I dont understand the hostility towards wolf reintroduction in Colorado

Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
601
Please keep this in perspective as well …..

Many on this forum are relying on reports and studies from our state workers. Is a wolf count of 175 in Oregon accurate? Could it be double? Triple?
The numbers Oregon releases are the “minimum population”. It is not their population estimate.

The minimum population is positively identified different wolves each year by staff or game cameras.

So yes there are for sure way more wolves than the “minimum population” numbers that are released.
 
OP
L

Loo.wii

WKR
Joined
Sep 23, 2022
Messages
661
Why don't you find them yourself? You're the one on the quest for knowledge.
So you may not be interested in this but you may find this fact intriguing. I am a nerd by trade. Depending on my recent google searches in the last 90 days which had nothing to do with hunting or more "conservative activities" guns etc. my search results skewed left and much of the articles were anti wolf. BUT i noticed when I had a recent history related to firearms or hunting brands, my search results skewed more in favor of the other side of the coin. In short Its not exactly my fault i wasnt finding what you were finding.
 

Haro450

FNG
Joined
Mar 21, 2017
Messages
98
Location
OR
I can echo what others have said. Wolves force elk down into the low lands. At least they have in my area. Also once wolves start using local cattle herds as food they wont stop. They have tried every thing here locally it doesn't stop the predation of livestock. If you are a hunter in Colorado I feel for you. Your already strained wildlife population will take another hit. Talk to anyone who hunts in a state with wolves and you will hear nothing but negatives.
There is a reason why wolves where killed of years ago. If we don't learn history we are doomed to repeat it!!!!! Wolves will only further strain our wildlife populations.
 

Caseknife

WKR
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
313
I can echo what others have said. Wolves force elk down into the low lands. At least they have in my area. Also once wolves start using local cattle herds as food they wont stop. They have tried every thing here locally it doesn't stop the predation of livestock. If you are a hunter in Colorado I feel for you. Your already strained wildlife population will take another hit. Talk to anyone who hunts in a state with wolves and you will hear nothing but negatives.
There is a reason why wolves where killed of years ago. If we don't learn history we are doomed to repeat it!!!!! Wolves will only further strain our wildlife populations.
"If we don't learn history we are doomed to repeat it!!!!!", that is the thing with today's thought process, certain factions don't want to learn from history, they want to change history.
 

Tjv0003

FNG
Joined
Jan 16, 2024
Messages
48
As long as they are opening a wolf season to manage.

Elk hunting is already impossible already on public land……
 

elkliver

WKR
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
331
Location
Oregon
The numbers Oregon releases are the “minimum population”. It is not their population estimate.

The minimum population is positively identified different wolves each year by staff or game cameras.

So yes there are for sure way more wolves than the “minimum population” numbers that are released.
This is a huge problem with the politics and wolf management in Oregon. They only count "recognized wolves". There may be a pack of 20 but if if the officially recognized count is 6, then there are only 6 wolves there. and all wildlife decisions are based on only being 6 wolves
 

repins05

WKR
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
552
This is a huge problem with the politics and wolf management in Oregon. They only count "recognized wolves". There may be a pack of 20 but if if the officially recognized count is 6, then there are only 6 wolves there. and all wildlife decisions are based on only being 6 wolves
Combine that with the liberal count of one wolf kills 10-15 deer a year versus some estimates that are as high as 50 deer per wolf per year.
 

Jeaves1

FNG
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Messages
15
Here and on quite a few other public forums I've observed hostility towards the reintroduction of wolves in CO. Call me ignorant or dumb but I really dont understand the hate. I can understand the " THESE DENVER LIBTARDS WHO KNOW NOTHING GOT TO VOTE ON BLAHBLAH BLAH." perspective, but other than that I don't think its a net negative to the ecosystem, the state, ranchers, or hunters. Now I understand that there may be an argument that broadly suggests that "they're the wrong wolves" but i am not educated enough on the ecology and the actual impact of different wolf sub species on wild life or the ecosystem. If i am not mistaken, I think ranchers are reimbursed for livestock killed by wolves. If this is the case is there really a cost to the re introduction.
In the hunting perspective I also Don't think that reintroduction is negative. Multiple states have healthy wolf populations and still have healthy game populations. I imagine that a good wolf population would solve the issue of private land owners with massive swaths of land essentially having a monopoly on elk and deer in an area and capitalizing on it by charging ridiculous access fees. Broadly I think that predation by wolves on elk and deer will cause these animals to migrate in ways that are consistent with their historic patters of movement, effectively disbursing them in a way that is beneficial to your average public land hunter.

All that being said. While we are at it we should also reintroduce grizzlies to their historic range and buffalos too.

Im sure my opinion will get hated on but i hope this spurs a productive conversation that conveys nuances that I may not be aware of.


Edit.
Getting stabbed with a rusty blade by a gizz in the middle of the woods is better than getting mauled by a crack head in downtown Denver.




EDIT 2


ill add this to both sides of the thread.


I'll try to make this short. As I mentioned in my original comment, I am not an expert so I a speaking broadly when I share my opinions and perspectives. I didn't expect this thread to blowup as much as it did, and it really did show me the good, bad and ugly of the Rokslide community which i am very fond of. That being said, I didn't have the time to go through and read every article linked or dive into the depths of the internet to find what there was.

To me the most compelling parts of the anti wolf argument stem from the perspective that a wolf is a human competition for food. Taking this idea and running with it a bit more, i would estimate that the people who share this perspective use or plan to use or would like to use hunting as their primary source of meat. So maintaining this logic, why would you introduce competition that is quite literally taking food off of your plate? In most cases the data reflects that when wolves come into an area hunter success goes down.

This argument alone has had a major influence on my opinion.

In addition to the aforementioned, the anecdotes shared by those of you who are closer to the ranching community about the ineffectiveness of the "reimbursement" programs in various states opened my eyes quite a bit. In hindsight it should have been obvious because having worked for the gov in various capacities I personally know that getting what you need when you need it is like banging your head against a brick wall. These anecdotes shared the fact that cows grazing on public land aren't baby sat throughout the season and so a rancher might be down X number of animals and not know it for weeks of months, making it even more difficult to prove to the governing parties that an animal was a victim of predation.

The next issue would be the seemingly shady way that the wolves were introduced in CO. particularly the fact that there very likely were already wolves in the state and the state felt it necessary to add more instead of allowing wolves to continue to naturally filter south as they likely wood. The fact that there is NO management plan for them seems indicative that there is no desire to allow harvesting of wolves in CO ever.

After stewing on it I fall into the slightly anti wolf crowd. Though I am not in favor of the method or means of (re)introduction. I don't think wolves are completely terrible. I think it would have been better to allow them to continue to trickle into CO and implement a robust managment plan that takes into account multiple perspectives.

That being said I appreciate the love and hate that i got from the members here. The next pot I want to stir why is there so much hate for adult onset hunters among the saltier members.

P.s. I was asked and prodded about my signature. Its a joke that plays on 2 things, one being the fact that I am almost certainly the only Haitian born person on this site. On the other hand I knew from the second I made my account I knew there would be very little overlap in what I and most of the members here agree on besides hunting = good. There are some here who can't take a joke but thats okay.

I got alot out of this discussion.

Theres so much more to unpack but I have to go do nerd things now.

YES!! SHORT !!
I encourage you to find the Wolf Reintroduction Plan located on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife website. It’s easy to find. It will answer a lot of your questions.
 

Jayboy

FNG
Joined
Aug 1, 2023
Messages
11
Besides the ecology/species argument (which I think is the key and priority argument), and the fact that they are not managed in the same way as other "game" species, you can look at the impact in states like ID. Hunter success rates have plummeted in ID, despite F&G claiming populations are for the most part "healthy" in various units and zones. Subjectively, elk hunting has changed dramatically in ID.

F&G is only required to meet a "mating pair" count with wolves, and then they stop counting. So the estimates for wolf population in ID vary literally by 50% in the range they give. To me, that is not even in the realm of a legitimate estimate because theres nothing you can do with information that has an error margin of 50%. ID has also implemented a monetary incentive program to harvest wolves, but the success rates are still so low that the impact is negligible. I have heard its below 1% but I can't verify that. Regardless though, hunters would have to kill over 45% of the wolf population every year to have an impact on wolf population (https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/how-idaho-plans-to-kill-700-wolves). That is a recipe for disaster on our game populations, and I very much doubt F&G can manage that with their budget and resources.

I am all for native predators as part of the ecosystem, but any non-nativer species comes with unintended consequences which compound over time and cascade through the ecosystem. Humans have made this mistake countless times. It's super disappointing.
 

Old Dog

FNG
Joined
Aug 18, 2023
Messages
42
Almost all predators will take the easiest route to a meal. If these are problem wolves that Colorado transplanted from Oregon, then ranchers heading into calving season could have an immediate problem. When I had cattle even coyotes could be an issue with newborns and they would hang around the herd because if they couldn't snag a calf they could find afterbirth laying around. I can't even imagine how much more difficult it would be to protect a herd against wolves.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2024
Messages
10
Even for people who think wolves should be on the landscape, a lot of people disagree with how it was done. Ballot box biology mandating reintroduction when wolves were already starting to expand to CO from WY. The ballot measure snuck in that wolves would be a "non-game" species, making it very unlikely that there will ever be any hunting or serious management of their population. Beyond the obvious effect of wolves on ungulate populations these are a few reasons people are upset.
you are very right
 
Top