Wolves RFD-TV Big Game Forever Colorado

jmden said:
Wow...seems there are several here that refuse to engage in meaningful conversation in terms of stating their position clearly, supplying evidence to back those positions up, etc. Rather, they just lob bombs with no relevant, helpful or evidential information, but plenty of character assasination. That is really helpful to us all. Congratulations, gentlemen.
Click to expand...

Against my better judgement, I'm going to respond to this.

These are some quotes directly from you. Is this what you consider meaningful conversation? I see a lot of bombs with no helpful, relevant, or meaningful information, but come with a healthy dose of condescension and hubris.

Take a critical and objective read of your first post, and you'll see why I didn't explain to you the reasons I don't favor Joe Balyeat. Your immediate assumption was the following:

Originally Posted by jmden
Too conservative for you, is he?
Click to expand...

If you want objective conversation, promote it. Don't start off with bullshit like that and then accuse others of refusing to engage in dialogue. That's disingenuous at best.

I'm kinda starting to think you prefer to be lost on this issue.

If that is the limit of your understanding on the issue then there's more understanding for you to get. For a start, watch the three videos linked to above in the thread...there's over 2 1/2 hours of good information from another side of the issue most rarely hear and less understand as it's drowned out by the liberal fakestream megaphone.
Click to expand...

This, of course, is assuming the videos are factually based and reliable in their information. That's 2 1/2 hours of my life I don't get back.

Studies have shown that wolves tend to increase their populations at over 30% per year even when every effort (hunting, trapping with no seasons) is made to curtail their populations.
Click to expand...

Yet MT and ID wolf numbers have stayed relatively static since hunting and trapping were legalized. Interesting.

Thus, a breeding pair produces one litter of pups each spring, but in areas of high prey abundance more than one female in a pack may give birth. An average litter size for gray and red wolves is 4 to 6, but sometimes fewer pups are born and sometimes more."
Click to expand...

I noticed you made assumptions and inflated the averages in order to support your argument. Your projected growth rates may very well hold true in an area currently devoid of wolves. However, with existing populations I think you'll find those to be rather optimistic. High growth rates tend to be most predictable when there is ideal habitat for new packs to colonize.

More of the same. Saying nothing and adding nothing to the conversation. Too bad.
Click to expand...

I don't always agree with BrentD, but I would never accuse him of saying nothing and adding nothing to the conversation.

Oh, and by the way, welcome to the site. You seem to have already made a lot of assumptions, but I think you'll find that a lot of us here are huge supporters of science based management. You can't have that when you operate out of misinformation and propaganda.

Edit: I'd think a lot more of Joe Balyeat if he had pressured Montana to actually follow their Elk Management Plan, and not count elk into the population totals that were inaccessible to the public. Then, we wouldn't have been shooting the piss out of cow elk on public land because populations were over objective. Instead, he was more worried about bills that would have codified permit requirements (or lack thereof) for archery elk hunting. Great stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jmden said:
Wow...seems there are several here that refuse to engage in meaningful conversation in terms of stating their position clearly, supplying evidence to back those positions up, etc. Rather, they just lob bombs with no relevant, helpful or evidential information, but plenty of character assasination. That is really helpful to us all. Congratulations, gentlemen.
Click to expand...

I'm just in, having been at a trade show. Here's a clue from someone who has been involved in the wolf deal long before most of the folks you are citing and listening to.

If you want to use tags and labels like you have here in your comments on this thread, you will soon find that your password no longer works. If you want to have a true discussion about wolves, you will find this site populated with people who have been involved since the start and they can be helpful in getting past the bullshit you might be reading and watching about this topic. I would put the Hunt Talk crowd forward as having more collective experience in wolf issue engagement than any site you will visit.

Lots of folks here hunt wolves. They don't hate wolves, though they've seen the impact wolves can have. They understand that wolves have an impact that needs to be managed and they actually get out and try to do something about it when hunting/trapping season comes along.

More to the point. I own the joint. If you want to frame every discussion along lines of liberal/conservative, hanging bullshit tags and labels on people who have actually been engaged on the topic, you can take your keyboard and superficial opinions elsewhere; in fact, I'll even help you if your dialogue continues down the path of what I read while scanning this thread.

If you want to engage with some of the most accomplished public land hunters on Al Gore's internet, put your labels and tags aside and have actual conversation. The folks here are ones who have "been there done that" when it comes to public land western hunting.
 
BrentD said:
Why don't you pony up with some references to primary research that supports your ridiculous claim. Because it is ridiculous. Prove it.
Click to expand...

Been snowed in a few days and working many hours...

To reply to BrentD:

I did in post #41. I don't think I need to reference primary research on data that virtually no one disputes. Post #41 below:

---------------------------

What specifically are you referring to? That is all very commonly know information.

Wikipedia (really hard to find): "Wolves bear relatively large pups in small litters compared to other canid species.[94] The average litter consists of 5–6 pups,[95] with litter sizes tending to increase in areas where prey is abundant,[95] though exceptionally large litters of 14–17 pups occur only 1% of the time."

International Wolf Center: "A mature female wolf comes into estrus once a year. Thus, a breeding pair produces one litter of pups each spring, but in areas of high prey abundance more than one female in a pack may give birth. An average litter size for gray and red wolves is 4 to 6, but sometimes fewer pups are born and sometimes more."

---------------------------------

I don't think either Wikipedia or the International Wolf Center are going to generally print much that would put wolves in a bad light...

Also, my mother just happened to send me a clip from her local newspaper dated February 3, 2019 where an AP writer named Nicholas K. Geranios writes and article entitled 'Researcher says wolf population likely larger than estimates'. In it there's this quote about Washington State 'wolf managers':

"State wolf managers also addressed the panel, saying Washington's wolf population has grown on average 30 percent per year." WDFW has killed alot of wolves along the way, more than once taking out entire packs and we still have that kind of increase. There's been quite a few SSS kills as well. That kind of increase and often more was very typcial around the west for quite a few years. In areas where the wolf is still spreading, there will likely continue to be a very high rate of population increase.

March 25, 2018 Seattle Times: "However, last year's count was up just 6 percent from the minimum of 115 wolves — with 20 packs and 10 breeding pairs — reported at the end of 2016. By contrast, wolf populations grew at a rate of around 30 percent per year the previous decade."

I do have degree in Environmental Studies and Biology and have a small understanding of such things.

Here's an abstract from a study from the Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 459-465:

"Breeding populations of wolves (Canis lupus) were absent from the western United States for about 50 years following their extirpation by humans in the 1930s. Here we describe the recolonization by wolves of northwestern Montana and southeastern British Columbia, from the initial production of a litter by a pair of wolves in 1982 through the mid-1990s when 3-4 packs produced litters. Sex ratio of captured wolves favored females (38/54 = 70%; χ 2 = 8.96, 1 df, P < 0.005). Litter size in early summer (x̄ = 5.3, SE = 0.4, n = 26) and in December (x̄ = 4.5, SE = 0.5, n = 26) were relatively high compared to similar counts in established populations elsewhere. Pack size in May was unrelated to litter size in June (rs = -0.13, 23 df, P = 0.25) or the following December (rs = -0.12, 23 df, P = 0.28). Annual adult survival rate (0.80) was relatively high in this semi-protected population and was higher among residents (0.84) than among wolves that dispersed (0.66) from the study area (Z = 2.24, P = 0.025). Although dispersal was common among radiocollared wolves (19/43 = 44%), population growth within the study area averaged 20% per year from 1982 to 1995. Low human-caused mortality rates and maintenance of connectivity for wolves between this small population in the United States and larger populations in Canada will enhance the probability of persistence and expansion of this population."

That second to last sentence is interesting, "Although dispersal was common among radiocollared wolves (19/43 = 44%), population growth within the study area averaged 20% per year from 1982 to 1995." Hmmm...even with with that much disperal to outside the study area, wolf populations within the study area increased an average 20% per year. What if ALL the increase had been counted?

From Capital Press article dated April 5, 2016: "Oregon’s wolf population increased to 110 from 77, a 43 percent increase. In Washington, the population grew to 90 from 68, a 32 percent increase."

There's a study I've run across before that I cannot find at the moment (much to the chargrine of some here likely) that shows increases over 30% even with hunting and trapping. Is this surprising? Not really. How many here have harvested wolves? From what I understand, they are generally a very difficult quarry. I've had my ear to the ground for quite a few years with a few acquaintences here and there that would love to harvest a few wolves. Just don't hear about it much for the 'average joe'.

Of course at some point any population stabilizes for varying reasons (food sources, weather, population control efforts) and we are seeing that in certain high density areas, namely closer to the core areas where wolves were initially introduced. But on much of the fringes of this area, there can still be large increase in populations year to year and these are like compounding interest.
 
For the record, I don't believe I ever used the term super wolf in this thread. Not sure what super wolf would be...

I think this is the first mention of super wolves from Northwood Labs: "Ahh yes...the Canadian "super wolf". Frickin hilarious. Never hunt Wisconsin, we are full of these "introduced Canadian super wolves" ha ha"
 
Big Fin said:
I'm just in, having been at a trade show. Here's a clue from someone who has been involved in the wolf deal long before most of the folks you are citing and listening to.

If you want to use tags and labels like you have here in your comments on this thread, you will soon find that your password no longer works. If you want to have a true discussion about wolves, you will find this site populated with people who have been involved since the start and they can be helpful in getting past the bullshit you might be reading and watching about this topic. I would put the Hunt Talk crowd forward as having more collective experience in wolf issue engagement than any site you will visit.

Lots of folks here hunt wolves. They don't hate wolves, though they've seen the impact wolves can have. They understand that wolves have an impact that needs to be managed and they actually get out and try to do something about it when hunting/trapping season comes along.

More to the point. I own the joint. If you want to frame every discussion along lines of liberal/conservative, hanging bullshit tags and labels on people who have actually been engaged on the topic, you can take your keyboard and superficial opinions elsewhere; in fact, I'll even help you if your dialogue continues down the path of what I read while scanning this thread.

If you want to engage with some of the most accomplished public land hunters on Al Gore's internet, put your labels and tags aside and have actual conversation. The folks here are ones who have "been there done that" when it comes to public land western hunting.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your input, Randy, and will keep that in mind.
 
You handle it just like every other state; with an approved management plan. CO could pass a "kill on sight" law tomorrow and it'd still be illegal to kill one, but people just keep writing those donation checks to BGF. Their time and money would be better spent on getting a management plan thru the Feds that allowed hunting and trapping as additional means of control.
 
Ben Lamb said:
There is no actual proof that these are Canadian super-wolves, and contrary to popular belief, the wolves on NW MT migrated here on their own, without reintroduction. This notion that we've introduced the wrong species is falderal and has repeatedly been proven false time and time again, through both the courts and scientific reason. Bayleat's math is poor at best, and assumes a 100% harvest rate in order to reach his astronomical numbers. As far as his career as a state legislator, he sponsored bills that would have kept wolves on the endangered species list, cost the agency millions in free and reduced cost licenses and he's advocated for the transfer & sale of public land, as well as setting seasons in statute. He's not exactly what I'd call a sportsmen's hero when it comes to his legislative career.

The constitutional right to harvest was a bright spot, but like all things w/ Joe, it took a village for him to have a product he could take credit for.

Elk have changed their behavior over the last 30 years, but to think that it's only wolf driven ignores the mountain of science done by the states of Wyoming & Montana, as well as private researchers like Arthur Middleton. Drought, lack of forest management, long seasons (in MT) and habitat productivity versus high-protein feed in a secure setting (hay fields, etc) play a larger role in that than anything else. In central and eastern MT, we see elk select private lands with limited pressure to avoid being shot. We see the same thing in western MT, but because people also see wolves, then it's the big bad woofs fault, and not our season structure or lack of quality eats for elk on public land. We ignore the predation done by black bears & lions and how predation issues are a symptom of much larger issues that should be addressed, and then we think we can play god by eliminating one species in favor of another when that work will just be more pissing of money down a hole with limited to no long term benefit.



We used every means under the sun to eliminate wolves in the past, especially paid trappers & poison by the barrel-full, which also helped eliminate raptors, songbirds, foxes, rodents, etc. That kind of indiscriminate killing is what some of these people want to return too, because they're afraid of wolves.

The science on canid reproductive rates is out there if people really want to look at it. Increased pressure from trapping and hunting equal elevated estrogen levels in females, leading to increased litters and increased number of females breeding in a pack. It also increases testosterone in male wolves, creating animals more likely to depredate on livestock and increase take of wild ungulates. Pack stability is key when looking to manage critters, but the current matrix for management is one that encourages rapid expansion of numbers and destabilized pack dynamics. If you think hunting gets a black eye for how people think hunters view wolves, wait until we bring back bounties, snaring, poison, etc. Pack stability was reached for a while.

The fear of wolves is ridiculous. It's how some people make money off of you, and manipulate you into doing their bidding. SFW & BGF are masters at it, and they're no better than CBD or PETA in that regard. They just happen to play to a conservative audience, rather than big city libs.
Click to expand...


Could you continue without the "fear" mongering?

Most hunters do not "fear" wolves. We are concerned with their impact.

You offer sufficient false statements to conclude a bias that requires fearing what you say, a fear that people will believe the claims.
For example, increased pressure from hunting and trapping does not equal elevated estrogen levels.
Increased wolf Mortality creating an increase in food availability to individuals increases estrogen levels. This happens independently to the cause of mortality.

There is No absolute effect after pack destabilization. Neither an increase or decrease to reproductions levels is an assured outcome.
Pack stability is as false as the concept of "Balance in Nature". This simply does not exist in wolves or in Nature.

Increased testosterone in male wolves leads to livestock depredations? WTF? This comment is practically insane!

Quoting an active anti-hunting newspaper such as the Vancouver Sun hardly substantiates your position.

You are obviously selectively choosing your "science".


Brass tax.
Wolves are a incredibly resilient and highly effective predator.
Combine this with a complex legislation and a recipe for significant effects will result.
What you call fear, is simply a valid concern of the effects.
A "healthy" wolf population typically leads to a significant REDUCTION in ungulate populations.


The prospect of losing tens/hundreds of thousands of individual hunting opportunities per year for the sake of more wolves is a valid concern.
 
The prospect of losing tens/hundreds of thousands of individual hunting opportunities per year for the sake of more wolves is a valid concern.
Click to expand...

And there it is: fear.

Thanks for proving the point.
 
The value of wolves...

I think wolves are the Apex predator for National Parks where human hunting is not present in the ecosystem.
Outside that, I am supportive of all means possible to manage wolf populations. Humans are the top, Apex "Conservationists"...
 
walking buffalo said:
.


The prospect of losing tens/hundreds of thousands of individual hunting opportunities per year for the sake of more wolves is a valid concern.
Click to expand...

Yet we tolerate the same exact thing with at best, poor management practices in Montana, and marginal, at best bear and lion management? For the sake of those predators, and our lack of proper big-game management we also lose tens/hundreds of thousands of individual opportunities per year.

Never a whimper about any of that...but constant wolf whinefest.
 
BuzzH said:
Yet we tolerate the same exact thing with at best, poor management practices in Montana, and marginal, at best bear and lion management? For the sake of those predators, and our lack of proper big-game management we also lose tens/hundreds of thousands of individual opportunities per year.

Never a whimper about any of that...but constant wolf whinefest.
Click to expand...

There may be 'whimpering', but I think it's hard to say...very individual, depending on person and experiences. And for many, if you could be in their shoes, you might be whimpering as well. Easy to objectify someone else's situation... But maybe on the other hand you are a NE Washington rancher who's lost a few cattle to wolves and don't care so it doesn't bother you. I don't know.

But I think with wolves and the manner many feel wolves were foisted upon much of the west, that many didn't want, is a part of what caused the heightened emotional response and valid concern of many in particular in regards to wolves as folk had/have real world concerns of what wolves would do to people's livelihoods and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Pick a different topic and I bet you'd be whimpering about someting many would then chide you about but yet you may hold a valid point re the whimpering.

It always strikes me as very odd that a supposed fellow hunter literally dismisses out of hand, and often in a very emotional manner, the valid concerns about wolves, the control over lives and livelihoods politics allows them to exert, and their effects on game. Like I've said for years, I believe wolves are a bio-political tool for the liberal elites that conjured up this whole scheme as they serve several liberal causes at once. To think otherwise is to really bury your head in the sand in my opinion. But, it's a free country.

Interesting video featuring Major Boddicker, Ph. D. about CO and wolves linked below. From what I've seen here and some have attested to, I'm guessing some here won't be able to make it very far into the video given responses above. That...is a true shame and really seems to indicate a lack of willingness to be open minded and/or empathize with another point of view.

https://vimeo.com/299900093

I hope we are all willing to really look hard to both sides of this issue. One side seems to be the PC side where the popular press and culture takes the wolf and almost seem to put it on a pedastal. That's the side most of us hear the most. There's another side of the issue that seems to get much less valid press in the popular press.

Don't get me wrong. I don't blame the wolves. I blame the politics of people and the resultant policies and how this thing was handled from the beginning and continues to be. Wolves are not and will never be endangered. They reproduce, expand range and are too efficient at killing for that to happen. There's an quickly growing population of wolves in Germany, for instance, of all places...much more populated than the American west. They are survivors like few other species. They should be treated as coyotes are and open for year around harvest.

We are many times the number of wolves that were 'agreed' upon that would be 'enough' when this whole journey started and yet we still have lawsuits from environmentalist groups over the past number of years, etc., etc. The goal posts just keep on moving. Incrementalism. Mission creep. Frog in the pot. Call it what you want.

This study found that even with appreciable harvest rates, wolf populations remained stable. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z11-043#.XGWhGOhKjDd

They don't need protection and should be managed as such.
 
Last edited:
I hope we are all willing to really look hard to both sides of this issue. One side seems to be the PC side where the popular press and culture takes the wolf and almost seem to put it on a pedastal. That's the side most of us hear the most. There's another side of the issue that seems to get much less valid press in the popular press.
Click to expand...

You talk as if this is all new. I watched the whole video from the Major. I'd rate it pretty fair, but with a definite right wing bias.
We are not opening Pandora's box. It's been open for a while and you can look up any info from any of the states that have wolves and do research on any subject of what's going to happen there. Livestock losses are always exaggerated in the "What's going to happen" philosophy.

Do we support wolf management? Absolutely. Are things going to change in Colorado? Yes. Are the Elk and deer going to be eliminated? NO Some places elk numbers will be less and others more. Wolves move those populations around a lot.

The Major talked about how large the Colorado Elk herd is in numbers, but didn't state that those numbers are over objective in many places.

My suggestion to you is learn how to hunt, and trap wolves. Enjoy the Wilderness as it should be.

SFW uses predators to generate revenue. It's their cash cow. I'm sure that they thank God the wolves are expanding to other areas.
 
Maybe Colorado can ask Trump to build a border wall to stop the gray caravan moving south.

Some of the ranchers in NE Washington are doing very little to actually help themselves. My best friend runs cattle in North Central ID, and has relatively few wolf losses. He figures he suffers more economic loss from coyotes.
 
The pisser of this continued politicization of wolves is that you are no longer able to say anything even remotely negative about them without being lumped in with SFW/BGF/lobowatch.

I like wolves, I'm glad they're back and I enjoy hunting them. I also know that areas I hunt will likely not have healthy or even viable elk populations again in my lifetime because of them. Regardless to what some continue to say, it is possible to continue pressure on FWP to fix the elk management plan and start managing smarter, to put blame on wolves where due, and to put blame on other predators where due. There are hundreds of elk management units in Montana, Idaho, Washington and Wyoming, and each has their own issues. Blanket statements don't work, yet so many on both sides continue to parrot them.

If I were a Coloradan, I'd be fighting against having a population established also. Not so much for the competition to ungulates, as the BS and rhetoric that goes along with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Press Release February 7, 2024 Legal action launched to protect wolves in northern Rocky Mountains
Replies
1
Views
237
bayoublaster7527
B
COEngineer
Proposed Big Game Season Structure (BGSS) 2025-2029 - Colorado
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
Foldem
F
Mtrimble
Fixing Western Hunting
12 13 14
Replies
268
Views
8K
Mtn Dawg
M
AlaskaHunter
Unique Big Game Regulations
Replies
9
Views
1K
Laelkhunter
L
hunter72
16A-B22-D NM Elk Hunters
Replies
0
Views
525
hunter72
hunter72
GOHUNT Insider

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,034
Messages
1,944,385
Members
34,974
Latest member
ram0307

Share this page

Back
Top