Today, several groups filed a notice of intent (NOI) to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) over its decision to delist wolves in Wyoming. Delisting comes after USFWS accepted the minor changes made to the Wyoming wolf management plan which allows wolves to be killed by anyone, for any reason, and by any method throughout 85% of the state without requiring a hunting license.

Wyoming’s plan has changed very little from the plan that was rejected by the USFWS. That plan would have only protected 7 breeding pairs of wolves outside of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park, allowed for hunting in a zone in areas surrounding Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park, and allowed unfettered killing of wolves in the remaining 85% of the state.

The new plan essentially counts the 3 breeding pairs of wolves that inhabit Grand Teton National Park as Wyoming wolves so that it appears that Wyoming is committing to maintain 10 breeding pairs instead of the 7 from the previous plan. It also adds a “flex zone” where hunting would be limited with the idea that wolves can disperse during certain times of the year into neighboring Idaho, throughout the rest of the year this area is an unfettered killing zone like the rest of the state.  Hunting will also be allowed within the so-called “trophy zone” in the area surrounding the National Parks.

The delisting rule and Wyoming’s wolf plan has many flaws which will allow up to 120 of the approximately 220 wolves in Wyoming to be killed on sight.  This amount of killing, combined with Idaho’s and Utah’s poor wolf management plans, will virtually eliminate the possibility that wolves can disperse south into Utah and Colorado where there is suitable habitat.

The NOI was filed on behalf of WildEarth Guardians, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Conservation Congress, Friends of Animals, Friends of the Clearwater, National Wolfwatcher Coalition, and Western Watersheds Project.

60-day Notice of Intent letter

The Federal Register notice is here.

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole, Western Watershed Project’s Idaho Director, is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is also serves as a member of the board of directors for Buffalo Field Campaign.

56 Responses to Groups to Litigate Wyoming Wolf Delisting

  1. avatar Virginia says:

    I was hoping to read that this decision was going to be fought. The plan has been rejected by the USFW over and over and now all of a sudden, it is approved. Couldn’t possibly be because Wyoming now has another incompetent republican governor? Just what are his credentials anyway? What did he ever accomplish besides being Mary Mead’s son (?) and Cliff Hansen’s grandson? What a loser!

    • avatar TC says:

      Well, he is an attorney, served as US Attorney for Wyoming, was a prosecutor, and is a rancher from one of Wyoming’s oldest and best known ranching families. Oh yeah, he’s a Mead. This is Wyoming. He’s nearly royalty. He beat the other “almost royalty” candidate – Colin Simpson. He also beat a few less savory candidates that I will not mention by name. Who exactly did you expect to become our next governor?

      Based on what I’ve read, Governor Mead had less to do with the USFWS deal than did Senator Barrasso. Refocus your hate.

      Like it or not this suit will further alienate the obvious people, but also some of the fence-riders – it will be viewed as another envirowacky lawsuit (“at taxpayer expense” and all of the other cliches) and used as fodder for further finger pointing. Having said that, good luck; I would like to see a better wolf management plan in Wyoming. Unfortunately I think you’re a generation away from that happening.

      • avatar jon says:

        I would like to see a better wolf management plan in Wyoming. Unfortunately I think you’re a generation away from that happening.

        This is why lawsuits are being filed.

        • avatar TC says:

          Yeah, good luck with that.

          Perhaps some of the lawsuits could focus on something a little less warm, fuzzy, and charismatic, and a little more important to long term wildlife conservation and conservation of important wildlife habitat.

  2. avatar louise kane says:

    Thank God
    Its all been said before but the delisting of wolves and the states’ management of them is outrageous, shameful, and irresponsible. Looking at predator policies in the US makes me angry and disillusioned. Its difficult to believe its 2012 and we are such a sorry, stupid, backward-thinking race in how we treat wolves and other predators. Most animals for that matter.

  3. avatar Mike says:

    I donated to two of them just for this purpose.

    Go get ’em, folks.

    • avatar jon says:

      It is sad that in today’s age that the only way to protect wildlife from extremists is through the court system. I don’t blame people for using the court system. I support all of those groups filing a lawsuit against the feds. Wyoming’s plan is going to kill a lot of wolves.

  4. avatar louise kane says:

    I hope the money is pouring in.

  5. avatar Savebears says:

    Want to bet how this one is going to end up, a senator somewhere is going attach a rider to a must pass bill with no judicial review, the precedence has already been set. It has been done once and stood, it would not be surprising to see it happen again.

    • avatar Ken Cole says:

      They tried that already this session and it didn’t work. Wyoming doesn’t have a Democratic senator at risk like Montana does.

      • avatar Savebears says:

        Ken,

        With all of the dealings going on in DC, it does not take a senator from Wyoming, it can be any of them in the US to pull that..

        • avatar Ken Cole says:

          The reason that wolves were delisted in Idaho and Montana all came down to the fear that Jon Tester might lose the election in Montana and that the Democrats might lose control of the Senate.

          If the Democrats lose the Senate then, yes, I think that there will be another effort to delist them legislatively but, until then, what is the motivation for the Democrats to do it for Wyoming? I don’t see any political motivation since no Democrats are at risk in Wyoming.

          • avatar Savebears says:

            Time will tell Ken

          • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

            I think a likely explanation is that this is actually Salazar going rogue on a President who doesn’t what to think about these issues.Obama handed them over to Salazar after bad advice. Obama might not even know how this hurts him in urban areas. As for Salazar, he knows he won’t be around after the election. The GOP doesn’t want him. Democrats who helped Obama win a 2nd term don’t see him as useful.

            He is paying off his rich ranch buddies now — super rich Republicans ranchers and their heirs like governor Matt Mead — that’s fine with Salazar. Salazar knows who should rule us little people.

            • avatar Mark L says:

              yeah, it seems to me that Obama is weak on most non-urban issues like this anyway….he’s just not interested unless it has political clout for his election in an area.
              There was an issue recently raised about panthers being brought north from Florida and most states won’t touch it right now, due to politics as much as anything else.

            • avatar WM says:

              Ralph,

              ++Salazar knows who should rule us little people.++

              I am inclined to believe D advisors in the Administration are more pragmatic than that. Unleashing more pro-environment initiatives (like keeping wolves listed, stepping up enforcement on the BLM for controversial program/same thing in USDA for FS and Vilsack/Sherman) would likely unleash more dissent from the right creating even more problems for the D’s for an Obama win, holding on to the Senate and gaining seats in the House after the teabaggers cruised in two years ago.

              And, by the way, CO is a swing state for Obama in this election. Maybe even crucial for an electoral college win. Salazar is a home town boy, well liked there when he was the two time Attorney General and as a Senator. Wolves are the last thing on Obama’s and D leaderships’ mind, other than hoping they don’t create too many waves with the R’s. That I suspect is the marching order for Salazar. He is nobody’s boy, in the ranching community.

              D’s won’t likely leave the fold because of wolves/environment, and the mid-term election, where the base wasn’t motivated for some stupid reason,sure as hell ought to be the last lesson showing that being apathetic doesn’t work very well.

              This election has alot more riding on it than the environmental issues most of us think about here. Expediency is the key word in the D party, I suspect, and its ripple carries over with considerable force to Interior and USDA. I am not sure how any of this hurts Obama with environmentally leaning urban voters. They are not going to vote R as an alternative. That makes no sense (Will they not participate? See paragraph above).

            • avatar Immer Treue says:

              WM,

              “And, by the way, CO is a swing state for Obama in this election. Maybe even crucial for an electoral college win. Salazar is a home town boy, well liked there when he was the two time Attorney General and as a Senator. Wolves are the last thing on Obama’s and D leaderships’ mind, other than hoping they don’t create too many waves with the R’s. That I suspect is the marching order for Salazar. He is nobody’s boy, in the ranching community.”

              Took the words right out of my mouth! Was he well liked in CO?

            • avatar louise kane says:

              Yes Ralph my thoughts exactly. Its hard not to blame Obama for putting such a crony in that position and harder yet not to despise Salazar

  6. avatar John R says:

    From the Minnesota DNR website:
    http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/mgmt.html

    Minnesota’s wolves transitioned from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act to state management by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on Jan. 27, 2012.

    Minnesota’s Wolf Management Plan will ensure their long-term survival and monitor their population. It also will give owners of livestock and domestic pets more protection from wolf depredation.

    As authorized by the Minnesota Legislature and governor, DNR will implement a conservative and regulated hunting and trapping season in the fall of 2012. The target harvest is 400.

    Estimated at fewer than 750 animals in the 1950s, Minnesota’s 3,000 wolves are the largest population in the lower 48 states. The population has remained relatively stable for the past 10 years. In January 2012, wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan were removed from the federal threatened and endangered species list and wolf management became the responsibility of each respective state.

    DNR has not established a maximum population goal. Wolves are allowed to naturally expand their range.

    A statewide winter population of 1,600 wolves is the minimum goal. If Minnesota’s wolf population falls below this minimum, DNR will take immediate and appropriate management actions to reverse the decline and restore the population to its minimum level in the shortest possible time.

    • avatar Joseph Allen says:

      The Rocky Mountain west (MT, ID, WY) wolf issues are 20 or so years behind Minnesota AND there are virtually more farms and ranches in MN than ALL of the Montana, Idaho and Wyoming combined(due to the vast amount of public land). Education rather than obstinance is the key. This needs to be science driven management, not politically fueled hysteria.

  7. avatar Janet Y says:

    I sincerely hope that the litigation to reverse the wolf delisting has traction.

  8. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    -that ‘ Groundhog Day ‘ movie is playing again.

    All I can speculate is this Congress is done for the year. Any new Congressional mischief towards wolves in Wyoming to catch up to the ” no legal intervention” fiat applied to Montana and Idaho via the unscrupulous Simpson-Tester Rider last time around is probably not gonna happen to Wyoming. I hope Senator Barrasso blows a gasket. We’ll see.

    Congress never even got around to passing the Farm Bill and a whole bunch of other important stuff, so I really can’t see where a few wolves are gonna get advanced anywhere on the chess board.

    Wyoming’s ” hunt” is still on for October 1. Cringe.

    • avatar Leslie says:

      I live in Sunlight/Crandall area where the quota is 12 wolves, yet this last winter there were barely that many. Besides the quota, come Oct. 1, every mean-spirited hate filled red-neck around Cody is gonna buy a $15 tag and be in my neck of the woods for 2 months. I have seen the alpha female and her pup many times in these last 6 months. The pup was just 20′ away from me a few months ago, very curiously observing from behind a tree. Those poor wolves are goners. I really dread this fall and am ordering my 90 lb golden retriever an orange jumpsuit so some trigger happy wolf hater doesn’t mistake him.

  9. avatar RobertR says:

    You cannot manage ungulates with managing predaors.
    Does everyone want such an abundance of wolves to help eliminate hunting, if so your very selfish and ungulates are the sacrificial lamb.

    • avatar Mark L says:

      How many wolves have been in Minnesota without real management? How long? Are they more abundant now than 10 years ago?

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        Mark,

        MN has been at 3,000+\- wolves for the past 10 years. About 200 have been removed each year for depredations. Other than trapping, the only real beef about the hunt here is why is the hunt not concentrated in areas of depredations?

        • avatar Mark L says:

          Is there the same kind of animosity towards wolves in MN, from ranchers or hunters, or is it more of a “we need to only take out the ones that depredate livestock” attitude? Just curious how differently people react to them.

          • avatar Immer Treue says:

            Mark,

            Much more tolerance in MN. Ranches and farms are much smaller with little to no public grazing. Wolves have”always” been in the NE section of the state, Superior National Forest. Old timers don’t care much for them, folks newer to the state like them. Just have to watch their dogs.

            That said, we still have some SSS and “gut shooting” up here by those who believe they know better, The wolves
            Are killing killing all the deer and moose ‘crowd’.

            The policy in place that removed 200 or so wolves annually for depredations was generally well accepted by folks on either side of the wolf fence.

            • avatar WM says:

              The interesting thing about the MN wolf population is that it is “confined” to the NE portion of the state. There is really no formal or informal protection via state plan in the southern half. While it is not the best habitat, the wolves “just don’t go there,” is the official state explanation.

              The more logical one, is that there is a bunch of SSS going on and nobody says much about it. This is the covert version of the WY plan, according to some. In MN,they just don’t talk about it.

            • avatar timz says:

              WM totally off base. There is no reason for wolves in MN to move south, nothing there for them they don’t already have and the corridors they would have to navigate between north and south are generally heavily populated. One whole side of my family farms in southern MN, none of them have ever seen a wolf or know anyone that has. Even the DNR says southern MN sees only the occasional disperser. I spent my whole early life in northern MN and while they have their share of wolf haters most people there welcome them or are indifferent. No covert SSS as you describe exists there. Amongst farmers and hunters it’s rare they even come up in conversation

            • avatar timz says:

              I think this has more to do with tolerance level in MN than anything else.

              SERI (science and math) educational rankings by state.

              Minnesota – 2
              Wyoming – 28
              Montana – 29
              Idaho – 30 (30 being the starting point of below average category)

            • avatar WM says:

              timz,

              According to the 2001 MN wolf management plan ( http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/animals/mammals/wolves/wolfplan.pdf ) there are in essence, few protections for Zone B (the 2/3 SW part of the state), and a stated recovery population of 0 (zero). MN wolf population is monitored very loosely, and if I remember correctly few, except those on which research is being done are collared, and they are in the forsts of the north, and most have been collared by Dr. Mech, I think.

              Let me say it again. Zone B, recovery population Zero, and liberal take provisions/but reporting required for any bothering livestock. (See Map Appendix III). That is why I made the loose comparison to WY.

              My comment is based on a conversation with a MN DNR representative about 3 years ago. He just said, candidly, nobody really cares what goes on there notwithstanding ESA listed status at that time (wink, wink). They just don’t go further south, notwithstanding some but not abundant deer in parts.

              The range, according to the plan, current through late 1990’s, shows continued progressive expansion to the south (but still mostly Zone A) I have never been on the ground there, so will not doubt your word or that of your family, but,you don’t say how far south they are.

              And, there is no question the tolerance in parts of the state is much, much higher.

            • avatar timz says:

              They are in the southern quarter of the state. Most locals divide the state north/south at the Twin Cities. The farthest south a wolf has been seen by someone I know personally is Hinckley about 75 miles north of St.Paul, and about halfway into real wolf country from the Twin Cities. I grew up about halfway between the two and back then it was very rural and never seen or heard of any wolf sightings around our community. I saw plenty of them working resorts in the northern part of the state.

  10. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    I don’t know that I’m against predator management – but two things just glare about the WY plan – shooting on sight is just plain wrong and unethical, and you should have a legal hunting license for hunting any animal.

    With wolves, there is so much acrimony and irrational hatred that I don’t know that they could ever be managaged reasonably, scientifically and impartially, and probably should always stay as a threatened species under the ESA. Also an animal’s welfare shouldn’t have to stand or fall on the state of human politics.

    I have no idea why wolves and to a lesser extent coyotes, are treated this way. Cougars and bears are predators too, but they could be next I suppose. I guess this is what they mean by the changing West; wipe everything out that once stood and become the same as every other place in America.

  11. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    Does the hunt continue during the 60-day waiting period after the Notice of Intent to sue? They’ll still get to kill a few during that time. I wish there was some kind of emergency injunction. There’s really something unethical and that stinks of conflict of interest with the governor of WY and the Secretary of the Interior together on this decision.

  12. avatar Savebears says:

    Until the case is actually filed and a injunction is granted, everything goes ahead as planned.

  13. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    What I don’t understand is why taking them off the endangered species list means a hunt must automatically follow almost immediately, in the states where wolves reside.

    Also, what are the penalties for those who violate the so-called “flex zone” around the parks? I read that there would be stiffer penalties for poaching, but they didn’t specify. Instead of one slap on the wrist, they get two under the new plan? There are many hunters who follow the law, but these state management plans give too much credit for some having any kind of honor. The wolves are not to blame for the elk situation – you can look anywhere online and find many, many poachering and trafickers of illegal wildlife cases. I’m afraid WY’s “plan” will open the door to much more of it.

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      sorry for the typos, that should “read poaching and trafficking”. Thanks!

    • avatar WM says:

      Ida,

      ++What I don’t understand is why taking them off the endangered species list means a hunt must automatically follow almost immediately, in the states where wolves reside.++

      It is all about the numbers of wolves the states thought they would have in the end. It is that way for ID, MT, and WY. It is that way for WI, MI and to some extent MN. Ultimately it will be that way for OR and WA (under their respective state plans). Go above the numbers and the “management” starts.

      And, if there is too much “judicial activism,” with creative ways to try to exceed the numbers the NRM states must manage for, in this new court challenge, don’t be too surprised to see a Congressional response.

      I am also guessing a narrow challenge to the goofy WY plan will be better received in the political arena than trying to get a whole lot more wolves in the NRM by forcing ID and MT to take on more responsibilty because WY wants wholesale slaughter in 90% of the state.

      The real question in my mind, is who will be calling the shots in this consortium of plaintiffs. If it is the wackos at Wild Earth Guardians, WWP and some of the other plaintiffs are in for a repeat of the embarrassing litigation and loss over the Congressional Rider. That one was just plain stupid.

      • avatar Mark L says:

        Starting to sound a lot like southeastern states try to show who is toughest on immigration…all oneupsmanship. Ga and Al go at it while Tn sits more quietly saying ‘yeah, we’ll take the cheap labor’ until their locals complain.
        In the NRM and wolves, the one that keeps them is gonna get more tourist dollars in the end…just a matter of time (wait and see). People are watching.

      • avatar JB says:

        WM:

        It appears (from the notice of intent) that WildEarth Guardians will take the lead; however, I don’t see why that should be a problem? The notice of intent makes several good points. My one worry is that we could see a repeat of Molloy–i.e., the court rules that delisting was illegal because only the Wyoming population (which is not a species) was considered. In this case that would simply remand to FWS, and a year from now FWS would publish another Final Rule that considers threats throughout the DPS. Meanwhile, the opposition in Wyoming stews.

      • avatar louise kane says:

        WM I’d like to know exactly why you call the folks at Wildearth Guardians, “wackos”? That’s quite a term to use to a lot of dedicated people who are much more civilized, articulate, educated and forthright then the real wacko’s they fight against who demonstrate their commitment to decimate, persecute and diminish wildlife populations.

  14. avatar elk275 says:

    I think if Obama is wins a second term that Montana’s Governor Brian Schweitzer will be the new Secretory of the Interior.

  15. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    Ben Neary of the Associated Press wrote a story about the response to the Notice of Intent to file suit against USFWS for allowing Wyoming’s plan. One statement in that article leaped off the page. A quote attributed to Wyoming Governor Matt Mead:

    (quote) “We anticipated this lawsuit because these groups have shown that any management plan which allows for hunting is unacceptable for them,” Mead said Monday.” ( endquote)

    In other words, Guv Matt just tarred all the enviro groups as being Anti-Hunting. Except that is not true , nor even close.

    Nearly every “green” individual I know and the more mainstream environmental and conservation groups are not universally opposed to hunting. Au contraire, they realize hunting is one of many tools that can and should be used in comprehensive wildlife management. One of many.

    I would resume that is true of most of us who are regular readers/opiners here at The Wildlife news.

    I find Mead’s statement to be insulting, frankly.

    What is lacking in that assertion is the context: hunts for Wolves ( or any other large game animal) must be well defined, well regulated, proactive hunts with a purpose. Except Wyoming’s wolf management scheme is not that. Not at all. Not in 84 percent of the state where wolves will be treated as vermin or a nuisance animal.

    In the 8 percent of Wyoming’s land area in the northwest corner that is not a National Park —the so-called Trophy Wolf Management Area— the planned wolf hunt almost resembles a wholly limited quota regulated hunt for , say , Cougar. Except in some areas those wolf quotas are inordinately high and could take down the resident wolf population ( i.e. Sunlight-Crandall-Clarks Fork ) which to my mind flies in the face of any official assertion that Wyoming is honestly trying to sustain the wolf population over the long haul.

    Conversely , in the rest of Wyoming outside that trophy zone, it’s a free-for-all shot on sight wolf depredation exterminate with extreme prejudice zone. The so-called Predator Zone. Except the term Predator means one thing to a biologist and another thing to a rancher or his lawyer.

    The difference between those two ” hunting” schemes could not be more stark. In fact, it’s a Bipolar Disorder. Same game animal ; same state; wildly disparate ‘hunting’ objectives. Which is what I believe the coalitions are suing against.

    I would hope that the plaintiffs would subpoena Ed Bangs to depose him about the last eight months he was employed as the Northern Rockies Wolf Coordinator for USFWS. After the November 2010 election when Matt Mead was chosen Wyo governor and made wolves one of his very highest priorities, things started happening rather quickly . There had already been a flurry of political maneuvering at the Cabinet and Congress levels regarding the Montana and Idaho situation , resulting in that heinous Simpson-Tester Wolf Rider which prohibited legal / judicial review of those states wolf hunt plans. Wyoming was not made aprty to that since its legal case was ongoing. But that didnt stop the Wyoming delegation —especially Senator John Barrasso — from an insurgency against the Department of Interior. “Doctor No” Barrasso , well known for his obfuscation and obstruction tactics —had been blocking DOI Asst. Sec. Dan Ashe’s nomination, effectively holding it hostage until he got his way with Wyoming wolves. Keep in mind tha Judge Molloy had ruled against the Wyoming plan based on its lack of genetic connectivity with wolves elsewhere; specifically Idaho.

    Towards all of which , Ken Salazar and DOI capitulated. Interior and USFWS caved into to the political pressure. I’m pretty sure that orders came down from on high to settle that “damn western wolf mess once and for all ” ; that 1600 wild dogs were becoming a huge liability and gluteal pain for the Obama admin.

    Thus was born the ridiculous ” Flex Zone” and a modified plan that apparently emanated from Ed Bangs or his staff in Helena to resolve the Wyoming wolf impasse and satisfy Molloy’s connectivity edict. The Flex Zone would theoretically allow the occasional wolf to sneak out of the trophy zone into Idaho in a narrow corridor down there south of Jackson Hole without getting shot at , theoretically. Yeah, right. The Flex Zone is a politically expedient pseudo-scientific ‘paper’ solution to Molloy’s ruling.

    By February of 2012, a month after Mead took office, the Flex Zone was the tiny wedge that drove open the resolution of Wyoming’s wolf impasse, along with some other purely political chicanery. In April, Ed Bags announced his retirement after 23 years of heading the Northern Rockies wolf recovery program. And who could really blame him for that ? What a thankless job he held, but he did it with integrity and was steadfast in the face of some truely barbaric opposition in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, for which we should thank him.

    But we still need to hear from Bangs , on record, on how all this came to pass between November 2010 and summer 2011 when Wyoming’s awful wolf plan was chiseled into stone. An open honest interview would suffice. I think what Bangs would say if allowed to speak frankly would be most enlightening.

    I know I am yearning to hear all about it. My Wyoming Wolf jigsaw puzzle is missing a few pieces…

  16. avatar Steven Farnsworth says:

    Wolves were here long before the so called white people came here but we have ruined more natural habitat of all amimals wild. The wolf is just picked out because big ranchers hate anything that cuts in on there profit margin. They care less what happens to wildlife as long as they make themselves rich. It is time we the people that screwed up the animals habitat for our own greed give something to what god put on this earth for man. the big money does not realize that one of mans greatest creatures that they love so much decended from the very animal that want to eliminate from this country ( I love all dogsm, that are mans one and only devoted animal that can truly be a help ine every part of ones life. They help peloce find dangerous drugs, bombs, the track down missing childern save peoples lives, give ther lives to save there owners and they are gods gife to all mankind. But these govermnent people want to kill them randomly, what a crock, it is all about money and always be in the long run.

  17. avatar Richie G says:

    I made a statement in another topic,once on seven devils drive I went pretty high up in elevation and seen cows? How did they get their,well on the way down a farmer was going up to get them,this was in a national forest. The rancher wants everything,not only is beef not the greatest food you people,but ranchers are making money off of this. Then also while out west,on a news report it was discovered that animal meat stays in our cell tissues for years,my girlfriend a PA was so surprised.Not only due ranchers what all the national lands to raise their beef,but they want to kill most wildlife who so-called interfere with their profits,but they are giving us unhealthy food too!What a lot of bull this is,I ask who is acting like God and who is the real predator?I seen a film of a wolf lying down and got shot without even realizing he was being hunted,I wonder how they treat their own animals.

  18. avatar Richie G says:

    Does anybody remember the movie powder,I wish hunters experience the pain that a hunted animal goes through, I know one person on this site who was in that situation,and I believe it changed him or her.

  19. avatar Richie G says:

    Does anybody remember the movie powder,I wish hunters experience the pain that a hunted animal goes through, I know one person on this site who was in that situation,and I believe it changed him or her.

  20. avatar jon says:

    http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=9005

    Sounds like good news to me. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

  21. I commend the scientists for trying to educate the ignorant uninformed beings that inhabit this country of ours. Leave the animals alone. Man has no business or tight to try & “manage” it, especially when it benefits them financially.
    Put the wolves back on the endangered species list. Please.

Calendar

September 2012
S M T W T F S
« Aug   Oct »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

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: