Can we learn to live with wolves again?
- Thread starter Jasher
- Start date
BigHornRam
Well-known member
sneakypete
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,902
I'd be the second biggest mistake for wildlife! The first was the reintroduction of the wolf in the lower 48! Just ask the elk, moose and deer populations!
BrentD
Well-known member
Spending money on a reintroduction is ridiculous. They are coming anyway. Just wait a little longer and you will get them for free.
Living with wolves isn't really all that hard. AND it gives everyone something to complain about...
Living with wolves isn't really all that hard. AND it gives everyone something to complain about...
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Not sure about what they complain about in your neck of the woods but we already have Texans and Californians to complain about here
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I rarely respond to these types of threads anymore, but just felt the need this time. If not for the "Reintroduction" we would have had a mess on our hands in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The special consideration given to the "Reintroduction" allowed a lot of wolves to be killed. They were already flooding the boarder from Canada anyway. We would have had no recourse to deal with wolves had that not occurred. They will be in Colorado fairly soon. With or without any help.
BrentD
Well-known member
You should move here. We have NOTHING to complain about. No wolves, no Californians, no Texans. It's Paradise. It's Iowa!
Okay, quit laughin'
Huh. The wolves in MN never needed reintroduction and the deer here are doing just fine.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I don’t have a strong opinion on this as I don’t enjoy tree stand deer hunting, but anecdotally deer population on our land in northern MN dropped significantly as we saw wolf packs becoming established. Plenty of fresh deer bones on our land for several years told a pretty clear story.
I don’t doubt that, but I’d guess those years where deer populations dropped also coincided with a couple nasty winters and probably were preceded by some very liberal bag limits. I hunt an area that always has had very high wolf densities. After a few mild winters there are deer everywhere. After 2 or 3 severe winters, it’s slim pickings and you can go days without seeing a deer. . The wolves are pretty much a constant. At least that’s my unscientific observation.
onpoint
Well-known member
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I lived in the Arrowhead MN country in the 70's and early 80's. Wolf packs were "established" then. Unless they unestablished then reestablished themselves, I think they have been a constant on the landscape.
If they use hunting/trapping and "other" means to effectively manage the wolf population - I believe it is good.
However, if the states do not effectively manage the wolf population... They have a significant adverse effect on elk, etc - at least that is based on scientific, peer reviewed, and published research, versus the hysteria from anti hunting organizations such as, "Defenders of Wildlife", etc.
However, if the states do not effectively manage the wolf population... They have a significant adverse effect on elk, etc - at least that is based on scientific, peer reviewed, and published research, versus the hysteria from anti hunting organizations such as, "Defenders of Wildlife", etc.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Our place is north shore, and when we first got it, no wolves to be seen and deer like flies, over time wolves have become common place sightings and deer numbers down with an uptick of clear wolf kill bones laying around. But again, this is one little valley in one little corner of one state - so take it for what it is worth.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
THIS^
Wolf reintroduction in Colorado would be a disaster in the sense that CPW would never be allowed to manage them properly. The lawsuits would pile up to the clouds, there are too many well-funded socialites from Denver and out of state who want to hear wolves howling outside one weekend a year while they are warm and cozy in their big mountain ski retreats. CPW has put their foot down multiple times on reintroducing them, the wolves will reestablish on their own.
Not to be a smart-ass, but do we have a choice? The fact is the wolves are here and I don’t see them going anywhere in my lifetime. So, yes, we have to learn to live with them. Does not mean we have to like.
My biggest issue was how it was forced on us. There were wolves populating Montana already when the Bill Clinton and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit brought them into Yellostone. They in essence interfered with the natural process that was already happening here in Montana.
I would really like to see one and I would also like to actually hunt them.
My biggest issue was how it was forced on us. There were wolves populating Montana already when the Bill Clinton and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit brought them into Yellostone. They in essence interfered with the natural process that was already happening here in Montana.
I would really like to see one and I would also like to actually hunt them.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Hell you guys couldn't field a state legislature or big city council without Californians.
Or run DOW...shut up and take my money.
elkduds
Well-known member
Things are a bit bipolar@ the Durango Herald these days. Yesterday I read a recent article about the sharp decline in elk #s in SW CO, today Gulliford writes the elk are doing fine there. And he's a professor, so he should know, right? Turns out he's a History professor. He frequently contributes to High Country News (one of my favorite Leftist rags, and I often endorse his perspectives. But not this one.
I'm as green as almost anyone on HT, and a left-handed voter in general. I can't make it over the ecological hump to see how deer, elk, sheep, cattle, moose, coyotes, wild turkeys, greenback cutthroat trout, black-footed ferrets, sage grouse, Canada lynx, Texans, Californians, Dreamers, big oil, big pharma, Da Broncos, commuters, or wolves could ever benefit from wolf reintroduction to the Centennial State.
We have wilderness here. It is beautiful, but not big in habitat terms. It is heavily used for livestock grazing. It mostly occupies the highest elevations, with ranches and subdivisions close @ hand, It is fragmented, a serious hiker or hunter can walk across almost any of CO's wilderness areas in a day. In CO there is nowhere left to hide from people. Sage grouse and bats can't maintain their population here, and they can fly. Lynx are the ultimate recluses, and they are iffy after extensive, expensive reintroduction. Wolves wouldn't stand a chance here. Wolf reintroduction would be wolf sacrifice. There is not enough acreage absent of people in CO for wolves. (or grizz). And we all know which direction the population trend is going. I wish there were wild slices of CO big enough to get lost for weeks in. Aldo Leopold's early definition of wilderness was an area big enough to absorb a two weeks' pack trip, which might provide adequate habitat for the top 4-legged predators. Sadly, those days are over in the home state. Introducing wolves with no place for them to hide from us will not turn back the clock.
I'm as green as almost anyone on HT, and a left-handed voter in general. I can't make it over the ecological hump to see how deer, elk, sheep, cattle, moose, coyotes, wild turkeys, greenback cutthroat trout, black-footed ferrets, sage grouse, Canada lynx, Texans, Californians, Dreamers, big oil, big pharma, Da Broncos, commuters, or wolves could ever benefit from wolf reintroduction to the Centennial State.
We have wilderness here. It is beautiful, but not big in habitat terms. It is heavily used for livestock grazing. It mostly occupies the highest elevations, with ranches and subdivisions close @ hand, It is fragmented, a serious hiker or hunter can walk across almost any of CO's wilderness areas in a day. In CO there is nowhere left to hide from people. Sage grouse and bats can't maintain their population here, and they can fly. Lynx are the ultimate recluses, and they are iffy after extensive, expensive reintroduction. Wolves wouldn't stand a chance here. Wolf reintroduction would be wolf sacrifice. There is not enough acreage absent of people in CO for wolves. (or grizz). And we all know which direction the population trend is going. I wish there were wild slices of CO big enough to get lost for weeks in. Aldo Leopold's early definition of wilderness was an area big enough to absorb a two weeks' pack trip, which might provide adequate habitat for the top 4-legged predators. Sadly, those days are over in the home state. Introducing wolves with no place for them to hide from us will not turn back the clock.
Last edited:
get-n-birdy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 198
Minnesota has 2,856 wolves as of the 2017 winter survey, more than every other state in the lower 48. And more than Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon combined, in way less habitat. Yet we aren't allowed to hunt them?
Hope Colorado never reintroduces them.
They are a cool creature and enjoy having them on the landscape, but only to a point. Not managing a pre pup population that is under estimated to most dnr employees I've talke to is ignorance defined.
The sightings, tcam pics, howls and sign can get to a guy trying to hunt deer or bears. We run dogs for grouse in areas full of wolves. Bells, beepers and making a lot of noise helps with confrontations, but is no cure all.
Their numbers ebb and flow with their menu choices. Our snow shoe hare and beaver populations really supplement wolves through the low deer number years.
Use a lot of tcams and the wolves will be on a fresh dropped fawn within a very short period of time, hours at most. The amount of bear hair in wolf scat is fascinating. Have seen more bear hair in wolf scat than deer hair. We can bait for bears and once a wolf pack hits a bear site, that site is basically done for at minimum a week or 2. And they'll find sites in short order. They will deficat, urinate and do everything they can to ruin a site, except eat the bait.
Don't hate the wolves, but am fully frontal, the lack of management is irksome. When we were allowed a hunting/trapping season, harvest goals were met faster than they anticipated. That fact alone tells me the DNR employees I've conversed with were spot on with population numbers skewed way lower than the actual, factual on the ground numbers are. Have gleaned every count is pre pups. A lot of pups die and old wolves die, get that.
The fact we can't defend our dogs from a wolf attack is so far past idiotic it makes my head hurt.
Really, really hope it's a slow process for wolves to get to far out of their current range in the west, but their core areas in Minnesota have really expanded fairly quickly. Don't see any reason they don't keep filtering out and expanding their range out west.
Hope Colorado never reintroduces them.
They are a cool creature and enjoy having them on the landscape, but only to a point. Not managing a pre pup population that is under estimated to most dnr employees I've talke to is ignorance defined.
The sightings, tcam pics, howls and sign can get to a guy trying to hunt deer or bears. We run dogs for grouse in areas full of wolves. Bells, beepers and making a lot of noise helps with confrontations, but is no cure all.
Their numbers ebb and flow with their menu choices. Our snow shoe hare and beaver populations really supplement wolves through the low deer number years.
Use a lot of tcams and the wolves will be on a fresh dropped fawn within a very short period of time, hours at most. The amount of bear hair in wolf scat is fascinating. Have seen more bear hair in wolf scat than deer hair. We can bait for bears and once a wolf pack hits a bear site, that site is basically done for at minimum a week or 2. And they'll find sites in short order. They will deficat, urinate and do everything they can to ruin a site, except eat the bait.
Don't hate the wolves, but am fully frontal, the lack of management is irksome. When we were allowed a hunting/trapping season, harvest goals were met faster than they anticipated. That fact alone tells me the DNR employees I've conversed with were spot on with population numbers skewed way lower than the actual, factual on the ground numbers are. Have gleaned every count is pre pups. A lot of pups die and old wolves die, get that.
The fact we can't defend our dogs from a wolf attack is so far past idiotic it makes my head hurt.
Really, really hope it's a slow process for wolves to get to far out of their current range in the west, but their core areas in Minnesota have really expanded fairly quickly. Don't see any reason they don't keep filtering out and expanding their range out west.
BrentD
Well-known member
VikingsGuy,
I grew up and learned to bow hunt in the Superior NF north of Ely back in the 60's and 70's. Wolves (300-500) were there, and deer were extremely scarce. So scarce that the state nearly closed the archery season up there one year. I'm don't recall if they did close the rifle season then (I did not rifle hunt). In any event, it was widely agreed that the low deer populations were a product of severe winters and a maturing second-growth forest. Seeing a deer during the hunting season was about as common as killing one is now. It was very different time.
In the 80s and onward, the winters became much milder on average and second-cut logging increased along with some substantial fires. Deer populations exploded and so did the wolves. Clearly, it was not wolves holding back the deer and, in fact, they were incapable of regulating the deer herd when conditions were favorable. It was deer that were regulating wolves (i.e., bottom up, not top-down regulation).
The bigger story is very different than what you are implying.
Similar threads
