Coloradans unleash wolves on their neighbors: A fitting metaphor for COVID

[Hydrophilic]

And My proposal, don’t allow wildlife to be managed by a ballot, manage by science. Wolves are already in Colorado and will continue their migration there via Wyoming naturally.

I agree to an extent but its hard to find an answer in science at all times. For instance, what is the science that says we should save a critically endangered flower that has a poorly understood ecological role? There are different factors in management including cultural.

Also, in many situations the science yields suggestions certain user groups don’t want to see. For instance, I read a research paper the other day regarding combined predation on ungulates in a section of Montana. Wolves had very minimal impact on calves. In that particular unit cougars were an issue, and the primary one. I have read quite a few other studies that suggest when the habitat is good, predation doesn’t matter. These are things hunters do not want to hear, from my experience.

[highside74]

Unfortunately tree huggers want to manage habitat by keeping a hands off approach. In doing this you have multiple adverse effects. Such as wildfires and poor forage do to mismanagement of forests. This creates zones of zero animals and they congregate in areas with better food supply. Then you add predators into the equation and the prey animals have only so many places to go where they can eat and survive but since you add wolves into the mix you have lower birth rates and lower calf survival. It is a vicious cycle and it's time to stop management by heart strings and start to manage by science.

[Hydrophilic]

Unfortunately tree huggers want to manage habitat by keeping a hands off approach. In doing this you have multiple adverse effects. Such as wildfires and poor forage do to mismanagement of forests. This creates zones of zero animals and they congregate in areas with better food supply. Then you add predators into the equation and the prey animals have only so many places to go where they can eat and survive but since you add wolves into the mix you have lower birth rates and lower calf survival. It is a vicious cycle and it's time to stop management by heart strings and start to manage by science.

Nonsense. I attached a brief excerpt on the history of fire suppression in this country, straight from a well respected, new textbook. You blaming fire suppression on tree huggers is an emotional fantasy and shows your obvious bias. Show me good, high quality data if you want me to take that claim seriously.

As for most of your other comments, I won't even engage, they are also meaningless.

[highside74]

Who said anything about fire suppression? Normal wildfire is necessary. I'm talking about wildfires that rage up and down the west coast because environmental groups won't allow forests to be thinned or windfall to be harvested creating wildfires that are hard to contain and deadly.

By not allowing thinning/logging or forest clean up you create forests so thick that forage can't grow. This creates forests void of ungulates because there is nothing there for them. Wolves lovers say look at the North East of Washington with all those forests for the deer and elk to live in. There is plenty of space for them all to live. That just isn't true becuase the land won't support the ungulates properly.

[Smokeploe]

People who live in glass houses should no throw stones!  The white man has messed up the land more than anybody or thing in the history of the world!   If you think I am wrong , the that is your opinion.  Here is whatI have seen happen! 
In California the Sierra Club and other tree huggers ilk have suppressed the correct management of the forest for about 50 years.  Put fire out as fast as you can, no tree thinning, no clearing with small controlled burns during the winter and many, many other such things to list here.  Here is one thing to think about before white man came to the west coast there were No major wild fires in this area!  The native Indians bid the greatest job of managing the forest and wildlife ever!  They look at and lived the land managed clearing of the underbrush and only taking and controlling wildlife as needed or hundreds of years.  Can the White man say he has done that! 
 Now the CA. Dept. of forestry is now realizing that was all wrong!  It only took them 40+ years to find this out.  Tree huggers did this to California to make them selves feel good!  Not only management of the forest but also to the wildlife,  that is why Washington, California and other states that follow this pattern are losing forest land and wildlife!  If you think I am wrong, then you are blind and cannot see the trees because of the forest,  I lived thru it!  I have  watched good hunting areas and fishing places become empty and barren because of tree huggers, and environmentalist!
  Wolves do have their place in wildlife, but when  they threaten human life then they need to be controlled.  You cannot release a wild animal that has been known  to attack and kill animals and people small than they are!  You cannot believe or just tell the wolves: “Do not hurt and kill the lambs, baby cows and kids”  that is a tree hugger mentallity. 
A good point I was trying to make in my first post is look at I639 all the votes that caused this to pass were cast in the Olympia-Seattle metro area, not the rest of the state!  If passage went by county by county then I639, then the election of Insley would not have happened!  This might be a good idea to get passed for the right things to happen!  Something to think about.

[Smokeploe]

Hydrophilic
Yes he may be a respected book writer and and excellent professor in a college.  But that is where he is in a office and a classroom.  I respected a gentleman that never sat a day in a classroom or studied books!  He knew more about the forest and wildlife in his area than any professor or tree hugger, because he lived out there!  He understood what was needed and what needed to be done and he did it.  He was an Indian from the Mewok tribe, he was not pure Indian but enough.  Books do not make an expert,  experience does, living does. 
You want facts just look at California since the founding of the tree hugging Serria Club and their influence the wildfires in California has gotten worse every year!  Have you ever seen glass out in the forest!  I have, it is because the fire burned so hot that the crushed granite and sand melted and fused and became glass.  The soil was so sterile that nothing grew there until they replanted! 
Books are great to read and there are a great many very good books. Don’t take one person view as the great way of doing things, because that is their view of doing things, wrong or right.  Living out in the great outdoors is the best knowledge you can get.   
Do yourself and us a favor go get a backpack and live in the great outdoors for 20 years out there, then come back and then you have the right to tell us who is right or is wrong

[Hydrophilic]

Who said anything about fire suppression? Normal wildfire is necessary. I'm talking about wildfires that rage up and down the west coast because environmental groups won't allow forests to be thinned or windfall to be harvested creating wildfires that are hard to contain and deadly.

By not allowing thinning/logging or forest clean up you create forests so thick that forage can't grow. This creates forests void of ungulates because there is nothing there for them. Wolves lovers say look at the North East of Washington with all those forests for the deer and elk to live in. There is plenty of space for them all to live. That just isn't true becuase the land won't support the ungulates properly.

Wildfires rage up and down the west coast primarily because of poor forest management. Dense thickets of Doug fir's were never meant to replace sprawling Oak Savannah and other similar ecotypes.

"In 1905, the newly formed Forest Service was given responsibility for managing the Forest Reserves, but neither the reserves or the Forest Service were popular across all political parties at that time. This changed following the 1910 Great Fire complex of Idaho and Montana that burned approximately 3 million acres. The trauma of this big blowup lead the Forest Service to adopt a "Zero Tolerance" policy for wildland fire and the goal of complete suppression...
....Suppression still remains the dominant fire management policy today"."

Pointing your finger to blame one group of people is absurd and shows you aren't versed in history enough to understand how flawed your mindset is. Of course there are some irresponsible environmental groups. In my experiences there are plenty who are doing a service to this country, i.e. actually facilitating controlled burns on private property with various tribal groups, helping to protect and enhance migration corridors for migrating game, or even allowing hunting with valid permit on their property.

Am I to look at GPS collar surveys where doe mortality (gunshot/arrow) is highest during legal hunting season (despite no doe tags issued, and no tribal harvest) and come to the conclusion that all hunters are poachers? No. That is absurd. And nobody would take me seriously. Just like nobody will take you seriously, outside of this echo chamber, unless you show credible DATA, or for starters, any data.

[Smokeploe]

The way I see things is not flawed!  I worked and lived and watched the how the political B/S worked by the environmentalist worked—-deep pockets bought and paid for the way the California forestry service and fish and game was told to run.  Wealthy environmentalists raised millions of dollars to pay for elections and sway the voters especially the young left sided voters to elect certain people. Then persuaded their political friends to place people in certain positions to run that department the way they wanted.  I had many friends in the California forestry department, and watched them get eliminated one by one because they did not follow the guideline by the environmentalist group.
Yes if you know your history the look at the history and follow the line they started in 1892.  They influenced and paid for the way the forest service was run.  Yes they at first did many great things, they they got into politics and it went down hill from there. They were the one who supported and paid for the total suppression of fires, never controlled burns. To keep the forest floor healthy you needed controlled burns.  Mother Nature will do what she wants make fires when she wants them to clean, but certain men did not they wanted just to let things happen and put out all fires. 
My mind set is this and it has work for thousand of years
If an person wants to be an engineer then they need to turn wrenches for 10 to 15 years before picking up a pencil to create and draw.  You can change the profession but not the timing.  Book learning is good, get the mind thinking but you need to out in the field working and seeing how things really work.  Mother Nature will do what she wants and if man get in her way watch out!  One book does not mean that something is the right way to do things nor is the only way.  My experience has been that books by college professors has been that they are way in the left and support the environmentalist. 

[Hydrophilic]

The way I see things is not flawed!  I worked and lived and watched the how the political B/S worked by the environmentalist worked—-deep pockets bought and paid for the way the California forestry service and fish and game was told to run.  Wealthy environmentalists raised millions of dollars to pay for elections and sway the voters especially the young left sided voters to elect certain people. Then persuaded their political friends to place people in certain positions to run that department the way they wanted.  I had many friends in the California forestry department, and watched them get eliminated one by one because they did not follow the guideline by the environmentalist group.
Yes if you know your history the look at the history and follow the line they started in 1892.  They influenced and paid for the way the forest service was run.  Yes they at first did many great things, they they got into politics and it went down hill from there. They were the one who supported and paid for the total suppression of fires, never controlled burns. To keep the forest floor healthy you needed controlled burns.  Mother Nature will do what she wants make fires when she wants them to clean, but certain men did not they wanted just to let things happen and put out all fires. 
My mind set is this and it has work for thousand of years
If an person wants to be an engineer then they need to turn wrenches for 10 to 15 years before picking up a pencil to create and draw.  You can change the profession but not the timing.  Book learning is good, get the mind thinking but you need to out in the field working and seeing how things really work.  Mother Nature will do what she wants and if man get in her way watch out!  One book does not mean that something is the right way to do things nor is the only way.  My experience has been that books by college professors has been that they are way in the left and support the environmentalist.

Provide data to back up your baseless and subjective claims, especially when I quoted a textbook, and could easily quote more. Stories and beliefs add nothing to a conversation, other than entertainment value.

The American environmental movement was not even underway in the late 1800's with the exception of a few outliers that have been lumped in such as Henry David Thoreau and George Perkins. The environmental movement as we know it began in the 1960's. The American Conservation movement was active during the mid to late 1800's. Aldo Leopold, George Grinnell, Teddy Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot were all figureheads for this movement and most of them were ardent hunters. John Muir was a preservationist. There wasn't even a strong anti-environmentalist movement until the 1970's or so. Not sure how the extreme environmentalists infiltrated the upper echelons of government before there was such a thing as extreme environmentalists but I will give you a chance to prove your point.

https://photos.state.gov/libraries/mumbai/498320/fernandesma/June_2012_001.pdf

https://documents.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/antienvironmentalism.html#:~:text=Anti%2Denvironmentalism%20refers%20to%20the,politicians%20against%20increased%20environmental%20regulation.

Also, your claim of 'on the ground' experience is just an attempt to discredit the actual data I am providing. Common characteristics of denial are refutes such as "The science was bought and paid for" or "on the ground experience is what actually counts", without providing any meaningful and relevant information in return. These statements can be regurgitated by anyone who can type and mean nothing, other than to try and reinforce your own confirmation biases, which is a waste of both your time and my time.

Science uses observations in order to build and organize knowledge into testable theories and predictions. "On the ground" surgical experience, for example, only has certain value because they cannot observe molecular interactions. So, yes, they can become proficient at certain surgical procedures which the surgical student cannot, but that is a ridiculous reason to ignore well respected scientific journals and textbooks. In fact, that would result in malpractice. If you end up in the hospital in need of cardiac surgery, who do you want working on you, the ancient, stubborn surgeon who still lays massive, unnecessary open flaps the way he was taught in the 1950's, or the surgeon who stays up to date on the latest techniques (research) and can complete the surgery more efficiently, safer, with minimally invasive procedures and a better prognosis? How about the dentist who was trained in procedures without using local anesthesia? Maybe you can find one still that refuses to use lidocaine for root canals because he believes on the ground experience is better than listening to a textbook.

There is a reason all state fish and wildlife agencies incorporate science, research, and textbooks into their professions, some more than others. Your argument of ignoring my data because it is simply academic and not "on the ground", without yourself providing a shred of data to support your own position, is nothing more than a waste of type which no reasonable professional would take seriously.

[KFhunter]

This was done by voter initiative,  so I'm not sure why we have this mud slinging about forest management.   

Keep it on topic. 

[idaho guy]

The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in 

Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.

[idaho guy]

The way I see things is not flawed!  I worked and lived and watched the how the political B/S worked by the environmentalist worked—-deep pockets bought and paid for the way the California forestry service and fish and game was told to run.  Wealthy environmentalists raised millions of dollars to pay for elections and sway the voters especially the young left sided voters to elect certain people. Then persuaded their political friends to place people in certain positions to run that department the way they wanted.  I had many friends in the California forestry department, and watched them get eliminated one by one because they did not follow the guideline by the environmentalist group.
Yes if you know your history the look at the history and follow the line they started in 1892.  They influenced and paid for the way the forest service was run.  Yes they at first did many great things, they they got into politics and it went down hill from there. They were the one who supported and paid for the total suppression of fires, never controlled burns. To keep the forest floor healthy you needed controlled burns.  Mother Nature will do what she wants make fires when she wants them to clean, but certain men did not they wanted just to let things happen and put out all fires. 
My mind set is this and it has work for thousand of years
If an person wants to be an engineer then they need to turn wrenches for 10 to 15 years before picking up a pencil to create and draw.  You can change the profession but not the timing.  Book learning is good, get the mind thinking but you need to out in the field working and seeing how things really work.  Mother Nature will do what she wants and if man get in her way watch out!  One book does not mean that something is the right way to do things nor is the only way.  My experience has been that books by college professors has been that they are way in the left and support the environmentalist.

Provide data to back up your baseless and subjective claims, especially when I quoted a textbook, and could easily quote more. Stories and beliefs add nothing to a conversation, other than entertainment value.

The American environmental movement was not even underway in the late 1800's with the exception of a few outliers that have been lumped in such as Henry David Thoreau and George Perkins. The environmental movement as we know it began in the 1960's. The American Conservation movement was active during the mid to late 1800's. Aldo Leopold, George Grinnell, Teddy Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot were all figureheads for this movement and most of them were ardent hunters. John Muir was a preservationist. There wasn't even a strong anti-environmentalist movement until the 1970's or so. Not sure how the extreme environmentalists infiltrated the upper echelons of government before there was such a thing as extreme environmentalists but I will give you a chance to prove your point.

https://photos.state.gov/libraries/mumbai/498320/fernandesma/June_2012_001.pdf

https://documents.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/antienvironmentalism.html#:~:text=Anti%2Denvironmentalism%20refers%20to%20the,politicians%20against%20increased%20environmental%20regulation.

Also, your claim of 'on the ground' experience is just an attempt to discredit the actual data I am providing. Common characteristics of denial are refutes such as "The science was bought and paid for" or "on the ground experience is what actually counts", without providing any meaningful and relevant information in return. These statements can be regurgitated by anyone who can type and mean nothing, other than to try and reinforce your own confirmation biases, which is a waste of both your time and my time.

Science uses observations in order to build and organize knowledge into testable theories and predictions. "On the ground" surgical experience, for example, only has certain value because they cannot observe molecular interactions. So, yes, they can become proficient at certain surgical procedures which the surgical student cannot, but that is a ridiculous reason to ignore well respected scientific journals and textbooks. In fact, that would result in malpractice. If you end up in the hospital in need of cardiac surgery, who do you want working on you, the ancient, stubborn surgeon who still lays massive, unnecessary open flaps the way he was taught in the 1950's, or the surgeon who stays up to date on the latest techniques (research) and can complete the surgery more efficiently, safer, with minimally invasive procedures and a better prognosis? How about the dentist who was trained in procedures without using local anesthesia? Maybe you can find one still that refuses to use lidocaine for root canals because he believes on the ground experience is better than listening to a textbook.

There is a reason all state fish and wildlife agencies incorporate science, research, and textbooks into their professions, some more than others. Your argument of ignoring my data because it is simply academic and not "on the ground", without yourself providing a shred of data to support your own position, is nothing more than a waste of type which no reasonable professional would take seriously.

What a joke. Trees die, if you don’t manage the forest they become massive deadfall and fuel for the next massive fire that didn’t need to happen if we would have actually logged and managed the forest. Tree huggers and other environmental groups stopped almost all logging on national forest. The most liberal western states now have massive forest fires burning hotter than normal. Sorry I didn’t google a bunch of studies and read 10 books on the subject but seems kinda obvious what happened. You will dismiss this because I didn’t quote any peer reviewed studies of course. Sometimes 1 plus 1 does just equal 2 despite all your studies

[Hydrophilic]

The proposal should be put all the wolves in the cities where their protection is voted in 

Well fortunately federal land is geared toward multi use and placed in trust for all citizens, and our wildlife is also placed in trust for the public. It seems fitting to me the public having input on how their trust lands and wildlife are managed. That is the beautiful thing about this country, thank you Mr. Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt is probably rolling over in his grave over the stupidity of this one. Ballot box wildlife management was never part of the North American wildlife model, which I agree is most successful wildlife management plan in the world. Ballot box wildlife management will be the ruin of what mr Roosevelt’s gift to us was. There is over 25 years of firsthand documented facts that disprove every lie the biologist told us in Idaho 25 years ago. They are using the EXACT talking points to reintroduce wolves to Colorado right now. It’s all been shown to be bullcrap which we thought anyways but now it’s proven with decades of on the ground evidence. It’s a shame to see this but oh well have fun with the wolves Colorado.

To respect the mod I will not respond to your other post. Its hard for me to stay on topic when there is so much low hanging fruit.

Your opinion is not shared with the majority of people. And here is a life long hunter who supports wolf reintroduction, available for discussion, lucky you. I elk hunt with wolves and have not noticed a change in success, although I don’t doubt it could happen. I support science driven wolf management if needed, but refute predator hate. Good on you Colorado.

 “We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes—something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.”
— Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, 1949

[highside74]

Such a tool. You elk hunt with wolves, yeah right.

[highside74]

And everything you quote is from the 50s and 60s. Go ask the fish and game scientists from the 80s and 90s if they still think it's a good idea to make loggers clean every stream and river they log by or get fined. Now they get fined if they don't put log jams back. Science changes with knowledge and uniformed voters shouldn't vote on wolf introduction.