CO Wolf Reintroduction efforts, from RMEF

[antlerradar]

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.

Well said Rob

 

[JoseCuervo]

Yeah, definitely gotta be the wolves....


Couldn't be these three guys....from last weekend.

 

[BuzzH]

In my opinion the change to managing lions as a game animal in Mt was much more harmful to game populations than the reintroduction of wolves.

Nothing wrong with changing them to a game animal...the problem is reducing quotas drastically and "trophy lion" management...at least in the case of Montana.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nothing wrong with changing them to a game animal...the problem is reducing quotas drastically and "trophy lion" management...at least in the case of Montana.

And, there is another "part of the story" for Lion Hunters...

 

[JLS]

In my opinion, Debbie Barrett has been much more harmful to game populations in MT than any other predator, followed closely by inflexible and antiquated seasons settings by FWP.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

I'm a member of RMEF and support their efforts. However, this is one case where I've got to disagree. I'm all for the recovery of native species in their historic ranges. The politics of wolf recovery is definitely a problem, but (in my opinion) that doesn't mean we should just scrap recovering a species.

On the plus side, wolves certainly give hunters a great excuse for not punching a tag. Hunters around me enjoy bashing wolves almost as much as they enjoy getting out and hunting deer.

 

[airlocksniffer]

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.

Buzz FWIW this was the comment submitted by RMEF regarding shoulder seasons:

January 15, 2016

To Chairman Vermillion and FWP Commission and Director Hagener,

Please consider this letter as public comment from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) relative to the proposed Shoulder Season expansions for 2016 and beyond.

RMEF supported late season cow hunts as a viable elk management tool by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP); hence we supported legislation to provide such to the Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. This legislation was vetoed and in its place a “shoulder season concept” was proposed and is currently being tested by FWP in limited, selected units.

While we have previously stated we generally support the ability of FWP to use such seasons as a tool to address over population issues of elk we do not officially endorse any program for the future without first seeing the results of the pilot programs currently underway. To date we have not been provided any results from this test program.

Based on the comments we have received from our members we continue to support the concept of a late season cow elk hunt for the purpose of helping to address over population of elk in specific areas of the state, especially for those who have tried all existing options. We are concerned about the expansion of such hunts on to public land. Past history shows that extending these efforts to public lands may focus on the wrong elk; those public land elk that our members have access to. We do not support early season hunts allowing special rifle hunts during archery seasons. Since the basis for these seasons is to reduce elk numbers in some areas, we would not support harvest of bulls under these seasons.

RMEF will not get drawn into the no-win debate over established objective numbers for elk versus carrying capacity numbers for elk; a debate that has become highly political. We fully recognize the need to consider both the biological and social aspects of elk and elk population goals but in this highly partisan atmosphere there seems to be little opportunity for flexible or negotiable allowances.

As a starting point for the path forward, we would suggest a review and update of the Elk Management Plan, with representation of all stakeholders. Elk are one of Montana’s most valuable wildlife resources, both culturally and financially. It seems an updated Elk Management Plan would be prudent and hopefully provide a better forum for discussing elk objectives, in consideration of social tolerance and carrying capacity.

RMEF fully subscribes to the principles of the North American Model of Conservation and we staunchly accept and defend the principles of private property rights by American citizens. We fully support the culture of hunting and state based management. A debate over an issue like shoulder seasons will not be solved without a willingness on all sides to compromise and work together.

RMEF again restates our support for late season cow elk hunts, primarily on private lands where additional tools are needed to reduce elk populations. We feel that more pilot programs in specific private lands are needed, along with results from current pilot programs, to justify any statewide expansion of late season hunts.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted.

M. David Allen

Agree with your points though. I recently joined RMEF more for public land support but do not agree with their stance on wolves.

 

[MN Public Hunter]

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.

And I'm not against wolves, all I'm saying is as soon as you let "them" reintroduce them and they "say" they will let you control them, my trust is lost because that is what happened in MN. We now have 2400 of them and the number was supposed to be like 500 for recovery and now they won't even let us control them. Just because CO is "missing" wolves that were once there does not mean lets reintroducs without rock solid means to control them and not get screwed like MN.

 

[RobG]

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.

Am I prescient or what. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...10fe486791c_story.html?utm_term=.eca9120e0d46

In the eagles’ place, another emblematic species — the wolf — has emerged as a prime example of what critics say is wrong with the current law: seemingly endless litigation that offers federal protection for species long after government biologists conclude that they have recovered.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Buzz FWIW this was the comment submitted by RMEF regarding shoulder seasons:

Agree with your points though. I recently joined RMEF more for public land support but do not agree with their stance on wolves.

There are better groups to join to support Public Lands.

 

[James Riley]

And I'm not against wolves, all I'm saying is as soon as you let "them" reintroduce them and they "say" they will let you control them, my trust is lost because that is what happened in MN. We now have 2400 of them and the number was supposed to be like 500 for recovery and now they won't even let us control them. Just because CO is "missing" wolves that were once there does not mean lets reintroducs without rock solid means to control them and not get screwed like MN.

I understand your point. I hope you understand mine: Getting involved now to try and obtain "rock solid means" is a strategy. However:

1. That would have flown a lot farther, higher and faster had the proponents of that strategy taken the lead a long freaking time ago. Indeed, there may not be any such thing as an opposition today had they done so;

and

2. It's foolish to think at this late date that their efforts will sail on through without some push-back from the opposition. In other words, for all the merits of their strategy, there will be resistance and that is to be expected. It's the nature of the human beast. The voices of "reason" and "science" and "logic" lost some credibility in the eyes of the opposition when they sat silent for so long.

 

[sneakem]

A few points of concern from me. Historically the species have coexisted for a great amount of time. The encroachment of humans in my opinion have shifted the balance towards the predator. Elk have been displaced into habitats that have shifted favorable hunting conditions to the predator. Once mostly plains animals with herds of thousands in open habitats, wolves had to wait for an opportunistic moment to separate a single or find a sicker or weaker animal. Being in terrain with plenty of cover and sizeably smaller groups of animals a pack can do a lot more damage.

One thing I see coming from the wolf coming back. Our state has a history of difficulty with predators. Bears for example, no dogs, no baiting, no spring hunt = current bear problem. Can't seem to reverse that trend and you can't get voter backing to make a push back at hunting to control bear populations. Same thing will happen with the wolf....they'll over populate and our legislature won't do $#it because they don't have voter backing... Colorado is the next California...

I'm okay with having wolves as long as we can hunt them....

 

[airlocksniffer]

There are better groups to join to support Public Lands.

Also a member of BHA and TRCP.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Also a member of BHA and TRCP.

There are better groups to support than BHA and TRCP. But, those are a good step up from the Camo, Cigars, and Cognac groups.

 

[LuketheDog]

I give this thread another 12 hours before it's locked...

 

[sbhooper]

There are better groups to support than BHA and TRCP. But, those are a good step up from the Camo, Cigars, and Cognac groups.

OK, Jose. I'll bite. Since no group listed was good enough, what is the group to which you refer? If it is one of your left-wing fairy groups, I probably cannot be counted on to contribute, otherwise, convince me.

Back to topic. My take on this-for what it is worth to the "bring them back at all cost crew"-is that when the wolves were first introduced, they had been out of the habitat for so long, that the animals did not know how to deal with them when they were brought back-they were essentially non-native after so long. Slowly, the animals have reverted to their natural fears and are dealing with the wolves on a better level. Elk herds seem to be doing better, but I cannot comment on the areas where the moose were wiped out by the wolves.

I like wolves and had the opportunity to see one in action a couple years back in Wyoming. They are great animals and I would love to put a bullet through one. That being said, you cannot just arbitrarily say that the wolves should be brought back, without taking humans into account. Not only are humans used to killing gobs of elk in Kolorado, but they are badly encroaching on the habitat where the wolves would be. Wolves do not have the same impact they did when there were no people in the equation.

In the big scheme of things, I guess that I could not care less if they put them back into Kolorado, because I will not hunt there again, but lots of people do and the wolves will impact both the tag numbers (for the short term) and overall, the economy of the areas impacted by fewer dollars spent by hunters. The moose in Kolorado are just getting to good levels and will most likely be decimated by the wolves in the recovery areas.

If they are brought back, it needs to be with a plan to keep them at the desired levels, from the get-go and not try to play catch-up later. The great lakes wolves have always been there and the deer/moose have had to deal with them in some form forever. The problem is, that the protectionists have let them get to such a high level, that the equation is definitely tilted to highly favor the wolf.

It all has to be kept in balance.

 

[Surf-N-Turf]

Here is a link to known wolf locations in WIS:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/2016_Wolf_Detection.pdf
I must say that I am truly miffed that there have been so many posters on this link to come out in support of the wolf being reintroduced to CO/former range. I am not. The original pop goal for WIS was 350. The latest pop estimate I could find on the DNR's website is 866 wolves for 2016. Gregory

 

[Borny1]

Why doe RMEF stop with just wolves? Why not include grizzlies? Now that would be interesting.

 

[James Riley]

Why doe RMEF stop with just wolves? Why not include grizzlies? Now that would be interesting.

Or humans!

 

[commandoNate]

I'm not crazy about the reintroduction of them in Colorado but I wouldn't be surprised if some naturally made their way south from Wyoming sometime in the foreseeable future. I know there have been a sighting or two, even one confirmed by DOW here in Colorado if I'm not mistaken. But I mean a breeding population could eventually move this far south couldn't it? There sure isn't a whole lot in the way of human development between their home in the GYE down to northern Colorado.

The one argument against it I would think is that even though we have some great expanses of wolf habitat we also have an extremely large population (that is exploding by the day, week, month, year here in Colorado) And there are so many recreational users of the backcountry from hikers and campers, backpackers, climbers, mountain bikers, dirt bikers, jeepers, ect. I would think that human encounters would be so much more frequent than in the places in the northern rockies where they have been reintroduced.