Reply by: TetonSnowKing Posted: 10/2/2012 8:51:48 AM Points: 154
Im from wyoming, and this makes me sick! Pretty sad they want to kill a wolf just because they can. If you have ever seen a wolf in the wild I dought you would want to shoot one... My father says it best, if you cant eat it dont kill it.
Reply by: ObsessedFisherman Posted: 10/2/2012 8:59:42 AM Points: 2881
Well if they continue to populate with no control then they could be eating you on your way out your house door to work. Or better yet how about 15 of them jump you while you are on the river fishing that would be fun... Not a hunter and love animals but something or someone has to keep the population in check not many predators eating wolf these days
Reply by: ObsessedFisherman Posted: 10/2/2012 9:09:03 AM Points: 2881
well one hunter who is known on here that was hunting in colorado couple years ago posted personal picture of wolf pack of 12- 15 cruising the Colorado mountains just fyi
if they in wyoming they are going to be here you dont think they travel or what??
Reply by: lewdog Posted: 10/2/2012 9:26:50 AM Points: 669
I lived in wyo for ten yrs and know what a wolf looks like and personally saw two wolves up around gross res last fall. The dow says there are no established packs in co. Just cause they cant find there den. Or is it cause they haven't had enough reports of em? Either way there are wolves in Colorado.
Reply by: Reifer Posted: 10/2/2012 9:27:11 AM Points: 103
I've seen the impacts of wolves, have hunted them, and yes I could smoke one and still sleep at night. Probably sleep better. They are not being hunted to be exterminated like before. They are being managed just like any other game animal.
Ever caught a fish that was to small to keep and it died. Didn't eat it and it died. How did you sleep at night?
Reply by: TetonSnowKing Posted: 10/2/2012 9:33:53 AM Points: 154
Ive been around them most of my life hunting, and never had an issue. Try hunting up in the hoback where the bears follow gun shots! I never saw a wolf do that.
Reply by: TroutByFly Posted: 10/2/2012 9:39:43 AM Points: 90
It's sad but needs to be done. The wolf is having a HUGE impact on the elk and deer populations. I've heard many young elk and deer are eaten right when they hit the ground. Ranchers are also having problems with the wolf eating livestock. When the wolf was introduced many conservationalists didn't think about (or just purely neglected...) the impact that the wolf would have on the environment. Due to these peoples neglect, the wolf is the one that ultimately suffers. I'm all for having the wolf, but balance is key.
Reply by: Coyute Posted: 10/2/2012 10:06:20 AM Points: 3154
Good for Wyoming.
There is so much misinformation out there regarding wolves.
I think if more people did some unbiased research, they'd find that the wolf population needs to be managed.
Before I educated myself, I use to 'cry wolf' too.
Killing a wolf, coyote, fox, bear, puma, etc. has never been of interest to me personally and I seriously doubt I would get any satisfaction from killing one. However, from a management standpoint I know my touchy-feely emotions mean little when it comes to the documented devastation wolves have caused since their reintroduction. I have no problem whatsoever with people hunting them as part of a sound management plan.
I would never be for the wanton killing of such a magnificent animal, but I am not so daft as to believe that un-checked populations of wolves won't have more serious ramifications than the ones already on record.
Reply by: Ajax5240 Posted: 10/2/2012 10:42:57 AM Points: 300
On February 16, 2007 district wildlife managers with the CPW were able to capture a brief video of a suspected wolf about 10 miles south of the Colorado-Wyoming border north of Walden. Biologists and wolf specialists who have examined the video say the animal seen on tape looks and behaves like a wolf.
Ajax... Of course there are wolves in Colorado...grizzly bears too! I guess they didn't stop to read the "Now Entering Colorado...No Wolves allowed" signs on their way South. I can remember a story several years back when a hunter took pictures of a suspected grizzly bear in an area close to where I live in Southeastern Colorado. The pics were turned over to the DOW and somehow were either lost or destroyed. No evidence...no grizzly bears! As far as the wolves are concerned, they are opportunistic when it comes to food and habitat. I am fairly certain, (although I have never seen one in the wild), that there are wolves in Colorado. I also agree that management is neccessary to keep the populations in check. My only concern is as human encroachment continues, there will be more and more encounters, not just with wolves and bears, but other predators as well. Maybe CPW should start managing people instead of animals...somehow, that almost makes more sense! Good Fishing! Ski
Definitley the possibility of wolf in Colorado. Didn't someone hit one on I-70 a few years ago?! Thats not close to Wyoming. Only a matter of time before a grizzly makes her way down as well, if there aren't a few here already. But I couldn't see myself hunting one.
Fun debate! For me, the very concept of "wildlife management" is paradoxical, and at times, funny. All respect to our fisheries biologists, laws, jurisdictions, etc., the very notion that we are even capable of managing life, or lives other than our own, seems arrogant and god-like.
98% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct! Not so great odds for living. Perhaps humans will "get off the rock" and avert disaster/disease/war etc. Perhaps not. Ultimately, even science works within a matrix or agenda (despite the doctrines of objectivity), such as sponsors, investors, consumers, tourists, etc. To see then, the design, behind the science is interesting. We then arbitrarily assign value to some species through the use of linguistic labels (e.g., prize fish, sport fish, game fish, native fish) while condemning and silencing the voice of the "lesser species" (AKA "trash fish). According to this divide, we argue over holding a fish right on one hand, while printing materials that urge for "immediately killing" other species.
Perhaps there is nothing inherently wrong with this form of speciism, as all subjective humans are prone to discriminate and value things differently based on things like utility, beauty, connection, etc. The point here is that management is always managing for a particular kind of outcome--one that best serves our anthropocentric needs, rather than that which necessarily promotes the most sustainable models (e.g., sterile, hybrid fish create a cycle of dependency, but also ensure stable economic production).
Obviously, someone would be stupid to not protect their family from an encroaching bear or mountain lion. There is always the argument that we keep developing into their territory, thereby increasing their desperation for survival. Based on fragmented jurisdictions (e.g., types of land, agencies, and more), land may be developed using less inclusive models like environmental impact assessments, that satisfy minimum standards set by the government. Since our jurisdictions don't always communicate with one another, subjects that transgress these invisible boundaries, like wolves, are subject to different forms of treatment.
I believe in our rights to fish and hunt but I have to laugh at the fact that I can't just walk into the mountains. Instead, I must enter "game management unit 36b." Ha, ha. Also, I know that it is important for studying migration, but seeing all those deer at USAFA with radio collars on, makes me think about just how technocratic our management models have become--like a giant, all-encompassing video game.
Perhaps we will have to start resurrecting some of the 98% of life that has died off, Jurassic Park style, to put them wolves in check. Can you imagine sabre tooths roaming the plains? Raptors? It would be fun to "manage" raptors! :)
Wolves are interesting. The very word, "wolf," seems antithetical to the word, "management." We should manage ourselves and let life do what it does best.
For a fun read, check out Aldo Leopold's story (I think from the Sand County Almanac), where he talks about the "green fire" in the dying she-wolf's eyes. In short, the story goes that Aldo was working for the U.S. Forest Service in the early century. He was in the White Mountains of New Mexico, and he and his men dismounted from their horses to shoot a she-wolf and her cubs. In his words, at that time, "every wolf you saw, was a wolf you shot." I think this was official policy at the time.
Anyway, after a gruesome blasting at her and her crippled cubs, shooting downhill, the men arrived to find the she-wolf. In Aldo's words, he said something to effect that he saw a "dying green fire in the wolf's eyes." He then goes on to say something to the effect of, "It was in that moment that I realized that the death of a wolf is neither good for mountain or wolf." This was his turning point as a wildlife conservationist/early environmentalist. Cool story, anyway.
Can't have lots of Elk and wolves- there is a reason that Elk populations are larger now than ever. I'm all for re-introduction of predators ( I love to see them in the woods) but I'm not so naive as to think that any action we take will not have unintended consequence- and doing nothing does have an impact and is taking action. I would certainly try wolf meat, I have had mountain lion sausage and it was yummy. See what wolf overpopulation has done to elk hunting in Idaho to get a glimpse of the future.
I agree that human population needs to be managed. We are animals after all with limited habitat and resources. We will either consume what little this planet has left to offer and die off, kill each other over the scraps, or a big flying chunk of pissed off asteroid will take care of the whole shooting match.
We are a parasite to this rock we live on. We will use it up until there's nothing left. The furry people are nice and cuddly and furry but they aren't very realistic. They keep having their furry puppies and then have the gall to complain about global warming and carbon footprints.
I am a realist. Man at his very core is arrogant and thinks he is god like. Look at all the cats that humans worship, they sure don't look like aliens to me or greater beings - they look like us. I personally have no proof of God nor am I pompous enough to deny a God's existence. I certainly don't hold much stock in organized religion - but we have been killing each other over whose God is better since we were freaking apes.
People forget we are animals and if there was only one hamburger left on this sad rock, I'd fight you for it, to the death, and I can guarantee that other humans would do the same. If anyone says they'd let the other guy have the last hamburger while they sit there and die is in serious denial.
I hold more stock in animals than any human I have ever met. For good or for bad we hold dominion over the animals and will ultimately decide their fate while we sit by and cry about it. I know what Leopold saw.
I sincerely wish that the people who spout off about the planet being so much better without us would start doing something about it by not breeding or by other means. :)
Your last comment about going up to Montana is exactly what I was about to type before reading that you had beat me to it.
Google it, you will find that the wolf has just about run some cattle ranchers out of business, many times seemingly killing the cow, elk, or whatever for enjoyment. There are pictures of a dead cow with not one bite taken out of it for nourishment, just the bite marks that killed it. So the tree huggers can take the 'ever animal has to eat' thing and stick it....
Sure we are just one 'animal' on the planet among many others, but we are the ones that have evolved into a technologically advances society, not the wolf or the squirrel. As one sided as it may sound, I am more concerned with my survival and well being than giving an animal like a wolf free reign to go where it wants and kill as its heart desires. It was poorly researched to release the wolf in the first place, and its existence here is caused by 'humans interfering with nature' so therefore us killing them is not us interfering with nature, it is us un-doing someone else's F*** up.
Go camping with your family, up in Walden for example and have a wolf eat your dog, or worse... Then tell me that we should leave them alone.
On the 'you shouldn't hunt it if you aren't going to eat it' note, its a great sounding motto, but have you never coyote hunted? Prairie dog hunted? if you have eaten a Prairie rat, you probably should have your head examined. They are hunted because they are a nuisance, and for that reason alone. A wolf is no different in my eyes, they ruin a farmers livelihood, and attack furiously even when un-provoked.
I second Ajax5240, Management is what will keep the population in check, I my opinion Wolves will be as bad in CO as they are in Montana within ten years. I grew up farming and Ranching, and we had a bad enough problem with Coyotes couldn't even imagine how detrimental a pack of wolves would be for a Rancher. I don't want them on the endangered species list just want them controlled AKA Hunting.
I couldn't shoot a coyote or wolf because I have husky and they just look too similar. Went out for coyotes a couple times, but decided not to bag one, because the only local resident in the area liked them around and I really didn't want to shoot one anyway. I'm not disparaging those that do hunt these animals though. I, personally, don't want to get dragged into elk vs. wolf debate either.
That said, I would totally eat a prairie rat if it was cooked right.
Reply by: brookieflyfisher Posted: 10/3/2012 1:49:20 AM Points: 4896
Nice Leopold reference, cc13. Yes, that quote comes from A Sand County Almanac, the essay entitled "Thinking Like a Mountain". That essay and the rest of the book should be required reading for any outdoorsman.
"We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."
Straight from the mouth of a game manager and avid hunter till the day he died.
"how about some quotes from writers expressing the satisfaction of saving livestock and game animals from over predation by wolves?"
I think it would be pretty difficult to write anything worthwhile about the greed and avarice of mankind.
I don't have a problem with wildlife management. What bothers me about the wolf situation is that the attitudes behind wolf "control" are the same attitudes that led to wolf extermination in the first place. I guess we'll never learn.
Reply by: Megalodan Posted: 10/4/2012 10:21:41 AM Points: 30
If there is a threat to livestock and a threat to food chain then it should be up to the division of wildlife to handle those matters. If you get your rocks off by shooting an animal that provides no sustenance or practical use of body parts for YOUR contemporary lifestyle then I'm sorry but thats just cruel. You obviously just like to kill things.
Reply by: AngerBrandish Posted: 10/4/2012 10:42:18 AM Points: 24
Wolves don't just kill for food. They are also known to kill animals for sport. Hug a hunter! Punching hunters is generally a bad idea as we tend to have deadly weapons on hand!
I would say as times have changed so have our ideals and necessities as humans as well as the ideology of conservation movement itself. The wolf was hunted to near extinction for a reason during the settlement of America as a whole not just the American west and some of those same reasons still exist today. Hell why is the wolf not being reintroduced to central park in new york if it is such a necessity?? It is open space and they could probably do a lot of good rounding up stray cats and dogs. The conservation movement is still ideological and often does not take into account the human factor as that is primarily what drives the conservation movement which is more based on emotional connection. You can see the emotion that Leupold had as he talks about the green fire in the wolfs eyes. At this point he cannot separate his emotional connection to the death of the wolf from the overarching policy right or wrong.
The best definition of a conservationist that i have ever heard is "a conservationist is the person who already has their cabin in the woods!!"
Wolves are a huge positive for tourism and fishing. Tourists and fishermen spend way more than your average hunter and rancher, thus creating more jobs in mountain communities.
Pardon my flippancy but wolves probably do a better job at creating jobs than your average politician.
And bigmack, I think you're missing the point of Leopold. Keep in mind that the essay "Thinking like a Mountain" was written decades after the actual event. The raw emotions of the moment have been seasoned with age and wisdom. Leopold admits that he didn't understand the importance of that moment until many, many years down the road.
Additionally, the book isn't religious (if you want that, read Anne Dillard) but rather philosophical. The idea behind the essay "Thinking Like a Mountain" is taking the long-term, objective viewpoint in order to find the greatest good for the greatest number. He realized that killing the wolves wouldn't mean a hunter's paradise, but rather a ruined landscape poor for hunting.
Later in Sand County Almanac, Leopold introduces the idea of "the Land Ethic". "The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land." This is the founding principle for most modern conservationist movements. We have to take into account the land as well as humans. We have to realize that it's not right to put wolves in central park, but you have to realize that it's not right to destroy the wolves where they have an opportunity to exist in peace and collaboration with the landscape that humans have altered. Just because we can't have wolves everywhere doesn't mean we should eliminate them entirely.
Reply by: Ajax5240 Posted: 10/5/2012 9:26:09 AM Points: 300
Brookie, while a fisherman buys ONE fishing license, a hunter buys a small game license, bird stamps, several big game tags, and a habitat stamp. More money to the DOW.
Ranchers ARE the mountain communities.
Compare the cost of a non-resident state fishing license to that of non-resident elk tag. Maybe a few more bucks to the state from hunting.
Jobs. Really?? , fishing creates a few guide jobs, a few jobs at fly shops, and our good friends at the ANS inspection. Compare that to the number of big game and bird guides and the battle is won. Hunters spend way more and employ more folks to support it hands down.
I fish and hunt, as do many on here i assume. From your comments I would assume that you do just one. Fish.
The only people that defend the wolf are the one sided environmentalist that read philosophy rather than reports of fact. Kind of like people that vote based upon what they see in political commercials.
Take a few minutes to actually read reports from states like Montana and Wyoming that have a wolf population, they exist for both sides of the argument.
Reply by: bigmack Posted: 10/5/2012 11:43:34 AM Points: 48
Brookie I don't think that I necessarily missed the point of the essay it actually highlighted my statement about the conservative/environmental movement being highly emotional 'The raw emotions of the moment have been seasoned with age and wisdom.'
The part about having wolves in central park was some what linked to the emotions that environmentalist claim to have for wildlife as well as times have changed and so have the ideals of conservation movement. True conservation/environmentalist would say we need to restore wolves to all historic ranges not just where it is convenient. It is a funny thought that people will say yes I think there should be wolves but not in my back yard. I am not referring to any one on this post as if they are in opposition I think they are all anti-wolf entirely and there is nothing wrong with that it is just another layer to the complications of wildlife/land management.
For me personally I think that wolves in co is not the best Idea. We already have people crying wolf when there is a coyote in their back yard wait until it is a pack of wolves what will they cry then??? I would bet that within 5 years of an established pack in the area of rocky mtn. national park the big draw in the fall of watching the elk in the rut will be a thing of the past. It took less than a decade after establishment to change the behavior of the elk in Yellowstone. Would you consider this a loss of an economic resource??
Land ethic has many different meanings to different population groups environmental/conservative, preservation, multiple use/utilitarian as well. The argument of how to manage the land has been going on since the dedication of public lands which was and still is Americas greatest idea. It will not be settled hear but it is good to hear other points of view as this is where we can begin to compromise and come to some what collective agreements. That may not please all individuals as that will never happen but be an informed decision.
I understand both sides of this arguement. But, unless I actually had lost sheep or cows to these animals, I just can't imagine a reason I would want to shoot one.
You guys brought up some good points. Due to the constrictions of internet communication, I'll likely only be able to touch on a few of them.
I'll address Ajax first.
You make a good point about hunters giving more money to the DOW. What I was trying to get at is that fishermen and tourists tend to be better off economically and will spend more at restaurants, in shops, and on lodging. Tourists also tend to spend more money on food, lodging, and tours. It's a fact that the Rocky West's economy relies on tourism, not hunters or ranchers.
And that doesn't even address the fact that hunting and ranching won't magically disappear once the wolves arrive. With healthier ecosystems, you'll see healthier prey communities and the entire ecosystem will be more sustainable, allowing you and I to keep hunting for many more decades. Will there be casualties? Absolutely. But I believe that on balance the economy will be better off.
Now for Bigmack
It's absolutely untrue that a "true conservationist" would call for wolves in Central park. The idea that "a friend of the earth must be an enemy of the people" is for Californians who strap themselves to trees. There's a big difference between that and "stewardship" types like myself.
I think people would rather watch a pack of wolves than a bunch of dumb elk, but that's more or less my personal opinion. Tourism to yellowstone increased after the reintroduction of the wolf so I'd think the same would happen in RMNP. At the very least tourism to RMNP won't drop.
I realize I'm not going to change your minds but I hope you can understand that times have changed since the 1800s and that there are sensible economic, social, and environmental reasons for having the wolves back in the modern era. That's why I, and many others, support their reintroduction.
Brookie you state as FACT, that tourism drives more money then hunting. Do you have links? References? Proof? Do you have info that states hunting and tourism are listed differently in those economy numbers? My guess is hunters get tossed into the tourist pool as well, since they are from out of town.
The little blurb about tourists and fisherman being more well off is extremely ignorant, and it really, really shows your bias and some elitism there.
Tens of thousands of hunters come to CO alone, every year, and spend 300 to several thousand JUST for the tag. Not to mention all the gas they have purchased once inside state lines. Food, lodging, alcohol, local shopping.
Go to any mountain town in CO during hunting season. You'll see banners as far as the eye can see saying "WELCOME HUNTERS". I have yet to ever see giant banners across a main street of any town saying "WELCOME FISHERMAN!" or "WELCOME HIKERS".
From being on both several fishing, as well as hunting/shooting forums, I can tell you there are more then a few millionaire hunters out there. I know guys who take multiple trips around the world, every single year, to hunt. Dropping hundreds of thousands. I know there are fisherman that do this too, but to basically say all us hunters are backwoods podunk poor folk, well...again, ignorant and biased.
As to the topic, the wolves NEED to be controlled. They are creating havoc in our neighboring states. The problem is the USF&W said they would re-introduce them (and they re-introduced Candian Grey Wolves, which are a larger sub-species then what originally lived here) and then after their set and decided population was met, control them. Then they didn't. The populations are WAY beyond their original intent. There is a chance wild ungulates will be wiped out of certain areas of Idaho. Ungulate populations are at all time lows in many parts of the country, including a severe herd reduction in Yellowstone.
And yes, wolves ARE in Colorado. I know too many reliable people who have seen them to believe CDOW saying they aren't. Just because they can't track them (extremely difficult to do) or find the dens, they say they must be gone. Wolves will travel thousands of miles. As they start eating themselves out of house and home, they move. Elk populations are down, deer populations are down, mountain sheep populations are down, moose populations are down....all those are doing pretty good here. Any living creature, goes where food is abundant. It won't be long before the next big fight about wolves will be on our back door step. Same with Utah. And then New Mexico, and Arizona.
Reply by: bobl Posted: 10/7/2012 7:19:57 PM Points: 50
Nothing cooler than listening to a wolf pack in the wild which I have had a couple opertunities in Montana and Alaska while camping. We could use a controlled pack or packs here to take care of the coyote and fox poulation that has over run too many areas since the leghold trap ban.
Reply by: Ajax5240 Posted: 10/8/2012 12:03:48 AM Points: 300
I retract all of my previous statements....
Our family goes up to RMNP a few times a month, and it bothers the hell out of me to watch foreigners walk up to 10ft away from a bull elk to take a picture of it. I got the thought of watching the same people go try and take a close up of a wolf, and it made me smile... That would make the drive back from Grand lake much easier as the stories of Ho Ching getting eaten by a wolf send the tour buses elsewhere.
Bring on the wolf.
Bobl, the wolf's main dies it not foxes and yotes, its deer elk and livestock.
Reply by: Dangly Posted: 10/8/2012 7:03:59 AM Points: 14
The idea of the wolf being a tourist draw is silly, Ever go to the woods with the plan of seeing a Mountain Lion? Good luck. these are predators, they will not make a habit of making themselves seen, Furthermore, the real tourist draw (elk) will move into very dense back country areas like they have in Montana and Idaho. Don't believe me? go to CMZ 10 times and spend 15 min each time at the wolf enclosure and count how many times you see them, now imagine how often you would see them in hundreds of thousands acres with no fences, the "tourists" would get bored real quick. I do however agree with Ajax, the idea of tourists trying to hand feed wolves would be amusing.
Reply by: Dangly Posted: 10/8/2012 10:11:36 AM Points: 14
[log in for link] they are here. If Wolves are such a non threat, makes you wonder why the CDOW is firm on the stance of not re-introducing them to Colorado...
Reply by: Abel1 Posted: 10/8/2012 10:19:05 AM Points: 99
I don't see the point of hunting a bear, wolf, moutain lion etc. Doens't make sense. What a waste. Everytime a bear walks into a neighborhood it becomes a menice. Its there for a reason. Why don't you try managing the problem that brought him there? Better kill em off before something dangerous happens. How about being responsible for your own pets and kids? Reminds me of a story a year or so ago where a guy shoots a grizzly, out of season then reports it to the DOW because he was afraid for the safety of his kids.(Not in Colorado). He's the one who moved into bear country, decided to raise hogs and in doing so lured them by the crap he was feeding to the hogs. If you loose a few livestock thats your problem your the one who changed the environment. Back off the wildlife and be responsible for your own actions.
Abel: YOU live in bear country, and Lion country, and for that matter if you are on the front range you live in Bison country, if they started to re populate your property you would move right? right?
Having been in the Montana Back Country, North of Yellowstone park, I had the extreme pleasure of seeing a Wolf, in its natural setting, and marveled at how skillfully it senced my presents. I am certain it was not its sense of smell, it was its awsume eyesight and possibility, its hearing. That it chose to discontinue its hunt, and vanish before my eyes, as if to evaporate into its surroundings. Truely one of Gods and Natures marvelous creations.
Although all y previous comments on this subject may not have suggested the following, and yes, you can probably tell that I have a strong opinion on the matter.
I think that the Wolf is a wonderfully majestic animal. I have been in the woods of walden on a night that sounded like the yotes were having a field day with something or another. Could hardly hear your buddy speak over all the yips and howls. Out of nowhere a howl that was unmistakably wolf rung through the hills. Silence fell over the area, even the crickets had goose bumps and would not make a peep. That one howl silenced every animal for miles and made the hair on your neck stand at attention. I have seen a wolf in nature and in captivity, they are beautiful, and I am a dog lover. There is no question why the native americans respected the wolf with such high regard.
If they were native wolves, and had been here for years, I will be the first to admit that my stance would be of a very different mentality. I don't feel that bear or Mountain Lion should be eradicated, they scare the $hit out of me. And I have been 15' from a mother bear with cubs, still get a weird feeling in my stomach when I think of it. Like it or not, the lions and bears are hunted to control population. The Mtn Lion hunting program here is very similar to that of the Wyoming Wolf hunting program.
The point remains that the wolf population in question is not a native species. They were introduced by man. You want a fishing analogy? CARP! They were introduced with little thought of future ramifications and are now a nuisance species due to their high survival rate and high productivity breeding.
If you choose to live in the mountains, there are many things that you must accept, the risk of fire, a long drive to Wal-Mart, and various animals calling your land their home. Would I trade it for life in a city, not a chance!
I am not a biologist, but as an avid hunter and fisher I do my research and stay informed. I maintain that an established wolf pack in Colorado would not be a good thing, and holds little to no benefits to anyone.
The point made above regarding tourists wanting to see a wolf is right on. You won't see a wolf, especially not from a road in RMNP. They are illusive and survive by not being seen.
Dude the analogy between wolves and carp doesn't hold water (LOLOLOL fish puns).
Carp are from Europe and were stocked by the gubmint as a food source. They are invasive and destructive. A mammal example of this is like the hogs in Texas. Not native, brought here for food, no natural predators, r-selected (exponential) population, destructive.
In contrast, wolves were here well before you and I. Their presence and affect on what remains of the ecosystem is a case of "nature knows best" (see papers below for positive wolf impacts). Obviously, we can't restore them everywhere, but they should be restored within reason. I'm not totally against very limited control. As I said, what worries me is that the current "control" borders on "extermination" as many people (for whatever reason) still hang onto the 1800's myth that wolves hinder "progress". Besides, over-control promotes exponential expansion because it artificially keeps wolf populations under their carrying capacity.
On the positive economic impact at Yellowstone, concludes that wolves are a highly desirable tourist target: [log in for link]
This link may or may not work but it's an in-depth economic study on the reintroduction of the Mexican Gray Wolf to AZ/NM. Concludes that wolves are a positive economic benefit. An interesting part of this one is where it showed that GDP from ranching does not exceed 5% in any area in the reintroduction range. If the link doesn't work I'll post the full citation for you. [log in for link]
A good read about the positive social and economic impacts of the wolf. Say what you want about the authors, they do back up their statements with facts. [log in for link]
A study about the ineffectiveness of predator control [log in for link]
A study about the ecological role of large predators [log in for link]
Anyways, I couldn't find any economic data separating fishermen and hunters, so I retract my statement. However, in Montana, Hunting and Fishing contributes 680 million of 2.75 billion. So it's important, but not a majority. [log in for link]
And I reiterate my statement that hunting and ranching won't magically disappear. It will still be available and I think that because ecosystems will be healthier, hunters will be better off in the long run.
Besides, opposing wolf reintroduction doesn't endear you politically to the rest of the nation, where 2 to 1 people support wolf reintroduction (that statistic is in one of the above papers, I think it's the AZ/NM one). I'd wager a guess that anti-hunting sentiment grows every time some guy says "smoke a pack a day" to the cameras. And THAT's what's dangerous. A liberal PETA member in New York is definitely a bigger threat to your way of life than a wolf.
As a matter of fact I DO live in bear and mountain lion country. I have a bear that frequents my property and I choose to keep it quiet so it stays that way. I am aware that he may be outside at anytime which is why I take my walks before dusk, carry bear spray (like that would help) and a good pair of runnng shoes and carry a bell. Just to make sure they know I am around. I also remove my humming bird feeders at night and keep the trash closed up in my barn with the doors closed. I have been here for over 20 years and haven't had a problem. I have deer that bed down oustide my dining room window every night. We do not put feed or anything else out to encorage them to stay. I am surrounded by National forest so it gives them a place for refuge when needed. I am an avid fisherman, and I hunt deer and elk. I drive over 200 miles to hunt both. I can respect my fellow sportsman and agree that bringing animals such as the wolf around the suburbs is a bad idea for all. I am sure that Brookie Flyfisher could help me out with the information as to how far a mountain lion and a bear roam over a lifetime. They may not be here today or tommorow but who knows where they go and why. I am just saying everyone needs to be responsible and aware. In this country you have every right to walk through the downtown of any major city at any time in the middle of the night and expect to be safe. Would you do it?
In the past I've raised sheep and cattle. I never had occasion to shoot a wolf, but I shot plenty of coyotes, one was within a few yards of the sheep when I spotted him and grabbed the rifle. Predator populations should not be allowed to grow without limits.
Also consider, have you ever tasted raccoon or beaver or fox? Making use of the fur is plenty of reason to shoot fur bearing animals.
