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

[greenhead_killer]

Can’t wait to see what other off worldly knowledge you have to impart on us.

[greenhead_killer]

Still there bubbo, to educate the masses here? Tell us how it really is in wolf country? Tell us all of your personal vast experience of wolves. Should clear up quite a bit with your vast experience, personal of course, with wolves.

[lokidog]

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.

This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!

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.

[nwwanderer]

Most of the planet has the large Canids, still have wildlife though often out of whack with huge swings.  The Colorado initiative will cost millions, dumb move as is often the case with voted wildlife management.  Stop spending money on wolves and give them the same status as a coyote, they will be fine.

[idaho guy]

And elk numbers in Yellowstone were at there peak in the early 90s and have been on a decline since the late 90s. May I ask the class what changed in Yellowstone in the mid 90s?

Anyone, Anyone? Oh that's right wolves in 95. But the book photocopying science guy will say that has nothing to do with it.

Wait for it, wait for it...

This is about Colorado, not Yellowstone, completely different. You have dragged me off topic multiple times, mainly because it was too tempting not to respond to your off topic comments, but I will stay on topic the rest of this thread. Please refrain from personal attacks, attacking my argument is one thing, attacking me personally by calling me a tool is another. Please refrain, thanks.

This is off topic? WTH this is an exact blueprint for what will happen in Colorado. I know your romantic quote about green eyed wolves is super scientific but this is actual evidence,wow maybe even a study, of what happens to massive elk herds when you reintroduced wolves. I know it really doesn’t fit your narrative so keep quoting studies from places as far away from the west as possible. You want science!!! There it is 25 years in Yellowstone without Any co factors of predators like hunting. Explain based on this exact “experiment” of re introduced wolves makes a good case for introducing them into Colorado? You are quoting the same EXACT crap they spewed 25 years ago. Look at Yellowstone nothing could be more ON topic. Before you post new numbers of elk like last 5 years you better research how far they extended the boundaries of where the original Yellowstone elk herds now resides. But hey! The elk quit eating the stream side bushes so the fishing is better!! Yippee that’s what the same science is touting as their Yellowstone success with wolves. My grandpa who lived his whole life in Rifle Colorado told me you can’t argue with a fool. Wow was he right. Seeing the same talking points used as SCIENCE 25 years later is exhausting and irritating.

[Born2late]

I'd suggest reading a book called "Alaskas wolf man" the 1915-55 wilderness adventures of frank glaser
It's a excellent book and he was a man That hunted and observed the impact wolves had on the landscape in alaska as they increased and was one of the most respected and knowledgable persons with first hand experience on wolves.
It will really give you a glimpse of whats to come i think.
I remember one part in the book were he talked about when the wolves would move into a valley they would kill everything in there. He said those valleys never recovered from it and were void of animals for the many years he lived and passed through them.

[highside74]

I didn't go off topic. Yellowstone is a place where wolves were reintroduced and the elk populations have declined ever since and people in Colorado are ignoring 20 years of wolf and elk science because they are misinformed by people with an arterial motive.

Ulterior.

You call a herd of elk a pack and correct my poor spelling of the correct use of a word. Nice.

[idahohuntr]

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.

This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!

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.

A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king.  In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC.  If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome.  Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'.  While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer. 

[Hydrophilic]

I'd suggest reading a book called "Alaskas wolf man" the 1915-55 wilderness adventures of frank glaser
It's a excellent book and he was a man That hunted and observed the impact wolves had on the landscape in alaska as they increased and was one of the most respected and knowledgable persons with first hand experience on wolves.
It will really give you a glimpse of whats to come i think.
I remember one part in the book were he talked about when the wolves would move into a valley they would kill everything in there. He said those valleys never recovered from it and were void of animals for the many years he lived and passed through them.

Thank you for offering a resource and posting a civil reply, even if we disagree. I will add that to my reading list.

[KFhunter]

Wolves are here and will stay, most hunters want them managed rather than eradicated.

I would settle for management, the degree of desired management is the argument.

Same is true with other predators

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[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.

This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!

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.

A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king.  In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC.  If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome.  Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'.  While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.

Well stated.

[10thmountainarcher]

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.

This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!

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.

A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king.  In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC.  If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome.  Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'.  While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.

I’m not certain how Colorado works their management for wildlife, but it seems a ballot box approach is only taken on some subjects. We voted for (against) hounds and baiting for bears/cougars, but almost everything else seems it’s done based on “science and data” (I really despise those terms...thanks Inslee). Baiting and hounds were well before I was of age to vote so I may be incorrect, but let’s be realistic neither had anything to do with data and science. Hound hunting being outlawed was for nothing but the feelings of people. I do remember the ads of dogs attacking bears after the shot being played on television.

Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me. I’ve seen the effects first hand, I don’t care what your textbook tells you.

*Edit to add* I guess what I’m saying/asking, how come only some management items go to a vote of the people? It seems the items that go to vote are the ones that feelings get in the way of the right answers.

[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.

This is the key point right here! Whether you like or dislike wolves, THIS IS IT!

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.

A central tenet of the NAMWC is that the wildlife are owned by the people - a stark contrast to the days of game being owned by the king.  In that sense, I disagree with these proclamations that 'ballot box management' is not part of the NAMWC.  If the people who own the wildlife choose to do something by a vote of the people, that is their prerogative...however strenuously I or other hunters may dislike the outcome.  Reintroducing wolves, banning bear baiting and hounds, allocating a certain percentage of elk tags to non-residents are all value judgments which will vary based on the electorate...the 'owners'.  While science may provide information about how introducing an apex predator will effect other species and their habitat, it really is up to the 'owners' to decide what they prefer...in Colorado (and probably Washington if there were ever a similar vote!) a majority prefer wolves on the landscape, even if that means fewer elk and deer.

I’m not certain how Colorado works their management for wildlife, but it seems a ballot box approach is only taken on some subjects. We voted for (against) hounds and baiting for bears/cougars, but almost everything else seems it’s done based on “science and data” (I really despise those terms...thanks Inslee). Baiting and hounds were well before I was of age to vote so I may be incorrect, but let’s be realistic neither had anything to do with data and science. Hound hunting being outlawed was for nothing but the feelings of people. I do remember the ads of dogs attacking bears after the shot being played on television.

Anyone who says wolves don’t have a significant impact on wildlife has absolutely ZERO credibility with me. I’ve seen the effects first hand, I don’t care what your textbook tells you.

*Edit to add* I guess what I’m saying/asking, how come only some management items go to a vote of the people? It seems the items that go to vote are the ones that feelings get in the way of the right answers.

   

My point exactly well said. Either we entrust management to those hired and trained to do so or we don’t. This piece meal approach where only sensitive emotional issues get voted on by the public is the worst of all world’s

[idahohuntr]

Why do some things go to the ballot and others not?  There is no bright clear line and of course it varies by state, but its usually bigger, statewide policy issues of political importance/significance/interest.  The 'feely/emotional' stuff typically arrives out of political interest.

We don't put up ballot measures for smaller, less significant issues (e.g., to adjust quality elk permits in the colockum) but there is still a public process for setting those numbers.  We may not get what we individually want, but in general the NAMWC facilitates public input on the management of public resources...and as we all know, even one user group (hunters) do not uniformly agree on any given set of values or decisions...which can make things tough even for well intentioned wildlife managers.   

[KFhunter]

If the ballot box said to eradicate all wolves in their respective state, such as Wyoming, then would idahohunter and hydro support that?



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk