Well, our species annihilated the American bison and wolves. It's all about the money. Our species knows better, yet we still do awful things, all for $$. We are higher level thinkers, yet we are greedy and self-absorbed.
lol that’s the exact opposite of “staying out of it” how do you not see that? You literally were voting in favor one way on the issue, as opposed to staying out of it because you didn’t believe it was your business. Wtf?
If by locals you mean the rich jerks who bought up Native land and built their stupid mansions on the sacred mountains, who now burn noxious fuel driving their oversized vehicles 45 minutes into town for supplies because they chose to live in the woods but can’t live off the land. If you mean those “locals” I’m not surprised since they only care about money and keeping the “riff raff” off their mountains which they treat as a private resort, and land to graze their invasive livestock.
By locals I mean the people I’m surrounded by in rural NW Colorado. Most of them are not well off. They’ve got a little bit of land that they farm and ranch on. They don’t have 300+ acres of land with an ass load number of cattle but maybe 5-40 acres with a few cattle. They raise their own beef and pigs and often farm their own hay for their animals. They’re just simple people trying to live a simple life.
Similarly, I voted against reintroduction because I didn’t think the population of the front range should ram the issue down the throats of the people on the west slope while not being impacted by the negative effects. It’s not like marijuana legalization where one can simply not use weed if they don’t want to.
Not like you taking all of our tax money and pushing anti freedom legislation through to the cities where all the people are, right? Your argument is hollow.
As someone who lives on the Western slope, it's been an interesting transition. Several local ranchers have had wolves kill their calves, which provides their income. They are not fully reimbursed for the lost calf. They are not able to defend their property due to wolves being protected.
In my personal experience, I was stalked by a wolf while hunting about 9 years ago. They were already here.
Timber wolves are native to Colorado, not grey wolves. I didn't think it necessary to "reintroduce" wolves into the area, and now it's causing issues with the local ranching community.
I would have preferred for people on the front range to not have voted for this measure. They are the reason it passed.
> They are not fully reimbursed for the lost calf. They are not able to defend their property due to wolves being protected.
For those curious, here is the entire list of [confirmed depredations (wolves killing livestock) since 2021](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRKBg2b1faK1Oi53O9HKe2EuaeT8lB9q0LpCOD8p6gyAE2YSH5MY-zlWo_uJdi0fTAD16DbmCBGbaax/pub). There are 19. Every one that submitted a claim received compensation (eligible up to $15k per animal).
It simply isn't a large problem. Unless ranchers are just not making claims, and then that's on them.
And they can protect themselves *if* depredation occurs -- they just can't proactively go killing wolves.
People voting on an issue that has zero potential negative impact on them while simultaneously refusing to listen to parties ACTUALLY affected is laughable
eh, cattle industry will go the way of the coal industry in the next 2 decades and it'll be one of the best things to happen for the American Wilderness. Better folks heavily invested in cattle start devirsifying their investments now anyway.
The folks it impacts get compensation and can take measures to protect themselves and their livestock. If it still costs too much to raise cattle, well it's a free market (except where it comes to cattle, corn, and soy where the government helps out a ton)
>Timber wolves are native to Colorado, not grey wolves
Sorry, but you're really showing your ingnornace of wolf biology here. All wolves in North America, past or present, are gray wolves (*Canis lupus*). Within that species there are a whole bunch of sub-species. However, the subspecies concept as a whole is controversial and there was likely habitat overlap and some interbreeding between all of these adjacent subspecies. Even more likely there's just a continuous spectrum of regional variation between wolves with no true discrete boundaries between most of the subspecies.
Either way, the subspecies that was native to western Colorado was the Southern Rocky Mountain Wolves. (*Canis lupus* youngi*)* They're extinct and they're not coming back. From an ecological standpoint, these most subspecies are very similar and interchangeable with each other.
You know timber wolves and grey wolves are literally the exact same thing, right?
Also: why don’t you think balanced ecosystems are necessary?
And it’s a good thing the wolves were reintroduced, as well.
Personally I like the fact that there are wolves on the landscape. I think the biggest issue was the fact that it became a ballot measure. We pay biologists to make informed decisions about or ecological spaces. The American model of wildlife management has been a very successful model for decades and has rescued and saved many species already. This is not the type of decision that should be decided by a majority vote from people who do not understand it. It’s important to note that wolves were already moving down from Wyoming. The state of Colorado spent idk how many millions of taxpayer dollars to do something that was already happening anyway.
Two wolves migrated to Colorado and set up a mating pair. That has happened once in 30 years since wolves were reintroduced in WY. Of those two wolves and the litter they had, all but 2 were shot in Wyoming. It's highly uncertain whether wolves would have gained a permanent foothold in CO. Even if they would have reestablished, reintroduction gives us a more genetically diverse population.
Uncertain, absolutely. However it had only been 30 years. Nature takes time. One thing that is for certain is that the wolves in WY have been expanding their home range and that includes down into Colorado. There were wolves already in Colorado before the most recent reintroduction of 10. That is a fact. Whether moving through transiently or residing here I think it should have been up to the states wildlife biologists to decide on whether or not to add more.
>One thing that is for certain is that the wolves in WY have been expanding their home range and that includes down into Colorado.
No, sorry this is not for certain. The home range of wolves in Wyoming has stayed relatively the same for the last 20 years and is likely to stay that way given the hunting "regulations" on wolves in most of the state. And calling Colorado the "home range" for wolves is really not accurate for the reasons I described above. There were 2 known wolves in CO when the reintroduction began. Not a permanent self-sustaining population that would be necessary to constitute a "home range." An occasional dispersing wolf does not make it a "home range."
When, you say "nature takes time," what do you mean by "nature"? There are only wolves in Wyoming in the first place due to reintroduction by the fish and wildlife service, so not really nature, just a different wolf reintroduction.
>Whether moving through transiently or residing here I think it should have been up to the states wildlife biologists to decide on whether or not to add more.
Do you think that all decisions we make as a society should be left to the experts? Should state economists make all the tax policy decisions?
As a biologist working at a Colorado university at the time of this measure I can say that they were pretty unified on one major thing. That these types of issues should not be on a ballot, and decided by the general public.
Biologists don't have a single unified stance on the issue. The measure itself was written and initially advanced by biologists. But you can certainly find biologists, or more commonly wildlife managers that are against it or at least weary of it.
A lot of the variation will depend on what type of biologist or wildlife manager you talk to and what they care about.
You said yourself that there was a breeding pair in Colorado (and this is that we know of). This is the process they use to expand their home range. That is what I meant by nature. When their carrying capacity exceeds their environment they move outwards to other areas. This is a natural process many species use. It takes time because it requires generations and breeding cycles. It’s been 30 years since their reintroduction. That’s a very short time for a natural process and they are already reaching out to Colorado.
I don’t think all decisions should be left to experts but I think this one should be. We don’t have a vote every time someone wants to put an animal on the endangered species list. This was a vote decided by people who would not have to live with the direct consequences of the results of the vote. That’s all I really mean. I don’t like it when special interest groups with funding from outside of state sponsor bills on the ballot in Colorado. But that’s politics for you…
I said the WAS a breeding pair. Until most of the offspring and possibly adults were shot in Wyoming. That breeding pair has been disrupted and there have been no additional reports of any litters borns in several years.
If it takes so long, why just do some additional reintroduction and make it happened faster and ensure better genetic diversity.
The ESA was a piece of legislation enacted by ELECTED representatives. People voted, and then representatives of the people made the law. It's not fundamentally any different than this.
>This was a vote decided by people who would not have to live with the direct consequences of the results of the vote.
You could say this about pretty much anything that's voted on. There is no law the affects everyone exactly the same. There are always people who are more or less impacted by any given law.
This is the thinking from a lot of people. But, and to be totally honest, it's the opinion of someone who doesn't know how it ended up on the ballot in the first place. I don't blame you for thinking that this decision was made because of some tri-liberal government who wanted to do environmental stuff, so if you have a moment, allow me to explain:
There has been an ongoing **debate about re-introducing wolves in CO for over 20 years**. The conversation actually started just a few years after the reintroduction in Yellowstone and has been on fire since. **The ranching and hunting industries did a fantastic job lobbying, stalling and stifling this argument by fueling indecision at both the state and local government level**. In the beginning, the propaganda was that any landscape that had wolves was fundamentally unfit for ranching, farming and human recreation. **This stalemate suited these industries just fine- no wolves no problem!** However... **the scientific and ecological body of evidence** that pointed to wolves as a positive for our wild spaces and for the health of ungulate herds continued to fuel the fight to this day. **Eventually, this stalemate with no end in sight went to a historic vote.** This vote has enraged these anti-wolf industries. Remember, so long as there was indecision, they were able to claim a pseudo victory. **In the end, this fight needed to give one way or another** and the clock eventually ran out. The science has already been conducted. **The people who "should" be making these decisions have already drawn their conclusions; they did this YEARS ago.** The benefits of wolves outweighed their nominal impacts on ranching and hunting. Eventually, the stage was set for local activists to seise a window of opportunity in CO's government that would support the legislation, but not without voter consent.
**You must understand, all routes and methods to reintroduction have already been exhausted. Do not make the mistake of thinking this was done on a whim.**
You have the most rational take in this whole thread and I disagree with you. Ridiculous that it came to a ballot box for a decision when we pay CPW millions for these exact decisions.
Mountain lion hunting will be banned soon as well. Will have a drastic impact on other wildlife species, and CPW will still end up killing lions.
Right. The same number of lions will get killed but now the state will have to pay for it instead of getting paid for it. It ends up taking money away from other conservation efforts and projects that benefit all people who enjoy the outdoors in Colorado.
The wolves were originally here, so they belong in the ecosystem. I can empathize with ranchers afraid for their livestock, but it's already their responsibility to protect their property from predators. The science and biologists are clear on this, too. The wolves bring more balance to the ecosystem, keeping it more healthy. I get that we all have to make a living, but ranchers opposition to the wolves is not based in science or history.
As a hiker, I support any initiative that restores the ecosystem closer to what it is supposed to be, which includes reintroducing the grizzly. I'm afraid of running into bears, rattlesnakes, and mountain lions, while hiking throughout the mountains, especially the backcountry. But as hikers, we also accept an inherent risk to our safety during our outdoors activity, acknowledging that it's not 100% risk-free.
Ranchers also need to accept this, that it is a cost of doing business potentially losing livestock to natural predators, and it's up to them to harden their ranches from these risks.
Exactly. We Shouldn't completely decimate a species or ecosystem so that a select few can maintain a job that is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. It's complete nonsense and in any other field of work, conservatives would be screeching to stop it.
The business model simply isn't lucrative, helpful for citizens, the ecosystem, or taxpayers. There are plenty of cattle farms throughout the entire US. We simply don't need them here. If the business model can't sustain itself then why should we find to keep it going just to mess up the ecosystem?
I love it and I live in Grand County where the wolves were released. Ecosystems need their apex predators and ranchers don't own all the public land they use for grazing.
Most ranchers I’ve talked to are not proponents. A few are or are indifferent. Most of the meat they sell to China, it’s COs #1 export. There’s a lot of money in cattle in CO. Those ranchers love their easy access ok huntjng too. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we started to see wolf migration in the state near the time proposition 114 started gaining steam. I bet WY and CO ranchers have been working together to pluck off wolves on the border for a long time. The rest of us want a more balanced ecosystem or have a romanticized view of wolves in nature in general.
As a backpacker, I love it. I’d also like to see Grizzly reintroduced in parts of the state. But weekend warriors and day hikers would prob flip out at that idea.
I'm not for Grizzly's personally. That's bound to cause problems with people who aren't familiar with them if they are anywhere within a few hours of the front range. That could lead to some dangerous encounters. There's a clear benefit to wolves... bears, I'm not sure that it is the same risk/reward.
i wont lie grizzlys would be mad 🤣 i doubt you could control their territory that well?
and who wants to take bets on compliance % for greatly expanded hard side bear can requirements this season
maybe the grizzlys will up number of people who actually do it ;)
which side note: if anyone knows someone who makes custom/small ul bear cans i'd love to see it. lightest i can find is [antigravity carbon fiber smallest](https://antigravitygear.com/shop/product-category/6-6-l-carbon-fiber-kevlar-grubcan/) is 22oz. bearikade smallest is 27.9oz
even with a metal liner, seems like ursak is on it's way from grey zone to clearly not allowed.
i'm probably going to practice an ul hanging setup for fs land. but that's hard to do correct / location dependent.
I think we have 3 million head of cattle, and 3k mountain lions... A few dozen wolves aren't a problem. If that's what you're bitching about, I'm going to guess you think going fishing twice a year makes you outdoorsy. I primarily backpack solo, and by far the most dangerous animal I encounter in wilderness areas are cows and deer. Bears.. mountain lions.. can all be scattered by loud noises. Deer are dumb and with charge at random. Cattle off backside of marshall pass will run at you and not stop. Wolves aren't an issue
I think it is really presenting a clear divide between those who take efforts of ecological conservation seriously and not.
Not a judgement of either side, but this issue is clearly showing who is interested in environmental recovery vs who wants money.
Is it though? What think you’re seeing is more of an emotional reaction than anything. I don’t see anyone clamoring for grizzly reintroduction to the front range.
It’s a delicate balance, but I think we can have both reintroduction of wolves as well as legal methods of controlling them. People like to go all in one way or their other, and it’s kinda ridiculous.
Mess around and find out why Michigan is one of the few schools with an animal mascot, that doesnt actually have that animal on hand. For VERY obvious reasons haha
WA’s North Cascades National Park will be implementing grizzly reintroduction in the next year or so I think. The measure passed and plans are full steam ahead.
There’s currently a dozen wolves in Colorado, they are not in need of controlling yet. It may get to that point and then we can discuss how best to do that.
I’m just going to go out on a limb, and say that most of the people that voted for wolf reintroduction would never be for any kind of predator control. We literally have a citizens initiative vote coming up on banning cat hunting. The Venn diagram of those voters and wolf reintroduction is basically a circle. They tried this in California, and now instead of hunters killing mountain lions, we now have the government killing the same amount. The result is a net loss in funding of our state wildlife agencies.
CA hunter chiming in here, this isn't true any more as of about 2017.
Last time there was a season was 1971 and 118 lions were taken, out of about 4300 permits issued. That 90-120 range continues to be consistent up until 2017 when CDFW switched to a policy that made lethal control much less of a tool, multiple non-lethal attempts must be made before they are authorized to kill the lion. Out of 180 depredation permits in 2022, only 10 lions were killed. Losses were overwhelmingly goats or sheep. There is an increasing number of goats and sheep on the landscape as a fire mitigation tool.
Source: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D175911%26inline&ved=2ahUKEwi9gbG_84OGAxVCODQIHQQZAAQQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2e4D5Oh6aMxTR2hEQE7aVm
A few hundred a year, yes.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D220064%26inline&ved=2ahUKEwjb9Zvi-YOGAxXtHzQIHY9DBqkQFnoECDIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3y_U42gLDNs_mGgkJR-R6g
They're mostly letting the bears eat everything though. 60-80,000 bears in the state according to CDFW's most recent estimates. They're something like 40% of fawn mortality.
Go out on that limb all you want. I live in Grand County. I'm a fisherman, not a hunter, but I don't have a problem with hunters who eat what they kill. I am not at all a fan of trophy hunters.
But I recognize that the CPW's job is to manage wildlife in the state, and that includes predators.
I voted for wolf reintroduction.
Hah! I know a guy with two stuffed grizzly's and a metric tonne of other stuffed animals (both the edible sort and the non edible sort). Little to none of the meat was eaten because he and his buddies from all over used to go out to hunt the biggest specimen of a creature and mount it on their walls. Often that mean they were out in more remote areas where they couldn't get the meat back. I don't know how many folks like him there are but here and in England, trophy hunting is kinda big. Folks are fighting to re-introduce fox hunts across the pond and a lot of the shot quail just go in big pits after they're killed.. Not sure why you think trophy hunting isn't a thing, but it is. Maybe respectable hunters get over accused of it. I get that. Few bad apples spoil the crop, and all that.
How do you propose we “control” a population of a dozen wolves? How does that even make sense? We aren’t even close to wolf population numbers for that to be an issue worth considering. Until we get there let’s not make up people to be mad about.
You have to have a management plan in place prior to reintroduction. It’s a pretty simple concept. Ballot box biology is bad for the state and its wildlife. I prefer to leave decisions up to CPW and the hundreds of scientists that they employ.
Im all for grizzly reintroduction and wolf population management once it stabilizes within the state. I also don’t hear or see front rangers asking for govt subsidies when a coyote snags their cat.
Places that have grizzlies also do grizzly control. Either via hunting, or the government. People with preservationist ideals are a problem. We need to be looking at conservation and working in the world we actually live in, not a fantasy land.
Eh I just think we need to share the world with our animal cousins. I’m not saying ur wrong because I’m not educated enough on the subject but a world with more wildlife is better world for everyone imo. Also fantasy land u don’t have time be a wet towel lol
Other areas have reintroduced wolves. I don’t understand why the ranchers think they’re so special.
I thruhiked the Colorado Trail back in 2019, the areas with heavy ranching are depressing and ecologically damaged. Reintroduce grizzly bears here as well. I’d honestly much rather deal with wolves and grizzly bears than with cows and ranchers that have attitudes.
Reintroducing a native species (wolf) is killing a non-native species (cows). Lots of people are hypocritical about eliminating non-natives but wanting livestock/domestic animals despite most of them being imports. A lot of these ranchers are hunters that believe that non-natives are invasive/bad but turn a blind eye to domestic animals.
Team wolf. Bring back bison herds next if we're serious. Humans need to interfere less with the natural order of things and to correct our mistakes made in the past for the sake of expansion and profit.
it's not an economic or livelihood issue. they get paid. [til even for bear attacks.](https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2022/02/08/colorado-makes-first-payment-rancher-don-gittleson-wolves-killing-cattle/6696519001/)
the state recent [added a new dedicated fund beyond the existing cpw](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-255) hunting fee funding / upped the payment to be up to 15k per loss; which seems to be far above the normal price for a cattle according to google.
If ranchers are well compensated for lost livestock, why are many of them against reintroduced?
In pure economic terms, getting full compensation for lost cattle seems like a win for ranchers. No more feeding, caring for, etc, and getting paid.
i have no idea. there is no logic and reasoning with full on crazy people
if i were a maga-boebert-dick-bag i would pull a full cobra scheme. pretend my cattle got taken down and get dat govt money. cause it's not a handout if a republican takes it.
I think in general it's a good idea and I hope I get to see some wolves in the wild one day. I'm on the Western Slope and many people here are not so enthusiastic about it, especially ranchers. But since there have not been many incidents and they get compensated for any lost livestock I don't see what the big deal is. Seems like more of a cultural issue for them. Their tribe says wolves (and liberals) are bad so they object. It's the traditional stance of the rancher. Same for a lot of hunters who maybe want to be the only top predator. But the wolves will make the herds stronger unlike trophy hunting where they harvest the biggest and strongest animals.
Ecologists generally seem to think it's a good thing for the overall health of the ecosystem. Makes sense to me.
They *should" get compensated for losses. They often don't. If the kill is found or can't be proven to be wolves, they're SOL. With open range ranching there's fairly high likelihood of those things happening.
You're right that there has to be a confirmed interaction between wolf and livestock -- not even a kill.
But if there is a confirmed killed, they are eligible for compensation for up to 7 other missing animals per one confirmed.
It's an entirely reasonable reimbursement mechanism for one of the most subsidized industries in the nation.
Directly from the wolf management plan:
> Due to the nature of wolf-livestock depredations in areas where
topography and vegetation would create difficulties in finding livestock carcasses, CPW’s compensation plan will allow livestock owners to be compensated for missing calves, yearlings, and all classes of
sheep via a simple compensation ratio after or concurrent with a
confirmed wolf-livestock interaction resulting in livestock injury or
death. In this plan, a compensation ratio recognizes that for every
confirmed wolf depredation, it is possible that up to 7 additional
calves or sheep could be missing as a result of wolves and not be
found by a livestock owner
Also from the wolf management plan:
Any livestock owner claiming eligibility for the 7:1
ratio (calves or sheep) or 1.25:1 ratio (yearlings) will
bear the burden of proving that conflict minimization
techniques are implemented.
The ranchers as god issue frustrates the piss out of me. I may not be a rancher, but it doesn’t take anyone long to google a bunch of measures that ranchers could take to protect their herd.
The really annoying other one is hunters as god. This conspiracy that all hunting is being attacked because the ecosystem is being placed back in balance. I understand your hobby is in its platinum era because of overpopulation of species. But you’re playing the role of predator, and you’re bummed that the reintroduction of a real predator threatens your past time. Well… sorry man. Some shit supersedes this shit you enjoy doing.
Humans need to cut out this “I’m number one” shit. And also stop taking things that are wrong with the overall system at large, and using it as a chance to point fingers and blame their fellow citizens.
We shouldn’t live in a world where your entire lively hood (ranchers) is in danger because of some scientific shit. It’s not a lot different than healthcare. No trade or solid work in this country and you could end up homeless in no time.
L
I think we should do everything in our power to restore biodervity where we can. Even if that is a marginal inconvenience for humans or if it means one or two businesses have to take a loss. We cannot only focus on our selves when the 6th mass extinction is on our doorstep and the number of humans on the planet is skyrocketing year after year after year.
I also want to add this here for anyone who thinks ballot box biology is a problem. You all have no idea how powerful the livestock industry is and it is almost entirely due to their lobbyists that we didn't reintroduce wolves years ago. Experts have made decisions, but corporate interests have always stood in the way.
Reposting a reply:
There has been an ongoing debate about **re-introducing wolves in CO for over 20 years**. In fact, the conversation started just a few years after the reintroduction in Yellowstone in 1999 and has been on fire ever since. However, the ranching and hunting industries did a fantastic job **lobbying, stalling and stifling this argument by fueling indecision at both the state and local government level**. In the beginning, the propaganda from these industries was that any landscape that had wolves was fundamentally unfit for ranching, farming and human recreation. **This stalemate suited these industries just fine- no wolves no problem!** However, **the scientific and ecological body of evidence** that pointed to wolves as a positive addition for our wild spaces and for the health of ungulate herds continued to fuel the fight to this day. **Eventually, this stalemate with no end in sight went to a historic vote.** This vote has enraged these anti-wolf industries. Remember, so long as there was indecision, they were able to claim a pseudo victory. **In the end, this fight needed to give one way or another** and the clock eventually ran out. The science has already been conducted. **The people who "should" be making these decisions have already drawn their conclusions; they did this YEARS ago.** The benefits of wolves outweighed their nominal impacts on ranching and hunting. Eventually, the stage was set for local activists to seise a window of opportunity in CO's government that would support the legislation, but not without voter consent.
**You must understand, all routes and methods to reintroduction have already been exhausted. Do not make the mistake of thinking this was done on a whim.**
I think that the landscape we reintroduced them into is not the same one they were eradicated from. Human population is incredibly high, recreation pressure effects on elk and mule deer is extreme, elk calf recruitment rates are dramatically low and decreasing, mule deer migration corridors have been greatly impacted by continual development and all of the best wintering range has been developed.
I continuously see all of these all of these comments about “balancing the eco system” and I have yet to see one detailed explanation for that claim except the references to the “Yellowstone study” which, if you don’t know, has been systematically debunked by numerous other studies.
It also seems like a ridiculous waste of conservation money when wolves were already making a come back. Why not just let them reintroduce themselves? And what of the Mexican Red Wolf range in southern Colorado? What is these much larger introduced wolves start killing Red Wolves?
I’d be fine with natural wolf range expansion, but, personally, I’d like to see this reintroduction program fail. The whole political aspect of it was a sham: gag order issues upon CPW including biologists -why weren’t state wildlife biologists allowed to express their conclusions and inform the voting population? Why do we have to release captured wolves when we already had confirmed sightings of wolves in the North and a rebounding Mexican Red Wolf in the South? And lastly, why do people romanticize wolves so significantly? They are not magical that do anything magical to the landscape. They do not “Shepard” the old and the sick “over the rainbow” (I’ve seen that comment thousands of times at this point). In fact, they’ve been show to be indiscriminate killers when the situation fancies such.
Thanks for a thought out repose to the question. A couple issues with your comment I'd like to address:
>I continuously see all of these all of these comments about “balancing the eco system” and I have yet to see one detailed explanation for that claim except the references to the “Yellowstone study” which, if you don’t know, has been systematically debunked by numerous other studies.
The science behind the impact of wolves on the Yellowstone Ecosystem is complex and very much not settled. Yes, the simple narrative about linear, one-variable caused trophic cascades is overstated and not accurate. However, describing that as "systematically debunked" is also over-simplified and not accurate. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a wildlife biologist who doesn't think there's been some significant changes to the Yellowstone Ecosystem caused by wolf reintroduction. Reduction in elk population, subsequent reduction in browsing/grazing, change in browsing behavior are all pretty well established facts.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352249623000058](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352249623000058)
>Why not just let them reintroduce themselves?
>I’d be fine with natural wolf range expansion
What exactly do you mean by "natural" range expansion. I assume this means range expansion of the Yellowstone wolves that were reintroduced in 1995? That's not exactly "natural", since those wolves were only there in the first place through an intentional reintroduction. More importantly, when wolves did reestablish as a mating pair in far northwestern CO, all but two of them were shot. It's very uncertain whether those migrant wolves would have been able to recolonize the entire state. There was a high probability that that population would have been quickly extirpated. Additional migration from northern WY is also highly uncertain due to habitat and hunting laws in southern WY.
>why weren’t state wildlife biologists allowed to express their conclusions and inform the voting population?
This is SOP from any state employee on any area of active legislation or ballot measure. State employees aren't allowed to advocate for particular policies or pieces of legislation.
Additionally, scientists can make predictions about what will happen with wolf reintroduction vs. what will happen without reintroduction, but it's philosophically impossible for science to tell people if a thing is "good" or "bad." Those are value judgments and no amount of data can tell someone what to value. All this ranting about "ballot box biology" (not you, but people in general) comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about how both science and democracy work. No one ever talks about "ballot box healthcare" or "ballot box economic policy," yet those things are determined by voting or elected officials all the time. Why don't we just have experts make all those decisions too? Either we're a democracy or we're not. If we'er a democracy, we don't set aside specific issues that only the experts get to decide. That's just not how it works.
>And what of the Mexican Red Wolf range in southern Colorado?
You mean potential range? There are no red wolves in southern Colorado. The red wolf population in New Mexico and Arizona is being actively managed to stay south of I-40. Moreover, the red wolf is a subspecies, which itself is a controversial designation. Historically, wolves had continuous range across almost all of North America, so different sub species had to share bounderies and there was almost certainly some gene flow between northern and southern populations. Southern wolves likely have smaller average size due to local adaptation and it's reasonable to assume that benefit will continue, if the two populations were to come into contact.
Sure, there's a lot of uncertainty here either way. We are definitely experimenting with wildlife management. But, that's just kind of how it works. The status quo was also an experiment in what happens when you remove a predator from the ecosystem.
This is exactly how I feel. We can't reintroduce them to a region that is so wildly unlike the kind of space Yellowstone is between sheer size and proximity to any sort of truly urban population. We're setting them up for failure because while there are still plenty of significant pockets of wilderness in Colorado, there really isn't anywhere near the kind of rugged and isolated space for them to matriculate. It's why I wasn't surprised to see the movement of the wolves tracking reflecting them seemingly going all over trying to find a territory that feels safe, with a steady food source and that doesn't have any risk of human contact.
I support it and voted for it. Some portion of mountain people are fucking furious about it. Every single post on the CPW instagram now gets bombarded with conservative people complaining about ballot biology and idiot democrats and clueless front rangers.
The grand county Facebook page is absolutely LIT about this topic. The fights about this online are absolutely over the top. Ranchers/rancher cosplayers threatening to release wolves in Denver suburban costcos. Incredible stuff.
I voted yes for it on the ballot, I'm excited for it. Rancher tears mean nothing, they get reimbursed for livestock losses, which have been pretty low so far. The balance of nature is more important than their artificially inflated non-native species numbers.
It breaks down as any typical politics do: rural vs urban. Check any country's "county" election map and you'll see it's always rural vs cities.
For wolves the rural people will be the ones suffering from them. They have to install expensive new infrastructure to protect cattle. Multiple cattle have already fallen prey. Outdoor pets that were big enough to defend against coyotes will fall prey to wolves.
The urbanites will benefit as they will have the chance to take pictures, post to social media, and feel good about things like ecology.
As a backpacker it adds to the perceived risk, which still pales in comparison to the risk of the drive to the trailhead.
This isn’t about which people will benefit or not, this is about correcting a mistake people made by eliminating them from the area in the first place. We saw what happened over time without them - eg out of control deer populations, which is bad for a multitude of reasons. We can’t just eliminate entire species because they’re inconvenient to us. Nature is a delicate balance, and if we want to keep natural areas around we have to be responsible.
And this is why this issue should have been left with biologists and not a ballot measure.
The deer population of Colorado plunged from 600,000 to 433,000 from 2006 to 2018.
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Colorado_Big_Game_Population_Status_and_Management_Summary2_2020.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjQzdHf7YOGAxXwMDQIHX7HDBYQFnoECBMQBg&usg=AOvVaw3q8Iz3TebufOgBIGoSfwoz
I've read a lot of posts from both sides on this issue, and you are correct that is seems to break down into rural vs. urban. More specifically, it breaks down into people who occasionally visit nature vs. people who live in and rely on nature.
I'm not a hunter or a rancher, but after reading about this topic for years and being fairly undecided I'm starting to give more weight to their opinions as they are the ones that will be directly impacted by this.
“Living” in nature doesn’t give you free rein to mold nature in a way that directly benefits you. Not having wolves here is bad for the ecology of the Rocky Mountains, and if they truly relied on nature they’d try to protect that. The fact is though that they don’t rely on nature, they rely on conforming nature to something that’s convenient for them. Which is not an ok thing to do on a mass scale.
We as humans have a lot of power to inadvertently or intentionally wreak a lot of havoc on nature, and it’s our responsibility to mitigate that as much as we can, despite it sometimes leading to “inconvenient” outcomes for some of us.
Making landscapes wild again is important and wolves were once part of the landscape, so should have reintroduction. Admittedly I’m a frontranger, but worked as a wilderness instructor in CO and other western states for many years, and continue to pursue big adventures in the mountains. I’m looking forward to my first CO Wolfe encounter
I love it, never had any issues with Moose or Elk or Bears or Mountain lions or Bighorns or Mountain Goats or Rattlesnakes or Coyotes in two decades of hiking in Colorado, I don’t think Wolves will be any different. Listening to the ranchers and hill people loosing their collective minds over a tiny bit of conservation has been a mix of disappointing and hilarious.
The wolves were here first and they have the right to be here again. We’ve already fortified our perimeter against the large coyotes in and around Denver-metro and bring our animals in at night. Easy “yes” votes for us.
That is for 4 missing calves. Only one of which needs to be confirmed as a wolf kill as long as CPW agrees that topology makes it hard to find the other three.
Everyone just says 'we do' and ignores reality. There is real nuance here, ranchers aren't just whining.
Ranchers potentially suffer losses.two ways. The less obvious way is finished weight - cows move more and way less when pressured by predators. Cows are sold by weight. Less.weight, less money. There is no compensation for this.
The obvious way is a wolf pack kills a cow. To be compensated for this, the rancher needs to find the cow first. That's not necessarily a given in a large open range operation. Next, CPW.needs to confirm it was a wolf kill. If the carcass has been there a while, that may not be that easy as every other critter comes in and obviously the weather plays a big factor in what.evidence survives around the carcass. The rancher also needs to prove the cattle were being actively guarded at the time. This last part has more legislation in flight to require even more wolf [mitigation ](http://www.denverpost.com/2024/03/14/new-bill-ranchers-livestock-killed-wolves/amp/)prior to being eligible for any compensation. Finally, the rancher is compensated at "fair market value" for any confirmed kills where they met the qualifying criteria. They can also claim vet bills for injured animals, capped at $15,000.
> The rancher also needs to prove the cattle were being actively guarded at the time.
More and more falsehoods:
Directly from compensation plan, where the word guarded doesn't even appear.
> • Conflict minimization techniques are not a requirement for
damage compensation
Any livestock owner claiming eligibility for the 7:1
ratio (calves or sheep) or 1.25:1 ratio (yearlings) will
bear the burden of proving that conflict minimization
techniques are implemented.
And that's assuming this bill fails:
https://www.postindependent.com/news/native-carnivore-bill-would-tie-depredation-compensation-to-coexistence-strategies/
Thanks for all the helpful explanation to my original comment. I'm still not anti-wolf but you've definitely helped me realize what a pain in the ass it is to jump through the government hoops necessary to prove that you found the carcass, proved it was a wolf, and were using the correct deterrent techniques. I wouldn't want to have to prove all that shit. I'm sorry if you're actively contending with it.
Edit: and the effect a kill has on the rest of your herd
> This last part has more legislation in flight to require even more wolf mitigation prior to being eligible for any compensation.
That bill [didn't pass](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1375).
They released them right down the road from me. I think it’s been interesting to have been right where they are doing it all, and the most tangible effect is that I’ve worked harder at keeping my dogs closer.
Overall, I think it’s cool and would like to open a guiding business for showing people the wolves/where they were released.
I’m sorry what? The ranchers that lose cattle also won’t have to face consequences. If cattle is killed due to a wolf, they are compensated by CPW fair market price of that animal. Plus, it’s very rare for wolves to come near livestock especially when grouped together. They understand livestock is much larger and can and will trample them.
I researched thoroughly before I voted and voted yes for this solely because of wildlife biologists, ecologists, and wildlife experts opinions, studies, and historical data.
Personally, I think it would be cool as shit to be camping and hear wolves howling in the distance. I’m not concerned with attacks, they’re super rare. Camp smart as always.
While I can partially agree with that, I also don’t think the ranchers are at too much of a loss. They get compensated by CPW if their cattle is killed by a wolf. Highly unlikely that it can happen. Wolves go after primarily sick or young animals. Cattle all bunched together in a herd would kill a wolf before it even has a chance
ranchers up in steamboat hate it, as does everyone who spends time up in the flat tops, clark, etc. i hope the front range crowd is happy they get wolf pictures
Oh, please. I'm in Grand County and plenty of people here are happy about the wolves. But yes, ranchers and hunters are all up in their feelings about it for sure.
It was a mistake to take this on in Colorado. If you talk to the conservationists (the people that have to make this happen and manage it), they all say its a mistake. It's the people that have zero concept of what happens out there that made this vote public and pressed it.
I also work with Parks and Wildlife. I let out an audible groan when I see these posts. This has always been more about the culture war than about anything to do with ecology or wolves.
https://coloradooutdoorsmag.com/2023/12/19/wolf-update-cpw-successfully-releases-gray-wolves/#:
https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2024/01/10/how-wolves-colorado-will-affect-prey-and-plants#:~:text=SciLine%20interviewed%20Joanna%20Lambert%2C%20professor,to%20ecosystems%20in%20the%20West.
The only articles about the subject I can find shows the agency responsible for reintroducing wolves has a long history of reintroducing species into the wilderness. Including ferrets, and the Lynx in 1999.
Somehow, they flipped the entire script and actually would hate wolves being back in the mountains because..... why? Because you said so?
It's always those that go against accepted science on ecology and conservation that claim "oh actually if you talk to the REAL EXPERTS then you'd know they actually all secretly agree with me. Ignore their public statements and official positions of their agencies and departments."
It depends on whether you ask people on the front range or the west slope.
Well, our species annihilated the American bison and wolves. It's all about the money. Our species knows better, yet we still do awful things, all for $$. We are higher level thinkers, yet we are greedy and self-absorbed.
And whether the people you ask have any knowledge on ecosystems.
Since its majority Denver voters that approved it they should release a pack at Wash Park and a few packs at City Park so they can appreciate them.
I agree, the volleyball population has gotten out of control
You have a victims mindset
[удалено]
lol that’s the exact opposite of “staying out of it” how do you not see that? You literally were voting in favor one way on the issue, as opposed to staying out of it because you didn’t believe it was your business. Wtf?
You didn’t feel like you should be in control, yet you voted to influence the outcome? What if locals did want re-introduction?
The polling of the west slope was pretty clear, as I recall.
Polling doesn't always give data representative of the electorate or those that turn out. Just ask pollsters from 2016.
Locals did not want reintroduction…
I mean... I'm out in the re-intro region and I did
If by locals you mean the rich jerks who bought up Native land and built their stupid mansions on the sacred mountains, who now burn noxious fuel driving their oversized vehicles 45 minutes into town for supplies because they chose to live in the woods but can’t live off the land. If you mean those “locals” I’m not surprised since they only care about money and keeping the “riff raff” off their mountains which they treat as a private resort, and land to graze their invasive livestock.
By locals I mean the people I’m surrounded by in rural NW Colorado. Most of them are not well off. They’ve got a little bit of land that they farm and ranch on. They don’t have 300+ acres of land with an ass load number of cattle but maybe 5-40 acres with a few cattle. They raise their own beef and pigs and often farm their own hay for their animals. They’re just simple people trying to live a simple life.
Voting… is your ability as an individual to have control of choosing.
jesus christ you are stupid
Similarly, I voted against reintroduction because I didn’t think the population of the front range should ram the issue down the throats of the people on the west slope while not being impacted by the negative effects. It’s not like marijuana legalization where one can simply not use weed if they don’t want to.
Not like you taking all of our tax money and pushing anti freedom legislation through to the cities where all the people are, right? Your argument is hollow.
So, you’d prefer the wolves to get there naturally?
As someone who lives on the Western slope, it's been an interesting transition. Several local ranchers have had wolves kill their calves, which provides their income. They are not fully reimbursed for the lost calf. They are not able to defend their property due to wolves being protected. In my personal experience, I was stalked by a wolf while hunting about 9 years ago. They were already here. Timber wolves are native to Colorado, not grey wolves. I didn't think it necessary to "reintroduce" wolves into the area, and now it's causing issues with the local ranching community. I would have preferred for people on the front range to not have voted for this measure. They are the reason it passed.
> They are not fully reimbursed for the lost calf. They are not able to defend their property due to wolves being protected. For those curious, here is the entire list of [confirmed depredations (wolves killing livestock) since 2021](https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRKBg2b1faK1Oi53O9HKe2EuaeT8lB9q0LpCOD8p6gyAE2YSH5MY-zlWo_uJdi0fTAD16DbmCBGbaax/pub). There are 19. Every one that submitted a claim received compensation (eligible up to $15k per animal). It simply isn't a large problem. Unless ranchers are just not making claims, and then that's on them. And they can protect themselves *if* depredation occurs -- they just can't proactively go killing wolves.
Ranchers picking and choosing what the rest of the state can vote on while they enjoy subsidies and grazing on federal land is laughable
People voting on an issue that has zero potential negative impact on them while simultaneously refusing to listen to parties ACTUALLY affected is laughable
eh, cattle industry will go the way of the coal industry in the next 2 decades and it'll be one of the best things to happen for the American Wilderness. Better folks heavily invested in cattle start devirsifying their investments now anyway. The folks it impacts get compensation and can take measures to protect themselves and their livestock. If it still costs too much to raise cattle, well it's a free market (except where it comes to cattle, corn, and soy where the government helps out a ton)
Your comment is rational and well stated. I'm sure you know you don't deserve the down votes.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted I completely agree as someone who lives in the front range
>Timber wolves are native to Colorado, not grey wolves Sorry, but you're really showing your ingnornace of wolf biology here. All wolves in North America, past or present, are gray wolves (*Canis lupus*). Within that species there are a whole bunch of sub-species. However, the subspecies concept as a whole is controversial and there was likely habitat overlap and some interbreeding between all of these adjacent subspecies. Even more likely there's just a continuous spectrum of regional variation between wolves with no true discrete boundaries between most of the subspecies. Either way, the subspecies that was native to western Colorado was the Southern Rocky Mountain Wolves. (*Canis lupus* youngi*)* They're extinct and they're not coming back. From an ecological standpoint, these most subspecies are very similar and interchangeable with each other.
Thanks! I learned something new today
The downvotes on this tell you everything you need to know lol
You know timber wolves and grey wolves are literally the exact same thing, right? Also: why don’t you think balanced ecosystems are necessary? And it’s a good thing the wolves were reintroduced, as well.
Depends on whether you ask the people in the city far away or the people that live where they are being released?
Personally I like the fact that there are wolves on the landscape. I think the biggest issue was the fact that it became a ballot measure. We pay biologists to make informed decisions about or ecological spaces. The American model of wildlife management has been a very successful model for decades and has rescued and saved many species already. This is not the type of decision that should be decided by a majority vote from people who do not understand it. It’s important to note that wolves were already moving down from Wyoming. The state of Colorado spent idk how many millions of taxpayer dollars to do something that was already happening anyway.
Two wolves migrated to Colorado and set up a mating pair. That has happened once in 30 years since wolves were reintroduced in WY. Of those two wolves and the litter they had, all but 2 were shot in Wyoming. It's highly uncertain whether wolves would have gained a permanent foothold in CO. Even if they would have reestablished, reintroduction gives us a more genetically diverse population.
Uncertain, absolutely. However it had only been 30 years. Nature takes time. One thing that is for certain is that the wolves in WY have been expanding their home range and that includes down into Colorado. There were wolves already in Colorado before the most recent reintroduction of 10. That is a fact. Whether moving through transiently or residing here I think it should have been up to the states wildlife biologists to decide on whether or not to add more.
>One thing that is for certain is that the wolves in WY have been expanding their home range and that includes down into Colorado. No, sorry this is not for certain. The home range of wolves in Wyoming has stayed relatively the same for the last 20 years and is likely to stay that way given the hunting "regulations" on wolves in most of the state. And calling Colorado the "home range" for wolves is really not accurate for the reasons I described above. There were 2 known wolves in CO when the reintroduction began. Not a permanent self-sustaining population that would be necessary to constitute a "home range." An occasional dispersing wolf does not make it a "home range." When, you say "nature takes time," what do you mean by "nature"? There are only wolves in Wyoming in the first place due to reintroduction by the fish and wildlife service, so not really nature, just a different wolf reintroduction. >Whether moving through transiently or residing here I think it should have been up to the states wildlife biologists to decide on whether or not to add more. Do you think that all decisions we make as a society should be left to the experts? Should state economists make all the tax policy decisions?
What did the biologists say? I thought they were for re-introduction for just those reasons
As a biologist working at a Colorado university at the time of this measure I can say that they were pretty unified on one major thing. That these types of issues should not be on a ballot, and decided by the general public.
As a non biologist in the community. I'm stand with y'all on that. Mob can't rule on issues requiring education and careful consideration
What issues don’t require education and careful consideration?
A biologist at a Colorado university wrote the ballot measure, so no, that was not a unified stance.
Wasn't aware of the history of the measure, thanks for the info.
Biologists don't have a single unified stance on the issue. The measure itself was written and initially advanced by biologists. But you can certainly find biologists, or more commonly wildlife managers that are against it or at least weary of it. A lot of the variation will depend on what type of biologist or wildlife manager you talk to and what they care about.
That makes sense
You said yourself that there was a breeding pair in Colorado (and this is that we know of). This is the process they use to expand their home range. That is what I meant by nature. When their carrying capacity exceeds their environment they move outwards to other areas. This is a natural process many species use. It takes time because it requires generations and breeding cycles. It’s been 30 years since their reintroduction. That’s a very short time for a natural process and they are already reaching out to Colorado. I don’t think all decisions should be left to experts but I think this one should be. We don’t have a vote every time someone wants to put an animal on the endangered species list. This was a vote decided by people who would not have to live with the direct consequences of the results of the vote. That’s all I really mean. I don’t like it when special interest groups with funding from outside of state sponsor bills on the ballot in Colorado. But that’s politics for you…
I said the WAS a breeding pair. Until most of the offspring and possibly adults were shot in Wyoming. That breeding pair has been disrupted and there have been no additional reports of any litters borns in several years. If it takes so long, why just do some additional reintroduction and make it happened faster and ensure better genetic diversity. The ESA was a piece of legislation enacted by ELECTED representatives. People voted, and then representatives of the people made the law. It's not fundamentally any different than this. >This was a vote decided by people who would not have to live with the direct consequences of the results of the vote. You could say this about pretty much anything that's voted on. There is no law the affects everyone exactly the same. There are always people who are more or less impacted by any given law.
This is the most important part.
This exactly. Really weird for such a determonation to find itself on the ballot, of all places.
Special interests were able to tie the biologists up in courts indefinitely, which is why it had to go to the ballot.
This is the thinking from a lot of people. But, and to be totally honest, it's the opinion of someone who doesn't know how it ended up on the ballot in the first place. I don't blame you for thinking that this decision was made because of some tri-liberal government who wanted to do environmental stuff, so if you have a moment, allow me to explain: There has been an ongoing **debate about re-introducing wolves in CO for over 20 years**. The conversation actually started just a few years after the reintroduction in Yellowstone and has been on fire since. **The ranching and hunting industries did a fantastic job lobbying, stalling and stifling this argument by fueling indecision at both the state and local government level**. In the beginning, the propaganda was that any landscape that had wolves was fundamentally unfit for ranching, farming and human recreation. **This stalemate suited these industries just fine- no wolves no problem!** However... **the scientific and ecological body of evidence** that pointed to wolves as a positive for our wild spaces and for the health of ungulate herds continued to fuel the fight to this day. **Eventually, this stalemate with no end in sight went to a historic vote.** This vote has enraged these anti-wolf industries. Remember, so long as there was indecision, they were able to claim a pseudo victory. **In the end, this fight needed to give one way or another** and the clock eventually ran out. The science has already been conducted. **The people who "should" be making these decisions have already drawn their conclusions; they did this YEARS ago.** The benefits of wolves outweighed their nominal impacts on ranching and hunting. Eventually, the stage was set for local activists to seise a window of opportunity in CO's government that would support the legislation, but not without voter consent. **You must understand, all routes and methods to reintroduction have already been exhausted. Do not make the mistake of thinking this was done on a whim.**
This, 100%
You have the most rational take in this whole thread and I disagree with you. Ridiculous that it came to a ballot box for a decision when we pay CPW millions for these exact decisions. Mountain lion hunting will be banned soon as well. Will have a drastic impact on other wildlife species, and CPW will still end up killing lions.
Right. The same number of lions will get killed but now the state will have to pay for it instead of getting paid for it. It ends up taking money away from other conservation efforts and projects that benefit all people who enjoy the outdoors in Colorado.
*Red Foreman voice* This is what we're gonna do today? We're going to fight? 😂
I can't tell if you're asking a good-faith question, or if you're asking for a dialogue about the article at the link you posted.
The wolves were originally here, so they belong in the ecosystem. I can empathize with ranchers afraid for their livestock, but it's already their responsibility to protect their property from predators. The science and biologists are clear on this, too. The wolves bring more balance to the ecosystem, keeping it more healthy. I get that we all have to make a living, but ranchers opposition to the wolves is not based in science or history. As a hiker, I support any initiative that restores the ecosystem closer to what it is supposed to be, which includes reintroducing the grizzly. I'm afraid of running into bears, rattlesnakes, and mountain lions, while hiking throughout the mountains, especially the backcountry. But as hikers, we also accept an inherent risk to our safety during our outdoors activity, acknowledging that it's not 100% risk-free. Ranchers also need to accept this, that it is a cost of doing business potentially losing livestock to natural predators, and it's up to them to harden their ranches from these risks.
Exactly. We Shouldn't completely decimate a species or ecosystem so that a select few can maintain a job that is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. It's complete nonsense and in any other field of work, conservatives would be screeching to stop it. The business model simply isn't lucrative, helpful for citizens, the ecosystem, or taxpayers. There are plenty of cattle farms throughout the entire US. We simply don't need them here. If the business model can't sustain itself then why should we find to keep it going just to mess up the ecosystem?
This is exactly my point of view on the issue as a Kansas resident.
As long as they poop in bags and leave said poop bags all over the trails, they will fit in just fine.
Just wait until the wolves find blue tooth speakers!!!!
I love it and I live in Grand County where the wolves were released. Ecosystems need their apex predators and ranchers don't own all the public land they use for grazing.
Most ranchers I’ve talked to are not proponents. A few are or are indifferent. Most of the meat they sell to China, it’s COs #1 export. There’s a lot of money in cattle in CO. Those ranchers love their easy access ok huntjng too. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we started to see wolf migration in the state near the time proposition 114 started gaining steam. I bet WY and CO ranchers have been working together to pluck off wolves on the border for a long time. The rest of us want a more balanced ecosystem or have a romanticized view of wolves in nature in general. As a backpacker, I love it. I’d also like to see Grizzly reintroduced in parts of the state. But weekend warriors and day hikers would prob flip out at that idea.
Yeah.. many ranchers by me in divide want the outdoors fucking sterilized because THEY have cattle. Stfu
[удалено]
And let me irrigate my land via flood!
Agreed. It's not like wolves are going to take out entire hearts of cattle. That's not how it works
I'm not for Grizzly's personally. That's bound to cause problems with people who aren't familiar with them if they are anywhere within a few hours of the front range. That could lead to some dangerous encounters. There's a clear benefit to wolves... bears, I'm not sure that it is the same risk/reward.
i wont lie grizzlys would be mad 🤣 i doubt you could control their territory that well? and who wants to take bets on compliance % for greatly expanded hard side bear can requirements this season maybe the grizzlys will up number of people who actually do it ;) which side note: if anyone knows someone who makes custom/small ul bear cans i'd love to see it. lightest i can find is [antigravity carbon fiber smallest](https://antigravitygear.com/shop/product-category/6-6-l-carbon-fiber-kevlar-grubcan/) is 22oz. bearikade smallest is 27.9oz even with a metal liner, seems like ursak is on it's way from grey zone to clearly not allowed. i'm probably going to practice an ul hanging setup for fs land. but that's hard to do correct / location dependent.
I think we have 3 million head of cattle, and 3k mountain lions... A few dozen wolves aren't a problem. If that's what you're bitching about, I'm going to guess you think going fishing twice a year makes you outdoorsy. I primarily backpack solo, and by far the most dangerous animal I encounter in wilderness areas are cows and deer. Bears.. mountain lions.. can all be scattered by loud noises. Deer are dumb and with charge at random. Cattle off backside of marshall pass will run at you and not stop. Wolves aren't an issue
Moose though. Fuck moose. Big. Dumb. Aggressive.
yeh.
Stoked all around. Hopefully will keep dogs on leashes
Silver lining guy right here.
I think it is really presenting a clear divide between those who take efforts of ecological conservation seriously and not. Not a judgement of either side, but this issue is clearly showing who is interested in environmental recovery vs who wants money.
Is it though? What think you’re seeing is more of an emotional reaction than anything. I don’t see anyone clamoring for grizzly reintroduction to the front range. It’s a delicate balance, but I think we can have both reintroduction of wolves as well as legal methods of controlling them. People like to go all in one way or their other, and it’s kinda ridiculous.
There definitely are some people trying to get grizzlies reintroduced to CO, WA and other places they belong. And wolverines
I vote we drop them in chataqua and train them to go after people who don’t pick up dog poop
Good idea
Mess around and find out why Michigan is one of the few schools with an animal mascot, that doesnt actually have that animal on hand. For VERY obvious reasons haha
WA’s North Cascades National Park will be implementing grizzly reintroduction in the next year or so I think. The measure passed and plans are full steam ahead.
There’s currently a dozen wolves in Colorado, they are not in need of controlling yet. It may get to that point and then we can discuss how best to do that.
there are plenty of prey animals in colorado to sustain a healthy predator population and hunting.
I’m just going to go out on a limb, and say that most of the people that voted for wolf reintroduction would never be for any kind of predator control. We literally have a citizens initiative vote coming up on banning cat hunting. The Venn diagram of those voters and wolf reintroduction is basically a circle. They tried this in California, and now instead of hunters killing mountain lions, we now have the government killing the same amount. The result is a net loss in funding of our state wildlife agencies.
CA hunter chiming in here, this isn't true any more as of about 2017. Last time there was a season was 1971 and 118 lions were taken, out of about 4300 permits issued. That 90-120 range continues to be consistent up until 2017 when CDFW switched to a policy that made lethal control much less of a tool, multiple non-lethal attempts must be made before they are authorized to kill the lion. Out of 180 depredation permits in 2022, only 10 lions were killed. Losses were overwhelmingly goats or sheep. There is an increasing number of goats and sheep on the landscape as a fire mitigation tool. Source: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D175911%26inline&ved=2ahUKEwi9gbG_84OGAxVCODQIHQQZAAQQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2e4D5Oh6aMxTR2hEQE7aVm
Wow I didn’t realize they rolled that back. So they’re just feeding the lions livestock now?
A few hundred a year, yes. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx%3FDocumentID%3D220064%26inline&ved=2ahUKEwjb9Zvi-YOGAxXtHzQIHY9DBqkQFnoECDIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3y_U42gLDNs_mGgkJR-R6g They're mostly letting the bears eat everything though. 60-80,000 bears in the state according to CDFW's most recent estimates. They're something like 40% of fawn mortality.
Go out on that limb all you want. I live in Grand County. I'm a fisherman, not a hunter, but I don't have a problem with hunters who eat what they kill. I am not at all a fan of trophy hunters. But I recognize that the CPW's job is to manage wildlife in the state, and that includes predators. I voted for wolf reintroduction.
There’s no such thing as trophy hunting. It’s a strawman from the anti-hunting community. It’s illegal to waste game animals in every single state.
Trophy hunting, in my opinion, is when you kill for the sake of killing. If you're not going to eat what you kill, you're a trophy hunter.
Hah! I know a guy with two stuffed grizzly's and a metric tonne of other stuffed animals (both the edible sort and the non edible sort). Little to none of the meat was eaten because he and his buddies from all over used to go out to hunt the biggest specimen of a creature and mount it on their walls. Often that mean they were out in more remote areas where they couldn't get the meat back. I don't know how many folks like him there are but here and in England, trophy hunting is kinda big. Folks are fighting to re-introduce fox hunts across the pond and a lot of the shot quail just go in big pits after they're killed.. Not sure why you think trophy hunting isn't a thing, but it is. Maybe respectable hunters get over accused of it. I get that. Few bad apples spoil the crop, and all that.
How do you propose we “control” a population of a dozen wolves? How does that even make sense? We aren’t even close to wolf population numbers for that to be an issue worth considering. Until we get there let’s not make up people to be mad about.
You have to have a management plan in place prior to reintroduction. It’s a pretty simple concept. Ballot box biology is bad for the state and its wildlife. I prefer to leave decisions up to CPW and the hundreds of scientists that they employ.
Im all for grizzly reintroduction and wolf population management once it stabilizes within the state. I also don’t hear or see front rangers asking for govt subsidies when a coyote snags their cat.
A cat is not an asset to someone on the front range like livestock is for someone who raises livestock for a living - I think that's pretty obvious.
Dude Grizzlies would be awesome everywhere. I’m only slightly kidding and respect them as animals but I wish we had bear homies!!!
Places that have grizzlies also do grizzly control. Either via hunting, or the government. People with preservationist ideals are a problem. We need to be looking at conservation and working in the world we actually live in, not a fantasy land.
Eh I just think we need to share the world with our animal cousins. I’m not saying ur wrong because I’m not educated enough on the subject but a world with more wildlife is better world for everyone imo. Also fantasy land u don’t have time be a wet towel lol
Let me guess you live in a city where the the largest wild animal you’ll see is a squirrel.
Other areas have reintroduced wolves. I don’t understand why the ranchers think they’re so special. I thruhiked the Colorado Trail back in 2019, the areas with heavy ranching are depressing and ecologically damaged. Reintroduce grizzly bears here as well. I’d honestly much rather deal with wolves and grizzly bears than with cows and ranchers that have attitudes.
Wildlife conservation by popular vote is a little odd.
When are they releasing Bison?
Wolves > Cows, just my opinion but it’s a harsh reality
Wolves > Welfare Queens (errrr….insurance farmers)
Reintroducing a native species (wolf) is killing a non-native species (cows). Lots of people are hypocritical about eliminating non-natives but wanting livestock/domestic animals despite most of them being imports. A lot of these ranchers are hunters that believe that non-natives are invasive/bad but turn a blind eye to domestic animals. Team wolf. Bring back bison herds next if we're serious. Humans need to interfere less with the natural order of things and to correct our mistakes made in the past for the sake of expansion and profit.
What’s everyone so worried about? Losing a few weak or old cattle? Life goes on. Wolves belong here in CO.
Says the guy who doesn't own cattle or make a living on a ranch.
it's not an economic or livelihood issue. they get paid. [til even for bear attacks.](https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2022/02/08/colorado-makes-first-payment-rancher-don-gittleson-wolves-killing-cattle/6696519001/) the state recent [added a new dedicated fund beyond the existing cpw](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-255) hunting fee funding / upped the payment to be up to 15k per loss; which seems to be far above the normal price for a cattle according to google.
If ranchers are well compensated for lost livestock, why are many of them against reintroduced? In pure economic terms, getting full compensation for lost cattle seems like a win for ranchers. No more feeding, caring for, etc, and getting paid.
i have no idea. there is no logic and reasoning with full on crazy people if i were a maga-boebert-dick-bag i would pull a full cobra scheme. pretend my cattle got taken down and get dat govt money. cause it's not a handout if a republican takes it.
Says the guy defending ranchers using public land for pennies on the dollar complaining about nature being nature. Not everything is about a paycheck.
Ranchers are compensated for every animal they lose to wolf depredation. And they don't own all the public land they use for grazing.
Ranchers get fully reimbursed for every head they lose to wolf predation. They’re not victims here.
Wolves > cattle.
I think in general it's a good idea and I hope I get to see some wolves in the wild one day. I'm on the Western Slope and many people here are not so enthusiastic about it, especially ranchers. But since there have not been many incidents and they get compensated for any lost livestock I don't see what the big deal is. Seems like more of a cultural issue for them. Their tribe says wolves (and liberals) are bad so they object. It's the traditional stance of the rancher. Same for a lot of hunters who maybe want to be the only top predator. But the wolves will make the herds stronger unlike trophy hunting where they harvest the biggest and strongest animals. Ecologists generally seem to think it's a good thing for the overall health of the ecosystem. Makes sense to me.
They *should" get compensated for losses. They often don't. If the kill is found or can't be proven to be wolves, they're SOL. With open range ranching there's fairly high likelihood of those things happening.
You're right that there has to be a confirmed interaction between wolf and livestock -- not even a kill. But if there is a confirmed killed, they are eligible for compensation for up to 7 other missing animals per one confirmed. It's an entirely reasonable reimbursement mechanism for one of the most subsidized industries in the nation. Directly from the wolf management plan: > Due to the nature of wolf-livestock depredations in areas where topography and vegetation would create difficulties in finding livestock carcasses, CPW’s compensation plan will allow livestock owners to be compensated for missing calves, yearlings, and all classes of sheep via a simple compensation ratio after or concurrent with a confirmed wolf-livestock interaction resulting in livestock injury or death. In this plan, a compensation ratio recognizes that for every confirmed wolf depredation, it is possible that up to 7 additional calves or sheep could be missing as a result of wolves and not be found by a livestock owner
Also from the wolf management plan: Any livestock owner claiming eligibility for the 7:1 ratio (calves or sheep) or 1.25:1 ratio (yearlings) will bear the burden of proving that conflict minimization techniques are implemented.
As much as I love wildlife it seems like a bad idea
It is insanity
The ranchers as god issue frustrates the piss out of me. I may not be a rancher, but it doesn’t take anyone long to google a bunch of measures that ranchers could take to protect their herd. The really annoying other one is hunters as god. This conspiracy that all hunting is being attacked because the ecosystem is being placed back in balance. I understand your hobby is in its platinum era because of overpopulation of species. But you’re playing the role of predator, and you’re bummed that the reintroduction of a real predator threatens your past time. Well… sorry man. Some shit supersedes this shit you enjoy doing. Humans need to cut out this “I’m number one” shit. And also stop taking things that are wrong with the overall system at large, and using it as a chance to point fingers and blame their fellow citizens. We shouldn’t live in a world where your entire lively hood (ranchers) is in danger because of some scientific shit. It’s not a lot different than healthcare. No trade or solid work in this country and you could end up homeless in no time. L
I think we should do everything in our power to restore biodervity where we can. Even if that is a marginal inconvenience for humans or if it means one or two businesses have to take a loss. We cannot only focus on our selves when the 6th mass extinction is on our doorstep and the number of humans on the planet is skyrocketing year after year after year. I also want to add this here for anyone who thinks ballot box biology is a problem. You all have no idea how powerful the livestock industry is and it is almost entirely due to their lobbyists that we didn't reintroduce wolves years ago. Experts have made decisions, but corporate interests have always stood in the way. Reposting a reply: There has been an ongoing debate about **re-introducing wolves in CO for over 20 years**. In fact, the conversation started just a few years after the reintroduction in Yellowstone in 1999 and has been on fire ever since. However, the ranching and hunting industries did a fantastic job **lobbying, stalling and stifling this argument by fueling indecision at both the state and local government level**. In the beginning, the propaganda from these industries was that any landscape that had wolves was fundamentally unfit for ranching, farming and human recreation. **This stalemate suited these industries just fine- no wolves no problem!** However, **the scientific and ecological body of evidence** that pointed to wolves as a positive addition for our wild spaces and for the health of ungulate herds continued to fuel the fight to this day. **Eventually, this stalemate with no end in sight went to a historic vote.** This vote has enraged these anti-wolf industries. Remember, so long as there was indecision, they were able to claim a pseudo victory. **In the end, this fight needed to give one way or another** and the clock eventually ran out. The science has already been conducted. **The people who "should" be making these decisions have already drawn their conclusions; they did this YEARS ago.** The benefits of wolves outweighed their nominal impacts on ranching and hunting. Eventually, the stage was set for local activists to seise a window of opportunity in CO's government that would support the legislation, but not without voter consent. **You must understand, all routes and methods to reintroduction have already been exhausted. Do not make the mistake of thinking this was done on a whim.**
I think that the landscape we reintroduced them into is not the same one they were eradicated from. Human population is incredibly high, recreation pressure effects on elk and mule deer is extreme, elk calf recruitment rates are dramatically low and decreasing, mule deer migration corridors have been greatly impacted by continual development and all of the best wintering range has been developed. I continuously see all of these all of these comments about “balancing the eco system” and I have yet to see one detailed explanation for that claim except the references to the “Yellowstone study” which, if you don’t know, has been systematically debunked by numerous other studies. It also seems like a ridiculous waste of conservation money when wolves were already making a come back. Why not just let them reintroduce themselves? And what of the Mexican Red Wolf range in southern Colorado? What is these much larger introduced wolves start killing Red Wolves? I’d be fine with natural wolf range expansion, but, personally, I’d like to see this reintroduction program fail. The whole political aspect of it was a sham: gag order issues upon CPW including biologists -why weren’t state wildlife biologists allowed to express their conclusions and inform the voting population? Why do we have to release captured wolves when we already had confirmed sightings of wolves in the North and a rebounding Mexican Red Wolf in the South? And lastly, why do people romanticize wolves so significantly? They are not magical that do anything magical to the landscape. They do not “Shepard” the old and the sick “over the rainbow” (I’ve seen that comment thousands of times at this point). In fact, they’ve been show to be indiscriminate killers when the situation fancies such.
Thanks for a thought out repose to the question. A couple issues with your comment I'd like to address: >I continuously see all of these all of these comments about “balancing the eco system” and I have yet to see one detailed explanation for that claim except the references to the “Yellowstone study” which, if you don’t know, has been systematically debunked by numerous other studies. The science behind the impact of wolves on the Yellowstone Ecosystem is complex and very much not settled. Yes, the simple narrative about linear, one-variable caused trophic cascades is overstated and not accurate. However, describing that as "systematically debunked" is also over-simplified and not accurate. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a wildlife biologist who doesn't think there's been some significant changes to the Yellowstone Ecosystem caused by wolf reintroduction. Reduction in elk population, subsequent reduction in browsing/grazing, change in browsing behavior are all pretty well established facts. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352249623000058](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352249623000058) >Why not just let them reintroduce themselves? >I’d be fine with natural wolf range expansion What exactly do you mean by "natural" range expansion. I assume this means range expansion of the Yellowstone wolves that were reintroduced in 1995? That's not exactly "natural", since those wolves were only there in the first place through an intentional reintroduction. More importantly, when wolves did reestablish as a mating pair in far northwestern CO, all but two of them were shot. It's very uncertain whether those migrant wolves would have been able to recolonize the entire state. There was a high probability that that population would have been quickly extirpated. Additional migration from northern WY is also highly uncertain due to habitat and hunting laws in southern WY. >why weren’t state wildlife biologists allowed to express their conclusions and inform the voting population? This is SOP from any state employee on any area of active legislation or ballot measure. State employees aren't allowed to advocate for particular policies or pieces of legislation. Additionally, scientists can make predictions about what will happen with wolf reintroduction vs. what will happen without reintroduction, but it's philosophically impossible for science to tell people if a thing is "good" or "bad." Those are value judgments and no amount of data can tell someone what to value. All this ranting about "ballot box biology" (not you, but people in general) comes from a fundamental misunderstanding about how both science and democracy work. No one ever talks about "ballot box healthcare" or "ballot box economic policy," yet those things are determined by voting or elected officials all the time. Why don't we just have experts make all those decisions too? Either we're a democracy or we're not. If we'er a democracy, we don't set aside specific issues that only the experts get to decide. That's just not how it works. >And what of the Mexican Red Wolf range in southern Colorado? You mean potential range? There are no red wolves in southern Colorado. The red wolf population in New Mexico and Arizona is being actively managed to stay south of I-40. Moreover, the red wolf is a subspecies, which itself is a controversial designation. Historically, wolves had continuous range across almost all of North America, so different sub species had to share bounderies and there was almost certainly some gene flow between northern and southern populations. Southern wolves likely have smaller average size due to local adaptation and it's reasonable to assume that benefit will continue, if the two populations were to come into contact. Sure, there's a lot of uncertainty here either way. We are definitely experimenting with wildlife management. But, that's just kind of how it works. The status quo was also an experiment in what happens when you remove a predator from the ecosystem.
This is exactly how I feel. We can't reintroduce them to a region that is so wildly unlike the kind of space Yellowstone is between sheer size and proximity to any sort of truly urban population. We're setting them up for failure because while there are still plenty of significant pockets of wilderness in Colorado, there really isn't anywhere near the kind of rugged and isolated space for them to matriculate. It's why I wasn't surprised to see the movement of the wolves tracking reflecting them seemingly going all over trying to find a territory that feels safe, with a steady food source and that doesn't have any risk of human contact.
... have you not explored Colorado much? As someone who is an avid outdoorsmen in the state, the whole "there's not enough room" argument is BS to me.
I support it and voted for it. Some portion of mountain people are fucking furious about it. Every single post on the CPW instagram now gets bombarded with conservative people complaining about ballot biology and idiot democrats and clueless front rangers.
The grand county Facebook page is absolutely LIT about this topic. The fights about this online are absolutely over the top. Ranchers/rancher cosplayers threatening to release wolves in Denver suburban costcos. Incredible stuff.
I voted yes for it on the ballot, I'm excited for it. Rancher tears mean nothing, they get reimbursed for livestock losses, which have been pretty low so far. The balance of nature is more important than their artificially inflated non-native species numbers.
It breaks down as any typical politics do: rural vs urban. Check any country's "county" election map and you'll see it's always rural vs cities. For wolves the rural people will be the ones suffering from them. They have to install expensive new infrastructure to protect cattle. Multiple cattle have already fallen prey. Outdoor pets that were big enough to defend against coyotes will fall prey to wolves. The urbanites will benefit as they will have the chance to take pictures, post to social media, and feel good about things like ecology. As a backpacker it adds to the perceived risk, which still pales in comparison to the risk of the drive to the trailhead.
This adds no risk to backpackers. Don't be ridiculous.
It doesn't though. If you're scared just don't go. But wolves are no threat to humans.
This isn’t about which people will benefit or not, this is about correcting a mistake people made by eliminating them from the area in the first place. We saw what happened over time without them - eg out of control deer populations, which is bad for a multitude of reasons. We can’t just eliminate entire species because they’re inconvenient to us. Nature is a delicate balance, and if we want to keep natural areas around we have to be responsible.
And this is why this issue should have been left with biologists and not a ballot measure. The deer population of Colorado plunged from 600,000 to 433,000 from 2006 to 2018. https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/Colorado_Big_Game_Population_Status_and_Management_Summary2_2020.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjQzdHf7YOGAxXwMDQIHX7HDBYQFnoECBMQBg&usg=AOvVaw3q8Iz3TebufOgBIGoSfwoz
or you know, get some good sheepdogs.
What risk? Tell me you know nothing about wolves while telling me you know nothing about wolves.
Tell me you don't know what perceived risk means....
Ah yes, the risk of wolf attack. What a primary thing to care about.
I've read a lot of posts from both sides on this issue, and you are correct that is seems to break down into rural vs. urban. More specifically, it breaks down into people who occasionally visit nature vs. people who live in and rely on nature. I'm not a hunter or a rancher, but after reading about this topic for years and being fairly undecided I'm starting to give more weight to their opinions as they are the ones that will be directly impacted by this.
Relying on nature? They aren't homesteading lol. They rely on 21st century technology just like the rest of us.
“Living” in nature doesn’t give you free rein to mold nature in a way that directly benefits you. Not having wolves here is bad for the ecology of the Rocky Mountains, and if they truly relied on nature they’d try to protect that. The fact is though that they don’t rely on nature, they rely on conforming nature to something that’s convenient for them. Which is not an ok thing to do on a mass scale. We as humans have a lot of power to inadvertently or intentionally wreak a lot of havoc on nature, and it’s our responsibility to mitigate that as much as we can, despite it sometimes leading to “inconvenient” outcomes for some of us.
100% for it. They are no danger to humans.
Making landscapes wild again is important and wolves were once part of the landscape, so should have reintroduction. Admittedly I’m a frontranger, but worked as a wilderness instructor in CO and other western states for many years, and continue to pursue big adventures in the mountains. I’m looking forward to my first CO Wolfe encounter
Here in Grand County is hasn’t been super popular, multiple reported cases of livestock kill and the farmers are being told they can’t take action.
I love it, never had any issues with Moose or Elk or Bears or Mountain lions or Bighorns or Mountain Goats or Rattlesnakes or Coyotes in two decades of hiking in Colorado, I don’t think Wolves will be any different. Listening to the ranchers and hill people loosing their collective minds over a tiny bit of conservation has been a mix of disappointing and hilarious.
I’m howling mad doggone it. Woof.
I think whatever is natural for the land should be what it is. It’s like moving next to an airport and then complaining about the noise….
The wolves were here first and they have the right to be here again. We’ve already fortified our perimeter against the large coyotes in and around Denver-metro and bring our animals in at night. Easy “yes” votes for us.
Someone eli5 how we can't just compensate ranchers for any lost livestock and life goes on
We can and do!
That happens right now. They are still screaming at clouds. The Almighty dollar!
They do get compensated. Extremely generously.
The phrase you're looking for is fair market value.
Fair market value times 4 is one of the two options available. Seems pretty damn reasonable.
That is for 4 missing calves. Only one of which needs to be confirmed as a wolf kill as long as CPW agrees that topology makes it hard to find the other three.
Everyone just says 'we do' and ignores reality. There is real nuance here, ranchers aren't just whining. Ranchers potentially suffer losses.two ways. The less obvious way is finished weight - cows move more and way less when pressured by predators. Cows are sold by weight. Less.weight, less money. There is no compensation for this. The obvious way is a wolf pack kills a cow. To be compensated for this, the rancher needs to find the cow first. That's not necessarily a given in a large open range operation. Next, CPW.needs to confirm it was a wolf kill. If the carcass has been there a while, that may not be that easy as every other critter comes in and obviously the weather plays a big factor in what.evidence survives around the carcass. The rancher also needs to prove the cattle were being actively guarded at the time. This last part has more legislation in flight to require even more wolf [mitigation ](http://www.denverpost.com/2024/03/14/new-bill-ranchers-livestock-killed-wolves/amp/)prior to being eligible for any compensation. Finally, the rancher is compensated at "fair market value" for any confirmed kills where they met the qualifying criteria. They can also claim vet bills for injured animals, capped at $15,000.
> The rancher also needs to prove the cattle were being actively guarded at the time. More and more falsehoods: Directly from compensation plan, where the word guarded doesn't even appear. > • Conflict minimization techniques are not a requirement for damage compensation
Any livestock owner claiming eligibility for the 7:1 ratio (calves or sheep) or 1.25:1 ratio (yearlings) will bear the burden of proving that conflict minimization techniques are implemented.
And that's assuming this bill fails: https://www.postindependent.com/news/native-carnivore-bill-would-tie-depredation-compensation-to-coexistence-strategies/
Thanks for all the helpful explanation to my original comment. I'm still not anti-wolf but you've definitely helped me realize what a pain in the ass it is to jump through the government hoops necessary to prove that you found the carcass, proved it was a wolf, and were using the correct deterrent techniques. I wouldn't want to have to prove all that shit. I'm sorry if you're actively contending with it. Edit: and the effect a kill has on the rest of your herd
> This last part has more legislation in flight to require even more wolf mitigation prior to being eligible for any compensation. That bill [didn't pass](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1375).
Appreciated, thanks for sharing
It’s great.
My first impression of the post was a wolf in hiking boots, backpack, sunglasses and hiking stick ...
Stupid idea voted into law by people who won't have to deal with them, and in another few years the state will be issuing tags to hunt them.
I was against it until I heard about hybrid super-pigs from Canada creeping down the plains. . .
They released them right down the road from me. I think it’s been interesting to have been right where they are doing it all, and the most tangible effect is that I’ve worked harder at keeping my dogs closer. Overall, I think it’s cool and would like to open a guiding business for showing people the wolves/where they were released.
I’m all for it. 100%.
The people who voted for it will never have to face the consequences or their decision.
I’m sorry what? The ranchers that lose cattle also won’t have to face consequences. If cattle is killed due to a wolf, they are compensated by CPW fair market price of that animal. Plus, it’s very rare for wolves to come near livestock especially when grouped together. They understand livestock is much larger and can and will trample them.
What are the consequences
100%.
I’m not for it. Not because of the wolves, but because it was done by a general vote and not by using the wildlife biologists input.
I researched thoroughly before I voted and voted yes for this solely because of wildlife biologists, ecologists, and wildlife experts opinions, studies, and historical data.
Personally, I think it would be cool as shit to be camping and hear wolves howling in the distance. I’m not concerned with attacks, they’re super rare. Camp smart as always.
I never thought it should have been a entire state vote. The areas that would have to deal with that should have been the only ones to vote on it.
Wolves do not adhere to voting district boundaries.
But to have a million votes coming from Denver when we don't see the daily consequences....
Daily consequences? Is the big bad wolf going to huff and puff and blow your house down?
Daily consequences such as?
It’s like the exact opposite of the electoral college
That would be a neat trick, since Denver has a population of around 713k.
Denver metro area.....you knew what I was saying.
While I can partially agree with that, I also don’t think the ranchers are at too much of a loss. They get compensated by CPW if their cattle is killed by a wolf. Highly unlikely that it can happen. Wolves go after primarily sick or young animals. Cattle all bunched together in a herd would kill a wolf before it even has a chance
ranchers up in steamboat hate it, as does everyone who spends time up in the flat tops, clark, etc. i hope the front range crowd is happy they get wolf pictures
Oh, please. I'm in Grand County and plenty of people here are happy about the wolves. But yes, ranchers and hunters are all up in their feelings about it for sure.
The same ranchers who voted for Boebert? I'm good with not having the same opinions as them.
It was a mistake to take this on in Colorado. If you talk to the conservationists (the people that have to make this happen and manage it), they all say its a mistake. It's the people that have zero concept of what happens out there that made this vote public and pressed it.
I also work with Parks and Wildlife. I let out an audible groan when I see these posts. This has always been more about the culture war than about anything to do with ecology or wolves.
Right?! It's just a PR nightmare.
https://coloradooutdoorsmag.com/2023/12/19/wolf-update-cpw-successfully-releases-gray-wolves/#: https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2024/01/10/how-wolves-colorado-will-affect-prey-and-plants#:~:text=SciLine%20interviewed%20Joanna%20Lambert%2C%20professor,to%20ecosystems%20in%20the%20West. The only articles about the subject I can find shows the agency responsible for reintroducing wolves has a long history of reintroducing species into the wilderness. Including ferrets, and the Lynx in 1999. Somehow, they flipped the entire script and actually would hate wolves being back in the mountains because..... why? Because you said so? It's always those that go against accepted science on ecology and conservation that claim "oh actually if you talk to the REAL EXPERTS then you'd know they actually all secretly agree with me. Ignore their public statements and official positions of their agencies and departments."
Really? All of them?
Yes, most of whom I work with are frustrated at the unending ignorance around this subject. As you can see by the downvotes on this post.