Will be interesting to see what happens with this

[Hunterscamera]

Ranchers hit Colorado Parks and Wildlife with $580,000 in compensation claims for livestock impacted by wolves

If approved, the claims would deplete the Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund and force the agency to dip into the state’s general fund

coloradosun.com

 

[csrichardson97]

I would imagine most of the filed claims will be hard to tie back directly to wolves (regardless of what actually happened)

 

[5MilesBack]

What a waste, and it's only going to get worse.

 

[Gila]

You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet! There is quite a bit of cattle grazing on National Forest lands. It isn’t just about private ranches within the forest. There will be cattle that will just go missing on National Forest lands where no one will find them. By the way, the gates on NF lands need to stay closed to keep the cattle in. It was a huge mistake to release wolves in Colorado. You would think they would have learned after all of the issues New Mexico has had to deal with. But no, we the People have to throw all of this tax money into the wolf pit instead of managing wildlife.

 

[FuddRucker]

Looks like one group is trying to put together a ballot proposal to do something about it.

Colorado group takes first step in ballot attempt to repeal wolf reintroduction program

A Colorado-based group is hoping to get a ballot initiative to repeal the state's wolf reintroduction on the 2026 general election ballot.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Hunterscamera]

Looks like one group is trying to put together a ballot proposal to do something about it.

Colorado group takes first step in ballot attempt to repeal wolf reintroduction program

A Colorado-based group is hoping to get a ballot initiative to repeal the state's wolf reintroduction on the 2026 general election ballot.

www.yahoo.com

I Did not know that was the target number of wolves they are aiming for (150 - 200)

Anyone know if this is a likely number?

Hopefully enough people make a storm with lawsuits, appeals etc before they get close to 150. Or is this wishfull thinking

 

[Hnthrdr]

I Did not know that was the target number of wolves they are aiming for (150 - 200)

Anyone know if this is a likely number?

Hopefully enough people make a storm with lawsuits, appeals etc before they get close to 150. Or is this wishfull thinking

Real numbers is 1000’s of wolves, they want established packs on any and all viable habitat throughout the state, initial introduction of 150-200. These nuts want to eliminate hunting via “ 4 legged predator” management. They think nature can balance its like it did when there was little to no human trace on the continent.

 

[5MilesBack]

I Did not know that was the target number of wolves they are aiming for (150 - 200)

Just look at the 10 they released to start this cluster**** and how much damage they've done already. There was a reason CO got rid of wolves decades ago.

 

[Sandbrew]

There is a phased approach and thresholds listed on page 24 of the adopted Wolf Plan. The 2 biggest issues I see with this plan is when the end of Phase 2 is reached at 2 years at a of min of 150 wolves confirmed there will likely 200+ and every year they are forecast to double so the first year of 150+ is really 200+ and the second year the true population will likely be closer to 400+. Phase 3 will then be hotly debated because they these wolves are now on the books of CPW by law as a "nongame species" and I read that as a 3-5 year fight to get them reclassified. At that point we are easily at 1000+ wolves. If I was in any adjoining states especially Utah, Nebraska & Kansas and probably SD and OK I'd be pressuring those states to adopt a ZERO wolf policy NOW not later.

 

[TaperPin]

It boggles the mind how it makes sense anywhere to have wolves over human hunters.

Bunch of city @*&#@*

 

[TSAMP]

The distribution of funds was pretty eye opening to me. I'm sure alot of people will see the 500k number and not read any further though.

This is like any other government program to me. Full of potential abuse and hoops to jump through.

 

[Gila]

Real numbers is 1000’s of wolves, they want established packs on any and all viable habitat throughout the state, initial introduction of 150-200. These nuts want to eliminate hunting via “ 4 legged predator” management. They think nature can balance its like it did when there was little to no human trace on the continent.

That is absolutely 100% correct. The antis have been doing this for decades. They are trying to build up as many apex predators as possible in an area until the number of tags allocated to sport hunting for ungulates is reduced zero. Gray wolves should not even be listed as there are plenty of wolves in various Northern border states. There just isn’t enough habitat to move wolves any further South. The Mexican wolf is a different matter and is a sub-species. All just my opinion of course.

However the wolf people are all giddy now that the Lobos are moving North of I-40 and are hoping that they will meet up with the gray wolves that will come South of I-70 in Colorado. But what they don’t seem to understand is that if the greys mix with the lobos, the lobos could possibly hybridize to the point of extinction. As it turns out the release of lobos in the Gila was a huge mistake (IMO). Some packs have been relocated but not enough. The release point should have been in South East AZ only, not in New Mexico. Maybe that is enough of a buffer zone. Once again just my unqualified opinion as I am not a biologist. No one seems to be talking about EIS or EIRs (Environmental and Economic impact studies. The EIR should be the cornerstone of any “recovery” plan for any species. Science doesn’t seem to enter the picture at all for wolf introduction which I think is the elephant in the room.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

My guess is almost none of this will be paid.

 

[Hunterscamera]

Phase 3 will then be hotly debated because they these wolves are now on the books of CPW by law as a "nongame species" and I read that as a 3-5 year fight to get them reclassified. At that point we are easily at 1000+ wolves. If I was in any adjoining states especially Utah, Nebraska & Kansas and probably SD and OK I'd be pressuring those states to adopt a ZERO wolf policy NOW not later.

Thats a great point - hopefully we see a lot more of these lawsuits come pouring in

 

[Mtndawger]

That is absolutely 100% correct. The antis have been doing this for decades. They are trying to build up as many apex predators as possible in an area until the number of tags allocated to sport hunting for ungulates is reduced zero. Gray wolves should not even be listed as there are plenty of wolves in various Northern border states. There just isn’t enough habitat to move wolves any further South. The Mexican wolf is a different matter and is a sub-species. All just my opinion of course.

However the wolf people are all giddy now that the Lobos are moving North of I-40 and are hoping that they will meet up with the gray wolves that will come South of I-70 in Colorado. But what they don’t seem to understand is that if the greys mix with the lobos, the lobos could possibly hybridize to the point of extinction. As it turns out the release of lobos in the Gila was a huge mistake (IMO). Some packs have been relocated but not enough. The release point should have been in South East AZ only, not in New Mexico. Maybe that is enough of a buffer zone. Once again just my unqualified opinion as I am not a biologist. No one seems to be talking about EIS or EIRs (Environmental and Economic impact studies. The EIR should be the cornerstone of any “recovery” plan for any species. Science doesn’t seem to enter the picture at all for wolf introduction which I think is the elephant in the room.

They bypassed the EIS and the NEPA ( federal processes) by releasing the wolves on state land.

Edit: talking about the Colorado wolves

 

[Gila]

They certainly haven’t had the FWS hold their feet to the fire. In the latest wolf recovery plan:

“Facilitating a more durable and holistic approach to wolf recovery must go beyond the ESA.”

They are encouraging states to introduce wolves!

Service Announces Gray Wolf Finding and National Recovery Plan | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

WASHINGTON — Recognizing that the national discussion around gray wolf management must look more comprehensively at conservation tools available to federal, state and Tribal governments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced a path to support a long term and durable approach to the...

www.fws.gov

 

[jmez]

Like the wolves or not, most of that shouldn't be paid. It's mostly made up BS.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk

 

[Sandbrew]

jmez- This claim looks legit to me I will be curious to see how it is questioned and scrutinized and what the final payout truly is at the end of all this. Keep in mind all of these cost are with less than 12 known wolves on the ground as of now.....

From the screen shot from this news story

@ 00:52 about the ballooning costs of wolves it looks to me like claimants filed an itemized claim form. It looks like most of the money owed is not from actual confirmed wolf depredation deaths but lost productivity from open cow dues to lower than 3 year average conception rates and reduced weight on calves sold due to stress and pressure from the wolves. The top line of "Calves" is interesting to me as it shows a 3 year average loss of 23 calves an this year it is 88. That is eye opening to me.



The itemized claim requirements for production losses are spelled out on page 34 of the Colorado Wolf Plan. https://cpw.widencollective.com/assets/share/asset/wixcpz0wez

For livestock owners who choose to itemize production losses
claiming missing livestock the following apply (this option is only
applicable for calves, yearlings, and all classes of sheep):
• Missing calves, yearlings, and sheep can be claimed if two
conditions are met:
° 1) Livestock owners must have a confirmed depreda-
tion event (injury or death) due to wolves to qualify
for the itemized production losses
° 2) The livestock owner must reasonably believe that
livestock reported as missing were lost to wolves and
not to other predators (i e , bears, lions, or coyotes),
disease, or other factors
• For missing calves, yearlings, and all classes of sheep, a live-
stock owner must submit the following information, included
but not limited to:
° Tangible evidence (photos, scat, tracks, etc ) that
wolves were present in the area where livestock are
missing
° Baseline death loss (predators, poisoning, disease, etc )
with percentages over a minimum of 3 years (preced-
ing wolf presence in the area) using production re-
cords
° A self-certification or documentation (e g , ranch re-
cords) for the current year that demonstrate vaccina-
tion status
° Written records to justify current year losses will be
provided to CPW with the following information:
■ The number of livestock (head counts) at the be-
ginning of the grazing season and at the end of
the grazing season
■ The number of animals that died as a result of
other predators (bears, lions, or coyotes), disease,
or other factors during the grazing season
• Eligibility for missing calves, yearlings, and all age classes of
sheep is limited to losses above the previous 3-year baseline
death loss and cannot exceed the actual number of docu-
mented livestock missing
• Livestock owners who cannot provide this written documen-
tation described above are not eligible to claim missing ani-
mals under Option 2
For decreased weight gains (only applicable for sheep and cattle), a
livestock owner must submit the following information, including,
but not limited to:
• Baseline weights over a minimum of 3 years (pre-wolf pres-
ence) along with current year weights (i e , weight tickets,
production records, or sales records)
• To qualify, documentation must show that weights of cattle or
sheep have decreased below the pre-wolf 3-year average
weights
• Livestock owners must provide documentation for average
3-year (pre-wolves) weights to qualify for decreased weight
gains
For decreased conception rates, a livestock owner must submit the
following information, including, but not limited to:
• Baseline conception rates over a minimum of 3 years (pre-
wolf presence) along with current year rates (i e , production
records);
• A self-certification or ranch records with body condition
scores and pregnancy rate information of livestock and a
statement from the livestock owner affirming no known is-
sues existed;
• Documentation must show a decrease in annual conception
rates below the pre-wolf average 3-year rate to qualify for de-
creased conception rate compensation;
• Livestock owners must provide documentation for average
3-year (pre-wolves) conception rates to qualify for conception
rate losses
Additional losses can be considered on a case-by-case basis by
CPW and CPW will consider the role of drought and other environ-
mental factors when evaluating context specific eligibility

 

[WTFJohn]

Like the wolves or not, most of that shouldn't be paid. It's mostly made up BS.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk

I don't think most will be paid. I do think they have a valid case for their claimed losses. Having spoken with the producers that filed some of the claims, they are seeing impacts across their entire programs. What else should they do, but use the system as designed to get reimbursed? After all, we were told the wolves wouldn't be much of an impact to our animals or livelihood.

 

[Hnthrdr]

There is a phased approach and thresholds listed on page 24 of the adopted Wolf Plan. The 2 biggest issues I see with this plan is when the end of Phase 2 is reached at 2 years at a of min of 150 wolves confirmed there will likely 200+ and every year they are forecast to double so the first year of 150+ is really 200+ and the second year the true population will likely be closer to 400+. Phase 3 will then be hotly debated because they these wolves are now on the books of CPW by law as a "nongame species" and I read that as a 3-5 year fight to get them reclassified. At that point we are easily at 1000+ wolves. If I was in any adjoining states especially Utah, Nebraska & Kansas and probably SD and OK I'd be pressuring those states to adopt a ZERO wolf policy NOW not later.
View attachment 818588

This was the part that everyone ignored! They will never be hunted. They are intended to destroy what Marlon and Jared hate which is hunters and ranchers. They are a tool. It’s bs about them being vital to the health of herds etc…