I'm not sure what the point of those pictures are? That is in YNP by the way.
Wolf pack in CO
- Thread starter Topo_trekker
- Start date
Logical BS. I hear livestock owners complaining to DFG all the time about elk in the Haystacks. My observations are the Elk move to the private to escape the predators two legged and four. The invasive specie Timber Wolves are not needed for anything. I challenge anyone to go to Yellowstone and find a moose.
Simple, wolf numbers are out of control in many places and what do we think they eat and when they cannot be properly managed or in some places not managed at all the balance gets out of whack. The never ending litigation let the populations spiral in many places and by the time there was a season it was too late. Now you have further states not able to manage and others wanting to introduce when there is no need to do so.
- Banned
- #84
Then do something about it instead of playing the victim.
Hard work paid off in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming...we did something about it rather than whine.
WV Mountaineer
WKR
I know what you said. I’m also certain in the difference of the two.
Someone’s lies and opinions carry no weight to the reality observed...good luck
I usually refrain from these discussions, maybe that needs to change.
The first thing I disagree about wolf “reintroduction” is it isn’t. It is not the same wolf, nor close. That alone should have given people pause, but it didn’t. Mostly I assume because they called it “reintroduction”.
As a CO resident, our own parks and wildlife has said “No” multiple times already. One of the reasons stated by them is the most obvious - money! Who’s going to pay for it all ? Hunters? Not if opportunity is diminished - real or perceived. So then where will funds come from? I know an area I have hunted for years for deer was a draw only, maybe get a tag every other year or three. This year there were leftovers, I assume it’s because now you have to buy a hunting license to even apply for big game. That added about $90 for a non resident. What happens if the real or perceived opportunity is also lower?
The biggest thing I don’t understand is the whole bureaucratic system usually wants more money. Reintroducing GAME animals increases the money to them. Putting a super predator into the system will reduce that money by eliminating game animals. Again, Real or perceived.
Maybe trying to sell more tags will offset the $$ lost. That “game“ can only last so long.
I do know we have had higher game numbers and increasing opportunity for hunting due to hunters, hunter money, and actual conservation organizations working to do what the gov’t hadn’t. Pheasants forever, RMEF, Etc. Not to mention individual people learned more about how to make healthy more prolific game animals on their own farms and ranches.
I have been quite surprised by the members here who think it is “good” or natural. You can skew numbers all you want - anyone can. I know we got rid of a smaller wolf and replaced it with one much much bigger. It has already shown to be more prolific than expected. They gotta eat.
Wisconsin is another good example. The fish and game set a goal of 250 wolves in the state. Anti hunters have sued multiple times to keep them from being hunted or controlled. There are now approximately 1000 wolves in WI. Look at the map they have, many are near metropolitan areas now.
I know it will be quite a different tune when the people who want them start to have pets and children getting taken. California has had multiple attacks from just coyotes on pets and children in full on urban areas. Of course the goverment will have to do something about it then....they’ll demand that too.
I’ll be voting NO, in case you still wondered......of course they are already here.....
The first thing I disagree about wolf “reintroduction” is it isn’t. It is not the same wolf, nor close. That alone should have given people pause, but it didn’t. Mostly I assume because they called it “reintroduction”.
As a CO resident, our own parks and wildlife has said “No” multiple times already. One of the reasons stated by them is the most obvious - money! Who’s going to pay for it all ? Hunters? Not if opportunity is diminished - real or perceived. So then where will funds come from? I know an area I have hunted for years for deer was a draw only, maybe get a tag every other year or three. This year there were leftovers, I assume it’s because now you have to buy a hunting license to even apply for big game. That added about $90 for a non resident. What happens if the real or perceived opportunity is also lower?
The biggest thing I don’t understand is the whole bureaucratic system usually wants more money. Reintroducing GAME animals increases the money to them. Putting a super predator into the system will reduce that money by eliminating game animals. Again, Real or perceived.
Maybe trying to sell more tags will offset the $$ lost. That “game“ can only last so long.
I do know we have had higher game numbers and increasing opportunity for hunting due to hunters, hunter money, and actual conservation organizations working to do what the gov’t hadn’t. Pheasants forever, RMEF, Etc. Not to mention individual people learned more about how to make healthy more prolific game animals on their own farms and ranches.
I have been quite surprised by the members here who think it is “good” or natural. You can skew numbers all you want - anyone can. I know we got rid of a smaller wolf and replaced it with one much much bigger. It has already shown to be more prolific than expected. They gotta eat.
Wisconsin is another good example. The fish and game set a goal of 250 wolves in the state. Anti hunters have sued multiple times to keep them from being hunted or controlled. There are now approximately 1000 wolves in WI. Look at the map they have, many are near metropolitan areas now.
I know it will be quite a different tune when the people who want them start to have pets and children getting taken. California has had multiple attacks from just coyotes on pets and children in full on urban areas. Of course the goverment will have to do something about it then....they’ll demand that too.
I’ll be voting NO, in case you still wondered......of course they are already here.....
RaggedHunter
WKR
I have a few thoughts on the matter.
We have had multiple confirmed wolf sightings in CO already. So I do not see how reintroduction is even on the table? They are already here. Looks to me like we just need to accept that and get a management program in place to try and stay ahead of them.
But my biggest concern as a CO resident is this.
I believe that trying to compare CO to states like ID, WY, and MT is not apples to apples.
Fact of the matter is, we are a very "blue" state, like it or not and we will never again be a red state.
Hunters like us do not have a voice in this state, Not if all of Denver gets a say in the matter. Our decisions all come from the front range.
Granted our states hands are tied on some of these issues, but we already do a piss poor job of managing bears, and lions. The fact that we cannot hunt bears in the spring this is a direct result of the front range making our decisions for us.
The thought of adding another apex predator to the mix is asinine. We cant even handle the predators we do have. and how do you think our "friends" on the front range will view the hunting or trapping of their beloved wolves? We cannot use leghold traps in the state, they already want to take away cage trapping for bobcats.. you think that they are going to allow us to trap wolves? Think again.
I'm sure that wolves can exist in some sort of balance in certain ecosystems. But I think that the proper management program has to be in place for that to happen. I do not think that this harmony and balance would be possible on CO. The effective wolf management tools and techniques would not be tolerated in this state.
I really do think that a reintroduction to CO would be detrimental to our Elk, deer, moose, and livestock.
We have had multiple confirmed wolf sightings in CO already. So I do not see how reintroduction is even on the table? They are already here. Looks to me like we just need to accept that and get a management program in place to try and stay ahead of them.
But my biggest concern as a CO resident is this.
I believe that trying to compare CO to states like ID, WY, and MT is not apples to apples.
Fact of the matter is, we are a very "blue" state, like it or not and we will never again be a red state.
Hunters like us do not have a voice in this state, Not if all of Denver gets a say in the matter. Our decisions all come from the front range.
Granted our states hands are tied on some of these issues, but we already do a piss poor job of managing bears, and lions. The fact that we cannot hunt bears in the spring this is a direct result of the front range making our decisions for us.
The thought of adding another apex predator to the mix is asinine. We cant even handle the predators we do have. and how do you think our "friends" on the front range will view the hunting or trapping of their beloved wolves? We cannot use leghold traps in the state, they already want to take away cage trapping for bobcats.. you think that they are going to allow us to trap wolves? Think again.
I'm sure that wolves can exist in some sort of balance in certain ecosystems. But I think that the proper management program has to be in place for that to happen. I do not think that this harmony and balance would be possible on CO. The effective wolf management tools and techniques would not be tolerated in this state.
I really do think that a reintroduction to CO would be detrimental to our Elk, deer, moose, and livestock.
wapitibob
WKR
The State of CO will have zero input on wolf management until they have a management agreement with the feds. Unfortunately, that will mean a minimum number of breeding pairs and an outline that ensures pairs won't fall below that number. That's how it works, whether wolves walked there or were dumped there. To date, I haven't seen anybody in CO working on that plan. My suggestion for CO residents, now that wolves are confirmed in the state, would be to spend my time talking to CPW, daily, about getting that plan together rather than just bitching on forums or sending money to STW/BGF; neither of which gets you closer to state management.
mtluckydan
Lil-Rokslider
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 287
Guess I hit a nerve Buzzh...with a democrat governor in each of the last 16 years, regardless of the legislature, there has been very little legislation that has passed that would be considered conservative & a classic redirection away from the subject...illegally introduced timber wolves... just reinforcing my point. Yes the issue is complex yet you continuously allude to the conclusion that wolves haven't damaged the big game hunting across large swaths of prime habitat in multiple states. In just a few minutes of searching...one can find multiple sources of information from Wisconsin & Minnesota where wolves have been on the landscape without lions, Grizzly bears & some of the other issues...Republicans I guess...in those two states & what has happened...they've decimated the whitetail deer herd. Hunting success in two states with some of the historically highest number of Boone & Crockett animals are now nearly barren in areas where wolves are present. I'm not whining or bitching about wolves anymore than you're misrepresenting facts. I'd be happy to spend my time killing wolves along with most of the other guys on this forum but you know as well as anyone that it wouldn't even make a dent in the population given the likelihood of shooting or trapping even one animal a year. Hopefully the majority of people reading these forum discussions see through your lack of honesty in representing facts on the ground. I'm one of many across multiple western states that know exactly what has happened & more importantly what will be the end result if Colorado allows reintroduction of wolves regardless of consequences. I have the time & ability to travel to better hunting locations...it's just sad that we will have to do that because of bad decisions and misrepresentation of the end result of wolf reintroduction...
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
John Herrera
FNG
This is deep and interesting to a low lander. Tagging.
Mike7
WKR
Having spent many years in NE OR in the woods working for the gov't, including doing animal surveys, many of those elk estimates look like a bunch of unadultered hogwash.
Anyone who as actually spent any time in some of the units mentioned above between 1990 and 2015 would know that.
I do believe many wilderness containing units saw a surge in elk populations when the forest service began their policy of discontinuation of extreme fire suppression.
But not long after, the wolves started having an increasing population & impact on the elk. These wolves which are everywhere in big packs now are not eating tofu and butterflies.
I don't know the current F&G survey routes in NE Oregon or how often surveys are even being done for these units, but it wouldn't surprise me if aerial estimates on the Imnaha unit are comparatively inflated with much more of the area being denuded of trees now due to fires.
And similarly, units like Catherine Creek getting road counts are going to be comparatively inflated when the few remaining elk have been pushed out into farmer's fields adjacent to roads.
...So much disinformation when it comes to wolf packs it seems. They are amazing killing machines, which is a fact that even some here are not willing to concede apparently. What you decide to do with that fact is a whole other story.
Anyone who as actually spent any time in some of the units mentioned above between 1990 and 2015 would know that.
I do believe many wilderness containing units saw a surge in elk populations when the forest service began their policy of discontinuation of extreme fire suppression.
But not long after, the wolves started having an increasing population & impact on the elk. These wolves which are everywhere in big packs now are not eating tofu and butterflies.
I don't know the current F&G survey routes in NE Oregon or how often surveys are even being done for these units, but it wouldn't surprise me if aerial estimates on the Imnaha unit are comparatively inflated with much more of the area being denuded of trees now due to fires.
And similarly, units like Catherine Creek getting road counts are going to be comparatively inflated when the few remaining elk have been pushed out into farmer's fields adjacent to roads.
...So much disinformation when it comes to wolf packs it seems. They are amazing killing machines, which is a fact that even some here are not willing to concede apparently. What you decide to do with that fact is a whole other story.
- Banned
- #94
Like I said, you aren't interested in an intelligent discussion about the issue, intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, from your post above.
That post of yours is very typical, full of raw emotion and lacking in facts and substance.
I'm still trying to reconcile Buzz's more tags means there are more critters' logic. In my observation it is based on need for $ than animals on the mountain.
A fed told me 20 years ago there were no moose left due to a mysterious brain disease that they were "studying". Under cross examination he gave it up that his job was observing the wolf... Just maybe a bit of conflict of interest.
A fed told me 20 years ago there were no moose left due to a mysterious brain disease that they were "studying". Under cross examination he gave it up that his job was observing the wolf... Just maybe a bit of conflict of interest.
- Banned
- #99
That may be your "observation" in CO and I may even agree with your observation there. But that isn't the case in WY, MT, and ID...and if you really want to find out for yourself, look at the elk population data available in those states. Compare elk numbers prior to and after wolf reintroduction and compare opportunity at multiple elk in those states before and after reintroduction.
Wolves have not taken hunting opportunities away, in fact, opportunity has greatly increased since reintroduction in MT, ID, and WY...just a straight up fact.
ChrisAU
WKR
What I'm seeing, is that they have confirmed wolves are in CO. So...no need to "re-introduce" something that is already there right?
Similar threads
Featured Video
Stats
Latest Articles
-
TT#42 Mark Denham with Outdoorsmans history and innovations.
-
Kryptek Traverse Merino Review
-
First Lite 308 Pant Review
-
Argali Selway 6P Tent Review
-
AGC Kobuk 2800 Backpack Review
-
Hunting The Leaf-off Window
-
TT#41 Jordan Budd’s Tips on Finding and Killing the Big One
-
NEMO Hornet Elite Osmo 1P Tent Review
-
Rokcast Reload: Stories from a Wall Tent
-
Vote No On Prop. 127