She's my MIL - not here say and no I didn't vote in favor because of her opinion. I voted after looking at the data and weighting the concerns of others and the impacts against the overall health of the ecosystem. Everyone has an opinion and the yeas outnumbered the naes. That's democracy.

JustPanda said:

---

Jump to conclusions often?

---

Apparently yes, yes I do.

I had you confused with another poster on this thread for some reason. Makes more sense now, and
I appreciate you explaining. Sorry I got my wires crossed.

We had Elk on our high fenced ranch in the hill country. About 15 years ago we had a lion working the ranch. TPWD lion project biologist set up shop on our place and got some really cool videos and stills of him.
He got two of our Axis ( that I would have culled anyway). They showed us a video on a game cam of one of our bull elk flat kicking that lions ass for about 10 minutes. After that day we never saw the lion on our place again.

I worked with KWA in Hunt. Please reference that data source.

I read with interest your post.... I also check out your handle.... So give us your take on bag limits for game fish?
Share with us your management take on managing fisheries for the largemouth bass say like in Lake Fork or other fisheries similar.
If hunting has nothing to do with game management then fishing should not as well?

From everything I've heard a bull elk taking or fending off a mountain lion is extremely rare due to the ambush nature of their attacks.

Wolves and bears fend them off frequently but I've never heard of a cat being fended off by a bull elk much less beaten down to the point the cat would overtly move it's territory. I'd love to see and share some of those pictures or videos.

In the summer time the national forest land around Creede is full of grazing cattle trucked in from Oklahoma. Also lots of sheep herded up from the San Luis Valley. Seems like it would be easier for a wolf to eat those than take down an elk or mule deer.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

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 discuss compensation but have not determined source of funds in plan - Except that it clearly says it won't come out of the hunting and fishing funds which I agree with. And I guarantee most of the folks that voted for the reintroduction aren't in favor of a tax to pay for it

We have had elk on the ranch for 28 years. I have also watched a bull elk fend off 4-5 coyotes.
The TPWD biologist were using our place as an opportunity to do some of their work on their lion project in west Texas. Lead biologist was Bill Rush out of Sanderson or Ft. Stockton. I'm sure you could perhaps contact them.
They were also assisting us with some techniques/actions that would encourage the lion to move on out of our pastures.
They never said the bull elk ran him off..... rather they had no more surveillance of him after that.
One of the biologist was from USFW and had worked on a predator program in Montana while getting his masters. He remarked he had seen a big bull elk roll a wolf up with antlers like a track loader.
I will say that one of our large bulls would frequent my wife's feed bins in the barn for horse feed scraps. We had our 120lb German Shepherd attack the bull.... for about 30 seconds. The bull charged the dog with antlers down and got him caught under his brow tines and main beams.... and rolled him over and over.
The bull never showed up by the house again nor would our German Shepherd chase elk again.
They are very versed at effectively using hoofs and antlers for defense.
You ever witness two big bulls fighting? We watch it every year. Makes you respect that 1000 lbs of strength.

JustPanda said:

---

From everything I've heard a bull elk taking or fending off a mountain lion is extremely rare due to the ambush nature of their attacks.

Wolves and bears fend them off frequently but I've never heard of a cat being fended off by a bull elk much less beaten down to the point the cat would overtly move it's territory. I'd love to see and share some of those pictures or videos.

---

I'm not an expert but I've been around and have read about cougars enough to have learned this: their kittens stay with their mothers for a year and a half. During their second fall she weans them and they're on their own. They still haven't fully refined their hunting skills nor their judgement about what to stay away from. Siblings will usually stay together their first winter. They're close to full grown but still pretty vulnerable during this time.

When I read about a cougar that attacked a person, or someone's dog, and then the dog fights it off, I assume it was probably a two year old, or a really old one that can no longer hunt. Good chance that was the case with that cougar that couldn't figure out the bull elk. Give that teenager another year to practice and that bull probably wouldn't have had a chance.

I watched a cow elk beat the crap out of a coyote one time. She dang near killed it, and I'm not sure it didn't die later due to wounds. Not the same as a wolf or lion- for sure. But, elk can be surprisingly vicious when they need/want to be.

That makes way more sense. Probs wasn't totally healthy either.

Hell, we had one walk into the hotel next to us last year. Right past the front desk…

Hey Panda you still wearing a mask when your out hiking admiring the wildlife?

So what is the science that supports only introducing on the western side of the divide? And what was it that forced a decision that Rocky Mountain NP was not included as it has to have suitable habitat? It can't be that wolves didn't exist on the eastern side.

AgDad121619 said:

---

So what is the science that supports only introducing on the western side of the divide? And what was it that forced a decision that Rocky Mountain NP was not included as it has to have suitable habitat? It can't be that wolves didn't exist on the eastern side.

---

I don't know about that, but just a few years ago RMNP was so overpopulated by elk that the Game and Fish Dept. thinned them out by paying snipers. Why didn't they issue hunting tags? Don't know, but it's Colorado and I guess the feds would probably have had a say.

So Rocky Mtn park with its overabundance of elk is going to be a wolf magnet. It will take a while, but they'll find it.

I guess they could post NO WOLVES ALLOWED signs at park boundaries. Those would be at least as effective as NO GUNS ALLOWED signs in all our gun free zones.

Went to a bar in Anchorage about 8 years ago. They had a big sign at the entrance that said ID's would be checked an under it it said "No Cougars" allowed. It didn't keep them out either!

Polis a d his husband HATE the western slope. It is naive that he isn't calling aome shots in this. The commissioners I worked for have told me of his hatred for the western slope. That's my theory at least.

So this is all an elaborately orchestrated plan to punish the western slope?

I love how you throw his husband in there to invoke some homophobia. Sexual orientation is completely independent of the states votes to reintroduce wolves… smh

No homophobia here. I accept people as they are. Is he not gay?

No I don't think it is a big orchestration. But I do firmly believe he is pulling a lot of strings to get his way. The governor appoints CPW positions so that could help his cause or motive, maybe not. I've worked for several county commissioners and have told me things that certainly point that way.

That's how freedom of speech works. We gather facts and form our own opinion. Mine are not hearsay. They are from the mouths of people in government and my interactions with people in the know.

I respect your opinion, even if I disagree. I hope this works out better than I anticipate. Next year we get to discuss the ballot measure to remove hunting of lions and bobcats.

An outfitter I know by Rifle hunted a cat with a 3in elk horn (assumed it was elk) in his thigh. I have never heard of that but anything is possible I guess. Can you imagine running around with that in a thigh?

Animals are so resilient..... we had two real nice Blackbuck males that we're fighting over their harems and territory.
We noticed on of them broke his horn off about two inches above his skull.
Then we saw the other male limping badly for about 2 months.
One of my dealers came to the ranch to hunt a Blackbuck male. He got the one that had been limping... when we went to pick him up there was a 6" piece of blackbuck horn stuck through his leg about 3" above his ankle. It was completely healed... no infection or anything.
He had the BB full body mounted and it's on display in his office above his desk at his marine dealership in Ft. Worth.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising. In my time of skinning elk and bears I have found quite a few broadheads in the them. We found one in the ass of a bull in the flat tops last year and I would hope it was a bad follow up shot.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

An outfitter I know by Rifle hunted a cat with a 3in elk horn (assumed it was elk) in his thigh. I have never heard of that but anything is possible I guess. Can you imagine running around with that in a thigh?

---

I killed a bull elk once with an arrow in it. Aluminum shaft arrow, he broke it off at the skin and it healed over. The broadhead was stuck in his pelvis, completely encased in nasty scar tissue.

Animals are TOUGH.

CT'97 said:

---

Texasclipper said:

---

I fail to understand how re-introduction of predators is a positive thing. Many of these cases where former predators are reintroduced or heavily protected means a reintroduction of a nuisance or added interactions/danger for people

Alligators- They were almost extinct. Now they are everywhere in the south and a big pain for people. Granted, they tend not to eat people, but they've been known too. They are also still heavily protected yet are everywhere.

Black bears- Just like the alligator, they were once pretty rare, now they are everywhere in some areas. They typically don't eat people, but they sometimes do and definitely are a nuisance. Another example of protected but everywhere.

Grizzly bears- They do eat people. Why the hell do we want more of them?

Timber Rattle Snakes- They are protected and if you kill one and its found out, you better have a damn good reason for it. Like it was attacking you. There was a rumor of these snakes actually being imported into Texas. Not sure of that though. Again, why do we want MORE rattle snakes? The dumbest thing ever.

Wolves- My limited understanding is what they want to introduce Canadian wolves which are larger and could fit the definition of "invasive" because they aren't native. They can attack people and definitely attack pets, live stock, etc. Again, why the hell do we want to import them?

Our population is increasing and more people are experiencing the outdoors. There will be people that die from this experiment. This isn't the same country it was in 1800. When these issues are debated, I always hear, "well you moved into the wild animal's area". This is the dumbest argument ever because EVERYWHERE used to be the wild animal's area.

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

---

There is so much false information in this statement I can't get through it all, but I'll start at the top. The only death from an Alligator in Texas in the last 100 years literally included the statement "hold my beer" as that person dove into the water on top of the alligator. You can get permits to hunt them from TPWD every year, you can also kill nuisance or predating alligators on your private property.

Your opinions listed here are based on false information. Please do some reading and educate yourself.

---

Where did he say anything about alligators in Texas?

It isn't like people are dying in droves, but attacks and fatalities have significantly increased across the south the past 2 decades.

It is more a nuisance than a risk in high density areas, but it isn't imaginary.

What are those numbers?

Gunny456 said:

---

What are those numbers?

---

About as irrelevant as potential wolf or mountain lion deaths. There's plenty of reasons to oppose this. That isn't a good one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_alligator_attacks_in_the_United_States#:~:text=A%2012%2Dfoot%2Dlong%20alligator,only%20known%20fatal%20alligator%20attack.

3 in the decade of the '70s

4 in the 80s

3 in the 90s.

13 in the 2000s

8 in the 2010s

6 since 2020, including 4 people killed in 2022.

But there are thousands of calls per year about nuisance gators across Florida.

Alligators aren't going to kill a lot of people. They kill a lot of dogs and cats, though

Trinity Ag said:

---

Alligators aren't going to kill a lot of people. They kill a lot of dogs and cats, though

---

Where's the negative?

Trinity Ag said:

---

CT'97 said:

---

Texasclipper said:

---

I fail to understand how re-introduction of predators is a positive thing. Many of these cases where former predators are reintroduced or heavily protected means a reintroduction of a nuisance or added interactions/danger for people

Alligators- They were almost extinct. Now they are everywhere in the south and a big pain for people. Granted, they tend not to eat people, but they've been known too. They are also still heavily protected yet are everywhere.

Black bears- Just like the alligator, they were once pretty rare, now they are everywhere in some areas. They typically don't eat people, but they sometimes do and definitely are a nuisance. Another example of protected but everywhere.

Grizzly bears- They do eat people. Why the hell do we want more of them?

Timber Rattle Snakes- They are protected and if you kill one and its found out, you better have a damn good reason for it. Like it was attacking you. There was a rumor of these snakes actually being imported into Texas. Not sure of that though. Again, why do we want MORE rattle snakes? The dumbest thing ever.

Wolves- My limited understanding is what they want to introduce Canadian wolves which are larger and could fit the definition of "invasive" because they aren't native. They can attack people and definitely attack pets, live stock, etc. Again, why the hell do we want to import them?

Our population is increasing and more people are experiencing the outdoors. There will be people that die from this experiment. This isn't the same country it was in 1800. When these issues are debated, I always hear, "well you moved into the wild animal's area". This is the dumbest argument ever because EVERYWHERE used to be the wild animal's area.

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

---

There is so much false information in this statement I can't get through it all, but I'll start at the top. The only death from an Alligator in Texas in the last 100 years literally included the statement "hold my beer" as that person dove into the water on top of the alligator. You can get permits to hunt them from TPWD every year, you can also kill nuisance or predating alligators on your private property.

Your opinions listed here are based on false information. Please do some reading and educate yourself.

---

Where did he say anything about alligators in Texas?

It isn't like people are dying in droves, but attacks and fatalities have significantly increased across the south the past 2 decades.

It is more a nuisance than a risk in high density areas, but it isn't imaginary.

---

Almost all of that can be attributed to the fact that people are moving into areas that encroach on normal gator territories. Urban sprawl. And the fact that we have engineered Darwin out of the equation to the point that people are dumber than they have ever been. Look at the idiots that get out and try to pet bison and elk in Yellowstone every year as an example.

That being said...not really a comparable point to this discussion other than trying to drum up some OMG! drama or fear mongering.

It's a shame that more of those idiots who try and hug a bison don't get darwin'd.

OnlyForNow said:

---

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.

---

So we should never try to put things in a natural state then? Just let whatever happen happen?

I just can't get on board with this. Extirpating species is bad, but apparently reintroducing them to areas where we previously decided that extirpating them was bad is also....bad?

Quote:

---

reintroducing them to areas where we previously decided that extirpating them was bad is also....bad?

---

Who's the "we" in "we decided"?

And yes, reintroducing predators may be self-evidently bad. Things out there ain't the way they were 100-150 years ago. People live in those formerly "wild" areas. We are reintroducing predators into areas that aren't "wild" anymore and/or there's no way to keep the predators in the small areas that we have deemed "wild".

OnlyForNow said:

---

It's a shame that more of those idiots who try and hug a bison don't get darwin'd.

---

100% truth

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

reintroducing them to areas where we previously decided that extirpating them was bad is also....bad?

---

Who's the "we" in "we decided"?

And yes, reintroducing predators may be self-evidently bad. Things out there ain't the way they were 100-150 years ago. People live in those formerly "wild" areas. We are reintroducing predators into areas that aren't "wild" anymore and/or there's no way to keep the predators in the small areas that we have deemed "wild".

---

"We" as in people, humans, those that try to manage ecosystems, etc. Context is your friend, looking for a hair to split as some form of "gotcha!" is dumb.

Just like "we" (collective of people in general, and largely the wildlife management field) recognize that the turn of the 20th century mentality that killing everything that we don't like (predators in general) is not, in fact, perfectly fine and that doing so has significant repercussions that some species never recover from and that can permanently change an ecosystem, generally for the worse.

So far the main arguments against that I've seen (I'm generalizing here and putting this caveat in just for you so you don't go back and find some minute difference in an attempt to discredit an entire statement):

• Wolves haven't been around for a century, might as well just keep it that way
• May kill some livestock and that will cost ranchers money, even though livestock is the definition of an invasive species not native to the area
• May have some effect on elk numbers, which are generally agreed on as inflated due to a lack of natural predators
• May cause some elk to not bugle, which would ruin the experience of people's lives somehow because they can't hear them (dont get me wrong, I love the sound of elk bugling like anybody else...but that's a garbage reason)
• May cause some change in lifestyle for some people
• Possibility that reintroduction doesn't change anything so it's obviously just a dumb idea
• It's not 100% the same exact wolf that once roamed the mountains, so it really isn't reintroducing anything, therefore it shouldn't happen

None of those really are valid reasons to not try to return to a more "natural" state IMO. That's just me though, guess I qualify as "city folk" because I don't have the minimum 1000 acres of land that makes me not city folk. I also look at the western slope and see a whole lot of land that likely never sees human footsteps or livestock for that matter and think that a whole lot of the fears will be unjustified. That's purely a guess though, but generally speaking - wild animals avoid human interaction as much as they can out of instinct. It will happen, but likely not nearly to the scale that some want to say it will happen because they don't like the idea. My opinion.

From what you were saying I thought the numbers would have been 100x that.
37 incidences in over 50 years. That's way less than 1 per year. Wonder how many of those incidents were provoked or somebody doing something stupid?

Yep... need to wipe em out. Or develop a vaccine that is mandatory in case you get bit by one. Numbers about the same.