I dont understand the hostility towards wolf reintroduction in Colorado

Joined
Nov 28, 2022
Messages
749
Something that’s struck me as funny is the anti hunting crowd keeps saying that ungulate populations are overblown and wolves will cull the weak, reduce disease, strengthen the herd etc etc. yet at the same time, will not greatly diminish game numbers… in my eyes, you’re essentially then admitting that additional wildlife management I.e hunters are necessary to manage wildlife populations effectively.
According to their numbers, and they are purposely EXTREMELY vague about the predator-ungulate relationship studies, the elk will be basically unaffected by wolf introduction and hunting will continue as usual.
CPW doesn't specify the end goal, but openly states in the Colorado Wolf Restoration and Management Plan that 300 wolves is generally accepted as a minimum robust population, and way later on admits that each wolf kills an average of 15-22 elk annually. That only equates to 4500-6600 elk which is only 1/60th of the total population and 10ish percent of annual harvest by hunters. Thats what got their foot in the door. Once you open up the linked sources about ungulate population responses to wolves that they glassed over, nearly every one of them mention how destructive wolves can be in unaccustomed areas and how they routinely go on killing sprees when surrounded by abundant prey. Below is an excerpt from an article I found online about secondary effects of wolf presence. Apparently the anti's "love animals" when we hunt them, but don't give a crap about large populations when wolves do.

------------------------

Wolves have caused elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to change their behavior and foraging habits so much that herds are having fewer calves, mainly due to changes in their nutrition, according to a Montana State University (MSU) study.

During winter, nearly all elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are losing weight, says Scott Creel, ecology professor at MSU and lead author of the study that appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. With the presence of wolves, elk browse more—eating woody shrubs or low tree branches in forested areas where they are safer—as opposed to grazing on grass in open meadows where they are more visible, and therefore more vulnerable to wolves. Browsing provides food of good quality, but the change in foraging habits results in elk taking in 27% less food than their counterparts that live without wolves, the study estimates.

“Elk regularly hunted by wolves are essentially starving faster than those not hunted by wolves,” says Creel, who shares authorship on the paper with his former doctoral students John Winnie, Jr. and David Christianson. The decline in the greater Yellowstone’s elk population since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 has been greater than was originally predicted. In the three winters prior to the reintroduction of wolves, elk on Yellowstone’s northern range numbered roughly between 17,000 and 19,000. In the three winters prior to 2008, annual elk counts had declined to between 6,738 and 6,279.

Obviously, wolves kill elk, and direct predation is responsible for much of the decline in elk numbers, but the rate of direct killing is not great enough to account for the elk population declines observed since 1995. In addition to direct predation, the decline is due to low calving rates, which are subtle but important effect of the wolves’ presence, Creel says. “We knew the presence of wolves caused lower calf-cow rations, but we did not know why,” Creel says. “Radiocollaring calves revealed that calf numbers were low immediately after the birth pulse, suggesting that a decline in the birth rate was part of the population decline.” The birth pulse is that time in spring when most cow elk have their calves.

This suggestion was confirmed when the researchers found that elk facing high levels of predation risk had substantially decreased progesterone levels prior to the annual birth pulse. The MSU researchers did chemical analysis of 1,200 fecal samples collected over four years, as well as urine samples for the study. They found that elk living in the presence of wolves had lower levels of progesterone, a hormone necessary to maintain pregnancy, than those elk that did not live with wolves. “The elk are trading reproduction for longevity,” Creel says. “Elk are potentially long –lived, and many prior studies have shown that, in species like this, natural selection favors individuals who do not compromise their own survival for the sake of a single reproductive opportunity.” If predators commonly affect the reproduction of their prey, it will change the thinking about predator-prey dynamics, and might change how wildlife managers plan for the reintroduction of predators, Creel says. Until now, it would have seemed obvious to conclude that a herd losing many of its numbers to predators would decline faster than a herd where predators were less successful. “However, now it is conceivable that the herd with the lower direct predation rate could decline faster, if it spends more of its time and energy avoiding being eaten and less on reproduction,” Creel says.
 

Mike7

WKR
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
1,305
Location
Northern Idaho
I don't know what all of the answers are, but Colorado is on the same path as Washington State.

Although introducing wolves in the fashion that CO is doing is at best misguided, that will be nothing compared to the coming multi-pronged assault on hunting as a tool for conservation and game management, and on hunting culture and hunter recruitment.

Within 10 years, or certainly within 15 years, there will be article after article about how climate change and disease caused the decimation to moose, elk, and mule deer numbers in Colorado over just a few years in the 2030s.

In addition to predator management being unthinkable from a moral standpoint according to the so called "defending wildlife and conservation groups" who will be getting funded by the ignorant-educated urban dwellers, many of these groups, who will by then effectively control the CPW, also will proclaim that predator management would be misguided anyway. Because ungulate diseases that wolves were supposed to cure, will then be replaced by other diseases that will be the clear result of climate change causing more bugs but less ungulates to survive. For instance, tick burdens that didn't seem to bother ungulates prior to being chased constantly by predators will suddenly become a problem and the result of climate change.

There will be a silver lining reported though. All of the plant communities that were in retrospect on the verge of extinction and not being well managed by CPW, will be allowed to flourish when relieved of excessive browsing and grazing pressure...even despite climate change.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2016
Messages
2,409
Location
Idaho
I don't know what all of the answers are, but Colorado is on the same path as Washington State.

Although introducing wolves in the fashion that CO is doing is at best misguided, that will be nothing compared to the coming multi-pronged assault on hunting as a tool for conservation and game management, and on hunting culture and hunter recruitment.

Within 10 years, or certainly within 15 years, there will be article after article about how climate change and disease caused the decimation to moose, elk, and mule deer numbers in Colorado over just a few years in the 2030s.

In addition to predator management being unthinkable from a moral standpoint according to the so called "defending wildlife and conservation groups" who will be getting funded by the ignorant-educated urban dwellers, many of these groups, who will by then effectively control the CPW, also will proclaim that predator management would be misguided anyway. Because ungulate diseases that wolves were supposed to cure, will then be replaced by other diseases that will be the clear result of climate change causing more bugs but less ungulates to survive. For instance, tick burdens that didn't seem to bother ungulates prior to being chased constantly by predators will suddenly become a problem and the result of climate change.

There will be a silver lining reported though. All of the plant communities that were in retrospect on the verge of extinction and not being well managed by CPW, will be allowed to flourish when relieved of excessive browsing and grazing pressure...even despite climate change.
Bookmark this post and revisit it in 10 years. It’s almost like you can see into the future. Sad, but it’s probably exactly how it’s going to play out.
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Messages
1,577
A few Colorado wolves are being tracked near the Wyoming border. Got into the severe winter kill area from a few years ago and kept on going north looking for some animals. Just a thought.
 

mt terry d

WKR
Shoot2HuntU
Joined
Jul 18, 2023
Messages
724

I dont understand the hostility towards wolf reintroduction in Colorado​


^^ Now that there is funny, I don't care who you are LOL!!!
 

Blinddog

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
173
Location
MN
The healthy wildlife in MN is in and around the Cities - because the wolves are there yet. If you want a wolf season you need to introduce them into the cities, then you will see how fast the love for them turns.
 

Gone4Days

WKR
Joined
Oct 29, 2021
Messages
695
In 2022 Minnesota and Wisconsin released updated wolf plans, those links are easily searchable on this forum. Suggest reading those plans as the issues become readily apparent and are at root a rural vs urban conflict. If wolves aren’t in your backyard there is no problem. Reimbursement for livestock losses is discussed in the Minnesota plan, they honestly point out that payments are short term and the costs will eventually born entirely by the producers as the majority of the voting public live outside the range of the wolves and will not support an assistance program for the rural population.
as a landowner in MN I can tell you the deer have disappeared too
 

bobco

FNG
Joined
Jul 19, 2023
Messages
25
Have you researched how wolf re-introduction impacts moose?
sad deal with the success of the CPW with the moose will be wiped clean quickly. I tell everyone I know, go on that moose hunt soon because they will be gone. The next batch of transplants will be in my backyard of Gunnison I fear.
 

ladogg411

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jan 11, 2023
Messages
174
sad deal with the success of the CPW with the moose will be wiped clean quickly. I tell everyone I know, go on that moose hunt soon because they will be gone. The next batch of transplants will be in my backyard of Gunnison I fear.
100%. Just look at Alaska. Zero moose.
 

Cruebee

FNG
Joined
Apr 3, 2024
Messages
10
If I'm not mistaken, and this is my biggest worry. It is less about the reintroduction, (they are already moving in on their own), but more about how Colorado will plan to manage the populations. We need to focus on making clear guidelines for what constitutes "reintroduced" we need to be able to take them off the endangered list here ASAP, and be able to regulate their populations via normal North American Wildlife Conservation models.

If we can't manage the populations, we'll for sure see negative effects on elk, moose, and deer populations before they have a chance to change their habits based around a new, formerly absent predator. We haven't had a pack hunting threat in the Colorado mountains for a very long time. The animals here don't remember what it is like to run from those kinds of threats. They'll be at a major disadvantage for a good period of time before they learn to change their habits to accommodate the new threat.

I'm no expert, and no biologist, I know there are some benefits to having them, and some negatives. The other main issue with reintroduction in Colorado, is the fact that we already have a booming and arguably over-populated lion and black bear population set. And Colorado is trying to further restrict predator hunting which is going to further cripple, not only undulate populations, but also hunter contributions and conservation fund loss because fewer people will have desire to hunt here now.
 
Top