Possible hitch is discovery that eastern timber wolf is a different species than Great Lakes wolves-

It would certainly be good politics if the wolf could be delisted here because the state wolf management plans and public opinion is so much more favorable than in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Good work and good folks should be rewarded, IMO.

There is a problem in that the gray wolf of the Great Lakes, canis lupis had been found to be clearly different from canis lupis lycaon (the eastern timber wolf) which is now being classified as not just a sub-species, but a separate species of wolf — canis lycaon — but I think keeping the Great Lakes wolves listed is very bad politics and an inefficient way of conserving lycaon, the latter being an almost entirely a resident of eastern Canada. We need to help our friends in Canada.

Feds make new attempt at delisting Midwest wolves. “The federal government is ready to try again to take wolves off the endangered species list in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.”
By: John Myers, Duluth News Tribune.

It should be noted that canis lycaon has been interbreeding with coyotes for many years now to produce the large northeastern “coyote,” on which Dr. Jon Way is an expert (Way posts in this forum).

Tagged with:
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.

77 Responses to Feds to make new attempt delisting Midwest wolves

  1. jon says:

    A guy by the name of Bruce Hemming has claimed that 10,000 Michigan deer hunters have quit deer hunting altogether because the wolves in MI supposedly ate all of the deer.

    • timz says:

      Bummer, guess they’ll have to stay home on Sunday’s this fall and suffer with watching the Lions.

      • jon says:

        It amazes me that some of these anti wolfers believe that a few hundreds wolves is going to wipe out the whole deer population just like that. I believe that hunters who fail at getting their dee,r rather than face responsibility for their failure blame and use wolves and other predators as scapegoats for the why reason they failed at deer hunting.

      • jon says:

        This guy is a delusional crackpot. Here is what he is saying.


        Protect Rural Americans, Jobs and hunting culture. Remove all gray wolves from the Endangered Species act. They do no meet the definition of Endangered species with an estimate 100,000 wolves in North American this is a huge waste of tax payer money. It is documented fact that wolves have put ranchers out of business, that rural communities who depend on hunters coming in are suffering every where the wolves are because they have wiped out the game herds. In Michigan alone over 330,000 hunters have quit costing the State in lost license sales $4.8 million dollar in lost revenue. The Eco tourism is a joke. Have all wolf lovers pay a special tax of 25% of their income to pay the ranchers, small business owners and the States for all the lost money due to the wolves wiping out the deer and elk herds. Stop allowing the tiny greedy fringe groups that make huge 6 figures salaries crying about wolves ruin the land. The wolves have wiped out the moose, bighorn sheep and Mt Goats in Yellowstone park. Time to stop wasting money on the wolves as they turn our landscape once teaming with wildlife to a barren wasteland.

      • Save bears says:


        Take note, there could very well be 100K wolves in North America, now remember this encompasses, far more that just the US.

        What I find disturbing, is we are seeing more and more of these types of letters in the press as of late.

        I really think shit is hitting the fan and is going to make a very big stink in the very near future..

      • jon says:

        Wolves as a whole are not endangered as you already know sb, but anti wolfers talk as if elk are endangered and I think most of us can safely that that there are many more elk in the world than wolves. There are sure as hell many more elk than wolves in the us. Although it happens on both sides, some of these claims made by the anti wolfers like this Bruce Hemming guy like how he thinks 330,000 Michigan deer hunters quit deer hunting because wolves wiped out all of the deer in MI is just pure crazy talk.

      • Save bears says:


        It may very well be crazy talk, but it is happening more and more often these days, and I don’t see it dying down anytime soon.

        Science is getting thrown out the window and I think it will continue to be thrown out the window for some time to come..

        I just don’t think there is a good thing coming down the road anytime soon, and it will get worse before it ever gets better, the battle lines have been drawn, now it will be who fights a better war!

      • jon says:

        You got that right sb, it is indeed a war.

      • JB says:

        “Bummer, guess they’ll have to stay home on Sunday’s this fall and suffer with watching the Lions.”

        There are lions in Michigan? But MI DNR keeps claiming that’s a myth?! 😉

      • ProWolf in WY says:

        There may be 100,000 wolves in North American but that is a pretty big place. Most of those are in Canada and Alaska and there are probably some in those places that never have any contact with people. As far as Michigan hunters quitting because the wolves have eaten all of the deer, I think this was interesting: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1593_3504_22760-95455–,00.html. 60,000 collisions with white-tailed deer in Michigan? White-tailed deer must not be that elusive if this many are being killed by cars every year. Are you also going to tell me that less than 1,000 wolves is killing 60,000 deer? I think some hunters need to learn a little junior high math.

      • JB says:


        Those are “reported” DVCs. The estimate of actual DVCs in Michigan is twice that number. Of course, most of the deer, people, and DVCs are in the lower half of the lower peninsula, while nearly all of the wolves (and the right-wing, militia, nut-jobs) are in the upper peninsula.

    • Maska says:

      Two comments:

      1. Let’s see the stats at the end of the hunting season.

      2. Who is spreading these crazy rumors? Guys who want to eliminate the competition from those 10K other hunters? 🙂

    • jon says:

      elk, the funny thing is illegally killing a wolf will not help their cause at all. Only a sick and disturbed person would want to purposely shoot and wound a wolf.

    • william huard says:

      Anyone that would talk about gutting an animal in that fashion is sick, and there are plenty of people that see that for what it is, a group of people stuck in a John Wayne movie who are not capable of letting go of their misconceptions about predators. Pathetic

    • Save bears says:


      That very well be sick, but unfortunately it is true, and it will get worse before it gets better.

      Calling these people names and pointing out how sick they are, will do no good to stop them.

      Instead of calling people names, it would be far more productive to find a solution as far as hurting their cause, laws won’t hurt their cause, even with wolves listed, they will kill them, people say they will be prosecuted, well I have heard more than once, that they don’t care, the penalties are not that harsh, and 6 months in jail is no big deal, I have heard people state the fine is worth the end result if they can get rid of just one wolf..

      The threat of being prosecuted, does nothing, they are not afraid of it, the wolves will still be dead…call them what you want, but believe me, they don’t care..the line has been drawn and these people are willing to cross it..

    • Save bears says:


      As we well know, there are a lot of sick people in this world..

    • jon says:

      Yeah, I believe they don’t care about shooting wolves illegally. When you have these people talking about poisoning wolves, it’s easy to see that these people have a true hatred for these animals. These animals do nothing wrong. They are just animals trying to survive just like us humans and they are killed for it and hated for it. A wolf hater doesn’t want to see that or accept that. I wonder why elk doesn’t speak up to people who say those things.

    • Save bears says:


      Speaking up in a crowd of these people could get the crap beat out of you, or actually get you killed, that is why most that sit in the middle don’t speak up…

      I would challenge you to go to a gun range in these three states and start speaking up to them, I spent 26 years in the military, have been in combat and have been wounded, but I am smart enough to pick my battles, and I can tell you 100% it is not going to be at a gun range, with several dozen surrounding me with guns, that would be plain stupid!

    • jon says:

      Maybe so, maybe not. I believe elk said he was in the marines. I don’t think his fellow hunters would turn on him and beat him up just because he told them what they are saying about what they are going to do to wolves is wrong, but who knows. I do know there are indeed some who hate those who stick up for wolves with a passion and if they ever met a tree hugger as they call them, they might very well try to throw a punch at them or something. If a hunter spoke up for wolves, who knows what would happen. I guess every situation is different. Killing someone even a hunter who spoke up in defense of wolves? That is a little extreme, but who knows. Anything is possible I guess.

    • Elk275 says:

      I never said I was in the Marines. I was an active anti war protester in the early 70’s. I got a student deferment and on December 31, 1972 at five minutes to five let it expire. Then my number was so high that I would never have been drafted. A week later Nixon ended the draft. (Sorry Save Bears)

      On July 4, 2009 in front of the Courthouse on Main Street there was one of the first tea party rallies. I stood a block away and watched for 15 minutes. I have not seen the intensity of a protest like that since the anti Vietnam War protest of the late 60’s and early 70’s, things are changing.

    • Save bears says:

      No Need to be sorry Elk,

      We all travel different paths in life, I have no problem with that..

    • JB says:

      “Soon a bull a session started and an older man said don’t shoot to kill, shoot to wound, shoot a leg off or shoot them in the guts and pick up your empties and walk away. ”

      I read Save Bears’ story with some interest, as I have spent some time recently considering if/how finding a mechanism to allow for wolf hunting is in wolves’ best interest. In short, will population reductions build tolerance among hunters? I believe the question is more complicated then many would like to believe and the answer depends largely on what motivates each hunter. But I will say that statements like the one above will NOT persuade anyone that this is the right course of action. Rather, they are likley to cause entrenchment of position. Why, because we should not remove protections for an endangered species to placate the interests of people who advocate behaviors that are both illegal and constitute poor stewardship of wildlife.

      I was re-reading the DC District court’s opinion in the 2006 case against Wisconsin’s issuance of depredation permits to promote social tolerance and the following quote seems appropriate:

      (FROM: Civil Action No. 06–1279)

      “Defendants state that ‘the public interest in the long-term health and recovery of the gray wolf population in Wisconsin will be best served by permitting the states to continue their depredation control activities,’ and that ‘granting Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction will not further the ESA’s overarching purpose of recovering species,’ citing the allegedly increased public support that will accompany lethal control of ‘problem’ wolves. …Congressional intent behind the adoption of the ESA and iterated throughout the language of the Act itself makes crystal clear that the ‘public interest’ lies in the protection of the endangered gray wolf–not in the lethal taking of ‘problem’ gray wolves in the hopes of creating a selected-for gray wolf population that never interferes with livestock or hunters’ kills. Simply put, the recovery of the gray wolf is not supported by killing 43 gray wolves…
      As succinctly stated by Plaintiffs, ‘[t]here is no support for the idea that Congress intended the FWS to cater to criminal behavior and cotton to social intolerance as a strategy for endangered species recovery.'”

    • Save bears says:


      That was Elk’s story, not mine.

    • Hemming sent in a comment today. I didn’t approve him for comments, but here it is:

      Author : Bruce Hemming (IP: , host671420020167.direcway.com)
      E-mail : prohuman@daktel.com

      Jim you seem to be implying to allow wolves to wipe other animals is great plan. I know there is a lot of animal haters like yourself out there that thinks it cool wolves torture and maimed other animals. It takes a certain kind of psychopath to love wolves so much you want to see barren landscape. Those of us standing up for the Deer, elk, cattle, ducks, geese, dogs, Mt Goats, Bighorn sheep, and moose are the true conservationist.

      The Greedy Defenders of Wildlife could care a less about the wolves or the other animals this is simple a cash cow for them to collect their multi millions of dollars from gullible people. But I take it you are in one of these groups maybe even collecting huge salaries as our wildlife is being ripped to shreds.

      You are so right when you said ” Sometimes, WM, enough is enough, and you take a stand and you fight for what you believe in. I think the environmental community has largely forgotten that, and their roots.” It is time to take a stand against the illegal planting of wolves that is putting ranchers out of business, I guess you want to be eating imported Chinese beef.

      Then you say you want to talk to the convicted Eco Terrorist Dave Foreman? I guess you think eco terrorism is cool. You know Foreman is the radical far left wing extremist that was caught trying to buy thermite grenades to take down the national power grid? Also the former editor of the radical eco terrorist journal Earth First. You know the radical rag that was found in the Unabomber home. I take it that means you like illegal terrorist bombs
      and people getting killed. .

      • JB says:

        It’s like McCarthyism for conservationists…you’re labeled as treasonous for voicing an opinion that’s different from the right-wing fear-mongers. Reagan’s efforts to keep America under-educated and gullible have come home to roost.

        P.S. Somebody should tell Canada that with nearly 10 times as many wolves as we have in the U.S., they are doomed!

  2. jon says:

    sb, that sounds like psychotic behavior. No different than the behavior of someone like Toby Bridges who advocates putting xylitol out to poison wolves. To purposely wound an animal so it can die a slow death is sick and disturbing. I bet elk doesn’t even say anything to these people he affiliates himself with.

    • Save bears says:

      As I said Jon, there are many sick people in this world..

      And I can guarantee you William is under estimating the folks dedicated to getting rid of wolves..

      You can make fun, you can call names..but there is a very dedicated group of people out there to prove their point, and they figure a bullet is far cheaper than a lawyer..call them what you will, it will do no good.

      • jon says:

        sb, my personal opinion is that a small # of wolves will die. It pisses me off extremely knowing this will happen and there is not much that can be done to stop it. The wardens look the other way. I believe they have always even when wolves were delisted. The probability of catching a poacher and prosecuting him is very slim imo. The system in dealing with hunters turned poachers is very flawed. It’s such a sad disgrace when you can get away with killing wildlife.

      • Save bears says:


        You might think it is a small number, but just take some time and look at all of the comments at meeting, on news article, on blogs, there is a far larger number than you think.

        I know several that have bought hunting licenses, just if they get caught in the woods with guns, they have the proper paper work during hunting season, they are not looking for deer or elk, they are looking for wolves and they are not riding around in trucks, drinking beer, they are getting out and walking, they are getting off road, where the wardens never go..

      • jon says:

        sb, hunters in Idaho weren’t able to kill the full 220 wolves in the wolf hunt quota last wolf hunting season and the hunting season was 7 months long I believe. I still believe that only a small # of wolves will be killed. Wolves are smart animals. Hunters turned poachers, killing wolves illegally might give them some satisfaction, but in the long run, it won’t help their cause. It just gives the environmental organizations more fuel. Catching a poacher is almost impossible, but I don’t think many wolves will be killed.

      • Save bears says:


        The legal hunting seasons that happened last year, have nothing to do with what is going on, remember there were rules, regulations and hunting districts with quotas, in this situation, none of those exist, this is completely different than a regulated hunt. See that is where people are making mistakes, “well they couldn’t fill the quota last year, how do you think they are going to kill wolves this year!”

        Remember, a whole bunch has changed since the legal seasons last year..

      • jon says:

        What I was showing you sb is that wolves aren’t necessarily that easy to find and kill. Maybe for some, but not all.

      • Save bears says:


        Problem is, it does not need to be all, it only takes a few to make a very large dent..

  3. jon says:

    I don’t know, but I bet my bottom dollar he doesn’t say anything to those guys. I guess that kind of thinking is considered normal to some. To shoot a wild animal purposely to wound it and make it die a slow and painful death, that seems like serial killer behavior to me. That type of behavior and thinking isn’t normal.

  4. william huard says:

    And people that do that are cowards, I couldn’t live in a region of the country that has so little value for wildlife, except for the wildlife of course that they want to protect because they feel they are the only ones entitled to kill it!

    • Save bears says:


      They would tell you, “great we don’t want you to live here anyway!” there is a hell of a lot of people in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, that don’t want anyone to move there, most of all what they consider wolfies, greenies and tree huggers(not my words) but what I hear quite often..

    • jon says:

      I’m with you 100% William. I have nothing against ID, WY, or MT. I am sure they are beautiful states. It’s just the ignorant people who hate wolves for the stupidest reasons I can’t stand. I don’t like people who have a lack of regard for wildlife. The only animals that are considered important are the game animals you can hunt and predators are viewed as worthless vermin.

      • Save bears says:


        I have stated over and over again, they don’t care if you or anyone else understands!

  5. william huard says:

    Now I am just waiting for Elk 275 to tell me that I just don’t understand. The problem is I do understand! People are IGNORANT

    • Save bears says:

      Yes, some are, the problem is, they have guns and they know how to use them, ignorance really has no bearing when it comes to this issue, you might think it does, but really it doesn’t…

  6. Elk275 says:


    I justed listened. These people are not sick, they are business owners, workers, taxpayers and I really do not care who there are. Most of the talk was about the numbers of grizzly bears. On of the shooter had seen a grizzly that morning achery hunting.

    At first most of area population was for a limited number of wolves in Yellowstone and the surrounding eco-system — wolves belong in limited numbers. But that is my feelings. I was all for the reintroduction of wolves as they would kept the elk moving and hopefully move them from private land to accessible property.

    Today those wolves are reducing hunting opportunity, not killing all of the elk but reducing there numbers, which in years to come will reduce the number of tags issued and hunting opportunities.

    You have to understand that there are people with different values than you and you might be sick to them. We are all different.

    I still am wondering if you know what less than an inch means, Save Bears knows.

    • jon says:

      Maybe not to you, but that is considered psychotic and disturbing behavior to me. Even if I did hunt and heard some hunters talking like that, I would not associate myself with people like that. I expect and accept that people will have extreme opinions like that. I understand they have different values than me, but I still consider that sick behavior. Maybe the people who are saying that are most likely just venting the anger they have. If they actually go through with what they are saying and shoot to wound so the animal will die a slow ad painful death, than there is a serious problem.

    • Save bears says:

      I agree Elk,

      Sick to one, is normal to another, but using that type of terminology, will never solve what is going on, I know many that one way or another they are going to have their revenge, displaced or not, it is going to happen..

  7. william huard says:

    I just finished two books written in the 70s about the West and Predators. The first was the Olsen book “Slaughter the Animals Poison the Earth”, the second was “Incident at Eagle Ranch”. Both these authors were not greenies as Layton or save bears would say. They both described the PATHOLOGICAL PARANOIA of the Sheepgrowers and Hunters.

    • Save bears says:


      I have never called anyone a greenie, get your freaking information right, I simply repeated what I have heard.

      That is the problem with many on both sides of this issue, there is no middle, it is either for or against, and I can tell you, it is far from that, sitting in the middle, I get to see the worst of both sides…

  8. william huard says:

    I can only hope Save Bears that the predator will have the last laugh in the next life and that wolf that is gut shot will have a chance at payback against an unarmed hunter with the help of a few pack members! Now wouldn’t that be something! People had better hope that GOD has a sense of humor

    • Save bears says:

      that is if there is a god William, I also know many that don’t believe there is one..

      And before you make another statement, I believe in god, I go to church and I have a bible that I read quite often!!!

      • jon says:

        sb, I don’t believe in god myself. I look at the world and how terrible it can be and you have to ask yourself, where is god to stop all of these terrible atrocities that go on in the world? I believe those who actually go out there and shoot to wound wolves, karma will get them sometime down the line and maybe they will regret what they did. Not all, but maybe some. karma is a bi&^$.

  9. william huard says:

    Ok I’ll get my freakin information right- and I think people like you that claim to be impartial are full of it! I think you enjoy this issue of a bunch of degenerates illegally killing wolves

    • Save bears says:

      Okay William, think what you want, I can’t change that, just like I can’t change the wolf haters minds, even though I do try, I have been on quite a few of the Washington State Blog sites today, talking about wolves because of the press release and trying to stop the bullshit untrue comments and beliefs..

      I would really like you to tell me to my face I am full of it, but of course I know that will never happen..so I can only tell you to…on here

    • Save bears says:

      And how can your surmise I would “Enjoy” anyone flaunting the law and killing illegally? Please point out what brings you to that belief? I am simply a realist and I talk to these people all of the time, don’t mean I like it.

      what I can’t believe is you people that actually think a black robe in Missoula is really going to affect these people, get your act together and face real life..

      It is illegal to rob banks but people still do it, it is illegal to sell drugs but many still do it, it is illegal to do a lot of things, but people still do it, that is reality, plain and simple, why do you think this issue is any different?

      • william huard says:

        Educated people have respect for the law, do you think that there is even the slightest chance that this wolf ruling was the right one? People that think they will take matters into their own hands for any reason have no respect for authority or the law! And they show they are not to bright!

      • Save bears says:


        I never said it was the wrong ruling, I don’t condone illegal acts and I turn in every single incident of suspected poaching I see and I have said that many times on the blog, I follow the law and have always followed the law, I have testified against poachers in the past, and won’t hesitate to do so in the future.

        I am simply a realistic person that spend a lot of time in the field, I know where to pick my battles and work to make sure things are done in a legal way, but never once have I said the ruling was wrong, and you would have to prove that I have.

        Based on the current ESA law, the judge had no real choice, the USFWS was flawed in their de-listing by splitting things along political lines…this was not a re-listing based on them being endangered, it was a re-listing based on the way the law is wrote, but again, I have never said it was wrong..

        That is the problem with so many on both sides of this issue, they don’t take the time to actually read what someone writes, or listen to what someone says..

  10. Elk275 says:

    For the record

    For many years, I have been able to give approximately $1000 to environmental organizations ranging from The Predator Alliance now Keystone to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. There were times when someone would call and need $500 for something special, a check was written. Within the last five years I drop several and concentrated my efforts on organizations that supported creation of new wilderness areas, restriction on off road use and wildlife corridors. I do not have that type of income and my contributions are smaller and limited. When things were good, I pledge Yellowstone to Yukon $1000 and I still owe $700, they will be paid.

    I have noticed that the local environmental organizations have become less visible and smaller staffs. I have to be careful what I say, but most of those that I talk with want the wolf issue to go away. That means letting the states control the wolves and getting back to land issues.

  11. Ralph Maughan says:

    I think Save Bears and Elk are just trying to warn us of a angry hysteria that has been stirred up by rabble rousers in some rural areas. Today you can spread hysterical rumors all across the world by the Internet. Anger too. Look at that Florida preacher who stirred up the who Islamic world and alarmed American generals and the President by saying he was going to burn a pile of Qurans.

    I’m sure a lot of what SB and Elk report is true and that it alarms them, as it should.

    Any kind of discussion with people who disagree with you nowadays is starting to get dangerous. People keep to their own groups and are careful what they say in public.

    It goes way beyond this issue, and I think it is a sign of a collapsing democracy.

    • Save bears says:


      You are so right, I am not a supporter of illegal activities, and I am sure Elk is not either, we are simply hunters, we follow the law, and don’t think that criminals are good, but so many now a days, simply don’t understand, there are elements out there, that don’t respect the law.

      You can get yourself in a world of hurt, if you make the wrong statements in the wrong group of people, I learned a long time ago about that when my life was threatened, I have carried a pistol every since that day, but I am still not dumb enough to stir the pot at the local gun range, that is plain and simple stupid, and I suspect that many that comment around the blogs, would be hard pressed to make a problem in some of these areas.

      I don’t condone illegal acts, I always turn them in, I report what I hear, but yet, I am people like me, are always classified in the wrong manner, it is amazing to me!

  12. william huard says:

    Save Bears
    States like Wyoming do not deserve to manage wolves. I remember a conversation that I had with Mike Jimenez from the USFWS. He told me the story about when he went to Utah or wherever he went to retrieve LIMPY who was caught in a coyote trap. He drove and picked up this wolf- a facinating wolf that could teach any human about courage. I don’t think any animal should be considered vermin, and I would question the integrity of any person making those judgements about wildlife

    • Save bears says:


      I have never said any animal is vermin, please point out where I did?

      Because I am realistic on this issue, does not mean I agree with with people doing illegal acts and I for the life of me don’t understand where you think I would?

      I have two degrees, I have earned in my life, one in military combat tactics and human behavior from West Point Military Academy and another in Biology from a very well respected college in Washington state, both degrees have taught me a great deal, not only about human behavior, but animal behavior. I have worked for the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, in a capacity that allowed me to actually be in the field and hear what is being said, a well as witness what is being done..does not mean I condone it in any way, shape or form.

      I have served in conflict zones and watch human behavior at its worst as well as at its best, and based on these experiences, see a lot of what I witnessed in overseas conflict zones.

      Now call these people stupid, but that still does not change the fact they can be lethal and will be.

      I have never once said, I believe in the radical elements beliefs on either side of this issue. But I can say, being realistic, is going to go father to solving this than anything else, if you don’t realize, there are elements out there, that don’t care about the law, and it does not matter how ignorant or educated they are, they are going to do what they feel is right, not what you, Elk or I think is right…

      • Save bears says:

        And to add, I am not one to blow smoke up anyone’s ass, sorry that is just the way I was raised, telling the truth is never a sin, but sometimes its not popular..

    • william huard says:

      You’re right Ryan, this is bigger than wolves. The problem is that the rural conservative population really thinks the tea party and the republicans are on their side! I don’t know anyone that makes 250,000 dollars a year – do you? These are the only people the republicans care about. As far as the information about the Oregon lawyer telling you how to kill a wolf and getaway with it- Maybe you can put that on your resume- it might even get you hired if you live in Idaho or Texas. Don’t come East- people are just alittle more enlightened about wildlife

    • jon says:

      Ryan, I have very little doubt that you will be one of those people out there trying to gut shoot a wolf. Didn’t you call us pro wolfers granola munchers the other day? Your anti wolf extremist attitude comes through loud and clear.

    • william huard says:

      Joe Miller, Sharon Angle, Ken Buck, and the latest tea party lunatic Christine Odonnel- they will save us from ourselves!!

    • Ryan says:

      “I don’t know anyone that makes 250,000 dollars a year – do you?”


      I know alot of them, I guess I am the anti-christ. Then again as I posted before, I’m not very cuddly feely about helping out people I don’t know.

      On the otherside of the Coin, problem is liberal people from the city with no clue what actually affects the rural voter or their daily life trying to tell them whats best for them.


      Once again you have no clue what you are talking about. Your so far on the opposite extreme of things, you can’t see the middle from where you sit.

      Just to be fair though, I have also used the term “greenie”, “Bongo beating hippys”, “socialist”, “Subaru driving, starbucks drinking, yuppies”, but Granola munching tree hugging, bongo beating, pot smoking hippie’s will always be my favorite :).

    • Ryan says:


      I don’t think I have said in a long time that I am anti wolf kill them all, I am just pro population control and middle ground on the issue.

    • jon says:

      Ryan, you don’t have to say anything. It is clear and obvious you are extremely anti-wolf. You are one of those people who hides his true feelings about wolves because he doesn’t want to sound too extreme or radical. I am sure when you are around your fellow wolf hating buddies, your true feelings about wolves come out. You claim that people who are trying to save wolves are extreme leftist radicals. What does that make anti wolfers like you who want to gut shoot wolves?

    • jon says:

      Ryan, you do realize there are liberals who live in MT, ID, and WY right? Not all pro wolfers live in cities like you think.

    • Elk275 says:

      Where do you live Jon?

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      Ryan, you do realize there are liberals who live in MT, ID, and WY right? Not all pro wolfers live in cities like you think.

      There is at least one of us in Wyoming.

  13. william huard says:

    The first thing that should have been added to the ESA back in the 70s was a law enforcement deterrent whereby if a person kills a federally protected wolf the penalty should be a mandatory 1 year in jail. This would eliminate the issue of people feeling confident that they would get away with the crime. The other issue however is the law enforcement people due to the culture and environment where they live not aggressively apprehending these people- because you know these Toby Bridges types have large egos and couldn’t refrain from talking about what they did to the big bad wolf. There is no teeth in the law.

    • Ryan says:

      “whereby if a person kills a federally protected wolf the penalty”


      Just the wolf or any federally protected species?

      • william huard says:

        It should apply to any animal that is protected Ryan. That is one of the problems don’t you think when people (usually hunters or ranchers) tell the rest of us what species deserve to live free from persecution and what species are vermin. There are other animals on the planet other than cattle, sheep, elk, and whitetail deer. I just finished a book entitled ‘Incident at Eagle Ranch”. The book details how a helicopter pilot turned Federal witness, to take a whole community down, from judges to Federal employees for illegally killing Eagles. Those pesky eagles always killin stuff

  14. Robert Hoskins says:

    Anyone read the book and/or seen the movie The Road? Who are the “bad guys” in The Road and why are they bad guys?

    The virulent wolf-haters are the “bad guys” here in the Rockies and they are dangerous.

    I have much the same military background and experience as Save Bears and I know he’s not blowing smoke.

    At the same time good shooters aren’t necessarily good hunters. It’s one thing to have a tight shot group on a known target at the range. It’s another to get into position in the field to put a wolf in the crosshairs.

    In short, it’s still the case that the real threat to wolves isn’t hunters, it’s government shooters and trappers in helicopters looking for wolves with radio collars.


  15. Phil says:

    If you don’t know who Bruce Hemming is, he is a AVID ANTI-WOLF and hates Wolves with a passion. This guy has traveled as far as Arizona and New Mexico in putting fear into people from Wolves. He was criticized by a news paper article in New Mexico to warn the citizens not to let this man into their homes. If you read his youtube comments, and watch his videos, he is a scary fellow that is building a anti-wolf cult. One of his videos shows him in the video with, I believe it was a bluish-green background screen with some freightening music playing while he is speaking. His talks are ALL anti-wolf, and wants to eliminate ALL Wolves, no matter it be the Gray Wolves, Southeast Red Wolves, Southwest Mexican Wolves and even ALL Canadian Wolves. ALL of his information are absolutely nothing more then fabrications. He takes a small informational aspect, and rearranges it to fit his model in views to lobby for the extinction of the species. He also lobbys to legislators and the general public in his efforts. He is an avid hunter on the side, by the way. As Americans we have always believed that individuals such as Hitler and Bin Laden should be eliminated because of the affects they have towards others in their selfish beliefs, Hemming is in the same boat in his beliefs as these other two individuals are.
    Tha fact is that Michigan has its highest Deer population in the past 3 decades. Deer are now living closer to suburbs in the Southeast region of the state, and in suburb cities in other regions of the Southeast and Southwest portions of the state because there is no space for them up north due to the large population of Deer in that region. Hemming’s 10,000 less Deer hunters in the state are ABSOLUTELY out of whack. I am a Michigan resident and research carnivores in Canada, Great Plains, Alaska and Midwest and have NEVER read any story of Michigan loosing Deer hunters, because there are MANY Deer in the state, as there are in the midwest. 30 plus million Deer in the United States, and some of the most wilderness areas, such as midwest, especially Michigan, and we are loosing Deer? That is a joke!

  16. Phil says:

    save bears:
    I have a lot of respect for all animals, especially Bears and Wolves. For you to state that Wolf populations are high is an absolute nonsense comment. Let’s begin with the midwest Wolves. The population here is about 600 in Michigan and Wisconsin each, and about 3,000 in Minnesota. The ungulate here are thriving. It has taken more then 50 years for Michigan and Wisconsin to achieve the 600 numbers, and about the same time span for Minnesota to achieve their 3,000 or so. It is not a huge boost in population in a small amount of time. Yes, Minnesota had a small population to begin with, but more then 50 years to get 3,000 Wolves? These same hunters would be complaining if it took 300 years to achieve the 3,000 population, or any other population in other regions for that matter. Let’s go to the Great Plains Wolves. In 15 years, the population went from 66 or so to around 1,500. That is not a large boost in population for the Wolves. Yes it is a large increase, but when you start off with a small number offcourse the population will increase because there is abundant amount of resources for the small population. Eventually, when the population reaches the capacity where the resources are evened out to the population, the Wolf population will either remain steady or decrease because of spacing and food not being there. Conflicts will increase and help deteriate the population, which is nature’s niche in this.
    When you have a large land base, such as in Michigan, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho and Montana, and you have abundant amounts of food sources with low human populations, with the exception of the Southern portion of Michigan, only having around 5,500 Wolves as a population is not high, it is low.

  17. Nancy says:

    Phil, I totally agree. Montana, Idaho & Wyoming – 213 million acres. Throw in areas like Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Utah and there’s another 224 million areas. Huge chunks of that land is wilderness and public land AND sparsely populated to boot! More than enough room for a few more wolves.

    • jon says:

      Nancy, even 100 wolves would be probably be considered overpopulated by some wolf haters. 1000 plus wolves in Idaho is not alot by any stretch of the imagination. 1000 wolves is nothing when you look at the bear, cougar, elk, etc populations in Idaho. Yet wolves are the overpopulated ones and you never hear a peep about bears being overpopulated. They are specifically targeting the wolf. The wolf is a threat to their heritage.

    • jon says:

      20,000 black bears in Idaho and they make a big fuss about 1000 plus wolves? It’s ludacris.


September 2010


‎"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: