Druid 690F shot by rancher south of Butte-

She was sick and beaten up by attacks from other wolves. She was trying for some livestock.

Butte, of course, is quite a distance from Yellowstone Park.

Yellowstone Park wolf killed near Butte. By Nick Gevock. Montana Standard

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.

248 Responses to Mangy Druid wolf shot south of Butte, MT

  1. Chris Harbin says:

    A sad story in that it is the end of the Druid era, although I’m sure those genes are flowing both in and out of the park. I’m always amazed at the ability of animals to live with and sometimes surmount conditions like mange.
    The real tragedy is the people who commented on the story in the newspaper. A bunch of bitter whiners.

    • Jim says:

      The comments were hilarious in their ignorance. Moose are nearly extinct and Elk will soon be gone too……priceless.

  2. Rita K. Sharpe says:

    I will have to agree,Chris,about the bitter whinners who commented on the story.

  3. It looks like these people haven’t following a bit of real news about wolves since they were reintroduced.

    The Billings Gazette comments are notable for being like this. If you want the opposite spin, try the Salt Lake City Tribune

    • Rita K. Sharpe says:

      Thank You,Ralph.

    • cc says:

      Most comments on newspaper websites seem to veer to the extremes. Almost any article on any subject seems to bring out the uneducated or simply those wanting to vent without reprisal.

    • Angela says:

      I keep wishing we could go back to the days when people didn’t have the option of commenting on newspaper websites. It only seems to reinforce people’s ignorance.

  4. jon says:

    Ralph, if ranchers are not willing to co-exist with wolves, they should not be reimbursed for their losses. It is a rancher’s responsibility to protect his livestock without resorting to going for the gun or calling wildlife services in. Ranchers are clearly not doing a very good job at protecting their livestock if attacks continue to keep happening. In my opinion, ranchers should only get reimbursed if the offending wolves on their livestock are not killed.

    • Save bears says:


      Is that the correct direction to go? I know many Rancher’s who would love nothing more than to kill every single wolf they see and are willing to give up any calls for reimbursement and they don’t want wildlife services involved, they just want to handle it themselves.. Personally, I think that would set a very bad precedence…they are more than willing to deal with it…

    • Save bears says:

      I am just saying, if you tell them they can’t call for help or reimbursement, they will just, as they did in the past, take matters into their own hands..yes, a few ranchers are doing that now, but nothing like you will see if you change the programs. If you cut off things like that, then they are going to shoot, they are going to poison and they are not going to tell anyone, it will just become part of business, and it won’t matter what a Judge says…there is still a very fine line being walked here, and for the most part, the majority are staying on that line…lets not give them an excuse to cross it..

    • Elk275 says:


      If they get caught killing a wolf illegally, let’s say in the Big Hole Valley, the case will be referred to US court in Butte, Montana. If the defense goes with a jury trial it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money and time. There is not a jury in Butte that would find a rancher guilty of killing a wolf in his pastures. That is the way the world works in this part of the country.


      I have not read of anyone being prosecuted for illegally killing wolves. There would be three scenarios, one no one is doing it, which I seriously doubt. Two, no one has been caught which is probably true. Three, the state fish and wildlife are not looking very hard at any evidence or anonymous tips and the federal government does not have the man power to mount any serious investigations.

    • jon says:

      SB, there are some who will take it into their own hands, but there is nothing that can be done about that. but as I was saying, if ranchers and wolves are to co-exist, ranchers have to find some way to better protect their livestock, so predator’s can’t get in. That way, wolves won’t have to die either. There has been times when ranchers lost livestock to wolves, so wildlife services were called in to kill the wolves. I don’t believe this is the way to co-exist with wolves. I don’t believe ranchers are doing everything they can to keep their livestock safe and away from predators. I also don’t believe that wolves should be killed for attacking livestock because I doubt they know any better, food is food to a predator, but to a rahcner, this is the last thing on his mind I am sure. Not only does the offending wolf sometimes get killed, but wildlife services have been known to wipe out whole packs even though one wolf from that pack was the one responsible for killing a farmer’s livestock. These issues could be a thing of the past if farmers actually started better protecting their livestock without calling wildlife services in to shoot some wolves dead, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    • Elk275 says:


      How would you better protect livestock that would not cost anything, not cause the animal to lose weight and not require any great amount of time? Ranchers have been raising livestock wolf free for nearly 100 years and now they have to take preventive measures that cost money.

      If the wolves do not eat the livestock what are they going to eat, elk. I hate it, but hunter trespass fees are starting to become a large component of a livestock ranchers income.

    • Jeremy B. says:

      If you check FWS’ data, you’ll see illegal killing is relatively low–probably due to a combination of lack of opportunity and adherence to the “fine line” SB described. Wolves are able to sustain quite high mortality (30%+), so I wouldn’t worry much about illegal killing on its own. Legal control actions represent–by far–the biggest source of mortality for wolves. The big question is: will WS control actions decrease with legal harvest? If not, hunting becomes an additional source of mortality and the combination of these three sources (i.e. illegal killing, WS control actions, and hunting) could significantly impact wolf populations.

    • jon says:

      Elk, I have no clue, but if farmers don’t start better protecting their livestock, they are going to lose more livestock to predators and those predators will likely be killed. You can’t blame animals for killing livestock, they are killing to eat, but you can blame farmers who don’t want to better protect their livestock without resorting to calling in wildlife services or just killing the wolves themselves and claiming the wolf was attacking their livestock. I don’t think there is any excuse for it. Farmers think they have more of a right to the land than predators and if predators kill their livestock, they call wildlife services in to kill them. This should not be happening in 2010. The only way things will change is if farmers get off their high horse and find some way to protect their livestock because what they have done so far clearly does not work. Not all places, but some.

    • jon says:

      Elk, yes, it may cost money for them and maybe a lot, but something has to be done. If not, the same thing is going to continue to happen, so something has to change. If you don’t stop the conflict, it will just keep growing and growing. Imo, in order for ranchers and wolves to co-exist, wolves need to stop being killed for just trying to eat and farmers need to somehow find some good way to ensure the safety of their livestock. Are there ways to better protect one’s livestock? I am sure there are, but you just gotta find them. If this ever does happen, I am sure it won’t be easy.

    • Elk275 says:


      I doubt that you know anything about cattle or ranching which is about 2% less than I know. I have ridden many miles cowboying and I ain’t no cowboy and never thought I was. There is going to be no easy or cheap way to manage wolves and cattle and most ranches that I have deal with have very minimal public land grazing. The average rancher could care less about wolves and if they kill his cattle then he is going to shoot them: then try to find him guilty in a western court of law. I have been working hard for the last 5 hours and I am now tried.

  5. Save bears says:


    What you don’t understand is the majority, don’t want to coexist with wolves…there is no majority that want this animal…

    • jon says:

      What is the majority to you savebears? I am certain there is a fair amount of people in the states that do have wolves that do want to co-exist with wolves. It’s just the wolf haters that don’t. The main people who don’t want to co-exist with wolves are hunters (NOT ALL) savebears and ranchers. I don’t want you to think I am picking on hunters, but it is simply the truth. There are indeed non-hunters who don’t want to co-exist with wolves too.

    • jon says:

      I am pretty confident in saying that all of the states that do have wolves, the majority of people in those states would most likely want to co-exist with wolves sb. I can’t say for certain how big the anti wolf movement is, but I think the majority of people would want to co-exist with wolves.

    • Save bears says:


      What do you base that opinion on?

    • I wouldn’t want to see any livestock owner reimbursed who maintains an attraction to wolves such as an unfenced carcass pit.

      I don’t think they should be reimbursed on public lands at all because predation is already factored in by means of the incredibly low federal grazing fees. Facing predation is always one argument for keeping them low. So they should not be able to collect twice, 1. low grazing fees and 2. when a predator takes their livestock.

    • Jeremy B. says:

      Whether your opinion is in the mainstream depends upon the population you are interested in. Certainly the majority of ranchers don’t want wolves, but the majority of Idahoans, Montanans, and even Wyomingites do. Move to the national level, and support becomes even stronger. Hunters are largely mixed regarding wolves, though hunters in Idaho seem to be particularly negative.

    • Ryan says:

      Dependa on where your at in the states, if you live in a Condo in PDX, then wolves are cool.. If you live on a ranch in Eastern oregon and are losing cattle to wolves.. Then they are not liked. Who should have more say, the people who are directly affected by wolves or the people that live 300 miles away?

    • jon says:

      SB, the fact that most people are good hearted people who know that animals have a right to live. That is what I am basing this on.

    • jon says:

      Jeremy, you said,

      Hunters are largely mixed regarding wolves, though hunters in Idaho seem to be particularly negative.

      My opinion is that a good majority of hunters in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana do have a negative attitude toward wolves, but what about the rest of the population that doesn’t hunt? It seems as if most of the people that are complaining about wolves are infact ranchers and some hunters. I don’t want anyone to think I have something against hunters, but we have to realize this is the truth. It is understandable coming from the hunter’s point of view. He wants elk and wolves eat elk, so I don’t think it’s a big leap to say that some hunters hate wolves and don’t want to co-exist with them because of this.

    • Jeremy B. says:


      Idaho conducted a survey as part of its wolf management planning. They asked a number of questions, but these particularly relevant to your question:

      Humans can co-exist with wolves in Idaho:
      Non-hunter: 67% agree
      Big game hunter: 42% agree
      Livestock producer: 22% agree

      It is important to me that wolf populations are healthy and self-sustaining in the U.S.
      Non-hunter: 65% agree
      Big game hunter: 26%
      Livestock producer: 17%

      It is important to me that wolves exist in Idaho:
      Non-hunter: 60%
      Big game hunter: 21%
      Livestock producer: 15%

      The best wolf management strategy is to reduce wolf populations to minimum pack numbers necessary to keep them off the endangered species list:
      Non-hunter: 43% (15% neutral)
      Big game hunter: 77%
      Livestock producer: 86%

      It is the last of these that bothers me the most. If I’m IDF&G I see this as carte blanche to reduce wolf populations down to 15 packs in the state. While some might say this is there prerogative, it is important to remember that the vast majority of occupied wolf territory occurs on federal lands–i.e. lands that belong equally to all U.S. residents.

    • jon says:

      Thanks for posting that Jeremy B. Based on what you posted, the majority of people surveyed do infact want to co-exist with wolves and as I said all along, is it ranchers and hunters who don’t. Not all, but a good deal of them anyways.

    • cobra says:

      A lot of how a survey turns out would depend on where it was taken. There would be a difference in taking a survey in Coeur’d’ Alene Idaho versus say Boise, or if they take a survey in small towns in Idaho that are around the wolves everyday versus a survey in the middle of a city. I think they can make surveys turn out however they want by where they take them.

    • Save bears says:

      Currently I reside, outside SandPoint, ID, and I can say, in 18 months, I have never run into anyone, Man, Woman or Child that talk favorably about wolves. I am not confident in the future when it comes to wolves…

    • JB says:


      Rather than argue with you, I’ll point anyone who cares toward the map on pg. 15,126 (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/74FR15123.pdf) showing NRM wolf territories, and the map-maker (http://www.nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp) that shows the federal public lands of the US.

      Make your own judgment.

    • jon says:

      SB, do you tell people where you live how you feel about wolves? It seems as if you may be one of the few people who actually likes wolves from where you live. Also, I will disagree and agree with your comment about it being easy to kill wolves. Wolves imo are easy to kill if you get a good shot on them, but they travel great distances and although some will definitely try to kill wolves, I believe most will fail. It isn’t that easy imo to find wolves, most of the time anyways. If killing wolves that indeed that easy, the 220 quota would have been met, but it wasn’t. Also, some wolf hunters would tell you that wolf hunting is indeed hard because wolves move around so much.

    • Save bears says:


      I gather information more than I state my opinion in these areas.

      As far as killing them, I am not talking about hunting in the sense you may think, I am talking about organized poachers and trackers, these are the same type of people who contributed to wiping out wolves in the past.

      Don’t think hunters, think organized criminals with one specific goal in mind…

      There is no animal that I am against, and never have been, I understand the balance in nature and don’t like to see organized efforts to get rid of any species.

      I consider myself pretty lucky, I have the ability to talk with people on both sides of the issue without suspicion because I take the time to learn from each side, but that does not mean I always agree…

  6. Save bears says:


    There is currently only 5 recognized states that have wolves and what I am readin and talking to people does not bode well for wolves..what you fail to realize, you don’t have to be a hunter to kill a wolf…

    Until such time as we get over the wolf haters and wolf lovers, we are going to continue to have this conversation……

    • Save bears says:

      Jon, and every body else, this has nothing to do with hunting…

    • jon says:

      SB, how many people have you talked to? You only read a few people’s opinions (maybe even a couple hundred) and that is not enough to say that the majority of people don’t want to co-exist with wolves. I can’t say how many of those that don’t want to co-exist with wolves there are, but I am a firm believer that the majority of people understand that wolves have a rightful place in the world and they have a right to live. As I said, I don’t know how big the anti wolf movement is in all of those states with wolves, but I am going with my gut and saying they are in the minority.

    • Jay says:

      Five? Alaska, Washington, Oregon, idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, and probably soon in Colorado, and possibly Utah. Not to mention the red wolf in N. Carolina…

    • jon says:

      Add New Mexico in there too Jay.

    • Jeremy B. says:

      “…you don’t have to be a hunter to kill a wolf…”

      True. But you do have to have opportunity, which is pretty tough when wolf densities are so low. There are two groups that have access (i.e. opportunity) and motivation to kill wolves: livestock producers and (to a lesser extent) hunters (more opportunity, less motivation).

      States with wolves:
      Great Lakes: Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin
      NRMs: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, and likely Utah
      North of the border: Alaska
      Mexican wolf: Arizona, New Mexico
      Red wolf: North Carolina

      For the record, that’s 11 to 13 (depending on whether you count Utah and if you want to exclude NC for having a different species).

    • Elk275 says:


      The last I read was the anti public lands trapping bill in Montana had only 6000 signatures. If they can not outlaw trapping on public lands there is very little support for wolves.

      Jon, where do you live and how much time do you spend in the west?

    • jon says:

      I don’t recall anyone talking about trapping in this particular post elk. Whether they ban trapping or not, what does that have to do with support for wolves? They want trapping banned on public lands to protect all animals, not just wolves elk.

    • Elk275 says:


      The large majority of people in Montana do not want wolves or a very limited number. I do not feel that the populus tolerate anymore than 150 – 200 in the state.

      Jon, where are you FROM? The rest of us have revealed are location.

    • jon says:

      And how do you know this elk? You are just guessing right or did you knock on everyone’s door and ask them if they wanted wolves in Montana or not? If you read Jeremy B’s post, the survey he posted shows that the majority of people surveyed want to co-exist with wolves in Idaho. Montana is anyone’s guess, but I don’t think it’s fair to assume that the majority of Montana people don’t want wolves, but you have a right to that assumption.

    • jon says:

      Oh, I know where you are getting at, because I don’t live where you live, I am not allowed to have an opinion right?

    • jon says:

      Well, I found one survey and maybe there is some truth in that most in Montana want wolves hunted. The people in Montana wanted to hunt wolves, but wanted grizzlies protected oddly enough. 75% of the people in Montana who were surveyed wanted to permit hunting and 17% did not want to permit hunting and 54% wanted grizzlies protected. Interesting survey to say the least.

    • Elk275 says:


      It’s not that. I one lives in the area and works and talks with people they can develop a feeling for what’s going on. One can find good support for wolves in Bozeman and Missoula proper but if one goes 20 miles in any direction and stops in the local bar/cafe they will find very little support for wolves.

      A survey can be construed to support any outcome. I was very much in favor of the original wolf transplant when the target figure was 10 breeding pairs or 150 wolves. I know that no document was signed from reading this forum. The public meetings eluded to the above number.

      At first I never noticed any anti wolf rhetoric but as the years have gone by every month there is more and more anti wolf feelings and they are getting worse as time goes on. Montana per capita sales of hunting licenses are the greatest in the nation and every year I am finding that wolves are a factor in hunting more every year. This is not going to go away now or any time soon. I feel that when the political parties are reversed then there will be a signing statement, executive order or an attachment on an unrelated bill loosing the control of wolves.

      Montana is only 29% federal lands and 6% state lands, I have no way of knowing but I would guess that the majority of wolves are on private land at the present. I feel that a private landowner on his own land has a right to protect his property from wolf predation and he/she should not have to use any different animal husbandry methods than he did 20 years ago. On federal grazing lands then there is the added responsibility of a lessee to provide additional protective measures which should be bore by the lessee.

    • Jeremy B. says:


      The vast majority of wolves primarily occur on federal public lands in the NRMs. Montana is no exception. Moreover, a recent analysis of wolf bounties suggests that wolves do not even occupy the lands within Montana where they were once most abundant. Surveys can indeed be constructed to arrive at the result one desires, but the studies we are discussing were not engineered to do so. The majority of residents in the NRMs support wolves, support wolf hunting, and support the control of wolves for livestock depredations. In short, they are pretty pragmatic about the issue. However, the whole thing becomes much more complex when you consider the views of those outside the NRMs.

    • jon says:

      Jeremy, I believe those that are effected by wolves most likely support the hunting of wolves than those who aren’t. That is not to say that all that have to put up with wolves want them hunted because I believe there are some who don’t. Ranchers want wolves dead because wolves attack livestock and some hunters want wolves dead because they are competition for elk. I guess these are understandable reasons, but me personally, I will never agree with them.

    • jon says:

      Jeremy B and elk, please take a look at this article when you get a chance and let me know your personal thoughts on it.


    • Jeremy B. says:

      Okay, I’m going to throw some “dated” data at you. Back when wolf reintroduction first started to be considered viable (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) Alistair Bath conducted several surveys, which were subsequently followed up with some research out of USU by Kristen La Vine. Here’s how residents in four NRM states responded to the statement: “Any benefits of having wolves in an area are outweighed by the monetary cost of managing them once they are there.”
      Utah: 40% agree
      Idaho: 31% agree
      Wyoming: 38%
      Montana: 45%

      And their responses to the question: “Which answer best describes your attitude toward the wolf?”
      Utah: 52% like (32% neutral)
      Idaho: 53% like (35% neutral)
      Wyoming: 49% like (35 % neutral)
      Montana: 45% like (33% neutral)

      Of course, that research is 20 years old…

    • Jeremy B. says:


      In general, residents in the NRMs are pretty pragmatic about wolves. They support hunting and lethal control but want to ensure the population remains viable. The results of this study do not surprise me in the least.

    • Elk275 says:


      What does it say about grizzly bears? The majority of people want them protected in the Greater Yellowstone area, it does not say in the State of Montana. Most of the bears in the state are in the Bob Marshall eco system. The limited hunting of males bears in the spring would not hurt the population in that eco system. In 1964 the grizzly bear harvest in the State of Montana was 104 bears.

    • Elk275 says:


      ++The vast majority of wolves primarily occur on federal public lands in the NRMs. Montana is no exception. ++

      I said at the present time which is May 25, 2010 in Montana. There would be nothing for a wolf to eat in high up in the mountains at the present time. The wolves like the elk have migrated to lower elevations which is mostly private land.

      There is a lot of Plum Creek lands in Montana and are we considering them as public lands. In Southwest Montana it is interspersed federal and private where most of the prey would be today. Is state land considered public? Not by the State of Montana. There would be no way to prove it either way.

    • Save bears says:


      Out of the list you have posted, the majority have a token populations, name the states that have major populations of wolves?

      Jon, I talk to a lot of people, I am in the field every single day. I can tell you for sure, that wolves are going to start really getting hit hard in the very near future…

      I WANT wolves on the landscape, I know their role and accept it, but I am not hearing good things from others….I spent the day in Hope, ID, Sandpoint, ID and Troy, MT and the picture is not good!

    • jon says:

      Yeah, I feel that to be the case as well whether wolves are protected or not. Hope for the best for the wolves, expect the worse.

    • Jeremy B. says:

      “Out of the list you have posted, the majority have a token populations, name the states that have major populations of wolves?”

      Agreed. However, I suspect you and I differ on what we consider “major” (very qualitative term, that) wolf populations. Moreover, there’s a lot of space between “token” and “major”, so let’s clarify a bit. Only two states have wolf populations that are robust enough in numbers and genetically diverse enough that they needn’t rely on wolves from other states to augment their populations (MN and AK).

      So there you go, 11, 13, or 2…depending on how you count.

  7. Nancy says:

    Elk 275 said: I hate it, but hunter trespass fees are starting to become a large component of a livestock ranchers income.

    Please explain that comment Elk.

    In addition to covering rancher losses for wolf depredation and the millions spent “controlling” a host of other pests for years, are local or state taxes also covering something else here when it comes to private property?

    WM said: That is a harsh reality of co-existence with humans, and one that some wolf advocates have a difficult time accepting.

    WM, I think what alot of wolf advocates have a hard time accepting is the out and out hate being propagated (especially in the media) by a handful of hysterical ranchers & hunters.
    Wolves have yet to sweep over the hillsides “like locusts” consuming everything in their path. From what I’ve been able to gather, the same ranchers seem to get hit over and over because THEY choose not to take responsibility for their livestock (as in profits) Its much easier to pick up the phone and call WS. Elk have redistributed in some areas for alot of reasons other than wolves.

    What’s happening to wolves (and other predators) doesn’t come close to the definition of “co-existing” with humans.

    Humans (because of our so called “superior intelligence”) are right now the bully species, top of the food chain, so to speak.
    We dictate continuely, thru thousands of avenues, when it comes to feeding our masses, how every other species out there should conform and align to our lifestyes, even though we fail miserably when it comes to managing and keep our species in check.

    It’s kind of a shame don’t you think when you realize, there’s little left when it comes to wilderness areas and wildlife habitat in this the country compared to say 20 years ago?

    • Elk275 says:

      It is simple: The Fying “D” ranch which is owned by Ted Turner grosses over $700,000 a year in hunting and guiding fees. There are several large ranches north of Bozeman and one of them leases to an outfitters for $80,000 a year and that is net.

  8. It’s my view that those who own livestock, and especially those run them on public lands, generally have a negative effect on water quality, fish and fishing, wildlife and hunting. I mean they impose a uncompensated cost on the rest of us.

    On the public lands livestock owners are given a subsidy by very low grazing fees imposed. The justification for this is usually that they have to face predators, recreationists, vandals, etc. The public lands, so it is said, are less desirable, therefore, grazing there should not cost as much.

    I strongly oppose compensating public land grazers because they lose livestock to predators or their livestock lose weight. They have already been compensated. This is double compensation, and for what?

    I’d go so far as to say that maybe livestock owners should compensate the rest of us for the damage they do.

    • Elk275 says:

      Agree Ralph.

    • Robert Hoskins says:

      Just to add a little fact, Aldo Leopold suggested in 1936 that private landowners be required to compensate the public for the damage done to public resources. He made that suggestion in the context of private game bird reserves killing hawks to protect game birds.

      This suggestion has great merit. Unfortunately, legislatures and the oligarchies they represent are interested in receiving subsidies from the public purse, not paying compensation into the public purse for the damage they do to public lands and wildlife.

      Were the public trust fully operative, we might have the leverage to put Leopold’s suggestion into effect.


  9. Si'vet says:

    An easy way to settle the minority, majority issue, with regards to wolves, by monitoring the up coming elections, wolves are hot topic in several western states, lets see how the majority of voters feel. I believe Malloy is appointed, it would be interesting to see how he would do in a election.

    • JEFF E says:

      Malloy is a federal judge, appointed, for life or until he decides otherwise
      I am sure there are exceptions but not in this case

    • Save bears says:

      He can be impeach and removed if it was found that he committed a crime or some action that is a violation of his oath..It is not a common action, but it has been done a few times over the years..

      I know there have been a few extremists that have tried to have Molloy impeached, but it has never went anywhere..

  10. ProWolf in WY says:

    Yes, moose and elk will be going extinct soon. Yet somehow wolves managed to be the second most widespread species in the world besides people…

    • jon says:

      Everytime there is a new article posted about wolves (not on here, mostly other websites), you will have the wolf haters making the same claim over and over again, if we don’t hunt wolves, they will wipe out all of the elk.

    • Angela says:

      I think part of the problem for wolf advocates is that *we* would like to run the “experiment” for several more years before managing wolf populations back to the minimum viable numbers. I don’t think we can learn much about predator-prey dynamics and the effects of wolves on ungulates when we are actively taking out and breaking up packs. I know this isn’t going to happen, but as a biologist, it would sure be interesting.

    • Save bears says:

      You know it is amazing, I spent about 4 hours watching a pack today, and if I was so inclined, I could have taken out 4 of the 9 I was watching, and I didn’t, but it would have been pretty easy…Folks we really need to start working together because if we don’t, the wolves in the lower 48 will again be gone, That I have no doubt of, Killing wolves is not hard and when we are talking the amount of land involved, there will be no one caught…

      It is time to put opinions aside and start figuring a way out to live together….

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      Jon, that argument is one I am so sick to death of hearing. It’s like these people didn’t pass junior high biology. Any idiot knows that if wolves were capable of this, they would have gone extinct thousands of years ago (along with their prey) and we would be reading about wolves, moose, and elk, the same way we do about mammoths. Just think, “Ice Age” could have been a wolf, moose, and elk!

    • jon says:

      Pro, you know that, I know that, but the wolf haters, they truly believe that. These people seem to have a real deep hatred for wolves. The other argument I am sick of hearing and I am sure you are too is the non native bigger and much more aggressive canadian wolf theory.


      You might recognize a few nuts who posted comments in the comment section.

    • jon says:

      SB, isn’t happening. I am taking a wild guess and assuming that hunters (not all) and ranchers both want very low #s of wolves in their state while pro wolf supporters want a lot. I don’t believe there will ever be a compromise. It just the way things are. The real anti wolf extremists even want wolves exterminated again. There is no balance. You have two completely different sides that want different things. There is no middle ground really in my opinion. There are those that want alot of wolves and there are those who want very few.

    • Save bears says:


      The problem is, those that want low numbers or even to exterminate wolves, live where they live and they have guns, the majority of people on this blog will never visit the areas that wolves inhabit and I am seeing a very disturbing trend among the ranchers…despite all efforts things are going down hill IN MY OPINION…

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Yesterday I was a participant in an extension service pilot program designed to get landowners and birders together to inventory birds living on the owner’s property. The surveys will be done primarily by auditorily rather than visual observations. One of the “birders” was a recent graduate from the University of Idaho who grew up north of Coeur d’Alene. I asked her opinion regarding the current wolf “situation”. She was not passionately anti-wolf but expressed the feeling that there was a lot of resentment and that she was inclined to side with those that thought wolves were unwelcome intruders. I have lots of relates in Idaho and they are certainly divided in their opinions.

      This tends to back up what Save bears says is the feeling he gets from the locals, “I am not confident in the future when it comes to wolves…”

  11. ProWolf in WY says:

    Where were you at Save bears? I’ve only seen loan wolves in Yellowstone. You are right though. It’s especially dangerous during an election year when you have gubernatorial candidates who are advocating extermination (in 2010 nonetheless).

    • Save bears says:


      I described where I live a couple of weeks ago on the blog, but I currently live in Northern Idaho, and run back to my property in Montana every couple of months, we are trying to sell our property in Montana and purchase a piece of property in Washington..

    • Save bears says:

      Because I don’t want to see wolves wiped out, I will only give the area I am in, but believe me, there are guys and gals out on the forest roads, every single day, looking to kill wolves..of course they will take the coyotes as well, but it is not a good situation..

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      I don’t blame you for not telling exactly where the wolves are. It really amazes me that people in this day and age are out to kill wolves like that. Do they know the 19th century ended a while ago?

  12. Angela says:

    Let’s take some of those thousands of dollars spent collaring wolves and fund college students to come up with new ways of protecting livestock. It has worked with other problems.

    My personal opinion is that it wouldn’t be impossible to create a better livestock guardian dog for protection against wolves. There’s no reason not to start trying to breed for qualities needed in such an animal. How about some of these breeds to begin with?
    “For centuries, flocks of sheep have existed in Caucasia… Dogs similar to this superb guardian have protected these sheep from both humans and animal predators for at least 600 years.”
    “The Anatolian Shepherd Dog is able to live outside all year round. For centuries the ancestors of the Anatolian Shepherd were used as a combat dog in war and for hunting. It was particularly valued for the victorious battles it could fight with wolves. The Turkish people would put a spiked color on them to protect their necks from getting bit by predators who attacked their charges.”
    “Excellent watchdog for herds, courageous and very combative where potential predators are concerned (bear, wolf, lynx).”
    “…the majority are bred by villagers who take great pride in the dogs’ ability to guard their flocks of sheep and goats from such traditional predators as the wolf, bear, and jackal.”
    “The Mastin always sticks close to his flock or herd, keeping wolves and other predators at bay. They do not chase predators away that approach, but rather warns them with fierce, deep barking and growling to keep their distance. However if the enemy decides not to back down, the Mastin will fearlessly and determinedly fight that predator/intruder (be it man or beast), to the death to defend what he calls his own. In Spain, shepherds often put traditional carlancas (spiked collars) on their Spanish Mastiffs to protect their neck in case they get into a fight with a wolf while defending their flock/herd…The Spanish Shepherd’s Association, Mesta, records how this bulky breed has been an efficient protector against wolves since the 1400’s.”

    • Defenders of Wildlife and others, even including the research arm of Wildlife Services, have come up with many ways to protect livestock short of killing wolves.

      Some of these were deployed as first, and they worked to some degree, but it is clear to me that Wildlife Services and Idaho Fish and Game are no longer interested in protecting livestock. Every time some are killed they have an excuse to go shoot a bunch of wolves.

      As a result even ranchers are suffering from their politically-driven management.

    • Ryan says:

      Might work for sheep, but it won’t work for cattle as they have a much different herd structure.

    • Angela says:

      But these aren’t herding dogs, they are livestock guardian dogs that patrol a perimeter. I guess that would be impossible if we are talking today’s gigantic cattle ranches, huh?

  13. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Can anybody tell me if this is the last Druid, the article states, that this was the last collard Druid, and this a sad day indeed !

    • As far as Yellowstone Park goes, the pack is no more. It could be possible that a couple old members have joined other wolf packs or travel as lone wolves.

      Because they had mange so badly, I think they will all die.

  14. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Thanks Ralph this is a sad way to end a great story of this pack.

  15. Nancy says:

    Great links and ideas dealing with wolf depredation Angela.

    Read somewhere a few years ago, that some people were experimenting with raising coyotes with sheep and the coyotes ended up defending their territory (and ultimately the sheep at the same time) against other coyotes. And most of us are well aware of the fact that coyotes account for far more losses in livestock than other predators combined.

    The same thought has been tossed around when it comes to wolf packs. Teaching them to avoid livestock (but, at the same time, ranchers would have to spend more time securing their livestock) Ranchers would reap the benefits of having an established wolf pack in an area, guarding against other wolves or packs coming in.

    Could it really be that simple? We are talking about very intelligent animals here.

  16. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    T Si’vert and all ; Have we given enough time for the balance of nature to occur in equilibrium ? ;would it be justified to begin wolf control ? even thou it already started. Does management of control of any predator achieve what it is supposed to achieve. Does control just go around in circles,or does it reallywork. I speaking for hunters as well as people who like to watch wildlife in action. P.S. I would suggest people watch cnn or “Anderson 360”,our wetlands are really in trouble and their doesn’t seem to be an call of emergency. I do not know why, but oil is all over without much help. No big tankers to take up the oil and water, no real cone to cover the pipe and suck it up,no real answers. Those links on dogs and wolves or coyotes are real good ideas,thank you Angela very informative.

  17. Cindy says:

    Some of us will continue to hope for a grand entrance by #480 as he emerges from the far reaches of the Confluence with healthy females in tow, ready to take back the Lamar. 🙂

  18. IzabelaM says:

    I am late in this discussion so I only add: ignorance breeds ignorance..fathers, sons, grandkids..it runs in familly. The education is not reaching any of the places in Idaho, MOntana and Wyo…sad but this is reality…ranchers, hunters..they only see their point. I just came back from YSNP..saw elks right and left..males, females, bears, pronghorns ..missing in the picture – Druids.
    The little red riding hood myth still exists. And as long as we have politicians who serve special interest groups we will have screwed up system.

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      IzabelaM, the sad fact is that ignorance does breed ignorance. I have heard kids who couldn’t be more than twelve years old complaining about how horrible wolves were and how liberals were screwing everything up. They could not come up with a reason for any of this but it was true to them regardless.

    • Save bears says:

      I disagree, Education is reaching many areas in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, albeit slowly, but there are educational programs that are teaching kids, that they are taking home and teaching parents and siblings…just because you didn’t see it, don’t think it is not working..

    • Jeremy B. says:

      I agree with both of you. Education about ecology, evolution and animal behavior is much needed in our schools and will pay dividends later on in terms of having an informed populace capable of making thoughtful, deliberative decisions about NR issues. However, information/education will not change the mind of anyone who is making decisions based upon ideology. Moreover, some people will refuse to believe, no matter how much science you provide to the contrary. Ecology isn’t always intuitive, and people tend to dismiss science that conflicts with their experience.

    • jon says:

      Pro wolf, I agree with you. Wolf haters will teach their kids that wolves are bad and should be shot. No amount of education is going to change a wolf hater’s mind imo.

  19. Dawn Rehill says:

    I have been following the Druid Pack from Brooklyn, NY to Jackson , WY , kinda different with the wolf issue out here then in NYC, but my feeling is still can’t take the top predotor, “spell check for word !” , it will never work cause nature will not be in balance . It’s a given .

  20. Si'vet says:

    Richie, sorry for the delay other irons in the fire. Equilibrium, is really in the eye of the beholder. In my lifetime I don’t think nature has ever been in balance, and as for that pure Utopia, with billions of humans on the planet, ain’t gonna happen. As far as I am concered and what my interests are, I see things disinegrating at a rapid rate.
    Predator control:I’ll assume your talking about hunters hunting wolves. As for hunters hunting wolves, and control, there has been one hunting season, they are a predator and there is a learning curve on what it takes to be successful. Other than people trying to sell a book or a TV most hunters keep their hunting spots and techniques, very close to the vest. Not the case with wolves, every method and area I have had success in I share it willingly, as do others. So I believe the learning curve won’t be quite as long in many cases. If your asking about coyotes, their an interesting and hardy predator, and control is usually short lived unless mange shows up then the rebound period is much longer. Example: Say a ranch I hunt coyotes on has 100 coyotes. So by Feb 10th, I’ve removed 70% (never happen, but just say). The rancher gets relief during calving season. But the remaing coyotes will usually produce enough pups to bring the number back up close to 100 again, (unless disease hits). I’ve seen in many cases in many different areas, if the coyotes population gets real high which they can do quickly, mange is always knocking on the door. Richie about 4 miles from my house there is an old abandon hay field full of moles, a pair of coyotes took up residence there 3 yrs. ago, a small female with a white tip tail and a large male with a droop ear, named them big Dan, little Ann, not original, last fall Ann got hit by a car, Dan has about 3 hairs left on his tail, he has a few weeks left at best. Hope these were answers you were looking for, if not, let me know.

  21. Angela says:

    The current management situation is to maintain excess elk for hunting, so if wolves were in a “dynamic equilibrium” with ungulates, the number available to hunters could be severely reduced. What were elk and deer populations like before humans changed the landscape to be more favorable to elk and deer by increasing edge habitat and extirpating predators like wolves?

  22. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert;
    I did know about coyotes, mutiplying faster if control takes place by man,but mange kills coyote’s faster, I got this from your response, if I got this wrong please correct me. But I find it funny, you would say,you would hold your hunting skills close to the vest pertaining to elk,and other prey.But in the case of wolves you would share hunting skills, why are wolves so important to kill ?; again if I misinterperting this, please correct me . In Montana their is less than a million people,again am I correct on this? I know it would put pressure on the hunter if the government waited for equilibrium, in the case of wildlife. But if they did wait,less food supply and mange would kill the number of all predators,especially wolves.I can understand this is hard,you did mention calving season, but farmers just have to find ways to protect their livestock better. This could be accomplished,yes this is the hard way and may be expensive and time consuming. But isn’t it worth it,to live in harmony, with nature and our surroundings.

  23. Si'vet says:

    Richie, your questions though simple are pretty complex in my eyes. We both have alittle different communication styles, but lets give it a go. I believe this thread is all but done so I don’t think we are in anyones way. First a disclaimer, Richie I’m and Idahoan, have been for 50++ yrs. so according to recent posts, I’m a half wit, blood thirsty, uneducated Idahoan, who raised his kids in his own image.
    And my comments are from what I see, and experience.
    Coyotes are very interesting and adaptable, if there numbers are reduced, and their prey base is stable, they will generally have larger litters with higher survival success rates, so if something catostrophic doesn’t happen they will remain at habitat carrying capacity. Mange doesn’t kill more quickly, it is a slow terrible death. If I had a camera that I could attach to my spotting scope, I would forward you a picture of big Dan, The oozing sores on his hip, anus, and ribs are tear jerking. Mange is highly contagious kills more complete, adults, to pups, etc. Until the population is all but wiped out. Then in a few years new coyotes will move in and repopulate.
    As far as holding hunting areas and techniques close to the vest with regards to elk etc. As far as “area” I’ve spent more time hunting for areas to hunt than actually hunting. For many hunters having a no tell um spot they can hunt without being desturbed, is more important than actully being sucessful. Any one who tells you, if the elk are reduced to low numbers by wolves or weather in your spot so it’s not ethical to hunt them you just need to move to a different area has absolutely no clue with regards to what makes up a quality hunting spot. As far as techniques, I’m selfish, I learned the skills etc. with thousands of hours in time spent, and tens of thousands $$$ in fuel, so I appreciate it. Why should anyone have it given to them, with sacrafice comes appreciation and respect. As for sharing the information about wolf hunting, I want to see the numbers reduced as quick as possible. Wolves are part of a bigger agenda and that is to eliminate hunting. And with that I take a big issue. So for now, the legal succes of each wolf hunter = more elk, and hunting opportunities.
    As far as harmony, what I consider harmony, and what your definition is are probably different, my harmony includes spending time iin the mountains with family and friends, “hunting”.
    Farmers I think you really mean ranchers, and for time sake let’s talk cattle.
    Most ranchers in Id, Wy, Mt, run their operation similar to what I am going to explain, note, most not all.
    A lot of ranches are located close to where their going to summer graze and there called cow calf opertions. Late winter, very early spring the cows calve, usually in long pastures bordering open country, these patures can run for miles, calving in confined areas ” can” lead to losses due to being stepped on etc. The afterbirth and milky scours are really a big part of what draws in the coyotes and other predators. The cows are calving night and day in these large pastures, most ranches have a night rider, but still calves are lost to predation, especially when predator numbers are high, competition for food is high. Most dogs are used for moving the cattle, having a dog or dogs, sit out among a herd of cows that could stretch for up to say a half a mile at 20 below zero for a month is asking a lot. As a former dog trainer if I trained a dog to do that @ 100%, I would have to sell that dog for thusands of dollars to recoop my time. We’re talking about training a dog to work unsupervised in and uncontrolled enviroment. In comparison, to train a squirrell to ride a water ski behind a remote controlled little boat in a controlled enviroment is reletively simple.
    The cows and new calves are then feed hay until late spring then they are driven to nearby grazing allotment, and they summer pasture. That fall they are rounded up, the calves are sold to a feed lot or finishing operation, the cows are returned to the pasture and fed hay and the ranchers makes his/her profit on the weight gain from the time the calf is born until it is sold in the fall. Then the next late winter/early spring the cycle starts over
    again. Whew.. Hope that helps

    • Angela says:

      Si’vet, livestock guardian dogs are not herding dogs. They have been specifically bred to stay with a flock or herd 24 hours a day with no supervision, not trained. Some of these breeds are not pets and never come inside a house. The best way to train a LGD is for a pup to be with an experienced dog; no training by human necessary. I know that good herding dogs can sell for many thousands of dollars, and I expect trying to get a central Asian dog here in the US would be very expensive.

      I don’t think a single dog could protect a cattle ranch, but wouldn’t it be worth some experimenting with, say, six dogs to a ranch? I’d rather see an experiment like that subsidized by the government than all this money spent flying in helicopters and collaring wolves. But there would be problems I’m sure. These dogs would likely kill any domestic dog that comes near.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      How come elk usually have calves in June, when temperatures are warm and there is lots of forage and you say cattle are birthing in late winter early spring when temperatures may be at -20 (degrees F ?); are they not adapted to the western climate and/or are their owners just trying to get a crop of calves to market weight by fall and, therefore, breeding them too early to survive the rigors of western weather?

    • Jon says:

      Barb, kill game I imagine. That is why most of the wolf haters who hunt hate wolves. Wolves hunting elk for survival=pissed off hunters who want more elk hunting opportunities for themselves. The opportunity is there, elk are still plentiful in Idaho based on what the fish and game agencies have said. I talked to some guy who works for Idaho fish and game and he said there is no doubt there will be fewer elk with wolves around, but I see nothing wrong with this. Hunters cannot expect elk #s to stay high all the time when they have numerous predators trying to eat them and that includes man.

    • Elk275 says:

      Jon, then the wolves are going to be shot legally or illegally. The bear and lion quotas have been increased in Idaho to 2 bears and 2 lions in certain districts. Save Bears has said it well, no one in Northern Idaho likes wolves and due to the open spaces and remoteness it has become an animal of opportunity for certain individuals.

    • Jon says:

      Have wolves eaten all the elk in Idaho? ‘Not even close,’”says Brad Compton, of Idaho Fish and Game, according to a summary of elk hunting opportunities published by the foundation. “We still have some good elk hunting. Wolves have had an impact on our herds in some parts of the state, but they’ve not been decimated like it’s been publicized.”

      Not cited is a sentence that states, “Elk populations are fairly stable statewide with areas of western Idaho trending upward, while wolves have had the biggest impact on the Lolo and Sawtooth zones on the Idaho/Montana border.”

    • Save bears says:


      We are stuck in an endless loop, and it will continue and unfortunately, some of those who were legitimate hunters will become poachers, and people that don’t live with wolves will never understand…as I said, endless loop of continued arguments with no solution in sight..

  24. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert;
    I only got through half your thread,look I do not think your a blood thristy killer, I think your an up standing person. We could have our differences,but I see you as a thoughtful person. You take time to explain things, in a nice manner. As for the mange, I had a German Sherpard,who had exama,did not spell that correct, my thing is more math, my mother was the reader and speller in the family. Getting off track, what I meant mange is more effective at kills than control. I know it’s horrible, must be hard to watch,you are a compassionate person.Let me go back and read the rest.

  25. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert;
    I respect your opinion on wolves, but I must disagree respectably, Montana is a big place,Idaho too, so can’t you make room for wolves and other predators? I think your wrong,nobody wants to stop hunting, if they did their would be no IF&G OR BLM. I can only speak for me,conservation is a big thing to me, and predators have a hard life. New York Times,on Tuesday has a Science times,they had an article on Yellowstone and wolves,in fact just after I came back from Yellowstone. A wolf traveld over a thousand miles or a couple of thousand could be wrong,have the article at home some where. Only to come back to Yellowstone area a year later ,to be shot by a hunter or a farmer,forgot which one. To me that is sad, to travel for survival all that way only to be killed, this is heartbreaking to me.

  26. Si'vet says:

    Richie, you said you had a German shepherd, if the dog is still alive, may I suggest you have it’s thyroid checked if you haven’t already. Another suggestion is maybe change it’s food, a brand called science diet has a food line that will sometimes minimize flaky skin or excessive oily/smelly coats. It will get back with you a little later on the wolves vs hunting.

  27. Si'vet says:

    Richie, if you go back and reread many of the posts I believe you will find some pretty strong antihunting sentiment, and the return to the natural order, when did humans give up there right to be part of the earth, I believe we are part of the make up of the earth. I don’t recall an ESA animal recovery being any greater than the wolf to this point, and it’s still not enough, when’s is it good enough, and when is that, apparently when the predators are the only ones controlling the prey population which equates to 0 hunting. And if that is what a persons agenda is, I call that antihunting.
    Richie, there was a recent post about a drive through yellowstone national zoo, and the person saw all kinds of game, but I will focus on elk. There were elk on bothsides of the road, cows, bulls etc. Well it’s the time of year when elk are traveling and in many cases it’s the path of least resistance, the same as our hiway systems, so their visible. I can take this same scenerio, several weeks ago, and show you elk on there wintering grounds within site of the road. This stretch of road is about 100 miles long, I’ve traveled it hundreds of times in the winter and spring, and always see elk, and I can tell you ahead of time when your going to see them, within about a mile or so. This early spring no difference “except” the same herds of elk were about 2/3 to 1/2 or in size. Same number of herds, to a new comer it might have looked impressive, but to someone who is familiar with these herds it was heart breaking, it wasn’t over hunting, or weather that has reduced the herds. There has been but one significant change of late. These elk have since started to move back up to there traditional calving grounds they will start calving pretty heavey in the next week or so. Rest assurd I’ll be up on the ridges around the June 15th counting calves, that to will be heart breaking, it was last year. So as the prey numbers continue to decline, so does hunting opportunities, and for things to reach it’s so called natural balance that excludes me. Left unchecked wolves will continue to increase, and move until finding food becomes difficult enough they start stressing then litter size become smaller, pup survival is lowered and competition for the food source creates more conflict which will also inflict a toll. But be rest assurd, my opportunities to hunt elk will have long will have long since passed.
    Ritchie, if it was the story about the female wolf that did the Colorado trip and back about 2006, I believe I listened to Mike Jiminez talk about that travel and he was actually pointing at how the argument for lack of connectivity wasn’t completely valid.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Spoken well by an Idaho “game” hunter’ Si’vet.

      “So as the prey numbers continue to decline, so does hunting opportunities, and for things to reach it’s so called natural balance that excludes me.”

      Is he concerned with wildlife or his opportunity to kill “game”?

    • Elk275 says:

      Barb he is concerned about wildlife because he and I want a yearly opportinity to hunt and kill an elk.

    • Jon says:

      Elk, may I ask a few questions? The elk in Idaho aren’t extinct correct? There are plenty of elk left? I imagine the area where you used to hunt elk is not really a good area to hunt elk anymore for whatever reasons correct? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just find another area in Idaho to hunt if you know that the area you used to hunt has less elk in it than from before?

    • Jon says:

      Si’vet, elk are not extinct in Idaho. There are plenty of elk left. The problem lies in hunters trying to find them. With numerous predators, you cannot expect elk #s to be high mainly for hunter harvest. There are still elk opportunity out there for elk hunters. You just got to find one. Will it be easy? My guess is most likely not, but a hunt was never intended to be easy.

  28. Si'vet says:

    Barb, the reason they calve so early is one for max weight gain by fall when they are sold to finish, the other reason is so they are weined or close to weined when they go to summer graze, so the cow gets good gain, and the calf gets the best weight gain by fall. A calf born in june is 400 lbs. by Oct. a calf born in Feb is 550+ on good graze by Oct. pounds are $$. 150 x ??? = $$$. Barb it’s about weight gain, and profits. I’ve read on this site how people think domestic cattle are flimsy, I’ve watched calves born in -20 below and they are remarkably tough. There are losses, but the topic of this conversation is predator loss.
    Angela, I know the differnce between guard dogs and herding dogs. In fact you have entered an area I feel very comfortable in discussing. Do you know the difference between how Europeans and Americans manage their livestock? I do. I would be very happy to discuss canine aggression instincts, any time…….

  29. Si'vet says:

    Jon in all honesty, your one of the most naive persons with regards to hunting I have ever engaged in conversation with. I’m sorry if i come off rude but I’m speaking the truth. Sure Jon, when elk numbers are depleted (in the area I’ve hunted, the LoLo ) I can move. And you have also stated that your so called published experts are better hunters, it’s just not that simple.
    I’m not the only hunter whose going to have to move and make adjustments, so now there are hundreds if not thousnads of hunters, looking for new areas, and now the landscape starts to shrink. I wish you knew what it takes to find a new “quality”hunting spot. An area in which you can hunt, and have ample opportunity without being interfeared with. Damn Jon you are so naive. Jon let me share something with you, if it was just about KILLING an elk, I could spend about a 1/2 hour every hunting season with a rifle and be done with it, but it’s not. It’s about a “quality” hunting experience, I’m a trophy hunter, which means I’m all about the hunting experience, it’s similar to catch and release, I enjoy sneaking up on, or calling in many elk and letting them pass, and when the I’ve done it right I “might” get a chance at the one, if I didn’t do it right oh well. As elk numbers continue to decline and hunting pressure gets sqeezed tighter and tighter, those opportunities to truly “hunt elk” are dimished. I have spent a lot of time, sweat and money so that my grandchildren can have some of the same opportunities I have had, and there’s nothing I won’t do to defend their rights. Your standard saying…. IMO, well very few things can prepare todays youth for tomorrow like a quality hunting experiences. So bottom line, just keep posting your one sided links, spewing your naive jargon, and I will keep printing it and sharing it with others, you and others like you help me convince fence sitters, that this is not really about wolf recovery it’s about taking away the hard earned opportunities of honest, hard working, tax paying Americans. And with that Jon I bid you good bye, for good, you are to narrow and selfish for me to waste my time on..

    • jon says:

      Wrong si’vet, I never said my so called published hunters are better hunters. I simply posted an article where a hunter said he saw many elk and elk hunting opportunity was still good. You are acting like there are no more elk. There are plenty of elk left in Idaho and there is still elk hunting opportunity. As I said, the problem lies in trying to find them. Elk hunting is SUPPOSED to be hard si’vet.

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      Si’vet, read the article Jon posted. I think it has some pretty good information on it from a hunter. I think some of your arguments are a bit of a stretch though. This is about wolf recovery. The anti-hunters a small minority. Most people do want to see wolves and elk coexist. In the article that Jon posted, it says that elk are acting more like elk. You said so yourself that you have no problem hunting harder for elk. I also might point out that hunting is not a right, it is a privilege. People can lose this privilege.

    • Save bears says:


      In many states now a days, hunting is a right, guaranteed by their state constitution, I know Montana amended their constitution to guarantee the right to hunt and fish for their residents..

    • jon says:

      SB, that is right, but no one is saying that hunting isn’t a right. The elk hunting opportunity is still there and will always be I believe. Si’vet believes that we wolf lovers are trying to get hunting banned, . Pro, that is only one hunter’s opinion and I am sure there are others who have totally different views than him.

    • Save bears says:


      Pro, just posted it was a privilege and not a right, and I just corrected is all, because in many states it is a Right and not a privilege. As far as the pro wolf contingent wanting to get hunting banned, actually that is the feeling in many hunters that I talk to…

    • Elk275 says:

      Jon what are you saying?

      ++I also might point out that hunting is not a right, it is a privilege. People can lose this privilege.++

      Then you say:

      ++SB, that is right, but no one is saying that hunting isn’t a right. The elk hunting opportunity is still there and will always be I believe++

      I can not believe that with in minutes you can change your statements.

      Hunting is a right in Montana but your privilage can be suspended for hunting violations.

      I just wished that you would try to learn something about hunting and take up the offer that Si’vet has made. I might even buy the food.

    • jon says:

      I guess some can view it as both. I mean you do have to pay to hunt, but at the same time, hunting should be a right to provide food for you and your family. Just my opinion anyways. I cannot speak for everyone, but I doubt that pro wolf people want regular hunting banned, but I am sure there might be some who do, who knows. They may want wolf hunting banned, but I doubt most of them see anything wrong with hunting elk or deer or whatever for food purposes.

    • Save bears says:

      See Jon,

      That is the big difference in being in the field talking to hunters and non-hunters alike over reading news articles, opinion pieces, an blogs…nothing like on the ground experience to really ascertain what is truly going on..

    • Save bears says:


      No, you can’t view it both ways, in the state of Montana you are guaranteed by the constitution to hunt and fish, and the only way that right can be revoked is if you are convicted of a violation..baring that, you have the constitutionally guaranteed right to hunt, and it does not matter how you classify the hunt, food, trophy or sport, in the eyes of the law they are all the same..

    • jon says:

      Elk, I believe it to be a bit of both. Elk, I believe pro wolf in WY said hunting is a privilege.

    • Save bears says:

      Jon and Pro,

      Here is a website that talks about many of the states, the status of the various amendments and what has happened with them…


    • jon says:

      Well sb, I view it as both personally. I am sure many hunters will tell you it is their right to hunt, as long as you pay.

    • Elk275 says:

      Jon, you said that it was a privilege and if Pro Wolf said it then you did not give him any credit. Get things straight Jon.

    • jon says:

      No elk, I said it was a right and a privilege.

    • Save bears says:


      You can view it anyway you want, but what matters is what the Constitution of the States say. Just as the Civil rights guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution, It says I have a right to own a gun, but I still must purchase that gun, the fact you have to spend money to exercise your right, has nothing to do with it..in same vein, you can be sued for violation of my civil right if you try to interfere with the exercising of my civil right(s)

      You can’t just redefine it as a privilege because you might or might not agree with it..

    • jon says:

      Hunting is a privilege. ALL states recognize hunting as a privilege granted to certain individuals… not a right. Neither the federal nor any state constitution recognize hunting as a right. From the Illinois hunter education manual, page 5:

      Thoughts savebears?

      Maybe pro wolf is right afterall. I always thought it was both a right and a privilege to hunt myself.

    • Elk275 says:

      Jon please think before you write. Here is the section in the Montana State Consitution on hunting:

      Section 7. Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.
      History: En. Sec. 1, Const. Amend. No. 41, approved Nov. 2, 2004.

    • Save bears says:


      Just as an example read the section of the Montana State Constitution that Elk posted, it is a RIGHT not a privilege , if you will read the link I provided earlier, you will see many states have amended their constitutions to reflect the hunting heritage as a RIGHT…

    • Save bears says:

      My Thoughts:

      The Illinois hunter education manual in incorrect based on what various state constitutions say..

    • jon says:

      Maybe so in MT, but not all other places savebears.

      Like many licenses, a hunting license is considered a privilege granted by the government, rather than a constitutional right under the Second Amendment

    • jon says:

      sb, that is what I have said all along, that it is a right and a privilege depending on where you live. Some places, it is a right and others it is a privilege.

    • Save bears says:


      First of all, hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment, that is the right to keep and bear arms.

      Second, did you read the link I provided earlier?

      As far as a hunting license being a privilege, yes, it is as long as you have not violated any game laws, they cannot deny you the ability to purchase a license…to do so would be a violation of the right to hunt, if you just read through the link I provided about Rights to Hunt, you will see that many states have a provision in their constitution..

      But, if you choose to not read it, then you are just doing what you do so well, read what supports your position and not what is the truth…

    • Save bears says:


      No, that is not what you have been saying..anyway, I have work to do, and I know, getting into it with you is an exercise in futility!

    • jon says:

      jon Says:
      May 29, 2010 at 11:55 AM
      No elk, I said it was a right and a privilege.

    • jon says:

      Sb, you only talked about Montana, but that is only one place. There are other places where hunting is regarded as a privilege and not a right. Some places are changing that from a privilege to a right, but depending on who you ask and where they are from, it can be both a right and a privilege. I was right all along. I have said it was both a few times already.

    • Save bears says:


      Just read the damn link I posted, It has the majority of states that have passed or attempted to pass amendments about the right to hunt, I did not only talk about Montana, I posted a link to ALL the states that have taken this on, and what each respective state has done…in regards to the RIGHT TO HUNT!

    • jon says:

      Yeah sb, I posted a link as well. http://arizonahuntingtoday.com/desertrat/2008/03/08/should-hunting-be-a-constitutional-right/comment-page-1/?jal_no_js=true&poll_id=17

      I said in my last comment that some places are changing hunting to be a right instead of a privilege just like you said, but I believe there are STILL some places where hunting is regarded as a privilege still. You also said the MAJORITY of states, so clearly, there are some places where hunting is still regarded as a privilege and not a right.

      Remember, hunting, fishing or trapping is a privilege and not a right-Wyoming fish and game

      I still believe imo that it is both.

    • Save bears says:


      I did not say MAJORITY, I said MANY, stop trying to put words in my mouth or my posts, I read your article, did you read the link I posted?

    • jon says:

      Save bears Says:
      May 29, 2010 at 12:38 PM

      Just read the damn link I posted, It has the >majority< of states that have passed or attempted to pass amendments about the right to hunt, I did not only talk about Montana, I posted a link to ALL the states that have taken this on, and what each respective state has done…in regards to the RIGHT TO HUNT!

      You said majority savebears unless I am blind. You are obviously reading from what you see in the link, but you still said majority.

  30. Si'vet says:

    Barb, you can call me T or T-bone. I want quality hunting opportunities for my children and grandchildren, so they have the opportunity to enjoy what I’ve enjoyed, that’s number #1 end of story. I have given back to wildlife much more than I’ve ever taken, and I’ve raised my children to do the same. As Jeremy B posted 30 yrs ago there was a positive reply with regards to wolves, I’m pretty sure back then my response towards wolves was positive. I never dreamed that wolf introduction would be used as a tool to take away my opportunities to hunt, and end hunting all together. My response with regards to the current situation would not be no, but hell no. I’m not even going to go into the whole, $$$, Canada, and genetics issue. The fact that people want wolves to completely (manage deer,elk, moose,) etc numbers, and bring us back into “harmony” tells me everything I need to know. Harmony please!!! As far as wildlife are concerned, in the winter of 1992/93, I arranged with IFG that my self and several other folks would pay for and ship in nearly a hundred ton of Timothy type hay to help get the deer through that fatal winter. I also volunteered to provide food for every bird within a 200 mile radius of my home, including transportation. Even though there was interest, they never pulled the trigger. And since the winter of 92/93, I have not harvested a deer or gamebird in that area. I have also supported another very popular bird species for the last 5 yrs. so that “others” may have the opportunity to observe and or hunt them. So Barb you tell me, do you really think it’s all about the kill.

  31. Si'vet says:

    Yes, Jon you certainly did say it. And find one time where I said there are NO elk. I say REDUCED numbers.
    I have no problem hunting hard for elk, In fact you’ll find me hunting elk in places most other peolpe wouldn’t even consider hunting. So you can take your supposed to be HARD statement and file it with all your other baseless statements. I offered to show you hard, and you couldn’t even buck up enough to see for your self. See if you can understand this and I’ll go slow. It’s not about how hard or challenging it is, it’s about not making hunting opportunitites EXTINCT. There are still elk around, today, but you have to look past the end of your nose an see what’s down the road. And from what you post it’s easy to see you have no personal experience, with regards to the things you talk about, there is alot more to it than what you can find on the internet. It’s called actuallity.

    • Jon says:

      Who is trying to make hunting opportunities extinct? I doubt most are actually trying to do that. Most have no problem with hunting for food if that is what you do. You said in the past you are a sport hunter and you kill animals for the sport. You said you hunt predators. I think the problem lies with you assuming that some want to end hunting. Elk are not going anywhere and elk are still plentiful in Idaho, so I have no idea why you complain it seems.

    • Jon says:

      Si’vet, saving wolves lives does not mean that some want to end hunting opportunities of elk for human hunters. I can’t speak for everyone, but it is possible that some individuals want that to happen and some do not and understand and accept hunting for food. You are being paranoid and nothing more. I doubt elk hunting will ever be banned. It is here to stay and as I said, elk are plentiful in Idaho.

  32. Si'vet says:

    Yup naive, and all you can do is use someone elses opinion.
    Put on your boots and try seeing for your self whats going on “Actuallity”.
    Thanks for proving my point.
    I eat every ounce of what I kill, and you can call it what you want.
    And your point about being a predator hunter with regards to this conversation is????
    And by the way Richie and I had chosen this tattered thread so we could discuss some of his and my real concerns, from 2 different ends of the country.

    • jon says:

      That is one opinion that comes from a hunter. All it does is show people that not all hunters agree on the same things.

  33. Si'vet says:

    Prowolf, I’ve read that article several times, it’s been posted on every prowolf website I can think of. Ironic isn’t, the same people giving him and his family death threats are now using his situtation to further there cause. Pro, this hunter killed the first wolf and that makes him an expert on the elk/wolf relationship over the entire 3 state area, it’s just one persons opinion and he is entitled to have that opinion. Damn if I hadn’t had a prior family commitment On Sept 1, I could have possibly been #1 and be quoted, and posted by Jon, and considered an expert. No fame and fortune for just being in the top ten, always a day late. Pro let me repeat, I already hunt harder than most, it’s not about harder, it’s about hunting “at all”. You don’t have to come out and say your antihunting all you have to do is keep pushing an agenda that eliminates or delays wolf management, and the elk numbers continue to drop, again like I said months ago, the elk, deer, moose populations don’t have to go to zero, before hunting is halted. all the numbers have to do is drop to a point where the population can’t sustain the additional loss to hunting. Is thiat so hard to understand. SB,Elk,WM. If I’ve typed this in correctly so it’s not understandable to the normal person, would you please help me out, and repost what it is I’m trying to say.thanks

    • Save bears says:

      I understand fully what you are saying, but I don’t think re-posting it in any fashion will change the conversation at all…unfortunately..

    • jon says:

      Si’vet, I never called the guy a wolf expert. All it is is one opinion from a wolf hunter, nothing more and nothing less.

  34. ProWolf in WY says:

    Save bears, Elk, and Jon, I just looked at the link and it looks like hunting is not a right in Idaho or Wyoming. I did not know it was a right in Montana (or other states). I had always been taught it was a privilege but I guess I was taught wrong.

    • jon says:

      You are right Pro wolf. I was telling savebears that. Hunting is regarded as a right in some places and a privilege in others. Hunting in Idaho and Wyoming is a privilege, not a right!

    • Save bears says:


      I would say, you were not taught wrong, but the states have been changing their constitutions in the last few years to help combat the many anti-hunting organizations.

      And remember with any right comes responsibility, such as with the 2nd, that right can be suspended if you are convicted of a crime as your right to hunt in the states that have this provision can be if you violate the law..

    • Save bears says:

      I did not say it was a right in Wyoming and Idaho, I said it was a right in Montana and other states, and I provided information to show which ones it is a right in…

    • jon says:

      sb, I read it already. Hunting is considered a right in 25 states. What about all of the other states? As I said, in some places still, hunting is a privilege, not a right.

    • jon says:

      Savebears, I was right all along. I said it was both. I said in some places, it is a right and others it is a privilege. Does anyone know if Idaho and Wyoming will ever change hunting to a right and not a privilege?

    • Save bears says:

      And Jon,

      I said MANY, not the MAJORITY of states, right now all it will take is ONE state to change its constitution and then it will be a MAJORITY….Christ!!!!! And I never said it was a right in Wyoming or Idaho…!

    • jon says:

      sb, I am looking at that site and it seems as if some of the “right to hunt” bills some states died.

    • Save bears says:

      Yes, they have, and some still have bills in carry over status and some have passed and signed them into law…

    • jon says:

      savebears, i found a more recent article. I don’t know how old it is, but I would say maybe 2 or 3 years old.

      States That Currently Have Constitutional Amendment to Hunt and Fish (includes state and year passed)
      Vermont – 1777
      Alabama – 1996
      Minnesota – 1998
      North Dakota – 2000
      Virginia – 2000
      Wisconsin – 2003
      Louisiana – 2004
      Montana – 2004
      Georgia – 2006

      States That Have Attempted and Failed or Are Still Active
      Arizona (active)
      Idaho (active) *Mar. 21, 2008 – Pulled for this legislative session. Will be introduced next season again.
      Michigan (active)
      New Jersey (active)
      New Mexico
      New York
      Oklahoma (active)
      Pennsylvania (active)
      South Carolina (active)
      South Dakota (active)
      Tennessee (active)
      West Virginia


  35. ProWolf in WY says:

    Save bears, that is a good thing to point out. Rights do come with responsibilities. I think too many people forget that and go on a broken record saying that it is their right.

  36. Si'vet says:

    We have the right to have the priveledge to hunt.
    Example on what I posted a bit ago.
    The LoLo elk hunting zone is large hunting area. In my opinion the numbers are so low I feel it should be closed completely instead of just reducing the tags issued. Could I go back in that area and kill an elk this fall, probably, do I feel killing those elk an adding to reduction is the right thing to do hell no, and I won’t. The area I’m moving to appears to have a more stable population, at the moment, so I consider it huntable. Because there is a fair number of elk in that area, are the wolves increasing in that area, yup there’s food available, from what I’ve observed on the wintering grounds, my take is about 2 yrs. and that area will also need to be reconsidered as being able to sustain hunting opportunities.

  37. Cobra says:

    I know 2 local bear and lion hunters with dogs that are and quitting the business. They’ve both lost dogs the past couple of years to wolves and just can’t take the heart ache of losing anymore. So I guess you could say that the wolves are already shutting down some hunting opportunities. I know to most on here it’s a good thing, mainly because it’s hunting with dogs, but it’s still a lost right or privleledge to these guys.

  38. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    T Si’vert;
    Sorry busy weekend ,landmower broke,my neighbor gave me a mechanical one,never again. The German Shepard I mention was my first dog. Believe it or not the science diet,made the rash or did something bad to my dog,her name was lady,loved that dog. Even have an old picture of her and my mother side by side,my mother had the dog on the bed with her hugging. Brings back memories, now you know a little bit more of me my friend. Sorry got to get dressed it’s hot and Sunday, m dogs are wating for a walk and girlfriend is waiting to go out, talk soon.

  39. Si'vet says:

    Cobra, hound hunters are going extinct around here as well. My really good friend KD, lost ToTo last fall in central Idaho, bar none the best “plott” I’ve ever seen. KD called the other day to talk about getting our permits sent in and he broke down again, almost 8 months later. It’s tough. Though most hound hunters (not outfitters) I know very seldom ever kill a bear or lion they tree, they did take a few so it did help maintain predator prey balance in a few areas I’m aware of.

  40. Si'vet says:

    Angela, thought more about the dog guarding issue, I believe there may be some opportunity for some protection while cows are calving in the fields next to the corrals. But it would mostly be coyote protection. Where it really gets tough in my mind is when the cows are moved to summer graze. Unlike Europe etc. which is mostly private owned and relatively small pieces of property. Here in most cases summer graze includes large pieces of property a lot public, but leesed. Having enough dogs to protect cattle spread out over ten’s of square miles of rough rolling country is probably a real stretch, in many allotments it can take the range rider several days on horse back to cover and check cows.

  41. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To; Si’vert; Can write you back for a moment, I do not want to see your hunting disappear,no ,no,I do not want that. But as for the introduction,this all started with Bruce Babbit, in Clinton’s time, I think that was the case. But now Salazar is a big rancher,big corp kind of guy, this worries me, really.I really do not think control does anybody any good, but again I am not an expert. I do know their will be arguments, on both sides for this. Hey Si’vert I just see everyone picking on wolves,not coyotes, bears, mountain lions and whatever predator is out their. AS for the article,can you tell me where to look to find it again, I misplaced the paper,not the most organized person in the world. I still feel bad,to see a creature roam so far,only to be shot, for being a wolf. Look in a vets office once,their was a chart, a tree line chart, of where all species of dogs came from and their order. Right under the wolf, first one was a German Shepard,if the chart is consistent, why is the history of wolves have been persecuted so much, this is a real shame.Can’t we learn from history and take a different approach to Si’vert, man never learns from history. Look what Ralph brought up a few days ago,that gulf spill in 1979,they were using same techniques,as today, to stop the spill. Operation sombrero, same as top hat,what a line of,well you know. So lets find a mutual solution, thanks for the civil conversation, I tend to go off when someone else does the same, one of my faults.

  42. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    T Angela;
    Great advice, these dogs could be imported,at a price,but somebody smart, could start a bussiness in this,like what we got here, the geese partol. A guy in a truck has dogs chase geese, the township pays for this.

  43. Nancy says:


    Interesting article. A friend who grew up in Europe mentioned to me that farmers put cow bells on their cattle because it actually helps keep predators away (would probably make it alot more enjoyable when you have to pass thru 500 or so head on the local roads)


    • jon says:

      Great article Nancy.

      Hunting dogs are those with radio transmitters on their collars so they can run hundreds of yards out of sight and sound from their hunter master to locate a bear and tree it. Well, it turns out, not surprisingly, that a baying dog is quite provocative to a highly territorial wolf. You might as well attach a sign to the dog in wolf language that says, “Eat me.”

      The hunters who use hounds blame wolves for killing their dogs when they are the reason why their dogs were killed in the first place. You cannot let hunting dogs run wild and expect them to not be attacked and killed by other predators.

    • Save bears says:

      Canines normally don’t eat each other Jon..

    • jon says:

      SB, I never said they did. Although, there has been cases where wolves supposedly ate other wolves. Wolves will indeed kill hunting dogs, but I doubt they would eat them unless they are really hungry. si’vet, please, try to use a little common sense. If you don’t want your hunting dogs to be killed by wolves, simply don’t bring them with you. People like you, all you do is blame wolves for your irresponsibility.

  44. Si'vet says:

    Yup Jon that’s what the hounds are doing just running wild. Have you ever been out of the house???? Like I said earlier you are without a doubt the most illiterate person I’ve ever met when it comes to hunting and outdoor activities…

    • jon says:

      Let me make this a little more clear for you just incase you don’t understand, hunting dogs running loose in the wild=good chance of being killed by predators. Instead of doing the typical thing, blaming predators for doing what they do in their backyard, accept responsibility if your hounds are killed. Any hunter who hunts with hounds have to have some sort of common sense I imagine, but when their dogs are killed, they cry wolf.

  45. Si'vet says:

    Jon, let me make it a little more clear,what are hunting dogs bred and trained for, that’s right sitting in some apartment for 12 hrs a day. Jon we’re talking hounds and hound hunting. Like I said earlier not a single person have I met. Your statement above will make for a great laugh at the BBQ I’m going to, when I repeat some of what you say most people think I’m making it up.

    • jon says:

      If a hunter loses his hunting dog to wolves or other predators while out in the wold, it IS the hunter’s fault for the reason why his dog was killed, not the predators. When you let your dogs loose in another predator’s backyard, it would help to have some common sense and know that it is a good bet that your hunting dogs will be attacked and killed.

    • Cobra says:

      Maybe we should start running dogs that are bigger and meaner than the wolves. If a hound killed a wolf while out on a hunt he would be doing just what he’s breed to do.
      Jon, how would you feel about a dog killing a wolf? Or are their several stipulations on that also.

    • Jon says:

      Cobra, I am equally sad. Doesn’t matter if a wolf kills a dog or a dog kills a wolf, they are both tragedies imo. I doubt you would find a dog that would be willing to take on a few wolves and win, but if you want, have a go at it.

  46. Nancy says:

    Si’vet, last year I recall close to 25 hounds or more (with houndspeople in tow on horseback) took off from the top of a pass not far from me:


    When the exhausted riders finally made their way back to the pass, after traversing for hours, over unknown (but won’t this be jolly good fun!) territory, I heard there were only 5 hounds in tow.
    Some of the hounds showed up at local ranches, days later in the valley and its anybody’s guess what happened to the rest of them. This sorry outcome never hit the local news but it left a few ranchers calling around, trying to find the owners of these hounds.

    The sport of fox hunting from what I’ve gathered, has extended not only to foxes, but coyotes and bobcats too out here.

    Is a sport, pitting dogs against wildlife (while humans dash across the landscape, waiting for the tree or ultimate kill) any different than illegal dog or cock fighting?

  47. Rita K. Sharpe says:

    Jon,Wasn’t there someone on this or another post that put up an article that was named,Wolves and Dogs,Like Oil and Water by Jess Edberg?

  48. Rita K. Sharpe says:

    JON,GO to the International Wolf Center site ,than go to the News and Events,and than go to the headlines.The article was on May 12, 2010.

  49. Si'vet says:

    Rita, I know absolutely nothing about fox hunting with hounds so therefore I can’t comment. And I know nothing about houndsman riding in a group with dogs in tow in any hound hunting situation I’ve seen or been involved with, so again no comment. As for hound hunting lion/bears I’ve gone along many times, several times so F&G officials could attach collars. And the event is quite thought out. First you have a strike dog who picks up the scent, and lines out the trail so as not to be back tracking, then additional dogs are fed in or ( turned into the race). Then if all goes well and you get a tree, you hike to the tree, do what ever, leash up the dogs and hike out. If the dogs loose the track or one of many things happen you spend a while gathering everyone back up. Occasionally a dog gets disoriented confused or lost and if it doesn’t have a tracking collar which these days is rare the owner usually leaves a coat or something with there scent, and the dog returns and stays there until the hunter finds it. It has absolutely nothing in common with cock fighting, obviously you’ve never hound hunted your just assuming.
    So if it’s all fair on open public lands if I’m out hiking or trail riding and my dog runs into your dog and kills it that’s just ok, and you would understand it’s just one dog killing another.

  50. Rita K. Sharpe says:

    Thank you,Si’vet,for the information.

  51. Si'vet says:

    Richie, bears and lions have been classified as big game animals for decades, they are hunted vigorously every year. A while back I looked up and posted the yearly harvest of each, I don’t recall but I beleive the black bear harvest numbers were about 2000 and lions about 350. The reason for the fuss, first their reproduction rates are much lower, lions main food source is deer and smaller game, and lions themselves keep there numbers somewhat in check, as general rule, every time a new tom moves in he kills the kittens, to bring the queen back into heat, and kittens are extremly vulnerable for a couple of years. As for bears along with there slower reproduction rates, deer, elk, calves are only easy prey for them for a short period of time late spring early summer. And as you know from about Nov. till May they are completely out of the picture. The other reason for the up roar is because prowolf people have humanized the wolves, refering to them by their collar numbers and naming the packs, anytime you can affix a name to something it becomes more personalized. If the lions and bears were named and numbered the would get more air play.
    Richie would like to share one more thought about harmony/balance etc. There are a lot more thing out in the enviroment that make finding that true balance a dream. One example that I’ll bet few have thought of or considered. “Fences”
    Back long ago when there might have been some balance there was no such thing is fences, roads,cities, millions of people etc. But this example has to do with a fence. In 2007 I was north of my home hunting coyotes dead of winter with my hunting partner. The coyotes were winning as is usually the case, the snow was about 15″ deep and we were up on the foot hills above the desert. We had decided to just call it a day on the coyotes and started to glass, and a few minutes into it my partner spotted a herd of elk about a mile away lined out on the run. Behind them were 4 wolves, with the very soft yet wet snow the elk were slowly leaving them behind and we thought for sure they were home free, UNTIL they came to a 5 strand barbed wire fence. when elk line out they aren’t usually in single file, they can be several animals wide but the herd is strung, and in normal travel a good fence is just a quick leap even for calves and they usually all crossover in pretty much the same spot, like follow the leader. Anyway, the first few cows made the jump, then one or more jumped early, hit the fence rebound while more elk are still running and jumping, it basically a train wreck. The wolves just caught up pulled down an elk that was held up behind the wreck. The elk finally recooped somewhat, cleared the fence, and moved on, except for the elk the wolves had pulled down and 2 other elk one tangled in the wire, and the other from a distance it was hard at first to make out what it was doing, it’s backend was off the ground and it was fighting and pawing with it’s front legs, it took a minute but then we realized it had jumped to soon not cleared the fence and was skewered on a fence post. Since there was a large creek between us it took about an hour to go around and hike up to the scene, the wolves had heard or seen us, and took off, the skewered elk, had actually bent the metal pole over enough to get off, and after about 20 minutes with my leatherman tool we cut the other elk loose from the wire, the tendon in one back leg was sawed in half and hanging out. I could have filled a gunny sack with elk hair from the scene, and there were multiple small blood trails. The skewered elk had gone about 75 yds and laid down, easy to track, blood trail looked like you had cut a 2 inch hole in the bottom of a red paint can. The elk was alive but couldn’t get up, from the looks of the area the wolves had provided themselves a long time supply of sick and weak. How many times do you think this happens a year, a dozen, 2 dozen a hundred, who knows but it happens. I have a hard time finding balance in a scene like that.

  52. Ann says:

    Thanks Angela, for injecting some logic. I can’t get over hunters crying over wolves HUNTING for their survival.

  53. Nancy says:

    Si’vet, That story is a sad one.
    I cut two fawns, from last spring, out of barbed wire fences in the last couple of months, neither one made it because of the damge from the barbed wire and their struggles – a few years ago I flagged a neighbor down to help me get cut a deer out and before he got turned around and came back, he’d cut two more out) I read somewhere that incidents like that occur about every two miles on fencelines.

    Since I’ve only seen one cow in my life actually jump a fence (she was a sassy
    Brangus in Texas who didn’t want to be seperated from her friends) I have to ask the question why fences have to be as high as they are? And in the winter when most cows are close to ranches, why top strands can’t be lowered to allow wildlife safe passage? I’ve also noticed that deer and elk get caught more often when fences are in poor shape and there are alot of fences like that in these parts.

    Yeah, the good old days when the deer, elk, antelope and buffalo also roamed free.

  54. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert
    That’s good from two sides of the country, I agree. But the predator hunter I am not with you on that one,sorry. Your a trophy hunter, you like to select,the best elk for a trophy, well maybe that part has to come to an end. You should be able to share the landscape with wolves, you do not have to find elk,like shopping in ,Macy’s window, do you ?,just asking Si’vert. See the way I see it hitting a wolf with a bullet, and hearing them yelp in pain,would greatly bother me. Like my own dogs, when they did something,and had to cut nails or clean their ears or even scolded them and hear them yelp, bothers me a lot. Makes me fell guilty for doing it in the first place.

  55. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Who cares if it a privilege or a right that is not the point, Jon is correst on this one, not all hunters will agree on this one. It is the same conversation,people on one side and people on the other. Who cares if you guys hunt, the problem seems to be, it is getting harder to find that good trophy,so be it,it will become harder. But Montana has less than a thousand people population,can anybody give me the population in Idaho,must be small. You have so much landscape,and miles and miles to roam can’t you guys live with wolves.

    • Save bears says:


      Montana has a little less than a million people(974,989), not less than one thousand people population.

      As far as Jon, being right, that is in your opinion…

      As far as living with wolves, I, personally have no problem with it, but the tide is turning for a lot of people and many don’t want to live with them any longer and with the way the tide is turning, I don’t think it will matter what a Judge says at all..

      Based on the 2009 census estimate, Idaho’s population was 1,545,801

      As far as privileges and rights, I am pretty sure a lot of people thinks is matters…

    • Save bears says:

      One thing I will add, the right to hunt or the privilege to hunt mattered enough to the people in those states who have amended their constitutions, so much so, they made it a right..

      And Richie, before you go there, I am not being a smart ass, I am not talking down, I am simply stating the information as I perceive it, and the facts as I have read them…

  56. Si'vet says:

    Richie, I have had the opportunities, and have had many success and failures, in all honestly I personally don’t have to kill another elk, but taking those experience away from my children and and grandchildren is in my mind criminal. Yes Ann that’s it logic, what one justifies the other. Had I been there I wouldn’t have just sat in my car with a camera, I would have got out, and probably got my assed kicked, but you can’t be kicking my ass and shooting a bow at the same time. So after this tramatic event the season was closed for those elk, how about the group I watched, there is no recovery time, it just starts over the next day. I wonder who CRY’S louder hunters because all the elk are being killed, or prowolf people because all the wolves are being killed?????

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      Si’vet, I really don;t think your children or grandchildren will lose the opportunity to hunt. As far as who cries louder, I think it is the anti-wolf hunters who do. They publish it in their magazines and have politicians like Butch Otter and Rex Rammell who will cry along with them. Us pro-wolf people are a pretty small minority around here.

  57. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    nice answer Nancy I do not find fox hunting,anything short of making the animal do the blood thirsty deed of man. A little strong but that is the way I feel. P.S. Jon stand by what you believe

  58. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Hey wm can’t you let the guy rest in peace I likes Jim Morrison,so what about his distructivness, they were both rebel,and people like rebels, kinda like wolves, hhmmmmm.

    • Save bears says:


      Honestly we don’t know if Hopper liked wolves or if he just did it for the paycheck, lets not assume things before they are entered into evidence..

  59. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Hey wm can’t you let the guy rest in peace I likes Jim Morrison,so what about his distructivness, they were both rebels,and people like rebels, kinda like wolves, hhmmmmm.

    • WM says:


      Since you also brought the Dennis Hopper conversation to this thread, let me respond quickly, if Ralph doesn’t mind.

      I didn’t say I didn’t like Hopper’s work. I brought up the fact that he was difficult to work with, largely because of his drug and alcohol abuse. The studios and signficant actors also found that to be a problem to the point of blackballing him from working for a period of seven or more years, before John Wayne stepped in to help, apparently because he was a relative by marriage. He was, in my opinion, a pretty good actor, but certainly not “great” by conventional standards, and he was in the right place at the right time for much of his long career.

      There is something to be said for showing up for work sober, committed to task, and cooperating with one’s co-workers. As for creative motivation, Hopper seemed to think drugs helped. For others like Morrison, Belushi, Joplin, and a host more, self-destruction may have been more an outgrowth of opportunity, fatal in each of those cases. It was rumored Walt Disney even used cocaine with some frequency, and that the names of the seven dwarfs in Snowhite were directly linked to symptoms of cocaine abuse (at least that is the way it is taught in medical schools – can you name the seven?).

  60. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    topic fences.

    To Si’vert I agree about the fences,invisible fences,sonar, but you need a power supply every given length. I gress not easy Si’vert.

  61. Si'vet says:

    Richie, we have found at least one commonality, I knew we could. Back East, out West, “Jimmy M and the Doors”, knew there had to be something. Do you listen to country western, if you don’t that’s 2.

  62. Nancy says:

    To me, pitting one animal against another for human pleasure is just down right cruel in my book. Whether its dogs on lions, bears, foxes or racoons. The birthplace of fox hunting is in England and many there are trying to get this barbaric form of entertainment banned.
    We humans seldom have to experience what it must be like (being at the top of the food chain and all) suddenly having to run for our lives.

    We are constantly being reminded and appalled, at what we humans do to each other, as in wars, yet do little or nothing to stop the aggression because there are a bunch of pinheads out there, in control of too many governments, who are ramping situations up, when and where they feel the attention $$ is needed (Haliburton comes to mind) and……. they are laughing all the way to the bank, while we wave our flags and mourn our loved ones.

    Sorry, I know this is a special day to alot of folks but why do we continue to allow wars to happen?

    My dad (32 years in the military) didn’t quite make it over to the second World War before “peace” was declared and for that I’m very grateful.

  63. Si'vet says:

    Greed, and mans inhumanity to man, is all I can figure,then just mask it behind race, religion, skin color, etc and get a few others to buy in, and let the blood and $$$ start to flow.

  64. Si'vet says:

    Prowolf, I disagree I think it’s prowolf people who cry
    the most, relative to the losses, and I think hunting has and is going to be greatly affected by the situation. Since you have nothing to lose and I have a whole way of life on the line I’m going with what I’m seeing, not on what someone elses computer, or opinion or stroll through yellowstone zoo, or some article a writer wrote and sold to some rag magazine. You think it.. I’m seeing it, I believe my eyes over your thoughts any day. I’ve even invited prowolfers to come see it, I guess eating crow wasn’t on the menu for the day. How about it you have favorite crow recipe. In a couple of years if there is some saving turn around, and numbers and opportunities are still there, not just F&G permits, but numbers without $$$, that can sustain hunting opportunities similar to 2005-06, I’ll catch, cook and eat the biggest nastiest crow around and enjoy every bite to be proven wrong.

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      If I was living anywhere near you I would be happy to come and look for myself. I have a hard time believing the nay saying about wolves eating everything because if wolves were really like that then why were they the second most widespread animal in the world besides people? If they were the locusts people claimed they were then they should have gone extinct, along with their prey. I see plenty of elk in Yellowstone every time I go, so they can’t be killing everything there. When Wyoming Game and Fish says that elk are at the objectives they say they are, I guess I do believe them.

  65. Si'vet says:

    Ah yes YNP zoo, the yard stick in which all the west is measured, please Pro, I’ve read your posts, your better than that.
    Wyoming wolf numbers are what again, compared to Idaho. Yes for the current time being Wy. elk numbers seem to be better, Less wolves to feed = less elk killed. Though I grew up close to Wy. I’ve not spent enough time there to feel I can comment. I try to only comment inregards to this subject on what I see and know, not like some. You say second most wide spread, wide spread doesn’t always equate to big numbers and can mean a few here, there, over a broad expanse that could equal wide spread. There were wolves in Canada and deer,elk,moose populations in the lower 48 weren’t being affected so I don’t understand your point. Let’s touch base on politics a little so what if Butch and Rex came out against wolves, is it better that politicians keep their beliefs secret, I don’t think so, I want it on the table so I can decide. And if Idahoans elect one of them, then the majority who vote has spoken. Oh that’s right, we’re Idahoans, just abunch of half wit, blood thristy, wolf slaughters, who don’t know whom or what is good for us. We should let people from other states help us decide our politics, since they’ve done so well lately on the national level.
    Also let me explain a little bit on how F&G works, and I’m not anti F&G but I do question their decisions sometimes.
    F&G manage someone elses property on someone elses land and most of there funding is driven by hunters. F&G big wheels have to try and stay positive with regards to ungulate numbers because anything negative, immediately reduces their $$$, and outfitters, hotels, gas stations, sporting goods stores etc. So the longer you can stay posititve the longer the $$$ flows. The LoLO area should be shut down completely for elk hunting, but it’s not, just a big reduction in permits, so all of the mentioned above can try to survive. Hunting only adds to the reduction, and minimizes even further the chances for any recovery. And as far as your statement that wolves are eating “everything” your certainly not quoting me, in fact it makes you sound like Jon, and again from what I’ve read your better informed. I will say it again, wolves are reducing elk numbers so that they will soon not be able to sustain additional hunting losses. Oh and the reason I was delayed on my response my hunting partner called, he spent the weekend in our spot near the LoLo bear hunting, glassing for elk, guess what he saw, and heard, and what he didn’t see. And Jon you’ve never known, read, or talked to someone who’s a better outdoorsman/ slash hunter than my hunting partner guarnteed. If he wanted to make a living at what he enjoys doing all he have to is just mention it the right in circles and he could name his price.

  66. ProWolf in WY says:

    Si’Vet, I know that Yellowstone is not the only place to use as a yardstick, or as I prefer to say, barometer, but I think that is there are always elk in Yellowstone in the spring and summer, then wouldn’t at least some of them be migrating out of the park and be available for hunters? That is why I brought that up. No, I don’t think that politicians should keep all of their beliefs a secret. I just find it disturbing that politicians anywhere would take such an aggressive stand on wildlife, even if I do not live in that state. And for the record, I do not think that Idahoans are half-witted or blood-thirsty, but I find it strange that many people in Idaho dwell on wolves so much. I’ve mentioned before that if politicians in Idaho spent half as much time focusing on things like schools as they do complaining about wolves then that state would be the envy of the nation. In regards to the wolves eating everything comment, I guess that was the impression I got from what you were saying. You had said you were worried about hunting opportunities going away so it seemed like and eating everything argument to me. That was also what I was basing the widespread argument on.

    There were wolves in Canada and deer,elk,moose populations in the lower 48 weren’t being affected so I don’t understand your point. Can you explain what you mean by that?

  67. Si'vet says:

    Pro you said second most wide spread ,besides people, my point was a species can be wide spread, not concentrated an their effects can be minimal. Before the introduction of the wolf in 1995, there were already wolves in Idaho, and there wasn’t much air time given to them. As for politics, myself and many others are making an issue in regard to wolves, so it is becoming an issue, and since we are Idahoans we feel our issues in our state are important, and shouldn’t a politician support the will of the people? You know Pro both of my parents are retired teachers from the state of Idaho, so I saw first hand the ups and downs, my dad was IEA pres. for a while. They had many offers to teach else where for a hell of a lot more money, but the quality of life, wasn’t worth the $$$. They worked hard, and there was always other kids at the house, after hours getting extra help. My children also went through the Idaho school system, my youngest son just finished his toughest semester with a 4.0 in prep for acceptance into med school. My daughter works long shifts in a Portland hospital trying to save lives, and teaches a course at a local community college. My second oldest son was a very good student in one of the last courses that this blog site owner, yup Ralph’s wife taught before she retired. So you see it would be easy to verify if I was BSing anyone. So the patients and students are or will be getting short changed because my childrens early education was in Idaho. I certainly don’t think so, can it use some improvement sure every thing can, completely broken, I don’t think so. YNZ elk,yes I believe they do, in fact where I grew up park migrating elk made up a chunk of the total late season elk. But now where those elk are moving to the wolf numbers are growing rapidly, that area was one of the quickest, to reach it’s wolf quota. Hunting and wildlife are a huge deal in Idaho, so when something of this magnitude comes along, it’s a big deal, big enough that it is a big player in the political arena. How does Idaho rank as far as a state that is in finacial trouble, how does Idaho rank in quality of life, how often do you see a city in Idaho mentioned as one of the best areas for new businesses, in comparison to some of the places those who post here are living. For what I do as far as make a living, I could make tens of thousands a year more if I accepted a job or transfer to somewhere else. Wouldn’t even consider it.

  68. Si'vet says:

    Pro, forgot to add, my old cliche’ elk numbers don’t have to be at zero for my hunting opportunity to be zero. They just have to reach a point where they can no longer sustain the additional reductions and where I’ve hunted for years is there now. And were still in court, so I’m not the one crying wolf. Just as side note, my partner found 2 deer carcasses eaten by wolves, this weekend, for us that’s a first, are the wolves having a hard time finding elk now as well?

    • Cobra says:

      We’re seeing more deer taken by wolves in North Idaho as well. Elk are calving so it will be interesting to see what turns up on the trail cams and how the calves do.
      I have one yearling cow that must be camera shy, she keeps turning the camera so all I get is shots of brush moving after she messes with the camera and turns it sideways, oh, and she always seems to lick the lense so even when she doesn’t turn the camera she blurs all the pictures from that point forward.
      It’s sure easy to get hooked on the trail cams and what you see.

    • Si’vet,

      Wolves eat deer as readily as they do elk. Finding two wolf killed deer is only significant if it is in some unusual locale.

      Any details?

    • JEFF E says:

      wolves will utilize as a food source all opportunities occurring within their range.
      much like humans

    • WM says:

      Indeed when wolves hit Colorado in large numbers they will encounter another 700,000 deer (including the largest migratory mule deer herd in the country, as well as white tails) and 300,000 elk (the largest population in any state) on the menu.

      While wolves are opportunist and will go after anything that satisfies nutritional needs, the preference for elk will remain if given a choice in their range, if I understand correctly. Elk are slower and less agile, maybe even dumber when dealing with predators, and initially tend to occupy habitat which is easier for wolves to hunt. Think of the wolves’ tendency to manage its food requirements with these variables in mind – miniumum physical effort while maintaining mimimum risk of injury, for maximum nutritional advantage. It still may take three or more wolves to take down a deer or elk, but there is less to share.

    • WM,

      More abstractly the effort/reward ratio, both measured in calories, is probably a bit higher for pack animals preying on elk as opposed to deer.

      I’ve read a couple refereed articles on this.

      However, wolves thrive on deer as is evident in NW Montana, northern Idaho, and especially the Great Lakes.

  69. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To SB;
    Thanks for the population info on Idaho,as for Jon being correct,I told Jon to stand up for what Jon believes in. You are correct,many people do not want to live with wolves,but their here and I hope for good. Some other states have them and are not going crazy with them. Thanks again for the info population. So little people,such a big land,can’t see why they can’t live with them.

  70. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    Was not even thing of going their, I will not do that to you or to Ralph. Sorry you even had to do that again, I hope you had a good holiday with your friends and family.

  71. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert;
    I agree I do not want you to take that away from your children.

  72. Si'vet says:

    Yes Ralph, I have seen some footage, especially in Minnesota, it was just different I guess, from what we’ve seen. And you know everytime you see something a little different, the old wheels start to whirl. And when your sensitive to the issue, you start injecting scenerios, I’m guilty.

  73. Si'vet says:

    Cobra, trail cams are about the neatest thing, I started out with one now I have 5. The anticipation when you see you have a bunch of shots is pretty intense, I even had to buy one of those little screen jobs so I could look at the pictures while still at the tree. My wife knows how accident prone I am so she put the cabots to me packing in here lap top.

    • WM says:


      I certainly do not want to point a finger at you, and I hope that is understood. My experience in encountering trail cams is that they are often located at illegal salt licks- during hunting season. This, of course, is illegal in most states. In ID, it is just the salt lick that is illegal. In MT it is both the lick and the camera. Don’t know what the situation is in other states, but I suspect the trend may be to disfavor them. I do.

    • WM says:

      In confirming that my recollection that MT outlaws trail cams in hunting season is correct I did a quick Google search, that came up with this interesting and timely article about the MT regulation:


      (Note: I am NOT an NRA member.)

  74. Si'vet says:

    WM, you know me better, salt licks, not a chance. I’ve never had them out in hunting season, even with the little cable lock mechanism they could be lifted, and there not cheap. But I understand where your coming from, always a few bad eggs.

  75. Si'vet says:

    Pro, thoought more with regards to your comment on why wolves/elk is such a big issue, it’s hard to explain. But, as I’ve mentioned there are sacrifices to live in Idaho, money, winters, lack of entertainment (shows) etc. if that’s what your into, and some repair needed to the educational system, and infra structure, but many of us feel that the other opportunities out weigh, those. Here’s how deep it goes for some. I posted a story about wolves chases elk into a fence, so to one up the story, a youtube show was posted showing some &/@%%* shooting elk in a pasture next to the road. My first thought was why didn’t anyone get out of there cars and stop it, had that been around here the fight would have been on. Anyway, here’s the story, A few years ago, KD my hound hunting friends middle son was driving out to KD’s for sunday dinner, middle of the winter, he looked out into an hay field where two clowns were dragging a doe deer back to the road, season had been closed for 2 months. KD junior stopped, got out of his truck walked out and with his cell phone took pictures of the poachers at probably 15′, both poachers packing rifles. “And” his wife and 2 month old son were sitting in the truck with the doors locked. That just how important these animals are to many of us.

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      Si’Vet, I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the importance of deer and elk vs things like infrastructure and education. I’m just going to leave it at that.

  76. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert;
    Yes I seen JM in person at felt form MSG , the winter BEFORE HE DIED. That weekend, I seen Santana on Friday at Filmore east , and JM on Sunday. As for westerns music, no; do not care for it, can’t line dance. Saturday my girlfriend made a comment,while we were listening to a band called undercover in Sea bite NJ. She said, what will I do in Wyoming,line dance? p.s. sb I did not say he likes wolves,at least I do not think I said that,I called him a real rebel, and TRUTHFULLY I think he was into the flight of the wolf introduction.

    • Save bears says:


      I misread your message yesterday about Hopper liking wolves..but am not able to edit my message

  77. Si'vet says:

    Richie, no country western, now that’s 2 things in common. Are starting to feel that twinge of the western call of the wild. One thing to remember, catching a concert of current bands is a long, long, commute. But if you like the old old stuff, you can catch’em with there gray hair a the local state fairs. Nothing like sitting in a rodeo arena smelling fresh cow and horse crap swaying to Kansas.

    • WM says:

      Si’vet and Richie,

      I sure hope you guys get to do your road trip for wolves and elk. I can see it now, the Duramax going down the road, just a rockin’ out with Morrison favorites, including two of mine, “Riders on the Storm” and “Backdoor Man.” Great cruising tunes with fantastic and haunting keyboard work. Backdoor Man was originally done by blues singer Howlin’ Wolf (aka Chester Burnett), before the Doors. And, of course the band name, The Doors, was inspired by poet philosopher and pacifist, Aldous Huxley’s LSD inspired essays, “The Doors of Perception.” We remember him most for the novel “Brave New World,” if you are trying to think where you have before heard the name Huxley.

      Sure you don’t need a camp cook?

  78. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To wm; About Dennis Hopper it was not you.

  79. Si'vet says:

    WM. no hunting trip is complete without the Stones. After a big day in the mountains usually after a long pack, it’s hard to get the boys up and going at 4 am. Truck doors open and “start me up” blaring full tilt usually get’s things moving. if I take you, you know we’re stuck taking SB. lol Oh well, let’s gittr done. Richie, just remember, there’s only one rule. “what goes on in huntin camp”, “stays in huntin camp”.

  80. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    That’s o.k. sb I miss things often. I just said he was a rebel type, and he sure was, I posted,he had a small role in “Rebel without a cause”,in “Big” too,you were correct about that. I think you or wm brought that up. He was a crazy,#@##@.

  81. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert;
    Wow it is something how we could agree and disagree, from two different worlds, I think it’s cool. See I was a city kid,I just happened to find the mountains,all over Bar Harbor, Maine; but I love the west.

  82. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert and WM;
    Hey It’s party as for me I would like to meet all you guys,as for Huxely? , do you mean Rick Huxely bass player of” The Dave Clark Five”,seen those yuys as a kid, boy where did the time go. Including sb

  83. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    opps guys

  84. Si'vet says:

    Pro, your right, and I pray to god your are right and I’m not..
    When it comes to elk, deer, moose, etc./wolves Nothing I would like better than to wash down a nasty old crow, with a excellent micro brew.

  85. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    to Si’vert;
    2005 and 2006 maybe not but if what you are saying is true that wolves are earting deer, then maybe equal is not far down the line, maybe sooner than you think.

  86. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert; Do not ow what you mean, I think I do but, I am game, if dirty landry has to be aired let, you guys are real people, so if I can I will do it for sure. Just pray for one thing, for me guys?

  87. Si'vet says:

    Pro, I hope you are right, wolves are going to have a very minor impact on deer, elk, and moose, if your right and I’m wrong I loose, eat a crow, (best bird I’ll ever eat) and have hunting opportunities with my kids and grandkids. But seriously Pro, sadly I’m not wrong. Even talking about this kicks the wind out of me. If you only knew what hunting with kids is all about, that time spent, is the best of times and the worst of times. Pro. I have 4 of my own and 2 step/my own daughters, and they are all ( they suck at video games) very positive contributors to society, and a lot of that is due in part to reaching back in time, and understanding the thrill of accomplishment, the agony of defeat, to coin a phrase.

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      Don’t assume that I don’t hunt Si’vet. I grew up in a hunting family. I don’t have kids of my own, but some of the best times I’ve had and continue to have with my dad and brother are while hunting. I refuse to believe (and forgive me if I’m putting words in your mouth) that wolves cannot coexist with elk, moose, and deer, and allow for big game hunting. It happens in Alaska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, I see no reason why it can’t happen out west as well. Yes, I know those are different places, but I don’t see why the west has to be so different.

      By the way, kudos to you for raising kids who suck at video games. I really do hate those things.

  88. Si'vet says:

    Richie, no no no, what goes on in hunting camp stays in hunting camp. That’s just a saying you teach a rookie, trust me, SB and WM know. Sometimes when hunting is slow, or real good and everyone is having a great time, and thing cut loose around the camp fire, and maybe a little too much good times, and somebody falls a sleep in the fire or falls a sleep face down in their paper plate, or maybe brings their dinner back up for a second look, you don’t go home and tell mom, or my wife or your girl friend. It’s called secret man stuff, Richie, you need to get out here and get out here quick, you have a lot to learn, luckily I’ve sacrificed myself many times, so I can teach by example. lol


May 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: