Reintroducing Wolves to Colorado

[kidoggy]

sure city folk all all for wolves. they have zero stake in the damage they do.
let's introduce them in THEIR backyards and see how they feel about it then.
buzz says wolves were going to overrun the west anyhow. that is pure B.S.

THINK ABOUT IT A MOMENT, if that were true, why was it necessary to spend millions reintroducing them?

sure buzz , I will concede you are knowledgeable about the reintroduction politics. but you have zero sense of reality when it comes to damage wolves do(have done).


what benefit have the states had regarding reintroducing them? NONE ,NOT A THING!sure ,we now have another animal to hunt, at the cost of losing many others. they cost the people more then they can ever recoup. herds are down.I have seen firsthand how the wolves have changed the elk and have seen the wolf killed animals. the ecosystem has had zero benefit from having them here. you already admitted the kill livestock. someone has to pay for that but you don't care cause it ain't you. that is how city folk feel also.
I would like to see statistics on the number of the folks that wrote in favor of reintroduction, that actually hold a job and contribute to society compared to those who do.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I also cant believe that anyone would make the claim that the Federal Government used the ESA illegally to reintroduce wolves. That's pure B.S., they followed the letter of the law during the entire process. Just because you don't agree with reintroduction and wolves, doesn't mean that the Feds didn't follow the law. If they had failed to follow the law, I can assure you that with the amount of scrutiny that the recovery has received, there would have been a legal consequences...there hasn't been any.

I completely disagree with what you said in the above paragraph. This is taken from the ESA verbatim: "Under the ESA, Species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. Endangered means a species is in danger of extinction through out all or a significant portion of it's range." The pre re-introduction range of the Grey Wolf is slightly below the US/Canadian border, throughout Canada and Alaska. There are literally 1,000's of these animals in that area. I They are definitely not threatened or endangered there. If you intend to include their historic range before the Europeans came to North America, then they could fit the definition, but I don't believe Congress intended to do that.

Looks like the new Congress is looking at weakening the ESA. When it comes to Wolves, I hope they eliminate then totally.

 

[BuzzH]

Aussie_hunter,

I think from the last 2 posts you can see why trying to have a fact based discussion is so difficult.

Ricmic stated that the "locals" held a different belief than the "city folk"...that's not true. The locals that took the time to send in part of those 160,000 comments also supported reintroduction by a land slide. Wyoming residents that commented, had the lowest percentage of support via the comments received at about 60%. Idaho and Montana residents showed higher support, close to over-all support of reintroduction.

Also, notice the comments by Ricmic, that there was never a reintroduction into MN, he's 100% correct. Those wolves have been Listed under the ESL for a long time, and still are. The management costs associated with a listed species is extremely high, for both the State and Federal Governments.

Now, read what kidoggy stated:

1. There is no way that the wolves would have reestablished themselves naturally...well, you can see that's not true via Ricmic's comments regarding MN. The same thing was going to happen in MT/ID/WY.

2. The other comment he made is why spend millions to reintroduce them? The answer is pretty apparent. Under the reintroduction program, wolves were able to be managed under 10(j), taking care of problem wolves from the very start. It was stated in the FEIS, that predation on livestock was going to happen, nobody said it wouldn't. As a side, anyone suffering livestock is compensated at 167% of the value of the livestock killed by wolves. Further, the money for compensation came from private donors. The reason that it made sense to spend millions on reintroduction is because dragging out listing for decades is more costly than just getting the populations high enough to delist. Once they're delisted, the amount of money required to manage them drops significantly. A

As a way to illustrate this point, I can assure you that wayyy more money is being spent by Wyoming on wolf management (since they're still listed here) than either ID or MT that are enjoying State Management. State management that includes raising revenue via selling wolf tags.

Another point, Wyoming has spent nearly 50 million in Game and Fish funds to manage federally protected grizzly bears. If there would have been an option to spend, say 10 million when they were listed, to get the population to levels required to delisted via reintroduction, the State of Wyoming could have saved 40 million...and could have been recuperating funds via sale of grizzly permits.

Its exactly why wolf reintroduction has saved money in the long run for the States that reintroduced and are now managing wolves. It would have been way more costly to nurse along the naturally occurring wolves in MT that were under full federal protection under the ESA. It also would have severely hampered any kind of lethal control of wolves as they wouldn't have been managed under 10(j).

This is the exact reason that I always hesitate to enter into these discussions...the emotional and fact-less rants by those that were likely sitting on their duff's THEN, when it mattered, and complaining NOW, that the ship has sailed.

I was in the fray for a long, long time...I'm not forced to guess on what happened...I lived it, and still am.

 

[BuzzH]

I completely disagree with what you said in the above paragraph. This is taken from the ESA verbatim: "Under the ESA, Species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. Endangered means a species is in danger of extinction through out all or a significant portion of it's range." The pre re-introduction range of the Grey Wolf is slightly below the US/Canadian border, throughout Canada and Alaska. There are literally 1,000's of these animals in that area. I They are definitely not threatened or endangered there. If you intend to include their historic range before the Europeans came to North America, then they could fit the definition, but I don't believe Congress intended to do that.

Looks like the new Congress is looking at weakening the ESA. When it comes to Wolves, I hope they eliminate then totally.

What am I wrong about? Did you not read the "or significant portion of its range" part?

I would offer advice that you read the ESA...there was no law broken under the ESA in regard to wolf reintroduction. Your opinion, while fine to state, doesn't change that fact.

To understand what "congress intended" is not up to you to decide, but rather the court system. The ESA has been upheld in court countless times, for the record.

BTW, how is that lawsuit coming in regard to the Feds breaking the law under the ESA in regard to wolf reintroduction? Just curious.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

What am I wrong about? Did you not read the "or significant portion of its range" part?

I would offer advice that you read the ESA...there was no law broken under the ESA in regard to wolf reintroduction. Your opinion, while fine to state, doesn't change that fact.

To understand what "congress intended" is not up to you to decide, but rather the court system. The ESA has been upheld in court countless times, for the record.

BTW, how is that lawsuit coming in regard to the Feds breaking the law under the ESA in regard to wolf reintroduction? Just curious.

Like I said in my post...what range is being used to justify that wolves are endangered in it. Certainly not the range they now occupy....millions & millions of acres or 1000's of sq. miles in which there are many thousands of wolves. If you believe that they justified the classification by using the whole lower 48, then how many centuries are you going back in history. I have read the ESA, that's where I got the quote I used.

We are never going to agree about this, If have my beliefs and opinions, you have yours. The wolf reintroduction was shoved down the states throats using Yellowstone NP as a model of the what happens when there are not enough predators in the habitat and over population of deer, elk & moose result. It is that this habitat damage only occurs in the NPs where no hunting is allowed.

In my opinion wolves don't need protection, they are surviving just fine in Canada and Alaska.

 

[Tim McCoy]

And much of northern Europe & Asia...

 

[nv-hunter]

Like I said in my post...what range is being used to justify that wolves are endangered in it. Certainly not the range they now occupy....millions & millions of acres or 1000's of sq. miles in which there are many thousands of wolves. If you believe that they justified the classification by using the whole lower 48, then how many centuries are you going back in history. I have read the ESA, that's where I got the quote I used.

We are never going to agree about this, If have my beliefs and opinions, you have yours. The wolf reintroduction was shoved down the states throats using Yellowstone NP as a model of the what happens when there are not enough predators in the habitat and over population of deer, elk & moose result. It is that this habitat damage only occurs in the NPs where no hunting is allowed.

In my opinion wolves don't need protection, they are surviving just fine in Canada and Alaska.

The damage to the parks is due to 100% fire suppression not overpopulations on animals, this started after the wildfire is the 80's.
The ESA has been bacterized into a blanket protection plan for the environmentalists not as intended to preserve the many species of animals that were truly struggling.

Buzz can you prove through dna testing that this species of wolf ever was in these areas? I believe it was the timber wolf or the prairie wolf smaller animals with a different prey class.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

The thing that really bothers me is that even tho I don't live where there are wolves, I've seen first hand what happens to the game when wolves are present. In 2011 I went on a guided wilderness elk hunt to Thorofare in the Teton Wilderness right next to YNP. Historically this area has been a prime elk, deer, moose and sheep hunting area. It's reputation goes back over 100 years. I hunted hard for 6 days, leaving camp on horseback well before daylight and getting back around 8 to 9 every evening. Saw a total of 16 elk, 2 deer & 1 moose the whole time. Heard wolves every day and saw them 3 or 4 times, grizzlies too. It was during the rut and my guide told me that the bulls don't bugle anymore because the wolves hear them and are there real fast. We saw one small bunch of 8 or 8 cows and a small 5x5 across a canyon. my guide cow called and the bull grunted back, Within 15 minutes there were 6 or 8 wolves on them. Scattered like a covey of quail. My guide told me that there were almost no deer there anymore. I sure as hell don't want to see them here in Colorado!

 

[kidoggy]

Aussie_hunter,

I think from the last 2 posts you can see why trying to have a fact based discussion is so difficult.

Ricmic stated that the "locals" held a different belief than the "city folk"...that's not true. The locals that took the time to send in part of those 160,000 comments also supported reintroduction by a land slide. Wyoming residents that commented, had the lowest percentage of support via the comments received at about 60%. Idaho and Montana residents showed higher support, close to over-all support of reintroduction.

Also, notice the comments by Ricmic, that there was never a reintroduction into MN, he's 100% correct. Those wolves have been Listed under the ESL for a long time, and still are. The management costs associated with a listed species is extremely high, for both the State and Federal Governments.

Now, read what kidoggy stated:

1. There is no way that the wolves would have reestablished themselves naturally...well, you can see that's not true via Ricmic's comments regarding MN. The same thing was going to happen in MT/ID/WY.

2. The other comment he made is why spend millions to reintroduce them? The answer is pretty apparent. Under the reintroduction program, wolves were able to be managed under 10(j), taking care of problem wolves from the very start. It was stated in the FEIS, that predation on livestock was going to happen, nobody said it wouldn't. As a side, anyone suffering livestock is compensated at 167% of the value of the livestock killed by wolves. Further, the money for compensation came from private donors. The reason that it made sense to spend millions on reintroduction is because dragging out listing for decades is more costly than just getting the populations high enough to delist. Once they're delisted, the amount of money required to manage them drops significantly. A

As a way to illustrate this point, I can assure you that wayyy more money is being spent by Wyoming on wolf management (since they're still listed here) than either ID or MT that are enjoying State Management. State management that includes raising revenue via selling wolf tags.

Another point, Wyoming has spent nearly 50 million in Game and Fish funds to manage federally protected grizzly bears. If there would have been an option to spend, say 10 million when they were listed, to get the population to levels required to delisted via reintroduction, the State of Wyoming could have saved 40 million...and could have been recuperating funds via sale of grizzly permits.

Its exactly why wolf reintroduction has saved money in the long run for the States that reintroduced and are now managing wolves. It would have been way more costly to nurse along the naturally occurring wolves in MT that were under full federal protection under the ESA. It also would have severely hampered any kind of lethal control of wolves as they wouldn't have been managed under 10(j).

This is the exact reason that I always hesitate to enter into these discussions...the emotional and fact-less rants by those that were likely sitting on their duff's THEN, when it mattered, and complaining NOW, that the ship has sailed.

I was in the fray for a long, long time...I'm not forced to guess on what happened...I lived it, and still am.

WHY SHOULD A SINGLE DOLLAR HAVE BEEN SPENT BRING WOLVES BACK? there would have been no need to manage them if they weren't here in first place. sure we may have gotten one or two or even a couple dozen but they would never have gotten to the level they have without interference. you know this is true and you also know they were not brought back to " save the eco system." AS IS always the case when the government sticks nose were it doesn't belong ,a problem was created where none previously existed. AND YOU HELPED THEM DO IT.

 

[BuzzH]

The damage to the parks is due to 100% fire suppression not overpopulations on animals, this started after the wildfire is the 80's.
The ESA has been bacterized into a blanket protection plan for the environmentalists not as intended to preserve the many species of animals that were truly struggling.

Buzz can you prove through dna testing that this species of wolf ever was in these areas? I believe it was the timber wolf or the prairie wolf smaller animals with a different prey class.

First off, you're wrong about fire suppression in Yellowstone. The fire frequencies in lodgepole pine (which dominates yellowstones forest type) are anywhere from 80-300 years. Lodgepole pine regenerate through stand replacing disturbance, exactly why lodgepole are the classic example of a monoculture forest. What happened there in 1988, is exactly what's been going on in Yellowstone for thousands of years (a stand replacing fire every 80-300 years). I can show you the same thing all across the West, fire suppression has had very little impact on habitat in lodgepole types. We've only been suppressing fire to any real extent for the last 80 years, really only the last 40-50.

In other forest/habitat types, absolutely fire suppression has changed things significantly, including wildlife habitat (some for the better, some for the worse).

The answer to your question regarding the sub-species of wolves...not that I'm aware of. I've done a fair amount of research, and to find valid DNA results that suggest there was a different genetic sub-species is not in any peer-reviewed science I've seen. For that to be the case, there would have had to been a barrier between the sub-species from Canada. Since the wolves that moved into Montana, drifted down from Canada, I would say the likelihood that enough of a barrier has ever existed to genetically differentiate a southern sub-species in MT/ID/WY, is remote, and most likely not possible.

Plus, there is also language in the ESA that deals specifically with your question. In section 4 (e)(A) such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species.

So, even IF, and that's a big IF, there ever was a genetic difference, it wouldn't matter in regard to law (ESA).

 

[BuzzH]

Like I said in my post...what range is being used to justify that wolves are endangered in it. Certainly not the range they now occupy....millions & millions of acres or 1000's of sq. miles in which there are many thousands of wolves. If you believe that they justified the classification by using the whole lower 48, then how many centuries are you going back in history. I have read the ESA, that's where I got the quote I used.

We are never going to agree about this, If have my beliefs and opinions, you have yours. The wolf reintroduction was shoved down the states throats using Yellowstone NP as a model of the what happens when there are not enough predators in the habitat and over population of deer, elk & moose result. It is that this habitat damage only occurs in the NPs where no hunting is allowed.

In my opinion wolves don't need protection, they are surviving just fine in Canada and Alaska.

You're right, we're not going to agree. The trouble is, you have opinions and I have the facts...that's problematic for you in regard to a fact based discussion on wolves.

If you want to talk about opinions, that's a different story...I'll be glad to share my opinions as well. Aussie hunter asked for facts, not opinion.

 

[BuzzH]

WHY SHOULD A SINGLE DOLLAR HAVE BEEN SPENT BRING WOLVES BACK? there would have been no need to manage them if they weren't here in first place. sure we may have gotten one or two or even a couple dozen but they would never have gotten to the level they have without interference. you know this is true and you also know they were not brought back to " save the eco system." AS IS always the case when the government sticks nose were it doesn't belong ,a problem was created where none previously existed. AND YOU HELPED THEM DO IT.

The same can be said for any other species. I'm just very happy that there was enough for-sight by some great leaders, that recognized the need to "spend a single dollar" to save species like elk, deer, pronghorn, bighorns, etc. etc. etc.

For what its worth, elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, sheep, etc. caused, and are causing, lots of problems where none existed when those species were in low numbers or didn't exist in much of their former range (including places where they have been reintroduced, and in many cases, introduced). Where's your outrage for those problems?

BTW, my comments on wolves are part of the public record if you want to spend a bit of time researching.

 

[kidoggy]

The same can be said for any other species. I'm just very happy that there was enough for-sight by some great leaders, that recognized the need to "spend a single dollar" to save species like elk, deer, pronghorn, bighorns, etc. etc. etc.

For what its worth, elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, sheep, etc. caused, and are causing, lots of problems where none existed when those species were in low numbers or didn't exist in much of their former range (including places where they have been reintroduced, and in many cases, introduced). Where's your outrage for those problems?

BTW, my comments on wolves are part of the public record if you want to spend a bit of time researching.

the difference is they actually pay their way and have a positive impact on states income. the wolf does not. it is a leech to society. much like most that love them.

 

[kidoggy]

The same can be said for any other species. I'm just very happy that there was enough for-sight by some great leaders, that recognized the need to "spend a single dollar" to save species like elk, deer, pronghorn, bighorns, etc. etc. etc.

For what its worth, elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, sheep, etc. caused, and are causing, lots of problems where none existed when those species were in low numbers or didn't exist in much of their former range (including places where they have been reintroduced, and in many cases, introduced). Where's your outrage for those problems?

BTW, my comments on wolves are part of the public record if you want to spend a bit of time researching.

the difference is they actually pay their way and have a positive impact on states income. the wolf does not.THE WOLF OFFERS NOTHING but negatives. it is a leech to society. much like most that love them.

 

[AKaviator]

I've dealt with many various issues regarding wildlife in Alaska for a long time (40+ years). One thing I've learned, for sure, is that scientific "fact" is based largely on the opinion of the scientist presenting it. Look at the courts and see all the "dueling scientists" arguing over who's facts are the most factual. Very little pure fact when it comes to political hot potato issues, like wolves! That's a fact!

 

[BuzzH]

the difference is they actually pay their way and have a positive impact on states income. the wolf does not.THE WOLF OFFERS NOTHING but negatives. it is a leech to society. much like most that love them.

Uhhh, no, actually they don't all "pay their way"...research is your friend.

 

[Aussie_hunter_jd]

I can see both sides,

To be honest how buzz has explained it makes a lot of sense. It's easy to be driven by emotion and to block out reason but if you sit back and think about something logically and more importantly are prepared to have your beliefs questioned you're much better off. From this purely conservation perspective it makes perfect sense and I'd agree with it.

Having said that, I'd go back to my original point in that trying to restore the past is a great example of the ignorance and self righteous nature of humans.

We have made a lot of changes to the natural environment, in the long run they may not be reversible but mother nature will incorporate them into everything.

Just like foxes in australia which we spend tens of millions of dollars every year on controlling for some false notion that we can right the wrongs of the past and change australia back to what it was. It's immature thinking, the same could be suggested for wolves I believe. We don't live in the past where they existed in these areas, the dynamics have changed too much.
It's only nature that an animal will come in and wipe out another through competition and in doing this we've established ourselves as the apex predator of these regions.

If people could accept the notion that what we do, given that we are just animals is actually natural you could argue that an attempt at reversing this by introducing another apex predator is an attack on nature itself.

I don't think everyone here will understand what I'm getting at but for those that do I hope it's some good for thought.

P.s. if it's questioned by anyone, I studied in a big city but I'm a passionate farmers son through and through and after seeing both sides of that argument too I do believe that country people are treated like second class citizens next to city folk and have their opinions quashed as simply uneducated redneck babble. You really do have to live with some situations rather than sitting at a desk to understand them (I.e. croc shooting in aus)

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[kidoggy]

Uhhh, no, actually they don't all "pay their way"...research is your friend.

I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS and just not willing to admit it but point is they actually offer something, the wolf does not.. deer elk and antelope bring in millions every year from hunters, hunting to those just buying sports equipment for the purpose of hunting them.many hunt them for their sustainance.(I know I seldom eat anything but meat from wild game). sure some will hunt the wolves but we all know they are never going to bring in the $ for the state that deer, elk and antelope will.

before you show us a video of how the aspens can't grow without them , let me save you the time,and just call it BS right now.

 

[kidoggy]

Explaining USFWS’, HSUS’ War Against Predator Hunting

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/predator-hunting/explaining-usfws-war-predator-hunting/?utm_source=newsletter_011317&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRVeE5XUmpZVE5tTlRkbSIsInQiOiJyWjNoM0wyc1Y1a3RUWEtxMlgwaUp6eTRBejc0QzM5WG5iaWlaanRFc0FIZEN5VlN2ZHFsU205Tld6RG14SXMzXC9xeEVpN2dEOWcrUDI4ajFHMzdOS2xaVjg4SFwvaTBcL2RhT2RPa3lub1FKSkh2d1wvbGNncVpkOG95a0JqeDFoemQifQ==

 

[MTHusker]

How is it fair to the states the federal government imposes it's will on, versus the vast majority of states that are not effected when it comes to wolves? Historically the wolf was in the entire lower 48 states, in different strains, but only a select few states are forced to accommodate the federal government? If were going to reintroduce them to the lower 48 let's do it right, spread them around, do not make folks in rural areas be the only ones having to deal with this issue. Animals are very adaptive, let us make sure all folks have some skin in the game.