I dont understand the hostility towards wolf reintroduction in Colorado

[KHNC]

The situation seems to me very similar to helping move an angry ex wife back in after all the time, money and effort expended to have finally gotten rid of her.

Damn, this hits home. No Fn way i would let her move back. Took almost a year to get her out and 4 more years to finally end the divorce proceedings!!!

 

[johnnycake]

Whoa! I figured most predators were eradicated in Europe with the exception of the northern parts like Finland.
Learn something new everyday.

Current estimates are that there are +20,000 grey wolves in Western Europe. There are also +200M people. All in an area roughly the size of the Mountain West and PNW (which has a population of ~25M). Despite having ~10x the wolves as the Western US, there are still huntable populations of big game in Western Europe. Are numbers of big game down in Western Europe since the 1960-70s when wolf numbers were ~1,000? Probably. But big game hunting there hasn't been eliminated, despite there being no hunting or trapping for wolves. Ssimo has even posted that he usually finds success on day hunts, with other hunters taking 5-6 days per kill.

 

[ssimo]

Whoa! I figured most predators were eradicated in Europe with the exception of the northern parts like Finland.
Learn something new everyday.

We have wolves (lupo appenninico, the italian subspecies), a LOT of them, and brown bears. Even some lynxes are coming back, I have seen one once

 

[ssimo]

Current estimates are that there are +20,000 grey wolves in Western Europe. There are also +200M people. All in an area roughly the size of the Mountain West and PNW (which has a population of ~25M). Despite having ~10x the wolves as the Western US, there are still huntable populations of big game in Western Europe. Are numbers of big game down in Western Europe since the 1960-70s when wolf numbers were ~1,000? Probably. But big game hunting there hasn't been eliminated, despite there being no hunting or trapping for wolves. Ssimo has even posted that he usually finds success on day hunts, with other hunters taking 5-6 days per kill.

Some other hunters don't do very well, most of them actually. They are lazy and often shoot from the car. Some of us have good success, mainly who stalks deer in the wilderness. We can take more than 30 animals per year between roes, fallow deer, boars, chamois etc

 

[ssimo]

Are you not allowed to kill wolves?

For now no. Soon a law should allow us!

 

[justin davis]

I didn’t read the 400 posts so forgive me
If this Has been Stated. But the issue I have with this whole thing. Is CPW was against it. They did not want the wolves. They got a gag order from the Governor to keep their mouth shut and not give their opinions.

The reunites then decided by the public (who doesn’t know squat.)

If the biologist and game Wardens came out and said he we need Wolves. Wolves are
Gonna make the moose and elk herds so
Much better etc etc.

I could get on board. But when the agenda is pushed by the Governor and
His anti hunting husband Im
Against it.

Very similar to the public voting to ban spring bear bait hunts. Now Colorado has an over population of black bears and hundreds are
Killed by CPW and wasted because the general public thought it was a good idea and have no clue.

 

[johnnycake]

Some other hunters don't do very well, most of them actually. They are lazy and often shoot from the car. Some of us have good success, mainly who stalks deer in the wilderness. We can take more than 30 animals per year between roes, fallow deer, boars, chamois etc

That's awesome! That's a level of hunting opportunity most US hunters just don't have available to them. And you manage to still have it despite a large and growing wolf population!

 

[ssimo]

That's awesome! That's a level of hunting opportunity most US hunters just don't have available to them. And you manage to still have it despite a large and growing wolf population!

I am talking about public land.. people without the need to work regularly and people with a lot of money pay for hunting reserves and they can get many more animals, hundreds. Going to the reserve for me is not real hunting though, i don't like it

 

[johnnycake]

Some guys who don't need to work ot hunt

I am talking about public land.. people without the need to work regularly and people with a lot of money pay for hunting reserves and they can get many more animals, hundreds. Going to the reserve for me is not real hunting though, i don't like it

That's fantastic!

 

[35WhelenAI]

If I missed this, my apologies. Colorado's population growth has been through the roof in the last 20 years. Mountain communities build more and more and cut off access to areas for elk, elk don't effing like people. This is not like mule deer that adapt very well, to more urban settings. Ergo, elk numbers dwindle and range shrinks. Makes them sitting ducks for wolves as the population trend continues.

With that, where the wolves were released, there's a good chance some of those wolves will end up in Rocky Mountain national park, probably right now as I'm writing this. If I was a wolf, that's where I'd go. No hunting and plentiful game. Wait til a family tourist car is driving through the park. Watching a wolf chase down and kill a calf elk or calf moose in front of their children. You'll see it on YouTube, I promise.

 

[100percent]

Damn!

 

[CoMulies]

I didn’t read the 400 posts so forgive me
If this Has been Stated. But the issue I have with this whole thing. Is CPW was against it. They did not want the wolves. They got a gag order from the Governor to keep their mouth shut and not give their opinions.

The reunites then decided by the public (who doesn’t know squat.)

If the biologist and game Wardens came out and said he we need Wolves. Wolves are
Gonna make the moose and elk herds so
Much better etc etc.

I could get on board. But when the agenda is pushed by the Governor and
His anti hunting husband Im
Against it.

Very similar to the public voting to ban spring bear bait hunts. Now Colorado has an over population of black bears and hundreds are
Killed by CPW and wasted because the general public thought it was a good idea and have no clue.

You nailed it here. CPW had years to reintroduce wolves if they so chose, but declined to do so. If the wildlife biologists had said wolves would be beneficial, fine, I can live with that. Instead, we got some ballot box bullshit that passed by the skin of its teeth (50.9% in favor), largely voted for by city dwellers who won’t suffer the consequences.

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.

 

[ModernOutlaw]

Plain and simple reintroducing an apex predator and not implementing any management practices off the rip is a terrible idea. Elk numbers are already down and an unmanaged wolf population is only going to put the nail in the coffin.

 

[Ross]

Hostility to wolves, yes indeed they do this24/7 365. IF managed then ok, but that is not how it works with them and they simply kill and hunt what is in their path. The entire wolf agenda has been a joke and the only good one is a dead one. They will create dead zones given enough time.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Plain and simple reintroducing an apex predator and not implementing any management practices off the rip is a terrible idea. Elk numbers are already down and an unmanaged wolf population is only going to put the nail in the coffin.

The watershed areas they have already been reported in extend up into the Routt County and north of Steamboat Springs. That is the area that had the tremendous winter kill two years ago, elk are decimated based on my hunt there last fall. Not that they have been seen that far north, but the watersheds they have been seen in extend to those areas.

 

[TacoTaylor]

The short of it is because we have seen this play out the same way in every western state. It is either voted in by people who are out of touch with the real impacts or it is forced down the states throats. Then the wolf populations recover and meet and/or exceed recovery objectives, we start to have more conflicts with livestock, there is a huntable population and the environmental groups step in and file lawsuits to try and stop it all even though populations were recovered. Now you have a battle that takes taxpayer dollars and even more time meanwhile populations are just growing more and some ungulate populations suffer as a result of it. And it was hard enough to hunt them in red western states nevermind Colorado where their governor, his husband, and the people of Boulder and Denver have their heads so far up their asses, they can't see which way the sun sets. I guarantee moose, deer, and elk populations in Colorado will suffer as a result of this.

There wouldn't be so much opposition to it if we could actually get some fair management of them but we see right through the BS in Colorado and it won't happen.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

The short of it is because we have seen this play out the same way in every western state. It is either voted in by people who are out of touch with the real impacts or it is forced down the states throats. Then the wolf populations recover and meet and or exceed recovery objectives, we start to have more conflicts with livestock, there is a huntable population and the environmental groups step in and file lawsuits to try and stop it all even though populations were recovered. Now you have a battle that takes taxpayer dollars and even more time meanwhile populations are just growing more and some ungulate populations suffer as a result of it. And it was hard enough to hunt them in red western states nevermind Colorado where their governor, his husband, and the people of Boulder and Denver have their heads so far up their asses, they can't see which way the sun sets. I guarantee moose populations in Colorado will suffer and so will deer and elk.

There wouldn't be so much opposition to it if we could actually get some fair management of them but we see right through the BS in Colorado and it won't happen.

This x1000. I think most folks aren’t necessarily anti-wolf they are just extremely concerned with the lack of management. Much of this is caused by anti-hunting, “conservation” groups who will launch never ending lawsuits to prevent state wildlife agencies from ever properly managing wolves. They don’t care if the wolves eat every single deer, elk and moose, as long as no one kills a wolf. We are seeing this already in Colorado as CPW is hesitant to lethally remove or allow ranchers to lethally remove depredating wolves either because of pressure from the Governor’s office and/or fear of endless litigation from “conservation” organizations.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

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.

 

[Crapshoot]

If you want to talk about predators. just look at the effects from are current boarder situation.

 

[Mike7]

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.