Wolves are rad.

[Foggy_Goggles]

That doesn't look like a remote mountainous area to me. Any guesses? I'm thinking it has to be on State Land. Blacktail/Radium? They are gonna like it in the Gore.

[MiddleOfNight]

Stop being wrong.

... i'm wrong a lot, but maybe not this time.

That doesn't look like a remote mountainous area to me. Any guesses? I'm thinking it has to be on State Land. Blacktail/Radium? They are gonna like it in the Gore.

yep. and i'd like it if i was a wolf.

they coulda been introduced without a 10(j), but management options would be limited as a federally endangered species .. with a 10(j) 'the designation as a nonessential experimental species allows reintroduced wolves to be managed by hazing, removal, or relocation for domestic animal depradations' .. 'the public may harass or remove wolves attacking livestock or working dogs'

maybe done to appease ranching interests?

at any rate, i think the only way to undo it now would be to go back to voters.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You'd be surprised how often I wander across solo wolf tracks in Washington. I often wind up on pack highways too, don't get me wrong but there is also a lot of times they are moving around individually.

I’ve seen individuals in the foothills behind Wenatchee. Solo tracks a lot. Wolves seem to congregate near denning areas for the most part.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MakersTeleMark]

the first 10 were released yesterday in grand county.

... i'm wrong a lot, but maybe not this time.

Take a few laps then.

[MakersTeleMark]

That doesn't look like a remote mountainous area to me. Any guesses? I'm thinking it has to be on State Land. Blacktail/Radium? They are gonna like it in the Gore.

It had to be released on state or private land. My guess it was: Parcel No: 160126100041 given the easy road access for big wigs to view and the description of the time it takes to get to west of Denver. I could call some friends on the trough road or file a CORA request, but I actually don't care that much.

[The Reverend Floater]

The problem isn't a reasonable population of wolves to balance the ecosystem (yes we all know they can help do that), the problem is that the population booms and they become very difficult to manage. In 2022 Montana set a quota of 458 wolves, and only 248 were killed. This despite greatly expanded seasons and allowable methods of harvest. Why? They're wary as fuck and difficult to hunt and trap. So an imbalance is quickly created and difficult to control, especially with so many people in love with the cute lil doggies and fighting ANY sort of population management.

I notice most of the people in here commenting in favor of wolves live in states that don't yet have wolves. I've been tracking this issue for decades, since long before wolves were reintroduced in Montana where I've lived forty years. There aren't any pros or cons I haven't heard many times over, though I'm always willing to listen. I don't hate the dirty stinky mangy wild dogs that kill for sport as much as food, but they create a lot of management problems that are difficult to solve. So, Colorado...you got a lot of grief headed your way. You should have just let them repopulate naturally, which they were in the process of doing. It's not such a shock to the ecosystem like this will be.

Nailed it. Again.

Not everyone who is wary of wolf reintroduction is a dumbass necker who just wants their elk back or a welfare rancher looking for a scapegoat. Many of us have followed this closely and there are serious consequences to goosing the throttle when introducing any species--again, ask the steelhead. The irony is that by in large, hunters encounter wolves the most frequently by default --they're very active in the fall during hunting season and many times they're after the same prey. While a solid documentary or book is definitely helpful in understanding them, there's no substitute to sharing the woods with them and seeing/hearing them in their element in terms of appreciating their species. They are apex hunters, to be sure.

As for hunting them and the efficacy of managing their population, I know some seriously hardcore hunters--dudes that basically go feral for part of the year, living in the woods and covering god knows how many miles. And they all agree that killing a wolf is very, very difficult.

But leaving reintroduction up to a vote is wildly irresponsible. It would be like voting on whether or not a given vaccine is effective against a given disease, and then introducing said disease based on the outcome--99% of the population is uneducated on the topic and quite likely misinformed. Some folks would be terrified, others stand to profit, most just parrot what their twitter feed told them. It's not a simple problem to undo, which is why most folks I know greatly favor naturally populating any given area. And for what it's worth, I love seeing wolves in the wilderness. There is truly nothing like the feeling of seeing or hearing such a prolific predator.



Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[subtle plague]

So I had to venture into this thread.....
Here wolves have come back in the last 20 years and we have similar discussions.

Some farm animals are eaten every year but farmers are reimbursed and get money for herd protection.

Not Rotkäppchens have been eaten yet and people still go into the woods. And we have a few hundred wolves by now.
Germany has 230 people per square kilometer and Colorado 56 per square mile. So about 10 times less...So why exactly can't this work out?

Swiss farmers hate the wolves because some sheep are eaten every year (5-30 and tourists! They will eat tourists!) because they let them run wild in the alpine. But apparently it's no problem that 4000 sheep fall of cliffs every year because they have no fences. So I might be biased against those wolves are bad statements [emoji6]

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Nailed it. Again.

Not everyone who is wary of wolf reintroduction is a dumbass necker who just wants their elk back or a welfare rancher looking for a scapegoat. Many of us have followed this closely and there are serious consequences to goosing the throttle when introducing any species--again, ask the steelhead. The irony is that by in large, hunters encounter wolves the most frequently by default --they're very active in the fall during hunting season and many times they're after the same prey. While a solid documentary or book is definitely helpful in understanding them, there's no substitute to sharing the woods with them and seeing/hearing them in their element in terms of appreciating their species. They are apex hunters, to be sure.

As for hunting them and the efficacy of managing their population, I know some seriously hardcore hunters--dudes that basically go feral for part of the year, living in the woods and covering god knows how many miles. And they all agree that killing a wolf is very, very difficult.

But leaving reintroduction up to a vote is wildly irresponsible. It would be like voting on whether or not a given vaccine is effective against a given disease, and then introducing said disease based on the outcome--99% of the population is uneducated on the topic and quite likely misinformed. Some folks would be terrified, others stand to profit, most just parrot what their twitter feed told them. It's not a simple problem to undo, which is why most folks I know greatly favor naturally populating any given area. And for what it's worth, I love seeing wolves in the wilderness. There is truly nothing like the feeling of seeing or hearing such a prolific predator.



Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

On the surface this seems like a reasonable and considered post, but really it’s just saying “hunters know best and ignore everyone else”.

Wolves are hard to kill? How were they extirpated in a relatively short time period in the lower 48?




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[summit]

Hunter conservation groups tend to be highly interested in wildlife conservationist and restorationism policies for affecting ungulates, birds, fish and the biome that supports them, plus perpetuation of system that makes hunting viable long term as well as tending to use it as an interventionalist population control method.

I'm OK with that.

That doesn't mean we are right about everything. But it does mean we have a unique perspective and tend to share interests and goals with other environmentalist groups until they start talking about predator reintroduction and land use restrictions.

[skaredshtles]

<snip>
Wolves are hard to kill? How were they extirpated in a relatively short time period in the lower 48?

Baiting and poisoning?

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Baiting and poisoning?

That and aerial hunts.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Conundrum]

Building on and cultivating their habitat also had an impact.

[skaredshtles]

So I had to venture into this thread.....
Here wolves have come back in the last 20 years and we have similar discussions.

Some farm animals are eaten every year but farmers are reimbursed and get money for herd protection.

Not Rotkäppchens have been eaten yet and people still go into the woods. And we have a few hundred wolves by now.
Germany has 230 people per square kilometer and Colorado 56 per square mile. So about 10 times less...So why exactly can't this work out?[emoji6]

Yeah? Well those are Socialist-loving Euro-wolves. Nothing like our freedumb-loving *badass* wolves. They need at *least* a 5 acre lot with a 10K sq ft McMansion on it...

[oldnew_guy]

Lets just take it at face value that hunters and rural communities are large stakeholders in wildlife and by extension land management, particularly game species and land management actions that affect those species.

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

I'm struggling with the idea that because hunters pay for conservation via fees and taxes that they somehow get a bigger say in the management of a public trust. Particularly since it's not clear to me that they are actually the biggest contributors to wildlife conservation outside of state wildlife management agencies where it is obvious that fees and Pittman Robertson federal contributions make up the majority of the state agency budgets.

Can anyone point to a comprehensive economic study that looks at the totality of wildlife conservation dollars?

Some counterfactuals (but not comprehensive, thus the inquiry about a study) to the hunters are the largest funders of wildlife conservation idea:

Nature Conservancy expended ~$900,000,000 in 2022 and ~600,000,000 in 2021 on conservation program expenses and conservation land and easements. It looks like RMEF's 2020 revenue was ~72,000,000. Probably not all of the NC's expenses are US related since they are a international organization.

If your utility buys power from BPA you are paying into BPA's ~$200,000,000/year habitat restoration program (direct expenditures, their total fish and wildlife costs were like ~$600,000,000 in 2020). Maybe this is counterbalanced by the damage caused by the dams..

What's the opportunity cost value to the General Fund of the Northwest Forest Plan's reduction in timber harvest to conserve the Spotted Owl? By extension, what is the cost to the general taxpayer of the MBTA, ESA and NEPA which are certainly wildlife conservation programs and have significant expense to operate. What about all of the additional costs to taxpayers from these laws via things like in-water work periods, construction requirements, aquatic animal organism passage replacements conversions, wildlife overpasses (Cervidae in ID being a ~$3 million Federal Land Access Program funded project), highway wildlife exclusion fencing, in the PNW there is mandated stormwater treatment facilities on new impervious surface with requirements from NOAA/ESA, etc, etc, etc.

How much of Pittman-Robertson is funded by hunters versus just general firearm, archery and handgun sales to non-hunters (I've seen estimates as low as 25% of gun and ammo sales are hunting related)? Even if you assume 100% are hunters, roughly 80% is wildlife related with the remainder going to hunter ed, right? 2023 was reportedly a record year where the program raised $1.3 billion. I looks like the program has raised ~$25 billion over it's life. (Side eyes Nature Conservancy budget....)

If you are going to lump in "access" to the equation, then you should probably take a look a the massive amount of money spent every year spent via the Federal Lands Access Program and the Federal Lands Transportation Program and ERFO, which at least some percentage of could be credited towards similar access (these programs build and maintain trailhead access, river/reservoir access points, rebuild or maintain road access as well as more conventional transportation programs).



And since someone will bring it up, yes, I'm one of those hunters and fisherman buying gear, licenses and tags.

[TBS]

The problem isn't a reasonable population of wolves to balance the ecosystem (yes we all know they can help do that), the problem is that the population booms and they become very difficult to manage. In 2022 Montana set a quota of 458 wolves, and only 248 were killed. This despite greatly expanded seasons and allowable methods of harvest. Why? They're wary as fuck and difficult to hunt and trap. So an imbalance is quickly created and difficult to control, especially with so many people in love with the cute lil doggies and fighting ANY sort of population management.

If Montana has more wolves than the ecosystem can handle, why did the state refuse to give any of their excess to Colorado? The five just reintroduced in CO all came from OR.

As for hunting them and the efficacy of managing their population, I know some seriously hardcore hunters--dudes that basically go feral for part of the year, living in the woods and covering god knows how many miles. And they all agree that killing a wolf is very, very difficult.

I dunno. OR loses about 5-10% of its population (175-200 animals) to poaching every year.
One guy last year shot a collared wolf thinking it was a coyote. Yeahhhh, great hunting skills.

But leaving reintroduction up to a vote is wildly irresponsible.

Agreed.

Just like the Trump Admin arbitrarily taking them off the endangered list across the lower 48 was wildly irresponsible.

[subtle plague]

Yeah? Well those are Socialist-loving Euro-wolves. Nothing like our freedumb-loving *badass* wolves. They need at *least* a 5 acre lot with a 10K sq ft McMansion on it...

That makes perfect sense. Case closed.

[John_B]

If your utility buys power from BPA you are paying into BPA's ~$200,000,000/year habitat restoration program (direct expenditures, their total fish and wildlife costs were like ~$600,000,000 in 2020). Maybe this is counterbalanced by the damage caused by the dams..

tags.[/SIZE]

This is getting into the weeds but the money that BPA is spending on habitat restoration is based upon mitigation of the impacts of their infrastructure. Also as I'm sure you know the restoration funding from BPA is legally mandated through the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion as well as Accord agreements with various treaty and non treaty tribes in the Columbia Basin.

From a fish perspective I don't believe that BPA funding should be compared to The Nature Conservancy, RMEF or any other program that isn't based upon mitigation of pre existing impacts.

Now back to the pinko commie wolves of Yurp. Subtle Plague I am interested in hearing more about wolf and bear impacts in Europe since that's not something I know anything about. Do you have any good links with some info on either reintro or population management of either bears or wolves?

[skaredshtles]

This is getting into the weeds but the money that BPA is spending on habitat restoration is based upon mitigation of the impacts of their infrastructure. Also as I'm sure you know the restoration funding from BPA is legally mandated through the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion as well as Accord agreements with various treaty and non treaty tribes in the Columbia Basin.

From a fish perspective I don't believe that BPA funding should be compared to The Nature Conservancy, RMEF or any other program that isn't based upon mitigation of pre existing impacts.

Now back to the pinko commie wolves of Yurp. Subtle Plague I am interested in hearing more about wolf and bear impacts in Europe since that's not something I know anything about. Do you have any good links with some info on either reintro or population management of either bears or wolves?

I was not aware until fairly recently that Italy has brown bears right smack dab in the middle of the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsican_brown_bear

[subtle plague]

Now back to the pinko commie wolves of Yurp. Subtle Plague I am interested in hearing more about wolf and bear impacts in Europe since that's not something I know anything about. Do you have any good links with some info on either reintro or population management of either bears or wolves?

Suit yourself with Google translate.

https://www.wolfsmonitoring.com/monitoring/verbreitung

So the baseline : rare encounters, mostly young curious wolves. No attacks( well except livestock with lousy fences. Nearly No live Stock attacks with higher electric fences, and none with Herder dogs around.) So no hikers, no dogs walkers whatsoever. But the commie government is keeping the numbers of eaten children with Red garments under close wraps [emoji6]

Wild boars have caused much more havoc here in the last 20 years.

4 deadly wolf attacks in all of Europe in the last 50 years. All rabies.

No bears here, but they are an entirely different beast ( heh) in italy. Some problems because they are not as shy . Still attacks are rare. But my knowledge is from newspaper articles ecause we don't have bears or a Monitoring here.

[oldnew_guy]

This is getting into the weeds but the money that BPA is spending on habitat restoration is based upon mitigation of the impacts of their infrastructure. Also as I'm sure you know the restoration funding from BPA is legally mandated through the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion as well as Accord agreements with various treaty and non treaty tribes in the Columbia Basin.

From a fish perspective I don't believe that BPA funding should be compared to The Nature Conservancy, RMEF or any other program that isn't based upon mitigation of pre existing impacts.

Aren't most/all of these programs mitigating for pre-existing impacts? RMEF/NC/States/Feds, etc. wouldn't be spending money on habitat "restoration" if there wasn't a pre-existing impact. Robertson-Pittman was a reaction to the near extinction of wildlife due to hunting pressure or human caused habitat destruction. ESA -> reaction only occurs once a species is so depleted that it triggers listing, which is why the aforementioned BioOp even exists.

NEPA might be the only exception where a projects impacts are examined before they occur and are then mitigated.

Hard to say, which is why I was curious if some economist somewhere had done a comprehensive review.

[John_B]

Aren't most/all of these programs mitigating for pre-existing impacts? RMEF/NC/States/Feds, etc. wouldn't be spending money on habitat "restoration" if there wasn't a pre-existing impact. Robertson-Pittman was a reaction to the near extinction of wildlife due to hunting pressure or human caused habitat destruction. ESA -> reaction only occurs once a species is so depleted that it triggers listing, which is why the aforementioned BioOp even exists.

NEPA might be the only exception where a projects impacts are examined before they occur and are then mitigated.

Hard to say, which is why I was curious if some economist somewhere had done a comprehensive review.

True. I guess it would have been a lot more accurate to say ongoing impacts vs previous actions that are no longer occurring.

[XXX-er]

That and aerial hunts.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

BC is a bad place to be a wolf

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ents-1.7065846

[skiJ]

The problem isn't a reasonable population of wolves to balance the ecosystem (yes we all know they can help do that), the problem is that the population booms and they become very difficult to manage. In 2022 Montana set a quota of 458 wolves, and only 248 were killed. This despite greatly expanded seasons and allowable methods of harvest. Why? They're wary as fuck and difficult to hunt and trap. So an imbalance is quickly created and difficult to control, especially with so many people in love with the cute lil doggies and fighting ANY sort of population management.

I notice most of the people in here commenting in favor of wolves live in states that don't yet have wolves. I've been tracking this issue for decades, since long before wolves were reintroduced in Montana where I've lived forty years. There aren't any pros or cons I haven't heard many times over, though I'm always willing to listen. I don't hate the dirty stinky mangy wild dogs that kill for sport as much as food, but they create a lot of management problems that are difficult to solve. So, Colorado...you got a lot of grief headed your way. You should have just let them repopulate naturally, which they were in the process of doing. It's not such a shock to the ecosystem like this will be.

Nailed it. Again.

Not everyone who is wary of wolf reintroduction is a dumbass necker who just wants their elk back or a welfare rancher looking for a scapegoat. Many of us have followed this closely and there are serious consequences to goosing the throttle when introducing any species--again, ask the steelhead. The irony is that by in large, hunters encounter wolves the most frequently by default --they're very active in the fall during hunting season and many times they're after the same prey. While a solid documentary or book is definitely helpful in understanding them, there's no substitute to sharing the woods with them and seeing/hearing them in their element in terms of appreciating their species. They are apex hunters, to be sure.

As for hunting them and the efficacy of managing their population, I know some seriously hardcore hunters--dudes that basically go feral for part of the year, living in the woods and covering god knows how many miles. And they all agree that killing a wolf is very, very difficult.

But leaving reintroduction up to a vote is wildly irresponsible. It would be like voting on whether or not a given vaccine is effective against a given disease, and then introducing said disease based on the outcome--99% of the population is uneducated on the topic and quite likely misinformed. Some folks would be terrified, others stand to profit, most just parrot what their twitter feed told them. It's not a simple problem to undo, which is why most folks I know greatly favor naturally populating any given area. And for what it's worth, I love seeing wolves in the wilderness. There is truly nothing like the feeling of seeing or hearing such a prolific predator.



Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

I'm sorry - these are my Truths >>

a quota is not a mandate.
it is nice that "only 248 wolves" were killed by "harvest" ( I have a special place for the person who applied that word. killing animals is not "harvest" - it is killing ( Again, My Truths ) .
wolves are not dogs, they are not even "wild dogs"; wolves are wolves.
" I don't hate dirty stinky mangy wild dogs that kill as much for sport as for food... " - My truth (?) This same sentence, same words, can be applied to most people who 'hunt' wolves
( Question. to what use do you put the wolf you kill ? food ? clothing? shelter? I doubt it. )

I do not consider wolves to be "apex hunters" - Man is the apex hunter ( My Truth. But I am Not a wildlife biologist, and I am a Bad politician, so our use of that term will vary. again, my Truth. )
I agree that determining this issue by a state-wide vote is a bad idea. And this is the system we have and we have no one to blame but ourselves and our elected representatives for allowing it. ( my Truth ) ;

given the chance, the wolf will survive in the 21st century, unless we prey on them as we did in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century.
There will be "losses" to wolves, that is part of the cycle of life.

Wisconsin's wolf population has grown over the last thirty years.
A recent hunt, mandated by legislation and court decision led to the killing of approximately 130% of the quota.
( Disease is always a threat to a population of hundreds )
Why was the killing of wolves necessary ?
predation -no ; over-popultation - I never saw evidence of it - no ;
wolves were killed Because people wanted to kill wolves.
My truths.

I love you guys, and this is my community. but I have great doubts about our species...

peace, my friends. skiJ

[shroom]

maybe we’re not intelligent enough to know what’s appropriate and should avoid the 1-way door we’ve proven is bad

or just ask AI

[BCMtnHound]

Human are just doing what humans have always done. Most act in our own self interest, somewhat in the interest of our community, and very limited in anything that contravenes that comfort zone. Wild land management, consumption, pollution, climate change. And those somewhat insulated from immediate negative impacts always consider their input to be as valuable (and usually more valuable) as those more directly associated. Now apply a rigged system where accumulation of wealth allows greater input/access. And we wonder why this train is careening off the edge of a cliff.

Wild land management is complicated. Mostly because it really isn’t wildland management as long as modern civilization (since agriculture technology anyways) continues its expansions into the land base. At best it is a compromise with our future. At worst … well we are starting to realize just how fucked me might be in a very short time.

But like that other annoying thread, this is too much like work, and I should finish these contract reviews and dataset audits before holidays and the end of Q3. Peace to you all, and may you hear the wolves howling during a midnight x-country ski over the solstice break!