Colorado group takes first step in ballot attempt to repeal wolf reintroduction program

[parshal]

I wondered the exact same thing. I'd suspect they would have seen it when initially captured unless it was such a superficial wound that it could only be seen when the animal was cut apart.

 

[blicero]

Rumor is that the next batch of wolves is imminent and most likely going into Pitkin County WSW of Snowmass on private land.

Aspen voted for them, Aspen can have them IMO.

 

[TXCO]

Gonna be tough but good luck. Glad to see someone taking the offensive for once!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wapitibob]

Finally, somebody on the hunting side stepped up to use a ballot initiative. I'll send these guys money.

 

[WTFJohn]

They're now reporting that two of the three dead wolves had been shot. 2309-OR from the Copper Creek pack that's the one being widely reported and 2307-OR.

"A second reintroduced wolf, known as 2307-OR, died in Grand County as a result of a fight with another wolf, but USFWS necropsy also found the animal had an “old, healed gunshot wound to its rear leg."

Given that hunting at night with thermals is legal in CO on private land, it's entirely possible these animals were mistaken for coyotes. I mean, we can't tell the difference between a coyote and gray fox in our thermals. Even though there's a dramatic difference in size between a gray fox and coyote they really don't look that different in a thermal. If we saw a wolf in a thermal it's probable we'd think it's a coyote. That's now not out of the realm of possibility out here in Elbert County. Wait until the general public understands that people hunt with thermals and that's gonna be huge news with wolf reintroductions.

We got the rule changed last summer to allow lethal take with artificial light, night vision, and thermal; and it made the news rounds then. It brought policy inline with other predators, and allowed us (ranchers) to use appropriate tools for the conditions. We had to fight to keep recording thermal devices from being mandatory in order to allow for lethal take when a wolf is 'caught in the act'. There is an astounding lack of knowledge of current hunting regulations across the board, from Wildlife Commission members to the general public.

I am leery of the gunshot stories as well, as a wound that was bad enough to kill should not have taken this long to be released as the cause of death; and per a CPW DWM shortly after the capture & death of the two males both seemed to be more torn up from fighting. My understanding is upon death, they become property of USFWS and the investigation is handled completely them, not CPW.

This picture is recent, but has been what we've dealt with for over a year now. Every day, every night, every single time you go check a herd or go try to get a count. We have lighter weaning weights, lower pregnancy rates, good mature cows missing on summer range, calves gone without a trace.

The $581,000 in claims this year is going to be a drop in the bucket once more people are in the depredation pool.

 

[parshal]

Do the reimbursement rules pay for low weights and birth rate? It's clear that's a result of predators but I've been curious if it's in the rules. Sure hope it won't be years of arguing.

I'm less than 9 miles from Elbert which is the closest town to where the wolf was trapped and llama was killed out here on the plains. I'm waiting for the same tracks to show up since everyone has farm animals around here. The neighbor has 50 cows which will calve this spring.

 

[WTFJohn]

Do the reimbursement rules pay for low weights and birth rate? It's clear that's a result of predators but I've been curious if it's in the rules. Sure hope it won't be years of arguing.

I'm less than 9 miles from Elbert which is the closest town to where the wolf was trapped and llama was killed out here on the plains. I'm waiting for the same tracks to show up since everyone has farm animals around here. The neighbor has 50 cows which will calve this spring.

Once you have suffered a depredation event, you are eligible to claim line item losses for various things if you have the historical herd data for your program to back it up. It is a convoluted process, to say the least, and we expect almost every claim to require a fight (especially since this years total is $200k+ over what they have on hand for reimbursements).

 

[ReaptheHeat]

Rumor is that the next batch of wolves is imminent and most likely going into Pitkin County WSW of Snowmass on private land.

Aspen voted for them, Aspen can have them IMO.

To be fair might be good to push those elk off the sanctuary ranches.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

Once you have suffered a depredation event, you are eligible to claim line item losses for various things if you have the historical herd data for your program to back it up. It is a convoluted process, to say the least, and we expect almost every claim to require a fight (especially since this years total is $200k+ over what they have on hand for reimbursements).

John how is this going to work? Do you know if it's based on historical herd data or year over year, if that makes sense? As in 2024 herd health is now the new baseline vs. prior to wolves if you filed a claim. So now in 2025 you can't claim low births and weight as a result since they match your 2024 numbers.

 

[WTFJohn]

John how is this going to work? Do you know if it's based on historical herd data or year over year, if that makes sense? As in 2024 herd health is now the new baseline vs. prior to wolves if you filed a claim. So now in 2025 you can't claim low births and weight as a result since they match your 2024 numbers.

This post from @Sandbrew in the Conservation forum shows one of the claims from this year, along with the relevant rules around compensation. There are a lot of people suffering losses, but without incontrovertible evidence they have no recourse to be able to file claims.

From the screen shot from this news story

@ 00:52 about the ballooning costs of wolves it looks to me like claimants filed an itemized claim form. It looks like most of the money owed is not from actual confirmed wolf depredation deaths but lost productivity from open cow dues to lower than 3 year average conception rates and reduced weight on calves sold due to stress and pressure from the wolves. The top line of "Calves" is interesting to me as it shows a 3 year average loss of 23 calves an this year it is 88. That is eye opening to me.

View attachment 818893

The itemized claim requirements for production losses are spelled out on page 34 of the Colorado Wolf Plan. https://cpw.widencollective.com/assets/share/asset/wixcpz0wez

For livestock owners who choose to itemize production losses
claiming missing livestock the following apply (this option is only
applicable for calves, yearlings, and all classes of sheep):
• Missing calves, yearlings, and sheep can be claimed if two
conditions are met:
° 1) Livestock owners must have a confirmed depreda-
tion event (injury or death) due to wolves to qualify
for the itemized production losses
° 2) The livestock owner must reasonably believe that
livestock reported as missing were lost to wolves and
not to other predators (i e , bears, lions, or coyotes),
disease, or other factors
• For missing calves, yearlings, and all classes of sheep, a live-
stock owner must submit the following information, included
but not limited to:
° Tangible evidence (photos, scat, tracks, etc ) that
wolves were present in the area where livestock are
missing
° Baseline death loss (predators, poisoning, disease, etc )
with percentages over a minimum of 3 years (preced-
ing wolf presence in the area) using production re-
cords
° A self-certification or documentation (e g , ranch re-
cords) for the current year that demonstrate vaccina-
tion status
° Written records to justify current year losses will be
provided to CPW with the following information:
■ The number of livestock (head counts) at the be-
ginning of the grazing season and at the end of
the grazing season
■ The number of animals that died as a result of
other predators (bears, lions, or coyotes), disease,
or other factors during the grazing season
• Eligibility for missing calves, yearlings, and all age classes of
sheep is limited to losses above the previous 3-year baseline
death loss and cannot exceed the actual number of docu-
mented livestock missing
• Livestock owners who cannot provide this written documen-
tation described above are not eligible to claim missing ani-
mals under Option 2
For decreased weight gains (only applicable for sheep and cattle), a
livestock owner must submit the following information, including,
but not limited to:
• Baseline weights over a minimum of 3 years (pre-wolf pres-
ence) along with current year weights (i e , weight tickets,
production records, or sales records)
• To qualify, documentation must show that weights of cattle or
sheep have decreased below the pre-wolf 3-year average
weights
• Livestock owners must provide documentation for average
3-year (pre-wolves) weights to qualify for decreased weight
gains
For decreased conception rates, a livestock owner must submit the
following information, including, but not limited to:
• Baseline conception rates over a minimum of 3 years (pre-
wolf presence) along with current year rates (i e , production
records);
• A self-certification or ranch records with body condition
scores and pregnancy rate information of livestock and a
statement from the livestock owner affirming no known is-
sues existed;
• Documentation must show a decrease in annual conception
rates below the pre-wolf average 3-year rate to qualify for de-
creased conception rate compensation;
• Livestock owners must provide documentation for average
3-year (pre-wolves) conception rates to qualify for conception
rate losses
Additional losses can be considered on a case-by-case basis by
CPW and CPW will consider the role of drought and other environ-
mental factors when evaluating context specific eligibility