One of the biggest conservation controversies is heating up in Colorado…
As we mentioned just a couple of weeks ago, the re-introduction of wolves into areas where they were previously extirpated is a huge controversy among conservationists. Today, the focus has shifted from the Hoodoo Pack of Arizona to Colorado, where the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) just committed more than $300,000 to defeat a ballot that would re-introduce wolves to the state.
Why is the RMEF so concerned about Proposition 114? First, Colorado is home to North America’s largest elk herd. Wolf predation has had severe, negative effects on elk populations in other states. There is every reason to believe it would be the same for Colorado. In fact, Colorado’s professional wildlife managers spent $1 million studying wolf introduction over the years and rejected the idea four different times.
They’re already there
Furthermore, wolves are already confirmed on the ground and breeding in northwest Colorado. A wildlife biologist has already spotted at least one wolf pup, and this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Wolves neither notice nor care about state lines, and they go where they please. If reintroduced in further numbers, wolves would spread into Rocky Mountain National Park and into surrounding states.
“It is also important to understand the same out-of-state environmental groups funding this forced wolf introduction also filed lawsuit after lawsuit to try to stop management of wolves in the Northern Rockies,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “It took an act of Congress to finally stop them,” he added. “One of those groups also filed a lawsuit just last summer seeking to force the government to introduce grizzly bears into Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona (including the Grand Canyon) and six other states.”
Who’s going to pay?
Then there’s the price tag, a bill that would come due at a time when taxpayers and the government are already stretched to the limits. A forced introduction would cost $6 million in new spending. All this during a time when COVID-19 impacts forced lawmakers to compensate for $3 billion in state budget losses that included massive cuts to education.
And what’s this? Proponents are offering zero dollars in funding for actual wolf introduction/management. That’s a problem. In 2018 alone, Wyoming taxpayers paid $1.5 million for wolf management while Washington taxpayers paid $1.2 million. The same would follow in Colorado.
Now, here’s the fun part! Although the proponents of this measure are more than happy to write a check out of Colorado taxpayers’ accounts, they were fine with using other people’s money to get Proposition 114 on the ballot … more than $1 million in out-of-state funding, in fact. They also used an out-of-state firm (Utah) to oversee the effort.
“This is not just about simply checking a box on a ballot. Proposition 114 would have significant, long-lasting, detrimental impacts on both wildlife and Coloradans,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “We are doing everything in our power to help educate Colorado voters about the very real costs that a forced introduction of an apex predator would have on wildlife management, wildlife populations, the hunting industry, ranchers and the pocketbooks of taxpayers who will be left to foot the bill.”
The impact goes beyond livestock
Yes, wolves are Hell on livestock. They’re known to go through herds of sheep and cattle like buzzsaws, often leaving the corpses of their kills to rot…but this isn’t just about ranchers and farmers. Colorado is also trying to reintroduce another historically present population of megafauna: moose. Right now, Colorado’s fledgling moose population clocks in at around 3,000. If wolves are reintroduced, we may as well go ahead and write the moose herd off right now.
Go here to find additional detailed information about the initiative and its impacts.
Old Fur Trapper says
I see many negative opinions on this subject. And I see many of those making such comments I believe do not really have a background in environmental studies and ecological roles with regard to the natural food chains. Years ago Yellowstone Park was on the verge of a complete ecological collapse because of man’s intervention in the removal of major carnivores. Everything in that entire ecological chain was collapsing with little to no chance of recovery. The reintroduction of wolves to the park saved that park from destruction. Species rebounded at all levels of the chain. And that included insects, birds, fish, plants and trees you would not associate with wolf depredation. And not one person in that park has been attacked or killed by a wolf. Historically wolf attacks are extremely rare on humans. Coyotes have attacked more people by far! And they are the prey of wolves. Without wolves, coyote populations explode and do far more damage to all game animals and livestock than wolves. Wolves will move into CO on their own. It’s inevitable. Just like mountain lion and bears do. The impact on ungulate herds will be checks and balances from reducing overpopulation in some areas and increases in others. Forced reintroduction may be required to reduce overpopulation of deer. Their threat to man is not as great as some would portray.
RIC CARTER says
I quit RMEF years ago, when they came out in support of reintroducing wolves here in Montana. They had to learn the hard way.
george spear says
Wolves rebalance the eco system. Man fucks it up They hunt the weak the slow the old. Man hunts the best big multi point buck. Meaning the weaker ones are left to propagate.
RIC says
I live with wolves. They savage and kill anything they can catch. They have eliminated our elk and moose, and made serious inroads on the deer until we killed a bunch of wolves.
Michael Borst says
I just spent almost a week in Michigan’s Upper Penninsula. We saw ZERO deer. Minimal deer tracks were found while birds hunting. Wolf tracks, they are everywhere. Plus the management of the wolves has been taken away from our Department of Natural Resourses (and Hunters) Once you have the damn things, say goodbye to everything else. Our estimates are as high as 700 wolves. This is not balancing an ecosystem, complete protection of one species above all others.
Normand Doyon Sr. says
I say no to introducing wolf back in the woods. With the population growing in the USA we are having less woods or forest for them and you will find them roaming around your city. They were reduced because they were a danger to people hunting or just taking a walk in the woods and they were a predator to our lifestocks.
This is as simple as I can put it.
Bryan Yerke says
The RMEF should introduce an amendment in response to re-introduce wolves, bears and pumas to New York’s Central Park, the Poconos, and Cape Cod where they once roamed. It would seem that the same logic could apply.
STEPHEN C. SCHNUR says
We don’t need to do this as t disseminate the animal population and even kill livestock. HERDS ARE CONTROLLED BY HUNTERS ALREADY. Hunting puts meat on the tables of Americans and money from licensees. The Fish and Game already has ruined the fishing industry here in Colorado. Taking in millions but not replenishing what is needed to make it worth while for fishermen to pay and it is becoming the same for hunters. This is a multi billion dollar business that is being destroyed. SAY no to the introduction of wolves.
Wayne Smith says
Approx 30 years ago the anti-hunting bunch hoped to reintroduce apex predators (Wolves) into areas which no longer had them. The thought being if these large meat eating predators dramatically reduced the herds of herbivores….. hunters would no longer be able to harvest deer, Elk or Moose. Hunting would end. With the assistance of liberal courts and citizens who don’t hunt…. the antis are well on their way to accomplishing their mission.
BTW…. Wolves may take sick or lame members of a herd at first…. but they then switch to healthy animals.
Charles Valenzuela says
You guys need to either change your name completely or at least stop using that REMF monicker. Every time I see it my mind reads “Rear Echelon Mother F”’er”. That isn’t forming a positive image of your organization in my mind, or in many other folk’s mind.
Big Al 45 says
Seriously ? Try using your silly mind for more than some snotty ass remark, MOST people who don’t have a Military or wanna be Military background haven’t a clue to that moniker.
It’s off topic, off base, and socially unacceptable.
The ONLY lack of ‘positive’ imagery is with you, dude.
Carroll Hale III says
Big Al 45, I take exception to your reply to the OP — REMF is widely known, just like JAFO, FUBAR, and a host of other military acronyms. The only “snotty ass remark” I’ve read in this thread is yours…
Carroll Hale III says
Just a quick comment to say that the acronym for the Rocky Mountain Elk Federation is RMEF, not REMF…
KEITH says
Charles; Please crawl back into your hole, this isn’t about names but the survival of the hunting sport in Colorado. so unless you have some valid info ,S.T F.U. !!(SHUT THE F–K UP)!
Jack says
Who is trying to introduce the wolves into Colorado? And why?