State and feds’ behavior called “outrageous” “unnecessary”

Story: “Montanans, wildlife groups condemn state, feds for wolf pack slaughter.” Missoulian.

The coalition (Wildlife Watchers and Big Wildlife) issuing this statement also said the action left many questions unanswered and that the public must be given specific formation about the killing of so many wolves.

avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

64 Responses to Slaughter of Hog Heaven Pack condemned by Montanans and wildlife groups

  1. avatar Peter Kiermeir says:

    Apropos slaughter: Newsminer com. has an article from Palin country titled: Alaska biologists kill wolf pups to help caribou herd population. It´s from July this year:…..The 4- to 5-week-old pups were caught at two den sites as biologists were shooting adult wolves from a helicopter near Cold Bay, about 600 miles southwest of Anchorage. Biologists shot and killed 14 adult wolves, including the mothers of the pups.
    The link is : http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/19/biologists-kill-wolf-pups-help-caribou-herd-popula/
    Defenders have this also on their pages as a Paulin promotion :-))

  2. avatar Laura says:

    At the risk of being naive, I will say what is in my heart. I am sick and tired of feeling helpless on this issue. I know my e-mails are filed in the trashcan and the money I send goes in some big pot that may or may not actually work to stop these senseless actions. Sometimes it has felt like the only thing I could do. Maybe it is time for some other type of action. Protests on the steps of state capitols? Graphic photos sent to major news orgs? I do not know. I am willing to entertain any ideas of group protest so that maybe our voices can be heard.

  3. avatar jerry b says:

    Laura….Ralph has my permission to give my email address to you. Contact me as some of us here in Montana are talking about taking action.
    JerryB

  4. avatar Brian Ellway says:

    What did you all think would happen when the delisting got overturned? Now the states have no choice but to manage wolves under the 10j rule (which will be much more effective than hunting ever would have been). The wolves must be and will be managed, one way or another. You all have made your bed….

  5. avatar Save bears says:

    Actually, and correct me if I am wrong, the NW Montana wolves are not managed under the 10j rule as they were a natural occurring population and not considered experimental as are the wolves in and around Yellowstone, I know in doing some research there is a Wolf management paper for Idaho that states that wolves north of I-90 are managed under the 4D rule.

    Can anyone clarify?

  6. avatar Save bears says:

    Based on this .pdf I found, unless it has been replaced, it would seem the NW Montana packs are not endangered but listed as threatened and managed differently than the southern populations, but again, I could be mistaken and not finding the information that is the most current.

    http://www.fws.gov/pdfs/Wolf10jQ&A.pdf

  7. I’ll try to find out more today, but yes the NW Montana packs are not part of the reintroduction, non-essential experimental population zone. They reinhabited the area on their own, a fact largely lost on many people in Montana and Idahoans living north of Interstate 90,

  8. Brian Ellway,

    Thanks for making it so clear that the word “management” simply means killing, not that there was any mystery about it.

  9. avatar Brian Ellway says:

    You may be right Save bears, the entire state of Wyoming is managed under the 10j rule and I was under the impression that Montana was the same but after reading the PDF you attached I believe I am incorrect. Either way, I think the states are going to manage wolves any chance they get now that the hunting seasons have been postponed.

  10. avatar Brian Ellway says:

    Ralph,

    Is there anybody that doesn’t think “management” means killing? The populations need to be reduced to a healthy, sustainable level, what else would it mean?

  11. avatar Save bears says:

    Hi Ralph,

    Thanks, then that means the management of them in NW Montana come under much stricter rules than the Southern populations, so this may be the direction to approach this situation.

  12. avatar Save bears says:

    Brian,

    I was pretty sure they would be destroyed at a quicker rate once they were re-listed and mentioned so in many threads on this issue, one thing that seems to be missing is the reports of civilians killing wolves, which I would imagine is happening based on conversations I have had around Idaho and Montana, but I suspect they are not being reported as much now..

  13. avatar JB says:

    “Is there anybody that doesn’t think “management” means killing? The populations need to be reduced to a healthy, sustainable level, what else would it mean?”

    I find it interesting that you’ve chosen words like “healthy” and “sustainable” to describe the goal of reducing wolf populations. I would argue these actions have exactly the opposite effect on the ecosystem.

    But let’s be frank, shall we? Wolves are being “managed” (i.e. killed) to placate the vocal, politically well-connected interest groups in the West–ranchers and hunters. There is ABSOLUTELY no scientific basis for describing current wolf populations as “unhealthy” or “unsustainable.” They are neither, from an ecological perspective.

  14. avatar Rick Hammel says:

    Unfortunately, management should also mean management by non-leathal means, ie, cracker shells and rubber bullets. But WS is just too lazy to use these methods.

    Rick

  15. Rick,

    I don’t think they are too lazy. They just want to kill wolves. The word “management” as it has been used by the states and WS in the context of wolves has always meant “kill” and nothing else.

    Increasingly they are happy to sacrifice livestock as an excuse to go after more wolves.

    That why I’m glad Brian Ellway said it so plainly (although I don’t know who he is).

  16. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    Are these guys still getting compensated either by Montana or DOW ?

  17. Brian,

    Defenders of Wildlife quit the compensation business, but now Montana has a compensation fund.

    I have heard from someone in Defenders that Montana’s analysis is not at all rigorous compared to Defenders’.

    In other words, these people may be getting paid for dead animals not killed by wolves; indeed not killed by any predator.

  18. avatar jerry b says:

    Brian….there’s a “State Compensation Board” which received “seed” money from Defenders to get started. George Edwards runs the board.

  19. avatar Salle says:

    Well…

    So, if “management” = killing wolves…

    Perhaps the definition of “compensation” should be altered to mean: Compensation in the form of education and training in nonlethal methods of “handling” wolves with follow-up reporting on whether these methods are actually put to use by the ranchers who have experienced depredations.

    If you remove the dollar sign from the equation you might get a different set of results and real incentive toward ensuring fewer depredations by enhancing their animal husbandry techniques.

    maybe.

  20. Salle,

    Unfortunately, I don’t think dollars make much of a difference in these matters.

    The true monetary cost of wolves is so small it doesn’t motivate a change in behavior.

    Tears sheds over the dead calf or sick old bull are made of glycerin, and the dollar loss or gain from compensation has little financial effect except for the poorest, most marginal operations.

  21. avatar Salle says:

    Yeah but the press coverage would have to eventually turn its gaze to the new efforts to inform the livestock industry and the rest of the planet that the rules have changed and, therefore, not quite so interesting when the truth about lax attention to the actual safety of the precious domestic animals is revealed.

    At least that’s the transition I imagine would eventually take place. If it weren’t a dollar sign issue, there might not be so much interest in the hoopla and whining.

  22. avatar Brian Ellway says:

    Save Bears said “one thing that seems to be missing is the reports of civilians killing wolves, which I would imagine is happening based on conversations I have had around Idaho and Montana, but I suspect they are not being reported as much now..”

    If you look at the Idaho Wolf Updates it will show wolf mortality in 3 categories: Wildlife Services, 10j and other. I would imaging the “other” categorie is a lot of the civilians (SSS). There have been 134 wolf mortalitys classified as “other” since 2003 in Idaho. I don’t expect hunters in Idaho are going to be waiting around for this to be decided in court.

  23. I personally don’t worry much about SSS.

    “Kills of opportunity” don’t take out the pack. It may disrupt the pack, but the end result of that could well be more wolf pups rather than fewer as non-breeding wolves become the alphas of two smaller packs where once there was one.

    Wildlife Services is the problem — a rouge agency with high technology and a bad attitude.

  24. avatar Brian Ellway says:

    I think you are right Ralph. Even a hunting season will have little effect on the population. I spend a ton of time in the mountains hunting and hiking and although I see lots of sign and often hear wolves, I’ve actually seen them on very few occasions. Once they get shot at a few times they will become even more elusive.

  25. avatar John d. says:

    “Once they get shot at a few times they will become even more elusive.”

    Brian,
    That’s stupid. Thinking that killing will teach the others to ‘behave’. You’ve not studied wolf behaviour or breeding habits very much have you?

  26. avatar Salle says:

    The problem with hunting wolves and/or just shooting them is that the effect on pack dynamics is at play.

    Wolves are very social animals, they have a family structure where the younger betas and pups learn from the alphas and then there are the leadership roles the alphas play. (Why do you think the Native Americans value their social structure so?)

    When you shoot a wolf that you see, even if other wolves are present, do you know which is an alpha and which is a subadult or yearling or pup? Do you know how to make such a determination through the gun sight? Do you think most wolf hunters would have that knowledge either? How many wolf hunters do you think would be willing to take a course in learning how to identify the animal’s status in the pack? Is there really a blanket strategy for making such determinations?

    Those would be the question that need to be answered before a hunt could actually be a reasonable and acceptable method of management. Answers to those questions also are not taking into account that wolves actually regulate their pack size based on the prey available within their established range. They don’t require management.

    People and their activities in the wild places are what need management, including grazing allotments. Of course, insisting on that rationale will get you a bunch of whining and complaining about individual rights, regulation, hunting rights and all that pap.

  27. avatar Roy says:

    Alot of effort had already been made to “condition” this pack……….. http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/11/30/state/80st_081130_wolves.txt

    Sometimes you have to cut your loses. You folks that sued to block delisting are responsible for this slaughter. Would of never happened if delisting wasn’t overturned. Fact!

  28. avatar JB says:

    Roy opined: “Sometimes you have to cut your loses. You folks that sued to block delisting are responsible for this slaughter. Would of never happened if delisting wasn’t overturned. Fact!”

    Hmm. Are you suggesting that the agency would not have killed wolves in response to depredations had wolves been removed from the list of threatened and endangered species? Or maybe that removing wolves from ESA protections would’ve magically prevented the depredations? Or perhaps you’re suggesting that they would not have needed to kill the pack because “hunters” would’ve done the job for them?

    Whatever your logic, it is apparent that you and I define “fact” quite differently.

  29. avatar Brian Ellway says:

    John d. Says:
    December 10, 2008 at 5:56 pm
    “Once they get shot at a few times they will become even more elusive.”

    Brian,
    That’s stupid. Thinking that killing will teach the others to ‘behave’. You’ve not studied wolf behaviour or breeding habits very much have you?

    John D., let me explain what I said in 4th grade terms so you can understand. The big bad wolf sees his little brother or daddy get shot by a creature that walks on two legs and suddenly, he thinks creature on two legs bad… I need to run and hide when I see or smell him.

    It’s simple learned behavior. I’m not saying they will suddenly “behave” as you suggested. They will simply gain a greater fear of humans and we won’t see much of them. It works for bears, mt. lions and coyotes.

  30. avatar Roy says:

    JB,

    Read Brian’s easy to understand wisdom.

    Anyone catch that the anti-hunting group “Big Wildlife” is part of this coalition? I thought you guy’s were pro-hunting?

  31. avatar chuck parker says:

    JB–Death is a poor learning experience for bears–they don’t run in packs like wolves. Kill a solitary male bear, and it’s just a dead bear that can’t communicate with other bears. Kill a female bear with cubs, and the cubs generally die, too. Now you’ve got 2 or 3 dead bears, and 0 smart bears.

    Several generations of black bears have lived their entire lives within the friendly confines of Yellowstone Park, where they are not hunted. Those bears have far fewer conflicts with people than hunted bears outside the park.

    Grizzlies in Yellowstone have less conflicts with hikers and people than grizzlies outside the park have with hunters and people. There’s no legal hunting season on bears outside Yellowstone, but hunters kill grizzlies every year, so there has been a defacto hunting season. The bears that get shot aren’t any smarter. They’re dead. And killing them is not teaching the surviving bears to avoid people.

    JB “The big bad wolf sees his little brother or daddy get shot by a creature that walks on two legs and suddenly, he thinks creature on two legs bad… I need to run and hide when I see or smell him. It’s simple learned behavior. I’m not saying they will suddenly “behave” as you suggested. They will simply gain a greater fear of humans and we won’t see much of them. It works for bears, mt. lions and coyotes.”

  32. avatar Bonnie says:

    Roy, thanks for the link to the Helena story, but I didn’t see anything about what had been done to condition the pack. However, I did find it interesting that in the article, dated 11/30/08, the wolf specialist stated that they had already killed 7 wolves and estimated that there were about 5 remaining. How did 5 or so suddenly become 19 by 12/7/08? Even the most rabid anti-wolf groups don’t claim that sort of population explosion.

    Another question that has occured to me. Was the livestock that was killed (3 llamas, 3 calves, 2 heifers, and a bull) all owned by the same person? If not, how many different owners were involved? Did all this depredation occur in just one part of the pack’s range or was it spread out? What kind of anti-wolf measures were taken? Was there any wolf attractions in the area(s) where the depredations occured. I seem to recall a case in Central Idaho where some poor innocent rancher was repeatedly targeted by wolves and then we found out that they were being drawn to a bone pile he had on his property. Perhaps there was a similar problem here.

  33. avatar Bonnie says:

    Oops! I forgot to put quotes around bone pile.

  34. Related to what Chuck Parker wrote, I have encouraged Wildlife Services and the state agencies to let the wolves shot lie as a warning to the other members of a pack.

    I don’t know if it would work, but experimentation is the way we learn things.

    They haven’t done this citing a list of bureaucratic concerns (of which I am skeptical)

  35. avatar SAP says:

    Ralph – that’s a good idea about leaving killed wolves in the field for a while so the other wolves would learn what had happened. It’s worth a try — I don’t think it would need to lay there longer than 48 hours, and the agencies could take their genetic sample in the field. Apart from people stealing the carcass, I don’t think there are any concerns that would outweigh the value of giving it a try.

    Wolves sometimes seem to leave an area after a control action. Conceivably, a masters student could take field reports from Wildlife Services and FWP and see whether there was any correlation between limited control actions and surviving wolves making a big move out of the area.

    Such a project would depend on having some wolves radioed, having someone take telemetry locations immediately after the control action, and on the willingness of agencies to share such information. It wouldn’t be formal hypothesis testing, rather just taking a massive amount of data and looking for patterns.

  36. avatar Salle says:

    I developed and wrote a proposal for a study that involves “conditioning” of wolves in central Idaho last July but am having difficulty finding funding for it. It’s a more proactive, long-term study with, hopefully long-term effects. I was urged to do the study and I have been urged to continue to seek funding for it but I am getting weary as the current national economic situation is having a negative effect on grants too. I have many academics wanting to be involved and I have some personnel wanting to work with me but I have been stifled by the national economy issue.

    Seems that nobody in the government wants to try anything but killing. The livestock operators don’t seem very interested in anything else either. I’m surprised that DoW was able to conduct the Phantom Hill project but then, they have the big name and resources that I don’t have access to. Their project was a success, for what it was worth, but it wasn’t a long-term oriented endeavor either.

    Does that tell you anything when it comes to even trying?

  37. avatar SAP says:

    Salle – I’m in the same boat. I spent a lot of 2008 welding, fixing fence, killing weeds, working cattle, and writing grant proposals (mostly for work on grizzly conservation).

    Is Phantom Hill not going to be a long term project? I really believe that if people* are sincere about reducing wolf-livestock conflicts and consequently the need for lethal control, we need to really invest a lot in a few places, rather than invest a little in a lot of places. We need multi-wolf-generation projects to learn from. To paraphrase what GK Chesterson said about Christianity: “It’s not that coexistence has been tried and found wanting, it’s that coexistence has been found difficult and left untried.”

    *Standard disclaimer: not everyone wants to “reduce” conflicts; some have assessed the situation and concluded that ranching just has to go. I respect their considered opinions, and respect their sincerity too. In contrast, those who pay lip service to coexistence without being realistic about what it’s going to take to get there are operating in bad faith.

  38. avatar Salle says:

    SAP,

    “Is Phantom Hill not going to be a long term project? I really believe that if people* are sincere about reducing wolf-livestock conflicts and consequently the need for lethal control, we need to really invest a lot in a few places, rather than invest a little in a lot of places. We need multi-wolf-generation projects to learn from.”

    It is my understanding that it will be run again next year, provided there’s funding and cooperation available.

    The problem, that I see with this project, is that it is not a test of conditioning with wolves, rather it’s a livestock producer conditioning project that does little in terms of protecting the wolves. The process is that the personnel are out there penning up the livestock and staying with them and scaring off the wolves when they come around. Once the guardians leave the area, the whole thing is like it never happened and the wolves have learned little if anything. They can still end up dead from control actions if they prey on the livestock of other producers not participating in the project at a later date.

    My project has a very different perspective and process that may actually help the wolf pack(s) learn from the actions I take as well as teach the stakeholders some things while developing a database tool for use in future studies. But nobody’s really listening outside of a small circle of parties who helped in developing the project.

    And then, I’m from a small organization that nobody’s heard much about and has a small budget.

  39. avatar John d. says:

    Brian Ellway,

    Wolves are fearful of humans instinctively
    “let me explain what I said in 4th grade terms so you can understand. The big bad wolf sees his little brother or daddy get shot by a creature that walks on two legs and suddenly, he thinks creature on two legs bad… I need to run and hide when I see or smell him.”

    Shooting wolves doesn’t work. Wolves are killed all year around in Canada but they still have thousands of depredations. Dead wolf learns nothing, it increases the chances of more depredations through the destabilisation of packs.
    Or, it just leaves an opening for another pack and so forth until there is significant damage to the local population count.

  40. For the record, the Phantom Hill project has been approved for a second year.

    Salle’s proposal is different, but the goal the same. It’s too bad there is so much money to kill and so little to stop things before they happen.

  41. avatar JB says:

    Roy,

    The problem with Brian’s “easy to understand wisdom” is that, while it is easy to understand, it is not necessarily wise. I think we can all agree that a dead wolf learns nothing–at least nothing it has time to implement. The follow-up question (raised by Brian’s comments) is whether social learning occurs when a pack member witnesses a pack mate being killed and associates that event with the presence of humans. For this type of learning to occur: (1) other pack mates must be present when the shooting occurs, (2) the hunter must be close enough that the wolf perceives his or her presence, (3) the presence of the hunter must be associated with some negative stimulus (conceivably, the gun shot itself or the loss of a pack mate), (4) the behavior (i.e. allowed proximity to humans) must occur infrequently enough that it isn’t overwhelmed by other experiences–that is, animals can “unlearn” a conditioned response unless the behavior is reinforced through repeated stimuli (this is, ironically, called extinction).

    Finally, in addition to these assumptions, the wolf must associate cattle with the presence of humans. Given western livestock management practices, it is this last assumption that I find untenable. Thus, I disagree with your assertion that allowing hunting would’ve prevented the livestock depredations that precipitated the “control” of the Hog Heaven Pack.

    PS. I apologize if 4th graders are incapable of understanding my response.

  42. JB,

    Good answer.

    One thing you said — the wolves must associate cattle with the presence of humans — bears repeating because seeing cattle on the western range and seeing their owners or employees is a connection hard for people to determine, much less wolves.

    There’s no boy out there “to cry wolf.”

  43. avatar JB says:

    Thanks, Ralph. Too many myths out there that need debunking. The idea that fear of humans is “natural” is also a myth. Wild animals (and especially canids) tend to be neophobic–they fear (or at least avoid) novel objects. Let me back up–canids go through a short socialization period (first few months) where they are essentially fearless. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as pups should not be exposed to/encounter anything that is harmful to them during this time. Things encountered during socialization are generally not feared once these animals reach adulthood (unless they are associated with a negative stimulus). The fear or avoidance of humans is a result of (1) non-exposure, (2) aversive conditioning, and (3) social learning. I suppose these processes are all “natural” but it should be stressed that wolves don’t come out of the womb fearing humans.

  44. avatar Save bears says:

    JB,

    It should be stressed that nothing comes out of the womb fearing anything, fear is a learned behavior as is many different emotions and behaviors..

  45. avatar JB says:

    Save bears,

    Thanks for keeping me honest!

  46. avatar Layton says:

    Ralph,

    “Related to what Chuck Parker wrote, I have encouraged Wildlife Services and the state agencies to let the wolves shot lie as a warning to the other members of a pack.”

    At least one of the “control agents” that I know does that now — the only time he even visits one of the critters afterward is to pick up a collar and/or a corpse if someone wants a necropsy.

  47. Layton,

    That’s good to hear. I wish the results were shared.

  48. avatar JEFF E says:

    I wonder how effective the aversion therapy by death would actually be (doesn’t work well with humans) as I have heard that something dead will change scent drastically within the first 24 hr(??) and will then not be recognized as what it was when living.
    Basically just turns to food and fertilizer. Maybe one of the biologists know more

  49. avatar Layton says:

    Jeffy,

    I’ll be darned — I made a comment, you didn’t even make a wise assed remark about it!! I really hope you’re not sick this close to the holiday season — 8)

    Merry Christmas.

  50. avatar John d. says:

    Too bad the gesture wasn’t reciprocated.

  51. avatar Jonathan Mear says:

    Ralph, didn’t I send you an article about that killing of two cows near Kalispell a couple of months ago? I’m surprised it took those idiots this long to react, but they did what I expected. How sad… Who wants to go cow hunting?

  52. avatar Layton says:

    It was John — you’re just a bit to dense to realize it.

  53. avatar John d. says:

    Oh well then pardon me Layton, just that last comment you made seemed very tongue in cheek.

  54. avatar Heather says:

    I wish the comments were not closed on “Yellowstone Wolf pack encircles 2 photographers …” I wanted to comment that that is a BEAUTIFUL story and would like to see more of that than the above named story … which is painful

  55. avatar Heather says:

    Havent been here for awhile and I am sad to see people stil degrading each other … one of the reasons I left. (above comment from Layton) how offensive

  56. avatar vickif says:

    Heather,

    Layton holds little back. (Come one Layton, you need to play better with others….make the points I know you want to, but don’t be so dog gone mean. You are articulate, you don’t need to go that far.)

    Don’t be discouraged….I have missed your optomism and kindness. Glad to see you back.

  57. avatar Layton says:

    Vickif/John d./Heather/et al,

    C’mon folks, how about a little holiday levity?? I think you people (some anyway) have your hats on toooooo tight.

    Jeffy and I have a history, a fairly long one, and it SEEMS to be lightening up a little bit. Look at the smily face, take a chill pill and give me a break — for Christmas at least.

    I made a remark that I thought was rather light hearted, Jeffy seems to have accepted it, why can’t you??

  58. avatar Heather says:

    doesnt look that way when I am not in your comfy little circle maybe think about how it looks to others that are reading this the first time As well this is not a light subject in my opinion.

  59. avatar Heather says:

    How about holiday levity for wolves? the story above is sickening…

  60. avatar vickif says:

    Layton,

    Geez guy, don’t be a hater cuz your gold star turned bronze. Ya know I still love ya! (Or tollerate, sometimes like, often give you credit, have been known to admire your umph, get really pissed at…okay, you know what I mean.)

  61. avatar snuhwolf says:

    I live in the area. Interesting run up to the eventual eliminaton of the pack was the increasing “eyewitness reports” in the local paper (daily interlake) about increasing predation they attributed to wolves. So they set it up in the public mind that there was this rogue pack near marion-kila that was killing pets, stock, etc. When the FWS finally offed the pack there was little protest since the press had done its job. It was a nice smear campaign by a newspaper with a very conservative editor. Ultimately what FWS *wants* is to have another Big Trophy animal -wolves- to draw money to montana where stupid people can “relate to nature” by killing it.

  62. snuhwolf,

    Thanks for this information. I understand that this mass wolf killing is in fact an informal tryout for similar “control actions” in Montana and Idaho.

    If they get away with this, there will quickly be more. Wildlife Services, like the Bush public lands plunders, know they only have about a month left.

  63. avatar snuhwolf says:

    Theres a problem with FWS in that some of the people who “represent” the area are little more than political appointees with *no* relevant wildlife sciences knowledge or background under their belts. Wyomings “plan” is total wolf elimination, not management. The FWS person from this area wants delisting ASAP. How his background in real estate qualifies him to make such “informed” decisions is a real puzzle for sure.

  64. avatar Barb Rupers says:

    Save bears, I asked about the status of northen wolf vs the experimental population in southern Montana and received the following resonse:
    jburnham Says:
    January 6, 2009 at 10:17 PM
    Barb,
    from http://fwp.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=35703

    Across northern Montana where wolves are classified as endangered, agency management
    decisions will be more conservative. Also, livestock owners or private citizens are not allowed to
    haze or harass wolves or kill wolves seen attacking livestock or domestic dogs.

    Wildlife Services does the actually killing, but the feds defer to Montana’s management plan as much as possible as they both consider wolves to be recovered and the major legal hangups with de-listing are with Wyoming’s plan.

Calendar

December 2008
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: