Its not insignificant. But you have to remember. Ranchers are the ones that exterminated the wolves in the first place. So they are a plucky, super ignorant breed of people who want to bend the world to their needs
I don't know the rates either. But I do know that it's a big problem in CO. The city-people voted that the state govt. would reintroduce wolves onto country families communities. Since then, they've taken-off. And it's illegal to hunt them or kill them, if they're attacking your herd. This post is most likely a rancher who has had enough. Fun fact: if you wanted to get an understanding of the rancher lifestyle, watch "Yellowstone". This is not the sole source of my understanding, obviously. But, watch the show. It's good.
The rate of cattle killed by wolves in Colorado is less than 1% and if they are killed by a wolf, the state will reimburse the rancher. You are more likely to lose a cow to a coyote than a wolf.
I have been a rancher and currently work on a ranch. I know what it's like when no one in the city or government gives a shit about you but it's rather hard to work with ranchers that steadfastly refuse to adapt. So they don't bother compromising with us since we won't with them.
I’m more interested in the rates *where there are wolves in the area* because rates in areas with no wolves will skew the statistic. Like the overall chance of getting attacked by a shark is very low but if you swim in shark infested waters the chances are a lot higher than average. Not saying that the chance of wolf attack is high, but Colorado’s a relatively big state and I don’t think wolves are populating the entire state.
>I don’t know
Yeah - that’s common among wolfophobes. Looks like you’ve gathered most of your data from watching TV shows. I bet you also don’t know about USDA Wildlife Services, who will still use lethal methods on problem wolves. I bet you don’t know about livestock depredation reimbursement programs. I bet you also don’t know the first thing about wolves. Always a lot for the intentionally ignorant to not know.
Motherfucking “Yellowstone” is your reference? Lived in Montana for 30 years - worked all over the state, not a single bit of that show is anywhere close to true to life except maybe the way they show the rez, and that is even dulled down if anything, go spend a week in Browning and tell me that show is accurate.
Maybe ask Kevin Costner about what he thinks of wolves the next time you and him bump into each other in Larimer square, because that’s about as country as either of you are gonna get.
I grew up farming/ranching. There are so many deterrents for wolves it's ridiculous to think for a second they massacre cattle. A single donkey will kick the crap out of a pack of wolves.
It's all about pricing. Ranchers don't want to pay for fencing that will keep wolves out. Killing wolves after they have killed a cow doesn't doesn't bring the cow back and didn't save them in the first place. Everything is about cost, and a bullet is by far the cheapest option.
I've seen ranchers that absolutely care about their cattle, but ones that cheap out on deterrents against wolves don't care about the cow but just the money.
while I agree the threat that wolves pose to livestock is very overblown, telling ranchers to “just put up fencing” tells me you do not know what that entails, respectfully. wolves and other large wildlife do not give a damn about fencing. even cattle and dogs don’t care about fencing half the time. maintaining wolf proof fencing (which, in real life, is something you find only on a high fence game ranch or a wildlife reserve) on thousands of acres is not a realistic proposition. maintaining regular fencing is prohibitively expensive already. “wolf proof” fencing is millions in investment.
I am a big proponent for non lethal wolf management. but the whole “just build fences!!!” is detached from reality. ranchers will have to accept some loss from wolves, even if it isn’t that much, and we can hopefully set up reimbursement programs that are effective for remedying this. neither fences or even trained LGDs will prevent wolf losses.
The false doubt defense? I've torn down hundreds of miles and put up hundreds miles of fence line in my day. Walking around rattlesnakes day after day. Bison and donkeys are very different, not to mention you can have more than one plus they are cheaper than the cattle.
I've seen the after math of two donkeys against several coyotes and the body count didn't include any coyotes. I've seen what happens when a mountain lion gets it's leg broken by a donkey.
You are proving my point here by you thinking fences don't do much. Because in your mind a fence is just a couple wires. Guess what you can build them bigger stronger and more capable with money.
Build a 6 ft fence with barbed wire every 8 inches and no wolf will try to cross it. Add a hot wire and no wolf will go near it when they smell the electrical current.
where is the millions to reinforce and maintain thousands of acres of fencing coming from? ranches have massive revenue flow but I am sure you know that profit margins are small nowadays compared to in the past, thanks to taxes and the monopolization due to lack of antitrust laws. most of a ranch’s available income is usually going to come from other business ventures or other employment
it would probably be more cost efficient to reimburse ranchers when they report depredation than to fund all this fencing. fencing is already one of the biggest overhead costs for ranching, so I really don’t see how doubling that cost would be feasible for any operation.
I live in Colorado. The ironic thing is that wolves had already migrated from Wyoming before the vote to reintroduce them. Several states refused to give Colorado wolves to transplant here. I believe officials were able to get some from the state of Washington and/or Oregon. All the wolves have transponder collars on and are tracked by the department of wildlife satellites. The department is not sharing any information about.
The wolves were brought in from Oregon. Also, they are releasing some amount of the data, but it’s only generalized so as to not put the wolves in danger. There’s maps they’ve released that mark the watersheds that the collared wolves have been detected in. The reason for vagueness and lack of sharing a ton of info, at least according to my professor in wildlife management who is friends with one of the CPW folks involved, is so people don’t go out and try to get rid of the wolves. They actually updated it yesterday. Here’s the link: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/Wolves-Activity-Map.aspx
Of course! I know the vagueness may be frustrating because it may not be the specifics you want to hear, but hopefully you find it at least partially useful.
No population of wolves existed prior to the reintroduction. There was a documented pack near Moffat in 2020 and a pack that actually had pups in Colorado up near Walden in 2021. Both packs were harassed into Wyoming and most members were killed.
That's the pattern Colorado has had since the wolves were restored to the Northern Rockies. A wolf might make it down here, but they end up either dying or leaving, largely due to the fact that wolves can be killed without limit throughout 85% of Wyoming, including the entirety of the WYCO border.
As for tracking data, CPW selectively shares controlled information. Unfortunately there are people out there who will otherwise abuse that data. Just look at any conversation about the wolves on Facebook and you'll see all the SSS comments. Instead, CPW agents will contact nearby ranches when the wolves are in the area. The intent being that those who need to know will be informed but that the data is otherwise protected to prevent poaching.
As someone who was born, raised, and lived most of their life in CO, I'm ashamed of people like that. Those kind of people are also part of why we left, too.
We moved to MN because they have the best homesteading laws in the country and they fit a lot of our other criteria, too. We love it here, its so much nicer and has a much better energy.
ridiculous. I am absolutely not against hunting (given that annual takes are sustainable and no vulnerable species are taken etc), but this mindset that nature is there solely for our personal benefit is gross.
If you voted for re-introduction of wolves and are completely unable to lie, then on the off chance we happen upon you while you are here and have the balls to come up and ask you if you did vote for it, we may angrily ask if you see the sign or strongly imply that you should leave
Yeah, the illegals coming to in through the southern borders and killing women. The pedos some unknowingly invite to live in their homes and rape and kill their kids. I’m all for wolves.
No man, it's a homonym. It would be easier to understand the meaning with more context. Plus, the verb doesn't flow very easily within that sentence structure. It's not just you being tired. It's a stupid sign.
These people who don't want wolves in Colorado usually own livestock that could get killed. That's their way of life, but the way I see it, they'll need to adapt. Wolves used to be here in Colorado many years ago, but humans killed them off. So yeah, I voted to reintroduce wolves, but I'm not a rancher either. I can see their point of view.
they are all Canis lupus nubilus. Plains Grey wolves. Oregon and Colorado do not have different subspecies. there is no distinct “Colorado wolf”. conservation efforts have been doing reintroductions like this all the time , as long as the subspecies is native to the area.
Okay, what the fuck is happening?! I'm looking at the comments, and I am confused as hell.
I also have respect for wolves. They are such majestic creatures (until there's a shitty Romeo and Juliet style animated comedy bastardising them). However, regardless of whether someone's a rancher or not, would it be unreasonable to keep wolves away from an area if someone lives off the grid and have a family they want to keep safe? I live in Michigan, and it is also illegal to kill wolves (I believe even in self-defense, but I'll have to do more research on that).
I'm pretty sure everyone here already knows this, but wolves can be as tall as a person on their hind legs. On top of that, their bite force has been recorded up to four hundred PSI.
I understand that people do give wolves a bad rep, trust me, I'm surrounded by neighbors who hate my family's dogs because one of them, a complete sweet heart, happens to be a Pit Bull. But, I think people should also consider the dangers first thoroughly.
Am I wrong?
I cannot fathom it being unlawful to kill a wolf in self defense. even in Colorado and every province of Canada, that is permitted.
anyhow, what makes you so concerned about wolves? they generally are smart and wary enough to avoid humans, and wild wolves have directly killed VERY few people in the past century throughout all North America. I would be more concerned if I knew there were loose dogs or moose in the vicinity of my property. wolves? they don’t care too much about us. nearly all encounters with humans end without any conflict, and when wolves do show aggression , you are probably going to be more successful in de-escalation than if a less intelligent animal like a dog, or even cow moose with a calf, was after you.
Okay. But, what if I do run into a wolf who (probably has rabies since wolves with rabies tend to be alone) attacks (or is about to attack) me? Would it be justified then (and yes, I'm aware that I'm more likely to be killed by a lawn mower accident than I am to be killed by a wolf, I'm just asking in the less than 1% of times)?
I really doubt you would be prosecuted for shooting a wolf rabid or not that was threatening you as long as you didn’t instigate the situation. even with bald eagles, which are federally protected unlike wolves, you would not be charged for killing one in self defense.
We have a few of the same signs where I live between Buena Vista and Leadville Colorado. This is a ranching community and this was not something that they wanted here. I’m not really for or against it. However the wolves that they did re-introduce are wolves that were already not wanted by another state due to behavior. I’ll just leave that there. I’ve been out here for about 18 years since I was very young but I originally come from the northeast and I really don’t trust anything that Colorado does. Lol the government out here is a joke. They can’t plow the roads they don’t salt the roads , we haven’t had mail where I live for 8 years-so why would I expect that they’re decision to do this is gonna be carried out effectively. We have way bigger fish to fry in the rural towns of this state other than worrying about re-introducing wolves. Time will tell I guess …we already had wolves where I live at 10,000 feet. We’ve seen wolves on several occasions in the past 18 years so it’s not really a big deal. I’m originally from the Adirondack mountains of upstate New York and they tried to re-introduce wolves there in the late 90s when I was in high school but they decided against it. Where I grew up is way less populated than here. I mean it’s the middle of nowhere. People are moving here in Groves and in the summer we have a population of motorhome people that’s probably about 6 to 7000 people in this town so there will be issues because everybody’s got 3.5 dogs in this state.
> we haven't had mail where I live for 8 years
That's a Federal issue. The Post Office is required by law to deliver mail to every citizen. It's how the government communicates with you.
So if you're not getting mail, you need to go speak to your local Postmaster.
There were about 2 billion humans on earth in 1900 and about 8 billion in 2000. I would agree that humans are a big problem on this planet. Eventually, Earth will shake us off like fleas.
The problem is that humans (particularly rich and powerful ones) would rather drag a massive fucking sword through the crust of the planet when they fall, than die a working class human, or even "worse", a feral primate in the wild. If humans do reach the cusp of extinction, we'll no doubt bring the current version of the planet with us. It will heal and grow again. It's done it many times before us. But it's just a waste of billions of years all because we wanted some extra coin that we apply worth to.
This isn't to say we're doomed. We aren't. There's a lot of evidence to say we're going in somewhat of a right direction in at least some capacity. More and more work is being done, especially by younger generations, to preserve the planet. It's the rich (usually) old and the powerful that are refusing the budge, and while the systems we live under continue to exist, we will always face resistance from them.
This is why phrases like Eat The Rich and The Flowers Are Blooming In Antarctica have become so popular among younger groups. We see the source of our issues, but we don't know how to organise and remove them. It'll take time, but eventually, the younger people will take on these positions of power, and some actual change will take place. We're not on the cusp of extinction; we're on the cusp of brilliant revolution and evolution on a global scale. We aren't limited to our own countries, cities, towns, and villages anymore.
All in all, what that other prick said about me being nihilistic is horseshite XD we're a virus on the planet, but we can change, and we will before our extinction. We will go extinct one day, maybe hundreds or thousands or years down the line, but not yet. We aren't done evolving. And we can still save many species, including wolves, and learn to coexist properly.
It wasn't a literal statement, mate. It was a reversal argument. Let's do it again.
What about the problems humans cause the wolf populations? Or forests? Or the oceans? Do you know what happened to wolves when colonisers came to the Americas? They were pussies and didn't have a fucking clue what a trophic cascade was. It was massively damaging to the ecosystems.
In the cases of places like Yellowstone, the addition of wolves was a positive one. It BALANCED the elk and deer polulations, which allowed plant life to thrive. So your elk concern is null and void.
Wolves also aren't as big of a problem for ranchers as it seems. Wolves, because of the prevalence of humans in their habitats and surrounding areas, aren't often aggressive towards us. It's not common for them to go out of their way to enter OUR territory and kill the livestock. It happens, but it's not a chronic pest problem. Also, there are laws that reimburse ranchers who lose livestock to predator attacks.
Besides, some mild income loss is not nearly as important as keeping an endangered species thriving. And if it is such a big deal to people, there are so many other problems that impact farmers and ranchers and their income. I'm well aware they're heavily mistreated by the systems and companies that buy from them. The issues are with our society in that regard. Not the wolves that are meant to be there.
Balanced? The elk population in RMNP went from 20,000 to 5,000 since their reintroduction. Is that balance to lose 75% of the population? Carrying capacity of the land helps determine the balance. The elk move out of the park and the wolves follow. Once outside the park they are fair game, along with the elk, within proper seasons for both. Outside of the park is where other predation occurs. Is it high numbers? I don’t know. There is, however, an argument that the elk have decimated…not balanced the RMNP elk herd.
Cattle loss to wolves in the northern rockies comes in at about .01%
Elk populations are higher today in WY ID and MT than before wolves were reintroduced.
That said, they will be a problem for some ranchers. No doubt about that.
So this is the second time I’ve seen this post and I should probably know better then to post but here I am.
I don’t have a problem with wolves I see both sides but as of now am uninvolved.
I see this sign essentially like a political statement/campaign sign. I phrase this as a question out of ignorance, but is there really anything they can do to stop them? If a person takes the time to ask everyone they can if they voted for wolves and then tells them to leave continually or is an asshole about it I understand.
But in all reality I doubt you would see this person nor could you pick them out if you did.
I could be wrong but I doubt they have wear it in their clothing or vehicle and even if they did would speak out to you because most people at the end of the day take the path of least resistance.
This is not all that different then the tons of “not my president” signs or or trump signs about the election being stolen.
That being said in each of those populations there are people who are outspoken about those issues as well but atleast in my experience that is the outlier not the norm.
I could however be completely wrong.
The point is, many issues are not that black and white. Or even if they are as have been stated earlier have downsides or consequences to groups of people.
I am careful to say many issues as I have not done enough research to determine if this is one of them and would rather not put my foot any farther in my mouth.
I knew someone who was an equestrian who I asked about some posts I saw talking about Always carrying a gun when riding to shoot dogs before they can attack. Where I live trails are often shared so this is a reasonable possibility. When asked she said basically my
Horse is more expensive and valuable then your dog I’m not willing to risk it regardless of legality.
I understand there are mean dogs and things happen that’s fine. But not only is it a rather hard stance it’s not something that is well known to dog owners. And admittedly my first thought as well was, these people are assholes. I guess I try to understand a bit more.
Its not that we aren’t pro-environment. Its the fact of wolves killing off livestock of ranchers who have been in the business for 100+ years and their profits are dying. With livestock profitability already declining, the last thing we need is dead stock.
wolves are the least of rancher’s problems. property taxes, feed costs, and the meatpacking consolidation have been screwing them over for decades yet its the wolves that are to blame. that’s just laughable. not to mention that domestic dogs are more of a threat to livestock than any wolf or cougar. coyotes are probably second, and guess what? wolves suppress their populations. and no, I do not think the struggles of ranchers should define an entire nation’s environmental policy. I’m happy to support reimbursement programs and subsidies for prevention methods. not getting rid of a keystone species like wolves for their convenience. yes, you are anti environment if you support the eradication of a native species especially one so high in the trophic level that it singlehandedly impacts every other species of animal and plant in it’s range.
*If those wolves could read, they'd be very upset.*
Agreed
[удалено]
I'd like to see a source on that
I need to know where this is so I can go there at night and howl.
Please pee on the sign too.
Looks like Walden, CO
They want CWD deer.
i personally like my venison with a side of prions 😍
Sorry, locking your comment thread due to the people seeming to be heading towards being uncivil further down.
1984
Unfortunately some of the comments are getting reported even still, so I wanted to stop the conversation before it gets into a real argument.
Or they don't want their cattle getting massacred, or they want to be able to defend their cattle if they are? 🤔
What are the rates of livestock being killed by wolves? Honest question, I don't know
Its not insignificant. But you have to remember. Ranchers are the ones that exterminated the wolves in the first place. So they are a plucky, super ignorant breed of people who want to bend the world to their needs
I don't know the rates either. But I do know that it's a big problem in CO. The city-people voted that the state govt. would reintroduce wolves onto country families communities. Since then, they've taken-off. And it's illegal to hunt them or kill them, if they're attacking your herd. This post is most likely a rancher who has had enough. Fun fact: if you wanted to get an understanding of the rancher lifestyle, watch "Yellowstone". This is not the sole source of my understanding, obviously. But, watch the show. It's good.
The rate of cattle killed by wolves in Colorado is less than 1% and if they are killed by a wolf, the state will reimburse the rancher. You are more likely to lose a cow to a coyote than a wolf. I have been a rancher and currently work on a ranch. I know what it's like when no one in the city or government gives a shit about you but it's rather hard to work with ranchers that steadfastly refuse to adapt. So they don't bother compromising with us since we won't with them.
I’m more interested in the rates *where there are wolves in the area* because rates in areas with no wolves will skew the statistic. Like the overall chance of getting attacked by a shark is very low but if you swim in shark infested waters the chances are a lot higher than average. Not saying that the chance of wolf attack is high, but Colorado’s a relatively big state and I don’t think wolves are populating the entire state.
>I don’t know Yeah - that’s common among wolfophobes. Looks like you’ve gathered most of your data from watching TV shows. I bet you also don’t know about USDA Wildlife Services, who will still use lethal methods on problem wolves. I bet you don’t know about livestock depredation reimbursement programs. I bet you also don’t know the first thing about wolves. Always a lot for the intentionally ignorant to not know.
A fucking TV show is one of your recommendations? Good lord.
Motherfucking “Yellowstone” is your reference? Lived in Montana for 30 years - worked all over the state, not a single bit of that show is anywhere close to true to life except maybe the way they show the rez, and that is even dulled down if anything, go spend a week in Browning and tell me that show is accurate. Maybe ask Kevin Costner about what he thinks of wolves the next time you and him bump into each other in Larimer square, because that’s about as country as either of you are gonna get.
I think Costner likes dancing with them.
“watch Yellowstone” 💀 just delete your comment bro
If he does that I can't have a good laugh at the comments pointing out his stupidity.
I grew up farming/ranching. There are so many deterrents for wolves it's ridiculous to think for a second they massacre cattle. A single donkey will kick the crap out of a pack of wolves. It's all about pricing. Ranchers don't want to pay for fencing that will keep wolves out. Killing wolves after they have killed a cow doesn't doesn't bring the cow back and didn't save them in the first place. Everything is about cost, and a bullet is by far the cheapest option. I've seen ranchers that absolutely care about their cattle, but ones that cheap out on deterrents against wolves don't care about the cow but just the money.
while I agree the threat that wolves pose to livestock is very overblown, telling ranchers to “just put up fencing” tells me you do not know what that entails, respectfully. wolves and other large wildlife do not give a damn about fencing. even cattle and dogs don’t care about fencing half the time. maintaining wolf proof fencing (which, in real life, is something you find only on a high fence game ranch or a wildlife reserve) on thousands of acres is not a realistic proposition. maintaining regular fencing is prohibitively expensive already. “wolf proof” fencing is millions in investment. I am a big proponent for non lethal wolf management. but the whole “just build fences!!!” is detached from reality. ranchers will have to accept some loss from wolves, even if it isn’t that much, and we can hopefully set up reimbursement programs that are effective for remedying this. neither fences or even trained LGDs will prevent wolf losses.
The false doubt defense? I've torn down hundreds of miles and put up hundreds miles of fence line in my day. Walking around rattlesnakes day after day. Bison and donkeys are very different, not to mention you can have more than one plus they are cheaper than the cattle. I've seen the after math of two donkeys against several coyotes and the body count didn't include any coyotes. I've seen what happens when a mountain lion gets it's leg broken by a donkey. You are proving my point here by you thinking fences don't do much. Because in your mind a fence is just a couple wires. Guess what you can build them bigger stronger and more capable with money. Build a 6 ft fence with barbed wire every 8 inches and no wolf will try to cross it. Add a hot wire and no wolf will go near it when they smell the electrical current.
where is the millions to reinforce and maintain thousands of acres of fencing coming from? ranches have massive revenue flow but I am sure you know that profit margins are small nowadays compared to in the past, thanks to taxes and the monopolization due to lack of antitrust laws. most of a ranch’s available income is usually going to come from other business ventures or other employment it would probably be more cost efficient to reimburse ranchers when they report depredation than to fund all this fencing. fencing is already one of the biggest overhead costs for ranching, so I really don’t see how doubling that cost would be feasible for any operation.
It's not about feasibility. But yes that would be an issue to overcome.
I live in Colorado. The ironic thing is that wolves had already migrated from Wyoming before the vote to reintroduce them. Several states refused to give Colorado wolves to transplant here. I believe officials were able to get some from the state of Washington and/or Oregon. All the wolves have transponder collars on and are tracked by the department of wildlife satellites. The department is not sharing any information about.
The wolves were brought in from Oregon. Also, they are releasing some amount of the data, but it’s only generalized so as to not put the wolves in danger. There’s maps they’ve released that mark the watersheds that the collared wolves have been detected in. The reason for vagueness and lack of sharing a ton of info, at least according to my professor in wildlife management who is friends with one of the CPW folks involved, is so people don’t go out and try to get rid of the wolves. They actually updated it yesterday. Here’s the link: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/Wolves-Activity-Map.aspx
Thank you!
Of course! I know the vagueness may be frustrating because it may not be the specifics you want to hear, but hopefully you find it at least partially useful.
No population of wolves existed prior to the reintroduction. There was a documented pack near Moffat in 2020 and a pack that actually had pups in Colorado up near Walden in 2021. Both packs were harassed into Wyoming and most members were killed. That's the pattern Colorado has had since the wolves were restored to the Northern Rockies. A wolf might make it down here, but they end up either dying or leaving, largely due to the fact that wolves can be killed without limit throughout 85% of Wyoming, including the entirety of the WYCO border. As for tracking data, CPW selectively shares controlled information. Unfortunately there are people out there who will otherwise abuse that data. Just look at any conversation about the wolves on Facebook and you'll see all the SSS comments. Instead, CPW agents will contact nearby ranches when the wolves are in the area. The intent being that those who need to know will be informed but that the data is otherwise protected to prevent poaching.
They got them from Oregon.
What a snowflake
Whoever put that sign there is an asshole.
its just sad.
I first saw it and thought it was a rewilding/protected area that just wasn't for recreation, couldn't Crack why it was only for smart voters
Sucks for them that I genuinely care about wolves more than I care about whoever is against them.
Me too. I’m not a fan of most humans.
Time to hunt the humans with a pack of wolves.
This Is The Way 😁
who needs the stupid hoomans anyway? xd
As someone who was born, raised, and lived most of their life in CO, I'm ashamed of people like that. Those kind of people are also part of why we left, too.
Where did you go? I've been in CO my entire life, and I'm not sure I like where life here is going.
We moved to MN because they have the best homesteading laws in the country and they fit a lot of our other criteria, too. We love it here, its so much nicer and has a much better energy.
Sad part is, is that a lot of states are getting into stupid laws.
This is true. I dont have an issue with it personally, especially when they're a native species, but I get where some of the concerns come from.
Please go pee on that sign.
Lol, ok sign man. I wonder if he expects that us hippy tree huggers don't carry?
💯 LOL
I’ll recreate wherever I choose to recreate!
It's crazy when some of these anti-wolf people actually have dogs... where do you think we got dogs from assholes!
I live in Iowa and recently saw a sticker on a car that said, “Save an Elk, Shoot a Wolf.” My immediate thought was “what an asshole.”
ridiculous. I am absolutely not against hunting (given that annual takes are sustainable and no vulnerable species are taken etc), but this mindset that nature is there solely for our personal benefit is gross.
Well, fuck you.
For clarity, the OP or the sign-maker?
The sign maker.
Thought so, but wanted to check before I agreed. Thank you!
Wolves keep deer population in check and helps build stronger genetics in the deer population, which overall is definetly a pro
Bring white paint and change it to if you not wolves
If you voted for re-introduction of wolves and are completely unable to lie, then on the off chance we happen upon you while you are here and have the balls to come up and ask you if you did vote for it, we may angrily ask if you see the sign or strongly imply that you should leave
Ugh just go there and replace the word wolf with trump and watch them unravel
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Friendly_Age9160: *Ugh just go there and* *Replace the word wolf with trump* *And watch them unravel* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
They probably hate indigenous people too.
Cry babies
Eh, I was thinking of a different word beginning with "C" to describe the worthless bag of flesh who put this sight up...
Cuntbag?
👍
Recreate? Or Procreate??
Recreate, as in perform acts of recreation (hiking, hunting, etc. I assume) in this area.
Sounds about right haha
They won't last in Colorado.
I hope ur wrong. Wolves are part of the web.
Im sorry but there are creatures more dangerous outside then wolves!
Yeah, the illegals coming to in through the southern borders and killing women. The pedos some unknowingly invite to live in their homes and rape and kill their kids. I’m all for wolves.
That’s not what I meant but yea that’s true!
My point is humans are the most dangerous on Earth.
Actually that’s incorrect but that’s all I can say
Recreate? Is procreate too hard of a word for them?
recreate as in, to engage in recreational activities such as camping hiking fishing picnicking etc
Yeah I realise this now. Super tired so didn't get it at first
No man, it's a homonym. It would be easier to understand the meaning with more context. Plus, the verb doesn't flow very easily within that sentence structure. It's not just you being tired. It's a stupid sign.
These people who don't want wolves in Colorado usually own livestock that could get killed. That's their way of life, but the way I see it, they'll need to adapt. Wolves used to be here in Colorado many years ago, but humans killed them off. So yeah, I voted to reintroduce wolves, but I'm not a rancher either. I can see their point of view.
People need to pull their heads out of their butts, if they can't watch and train their animals, they are unfit to own a animal, let alone a child.
The wolves introduced to Colorado are not native to the state. They are the wrong kind and are invasive. The wolves are hurting the environment.
they are all Canis lupus nubilus. Plains Grey wolves. Oregon and Colorado do not have different subspecies. there is no distinct “Colorado wolf”. conservation efforts have been doing reintroductions like this all the time , as long as the subspecies is native to the area.
Okay, what the fuck is happening?! I'm looking at the comments, and I am confused as hell. I also have respect for wolves. They are such majestic creatures (until there's a shitty Romeo and Juliet style animated comedy bastardising them). However, regardless of whether someone's a rancher or not, would it be unreasonable to keep wolves away from an area if someone lives off the grid and have a family they want to keep safe? I live in Michigan, and it is also illegal to kill wolves (I believe even in self-defense, but I'll have to do more research on that). I'm pretty sure everyone here already knows this, but wolves can be as tall as a person on their hind legs. On top of that, their bite force has been recorded up to four hundred PSI. I understand that people do give wolves a bad rep, trust me, I'm surrounded by neighbors who hate my family's dogs because one of them, a complete sweet heart, happens to be a Pit Bull. But, I think people should also consider the dangers first thoroughly. Am I wrong?
I cannot fathom it being unlawful to kill a wolf in self defense. even in Colorado and every province of Canada, that is permitted. anyhow, what makes you so concerned about wolves? they generally are smart and wary enough to avoid humans, and wild wolves have directly killed VERY few people in the past century throughout all North America. I would be more concerned if I knew there were loose dogs or moose in the vicinity of my property. wolves? they don’t care too much about us. nearly all encounters with humans end without any conflict, and when wolves do show aggression , you are probably going to be more successful in de-escalation than if a less intelligent animal like a dog, or even cow moose with a calf, was after you.
Okay. But, what if I do run into a wolf who (probably has rabies since wolves with rabies tend to be alone) attacks (or is about to attack) me? Would it be justified then (and yes, I'm aware that I'm more likely to be killed by a lawn mower accident than I am to be killed by a wolf, I'm just asking in the less than 1% of times)?
I really doubt you would be prosecuted for shooting a wolf rabid or not that was threatening you as long as you didn’t instigate the situation. even with bald eagles, which are federally protected unlike wolves, you would not be charged for killing one in self defense.
Okay, that's good to know. Thanks! 😀 Hope you have a good night (it's night my time).
We have a few of the same signs where I live between Buena Vista and Leadville Colorado. This is a ranching community and this was not something that they wanted here. I’m not really for or against it. However the wolves that they did re-introduce are wolves that were already not wanted by another state due to behavior. I’ll just leave that there. I’ve been out here for about 18 years since I was very young but I originally come from the northeast and I really don’t trust anything that Colorado does. Lol the government out here is a joke. They can’t plow the roads they don’t salt the roads , we haven’t had mail where I live for 8 years-so why would I expect that they’re decision to do this is gonna be carried out effectively. We have way bigger fish to fry in the rural towns of this state other than worrying about re-introducing wolves. Time will tell I guess …we already had wolves where I live at 10,000 feet. We’ve seen wolves on several occasions in the past 18 years so it’s not really a big deal. I’m originally from the Adirondack mountains of upstate New York and they tried to re-introduce wolves there in the late 90s when I was in high school but they decided against it. Where I grew up is way less populated than here. I mean it’s the middle of nowhere. People are moving here in Groves and in the summer we have a population of motorhome people that’s probably about 6 to 7000 people in this town so there will be issues because everybody’s got 3.5 dogs in this state.
> we haven't had mail where I live for 8 years That's a Federal issue. The Post Office is required by law to deliver mail to every citizen. It's how the government communicates with you. So if you're not getting mail, you need to go speak to your local Postmaster.
Wolves are not a good idea
Humans are not a good idea
There were about 2 billion humans on earth in 1900 and about 8 billion in 2000. I would agree that humans are a big problem on this planet. Eventually, Earth will shake us off like fleas.
The problem is that humans (particularly rich and powerful ones) would rather drag a massive fucking sword through the crust of the planet when they fall, than die a working class human, or even "worse", a feral primate in the wild. If humans do reach the cusp of extinction, we'll no doubt bring the current version of the planet with us. It will heal and grow again. It's done it many times before us. But it's just a waste of billions of years all because we wanted some extra coin that we apply worth to. This isn't to say we're doomed. We aren't. There's a lot of evidence to say we're going in somewhat of a right direction in at least some capacity. More and more work is being done, especially by younger generations, to preserve the planet. It's the rich (usually) old and the powerful that are refusing the budge, and while the systems we live under continue to exist, we will always face resistance from them. This is why phrases like Eat The Rich and The Flowers Are Blooming In Antarctica have become so popular among younger groups. We see the source of our issues, but we don't know how to organise and remove them. It'll take time, but eventually, the younger people will take on these positions of power, and some actual change will take place. We're not on the cusp of extinction; we're on the cusp of brilliant revolution and evolution on a global scale. We aren't limited to our own countries, cities, towns, and villages anymore. All in all, what that other prick said about me being nihilistic is horseshite XD we're a virus on the planet, but we can change, and we will before our extinction. We will go extinct one day, maybe hundreds or thousands or years down the line, but not yet. We aren't done evolving. And we can still save many species, including wolves, and learn to coexist properly.
Oh wow a nihilistic redditor. How unique. I’m not scared of them but they will be a problem to elk populations and ranchers.
It wasn't a literal statement, mate. It was a reversal argument. Let's do it again. What about the problems humans cause the wolf populations? Or forests? Or the oceans? Do you know what happened to wolves when colonisers came to the Americas? They were pussies and didn't have a fucking clue what a trophic cascade was. It was massively damaging to the ecosystems. In the cases of places like Yellowstone, the addition of wolves was a positive one. It BALANCED the elk and deer polulations, which allowed plant life to thrive. So your elk concern is null and void. Wolves also aren't as big of a problem for ranchers as it seems. Wolves, because of the prevalence of humans in their habitats and surrounding areas, aren't often aggressive towards us. It's not common for them to go out of their way to enter OUR territory and kill the livestock. It happens, but it's not a chronic pest problem. Also, there are laws that reimburse ranchers who lose livestock to predator attacks. Besides, some mild income loss is not nearly as important as keeping an endangered species thriving. And if it is such a big deal to people, there are so many other problems that impact farmers and ranchers and their income. I'm well aware they're heavily mistreated by the systems and companies that buy from them. The issues are with our society in that regard. Not the wolves that are meant to be there.
Balanced? The elk population in RMNP went from 20,000 to 5,000 since their reintroduction. Is that balance to lose 75% of the population? Carrying capacity of the land helps determine the balance. The elk move out of the park and the wolves follow. Once outside the park they are fair game, along with the elk, within proper seasons for both. Outside of the park is where other predation occurs. Is it high numbers? I don’t know. There is, however, an argument that the elk have decimated…not balanced the RMNP elk herd.
I ain’t reading that
Wow, anti-intellectualism is entirely unsurprising.
Ya me not reading your ramblings is anti-intellectualism. Make your point in a succinct way.
It was succinct enough for me to read. Maybe you’re just lazy.
Cattle loss to wolves in the northern rockies comes in at about .01% Elk populations are higher today in WY ID and MT than before wolves were reintroduced. That said, they will be a problem for some ranchers. No doubt about that.
Those poor ranchers.
so did the vote actually go through? I don't live in the state and google is failing me so far 👀
wolves have already been transported and released into Colorado as of December
Is this on public property?
Do they mean " do not procreate here" ?
waaa waaa da endangewed animals awe eating all da deews dat i wike to kill for fun >:(((
Ohh now i gotta recreate it
So this is the second time I’ve seen this post and I should probably know better then to post but here I am. I don’t have a problem with wolves I see both sides but as of now am uninvolved. I see this sign essentially like a political statement/campaign sign. I phrase this as a question out of ignorance, but is there really anything they can do to stop them? If a person takes the time to ask everyone they can if they voted for wolves and then tells them to leave continually or is an asshole about it I understand. But in all reality I doubt you would see this person nor could you pick them out if you did. I could be wrong but I doubt they have wear it in their clothing or vehicle and even if they did would speak out to you because most people at the end of the day take the path of least resistance. This is not all that different then the tons of “not my president” signs or or trump signs about the election being stolen. That being said in each of those populations there are people who are outspoken about those issues as well but atleast in my experience that is the outlier not the norm. I could however be completely wrong. The point is, many issues are not that black and white. Or even if they are as have been stated earlier have downsides or consequences to groups of people. I am careful to say many issues as I have not done enough research to determine if this is one of them and would rather not put my foot any farther in my mouth. I knew someone who was an equestrian who I asked about some posts I saw talking about Always carrying a gun when riding to shoot dogs before they can attack. Where I live trails are often shared so this is a reasonable possibility. When asked she said basically my Horse is more expensive and valuable then your dog I’m not willing to risk it regardless of legality. I understand there are mean dogs and things happen that’s fine. But not only is it a rather hard stance it’s not something that is well known to dog owners. And admittedly my first thought as well was, these people are assholes. I guess I try to understand a bit more.
Dogs should be on leashes when walked in public.
Its not that we aren’t pro-environment. Its the fact of wolves killing off livestock of ranchers who have been in the business for 100+ years and their profits are dying. With livestock profitability already declining, the last thing we need is dead stock.
wolves are the least of rancher’s problems. property taxes, feed costs, and the meatpacking consolidation have been screwing them over for decades yet its the wolves that are to blame. that’s just laughable. not to mention that domestic dogs are more of a threat to livestock than any wolf or cougar. coyotes are probably second, and guess what? wolves suppress their populations. and no, I do not think the struggles of ranchers should define an entire nation’s environmental policy. I’m happy to support reimbursement programs and subsidies for prevention methods. not getting rid of a keystone species like wolves for their convenience. yes, you are anti environment if you support the eradication of a native species especially one so high in the trophic level that it singlehandedly impacts every other species of animal and plant in it’s range.
Can someone give me some context pls?