that winter...a whole hell of a lot of elk were killed during general season as well. Not only that, but in true FWP fashion, they continued to kill a lot more elk than they should have post reintroduction. As if that wasn't enough pressure on the elk, no question the additive predation by wolves, and also the increasing grizzly and lion populations only exasperated the steep decline in elk.

Were wolves an additive factor in that decline...no question and absolutely. Were they the ONLY reason, not even close. I would say that from my perspective and what is based on the management practices by the MTFWP during that timeframe...mismanagement by that agency was likely as big, or bigger negative impact on the elk there than wolves. The harvest numbers and number of tags being issued even when the FWP knew that predation was on the increase would suggest that.

Also, as to the current situation, there is no way that Montana, again because of the EMP and also Debby Barretts bill to hold the State statutorily liable for not managing elk within the population objectives of the EMP, that GY elk numbers are never going to be anything close to 19k again. Even if every predator was removed from that region, the State would do everything they could to kill them down to the 4000 population objective.

Look, I'm not in any kind of denial that wolves kill elk, and plenty of them. But, I'm also aware that lots of other predators, including human hunters, and management plans and associated state laws kill a lot as well.

I'm over arguing about singling out one part of a complex problem and making it sound like the only woes our big-game herds are facing is wolves.

That's just not the reality...and couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Timeee123]

I normally bow out of these discussions mainly because they're a massive waste of time and emotion almost always takes these threads into the chitter.

But, in this case, I do believe we're trying to have a discussion without it...and with that said.

I didn't gloss over anything and I agree with you that any report or data is never going to be perfect. However, based on my experience, I find the APHIS data pretty damn accurate based on my personal knowledge and experience with those providing it. If you know of a better source, then by all means, I would gladly take a look.

I also didn't gloss over the predation issue at all. Since you specifically brought up Yellowstone, and since I lived in Montana up until 2000 and also hunted that country for elk...I'll tell you what I know and believe to be the case with the elk decline there.

I think a good source to look at before you respond can be found HERE:

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/managementPlan.html

A few things to look at are the elk population objectives and the historic elk populations around Yellowstone. You'll note a couple important things: 1. The elk population in Yellowstone has been lower when wolves were not there, than they are with wolves. 2. The NYE herd has always fluctuated wildly, perhaps more than any other herd in Montana.

I think another important item to consider is that the objective number of elk in Yellowstone, as defined by the EMP is 4000 elk. Whether or not you and I agree or disagree on the acceptability of that number, Montana, is bound by State Statute to manage elk at or below objective. In other words, wolves, lions, bear, etc. aside, Montana is bound by state law to kill elk any way they can at those levels. So even in the case of total predator removal, which isn't going to happen, Montana would use any means necessary to kill elk down to 4k in that herd.

In the case of the rapid decline in Yellowstone, I agree it was drastic, but any attempt to over-simplify the decline strictly to wolves is intellectually dishonest and in spite of what happened. The Montana FWP continued to kill a metric chit load of elk around Gardiner well past wolf reintroduction. In fact, in the winter of 1996-97 they killed 2500 elk alone in the late hunts...and if you recall that winter...a whole hell of a lot of elk were killed during general season as well. Not only that, but in true FWP fashion, they continued to kill a lot more elk than they should have post reintroduction. As if that wasn't enough pressure on the elk, no question the additive predation by wolves, and also the increasing grizzly and lion populations only exasperated the steep decline in elk.

Were wolves an additive factor in that decline...no question and absolutely. Were they the ONLY reason, not even close. I would say that from my perspective and what is based on the management practices by the MTFWP during that timeframe...mismanagement by that agency was likely as big, or bigger negative impact on the elk there than wolves. The harvest numbers and number of tags being issued even when the FWP knew that predation was on the increase would suggest that.

Also, as to the current situation, there is no way that Montana, again because of the EMP and also Debby Barretts bill to hold the State statutorily liable for not managing elk within the population objectives of the EMP, that GY elk numbers are never going to be anything close to 19k again. Even if every predator was removed from that region, the State would do everything they could to kill them down to the 4000 population objective.

Look, I'm not in any kind of denial that wolves kill elk, and plenty of them. But, I'm also aware that lots of other predators, including human hunters, and management plans and associated state laws kill a lot as well.

I'm over arguing about singling out one part of a complex problem and making it sound like the only woes our big-game herds are facing is wolves.

That's just not the reality...and couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm not gonna argue with you your point my only thought is increased the tags for hunters There's no reasons that the at DOW to go out there and kill elk

 

[Beendare]

Buzz, thx. A complex issue for sure.

No matter how much we want to turn this into weighing the facts, analysis and cost benefit- its always going to be an emotional issue.

 

[Grundy53]

I normally bow out of these discussions mainly because they're a massive waste of time and emotion almost always takes these threads into the chitter.

But, in this case, I do believe we're trying to have a discussion without it...and with that said.

I didn't gloss over anything and I agree with you that any report or data is never going to be perfect. However, based on my experience, I find the APHIS data pretty damn accurate based on my personal knowledge and experience with those providing it. If you know of a better source, then by all means, I would gladly take a look.

I also didn't gloss over the predation issue at all. Since you specifically brought up Yellowstone, and since I lived in Montana up until 2000 and also hunted that country for elk...I'll tell you what I know and believe to be the case with the elk decline there.

I think a good source to look at before you respond can be found HERE:

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/managementPlan.html

A few things to look at are the elk population objectives and the historic elk populations around Yellowstone. You'll note a couple important things: 1. The elk population in Yellowstone has been lower when wolves were not there, than they are with wolves. 2. The NYE herd has always fluctuated wildly, perhaps more than any other herd in Montana.

I think another important item to consider is that the objective number of elk in Yellowstone, as defined by the EMP is 4000 elk. Whether or not you and I agree or disagree on the acceptability of that number, Montana, is bound by State Statute to manage elk at or below objective. In other words, wolves, lions, bear, etc. aside, Montana is bound by state law to kill elk any way they can at those levels. So even in the case of total predator removal, which isn't going to happen, Montana would use any means necessary to kill elk down to 4k in that herd.

In the case of the rapid decline in Yellowstone, I agree it was drastic, but any attempt to over-simplify the decline strictly to wolves is intellectually dishonest and in spite of what happened. The Montana FWP continued to kill a metric chit load of elk around Gardiner well past wolf reintroduction. In fact, in the winter of 1996-97 they killed 2500 elk alone in the late hunts...and if you recall that winter...a whole hell of a lot of elk were killed during general season as well. Not only that, but in true FWP fashion, they continued to kill a lot more elk than they should have post reintroduction. As if that wasn't enough pressure on the elk, no question the additive predation by wolves, and also the increasing grizzly and lion populations only exasperated the steep decline in elk.

Were wolves an additive factor in that decline...no question and absolutely. Were they the ONLY reason, not even close. I would say that from my perspective and what is based on the management practices by the MTFWP during that timeframe...mismanagement by that agency was likely as big, or bigger negative impact on the elk there than wolves. The harvest numbers and number of tags being issued even when the FWP knew that predation was on the increase would suggest that.

Also, as to the current situation, there is no way that Montana, again because of the EMP and also Debby Barretts bill to hold the State statutorily liable for not managing elk within the population objectives of the EMP, that GY elk numbers are never going to be anything close to 19k again. Even if every predator was removed from that region, the State would do everything they could to kill them down to the 4000 population objective.

Look, I'm not in any kind of denial that wolves kill elk, and plenty of them. But, I'm also aware that lots of other predators, including human hunters, and management plans and associated state laws kill a lot as well.

I'm over arguing about singling out one part of a complex problem and making it sound like the only woes our big-game herds are facing is wolves.

That's just not the reality...and couldn't be further from the truth.

Wolves may not be the biggest problem. But why voluntarily add to the problem?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[camelcluch]

What response did they give?

“We don’t have any affiliation with that survey. To me it looks like it was a survey done by private firm. For more information on it I would suggest reaching out to them. Sorry I couldn’t help more.”

I sent the link and asked if they knew about the happenings and study. To me this response is a lack of care. I could be wrong but this feels like they blew it off.

 

[MtnOyster]

I’ve said this before, you western folks need a few more rednecks out there!!! Geezz......kill those things.
I can guarantee that if Ky F&G dropped off a pack or two of wolves here they would be dead with in a week, be more blankets and rugs made from wolfs azz faster than you blink an eye!

 

[Fatcamp]

That is pure speculation on your part. I had a few beers with Land the CEO of BHA last week. He’s a good dude overall, I may not agree with all of his views but overall I think you have more in common with him then you would know.

Cool. So what was his take on Colorado wolf reintroduction?

What was his take on federal judges blocking the grizzly bear hunt?

 

[Fatcamp]

Cool. So what was his take on Colorado wolf reintroduction?

What was his take on federal judges blocking the grizzly bear hunt?

When you say I may not agree with his veiwpoint what exactly do you mean?

Am I only supposed to fly fish and shoot cow elk with a recurve to be a palatable hunter?

I'm honestly curious about these things.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I find all the bro rubbing, back scratchers on this thread declaring facts as their basis for support of any subject, about as laughable as I do their stances on those FACTS.

This has nothing to do with science. Science says the wolf has lost. It’s up to the wolf to scrounge out a living around the human predators desires. Yet, long paragraphs of how important science is the explanation many here give. Pick a choice of which it is. You either believe the science or you are dealing with emotion. The irony ithe hypocrisy creates leaves hunters open to being the door mat.

I’m not going to knock the BHA for staying out if it. Or, land rawness character for using the organization as a political tool. What I will say is it’s hard to state the things this organization does about protecting hunting, if it idylls sets by with no support of what’s best for it here.

The BGA has no problems reporting political stances, approval, disapproval, all in the name of what’s supposedly getter for hunters. Yet, can’t take a stand here when what’s best for hunting isn’t even debateadle in this situation.

 

[tdhanses]

Cool. So what was his take on Colorado wolf reintroduction?

What was his take on federal judges blocking the grizzly bear hunt?

Didn’t talk wolves or grizz, like I said we don’t and won’t agree on everything but overall we agree on more then disagree.

Finding someone or something that fully agrees with you is how a cult starts.

I honestly don’t think he is for reintroducing wolves in CO and he is for hunting Grizzly but no I didn’t ask him these direct questions. Wolves will eventually naturally migrate down into CO, we all already know this. I doubt anyone that is sane believes it is good to reintroduce them with human intervention. But I’m sure you could just email BHA directly and get their stance if you really are concerned with their view.

Also people seem to lump BHA into a wildlife conservation group, in reality they are not, they are a public land and access promotion group. Some will never understand this or that it means there will be more then just hunters within the membership and management of the group. In my opinion BHA shouldn’t have an opinion on the wolf or grizzly issues, they should be focusing up new access and kind public lands public. I’m a member of SCI and RMEF for my wildlife conservation issues.

 

[Fatcamp]

Didn’t talk wolves or grizz, like I said we don’t and won’t agree on everything but overall we agree on more then disagree.

Finding someone or something that fully agrees with you is how a cult starts.

I honestly don’t think he is for reintroducing wolves in CO and he is for hunting Grizzly but no I didn’t ask him these direct questions. Wolves will eventually naturally migrate down into CO, we all already know this. I doubt anyone that is sane believes it is good to reintroduce them with human intervention. But I’m sure you could just email BHA directly and get their stance if you really are concerned with their view.

Out of curiosity what did you discuss? What are some of the things you find yourself agreeing with him on?

 

[KurtR]

Didn’t talk wolves or grizz, like I said we don’t and won’t agree on everything but overall we agree on more then disagree.

Finding someone or something that fully agrees with you is how a cult starts.

I honestly don’t think he is for reintroducing wolves in CO and he is for hunting Grizzly but no I didn’t ask him these direct questions. Wolves will eventually naturally migrate down into CO, we all already know this. I doubt anyone that is sane believes it is good to reintroduce them with human intervention. But I’m sure you could just email BHA directly and get their stance if you really are concerned with their view.

the op did and there was no stance

 

[tdhanses]

Out of curiosity what did you discuss? What are some of the things you find yourself agreeing with him on?

The goals of what BHA is and what they are planning for in KS where I live. I didn’t ask him his political, religious or what his favorite whiskey is. No I don’t need to dictate the convo and I didn’t just sit with him for hours as he was talking to a more then just I but again, wildlife conservation isn’t what BHA does. He flat out told me he strongly disagrees with Patagonia on many things except public land access. I didn’t ask him exactly what he disagrees with because that doesn’t matter to me, we agree on what BHA is fighting for and the work they do.

 

[Fatcamp]

The goals of what BHA is and what they are planning for in KS where I live. I didn’t ask him his political, religious or what his favorite whiskey is. No I don’t need to dictate the convo and I didn’t just sit with him for hours as he was talking to a more then just I but again, wildlife conservation isn’t what BHA does. He flat out told me he strongly disagrees with Patagonia on many things except public land access. I didn’t ask him exactly what he disagrees with because that doesn’t matter to me, we agree on what BHA is fighting for and the work they do.

Interesting. Ya, I looked over their tax filing, and they state water access, land access, and advocating for the land and water conservation fund as their mission/goals.

Nothing specific to hunting or wildlife management.

 

[tdhanses]

Interesting. Ya, I looked over their tax filing, and they state water access, land access, and advocating for the land and water conservation fund as their mission/goals.

Nothing specific to hunting or wildlife management.

Exactly, and I personally want them to stick to their mission.

 

[wildcat33]

Pro wolf response from "64% of those from household which derive their income from ranching and farming"

Bullshit.

 

[Bearsears]

I love that this survey "completed 900 interviews with registered voters throughout Colorado". Nine hundred and they can extrapolate that to how the entire state feels? I call BS. If I remember correctly, a few years ago there was a big push to introduce the Mexican Grey Wolf in Colorado and the then Governor Hickenlooper killed it at the request of CPW. I don't remember a big public backlash from that.