Group wants to publicize any hunt violations-

A new group has formed to go into the lightly monitored backcountry to protect the Yellowstone Park boundary from any violations in the Montana wolf hunt, which is now underway for archery. The general wolf rifle hunt begins September 15.

Calling itself “Yellowstone Wolf patrol,” a news release says nine members are already inside the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness which runs for miles along the north boundary of Yellowstone.

Wolves from inside Yellowstone Park have absolute legal protection from hunting. However, beginning with Montana’s first wolf hunt in 2009-10, “Park wolves” have been shot by wolf hunters. Nine were killed inside the Absaroka-Beartooth (AB) Wilderness that very first hunting season. By “Park wolves” it is meant wolves that normally range inside Yellowstone Park. Park wolves reported shot by wolf hunters have supposedly all been killed outside the Park.

The most controversial wolf season along the Park boundary was 2012-13 when every Park wolf with an expensive GPS collar was shot. Many more Park wolves were also killed. The high mortality of Yellowstone wolves due to the 2012 hunt required the cancellation of the Park’s important annual wolf winter study that winter. That was the first year since the wolves were restored that there was no winter study.

Early on, Montana’s Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks tried to create a small buffer zone along part of Yellowstone’s north boundary. They were soon slapped down by a local judge and then the state legislature. The legislature required FWP to have a hunt directly adjacent to the famous national park.

Since that time, wolf conservationists have struggled successfully to have FWP to reduce the wolf quota north of Yellowstone to some degree, but hunters still enter and hunt the vast AB Wilderness. Its boundary with Yellowstone is mostly a straight line that cuts across steep mountain slopes, rockslides, gentle meadows, creeks, marshes and ponds, and deep forests. Here and there the boundary is identified with marked trees, but it is easy to stumble into the Park while travelling cross country rather than on established trails.

The Wolf Patrol issued a news release today.

– – – –

News Release

Activist Teams Enter Yellowstone Backcountry To Document And Protest Montana Wolf Hunt
Contact (satellite phone) 881-631-613-954.

Sept 14, 2014: Americans outraged with the killing of wolves from Yellowstone National Park (YNP) have organized the Yellowstone Wolf Patrol, whose members have entered the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness to monitor and document Montana’s wolf hunt which begins September 15th.

Nine members of the Wolf Patrol are currently trailing hunters, who in the last two years, have killed wolves belonging to packs originating from YNP where hunting is prohibited. Wolf Patrol members are opposed to the sport hunting of wolves in Wolf Management Units (WMU) 313 and 316, and are asking Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) to immediately stop the hunt before more wolves are killed.

Yellowstone wolves cross over from the park into WMU 313/316 where since 2012, twelve have been killed by hunters. At least three of the wolves shot in the 2012/2013 season were of high social rank (alpha female or beta male), thus negatively affecting reproduction, hunting behavior, and territorial defense of these unique packs. 7 of 10 (70%) packs living primarily in YNP had at least one wolf killed by hunters.

Wolf hunting in WMU’s 313 & 316, negatively impacts the local economy, including wildlife guide companies, hotels, restaurants, park tourism, and other wildlife-observation-based industries.

Yellowstone National Park is one of the few places left in the world where wolves can not only be studied, but also provide tourists from all over the world an opportunity to see a wild wolf. The recreational
killing of apex predators is negatively impacting important predator research while also robbing wildlife watchers of a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Yellowstone Wolf Patrol supports the growing economy in wolf tourism, and believes that MFWP is catering to a few special sport hunting interests, all at the expense of one of our nation’s most pristine
ecosystems.

“In allowing the killing of Yellowstone wolves, MFWP is not just shooting wolves, but also itself in the foot, because this hunt is giving the entire tourism industry a black eye.” says Patrol member, Julie Henry, “We are not opposed to Montana residents filling their freezers with elk, but the wolves were here first, and deserve protection from recreational killing.”

 
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.

111 Responses to New “Yellowstone Wolf Patrol” monitors MT wolf hunt next to Park

  1. Very pleased to see this action from a team of very seasoned, solid activists, now we are getting somewhere, time to stop pandering to the “special interest groups”, it’s doing nothing but continuing to get these animals killed. I however do not agree with the hunters killing the Elk either, only the wolves should be doing that to survive.

  2. avatar Barb Rupers says:

    Perhaps the hunting of wolves north of YNP is more a desire to kill wolves than fill the freezer with elk.

    I hope the Wolf Patrol is successful in curtailing this drain on the YNP wolf population and the studies thereof.

  3. avatar Elk375 says:

    According to the local paper the game wardens are watching the Wolf Patrol for any hunter interference violations and the FWP’s is positioning additional wardens in unit 316. If the Wolf Patrol trails hunters and follows them all day then it is hunter interference and they will be arrested.

    I hope that no one gets hurt or injured. Of course additional wardens means additional surveillance for everyone. My question is how are nine people on foot going to effectively interfere with guides and hunters on horseback. The Wolf Patrol is only going to able to operate a week before they tired out and run out of food.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Elk375,

      The news release says there are more than one patrol. That might be true. If not, it is for a week.

      I do believe that there are choke points along the boundary where the observers could station themselves to observe. What goes on in the big country north of the the immediate Park boundary would not be relevant.

      If I understand their news release, they do not want to interfere with hunters. That is illegal. They want to document.

    • avatar Barb Rupers says:

      Elk 375
      I agree with your last paragraph; specifically “Of course additional wardens means additional surveillance for everyone.”

      Will these additional wardens be honest about their surveillance of what happens with the wolf “harvest” north of YNP?

      • avatar Elk375 says:

        I have never seen a game warden selectively enforce the law. Area 316 has a 3 wolf quota. When the third wolf is harvested the season closes in 12 hours. Now days outfitters have satellite phones with email and texting. The game wardens and other hunting camps will spread the word.

        Last year the quota was not meet, I think that two wolves were taken.

    • avatar jerry collins says:

      I’d like to see them nail the roads into the hunting areas.

  4. avatar Nancy says:

    We champion this sort of activity in our own species. Its called a “Neighborhood Watch”

    + 1.

  5. avatar Elk375 says:

    Ralph,

    ++Nine members of the Wolf Patrol are currently trailing hunters, who in the last two years, have killed wolves belonging to packs originating from YNP where hunting is prohibited.++

    Is trailing hunters hunter interference?

    Thirty years ago, 1979. I was a hunting guide in those areas, it is big country. I wish the Wolf Patrol well and the hunters well. I think the Wolf Patrol is going to enjoy a back country camping trip.

    • avatar WM says:

      It strikes me a very probable that there would be illegal interference by these “wolf patrollers” if opportunities are presented which would decrease the opportunity for hunter success, even if only inferred from their “news release.” It also appears former Earth Firster, Animal Liberation Front member, and convicted felon and eco-anarchist Rodney Coronado, their “leader” may participate personally.

      If any of these “patrollers” engage in any conduct which interferes with lawful hunting of any species in MT, I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Probably not a big deal for Coronado who has already spent time a bunch of time in prison for doing some real stupid shit – like destruction of property.

      Is “trailing hunters” an offense equivalent to interfering with a lawful hunt?

      I think this has the seeds of not going well, if there are “encounters.” But that is the question, in what is a pretty large area.

      • avatar WM says:

        A statement attributed to Rodney Coronado:

        ++Friends of the Wolf,
        I am asking for your support to get my team of wolf defenders in the field September 15th, for the opening weekend of Montana’s wolf hunting season. Our objective is to prevent the death of the six wolves from Yellowstone National Park that can legally be trapped or shot by sport hunters. With your support, I pledge to dedicate my efforts throughout the Fall to publicizing and exposing the travesty that is wolf management in Montana, Wisconsin and Minnesota. ++

        ++…Our objective is to prevent the death of the six wolves ….++

        And just how does one do this without interfering with or harassing lawful hunters?

        • avatar Nancy says:

          “And just how does one do this without interfering with or harassing lawful hunters?”

          I seem to recall, its still a free country WM. I would think they could roam where ever they want, even during hunting season 🙂

          • avatar Elk375 says:

            Nancy,

            ++The pertinent language is in Montana Code 87-3-142, and says: “Harassment prohibited. (1) A person may not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing by another. Breaking this law is a criminal misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment not to exceed 30 days, or both. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not to exceed 1 year, or both.”++

            It is a free county but I can not drive down the road 100 miles an hour or walk naked down the street. There are limitations on what we can and can not do.

            The reality of the Wolf Patrol is public relations for there donors. Within a week they will be gone it is the 15th of September and the yearly fall equinox storms are coming, heavy snow.

            • avatar Nancy says:

              And hunters, for the next 6 weeks, in the same area, are getting around how?

              • Time to change that law that is against my civil rights!

              • avatar WM says:

                Dominque,

                And, exactly what civil rights do you speak of?

                • It’s against my civil rights,to have a law that suppresses my freedom of speech or movement to object to a killing frenzy by sociopathic killers. A law that protects a extreme minority of people, only because they are supported by a “Special Interest Group” manipulating public lands that myself and 95% of people have no say how and by who it’s used for.

          • avatar WM says:

            Nancy,

            stated objective + convicted felon for same conduct + presence at location of lawful hunters = ?

            ….roaming wherever they want….

            What if a patroller trailing a hunter closely makes noises, or attempts to taunt the hunter, interfering with an effort to call a wolf in to a particular location?

            Wanna bet some of that crap doesn’t happen?

            • avatar Nancy says:

              Lets not lose sight of the debate here WM. There has been on going, public outcry about being able to hunt wolves on the border of Yellowstone for a couple of years now. Public lands – my lands, your lands, our lands.

              If it were put to a vote, say a questionnaire presented to everyone who came to enjoy the park this past year – allow the killing of park wolves or put a buffer zone around the park? How do you think it might go?

              • avatar Elk375 says:

                It is up to the State of Montana as to the hunting regulations outside of Yellowstone National. It is not up to the general public and a questionnaire.

              • avatar SAP says:

                On one level, Elk375 is correct: in a strictly legal sense, Montana has control over wildlife once they cross that line.

                I know that this makes me a naive idealist, but I’d like for us to aspire to doing more than what the law strictly requires. By “us,” I mean the human community writ large, spanning the globe. We can do better. We know that YNP wolves range outside YNP; we know that people really enjoy watching those wolves; we know that wolves ranging into the A-B Wilderness aren’t really causing conflicts with livestock or pets. Seems like it could be possible to just leave those wolves alone because it isn’t worth the social conflict and anger it causes when they get killed out there.

                Like I’ve said before, I can’t speculate about the motives of anyone who chooses to hunt wolves along the YNP boundary, other than they want to hunt wolves and they’re going where the wolves are. But it sure seems to me that we could show a little restraint and simply not hunt those particular wolves in that particular place.

                I know all the arguments against the kind of thinking I’m laying out here: that it goes against the “North American Model,” that those “sentimental, emotional” wolf watchers need to wake up and smell the coffee of “scientific management,” (shooting favorite wolves is more like throwing the coffee in their faces, right?), that if we treat these wolves as “special,” the wolf lovers will demand an end to wolf hunting everywhere (slippery slope is a logical fallacy*, though).

                I think the “North American Model” would survive a no-wolf-hunting buffer north of YNP. I think it’s delusional to pretend that emotions aren’t at the root of our decisions, it’s just a way of de-legitmizing emotions that conflict with the emotions of the status quo. I think there’s “scientific” value to leaving some wolf packs un-hunted.

                http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

              • avatar Immer Treue says:

                SAP,
                Well said. Hunting wolves has always been part of the equation, whether in the NRM or GL States. The management of wolves has always appeared to be one of reducing conflict. In my minds eye, that would mean hunting wolves where conflict does, or is likely to occur. Areas where wolves cause no problems, such as the BWCA here, addled ones mind in regard to the arguments for wolf hunting and trapping.

                I would also think this would contribute to our knowledge bank as studies are undoubtedly occurring in response questions such as, do wolves truly manage, through intraspecific killing and available food, in marked territories; does killing wolves contribute to population growth, as per coyote; or does regulated hunting have no identifiable impact on wolf populations? Add into the mix, does hunting reduce conflict with livestock, outside of total wolf eradication?

                Prior to extermination of wolves in the lower 48, was there any effort made to understand wolves, and how we might be able to live with them? We are only. Eginning to scratch the surface of that conundrum.

              • avatar JEFF E says:

                would that same argument not be just as valid for any other animal that spends the majority of time within the park?
                And then where does it become impossible to say which animal is off limits and which are not.
                just askin’

              • avatar SAP says:

                JeffE – it is a very good question. Continuing in my naive idealism, I would hope that reasonable people acting in good faith could come up with some workable boundaries.

        • avatar Amre says:

          Honestly, i’m not sure what to think about this. While i am opposed to the killing of predators for sport, it doesn’t seem like a few patrols by this group would be nearly enough to “monitor” the northern boundary of YNP over the fall anyway.

          The absaroka mountains is very rugged terrain….

        • avatar jerry collins says:

          Freedom of speech cannot be denied. Talk and yell very loudly when in areas where the wolves are being hunted. Perhaps loud rap music is in order. After all, isn’t it a “land of many uses”?

          • avatar topher says:

            “Freedom of speech cannot be denied.”
            It’s usually the big talkers who do just that.

            • It is such a blatant violation of our civil rights by these special interest groups to ignore the wishes of the majority esp. in the face of voting and documentation.
              This is a portion of a well researched presentation of a few years back, from Peter Muller of LOHV and C.A,S,H. on Wildlife Watching opposing Hunting..
              Wildlife Watching

              71 Million Participants
              31% Of The Population
              $45.7 Billion Spent and Growing
              $7.5 Billion On Food And Lodging
              as opposed to:
              Hunting

              12.5 Million Participants
              5% Of The Population
              $22.9 Billion Spent and Declining
              $2.79 Billion On Food And Lodging
              According to Fortune: If Wildlife Watching were one business, it would rank among the top 50 businesses in the country.
              #48 WILDLIFE WATCHING $45.650 BILLION
              OTHER MARKETING STATISTICS
              Wildlife Watchers
              43% of Families with Income >$100,000 participate
              53% of Wildlife Watchers are Female
              HUNTERS
              7% of Families with Income >$100,000 Participate
              9% of Hunters are Female
              According to the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, wildlife watching is the largest economic growth sector in outdoor recreation.  Across the U.S., nearly $40 billion was spent on wildlife watching—a figure that has increased by over 40% in the past ten years.  These expenses ranged from supplies such as binoculars and bird seed, to hotel rooms and gasoline. 

              • avatar W. Hong says:

                Could you sue them?

                • I think so, with a well publicized and funded class action suit. We first have to get money out of politics, for human and animal rights, and we could fix alot of problems.

              • avatar WM says:

                Dominique,

                So, you are saying hunters don’t use binoculars, stay in hotels or consume gasoline?

                Fifty months out of the year I am a wildlife watcher. For two weeks I am a hunter.

                And, again, exactly what “civil rights” are you talking about? You said before something about freedom of speech or movement. Well, you don’t have the right to speak at will in some public and many private places at certain times – say a movie theatre, a court room, a driver licensing office, the court of a sports stadium like a basket ball court, and a zillion other places. We are regulated in what we can do when, where and how in many places. You have no Constitutional (federal or state where you live, visit) do anything you want. Civil rights are generally granted by statute.

                Again, what “civil rights” do you speak of?

              • avatar WM says:

                …granted by statute,… or otherwise constrained by government in certain ways, such as those specifically listed in the US Constitution Bill of Rights.

              • avatar topher says:

                You started with an individual right before making it about the “wishes of the majority” and how much money is spent by one group versus another. Doesn’t a person have the right to participate in the legal act of hunting or do “the wishes of the majority” trump that right?
                If people spend more money on something that conflicts with wildlife watching should wildlife watching take a back seat to that activity?

              • avatar WRO says:

                Dominique,

                The basis for those numbers is pretty thin and jaded.

                For example, If I buy bird seed, I am classified as a wildlife watcher, then is my 5K in optics a wild life watching expense or a hunting expense? I use it for both.

              • WRO & Co., you all are using such petty arguments, why bother, you know who has very frail research and statistics, Fish & Wildlife/Game, what a bunch of clowns!

  6. avatar Yvette says:

    May the force be with them.

  7. avatar Leslie says:

    Bring them over here to the eastern boundary. Last year the quota in area 2 of Wyoming was 4 and 5 were taken, all within a few days which made me extremely suspicious.

  8. avatar ramses09 says:

    Those “wolf killers” are not an honest bunch, there is something wrong with a person who gets off on killing such a beautiful animal, any animal for that matter. Don’t tell me that if a “wolf killer” can get an extra kill – they won’t. I know the hatred that exists with humans & wolves, I’ve seen it first hand.
    If there are any Wolf Patrols coming to WI. – – PLEASE let me know, I would love to be a help to the wolves.

  9. avatar WyoWolfFan says:

    This reminds me of the Buffalo Field Campaign.

  10. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    This is wonderful. Go Wolf Patrol! If I could be there myself, I’d be there in a heartbeat.

    When wolves were delisted, we were promised sane, rational, scientific ‘management’, and what we got was anything but, a bloody free-for-all by grown men and state leadership whose behavior borders on the hysterical over wolves! On top of it all, Yellowstone’s wolves have been targeted by unethical hunters and fur pimp trappers. F&W asked hunters and trappers to behave with honor, by trying their best to respect collared wolves that were part of a study. Instead, 12 collared wolves were targeted, forcing the cancellation of the winter study! World-famous wolves to visitors that brought revenue into our National Park were killed, all in the name of stupidquestionable ideology. All while hiding behind the cloak of ‘it’s legal!’.

    This shooting of the Yellowstone wolves should have been legally actionable, it really should have – and a a buffer zone put in place to protect Yellowstone’s wildlife. But again, special interests swooped in and put a stop to that. Shameful.

    This is not what the American people signed on for. If a group of citizens wants to protect the park border and document, go for it and stay safe.

    • avatar Ida Lupines says:

      oops, should read:

      World-famous wolves to visitors that, brought revenue into our National Park, were killed – all in the name of stupid, questionable ideology. All the while hiding behind the cloak of ‘it’s legal!’. But, you’ve done this by losing the public’s trust and respect.

      This shooting and trapping of so many of the park’s wolves should have been legally actionable, it really should have – and a buffer zone put in place immediately to protect Yellowstone’s wildlife. But again, special interests swooped in, interfering and putting a stop to that. Shameful.

      This is not what the American people signed on for. If a group of concerned citizens wants to protect the park border and document possible violations, I say go for it and stay safe!

  11. avatar Matt says:

    Cowardly, insecure, inadequate little men with guides, big rifles & scopes, & on horseback lookin’ to kill, I mean “harvest” trophy wolves. Wow, they must be proud!
    Sadly, the laws & odds are stacked against both the wolves & the Wolf Patrol. Completely unfair.

  12. avatar Joan says:

    12 collared wolves were killed? I can’t believe this. So that is why the winter wolf study was cancelled to the detriment of everyone. I have been travelling to the Park from Quebec, Canada for three years now, mainly to see wolves as many people do. The revenue brought in to the Park and other facilities depend on people such as me. No where else can we see wolves as easily as we can in Yellowstone Park and I hope the wolf patrol can put a dent in the hunters goals of bragging rights to killing a wolf. Also the “shoot, shovel and shut up” we heard from locals was still going on.

  13. avatar Richie G. says:

    This should end the killing of wolves is the right word ,not harvest people want it to sound less terrible than it is now. Harvest is for plants, food to bring to our table ,not fur on some mantle piece. When a person cannot even stay close to a hunter without interference ,what does that say about our legal system. Putting them in jail for following a hunter, that is nonsense.

    • avatar WM says:

      Richie,

      You have alluded to the improper (in your view anyway) of the term, “harvest.”

      Just remember that not only does the agricultural and wildlife scientific community use the term “harvest,” when referring to removal from a natural system, but so do other sciences, including medicine and biological research.

      A medical doctor “harvests” tissue, organs, and even eggs, or stem cells.

      • avatar Ida Lupines says:

        Yes, but for something good –

        Not killing. Using it for hunting trying to dress something up that is still ugly.

        • avatar Kathleen says:

          “Harvest” as a euphemism for killing/slaughter of sentient beings is bogus…a nice attempt to reduce animals to the status of crops. “Harvest” also implies taking something whose time has come–peaches or corn, for example. When animals are killed, no hunter first asks them for ID so they can check their age and status. They might be juveniles, they might be the leader who holds the herd or pack together, they might even be mothers of dependent offspring…it doesn’t matter. Harvesting in the medical sense doesn’t imply harm–organs and other products come from recently deceased donors or willing living donors.

          “Euthanize” is another one–FWP always uses “euthanize” (meaning: good death) when killing grizzlies in their prime because they’ve run afoul of humans who attracted them in the first place–so-called “problem bears,” when it’s the humans who are the problem. Kudos to anyone who calls out this dishonest use of language.

    • avatar jerry collins says:

      And I thought It was a free county….Me and a dozen or so old geezers used to summer in Montana/Idaho in our Motor homes. None of us go there anymore. Some of us went to Oregon last year (owahee)??? area, was really nice. If the wolf population builds up there we may start going there regularly. This winter I plan to go to Cuba, and Northern Panama. Some of my friends went there and later moved there. I am so disgusted with this countries policies on its wildlife, I may move there too. Both countries are wildlife paradises.

      • avatar topher says:

        I’m guessing your referring to the Owyhee. Mostly desert. I don’t think you’ll find a large wolf population there.

  14. avatar snaildarter says:

    When it comes to obeying the law I have a lot more faith in the wolf patrol than the wolf haters. This is a great idea. everyone behaves better when someone is watching.

    • avatar WM says:

      snaildarter,

      “…obeying the law….”

      Look up Rodney Coronado on Wikipedia, and see if you feel the same after reading his bio. Probably some court documents out there that give an even more descriptive profile of this convicted eco-anarchist repeat felon, with a federal record.

      • avatar Yvette says:

        WM continues to reference his past and appears to have his Fruit-of-the-Looms in a big wad.

        Here, read about Rodney Coronado’s present life.

        http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2014/02/26/interview-with-rod-coronado-on-indigenous-resistance-and-animal-liberation/

        • avatar Kathleen says:

          “WM continues to reference his past and appears to have his Fruit-of-the-Looms in a big wad.”
          LOL!!!

        • avatar WM says:

          So, Yvette, past or present?

          Coronado says he “severed all ties” with the radical folks like ALF and EF. Yet, here he is giving an interview to EF, no atonement for his past illegal deeds (a regret of not sinking a third whaling boat), no discouragement of others from breaking the law, and now an advocacy participant, and fund raiser in an event whose stated objective is to disrupt legal hunts outside a national park.

          I believe in the rule of law, Yvette. And, if that means having my underwear in a wad, so be it.

          I would like to see a buffer around YNP, but this is not the way to get it. It sure is a way to piss off a lot of folks who can keep it from EVER happening.

          • avatar Yvette says:

            I believe I’ll wait to see if any laws are broken before I get too wound up over Rodney Coronado. Given that the federal law enforcement agencies have had him in their crosshairs since his first convictions, you can count on them to pounce if he commits even the slightest infraction.(he was sent back to prison for accepting a facebook friend request that was considered off limits, thus, in violation of his parole).

            • avatar WM says:

              Eight people in his group – with eight personalities. Ever hear of the apprentice (or wannabe) concept?

              • avatar Ida Lupines says:

                Let’s not convict anybody just yet – but instead focus on our country’s selective law enforcement, like the BLM.

              • avatar Elk375 says:

                BLM has nothing to due with hunting in Unit 316. It would be Forest Service Law Enforcement and Montana Fish and Wildlife Game Wardens. Hunters are not going to shoot wolves in Yellowstone Park.

                BTW: The hunter inference law was originally passed because of protestors inferring with buffalo hunts in the early 90’s. Today most prosecution is outfitters and landowners telling hunters that they are on private land when the hunter is on federal or state land. This has happen to me.

                Several years ago 17 outfitters and landowners were cited in Wyoming for kicking hunters off of federal lands under the their hunter harassment law.

              • avatar Ida Lupines says:

                Yesssss, Elk, I realize that. I’m just giving them as an example of selectively enforcing laws.

              • avatar Kathleen says:

                “BTW: The hunter inference law was originally passed because of protestors inferring with buffalo hunts in the early 90’s.”

                Oh yes, let’s thank protestors for that. I wasn’t around then, but I’ve read the news stories about how FWP wardens, back in those days, would actually *lead* hunters to individual bison they could then kill…and they called that “hunting” (when in reality, it was an execution). Yeah, we get it–hunting is sacrosanct, even when it actually isn’t hunting but mere slaughter under the guise of hunting (which is what hunting generally is, anyhow). But people standing up for other sentient beings?–why, that’s outrageous, they’ve got no rights!

                I helped monitor the 2005 reinstated bison hunt north of YNP and there was none of the hand-wringing over hunt interference we’re hearing from commenters on this page today concerning wolves.

          • avatar Jerry Black says:

            WM….”I would like to see a buffer around YNP, but this is not the way to get it. It sure is a way to piss off a lot of folks who can keep it from EVER happening.”
            I doubt there’s anything you’re not an expert at, so how would you go about establishing a buffer?

            • avatar WM says:

              Jerry,

              Thanks for the undeserved compliment. I am not an expert on much of anything. Sadly, it really doesn’t take much to be a bigger fish in a small pond around here, if you get my meaning. As an example, Ken chased off Bob “Action” Jackson, who I suspect might have added a lot of substance to this particular conversation with his knowledge as a back country YNP Ranger for many years, and who had his share of encounters with shady outfitters who might have entered the Park (mostly on the Thorofare to the south if I recall correctly).

              As for the buffer around YNP, it will likely be a hard fought state legislative matter. Sending in a bunch of out of state activist yahoos from MN, one who has served something like 5 years in federal pen for eco-terrorism shit, to “shadow” or “spy” on MT hunting outfitters isn’t the kind of thing that will improve any chances for the 3 states bordering YNP to want to allow wolves to roam without risk outside Park boundaries. These outfitters will go to their state associations and legislators with tales of woe about effects on their businesses (even if not true). There is no “more wolves left alone means more economic value for this area,” argument that will fly. There is no Congressional fix in the near term, either.

              Doesn’t mean I can’t wish for a Park buffer, though, along with some extra range for bison and out- migrating elk. At least the MTFWP staff took a run at a wolf buffer, only to be upstaged by their legislature. Don’t think that anything close will happen in WY or ID for their respective proximity to YNP or Teton NP.

              • avatar WM says:

                And, Jerry, if WY had half a brain, it would advocate for a buffer in ID and MT, since WY wolves counted as home territory in YNP are considered part of the WY delisting minimum population > that could (current litigation pending excepted of course) count toward their share not needed in other parts of the state. WY should be just jumping at the opportunity to have a buffer in MT and ID.

            • avatar timz says:

              “but this is not the way to get it. It sure is a way to piss off a lot of folks who can keep it from EVER happening.”
              No offense but what do you think would make it happen? Are you folks that continue to talk about cooperation,dialog and fear of “pissing someone off” crowd missing what is going on here? With every legislative session, Fish & Game meeting,etc things just get worse for the wolves, and wildlife in general. Wait till they can get their hands on the grizzly. The courts and this kind of activity may be all that’s left. So go buy your wolf stamps and in the meantime wish these folks well,

      • avatar IDhiker says:

        Speaking of breaking the law, many anti-wolf sites like Lobo Watch openly advocate illegally killing wolves. It’s ok for the anti-wolf side, but hear them squeal when they think the other side might use “illegal” tactics. FWP will closely monitor this, but they do nothing to stem the anti-wolf poisoning and poaching.

  15. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    From the Wolf Patrol Facebook page:

    “The Montana wolf hunt has started today. Wolf Patrol have located two hunter camps, with three sets of hunters working from those areas. WP are keeping a close eye on them and will be documenting any wolf hunting activities.”

    https://www.facebook.com/teamwolfpatrol

    • avatar Elk375 says:

      Those hunters are hunting elk not wolves. The Wolf Patrol is wasting their time. If a wolf is shot or shot at, it will no more than a 15 second window of opportunity. What is there to document?

  16. avatar Yvette says:

    Since Rod Coronado has been mentioned and his past referenced, I did a search on him. I hadn’t heard of him. He is from the Pascua Yaqui Tribe.

    From Wikipedia, September, 2006 In my years past I have argued that economic sabotage was an appropriate tactic for our time. Like all strategists I have also been forced to recognize that times have changed and it is now my belief that the movements to protect earth and animals have achieved enough with this strategy to now consider an approach that does not compromise objectives, but increases the likelihood of real social change. Let our opposition who believe in violence carry the burden for its justification, but let those who believe in peace and love practice a way of life that our society sorely needs now more than ever.

    Change is coming and the old school violence and torture perpetrated on the animals, especially predators, of this continent will fall into the past. It is happening, and has always been happening. Change can be so subtle it is barely noticed, or abrupt. Either way, it is happening and won’t be stopped. What hunting laws aren’t amended to adjust to the new attitude of Americans will be adversely effected by climate chaos. You predator hunters are boxed in. Changing attitudes of the majority on one side, and climate chaos on the other side.

    This is 500 years in the making. The violence and torture of predators on this continent peaked before the mid-twentieth century. Now it is cycling back to a more peaceful and balanced co-existence. Everything on our planet cycles. It is the natural law of this planet. Rise and fall—rise and fall. It’s always repeated, always has been.

    • avatar Ida Lupines says:

      As always, well said Yvette – +1!

    • avatar Louise Kane says:

      whether you like Coronado or not his profile reads like a hero in an Ed Abbey novel…and many here hold ed abbey as a “hero”

      so Rork here is my anti wolves rant for today don’t want to disappoint.

      interesting that poaching offenses are often glossed over or that people argue that reports of wild animal abuse are brushed off as unusual or freak incidents even when facebook alone shows us that sss and wolf or coyote hate crimes are systematic regular occurrences. When people work to protect wildlife they are labeled as extremists and those labels stick.

      yet hunting wolves or most carnivores and trophy hunting, imho, is extremest to many of us. Trapping, snaring, aerial gunning, shooting wolves with bows and arrows are all insanely torturous ways to die. to randomly kill animals that live as components of tightly knit social units is extremist, callous, ecologically destructive and inhumane.

      I find it honorable that people are willing to spend time in the field documenting wolves being killed. In fact I think it would make a great reality show. I’m betting a savvy producer could create a great deal of negative publicity for wolf hunting by skillfully capturing the death of trophy hunted wolf among its pack mates. Who the hell does that anyway?

      I find wolf, predator or other wildlife killing for sport one of the most offensive things I can imagine.

      Thanks wolf patrol for being a witness and for caring enough to document.

      One last thought, what gives hunters the right to a free and unfettered hunting experience above and beyond wildlife watchers?

      Where are the laws that protect my right to a peaceful experience while hiking, camping or photographing wildlife? What about laws designed to keep hunters from invading my space.

      Instead come fall, the woods become places of fear. I have no right to chase off hunters that disrupt my peaceful time or that create fear for myself, my dog, and the surrounding wildlife. Every time I hear the damn near endless volley of gunfire as hunting season starts I know there are well fed, well armed hunters out to kill the very animals I hope to get a rare glimpse of and now then and when I do its a magical moment.

      Where are my rights?

  17. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    So are the wolf hunters targeting Yellowstone wolves again? Didn’t take long to find them, it seems?

  18. avatar Elk375 says:

    At 1/2 hour before sunrise Montana back country rifle season began today. Wolves are not the primary target, elk are. Wolves are a target of opportunity if the hunter elected to purchase a wolf tag. Would one want to scare elk with a shot at a wolf. No.

    Depending upon the outfitter most hunters did not purchase a $35 non resident wolf tag, so no shooting at wolves. Every time I have been to British Columbia hunting the has outfitter required me to purchase a wolf tag. It is an outfitter thing.

    Of those hunters who purchased a wolf tag chances of having an opportunity to shoot a wolf is very limited. If the hunter did have an opportunity to shoot a wolf most hunters are NOT that good of a shot. A typical wolf standing 300 yards distance with a eight to nine inch kill zone either the hunter is going to shoot over the wolf or under the wolf. Most hunters over estimate the distance and shoot over the animal. I am really not worry about the wolves.

  19. avatar Karen says:

    I find it disturbing that more people are worried about the patrol interfering in the hunters gain. If they stay clear of the park then there won’t be any.
    If hunters behaved more responsibly and weren’t so hungry to kill this patrol wouldn’t even be necessary.
    Every single collared wolf was killed including the most famous, most photographed wolf in the entire world! This shouldn’t have been allowed and everyone should be outraged that it did.
    But because of this barbaric behavior it IS necessary to have the Wolf Patrol out there
    Thank you and be safe on your journeys. Congrats on standing up for what is truly right. Without people like this nothing would be left at all.
    Namaste’

  20. avatar Gary Humbard says:

    The return of wolves to Yellowstone NP has probably created the largest amount of environmental studies in the US due to mainly the PROTECTION of wolves from human exploitation. Yellowstone NP (especially the northern boundary) also provides the best wolf viewing opportunities in the world with many of the visitors coming for the purpose to see and hear wolves. Financially, ecologically and socially it makes no sense to not create a buffer adjacent to Yellowstone.

    The loss of six wolves may not seem significant, however we all know the impacts of losing alpha members (which tend to be the wolves harvested) and the consequences to their groups. The reduction of six wolf harvests would have minimal impact to the wolf hunting community.

    This is another example of human failures. There is minimal compromise in todays world where pro-hunting and conservation groups are constantly fighting each other. Any idea of a buffer would be instantly opposed by pro-hunting groups with a mindset that if we “gave in” then what would be next while some conservation groups oppose any wolf hunting and trapping.

    With a creation of a reasonable buffer more Yellowstone wolves would simply be able to be wolves, the millions of Yellowstone visitors would have a better chance of seeing and hearing wolves and research would benefit from a less human exploited environment.

    • avatar Joan says:

      Yes, a buffer zone should be created. In Algonquin Park, in Ontario, Canada, due to the efforts of people like Dr John Theberge, imminent wolf biologist, a buffer zone was created and met with much success. Fewer wolves were killed for straying out of the park as they followed the deer.

  21. avatar Yvette says:

    “Montana’s six-month general hunting season for gray wolves is underway after just one of the predators was reported taken during an early-season archery hunt.”

    Looks like the predators have killed one wolf already.

    http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/d24ab30d9c07416397d09595494aaf6a/MT–Wolf-Hunt

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Yvette,

      I like the way you put that. The technique is called “decentering the dominant paradigm.” Another is “cattle menace wolves again.”

  22. avatar JB says:

    I agree with Elk375, this seems little more than an attempt at fundraising on the backs of wolf advocates. To the extent that their efforts coincide with elk or mule deer hunts, these folks may actually inadvertently increase harvest by moving animals around.


    I don’t know what Montana courts require to show that someone willingly interfered with a hunt? It is clear the group wants to prevent wolves from being killed, but members of the ‘wolf patrol’ could simply argue that their purpose in participating was to discourage people from choosing to hunt, or to discourage illegal harvest (thereby reducing overall take). Moreover, even if they were in the field with the intent to lower legal harvest, to be convicted of interference a prosecutor would need to link a specific behavior/action (shouting to scare off a wolf) to an outcome (missed shot).

    In any case, this is a bad idea.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “To the extent that their efforts coincide with elk or mule deer hunts, these folks may actually inadvertently increase harvest by moving animals around”

      Inadvertently increase harvest? Odd statement JB. How many hunters whined, bitched and moaned (on many hunting sites) because they couldn’t find any elk and deer due to wolves “moving” them around?

      • avatar JB says:

        I’m not sure what is ‘odd’ about my statement, Nancy? Merely pointing out that more people in the field means more bodies to move animals around, which will likely increase their (elk, deer) vulnerability.

    • avatar rork says:

      It seems like a publicity stunt to me, perhaps a slightly effective one. Go camp and eat some trout, tweet a few “I saw a hunter” things. Count the money. Don’t leave your dirty socks unattended though, cause the goats might eat them.

  23. avatar TC says:

    Not sure what to make of this. It’s an interesting dilemma. I hope they’re being safe, wearing a lot of blaze orange, not harassing hunters and not doing things like wandering around kill sites during a time when bears are very hungry and very possessive of their food resources, including berry patches and gut piles. Apparent researcher killed in the BT this month by a bear, just now being reported by the Casper Star Trib.

  24. avatar Elk375 says:

    It rained, really rained this morning and appears that later this evening more moisture is forecasted. They are nasty clouds east towards the Beartooths. Snow tonight in the higher elevations. I wonder how the Wolf Patrol is doing? The hunters are in wall tents with rain flies and a wood stove fire finishing up a fresh homemade pie and enjoying a libation before a warm tent with a dry bed.

    I wonder how the Wolf Patrol is doing? Maybe they found out the country is so rough and large that there presents amounts to very little. Part of that $2300 in donation money might be finding its way into a bar in Cooke City or Gardiner while strategy is re-talked. I wish them well on a chilly moisture laden early fall evening.

    • avatar Yvette says:

      They are doing fine, Elk. In fact, they just gave an update.

      • avatar Elk375 says:

        Great, more power to them. There is nothing to report in the area that they are patrolling because no wolves have killed, harvest or slaughter.

    • avatar Ida Lupines says:

      It rained, really rained this morning and appears that later this evening more moisture is forecasted. They are nasty clouds east towards the Beartooths. Snow tonight in the higher elevations.

      Oh goody. Maybe it will put a damper on things for the outfitters with their inexperienced hunters too.

      • avatar Elk375 says:

        Moisture and cold weather gets the elk moving and vocal and the rut going. The elk will start bugling and will answer a hunters bugle. Hunting becomes better each day with cold and snow.

        All the outfitted hunters have to do is eat breakfast, use the facilities get the clothes needed for today and a rifle and drag there fat asses up on the horses.

  25. avatar Yvette says:

    Word is two wolves were slaughtered today. I believe that brings the slaughter count up to three, but I am not positive.

    • avatar Elk375 says:

      There were 3 wolves killed yesterday, the total count is 5 wolves, what was killed today has not been tallied. There is a 24 hour report time except in the area adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. The first wolf killed was archery. The hunter used a English long bow and homemade arrows, a great story. You will have to find it on the Internet yourself.

  26. avatar Marie says:

    Wolf patrol is actually getting out there and doing something…This is where your donation dollars will best best be spent-and maybe get a picture of a radio collared wolf killer!

  27. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    Wolf Patrol has a new website!

    http://wolfpatrol.org/

    And from Facebook:

    Members of Yellowstone Wolf Patrol met with Blackfeet traditional leader James St. Goddard yesterday. He gave us tobacco and instructed us on how to lay it at the Yellowstone park boundary to protect the wolves. He gave us authority to be here, and we are making him our official spiritual adviser. Thank you James!

    I feel better knowing there’s protection out there.

  28. avatar Ed Loosli says:

    This “buffer” situation could be solved if the federal government (the US Forest Service) took back the gift to the States of Montana, Wyoming & Idaho of “managing” hunting for wolves & bison bordering Yellowstone NP … It is not a federal law that states get to “manage” hunting on federal public lands – it is only custom and tradition. Obviously, the States of Montana, Wyoming & Idaho are abusing this gift from the feds to these three states. At this point, the feds should take back the control and management of any hunting, trapping or harassment of wolves and bison on the National Forests surrounding Yellowstone.

    • avatar Julie Gallegos says:

      @ Ed Loosli, “feds taking back the gift to the states of Montana, Wyoming, & Idaho…”: this, in my opinion, includes re-listing the wolf on the ESL.

  29. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    I have to say that I feel so much more peaceful knowing that the Wolf Patrol is out there, risking personal safety and arrest, and the blessings from Chief James St. Goddard of the Blackfeet nation. It’s something I’ve prayed for and I would join myself if I was near. I’m near only in spirit!

    Not only are they doing something to protect wildlife, they care about the feelings of those of us who can do nothing but wring our hands.

    Thanks you so very much, WolfPatrol –

Calendar

September 2014
S M T W T F S
« Aug   Oct »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

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: