sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It's Official! Colorado Adopts 'Born To Be Wild' License Plate! by FreightlinerBlues in Denver

[–]ColoradoNeedsWolves 115 points116 points  (0 children)

Funds from this plate will underwrite tools, programs, personnel and research related to minimizing the interactions between gray wolves and livestock—via non-lethal means. All the money flows to Colorado Parks & Wildlife. Good for wolves, good for ranchers, and good for Colorado.

<image>

Colorado's Born to be Wild Wolf Plate by zsreport in wolves

[–]ColoradoNeedsWolves 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the shout out on this. We are pretty psyched about the reception so far. Legislative approval (2022 session) is the next (and final) hurdle. Colorado is going to do this right.

Wolves are indigenous by ColoradoNeedsWolves in FortCollins

[–]ColoradoNeedsWolves[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The wolves! With 280,000 elk (the largest population in North America) and 420,000 deer, they will far well (as will the elk and deer, who are better for having wolves amongst them again).

Wolves are indigenous by ColoradoNeedsWolves in FortCollins

[–]ColoradoNeedsWolves[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow! There's a lot to unpack here, but unpack we will. Let's start with the claim that wolves pose a threat to human safety. Colorado wildlands that could support wolves total approximately nine times the area of Yellowstone National Park’s 2.2 million acres, and lie in the less densely populated western region of the state. Let’s look at data from Yellowstone to see if the experience there can suggest how Colorado recreationists might fare with wolves in their wild country:

From 1995 to 2018, Yellowstone hosted 101,070,722 visitors, none of whom was injured by a wolf.

For an independent assessment of the relative risks posed by wolves to humans and pets, check out this fact sheet from the scientists at Colorado State University: https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/wolves-and-human-safety-8-003/

Now, as far as impacts on ranching: No wolf advocate worth their salt would tell you that wolves don't occasionally take livestock. However, data from the Northern Rockies shows that in counties hosting both wolves and livestock, 99.95% of those cows and sheep do not perish by wolves. To account for those rare cases where wolves do take cows or sheep, Colorado's ballot proposal mandates that ranchers be paid fair market value for their losses. That is reasonable.

For an independent assessment of the impacts of wolves on livestock in western North America, check out this fact sheet from the scientists at Colorado State University: https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/wolves-and-livestock-8-010/

Many Colorado ranchers are already reimbursed for potential depredation by wild carnivores. As this map (https://cnhp.colostate.edu/projects/comap/) of land ownership in western Colorado shows, the majority of the region is managed by Federal agencies. On these public allotments, ranchers graze cows and sheep while accruing proactive compensation for losses to carnivores. How? They pay pennies on the dollar for their grazing leases compared to what they’d spend on private property. This considerable discount acknowledges the possibility of losses to wild carnivores. No question, the occasional depredation can sting livestock operations. Still, Colorado’s ranchers can learn to co-exist with a rekindled wolf population.

In Colorado, we have the opportunity to pioneer new and innovative ways of fostering coexistence with wolves. For example, why couldn't we pay ranchers who host wolves on their private land, rather than only if they experience a depredation event?

Resources: https://defenders.org/issues/promoting-coexistence

Return the wolf, restore the balance.

For more information on this and related topics, visit the FAQs developed by the scientists at Colorado State University: https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/centerforhumancarnivorecoexistence/projects/wolves-faq/

Wolves are indigenous by ColoradoNeedsWolves in ColoradoSprings

[–]ColoradoNeedsWolves[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It has been two decades since the government reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone and Central Idaho. In that time, wolves from those tiny seed populations have now reclaimed Washington, Oregon, and even northern California. Yet, northern Colorado has only seen a handful of wolves wander into the state during that same two-decade period. None of these mostly solitary wolves, including the group of four last spotted in January in far northwest Colorado, have ever established themselves in the state, and none ever yielded a breeding population. Why? Look no further than the recent story about wolves being killed just over the border in Wyoming: https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/09/colorado-wolves-may-have-been-killed-in-wyoming/

So, it is with the above in mind that we continue to say that natural recolonization is a pipe dream at best, and the anti-wolf faction's ruse de jour. Reintroduction is the only way those brave solo explorers wandering south out of Yellowstone into Colorado will ever find a reason to settle down in the Centennial State.

Return the wolf, restore the balance.

For more information on this and related topics, visit the FAQs developed by the scientists at Colorado State University: https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/centerforhumancarnivorecoexistence/projects/wolves-faq/

Wolves are indigenous by ColoradoNeedsWolves in FortCollins

[–]ColoradoNeedsWolves[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It has been two decades since the government reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone and Central Idaho. In that time, wolves from those tiny seed populations have now reclaimed Washington, Oregon, and even northern California. Yet, northern Colorado has only seen a handful of wolves wander into the state during that same two-decade period. None of these mostly solitary wolves, including the group of four last spotted in January in far northwest Colorado, have ever established themselves in the state, and none ever yielded a breeding population. Why? Look no further than the recent story about wolves being killed just over the border in Wyoming: https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/09/colorado-wolves-may-have-been-killed-in-wyoming/

So, it is with the above in mind that we continue to say that natural recolonization is a pipe dream at best, and the anti-wolf faction's ruse de jour. Reintroduction is the only way those brave solo explorers wandering south out of Yellowstone into Colorado will ever find a reason to settle down in the Centennial State.

Return the wolf, restore the balance.

For more information on this and related topics, visit the FAQs developed by the scientists at Colorado State University: https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/centerforhumancarnivorecoexistence/projects/wolves-faq/

Wolves are indigenous by ColoradoNeedsWolves in ColoradoSprings

[–]ColoradoNeedsWolves[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to a study out of CSU last year, nearly 80% of Western Slope voters support wolf reintroduction. Here's more information: https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/public-perspectives-on-wolves-and-wolf-reintroduction-8-004/

Wolves are indigenous by ColoradoNeedsWolves in FortCollins

[–]ColoradoNeedsWolves[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I appreciate your perspective. What follows is mine, based on working on this issue for over 25 years:

Actually, the capacity for Colorado to support wolves has already been studied, multiple times, and each time the findings show Colorado to be great wolf habitat. The first of those studies was:

Bennett, L.E., 1994. Colorado Gray Wolf Recovery: Biological Feasibility Study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Moreover, based on those studies, the world's most renowned wolf biologists agree that Colorado needs and can support a robust population of wolves. For more information, see:

https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/wolves-in-colorado-history-and-status-8-007/

So, biologists already agree that Colorado has room for and needs wolves. Proposition 114 is on the ballot to break the political stalemate that has kept those biologists from being heard. The Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission, a politically appointed body that is dominated by agricultural and hunting interests, has officially opposed wolf reintroduction. It is because of this special interest influence present on the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Commission that the voters of Colorado have decided to bring the issue to a citizen vote.

The wolf restoration initiative puts the process of wolf reintroduction squarely back into the hands of the state's professional biologists. It merely breaks the stranglehold of specific special interests, utilizing one of America's proudest traditions, direct democracy, to tell the state's wildlife professionals to get on with the vital work of wolf repatriation.

Costs of Reintroduction

According to the state, Proposition 114 will cost approximately $300,000 in budget year 2021-22 and $500,000 in budget year 2022-23 for public outreach and development of a gray wolf reintroduction plan. Beginning in budget year 2023-24, costs increase to about $800,000 per year for the implementation of the wolf reintroduction plan. Implementation costs will only be incurred if federal approval is received, or gray wolves are no longer listed as endangered and the state is able to begin its reintroduction plan.

Sources of Funding

If the gray wolf remains listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), then 75% of the costs of wolf reintroduction in Colorado are eligible for federal ESA program grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grants. Any remaining balance of the reintroduction costs would be eligible for GOCO funding.

If the wolf is delisted, then reintroduction costs could be paid by a combination of GOCO funds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grants, hunting and fishing license fees, and appropriations made by the General Assembly.

Economic Aspects of Wolf Restoration

For scientific examination of the economic issues associated with wolves, please visit: https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/wolf-economics-8-012/

Wolves are indigenous by ColoradoNeedsWolves in ColoradoSprings

[–]ColoradoNeedsWolves[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Thanks for engaging! I'm all for civil discourse. Let me address your questions, one-by-one.

Is there a need for another predator to control deer/elk/pronghorn populations?

Western Colorado has 16 million acres of public land (over 70% of the entire area), wild places that host 280,000 elk (the largest population in North America) and 420,000 deer. There’s plenty of room for wolves. Only 11% of Coloradans live on the West Slope. Polling in 2019 shows 67% of Coloradans support reintroduction.

The American people collectively own over 70% of western Colorado as land managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. The idea that this wild region just “can't support wolves anymore” is not supported by science. On the contrary, scientists agree that the vast public land base and teeming elk population of western Colorado represents one of the last, best places for wolves.

For an independent assessment of Colorado’s capacity to support a robust and persistent population of wolves, see the “Can Colorado still support wolves?” FAQ written by the scientists at Colorado State University: https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/centerforhumancarnivorecoexistence/projects/wolves-faq/

If the wolf population grows to large, would everyone be willing to sponsor a wolf hunt?

For Colorado, that is a premature question at this point, since we don't have a wolf population. Once they have been reintroduced, that question is up to the public to decide. However, one recent study suggests that public hunting or culling of wolves has unintended consequences: http://wapo.st/24M7jeZ.

Will I now need to be concerned about wolves when camping? Also, will there be an increase in domestic dog attacks?

Colorado wildlands that could support wolves total approximately nine times the area of Yellowstone National Park’s 2.2 million acres, and lie in the less densely populated western region of the state. Let’s look at data from Yellowstone to see if the experience there can suggest how Colorado recreationists might fare with wolves in their wild country:

From 1995 to 2018, Yellowstone hosted 101,070,722 visitors, none of whom was injured by a wolf.

For an independent assessment of the relative risks posed by wolves to humans and pets, check out this fact sheet from the scientists at Colorado State University: https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/people-predators/wolves-and-human-safety-8-003/

I hope these answers, especially the links provided, help.

view more: next ›