I dont understand the hostility towards wolf reintroduction in Colorado

[Cameron.25]

Could be true. But I do temper my opinion on the impacts of wolves on CO moose with recognizing that wolves are native to Colorado, moose are not. Moose did not occur in CO until the 1970s transplants, other than the rare wanderer in NW CO that came from UT or WY.
I'm a lifelong hunter from generations of hunters across the West, East, and elsewhere. My opinion on wolf expansion and reintroduction has flipped completely since the 1990s. The same cries and extreme warnings rampant in this thread have been raised for decades, but honestly, I just haven't seen where wolves are the culprit they are claimed to be by many of the folks that like to identify hunters as the forefront of wildlife conservation. Look at overall elk populations state by state from the 1950s to present and compare that with when wolves became reestablished in each of those areas. Elk are doing fine (Oregon in particular is fun to see the ~10% increase in elk since the first wolves were documented there). Moose, bighorns, and mule deer are struggling similar across the board, whether or not wolves are present. The wolves aren't the drivers of those declines.


And if you removed the wolves, the distribution between other species would change but the actual percentage of young of the year dying from predation remains roughly the same. Non additive mortality. Most moose calves die in their first year of life, regardless of which predators are on the landscape. The calf doesn't really care if it ends up in the belly of the wolf or the bear, it's dead just the same.

I don't like ballot box biology one bit, but that isn't a reason to rely on the various SSS mentality emotional arguments against wolves on the landscape.

In oregon, do you know if the number of elk went up in the actual units the wolves are in? Or just overall in the state? Im genuinely curious

 

[johnnycake]

In oregon, do you know if the number of elk went up in the actual units the wolves are in? Or just overall in the state? Im genuinely curious

Overall increase statewide, but it's a mixture of ups and downs across the units with increases and declines in wolf and non wolf units (and for both Roosevelt and Rocky/American subspecies) from what I remember seeing.

 

[Koda_]

Could be true. But I do temper my opinion on the impacts of wolves on CO moose with recognizing that wolves are native to Colorado, moose are not. Moose did not occur in CO until the 1970s transplants, other than the rare wanderer in NW CO that came from UT or WY.
I'm a lifelong hunter from generations of hunters across the West, East, and elsewhere. My opinion on wolf expansion and reintroduction has flipped completely since the 1990s. The same cries and extreme warnings rampant in this thread have been raised for decades, but honestly, I just haven't seen where wolves are the culprit they are claimed to be by many of the folks that like to identify hunters as the forefront of wildlife conservation. Look at overall elk populations state by state from the 1950s to present and compare that with when wolves became reestablished in each of those areas. Elk are doing fine (Oregon in particular is fun to see the ~10% increase in elk since the first wolves were documented there). Moose, bighorns, and mule deer are struggling similar across the board, whether or not wolves are present. The wolves aren't the drivers of those declines.

Even if we hypothetically removed all the moose in CO, you cited wolves killed 35% which is still a significant impact on any prey species. I don't think anyone here is saying wolf depredation is the only thing killing ungulates, if we apply roughly only 35% kill rate to deer and elk thats still a huge impact on struggling prey species.
In Oregon Mule deer are struggling and eastern elk populations are more stable but slightly below objectives.

2023 Oregon Big Game Preview - Oregon Hunters Association

Better late than ever! By Jim Yuskavitch, for Oregon Hunter...

oregonhunters.org

 

[Cameron.25]

Overall increase statewide, but it's a mixture of ups and downs across the units with increases and declines in wolf and non wolf units (and for both Roosevelt and Rocky/American subspecies) from what I remember seeing.

Makes sense, id be surprised if the NE area is up over all. West side, totally understandable. I know for sure one unit i hunt is down for both deer and elk, for various reasons though, not just wolves of course

 

[johnnycake]

Even if we hypothetically removed all the moose in CO, you cited wolves killed 35% which is still a significant impact on any prey species. I don't think anyone here is saying wolf depredation is the only thing killing ungulates, if we apply roughly only 35% kill rate to deer and elk thats still a huge impact on struggling prey species.
In Oregon Mule deer are struggling and eastern elk populations are more stable but slightly below objectives.

2023 Oregon Big Game Preview - Oregon Hunters Association

Better late than ever! By Jim Yuskavitch, for Oregon Hunter...

oregonhunters.org

Look into non additive mortality. Of all causes of death in the study, wolves killed 32% of them. That says nothing about what percentage of the living population dies from predation each year. If you delete the wolves, roughly the same number of game animals will die from predation be it from bears, cougars, coyotes, etc. That study in MN is interesting and hypothesizes without going further, that the brain worm issue was driving a higher than normal predation rate since a larger percentage of wolf kills showed the brain worm than general sampling of the population. It is correlation, not causation, which is why they didn't adjust the 32% of wolf kills downward to add to the direct deaths caused by parasites.

Mule deer are struggling across the West at roughly the same rates, whether or not the given area has wolves. That's a pretty good indication that wolves are not the driving force behind the problem.

 

[Koda_]

In oregon, do you know if the number of elk went up in the actual units the wolves are in? Or just overall in the state? Im genuinely curious

In the NE corner of the state where most of Oregons established wolf packs live elk numbers are way below objectives. Snake Rive and Wenaha units are hit the hardest.
exact numbers here:

Big game population survey data | Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

See the latest and historic data on big game population surveys from 2012 to present.

myodfw.com

 

[Koda_]

Look into non additive mortality. Of all causes of death in the study, wolves killed 32% of them. That says nothing about what percentage of the living population dies from predation each year. If you delete the wolves, roughly the same number of game animals will die from predation be it from bears, cougars, coyotes, etc. That study in MN is interesting and hypothesizes without going further, that the brain worm issue was driving a higher than normal predation rate since a larger percentage of wolf kills showed the brain worm than general sampling of the population. It is correlation, not causation, which is why they didn't adjust the 32% of wolf kills downward to add to the direct deaths caused by parasites.

Mule deer are struggling across the West at roughly the same rates, whether or not the given area has wolves. That's a pretty good indication that wolves are not the driving force behind the problem.

My only point is that wolves are not helping the situation even if they are not the driver. In Oregon the wolf population isn't currently large enough to be the driver (statewide), among the top predation to my knowledge is Oregons cougar population has increased almost 7x last I heard. (IMO the cougar population is the bigger subject at least in Oregon).
I agree its important to include all factors, but that doesn't mean that wolf predation isn't making an impact or justifies reintroducing them. Wolves are not an endangered species.

 

[Cameron.25]

In the NW corner of the state where most of Oregons established wolf packs live elk numbers are way below objectives. Snake Rive and Wenaha units are hit the hardest.
exact numbers here:

Big game population survey data | Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

See the latest and historic data on big game population surveys from 2012 to present.

myodfw.com

You mean NE*?

 

[Koda_]

You mean NE*?

Doh, thank you for that. Edited my post..

 

[Jbehredt]

My opinion is that there should be wolves but they should be well managed.

Did you vote for it then? Seeing that it met nearly half of your expectations?

 

[IdahoElk]

Is the OP from Colorado?

 

[johnnycake]

For Oregon here's the elk plan management doc that has some population data going back to before wolves were first reestablished in OR. It's interesting stuff

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/management_plans/docs/ElkPlanfinal.pdf

What I find fascinating is that despite Oregon's idiocy re cat and bear management, and lots of growth in those two predator populations...and growth in the wolf population...elk numbers overall are growing.

And to me, whether a species elsewhere in the world are of LC is entirely irrelevant to whether they should be reestablished in their native range. And it's ok to me that not everybody shares my views and opinions on it. I like wolves. I like cougars. I like grizzlies. I've hunted all three of those and it's a riot! I like knowing these critters are running wild in places, and frankly, if I had my druthers, they'd be in a lot more places.

 

[ThunderJack49]

 

[Koda_]

For Oregon here's the elk plan management doc that has some population data going back to before wolves were first reestablished in OR. It's interesting stuff

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/management_plans/docs/ElkPlanfinal.pdf

What I find fascinating is that despite Oregon's idiocy re cat and bear management, and lots of growth in those two predator populations...and growth in the wolf population...elk numbers overall are growing.

And to me, whether a species elsewhere in the world are of LC is entirely irrelevant to whether they should be reestablished in their native range. And it's ok to me that not everybody shares my views and opinions on it. I like wolves. I like cougars. I like grizzlies. I've hunted all three of those and it's a riot! I like knowing these critters are running wild in places, and frankly, if I had my druthers, they'd be in a lot more places.

I'm not reading that Oregons elk population is growing. Most current info I read (2023) is both elk species are below objectives and on the decline*

To clarify my opinion is similar to yours, I'm fine with wolves its the lack of management and bans of controlling them written into their legislation. I'm no scientist but if we wanted to reintroduce wolves merely to inhabit their historical range fine, but I don't think the wolf population numbers should be much more than something ridiculously low and I think hunting should be allowed to keep them there.

*Rocky mt elk MO: 73,450, 2023 actual 60,250. Rosevelt elk are fairing way worse...

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/controlled_hunts/docs/hunt_statistics/23/Rocky%20Mountain%20Elk%20Population%20Estimates%20and%20Herd%20Composition%202019%20-%202023.pdf

 

[johnnycake]

I'm not reading that Oregons elk population is growing. Most current info I read (2023) is both elk species are below objectives and on the decline*

To clarify my opinion is similar to yours, I'm fine with wolves its the lack of management and bans of controlling them written into their legislation. I'm no scientist but if we wanted to reintroduce wolves merely to inhabit their historical range fine, but I don't think the population numbers should be much more than something ridiculously low and I think hunting should be allowed to keep them there.

*Rocky mt elk MO: 73,450, 2023 actual 60,250. Rosevelt elk are fairing way worse...

https://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/controlled_hunts/docs/hunt_statistics/23/Rocky%20Mountain%20Elk%20Population%20Estimates%20and%20Herd%20Composition%202019%20-%202023.pdf

That is in comparison to 2018-19 herd data I believe. If you go to the management plan you'll see data on herd populations going back to before wolves first were sighted returning to OR in 1999 and when the first pack was established in 2008. Back in 1999 there were roughly 120k total elk in OR vs ~130k today.

I agree that the lack of state management is frustrating. But there were lots of folks in the 90s-2000s claiming we'd never get state management or a season in ID/MT/WY too. Should it have been as hard to get to that point? Absolutely not. But it did. Same goes for the Great Lakes population that unfortunately keeps getting strung through the courts. I do think wolves will eventually get delisted there, same for CO. Then it's up to the state to decide how to manage them, and I'm all for state's rights even when they exercise them in ways I disagree with.

 

[Clark33]

Please share links and articles

Why don’t you do your own research before trying to start a sh*t storm on a western hunting forum.

 

[Billy Goat]

This thread has averaged a post every 2 minutes and 12 seconds today, pretty impressive its not locked yet.



I haven't kept up, just I saw originally it was like 56 posts in 58 minutes.


Y'all carry on, just wanted to do my part to keep it up top.

 

[Clark33]

Another adult onset meat eater rinella hipster looking for “nuanced” discussion on apex predator reintroduction. It’s no wonder Steve’s own brother cut ties with him. Look what he’s done

 

[PNW bow hunter]

Could be true. But I do temper my opinion on the impacts of wolves on CO moose with recognizing that wolves are native to Colorado, moose are not. Moose did not occur in CO until the 1970s transplants, other than the rare wanderer in NW CO that came from UT or WY.
I'm a lifelong hunter from generations of hunters across the West, East, and elsewhere. My opinion on wolf expansion and reintroduction has flipped completely since the 1990s. The same cries and extreme warnings rampant in this thread have been raised for decades, but honestly, I just haven't seen where wolves are the culprit they are claimed to be by many of the folks that like to identify hunters as the forefront of wildlife conservation. Look at overall elk populations state by state from the 1950s to present and compare that with when wolves became reestablished in each of those areas. Elk are doing fine (Oregon in particular is fun to see the ~10% increase in elk since the first wolves were documented there). Moose, bighorns, and mule deer are struggling similar across the board, whether or not wolves are present. The wolves aren't the drivers of those declines.

When it
Comes to the Oregon elk population,
Keep in mind they “estimate” this population using modeling. There are a ton of variables that have to be input to come up with the estimates.

In NE Oregon, even archery season has gon to a controlled hunt. Tag numbers have been drastically reduced. Success rates are down from around 2012 when they started acknowledging the presence of the wolves.

Bull to cow ratios have plummeted in lot of the NE Oregon units with the established wolf packs. The bull to cow ratio drop was the reason for cutting tags per ODFW.

Do you believe success rates & bull to cow ratios dropped significantly, but the populations actually increased?

Or is it maybe plausible that the people that have to input the variables into the modeling didn’t adjust the predation value after the wolf packs got established all over NE Oregon?

I actually hunt I NE Oregon. As the number of wolf packs have grown, and spread around that part of the state I’m fairly certain there isn’t more elk today than 2012 when there was very few wolves in that corner of the state.

A few things to ponder.

 

[Rthur]

Less animals would also equal less problems...

At least we are finally getting to the bottom of some of this. If too many people is the problem, well there is only one way to solve that...and I cant help but see that many people that carry that opinion dont really ever attempt to solve that problem themselves.

Why allow/instigate another 10s of million to "immigrate"?
Strange the folks that talk about over population want to introduce millions more to countries
that have the largest "carbon footprint" per capita.

R