The first wolf pack relocated to Colorado will be re-relocated. Because it did wolf things.

https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2024/09/oregon-wolf-pack-blamed-in-colorado-livestock-attacks-will-be-relocated-again.html

"It was a very, very unique situation right out of the gate and it demanded a unique response and part of that is making sure the pups in particular have a second chance in the wild," Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Jeff Davis said at a Monday news conference.

Of course there are people protesting the relocation. Alternate solutions include installing electric fences and range riders to keep the wolves away from cattle. Can you imagine?

trust the science!...except wildlife biologists. that's the Denver- Boulder, Colorado in a nutshell right now.

The pups aren't being relocated. Only the mother. The pups will be released back.

If you want top level predators in an area, you're going to have to mitigate (I.e pay people for their lost livestock) what top level predators do - attack easy prey (cattle). All of the other "techniques to keep the wolves away (patrolling with range riders and scaring them away…..LOLOL)" don't really work. It's stupid of them to even bring them up.

Wolves are really only going to work in certain relative uninhabited areas. The "have top level predators close to people" doesn't work - duh.

Easy. The people wanting the wolves pay into a trust that compensates ranchers at above market rates for predation losses. There may be some scavenging Vs actual predation that is hard to differentiate so it would have to be presumed.

That's the only fair way to do a predator reintroduction after decades of extirpation.

Bayou City said:

---

The pups aren't being relocated. Only the mother. The pups will be released back.

---

Maybe but that's not how I read it.

"A decision is pending on where the remainder of the pack will be released. That will occur after the pups get larger and can hunt on their own, officials said."

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Easy. The people wanting the wolves pay into a trust that compensates ranchers at above market rates for predation losses. There may be some scavenging Vs actual predation that is hard to differentiate so it would have to be presumed.

That's the only fair way to do a predator reintroduction after decades of extirpation.

---

The government workers will forever changes the terms making it harder and harder to collect for predation cattle losses. Many of the losses will not be know immediately or for some extended time until the next roundup with carcasses never found.

Funny how the pro-wolf crowd all live unaffected lives in the cities

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Easy. The people wanting the wolves pay into a trust that compensates ranchers at above market rates for predation losses. There may be some scavenging Vs actual predation that is hard to differentiate so it would have to be presumed.

That's the only fair way to do a predator reintroduction after decades of extirpation.

---

I am not against the idea, but curious why you think they should be compensated above market rates? That seems to set the stage for a lot of fraud around the whole "predation vs scavenging" situation you brought up. Why not pay at replacement value instead of giving people an incentive to dump downers into fields and let the scavengers take them so you can blame wolves and get paid extra for them?

Plenty of organic herds raised in the mountain/ valley areas. Not necessarily above market rates on those animals. Replacement costs can be very expensive. Have several bulls in their prime worth 10k plus.

Mas89 said:

---

Plenty of organic herds raised in the mountain/ valley areas. Not necessarily above market rates on those animals. Replacement costs can be very expensive. Have several bulls in their prime worth 10k plus.

---

Market/Replacement cost covers that. If it costs more to replace a calf than you can sell it for at the market (which seems impossible since you would presumably be buying them at the same market), every single cattle rancher would be losing money. If a prime bull costs 10k to replace, then that is the replacement cost you should be paid for it.

On the other hand, the data I have seen (admittedly quite old because I haven't read much on the recent issues in Colorado) was that the wolves were mostly taking the young, old, or sick animals, not the prime bulls. I got the impression that MouthBQ was arguing for paying somebody 12K to replace a 10K bull or something to that effect, which in my mind would invite fraud by incentivizing people to claim wolf kills because they were more lucrative than going to market, particularly on marginal animals.

They aren't allowed to relocate them to another state, only within the state. Since they haven't killed any animals they can't be considered a threat. It's ass backwards logic but that's the "law" allegedly.

I wonder how they know that only Papa was involved in killing the cattle? Did mom and the pups stay at home and wait for Papa to bring them dinner? I don't think that's how wolves work. And how convenient that Papa is now dead, so it's safe to assume that all the rest of those wolves are innocent? LOL!

Mas89 said:

---

Plenty of organic herds raised in the mountain/ valley areas. Not necessarily above market rates on those animals. Replacement costs can be very expensive. Have several bulls in their prime worth 10k plus.

---

Any Trust will be broke soon. Just like livestock injured by oil and gas activity. All were the "prized" bull or above market valued cow.

Support reintroduction, but in very remote areas. Pay remote Canada to maintain a healthy population and let ranchers manage their herds and predators.

txags92 said:

---

Mas89 said:

---

Plenty of organic herds raised in the mountain/ valley areas. Not necessarily above market rates on those animals. Replacement costs can be very expensive. Have several bulls in their prime worth 10k plus.

---

Market/Replacement cost covers that. If it costs more to replace a calf than you can sell it for at the market (which seems impossible since you would presumably be buying them at the same market), every single cattle rancher would be losing money. If a prime bull costs 10k to replace, then that is the replacement cost you should be paid for it.

On the other hand, the data I have seen (admittedly quite old because I haven't read much on the recent issues in Colorado) was that the wolves were mostly taking the young, old, or sick animals, not the prime bulls. I got the impression that MouthBQ was arguing for paying somebody 12K to replace a 10K bull or something to that effect, which in my mind would invite fraud by incentivizing people to claim wolf kills because they were more lucrative than going to market, particularly on marginal animals.

---

Ha! I see that you have no clue about the cattle business. Or maybe you do and are just unaware!

It is because you not only lose the "price" of the animal, but you have lost all of your other input costs and your time involved as well.

If you lose a momma cow, that affects the future of her calf as well.

If you lose a pregnant momma, you lose that cow AND essentially lose an entire year of production. Which also affects future production.

You can't make that up by just "buying another cow".

People that are not in the cattle business, just think it is an easy plug n play operation.

Your thinking the "price tag" on an animal is a true replacement cost is laughable. The "price tag" is just the beginning! You are essentially starting over from behind the proverbial 8 ball with each unit lost!

Feed, mineral supplements, water, supplemental hay, grass from your pastures, and many more things that are required ARE NOT FREE………. I'll spare you the part about replacing lost genetics, because that could be a 2 day seminar.

So you feel that if an introduced predator kills your animal that we (collective) should receive a a few shekels and a "Sorry"?

How about NOT "re-homing" these predators in the first place?

BlueSmoke said:

---

Funny how the pro-wolf crowd all live unaffected lives in the cities

---

And they assured us the cattle would never get harmed. Bunch of damn idiots. I am glad they get to deal with thousands of migrants, gangs taking over apartments and police defunding. They deserve every bit of it and more.

I don't think reimbursement by any one should happen!
Ranching has it's own inherent risks. That is something we are willing to accept.

But don't handcuff us and expect us to willingly agree with some bureaucrat's decision that directly threatens our herds.

They brought back a problem that no longer existed.

What should happen is allowing ranchers to protect their herds. And yes, that includes taking out and eliminating any and all predators!

Hoyt Ag said:

---

BlueSmoke said:

---

Funny how the pro-wolf crowd all live unaffected lives in the cities

---

And they assured us the cattle would never get harmed. Bunch of damn idiots. I am glad they get to deal with thousands of migrants, gangs taking over apartments and police defunding. They deserve every bit of it and more.

---

THIS

IS

AWESOME!


*but is terrifying at the same time!

Because the spot value of a calf doesn't cover the loss of its potential in a breeding program into the future, or if it was a milk cow that was producing, or a sheep with many shears in its future. I think there are losses that can't be accounted for that should be included in a valuation enhancement if those pushing the wolf program want ranchers to be a bit more friends instead of enemies.

duddleysdraw88 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Mas89 said:

---

Plenty of organic herds raised in the mountain/ valley areas. Not necessarily above market rates on those animals. Replacement costs can be very expensive. Have several bulls in their prime worth 10k plus.

---

Market/Replacement cost covers that. If it costs more to replace a calf than you can sell it for at the market (which seems impossible since you would presumably be buying them at the same market), every single cattle rancher would be losing money. If a prime bull costs 10k to replace, then that is the replacement cost you should be paid for it.

On the other hand, the data I have seen (admittedly quite old because I haven't read much on the recent issues in Colorado) was that the wolves were mostly taking the young, old, or sick animals, not the prime bulls. I got the impression that MouthBQ was arguing for paying somebody 12K to replace a 10K bull or something to that effect, which in my mind would invite fraud by incentivizing people to claim wolf kills because they were more lucrative than going to market, particularly on marginal animals.

---

Ha! I see that you have no clue about the cattle business. Or maybe you do and are just unaware!

It is because you not only lose the "price" of the animal, but you have lost all of your other input costs and your time involved as well.

If you lose a momma cow, that affects the future of her calf as well.

If you lose a pregnant momma, you lose that cow AND essentially lose an entire year of production. Which also affects future production.

You can't make that up by just "buying another cow".

People that are not in the cattle business, just think it is an easy plug n play operation.

Your thinking the "price tag" on an animal is a true replacement cost is laughable. The "price tag" is just the beginning! You are essentially starting over from behind the proverbial 8 ball with each unit lost!

Feed, mineral supplements, water, supplemental hay, grass from your pastures, and many more things that are required ARE NOT FREE………. I'll spare you the part about replacing lost genetics, because that could be a 2 day seminar.

So you feel that if an introduced predator kills your animal that we (collective) should receive a a few shekels and a "Sorry"?

How about NOT "re-homing" these predators in the first place?

---

I understand the points MouthBQ made in his post, but if what I bolded in your post is true, then how does anybody in the cattle business make money? I am going to make up an example below and hopefully you can use it to help explain things. You are correct. I am not in the cattle business, so I am trying to understand the economics involved. I used a 10 month old calf as an example because I assume they are weaned by then and there were not nursing mothers to be concerned about. So if there are other things that go into bringing a 10 month old calf into a herd, then assume we are talking about a 2 year old instead.

So for an example, a wolf kills a 10 month old calf on your property, and you go to the local auction and find the price for a 10 month old calf that you would have to pay to replace it. The government gives you the money to buy the new 10 month old calf at the auction. What you are saying is that the price somebody is selling 10 month old calves for at the market is less than what it costs to raise that calf? If so, how do they make money selling it? The cost they are selling it for should include the costs of what it took to raise it to that point, and if the govt pays that amount to buy you a new 10 month old calf, the cost of raising it to that point is already included. So you are whole, can continue to raise the calf until you sell it and hopefully recover your costs plus some profit.

There are obviously situations like Mouth mentioned (nursing cow, etc.) where the compensation would have to be adjusted from strictly market replacement cost, and things like transportation would have to be covered as well. But I would be against a blanket # above actual market for replacement without it being backed up by some specific reason why an above market price should be used. Offering to pay people more for a dead cow than they could sell it for at market as a straight rule would set up a situation ripe for fraud IMO.

I am not making an argument for or against the wolves. I like the idea of predators in an ecosystem, but I think the Colorado version was done very poorly and that a government taking should be compensated fairly.

Well we can all expect license & tag fees to go up again…..especially for us non-residents who didn't get a say in the CO wolf program except here on TXAgs where we warned their would be a decade plus of pains/ problems.

We had wolves on the ranch in MT, many many years ago.

We had a fairly aggressive line of cattle, for predators.

We never lost any animals to wolves but we did have a grizzly kill a cow.

(Not sure what the policy was if anyone saw wolves around the cattle, but I know they were encountered by family hunting, at times)

Problem with the part of your argument about the cost of inputs in the 10 month old calf being included in it's sale price, is most cattle are sold through auction, which makes ranchers price takers, not price makers. Some folks are going to have a lot more inputs in that yearling, vaccinations, mineral, cubes and such, than others that just let the cattle breed, calve, graze on whatever, and sell at 6 months, regardless. that's he difference between a #1 grade steer, and a #2 or 3. Price can be 50 cents or more a pound.

jagsdad said:

---

Problem with the part of your argument about the cost of inputs in the 10 month old calf being included in it's sale price, is most cattle are sold through auction, which makes ranchers price takers, not price makers. Some folks are going to have a lot more inputs in that yearling, vaccinations, mineral, cubes and such, than others that just let the cattle breed, calve, graze on whatever, and sell at 6 months, regardless. that's he difference between a #1 grade steer, and a #2 or 3. Price can be 50 cents or more a pound.

---

I am sure there are times when prices are low due to various factors, but presumably you could use a median price over a set period of time to avoid inadequate reimbursement. If the median price over time is below what it costs to raise the animal to that point, everybody would be losing money. I can also see though that there are times (probably with young cattle) where they are not typically sold at that age so getting a fair price that reflects the costs invested may not be worth it.

Definitely a complex issue, and not one that I really want government to be deeply involved in. Would rather see the groups wanting to protect the wolves work out a private deal to pay ranchers for their livestock losses. Govt bureaucracy would almost certainly increase the cost of the program by an order of magnitude and make it much more complicated than it needs to be.

I can definitely agree with you on not having the government administer it. That's why Mouth's idea for all the people wanting them ought to pay into an indemnity fund. Of course, we all know what kind of outcry that would bring about. Which brings me actually to support Dudley's idea more. Ranching has hazards, but if you introduce more hazards, don't tie our hands when we need to deal with it.

Range riders, good grief! Can you imagine how much easier it is for a wolf pack to capture livestock than wild animals? Why would anyone think this wouldn't happen?

And, why does anyone think it's necessary? I just came from hunting in Alaska where the annual bag limit for wolves is 20.

I understand the points MouthBQ made in his post, but if what I bolded in your post is true, then how does anybody in the cattle business make money?


We DON'T!!!!


Just kidding….. (kinda!)



But seriously, I am not trying to be an arse with you at all.

It is because the general public really is clueless about most everything agriculture! Whether we like it or not, our food supply is under attack. Producers (both farmers with crops and ranchers with animals) are sadly taking the brunt of this attack.

When you (the public) shake your head in seeing the price of a steak and hamburger in the grocery store……. The public needs to know that this insane pricing NEVER makes it way down to the producer (rancher)!

Feedlots want to buy cattle as cheap as they can at market. That pricing is passed along by the feedlots which have their own outrageous input costs.

Then the packers swoop in and buy as cheaply as they can from feedlots and then mark up the finished beef and they make the hefty profits compared to all of us downline in the process of raising beef!

This goes on in every marketed protein in the United States, be it beef, bison, pork, chicken, goat or lamb, etc. I have family in pork, lamb and chicken industry, but for the sake of our conversation, I will stick with beef.

Each rancher or grower of these individual proteins have their own unique situations of production, feeding, and packaging.

But regardless of which protein you raise…….. if you are the producer, you are the low man on the totem pole in the eyes of the government AND ESPECIALLY in the eyes of the big corporations that are trying to take over our agriculture livelihoods.

The big 4 corporate monopolies in the beef industry….. Cargill family, Tyson, JBS out of Brazil, and National Beef Packing are squeezing the industry by manipulating the market through which we have to operate.

Their goal is basically to control (own) everything in the entire food production chain….. from production (raising cattle), to feedlots (feeding and finishing cattle for slaughter) and packing (cutting beef to go to market).

All of that to say, is that the margins of profitability for independent ranchers are a lot lower than what the public thinks.

As I said earlier about the genetics being a full course, I (and I'm assuming most quality ranchers) don't buy from sale barns. There is an old saying that goes something like….. "If you buy at a sale barn, you are buying someone else's problems!"

You have NO idea of why someone sells at a sale barn. Maybe it's momma died, maybe it was a difficult birth, maybe it was low birth weight, maybe it was too heavy birth weight, maybe it is a fence jumper or an escape artist, maybe it is the devil incarnate and it tries to run you over every chance it gets!
Who knows…… ??????

Genetics have been "dialed in" through generations upon generations of breeding programs to help avoid a lot of the above mentioned problems but also to improve desirable traits in their herds, such as marbling, specific preferred frame sizes, feed efficiency, reproductive traits, milk production, maternal traits, optimal birthweight, Heck you can even achieve preferred scrotum size, and my favorite…. docility!

I've been runnin' cow/calf since 2000. The first 9 years were just commercial cows bought from other local ranchers and bulls with "their genetics".

But then I wanted faster improvements and better looking calves, so I invested in a registered bull (proven long line of excellent genetics) and that was a game changer in the quality and marketability of the calves.

So there is WAY more that goes into "raising cows" that the majority of people think.

*side-note*
You really get better quality meats buying direct from a local producer that finishes cattle. You can "know where your beef comes from" as opposed to grocery store meat that could come from old cows, low quality cows, cows imported from Mexico or Brazil, or a mixture of all of the above.


So now you ( the public) want to add in an additional unknown variable, such as an almost apex predator, and expect us to just roll over and take it?

We won't go down without a fight!

Ranchers in my opinion, care about animals, water, the environment and taking care of our planet AS MUCH AS, if not more than, the majority of the so-called environmentalists and granola people.

I love bobcats, coyotes and dogs…….. but if one of them attacks, maims, mutilates or kills one of my cows…….. I will do my best to eliminate that problem. I have had to put my own dog down when it started attacking my calves.

I also love seeing coyotes, bears and mountain lions, (a buddy saw wolves) when I am in Colorado hunting. But if the friend that runs his cows up there sees any of these animals, he views them as a DIRECT threat to his herd!

So if you don't have a dog in the fight or skin in the game, you can only have a very myopic view of what the reality of predator vs. prey entails.

As majestic or cool looking a person thinks an animal is, there will ALWAYS be a balance that will take place in nature. Yes, hunting is part of that balance and so is eliminating threats to your animals as well.

Reintroducing animals back into original natural ranges is fine. But if there are people living in those areas they should be able to freely protect themselves and their animals.

You will NEVER be able to "control" them or monitor them! That is just an uninformed dumb take!

Nature always finds a way and wolves will find areas they can thrive.

But putting them in places that they immediately are a threat is at best, a most unintelligent decision by CPW. Especially when they initially lied about the details of which pack they took them from. (Why don't we hear any uproar about ripping these poor wolves away from their home range?) See what I did there?

They (bureaucrats) said they had not ever attacked cattle, well they 100% knew that they, in fact, had and denied it when asked about it and still moved them into cattle range in Colorado.

Any time that "government" is involved OR is the solution…… it is usually a bad idea from the onset and will be FUBAR before all is said and done!

As far as reimbursements….. such a bad idea!
Nobody is happy, nothing is fair, everybody loses when government gets involved!

My 2 cents……..
you can take it and go buy you a cup of coffee

BlueSmoke said:

---

Funny how the pro-wolf crowd all live unaffected lives in the cities

---

Yet these idiots want to eat their steaks, hamburgers, and pork chops and drink their Lattes with fresh whole milk… hey idiots, the wolf wants exactly what you want … cows and domestic animals. what % of these city dwellers are just plain ignorant and stupid? It's got to be pretty high. There are some smart citizens in the city but some of these idiots have zero clue where their food comes from

duddleysdraw88 said:

---

I don't think reimbursement by any one should happen!
Ranching has it's own inherent risks. That is something we are willing to accept.

But don't handcuff us and expect us to willingly agree with some bureaucrat's decision that directly threatens our herds.

They brought back a problem that no longer existed.

What should happen is allowing ranchers to protect their herds. And yes, that includes taking out and eliminating any and all predators!

---

This seems like the most logical approach. Only allow ranchers or their employees to legally take wolves on their property.

Someone with more knowledge, corrrct me if I'm wrong, but I am assuming/guessing wolves are smart, and they will eventually move out of certain areas in which they have become prey.

Relocating a pack of wolves this soon after re-introduction tells me it was a bad plan. Should of just left the wolves where they were and never put them in Colorado.

Wolves werenin Colorado before they "reintroduced" them. That's why it was a stupid plan. Bringing in an outside pack just needlessly created a political nightmare.

CivilEng08 said:

---

Wolves werenin Colorado before they "reintroduced" them. That's why it was a stupid plan. Bringing in an outside pack just needlessly created a political nightmare.

---

This right here. Ballot box biology and the governors ecoterrorist husband did something that was completely unnecessary.

I know quite a few people that run cows with the aim to break even to preserve the Ag exemption on their land. My grandfather has a few places leased and he did it on the side while he worked at Exxon. Once he retired back in the 90s it became his full time thing.

The best advice I heard from a rancher was to make sure you had land with mineral rights. Cattle are happier in the shadow of a pump jack.

dahouse said:

---

I know quite a few people that run cows with the aim to break even to preserve the Ag exemption on their land. My grandfather has a few places leased and he did it on the side while he worked at Exxon. Once he retired back in the 90s it became his full time thing.

The best advice I heard from a rancher was to make sure you had land with mineral rights. Cattle are happier in the shadow of a pump jack.

---

My father in law did the same with goats for many years. He probably never broke even, but whatever he spent on raising them was far less than what he would have spent on property taxes for full land value.

docb said:

---

Relocating a pack of wolves this soon after re-introduction tells me it was a bad plan. Should of just left the wolves where they were and never put them in Colorado.

---

Its almost like this was screamed from the rooftops and no one would listen.