Colorado Wolves Reintroduction

[onebyone]

Probably a combination of factors. Bears take an incredible amount of fawns. I think both bears and wolf populations have increased there.
In Yellowstone, grizzlies take a lot of elk calves. Moose calves as well.

From about 1990 to 2010 the wolf population in the UP went from 0 to around 650. Yes bears eat fawns. The difference between wolves and bears is that the wolves chase the deer for long distances. The deer depend on their winter yarding areas where they can relax and not expend much energy in the deep snow. The wolves chasing the deer in the winter causes them to lose their fat reserves before the spring thaw and starve if they aren’t eaten.

For the record I’m not anti-wolf. Just giving you an idea of what to expect in the future.

Isn't the primary factor in the UP's deer mortality several bad winters, though? Seems that dwarfs the impact of wolves on that population in recent history...

The ungulates in Wyoming this past winter took a massive hit. Huge die offs of mule deer and pronghorn due to lots of snow and cold. I believe Michigan also had a big die off, but not has severe as Wyoming. I think the main problem for wolves in Colorado will be ranchers. I don't care what anyone says, wolves will absolutely take livestock. In Wyoming, many ranchers have effectively decreased wolf predation through a variety of measures. But they can also shoot them if needed, so there's that..

[markf]

Have any ranchers or farmers in the US tried using dogs to keep predators away from their livestock? Farmers in the Pyrenees have gone back to using dogs to keep wolves and bears away from their cattle and sheep, and from what I've been told it's been successful. There are signs all over the Pyrenees warning hikers to be careful around the sheep dogs (they're called "patou"), describing what they do and explaining how to act around them.

[LURE]

the wolf thing is so sticky and nasty from every angle.

people need to realize that there are big piles of misinformation being lobbed en masse from both sides of the argument.

- wolves are not some ecological unicorn that will return the balance of nature. they're just not, regardless of whatever viral video you watch tells you. trophic cascade is massively overstated and misunderstood and not well backed by the science because it's extraordinarily difficult to extrapolate and apply the concept to a place so urbanized and populous.

- wolves are not going to eliminate all the deer and elk from the landscape. but they are definitely going to cause some herd level population changes in specific areas. there are several areas where CPW has serious concerns about the resiliency and long term health of some elk herds due to primarily loss of habitat, development on winter range, and fragmentation of available critical habitat. wolves are an unfortunate and rather concerning addition in those circumstances.

- they are absolutely going to be killing livestock, regardless of the wolf population, regardless of the elk and deer population. wovles want food and they'll take what they find.

i'm pro seeing all of our native species back on the landscape. but wolves are such a sticky, expensive, litigious nightmare that further inflames the political divide into an "us versus them" game i just really wish it wasn't the path we were on and in the way that we were set on it.

the day will come where the wolves will be above the population goals in the management plan and what will eventually define "recovery" and their numbers will continue to increase. they will largely do well here, i suspect - habitat and food in abundance. the day will come where wildlife officials will largely be in full agreement we need to curtail the population. when that day comes I envision multiple things happening 1) litigation will prevent both "legal recovery" being met and, by proxy, curtailment, 2) ballot initiatives and/or legislative action will prohibit the hunting of the wolves, 3) wildlife officials will eventually be forced to hire contract sharpshooters to do the culling once recovery is met and exceeded following many years of litigation.

point being, eventually wolves will have to be killed because their tolerance on the landscape will be exceeded. in a world so urbanized and so populous this is an inevitability. it's not exactly a secret, but conveniently overlooked, how many mt lions have to be killed in california by contract government shooters because of their overpopulation and that is the case because the voters in california banned lion hunting, yet cats still have to be shot, at a cost to the taxpayers.

there needs to be less vitriol hurled, by all parties. there needs to be honesty about the realities here. there should be an honest and sympathetic understanding that folks who live on the landscape have deep reservations about having to deal with wolves on a daily basis. the front range voters need to be more sympathetic to their fellows residents throughout the state.

being anti or pro wolf can't be reduced to extreme maga republicanism versus extremist eco liberalism. understand that there are legitimate concerns and reasoning from both sides and remember that it's the loudest 10% on the fringes of each end of the bell curve that drive the narratives.

the decades of litigation and conflict have hardly even begun.

[Iguru]

Have any ranchers or farmers in the US tried using dogs to keep predators away from their livestock? Farmers in the Pyrenees have gone back to using dogs to keep wolves and bears away from their cattle and sheep, and from what I've been told it's been successful. There are signs all over the Pyrenees warning hikers to be careful around the sheep dogs (they're called "patou"), describing what they do and explaining how to act around them.

Dogs are used in the San Juan range to protect sheep. I have seen them while hiking Wetterhorn and Uncompahgre, guarding sheep herds. Big white very unfriendly dogs.
Wolves will avoid dog guarded stock and seek easier prey.
Wolf kills of livestock that are documented result in compensation for ranchers here in MN, maybe that is part of appeasing those opposed.
And hearing a wild wolf howl (if you love wolves) will give you goose bumps!

[interloper]

Well said, LURE!

[mtree]

I was against reintroduction due to costs. Wolves were coming anyway so why pay for it?
If I was a rancher I'd be against it. They're a potential threat to my livelihood. I can relate.
If I was a hunter I'd be against it. Wolves kill the weak leaving more trophies so not such a bad thing. So unless I hunt small game - rabbits, rats, voles, marmots - I'd change my mind and vote for it. Kinda like up-selling.
If I was an urban dweller I would be sad. I don't like living in the city. They're noisy, smelly, and cold. Too many cars. Homeless camps exploded with no quick fix or slow fix. Restaurants are overpriced, the tipping issue is out of control, a pint of beer is ridiculous, and all those Lime scooters annoy me. I do like going to baseball games! I just wish the Rockies were more competitive. They need more pitching. Both starters and bullpen help. Let's start there and see how it goes.

[montanahiker]

In response to what Lure said about some the effects of introducing wolves into Colorado will bring, some of those things are likely the point. There are plenty in the pro-wolf crowd that are actually just anti-rural, anti-ranching, anti-hunting, pro-government administration and supporting wolves is a useful avenue towards their goals. If the wolves upset Republicans, harm livestock operations and curtail deer and elk populations to the point that hunting licenses are reduced or even eliminated, all the better. Politics is about power, not coming together to achieve common goals.

[SkaredShtles]

Glad to see people actively stoking divisions via this thread.

[justiner]

In response to what Lure said about some the effects of introducing wolves into Colorado

*reintroducing wolves

[LURE]

In response to what Lure said about some the effects of introducing wolves into Colorado will bring, some of those things are likely the point. There are plenty in the pro-wolf crowd that are actually just anti-rural, anti-ranching, anti-hunting, pro-government administration and supporting wolves is a useful avenue towards their goals. If the wolves upset Republicans, harm livestock operations and curtail deer and elk populations to the point that hunting licenses are reduced or even eliminated, all the better. Politics is about power, not coming together to achieve common goals.

yes, these people exist, absolutely. the groups that organize and fund ballot initiatives can often have agendas that go much deeper. as conspiracy as it may sound, it is the reality. do the voters have such deep rooted and organized agendas? no, they don't, maybe some do and hope for such things, and they have that right. But i think such folks are a minority and that's more to my point.

wildlife politics in washington are proven evidence of that. a canary in the coal mine, if you will. perhaps, even, a look into the future in states like colorado - a future of cratered deer and elk populations, abundant predators and limited or no predator management, and a stated effort to deemphasize hunting from the very agency that oversees the state's wildlife and manages hunting. this is not me conflating the very presence of wolves with that future, the issue is very complex and multi pronged in washington, no doubt.

so here we are now, in the situation we're in. at the end of the day we all love wild places and wildlife and have big passions for preserving and conserving - there is common ground to be found here amongst the residents of this state on this.

[randalmartin]

- wolves are not going to eliminate all the deer and elk from the landscape. but they are definitely going to cause some herd level population changes in specific areas. there are several areas where CPW has serious concerns about the resiliency and long term health of some elk herds due to primarily loss of habitat, development on winter range, and fragmentation of available critical habitat. wolves are an unfortunate and rather concerning addition in those circumstances.

Reducation of deer/elk populations actually makes the remaining population much stronger. Less mouths to feed on the remaining habitat. We already know that in RMNP overpopulation of Elk has definitely led to overgrazed habitat.

[GuiGirard]

Have any ranchers or farmers in the US tried using dogs to keep predators away from their livestock? Farmers in the Pyrenees have gone back to using dogs to keep wolves and bears away from their cattle and sheep, and from what I've been told it's been successful. There are signs all over the Pyrenees warning hikers to be careful around the sheep dogs (they're called "patou"), describing what they do and explaining how to act around them.

Dogs are used in the San Juan range to protect sheep. I have seen them while hiking Wetterhorn and Uncompahgre, guarding sheep herds. Big white very unfriendly dogs.
Wolves will avoid dog guarded stock and seek easier prey.
Wolf kills of livestock that are documented result in compensation for ranchers here in MN, maybe that is part of appeasing those opposed.
And hearing a wild wolf howl (if you love wolves) will give you goose bumps!

Add the Alps to the Pyrenees and generally much of Western Europe (plains included). Nobody reintroduced wolves there, but they had abundance of easy prey in unguarded cattle and a vacant ecological niche to occupy, so they took advantage of it.

And yes, I second re the dogs near Wetterhorn/Uncompahgre. Much more awareness about their existence needs to happen before an accident occurs. I could easily have been mauled this last summer when leaving the trail on my descent from W, while walking around and away from the herd in order to give them a wide space. I was unaware of the dogs, and too surprised by the presence of the sheep (generally rare around CO high peaks) to think rationally quickly enough.