Colorado Announces Plans to Release “30 to 50” Gray Wolves Along the State’s Western Slope

[more_cowbell]

Would it not be better to try and stop the encroachment as well as wolf reintroduction?

Also, in AB where I live, wolf is open season year round w/ no tags, would they allow you to hunt them? Or would they be considered endangered or protected?

Just trying to understand why this is such a big issue in the US, not trying to say who’s right or wrong.

Part of the issue is that if there’s no competent wolf management plan, then they can take over. Happened in NE Oregon, though predation was already mismanaged with a years long prohibition of using hounds to hunt cougar and bear.

No hunting season for wolves here. But a lot of anti hunters prefer it that way.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

What's the upside to doing this? Seriously what is it?

 

[Trap]

As a Western Canadian, where wolves have always been prevalent, I really don’t get the hand-wringing and doom-sayers about wolves. We have huge herds of elk, plenty of deer and moose, in areas where wolves have been since the beginning of time. No bad effects whatsoever. Is the concern because it will be a new predator that the prey species will have no experience with, so they will be easy pickings which leads to reduced numbers? Livestock predation? I don’t get it. Plenty of cougars and sometimes grizzlies where these wolves are planned to be reintroduced, these should already show what predators do in the area.

I would say the concern is not wolves being present but wolves not being managed. I think that’s where Idaho elk herds took such a big hit. They( animal rights groups) sued to stop hunting when the population was probably 10x the required population. It was 10 years after we should have been hunting and trapping that it was finally allowed. Canada has never stopped hunting and trapping wolves and you have lots of deer and elk. Apparently enough Colorado voters were stupid enough to vote in reintroduction of wolves where they already exist due to migration. That doesn’t look good for Colorado being able to implement effective management of wolves. Once you let that cat out of the bag you will never get it back in with wolves.
I do think it takes a while for elk and especially moose to understand how to live with or evade wolves. Moose were the worst in Idaho

 

[Trap]

What's the upside to doing this? Seriously what is it?

Zero upside-massive downside though

 

[HONEYBADGER]

What's the upside to doing this? Seriously what is it?

It's more about the libs imposing their will via the ballot box than it is wolves. They will go after hunting in Colorado soon. Once they learn they have the votes there is no stopping their agenda.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It's more about the libs imposing their will via the ballot box than it is wolves. They will go after hunting in Colorado soon. Once they learn they have the votes there is no stopping their agenda.

I disagree entirely.

I think people voted for the supplemental introduction because they don't have a great understanding of the situation on the ground and how management actually works.

Ranchers essentially exterminated ever critter in the state. Indiscriminate use of strychnine whipped out all the bears, cats, and wolves along with a host of other carrion eaters. Deer and Elk were hunted almost to the point of extinction in the state. In the 1900s there were as few as 500-1000 elk in Colorado.

Colorado has elk because of a supplemental introduction from Jackson Hole, deer because of a hunting ban.

Moose were introduced,
Goats (re/introduced there is debate).
There has been substantial efforts to maintain bighorn in the state through numerous intrastate re-introductions.

It goes on and on and on...

Point being if you're looking at wildlife from a 40k ft view I can totally see why you would think that we haven't finished the job, and see bringing back wolves as important part of restoring the states ecology.

Now, I think this view point is myopic and uninformed given the reality, but I understand it.

Smoke a pack a day stickers and the dumb shit you see on facebook doesn't help the conversation.

 

[Oak]

Ranchers essentially exterminated ever critter in the state. Indiscriminate use of strychnine whipped out all the bears, cats, and wolves along with a host of other carrion eaters. Deer and Elk were hunted almost to the point of extinction in the state. In the 1900s there were as few as 500-1000 elk in Colorado.

Colorado has elk because of a supplemental introduction from Jackson Hole, deer because of a hunting ban.

I'm going to go off topic here, but most of us don't have a good comprehension about what the landscape looked like just 80 years ago. Here's an example that is kinda shocking. Herbert Wallace in 1940:

"There is a large area of [bighorn sheep] summer range available covering a broad strip down the center of Ouray District of the Forest, but this is of very poor quality because of overgrazing with domestic sheep.

"In 1922 a herd of seven elk was introduced into the Ouray District. They have increased rapidly, so that now there are probably about 300 head of elk in the district. These animals compete with sheep for forage. It is not likely elk are the limiting factor in the decrease of the mountain sheep at present, though they may have some influence now and may have had more in the past. In any event that it would seem to be a mistake to introduce elk in a region where sheep are doing well. This view should be considered carefully by anyone who wants to introduce elk into Lost Park and Tarryall Mountains at the present time. A number of people have approached me on the subject of transplanting elk into this area...the only place in Colorado where the sheep are doing well. I have not missed any opportunity to throw cold water on all such proposals."

 

[Deleted member 52098]

I disagree entirely.

I think people voted for the supplemental introduction because they don't have a great understanding of the situation on the ground and how management actually works.

Ranchers essentially exterminated ever critter in the state. Indiscriminate use of strychnine whipped out all the bears, cats, and wolves along with a host of other carrion eaters. Deer and Elk were hunted almost to the point of extinction in the state. In the 1900s there were as few as 500-1000 elk in Colorado.

Colorado has elk because of a supplemental introduction from Jackson Hole, deer because of a hunting ban.

Moose were introduced,
Goats (re/introduced there is debate).
There has been substantial efforts to maintain bighorn in the state through numerous intrastate re-introductions.

It goes on and on and on...

Point being if you're looking at wildlife from a 40k ft view I can totally see why you would think that we haven't finished the job, and see bringing back wolves as important part of restoring the states ecology.

Now, I think this view point is myopic and uninformed given the reality, but I understand it.

Smoke a pack a day stickers and the dumb shit you see on facebook doesn't help the conversation.

100% agree on this.

I'm not sure ever voter knew that the National Parks in CO said this wouldn't work for them.

I am not sure the average voter knew that wolves were already moving south and taking up residence here.

I am not sure the average voter knew anything EXCEPT the standard line of "look at the balance it restored to the Yellowstone ecosystem".

And unfortunately they saw the opposition to wolves as being people who wanted to kill them all... that wasn't the reality; but the shoot, shovel, shut up crowd also wasn't quiet during that time.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

I just wish the vote would have included language that stated that Colorado would not reintroduce wolves if there was empirical evidence they were already establishing packs here, but that they would manage them appropriately instead. The thing that chaps my ass most about what is coming is that we are spending money to do what nature is already taking care of... So why not save the money and instead say that instead of forcefully "reintroducing" we are going to manage the growth to X amount and then manage as a game species. one would think the "natural ecosystem balance / restoration" crowd would be thrilled its happening naturally instead of being forced.

I also don't think the average "save the wolves" voter understands how elusive wolves are and how hard to kill they are - if they did, not sure they would be so adamantly opposed to their hunting. Hell I don't think the average non hunter even understands how hard it is to kill elk or mule deer. I am pretty sure they get their hunting assumptions from looking at midwestern and eastern states where they give you deer licenses for free - and think it's easy.

 

[GrantK]

I think people voted for the supplemental introduction because they don't have a great understanding of the situation on the ground and how management actually works.


Smoke a pack a day stickers and the dumb shit you see on facebook doesn't help the conversation.

I think these two things were a lot of what let this sneak past, I talked to a ton of people that changed their mind on how they were voting based on just telling them that the CPW was against the reintroduction and how ballot box biology has gone in the past, almost nobody outside the hunting world has taken the time actually to understand the pro's and cons of a reintroduction, or for that matter has the slightest idea what wolves on the landscape looks like, and their opinion of what hunters think is distorted by the "smoke a pack a day" nonsense... almost universally outdoor people I know assumed I would hate wolves because I hunt, when in reality some of my favorite spots are full of wolves, I just want them to be managed by sane practices... just being honest and upfront changed a bunch of votes that I know about, while I guarantee the over the top doom and gloom that the anti-wolf crowd used worked against them and for sure pushed people on the fence to vote in favor of reintroduction just because they could clearly see both extreme sides were full of shit but at least the pro wolf crowd wasn't advocating poaching an entire population...

 

[Deleted member 52098]

I think these two things were a lot of what let this sneak past, I talked to a ton of people that changed their mind on how they were voting based on just telling them that the CPW was against the reintroduction and how ballot box biology has gone in the past, almost nobody outside the hunting world has taken the time actually to understand the pro's and cons of a reintroduction, or for that matter has the slightest idea what wolves on the landscape looks like, and their opinion of what hunters think is distorted by the "smoke a pack a day" nonsense... almost universally outdoor people I know assumed I would hate wolves because I hunt, when in reality some of my favorite spots are full of wolves, I just want them to be managed by sane practices... just being honest and upfront changed a bunch of votes that I know about, while I guarantee the over the top doom and gloom that the anti-wolf crowd used worked against them and for sure pushed people on the fence to vote in favor of reintroduction just because they could clearly see both extreme sides were full of shit but at least the pro wolf crowd wasn't advocating poaching an entire population...

 

[GrantK]

100% agree on this.

I'm not sure ever voter knew that the National Parks in CO said this wouldn't work for them.

I am not sure the average voter knew that wolves were already moving south and taking up residence here.

I am not sure the average voter knew anything EXCEPT the standard line of "look at the balance it restored to the Yellowstone ecosystem".

And unfortunately they saw the opposition to wolves as being people who wanted to kill them all... that wasn't the reality; but the shoot, shovel, shut up crowd also wasn't quiet during that time.

if I had waited 30 seconds I could have just quoted this...

 

[tillicant]

Having lived in both MN and CO and with the political atmosphere of both states being very similar, I am confident in saying that the same tooth and nail political fight that happens annually in MN would happen in CO. The litigation and re-litigation of wolf management/hunting/trapping in MN is a joke. I'd honestly be surprised if wolves are ever managed by sportsmen/women in MN ever again. Same thing will happen in CO. Wolves deserve a place on the landscape, however they need to be managed like other species.

What he said, WI

 

[Sytes]

49.09% v 50.91%....

Makes me wonder if citizen initiative ballots should hold some degree such as a 60-70% "Supermajority" setting as some States require.

In general, to overcome the red v blue trench warfare.
Not that this woof issue is red v blue. In general though, to assure a visible majority is present would enhance the value of such a ballot.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

I disagree entirely.

I think people voted for the supplemental introduction because they don't have a great understanding of the situation on the ground and how management actually works.

Ranchers essentially exterminated ever critter in the state. Indiscriminate use of strychnine whipped out all the bears, cats, and wolves along with a host of other carrion eaters. Deer and Elk were hunted almost to the point of extinction in the state. In the 1900s there were as few as 500-1000 elk in Colorado.

Colorado has elk because of a supplemental introduction from Jackson Hole, deer because of a hunting ban.

Moose were introduced,
Goats (re/introduced there is debate).
There has been substantial efforts to maintain bighorn in the state through numerous intrastate re-introductions.

It goes on and on and on...

Point being if you're looking at wildlife from a 40k ft view I can totally see why you would think that we haven't finished the job, and see bringing back wolves as important part of restoring the states ecology.

Now, I think this view point is myopic and uninformed given the reality, but I understand it.

Smoke a pack a day stickers and the dumb shit you see on facebook doesn't help the conversation.

The roadmap is already there in California, Washington and other liberal controlled states. A ballot initiative to end hunting may end up on the 2024 ballot in Oregon. The groups behind it have said they will keep trying until they get it passed. Other states will follow. They will eliminate hunting piece by piece, or make it so limited that it virtually vanishes. First by stopping predator hunting bears, coyotes, mountain lions etc. They will then make the argument we no longer need humans hunting as the predators are sufficient to control game populations. It will drip like syrup in winter initially but it will happen.

You hit on how it will come to pass in your post. The voting populace is uninformed. They vote based on emotion which is why it will happen.

 

[Trap]

The roadmap is already there in California, Washington and other liberal controlled states. A ballot initiative to end hunting may end up on the 2024 ballot in Oregon. The groups behind it have said they will keep trying until they get it passed. Other states will follow. They will eliminate hunting piece by piece, or make it so limited that it virtually vanishes. First by stopping predator hunting bears, coyotes, mountain lions etc. They will then make the argument we no longer need humans hunting as the predators are sufficient to control game populations. It will drip like syrup in winter initially but it will happen.

You hit on how it will come to pass in your post. The voting populace is uninformed. They vote based on emotion which is why it will happen.

Exactly, I have watched it happen across the border in Washington. What they are doing with predators is obvious but no one wants to notice or admit it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The roadmap is already there in California, Washington and other liberal controlled states. A ballot initiative to end hunting may end up on the 2024 ballot in Oregon. The groups behind it have said they will keep trying until they get it passed. Other states will follow. They will eliminate hunting piece by piece, or make it so limited that it virtually vanishes. First by stopping predator hunting bears, coyotes, mountain lions etc. They will then make the argument we no longer need humans hunting as the predators are sufficient to control game populations. It will drip like syrup in winter initially but it will happen.

You hit on how it will come to pass in your post. The voting populace is uninformed. They vote based on emotion which is why it will happen.

I disagree, even in California there has been push back against predator bans there was a recent bill to ban bear hunting that was dropped by the senator that introduced it, further “liberals” or dems aren’t a monolith just like conservatives aren’t. There are a lot of liberals who hunt.

Polls show that most Americans agree with hunting ungulates, but don’t with hunting predators. A lot of that is perception and a lack of understanding of wildlife management. Again made worse by rhetoric like smoke a pack a day. People do vote on emotions, and when people act like caricatures of themselves or political stances they fuel negative emotions.

 

[shootbrownelk]

im sure idaho or montana has plenty to send to colorado and would be happy to get rid of them///look at the devastation they have caused there//colorado will be cryin in a few years

PLEASE, take them from Wyoming. We sure can spare 50 or 100 or 200.

 

[Sytes]

further “liberals” or dems aren’t a monolith just like conservatives aren’t. There are a lot of liberals who hunt.

Sure, and Conservatives aren't a monolith for moving fed land to states...

The liberal vs conservative line is all in the $$$.

On topic, follow the funding for extremist environmental organizations, [on topic] for the forced woof Colorado project, its very PC to proclaim the funding does not present a political faction.

Reality, I would gander a guess, more liberals fund these extremists than conservatives.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sure, and Conservatives aren't a monolith for moving fed land to states...

The liberal vs conservative line is all in the $$$.

On topic, follow the funding for extremist environmental organizations, [on topic] for the forced woof Colorado project, its very PC to proclaim the funding does not present a political faction.

Reality, I would gander a guess, more liberals fund these extremists than conservatives.

Not the point I was making, PETA is definitively a liberal leaning org, but that doesn’t mean that hunting is going to disappear in states with a liberal majority.

Mass has a liberal majority and very strict gun laws… we can hunt bears, coyotes, etc…

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, you get to a point of diminishing return quickly. Easy to get wolves introduced, the idea you’d ban elk hunting is a total joke.