Colorado wolves

[Mudranger1]

Anyone have any insight on this comment

"Did you know that this ballot will only force CPW to look at the possibility to reintroduce wolves? It does not mean that reintroduction would happen. This measure would cost CPW millions of dollars as the ballot states that CPW would be responsible for paying all game damage and also hiring the appropriate biologists for the reintroduction. Did you also know that CPW is not given money from the State? They are what's called an enterprise agency meaning most of their funding comes from user funds (aside from federal grants every now and again). The bigger issue (aside from an ecological standpoint) that no one is talking about is how is CPW going to pay for it!"

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Mudranger1 Which part?

 

[Mudranger1]

@Mudranger1 Which part?

the part where the cpw just has to look into it not that it is actually a forced introduction

 

[rideold]

I don't know.....according to ballot language the new statue would be:
33-2-105.8(s)(d) TAKE THE STEPS NECESSARY TO BEGIN REINTRODUCTIONS OF GRAY WOLVES BY DECEMBER 31, 2023, ONLY ON DESIGNATED LANDS;
The potential typo aside, it sounds like a deadline to me. Now, true, "begin" give quite a bit of leeway in interpreting the actual date there will be paws on the ground but either way, it seems pretty set out.

 

[rideold]

Oh, the full text as accepted by the secretary of state is at https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/107Final.pdf (sorry if this link was already posted)....

Now, how about this: if wolves are demonstrated to be alive and well in the state....as I think it is pretty clear....then can't the CPW just say, "Hey, they're re-introduced. Job done"?

 

[JLS]

Pretty sure a length environmental assessment will be required. You know, for stuff like school bus stop safety and the like.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

the part where the cpw just has to look into it not that it is actually a forced introduction

I think (2) (e) refutes that comment. "The Commission shall... oversee gray wolf restoration and management"

Though I think the wording of this section also gives the commission some room to maneuver, i.e. if wolves or a pack is found to be in 201 the commission could probably avoid having to do any actual reintroduction.

 

[bushman13]

wllm1313 do you believe the pre and post hunt elk estimates published by CPW? Not trying to derail, genuinely curious.

@Sytes I agree the rhetoric that those groups that pushing the measure are using is factually incorrect.

Wolves won't have any net effect on CWD, populations already within objectives (below in most of the SW... hence the predator removal study), reintroduction will be paid for by the department, payments on lost livestock will come from the department, and CPW will have their budget impacted by the reduction in herds due to wolf depredation.

All leading to the fact that, since wolves are here, we should let nature run it's course, move slowly and allow CPW the time it needs to adjust to a new variable in the equation.

A lot of the orgs that the individuals you mentioned work with haven't made public statements on the issue. Perhaps a measured, factual response could be...

"There is strong evidence wolves have entered the state of Colorado from Wyoming. These individuals and or packs have been found in units 201 and 2. Given these wolves proximity to DAU 2 and DAU 6, large management units with over-objective herds, and two of the units that would most likely be the sites of any introduction effort, it is our believe and reintroduction is not warranted and that wolves should be allowed to naturally expand their range."
View attachment 124795

View attachment 124792
DAU-6 Objective
View attachment 124791

DAU-1 Objective
View attachment 124793

DAU -2 Objective
View attachment 124794

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

 

[Deleted member 28227]

wllm1313 do you believe the pre and post hunt elk estimates published by CPW? Not trying to derail, genuinely curious.

I think that CPAW does it's best to create these estimates using current best practices, given their budget constraints, and that on a DAU level they are accurate within a margin of error.

To be blunt, I think the flat tops DAU is over objective per the report, but I don't think CPW has a very good handle of how many elk are in or killed each year in unit 371.

 

[Sytes]

I don't believe anyone here disputes wolves are in CO already (passing through or present) and suppose that is the main thread intent based on the OP.
This popped on my news feed. Figured it further confirms they are present in Colorado and hopefully aids alleviating some on the fence Colorado primary residents from the need for Anti-ESA organizations push to force the issue.

Article:

Pack of wolves spotted in NW Colorado; elk carcass cleaned to bones and possible prints found nearby

Wolves have been spotted for the second time in a year in northern Colorado, suggesting that a pack of gray wolves might now live in the state, Colorado Parks and Wildlife announced Wednesday.

www.thedenverchannel.com

 

[TOGIE]

we all know how cpw realy feels regarding wolf reintroduction. and i am quite glad for this incident/confirmation and the associated press release - what lucky timing for them and they know it. i have a sneaking suspicion we'll see a lot more press releases like this between now and november from cpw.

 

[Oak]

Interesting comments at the 0:54 mark of this video. CPW has always cited the Fair Campaign Practices Act when not taking a position on a ballot measure, but it sounds like that's not completely accurate.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If you're looking for a response to the ubiquitous Yellowstone wolf video I think the below peer reviewed paper is a good one to cite.

"In any case, any such cascading effects of wolves found in National Parks would have little relevance to most of the wolf range because of overriding anthropogenic influences there on wolves, prey, vegetation, and other parts of the food web. The wolf is neither a saint nor a sinner except to those who want to make it so. "

Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf?

Historically the wolf (Canis lupus) was hated and extirpated from most of the contiguous United States. The federal Endangered Species Act fostered wo…

www.sciencedirect.com

!

 

[Sytes]

Should Wolves be Reintroduced to Colorado?

My home state of Colorado is ground zero for the latest battle over wolves. A proposal to reintroduce wolves here has garnered enough signatures to make the ballot this fall. Voters will be asked to approve a measure to bring wolves back to the state. Now there’s a wildlife management storm...

www.themeateater.com

Heh, interesting...

Supporters

Those in favor of reintroductions are making an organized effort to gather support....
It’s an intentional and effective tactic to gather support from people whose only understanding of wolves is based on sympathetic nature documentaries.

These groups commonly use emotionally charged, scientifically vague arguments that target places like Rocky Mountain National Park for reintroduction.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Sytes lol right... so Yellowstone... but like instead of Livingston there is a Meto area with 3 million people. I’m sure it’s gonna be great.

Well and not to mention rocky is 1/10 the size of Yellowstone, with 10% more visitors.

 

[oswald2581]

@Sytes lol right... so Yellowstone... but like instead of Livingston there is a Meto area with 3 million people. I’m sure it’s gonna be great.

Well and not to mention rocky is 1/10 the size of Yellowstone, with 10% more visitors.

I didn't believe it when I read that Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) has 10% more visitors than Yellowstone. The list actually surprised me, I have been to both RMNP and Yellowstone many times, but Yellowstone always seems more crowded than RNMP does.

You also posted something out of the bill earlier that made me laugh, "take the steps necessary to begin reintroduction of gray wolves by December 31, 2023, ONLY ON DESIGNATED LANDS". Let's say RNMP is that designated land, how long do the wolves stay on the designated land? It will push the elk out of the park and into the city of Estes Park causing even bigger issues. I am not a wolf behavior expert, but I don't see them chasing elk down main street. Who knows, maybe they will get desperate when there are thousands of elk within the city limits and food is scarce.

I believe the vote is going to go through no matter what, and even though the bill states CPW needs to look at scientific, economic and social considerations, it wont change anything. My opinion on how this whole thing is going to shake down is as follows: Colorado votes yes, CPW does study shows that reintroduction does not meet scientific and economic "requirements", so it gets squashed for the time being and the can gets kicked down the road. Meanwhile some pro-wolf organizations sue CPW with intentions to start decade long wormhole of legal battles. CPW doesn't want that to happen and just reintroduces them anyways. 10-15 years down the road, elk and deer populations are low, hunting is reduced significantly, CPW cant figure out how to manage their budget and Colorado's overall quality of outdoor recreation and wildlife management is no longer what it once was.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I didn't believe it when I read that Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) has 10% more visitors than Yellowstone. The list actually surprised me, I have been to both RMNP and Yellowstone many times, but Yellowstone always seems more crowded than RNMP does.

You also posted something out of the bill earlier that made me laugh, "take the steps necessary to begin reintroduction of gray wolves by December 31, 2023, ONLY ON DESIGNATED LANDS". Let's say RNMP is that designated land, how long do the wolves stay on the designated land? It will push the elk out of the park and into the city of Estes Park causing even bigger issues. I am not a wolf behavior expert, but I don't see them chasing elk down main street. Who knows, maybe they will get desperate when there are thousands of elk within the city limits and food is scarce.

I believe the vote is going to go through no matter what, and even though the bill states CPW needs to look at scientific, economic and social considerations, it wont change anything. My opinion on how this whole thing is going to shake down is as follows: Colorado votes yes, CPW does study shows that reintroduction does not meet scientific and economic "requirements", so it gets squashed for the time being and the can gets kicked down the road. Meanwhile some pro-wolf organizations sue CPW with intentions to start decade long wormhole of legal battles. CPW doesn't want that to happen and just reintroduces them anyways. 10-15 years down the road, elk and deer populations are low, hunting is reduced significantly, CPW cant figure out how to manage their budget and Colorado's overall quality of outdoor recreation and wildlife management is no longer what it once was.

Rocky gets a pounding year round... to your point wolves are going to follow their food, which means wolves in Moraine park and yes Estes. Although ironically RMNP is only 20 miles line of sight from boulder, and 40 from Evergreen. You think wolves are going to hunt the blow down in grand county or just pick off basically domestic herds up and down the front range.

Honestly I don't think RMNP or GSNP will be seriously considered, it's likely going to be Flat Tops, Grand Mesa, and maybe the San Juans.

Upside, those are all areas with big sheep allotments so maybe they will kill some sheep and get those herders out of there, could be good for bighorns. Further with wolves killing lots of elk CPAW will have to address tag quotas, so possible end of OTC in lots of units. Meaning less hunters in the field, so while it will be harder to get tags there will be less felt pressure in the woods.

 

[Sytes]

I thought it absolutely asinine to believe RMNP has more visitors than YNP and 1/10th the size??? Had to view NPS stats and sure as schnitz… WOW!
RMNP 2018 - 4.59mil
YNP 2018 - 4.12mil

I believe San Juans would get knocked down by ESA due to the scientific research related to the threat human forced reintroduction would place on the smaller Mexican Wolves ESA status. Though this is simply Internet forum banter.

I think Brody nailed it in his article and his conclusion:

At MeatEater, we don’t typically support ballot box biology policies that are engineered through misguided voter referendums over hard science. The history of ballot box biology isn’t one that favors the hunters that foot the bill for wildlife management.

If wolves are to inhabit Colorado, then let it happen naturally at a slow, manageable pace. Wolf reintroductions simply aren’t necessary here. Just take a look at Oregon and Washington, or even California, where wolves have come back without reintroductions. When wolves do re-establish themselves here, we’ll all need to learn to live with them. And as Colorado’s wolf numbers grow, our state should be given the chance to make science-based decisions in order to manage them accordingly.

 

[Dal Spain]

I have been told that wolves are already south western Colorado. A guy that lived in Ignacio Colorado was raising and releasing hybrids in the surrounding area and I have seen tracks around Durango Colorado

 

[Oak]

Upside, those are all areas with big sheep allotments so maybe they will kill some sheep and get those herders out of there, could be good for bighorns.

The impetus behind a majority of grazing permit waivers (buyouts) that have benefitted bighorns has actually been conflicts with grizzlies and wolves, not wild sheep conflicts.