# Wolves in Colorado



## BigT

I am sure many of you are already aware of this attempt to reintroduce the wolf back into Colorado.

I am hopeful this doesn't go anywhere as I believe it'll effect Utah. In the article it mentioned they'd like to release the wolves in the northwest part of the state, and the southwest. In all honesty, I could see wolves becoming an issue throughout Utah in the Books, the Uinta range, and even in southeastern Utah near the LaSal and San Juan. Much of their argument is that the deer and elk herds are out of control in Colorado and this would bring balance to their herds. I don't believe Utah's deer and elk herds are what some consider Colorado's to be. We all know wolves have been in Utah and likely are in some places. But this could in my opinion effect us here as well.

The article states there was a little north of 211,000 signatures to put this initiative on a ballot. Being Colorado it doesn't surprise me too much but I do wonder how many of the signatures are legit.

I don't hunt Colorado but have considered it. But I don't want this to happen! This is bad for all of us!

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/10/colorado-wolf-reintroduction-ballot-measure/


----------



## Critter

The sad fact of the matter is that like the trapping ban and the bear hunt they will have enough bleeding hearts to pass this. 

It is just one more step of the Californication of Colorado.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

I'll bet dollars to donuts at the core of this, is some anti-hunting advocacy group, or at the least, is leftist in its ideology. A lot of of those people seem to think that we have no place in the wilderness, and they jump at any opportunity to lessen our hunting opportunites, and overall have an anti-management stance. In their ideological zeal, they forget that ubranization kills more wildlife every year then any number of hunters ever could. I'll wager most of the cities that they seem to think we should stay in, used to be prime wintering ranges.


If you look into the subject more, you will find opinions posted online, from people in Utah, who HATE hunters and want wolves back to lessen hunting.


----------



## Jedidiah

Watching California Jr. try to apply wolf plans from states where people can't be seen in areas thousands of square miles in size, and where livestock outnumbers humans 3 to 1, sounds like a lot of fun actually.

Edit: Had to edit numbers for actual accuracy, though the previous numbers were fun.


----------



## BigT

Jedidiah said:


> Watching California Jr. try to apply wolf plans from states where people can't be seen in areas thousands of square miles in size, and where livestock outnumbers humans 3 to 1, sounds like a lot of fun actually.
> 
> Edit: Had to edit numbers for actual accuracy, though the previous numbers were fun.


Interesting you mentioned this..

I was looking at some numbers yesterday out of curiosity. Colorado has nearly 6 million residents, and about 66 million total acres across the state.

Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana combine for a little north of 3.3 million residents, and over 200 million acres of ground. Things aren't going well in those states with fewer wolf / human conflicts. This ought to go over real well in Colorado.

I've also heard this could be an attempt of a small minority of those who despise hunters in attempts to hurt big game hunting.


----------



## Critter

I doubt that it has anything to do with the anti hunters but more to do with the reintroduction groups that want wolves reintroduced. 

Granted that when they say things like "to reestablish natural prey predator numbers" they know that they will be taking opportunity away from hunters. But these are the same people that condem hunting while buying their imaginary meat in celepane wrappers. 

I am just glad that I am getting towards the end of my hunting career and that by the time that there are enough wolves to cause problem I'll be sitting in my rocking chair. 

For the record we are having enough problems with bears, cats, and coyotes to introduce another apex predator 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lone_Hunter

From the article:



> This initiative - reflecting *rising urban demands* for ecological integrity


Uh huh.... Rising urban demands.



> bringing a much-needed predator for out-of-kilter deer and elk herds.


You could just issue more tags. But that would be the sensible thing to do. On that note, i'll bet you have a bunch of liberal weenies complaining about urban deer. I'd laugh my ass off if the constant pressure from wolves forced more deer into their yards.



> A voter-driven introduction of wolves in Colorado would break new ground for *direct democracy* ballot initiatives as an alternative to legislative and government agency processes


Direct democracy. Yeah, definitely liberal. They love mob rule.



> Colorado voters in 1992 set a precedent by banning the spring hunting of bears just emerging from hibernation. And voters in 1996 prohibited hunters in Colorado from using leg traps.


Celebrating past success i guess.



> Wildlife survival and ecosystem health have emerged as priorities for both urban and rural voters in Colorado a*mid population growth and a development boom that has led to increasingly dense, paved-over cities and fragmentation of habitat*.


Sounds like they've been hit with a second wave of Californians. The fragmented habitat is why management exists. It's not like wildlife can migrate freely like they used to.

I found this interesting tidbit from a related article:
https://kdvr.com/2019/12/10/problem-solvers-the-cost-of-reintroducing-gray-wolves-in-colorado/



> Records show the Rocky Mountain Wolf Action Fund, which is spearheading the campaign, has raised $614,177.02 as of Oct. 15.
> 
> *The majority of that money has come from out-of-state donors, including a staggering $263,649 from a California group* called the Tides Center.


 And there you have it.....

Oh, lets look at thsi Tides center:
https://www.tides.org/

From their website :


> Tides is a philanthropic partner and nonprofit accelerator dedicated to building a world of *shared prosperity and social justice*


That says it all.

As an aside, if wolves ever are reintroduced, and my hunting opportunites are lessened because of this BS, i'll hunt wolves out of SPITE for the people who lobbied for them, as often as i can, regardless of season, the instant it is legal to do so.


----------



## Jedidiah

Well it sounds like a joke, but I firmly believe that PETA types don't actually like animals that much, they just hate people. Introducing Canadian grey wolves (the rocky mountain gray wolf doesn't exist anymore the last one was killed in the 30s) into northeastern Colorado will result in no wolves in CO and all wolves in the Uintas. When that happens you will see unprecedented interactions between them and people.

I know there's an argument to be had about whether Rocky Mountain gray wolves still exist as a separate species but that argument goes into biodiversity and the simple truth is that there isn't enough of their genetics in the world today to support a pure population. The distinction is important here because the species interaction that used to exist for millions of years is gone and irretrievable. These wolves are too well equipped for the available prey, which is why the defy predictions and overbreed and then migrate faster than expected.

But I don't really hunt the Uintas so good luck to those who do.


----------



## taxidermist

As long as groups want to re-introduce animals etc. into the environment as it was in the 1800's and early 1900's, why not re-introduce typhoid, small pox, and so on? Only thing that would be required is no medication to help the disease and outbreaks. 


Wolfes are in that category to me. A disease that can destroy nature, and remove the balance that law enforcement of wildlife and hunters keep in check.


----------



## Critter

The real sad thing is that once the voters approve the reintroduction and I'll say right now there is a better than 90% chance that they will the hunters of Colorado will end up paying for it which will pull money from other things that CP&W needs to spend money on.


----------



## Jedidiah

Lone_Hunter said:


> You could just issue more tags.


Right, hunters are the best predator for the ecology as a whole. If things go bad in a world with no hunters, money runs out. You know what happens when money runs out in PETA-world? They euthanize a bunch of dogs they kidnapped. True story.


taxidermist said:


> As long as groups want to re-introduce animals etc. into the environment as it was in the 1800's and early 1900's, why not re-introduce typhoid, small pox, and so on?


Well I mean.....anti-vax is growing every day. Tell you what though, that situation is poised to fix the whole problem of human impact on the environment in a big, big way.

Sorry, I don't want to get to far off the subject. For all intents and purposes let's just say the only point I'm trying to make is the first two sentences of this post.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Jedidiah said:


> Well it sounds like a joke, but I firmly believe that PETA types don't actually like animals that much, they just hate people.
> ...
> But I don't really hunt the Uintas so good luck to those who do.


I think there's a degree of truth that they just hate people. After having read enough of their comments on the internet, I have the distinct impression they want a massive die off of people, just not themselves.

I can understand the desire for lower population density, but I do not understand their propensity to value animal life over human life.

I haven't hunted the Uinta's (yet), but I think wolves effects all of us, regardless of what are favorite units are.

You know what I think the overall problem is? Their world view. I think they view humans, and the wild, as two separate, and mutually exclusive things. In their view, we are NOT a predator, nor are we part of the food chain. In their eyes, we are somehow separate from it, so anything, and everything we do, is considered meddling and interfering.

What they fail to realize is that we have always been part of the wild. Everything we do, including nothing, effects wildlife. I'll bet the entire Wasatch front used to be prime wintering grounds. Making everyone retreat to the cities, and making "shrines to mother earth" out of the wild areas that are only to be viewed from afar in designated areas will not change that.



Critter said:


> The real sad thing is that once the voters approve the reintroduction and I'll say right now there is a better than 90% chance that they will the hunters of Colorado will end up paying for it which will pull money from other things that CP&W needs to spend money on.


I wonder how many of them realize that the majority of wildlife conservation is funded by hunters via the pitman-robertson act. Reduce hunting opportunities, you reduce funds. Tags will go up in price to compensate, but they'll never have the funding they did before some idiots introduced the grey wolf.


----------



## Critter

Plain and simple, they don't care

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Critter said:


> Plain and simple, they don't care
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


You are right of course. They are totally convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority, and cannot be reasoned with. Edit: it all boils down to politics. It's in everything these days, and the divide is larger then the grand canyon.


----------



## Jedidiah

They really, really want to care. But there isn't any backbone to it because there isn't any direct effect to them beyond the scenery....and for some of them the hate for their fellow man. They don't think we're above nature, but below it. The idea that we're part of it is out of the question.

If we really wanted to re-establish the ecology of the American west we would start with buffalo. I was just reading an article about how every population of Buffalo outside Yellowstone and Montana's herds are not biologically diverse enough to survive beyond about the next 150 years or so. They need to start swapping genetic material or those animals are going to start getting sick and dying off...but guess what? No dollars. No hunters, no money, no bison. This is what happens when you try to encapsulate wildlife.


----------



## Iron Bear

Not sure why you guys are excited about wolves in Colorado or Utah. Because if they do happen to reestablish populations and the elk herds decline it will be weather and habitat loss and over hunting that caused it. Not predators. I’m sure someone will do a study to prove it to.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Predators come in both 4 and 2 legged varieties. If you have both chasing elk, then yeah, herds will decline. Especially when combined with habitat loss. The rapid urbanization of Utah, combined with the state selling off it's trust lands isn't helping.


----------



## Vanilla

Colorado sucks. Plain and simple. 

They are going to completely ruin what used to be a great state, and not just for hunting.


----------



## johnnycake

Wolves are cool. Grizzlies are cool. Elk, deer, cougars, coyotes, bison, sheep, goats, pronghorn, etc. are cool. Most humans suck.

If not for the bureaucratic obstacles to hand over management to the states, I would have zero reservations about widespread wolf/grizzly reintroductions. Will it decrease hunting opportunity for certain species? Yeah most likely, but it will <eventually> also provide other hunting opportunities that are pretty frickin' awesome in their own rights.

Plus, I really do not believe that someone can honestly hold themself out as a conservationist/responsible advocate for wildlife when all they really care about is maximizing the herd sizes for a handful of species in the environment. That essentially is no different than a free-range rancher advocating for more AUMs being assigned to cattle/domestic sheep and taking away from native ungulates to accommodate it.

I do think that over time the legal battles and government inefficiencies will be exhausted and state's rights will eventually prevail. Will things get a bit hairy in the meantime? Yep. But if 100-120 years ago whitetails, turkeys, bison, elk, pronghorn, bighorns, and even mule deer were all but extinct in large swaths of their historic ranges due primarily to human causes, I do think we can figure out a way to have balanced ecosystem with hunting opportunities and apex predators playing a part.

Not a popular position in hunting crowds to be sure, but I stand by it nonetheless.


----------



## Critter

JC, I believe that the problem is that where you are at now there is enough area to accommodate all that you mentioned. Here in the lower 48 we don't. It would be real nice if they reintroduced wolves into lets say Rocky Mountain National Park and they stayed there but as we know from the Yellowstone reintroduction they don't. 

I also liked the explanation that my guide gave me while I was hunting grizzly's up in British Colombia. We were walking along and a coyote popped up around 50' from us and my guide just pointed. I asked him if he wanted me to shoot it or not after the coyote loped off into the brush, I also asked him what about wolves. He then told me that I would find out after he had emptied his revolver at the wolf and he expected for me to shoot on on site if we should happen onto one.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

johnnycake said:


> Plus, I really do not believe that someone can honestly hold themself out as a conservationist/responsible advocate for wildlife when all they really care about is maximizing the herd sizes for a handful of species in the environment. That essentially is no different than a free-range rancher advocating for more AUMs being assigned to cattle/domestic sheep and taking away from native ungulates to accommodate it.


I have absolutely no problem whatsoever, if there were less tags issued because the deer/elk herds couldn't support it. Too much hunting? Then reduce the tags. No problem whatsoever. I'd say the same for every other game species. I want them to survive and thrive in perpetuity. I want my kid, and my kid's kids to enjoy the outdoors and all that it entails.

You know what I do have a problem with? Not being able to go hunting because some long dead predator that was reintroduced by a bunch of self righteous liberal scatheads in part to reduce and deter hunting. These people love telling others what they can and can't do, and they take every opportunity to do it. It's nothing less then backhanded political attack by a bunch of virtue signalling leftist jackwagon scumbags. When I can 't hunt because of those a-holes? That is NOT ok.



> I do think that over time the legal battles and government inefficiencies will be exhausted and state's rights will eventually prevail. Will things get a bit hairy in the meantime?


If your stance is public land transfer to the states, then eventually they'll be no public lands left to hunt on, and all this will become a moot point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for small government, but there are exceptions to every rule. Unfortunately public lands is one of those exceptions. I don't trust our local government with stewardship of our public lands at all. zero, zilch, nada. They'd just sell it all to their friends, and we'll all be reduced to paying out the nose to hunt on someones ranch. No thanks.


----------



## Kwalk3

Critter said:


> JC, I believe that the problem is that where you are at now there is enough area to accommodate all that you mentioned. Here in the lower 48 we don't. It would be real nice if they reintroduced wolves into lets say Rocky Mountain National Park and they stayed there but as we know from the Yellowstone reintroduction they don't.
> 
> I also liked the explanation that my guide gave me while I was hunting grizzly's up in British Colombia. We were walking along and a coyote popped up around 50' from us and my guide just pointed. I asked him if he wanted me to shoot it or not after the coyote loped off into the brush, I also asked him what about wolves. He then told me that I would find out after he had emptied his revolver at the wolf and he expected for me to shoot on on site if we should happen onto one.


I don't think I'm comfortable advocating for reintroduction for a few reasons:

1.I have little faith that the goalposts for recovery will be unchanged by those doing most of the advocating for recovery. I think that their motives and reasoning are largely emotional, similar to some of that exhibited in this thread in opposition to reintroduction.

2. Deep down(and sometimes very close to the surface) I'm selfish, and do recognize that wolf reintroduction in the short term would likely impact certain ungulate populations in a way that would reduce hunting opportunity.

Generally speaking I am for increasing hunting opportunity whenever possible, and against things that decrease said opportunity.

That being said, I don't think the evidence shows that there isn't enough area in the lower 48 to accommodate reintroduction. There would certainly be some game populations that would be impacted greatly initially. There would almost certainly be more wolf/livestock conflict. However, at some point we are talking about our tolerance for inconvenience, and not conducting a scientific analysis of carrying capacity.

I think Johnnycake is correct when he mentions that in the long run reintroduction may lead to a more robust and diverse hunting experience. He's correct that conservation isn't just conservation of our favorite animal. Healthy environments and ecosystems are a lot more diverse than just a few members of the deer species.

The problem for me is looking at things through a long term lens, and a general distrust of the process of managing the predators that have been introduced and met the criteria for recovery. I think these are things we should probably analyze and wrestle with a little bit, instead of just being opposed as a default.

There's more nuance surrounding the wolf issue than either side is interested in discussing.


----------



## johnnycake

Critter, my position on wolves/grizzlies long predates my move to Alaska-but yes, I did choose to remove myself from the area I was raised and lived in the vast majority of my life in large part to enjoy "better" wilderness experiences more easily. I was about 12-13 when I realized how hypocritical I was being if I wanted to claim the high-ground as a conservationist and defend my choices to hunt, but opposed restoration of native species and supported introduction of non-native species. I prefer to avoid being a hypocrite where possible, and decided to change my position on certain aspects of wildlife management. If Europe has managed to find places for wolves and brown bears despite their higher population densities, greater % of development, and thousand-plus-years head start of let's call it "escalated human-wildlife conflicts" I think we can make something work in North America too. And yes, I get that things over there are completely different in terms of governance/wild lands/private land ownership/etc. I am not saying we would/should copy the European approach, but I am saying that it is evidence that there are more ways to skin this cat than how the Western predator extermination model was handled in the last 200 years. Extinction of any species in a portion of its native range should be a tragedy to be avoided where reasonably possible to anyone who considers themself a responsible steward of wildlife or conservationist.

Lone Hunter, no need to read my "state's rights will eventually prevail" beyond the bounds of the context of my post. All that was intended at stating was "state's rights [to manage wildlife in the state] will eventually prevail." I have zero interest in going down the rabbit hole on federal lands transfers. Been there, done that; thanks, I hate it. There's a lot of nuance on that issue as well, but it delves too far into political ideologies for my tastes these days.

Kwalk3, well stated. I agree that there would be a lot of short-term (read: under 50 years) inconvenience and conflict if apex predator reintroduction efforts are expanded. Do I think hunting opportunities could suffer in the short term? Yes. Decreased opportunity is also something I generally oppose, but if I think it will provide a better return in the long run then I am ok "sacrificing" in the short term. To me, I think a future where the Uintahs, Wasatch, La Sals, etc. have herds of ungulates terrified by the howls in the night, and the occasional brown Volkswagon with teeth and claws that emerges in the spring to rip calves and fawns from their mother's wombs is a pretty cool thing to imagine--and even cooler because it actually is achievable.

Sure, my perfect world also completely ends public land livestock grazing, aggressive eradication of non-native species. Yes, that would include things I love chasing like chukar/hungarian partridge/pheasant, and reintroduction/bolstering of the native animals that used to fill those niches. Yep, I am really popular no matter who I try to hang out with.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Kwalk3 said:


> :
> 
> 1.I have little faith that the goalposts for recovery will be unchanged by those doing most of the advocating for recovery. I think that their motives and reasoning are largely emotional, s*imilar to some of that exhibited in this thread in opposition to reintroduction. *


 Yeah, I'll own that. My political animosity is at the point where if i get a whiff of anything resembling "the left" in this day and age, I'm automatically opposed and object to it by default because I do not trust their motives at all, on any subject. When guys these ( https://www.tides.org/ ) are funding wolf reintroduction, it's not because they love wildlife and conservation.

Wolves, in and of themselves, when looked at separately from politics, is a very nuanced topic. However, when it is linked to politics, the decision on where to stand on it, is very easy to make. Given the funding, and politicking behind it, you can't separate the two.


----------



## Kwalk3

Lone_Hunter said:


> Yeah, I'll own that. My political animosity is at the point where if i get a whiff of anything resembling "the left" in this day and age, I'm automatically opposed and object to it by default because I do not trust their motives at all, on any subject. When guys these ( https://www.tides.org/ ) are funding wolf reintroduction, it's not because they love wildlife and conservation.
> 
> Wolves, in and of themselves, when looked at separately from politics, is a very nuanced topic. However, when it is linked to politics, the decision on where to stand on it, is very easy to make. Given the funding, and politicking behind it, you can't separate the two.


I understand your stance on this, and even voiced reservations of my own about the motives, even if I don't share the same level of animosity or the belief that they are inseparable. Your animosity is matched pound for pound on the other end of the spectrum.

The conflict I was referring to doesn't necessarily have anything to do with politics regardless of the other policy positions that the reintroduction proponents may generally support.

In my opinion, decisions like this need to be separated from political and emotional aspects as much as possible. It's something I'm not very good at myself, but in the context of conservation, politics and emotion shouldn't be near the top of the list. Hell, my own reservations about reintroduction are largely emotional. I'm trying hard not to let that prevent me from exploring the nuance surrounding the issue though.

Tying everything to politics cripples conversations that I believe are crucial to the long term well-being of wild places and our ability to pursue critters in those places.


----------



## Vanilla

Johnny to the C,

I actually like wolves. I think they are cool animals. It is a bucket list item of mine to kill one some day. They really are awesome. 

You know what I don’t like and don’t think is awesome? Unmanaged and overpopulated wolves. I hate those and think they are a disaster. 

We can’t unring the bell of human influence and interference in our world when it comes to wildlife. We manage every other species, so if you leave an apex predator unmanaged in that process, it becomes a problem really quick. 

Yeah, I’ve heard all the arguments from those that oppose predator management. “Predators have a great way of regulating themselves! If there is no food for them to eat, they die pretty quick.” Is that really how we want to handle the situation?


----------



## Jedidiah

The argument that it might provide hunting opportunity doesn't apply. There's never been any kind of indication that wolf reintroduction will lead to wolf hunting, and the groups driving it are vehemently against it. The intent here is to equalize the predator-prey relationship so that hunting is either less necessary or completely unnecessary, and the eventuality would be that once you remove hunter dollars the next calamity would go unchecked due to lack of funding and then they would say "Oh well, that's mother nature, more room for frisbee golf I guess."

Edit: I'd give the idea money if it was managed as a hunting opportunity, even if it was a decade away. There is definitely merit in that idea.


----------



## johnnycake

Jedidiah said:


> The argument that it might provide hunting opportunity doesn't apply. There's never been any kind of indication that wolf reintroduction will lead to wolf hunting, and the groups driving it are vehemently against it.


You might need to check the regs in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana again there.

Vanilla, I agree with everything you've said (except the bucket list to kill one, as I did everything but pull the trigger for my dad on one in 2006, and passed on several opportunities to kill wolves while bison hunting this fall). In my first post on this thread I stated that the bureaucratic obstacles to hand over management to the states is the reason I have reservations about reintroductions. However, looking at how the wolf issue went in ID, WY, and MT I recognize that yes, there eventually was an end to it and those states were able to start managing the wolves. Sure, it occurred over decades, cost millions, was heavily contested and delayed, and the "goal posts" were moved more times than I can count--but it did end up happening. You can go buy a tag in ID today and give hunting wolves a shot if you wanted. Awesome!

To me, I see the wolf saga as one that if hunters take a true conservationist stance, fight the fight in the short term as best we can to control apex predators at the state level, it can eventually get accomplished. Is it efficient to do it this way? Not even close. Is there a viable alternative? Here's where you read the tea leaves and I read the tea leaves and we try to guess whether reintroductions will ever actually happen, and reasonable minds can reach different conclusions on that. My bet is that eventually the reintroductions will occur and then we'll have to spend the resources fighting for management control anyway, so why fight the reintroduction in the first place? Just skip to the end and put your pennies to use at what has a chance at eventually happening (ie, state management of the animal). The states have learned a lot about the de-listing litigation battles in the past couple of decades and how to best position their management plans to pass judicial scrutiny--mostly by getting told what they cannot do. That in its own way is encouraging as eventually the judge cannot find a hole big enough to maintain the ESA protection status, and the state's can start to manage them. It's far from perfect, but I'll take it.


----------



## Brookie

I agree with Vanilla do we actually managed the apex predators. I don't think so. You can't be a conservationist without properly managing the environment. I think JC is actually describing himself as a naturalist. Could be wrong though


----------



## Vanilla

Brookie said:


> I think JC is actually describing himself as a naturalist. Could be wrong though


Just call him a tree hugger. It all works!


----------



## Critter

I got a great idea. 

Lets reintroduce grizzles back into the valleys and foothills of Utah and Colorado along with California and see how the folks like it. Also while they still exists in areas how about the lowly rattlesnake back into Salt Lake and Utah Valley areas? They were there once so why not again? I have a great collection of rattles from my grandfather who farmed in Provo in the early 1900's.


----------



## johnnycake

Critter said:


> I got a great idea.
> 
> Lets reintroduce grizzles back into the valleys and foothills of Utah and Colorado along with California and see how the folks like it. Also while they still exists in areas how about the lowly rattlesnake back into Salt Lake and Utah Valley areas? They were there once so why not again? I have a great collection of rattles from my grandfather who farmed in Provo in the early 1900's.


I'm all for it. And if you think there aren't rattlers in pretty much every neighborhood in SL and UT county then you might want to think again.

As for whether I'm a naturalist or not, I'll get back to you after I finish comforting a larch that is shedding its needles right now. Tough time for the poor fella, he might need more than just a hug.

To be clear, I actually support a maximum sustained yield approach that includes ALL native species in the mix. That is a highly artificial construct that requires human involvement, effort, and a lot of sheer luck to get right.


----------



## Kwalk3

Critter said:


> I got a great idea.
> 
> Lets reintroduce grizzles back into the valleys and foothills of Utah and Colorado along with California and see how the folks like it. Also while they still exists in areas how about the lowly rattlesnake back into Salt Lake and Utah Valley areas? They were there once so why not again? I have a great collection of rattles from my grandfather who farmed in Provo in the early 1900's.


There are plenty of rattlesnakes along the Wasatch Front. Lots of lions too, close to the houses even. There was even a black bear up a light-pole in Orem of all places a few weeks ago. This state is really going in the dump(sarcasm).

Look, I get the sentiment, but no one is currently suggesting we let a momma grizz and her cubs loose in pioneer park.


----------



## Jedidiah

All hunters are naturalists, whether they know it or not and you don't get a choice, that's where the money goes. Thank you johnnycake, I had missed the fact that wolf hunts have been going in those states for a while (though they are fiercely contested by some "conservation" groups). Generally the only thing I'm doing in any of the surrounding states is fishing. The opportunity to hunt wolves here would be awesome.

That does still leave the population density issue though, which is aggravated by the fact that many of the places we'd see wolves living here are also heavily trafficked by humans for recreation. I feel like you're going to have a really good argument for that though.


----------



## Critter

johnnycake said:


> I'm all for it. And if you think there aren't rattlers in pretty much every neighborhood in SL and UT county then you might want to think again.


I highly doubt that they are in every neighbor hood. Growing up in Provo where my grandfather farmed just a few blocks from the foothills we never did see a rattler. Even at the lumber yard a couple blocks away that was a swampy area all we found were garter snakes and as a kid we spent a lot of time there. This was in the mid 50's and early 60's. Even in SLC I highly doubt that you would find one very far away from the foothills.


----------



## Vanilla

Jed, you missed that there are wolf hunts going on??? 

Ummmm, wow.


----------



## Jedidiah

I'm sure I'm not the only one. Grow up dude.

I am glad he's talking about it and expressed genuine interest. He turned my opinion around and I made sure to let him know.


----------



## Vanilla

I’ll try and grow up and be more mature like you are always on here. 

#lifegoals


----------



## Jedidiah

Sounds good, thank you. Looking into those hunts it sure does look like a mess of arguments over tag numbers. It looks like Idaho stopped theirs for 5 years.


----------



## Vanilla




----------



## johnnycake

"Naturalist" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It's a very loose, mostly undefined philosophical term. To me, I tend to think it is a belief that humanity shouldn't interfere at all and let nature do what it will. 

Critter, I've known enough snake nutters, wannabe herpetologists, and pest control technicians in Utah and SL counties and seen enough rattle snakes in enough neighborhoods in both counties to ever think I'm safe from them down there. Closer to the foothills only increases the density, but they are also present in "healthy" numbers basically everywhere in those two valleys. But, we're tilting at windmills here.


----------



## Brookie

Jed, I think that hunters lean more towards the conservationist side of things. Charles Darwin is considered a naturalist.


----------



## Jedidiah

Kind of, but just because we're killing them does it really mean we're not studying them too? Some of you guys have talked about walking away from hunting and just taking pictures.

I do know what you mean but the context made it sound like the word was being used as a synonym for conservationist, or at least more than just the strict definition of the word. 

That said I think everyone's wrong when they say people aren't part of nature.


----------



## Critter

johnnycake said:


> Critter, I've known enough snake nutters, wannabe herpetologists, and pest control technicians in Utah and SL counties and seen enough rattle snakes in enough neighborhoods in both counties to ever think I'm safe from them down there. Closer to the foothills only increases the density, but they are also present in "healthy" numbers basically everywhere in those two valleys. But, we're tilting at windmills here.


A lot of those snakes were hitchhikers from out in the sticks. I have seen that personally. They quite often crawl up onto railroad cars and are transported somewhere, I have also seen them up on trailer axles waiting to get a ride.

But I digress, lets get back to wolves. I need something else to hunt here in Colorado since the elk herd population is dropping.


----------



## Jedidiah

Aaaaanyway, detours aside, wolf hunts in other states don't guarantee wolf hunts in Utah. It's actually pretty irritating to think we're in a state where there's been these debates over the animals, and hunts and cancellations of hunts, across the border while our DWR was denying their existence. Utah DWR said they weren't here but had separate rules for in case they were and only in the northeast corner of the state.

Idaho stopped their hunts during the time you were all debating whether they were here, and then had 44 of them killed in 2018. It's at least reassuring to know that when the anti-hunter groups' interest dropped the state wildlife agency ended up picking up the slack, but that doesn't sound like such an easy transition in a place like Colorado. The fighting over allowing the hunts and then killing them in significant numbers surely isn't good for the deer and elk populations.

Looking at the northwest corner of the state there is basically no way the animals wouldn't make their way into the Uintas in significant numbers. Utah would then be forced to manage them because Colorado would not.

And again, these aren't the same animals that lived here before. They have already been shown to be killing elk for fun and leaving them to waste, I don't know for sure if that's completely normal but I haven't found anything that says it is.

Edit: And oh yeah...the populations of wolves that can be contained anyhwere at all in the continental United States are too small to be sustained due to the lack of genetic diversity. We are already seeing disease killing off more wolves than expected, and seeing the results of inbreeding can't be far off. It's an exercise in futility.


----------



## johnnycake

Jedidiah said:


> Aaaaanyway, detours aside, wolf hunts in other states don't guarantee wolf hunts in Utah. It's actually pretty irritating to think we're in a state where there's been these debates over the animals, and hunts and cancellations of hunts, across the border while our DWR was denying their existence. Utah DWR said they weren't here but had separate rules for in case they were and only in the northeast corner of the state.
> 
> Idaho stopped their hunts during the time you were all debating whether they were here, and then had 44 of them killed in 2018. It's at least reassuring to know that when the anti-hunter groups' interest dropped the state wildlife agency ended up picking up the slack, but that doesn't sound like such an easy transition in a place like Colorado. The fighting over allowing the hunts and then killing them in significant numbers surely isn't good for the deer and elk populations.
> 
> Looking at the northwest corner of the state there is basically no way the animals wouldn't make their way into the Uintas in significant numbers. Utah would then be forced to manage them because Colorado would not.
> 
> And again, these aren't the same animals that lived here before. They have already been shown to be killing elk for fun and leaving them to waste, I don't know for sure if that's completely normal but I haven't found anything that says it is.
> 
> Edit: And oh yeah...the populations of wolves that can be contained anyhwere at all in the continental United States are too small to be sustained due to the lack of genetic diversity. We are already seeing disease killing off more wolves than expected, and seeing the results of inbreeding can't be far off. It's an exercise in futility.


Jedidiah, based on your posts it appears to me that you could benefit from looking into where federal management ends and state management begins for species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

The "separate rules" in the NE corner of the state is about federal boundaries for the delisting of the distinct population segment. Utah DWR has no control over that.

There wasn't a time "when the anti-hunter groups' interest dropped the state wildlife agency ended up picking up the slack." What happened was the pro wolf groups exhausted their legal options to appeal the federal decision to delist, and exhausted their options to appeal the state management plans in ID, WY, and MT. In other words, eventually the system worked and as long as those states follow their plans, the pro wolf groups won't have ammunition to wrest control away from the states.

Like I said, it isn't efficient, but eventually it can work.


----------



## Jedidiah

Whether it's state or federal doesn't really matter. It was and is a silly game. And it is not working and won't work, policy still fluctuates and wolf populations are not diverse enough to sustain without some considerable intervention.

We're talking about two different things where "losing interest" is concerned. Maybe they just didn't have any concept of the idea that someone would have to manage the animals after nature ran its course. We know that they didn't accurately predict population growth or migration. The result was that the state governments have to spend resources to allow for hunts to reduce numbers as they climb past the federal limits. Maybe it's not losing interest but it is shortsightedness and lack of followup. If they wanted the animals they should be raising money for management and not lawsuits.

In the case of all the state agencies involved there's a lot of "unexpected population growth" and "wolves where we didn't expect them" which means not enough resources committed to monitor, or not enough available.


----------



## johnnycake

Jedidiah said:


> Whether it's state or federal doesn't really matter. It was and is a silly game. And it is not working and won't work, policy still fluctuates and wolf populations are not large enough to sustain without some considerable intervention.


And this is where it ends for me. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.


----------



## T-dubs-42

Jedidiah said:


> Aaaaanyway, detours aside, wolf hunts in other states don't guarantee wolf hunts in Utah. It's actually pretty irritating to think we're in a state where there's been these debates over the animals, and hunts and cancellations of hunts, across the border while our DWR was denying their existence. Utah DWR said they weren't here but had separate rules for in case they were and only in the northeast corner of the state.
> 
> Idaho stopped their hunts during the time you were all debating whether they were here, and then had 44 of them killed in 2018. It's at least reassuring to know that when the anti-hunter groups' interest dropped the state wildlife agency ended up picking up the slack, but that doesn't sound like such an easy transition in a place like Colorado. The fighting over allowing the hunts and then killing them in significant numbers surely isn't good for the deer and elk populations.
> 
> Looking at the northwest corner of the state there is basically no way the animals wouldn't make their way into the Uintas in significant numbers. Utah would then be forced to manage them because Colorado would not.
> 
> And again, these aren't the same animals that lived here before. They have already been shown to be killing elk for fun and leaving them to waste, I don't know for sure if that's completely normal but I haven't found anything that says it is.
> 
> Edit: And oh yeah...the populations of wolves that can be contained anyhwere at all in the continental United States are too small to be sustained due to the lack of genetic diversity. We are already seeing disease killing off more wolves than expected, and seeing the results of inbreeding can't be far off. It's an exercise in futility.


The wolves reintroduced to Yellowstone were from Glacier National Park, just up the road really and estimates showed that those same wolves would've eventually moved down near Yellowstone in the same time frame. I have also never seen a study or hard evidence for wolves killing for fun, just stories from angry ranchers and farmers who hate wolves. Now why would ranchers exploiting public lands for profit hate wolves I wonder?? Wolves have been documented only consuming certain parts of their kill, which often happens when high prey abundance is occurring. Think bears only eating the roe and brains during salmon runs. Early on in their reintroduction there was a gross overpopulation of elk in the greater yellowstone area which has since fallen to sustainable levels.

Genetic bottlenecks and lack of genetic diversity are also not a death sentence for a species. Multiple examples of species and even distinct populations recovering from bottlenecks exist if you take the time to seek them out. Another great way to reduce the effects of genetic bottlenecks is to make populations less isolated. Wolf populations in Colorado/Utah will inevitably breed with adjacent populations and the transfer of genetics will diversify. Generally speaking wolves are pretty successful in raising their pups so the effects of more genetic variety can be seen in just a few generations.


----------



## Vanilla

Vanilla said:


> Jed, you missed that there are wolf hunts going on???
> 
> Ummmm, wow.


I'm going to renew my wonder I expressed here and apply it to the last couple posts as well.

Jed, for a guy with such strong takes, you have so very little understanding of this issue. It also sounds like you should move to Colorado so you can vote in their ballot initiative on whether they're going to reintroduce wolves or not. We don't get a vote here in Utah.

You absolutely have the right to oppose reintroduction. And it would even be reasonable to do so. (I would agree with you on that, because I am not as patient as Johnny in watching our game suffer for the next 40 years while we fight the fights) But man...at least understand what you're saying if you're going to be so strong about it. I don't think that's too much to ask.


----------



## Jedidiah

johnnycake said:


> And this is where it ends for me. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.


Well call it what you like. Federal government mandates, state government enforces. So the feds defined the area, who cares? I simplified the situation but the DWR was the one that ran enforcement, policy and public statement on it and the situation was functionally just as I said: wolves were here and they pretended they were not. "If there are wolves, which there are not, you are prevented from killing them. We have a plan to keep them out of Utah but they're not here and we're sure we know where they are....whoops there's a breeding female. No big deal though." Come on.

This is an article about the surplus killing we saw a bit ago: https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opin...cle_1fa1a495-101f-5d24-8d79-c0658c8679c9.html

Reading some explanations of the behavior it sounds like they sometimes kill elk to leave and come back to feed on later. Not really a workable behavior when people are bound to bump into the carcasses without any explanation to keep them from interfering, but it's plausible.

People mention that there are too many people for this to work and it gets dismissed offhand, you guys make jokes about how you're not a fan of the people anyway. It's unfortunate that humanity has grown into places in such a way that the ecology can't ever run the way it did before but it's done and it's not going back, other animals have adjusted but wolves didn't. They exhibit behaviors that don't work. While mountain lions and bears mostly keep to themselves, wolves never did. We killed them off because they would relentlessly hunt the same area conspicuously, commit revenge killings, kill the same livestock over and over and sometimes stalk and kill people in the same areas. They're already showing that same obstinance today. Sorry, no they won't grow to the numbers where they will be able to be genetically equalized and it's because they will be uncorrectable just like they were before and we'll have to pen them up and we will fail, either because we can't manage them or because they'll die off like any other isolated populations of wildlife.


----------



## Jedidiah

Vanilla said:


> Jed, for a guy with such strong takes, you have so very little understanding of this issue.


I understand enough. Sure there's a difference between legislation and enforcement but when it's all wrong it doesn't matter and it's not going to work.


----------



## Kwalk3

Vanilla said:


> I'll try and grow up and be more mature like you are always on here.
> 
> #lifegoals


Typical Shaun.....;-)


----------



## T-dubs-42

Jedidiah said:


> Well call it what you like. Federal government mandates, state government enforces. So the feds defined the area, who cares? I simplified the situation but the DWR was the one that ran enforcement, policy and public statement on it and the situation was functionally just as I said: wolves were here and they pretended they were not. "If there are wolves, which there are not, you are prevented from killing them. We have a plan to keep them out of Utah but they're not here and we're sure we know where they are....whoops there's a breeding female. No big deal though." Come on.
> 
> This is an article about the surplus killing we saw a bit ago: https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opin...cle_1fa1a495-101f-5d24-8d79-c0658c8679c9.html
> 
> Reading some explanations of the behavior it sounds like they sometimes kill elk to leave and come back to feed on later. Not really a workable behavior when people are bound to bump into the carcasses without any explanation to keep them from interfering, but it's plausible.
> 
> People mention that there are too many people for this to work and it gets dismissed offhand, you guys make jokes about how you're not a fan of the people anyway. It's unfortunate that humanity has grown into places in such a way that the ecology can't ever run the way it did before but it's done and it's not going back, other animals have adjusted but wolves didn't. They exhibit behaviors that don't work. While mountain lions and bears mostly keep to themselves, wolves never did. We killed them off because they would relentlessly hunt the same area conspicuously, commit revenge killings, kill the same livestock over and over and sometimes stalk and kill people in the same areas. They're already showing that same obstinance today. Sorry, no they won't grow to the numbers where they will be able to be genetically equalized and it's because they will be uncorrectable just like they were before and we'll have to pen them up and we will fail, either because we can't manage them or because they'll die off like any other isolated populations of wildlife.


They won't die off like any other isolated population because they wouldn't be isolated anymore, that's the point I'm trying to make. You really should look into the science of genetics more before making these sweeping claims. Also are you sure you wan't to use an opinion piece from "Cowboy Common Sense" as your source?


----------



## Jedidiah

Yeah, the article is from a biased source, the fact remains though.



Kwalk3 said:


> Typical Shaun.....;-)


Well as far as that goes...sometimes you have to speak to your audience.

In the same way though, I'm sorry Johnny, I've skipped over what I consider to be conclusions to arguments in the understanding that you have the whole timeline in your head. I respect your position and you yourself and I'm sorry if my short sentences and rebuttals have been aggressive. I know that you have a complete and well thought out picture. I also know that my behavior historically has not been great and I understand and accept that responses to what I've said may affect future interactions and I try to be mindful of when those responses are fair.

I wanted to lay this out so you see what I'm trying to say because it's been a little misunderstood. Maybe I'm wrong on some parts, please tell me if I am.

1) First and most important, historical and current numbers. Starting with up to an estimated 21,000 wolves being killed per year in the 1800s, a practice that continued up until the 30s when the yearly number was of course much reduced. Wolves listed under the endangered species act in 1967 with an estimated population of 750 in the lower 48 states, protection followed in 1973 (there were believed to be either zero or single digits of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies.) Reintroduction in Yellowstone started in 1995, states followed about 10 years later. Wolves were delisted by the federal government and hunting specifically allowed outside Yellowstone in 2011-12. Estimates say there are 18,000-21,000 in the Northern Rockies today with 300-800 each in Idaho and Wyoming, the states that border us. I get that the whole population is important to the wolves themselves but let's keep this to the issue of wolf problems in our area.

2) Hunting wolves in Idaho, Wyoming. (Montana counts in general but not as much for us.) Wolves were hunted in Idaho and Wyoming that first year after delisting. Wolves were listed again shortly after and there was no hunting until 2017. The current tag numbers are aimed at maintaining those populations in the hundreds (Wyoming for example is federally mandated to maintain 150 animals in the area of their control, as of 2018.) "wasn't aware there were wolf hunts going on" refers to not knowing they reopened hunts 2 years ago in these states, sorry about that. I wasn't thinking to watch because if people want to reintroduce wolves, hunting them in those numbers today won't help complete that goal. Wyoming says they have 340ish animals, Idaho says they have 540-810, which is kind of an alarming span but demonstrates the fact that oversight over the animals is at least somewhat lacking.

The state governments are adamant that the wolf numbers will never get over the hundreds in their states, and governing bodies are still defining "established" as a single breeding pair of wolves in an area and setting population quotas at less than three hundred in "established areas". No plans in these states currently call for changing that, and now Colorado is talking about putting some token wolves down next to Utah. All in all the situation in the area around us is a lot of work surrounding populations of animals that are only symbolic at best.

Maybe they'll increase the population but if we talk about that we talk about livestock predation and those numbers are even less encouraging.


----------



## Vanilla

“The fact remains...”

Are you sure those are facts you’ve been spitting?

We’re all entitled to our own opinions, but you don’t get to pick your own facts.


----------



## Jedidiah

I thought about linking every article and Wikipedia page but you have the internet right in front of you. Go look. Specifically "the fact remains" refers to the 19 elk killed by wolves and left mostly uneaten. Yes, it's a fact.


----------



## johnnycake

I respect your ability to apologize, but in this case it is not necessary as I didn't and don't take issue with your tone or presentation manner in these comments. I've simply said my piece, and explained what and how I understand the issues. As you continue to post in a manner that confirms my understanding of your position to be what you actually think, there is nothing more for me to do or say. Like I said, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. And that's ok too.


----------



## T-dubs-42

I have been following the wolf and grizzly situation up north for quite sometime because I find it very intriguing and because I've wondered what it would look like here in Utah. In that time I have yet to run across a scholarly source talking about wolves ferociously killing mass numbers of animals for sport. Surplus killing does occur, but not frequently, in fact I haven't hear of anything significant on that front since 2016.


----------



## Jedidiah

johnnycake said:


> And that's ok too.


It is, and thank you for responding and taking the time in general. I get what you're saying and will continue to try to learn and revise my opinion while being mindful of how I express it.


----------



## Jedidiah

T-dubs-42 said:


> I have been following the wolf and grizzly situation up north for quite sometime because I find it very intriguing and because I've wondered what it would look like here in Utah. In that time I have yet to run across a scholarly source talking about wolves ferociously killing mass numbers of animals for sport. Surplus killing does occur, but not frequently, in fact I haven't hear of anything significant on that front since 2016.


Well what I've read recently on the subject is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...stock-Do-problem-individuals-really-exist.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?hl=e...5E#v=onepage&q=wolf livestock killing&f=false

It gets talked about a bit specifically around livestock predation, and my comment before was after reading those articles in addition to news articles about the elk. Wolves do seem to have a higher instance of repeated surplus kills on livestock though the question is definitely more complicated as to whether they do it for "fun". Those 19 elk were sick so they were easy, but the winter was also hard so maybe the wolves have an instinct to kill them and put them on layaway. 20 years of wolf reintroduction might just not be enough time to gather data.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Vanilla said:


> You know what I don't like and don't think is awesome? Unmanaged and overpopulated wolves. I hate those and think they are a disaster.


And that is the key statement. Nothing wrong with wolves as long as they are kept in check as well. We all know what happened with the last attempt at offering a grizzly hunt in the lower 48. Same with wolves in this new area before something was done to keep them in check. We're not talking about the states that had already had them introduced and now hunting. We're talking about the new initiative of CO. Lots of ranch country down down near Durango, Cortez, and Mancos (SW CO for those who may not be familiar with the state). Also lots of people per acre in the SW part of the state where interaction would be pretty high.

I know what has happened to the deer population in my home unit due to out of control predator populations. Deer in Rio Arriba County, once a mecca for very large mule deer (and the reason I cannot draw a tag these days), is not what it once was. Higher increases in coyote and mountain lion numbers, coupled with drought like conditions for the past few years has taken its toll. I can only imagine what wolves will do if left unchecked. Northern NM would be devastated by the "wolf weed" if it were to be introduced into SW CO.

Fortunately, the Mexican Gray hasn't exploded in the Gila units in NM...


----------



## Vanilla

Could we count on the good citizens of San Juan county to build a wall (of bullets) to protect us all from the invading big bad wolves? 

If there is one group of folk that don’t like the feds telling them what to do....


----------



## stillhunterman

Vanilla said:


> *Could we count on the good citizens of San Juan county to build a wall (of bullets) to protect us all from the invading big bad wolves? *
> 
> If there is one group of folk that don't like the feds telling them what to do....


Not likely, or at least not likely on any scale that would/could control population growth.

This subject is on several hunt forums and I find it interesting that responses remain consistent across the boards, for both sides of the debate. Since 1995 there has been vigorous "talk" of the SSS mentality from hunters, ranchers, and various other stakeholders to take things into their own hands but I haven't seen that talk come to fruition on any scale that would make a difference, so I won't hold my breath that it will happen in the case of Colorado.

Personally, I do not want to see the initiative pass for wolf introduction. Based off the comments from both CPW and residents/ranchers/hunters of Colorado, the wolf is established in the northern parts of the state already, and will, in time, continue to establish themselves throughout the state in areas that can support a viable population. There is NO need to artificially increase the population through re-introduction. The same just might happen in Utah but to a lesser degree. This whole process is politically, emotionally, and financially motivated and has nothing to do with conservation by the major parties involved.

I understand JC's point of view and agree in it's validity. But like Vanilla, I have not the patience nor the time to wait the decades it would take. It will be ugly for a long, long time I'm afraid. Colorado is rapidly evolving with the mindset of the west coast, and I have little faith there will be an eventual management system put in place that will utilize hunting as a population control tool...


----------



## Badin

May be the wolves in Colorado would recognize the Utah state line just like the wolves in California, Oregon, and Idaho recognize the Nevada state and voluntarily stay out. NDOW would probably provide some free professional advise on how this has come to be.


----------



## RandomElk16

Didn't read 7 pages, but I still want to say:


Wolves suck. They should be shot on sight. 

In Utah, it's still maintained we don't have wolves so I think if you see a "large coyote" on the Colorado/Utah border, shoot it.


----------



## Kwalk3

There’s the nuance we’ve been waiting for.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SpankyKennington

Another George Soros Institute


----------



## Kwalk3

SpankyKennington said:


> Another George Soros Institute


Hell of a first post there Spanky. Care to contribute anything substantive, reasoned, and fact based to the conversation about wolves here?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wyogoob

This is gonna be my favorite thread, I just know it.


----------



## Jedidiah

Sorry, just had to.

Why wait to kill wolves? Idaho and Wyoming wolf hunts are kinda small but look at Montana, 17,000 wolf tags for a season that runs from September to freakin' March. $50 for a nonresident tag. Kinda wonder why they want to kill 300+ wolves out of a population of 800-900 but whatever. I will definitely go try to kill wolves there in the next few years.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/huntingGuides/wolf/

Found some articles about inbreeding in wolves, no opinion except about the first one...could you imagine being the new guys on the island expected to breed with Cletus Corkscrew and Becky Ray Hatfield, the son-mother-grandma-dad-brother-uncle wolves? Literally two wolves left over with ridiculous inbreeding issues....but extra RIBS man. Why can't we get cows like that?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/extreme-inbreeding-likely-spells-doom-isle-royale-wolves

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/09/08/isle-royale-wolf-relocation-project-resumes

https://sciencenorway.no/forskningn...avian-wolves-is-worse-than-we-thought/1451747

https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/23/6/1186/189912

Edit: TOTP! Woot!

Edit edit: Holy CRAP, $125 total in fees to go hunt wolves for months. Montana hunting is outrageously cheap for non-residents. Is there some kind of stipulation I'm missing? $9 application fee for elk, $20 draw. It feels like a gold mine.


----------



## Vanilla

Jedidiah said:


> could you imagine being the new guys on the island expected to breed with Cletus Corkscrew and Becky Ray Hatfield, the son-mother-grandma-dad-brother-uncle wolves? Literally two wolves left over with ridiculous inbreeding issues....


Sounds about like Orem!

:mrgreen::grin::mrgreen:

Just some nice inside-Utah County smack, that's all.


----------



## johnnycake

Sure sounds and looks to me like a whole lotta new, challenging, exciting, and fun hunting opportunity that didn't exist before wolves were reintroduced...And yeah, Utah has some excellent hunting opportunities <if you can get a tag>, but if you really love to hunt do yourself a favor and look beyond the borders of the beehive state. There are a lot of incredible and affordable things to go chase and kill other places.


----------



## Jedidiah

Vanilla said:


> Sounds about like Orem!
> 
> :mrgreen::grin::mrgreen:
> 
> Just some nice inside-Utah County smack, that's all.


See previous comments! Are you for real? I've got no personal attacks in this whole thread and I have been nothing but respectful, except to you once after you decided to zero in.



johnnycake said:


> Sure sounds and looks to me like a whole lotta new, challenging, exciting, and fun hunting opportunity that didn't exist before wolves were reintroduced...And yeah, Utah has some excellent hunting opportunities <if you can get a tag>, but if you really love to hunt do yourself a favor and look beyond the borders of the beehive state. There are a lot of incredible and affordable things to go chase and kill other places.


You're right, thanks again. For the record I'm 100% onboard with your take after reading some more. I think you thought I was being sarcastic earlier when I said "I feel like Johnny is going to have a good answer for that", along with other parts of that post. I was not intending to be sarcastic at all.


----------



## Lone_Hunter

Jedidiah said:


> Sorry, just had to.
> 
> Why wait to kill wolves? Idaho and Wyoming wolf hunts are kinda small but look at Montana, 17,000 wolf tags for a season that runs from September to freakin' March. $50 for a nonresident tag. Kinda wonder why they want to kill 300+ wolves out of a population of 800-900 but whatever. I will definitely go try to kill wolves there in the next few years.


One of my brother in laws (or is that nephew in law? I dunno, my wifes family is really large) was telling me about that a Sunday family dinner or two ago. It sounds like fun, but way off my home turf, and way steep of a learning curve because of it. I have read in the past, there is some corridor in, near, around, the Utah Idaho border that is a path for wolf migration and depredation has been an ongoing thing because of it. If there is a place to hunt wolves, that be the place. Basically defending our border against unwanted intruders. If i knew people on that hunt, I'd go if out of state fee's aren't too much in Idaho.


----------



## johnnycake

Jedidiah said:


> See previous comments! Are you for real? I've got no personal attacks in this whole thread and I have been nothing but respectful, except to you once after you decided to zero in. Starting to sound reaaaaaaaal familiar. Maybe you need more hobbies?


I think you need to dial that back about 20%.

But on a more serious note, the articles on inbreeding deal with Isle Royale and Norway/Sweden. The red wolf at the end is a wholly separate issue for a number of reasons (as is to some extent the Mexican gray wolf), but I have zero interest in going down that rabbit hole.

While interesting, the Scandinavian studies don't spell out the level of gloom and doom that you held out in post #45. Genetic bottlenecks occur, and sometimes the species/population makes it and sometimes not. In the Scandinavian cases, these were natural reexpansions that have a decent likelihood of additional migration from Finno/Russian wolf populations in the future. And the single breeding pair origin is a very tight bottleneck.

Looking at Isle Royale, there is a very interesting history for that island. Being an island in a large lake, natural migration to/from the island is limited to when winter conditions allow the lake to freeze completely. Makes for a much narrower set of parameters to allow for ingress/egress of new genetic material. Islands make a great playground for evolutionary and genetic exceptions to crop up, and typically are poor comparisons to mainland populations--even when an isolated population in the mainland is discussed as being an "island" it rarely is actually as isolated as an actual, physical island and "life finds a way."

With the reintroductions in the Yellowstone area, there was a much larger genetic base utilized than a single breeding pair. That population expansion has also been augmented by natural expansion of wolves from Canada, and there is quite a lot of genetic ingress/egress throughout the grey wolf's current range in the L48. It is one of the results of the wandering/range expansion that occurs primarily by juvenile adults, and is seen by the occasional sightings (or killings) of wolves in Utah and other states.


----------



## Jedidiah

Dialed back 20%, or more. Yes, the wolves in the Isle Royale and Scandinavian populations are impacted by unique circumstances. One of the things they're trying for mitigating inbreeding in US wolves is sneaking in wolf pups to their litters, which hasn't been too successful but if they can get acclimated to the practice it might work out.

The populations they're maintaining in the states around us are probably above the threshhold for negative inbreeding impact and may actually be better off genetically with us managing them in that respect.


----------



## Jedidiah

Now you have me really actually genuinely hoping they can manage the populations outside the federally mandated zones (and inside too, I guess.) It seems kind of precarious. You're a good guy Johnny, thank you again.


----------



## johnnycake

Jedidiah said:


> Now you have me really actually genuinely hoping they can manage the populations outside the federally mandated zones (and inside too, I guess.) It seems kind of precarious. You're a good guy Johnny, thank you again.


What kinda sick crap are you trying to pull here bucko?! These are the interwebs, nobody is allowed to "be reasonable" or change their minds when confronted with a different opinion!!!! Just who the mother-lovin' feck do you think you are?!!

There, that should help restore balance to the UWNworld.


----------



## Jedidiah

Oh and here's me before:


----------



## Vanilla

Stop taking yourself so seriously, Jed. I was joking, and said so right in the post and also included smiley faces. It's a rule of the interwebs that you can't get offended if someone puts smiley faces. 

This is a thread on wolves. I'm surprised there hasn't been three offers to meet up and fight already. Maybe it's a good thing they banned Shaun before this after all!


----------



## Critter

Vanilla said:


> . Maybe it's a good thing they banned Shaun before this after all!


Or did they??????????:rotfl:


----------



## Jedidiah

Vanilla said:


> Stop taking yourself so seriously, Jed. I was joking, and said so right in the post and also included smiley faces. It's a rule of the interwebs that you can't get offended if someone puts smiley faces.
> 
> This is a thread on wolves. I'm surprised there hasn't been three offers to meet up and fight already. Maybe it's a good thing they banned Shaun before this after all!


That's all 100% fair, you're right.


----------



## johnnycake




----------



## Jedidiah

lol

Really man, I'm trying to be better. All I ever wanted to do here was help people out when I can and talk through ideas but I do get too heated (and ignorant) and I'll try to fix it. Sometimes people are going to get terse talking about things that matter but reading through previous posts it looks like my dial went up to 11 a little too easy. 

Edit: (added "and ignorant")


----------



## johnnycake

There you go again, splashing water on a perfectly good internet dumpster fire in the making with your "reasonableness" and "understanding"....

I hear that wolves have eaten all the elk calves on the Wasatch.


----------



## Vanilla

Did we just become best friends?!?!? 

I’m not crying. You’re crying!


----------



## Vanilla

Critter said:


> Or did they??????????:rotfl:


This is my favorite post today. Teach me to keep my big, smart mouth shut!


----------



## Lone_Hunter

I guess it's called "ballot box biology". One major point made here is that what I've always thought. The land is too disrupted. The game cannot move freely like they used to, and the herd populations will not recover for some time, if at all. These guys cite examples on where this has already occurred.

There is a section in Utah where wolves are delisted, however, I don't know if anyone can participate, if tags are required, or if this is managed by the state only.
https://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/wolves.pdf

This proposed introduction WILL effect us, see map on page 17.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/pdf/utah_contract_report_2019.pdf

a quote:



> Understanding the issue of returning management authority to the states is more crucial now than ever. Activist groups have recently proposed that between 250 to 500 wolves be intro-duced at four locations in Colorado: in the Routt National Forest (The Flat Tops), Grand Mesa National Forest, Uncompahgre National Forest and the San Juan National Forest. Three of these locations are within 100 miles of the Utah border, two as close as 25 miles. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, it is not uncommon for wolf territories to be as large as 50 square miles and can extend up to 1,000 square miles. Wolves often cover large areas to hunt, traveling as far as 30 miles a day. Most wolves disperse from the pack they were born into by age three. Dispersing wolves have traveled as far as 600 miles (https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/wolfbiology.htm).The four proposed wolf introduction locations are shown by black dots on the image below. The darkest red circles are 30 miles in diameter from the introduction locations. The lighter red circles are 150 miles in diameter and the lightest red circles are 300 miles in diameter


 


> The groups proposing wolf introduction in Colorado are hopeful to establish a large wolf population in Utah and Colorado that connect to populations in Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, and even potentially to the Great Lakes region as illustrated in the map below.





> Only 66 wolves were introduced into Idaho and Yellowstone National Park between 1995 and 1996. That population has since grown to more than 1,500 wolves. Their population has spread throughout Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington, with confirmed sightings in Utah, Colorado, Nevada, California, North Dakota and South Dakota.
> 
> 
> If these groups are successful in introducing hundreds of wolves into Colorado it is inevitable large numbers will cross over into Utah. It is critical Utah secures wolf management authority before wolves spreading from populations introduced in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Colorado have the same devastating effects on Utah's big game populations as document-ed in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming




The leftest groups advocating for this, are being very strategic in their planning, and it's very intentional. Give it a few years, and it will screw up what balance we have here. I'll go out on a limb and say, given these details, if this doesn't piss you off, then it should.


----------



## BigT

Vanilla said:


> Stop taking yourself so seriously, Jed. I was joking, and said so right in the post and also included smiley faces. It's a rule of the interwebs that you can't get offended if someone puts smiley faces.
> 
> This is a thread on wolves. I'm surprised there hasn't been three offers to meet up and fight already. Maybe it's a good thing they banned Shaun before this after all!


Haha.. This reminded me of this


----------



## Vanilla

BigT said:


> Haha.. This reminded me of this


Hahaha! This is the EXACT moment of cinematic greatness I had in mind when I posted that. Glad someone picked up on the tone.


----------



## BigT

Lone_Hunter said:


> I guess it's called "ballot box biology". One major point made here is that what I've always thought. The land is too disrupted. The game cannot move freely like they used to, and the herd populations will not recover for some time, if at all. These guys cite examples on where this has already occurred.
> 
> There is a section in Utah where wolves are delisted, however, I don't know if anyone can participate, if tags are required, or if this is managed by the state only.
> https://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/wolves.pdf
> 
> This proposed introduction WILL effect us, see map on page 17.
> 
> https://wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/pdf/utah_contract_report_2019.pdf
> 
> a quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leftest groups advocating for this, are being very strategic in their planning, and it's very intentional. Give it a few years, and it will screw up what balance we have here. I'll go out on a limb and say, given these details, if this doesn't piss you off, then it should.


Nice podcast.. They didn't even mention the trouble this could cause Utah. The problem isn't just the wolf "re" introduction, it's going to be the lack of management. Randy mentioned that in Montana, the elk hang on private land because the wolves seem less likely to come after them due to ranchers. You hear of many hunters in Montana that don't see elk anymore on public land hunting due to predation of the wolf. Randy mentioned watching a pack of wolves hunting a canyon and how intense it was. Would be interesting to see.

I go to Colorado a couple of times a year. When there earlier this year I noticed the crazy amount of Prairie Dogs everywhere. I mentioned to one of our customers it would be nice to bring back my 22 mag. and help with the problem. He'd mentioned they were protected there, and people get into big trouble killing them. I saw 10s of thousands of dogs and my work was limited to not a lot of ground. I don't believe Colorado would do anything in regards to managing the wolf.

In looking at the map posted, which I attached, this will cause big problems in Utah as we all know. I've been hunting the La Sal Mountains since about 2003. I've noticed over the years a gradual decrease in elk and deer populations, all the while it seems the Black Bear populations continues to rise. This last year was noticeable on the lack of Mule Deer. Area that we've hunted for years didn't turn up much of anything. As always, we saw animals, but far fewer than normal which includes elk. The wolves will be on the La Sals I would think pretty quickly which would all but destroy any hunting in the area. I believe they'll take the Black Bear population down as well.

They'll push up into the Wasatch Mountains in and around Strawberry and west of there in my opinion. I do believe that Utah will recognize the issue and will manage them here. But I have no faith in Colorado.

I hope to draw my LE elk tag on La Sal in the next couple of years.


----------



## Vanilla

Utah would certainly try to manage them. The rub will be when the eco-terrorists gum up the management plan in courts for years preventing anything productive from happening. 

I will reiterate, I don’t mind wolves. I wouldn’t mind them in Utah if we were allowed to keep them in check from the outset. But asking me to have trust in “environmental” groups that deserve none or to ignore nearly 30 years of their consistent action just isn’t going to happen. Because I know the result, I don’t want them here. If we could eliminate the problems caused by the extremist side of this issue, I’d be for the reintroduction of wolves. But those people simply won’t quit and will stop at nothing short of cutting of their noses to spite their faces while watching unmanaged wolves destroy everything in their path.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I've said from the beginning of wolf re-introduction to Yellowstone that I am not against them bringing wolves into the NPs....but, their "management" should be the same as coyotes outside--no season and open game for any hunter. Keep them out of Utah--they are a management nightmare.

And, no, I'm no wolf-hater. I would love to see some in the wild and love to hear them howl.


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> .but, their "management" should be the same as coyotes outside--no season and open game for any hunter.


http://support.biggameforever.org/s...Game_and_Livestock_Protection_A.pdf?docID=141

This was posted on another forum today. If this legislation passed, Utah could do exactly what you state above. Make them akin to a coyote, even put a bounty program in place anywhere in the state. That would be cool! Colorado can have all the wolves they want. The pot smoking tree hugging hippies can go cuddle with their new pet wolves all throughout their own state. Let us shoot them upon entering our state.

I'm all for that, until everyone with a brain in Colorado wants to come hunt ito Utah when their hunting goes to pot. Then we'll have to build a wall. Maybe we can make Denver pay for it???


----------



## Critter

You forget it isn't the hunters that want the wolves in Colorado it's the pot smoking tree huggers who like those furry animals that want them.

My favorite area for elk is having a bad enough time with bears and cats 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnycake

Critter said:


> You forget it isn't the hunters that want the wolves in Colorado it's the pot smoking tree huggers who like those furry animals that want them.
> 
> My favorite area for elk is having a bad enough time with bears and cats
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


I am a hunter, and I want wolves in Colorado. Sure, I might not be a Colorado resident, nor have I hunted CO in many years (but I have a plan or two to go back in the next 5 years).

But I am a hunter, and I want wolves there. So you're wrong. :mrgreen:


----------



## stillhunterman

Vanilla said:


> http://support.biggameforever.org/s...Game_and_Livestock_Protection_A.pdf?docID=141
> 
> This was posted on another forum today. If this legislation passed, Utah could do exactly what you state above. Make them akin to a coyote, even put a bounty program in place anywhere in the state. That would be cool! Colorado can have all the wolves they want. The pot smoking tree hugging hippies can go cuddle with their new pet wolves all throughout their own state. Let us shoot them upon entering our state.
> 
> I'm all for that, until everyone with a brain in Colorado wants to come hunt ito Utah when their hunting goes to pot. Then we'll have to build a wall. Maybe we can make Denver pay for it???


Couple of things:

1- From the link posted:

Bill Specifics
• Would codify the proposed rule ''Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing
the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' (84 Fed.
Reg. 9648 (March 15, 4 2019))
• *Would exempt the rule and this legislation from judicial review*

Not being an ambulance chaser such as yerself, I'm not so sure the courts will look at that "exemption" the way Lee intends it. I have no doubt those pushing for the wolves re-introduction will want to find out and take this to court.

2- It really sucks that this proposed bill was announced by BGF first though I'm not surprised since Ryan has his finger on the 'pulse' of Utah politicians, so to speak. But with as much $$$ Utah continues to give that organization it makes sense they wouldn't want to kill the cash cow without providing some sort of return on that investment. -O,-


----------



## Vanilla

Ambulance chaser? Ouch! That hurts. I’m going to sue you for my pain and suffering! :mrgreen:


I agree. The courts may disagree with their ability to review the law. The devil is always in the details, and this has no details. A full de-listing and getting them out from under the ESA would be a huge benefit to the states that want to address them immediately, however. 

If this bill were to pass (no chance in the current makeup of the House, the Democrats will never allow this to pass) it would be the prefect solution for Utah, IMO. An open season would be allowed since they are not currently relying on Utah wolf packs to meet the criteria for de-listing. On that note, I don’t think it would be too many years before a new listing fight is well under way after management plans become more liberal across the west.


----------



## stillhunterman

BigT said:


> I am sure many of you are already aware of this attempt to reintroduce the wolf back into Colorado.
> 
> I am hopeful this doesn't go anywhere as I believe it'll effect Utah. In the article it mentioned they'd like to release the wolves in the northwest part of the state, and the southwest. In all honesty, I could see wolves becoming an issue throughout Utah in the Books, the Uinta range, and even in southeastern Utah near the LaSal and San Juan. Much of their argument is that the deer and elk herds are out of control in Colorado and this would bring balance to their herds. I don't believe Utah's deer and elk herds are what some consider Colorado's to be. We all know wolves have been in Utah and likely are in some places. But this could in my opinion effect us here as well.
> 
> The article states there was a little north of 211,000 signatures to put this initiative on a ballot. Being Colorado it doesn't surprise me too much but *I do wonder how many of the signatures are legit. *
> 
> I don't hunt Colorado but have considered it. But I don't want this to happen! This is bad for all of us!
> 
> https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/10/colorado-wolf-reintroduction-ballot-measure/


Well there are just a few more days to find out if enough signatures qualifiy for initiative to be put on ballot. They're given 30 days from time signatures were delivered on 10 of December. Wonder if that excludes weekends?:smile:

Anyway, here it is if anyone wants to wade through the initiative:
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2019-2020/107Final.pdf


----------



## Vanilla

Citizen indicatives that determine appropriations. What a way to govern...


----------



## BigT

I was out a couple of times this last week when the weather was decent glassing wildlife.

I came upon some large herds of elk (mostly cow & calf) enjoying those south facing slopes. While glassing, I had this crummy thought of much fewer elk, deer, and everything else while visualizing wolves chasing those herds off the map. I don't ever see a day where we have wolves on the Oquirrh Mountains, but it could be the case in the Book Cliffs, Uinta, La Sals, San Juans, and into the Wasatch areas in the near future.

I read an interesting article the other day called Ballot Box Biology. Great read.. Link below.. As mentioned earlier, this is being pushed by several out of Colorado organizations. At the end, it mentions those organizations opposing and pushing back on the initiative. Why is SFW not listed there? I am not trying to open a can here though not a big fan of them... But I would think they would be fighting this as well.

https://www.greeleytribune.com/news...ology-forced-wolf-reintroduction-in-colorado/


----------



## Critter

Well, it's now official. The Colorado Secretary of State today certified the petition for voters to decide if Colorado will introduce wolves into Colorado. So it will be on the ballot this coming November 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------

