Colorado wolves
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Cornell Cowboy
Well-known member
In the past couple of years, I've personally seen two different wolves in Colorado, just south of the Wyoming border. The first was in late May 2018, only about two miles south of the WY border and had coloring similar to those in the OP's video. The second was in March 2019--this one was most notable because it was black. We were driving several miles northeast of Rabbit Ears pass right after the big spring storm and saw him running on the edge of the forsest about 300 yards away. For the second one, I actually filled out a report, but was never contacted further. I now suspect that the one we saw was the one that was reported by the CPW. Anyways, they're either more common that CO is letting on or I am the luckiest spotter on the face of the earth, as I only drive that route a few times per year.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
The funny thing is that the biggest complaint about CO is overcrowding the states people say are so much better are ... "MT, ID, & WY" so if CO get's wolves, and the packs grow to MT size say 1000. That's 22,000 ish elk consumed so to keep the herds in balance you would need to cut CO tags in half maybe??...
Assuming the 50% tag reduction scenario we would still issue more tags then Montana or Wyoming. It would also mean dramatically less hunters in the field, so less crowding, perhaps even longer seasons... maybe enen archery rifle combined like those other states.
Funding would be hosed, it would likely cost CPAW $25-30 million in revenue a year, although I think our current model is pretty broken any way so maybe some hand forcing is a good thing.
Or they continue to over sell elk, re-introduce wolves and the resident experience declines?
Totally agree though, comparing MT, ID, and WY is apples and oranges simply because the CO OTC non res angle. We would have to reduce the human predator population greatly before introducing a competitor.
Totally agree though, comparing MT, ID, and WY is apples and oranges simply because the CO OTC non res angle. We would have to reduce the human predator population greatly before introducing a competitor.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
It's only over-selling if the harvest is unsustainable, otherwise it's just good business. Colorado has decided that we shouldn't pay for anything and that state agencies should be run like businesses. That's not hyperbole, CPAW is literally classified as a business enterprise.
You get what you vote for.
*Yes I will continue to hammer TABOR on every thread that I can sneak it into, my apologies for any discomfort this may cause
sbhooper
Well-known member
Nope. Just a plain old black hole of liberal environmentalist/protectionists.No one mentions it but somehow they have a working group with the fish and game agency, a webpage with all kinds of photos and videos and FAQs and a fact sheet. But no, you're right, no one ever mentions it.
Gray Wolf
The Department of Fish and Wildlife manages California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.www.wildlife.ca.gov
California's Only Known Wild Gray Wolf Pack Welcomes 3 New Pups
The Lassen Pack is now up to at least seven, according to state wildlife officials.www.huffpost.com
California’s last wild wolf pack spotted with 3 new pups
California’s lone wild wolf pack has added at least three new pups, bringing the total number of gray wolves in the state to at least seven after the species was wiped out in the 1920s, wildlife officials said.www.foxnews.com
Ranchers prepare for wolves in Siskiyou County
Known as the “Lassen Pack,” its parent wolves have already sired pups three years in a row, and have four pups in the current litter,www.siskiyoudaily.com
I recognize that California has a lot of bad policies, but give them some credit, they still have real biologists doing real work. The entire state is not this black hole of conspiracy theories.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Irrelevant
Well-known member
dude, either
1. he said that very recently
2. you have an incredible memory
3. you have an incredible amount of time to go through all his posts assuming he must have said something like that at least once over the years.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Not that far from the truth to be honest.
Couldn't help myself. I enjoy your stuff. Mostly.
mtmuley
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Obligatory Morgan Freeman meme here....
Tradewind
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2015
- Messages
- 5,220
Yeah,... I could use a replay
elkduds
Well-known member
FWIW, I currently serve as a sportsperson representative on CO Parks & Wildlife's Citizens' Roundtable. The Roundtable exists to increase and improve communication between hunters/anglers and the agency. Roundtable had a statewide meeting today and wolf reintroduction was a topic, albeit less so than you might think. The reason it was a limited topic is important to understand. As soon as wolf reintroduction became a ballot initiative 2 days ago (likely valid citizens' petition submitted w enough signatures to place issue on ballot per state law), the CPW agency and its employees were prohibited from expressing support or opposition about the proposal, per state law.
As this ballot issue plays out, the CPW will be conspicuously absent from the debate, because the law prohibits the CPW doing so. The message I heard, loud and clear from CPW administrators, is this: It is inaccurate to interpret CPW's silence as opposition or support for the wolf initiative. CPW and its staff are legally prohibited from expressing support or opposition to the ballot initiative RE wolf reintroduction. The CPW Board of Commissioners has previously expressed formal opposition to wolf reintroduction.
And that wasn't even the main substance of the meeting. There are multiple formal research studies underway concerning predators and other impacts on CO deer and elk herds. There are discussions happening about ways to increase user funding from hikers, cyclists, etc, to pay some of the expenses of Search/Rescue, wildlife management and improving access to State Trust lands; currently those are funded by license sales. The state process of grant funding for trail construction has been modified to pay more attention to impacts on wildlife from trail construction proposals. Impacts of nonhunting trail users on wildlife are being formally researched, comparing elk calving habitat near Aspen to similar but less-visited habitat in Bear's Ears. OHV registration fees pay for 50% of nonmotorized trail construction grants currently, the rest comes from GOCO state lottery revenues. The increase in receipts from license fees are paying for construction of wildlife highway crossings and development of 6 more public shooting ranges; and continuing development of formerly off-limits state lands for hunting, fishing and recreation. A new state park is being developed outside Trinidad CO, which will provide great elk and deer hunting.
If you have ??s about CPW, PM and I will help if I can.
As this ballot issue plays out, the CPW will be conspicuously absent from the debate, because the law prohibits the CPW doing so. The message I heard, loud and clear from CPW administrators, is this: It is inaccurate to interpret CPW's silence as opposition or support for the wolf initiative. CPW and its staff are legally prohibited from expressing support or opposition to the ballot initiative RE wolf reintroduction. The CPW Board of Commissioners has previously expressed formal opposition to wolf reintroduction.
And that wasn't even the main substance of the meeting. There are multiple formal research studies underway concerning predators and other impacts on CO deer and elk herds. There are discussions happening about ways to increase user funding from hikers, cyclists, etc, to pay some of the expenses of Search/Rescue, wildlife management and improving access to State Trust lands; currently those are funded by license sales. The state process of grant funding for trail construction has been modified to pay more attention to impacts on wildlife from trail construction proposals. Impacts of nonhunting trail users on wildlife are being formally researched, comparing elk calving habitat near Aspen to similar but less-visited habitat in Bear's Ears. OHV registration fees pay for 50% of nonmotorized trail construction grants currently, the rest comes from GOCO state lottery revenues. The increase in receipts from license fees are paying for construction of wildlife highway crossings and development of 6 more public shooting ranges; and continuing development of formerly off-limits state lands for hunting, fishing and recreation. A new state park is being developed outside Trinidad CO, which will provide great elk and deer hunting.
If you have ??s about CPW, PM and I will help if I can.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Assuming the bill passes where would wolves be reintroduced? I'm assuming the flat tops?
There is no equivalent to Yellowstone or Glacier, per NPS Rocky Mountain's elk herd is below or at objective and doesn't require culling, and a wolf reintroduction into the Sand Dunes/ the San Luis valley isn't viable, page. 51.
There is no equivalent to Yellowstone or Glacier, per NPS Rocky Mountain's elk herd is below or at objective and doesn't require culling, and a wolf reintroduction into the Sand Dunes/ the San Luis valley isn't viable, page. 51.
Drop the first pack in Boulder on pearl street I bet they’d have plenty to eat.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Drop the first pack in Boulder on pearl street I bet they’d have plenty to eat.
Bro, wolves hate patchouli... that's common knowledge
Hahaha good one sir
Buffs35
Well-known member
So do the rest of us...
