Colorado wolf introduction

[Marble]

I've watched a few of the YouTube videos detailing the ramifications of introducing the wolf. It seemed like common sense results that were predictable. To sum up a majority of the info, in herd dynamics, everything was less and field kills were way up. Ranchers were getting hit hard, which passes loss onto the community and so on.

I do not see the benefit of introducing the wolf, beside the conspiracy theory of the anti hunters trying to get rid of hunters.

 

[Marble]

are you suggesting that biologists don't have time in the field?

I dont think anyone should really claim that and thata not what he's saying. Part of their passion is seeing the animals in the field. Just much less than son6e others.

What is frustrating is how hunters and ranchers get ignored in the process until it's time to try and out the animals in the field.

What is the point of reintroducing wolves? Population control? No. Inbalance within the ecosystem? No. Money savings? No. I cant think of a good reason.

I wish the people who financially support the game animals had as much say in what was going on as those who are politically appointed. Two different groups with very different points of view, but one has almost all the power to do what they want.

 

[BigAntlerGetter]

I dont think anyone should really claim that and thata not what he's saying. Part of their passion is seeing the animals in the field. Just much less than son6e others.

What is frustrating is how hunters and ranchers get ignored in the process until it's time to try and out the animals in the field.

What is the point of reintroducing wolves? Population control? No. Inbalance within the ecosystem? No. Money savings? No. I cant think of a good reason.

I wish the people who financially support the game animals had as much say in what was going on as those who are politically appointed. Two different groups with very different points of view, but one has almost all the power to do what they want.

Thank You Marble

See I’m going to have to deal with the wolves on a daily basis, and I have a lot of skin in the game I’ve got horseback rides I’ll have to deal with (could wolf watching rides be more popular? Heck yes but do I really want to take a group of beginner riders out on a ride to find wolves???? Doesn’t seem like the best liability idea) I help run and have a personal relationship with 4 ranchers who run 500 pairs of cattle on my mountain, right now we lose roughly 5 cows a year, 5!!!! Did you know average acceptable loss on open range for a cattle rancher is 4%? And these guys are still struggling most years to be in the black, now let’s add another predator to make it harder, I also outfit and I hate using this because I don’t like making wolves a business decision but if my herd numbers drop and I can’t provide a quality hunt then I lose clientele and I go out of business... everyone says well you can offer wolf hunts. When? 20 years? Who knows,

They are projecting releasing 25-30 wolves in Colorado and are saying within 10-15 years there will be 250. So when does CPW get to start maintaining the population? They did the same thing in Yellowstone when we get to this number we will allow hunting for management, they hit that number and then the lawsuits started to extend it year after year...

Btw it is now called Initiative 107, not Initiative 79.... they did some rewording on the initiative and resubmitted it.... guess the rewording had to do with the “commission” having more control of where the wolves are released. It was vague of who the commission was and I have not gotten to read the new initiative, just the new article published. So they now have until Dec 13 to get just 124,000 signatures and it will be put onto the 2020 ballot.... that’s a long day at a Denver super market, so maybe the commission I’m guessing is CPW will take 25 wolves and spread them out over the counties with the most votes pro wolf???? They want them they can have them....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Newtosavage]

Geezus dude you trying to pick a fight? Pretty pro wolf sounding, maybe ur a biologist? Idc I’m saying I have a lot of time in the field and common sense never said they don’t have time in the field, but their time in the field is swayed to be pro wolf regardless.
They could find out that wolves are the cause of cancer all over the world and do you think that they are gonna share that? No cause it would prolly be the destruction of wolves

They’re biased 100%.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just reading what you're writing. You're saying "they" are biased, and admitting you are as well, then saying they know more than you. I'm just trying to follow the logic. That's all.

We all have our biases, usually based on how things affect us personally (or their perceived affect).

Lots of people have common sense. Some of those also have data. I want to hear from people who have both.

I'm not unsympathetic to your cause however. You're right about many people who want wolves (or oil wells, or whatever) also don't want them in their own back yard.

 

[BigAntlerGetter]

Very true, yes a lot of people who want oil wells would say no if they said it’s going in your backyard but put it in the neighbors and that’s fine. Same thing with solar, wind all that.

But if you follow research from These wolf biologists they are biased completely... now talk to guys I’m wyoming, Idaho and Montana who are dealing with wolves. Some say no change others say huge change, some say good some say bad, it will all come down to their stance based on their opinions.

What pisses me off about this is people who have 0 skin in the game get to make a decision that will affect the rest of the state. Yes I know that’s part of our great govt. just like spring bear season so many people were clueless about it but they heard a radio add about the bear that got shot right after it woke up from winter.... so they voted to stop it. Will be the same thing uneducated people on the subject that just see the positives. And that’s where we as sportsman are outnumbered our pockets aren’t as deep as a lot of the other sides cause we spend a ton of our money on hunting gear and all that. We don’t have a lot of disposable income to match the other sides.

I know if they get introduced nothing I can do about it, and will have to just live with it. And that’s how it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

We have so much evidence of the problems with wolf reintroduction , so many unintended consequences that we have seen in Idaho,Montana and Wyoming.

Its like buying a new computer....then introducing a computer virus into the system.

The naturalist types claim they want a balanced ecosystem....which is total malarky. They think wolves are "Cool". Wolves only create an unbalanced situation when you have human populations in close proximity. Plus there is the assumption by these naturalist types that we can control wolves. We have seen what a farcical daydream that is. How did that work out in Yellowstone? If someone did a study on actual time and money devoted by the states to this one species- including lawsuits, man hours, etc...my guess is that it would be staggering. So much of that effort is not accounted for in the quasi naturalists theories.

Man can balance the ecosystem with the tools we have now- to the BENEFIT of humans without all of the negatives of wolves.

Do I think we should wipe wolves off the planet- no! But to intro them into highly populated areas like Colorado is a disaster waiting to happen. When you see the Co F&G having to take away massive resources just to deal with one species- wolves- you can thank the folks that thought it would be cool.

The video I posted only addresses one economic impact- from a ranchers perspective....factor in the many other impacts and the 'cool' theory of introducing wolves is an economic nightmare.

...

 

[Gorp2007]

For people bringing up the impact to the elk populations in the GYE, do you honestly believe that the elk herd numbers in the years immediately preceding wolf introduction were healthy and sustainable? Attached are the elk numbers in the GYE from 1965 to 2001. If you cherry pick your years and ignore die offs due to harsh winters, the numbers look positively catastrophic. But if you look at the population as a whole across multiple years, the elk herd has essentially plateaued at close to historical norms.

 

[wapitibob]

This is why we passed amendment 71. It requires 55% of the state to pass an amendment. The rural voters were getting passed over for amendment conversations.

Regardless of whether the State passes an amendment the wolf is currently federally managed. As long as it remains an endangered species the State has no control and cannot make the decision to bring them back. Only the federal government can do that. Once they are delisted then the State can bring them back. Barring an amendment, the legislature must pass law to bring them back if they are delisted. CPW doesn't have the authority to make decisions without the legislature. Additionally, the Wildlife Commission is against bringing wolves back even though they know they have no authority at the moment.

So, as long as the groups keep fighting delisting, Colorado has no authority bring wolves back on their own. Wolves will probably be here in decent numbers within a decade anyway. Granted, that wouldn't initially be the same number of wolves than if they reintroduced them but they'll be here soon enough.

Facts don't matter when talking about wolves on internet forums.

 

[Beendare]

Gorp, talk about misrepresenting the facts!

You are trying to insinuate the wolves had no effect on elk? ....what a crock.

Your chart is conveniently missing the critical years after 2001 when the wolf packs expanded tanking the elk herds but nice try. The full chart is here on the NPS website;
Yellowstone elk populations

.....

 

[Beendare]

And here is a chart of the northern elk herd in your same time frame

 

[Beendare]

Couldnt have been wolves that tanked those elk populations, eh? The animal rights folks would have us believe it was “many other factors”


You be the judge,
Heres a chart with an overlay of elk populations tanking while the wolf populations go ballistic

 

[Beendare]

My last comment on the subject.

I know for a fact we do not see all of the negatives with these wolves.

The folks providing the info are the same ones that want these wolves. The F &G folks in the trenches are pretty good- but this wolf thing is political and you know the old saying: “how do you know when a politician is telling a lie?”

Do ya think there is professionals culling those wolves and the F &G depts dont want us to know about it?
You betcha. Same as mtn lion control in Ca.

How did Idaho get their wolf pop numbers from the huge indian reservations? From the indians.... in other words a wild ass guess. An insider told me the indians have no idea how many wolves they have.

Im sick of the BS. There is so much political manipulations going on with this wolf situation its crazy.

...

 

[mwebs]

Couldnt have been wolves that tanked those elk populations, eh? The animal rights folks would have us believe it was “many other factors”


You be the judge,
Heres a chart with an overlay of elk populations tanking while the wolf populations go ballistic

If someone has the time to dig I believe a decent finger can be pointed at Montana's management of that herd as well. From what I have been told extremely liberal tag allotments along the migration corridor leading to a "fish in a barrel" situation. Haven't looked at the facts just relaying what I've been told by other hunters. Going hand in hand with reintroduction. Again there are two sides to it and wolves played a major part in the decimation of that herd that had been overpopulated for years.. I believe as hunters we have to organize around a different stance than non native, 0 dialogue around reintroduction to have a fighting chance that's all.

 

[Gorp2007]

You are trying to insinuate the wolves had no effect on elk? ....what a crock.

Yellowstone elk populations

I wasn't trying to insinuate that at all. I was stating that I don't believe the peak elk populations in 1994 were healthy or sustainable. They were artificially high as a direct result of human intervention to remove the majority of their natural predators. I'm not dumb enough to believe that introducing an apex predator would have "no effect on elk." Your chart clearly has better and more up to date information than mine and I'll concede that the wolves have clearly had a larger impact that what my data suggested. You're correct on that count. But I think that having the chart start at 1994 (all-time high) and end in 2012 (all-time low) is equally misleading because it it insinuates that 19K is the optimal carrying capacity for that ecosystem. While the 2012 numbers are bad, the populations for 2016, 2017, and 2018 were 7510, 7579, and 5800 respectively, which shows that while they're still not approaching those 1994 peaks, the population continues to trend upwards.

I believe that predators belong on the landscape, but I also realize that introducing predators is going to have an effect on both livestock and prey populations and I believe that the predators need to be managed by state agencies. If I were CPW I wouldn't approach wolves or grizzlies with a ten foot pole because Yellowstone has demonstrated that it's almost impossible to wrestle population control back to the states with those two species.

 

[Newtosavage]

So far, on this forum I've read that CO is trying to deal with an overpopulation of elk.

I've also read many times that there are now "too many" hunters in the field.

And now we have charts that show how wolves can help reduce elk numbers.

And then some complain that wolves impact elk herds too much.

So what exactly is it that we want?

 

[BigAntlerGetter]

If wolves make it here via migration on there own then so be it, but don’t introduce wolves. I’m not sure who says elk are overpopulated in CO. There are many units that are down look at Eagle County, they are saying 50% Over 10 years.

I guess if you want to drop elk numbers, bring in wolves, in turn tag numbers get cut which means less hunters,

So you’d get pretty majestic wolves in Colorado to complete the entire Rocky Mountain Range, Elk populations would be completely in check and Colorado would go to a draw only state with very limited tags....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

I wasn't trying to insinuate that at all. I was stating that I don't believe the peak elk populations in 1994 were healthy or sustainable. They were artificially high as a direct result of human intervention to remove the majority of their natural predators.
....

Good comment^ agreed.

Look I come off as extremely negative on wolves. The reason is not that "I don't want wolves at all" but because of all of the secondary and tertiary issues; diversion of funds, lawsuits and political hogwash that goes along with them. It sure seems like we would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we would have just let sleeping dogs lie.

We need to keep those wolf populations in check. Pretty hard to do with all of the peripheral influences.

....

 

[Newtosavage]

If wolves make it here via migration on there own then so be it, but don’t introduce wolves. I’m not sure who says elk are overpopulated in CO. There are many units that are down look at Eagle County, they are saying 50% Over 10 years.

I guess if you want to drop elk numbers, bring in wolves, in turn tag numbers get cut which means less hunters,

So you’d get pretty majestic wolves in Colorado to complete the entire Rocky Mountain Range, Elk populations would be completely in check and Colorado would go to a draw only state with very limited tags....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That sounds about right.

CPW is where I see the reports of overpopulation. I suppose that's based on what they think the habitat can support, and/or impacts to other species (including humans)? Not sure.

Whether numbers are up or down is always relative to what point in history you want to compare them to. 50% over the past 10 years may mean there were 2x too many elk 10 years ago, or it may mean that they are now at 1/2 the carrying capacity of the range. I'm not an elk biologist and don't live in that area, so I can't say.

But if I were a completely independent third party looking at these discussions, it would appear that hunters generally want more animals than the range can support, and at the same time, fewer "other hunters" because of overcrowded hunt units. So, what is the state to do if they are tasked with being responsible managers of these herds? Talk about a no-win situation we put them in.

 

[BigAntlerGetter]

That sounds about right.

CPW is where I see the reports of overpopulation. I suppose that's based on what they think the habitat can support, and/or impacts to other species (including humans)? Not sure.

Whether numbers are up or down is always relative to what point in history you want to compare them to. 50% over the past 10 years may mean there were 2x too many elk 10 years ago, or it may mean that they are now at 1/2 the carrying capacity of the range. I'm not an elk biologist and don't live in that area, so I can't say.

But if I were a completely independent third party looking at these discussions, it would appear that hunters generally want more animals than the range can support, and at the same time, fewer "other hunters" because of overcrowded hunt units. So, what is the state to do if they are tasked with being responsible managers of these herds? Talk about a no-win situation we put them in.

Well if you look at comments from the 5 year season structure, and from this Colorado Residents want 0 non residents, cut all the tags in half for less crowded, 100% harvest rates, and tons of elk.... but also state they want the herds to be healthy Colorado can’t even get numbers down with all the tags they have now with the non residents haha... so the resident hunters couldn’t keep game in check...

The eagle county elk herds are way down even historically, not a biologist but I can almost tell you exactly why with the trends that have occurred there over 15 years.... but that’s off topic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Newtosavage]

Well if you look at comments from the 5 year season structure, and from this Colorado Residents want 0 non residents, cut all the tags in half for less crowded, 100% harvest rates, and tons of elk.... but also state they want the herds to be healthy Colorado can’t even get numbers down with all the tags they have now with the non residents haha... so the resident hunters couldn’t keep game in check...

The eagle county elk herds are way down even historically, not a biologist but I can almost tell you exactly why with the trends that have occurred there over 15 years.... but that’s off topic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When the bulk of the elk run onto private lands and the bulk of the hunters are searching public lands, it really doesn't matter how many tags CPW issues - it's not going to have the impact on the herd they want.

There have been some innovative attempts at making more private land available, and that's commendable, but hunters, as a rule, make very inefficient management tools.

My only point is that it seems us hunters can never be satisfied unless all the competition (man or animal) is removed and we have a target rich environment. Then we also turn around and take credit for being great conservationists. Don't forget that part. LOL