First Wolf Kill of Livestock in Colorado

[mtluckydan]

BuzzH is a testament as to why I would never be a member of the Backcounty Hunters and Anglers organization. They have a liberal agenda that I would never be associated with. It's wasted words to engage in discussion with Buzz as he's a typical Federal Employee -sorry all you conservatives - that will take one for the team regardless of the consequences. In multiple wolf discussions, Buzz touts how the wolves haven't hurt the game populations and it's always the mis-management by MTFWP or others rather than what most people who spend time in the woods know the facts are. Buzz has led the charge for all you points gathers to make it that much harder to draw tags in Wyoming - his get mine first attitude reveals his level of selfishness even while he brags about how often he still hunts in Montana - not his home state anymore.

No worries Colorado - Buzz says the wolves won't hurt anything, but make sure you keep your german shephards and labs on the leash...they're far more damaging than wolves. Minnesota and Wisconson....shame on you for letting all your dogs run free and killing all the deer. I wonder a few things that have proven to be difficult to determine - how much money have these fish & game organizations taken in payments from the Federal government in the name of illegal wolf introduction and how much money Buzz has made off the the same pool of money in his Federal job. Buzz you seem full of information and links...how much money are we talking here??? The funny thing is Buzz...most of the guys on here with common sense see you for what you are and you can't hide your obnoxious self. While I enjoy the rebuttal you've taken in just this one thread...keep on typing as more people will get clued in as to what you do or don't represent and hopefully not support you or your organization. No one doubts your ability as a hunter as you're first to post pictures of yourself saying how "see..I got my elk and the wolves haven't hurt anything" However, your stance isn't well supported by informed hunters that have seen the damage the wolves have done and your support for more of the same. Happy New Year and let's wish those wolf trappers and hunters great success. Way to take one for the team Buzz.

 

[Indian Summer]

Yea, that's it. I don't understand that at all. LOL

You guys crack me up. Always make it personal if all else fails.

What happened to just state your case and let it stand? Guess that isn't good enough?

Dude really? You can’t be serious! I gave you facts. Google up Yellowstone elk population 1983 to present. Or I can Google it for you…. for free.

Making it personal was when, after reading the facts, you said I had a narrative. But you didn’t actually pick apart my post using your own facts to dispute mine. Instead you just threw your hands in the air saying people make it personal and you are being attacked. I’d appreciate if you could leave the emotions at the door and present some real life, not government study bs, to dispute what some are saying while supporting your own narrative.

Godspeed to the trappers too but sadly they will never win.

 

[Indian Summer]

And while that may look like a victory in the battle against wolf mismanagement here’s a story…. documented facts, about the same guys where they didn’t have such a great day. They are friends of mine. You can get more facts about wolves if you ask the houndsmen/lion huning community. We would search for days for a drainage with no wolf tracks where we hoped it was safe to turn dogs out. Drainage after drainage we’d drive and it could take 10 tries to find one that didn’t have wolf tracks. If we did we knew they probably weren’t far.

One time looking for lion tracks we rounded a bend to a gruesome scene. Wolves had found a denned up black bear. They ripped him out of his den and tore him to pieces in the snow in the middle of the road. When I say pieces I mean nothing bigger than a softball. If lions couldn’t climb trees they’d meet the same fate as that bear. The same fate as the moose elk and deer. But ….. I guess that bear knew the risk when he decided to hole up and hibernate right? I always imagined what it must have been like to be that bear. One minute you’re in a deep sleep and the next you’re being yanked out into the daylight and being shredded before you’re even awake. I guess the bear was replaced as a local elk hunter. He definitely lost all of his hunting opportunities. Lol Funny but not funny.

Wolves kill three bear hounds in northern Idaho

BOISE, Idaho Wolves from a north Idaho pack have killed three bear hounds in the latest clash between hunters in this rural state and four-legged predators reintroduced into Idaho in the mid 1990s. The number of wolves in the state is expected t

www.espn.com

 

[BuzzH]

Confirmed: Montana Elk Herd Destroyed By Wolves

www.skinnymoose.com

Anybody using toby bridges as a reliable source of information about anything is intellectually bankrupt.

What a joke. Akin to quoting the national inquirer as a reliable news source...

 

[Chucklehead]

I think there is a lot of resentment among the supposed "anti-wolf" crowd. And for good reason.
If you agree to a number of wolves in a particular landscape, then constantly try and undermine state management, methods of take, and constant court challenges on head counts, all while things are spiraling out of control, there is going to be a natural hesitancy to agree to the very same things again. Fool me once....
Wolves have a place on the landscape, but they need to be kept of a short leash. And the governmental process makes that next to impossible with every pro-wolf group holding things up in court on technicalities.

At this point: Why would any hunter trust the process of wolf introduction after what's gone down the last 30 years?

If I was a betting man, I'd be putting my money on there never being a wolf season in Colorado. Ever.
But that is neither here nor there...

RMEF stance:

From RMEF

Never mind that these were/are not native wolves being turned loose....

 

[jmez]

Anybody using toby bridges as a reliable source of information about anything is intellectually bankrupt.

What a joke. Akin to quoting the national inquirer as a reliable news source...

Says the one that openly lies about information.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

Says the one that openly lies about information.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Wrong...I didn't lie about anything. It's not my problem you can't find the 2019 data you say doesn't exist. Keep looking you'll find it ...maybe.

 

[BuzzH]

Says the one that openly lies about information.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Wrong...I didn't lie about anything. It's not my problem you can't find the 2019 data you say doesn't exist. Keep looking you'll find it ...maybe.

 

[jmez]

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

 

[Newtosavage]

Dude really? You can’t be serious! I gave you facts. Google up Yellowstone elk population 1983 to present. Or I can Google it for you…. for free.

Making it personal was when, after reading the facts, you said I had a narrative. But you didn’t actually pick apart my post using your own facts to dispute mine. Instead you just threw your hands in the air saying people make it personal and you are being attacked. I’d appreciate if you could leave the emotions at the door and present some real life, not government study bs, to dispute what some are saying while supporting your own narrative.

Godspeed to the trappers too but sadly they will never win. View attachment 361386

My last response was not addressed to you. It was in response to being accused of not understanding the North American wildlife model, which I only recently learned about, 30 years ago in college. However I did say you have a narrative, based on your version of the facts. That's not incorrect. You do. We all have narratives running in our heads based on how we view the information we see. Again, I'm not the enemy here. If you can't convince me with facts, you have zero chance with non-hunters.

Like I said already, I know better than to engage in wolf threads. They always come down to misniformation and name calling, even among hunters. Have a great day.

 

[arock]

I'm always curious about the motivation of anti-wolf hunters. On the surface it sure seems like folks who so vocally opposed to wolves are simply worried about not having enough critters to shoot. Is that it? If having wolves in the landscape was actually better for the ecosystem (not saying it is, but if it is) would everyone here still feel the same way or would we all still hate wolves because they compete with us for game? Are we really that selfish? I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out when I see so many hunters spew hate about wolves thread after thread after thread...

Or is it the ranchers we're worried about? You know, the same ones who lock us out of our public lands. A person really needs a scorecard to keep up with the logic here.

I'm not anti or pro wolf but I am uncomfortable that a decision that should be science based is left to the general population. It is also a little disturbing to me that 50.4% of the population can make a potentially impactful decision for other half.

 

[arock]

Dude really? You can’t be serious! I gave you facts. Google up Yellowstone elk population 1983 to present. Or I can Google it for you…. for free.

Making it personal was when, after reading the facts, you said I had a narrative. But you didn’t actually pick apart my post using your own facts to dispute mine. Instead you just threw your hands in the air saying people make it personal and you are being attacked. I’d appreciate if you could leave the emotions at the door and present some real life, not government study bs, to dispute what some are saying while supporting your own narrative.

Godspeed to the trappers too but sadly they will never win. View attachment 361386

Jeez those are some big animals.

 

[Newtosavage]

I'm not anti or pro wolf but I am uncomfortable that a decision that should be science based is left to the general population. It is also a little disturbing to me that 50.4% of the population can make a potentially impactful decision for other half.

I'm not sure how any decision like this can be "science based" anymore when half the people don't trust the scientists as soon as they realize their findings don't suit their position.

Predators always draw max emotion from people on both sides. Not much room for science there.

 

[Chucklehead]

Talk a about going down a rabbit hole...this interesting stuff though.

Wildlife damage reports are surveyed/done every year. It just looks like they don't publish a nice neat summary every year.
USDA Wildlife Damage Reports
If you wish: look at the PRD C Information. This gives damage to resources done by wildlife. This includes just about everything from structures, ag fields, livestock, to vehicles.

This one is done by number of events reported. So some type of damage was done. Doesn't necessarily mean the livestock animal was killed.

If you go by just number of events to beef cattle (adult and calves) in 2020. (total # of reports is on the right)




By my math:
There was 11,732 reports.
1384 of those were attributed to gray wolves or 11.8%
Dogs were total of 258. Or 2.2%
Coyotes were 6858. Or 58.46% (Glad I hunt/trap coyotes more than I used to)

Obviously there can be other things factored in here, but this is a rough calculation.
Sure seems like gray wolves account for more than their share of reports when considering the percentage of territory they occupy.

 

[Trap]

Talk a about going down a rabbit hole...this interesting stuff though.

Wildlife damage reports are surveyed/done every year. It just looks like they don't publish a nice neat summary every year.
USDA Wildlife Damage Reports
If you wish: look at the PRD C Information. This gives damage to resources done by wildlife. This includes just about everything from structures, ag fields, livestock, to vehicles.

This one is done by number of events reported. So some type of damage was done. Doesn't necessarily mean the livestock animal was killed.

If you go by just number of events to beef cattle (adult and calves) in 2020. (total # of reports is on the right)

View attachment 361486
View attachment 361487

By my math:
There was 11,732 reports.
1384 of those were attributed to gray wolves or 11.8%
Dogs were total of 258. Or 2.2%
Coyotes were 6858. Or 58.46% (Glad I hunt/trap coyotes more than I used to)

Obviously there can be other things factored in here, but this is a rough calculation.
Sure seems like gray wolves account for more than their share of reports when considering the percentage of territory they occupy.

Jeez glad I’m trapping beavers lol there was 5 beaver attacks!! Who knew lol. Not making fun of the report it’s actually really interesting and thank you for posting the beavers just made me laugh pigeon too

 

[Trap]

My last response was not addressed to you. It was in response to being accused of not understanding the North American wildlife model, which I only recently learned about, 30 years ago in college. However I did say you have a narrative, based on your version of the facts. That's not incorrect. You do. We all have narratives running in our heads based on how we view the information we see. Again, I'm not the enemy here. If you can't convince me with facts, you have zero chance with non-hunters.

Like I said already, I know better than to engage in wolf threads. They always come down to misniformation and name calling, even among hunters. Have a great day.

I am not name calling. I just want a response based on the facts presented. You told me you’re against ballot box biology but responded multiple times the “ people “ have spoken. There is a reason the North American wildlife model has been around 100 years. It WORKS so should we fix it till it’s broken? I would like a response to the rmef facts posted by chucklehead. How do introduced wolves create a healthy ecosystem in today’s world? Especially when every state they were introduced into have faced lawsuits every year over management of them. The serial litigation anti hunters agree to 1 population number and constantly move the goal posts. Idaho is facing multiple lawsuits right now and we are 10 times the required numbers. You said controlling wolves was easy? Have YOU ever successfully trapped and hunted wolves? If not don’t claim it is easy. I have nothing against you personally. I don’t like when somebody spouts off wolves are good or nothing more than a small inconvenience without supporting their claims. It’s not 1995 anymore we have 27 years of on the ground evidence of what wolves do and do not do. It’s gut wrenching to hear the same lies told to waste taxpayers money reintroducing them to Colorado where they already exist. It’s the same pro wolf argument made in 1995 except now we have evidence of what’s true. Your response is “ you have a narrative in your head so I’m out” I don’t know or dislike you but would like some factual dialogue from you. Why shouldn’t we continue the nawm? It’s brought animals from nothing to abundance all over the country. I almost hate wolf threads but sometimes it just feels good to state the truth.

 

[Trap]

I'm not sure how any decision like this can be "science based" anymore when half the people don't trust the scientists as soon as they realize their findings don't suit their position.

Predators always draw max emotion from people on both sides. Not much room for science there.

Let the fish and game agencies make the decisions for their respective states without taking it to the voters. That would allow science based decisions which hopefully wouldn’t be influenced with emotions

 

[Newtosavage]

I am not name calling. I just want a response based on the facts presented. You told me you’re against ballot box biology but responded multiple times the “ people “ have spoken. There is a reason the North American wildlife model has been around 100 years. It WORKS so should we fix it till it’s broken? I would like a response to the rmef facts posted by chucklehead. How do introduced wolves create a healthy ecosystem in today’s world? Especially when every state they were introduced into have faced lawsuits every year over management of them. The serial litigation anti hunters agree to 1 population number and constantly move the goal posts. Idaho is facing multiple lawsuits right now and we are 10 times the required numbers. You said controlling wolves was easy? Have YOU ever successfully trapped and hunted wolves? If not don’t claim it is easy. I have nothing against you personally. I don’t like when somebody spouts off wolves are good or nothing more than a small inconvenience without supporting their claims. It’s not 1995 anymore we have 27 years of on the ground evidence of what wolves do and do not do. It’s gut wrenching to hear the same lies told to waste taxpayers money reintroducing them to Colorado where they already exist. It’s the same pro wolf argument made in 1995 except now we have evidence of what’s true. Your response is “ you have a narrative in your head so I’m out” I don’t know or dislike you but would like some factual dialogue from you. Why shouldn’t we continue the nawm? It’s brought animals from nothing to abundance all over the country. I almost hate wolf threads but sometimes it just feels good to state the truth.

Trap, those two things are not mutually exclusive. In a perfect world, we'd have clear facts we can all agree on, and those facts would drive our decisions. But even then, different people have different goals for managing wildlife populations. And at the end of the day, the taxpayers have to be respected and listened to and their views matter because it's their resource too.

I'm not sure I ever said we shouldn't continue the NAWM but times have changed since it was developed and there is a much larger % of the public that is not hunting and wants different things from their natural resources. So the model should adapt to meet the customer's wishes. They also pay the bills.

 

[Newtosavage]

Let the fish and game agencies make the decisions for their respective states without taking it to the voters. That would allow science based decisions which hopefully wouldn’t be influenced with emotions

That's a daydream. And frankly the F&G agencies are there to serve the landowners and wildlife owners, both public and private. Their job these days is to present the best unbiased science they can, educate people on the consequences of each alternative, and then let the people tell them what to do. That's what public servants do.

What you're suggesting - allowing the F&G agencies to make the decisions - would sound to many like government control of public resources - which is exactly what most western landowners fight against, is it not?

 

[KurtR]

Trap, those two things are not mutually exclusive. In a perfect world, we'd have clear facts we can all agree on, and those facts would drive our decisions. But even then, different people have different goals for managing wildlife populations. And at the end of the day, the taxpayers have to be respected and listened to and their views matter because it's their resource too.

I'm not sure I ever said we shouldn't continue the NAWM but times have changed since it was developed and there is a much larger % of the public that is not hunting and wants different things from their natural resources. So the model should adapt to meet the customer's wishes. They also pay the bills.

Of those customers hunters pay the lions share . Hikers and bikers bring little to the table as funding concerned