Meeker Colorado Wolf Attack

[AndyB]

Anyone remember WHY wolves were shot to hell a long time ago….?

Oh yeah. They were jeopardizing the livelihood of ranchers.

But we all know the livelihood of ranchers and farmers isn’t very important anymore - because everyone knows that all the food comes from the grocery store

Don't forget this lot!

Plant-Based Foods Are Our Future And Entrepreneurs Are Helping Us Make The Shift

Recently Bill Gates said that because of the climate effects of beef production, wealthier countries should completely shift to plant-based synthetic beef.

www.forbes.com

.......and who is the biggest owner of farmland in the USA I wonder??

 

[wind gypsy]

Without providing links, I know I’ve read from numerous sources that a wolf eats the equivalent of 25-40 deer per year. Doesn’t take much to see that those numbers can have a really impact on populations that are already struggling or without much of a safety margin.

You can argue that wolves won’t “wipe out all” the ungulates because they won’t but to think they won’t notably reduce many of the specific ungulate populations seems willfully ignorant. A strong wolf population WILL negatively impact the quality of ungulate hunting. Unfortunately that doesn’t move the needle for a lot of voters.

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

Without providing links, I know I’ve read from numerous sources that a wolf eats the equivalent of 25-40 deer per year. Doesn’t take much to see that those numbers can have a really impact on populations that are already struggling or without much of a safety margin.

You can argue that wolves won’t “wipe out all” the ungulates because they won’t but to think they won’t notably reduce many of the specific ungulate populations seems willfully ignorant. A strong wolf population WILL negatively impact the quality of ungulate hunting. Unfortunately that doesn’t move the needle for a lot of voters.

This raises the biggest question that I have about wolf introduction anywhere: What is a sustainable wolf population? How many before it's too much?

I know many here think 'one wolf is too many' but that's a pretty goofy mentality. The exception to that would be if people are saying "No" because they mistrust the gov't to proactively manage their numbers. Regardless, the wolves are coming whether you like it or not.

A simple thought exercise on this would be to do some light research and math.

According to https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/river-of-no-return-gray-wolf-fact-sheet/7659/

Wolves live an average of 6-8 years, with some reaching 13 years. Using your figure of 25-40 deer per year consumed, we get:
1 wolf eats anywhere from 150 - 320 deer over its lifetime (on average)

Compare that to whatever deer or elk population someone is concerned about and you'll be a step closer to knowing how many wolves you think are acceptable. It's an overly simplistic and flawed number, however, it will give you a basic idea of what will be eaten.

For a more realistic number, you'd have to be area specific, use reproductive rates, etc.

 

[wind gypsy]

This raises the biggest question that I have about wolf introduction anywhere: What is a sustainable wolf population? How many before it's too much?

I know many here think 'one wolf is too many' but that's a pretty goofy mentality. The exception to that would be if people are saying "No" because they mistrust the gov't to proactively manage their numbers. Regardless, the wolves are coming whether you like it or not.

A simple thought exercise on this would be to do some light research and math.

According to https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/river-of-no-return-gray-wolf-fact-sheet/7659/

Wolves live an average of 6-8 years, with some reaching 13 years. Using your figure of 25-40 deer per year consumed, we get:
1 wolf eats anywhere from 150 - 320 deer over its lifetime (on average)

Compare that to whatever deer or elk population someone is concerned about and you'll be a step closer to knowing how many wolves you think are acceptable. It's an overly simplistic and flawed number, however, it will give you a basic idea of what will be eaten.

For a more realistic number, you'd have to be area specific, use reproductive rates, etc.

If I had the ability to dictate the wolf management, with the assumption that there will be wolves on the landscape, it would be something like this:

1. Map out specifically what will be dedicated wolf range.
2. Within this wolf range, manage hunters/trappers to prevent risking extirpation of wolves within the given range.
3. Allow take methods consistent with what is allowed for big game hunting but with longer firearm seasons. No night hunting, hounds, or bait. This allows for liberal license issuance to exist and is more palatable for the general public and also makes it almost impossible that they would be extirpated from any parts of their current range.

I like the idea of wolves on the landscape but I really hate what unmanaged wolves do to the quality of big game hunting. My simple brain believes that trimming the numbers a bit annually before fawns and calves drop could be a big help to ungulate populations. I believe there are examples in AK where this was proven out. Hell, there was basically no holds barred and bounties on them in MN almost up until they were listed on the ESA. The fact that they can be considered "endangered" in MN right now is absolutely absurd.

[edit to add- I’m strongly opposed to human transporting of wolves to repopulate new areas but this is what I’d see for areas where they already are and will be.]

 

[SuspiciousFish]

If I had the ability to dictate the wolf management goals, with the assumption that there will be wolves on the landscape, it would be something like this:

1. Map out specifically what will be dedicated wolf range.
2. Within this wolf range, manage hunters/trappers to prevent risking extirpation of wolves within the given range.
3. Allow take methods consistent with what is allowed for big game hunting but with longer firearm seasons. No night hunting, hounds, or bait. This allows for liberal license issuance to exist and is more palatable for the general public and also makes it almost impossible that they would be extirpated from any parts of their current range.

I like the idea of wolves on the landscape but I really hate what unmanaged wolves do to the quality of big game hunting. My simple brain believes that trimming the numbers a bit annually before fawns and calves drop could be a big help to ungulate populations. I believe there are examples in AK where this was proven out. Hell, there was basically no holds barred and bounties on them in MN almost up until they were listed on the ESA. The fact that they can be considered "endangered" in MN right now is absolutely absurd.

This seems pretty reasonable actually. It may help with the CWD areas as well.

 

[SuspiciousFish]

Not much for history are ya? Wolf eradication was completed in the mid 20th century...well after slave abolishment. And the Forefathers from those slave days were not dumping toxins like we have in the past 100 years. Read more-post less...don't advertise ignorance.

In all fairness wolf eradication in the USA closely aligned with Elk eradication in the USA. The question here is, we have set up a model of Conservation for Elk, Deer etc. Can we set up a method of conservation to include wolves?

 

[Where's Bruce?]

In all fairness wolf eradication in the USA closely aligned with Elk eradication in the USA. The question here is, we have set up a model of Conservation for Elk, Deer etc. Can we set up a method of conservation to include wolves?

Could you be any more wrong? The removal of wolves was one key element in restoring several species.

In 1907, only 41,000 elk remained in North America. Thanks to the money and hard work invested by hunters to restore and conserve habitat, today there are more than 1 million.


In 1900, only 500,000 whitetails remained. Thanks to conservation work spearheaded by hunters, today there are more than 32 million.


In 1900, only 100,000 wild turkeys remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are over 7 million.


In 1901, few ducks remained. Thanks to hunters’ efforts to restore and conserve wetlands, today there are more than 44 million.


In 1950, only 12,000 pronghorn remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are more than 1.1 million.


Habitat, research and wildlife law enforcement work, all paid for by hunters, help countless non-hunted species.


Through state licenses and fees, hunters pay $796 million a year for conservation programs.*


Through donations to groups like RMEF, hunters add $440 million a year to conservation efforts.*


In 1937, hunters actually requested an 11% tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows to help fund conservation. That tax, so far, raised more than $7.2 billion for wildlife conservation.*


An 11% tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows generates $371 million a year for conservation.*

*financial info via America’s Sporting Heritage: Fueling the American Economy (January 2013) & Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation (January 2013)

 

[SuspiciousFish]

Could you be any more wrong? The removal of wolves was one key element in restoring several species.

In 1907, only 41,000 elk remained in North America. Thanks to the money and hard work invested by hunters to restore and conserve habitat, today there are more than 1 million.


In 1900, only 500,000 whitetails remained. Thanks to conservation work spearheaded by hunters, today there are more than 32 million.


In 1900, only 100,000 wild turkeys remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are over 7 million.


In 1901, few ducks remained. Thanks to hunters’ efforts to restore and conserve wetlands, today there are more than 44 million.


In 1950, only 12,000 pronghorn remained. Thanks to hunters, today there are more than 1.1 million.


Habitat, research and wildlife law enforcement work, all paid for by hunters, help countless non-hunted species.


Through state licenses and fees, hunters pay $796 million a year for conservation programs.*


Through donations to groups like RMEF, hunters add $440 million a year to conservation efforts.*


In 1937, hunters actually requested an 11% tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows to help fund conservation. That tax, so far, raised more than $7.2 billion for wildlife conservation.*


An 11% tax on guns, ammo, bows and arrows generates $371 million a year for conservation.*

*financial info via America’s Sporting Heritage: Fueling the American Economy (January 2013) & Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation (January 2013)

Sure, but it was commercial hunting and not wolves that caused that number to dwindle in the first place which is why the US moved to the conservation model we have today. I was happy to pay my tag fees this year to support that conservation. I am under no illusion that our 'wild lands' are not a human managed 'parks' and it has become our responsibility to keep the balance of the ecosystems. The question is if it is possible to have wolves as part of this ecosystem at all or if they are too effective predators to maintain a balance alongside human hunting?

 

[Hunt4lyf]

Wolves live an average of 6-8 years, with some reaching 13 years. Using your figure of 25-40 deer per year consumed, we get:
1 wolf eats anywhere from 150 - 320 deer over its lifetime (on average)

The real question is how many do they kill a year? What they eat is irrelevant if they thrill kill 2 or 3 or 10 times that amount. 19 cattle killed and not eaten, a dozen elk killed and not eaten, 19 elk killed and not eaten, 140+ sheep ran off a cliff and not eaten and this is just the known examples, how many more are there that are never seen? Your lifetime average is wayyyy low if you factor in killing for the sake of killing.

ALSO they will NEVER allow management in this state, if it's even proposed they will take it to the ballot box and we know how that will go.

Colorado big game is already hosed as it is and now with a non-native sub-species being crammed down our throat it's just that much more hosed.

 

[Sled]

human hunting?

They tried that. It didn't work out well for the hunters.

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

The real question is how many do they kill a year? What they eat is irrelevant if they thrill kill 2 or 3 or 10 times that amount. 19 cattle killed and not eaten, a dozen elk killed and not eaten, 19 elk killed and not eaten, 140+ sheep ran off a cliff and not eaten and this is just the known examples, how many more are there that are never seen? Your lifetime average is wayyyy low if you factor in killing for the sake of killing.

ALSO they will NEVER allow management in this state, if it's even proposed they will take it to the ballot box and we know how that will go.

Colorado big game is already hosed as it is and now with an non-native invasive sub-species being crammed down our throat it's just that much more hosed.

I get what you're saying but I don't know if including livestock predation into this equation is helpful. I've looked at the official numbers in a couple states and they're probably lower than what people imagine. I guess it depends which side of things you want to argue from? Rancher or hunter?

Personally, I'm not concerned about the rancher side of the argument. My concern is solely with the wolves impact on the natural ecosystem. Since this is a hunting forum, not a ranching forum, I figured that's where the main focus would be anyhow.

Figures for elk consumption is an avg of 21 elk per year, per wolf, based on IDFG findings. That's the only kind of numbers I'm focusing on.

To each their own though...

 

[isItFallYet]

I get what you're saying but I don't know if including livestock predation into this equation is helpful. I've looked at the official numbers in a couple states and they're probably lower than what people imagine. I guess it depends which side of things you want to argue from? Rancher or hunter?

Personally, I'm not concerned about the rancher side of the argument. My concern is solely with the wolves impact on the natural ecosystem. Since this is a hunting forum, not a ranching forum, I figured that's where the main focus would be anyhow.

Figures for elk consumption is an avg of 21 elk per year, per wolf, based on IDFG findings. That's the only kind of numbers I'm focusing on.

To each their own though...

So approximately 1500 wolves time 21 elk = 31,500 less elk. That’s a lot of elk!

Latest Fish and Game wolf population estimate is 1,543 and stable since 2019

Idaho’s wolf population has remained stable and consistent over the last three years based on camera surveys done last summer and since 2019. The 2021 population estimate for Aug. 1 was 1,543 wolves. The 2020 and 2019 estimates were 1,556 and 1,566.

idfg.idaho.gov

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

So approximately 1500 wolves time 21 elk = 31,500 less elk. That’s a lot of elk!

Latest Fish and Game wolf population estimate is 1,543 and stable since 2019

Idaho’s wolf population has remained stable and consistent over the last three years based on camera surveys done last summer and since 2019. The 2021 population estimate for Aug. 1 was 1,543 wolves. The 2020 and 2019 estimates were 1,556 and 1,566.

idfg.idaho.gov

That is a lot of elk, for sure! Like I said before though, this is a basic and flawed equation. It doesn't account for any variables beyond just the one.

In the 2017 IDFG statewide report, the leading cause of mortality for cow elk and calves (radio collared, approximately 860, across 21 zones) was mostly mountain lion predation. Malnutrition was next and wolf predation was the least significant.

In the 2020 IDFG report, 169 calves and 510 cow elk were collared. 124 calves survived (73%). Mountain lion predation accounted for, once again, the highest rate of mortality for calves at 42%. Malnutrition took 20% and wolves got 13%. For the cows, 97% survived (495). Out of the 15 dead, 27% were killed by mountain lions and 27% by hunters.


Based on those reports, it seems like Idaho elk have more to fear from mountain lions than wolves. Who knows how accurate all that is though?

If we take the results at face value and extrapolate the numbers to encompass the entire elk population, does that equal anywhere close to 31,000 elk? Nope. So then we'd have to conclude that Idaho wolves are mostly eating other stuff. Deer, squirrels, rabbits, etc.

I don't know what the answer is. My brain hurts though. Here's the IDFG page where you can download the pdf's for yourselves.

Wildlife Technical Reports - Show all Documents

collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov

 

[Hunt4lyf]

I get what you're saying but I don't know if including livestock predation into this equation is helpful. I've looked at the official numbers in a couple states and they're probably lower than what people imagine. I guess it depends which side of things you want to argue from? Rancher or hunter?

Personally, I'm not concerned about the rancher side of the argument. My concern is solely with the wolves impact on the natural ecosystem. Since this is a hunting forum, not a ranching forum, I figured that's where the main focus would be anyhow.

Figures for elk consumption is an avg of 21 elk per year, per wolf, based on IDFG findings. That's the only kind of numbers I'm focusing on.

To each their own though...

Is your 21 elk number from the link I provided earlier that is nearly 20 years old? If not please provide where you got that information.

I included the cattle and sheep because it is more proof that they kill for the sake of killing and they’re not the cleanup crew like most say, also it is relevant on a hunting forum because as I understand it the CPW will be reimbursing the ranchers who loose animals to the wolves, where does that money come from? CPW is largely funded by license sales so now they will be taking money from us sportsmen to pay the ranchers. Will the people who voted for wolves also vote for a tax to cover the costs involved when it gets messy? Yeah right.

You can focus on whatever number you want but if you don't include the animals they kill and leave then your numbers are skewed in favor of the wolves. When they rip a fetus out of a cow they just killed two but only counts for one, how about a pregnant doe? That would be three deer dead counted as one.

Ultimately though all this talk is completely worthless because they are here already and many more are on the way, we won't know the true ramifications of this introduction for years but for a deer herd that is already struggling it doesn't look good.

And now I am really done with this thread.

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

Is your 21 elk number from the link I provided earlier that is nearly 20 years old? If not please provide where you got that information.

I included the cattle and sheep because it is more proof that they kill for the sake of killing and they’re not the cleanup crew like most say, also it is relevant on a hunting forum because as I understand it the CPW will be reimbursing the ranchers who loose animals to the wolves, where does that money come from? CPW is largely funded by license sales so now they will be taking money from us sportsmen to pay the ranchers. Will the people who voted for wolves also vote for a tax to cover the costs involved when it gets messy? Yeah right.

You can focus on whatever number you want but if you don't include the animals they kill and leave then your numbers are skewed in favor of the wolves. When they rip a fetus out of a cow they just killed two but only counts for one, how about a pregnant doe? That would be three deer dead counted as one.

Ultimately though all this talk is completely worthless because they are here already and many more are on the way, we won't know the true ramifications of this introduction for years but for a deer herd that is already struggling it doesn't look good.

And now I am really done with this thread.

If you're done with this thread then I'm not going to waste anymore of my energy on you. If you don't already understand why isolated events, unquantifiable events (by me), unseen events, and a sheep pile up shouldn't be included in the equation....I don't know what to tell you.

I don't think the 21 number came from the report you posted. I have 9 pdf's open and don't remember which it came from. I Google'd it though and here's a link to a Wyoming article stating it:

How many elk do Yellowstone wolves eat? - WyoFile

Yellowstone National Park biologist Doug Smith’s research suggests wolves take thousands of elk each year.

wyofile.com

It's a basic estimate and I stated it as such. Pick it apart if you want. But if you think any of the figures I've listed are favoring the wolves, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Hunt4lyf]

If you're done with this thread then I'm not going to waste anymore of my energy on you. If you don't already understand why isolated events, unquantifiable events (by me), unseen events, and a sheep pile up shouldn't be included in the equation....I don't know what to tell you.

I don't think the 21 number came from the report you posted. I have 9 pdf's open and don't remember which it came from. I Google'd it though and here's a link to a Wyoming article stating it:

How many elk do Yellowstone wolves eat? - WyoFile

Yellowstone National Park biologist Doug Smith’s research suggests wolves take thousands of elk each year.

wyofile.com

It's a basic estimate and I stated it as such. Pick it apart if you want. But if you think any of the figures I've listed are favoring the wolves, you haven't been paying attention.

Whatever you say

 

[Newtosavage]

How many elk are slaughtered every year on depredation permits by landowners who also graze public lands? Probably more than 18 I'm guessing. But we're not allowed to get upset over that I guess.

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

Whatever you say

Alright....thanks for stopping by!

 

[cnelk]

Gasp!!!

Colorado's Famous 'Mother Wolf' Missing, Feared Dead

Experts believe the mother of Colorado's first wolf pups in 80 years is no longer in North Park, leaving many to wonder what happened to her.

outsider.com

 

[ckleeves]

I’ll dare to wade into this lol. I’m not anti wolf, hunted around them plenty in WY and ID, had a good talk with a game warden in ID for a few hours about the impact up there and his thoughts were very interesting on how elk populations have been affected both positively and negatively depending on region along with how in some areas age class was reduced but reproduction rates went up etc. Very interesting conversation.

My biggest issue is Colorado isn’t WY or ID. Far from it. There is no Thorofare, there isn’t a Frank Church. Its a highly populated state that is becoming more and more crowded every year. In just the last 10 years we added more people then the entire population of WY. The wintering areas where some (many) of Colorado’s deer and elk winter are basically in peoples back yards.

In many areas it’s not hard to see where the elk are going to end up, It’s the ag/river bottoms at the base of the mountains. Many of the farmers and ranchers in these areas are already struggling with keep battling it out in a state that’s becoming less and less ag friendly or sell for crazy money to developers and head to Nebraska where they can buy 10 acres for every 1 one they sold and not have to deal with wolves killing their cattle and elk eating their alfalfa. And the cycle continues, more houses, less open space, less wintering areas, less elk.

Colorado’s deer aren’t really doing good anywhere, and elk are suffering in many areas mostly from a increasing human population. Calf recruitment is horrible in some areas. So this begs the question, when wolves were dumped on healthy elk populations in other states and the elk took a pretty good beating with calf recruitment at high levels what’s going to happen In units with 25% recruitment? A sustainable elk herd should average 40-50? In many areas numbers aren’t looking good for the future without adding a apex predator to the landscape.

Colorado elk are quickly finding themselves under immense pressure, between development, hikers and mountain bikers, everybody outdoors 24/7 and now a new predator I simply do not see using any other states as a comparison to what’s going to happen. It’s not going to be pretty. It’s not just the wolves killing elk, it’s the everything killing elk.