Wolves attack cows on ranch again

[marksjeep]

New normal I suppose. I had not heard anything about doggo getting killed, but guess it was in the news.

https://coloradosun.com/2022/01/18/cow-euthanized-after-wolf-attack/

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Maybe I'll go wolf hunting this weekend...

 

[jvanhoy]

I know the article says they are protected and a fine of 100k but surely the rancher could have protected his herd. I sure hope that’s the case.

 

[Gerald Martin]

If those cows hadn’t been on that ranch they wouldn’t have been attacked….

 

[mtmuley]

If those cows hadn’t been on that ranch they wouldn’t have been attacked….

Yep. More elk on ranches are needed. Not cows. mtmuley

 

[Bambistew]

Its amazing to see how far the sky is falling when comparing wolves to other predation in CO. About 10,000 calves/cows, and over 25,000 sheep are killed each year by predators in CO alone. A wolf maims a cow and all ranchers are going to go out of business, roll up shop and move out?

The best one I've seen yet is the anthropomorphizing of the dog (Buster) that the wolves killed.

Sound like a familiar tactic?

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Its amazing to see how far the sky is falling when comparing wolves to other predation in CO. About 10,000 calves/cows, and over 25,000 sheep are killed each year by predators in CO alone. A wolf maims a cow and all ranchers are going to go out of business, roll up shop and move out?

The best one I've seen yet is the anthropomorphizing of the dog (Buster) that the wolves killed.

Sound like a familiar tactic?

View attachment 209564

I didn't see that over reaction in the article posted. Are there other articles?

 

[one ate E grain]

I know the article says they are protected and a fine of 100k but surely the rancher could have protected his herd. I sure hope that’s the case.

Not currently, only to protect human life, can't even shoot it to protect one's dog.

 

[chilidog61]

Not currently, only to protect human life, can't even shoot it to protect one's dog.

They just passed an emergency policy to allow ranchers to use wolf hazing rules. They can't outright shoot them but can use methods to deter them. https://www.summitdaily.com/news/co...mission-approves-emergency-wolf-hazing-rules/ This has been a super controversial topic in Colorado. It will be interesting to watch Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the state administration over the next months/years deal with the wolf situation.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Its amazing to see how far the sky is falling when comparing wolves to other predation in CO. About 10,000 calves/cows, and over 25,000 sheep are killed each year by predators in CO alone. A wolf maims a cow and all ranchers are going to go out of business, roll up shop and move out?

Totally agree.

That being said, I kinda have a "told you so moment" when I read these articles. Not an "I told you they were vicious predators" movement, but a "WTF, we told you wolves were already in CO, they were already going to be a management challenge; dealing with ranchers, elk/deer, etc. when you decided they 'needed to be reintroduced'".

At the time of the ballot CPW had released findings that there was at least one pack in the state possibly 2. The second pack is the one relevant to this thread.

I think in the history of stupid wildlife ballot measures voting to 'reintroduce a species' that is already on the landscape ranks #1.

Seems like semantics alone should allow us to toss that ballot measure, proponents should have to have the measure voted on again, but correctly title to "A measure to supplement the nascent wolf population in CO with wolves from Canada."

 

[one ate E grain]

Its amazing to see how far the sky is falling when comparing wolves to other predation in CO. About 10,000 calves/cows, and over 25,000 sheep are killed each year by predators in CO alone. A wolf maims a cow and all ranchers are going to go out of business, roll up shop and move out?

Ranchers are rational actors, it's not like they have some sort of pathological wolf hatred, they have a business. Colorado losses to predators are little under 5% of total losses, (remainder, disease, falling off a cliff, etc). In Wyoming predator losses are around 20%. Confirmed vs actual losses are anywhere between 1/7 to 1/20, they can forget being compensated. Losses come directly from the bottom line. https://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/05/17/ranchers-cattle-losses-represent-lost-profits/ I'm not a rancher, not even rancher adjacent, but I'd think the extra losses, and the effort to employ all the non lethal measures would be plenty enough to cause many to simply sell out to some developer of ranchettes.

Unlike bears and cats wolves can double in population every couple years given plenty of foot and habitat. You're probably familiar with the concept of exponential growth from covid. This Walden pack is the first pack in CO, I think our wolf plan calls for the importation of 200. Doubling gives you 400, 800, 1600.

As for anthropomorphising dogs, ever read a dog thread on here?

 

[Red Fox]

From what is put out is they only kill the sick, so the ranchers should be thankful to have them removed from the herd. So it begins only going to hear more of this as the population grows

 

[ramsdude47]

Where did you find the number of wolves that will be introduced I can’t seem to find anything?

 

[COEngineer]

Where did you find the number of wolves that will be introduced I can’t seem to find anything?

I have followed fairly closely and I don't think the Technical Working Group (TWG) has released any such number.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Ranchers are rational actors, it's not like they have some sort of pathological wolf hatred, they have a business.

 

[Carnage2011]

Make no mistake, there will hit a point when those ranchers start taking matters into their own hands. I get frustrated with Montana’s current politics in wildlife management, but I’d hate to be in Colorado’s shoes right now.

 

[Carnage2011]

Ranchers are rational actors, it's not like they have some sort of pathological wolf hatred, they have a business. Colorado losses to predators are little under 5% of total losses, (remainder, disease, falling off a cliff, etc). In Wyoming predator losses are around 20%. Confirmed vs actual losses are anywhere between 1/7 to 1/20, they can forget being compensated. Losses come directly from the bottom line. https://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/05/17/ranchers-cattle-losses-represent-lost-profits/ I'm not a rancher, not even rancher adjacent, but I'd think the extra losses, and the effort to employ all the non lethal measures would be plenty enough to cause many to simply sell out to some developer of ranchettes.

Unlike bears and cats wolves can double in population every couple years given plenty of foot and habitat. You're probably familiar with the concept of exponential growth from covid. This Walden pack is the first pack in CO, I think our wolf plan calls for the importation of 200. Doubling gives you 400, 800, 1600.

As for anthropomorphising dogs, ever read a dog thread on here?

And you can bet your ass that the yuppies of CO will fight against a wolf hunting season even if you have 30,000 of them.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

And you can bet your ass that the yuppies of CO will fight against a wolf hunting season even if you have 30,000 of them.

We are talking about a state where the majority of voters supported reintroducing a predator that already existed on the landscape, there is significant momentum to ban hunting of lions, and hunters lost spring bear hunting many years ago. Yeah, wolf hunting is not likely considering the political trends and demographics in Colorado.

 

[Zach]

View attachment 209589

I'd be curious about this...

 

[Zach]

Totally agree.

That being said, I kinda have a "told you so moment" when I read these articles. Not an "I told you they were vicious predators" movement, but a "WTF, we told you wolves were already in CO, they were already going to be a management challenge; dealing with ranchers, elk/deer, etc. when you decided they 'needed to be reintroduced'".

At the time of the ballot CPW had released findings that there was at least one pack in the state possibly 2. The second pack is the one relevant to this thread.

I think in the history of stupid wildlife ballot measures voting to 'reintroduce a species' that is already on the landscape ranks #1.

Seems like semantics alone should allow us to toss that ballot measure, proponents should have to have the measure voted on again, but correctly title to "A measure to supplement the nascent wolf population in CO with wolves from Canada."

Agreed. There shouldn't be any surprises at this point. There have been wolves inside the state lines for over 10 years now, but with 114 passing CPW has to now publicly acknowledge that fact. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, maybe acknowleding their presence 10 years ago would have thier management plan in a better position.