Colorado possible wolf reintroduction

Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
2,651
Location
West Virginia
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.


I know their view. I also know what they claim as their mission. I’ve also seen how they pick and choose to get involved in wildlife “conservation issues”. They always have steered clear of the wolf issue. Yet, rarely miss a chance to get involved in other conservation issues. That isn’t an accident. It’s by design.



Every time they’ve had an opportunity to represent HUNTERS in these wolf debates, national has been silent. EVERY single time. And members or outsiders say it isn’t their goal. As defense for the action. Where is that stance concerning sage grouse? Why is it not considered an access issue when hunters are the group that’s going to loose access here. Plain and simple, tags and opportunity is the access lose. We all know that. Failure to correlate the two is nothing more then scape goating in my opinion. Naive at best.


Everyone has their own opinions on this. But, this is paramount to get right for the future of hunting. Hunters need all the help they can get. Why members aren’t going bonkers over the lack of participation is beyond me. And, why the BHA doesn’t get proactive Is even more confusing. Their membership would double if they did. You could count on one more member right here. Hunters want to see a group that covers all issues affecting their opportunities. This group could be it if they’d drop the political pardons and get to the front if the pack doing what they claim.
 

Axlrod

WKR
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
1,122
Location
SW Montana
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!;)
Come on out to Montana! limit is 5 Wolves per person and the season is 6 months long.
I hunt a LOT of days and I shot my first wolf this past fall. Shot a big male at 719 yards; this is the closest I have ever been to a wolf that was not running. Out of 17,000 wolf tags hunters killed a record 165 and trappers got 130.
 

Bearsears

WKR
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
421
Location
Colorado
I really dont think there is going to end up being a big push for wolf introduction in Colorado. Then again I also didnt think my home state was going to take a giant turn to the left like it has so...
 

CCH

WKR
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
448
Location
Colorado
I have heard so many reports of wolves already being here from a variety of places and sources and over a long period of time. One from Yellowstone was killed on I-70 several years ago, so there was at least that one. Reintroduction does offer more controls than natural re-population. Just saying that if they naturally repopulate anyways, re-introduction may offer more up front controls.
 
Joined
May 6, 2018
Messages
8,820
Location
Shenandoah Valley
I thought I had read something about aphis not being able to use lethal measures in northern Colorado now? This was from the possibility of killing wolves. Might have been for a different reason but I thought they had documented wolf packs now in Colorado.
 

Bearsears

WKR
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
421
Location
Colorado
I dont think there are documented packs in Colorado yet but they are definitely dipping in and out of Colorado at the least. There was also a confirmed wolf shot by a yote hunter near Kremmling two years ago. Its certainly just a matter of time until there are established packs and hopefully when that happens we will establish a reasonable management plan that includes hunting.
 

Takem

WKR
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
314
Location
Northern, CA
Your reply right here is a perfect example of the emotion based response that wolves trigger from both sides. I'm not quantifying or comparing any emotion or which side the emotion comes from.

Facts matter to me, and I don't run and hide from them or get all twisted up around the axle about wolves or any other predator.

Check this data:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/sheep/downloads/sheepdeath/SheepDeathLoss2015.pdf

Seems to me, if I were a sheep rancher, I'd be more concerned about the neighbor dogs than wolves...by a long damn shot. There are lots of predators that kill more livestock and wildlife than wolves...facts are what they are.

Just because someone takes a reasonable look at the data provided by APHIS, you seem to want to go on the offensive when the facts are presented and bring nothing to the table but emotion.

I have no problem with wolves on the landscape, have lived in and around them for a long time, nearly my entire life. Same with grizzly bears, black bears, lions, coyotes, bobcats, lynx, etc. etc.

I also have no problem with controlling all of those predators via hunting, lethal control by APHIS/State wildlife services, trapping, etc. In particular targeting individuals or specific groups of predators causing significant livestock loss. I have been fortunate to not only spend a lot of time trapping and hunting predators personally, but also knowing many state and federal government hunters as well. Their view, and mine, line up pretty closely on how best to go about dealing with predators in relation to livestock losses.

From the perspective of wolves impact on big-game, sure its an impact, wolves kill other wildlife. But again, with some research on population estimates of all predators provided by various state and federal agencies, those pesky facts paint the TRUE picture nicely.

As a big-game hunter, there are other predators that I'm concerned about equally, or more so, than wolves. I also tend to be wayyyyy more concerned with habitat loss, human encroachment, migration corridors, development, disease issues, plant diversity/succession, etc. etc. in regard to our big-game than predators, by a landslide, at a minimum.

When emotions trump facts, from either side, I tune them out...

Buzz, in your experience have you ever seen the people that push for wolves on the landscape offer to help with habitat improvements for elk? It seems like the wolves are put into the landscape and the bulk of the money for habitat improvements is provided by hunters either by license/tag fees or thru hunter supported non-profits. It's most likely wishful thinking but it would be great to get some kind of commitment form the pro-wolf groups to support habitat improvements that would benefit the elk and the wolves.
 

Okhotnik

WKR
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
2,193
Location
N ID
Any experience living in states like Michigan ,Wisconsin , Minnesota Washington and Oregon where management of wolves was shut down by left wing radical anti hunting groups and their populations have exploded? I ve lived in these states and experienced the wolf politics first hand.

You do know the demographics of Colorado Oregon Washington etc are much different than Montana, Idaho and Wyoming where they have employed wolf management.

Like other liberal states whose politics are controlled by urban population centers Colorado will never allow any population management of wolves and their numbers will be uncontrolled.


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.
 

Okhotnik

WKR
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
2,193
Location
N ID
Here in the state of Washington the radical anti hunting pro wolf groups like Conservation NW never show up when we conduct mule deer habitat restoration after the fires or repair elk fences near highways. Their end goal is to end all hunting plain and simple.

Buzz, in your experience have you ever seen the people that push for wolves on the landscape offer to help with habitat improvements for elk? It seems like the wolves are put into the landscape and the bulk of the money for habitat improvements is provided by hunters either by license/tag fees or thru hunter supported non-profits. It's most likely wishful thinking but it would be great to get some kind of commitment form the pro-wolf groups to support habitat improvements that would benefit the elk and the wolves.
 

BuzzH

WKR
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
2,229
Location
Wyoming
Any experience living in states like Michigan ,Wisconsin , Minnesota Washington and Oregon where management of wolves was shut down by left wing radical anti hunting groups and their populations have exploded? I ve lived in these states and experienced the wolf politics first hand.

You do know the demographics of Colorado Oregon Washington etc are much different than Montana, Idaho and Wyoming where they have employed wolf management.

Like other liberal states whose politics are controlled by urban population centers Colorado will never allow any population management of wolves and their numbers will be uncontrolled.

I get it, you like to be the biggest mouth in the room...

You talk as if you're the only person on planet earth that has sat through meeting after meeting on wolf, sage grouse, grizzly bears, big-game, small game, fisheries, land management planning, or read and commented on EIS's, RMP's, TP's, FR's, FMP's, yada yada. I've been doing this stuff for a long time, seen what works, and seen what doesn't. I've made mistakes, made some good decisions too...it happens when you're in the arena.

When you try to boil any issue down to straight partisan politics...you screwed yourself with your opening move. I can assure you, there were lots of conservative non-hunters in MT, WY, and ID that were very much in favor of wolf reintroduction in all those states. I worked with them, lived around them, and knew many of them my whole life...politically as conservative as they come and pro-reintroduction. I read through a lot of the 130K written comments regarding wolf reintroduction, a vast majority of them were in favor of reintroduction (90% over-all). Over 70% of the comments received from citizens/residents of WY, ID, and MT were in favor.

I can also tell you that there are many conservative hunters and non hunters in WY, MT, and ID that aren't that cracked up about moving forward with grizzly hunting.

Whether you, or I, or anybody else likes it, wildlife is held in trust and managed for ALL citizens of the State it resides in (of course with the exception of T&E species, migratory waterfowl, and anadromous fish). Meaning that if you ever want your State to control wildlife, you better have a plan in place to do it. It also means that ALL citizens have an equal voice in how the wildlife within its borders are managed. Its not just those that choose to run a hook or bullet through that wildlife that are afforded a seat at the table when it comes to wildlife management. Hunters, wildlife watchers, anti hunters, non hunters, all have a seat at the table and I've seen them all testify on wildlife related issues.

IMO/E its best to not alienate and disregard that fact and disenfranchise the 80% with no strong opinion one way or the other about wildlife management or hunting, by dragging partisan politics into the discussion. I've had much better luck sticking to the science and facts regarding wildlife management and hunting...and where the funding comes from for same.

You lose the attention of decision makers quickly when you start ranting about the other side, on any issue, and look like a fool doing it. Best to let the opposition defend their position and prove your FACTS wrong...which if you've built your case with a solid foundation of facts, science, etc....is very difficult for them to do.

Finally, this I can promise you, without a state approved wolf Management plan, there is no way to move forward with a way to manage wolves...its that simple.

Rant all you want about urban population centers, liberals, anti-hunters...that shit will do you exactly no good, and that's a fact.

I spend my time where it makes a difference.

Good luck in your efforts.
 

Okhotnik

WKR
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
2,193
Location
N ID
Thanks for the lecture was not aware of any of the info you cited after over 40 years involvement in conservation groups.Not surprised. Embracing anti hunting groups sure has worked out well in California , Washington , Oregon.... I go to the wolf meetings in Washington and it’s obvious they are not interested in input from sportsmen or ranchers. And every years less hunting opportunities and more emphasis on predator reintroduction. Our mule deer herd has crashed in Washington. The Washington F&G ‘s solution was to issue hundreds of extra mule deer doe tags.



Again what good is a management plan for wolves if the anti hunting groups go judge shopping to get any management attempts shut down like they did in Wisconsin Minnesota Michigan? FYI they are wayyyy over their wolf management objectives in those states.

Montana Idaho and Wyoming allow trapping in their wolf management plans. My understanding talking to many wildlife biologists, trappers over the years is that trapping is essential in controlling wolf populations.

Well how the heck can you control wolf populations in states where trapping has been outlawed?



You think the politics in Casper WY , Billings Mt are the same as Portland Seattle ,Boulder ,Detroit , Denver...

I’m sure the anti hunting folks, that control politics in Seattle, Portland, Boulder, San Francisco Detroit , Madison ...will embrace wolf management😂😂

Again I never see these anti hunting groups come out and help with our elk, mule deer and waterfowl restoration

In fact none are members that I’m aware of in the Washington state chapters of MDF, RMEF, DU, RGS, TU
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

WKR
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
2,229
Location
Wyoming
Thanks for the lecture was not aware of any of the info you cited after over 40 years involvement in conservation groups.Not surprised. Embracing anti hunting groups sure has worked out well in California , Washington , Oregon.... I go to the wolf meetings in Washington and it’s obvious they are not interested in input from sportsmen or ranchers. And every years less hunting opportunities and more emphasis on predator reintroduction. Our mule deer herd has crashed in Washington. The Washington F&G ‘s solution was to issue hundreds of extra mule deer doe tags.



Again what good is a management plan for wolves if the anti hunting groups go judge shopping to get any management attempts shut down like they did in Wisconsin Minnesota Michigan? FYI they are wayyyy over their wolf management objectives in those states.

Montana Idaho and Wyoming allow trapping in their wolf management plans. My understanding talking to many wildlife biologists, trappers over the years is that trapping is essential in controlling wolf populations.

Well how the heck can you control wolf populations in states where trapping has been outlawed?



You think the politics in Casper WY , Billings Mt are the same as Portland Seattle ,Boulder ,Detroit , Denver...

I’m sure the anti hunting folks, that control politics in Seattle, Portland, Boulder, San Francisco Detroit , Madison ...will embrace wolf management😂😂

Again I never see these anti hunting groups come out and help with our elk, mule deer and waterfowl restoration

In fact none are members that I’m aware of in the Washington state chapters of MDF, RMEF, DU, RGS, TU

Few things:

1. If you think its good enough for hunters to just show up at meetings, well, you're sunk. The way things get done is behind the scenes, with personal communication with decisions makers. You develop relationships with the right people...AND attend the meetings. Take a look around the room the next time you're at a public meeting...not many take the time to attend. Sportsmen like to bitch on hunting boards, but make a lame appearance at public meetings. They also rarely talk to their elected officials, State or Federal, Wildlife management divisions, etc. etc.

2. Wildlife Management doesn't happen at all, without a plan, just the way it is. Whether talking about game, non-game, whatever, State Statutes and Regulations require a plan...google it.

3. If trapping isn't allowed in your State...then its best to not even allow wolf hunting? That's part of your "plan" to throw your sucker in the dirt, stomp your feet, and hold your breath because if we cant trap, we don't want to hunt wolves either? Sounds logical...if you don't think about it.

4. Trapping via State and Federal Agencies surely can be part of the State Management Plan...

5. Nobody said anything about anti-hunters embracing wolf management. I've yet to see any anti-hunting position embraced in any State Wildlife Management Plan I've dealt with. The anti-hunting side of the aisle, when developing State Wildlife Management Plans, just aren't there for one, and two, they don't have the science, GF Agency experts on their side, or the facts. As such, the plans are adopted on science presented by professional biologists, wildlife science, and facts.

6. Who cares if antihunters don't show up to help with wildlife projects, and who cares if they don't belong to the various conservation groups? If we're going to beat them up for that, then about 95% of the hunters out there deserve the same beating. A vast, vast, vast majority of hunters don't show up to volunteer for work projects, don't attend meeting, and don't get involved past buying a license.

That's why we're not as successful on many of these issues as we should be. Buying a license and thinking you're knocking it out of the park...and that's all you need to do...yeah, those days are over.

I can also tell you that making these issues partisan and blaming liberals, blaming anti-hunters, etc. is a dead end road to nowhere.

You do what you think it is best...I'll do the same. My way works, seen it...
 

Axlrod

WKR
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
1,122
Location
SW Montana
I get it, you like to be the biggest mouth in the room...

You talk as if you're the only person on planet earth that has sat through meeting after meeting on wolf, sage grouse, grizzly bears, big-game, small game, fisheries, land management planning, or read and commented on EIS's, RMP's, TP's, FR's, FMP's, yada yada. I've been doing this stuff for a long time, seen what works, and seen what doesn't. I've made mistakes, made some good decisions too...it happens when you're in the arena.

When you try to boil any issue down to straight partisan politics...you screwed yourself with your opening move. I can assure you, there were lots of conservative non-hunters in MT, WY, and ID that were very much in favor of wolf reintroduction in all those states. I worked with them, lived around them, and knew many of them my whole life...politically as conservative as they come and pro-reintroduction. I read through a lot of the 130K written comments regarding wolf reintroduction, a vast majority of them were in favor of reintroduction (90% over-all). Over 70% of the comments received from citizens/residents of WY, ID, and MT were in favor.

I can also tell you that there are many conservative hunters and non hunters in WY, MT, and ID that aren't that cracked up about moving forward with grizzly hunting.

Whether you, or I, or anybody else likes it, wildlife is held in trust and managed for ALL citizens of the State it resides in (of course with the exception of T&E species, migratory waterfowl, and anadromous fish). Meaning that if you ever want your State to control wildlife, you better have a plan in place to do it. It also means that ALL citizens have an equal voice in how the wildlife within its borders are managed. Its not just those that choose to run a hook or bullet through that wildlife that are afforded a seat at the table when it comes to wildlife management. Hunters, wildlife watchers, anti hunters, non hunters, all have a seat at the table and I've seen them all testify on wildlife related issues.

IMO/E its best to not alienate and disregard that fact and disenfranchise the 80% with no strong opinion one way or the other about wildlife management or hunting, by dragging partisan politics into the discussion. I've had much better luck sticking to the science and facts regarding wildlife management and hunting...and where the funding comes from for same.

You lose the attention of decision makers quickly when you start ranting about the other side, on any issue, and look like a fool doing it. Best to let the opposition defend their position and prove your FACTS wrong...which if you've built your case with a solid foundation of facts, science, etc....is very difficult for them to do.

Finally, this I can promise you, without a state approved wolf Management plan, there is no way to move forward with a way to manage wolves...its that simple.

Rant all you want about urban population centers, liberals, anti-hunters...that shit will do you exactly no good, and that's a fact.

I spend my time where it makes a difference.

Good luck in your efforts.
This is from The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho - Final Environmental Impact


Bath and Phillips (1990) and Bath (1991) surveyed the Montana and Idaho general public, and found that 43.7% of Montanans, 48.5% of Wyomingites, and 56% of Idahoans favored wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park, while 40.3% of Montanans, 34.5% of Wyomingites, and 27% of Idahoans were opposed. No opinion of wolf reintroduction was held by 15% of Montanans, 17% of Wyomingites, and 17% of Idahoans.
 

BuzzH

WKR
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
2,229
Location
Wyoming
This is from The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho - Final Environmental Impact


Bath and Phillips (1990) and Bath (1991) surveyed the Montana and Idaho general public, and found that 43.7% of Montanans, 48.5% of Wyomingites, and 56% of Idahoans favored wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone National Park, while 40.3% of Montanans, 34.5% of Wyomingites, and 27% of Idahoans were opposed. No opinion of wolf reintroduction was held by 15% of Montanans, 17% of Wyomingites, and 17% of Idahoans.

I wasn't referencing a survey of the general public conducted 3 years prior to reintroduction by Bath and Phillips, but results of the comments submitted that are part of the public record on the FEIS. You know, where the rubber hits the road in the decision making process.
 

Axlrod

WKR
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
1,122
Location
SW Montana
I wasn't referencing a survey of the general public conducted 3 years prior to reintroduction by Bath and Phillips, but results of the comments submitted that are part of the public record on the FEIS. You know, where the rubber hits the road in the decision making process.
I totally get that. But you can see the difference between a survey of the gen. public and comments submitted.
 

BuzzH

WKR
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
2,229
Location
Wyoming
I totally get that. But you can see the difference between a survey of the gen. public and comments submitted.

Absolutely...people answer a phone call for a survey, but then cant get off the couch to comment when it matters.

Complacency has consequences and its not like there wasn't more than ample opportunity to send in comments during both the DEIS, and FEIS process.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
2,651
Location
West Virginia
Wow. Imagine what we could accomplish if hunters int he know, would put aside personal politics, feelings, and the need to be an authority, and organize the pheasants for the effort
 
Top