schmellba99 said:

---

Texasclipper said:

---

Perhaps I am ill informed and I don't want to get in a pissing match over it. I was referring to alligators in general, not just in TX as there have been a few deaths in Florida. Regardless, they and black bears are a nuisance in some areas. And yes, I know there is a hunting process and a removal process.

However, i don't view wolves as a positive thing. They already are in Colorado and I don't see the need for more just to make the city folks feel good. If there are more wolves, there will be more interactions and someone will die. And there is a definite economic impact to private land owners.

---

First bold - you absolutely are ill informed

Second bold - I really, really hate this texags OB mentality that anything a poster doesnt agree with is obviously some "city folk" mentality. It's lazy and dumb and like the "is outdoors" thing - needs to DIAF.

Almost universally on this board we agree that invasive species are generally a bad idea across the board - except when it comes to invasive species that we like to kill, then they are awesome. And except when it comes to invasive species that some make a living on or have as a hobby, then they want the biggest and most robust government ever to ensure that their hobby or income is 100% protected.

It truly is amazing how quickly some will switch sides to ensure their leisure hunting or hobby is disturbed as little as possible. Unless whatever is talked about adds to their enjoyment, then it is obviously the greatest thing ever.

---

Did you read the study/ intro plan? The first section covers this exact point pretty much proving the only people wanting the wolves were "city folk".

schmellba99 said:

---

Texasclipper said:

---

Just my opinion. I'm NOT advocating making alligators and black bears extinct either.

---

This is pretty much all hyperbole here.

And I suppose if we feel the need, we should just push anything and everything into extinction because it's convenient? Extremely short sighted, but you would have fit in perfect at the turn of the 20th century when that mentality was pervasive and we actually put a lot of animals into extinction and did our best with a whole lot of others.

---

I was pretty clear i wasn't advocating for extinction in my last sentence.

DG96 said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

DG96 said:

---

Speaking on wolves specifically, I would rather humans be the predator. With regulation through hunting, ecosystems can be managed correctly. Humans have always been predators and part of the ecosystem. I think now we are aware enough to manage populations responsibly.

---

Show me one population that is being effectively managed with hunting? I'll save you some time, there isn't one.

---

Effectively yes, perfectly no such thing. There are other predators and winter kill that controls population more than hunting. Hunting is just one part of that.

---

I would like to know what population is effectively managed with hunting.

Quote:

---

This isn't rattlesnakes and pigs BS.

Wolves reintroduction has drastically changed behavior of prey species in the Northwest.

---

Or perhaps wolf reintroduction has reverted behavior of prey species to pre-extripation norms?

I also think that increasing number of bow, muzzleloader & rifles hunters tramping around ever deeper into the mountains might have something to do with it.

AllTheFishes said:

---

DG96 said:

---

AllTheFishes said:

---

DG96 said:

---

Speaking on wolves specifically, I would rather humans be the predator. With regulation through hunting, ecosystems can be managed correctly. Humans have always been predators and part of the ecosystem. I think now we are aware enough to manage populations responsibly.

---

Show me one population that is being effectively managed with hunting? I'll save you some time, there isn't one.

---

Effectively yes, perfectly no such thing. There are other predators and winter kill that controls population more than hunting. Hunting is just one part of that.

---

I would like to know what population is effectively managed with hunting.

---

You can search for and find lots of articles like this:

https://cnr.ncsu.edu/news/2021/02/the-role-of-hunting-in-wildlife-conservation-explained/

The conclusion:

Regulated hunting is one of the most effective tools that state wildlife agencies can use to address the overpopulation of a species, Peterson said. "It removes the excess number of animals."

Go to a state park where hunting isn't allowed and observe the density of whitetail deer.

Effective management of numbers possibly. Not of genetic health, or, health of the diversity of an ecosystem.

zooguy96 said:

---

Effective management of numbers possibly. Not of genetic health, or, health of the diversity of an ecosystem.

---

I can understand how hunting can result in a reverse natural selection if hunters try to take only the biggest bucks or bulls with the biggest antlers. And a lot of them do. So I get that.

But in the absence of natural predators, animals like deer tend to concentrate around the easiest sources of food and water, and hunting can keep them dispersed. Doesn't that help improve bio-diversity? That's an honest question, please educate me if I don't understand.

And you said that hunting can possibly manage the numbers of wildlife. Is there really any doubt about this?

McInnis said:

---

zooguy96 said:

---

Effective management of numbers possibly. Not of genetic health, or, health of the diversity of an ecosystem.

---

I can understand how hunting can result in a reverse natural selection if hunters try to take only the biggest bucks or bulls with the biggest antlers. And a lot of them do. So I get that.

But in the absence of natural predators, animals like deer tend to concentrate around the easiest sources of food and water, and hunting can keep them dispersed. Doesn't that help improve bio-diversity? That's an honest question, please educate me if I don't understand.

And you said that hunting can possibly manage the numbers of wildlife. Is there really any doubt about this?

---

The problem with it is that hunters hunt for such a small fraction of the total time in a calendar year, that the deer don't really develop "fear of hunters" per se. So, yes, it controls numbers, but not really dispersement IMHO.

Plus, alot of hunters have food plots, etc which doesn't really lead to much dispersement.

IMHo, any time we try to "manage for natural results" as humans, we mostly fail.

Example - the national park I interned at had a road which was removed, and they tried to take it back to "natural" habitat. They took seeds from local trees and planted them in the footprint of the road. Theoretically - good idea.

Ended up being bad idea. Had trees that grew closer to water on the top of the mountain. Trees needed up in wrong soil, moisture or elevation zone; 95% of thousands of planted trees ended up dead within 5 years, leading to almost 100% invasive species (which we spent the entire summer killing).

zooguy96 said:

---

McInnis said:

---

zooguy96 said:

---

Effective management of numbers possibly. Not of genetic health, or, health of the diversity of an ecosystem.

---

I can understand how hunting can result in a reverse natural selection if hunters try to take only the biggest bucks or bulls with the biggest antlers. And a lot of them do. So I get that.

But in the absence of natural predators, animals like deer tend to concentrate around the easiest sources of food and water, and hunting can keep them dispersed. Doesn't that help improve bio-diversity? That's an honest question, please educate me if I don't understand.

And you said that hunting can possibly manage the numbers of wildlife. Is there really any doubt about this?

---

The problem with it is that hunters hunt for such a small fraction of the total time in a calendar year, that the deer don't really develop "fear of hunters" per se. So, yes, it controls numbers, but not really dispersement IMHO.

Plus, alot of hunters have food plots, etc which doesn't really lead to much dispersement.

---

Understand, but most hunting is done during mating season and from a bio-diversity standpoint isn't that when dispersal is most critical?

Now the matter of food plots and feeders is an excellent point. I hadn't thought of that because it's been a long time since I lived any place where that's legal.

From a Colorado rancher, that recently learned the second introduction of wolves will be in his National Forest allotment.

First off, I have not read all the other comments. Usually I do before commenting, but it might've resulted in too much drinking and cussing.

Second, I'm fine with wolves in the counties that voted for them, but the statute said west of the continental divide. The only places that need them, Rocky Mountain National Park, is east of the divide.

Since the gray wolf has been relisted, all of Colorado's plans have to be approved by the feds, and for some reason, wolves are not allowed near their petting zoos, I mean National Parks, or any Indian reservation.

So their plan is to let them loose here. They say they will pay for wolf damage, but I know in Montana their budget for that ran out in 2 weeks.

Wolves in Colorado will turn more ranches into condos. Less habitat for all wildlife.

McInnis said:

---

zooguy96 said:

---

McInnis said:

---

zooguy96 said:

---

Effective management of numbers possibly. Not of genetic health, or, health of the diversity of an ecosystem.

---

I can understand how hunting can result in a reverse natural selection if hunters try to take only the biggest bucks or bulls with the biggest antlers. And a lot of them do. So I get that.

But in the absence of natural predators, animals like deer tend to concentrate around the easiest sources of food and water, and hunting can keep them dispersed. Doesn't that help improve bio-diversity? That's an honest question, please educate me if I don't understand.

And you said that hunting can possibly manage the numbers of wildlife. Is there really any doubt about this?

---

The problem with it is that hunters hunt for such a small fraction of the total time in a calendar year, that the deer don't really develop "fear of hunters" per se. So, yes, it controls numbers, but not really dispersement IMHO.

Plus, alot of hunters have food plots, etc which doesn't really lead to much dispersement.

---

Understand, but most hunting is done during mating season and from a bio-diversity standpoint isn't that when dispersal is most critical?

Now the matter of food plots and feeders is an excellent point. I hadn't thought of that because it's been a long time since I lived any place where that's legal.

---

IMHO, any time humans try to "make something natural", we mostly fail. Truly difficult now with soooo many invasive species. You get as close as you can, but, we really have so little actual large tracts of contiguous natural habitat (like millions of acres - except for Alaska), that it's pretty much irrelevant to an extent.

Would you agree that introducing Canadien wolves into the US Rockies falls into that category?

McInnis said:

---

Would you agree that introducing Canadien wolves into the US Rockies falls into that category?

---

In areas with heavy cattle ranching / close to humans - yes.

BradMtn346 said:

---

Second, I'm fine with wolves in the counties that voted for them, but the statute said west of the continental divide. The only places that need them, Rocky Mountain National Park, is east of the divide.

Since the gray wolf has been relisted, all of Colorado's plans have to be approved by the feds, and for some reason, wolves are not allowed near their petting zoos, I mean National Parks, or any Indian reservation.

---

What we've learned about wolves in Wyoming is that they're pretty bad at reading boundary markers. What do suppose the tree-huggers in Estes Park are going to think the first time a pack of wolves chase down an elk on their beloved golf course, and start ripping its guts out, while it's trying to stand and bellow in agony?

The predator was removed and "modern" has been established at this new equilibrium. Adding the predator back in shakes that up once again so it'll never be back to the way it was before.

This is animal reparations, and the feel good group HOPES it has the desired outcome, but in reality have no idea what is going to happen.

McInnis said:

---

BradMtn346 said:

---

Second, I'm fine with wolves in the counties that voted for them, but the statute said west of the continental divide. The only places that need them, Rocky Mountain National Park, is east of the divide.

Since the gray wolf has been relisted, all of Colorado's plans have to be approved by the feds, and for some reason, wolves are not allowed near their petting zoos, I mean National Parks, or any Indian reservation.

---

What we've learned about wolves in Wyoming is that they're pretty bad at reading boundary markers. What do suppose the tree-huggers in Estes Park are going to think the first time a pack of wolves chase down an elk on their beloved golf course, and start ripping its guts out, while it's trying to stand and bellow in agony?

---

I'm sincerely hoping that happens before they let them out here, and the wolves that are killing cattle in north park are a stones throw from Estes.

Put them in Nederland and Boulder County.

Evidence indicates that wolves do not kill for sport. Left alone, they will consume all opportunistic killings.

https://www.nps.gov/media/video/view.htm?id=4BA01FEE-155D-451F-67A43CE086CA3C7F

I think we would be looking at 20 years to stasis and the new stasis will be alot less elk and coyote. Some areas nearly wiped out others as if no change.

I have humped a ruck or ran a dirtbike in a bunch of wolf and bear country. In some areas there are healthy herds of elk in others a herd is described as 2 and they dont bugle.

In some areas bears are a problem on elk kill yet 3-400 miles away you could cross half a dozen griz track in a day but in that area they wont bother a kill and rarely let themselves be seen and I can't understand or get anyone to explain it to me what's different when conditions appear so similar.

This year I hunted twice once in the Bob Marshall 21 mile ride deep. 7 days 7 hunters only 1 shootable animal observed by all a black bear. I didn't see a single fresh sign of elk. My guide said hunting overpressure plus wolves but in three years of guiding in the Bob he never heard, saw, or cut a track on a wolf. The next day we listened to them howl for 3 days.

I say this because even the best management plans don't stand a chance against the random chaos mother nature constantly provides humbling and frustrating us to into suffering both physically and emotionally.

Since 95 I have gone from reintroduce but dont hunt, to special permit hunt, to tagging myself, to wanting elk hunting closed in some areas w reintro of elk, to hesitant to reintroducing in CO by man unless everyone understands this is gonna be painful for a bunch of years. I have always been a fan of some type of compensation to the ranchers.

In the end 95 doesnt seem that long ago in the big picture and maybe one day they will be here and I wont have to pass 5+ WT roadkills on RR12 & 290 while taking my kids to school everyday.

I voted yes to the reintroduction.

McInnis said:

---

Would you agree that introducing Canadien wolves into the US Rockies falls into that category?

---

If including "Canadian" implies the "wrong wolf" or an exotic species was reintroduced, that has largely been dispelled.

https://www.nps.gov/media/video/view.htm?id=4B22ADC8-155D-451F-67EBA88C6F8A6131

Pretty simple: put A pack on public land, manage it for size, and if the tax payers want them, they can fund a predation reimbursement fund to pay ranchers for domestic animal losses that may occur.

I am generally a supporter of allowing extirpated animals to be returned to an area but understand that the conflicts have to be managed for practical workability.

In the end, it might not be practical.

They don't know how much or even where the money will come from. This was discussed at length at the meeting in Rifle this week. It's somewhere in the 5k to 15k range but the actual ranges and methodology is TBD.

Agree on all points. Those that voted in favor of this better own it and be ready for the consequences. You won't be able to put the toothpaste back into the tube on this one.

citizenkane06 said:

---

McInnis said:

---

Would you agree that introducing Canadien wolves into the US Rockies falls into that category?

---

If including "Canadian" implies the "wrong wolf" or an exotic species was reintroduced, that has largely been dispelled.

https://www.nps.gov/media/video/view.htm?id=4B22ADC8-155D-451F-67EBA88C6F8A6131

---

My main takeway from that video, and it is interesting, is that once introduced to an area, wolves will spread to where they want. Mountain ranges and even ocean's won't stop them. The wolves that have made it to northern Colorado from Yellowstone have travelled through some of the most inhospitable country imaginable. Places where you might not think that even a rattlesnake could live.

After the wildlife in the greater Yellowstone area had not seen wolves for about a hundred years, when they were placed there in the 90s it wasn't going to matter where they came from and how close they were to the original wolves genetically, they were going to cause havoc.

Several stories of local CO ranchers blaming livestock kills on wolves only to have the tests come back showing the deaths occurred independent of the wolves w little to no likelihood they were the original attacker.

https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/cpw-still-doesnt-know-what-killed-40-cattle-in-meeker/

The proponents of reintroduction seem to want to return nature to its "natural" state. As zooguy has repeatedly stated, proponents don't believe that human predation creates the same behavior with ungulates as does predation by wolves.

That position raises a bunch of questions:

1. Why are the behaviors caused by wolf predation preferable over those caused by human predation?
2. Humans have already irrevocably changed the environment, with or without wolf introduction. For example, when I lived in northern Idaho, deer would congregate in yards in an attempt to find safety from the wolves (I had 10-30 deer in my 5-acre yard at any given time). That's not natural, either. What adjustments are going to be made for those "unnatural" behaviors?
3. Who determines the appropriate number of wolves? (Again, in northern Idaho, there was a raging dispute between federal and state biologists over the appropriate population densities and how many wolves were actually present.)
4. Will compensation also be given to working-class people who have been negatively impacted by the reintroduction? In northern Idaho, many folks supplemented their incomes by acting as hunting guides and others supplemented their larder with elk and deer. Following the wolf reintroduction, deer and elk populations plummeted causing many guides to go out of business and others unable to restock their larders.

ETA: My educated guess is that 95+% of people born in northern Idaho were bitterly opposed to the wolf reintroduction, and 75+% of those who had moved in were opposed.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Pretty simple: put A pack on public land, manage it for size…

In the end, it might not be practical.

---

Managing a wolf population for size really isn't so simple. States aren't allowed to do that without strict federal oversight. In Wyoming for example, the state Game and Fish dept isn't allowed to set a quota for wolf kill and if that's exceeded for a year, then to simply reduce the quota by that amount the following year as they would do with other game. If the quota is exceeded by even one wolf there's hell to pay.

So if you buy a wolf tag you have to check in with Game and Fish every morning to ensure the quota hasn't been exceeded. But the wolves are smart enough to live out of cell phone service. It took Wyoming about ten years to finally get a wolf season approved by the federal courts.

JustPanda said:

---

I voted yes to the reintroduction.

---

Are you "city folk"?

On a very small scale, yes hunting can impact population numbers. That is different than effectively managing a species. On any kind of larger scale it's far to selective to have any kind of real impact.

We have many times more whitetail deer in North American today than ever in history. That's not because of hunting. It's because we removed the things that limited the white tail population. Now we pretend that killing a few here and there is in some way "managing the population" and we are kidding ourselves.

Save yourself the time of posting links to more state wildlife department propaganda pieces about the benefits of hunting to an animal population. They aren't backed up by research or peer reviewed articles. Those are written to show to state legislators so they can keep hunting seasons open and I don't fault them for that.

Even Kerr wildlife management area had to go to extreme lengths with very limited populations in a small enclosed pasture, I think it was 145 acres, to show any kind of genetic shift caused by hunting.

I am pro hunting, I love to eat venison, I'm not arguing against hunting. I just don't think it manages populations anywhere near what our state agencies claim.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

They don't know how much or even where the money will come from. This was discussed at length at the meeting in Rifle this week. It's somewhere in the 5k to 15k range but the actual ranges and methodology is TBD.

Agree on all points. Those that voted in favor of this better own it and be ready for the consequences. You won't be able to put the toothpaste back into the tube on this one.

---

There is a single lion in this area that has cost CPW more than $30,000. He killed one of my calves and we got paid, but he likes to kill high fence elk too. CPW has a max of $5000 per animal and he has killed half a dozen. If one lion can do that much damage, they need 10's of millions in the budget for wolves.

AllTheFishes said:

---

Save yourself the time of posting links to more state wildlife department propaganda pieces about the benefits of hunting to an animal population. They aren't backed up by research or peer reviewed articles. Those are written to show to state legislators so they can keep hunting seasons open and I don't fault them for that.

---

Please look at the article I linked. I avoided articles published by state wildlife departments because I realized that they could be considered to be self-serving. The article I linked was published by the North Carolina State University College of Natural Resources.

Every state has a wildlife department staffed with wildlife management professionals whose jobs are to manage wildlife populations in part by issuing hunting regulations. Are they all wrong?

Nope. I live in a county w planned reintroduction.

I've seen hundreds of bears, dozens of moose, a couple mountain lions and big horns, so maybe wolf's next on the list?

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/50-northern-gray-wolves-to-be-released-in-colorado-over-5-years-according-to-draft-plan/

$8,000 per animal killed sounds more than reasonable.

Our state and federal wildlife officials were in favor of the reintroduction…

JustPanda said:

---

Nope. I live in a county w planned reintroduction.

I've seen hundreds of bears, dozens of moose, a couple mountain lions and big horns, so maybe wolf's next on the list?

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/50-northern-gray-wolves-to-be-released-in-colorado-over-5-years-according-to-draft-plan/

$8,000 per animal killed sounds more than reasonable.

Our state and federal wildlife officials were in favor of the reintroduction…

---

So, are you saying you voted in favor of wolf reintroduction primarily so that you can see a wolf in the wild? I'm not sure how else to read your post. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

And, your reasoning is that, to you, $8,000/animal seems like a reasonable payment for the damage wolves cause- without actually considering the complete picture of the problem to people's livelihoods, communities, or the limitations on where that budget is going to come from?

Finally, you felt comfortable voting in favor because state & federal wildlife officials were in favor of it. I would seriously be interested to see that opinion posted, and to read their reasoning and research. Is there verifiable data to back those opinions? Or are there special interest groups funding those opinions? Most instances of "my local biologists are in favor or against the wolves" that I have run across are more rumor and hearsay. I'm not suggesting this is the case with you, which is why I'm asking- because I would love to read that research, opinions, and their plans for sustainable reintroduction and funding of this project.

Jump to conclusions often?