Wolf killed in Colorado

[Bar]

He expected to see a coyote, so that's what he saw. He turned it in. What's the big deal? Give the guy a break.

 

[Jarrod Renaud]

Positive note is that it's a little guy. The wolves I've seen in Montana and the ones my brother has tanned from Montana are twice that size. If it wasn't someone's pet then it may have come up from NM.

 

[Bulldawg]

If some people can mistake a moose for an elk then I'm pretty sure that someone could mistake a wolf for a coyote especially when there are no wolves in Colorado.

 

[In God We Trust]

I live in Colorado. I also hunt coyotes in Colorado and if I call in a dog that looks like a coyote I will shoot it because I assume it is a coyote. We are not used to wolves in Colorado. Like I stated earlier The DOW has previously passed on opportunities to confirm wolves are in Colorado. The guy turned it in. More then likely an honest mistake. Hell I didn't know you couldn't shoot them in Colorado. I assumed since we didn't have any they were all coyotes.

 

[Johnboy]

This thread comes as a surprise to me. I thought wolves were a simple fact of the matter in Colorado. Back in September of 1999, I elk hunted on the Grand Mesa. Late one afternoon, my dad, friend and I all had separate encounters with wolves howling and running around in the valley we were in. There were at least 4 of them: one white, two black and one grey. To see discussion here indicating that the presence of wolves in CO is undefined is curious. I've seen them with my own eyes.

 

[realunlucky]

Jonboy a threatened species brings on a whole new set of rules from the federal government. Easy to see why states are in no hurry to embrace them officially. Also established and traveling through are different.

 

[Johnboy]

So are you saying that states are reluctant to acknowledge their presence because, if they do, they'll face regulation dictated by endangered animals policies? Is it possible that what we witnessed on that elk hunt was a very rare thing for Colorado?

 

[Jason Snyder]

Jonboy a threatened species brings on a whole new set of rules from the federal government. Easy to see why states are in no hurry to embrace them officially. Also established and traveling through are different.

Do you have any facts to back up the assertion about new rules? I certainly haven't seen them.

 

[realunlucky]

Do you have any facts to back up the assertion about new rules? I certainly haven't seen them.

Short answer is no I haven't done the research to know what it all changes. I will say if nothing changes what is the purpose of adding threatened species to the list? Maybe I'll look into this more

 

[realunlucky]

So are you saying that states are reluctant to acknowledge their presence because, if they do, they'll face regulation dictated by endangered animals policies? Is it possible that what we witnessed on that elk hunt was a very rare thing for Colorado?

What I'm saying is certain criteria must be meet and that information must be collected. Wolves haven't met that criteria yet, why I couldn't say but I'm glad they haven't

 

[Jason Snyder]

Short answer is no I haven't done the research to know what it all changes. I will say if nothing changes what is the purpose of adding threatened species to the list? Maybe I'll look into this more

You have to look at it within the context of the listing. If you are dealing with a species that is declining in numbers and is listed as threatened or endangered, then you ARE likely to see land use restrictions with that as attempts are made to stop the population decline. However, in the case of an expanding wolf population, it's a different situation. You have states that are still listed as threatened or endangered at either the state or federal level, yet a neighboring state(s) may have a huntable population. In this instance, I have not yeet seen a land use restriction put into place. The only "new" set of rules is you can't shoot wolves in every state, and that's not really a new rule.

 

[Jason Snyder]

What I'm saying is certain criteria must be meet and that information must be collected. Wolves haven't met that criteria yet, why I couldn't say but I'm glad they haven't

In some cases, it's merely the fact that the state agency doesn't feel it's important to spend the resources and money to "study" wolves. If they are there, they are there. Officially documenting a single wolf doesn't really change anything, and very likely won't have ANY significant affect on the threatened/endangered status of wolves.

 

[SDC]

So are you saying that states are reluctant to acknowledge their presence because, if they do, they'll face regulation dictated by endangered animals policies? Is it possible that what we witnessed on that elk hunt was a very rare thing for Colorado?

Yep, I'll say that because that is exactly the stance of the Department of Game & Inland Fisheries in the Commonwealth of Virginia over mountain lions. I've had that conversation with state game biologists and officials. They continue to declare that there are no Felis concolor in VA, even after numerous sightings and reports. Why? The argument goes like this:

If they declare them there, the lawsuits to have them listed as endangered are filed within the week and they will seek significant funding and resources to study them and declare habitat as "critical". The state doesn't want that fight or those resources spent on that issue. The legal fights will last for decades. They also don't want a contingent of "Joe Bubbas" combing the hills trying to kill all the cats regardless of the law; they state doesn't want or need that fight or enforcement problem. They don't want to have to try to figure out a hunting season, bag limit, and all the rest that goes along with recognition of a species, especially one that causes controversy.

So, for a species that is REALLY good at not being seen, the just say that it's not there. Any that are killed are classified as "released", or "domestic escapees", or such.

Having that conversation with a game biologist while looking at four sets of prints (female and three cubs) left just hours before and seen crossing that path by yours truly was eye-opening. I don't know for a fact but I suspect that COs take on wolves is pretty similar.

 

[Jason Snyder]

SDC,

How are cougars currently classified in VA?

 

[SDC]

The bottom line: the DGIF and the National Geographic Society do not believe that mountain lions currently exist in the Commonwealth.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/virginia-wildlife/feature-spotlight/pdfs/big-cats-in-va.pdf

Distribution

There have been unconfirmed sightings in Albemarle, Alleghany, Amherst, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Botetourt, Bland, Brunswick, Craig, Fauquier, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Grayson, Highland, Louisa, Nelson, Orange, Page, Rappahannock, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Spotsylvania, Suffolk, Madison, and Warren counties.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=050112

For the first time in many years, they were not listed in the annual Hunting Regulations manual at all. Yet, they are still included on the state Legal Status of Fauna sheet and listed as both FE and SE (federally endangered and state endangered), which means that even though they say they aren't here that we aren't allowed to shoot them. The Gray Wolf is listed the same. Of course, so are many species that we do know are here (Delmarva Fox Squirrel, Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel, Virginia Big-Eared Bat, etc.).

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/virginiatescspecies.pdf

So, technically the state says they aren't here and haven't been here for many years, but what isn't here is still protected under the law.

 

[trekker9]

The paranoia on this site is hilarious. Reminds me of the prepper sites that sprung after the election in 08.

 

[Bulldawg]

SDC,

How are cougars currently classified in VA?

40+ years old, divorced, and if you go to the bar on a Friday night you wouldn't think they are endangered.

 

[Mike7]

The paranoia on this site is hilarious. Reminds me of the prepper sites that sprung after the election in 08.

Is it really paranoia when a bureaucratically dysfunctional or sometime even insidiously evil federal government continuously screws up seemingly easy decisions (e.g. healthcare, wildlife management, etc) due to politics? I know nothing about the inner politics of the Colorado Fish & Game/Wildlife, but when I last worked for the Federal Gov't outside of the military, politics & bureacracy seemed to drive most decisions. Here are a couple of examples.

In the USFS Biology Dept, we were instructed to do wolverine surveys in Oregon in the winter. We put out road kill deer carcasses with trail cams and covered hundreds of miles on snow mobiles each week looking for wolverine tracks while doing predator surveys at the same time. The job was a lot of fun, but all we learned as far as I could tell was that pine martens seem to occupy the subalpine areas even where some logging had occured, ravens and coyotes do a great job of cleaning up the forest, and lions seem to love porcupines. The intent for these surveys, as I was told though, was to find a wolverine which would require all kinds of enviormental impact studies before any more timber could be sold. On the other, hand we knew that there were wolves coming over from N. ID into NE Oregon, but we were supposed to keep that hushed, so that wolves could get established well in Oregon before anyone knew they were there.

Also, we could not salvage burned timber or perform prescribed burns in most areas (even with a helicopter and with the marking of appropriate wildlife trees for woodpeckers and bats), even though the adjacent state land could actually be logged and thinned, and brush & slash piles burned all because the state was doing it in the name of wildlife management, whereas we/the feds were doing it to "sell" timber. And, I am no proponent of state control of most lands, because they just seem to close stuff up, or charge me money to use the land which I basically own a part of with all of the taxes I am paying.

Rant over.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

I've heard they're raising them in Southern CA. Probably not for pets.

Prove it.

 

[ngolder]

Prove it.

I was not trying to imply anything about them releasing wolves in CO. I heard on the local news about this place https://www.californiawolfcenter.org/ and wondered what their intentions were. I am trying to educate myself with the ramifications of wolf populations just like others. I know it's not much proof, but that was where my comment came from.