Past, Present and Future of Wolves: What’s at Stake for Stakeholders?

[@IbexWatcher]

The nature/outdoor tourism industry stands to gain a lot from wolf reintroduction in Colorado. Research from John Duffield et. al. in 2006 and 2019 estimates that tourists spend between 35 and 45 million dollars annually for wolf-specific reasons in the Greater Yellowstone Area (this includes wolf-sighting opportunities and the connected costs of tourism - shopping, meals, lodging, etc)

[@J.D.Ruybal]

Yes, understanding the issue. One must nonetheless consider: Conflicts over stakeholders, predator and prey vs Conflicts over livestock. Livestock; A commodity bought, sold, traded, bred. Yes and some are even pets. In the conversation; Stakeholders = money to be had. This 'conflict' seems more of an issue of monetary $value$. Keeping in mind: $2 million in federal conservation funds-taxpayers contributions-to help 'mitigate' the 'conflict' between livestock and wolves. Money makes everything better?? Just recently a Nature Communications team compiled a database of more than 2,000 species that have fallen victim to free-ranging domestic cats--And this has been going on for years!--Is there no value in 2,000 species having predator and prey 'conflict'? Is there no outright 'stakeholder' (monetary) $value$. No money to be had? Just as important: Also reported is the global 'loss' of wildlife being "significant and alarming". Even more than previously thought. Yet again victims of free-ranging domestic cats are not mentioned? Global 'loss' of wildlife. Predator and prey vs Conflicts? Is it that there is no stakeholder (monetary) $value$. No money to be had? One must ask: With so much loss, where is the outcry? Where is the federal funding? Where is the concern? Where are the laws? One's pet can kill unabated and the environment made toxic, yet today as in the past; a natural predator must be mitigated, killed and/or expelled at any cost? Is it simply about the money and stakeholder $value$?

[@lukeramirez8060]

The question I have is why are propositions like 114 even allowed? Do we collectively think it’s a good idea to let people vote on wildlife decisions like this? We should let the professionals make these decisions.

[@djc9727]

That’s how democracy works. The ranchers and farmers wanted the wolves, elk, deer, mountain lions and bears gone. They almost got rid of them all then the hunters wanted to save the deer and elk around 1906.

[@OregunAdventure]

@@djc9727🤦‍♂️

[@djc9727]

@@OregunAdventure ok commie

[@CrackkkCrazyyy]

Let’s reintroduce SSS!!! Not everyone’s opinion is valid here, thats why CPW exists.. shouldn’t be an issue that “hikers and wolf advocates” can change. Every other stakeholder that was listed is against this. Not everyone is a stakeholder when there is disproportionate impacts. This is an *AWFUL* idea. Look at the other states. A harsh winter and now wolves, what will be next to ruin Colorado’s big game opportunities! Those OTC tags will start to look as attractive as gas station sushi!!!

[@djc9727]

Name a state that has wolves that diminished elk or deer populations. States like Montana have more elk then is legally allowed by state law by almost twice. Wisconsin has wolves and 1.5 million white tailed deer.

[@CrackkkCrazyyy]

israel@@djc9727

[@markpiersall9815]

Minnesota.

[@CrackkkCrazyyy]

@@djc9727 you are what we would refer to in a medical setting as “mentally challenged” but im sure you are aware of that if you have a competent physician.. Go look at the Lolo Region in Idaho: 12 Wolves in 1995 & 16,000 Elk 800 Wolves in 2011 & 1,000 Elk

[@gsp2west]

No mention of the largest group of stakeholders in Colorado, the hunter. If we don't learn from our history we are destined to repeat it. Wolves were removed for a reason and that reason has not changed. Why Oregon? Is it because Wyoming, Idaho and Montana said NO to Colorado's reintroduction of wolves.

[@djc9727]

I would spend every summer in Colorado with my grandparents until we move to Garfield County in 82 when I was 12. I love hunting and fishing. Getting a mule deer in Colorado is the easiest thing to do. Elk is another story. I’ve been a guide since 98. I use all of my vacation every year to guide. I own a nice piece of land that allows for a few horses. Being a guide allows me to make a good living on top of my regular job. The problem is in the last two years I’ve had 3 customers and four elk with CWD. One of the guys had back to back CWD infected elk. They spend thousands of dollars to come here to hunt and two of them aren’t coming back. It’s estimated that 50% of our deer and 40% of the elk have CWD. What happens if cattle or horses get CWD. Ranchers won’t stand for that. Things that they hate the most are things that compete for grazing land (elk, deer and bison), things that kill cattle and sheep farmers. They are deathly afraid of disease. A little history about elk and deer here in Colorado. My great grandparents and grandparents were second and third generations ranchers here in Colorado. They all thought that bringing back elk and deer that compete with cattle was a bad idea. Both of my Dad’s grandmothers believed that mule deer were filthy animals and didn’t want them back. At the turn of the century we were down to 40,000 elk in all of North America. With no known elk in Colorado. The elk's dramatic demise was attributed to unregulated market hunting, not wolves (although they weren’t help in saving the elk). We drove the eastern elk to extinction. The white tail and mule deer were on the verge of extinction also. If it wasn’t for hunters and required licensing and quotas we wouldn’t have any left. In 1916 we had to import 50 from Wyoming because ours were so low. October 1929 Colorado's deer and elk populations were entering a dramatic, multi-decade period of recovery. Biologists estimated the state had 17,000 elk and 45,000 deer, and those populations were increasing rapidly. In 1929, Colorado sanctioned its first official elk hunt in 26 years, while an estimated 4,000 buck deer were being harvested annually. If wolves aren’t the answer to help stop CWD what is? My 84 year old dad and the rest of the old timers (ranchers) believe that there are too many deer and elk and this is mother nature’s way to deal with the problem. With or without wolves it seems like we will have less deer and elk.

[@daveruaneCO]

You obviously didn’t watch or comprehend the video. Hunting interests were well represented in the stakeholder advisory group and technical working group. This “reason” you mention was bogus then and bogus now…

[@djc9727]

If wolves reduced CWD but also reduced elk and deer I’m ok with that also. Maybe they can reduce coyotes while they are at it.

[@djc9727]

Montana has over a thousand wolves. Elk are a heated debate in that state. According to data from Fish, Wildlife and Parks, they estimate the state’s elk population is around 175,000 animals, but they would like to see a population closer to about 92,000, and that’s just a big difference (apparently they have lazy wolves). Farmers, ranchers and landowners want way less. Hunters want better access.

[@OregunAdventure]

What a joke