I dont understand the hostility towards wolf reintroduction in Colorado

[Loo.wii]

Well how's your understanding of the opposition?
Is the conversation what you expected?

Here in North Idaho the native Timberwolves are now gone. They were here until the "introduction" of the Canadian wolves.

The Mountain Caribou are now gone. They were here until they brought in the Canadian Wolves.

Moose population is on a rapid decline. So much so that seeing moose away from town is getting to be a notable occurrence, when we used to see a few every day.

The bighorn population in the Frank Church is all but gone. The biologists swear they're still there, but the guides/hunters I knew in the area haven't seen them for the last couple years.

Elk population is declining, as is the mule deer.

All of this is counter to the idea that this introduction is good for the ecosystem. Since when is causing the extinction of a species the right thing to do?

I appreciate your comment. I just read a few articles about the mountain caribou hopefully the heard in canada gets strong enough so that the can be reintroduced to this side of the fence.

Broadly I think many people would agree that one of the main issues is people. the only reason we have these issues is people

 

[Maverick1]

Ten pages in less than 4 hours. Nice.

 

[Loo.wii]

The wolves would die too if there was no game

no they would just eat fruits and veggies from sweet green.

 

[CorbLand]

I appreciate your comment. I just read a few articles about the mountain caribou hopefully the heard in canada gets strong enough so that the can be reintroduced to this side of the fence.

Broadly I think many people would agree that one of the main issues is people. the only reason we have these issues is people

It what sense do you think that people are the problem?

 

[Walmart Greeter]

no they would just eat fruits and veggies from sweet green.

On that topic, you should all check out the discussion about apples in the general forums

 

[spike camp]

It what sense do you think that people are the problem?

Left winger liberal politics

 

[Maverick1]

Bring on the memes.

 

[Hnthrdr]

im curious. on the critical mass of wolves that need to exist to cause some of the worst case scenario situations that some individuals are describing. In my hypothetical imagine if there are and could only ever be 10 wolves in Colorado. would there be a significant impact? now 100, 1000 etc. im not asking you im just working through the idea in my head. how many wolves would it take to cause serious issue?

I think the issues we are talking about won’t come to fruition until we are seeing triple digit wolves. Even then it won’t affect many of us here. Once we hit quad digits that where it will really effect most of us and then it’s a race to the bottom… I mean just looking at numbers 5-8 pups a year, so if there are 500 wolves, we can call it 200 females, 200x 5= 1000 new pups, even if only half survived to breeding age I think we can see how it could get out of hand quickly. Now wolves eat on average elk/ deer 15-19 a year so start doing the math, if we get 3000 wolves they are taking 45,000 animals off the landscape that humans could consume every year. Sorry I am kind of a pro human pro civilization kind of guy, best to disclose our biases

 

[Loo.wii]

It what sense do you think that people are the problem?

having to balance human animal conflict

 

[CorbLand]

having to balance human animal conflict

and people are the problem in that equation?

 

[Hnthrdr]

Back in the 90's in Montana and Idaho, we didn't get to vote on reintroduction. We had informational "meetings", with overwhelming negative response from citizens of those states. (the only people on earth this would have any effect on)
Well the Fed. gov. said F.U. and shoved them up our ass anyway- spending around $6 Million tax dollars initially.

We were told after "x" of packs the states could manage them. What they meant was you could manage them after you hire packs of lawyers and many years of costly litigation. These environmentalists game plan revolves around pro bono legal representation. They use it all over the west to run roughshod over anyone that uses public land for public use.

I feel sorry for Colorado hunters, but at least you got to vote on it.

Coloradans didn’t really vote on it… transplants that moved to Co in the last 10 years voted it through, just look where it passed that’s all anyone needs to know

 

[Loo.wii]

Did you ever supply scientific reasoning that supports your opinion, bro?
Not on the brim of your hat, but the wolf issue, lol

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

 

[Loo.wii]

and people are the problem in that equation?

in a sense yes. animals are a problem because there are people. less people less problem. theres more nuance to this opinion that i dont much care to elaborate on.

 

[spike camp]

I think the issues we are talking about won’t come to fruition until we are seeing triple digit wolves. Even then it won’t affect many of us here. Once we hit quad digits that where it will really effect most of us and then it’s a race to the bottom… I mean just looking at numbers 5-8 pups a year, so if there are 500 wolves, we can call it 200 females, 200x 5= 1000 new pups, even if only half survived to breeding age I think we can see how it could get out of hand quickly. Now wolves eat on average elk/ deer 15-19 a year so start doing the math, if we get 3000 wolves they are taking 45,000 animals off the landscape that humans could consume every year. Sorry I am kind of a pro human pro civilization kind of guy, best to disclose our biases

I think that 15-19 figure is a little low for wolves.

Then factor in that every lion kills one deer a week to survive, and lion hunting will undoubtedly be eliminated soon.

And then factor in a booming bear population and bear/fawn/calf mortality….

I don’t hate wolves, I hate the system.

 

[CorbLand]

in a sense yes. but theres a but more nuance to this opinion that i dont much care to elaborate on.

You ever wonder if there is more "nuance" to peoples opinions regarding wolves that they dont care to elaborate on as well? Or are you the only one that gets to post things and not back it up?

 

[spike camp]

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

Now that you understand that Colorado will never have any kind of management for wolves, are you still shoulding your completely baseless opinion?

 

[Hnthrdr]

The wolves would die too if there was no game

Well they would have to eat through the cattle, sheep, pigs, pets, and people and then they would die too… but in theory they would “self regulate” in that area, low pup recruitment or wolves eating each other

 

[CorbLand]

in a sense yes. animals are a problem because there are people. less people less problem. theres more nuance to this opinion that i dont much care to elaborate on.

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.

 

[Koda_]

My liberal friends tell me im to conservative. my conservative homies tell me im too liberal. I didn't live in CO during the ballot initiative. But the huge flaw to me is that there is no plan for management so i would not have voted for it. I hate the tribalism associated with either label but i guess since im on a hunting forum i have to put on my red hat.

I'm a moderate too and get the same response from friends as you, hats off for asking questions. The whole wolf reintroduction debate can possibly be summarized by the no plan for management.
And that in itself begs the questions that are more important to ask... Why when ungulate numbers in the west are severely declining, why not allow hunting wolves as a means to balance their populations (huge red flag clue right there). When you dig deeper lots of questions appear, like how the north American wolf species is not even remotely close to endangered on the ICUN (current rating "Least Concern"). Why is their historical range suddenly so important when its not even close to the same habitat it was to support them when wolves were here? ....the left argues for the "natural balance" to the prey/predator populations yet leave out the part the lower 48 is no longer the naturally vast uninterrupted wilderness it was when nature alone truly balanced the populations... habitat and migration routes are now fragmented, ungulates cannot migrate the same in response to localized increases in natural predation.
I appreciate the open mind to listen to both sides of a topic, but the action of predator reintroduction is wrought with corruption from the left. Keep digging and you will find the truth then ask yourself why you had to dig to find the truth.

 

[Andrewlonghi]

however far DC is from here

That's says it all right there,we've been trolled