Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Wolf Hunting
CO - Gray Wolf Reintroduction eNews Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WeekendWarrior" data-source="post: 2141919" data-attributes="member: 117901"><p>The lack of wilderness areas to support wolves is such an important point to make. The wilderness we do have is at relatively high altitude, meaning in the winter, all the big game, and now wolves, will inhabit the valleys and ranch land in the winter, thus posing a threat to anyone who keeps live stock. Without proper wintering grounds, the mingling of wolves and people is a certainly, which will disproportionately hurt those who keep animals on their land. </p><p></p><p>I hear the other side of the argument in that this could increase the health of our elk and deer populations, maybe even reduce CWD as well since wolves tend to go after smaller and sick pray first. Given that ranchers would be compensated for any lost live stock, it does seem like a "fair" deal at the surface level, but as a tax payer, I don't want to support creating a problem that I don't currently have to pay for. And anyone who actually owns livestock and has dealt with wolves knows there is significantly more damage done than just loosing one animal at a time. Not only is it financially destructive to loose cattle, but fences get broken when cattle panic, cattle escape, general property damage occurs, and a fear stricken herd of remaining cattle all add up to a very bad deal for our ranchers in which getting a check to cover the cost of mending a fence and buying another head of cattle months after the fact doesn't fully compensate them for their actual loss.</p><p></p><p>At the end of the day, I feel like hunters are vastly under utilized. If the CPW wants more elk taken, I'd happily accept two cow/calf tags a year elk and two doe tags a year for deer, and I'd happily hunt from August into January or February to fill them both every year, or also hunt in the spring. If the CPW wanted Colorado's elk herds thinned like wolves would thin them, they could have more cow/calf/doe tags, and implement year round hunting, or at least an expanded season. And now instead of paying for CPW wo have hellis to track down wolves, and more of my tax dollars going to reimburse ranchers, you now have a scenario in which I get to hunt more which generates more revenue for the state and thus puts less burden on the tax payers while thining our elk and deer populations in more "natural way".</p><p></p><p>I support my taxes going to support our wildlife, but I expect the money to increase my fellow neighbor's ability to view animals, and my ability to hunt them. I'd rather see protected wildlife areas and underpasses being put in around the i-70 corridor to make it easier for these animals to reach their wintering grounds, or for building restrictions to stop the rich and clueless from continuing to destroy elk and deer habitat with their 10000sqft mountain castles that never get used.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, I agree with you. The actual data says that while it is "possible" to reintroduce wolves, it is a bad idea.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WeekendWarrior, post: 2141919, member: 117901"] The lack of wilderness areas to support wolves is such an important point to make. The wilderness we do have is at relatively high altitude, meaning in the winter, all the big game, and now wolves, will inhabit the valleys and ranch land in the winter, thus posing a threat to anyone who keeps live stock. Without proper wintering grounds, the mingling of wolves and people is a certainly, which will disproportionately hurt those who keep animals on their land. I hear the other side of the argument in that this could increase the health of our elk and deer populations, maybe even reduce CWD as well since wolves tend to go after smaller and sick pray first. Given that ranchers would be compensated for any lost live stock, it does seem like a "fair" deal at the surface level, but as a tax payer, I don't want to support creating a problem that I don't currently have to pay for. And anyone who actually owns livestock and has dealt with wolves knows there is significantly more damage done than just loosing one animal at a time. Not only is it financially destructive to loose cattle, but fences get broken when cattle panic, cattle escape, general property damage occurs, and a fear stricken herd of remaining cattle all add up to a very bad deal for our ranchers in which getting a check to cover the cost of mending a fence and buying another head of cattle months after the fact doesn't fully compensate them for their actual loss. At the end of the day, I feel like hunters are vastly under utilized. If the CPW wants more elk taken, I'd happily accept two cow/calf tags a year elk and two doe tags a year for deer, and I'd happily hunt from August into January or February to fill them both every year, or also hunt in the spring. If the CPW wanted Colorado's elk herds thinned like wolves would thin them, they could have more cow/calf/doe tags, and implement year round hunting, or at least an expanded season. And now instead of paying for CPW wo have hellis to track down wolves, and more of my tax dollars going to reimburse ranchers, you now have a scenario in which I get to hunt more which generates more revenue for the state and thus puts less burden on the tax payers while thining our elk and deer populations in more "natural way". I support my taxes going to support our wildlife, but I expect the money to increase my fellow neighbor's ability to view animals, and my ability to hunt them. I'd rather see protected wildlife areas and underpasses being put in around the i-70 corridor to make it easier for these animals to reach their wintering grounds, or for building restrictions to stop the rich and clueless from continuing to destroy elk and deer habitat with their 10000sqft mountain castles that never get used. Anyway, I agree with you. The actual data says that while it is "possible" to reintroduce wolves, it is a bad idea. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Wolf Hunting
CO - Gray Wolf Reintroduction eNews Edition
Top