First Wolf Kill of Livestock in Colorado

[Newtosavage]

Could it be that anti-wolf hunters are honest enough to realize reintroduction isn’t necessary when CPW has already verified wolves in Colorado and the most prudent measure would be for them to naturally expand and establish themselves in the ecosystem where the habitat can support? Those same hunters probably are not swayed by the multi million dollar out of state activist disinformation campaigns that swayed 50.9% of Colorado voters.

You really think all the anti-wolf hunters are that objective? Erm... okay. If they were there naturally then what are folks getting so bent about?

 

[Newtosavage]

Still wondering what the Flattops have to do with this

Go back and read the posts and you'll figure it out.

 

[cnelk]

GMU 6 is over objective on elk numbers also.
Go read the license quotas

 

[bayoublaster7527]

You really think all the anti-wolf hunters are that objective? Erm... okay. If they were there naturally then what are folks getting so bent about?

Maybe not all but probably a large share. I think you just made my point, if they are already there why waste millions on a ballot initiative and reintroduction efforts? Seems like the anti wolf reintroduction hunters are pretty practical folks.

 

[Newtosavage]

GMU 6 is over objective on elk numbers also.
Go read the license quotas

redirect

 

[Newtosavage]

Maybe not all but probably a large share. I think you just made my point, if they are already there why waste millions on a ballot initiative and reintroduction efforts? Seems like the anti wolf reintroduction hunters are pretty practical folks.

Not disagreeing with you!

 

[Ross]

It is very easy to tell who has no personal first knowledge of what the cuddly wolves do in areas where they get out of control….you think social media is harmful….. these guys have no seasons quotas tags followers to worry about nor anything to sell…they simply like to kill….and you want them no where you hunt. if you enjoy bugling screaming elk of september good luck as the elk figure out that is not a good idea….hi I like elk and enjoy eating them even more good luck controlling me…….no dog in this fight other than to offer the real world not key board rhetoric…..will be sad to read the stories in a decade plus of how Colorado once was for elk and big bucks…..

 

[Trap]

"surplus" is subjective

Until there are no tags to sell or so limited it creates almost zero revenue. That is an objective number -once that happens the wildlife model is broken. Every western state has a fish and game budget that’s funded by hunting tags. Once we can’t fund management or habitat public land hunting as we know it is over. You will have a European style of hunting where the rich that can afford it will hunt private ranches or game farm. We can’t have the current public system of hunting without surplus deer and elk to fund it. The balance of nature sounds pretty but it will end the public hunting we have all enjoyed. Surplus is subjective till there’s not enough game on public land to fund the North American wildlife model. Then it’s very objective. I have enjoyed way more than my fair share of the benefits of the North American wildlife model. It probably won’t hurt me but I worry for my kids and hopefully eventually I will have grandkids that love to hunt

 

[Trap]

They have unlimited tags in some of the most overpopulated units - many of which go unused. What else are they supposed to do?

Recreational hunting is a piss poor method for population control btw. Any wildlife professional knows this.

I’m not trying to be combative but I see the problem. This statement proves you don’t actually understand the North American wildlife model. Ask any wildlife professionals where the money comes to pay their salary!!!! From hunting and they are paid to manage for surplus in the future so they can sell tags to pay next year’s salary. Look up what funds Colorados wildlife department.

 

[Trap]

OK, so why wouldn't they allow more elk hunting tags instead of adding wolves? What if the wolves are hugely successful in killing elk - so much to the point that they end up tipping the scales in the other direction? You can't control wolf kills, but you can control hunting tags. I'm not seeing the advantage of wolves over additional tags.

That’s my point. The public land hunting we all enjoy is funded by selling tags. We set seasons, control the harvest to create a surplus elk herd to sell tags in the future. This system is how we have elk herds where they were once extinct. Dropping wolves into Colorado is ridiculous. Wolves eat elk at anytime and without limits and won’t be buying tags. Anyone that has lived and hunted where they dropped a bunch of wolves in 1995 has seen this movie already. It ends poorly and even with wolf management some areas will never be the same. It’s gut wrenching to see the same lies told that they spewed in Idaho in 1995. Most arguments they made for wolves have been proven false and most of our concerns then proved to be correct. It’s hard not to play keyboard warrior on this since this already played out in my state. Good luck Colorado hint this is a rerun so if you want to see how it ends study Idaho post introduction of wolves until we finally got to manage them(2005 I think?) . By the way for pro wolfers there is never enough wolves they will set a number and then move the goal posts. The formula they use is n plus 1. N is current number of wolves plus 1 more. Look at the lawsuits we had over management way after we 10 times the agreed upon population. We’re getting sued right now and we are ten times the required number. Welcome to our world Colorado

 

[Newtosavage]

I’m not trying to be combative but I see the problem. This statement proves you don’t actually understand the North American wildlife model. Ask any wildlife professionals where the money comes to pay their salary!!!! From hunting and they are paid to manage for surplus in the future so they can sell tags to pay next year’s salary. Look up what funds Colorados wildlife department.

LOL I understand it perfectly, although my degree is almost 30 years old now (92).

CPW is funded 55% on licenses. IOW, 45% of their funding comes from grants, federal sources, general fund (taxpayers), and other sources. If even 1/4 of the hunters were in support of reintroducing wolves, that's the majority of their funders.

The model of wildlife mgt. you continue to refer to is nearly 100 years old now. Times have changed and our knowledge of wildlife management (not just "game" management, but ecosystem management) has changed as a result of knowledge we have now that we didn't have then.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong. Not at all. But you keep pointing to a 100 year old model to make your case. At some point, the public gets a say, and in this case they have spoken, like it or not.

There is a reason NEPA was passed and all these agencies have to do EA's and EIS's to inform the public of their plans.

 

[Indian Summer]

So barstool biology is what you trust? A study from the same locals that can't find an elk to kill? You trust them for your data?

Laffin'.

No barstools involved Buzz. You can call it data collection if you want.

Here’s one study: My neighbor has had cattle for generations and a grazing permit in the hills above the Bitterroot valley. There have been dogs, lions, grizzly bears, and people around for centuries. Everything was fine. Then came the wolves. The number of stragglers that were never seen went up and up until the loss of money made grazing not worth it. If you want to call those facts armchair feel free.

Same story for ranchers down in the Bighole. Cattle and sheep slaughtered every night. FWP gave them shoot on sight permits. But it did nothing. The wolves went strictly nocturnal. Besides would you want to spend all day every day sitting there with a gun watching your livestock?

There have been horses gutted by wolves right down in the residential areas. It makes the local news so does that mean it’s not armchair BS?

Do you really believe government studies? The numbers they list for populations aren’t even accurate. I remember when we were at a point where they told us there were 12 wolves in and around the Bitterroot. Meanwhile we’d see 4 packs of 6-8 in totally different areas miles away from each other. Hell we’d kill 3 and the number wouldn’t change! Lol

This forum has more valid information than a government study.

 

[12wander]

This is a list of Wisconsins confirmed wolf depredations of domestic animals and livestock for 2021 (so far) This is happening on 40, 80, 120 acre farms in rural areas and not the wide open grazing areas of the west and expanses of BLM that are grazed. Our wolf hunt here was once again put on hold by the anti groups and liberal judges.

2021 WDACP Wolf Depredation Reports

 

[Crowmangler]

... I don’t think the average liberal nut job that voted for wolf reintroduction even know the North American wildlife model exists let alone understand it and realize they are voting to destroy it. They are voting for it because it makes them FEEL good. They will likely never see or encounter a wolf but are voting for wolves because of their feelers. The leaders of major enviro anti hunting groups absolutely understand nawm and understand completely they are pushing things to break it. They just hate hunting period and that’s been proven through their actions for years. They think all hunting in any form is inhumane.

I'd like to have one of the libs explain to me which is more "humane" to an animal... One shot through the vitals resulting in a nearly instantaneous death or experiencing your flesh being ripped to pieces by numerous sets of teeth while still alive? Of course, these are the same folks who define dismembering a child in the womb as "women's healthcare".

 

[Trap]

LOL I understand it perfectly, although my degree is almost 30 years old now (92).

CPW is funded 55% on licenses. IOW, 45% of their funding comes from grants, federal sources, general fund (taxpayers), and other sources. If even 1/4 of the hunters were in support of reintroducing wolves, that's the majority of their funders.

The model of wildlife mgt. you continue to refer to is nearly 100 years old now. Times have changed and our knowledge of wildlife management (not just "game" management, but ecosystem management) has changed as a result of knowledge we have now that we didn't have then.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong. Not at all. But you keep pointing to a 100 year old model to make your case. At some point, the public gets a say, and in this case they have spoken, like it or not.

There is a reason NEPA was passed and all these agencies have to do EA's and EIS's to inform the public of their plans.

Ok Thanks for your response. I point to it because it IS 100 years old and it’s kinda been working. You made my point. The nawm has been working wonderfully for 100 years. The old saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!” Comes to mind.You said you were against ballot box biology and then say the public have spoken. Which do you want? The public to emotionally vote on introducing more wolves on top of the ones there already? Or should the actual wildlife professionals make the decisions? I’m out on this discussion and I feel like you’re pretty set on wolves being on the landscape is a good thing no reason to debate that any longer. For anyone on the fence-look at the facts of wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone, selway and lolo zone of Idaho even the st joe unit 7 and 9. I could go on with devastated elk areas. The pro Wolf group will tell you the elk decline was because of habitat or global warming or whatever. They are repeating the same lies they told us 25 years ago. Most of the pro wolf arguments were proven totally false and almost all of our concerns came to be true.it’s truly gut wrenching to see the same falsehoods promoted in Colorado and apparently 50.9 percent of people believe it. Colorado will never have enough wolves to satisfy pro wolf crowd. Look at how long it took us to even get management in the first place and how many wolves we had above the agreed upon numbers. Every time we reached the agreed upon number they changed it and filed a new lawsuit. Wolves are pretty amazing animals that are very tough to harvest and thus control. Idaho is facing multiple lawsuits right now trying to stop any wolf management and we are 10 times our population objectives for wolf. Good luck especially with 50 percent of voters who actually said yes to blow your tax payer money bringing wolves in when they are already present and naturally migrating there. Just watch the movie-it’s called what happens after they introduce wolves to mt,wy and Idaho. The pro wolf crowd will point out overall Idaho harvest rates and point to elk herds where there is Zero or very few wolves. Look here where there’s no wolves this Idaho herd is above objective! It’s all really dishonest and they still continue to cherry pick data to promote their narrative. Welcome to the shit show Colorado you will never have “ enough “ wolves.

 

[Trap]

This is a list of Wisconsins confirmed wolf depredations of domestic animals and livestock for 2021 (so far) This is happening on 40, 80, 120 acre farms in rural areas and not the wide open grazing areas of the west and expanses of BLM that are grazed. Our wolf hunt here was once again put on hold by the anti groups and liberal judges.

2021 WDACP Wolf Depredation Reports

I wish more people understood that to the pro- wolf crowd no state ever has “enough” wolves. Idaho is facing multiple lawsuits right now over being able to manage wolves. We are ten times what is required in the Idaho plan

 

[Trap]

LOL I understand it perfectly, although my degree is almost 30 years old now (92).

CPW is funded 55% on licenses. IOW, 45% of their funding comes from grants, federal sources, general fund (taxpayers), and other sources. If even 1/4 of the hunters were in support of reintroducing wolves, that's the majority of their funders.

The model of wildlife mgt. you continue to refer to is nearly 100 years old now. Times have changed and our knowledge of wildlife management (not just "game" management, but ecosystem management) has changed as a result of knowledge we have now that we didn't have then.

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong. Not at all. But you keep pointing to a 100 year old model to make your case. At some point, the public gets a say, and in this case they have spoken, like it or not.

There is a reason NEPA was passed and all these agencies have to do EA's and EIS's to inform the public of their plans.

I don’t understand your math if 1/4 of hunters support reintroduced wolves that’s the majority of their funding and tag sales provided 55 percent of funding? If something has worked really good for 100 years should we fix it till it’s broke?

 

[Newtosavage]

I don’t understand your math if 1/4 of hunters support reintroduced wolves that’s the majority of their funding and tag sales provided 55 percent of funding? If something has worked really good for 100 years should we fix it till it’s broke?

Most policy that was created 100 years ago is due for an update to reflect what we've learned in that time.

Sorry if you don't understand that math.

Clearly you like the status quo. Nothing wrong with that. I don't mind adaptive management informed by good science AND public input because it's their money and their land/resources.

If wolves were so hard to control, tell me how they were extirpated by settlers with a fraction of the technology we have today. They aren't hard to control. Just politically hard to deal with because the mere mention of any predator causes people on both ends to lose their minds and not think clearly.

 

[mtnbiker208]

the way you folks have described what the wolves do, there is no elk in idaho, montana and wyoming.

I did not realize how far the sky has fallen.
Not anti wolf, or pro wolf, but probably the most neutral guy you will find on this one.
hunting will be tougher, and those who adapt to the new predator in the mix, will still kill elk. The ones that don't adapt will cry on here there is no more elk.

I do have a pack just down the road from me, so not a new animal to me.

 

[12wander]

Most policy that was created 100 years ago is due for an update to reflect what we've learned in that time.

Sorry if you don't understand that math.

Clearly you like the status quo. Nothing wrong with that. I don't mind adaptive management informed by good science AND public input because it's their money and their land/resources.

If wolves were so hard to control, tell me how they were extirpated by settlers with a fraction of the technology we have today. They aren't hard to control. Just politically hard to deal with because the mere mention of any predator causes people on both ends to lose their minds and not think clearly.

You have to remember our forefathers we’re rather ruthless and thought nothing of throwing out out poison for the vermin. There were bounties in place on them many times throughout early history also.
You have to understand that the wolf is the #1 tool used by anti hunters to end hunting by taking the need of hunters out of the “management” aspect of wildlife management.