CO - Gray Wolf Reintroduction eNews Edition

[Captain1967]

I looked briefly but can't find any hard numbers of pets killed by wolves. Bet it's a small amount, with lions and coyotes killing more. I know guys that have had lion dogs killed. But then again, they were in the wolves element. Wolves don't prowl the suburbs. 406muley

I wasn't talking about suburbs and
I doubt you would find much about pets, probably doesn't even get reported. They just disappear.
Just saying you bring a predator into an area that they haven't been in for years they will take any opportunity to survive.
I grew up on a ranch and have even seen the aftermath of coyotes taking down a cow while giving birth. Bad deal when it affects your livelihood.
Wolves are opportunists bigger stronger and hunt in larger packs cattle, sheep, goats and the like are easy prey for the Wolf. If you don't think so you're fooling yourself.

 

[406muley]

Actually there is a difference. They are there and the wolves are perceived as some beautiful entity that is magical disneylsnd character. Maybe we should include bears and lions to bring reality to the Disneyland perceptions. Of course we need to take the bib overalls off the bears first.

There is no difference. I can't speak for Colorado and what will go on there, but here in Montana black bears kill more elk calves than wolves or lions. Fact. 406muley

 

[Treeslug]

Maybe we should video a pack tearing an elk cow and calf apart alive with HD video and Bose sound for the evening news to "share" with the libs. Be nice to show the reward of their "work".

The libs do not watch television that shows the real truth of anything.

 

[406muley]

I wasn't talking about suburbs and
I doubt you would find much about pets, probably doesn't even get reported. They just disappear.
Just saying you bring a predator into an area that they haven't been in for years they will take any opportunity to survive.
I grew up on a ranch and have even seen the aftermath of coyotes taking down a cow while giving birth. Bad deal when it affects your livelihood.
Wolves are opportunists bigger stronger and hunt in larger packs cattle, sheep, goats and the like are easy prey for the Wolf. If you don't think so you're fooling yourself.

You won't find much about pets because it doesn't happen. Don't you think every wolf hater that lost Fido wouldn't speak up? You are fooling yourself. You said you are in Wyoming. I'm in Montana. You can get three elk tags I think. Think about it. 406muley

 

[skipglo]

Yea, well I hope they are very transparent on when and where they are going to( reintroduce) this parasite on the nerds we have built here in Colorado, nothing more inspiring to me than the moose reintroduction , then they do this. What the difference is we sportsman paid for the moose.

And you are going to be paying dearly for the Wolves!

 

[Boman]

This is just another TRAVESTY of Justice brought on by invironmentalists
that dont even live in Colorado. Was put on the Ballot for everyone to vote on when it only effects the Western Slope. Should have been decided on by the people that Raise livestock and the ones that buy Hunting License in the areas.

I believe I just saw that someone or some group is introducing an initiative to only release the wolves into the counties that voted for it. That would be fantastic but a long shot Im guessing

 

[Pinoniper]

This is not a thread confined to wolves or
hunting or guns. It's just not.

It might have started that way, but look at all the extraneous political opinion content that has been gleefully added and allowed to flourish. It's now filled with straight-up political rants, posing (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) as Wolf-hunting/guns.

In reality, it has become an open forum to bash Colorado's marijuana policy, education policy, our Governor, and our voters' decision to mandate a scientific approach to wolves, taking into account, by law, fair compensation for actual losses sustained by ranchers. With a few cheap shots thrown in at Liberals in general. So many opinions, and so few facts or scientific studies.

Many of you guys have come to Colorado because of our amazing public lands. And because of the amazing wildlife we have, which is so easily accessible as compared to, say, Alaska, or, Africa. And everyone with a lick of common sense can see that, obviously, most of you want to continue coming here. Fine, I have no problem with that.

But, I say, if you enjoy the wildlife, then you had bloody well better get behind protecting the habitat. And the migration corridors. And whatever else the professional biologists tell us the wildlife needs. Also, if you enjoy your access to it all, then you had better stand behind public ownership. Hunting should not, can not, must not, be reserved to eletists !! And that translates to government ownership. Plain and simple, end of story. Moreover, I would say that applies to all states, not just Colorado. And if We The People of Colorado say we want to restore some wolves as part of the wildlife in our state, then you need to respect the decision that we have made for our own state. Or hunt elsewhere. Period.

We all hear a lot of talk these days about privatization of public lands, or selling off public access, or privatization of lands held by the federal or state governments. Wouldn't it be great? Get a deal on 500 acres of formerly federal land? Just to one's self? Exclude everybody else but friends and family? That pernicious philosophy lead to the present state of affairs back East, where there is so precious little public access for hunting, and where those rare public lands are overrun, unless you either know somebody or pay somebody for access. And because of this, we all see so many peoples' interest in coming out west to hunt. There is no free lunch.

Y'all are verbally ****ing all over my state, from the Governor, to the decriminalized marijuana, to our voter initiatives, to the way we have conducted our democracy, to the comparisons with California (which are not about Wolf policy) and I must say I don't much enjoy or appreciate it.

There will be far more deer and elk killed in Colorado by motor vehicles in the coming years than by wolves. So please stop the pathetic use of this topic (wolves) to circumvent the rules here on political posting.

You like the New Hampshire or Ohio state of things? Fine, go find and pay for a hunt there. You prefer Alaska wildlife? Fine, block out a month and go there. (It's kind of been a dream of mine as well.)

In the 1930's, my great-grandfather expressed his opinion that Colorado was then getting overrun with people. The problem here is people, not wolves.

 

[Boman]

Pinonpiper, As a Colorado resident I will say and think whatever I like about my state, the government and laws that idiots like you pass and your fellow liberals convince the uninformed and uneducated to pass. Nobody is talking about not hunting Colorado. People who hunt Colorado know whats at stake for our wildlife when a apex predator like the wolf is introduced. The Colorado dept of wildlife did all the research and studied the affects and came to the conclusion that it wasnt feasible to introduce them. So instead people like you decide to make it a ballot box issue full well knowing that the populous liberal cities would have to votes to pass it. Colorado doesnt have the large wilderness areas like wyoming, montana, idaho to support wolves. And look at the problems theyre having. But no people like you will bury your heads in the sand and talk about how wolves wont impact anything and they belong here. And us Neanderthal thinkers will carry the burden of dealing with the aftermath. Get over yourself, you're not mr. Colorado and you **** sure dont speak for me.

 

[WeekendWarrior]

Pinonpiper, As a Colorado resident I will say and think whatever I like about my state, the government and laws that idiots like you pass and your fellow liberals convince the uninformed and uneducated to pass. Nobody is talking about not hunting Colorado. People who hunt Colorado know whats at stake for our wildlife when a apex predator like the wolf is introduced. The Colorado dept of wildlife did all the research and studied the affects and came to the conclusion that it wasnt feasible to introduce them. So instead people like you decide to make it a ballot box issue full well knowing that the populous liberal cities would have to votes to pass it. Colorado doesnt have the large wilderness areas like wyoming, montana, idaho to support wolves. And look at the problems theyre having. But no people like you will bury your heads in the sand and talk about how wolves wont impact anything and they belong here. And us Neanderthal thinkers will carry the burden of dealing with the aftermath. Get over yourself, you're not mr. Colorado and you **** sure dont speak for me.

The lack of wilderness areas to support wolves is such an important point to make. The wilderness we do have is at relatively high altitude, meaning in the winter, all the big game, and now wolves, will inhabit the valleys and ranch land in the winter, thus posing a threat to anyone who keeps live stock. Without proper wintering grounds, the mingling of wolves and people is a certainly, which will disproportionately hurt those who keep animals on their land.

I hear the other side of the argument in that this could increase the health of our elk and deer populations, maybe even reduce CWD as well since wolves tend to go after smaller and sick pray first. Given that ranchers would be compensated for any lost live stock, it does seem like a "fair" deal at the surface level, but as a tax payer, I don't want to support creating a problem that I don't currently have to pay for. And anyone who actually owns livestock and has dealt with wolves knows there is significantly more damage done than just loosing one animal at a time. Not only is it financially destructive to loose cattle, but fences get broken when cattle panic, cattle escape, general property damage occurs, and a fear stricken herd of remaining cattle all add up to a very bad deal for our ranchers in which getting a check to cover the cost of mending a fence and buying another head of cattle months after the fact doesn't fully compensate them for their actual loss.

At the end of the day, I feel like hunters are vastly under utilized. If the CPW wants more elk taken, I'd happily accept two cow/calf tags a year elk and two doe tags a year for deer, and I'd happily hunt from August into January or February to fill them both every year, or also hunt in the spring. If the CPW wanted Colorado's elk herds thinned like wolves would thin them, they could have more cow/calf/doe tags, and implement year round hunting, or at least an expanded season. And now instead of paying for CPW wo have hellis to track down wolves, and more of my tax dollars going to reimburse ranchers, you now have a scenario in which I get to hunt more which generates more revenue for the state and thus puts less burden on the tax payers while thining our elk and deer populations in more "natural way".

I support my taxes going to support our wildlife, but I expect the money to increase my fellow neighbor's ability to view animals, and my ability to hunt them. I'd rather see protected wildlife areas and underpasses being put in around the i-70 corridor to make it easier for these animals to reach their wintering grounds, or for building restrictions to stop the rich and clueless from continuing to destroy elk and deer habitat with their 10000sqft mountain castles that never get used.

Anyway, I agree with you. The actual data says that while it is "possible" to reintroduce wolves, it is a bad idea.

 

[Treeslug]

This is not a thread confined to wolves or
hunting or guns. It's just not.

It might have started that way, but look at all the extraneous political opinion content that has been gleefully added and allowed to flourish. It's now filled with straight-up political rants, posing (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) as Wolf-hunting/guns.

In reality, it has become an open forum to bash Colorado's marijuana policy, education policy, our Governor, and our voters' decision to mandate a scientific approach to wolves, taking into account, by law, fair compensation for actual losses sustained by ranchers. With a few cheap shots thrown in at Liberals in general. So many opinions, and so few facts or scientific studies.

Many of you guys have come to Colorado because of our amazing public lands. And because of the amazing wildlife we have, which is so easily accessible as compared to, say, Alaska, or, Africa. And everyone with a lick of common sense can see that, obviously, most of you want to continue coming here. Fine, I have no problem with that.

But, I say, if you enjoy the wildlife, then you had bloody well better get behind protecting the habitat. And the migration corridors. And whatever else the professional biologists tell us the wildlife needs. Also, if you enjoy your access to it all, then you had better stand behind public ownership. Hunting should not, can not, must not, be reserved to eletists !! And that translates to government ownership. Plain and simple, end of story. Moreover, I would say that applies to all states, not just Colorado. And if We The People of Colorado say we want to restore some wolves as part of the wildlife in our state, then you need to respect the decision that we have made for our own state. Or hunt elsewhere. Period.

We all hear a lot of talk these days about privatization of public lands, or selling off public access, or privatization of lands held by the federal or state governments. Wouldn't it be great? Get a deal on 500 acres of formerly federal land? Just to one's self? Exclude everybody else but friends and family? That pernicious philosophy lead to the present state of affairs back East, where there is so precious little public access for hunting, and where those rare public lands are overrun, unless you either know somebody or pay somebody for access. And because of this, we all see so many peoples' interest in coming out west to hunt. There is no free lunch.

Y'all are verbally ****ing all over my state, from the Governor, to the decriminalized marijuana, to our voter initiatives, to the way we have conducted our democracy, to the comparisons with California (which are not about Wolf policy) and I must say I don't much enjoy or appreciate it.

There will be far more deer and elk killed in Colorado by motor vehicles in the coming years than by wolves. So please stop the pathetic use of this topic (wolves) to circumvent the rules here on political posting.

You like the New Hampshire or Ohio state of things? Fine, go find and pay for a hunt there. You prefer Alaska wildlife? Fine, block out a month and go there. (It's kind of been a dream of mine as well.)

In the 1930's, my great-grandfather expressed his opinion that Colorado was then getting overrun with people. The problem here is people, not wolves.

You got one thing correct; there are waaay too many people in Colorado. The whole state could use some culling. If you like wolves so much, move someplace with a wolf population and enjoy yourself. And I dare say there is more heartfelt knowledge written on this thread than extraneous political opinion. I like a beautiful specimen of a wolf as much as anyone. They make fabulous trophies.

Your governor and his supporters should smoke your marijuana in the big cities and on the ski slopes and leave the wilderness to those who pay for it with hard-earned money that many save up for years for the opportunity. You are one person with one vote, and it is quite apparent that you have been outvoted on this subject.

It is bad enough that we have to live with liberal, college-indoctrinated so-called biologists that sit around reading periodicals and drinking coffee while they make laws concerning guns and hunting that do not affect them and their marijuana-smoking socialist friends. Another thing, you best be watchin' out, because California is moving to Colorado and your state is becoming Cali-rado right in front of your eyes.

 

[OldTimeHunter]

Becoming ? NO has BECOME.

 

[WYO300RUM]

Pinion nut juniper berry. Why not ask an intelligent hunter that has seen and delt with wolves from Wy., Mt., Id.,Wi., Mi., or anywhere in Alaska or Canada ? What do you know what wolves will do in Co. ? I agree they have their place but to let them over populate and loose fear of humans like the mt. lion in Ca. Is just pure BS. Regulated by how many breeding packs is bs. The antis with their sympathetic judges will stop all hunting until they are out of control . Been there. In Co. like Ca., The wildlife is managed by politicians. I know. I lived in Ca. more years than I'll will tell you. You will pay for Fed and state trappers to control. Your tax money. Not hunting dollars . Like many have realized, the anti hunters don't want anything to do with science or hunting to control heard/packs. They want wolves, coyotes, bears, cars, state trappers, etc. to control. And you will pay for all of it. Antis should watch on tv more african lion and hyena's ripping apart animals. It's nature. But they live in disneyland . Maybe you do, I don't know. Watch wolves take down a cow elk and eat just it's fetus and go on to the next. Game management , it's the answer . If the bleeding heart libs don't control your state already ...

 

[TRnCO]

"And whatever else the professional biologists tell us the wildlife needs."

Keeping on the wolf topic, you do realize that the PROFESSIONAL BIOLOGISTS of Colo. Parks and wildlife are 100% AGAINST the wolves being brought into the state, don't you?

SO if the PROFESSIONAL's have said it's not a good idea, why aren't you backing them?

 

[1mechanic]

I'm not all for reintroducing wolves just anywhere but they can improve the health of herds. As humans we don't want to have another predator to compete with, we're the ones that decimated the wolves to begin with. But the wolves were here first and if they're so detrimental to herds why did we have millions of buffalo we wiped out?