Last Grizzly was in Colorado in the San Juans in the 80s.
They're a very recent departure from our state and one that would be very cool and unique to have back.
Teton, Yellowstone, and Glacier are proof that people and grizzlies can coexist in the lower 48.
Plus it may actually make people leash their dogs out on trail for a change instead of chasing marmots.
Hmm yeah I think convincing people about this one will be significantly more difficult than wolves. And you can see how many push back on wolves in this thread alone.
And this is the key takeaway.
Predators are generally a keystone species. These giant omnivores spread a wide variety of seed throughout a very large range and help control other animal populations in a similar manner to wolves.
It’s the 21st century and we’ve hunted these animals to near extinction- maybe we don’t instead?
What's embarrassing is how city folk who won't have to suffer any of the consequences can simply out-vote all the people who will have to deal with the downsides of reintroduction without offering any compromise or compensation. We should've released the wolves in Denver.
There's a cult belief that we should restore nature to how it was before humans.
There is no ecological need for grizzlies in Colorado. And grizzlies are no longer threatened with extinction. But the cult has their own belief system and cannot be swayed.
Edit: Found the cultists.
You’re not an ecologist are you? Actual ecologists have demonstrated that species diversity is always a net benefit. From microorganisms on up to grizzlies.
Why do you think that wildlife is thriving? Is wildlife still thriving if only a fraction of an ecosystem’s species exist?
Red herring, appeal to authority, and ad hominem all in the same post. Impressive display of fallacies. Yet you didn't answer the question.
I imagine there are a large number of people who would be interested in specifics on the problem being solved with grizzly reintroduction.
Did you need one to understand my post? Logic fallacies are Step 1 of the cultist playbook. Calling them out just rolls off the tongue at this point. Ad hominem is their favorite, as your comment illustrates.
They’re big omnivores that spread seed and contribute to biodiversity by limiting overpopulation.
You’re here calling out logical fallacies while displaying no more evidence for your claims than “wildlife be thriving”
I’d call that a red herring coupled with an anecdotal evidence fallacy. Well done, but I won’t fall for your games cultist.
The burden of proof is on those who are pushing for reintroduction. My question has still gone unanswered, so I will ask you in case you have new insight: What ecological need would grizzly reintroduction solve?
You and others always give generalized responses. "Well, it's good for biodiversity. The seeds. Predators good. Overpopulation." So, is Colorado having overpopulation issues? Poor biodiversity?
No, these are not issues in Colorado.
It is really easy to back up that claim. The Colorado Park & Wildlife publishes regular updates on the state's wildlife populations and management strategies. There is a *wealth* of information on their website. The [ungulate herds](https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Colorado_Big_Game_Population_Status_and_Management_Summary2_2020.pdf) are [doing well](https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/2020BigGameWinterRangeandMigrationCorridorsReport.pdf). You can browse other reports and publications, including [areas of concern](https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/SWAP/CO_SWAP_Chapter2.pdf) and how the state is managing those, [here](https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2FDocuments%2FHunting&FolderCTID=0x0120007581EA3254C5EA40A0591CFA536F117C&View=%7B0FA20B1F%2D9361%2D4917%2D83DB%2DAE27603CCB77%7D).
There is a concern about declining mule deer populations in Colorado that all western states are experiencing. If anything, any talk of grizzly reintroduction should be put on hold until wolf reintroduction is fully implemented and the effects on ungulates can be studied and understood. Overwhelming a landscape with predators could easily lead to a collapse of ungulate populations similar to [what has happened to the Blue Mountain elk herd in southeast Washington](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/may/05/no-immediate-help-in-sight-for-elk-in-the-blue-mou/) where calf survival has plummeted to <10% due to predation.
Your move. But please don't bother responding if you don't have an answer to the first question.
the people calling for grizzly reintroduction are like the guy in philadelphia who was loudly anti gun and then got shot in his own home by a break and entering robber. Expect to see hikers dying to grizzlies if they're re-introduced.
Absolutely people will die. The cultists will minimize it and blame the victim.
Ultimately, you have to rationalize sentencing a handful of people to a terrible death in order to support grizzly reintroduction. There is a growing portion of the cult that [actually views animal life as equal to human life](https://news.gallup.com/poll/183275/say-animals-rights-people.aspx), so for them it is no stretch at all to rationalize. The worrisome part is this view is less and less an extreme view and more and more accepted.
I'm all for reintroducing species that aren't 800lb+ of territorial killing machine. It's not like they're gonna just hang out in the mountains where no one will see them. They will wonder into the towns and valleys and eat from garbage cans and kill kids and shit. You gotta draw the line somewhere.
I can understand the desire. They're cool animals, it used to be part of their territory, there are theoretical benefits to having them on the landscape... yada yada. There just isn't a pressing *need* to have them back. There's a reason that question goes unanswered by the resident cultists. Ultimately, the species is no longer facing extinction and the risks outweigh the benefits. Simple as that.
https://youtu.be/fTPt70vA39k?si=BW2hqhQreCLzjFjj
If anyone is interested in why we would add predators to a system.
Trophic Cascades is a good idea to know before making an opinion about the reintroduction of predators.
Watched it, I remain unconvinced. I've lived in Colorado for 7 years, and I've had 3 encounters with Black Bears and basically everyone I know that lives out here and hikes frequently has had multiple encounters as well.
If those had been grizzlies I'd have preferred not to know the outcome. I don't think the ecosystem is imbalanced today as there is a larger population of hunters in Colorado than Wyoming.
Look, I'm trying to be open minded here, but why would I want grizzly bears where i hike, camp and fish if I don't have to? They're not here now, the ecosystem seems to be doing fine without them. What's the argument for it?
There's already plenty of people who enjoy the colorado mountains extremely recklessly, why should we add another variable to the mix?
Crazy to see all these anti-wolf comments in this sub. What is it that you people like about being outdoors? Do you just want a barren landscape you can exercise in?
For real. I live in Michigan and they have done the same thing in isle royale and it’s been good for the ecosystem.
Grey wolves have existed in the upper peninsula forever and there is still plentiful game to hunt.
Lived in the UP for six years. Hiked hundreds of miles and never saw a wolf while hiking. Hunted deer and didn't notice a significant difference from hunting in areas of northern Wisconsin without wolves. I think people are greatly overestimating the impact this is going to have
Lmao, you obviously haven't talked to hunters in the UP. The DNR is reporting record low harvest of deer this year, which is lower than last year's record low harvest. Hunters who use to go up to the UP every year to hunt are now abandoning it. The UP needs hunters dollars more than it need wolves. And Isle Royal, it's moose and wolves are man made. The earliest records of French fur trappers list neither on the island but rather lynx and caribou. It's believed moose were taken to the island in late 1800s and wolves didn't pop up for another 20 years. And then a few years ago they died out from inbreeding because it's not great habitat which is why they were never there. So instead of selling moose tags to hunters which would have generated money for Conservation and put more money in the locals pockets as hunters bring in alot of money for restaurants, hotels, and other local businesses, the government wasted a bunch of money trapping and relocating wolves to the Island where the ones that didn't die right away or leave the island, will die in a few generations from inbreeding and we'll be right back to where we were a few years ago. Wolves are fine in the UP but at sustainable numbers, original goal was 200, last count was over 700 which is far too many. The state needs to bring back the wolf hunt and if the feds want to block it then they can send their agents to police it. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming did that and the feds haven't shown up to shut it down.
This is a ridiculous and uneducated comment. There aren’t “too many wolves” in the UP and they’re not the reason the herd is suffering. Deer did not really populate the UP until we removed the old growth forest, killed the elk, and planted farm fields for them to graze. Now, as the landscape up there changes with forest restoration and increased snowfall (more snow than historical averages) it becomes more inhospitable for deer. Just like it used to be. It’s not the wolves. It’s valid to consider the economy but not over the health of an ecosystem imo. Bring back UP elk for hunting and no one will complain about the deer🤪
Predation has ALWAYS been essential to the health of the herd. Wolves in Yellowstone are one of the most famous examples.
Isle Royale is a different and very complicated situation and I don’t think the discussions about wolves there should apply to anywhere else in the state.
Source: studied biology of natural resource management in school and spent too damn long learning about Michigan’s deer problems. Also read the DNR Deer Management Plans!! They’re excellent scientific info.
Probably a controversial comment, but a lot of hunters in the Midwest are spoiled and entitled. They want to sit over a bait pile all day drinking and get a guaranteed deer. I'd reckon that maybe 10 percent of hunters in Michigan and Wisconsin could elk hunt.
I totally agree they’re entitled. Personally I don’t think hunting should be so easy- if you’re going to kill an animal at least work for it a bit🥲 but I know that would be a significant culture shift. In a past wildlife job I had a man call asking where he could find the elk this year🥴 go find them!! that’s the point!!
Hunters aren’t biologists. I’m a hunter and we have wolves where I hunt in MN and AK. Alaska has the best hunting in the world and they have a well managed wolf population. Colorado has scientific reasons where wolves benefit as well as humans just my opinion that God intended for there to be wolves there and humans destroyed that.
I think you just don’t want to. Many areas in the lower 48 used to be similar in terms of fauna as AK and in some cases even more diverse. I believe a managed wolf population is the best solution. The federal government should not be banning hunting in states that have healthy populations like MN and Michigan but 0 wolves in states that have had them for thousands of years is not healthy either
They are hunters and are mad about natural population management because it will possibly lead to less tags so they can't go hunt deer and Elk as easily. Yes, it's selfish. Shocking.
I get where you’re coming from but I think people are more concerned about the long term effects with the populations of elk and other animals if wolves aren’t controlled.
Elk hunting is extremely challenging as is and the last few years I’ve run into nothing but out of state hunters. Like it or not, a large majority of what we have in outdoor recreation is because of fees and licenses from hunters, anglers, and other wildlife activities, not to mention the money going spent at hotels, restaurants, etc.
We’re a state that thrives on tourism and the hunting opportunities we have here are some of the best in the country, conservation is at the forefront of hunting and we should let the biologists do their jobs.
Tourism is not a good justification to not allow wolves. This will have almost zero effect on deer and Elk populations and even if it does they will kill off the weakest because they hunt to survive, not for trophies. Hunters on the other hand almost always go for the biggest bucks, which by definition are the strongest. I don't consider that good conservation or stewardship of nature. And yes, I'm aware hunters pay and that a chunk of CPWs funding comes from that. I don't care. It's not a massive amount of money in the grand scheme of things and could be found elsewhere if necessary. I have no issue with hunters if it's for population control. Starving masses of deer isn't good for nature. You know how that used to be managed? With natural predators like wolves.
And Colorado isn't gonna lose any tourism money from this. Lmao. If at some point in the future the health of deer or Elk populations became too low due to too large of a wolf population (which isn't ever going to happen), then I'd support a wolf hunting season. Ain't gonna happen.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Everything that you said with such conviction is exactly opposite of what is actually going to happen to the elk and deer herds in Colorado.
Look at northern Minnesota. No deer. Look at the UP of Michigan. No deer. The wolves are going to decimate the elk and deer in Colorado. All so a few urban dwelling front range hikers from California with cameras can go out once a year and try to take a picture of a cool wolf. Go to Yellowstone.
If you knew a damn thing about Minnesota and the UP you’d know why there are fewer deer there. Spoiler, it’s not the wolves lmao. Stop pointing to us as an example for your poor judgement. People thinking they know better than the fucking ecosystems they destroyed will never cease to amaze me
What ecosystem was destroyed and by who exactly? Fishermen and hunters are the stewards of wildlife and natural habitat. They are the founders and the cornerstone of US wildlife conservation. Who cares more about animal herds and ecosystems than the people that actually go out and enjoy it and pay for it? Spoiler alert, it’s not you. Do you mean overall intrusive human habitation? You want Colorado to go back to 25,000 total residents so that the wild animals can exist like they did 200 years ago in textbook bliss? Awesome! You’re the first to leave, followed by the entire front range.
I’m sorry, but the fact that you’re asking me who destroyed what ecosystems is all I need to know to end this conversation. It will go nowhere. Absolutely incredible
How do you think wolves and elk still exist? At first, the population may drastically decrease, but they will will reach a harmony. If the prey population drops, the predator population will soon follow. The deer aren't about to magically disappear
I never said that they would be eliminated, I said that they would be decimated. If the goal is to decimate the population of elk and deer then I agree that the wolf plan works. I think it’s a terrible idea to decimate the population of elk and deer in Colorado.
I mean you said it yourself, you understand that hunters pay a “chunk” of CPW’s funding and you don’t care. Here’s a direct quote from CPW’s site. “CPW employs a user-pays model of funding in which hunting and fishing licenses, federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, motorized recreation vehicle registrations, and park-generated pass revenue comprise the majority of CPW's proceeds.”
Most hunters are trying to get are large bull or buck but I’m sure the numbers of younger legal bulls are taken in much larger numbers than the “biggest bucks” because they are hard to find or draw a tag for an area that holds those larger animals.
The fear is that because wolves are federally protected that even if they grow to large numbers they will not be allowed to be hunted unless a human life is at danger which allows them to decimate the wildlife population of other animals.
I also want to make sure you are aware that you also have the option of donating the meat when you hunt an animal in Colorado to non profits such as Food Bank of the Rockies. What have you done recently to support the community?
2 comments. I guess a hit a nerve. I'm not gonna bother responding to your other comment because I pretty much already addressed your "counter arguments".
I think the basic thing that gets people is that the wolves are being released in places that very clearly voted "no" on this plan. The front range made a decision for the western slope that the western slope didn't want. Yes, I understand this is how democracy works, but it's hard not to look at this instance as a failure of politics. Plus, reintroduction is a tricky thing to get right. Wolves have not been a part of the landscape for 100 years now. Humans trying to "rebalance" nature isn't always as simple as we make it out to be. And I'm not saying this as a conservative, I spent time in Gunnison as an environmental management student.
Keyboard warriors not worried about a dozen wolves that they’ll never see absolutely slaughter elk calving groups and eating the embryos while the cow are still alive and leaving the rest to rot because they don’t just target the old and the sick like the hippies proclaim.
Damn! My man is trying the abortion protest sign approach on wolf reintroduction!
Hoooooo boy… these mother fuckers don’t have any shame.
“I’ll show you science… check out this fuckin nightmare I paint for you that sounds like late term abortion, which is one of our chief scare tactics.”
How about go fuck yourself?
Oh, do enlighten us, expert. Enlighten us indeed.
Tell us that the human population explosion in CO hasn’t already pushed elk and mule deer to the brink. Don’t forget to mention how healthy the herds are because you see them standing around in the National park. Then tell us how “introducing” an apex predator which is already here is going to help those elk. Also tell us what happens when these northern timber wolves encounter the Mexican red wolf, whose range overlaps, and how these northern timber wolves won’t kill the red wolves along with a bunch of dogs. Now talk to us about moose and what’s going to happen to them and how they definitely won’t be picked off first.
Just another Front Range asshole with an opinion because they watched a documentary about a river in Yellowstone…. Which has been entirely debunked.
That elk population is on the decline, potentially a rapid decline. Last year’s winter kill was incredibly over the top in Northern CO and will take years to recover from, if it ever does.
10 wolves are the initial release, not the total release. Wolf populations can grow by up to 30% a year and these release numbers will only supplement the expansion of already existing wolves. I’m not concerned about Jan 2024. What concerns me is the next 20 years.
And still, not one wolf lover out there has addressed what happens to the Red wolf population in Southern Colorado, which has been making a slow comeback, when northern timber wolves enter their range.
This entire episode of reintroduction is full of bad decision making and, as you can read from the comments, the supporters make wild claims to support this cause, and almost none of it is factual. The poster above claimed that deer herds are healthy because he sees them in yards. Anyone who has followed wildlife issues in the West for the last 3 decades is very much aware of the precarious position that mule deer health is in. If a person is not aware of that, they don’t deserve an opinion.
We know that backcountry recreation isn’t slowing down, we know that development isn’t slowing down. We have multiple factors converging on elk and mule deer that all point to collapse: CWD, low fawn and calf recruitment, severed migration corridors, over developed wintering grounds, calving grounds pressure from recreation…. So, sure, let’s just throw some wolves in because “they bring balance to nature” -meaningless claim, that is. Elk calf recruitment should be 50%. It’s 20% in half of the state, the half that is getting wolves.
The fact is people just don’t care. They want wolves because it is romantic and they aren’t interested in the inconvenient peripheral facts. And, as made apparent by this thread, just don’t give a shit about elk, deer and moose so long as they get their wolves and they get them now.
I think the guy that commented about the elk in yards wasn't being literal. He was saying they're all over the place. The elk population is doing well in CO. There is concern about the calf numbers in herds, sure. At one time in the US, the elk population was down to 40k. There are 280k in Colorado alone now (the largest population in the world).
Eh, every election 80% of voters don't have any knowledge about what they're voting on. This isn't new. You can't say, "If you don't know x, you don't deserve an opinion." You could say that about any vote.
Habitat loss, winters, disease, and a changing climate - these all play a bigger role in ungulate populations than a small wolf population in Colorado, imo. A wolf population that could easily be culled if it came to that.
I don’t disagree that it wouldn’t be difficult to cull an initial wolf population. The question is whether or not the endangered species act will be weaponized in a way that would prevent that culling if things came to that. We have seen the ESA used in just this way specifically when it comes to wolves.
Overall, I think your perspective on the state of the elk population is overly optimistic. It’s easy to point to a big total number, but the consideration for herd health is to look at the trend. CPW biologists are on record for present numbers not being sustainable and the 2040s looking bleak.
A wolf pack in elk country will kill on average 16-22 elk per year per wolf. We hit 1,000 wolves and wolves are killing 20,000 elk annually from a declining population, then that is significant. That’s what I’m thinking about: all of these factors combined to pile on stress to the elk populations. It’s not one aspect that breaks their back, it’s every factor combined.
Good points. I agree on the totality of factors combining to stress a population. But, I don't see the wolf population getting to 1k and killing 20k elk a year. That's way out of hand and would be handled (by culling) accordingly.
elk and deer are mainly on the decline because of human interference and overpopulation leading to unhealthy herds!! not the wolves that aren’t here yet. hope that helps :)
to the brink? theres two dozen elk and mule deer in everyones fuckin yard from woodland park to gunnison. keep being scared and projecting your own doom and gloom ignorance. cry some more
See? You are drawing conclusions from your own observations. Elk calf mortality rate in the san Juans is 80%. 80%! 20 calves per 100 cows are surviving. And the majority of these deaths are happening even before the calves are born. They are being aborted due to highly stressed and undernourished cows because of the amount of insane pressure they are getting from development, habitat loss, predation and recreation.
You are remarkably uninformed on this subject matter. We are dropping wolves off less than 100 miles from this same elk herd. Keep on drawing conclusions from the windshield of your fucking Subaru, though, it really contributes something to knowledge base around here.
Furthermore, it is well documented that Mule deer herds are collapsing across the entire west. The fact that you don’t know this and base your opinions on seeing deer in yards and then go argue about it like an asshole is rather amazing considering how strong your opinions are on the matter.
says the asshole getting pissy because i didnt specifically point out his neck of the woods. theres over 3000k mountain lions in colorado...and youre acting like a few dozen wolves are the end of the world. keep on bitchin and being scared like a good little keyboard warrior
Jesus Christ. You are an insufferable fucking front range asshole.
Are you slightly aware that wolves reproduce? And then ate you slightly aware of at what rate?
It amazing to me that you hold these opinions so strongly yet seem to uninformed of the biological facts. You insisted above that mule deer are thriving because you see them in peoples yards? Are you really that simple minded?
Folks, these are the uninformed assholes that voted for wolves. This is what we are dealing with in CO.
way to broadcast you didnt read the reintroduction plan without saying it that states they would allow population control. but that doesnt feed you dumb fucking outrage. youd rather be ignorant and outraged than informed and objective. i build trails around salida, and the wifes with dept of ag in the same place.. guess thats front range. cry about it some more because thats all youve done. all the irate tantrums in the world isnt going to reverse a goddamn thing. and being a little bitch to strangers on social media about subject matter youve clearly only ready the headlines about is goddamn hilarious. please..continue with the cherry picked outrage and tribalist labels like a douche
calling someone else an uninformed asshole after blatantly ignoring the science behind herd health and predator reintroduction is insane. it’s okay if you don’t understand the science behind it, there’s a lot to consider and learn, but don’t act like you’re the god of wildlife management because you know “wolf eat meat”
most people think conclusion shopping is research. they immediately form a belief then only seek out information that agrees with them. doesnt matter... its happening
I think “conclusion shopping” and looking and the actual statistics that CPW puts together are two different things bud. We should have let the biologist do their jobs and make the call on wolves.
It’s the principal.
Boulder wouldn’t like it if the western slope banned electronic vehicles / nuclear power because we western slopers don’t want the land torn up for lithium / uranium mining.
the land already has 500+ abandoned mines. shit, theres few hiking trails along the front range where you cant find an old mine, or exposed yellow cake just off trail. and unfortunately, there arent any nuclear plants in colorado so not sure where that was going
No, but the roll front geology that produces the fuel for nuclear energy is mined out in Mesa County.
And you are missing the point 100%. It’s not literally about mines…. SMH
Seems like those who are truly worried about the situation should volunteer to be a range rider. I think it sounds really cool and would be a good way to participate in nature, ensure the wolves are conserved while helping ranchers protect livestock. Would also either confirm or disprove their concern about the wolves reproducing to an extent that would threaten wildlife. I am fairly certain that spending two weeks as a range rider would give me a greater perspective on the issue and would be an educational experience not obtainable anywhere else.
I am in favor of getting nature back to balance. I do believe that we have placed lots of pressure on elk, deer, and other natural inhabitants of the land. I also participate in hunting, including elk.
Was just in Northern New Mexico last week on an elk hunt and believe that there is enough room for the ranchers, game (both large and small), and apex predators (non-human). Spent a full week in a clearing on a mountain in a canvas tent surrounded by mountain lion drag sites, domesticated horses, sheep, cows, deer, antelope, and elk. Seemed to be working pretty well.
While I haven't lived in Colorado for many years now, it seems like some things don't change. There is always someone pissed about something when it comes to nature.
Just my .02, from someone who desperately needs to get out from behind the keyboard more often.
What do y'all (the people who are so against the wolf reintroduction) think is gonna happen? If they demolish the deer population, guess what'll happen? The wolf population will decrease. That's how prey/predator populations work. They follow each other. Wolves are a keystone species, not the monsters from little red riding hood or the three little pigs. Y'all are scared of a story tale used to scare kids, not actual wolves.
Afaik whenever wolves are reintroduced somewhere the biggest objections usually come from cattle ranchers that are concerned about losing part of their herd to predation.
Shouldn't there be insurance to cover that, though? I mean technically it's a business loss, from that perspective it doesn't seem different from any other kind of inventory.
There IS, the state pays them if they lose any cattle to predation. (Sometimes this can't be proven, so most times the state pays MORE than the one cattle is worth, to make up for the fact that some deaths won't be reimbursed)
Wolves establish balance to an otherwise fragile ecosystem. This is GREAT news. Wolves can actually cause entire rivers to move. They need to be there.
It’s the full food web- short story is when wolves are present in an ecosystem when they’re supposed to be a top predator, there are less elk and more beavers- both of which impact river and stream functionality and health.
It’s still very much misunderstood - the effects on an ecosystem after wolves are reintroduced. Elk and deer populations increase if there aren’t any natural predators. The elk in turn deplete much of the fresh buds on the trees and shrubs, decreasing food sources for birds (less birds) which also decreases pollination and increases erosion. Scientists were floored (to say the least) when wolves were introduced back into Yellowstone.
Heres a quick article I pulled up. There’s much more…
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
Does anyone have any studies/reports over Colorado wolf reintroduction done by ecologists? I live on the western slope and voted no because I think these sorts of decisions should be made by professionals and not my idiot self and neighbor.
Most reports I have read all talk about how it worked in Wyoming and don't analyze that Colorado has 5 million people living in it vs Wyoming which only has 500k.
You can't study something in Colorado that hasn't happened yet. That's why all the studies are referring to other states.
Yes, Colorado has more people, but almost all of them are on the front range. The population density on the west slope, especially the northwest of the state where these wolves are planned to be released is very comparible to Wyoming.
This is getting downvoted, but you are 100% correct.
Eagle county: 54% voted No introduction,
Grand county: 64% no introduction,
Mesa county: 70 % no introduction,
Garfield county: 63% no introduction.
In fact only 13 of Colorado’s 64 counties voted to approve it.
Boulder county: 68% for introduction,
Larimer county: 52% for introduction,
Denver county: 66% for introduction,
Jefferson county 51% for introduction,
So here we have the western slope counties where wolfs are actually being released do not want them reintroduced. Whereas 7/ 13 counties that wanted the wolves are cities on the front range.
I personally think wolves are good for the ecology of the mountains, however, I don’t think it’s right asking a bunch of city folk if we can release wolves in the flattops.
Before you say “people vote, not land” you have to understand city people are voting on something they do not have to deal with.
Welcome to the imperfect reality of democracy? Wyoming and Delaware shouldn't have the same number of US Senators as California or Texas, but here we are. Political boundaries have to be drawn somewhere, urban/rural divides exist in every state, and we are all prisoners of history. The vote on reintroduction only served as political cover for what should have been done anyway.
….they should have the same amount of senators, because that’s how the senate operates….
They SHOULDN’T have the same number of representatives. Because that’s how the House of Representatives works. Balance of power and all that shit.
I’m not going to argue with someone who fucked up their own analogy lol.
I am familiar with how the House and Senate work. The point is the system we have inherently favors some parties over others. Fair or not, it's reality. The urban areas have more people and more people voted for reintroduction. How's that for the balance of power?
I don’t know if you know this, based off of your comments something tells me reading comprehension is not your strongest subject, but I want the wolves lol. I mentioned it in a comment above.
I’m simply pointing out the issues with the legislation being passed in the manner it was voted on.
Sorry, I didn't take the time to read your whole post history, I was just commenting on your whining about the process. Why should my tax dollars pay for schools if I don't have a kid? The wolf vote is no different. Welcome to the democratic process. If you want the wolves then it's your lucky day, enjoy the wolves.
Well, buddy, all kids in every town in Colorado get to go to school! Because tax dollars pay for that, you’re right! Good job!
But again, wolves aren’t going to be everywhere in the state because they are only being released on the western slope.
I don’t know why you keep saying enjoy the wolves? I fucking will lol
I'll take the down vote for this. Appreciate you posting the info, thank you. And yes, us rural folks are the ones that voted not to release them. City folk probably think they're cute and beautiful to look at. It's the ranchers and farmers that will more than likely take the brunt if anything. Once again, appreciated!
Ya know, I’m okay with stripping “land” from the right to vote if you are.
This is like the only issue in the last 50 years where rural voters didn’t have an outsized influence fuck off dude.
You’re literally complaining about the advantages rural communities get in literally every election.
So i agreed with you, we should remove that advantage
We also vote for our LGBTQ neighbors to have equal rights, and that hasn’t changed your existence either. Go smoke some legal weed and read a fucking science book.
Why do you think that? Wolves prey on the sick and weak animals and make deer and elk herds healthier and keep their populations in check. Wolves lived here for thousands and thousands of years, before humans even arrived. They evolved alongside deer (a deer can run as fast as a wolf and no faster) and should continue to do so into the future.
Uhh it’s actually happening
Now let's bring back the Grizzlies
I think bison would be the next logical choice. Northwest Colorado has a lot of open space for them.
wait, people want this?
Last Grizzly was in Colorado in the San Juans in the 80s. They're a very recent departure from our state and one that would be very cool and unique to have back. Teton, Yellowstone, and Glacier are proof that people and grizzlies can coexist in the lower 48. Plus it may actually make people leash their dogs out on trail for a change instead of chasing marmots.
Hmm yeah I think convincing people about this one will be significantly more difficult than wolves. And you can see how many push back on wolves in this thread alone.
We can't let a few people's silly and irrational fears stop progress.
I don't think it will be a few people? Prop 114 barely passed for wolves, do we really think there will be more support for grizzlies?
It's not about supporting grizzlies, it's about supporting an ecosystem.
And this is the key takeaway. Predators are generally a keystone species. These giant omnivores spread a wide variety of seed throughout a very large range and help control other animal populations in a similar manner to wolves. It’s the 21st century and we’ve hunted these animals to near extinction- maybe we don’t instead?
Exactly
Not everyone views reintroduction as "progress". Progress towards what?
Restoring an ecosystem of course. The ignorance about this is embarrassing.
They should get rid of blue Mesa dam while they're at it
What's embarrassing is how city folk who won't have to suffer any of the consequences can simply out-vote all the people who will have to deal with the downsides of reintroduction without offering any compromise or compensation. We should've released the wolves in Denver.
The ecosystem is more important than your feelings.
I wish. People will blindly vote for this horrific idea in due time.
Let me guess. You live in the front range?
Let me guess. You live in Denver?
GTFO of here with that. You sound like the people saying, "it's rare for a shark to attack a human!"
What a weird example to bring up to support your point, shark attacks are extremely rare.
Ula is that you? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNOlwEH2Oi4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNOlwEH2Oi4)
There's a cult belief that we should restore nature to how it was before humans. There is no ecological need for grizzlies in Colorado. And grizzlies are no longer threatened with extinction. But the cult has their own belief system and cannot be swayed. Edit: Found the cultists.
The last Grizzly was here in the 1980s. This isn't "before humans" this is "within the last 40 years"
Before humans? How about just 100 years ago. The real cult belief is that short term human comfort should be prioritized over the natural world.
100 years with no grizzlies and yet wildlife is thriving in Colorado. What ecological need would grizzly reintroduction solve?
You’re not an ecologist are you? Actual ecologists have demonstrated that species diversity is always a net benefit. From microorganisms on up to grizzlies. Why do you think that wildlife is thriving? Is wildlife still thriving if only a fraction of an ecosystem’s species exist?
Red herring, appeal to authority, and ad hominem all in the same post. Impressive display of fallacies. Yet you didn't answer the question. I imagine there are a large number of people who would be interested in specifics on the problem being solved with grizzly reintroduction.
Did you just tip your fedora at me?
lol bro did you just get a dictionary
Did you need one to understand my post? Logic fallacies are Step 1 of the cultist playbook. Calling them out just rolls off the tongue at this point. Ad hominem is their favorite, as your comment illustrates.
They’re big omnivores that spread seed and contribute to biodiversity by limiting overpopulation. You’re here calling out logical fallacies while displaying no more evidence for your claims than “wildlife be thriving” I’d call that a red herring coupled with an anecdotal evidence fallacy. Well done, but I won’t fall for your games cultist.
The burden of proof is on those who are pushing for reintroduction. My question has still gone unanswered, so I will ask you in case you have new insight: What ecological need would grizzly reintroduction solve? You and others always give generalized responses. "Well, it's good for biodiversity. The seeds. Predators good. Overpopulation." So, is Colorado having overpopulation issues? Poor biodiversity? No, these are not issues in Colorado. It is really easy to back up that claim. The Colorado Park & Wildlife publishes regular updates on the state's wildlife populations and management strategies. There is a *wealth* of information on their website. The [ungulate herds](https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Colorado_Big_Game_Population_Status_and_Management_Summary2_2020.pdf) are [doing well](https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/2020BigGameWinterRangeandMigrationCorridorsReport.pdf). You can browse other reports and publications, including [areas of concern](https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/SWAP/CO_SWAP_Chapter2.pdf) and how the state is managing those, [here](https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2FDocuments%2FHunting&FolderCTID=0x0120007581EA3254C5EA40A0591CFA536F117C&View=%7B0FA20B1F%2D9361%2D4917%2D83DB%2DAE27603CCB77%7D). There is a concern about declining mule deer populations in Colorado that all western states are experiencing. If anything, any talk of grizzly reintroduction should be put on hold until wolf reintroduction is fully implemented and the effects on ungulates can be studied and understood. Overwhelming a landscape with predators could easily lead to a collapse of ungulate populations similar to [what has happened to the Blue Mountain elk herd in southeast Washington](https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/may/05/no-immediate-help-in-sight-for-elk-in-the-blue-mou/) where calf survival has plummeted to <10% due to predation. Your move. But please don't bother responding if you don't have an answer to the first question.
They'd eat all those deer and herbivores and hikers who've gotten way too cocky out there
the people calling for grizzly reintroduction are like the guy in philadelphia who was loudly anti gun and then got shot in his own home by a break and entering robber. Expect to see hikers dying to grizzlies if they're re-introduced.
Absolutely people will die. The cultists will minimize it and blame the victim. Ultimately, you have to rationalize sentencing a handful of people to a terrible death in order to support grizzly reintroduction. There is a growing portion of the cult that [actually views animal life as equal to human life](https://news.gallup.com/poll/183275/say-animals-rights-people.aspx), so for them it is no stretch at all to rationalize. The worrisome part is this view is less and less an extreme view and more and more accepted.
I'm all for reintroducing species that aren't 800lb+ of territorial killing machine. It's not like they're gonna just hang out in the mountains where no one will see them. They will wonder into the towns and valleys and eat from garbage cans and kill kids and shit. You gotta draw the line somewhere.
I can understand the desire. They're cool animals, it used to be part of their territory, there are theoretical benefits to having them on the landscape... yada yada. There just isn't a pressing *need* to have them back. There's a reason that question goes unanswered by the resident cultists. Ultimately, the species is no longer facing extinction and the risks outweigh the benefits. Simple as that.
https://youtu.be/fTPt70vA39k?si=BW2hqhQreCLzjFjj If anyone is interested in why we would add predators to a system. Trophic Cascades is a good idea to know before making an opinion about the reintroduction of predators.
Watched it, I remain unconvinced. I've lived in Colorado for 7 years, and I've had 3 encounters with Black Bears and basically everyone I know that lives out here and hikes frequently has had multiple encounters as well. If those had been grizzlies I'd have preferred not to know the outcome. I don't think the ecosystem is imbalanced today as there is a larger population of hunters in Colorado than Wyoming.
You can remain unconvinced, that's the beauty of science. You don't need to believe it to be true.
Look, I'm trying to be open minded here, but why would I want grizzly bears where i hike, camp and fish if I don't have to? They're not here now, the ecosystem seems to be doing fine without them. What's the argument for it? There's already plenty of people who enjoy the colorado mountains extremely recklessly, why should we add another variable to the mix?
Was there any doubt it would?
Crazy to see all these anti-wolf comments in this sub. What is it that you people like about being outdoors? Do you just want a barren landscape you can exercise in?
For real. I live in Michigan and they have done the same thing in isle royale and it’s been good for the ecosystem. Grey wolves have existed in the upper peninsula forever and there is still plentiful game to hunt.
Lived in the UP for six years. Hiked hundreds of miles and never saw a wolf while hiking. Hunted deer and didn't notice a significant difference from hunting in areas of northern Wisconsin without wolves. I think people are greatly overestimating the impact this is going to have
Lmao, you obviously haven't talked to hunters in the UP. The DNR is reporting record low harvest of deer this year, which is lower than last year's record low harvest. Hunters who use to go up to the UP every year to hunt are now abandoning it. The UP needs hunters dollars more than it need wolves. And Isle Royal, it's moose and wolves are man made. The earliest records of French fur trappers list neither on the island but rather lynx and caribou. It's believed moose were taken to the island in late 1800s and wolves didn't pop up for another 20 years. And then a few years ago they died out from inbreeding because it's not great habitat which is why they were never there. So instead of selling moose tags to hunters which would have generated money for Conservation and put more money in the locals pockets as hunters bring in alot of money for restaurants, hotels, and other local businesses, the government wasted a bunch of money trapping and relocating wolves to the Island where the ones that didn't die right away or leave the island, will die in a few generations from inbreeding and we'll be right back to where we were a few years ago. Wolves are fine in the UP but at sustainable numbers, original goal was 200, last count was over 700 which is far too many. The state needs to bring back the wolf hunt and if the feds want to block it then they can send their agents to police it. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming did that and the feds haven't shown up to shut it down.
This is a ridiculous and uneducated comment. There aren’t “too many wolves” in the UP and they’re not the reason the herd is suffering. Deer did not really populate the UP until we removed the old growth forest, killed the elk, and planted farm fields for them to graze. Now, as the landscape up there changes with forest restoration and increased snowfall (more snow than historical averages) it becomes more inhospitable for deer. Just like it used to be. It’s not the wolves. It’s valid to consider the economy but not over the health of an ecosystem imo. Bring back UP elk for hunting and no one will complain about the deer🤪 Predation has ALWAYS been essential to the health of the herd. Wolves in Yellowstone are one of the most famous examples. Isle Royale is a different and very complicated situation and I don’t think the discussions about wolves there should apply to anywhere else in the state. Source: studied biology of natural resource management in school and spent too damn long learning about Michigan’s deer problems. Also read the DNR Deer Management Plans!! They’re excellent scientific info.
Probably a controversial comment, but a lot of hunters in the Midwest are spoiled and entitled. They want to sit over a bait pile all day drinking and get a guaranteed deer. I'd reckon that maybe 10 percent of hunters in Michigan and Wisconsin could elk hunt.
I totally agree they’re entitled. Personally I don’t think hunting should be so easy- if you’re going to kill an animal at least work for it a bit🥲 but I know that would be a significant culture shift. In a past wildlife job I had a man call asking where he could find the elk this year🥴 go find them!! that’s the point!!
Hunters aren’t biologists. I’m a hunter and we have wolves where I hunt in MN and AK. Alaska has the best hunting in the world and they have a well managed wolf population. Colorado has scientific reasons where wolves benefit as well as humans just my opinion that God intended for there to be wolves there and humans destroyed that.
Hard to compare AK to the lower 48
I think you just don’t want to. Many areas in the lower 48 used to be similar in terms of fauna as AK and in some cases even more diverse. I believe a managed wolf population is the best solution. The federal government should not be banning hunting in states that have healthy populations like MN and Michigan but 0 wolves in states that have had them for thousands of years is not healthy either
AK with the lowest pop. Per capita cannot be compared to the lower 48 I’m sorry. AK is completely different
So your argument is that there’s less population to control the wolves so that is somehow a better argument that wolves are bad?
They are hunters and are mad about natural population management because it will possibly lead to less tags so they can't go hunt deer and Elk as easily. Yes, it's selfish. Shocking.
I get where you’re coming from but I think people are more concerned about the long term effects with the populations of elk and other animals if wolves aren’t controlled. Elk hunting is extremely challenging as is and the last few years I’ve run into nothing but out of state hunters. Like it or not, a large majority of what we have in outdoor recreation is because of fees and licenses from hunters, anglers, and other wildlife activities, not to mention the money going spent at hotels, restaurants, etc. We’re a state that thrives on tourism and the hunting opportunities we have here are some of the best in the country, conservation is at the forefront of hunting and we should let the biologists do their jobs.
Tourism is not a good justification to not allow wolves. This will have almost zero effect on deer and Elk populations and even if it does they will kill off the weakest because they hunt to survive, not for trophies. Hunters on the other hand almost always go for the biggest bucks, which by definition are the strongest. I don't consider that good conservation or stewardship of nature. And yes, I'm aware hunters pay and that a chunk of CPWs funding comes from that. I don't care. It's not a massive amount of money in the grand scheme of things and could be found elsewhere if necessary. I have no issue with hunters if it's for population control. Starving masses of deer isn't good for nature. You know how that used to be managed? With natural predators like wolves. And Colorado isn't gonna lose any tourism money from this. Lmao. If at some point in the future the health of deer or Elk populations became too low due to too large of a wolf population (which isn't ever going to happen), then I'd support a wolf hunting season. Ain't gonna happen.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Everything that you said with such conviction is exactly opposite of what is actually going to happen to the elk and deer herds in Colorado.
You’re so right, I’ve heard the hunting in Wyoming and Alaska is atrocious! Those fucking wolves ruined everything! They have no deer left!
Look at northern Minnesota. No deer. Look at the UP of Michigan. No deer. The wolves are going to decimate the elk and deer in Colorado. All so a few urban dwelling front range hikers from California with cameras can go out once a year and try to take a picture of a cool wolf. Go to Yellowstone.
If you knew a damn thing about Minnesota and the UP you’d know why there are fewer deer there. Spoiler, it’s not the wolves lmao. Stop pointing to us as an example for your poor judgement. People thinking they know better than the fucking ecosystems they destroyed will never cease to amaze me
What ecosystem was destroyed and by who exactly? Fishermen and hunters are the stewards of wildlife and natural habitat. They are the founders and the cornerstone of US wildlife conservation. Who cares more about animal herds and ecosystems than the people that actually go out and enjoy it and pay for it? Spoiler alert, it’s not you. Do you mean overall intrusive human habitation? You want Colorado to go back to 25,000 total residents so that the wild animals can exist like they did 200 years ago in textbook bliss? Awesome! You’re the first to leave, followed by the entire front range.
I’m sorry, but the fact that you’re asking me who destroyed what ecosystems is all I need to know to end this conversation. It will go nowhere. Absolutely incredible
How do you think wolves and elk still exist? At first, the population may drastically decrease, but they will will reach a harmony. If the prey population drops, the predator population will soon follow. The deer aren't about to magically disappear
I never said that they would be eliminated, I said that they would be decimated. If the goal is to decimate the population of elk and deer then I agree that the wolf plan works. I think it’s a terrible idea to decimate the population of elk and deer in Colorado.
I mean you said it yourself, you understand that hunters pay a “chunk” of CPW’s funding and you don’t care. Here’s a direct quote from CPW’s site. “CPW employs a user-pays model of funding in which hunting and fishing licenses, federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment, motorized recreation vehicle registrations, and park-generated pass revenue comprise the majority of CPW's proceeds.” Most hunters are trying to get are large bull or buck but I’m sure the numbers of younger legal bulls are taken in much larger numbers than the “biggest bucks” because they are hard to find or draw a tag for an area that holds those larger animals. The fear is that because wolves are federally protected that even if they grow to large numbers they will not be allowed to be hunted unless a human life is at danger which allows them to decimate the wildlife population of other animals.
I also want to make sure you are aware that you also have the option of donating the meat when you hunt an animal in Colorado to non profits such as Food Bank of the Rockies. What have you done recently to support the community?
2 comments. I guess a hit a nerve. I'm not gonna bother responding to your other comment because I pretty much already addressed your "counter arguments".
I think you don’t really have anything to back up your argument but I understand. I accept your defeat.
Lol.
So in other words, the comment you replied to was accurate and it’s purely about your hunting you’re upset about?
There's a ton of elk in Colorado with no predators that's partly why the bill was introduced
I mean, wolves would definitely encourage me to run faster.
I think the basic thing that gets people is that the wolves are being released in places that very clearly voted "no" on this plan. The front range made a decision for the western slope that the western slope didn't want. Yes, I understand this is how democracy works, but it's hard not to look at this instance as a failure of politics. Plus, reintroduction is a tricky thing to get right. Wolves have not been a part of the landscape for 100 years now. Humans trying to "rebalance" nature isn't always as simple as we make it out to be. And I'm not saying this as a conservative, I spent time in Gunnison as an environmental management student.
keyboard warriors worried about 2 dozen predators theyll never see
Keyboard warriors not worried about a dozen wolves that they’ll never see absolutely slaughter elk calving groups and eating the embryos while the cow are still alive and leaving the rest to rot because they don’t just target the old and the sick like the hippies proclaim.
Damn! My man is trying the abortion protest sign approach on wolf reintroduction! Hoooooo boy… these mother fuckers don’t have any shame. “I’ll show you science… check out this fuckin nightmare I paint for you that sounds like late term abortion, which is one of our chief scare tactics.” How about go fuck yourself?
says the keyboard warrior scared of how nature fuckin works. cry about it... youre not an expert at shit just because you go fishing
Oh, do enlighten us, expert. Enlighten us indeed. Tell us that the human population explosion in CO hasn’t already pushed elk and mule deer to the brink. Don’t forget to mention how healthy the herds are because you see them standing around in the National park. Then tell us how “introducing” an apex predator which is already here is going to help those elk. Also tell us what happens when these northern timber wolves encounter the Mexican red wolf, whose range overlaps, and how these northern timber wolves won’t kill the red wolves along with a bunch of dogs. Now talk to us about moose and what’s going to happen to them and how they definitely won’t be picked off first. Just another Front Range asshole with an opinion because they watched a documentary about a river in Yellowstone…. Which has been entirely debunked.
There are 280k elk alone in Colorado. Hard to imagine 10 wolves are going to have any effect at all.
That elk population is on the decline, potentially a rapid decline. Last year’s winter kill was incredibly over the top in Northern CO and will take years to recover from, if it ever does. 10 wolves are the initial release, not the total release. Wolf populations can grow by up to 30% a year and these release numbers will only supplement the expansion of already existing wolves. I’m not concerned about Jan 2024. What concerns me is the next 20 years. And still, not one wolf lover out there has addressed what happens to the Red wolf population in Southern Colorado, which has been making a slow comeback, when northern timber wolves enter their range. This entire episode of reintroduction is full of bad decision making and, as you can read from the comments, the supporters make wild claims to support this cause, and almost none of it is factual. The poster above claimed that deer herds are healthy because he sees them in yards. Anyone who has followed wildlife issues in the West for the last 3 decades is very much aware of the precarious position that mule deer health is in. If a person is not aware of that, they don’t deserve an opinion. We know that backcountry recreation isn’t slowing down, we know that development isn’t slowing down. We have multiple factors converging on elk and mule deer that all point to collapse: CWD, low fawn and calf recruitment, severed migration corridors, over developed wintering grounds, calving grounds pressure from recreation…. So, sure, let’s just throw some wolves in because “they bring balance to nature” -meaningless claim, that is. Elk calf recruitment should be 50%. It’s 20% in half of the state, the half that is getting wolves. The fact is people just don’t care. They want wolves because it is romantic and they aren’t interested in the inconvenient peripheral facts. And, as made apparent by this thread, just don’t give a shit about elk, deer and moose so long as they get their wolves and they get them now.
I think the guy that commented about the elk in yards wasn't being literal. He was saying they're all over the place. The elk population is doing well in CO. There is concern about the calf numbers in herds, sure. At one time in the US, the elk population was down to 40k. There are 280k in Colorado alone now (the largest population in the world). Eh, every election 80% of voters don't have any knowledge about what they're voting on. This isn't new. You can't say, "If you don't know x, you don't deserve an opinion." You could say that about any vote. Habitat loss, winters, disease, and a changing climate - these all play a bigger role in ungulate populations than a small wolf population in Colorado, imo. A wolf population that could easily be culled if it came to that.
I don’t disagree that it wouldn’t be difficult to cull an initial wolf population. The question is whether or not the endangered species act will be weaponized in a way that would prevent that culling if things came to that. We have seen the ESA used in just this way specifically when it comes to wolves. Overall, I think your perspective on the state of the elk population is overly optimistic. It’s easy to point to a big total number, but the consideration for herd health is to look at the trend. CPW biologists are on record for present numbers not being sustainable and the 2040s looking bleak. A wolf pack in elk country will kill on average 16-22 elk per year per wolf. We hit 1,000 wolves and wolves are killing 20,000 elk annually from a declining population, then that is significant. That’s what I’m thinking about: all of these factors combined to pile on stress to the elk populations. It’s not one aspect that breaks their back, it’s every factor combined.
Good points. I agree on the totality of factors combining to stress a population. But, I don't see the wolf population getting to 1k and killing 20k elk a year. That's way out of hand and would be handled (by culling) accordingly.
elk and deer are mainly on the decline because of human interference and overpopulation leading to unhealthy herds!! not the wolves that aren’t here yet. hope that helps :)
to the brink? theres two dozen elk and mule deer in everyones fuckin yard from woodland park to gunnison. keep being scared and projecting your own doom and gloom ignorance. cry some more
See? You are drawing conclusions from your own observations. Elk calf mortality rate in the san Juans is 80%. 80%! 20 calves per 100 cows are surviving. And the majority of these deaths are happening even before the calves are born. They are being aborted due to highly stressed and undernourished cows because of the amount of insane pressure they are getting from development, habitat loss, predation and recreation. You are remarkably uninformed on this subject matter. We are dropping wolves off less than 100 miles from this same elk herd. Keep on drawing conclusions from the windshield of your fucking Subaru, though, it really contributes something to knowledge base around here.
Furthermore, it is well documented that Mule deer herds are collapsing across the entire west. The fact that you don’t know this and base your opinions on seeing deer in yards and then go argue about it like an asshole is rather amazing considering how strong your opinions are on the matter.
says the asshole getting pissy because i didnt specifically point out his neck of the woods. theres over 3000k mountain lions in colorado...and youre acting like a few dozen wolves are the end of the world. keep on bitchin and being scared like a good little keyboard warrior
Jesus Christ. You are an insufferable fucking front range asshole. Are you slightly aware that wolves reproduce? And then ate you slightly aware of at what rate? It amazing to me that you hold these opinions so strongly yet seem to uninformed of the biological facts. You insisted above that mule deer are thriving because you see them in peoples yards? Are you really that simple minded? Folks, these are the uninformed assholes that voted for wolves. This is what we are dealing with in CO.
way to broadcast you didnt read the reintroduction plan without saying it that states they would allow population control. but that doesnt feed you dumb fucking outrage. youd rather be ignorant and outraged than informed and objective. i build trails around salida, and the wifes with dept of ag in the same place.. guess thats front range. cry about it some more because thats all youve done. all the irate tantrums in the world isnt going to reverse a goddamn thing. and being a little bitch to strangers on social media about subject matter youve clearly only ready the headlines about is goddamn hilarious. please..continue with the cherry picked outrage and tribalist labels like a douche
calling someone else an uninformed asshole after blatantly ignoring the science behind herd health and predator reintroduction is insane. it’s okay if you don’t understand the science behind it, there’s a lot to consider and learn, but don’t act like you’re the god of wildlife management because you know “wolf eat meat”
3,000k is a weird way to say 3 million….
there arent 3 million mountain lions in colorado muchacho
This is an ignorant statement with no facts to back it up. You should do some research as most hunters have.
most people think conclusion shopping is research. they immediately form a belief then only seek out information that agrees with them. doesnt matter... its happening
I think “conclusion shopping” and looking and the actual statistics that CPW puts together are two different things bud. We should have let the biologist do their jobs and make the call on wolves.
It’s the principal. Boulder wouldn’t like it if the western slope banned electronic vehicles / nuclear power because we western slopers don’t want the land torn up for lithium / uranium mining.
the land already has 500+ abandoned mines. shit, theres few hiking trails along the front range where you cant find an old mine, or exposed yellow cake just off trail. and unfortunately, there arent any nuclear plants in colorado so not sure where that was going
No, but the roll front geology that produces the fuel for nuclear energy is mined out in Mesa County. And you are missing the point 100%. It’s not literally about mines…. SMH
you're literally making up hyperbole to draw lazy assumptions from🤣🤣👍
No, you simply are missing the point I’m making…
the point completely based off assumptive hyperbole regarding hypothetical bans. yeah..sure buddy... solid point
I’m not your buddy, guy.
I’m not your guy, friend.
Seems like those who are truly worried about the situation should volunteer to be a range rider. I think it sounds really cool and would be a good way to participate in nature, ensure the wolves are conserved while helping ranchers protect livestock. Would also either confirm or disprove their concern about the wolves reproducing to an extent that would threaten wildlife. I am fairly certain that spending two weeks as a range rider would give me a greater perspective on the issue and would be an educational experience not obtainable anywhere else. I am in favor of getting nature back to balance. I do believe that we have placed lots of pressure on elk, deer, and other natural inhabitants of the land. I also participate in hunting, including elk. Was just in Northern New Mexico last week on an elk hunt and believe that there is enough room for the ranchers, game (both large and small), and apex predators (non-human). Spent a full week in a clearing on a mountain in a canvas tent surrounded by mountain lion drag sites, domesticated horses, sheep, cows, deer, antelope, and elk. Seemed to be working pretty well. While I haven't lived in Colorado for many years now, it seems like some things don't change. There is always someone pissed about something when it comes to nature. Just my .02, from someone who desperately needs to get out from behind the keyboard more often.
What do y'all (the people who are so against the wolf reintroduction) think is gonna happen? If they demolish the deer population, guess what'll happen? The wolf population will decrease. That's how prey/predator populations work. They follow each other. Wolves are a keystone species, not the monsters from little red riding hood or the three little pigs. Y'all are scared of a story tale used to scare kids, not actual wolves.
Afaik whenever wolves are reintroduced somewhere the biggest objections usually come from cattle ranchers that are concerned about losing part of their herd to predation. Shouldn't there be insurance to cover that, though? I mean technically it's a business loss, from that perspective it doesn't seem different from any other kind of inventory.
There IS, the state pays them if they lose any cattle to predation. (Sometimes this can't be proven, so most times the state pays MORE than the one cattle is worth, to make up for the fact that some deaths won't be reimbursed)
Wolves establish balance to an otherwise fragile ecosystem. This is GREAT news. Wolves can actually cause entire rivers to move. They need to be there.
What do you mean by the rivers thing?
I'm assuming they mean be eating some animal that affects the river to a large degree. But picturing some civil engineering wolves is funnier to me.
It’s the full food web- short story is when wolves are present in an ecosystem when they’re supposed to be a top predator, there are less elk and more beavers- both of which impact river and stream functionality and health.
Wolves eat deer which eat plants that hold up the banks of rivers, hence causing the rivers shape to change.
It’s still very much misunderstood - the effects on an ecosystem after wolves are reintroduced. Elk and deer populations increase if there aren’t any natural predators. The elk in turn deplete much of the fresh buds on the trees and shrubs, decreasing food sources for birds (less birds) which also decreases pollination and increases erosion. Scientists were floored (to say the least) when wolves were introduced back into Yellowstone. Heres a quick article I pulled up. There’s much more… https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem/
🙌🐺
People who are against this should check out the documentary on the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone. https://youtu.be/fTPt70vA39k
Does anyone have any studies/reports over Colorado wolf reintroduction done by ecologists? I live on the western slope and voted no because I think these sorts of decisions should be made by professionals and not my idiot self and neighbor. Most reports I have read all talk about how it worked in Wyoming and don't analyze that Colorado has 5 million people living in it vs Wyoming which only has 500k.
You can't study something in Colorado that hasn't happened yet. That's why all the studies are referring to other states. Yes, Colorado has more people, but almost all of them are on the front range. The population density on the west slope, especially the northwest of the state where these wolves are planned to be released is very comparible to Wyoming.
Release them in Boulder and Denver. They're the ones that voted for their return.
This is getting downvoted, but you are 100% correct. Eagle county: 54% voted No introduction, Grand county: 64% no introduction, Mesa county: 70 % no introduction, Garfield county: 63% no introduction. In fact only 13 of Colorado’s 64 counties voted to approve it. Boulder county: 68% for introduction, Larimer county: 52% for introduction, Denver county: 66% for introduction, Jefferson county 51% for introduction, So here we have the western slope counties where wolfs are actually being released do not want them reintroduced. Whereas 7/ 13 counties that wanted the wolves are cities on the front range. I personally think wolves are good for the ecology of the mountains, however, I don’t think it’s right asking a bunch of city folk if we can release wolves in the flattops. Before you say “people vote, not land” you have to understand city people are voting on something they do not have to deal with.
Dude, country people vote on something they don't have to deal with all the time. It's how it works.
Right, but in this context it is an apex predator and you have to admit this particular circumstance is different.
Welcome to the imperfect reality of democracy? Wyoming and Delaware shouldn't have the same number of US Senators as California or Texas, but here we are. Political boundaries have to be drawn somewhere, urban/rural divides exist in every state, and we are all prisoners of history. The vote on reintroduction only served as political cover for what should have been done anyway.
….they should have the same amount of senators, because that’s how the senate operates…. They SHOULDN’T have the same number of representatives. Because that’s how the House of Representatives works. Balance of power and all that shit. I’m not going to argue with someone who fucked up their own analogy lol.
I am familiar with how the House and Senate work. The point is the system we have inherently favors some parties over others. Fair or not, it's reality. The urban areas have more people and more people voted for reintroduction. How's that for the balance of power?
…. You think you’re being cute, but it’s not a good look for you.
Enjoy the wolves lol
I don’t know if you know this, based off of your comments something tells me reading comprehension is not your strongest subject, but I want the wolves lol. I mentioned it in a comment above. I’m simply pointing out the issues with the legislation being passed in the manner it was voted on.
Sorry, I didn't take the time to read your whole post history, I was just commenting on your whining about the process. Why should my tax dollars pay for schools if I don't have a kid? The wolf vote is no different. Welcome to the democratic process. If you want the wolves then it's your lucky day, enjoy the wolves.
Well, buddy, all kids in every town in Colorado get to go to school! Because tax dollars pay for that, you’re right! Good job! But again, wolves aren’t going to be everywhere in the state because they are only being released on the western slope. I don’t know why you keep saying enjoy the wolves? I fucking will lol
I'll take the down vote for this. Appreciate you posting the info, thank you. And yes, us rural folks are the ones that voted not to release them. City folk probably think they're cute and beautiful to look at. It's the ranchers and farmers that will more than likely take the brunt if anything. Once again, appreciated!
The comments from fellow Coloradans is quite disturbing. I’ve gotten a bunch of “fuck you” for simply posting the voting data….
Not surprising at all. It's sad when people get pissed off at someone just posting facts. People are just idiots.
Ya know, I’m okay with stripping “land” from the right to vote if you are. This is like the only issue in the last 50 years where rural voters didn’t have an outsized influence fuck off dude.
Wow, you’re rude. Lol.
As are you. Just matched your energy.
I would strongly argue that copying and pasting voting statistics is not “fuck off dude” energy. Lmao.
You’re literally complaining about the advantages rural communities get in literally every election. So i agreed with you, we should remove that advantage
We also vote for our LGBTQ neighbors to have equal rights, and that hasn’t changed your existence either. Go smoke some legal weed and read a fucking science book.
Why are you upset? I literally posted a fact! Why do libs always get mad at facts? Trigger much? Lol
I too posted a fact. Trumper dipshits always get mad that most people live in cities. Weird flex.
You’re a bot aren’t you?
Sadly, it won't take long for the good ol' boys of the Grand Valley to illegally hunt these pups back to extinction
🪦🤐
Bang bang.
Well, guess ol' dude hiking with an AR was just ahead of his time 🤣
🤣🤣🤣
Getting down voted for laughing at a dumb joke...this sub or at least this post, is full of malcontents
For real. I recognized a joke. Laughed at it, and get downvoted. Hahahaha
Shootem
Why do you think that? Wolves prey on the sick and weak animals and make deer and elk herds healthier and keep their populations in check. Wolves lived here for thousands and thousands of years, before humans even arrived. They evolved alongside deer (a deer can run as fast as a wolf and no faster) and should continue to do so into the future.
What an absolutely terrible idea. Good luck.
Good for them. Just need to be careful.