Kenetrek Boots

Colorado relocating wolves.

let's be clear, while i do not believe the relocation efforts are in the best interests of the wolves or the reintroduction efforts, the death of the male was likely an inevitability regardless of relocation efforts.

from the cpw press release:

"The agency is providing an update that the adult male wolf, 2309-OR who was captured next following the capture of 2312-OR, was found in poor condition, with several injuries to his right hind leg, unrelated to the capture. The wolf’s body weight was nearly 30% lower than it was when he was released in December. CPW staff administered antibiotics in an effort to address infections from his injury. Four days after transport, CPW’s wolf team biologists received a mortality signal from 2309-OR’s collar and the animal was confirmed to be deceased. CPW staff believes that it was unlikely the wolf would have survived for very long in the wild. A full necropsy will be conducted. Pups 2401, 2403, 2405, and 2402 were captured over the course of three days, with capture operations concluding on September 8 and were underweight and otherwise healthy."
 
Interesting tidbit or tid-bankrupt:

"Meeting the year-end deadline, three producers submitted six claims, totaling $582,000. That would more than bankrupt the state's wolf depredation compensation fund, which received $350,000 in the 2024-25 budget. Over three years, the wolf reintroduction program has cost the state more than $5.1 million."

"Between April and September, more than two dozen confirmed attacks on livestock in Jackson, Routt, and Grand counties drew only two paid claims through the state's wolf depredation compensation fund. Those claims were small, with the largest paid claim of $1,514 for a calf in Jackson County. More are pending, with at least one waiting to be paid since last April, according to the state's wolf depredation website."

 
Sytes said:
Interesting tidbit or tid-bankrupt:

"Meeting the year-end deadline, three producers submitted six claims, totaling $582,000. That would more than bankrupt the state's wolf depredation compensation fund, which received $350,000 in the 2024-25 budget. Over three years, the wolf reintroduction program has cost the state more than $5.1 million."

"Between April and September, more than two dozen confirmed attacks on livestock in Jackson, Routt, and Grand counties drew only two paid claims through the state's wolf depredation compensation fund. Those claims were small, with the largest paid claim of $1,514 for a calf in Jackson County. More are pending, with at least one waiting to be paid since last April, according to the state's wolf depredation website."

Click to expand...
Better increase those nr fees
 
Sytes said:
Interesting tidbit or tid-bankrupt:

"Meeting the year-end deadline, three producers submitted six claims, totaling $582,000. That would more than bankrupt the state's wolf depredation compensation fund, which received $350,000 in the 2024-25 budget. Over three years, the wolf reintroduction program has cost the state more than $5.1 million."

"Between April and September, more than two dozen confirmed attacks on livestock in Jackson, Routt, and Grand counties drew only two paid claims through the state's wolf depredation compensation fund. Those claims were small, with the largest paid claim of $1,514 for a calf in Jackson County. More are pending, with at least one waiting to be paid since last April, according to the state's wolf depredation website."

Click to expand...
Make no mistake. At some point those ranchers are going to take matters into their own hands. They aren’t going to suffer losses because Denver voted for wolves.
 
i haven't looked at the claims submitted, but i have a hard time believing that $582,000 unless they're trying to roll in the future time value/opportunity cost and the cost in arears of raising the stock.

not sure any state pays out that opportunity cost.

google AI tells me wyoming paid $270,710 for 49 depradations in 2023 and montana paid around 43k for 32 depradations.

either way i do like that 9news has consistently told it like it is without being overly biased either way - that the program is not really going well and has put a lot of people in a really tough spot, while also showing that CPW really seems to be in complete disarray with the whole thing. especially when they highlight some e-mails they've gotten a hold of that really put director davis and the governor in a bad light.

but, anyone who expected anything but that was naive. it'll iron out. still kinda pissed about the whole thing though tbh
 
TOGIE said:
i haven't looked at the claims submitted, but i have a hard time believing that $582,000 unless they're trying to roll in the future time value/opportunity cost and the cost in arears of raising the stock.

not sure any state pays out that opportunity cost.

google AI tells me wyoming paid $270,710 for 49 depradations in 2023 and montana paid around 43k for 32 depradations.

either way i do like that 9news has consistently told it like it is without being overly biased either way - that the program is not really going well and has put a lot of people in a really tough spot, while also showing that CPW really seems to be in complete disarray with the whole thing. especially when they highlight some e-mails they've gotten a hold of that really put director davis and the governor in a bad light.
Click to expand...
Damage payments are tough to figure out on all sides. I've seen some requests that were obvious grift, and some that met their mark on high dollar figures.

but, anyone who expected anything but that was naive. it'll iron out. still kinda pissed about the whole thing though tbh
Click to expand...

Stay pissed, but at the right people - the folks who forced the initiative on the state. Ballot box management doesn't help regardless of who is bringing it. Same goes with statutes the infringe upon the rights of fish and wildlife commissions. Humans tend to accept poor policy once it fits their preconceived notions. That's when the political class comes uncorked and starts running all kinds of bad ideas gussied up as populist drek.
 
I believe, and this is simply a basic opinion from my brother who knows a few ranchers, the theme is the expense involved ranch hands, working dogs, operating, per CPW procedures, hazing wolves to protect their stock (videos of specific actions with wolves attempting to take calves), along with damages, etc.
 
Ben Lamb said:
Stay pissed, but at the right people - the folks who forced the initiative on the state. Ballot box management doesn't help regardless of who is bringing it. Same goes with statutes the infringe upon the rights of fish and wildlife commissions. Humans tend to accept poor policy once it fits their preconceived notions. That's when the political class comes uncorked and starts running all kinds of bad ideas gussied up as populist drek.
Click to expand...

absolutely.

i do think it's fair to be pissed at polis too. the governors mansion has done much backdoor iron fisting on many levels with CPW and even multiple agencies in colorado.

i think davis is a very suspect man as well.

but yes, it is the voters who have caused this and i am primarily pissed at them. but these initiatives are things the governors mansion cheers on (if not help orchestrate) in the dark away from cameras.
 
I don't live in Colorado but I went on my first elk hunt there this year and I would like to think if I'm a rancher, my way of life is being threatened while most people might not thing losing a few calves here and there isn't a big issue but if that's your way of life it's different. I could only imagine how many fields full of sheep that the wolves would shred to pieces if they were running rampant, then people would bitch about the price of lamb or even with cattle. No one ever signed up to be a farmer to get rich by any means unless you're a hobby farmer. I live on a farm in WV and we have around 20 head of cattle, not a big operation by any means but if we see a coyote, there's no question what we will do. I know coyotes and wolves are a different thing but it just baffles me at how little people in charge make decisions about things that they have no clue how it affects the ones actually doing the work and not getting a great return.
 
Sytes said:
Interesting tidbit or tid-bankrupt:

"Meeting the year-end deadline, three producers submitted six claims, totaling $582,000. That would more than bankrupt the state's wolf depredation compensation fund, which received $350,000 in the 2024-25 budget. Over three years, the wolf reintroduction program has cost the state more than $5.1 million."

"Between April and September, more than two dozen confirmed attacks on livestock in Jackson, Routt, and Grand counties drew only two paid claims through the state's wolf depredation compensation fund. Those claims were small, with the largest paid claim of $1,514 for a calf in Jackson County. More are pending, with at least one waiting to be paid since last April, according to the state's wolf depredation website."

Click to expand...
According to Chairman Polis, it’s all the rancher’s fault, the depredations, the exorbitant costs, everything.

I think everyone is in agreement that Polis and his henchmen (and women) at DNR are strong arming CPW to appease their Denver/Boulder pro-wolf political pals.
 
TOGIE said:
i haven't looked at the claims submitted, but i have a hard time believing that $582,000 unless they're trying to roll in the future time value/opportunity cost and the cost in arears of raising the stock.

not sure any state pays out that opportunity cost.

google AI tells me wyoming paid $270,710 for 49 depradations in 2023 and montana paid around 43k for 32 depradations.

either way i do like that 9news has consistently told it like it is without being overly biased either way - that the program is not really going well and has put a lot of people in a really tough spot, while also showing that CPW really seems to be in complete disarray with the whole thing. especially when they highlight some e-mails they've gotten a hold of that really put director davis and the governor in a bad light.

but, anyone who expected anything but that was naive. it'll iron out. still kinda pissed about the whole thing though tbh
Click to expand...

TOGIE- There is a formula set up based on the ballot initiative to compensate livestock losses for Open Cattle, Missing Calves and Confirmed Depredations. Ranchers had to have 3 years previous records to compare against post wolf numbers. The losses are based on current losses - previous 3 year average and then market rate for replacement cows/calves and lost income based on sale weights and weight loss compared to 3 year average. One rancher I know had wolves on his place from last December until last month. He lost several livestock to confirmed wolf kills and his pregnancy rate and sold weights are way down.


Option 2, Itemized Production Losses:
Economic losses other than direct loss of animals and missing
livestock can impact livestock owners These production losses
could include decreased weight gains (i e , weaning weights), de-
creased conception rates and other indirect losses For livestock
owners who have had a confirmed wolf-livestock interaction result-
ing in livestock injury or death, and choose to itemize production
losses, the following apply:
• Livestock owners must have a confirmed depredation event
(death or injury) due to wolves to qualify for itemized pro-
duction losses and missing livestock
° Missing calves, yearlings, or sheep claimed as missing
must be from the same band, flock, or herd, or same
private parcel of land where the confirmed depreda-
tion event occurred
° For each damage claim submitted, a livestock owner
must have at least one confirmed depredation event
• Livestock (enumerated in CRS 33-2-105 8(5)(c) C R S ),
herding, and guard animals are eligible for compensation at
100 percent FMV after confirmation
• Eligibility for missing livestock is limited to calves, yearlings,
and all classes of sheep The livestock owner must reasonably
believe that missing livestock reported were lost to wolves
and not to other predators (i e , bears, lions, or coyotes), dis-
ease, or other factors (and can be documented as missing by
the livestock owner)
• Under no circumstances can the number of missing livestock
claimed for compensation exceed the actual number of docu-
mented livestock missing
• CPW staff will consider the role of topography/vegetation in
determining eligibility for missing calves, yearlings, and
sheep In general, missing livestock can only be claimed in
larger, open range grazing situations where locating carcasses
is more difficult due to environmental factors
• Conflict minimization techniques are not a requirement for
missing livestock or itemized production losses However,
CPW will encourage livestock owners to employ conflict
minimization techniques to reduce further depredation
• Conflict minimization techniques include, but are not limited
to guard/herding dogs, sheepherders/range riders, fladry, car-
cass management, and other lawful gray wolf hazing tech-
niques enumerated in CPW Chapter W-10 regulations
For livestock owners who choose to itemize production losses
claiming missing livestock the following apply (this option is only
applicable for calves, yearlings, and all classes of sheep):
• Missing calves, yearlings, and sheep can be claimed if two
conditions are met:
° 1) Livestock owners must have a confirmed depreda-
tion event (injury or death) due to wolves to qualify
for the itemized production losses
° 2) The livestock owner must reasonably believe that
livestock reported as missing were lost to wolves and
not to other predators (i e , bears, lions, or coyotes),
disease, or other factors
• For missing calves, yearlings, and all classes of sheep, a live-
stock owner must submit the following information, included
but not limited to:
° Tangible evidence (photos, scat, tracks, etc ) that
wolves were present in the area where livestock are
missing
° Baseline death loss (predators, poisoning, disease, etc )
with percentages over a minimum of 3 years (preced-
ing wolf presence in the area) using production re-
cords
° A self-certification or documentation (e g , ranch re-
cords) for the current year that demonstrate vaccina-
tion status
° Written records to justify current year losses will be
provided to CPW with the following information:
■ The number of livestock (head counts) at the be-
ginning of the grazing season and at the end of
the grazing season
■ The number of animals that died as a result of
other predators (bears, lions, or coyotes), disease,
or other factors during the grazing season
• Eligibility for missing calves, yearlings, and all age classes of
sheep is limited to losses above the previous 3-year baseline
death loss and cannot exceed the actual number of docu-
mented livestock missing
• Livestock owners who cannot provide this written documen-
tation described above are not eligible to claim missing ani-
mals under Option 2
For decreased weight gains (only applicable for sheep and cattle), a
livestock owner must submit the following information, including,
but not limited to:
• Baseline weights over a minimum of 3 years (pre-wolf pres-
ence) along with current year weights (i e , weight tickets,
production records, or sales records)
• To qualify, documentation must show that weights of cattle or
sheep have decreased below the pre-wolf 3-year average
weights
• Livestock owners must provide documentation for average
3-year (pre-wolves) weights to qualify for decreased weight
gains
For decreased conception rates, a livestock owner must submit the
following information, including, but not limited to:
• Baseline conception rates over a minimum of 3 years (pre-
wolf presence) along with current year rates (i e , production
records);
• A self-certification or ranch records with body condition
scores and pregnancy rate information of livestock and a
statement from the livestock owner affirming no known is-
sues existed;
• Documentation must show a decrease in annual conception
rates below the pre-wolf average 3-year rate to qualify for de-
creased conception rate compensation;
• Livestock owners must provide documentation for average
3-year (pre-wolves) conception rates to qualify for conception
rate losses
Additional losses can be considered on a case-by-case basis by
CPW and CPW will consider the role of drought and other environ-
mental factors when evaluating context specific eligibility
 
Sandbrew said:
TOGIE- There is a formula set up based on the ballot initiative to compensate livestock losses for Open Cattle, Missing Calves and Confirmed Depredations. Ranchers had to have 3 years previous records to compare against post wolf numbers. The losses are based on current losses - previous 3 year average and then market rate for replacement cows/calves and lost income based on sale weights and weight loss compared to 3 year average. One rancher I know had wolves on his place from last December until last month. He lost several livestock to confirmed wolf kills and his pregnancy rate and sold weights are way down.


Option 2, Itemized Production Losses:
Economic losses other than direct loss of animals and missing
livestock can impact livestock owners These production losses
could include decreased weight gains (i e , weaning weights), de-
creased conception rates and other indirect losses For livestock
owners who have had a confirmed wolf-livestock interaction result-
ing in livestock injury or death, and choose to itemize production
losses, the following apply:
• Livestock owners must have a confirmed depredation event
(death or injury) due to wolves to qualify for itemized pro-
duction losses and missing livestock
° Missing calves, yearlings, or sheep claimed as missing
must be from the same band, flock, or herd, or same
private parcel of land where the confirmed depreda-
tion event occurred
° For each damage claim submitted, a livestock owner
must have at least one confirmed depredation event
• Livestock (enumerated in CRS 33-2-105 8(5)(c) C R S ),
herding, and guard animals are eligible for compensation at
100 percent FMV after confirmation
• Eligibility for missing livestock is limited to calves, yearlings,
and all classes of sheep The livestock owner must reasonably
believe that missing livestock reported were lost to wolves
and not to other predators (i e , bears, lions, or coyotes), dis-
ease, or other factors (and can be documented as missing by
the livestock owner)
• Under no circumstances can the number of missing livestock
claimed for compensation exceed the actual number of docu-
mented livestock missing
• CPW staff will consider the role of topography/vegetation in
determining eligibility for missing calves, yearlings, and
sheep In general, missing livestock can only be claimed in
larger, open range grazing situations where locating carcasses
is more difficult due to environmental factors
• Conflict minimization techniques are not a requirement for
missing livestock or itemized production losses However,
CPW will encourage livestock owners to employ conflict
minimization techniques to reduce further depredation
• Conflict minimization techniques include, but are not limited
to guard/herding dogs, sheepherders/range riders, fladry, car-
cass management, and other lawful gray wolf hazing tech-
niques enumerated in CPW Chapter W-10 regulations
For livestock owners who choose to itemize production losses
claiming missing livestock the following apply (this option is only
applicable for calves, yearlings, and all classes of sheep):
• Missing calves, yearlings, and sheep can be claimed if two
conditions are met:
° 1) Livestock owners must have a confirmed depreda-
tion event (injury or death) due to wolves to qualify
for the itemized production losses
° 2) The livestock owner must reasonably believe that
livestock reported as missing were lost to wolves and
not to other predators (i e , bears, lions, or coyotes),
disease, or other factors
• For missing calves, yearlings, and all classes of sheep, a live-
stock owner must submit the following information, included
but not limited to:
° Tangible evidence (photos, scat, tracks, etc ) that
wolves were present in the area where livestock are
missing
° Baseline death loss (predators, poisoning, disease, etc )
with percentages over a minimum of 3 years (preced-
ing wolf presence in the area) using production re-
cords
° A self-certification or documentation (e g , ranch re-
cords) for the current year that demonstrate vaccina-
tion status
° Written records to justify current year losses will be
provided to CPW with the following information:
■ The number of livestock (head counts) at the be-
ginning of the grazing season and at the end of
the grazing season
■ The number of animals that died as a result of
other predators (bears, lions, or coyotes), disease,
or other factors during the grazing season
• Eligibility for missing calves, yearlings, and all age classes of
sheep is limited to losses above the previous 3-year baseline
death loss and cannot exceed the actual number of docu-
mented livestock missing
• Livestock owners who cannot provide this written documen-
tation described above are not eligible to claim missing ani-
mals under Option 2
For decreased weight gains (only applicable for sheep and cattle), a
livestock owner must submit the following information, including,
but not limited to:
• Baseline weights over a minimum of 3 years (pre-wolf pres-
ence) along with current year weights (i e , weight tickets,
production records, or sales records)
• To qualify, documentation must show that weights of cattle or
sheep have decreased below the pre-wolf 3-year average
weights
• Livestock owners must provide documentation for average
3-year (pre-wolves) weights to qualify for decreased weight
gains
For decreased conception rates, a livestock owner must submit the
following information, including, but not limited to:
• Baseline conception rates over a minimum of 3 years (pre-
wolf presence) along with current year rates (i e , production
records);
• A self-certification or ranch records with body condition
scores and pregnancy rate information of livestock and a
statement from the livestock owner affirming no known is-
sues existed;
• Documentation must show a decrease in annual conception
rates below the pre-wolf average 3-year rate to qualify for de-
creased conception rate compensation;
• Livestock owners must provide documentation for average
3-year (pre-wolves) conception rates to qualify for conception
rate losses
Additional losses can be considered on a case-by-case basis by
CPW and CPW will consider the role of drought and other environ-
mental factors when evaluating context specific eligibility
Click to expand...

Yep, it's the bottom half of those bullet points that people don't think about, stress on a herd is always going to negatively affect weight and successful pregnancies, which are also massive parts of the value equation, it's not just about the dead cows reported on the news here and there...not like our Dear Leader and his cronies care about any of that though...
 
LuketheDog said:
Yep, it's the bottom half of those bullet points that people don't think about, stress on a herd is always going to negatively affect weight and successful pregnancies, which are also massive parts of the value equation, it's not just about the dead cows reported on the news here and there...not like our Dear Leader and his cronies care about any of that though...
Click to expand...
Three years prior livestock ledgers vs current forced reintroduction is presenting a stark contrast.

Crazy aspect this is simply 10 relocated wolves... Wait until they have 120 x's the matching approx count of Montana and Idaho. Wyoming has managed their counts at 35 x's CO and that includes the 100 or so in YNP.

Ranchers that have made multi generational livings w/o wolves in Colorado feeding America and is the LEADING American exporter of beef internationally.

The budget will NOT sustain if this is the case with only 10 relocated wolves. Something is going to break.

Curious, just as the citizens forced the ballot box biology, once the impact of export confronts the state and the inability to compensate livestock operations - is it possible to reverse via another ballot? Or State Supreme Court? I don't know - inquiring.
 
std7mag said:
Dark haired lady is a freaking idiot!!
Click to expand...
She is a very intelligent idiot, well spoken, and can probably rattle off her points without having to stop to breathe. Even a tiny condescending, since she is obviously smarter than you or me. She knows the solution, and we are just to stupid to understand. She is smart enough to have the bully pulpit, you in CO will see more of her.

David
NM
 
TOGIE said:
absolutely.

i do think it's fair to be pissed at polis too. the governors mansion has done much backdoor iron fisting on many levels with CPW and even multiple agencies in colorado.

i think davis is a very suspect man as well.

but yes, it is the voters who have caused this and i am primarily pissed at them. but these initiatives are things the governors mansion cheers on (if not help orchestrate) in the dark away from cameras.
Click to expand...
You said back door fisting at the governors mansion. Sorry I laughed out loud.
 
David58 said:
She is a very intelligent idiot, well spoken, and can probably rattle off her points without having to stop to breathe. Even a tiny condescending, since she is obviously smarter than you or me. She knows the solution, and we are just to stupid to understand. She is smart enough to have the bully pulpit, you in CO will see more of her.

David
NM
Click to expand...
Yep. It appears she works for Western Watersheds Project, another anti-hunting, anti-agriculture organization that has lots of political power in Colorado.

The wolf lobby in Colorado is very wealthy with tons of political influence in the Governor’s office and likely any future Governor. The budget aspect does make it more interesting as the general assembly is facing major deficit this session.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sheltowee
Colorado Wild Bison Hunt In The Future?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Burn Pile
B
M
Living with Elk, Deer, Moose, Wild Bison & Wolves.
Replies
6
Views
2K
Rack Daniels
Rack Daniels
Sytes
Colorado wolves release update
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
Bonasababy
B
2rocky
What Would It Take for Hunters to Rebel Against the North American Wildlife Conservation Model?
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
Nick87
Nick87
npaden
2025 Colorado Bighorn Sheep Hunt
16 17 18
Replies
359
Views
45K
npaden
npaden
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,674
Messages
2,234,217
Members
38,972
Latest member
shhinton

Share this page

Back
Top