Only 100 wolves outside Yellowstone.

Wyoming and the USFWS have reached a deal which would only maintain 10 breeding pairs or 100 wolves outside of Yellowstone National Park. There would also be a “flex” zone which they say would allow wolves to “migrate” to and from Idaho during the winter so that genetic connectivity could be maintained.  There are several details yet to be worked out but, presumably, wolves could be killed at any time of year in the “predator” zone by anyone for any reason.

Of course, as Cody Coyote has pointed out, the early meetings among “stakeholders” in Wyoming were secret and only included livestock and anti-predator hunting interests who wanted as few wolves as possible.  Conservation groups were not included until later after most of the plan had already been decided.

Mead, top federal officials agree ‘in principle’ to wolf deal.
Casper Star Tribune

I called in and recorded the press conference for anyone interested in hearing it.

Governor Mead/Salazar/Ashe press conference

Tagged with:
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is the interim Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project. We do not accept unsolicited “guest” authors or advertising.

71 Responses to Deal reached between Wyoming and US Fish and Wildlife Service.

  1. jdubya says:

    How is this anything but an abdication of duty by Salazar? And for what? What do they gain by allowing Wyoming to basically follow the game plan they have intended all along? Very disappointing but hardly surprising.

    • Kayla says:

      All I can say is Wow! I am sitting here stunned and shocked by this news. Wow!

  2. Maska says:

    Apparently Obama is willing to throw anybody or anything under the bus in order to make “deals” with the right wing. This is sickening.

  3. jon says:

    Not shocking. What is going to happen if a wolf pack with pups enter an area of the state where wolves are classified as vermin?

  4. It is time to realize that Obama is not a friend of the environment or wildlife. He lies every time he opens his mouth.

    • IDhiker says:

      I agree. Obama never had any connections with wildlife before he ran for public office, and I don’t think it’s even a passing interest to him now. He certainly has not displayed much backbone on many issues, and often capitulates to people that do not now and never will support him. He alienates his friends and emboldens his opponents with his actions.

    • Rita K. Sharpe says:

      Peronally,I think Obama is superficial.Talk about change,which I never believed in anyway.

  5. william huard says:

    I listened to the “press conference” and I am struck by how many times rancher boy Ken mentioned “science”. How is a shoot on sight “vermin status” policy based in science? Conservative hostage taking and a lack of any reasonable compromise is truly sickening. On the Wyoming story there was a comment by some fool who said “100 wolves 10 breeding pairs is not acceptable to Wyoming sportsmen.” These people (rabid ideologues) will never be satisfied….. You never negotiate with terrorists

    • jon says:

      Maybe someone like cody can verify this for me. Supposedly, 10 out of 11 wolf experts oked this shoot on sight plan plan back in 2003 I believe it was.

      When it’s all said and done, I will not be shocked if Wyoming allows poison or snares to be used on wolves once they hit the predator designated areas of Wyoming. Wolves in WY have a lot going against them. Wolves don’t know that they are only supposed to be in certain places. Once a whole wolf pack with pups gets gunned down by the hateful predator hating ranchers/hunters of WY. there will be public outcry, mark my words. I don’t expect for it to come from Wyoming. It will come from the rest of the country.

    • jon says:

      William, one wolf over 0 is not acceptable to a lot of hunters and ranchers in wy. William, there is a place in Wyoming called fremont county. They banned wolves and grizzlies from there. That is how extreme these people are. One of the people from Fremont county is a rabid wolf and bear hated named crosby allen. He said before wolves and grizzlies were wiped out for a reason. These people are stuck in the 1800s with their anti-wildlife attitudes.

      • william huard says:

        One thing is perfectly clear- SALAZAR has got to go!

        • JimT says:

          I think he would have gone by now if he had a place to go, but no high office in Colorado available. I suspect Mike Bennet will be a one term Senator for a bunch of reasons, not the smallest of which is three young kids at home, and the realities of being a Senator in these times. But, that is another 4 years away. Perhaps some trade group will hire him…ranchers, oil and gas come to mind…certainly NOT any public interest group.

    • Maska says:

      Exactly! The sad irony is that the American public will never respect somebody who gives in to extortion.

      • jon says:

        It will sicken a lot of people once the stories of whole packs including pups being killed happen. If you really think about, wolves don’t live extremely long in the wild. Just knowing that some pups will face certain death if they end up in an area they don’t know they aren’t supposed to be at will sicken anyone to the core.

    • jon says:

      If I was at that press conference, I would ask Mead and Ashe, what happens if a wolf pack with brand new pups find their way in an area where they are classified as vermin? I liked Cory Hatch’s question. Ken, I don’t think I heard your question. I’ll have to replay it again. What did you ask and what was their answer

      • jon says:

        Mead did say Wyoming would maintain for more than 100 wolves I believe in the press conferance, but who really believe what this guy has to say? Probably just said it to appease those who don’t like wyoming’s wolf shoot on sight plan.

  6. CodyCoyote says:

    No news here. This is the same proposal that was floated in the press about 3-4 months ago, that was handcarried around the state to the anti-wolf stakeholders ( read: stockgrowers and hunting lobby) at the 12 closed door meetings shepharded by Gov Mead’s special wolf rep Steve Ferrell , a former Wyo G&F Director.

    The upshot is Wyoming gets to remove 2/3rds of its resident wolves, but the so-called ” trophy zone” around Yellowstone is allowed to balloon southwards during wolf dispersal season ( mainly winter months, pre-denning ). That is a half-hearted unsound concession to address the science argument about Wyoming’s plan not allowing genetic dispersion. Doesn’t work for me in that context. It’s a diversion. Oddly enough , it originated from Ed Bangs and USFWS.

    What is NOT said in the announcement today that Wyoming and Interior are closer to a final agreement on a wolf plan is that the word ” Predator” appears nowhere. Wyoming’s Dual Status proposal where wolves outside the trophy zone can be eradicated without oversight beyond reporting the kills , no license or quotas applied , is not mentioned. Therefore it must still be ” negotiated”. Mead has already said he’s holding Wyoming’s plan hard and fast to including that predator status , which does not exist in Montana and Idaho and is in fact contraventory to those states’ management plans and this year’s wolf hunts.

    Yet Mead would have us believe that Wyoming and USFWS are very close to a plan. I just don’t see it that way at all.

    The only way that could be true is if Salazar and Ash are conceding what has till this point been nonegotiable: no predator status.

    The other item worth noting is that Interior seems to have agreed in principle to let Wyoming “manage down” to 100 wolves/ 10 breeding pairs from 150/15 heretofore.

    TO me , none of this is a new and improved workable Wyoming wolf plan . It’s a red herring fishing derby.

    The Obama administration has forsaken environmental policy, genuine conservation, the Endangered Species Act, and the American West in a single swoop. We seem to be hearing a lot of those swooping sounds these days…

    • william huard says:

      These rabid wolf haters think they are doing us a favor by leaving a “buffer” around that 100 number. They might let 5 more wolves live- they be conservation fools…..If you listen to the press release Cody- Mead did say predator zone more than once…..

  7. Phil says:

    This is very disappointing news coming from the USFW service. Wyoming’s plan is not capable of working in keeping 10 breeding pairs when anyone can shoot any wolf at any time. How are they going to implement the 10 pairs when any wolf can be shot at any part of the year for no reason? How are they going to know whether or not they are near the numbers? Are they relying on the “Flex” zone to be the areas to sustain the 10 breeding pairs?

    I am not shocked about Salazar being part of this, but for Fish and Wildlife to cave in because of pressure signifies their lack of strength on wildlife issues. If you have enough people to lobby with politicians, then it is useless for what is best for wildlife. I hope I am wrong on this, but I predict the complains by the anti-wolfers and politicians will continue well after the hunts, and their next agenda will be to reduce the numbers even further down the line. I do not believe they will ever stop until their overall goal of not having any wolves in the region has been successfully achieved. It is just my opinion, but that is what seems like we are heading towards. All that money, time and hard work by many people to protect and have a sustainable population has been thrown out the doors with the ruling to delist wolves in Idaho and Montana, and now this agreement from Wyoming.

  8. Dawn Rehill says:

    Guys I live in Wyoming and just email my fine Gov . This will hurt Wyoming tourist trade and also the landscape . When will the old school West realize ranching is a dying business and people come to our parks to see the wildlife, which includes wolves . I’m pissed and wildlife paids the price . Damn Casey got off on her charges, but DAMN not the wolves .

  9. WM says:

    Regarding the press conference audio, the terms “working with the states” and “hand in hand with the states” were repeated several times. We will be hearing that alot in the coming months running up to the 2012 election as Obama tries to hold on.

    So the predator zone will still exist (even with the “flex” zone, which doesn’t seem to be appreciable range increase).

    Notice there is no assurance of substantial safe wolf migration to the south. I bet the CO Div. Wildlife folks are clapping quietly in the background as their 300,000 elk, and cattle/sheep there appear safe for the moment, if this WY negotiated Plan is implemented. Salazar can leverage that as a win for his home state, too – working with the states sounds like the order of the day!

  10. Immer Treue says:

    Don’t know if it’s a big deal or not, as folks have been shooting coyotes on site for a while, but will the trigger itch crowd differentiate between a big dog and a wolf? Hypothetical situation, someone sees your dog, let’s say a big malemute, but doesn’t see you nearby, and starts shooting. In all honesty, what do to do? Shoot back?

    • Elk275 says:

      I have never heard of a dog being shot by a coyote hunter. ++In all honesty, what do to do? Shoot back?++ NO. If you shoot back you have committed a felony. If I was hunting and got into a dispute with anyone I would immediately put my rifle into the car or lean it on a tree. Never, never, never.

  11. Immer Treue says:


    Purely hypothetical. In no way was it a suggestion to shoot at someone.

    I’ve mentioned before that one of my neighbors will not walk his dog in daylight during the deer season. One of my other friends recommended that if a wolf season does indeed arrive here , is find an orange blaze coat for my dog.

    • Elk275 says:

      During hunting season one always covers the saddle with blaze orange when tying the horse in the trees. Some orange should always hang from the saddle when riding. Same with a dog and a hiker.

      I have tied my horse up and on the way back, Oh, there’s elk, no it’s your horse stupid.

      • JimT says:

        I just stayed out of the Vermont woods during deer season,whether it was arrow, rifle or powder. Too many yahoos that might just pull that trigger despite the orange on your dog or your self. There was a weigh station at the local general store in Norwich, and watching the partying going was daunting to say the least. Didn’t inspire confidence in me, shall we say. Most were, however, from out of state..NY, Mass, Connecticut…

  12. Leslie says:

    Obama did this as a deal to get Ashe appointed as director to USF&W. Sickening really. Again he’s using wolves as a political chess piece. Sounds like this is the deal WY wanted years ago. Just needed a democratic president to get it in place.

  13. CodyCoyote says:

    I have listened to the download of the press conference ( thanks for that , Ken ) and I still don’ see a full resolution to Wyoming’s predator status. Nobody asked the Three Wise Men , and they did not say it outright, that USFWS is now willing to fully acquiesce all previous objections and accept Wyoming’s predator status in most of the state. ( I know both Montana and Idaho would LOVE to have their own predator zones , so….. ? ) hey danced all around the predator zone in 80 eprcent of Wyoming by offering to use a ‘ Flex Zone’ to extend the trophy zone for wolf interconnectivity into Idaho for some of the year, but not connectivity back to Montana out of northern Wyoming or—gasp!— natural migration into Colorado heading south , as Wolf 314F so capably demonstrated last year before she was poisoned.

    What would Molloy say to all this, if asked ?

    Using this iffy ” Flex Zone” as a consolation prize ( read: biological pacifier) while retaining the ugly predator zone seems to me to be incongruous. Bad science.

    I think it is no coincidence that Ed Bangs retired on that.

    • Phil says:

      So, even the nearly 1/4 of the state’s “Flex Zone” has its downfalls and does not ensure a full protection of the wolves in that area?

    • WM says:


      ++What would Molloy say to all this, if asked ?++

      As you probably know, this was not Molloy’s issue to deal with, at least directly. Even though he presided over the MT and ID portions of the NRM recovery, WY always had an escape option, of sorts as an aggrieved party. They took advantage of it.

      Since WY, as a plaintiff against FWS had their case heard in federal district court before Judge Johnson in Cheyenne, he was able generally to rule (paraphrasing underlying concepts here), FWS can’t just reject your plan and tell you can’t have a Predator Zone, as long as you can meet your part of the NRM Recovery Plan obligations (generally thought to be the 100/10 with connectivity and a buffer, and then whatever way YNP and its wolves fits into that). So, it appears the Predator Zone concept remains alive, dumb as it seems, and even after FWS’s “we like it” now “we don’t” seesawing over past WY wolf management plans, and the implications of that as deterimined in Molloy’s court as he ruled on FWS regulations covering all three states.

      And of course, WY is in the 10th Circuit (Molloy is in the 9th), so even appeals of Molloy’s rulings and Johnson’s would not intersect until appealed to the Supreme Court, if they chose to hear matters, unless the courts themselves entered into some kind of multi-jurisdictional litigation arrangement, if I recall federal civil procedure correctly.

      • william huard says:

        What is Wyoming’s justification for the predator zone? There is no scientific justification to it. Let’s say a wolf is in the predator zone with 3 pups…. Some “person” with a gun can just shoot the wolf and the pups and then go get lunch? I would be surprised if Salazar and Ashe could justify those actions as anything but wolf persecution

        • WM says:

          Think of the WY “Predator Zone” as like the DMZ which divides N and S Korea. Doesn’t make any difference what it is or why it is there, it gets killed.

          It is a bright line rule, that stops migration, is easy to enforce and keeps the ranchers happy. I suppose the last part could be rationalized as a tolerance compromise for the presence of wolves in the rest of the 10% (or whatever the land area is including the proposed seasonal “flex” zone).

  14. timz says:

    Obummer is on the ropes and can’t have anything else happen to make him look bad, he’s maxed out on failures. He’s failed to keep every major promise he made, out of Iraq by the end of 2011, Qitmo closed, unemployment no more than 8%,deficit in have in 2 years,law by science, etc.,etc. The press will say he got his nomination in, there’ll be no mention of sacrficing wolves in a backroom Wyoming deal to do it. If any of you think this smooth talking (with a teleprompter of course) street organizer from Chicago has a thread of ethics and wouldn’t sell out for a single vote you are still being conned. Somebody has to have the balls put an end to this rider crap or it will be the end for wildlife and the environment in this country. The fact that most of the players in this are Democrats I believe leaves us little hope.

    • Daniel Berg says:

      ++If any of you think this smooth talking (with a teleprompter of course) street organizer from Chicago has a thread of ethics and wouldn’t sell out for a single vote you are still being conned.++

      It’s funny to think back on all the criticism I received from friends for making the claim that Obama would be a spineless sellout two years ago. He had liberals and conservatives fooled alike. Most of them all thought he was a progressive idealist!

      I never imagined that he would cave quite this much on environmental issues, however. His administration shocks me more and more every month with its ineptitude and lack of strategic thinking.

      • Phil says:

        Daniel: I am not one of your friends you are speaking of, but I fit into that category that you put your friends in with other people I know. I voted for Obama, and am doubting it more and more each and every day.

        • Daniel Berg says:

          In their defense and yours, it’s not like there were a whole lot of other great options at the time. I’m not sure how much worse McCain would have been on environmental issues? Clinton might have been better…….

      • Jim says:

        I said the same things and nobody believed me. They were fooled by his speeches. There is no change in politics as long as there are two parties. They all only want money and power. They spout their talking points, but when it comes down to it, their own power is all that matters.

    • JB says:

      timz: Your analysis continues to be uninformed and unidimensional. The largest and most politically active cohort of American voters is reaching retirement age (read: in need of health care); thus, Obama’s push on health care reform. Polls show a move to the right among independent voters; thus, Obama (to many’s dismay on the left) has fallen all over himself in an effort to compromise, or “own the middle” as the pundits sometimes say. What does that mean? He’s making Republicans look like ideological children (see David Brooks:, as every time he comes to the middle, they refuse to compromise and retreat further to the right (or wrong, as it may be). Come election time, he’s betting that the independents will see him as a reasonable guy, trying his best to run the country, while Republicans will be viewed as ideological extremists who would throw their country to the wolves (how do you like that?) to avoid compromising an inch.

      And to all who would throw away your votes in the next election, go right ahead. Then when Michelle Bachman appoints a religious ideologue to the Supreme Court you’ll be able to wax fondly about the good old days–when environmental regulation under federal law was even possible.

      • Phil says:

        JB: “Come election time, he’s betting that the independents will see him as a reasonable guy, trying his best to run the country, while Republicans will be viewed as ideological extremists who would throw their country to the wolves (how do you like that?)” Do you believe we are already seeing this form out by the independents based on some of the controversial decisions made by the Republicans since the beginning of 2011?

        • JB says:

          Phil: I believe Obama is a much more astute politician than most people think. Personally, I don’t like his handling of environmental issues, but I fear for this country should another Alito or Scalia be appointed.

        • JB says:

          I’m afraid the news on this blog has thoroughly depressed me for the evening. I’m off to find something more constructive to do.

      • Jim says:

        Most presidents try to own the middle or at least appear that way in order to make the other party look radical. There were lots of crazy looking liberals when Bush was president. Now the democrats are making the loud mouths on the right look crazy.The middle which is most of us gets screwed.

        • william huard says:

          But like JB said, Obama is making the Republicants look crazy and unreasonable. Look at the polls, most people agree that tax cuts should be part of this deficit package, and these cuts are not wise in this current economic situation, these cuts are hurting the economy- I don’t know why the Dems are going along with these deficit cuts now. As far as Environmental issues go there are many people that are voicing their displeasure with Salazar……

  15. ProWolf in WY says:

    So I guess the lesson here is throw a temper tantrum long enough and you get your way? Pathetic. Jon, I had never heard of grizzlies and wolves being banned from Fremont County. That is very backwards thinking. To those of you who have mentioned public outcry over pups being killed, I hope you are right, but there hasn’t been much over the buffalo in Yellowstone and people worship Sarah Palin even though she authorized killing wolves from airplanes and even wanted to start a bounty.

  16. Maggie Schafer says:

    NObama is horrible! He and his hatchet man Salazar will let all of our wildlife die if it suits their purposes and strokes special interest groups! Here is something you ALL can do: Call Wyoming Tourism 1-800-225-5996 and e-mail and tell them you will not visit a state that treats their wildlife so badly and sucks up to special interests! PRETTY SORRY MARKETING STRATEGY FOR A STATE MAKING MILLIONS FROM WOLF WATCHING! I have cancelled my annual trip to Yellowstone! Please call – maybe if we hit them in the $$ they will listen. Salazar and NObama have to go! We are being so sold out! I will write in for president if I have to, but NOT vote for NObama!

    • william huard says:

      I agree Maggie. The Federal Government is no better if they agree to this predator zone nonsense……Is that the message they want to send to other predator hating states? Salazar is pathetic, just hearing his voice is annoying. Science my a%^

      • william huard says:

        It’s not the Federal Gov’s job to make ranchers happy!

    • IDhiker says:

      What bothers me most is that Democrats (Tester, Obama, Reid, etc.)are bending over backwards to appease their opponents from the other side. They are not gaining any respect, but rather encouraging more of the same treatment. The problem is, their opponents, primarily Republicans, are not going to vote for them anyway. Others, like myself an independent, are disheartened. I’d expect to be disappointed by the Republican side, but not the very people I voted for, primarily for their support on issues such as this.

      • JimT says:

        Don’t leave Western Senators like the Udalls and Bennet out of this observation, although Tom Udall has been supportive of the Mexican wolf efforts. Still, they sat this out,and there is no other word for their behaviors than cowardly.

    • truthbetold says:

      Thanks for the email & phone number. I will be sure to pass it along. Sportsman are forever indebted to the fine state of Wyoming. Thanks again for the number & email

  17. CodyCoyote says:

    While we all sit here and discuss and debate the merits or pitfalls of Wyoming’s Trophy Zone and by default the rest of the state being a Predator Zone , it brings to mind a question I have long had :

    What was the rationale for placing the entirety of the state of Wyoming in a Grey Wolf recovery zone, but only portions of Idaho ( central wilderness) and two zones within Montana ( Yellowstone zone and Canadian Border zone) were so designated and managed for wolves?

    The Wyoming Grey Wolf trophy zone for the most part overlays the Grizzly Bear Primary Recovery Area ( PCA), not including this new ” Flex Zone”. Wyoming has aggressively managed grizzly bears under the watchful direction of USFWS for 30 years now. Bears inside that PCA are given a lot of latitude and conflicts are resolved on individual basis according to guidelines and evolving practices. But these days, bears are being seen outside the PCA and Wyoming is beside itself, but generally speaking those bears are not counted as Yellowstone grizzlies, are trapped and relocated back into the PCA, or destroyed and written off the books. Wyoming is extremely prejudiced against grizzles expanding their range outside that artifical PCS ( whose boundaries are political things like highways). It was the State of Wyoming that was able to demarcate the grizzly recovery area back when, and USFWS concurred and that’s the way it’s been as the physical work og grizzly recovery has proceeded .

    Today we have this parallel universe of the Grey Wolf in Wyoming…similar but not quite the same as Grizzlyworld.

    The state of Wyoming itself is demarcated as an arbitrary rectangle drawn across the undulating and changing landscape that straddles the Continental Divide. The state lines make absolutely no sense on the ground; following no obvious physical edge like a watershed or mountain range. In fact, the northern Wyoming border with Montana is conveniently the 45th Parallel, halfway from the Equator to the Pole. Why ?

    So I ask…Why is the eastern and southern 2/3rds of Wyoming also considered a Grey Wolf Recovery zone ? If accepted as such , shouldn’t most of the American West on either side of the Great Divide be similarly bestowed , being contiguous ? Colorado, New Mexico, Utah ??

    Noth tha I am opposed to all of Wyoming being a wolf recovery zone, but both the state boundaries and the wolf zones are political constructs, not based on the physiographic and ecologic paramteters of a recovering species. Really.

    Maybe we are asking the wrong questions about Wyoming’s Trophy vs. Predator vs. Flex Zones.

    If we had it to do over again…

    • Maska says:

      Conservationists in New Mexico have been fighting since the publication of the Paquet Report (scientific portion of the Three Year Review)to remove artificial, political boundaries to the movements of reintroduced Mexican gray wolves. Let the wolves in NM, AZ, WY, MT, ID, and elsewhere vote with their feet as to what is suitable habitat.

      • WM says:


        ++Let the wolves …… vote with their feet as to what is suitable habitat.++

        Great idea in theory, ……and if they start getting into trouble, then what?

        • Maska says:

          That might depend on whether the “trouble” occurs primarily on private land or on public land. Frankly, with grazing fees at rock bottom ($1.35/AUM)on FWS and BLM lands, I think livestock owners ought to suck up depredations on public land. Those low fees should reflect the hazards of multiple use.

          On private land, which is for the most part NOT where dispersers outside the Mexican wolf recovery area have settled down in the past, one might make a case for a combination of compensation and support for proactive measure to reduce conflicts.

    • Phil says:

      “This provision is a crucial puzzle piece to the long-awaited conclusion of the delisting of the fully recovered gray wolf. For more than eight years, wolves in Wyoming have met or exceeded the federal government’s recovery goals, and without proper management have thrived at the expense of Wyoming’s ranchers, farmers and big game herds.” So, proper management is letting anyone kill any wolf at any time of the year for any reason? Or, is it trapping and maybe poisoning the wolves? Or, a combination of all of the above? I have stated before that I do not have doubts that a recovered number had been reached, or close to being reached in the NRM region, but to take the wolves off of protection leads to major problems for the species when using these tactics to decrease their population. What are the chances of any wolf living a normal lifespan when there are these actions in place and carried out largely by the anti side and ranchers who have such a large hostility towards wolves?

  18. Leslie says:

    Does anyone know where trophy is and where predator status line is? And how that line coincides with where most of the packs are now? I know this will make the Big Horns predator status, but the feds have been systematically killing off those wolves already. It seems this is an effort to keep the wolves in the GYE area and not let them move east or south–am I correct here?

    I live in Sunlight and see wolves regularly in the winter months. They are easy to see at that time and from fairly close. I wonder what the hunting season will be–if WY will be following ID in not making any limits on the season. People have been itching to kill wolves in the Sunlight/Crandall area because the elk herd here is not doing well due to drought and they blame the wolves.

    On the other hand, it is interesting that in this second year of hunting in ID, people aren’t clamoring for a license. I wonder if with delisting over time, that will be the case more and more. Really, after the wolf haters express themselves the first few times, will they really want to keep going out? Most hunters in my experience are lazy, and since you don’t eat wolf, after the initial anger is quelled, incentive is lost.

    The wolves here have been killed by WS for years, but not in the winter when the cattle are gone. Also of note was that this winter there were more healthy wolves (no mange) here (about 4 packs of 9-10 each) than the rest of the Northern Range. In fact the newish Silver Pack was a result of the Hoodoo Pack around Crandall, a pack of ten.

  19. Brian Ertz says:

    word is, Salazar agreed to the Wyoming plan in exchange for a lift on the hold to Dan Ashe’s nomination at Interior

    • Rita K. Sharpe says:

      That is what I have read,too.

    • william huard says:

      Bourasso is good at hostage negotiating…..That’s today’s Republoman. Talk about sleazeballs

    • william huard says:

      I’m not surprised if that happened…. These conservative Republicans keep lowering the bar when it comes to decency. The ideology is everything and they will stop at nothing to get there.

    • JimT says:

      Absolutely true…

    • JimT says:

      Yep, deal making in the worst DC tradition…

      • william huard says:

        I have heard from two different posters about reports that Ranchers in NM had GPS coordinates of a wolf pack and put dead cattle in the wolf’s path… I shudder to think that Ranchers would resort to such evil devious methods to sabotage the program, but after Adobe- Slash we know they are capable of this– if these reports are accurate these wolves need
        more support than ever

        • william huard says:

          Maska or anyone familiar with NM- have any of you heard of these reports?

          • Maska says:

            William: Unless you are talking about the John Dougherty article in High Country News, reporting on the baiting of Durango AF924 on the Adobe Ranch back in 2007, leading to her shooting by WS, I’m not aware of any such reports. But I certainly don’t hear everything that goes on in the area.

  20. jon says:

    if lummis’s legistion becomes law, will any environmental organizations challenge its legality?

    • timz says:

      I read some legal-eagle yesterday saying it has little chance of passing the senate and no chance of surviving a Constitutional challenge.

    • timz says:

      Although I wouldn’t count on the Senate,they’ve shown their gutless. And despite all the grumbling about Republicans here, much if not most of the recent anti-wolf crap coming from DC has been driven by Democrats.

  21. Phil says:

    Is there anything that can be done to stop this agreement?

  22. Mike says:

    Another show of weakness by the Obama admin.


July 2011


‎"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