CO Wolf Reintroduction efforts, from RMEF

S

Surf-N-Turf

New member
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
11
Location
Stevens Point, WI
RMEF members,
COLORADO ELK ARE IN THE CROSSHAIRS
There is a very real movement going on in Colorado by animal rights and environmental groups to place Colorado’s elk herd in the crosshairs by reintroducing wolves. They refer to such efforts as “great,” “germane to the future of Colorado,” and also state “there’s no profound downside and there’s a real, big upside.”
Those of us who witnessed the wolf reintroduction into the Northern Rocky Mountains could not disagree more! Not only do wolves have a very real and measureable impact on elk and other wildlife but those pro-wolf groups change the rules. Once they have their foot in the door via wolf reintroduction, they move the goalposts by ignoring delisting criteria and filing lawsuit after lawsuit causing populations to grow well over objective.
We saw that in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the Western Great Lakes. Such litigation began in the 2000’s and lawsuits are still pending today. Wolf populations are currently nearly 500 percent above minimum recovery levels in the Northern Rockies and more than 250 percent above objective in the Western Great Lakes.
Now is the time to raise our voices. Contact your state representatives here and let them know how you feel about any possible wolf reintroduction.
Sincerely, David Allen, RMEF President & CEO
 
As if there aren't enough problems with access to public lands and other issues in Colorado, now they want to introduce an elk and deer killing machine. If this ever happens, you can kiss OTC tags goodbye. Those will be eliminated for wolf food. The Grand Teton Elk reduction hunt is basically reduced to a pittance of what used to be a great hunt for big bulls. I saw that go away shortly after the Clinton Administration and Bruce Babbit introduced the Canadian greys on us without any public input. We had better nip this in the bud guys....or try like hell anyway.
 
I don't want to discount the elk loss, but I think the biggest impact of the wolves has been to the politics of wildlife. I also think think that is the most compelling argument against a reintroduction. On one side the pro-wolf have been spreading misinformation that has alienated many influential people, slanting them away from wildlife tolerance. The lawsuits have caused fundamental damage to the system, resulting in a Congressional end around to remove the wolf for the ESA. While justified, if not necessary, that action set a bad precedent which will come back to bite us.

On the other side, now every problem we have is somehow the fault of the wolf. They are used as a scapegoat to divert attention from real problems. Misinformation is propagated on the anti-wolf side that has resulted in a hatred of people trying to help wildlife, and also of government agencies. It will be used as the quintessential example by the GOP when making the case that the ESA needs to be gutted.

I think those are more compelling arguments than our elk are going to be devastated as support for preserving elk "just so they can be shot" is not very strong. Also, comments are given more weight when they are substantive rather than a simplistic "they will decimate our elk" when a lot of science suggests a multitude of reasons, most serious being hunters taking advantage of liberal seasons and unwittingly reducing elk herds while the folks that don't like elk blame the wolves.

There is some good information out there. One is an interview with Doug Smith, I think it was done by the Livingston paper. He is surprisingly frank both about the benefits of wolfs inside the park, and also the lack of benefits outside the park where they largely provide a benefit. Hopefully someone can track that down. Another is an interview with Randy, Hal Herring, and some other folks - I think that was in the NYT and perhaps someone can provide a link.

Educated and substantive comments will have a lot more impact than just adding another letter saying "I'm opposed to this."

That's just my opinion.
 
It was a mistake to wipe out wolves in the first place. Humans who deny that are off the table (irrelevant by law), leaving it to those who agree it was a mistake but disagree over how to correct it.

Those who failed to take any steps are now complaining about the methods of those who do take steps. These methods are the penance humans must pay for sitting on their asses and failing to address the issue. Had they stepped up and tried to do it *their* way then maybe the penance would not have shown up to do it for them.

But some don't want to pay so they align themselves with those who don't think it was a mistake in the first place (irrelevant by law). They do nothing but sit in the rear with the gear, nit-pick and bitch about those who are out trying to do something about it.

Fine. Suffer (pay the penance).

Or, get involved, not as a denier who rejects reintroduction but, rather, as a constructive participant who actively supports reintroduction while tweaking the methods.

One thing we can all agree on: None of this is the wolves fault. Humans who blame an animal are idiots and likewise irrelevant by law.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. I guess a human can always resist but I'll put my money on the law, and the irrelevance of those who discount it.

So I guess my question for David Allen is this: Were you taking the lead on wolf reintroduction or did you wait until after someone else did it before you chimed in? If you have offered constructive criticism, that is a good thing. But remember, you must pay some penance for not having taken the lead.

Personally, I don't hunt predators but I'm more than willing to give up my easy elk so a wolf can have it, and so that a wolf hunter might someday hunt wolves. Another human might not be so willing but we all have our levels of selfish, from high-fence-road-shooting to hunting the Pleistocene. I'm further toward the latter. A land without wolves is somewhere between.
 
James Riley said:
It was a mistake to wipe out wolves in the first place. Humans who deny that are off the table (irrelevant by law), leaving it to those who agree it was a mistake but disagree over how to correct it.

Those who failed to take any steps are now complaining about the methods of those who do take steps. These methods are the penance humans must pay for sitting on their asses and failing to address the issue. Had they stepped up and tried to do it *their* way then maybe the penance would not have shown up to do it for them.

But some don't want to pay so they align themselves with those who don't think it was a mistake in the first place (irrelevant by law). They do nothing but sit in the rear with the gear, nit-pick and bitch about those who are out trying to do something about it.

Fine. Suffer (pay the penance).

Or, get involved, not as a denier who rejects reintroduction but, rather, as a constructive participant who actively supports reintroduction while tweaking the methods.

One thing we can all agree on: None of this is the wolves fault. Humans who blame an animal are idiots and likewise irrelevant by law.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. I guess a human can always resist but I'll put my money on the law, and the irrelevance of those who discount it.

So I guess my question for David Allen is this: Were you taking the lead on wolf reintroduction or did you wait until after someone else did it before you chimed in? If you have offered constructive criticism, that is a good thing. But remember, you must pay some penance for not having taken the lead.

Personally, I don't hunt predators but I'm more than willing to give up my easy elk so a wolf can have it, and so that a wolf hunter might someday hunt wolves. Another human might not be so willing but we all have our levels of selfish, from high-fence-road-shooting to hunting the Pleistocene. I'm further toward the latter. A land without wolves is somewhere between.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that someday you will be able to hunt wolves should the population be too great, good luck with that. That is what they thought in MN and years later we have 5 times the "safe" number and we still can't hunt them. So be careful what you help introduce.
 
MN Public Hunter said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that someday you will be able to hunt wolves should the population be too great, good luck with that. That is what they thought in MN and years later we have 5 times the "safe" number and we still can't hunt them. So be careful what you help introduce.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't hunt predators, but I have run across people here on this site who not only hunt wolves, but they seem to enjoy it. I'm talking about them. I assume there are some folks in Colorado that would like to hunt wolves. Maybe they don't count as hunters.

I think they are doing it in MT and ID. If MN needs some tweaking, that's on them. Maybe there is still some penance being paid in MN, I don't know. Either way, I'm all for reintroduction throughout all their traditional range, including New York City.
 
James Riley said:
Like I said, I don't hunt predators, but I have run across people here on this site who not only hunt wolves, but they seem to enjoy it. I'm talking about them. I assume there are some folks in Colorado that would like to hunt wolves. Maybe they don't count as hunters.

I think they are doing it in MT and ID. If MN needs some tweaking, that's on them. Maybe there is still some penance being paid in MN, I don't know. Either way, I'm all for reintroduction throughout all their traditional range, including New York City.
Click to expand...

I assume there are roads that connect Colorado to Montana and Idaho. Let them hunt them there. I would much rather have a freezer full of elk steaks than a wolf hide.
 
shootbrownelk said:
As if there aren't enough problems with access to public lands and other issues in Colorado, now they want to introduce an elk and deer killing machine. If this ever happens, you can kiss OTC tags goodbye. Those will be eliminated for wolf food. The Grand Teton Elk reduction hunt is basically reduced to a pittance of what used to be a great hunt for big bulls. I saw that go away shortly after the Clinton Administration and Bruce Babbit introduced the Canadian greys on us without any public input. We had better nip this in the bud guys....or try like hell anyway.
Click to expand...

The curious thing about comments like this...that I just cant quite figure.

1. In the case of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming we can now kill at least 2, if not 3 elk now. Prior to reintroduction I could only hunt one in each State.

2. Elk are considered over-objective in many areas of Montana and Wyoming. Montana took it far enough to introduce legislation to compel the FWP to hold elk at or below objective. This has resulted in August 15-February 15 shoulder seasons. Montana is waging war on elk, and using the hunting public to do it. Hardly a whimper from David Allen or anyone else about the impact that 6 months of hunting has on elk. But, talk about wolves and his blue hair catches fire. Doesn't quite make sense to me.

3. Hardly any talk of the amount of elk and deer that are killed in Montana via severely reduced lion quotas. Nobody wants to talk about lions...find that curious too. In particular when you compare lion kill frequencies to wolf kill frequencies and the total population of each. Lions are killing more elk and deer in MT and ID than wolves...and by a huge margin.

Many of the arguments I hear against wolves are really counter-intuitive to over-all management, as well as what's going on in reality, when its looked at in its entirety.

Its pretty tough for me to condemn wolves and say they've "ruined elk hunting" when I can shoot 7 elk in 3 states each year. Its pretty tough for me to condemn wolves when lions are having a bigger impact. Its pretty tough for me to not consider the impacts that 6 months of human hunting have on elk, while blaming wolves for everything.

Anyone that simplifies what's happening with regard to elk, to blaming wolves, is really not much of a critical thinker and is severely lacking in the knowledge department.

I have no problem with hunting wolves, bears, lions, etc. and keeping those animals within reasonable population levels. I also don't have a problem being limited to one elk per year per hunter either, hunting for a few weeks a year, etc. if the elk populations don't warrant 2-3 elk a year/per hunter.
 
BuzzH said:
The curious thing about comments like this...that I just cant quite figure.

1. In the case of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming we can now kill at least 2, if not 3 elk now. Prior to reintroduction I could only hunt one in each State.

2. Elk are considered over-objective in many areas of Montana and Wyoming. Montana took it far enough to introduce legislation to compel the FWP to hold elk at or below objective. This has resulted in August 15-February 15 shoulder seasons. Montana is waging war on elk, and using the hunting public to do it. Hardly a whimper from David Allen or anyone else about the impact that 6 months of hunting has on elk. But, talk about wolves and his blue hair catches fire. Doesn't quite make sense to me.

3. Hardly any talk of the amount of elk and deer that are killed in Montana via severely reduced lion quotas. Nobody wants to talk about lions...find that curious too. In particular when you compare lion kill frequencies to wolf kill frequencies and the total population of each. Lions are killing more elk and deer in MT and ID than wolves...and by a huge margin.

Many of the arguments I hear against wolves are really counter-intuitive to over-all management, as well as what's going on in reality, when its looked at in its entirety.

Its pretty tough for me to condemn wolves and say they've "ruined elk hunting" when I can shoot 7 elk in 3 states each year. Its pretty tough for me to condemn wolves when lions are having a bigger impact. Its pretty tough for me to not consider the impacts that 6 months of human hunting have on elk, while blaming wolves for everything.

Anyone that simplifies what's happening with regard to elk, to blaming wolves, is really not much of a critical thinker and is severely lacking in the knowledge department.

I have no problem with hunting wolves, bears, lions, etc. and keeping those animals within reasonable population levels. I also don't have a problem being limited to one elk per year per hunter either, hunting for a few weeks a year, etc. if the elk populations don't warrant 2-3 elk a year/per hunter.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ Buzz. The only places you can shoot 2 or 3 elk are places without wolves. Correct?
 
elkantlers said:
I assume there are roads that connect Colorado to Montana and Idaho. Let them hunt them there. I would much rather have a freezer full of elk steaks than a wolf hide.
Click to expand...

Those roads are open for you too. If you want to hunt elk in a non-natural setting you can drive to a high fence outfit and fill your freezer with whatever you want.
 
shootbrownelk said:
I beg to differ Buzz. The only places you can shoot 2 or 3 elk are places without wolves. Correct?
Click to expand...


Nope, one place is here in the Bitterroot. Guys are still killing second elk and there are plenty of both wolves and lions.
 
James Riley said:
If MN needs some tweaking, that's on them. Maybe there is still some penance being paid in MN, I don't know. Either way, I'm all for reintroduction throughout all their traditional range, including New York City.
Click to expand...

It's not on Minnesota. We have, by a large margin, more wolves than the western states. We also had, by a large margin, a more conservative season than the western states. It's 100% on the judge who ruled against the hunt, and the groups who shopped around until they found her.

I'm actually for wolf reintroduction, but not until we can find a solution to the constant litigation that prevents them from being managed by the states, as they should be.
 
NoWiser said:
It's not on Minnesota. We have, by a large margin, more wolves than the western states. We also had, by a large margin, a more conservative season than the western states. It's 100% on the judge who ruled against the hunt, and the groups who shopped around until they found her.

I'm actually for wolf reintroduction, but not until we can find a solution to the constant litigation that prevents them from being managed by the states, as they should be.
Click to expand...

Did they appeal "her"? After all, if it's federal and not state law that's messing you up, then cite federal authority from MT and ID and take it on up. Still sounds like it's on MN, almost like WY (but different, I know).

Also sounds like humans are still paying penance for their earlier sins. I liken it to a phenomenon I call push-back. Slavery was a mistake. We fix it. The penance and the push-back will continue for a time. The length of that time and the extent of the penance/push-back often depends on how big the mistake was, how hard everyone worked to correct it (or resist correction) and the continuing hard feelings. But no human being on Earth would ever reasonably expect those who were right all along to simply say "It's all good now" and walk away. Those who were wrong and/or resisted are going to take some lumps for a while.
 
The "ends-elk-hunting-as-we-know-it" argument has some merit - but not in the way most people think. Adding wolves does change elk behavior and dispersal, so it will naturally change the way you need to hunt elk. It is not a "sky is falling" scenario, Living and elk hunting through the MT wolf re-introduction should show that elk hunting opportunities increase rather than decrease.

The bigger fight will be on the "if, when and how" wolves get managed in CO. I'm pretty confident is saying the process will be drug out for many years and will be the source of consternation for all parties involved. Coloradans can find solace in their plentiful micro-brews and legalized MJ.

I do think that there are some common parallels between what is starting in CO now and what occurred in MT/ID/WY in the 1990's. Mainly, that wolves are naturally dispersing into the area. So gearing up to be involved in the process will be key to how wolf management is addressed.

Lastly, I would wager that there is a great collective wisdom on this forum that can help CO hunters move forward. Many members here were/are very involved in the wolf process in their states. I would proceed with an open mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Press Release February 7, 2024 Legal action launched to protect wolves in northern Rocky Mountains
Replies
1
Views
745
bayoublaster7527
B
cheeser
House of Representatives votes to remove gray wolves from endangered species list
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
ismith
ismith
elkduds
CO wolf news: 10J approval pending
Replies
0
Views
675
elkduds
elkduds
cheeser
Upper Peninsula ‘Wolf Abundance Project’ aims to find accurate wolf count
Replies
0
Views
855
cheeser
cheeser
elkduds
CPW Sportspersons Roundtable Meeting 7/22/23
Replies
13
Views
1K
Oak
Oak
PEAX Trekking Poles

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,544
Messages
2,024,582
Members
36,226
Latest member
Byrova

Share this page

Back
Top