I dont understand the hostility towards wolf reintroduction in Colorado

[BluMtn]

I don't know if it has been mentioned because I could not read anymore of this morons Balh Blah Blah. Washington has a cap of $10,000 per year for wolf damage. A friend of mine sued the state of Washington for ONE years damage which included years of records from his two different herds, one on their mountain range and the other from their river range. Calf deaths, weight loss of yearling calves, cow weight loss and all out wolf kills ( which even though they have 20 game cameras showing the mountain pasture and the wolves attacking the cows the game department would not agree it was a wolf kill) for $125,000 loss in revenue. The first thing the judge said after opening remarks was the state RCW's says that the state only has to pay you $10,000. Case dismissed. So now they have their employees and some older retired gentleman riding the mountain ground to help keep the wolves at bay. Plus since the wolves have take over in Southeastern Washington we are seeing large herds out in the low country wheatfields and very few elk in the mountains.

 

[Loo.wii]

Who is keeping the population of wolves “in check”? What animal is killing wolves? The woods would have to get real empty for a bear or cougar to take on a wolf. If there is no predator management by humans either hunters or state, the numbers will sky rocket


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fully agree

 

[Maverick1]

So, @Loo.wii - after starting this thread and reading all of the replies, with links to external resources and information as you requested, can you provide a high level summary of your key takeaways and learnings? It would also be interesting to hear if your perspective has changed over the 18 pages of replies.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Fully agree

If you “fully agree” with this statement, you’ve answered your original question.

I live right next to the very first reintroduction area. You wonder why people are against it? Because we’ve watched first hand what happened. Wolves are cool animals. They are fun to see and hear on the landscape. However, because of the political nature of the issue, states/feds will not allow proper management. Proper management would be very very difficult even if it were allowed, due the behavior of the animals. They are extremely difficult to hunt effectively.

Also, on the discussion of scientific studies, ect ect. The first wolf I saw outside Yellowstone National Park was in 2004. The drainages we were hunting at that time were 30+ miles from the park border, and we saw tracks, heard howls, and saw wolves multiple times that year. It was almost 6 YEARS after that time period when we began seeing articles and debate amongst the biologists and “scientific community” that there MAYBE, possibly, could be the potential of a lone wolf leaving the park on occasion. By that time period, we had watched both the numbers and behavior of both the deer and elk populations change drastically in the areas we hunted, and knew of active wolf packs living in several drainages. Was it incompetence or purposeful misdirection on the part of the biologists? Who knows. The bottom line is, those of us who watched first hand how this stuff goes down, realized that any sort of scientific approach to management of these large predators is totally out the window.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dreamingbig]

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.

Then you haven’t been paying attention.

It will lead to less ungulates on the landscape. You will have less hunting opportunities.

Go hug your antihunting buddies and book your tee time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dreamingbig]

Fair point. This is why I wanted to strike up this conversion. In my perspective pred populations should be managed. I think that this aspect (the management of predators) is the most important part of the discussion.

That isn’t the agenda of the antihunting orgs. They have zero intention of letting residents hunt predators to control the populations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wind gypsy]

I'm not saying wolves have zero impact. And most ungulate calves/fawns tend to suffer from high predation rates whether it's wolves, bears, coyotes, etc.

What I'm saying is that the brain worm and tick issues are worse than wolves. Even in Minnesota. While yes, this study found wolves to be the cause of 32% of the deaths, the parasite and bacterial infections combined amounted to 51% of deaths, with the brain worm in particular being found in 40% of the wolf predations (a significantly higher rate of occurrence than found in the general population).
Determining Cause Specific Mortality of Adult Moose in Northeast Minnesota ... https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/research/summaries/health/2016_moose-mortality.pdf

Wolves are far from the sole culprit. That study (from my quick scan) does indicate brain worm being a higher cause of mortality for adult moose.

My recollection is the calf mortality and poor calf recruitment which seems to a major factor in the population #'s was primarily attributable to predation by wolves AND bears. My understanding is that is how predators primarily impact ungulate populations. Also, i don't know if moose are succumbing to these harsh winters like deer have been but predator stress has to have a significant effect on survival through rough winters.

 

[Loo.wii]

So, @Loo.wii - after starting this thread and reading all of the replies, with links to external resources and information as you requested, can you provide a high level summary of your key takeaways and learnings? It would also be interesting to hear if your perspective has changed over the 18 pages of replies.

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 !!

 

[Oldffemt]

I have. The one of the most impactful comments here is when @Hnthrdr framed the issue as competition for meat in introducing wolves is introducing competition. looking at it in that lens definitely makes me think differently

The duality of man.. I dont think my point was to criticize the fact that too many people are moving west. its more of a statement on the fact that we as people have broken up large swaths of wilderness causing animals to break out of their most natural patterns. we have basically terraformed our way into a bad
position.

what do you think happens when you introduce a predator that can and will kill enough cattle to put the few remaining mom and pop ranchers (that have been here for generations) out of business? They are then forced to break up and sell off their land, a couple hundred acres at a time. Guess what comes next, subdivisions. Full of second and third homes that use tons of resources to construct and maintain and they sit empty 90% of the time. I live within 10 miles of the introduction sites. I know the area well. The entire area is elk and deer wintering grounds. Must be a coincidence that they dropped the wolves here right before the winter migration… something that most of you probably also don’t know is that the introduction happened smack in the middle of an area where CPW has been spending millions to reintroduce bighorn sheep…

 

[wind gypsy]

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.

Hunting is much more than just food. Many of us value having ungulates on the landscape. We enjoy seeing them and pursuing them. The "non-consumptive anti hunting" crowd would be happy if there were zero hunting. Like many political and emotional decisions, they don't take into account who pays for things. It varies widely by state but for a long time hunters have largely funded state wildlife agencies that are tasked not with just managing game animals and fish but all flora and fauna of a state. If hunter $ contributions are decreased, who's going to make up that shortfall? What I see is the wolf at all costs crowd costing our wildlife agencies money in lawsuits and headaches way more than contributing positively with $.

I wouldn't look at this so black and white as "pro and anti wolf". It's cool that wolves exist on the landscape. IF I could magically snap my fingers and make it such that wolves could be heavily managed (by hunters and other) to mitigate some of their impact on ungulates, I'd be all for having them in their current range and even some non-current range. But that will never happen and even if wolves have eaten themselves out of house and home in local cases to where they are starving and killing each other, the crazy wolf lovers still wouldn't concede that any part of the wolf population should decline. It will never be enough. So I am strongly against further introducing wolves that will cause problems we will be unable to mitigate.

 

[Jake Larsen]

Hunting is much more than just food. Many of us value having ungulates on the landscape. We enjoy seeing them and pursuing them. The "non-consumptive anti hunting" crowd would be happy if there were zero hunting. Like many political and emotional decisions, they don't take into account who pays for things. It varies widely by state but for a long time hunters have largely funded state wildlife agencies that are tasked not with just managing game animals and fish but all flora and fauna of a state. If hunter $ contributions are decreased, who's going to make up that shortfall? What I see is the wolf at all costs crowd costing our wildlife agencies money in lawsuits and headaches way more than contributing positively with $.

I wouldn't look at this so black and white as "pro and anti wolf". It's cool that wolves exist on the landscape. IF I could magically snap my fingers and make it such that wolves could be heavily managed (by hunters and other) to mitigate some of their impact on ungulates, I'd be all for having them in their current range and even some non-current range. But that will never happen and even if wolves have eaten themselves out of house and home in local cases to where they are starving and killing each other, the crazy wolf lovers still wouldn't concede that any part of the wolf population should decline. It will never be enough. So I am strongly against further introducing wolves that will cause problems we will be unable to mitigate.

This perspective isn’t just conjecture either. It’s already gone down this way before. Once the cat’s out of the bag, it’s very difficult, if not impossible to undo the damage. @Loo.wii Before formulating a strong opinion, I highly suggest spending a little time talking to those of us who have lived near YNP for the last 20-30 years, and can provide real world feedback about how this went down in SW Montana/NW Wyoming. It’s going to be even worse for CO, because they have put up even more barriers to any sort of management.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Loo.wii]

Hunting is much more than just food. Many of us value having ungulates on the landscape. We enjoy seeing them and pursuing them. The "non-consumptive anti hunting" crowd would be happy if there were zero hunting. Like many political and emotional decisions, they don't take into account who pays for things. It varies widely by state but for a long time hunters have largely funded state wildlife agencies that are tasked not with just managing game animals and fish but all flora and fauna of a state. If hunter $ contributions are decreased, who's going to make up that shortfall? What I see is the wolf at all costs crowd costing our wildlife agencies money in lawsuits and headaches way more than contributing positively with $.

I wouldn't look at this so black and white as "pro and anti wolf". It's cool that wolves exist on the landscape. IF I could magically snap my fingers and make it such that wolves could be heavily managed (by hunters and other) to mitigate some of their impact on ungulates, I'd be all for having them in their current range and even some non-current range. But that will never happen and even if wolves have eaten themselves out of house and home in local cases to where they are starving and killing each other, the crazy wolf lovers still wouldn't concede that any part of the wolf population should decline. It will never be enough. So I am strongly against further introducing wolves that will cause problems we will be unable to mitigate.

My favorite part is the chase. the reward at the end is amazing too

 

[Hackleback]

I didn't read all 18 pages of this thread. We all live in an man altered environment, reintroducing large predators will not return "balance to the force"

"I think that this aspect (the management of predators) is the most important part of the discussion."

This is the part that is most often missed/overlooked. In other states, large predators have been protected, not managed, and have caused challenges.

I also think that this is a "one block at a time" approach to getting rid of hunting. All states where hunting is a big part of the states history and tradition(s) should have a constitutional clause reaffirming the right to hunt and fish and that these resources will be managed using best available science for future generations.

 

[Laramie]

I think this thread highlights many of the things wrong with our society in general right now. People form opinions on things that they don't understand because they fall victim to the propaganda that is shoved in our face 24/7. Unfortunately many people take those uninformed opinions straight to the polls prior to seeking answers.

 

[Rthur]

The media portray this as something that can be a compromise.
Like red flag laws and other restrictions one can not compromise with zealots.
2nd amendment/hunters are portrayed as the zealots, pure gaslighting.
Hunters have financed the return of a great many of large game species almost single
handily.
Conservative/hunters if they disagree or dislike something they'll not partake.
"Liberal/ideologs" disagree/dislike something they'll seek to ban any and all.
There isn't any middle ground, only the illusion sold by those with an agenda.

R

 

[repins05]

I didn't read all 18 pages of this thread. We all live in an man altered environment, reintroducing large predators will not return "balance to the force"

"I think that this aspect (the management of predators) is the most important part of the discussion."

This is the part that is most often missed/overlooked. In other states, large predators have been protected, not managed, and have caused challenges.

I also think that this is a "one block at a time" approach to getting rid of hunting. All states where hunting is a big part of the states history and tradition(s) should have a constitutional clause reaffirming the right to hunt and fish and that these resources will be managed using best available science for future generations.

Example Oregon - ban voted in for making it illegal to use hounds and bait for hunting lions and bears.

State now hires, using tax payers dollars, a few contracted hunters to kill lions to fill management quotas.

 

[ianpadron]

Thanks for the laugh. Wow.

Take a trip into the Lolo zone between ID and MT and report back on your findings. From world class elk hunting to less than 1/10th the population in 20 years.

 

[Koda_]

I'd be all for having them in their current range and even some non-current range. But that will never happen and even if wolves have eaten themselves out of house and home in local cases to where they are starving and killing each other, the crazy wolf lovers still wouldn't concede that any part of the wolf population should decline. It will never be enough. So I am strongly against further introducing wolves that will cause problems we will be unable to mitigate.

this, 100% agree. Im not against wolves but the left wont allow them to be managed. The left has turned into a fundamentalist movement that insists on legislating everyone believe and live the way they want to. Hypothetically we could co-exist with wolves and have healthy hunting herds but only with very tightly controlled wolf management and the left will never concede that.

 

[repins05]

Washington state and the battle with spring bear hunting ….

you would be foolish if you think your state is immune. It’s a war against hunting.

No spring bear hunts in Washington — again

Two petitions to allow a spring black bear hunt next year — are denied by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.

www.opb.org

 

[lazydrifter]

Curious Loo.wii, are you a member of the Sierra Club?