Okay, so you want to kill a wolf in a creative way. No Problem, if you’re in Wyoming. Wanna kill one by pulling it apart with horses? You’re good in Wyoming. Wanna poison one? You’re good in Wyoming. Wanna shoot it with a poison dart? You’re good in Wyoming. Wanna kill one by strapping dynamite to its head? You’re good in Wyoming. Wanna kill a wolf by shoving a glowing hot rod into its guts? You’re good in Wyoming.

Don’t think it’s possible? Well look back to what happened during 2008 while wolves were delisted in Wyoming. Wolves were shot on site and left where they died, they were also chased for miles by people on snowmobiles to be shot. It’s not unreasonable to think, considering the toxic attitude of many who hate wolves, that wolves will be killed in any number of depraved ways in Wyoming.

Under the proposed changes to the Wyoming wolf management plan anything goes in the zone, which comprises most of the state, where they are classified as predators. All of this will be fully condoned by President Barack Obama, Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, and the new Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service Dan Ashe.

It’s no wonder that Wyoming wants this plan to be exempted from judicial review.

Wyoming, feds announce plan for delisting wolves
By Ben Neary, Associated Press.

The Department of Interior has more details on the agreement: Here


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.

204 Responses to Running over a wolf with a snowmobile? You’ll be able to do that in Wyoming if the new deal between the Feds and Wyoming becomes final.

  1. Craig says:

    That’s taking it to the extreme! Wow, nothing like going overboard.How many of these disturbing ways of Killing Wolves have been documented?

    • Ken Cole says:

      Well, a wolf was run down by an ATV on the Sun Ranch in Montana a few years ago, a “hunter” killed a wolf by tracking it with his snowmobile for miles in Wyoming during the last Wyoming “hunt”, “denning” was a popular activity where wolf dens were poisoned, gassed, burned etc. Then there is this famous Image

      It’s not out of the question and, more importantly, IT’S TOTALLY LEGAL.

    • wolfsong says:

      I don’t consider it to be extreme at all considering the mentality and hatred in Wyoming. They tie gay men to fences to let them die, why not torture wolves?

      • willam huard says:

        What a great value system to teach your children. Every time I see that photo I realize that very little has changed in 100 years. People are just as dispicable today as they were back then. Today it’s called “wildlife management”. Exactly how is this Wyoming plan based in science? It’s all about politics. Shame on the USFWS

  2. willam huard says:

    I think Mr Ashe should be ashamed of himself. Bourasso held his appointment hostage until they agreed to Wyoming’s “wolves are vermin” values. What should we have expected when you put a couple of ranchers in a room to discuss “wildlife management”. I can’t believe this is U.S policy in 2011…….
    Salazar and Ashe will have hell to pay when the “locals” start parading the bloody bodies of wolves down the streets

  3. Rita K. Sharpe says:

    Criag,As humans we are capable of doing many well thought out plans on the demise of each other whether it be to another man,woman,or child,and animals are not spared from it,either.Why does one think that Mr.Cole stated is just going overboard?The book, Vicious: Wolves and Men in America by professor Jon T.Colemen, has some reads on it and the word vicious is not referring to the wolves.

  4. Howl Basin says:

    After a photo & story of a coyote pancaked by a snowmobiler in the Sawtooth Valley, the local snowmobile club president wondered out loud to a reporter, how fast he’d have to go to get a wolf. There are actually goons who cripple a coyote with a rifle shot, then finish it off, smashing it with their snowmachines or ATV’s. Not illegal. Go hang out in some of the redneck hangouts and get all the details. Or read the anti-wolf blogs.

  5. ProWolf in WY says:

    There have been many cases of cruelty to wolves documented. I have seen pictures of wolves that were trapped and had their mouths wired shut before they were set free.

    Wolfsong, be careful about comments like that one.

    • wolfsong says:

      ProWolf – I well remember the day that Matthew Shepard died. I also remember that Wyoming has refused to call his death a hate crime. If a certain mentality can do that to a human being, what are they going to do to a wolf, who now has no rights to exist in this state?

      • skyrim says:

        Big wonderful Wyoming.. Where men are men, and sheep are nervous.

        • Harley says:

          I thought that was Scotland?

          *disclaimer: I come from Scottish stock. Any defamation of Scottish character was directed solely at my ancestors…*

      • ProWolf in WY says:

        Wolfsong, there has been some backlash about the Matthew Shepherd case. I think some progress has been made there but unfortunately I can’t argue with what you are saying about the treatment of wolves.

        Skyrim, that’s pretty funny.

  6. Jeff N. says:

    And all of this brougth to you by A Democratic President who nominated a cowboy from Colorado to oversee our National Parks, BLM lands, and USFWS. Apalling, and sadly this President is more concerned w/ appeasing the wingnuts, who will destroy this country in order to make him a one term president, than the people who actually voted for him. What an asshole.

  7. Forever Wild says:

    Everyone seems to forget that wolves are native to North America and have every right to be here. Cattle and sheep were imported from Europe. If you care about wolves, you have to stop putting money in the ranchers pockets……….don’t eating beef or lamb.

    • skyrim says:

      Exactly. Otherwise you are part of the problem.

      • Harley says:

        I guess then I’m part of the problem because I do enjoy beef and I do enjoy the wool produced from sheep.

        • JB says:

          I gave up beef a few years ago. Replaced it with leaner (and healthier) bison and have never looked back. 🙂

          • Harley says:

            Oh yeah! Bison is good but it’s a tad bit pricey here I’m afraid. I’m in a position where, there isn’t a lot of money coming into the house at the moment so I have to be very careful on how I spend that money. If/when things pick up, I just may have to try an all bison diet!
            I also enjoy chicken and most poultry and would love sometime to try elk. Venison is very good too when prepared correctly.

  8. Connie says:

    Unfortunately,I don’t believe Mr. Cole is over-reacting at all. I’ve been reading the local newspapers for several years now, and the comments from some of the anti-wolf crowd are terrifying. I’ll never understand hatred and cruelty. It saddens me to think of what the coming months will be like for the wolves.

  9. PointsWest says:

    I used to run coyotes and foxes down with a snowmobile. I did it for the money. In about 1976, coyote pelts from the Ashton area were worth up to $200 per pelt. That is nearly $800 in today’s money. Pelts from the Ashton-Driggs area were especially valuable because of the extreme cold and severe winter weather. I tried shooting them but it was not easy off a snowmobile. The most effective method was to run them over and pin them under the track and then shoot them in the head with a 22 caliber pistol or hit them with a club. Where they were worth $800, it was hard to pass up. There were plenty of coyotes in the area. I knew guys who killed over a hundred…$80,000 worth.

    I would never attempt to run down a wolf. That sounds fairly dangerous. Coyotes would try and bite you sometimes and I’m sure a wolf would. You never know how it is going to go when your run over an animal in the snow. The snow is usually soft enough that they are not seriously injured. You have to try and pin them and this usually only occurs after you run them down a few times and they are exhausted so you and the coyote are moving slowly.

    A wolf might come up over your windshield and into your lap. It might come out from under your track in the back and attack you from behind. It might bite your leg even if it is pinned.

    There is no way I would try it with a wolf and I am experienced. I doubt many others will try and run down wolves. You’re worrying over nothing.

    Just running them for several miles might be hard on them, however.

    • James says:

      depraved is all i can say

    • HOWLColorado says:

      And yet it seems like you have no problem with the practice? That’s not exactly fair chase.

      However, based on what I have read from you in the past, I can’t say I am surprised.

    • PointsWest says:

      I would not consider it “hunting” or “sport”. I was 18 years old liked money ($800 per pelt) in my pocket. As soon as the “rub” started in January, I would stop searching for coyotes. Their pelts have no value after January because the hair losens and will “rub” or fall out. I never killed even one after January.

      Also, the market went way down by 1979 and I did not kill any after that. It was strictly about money to me.

      But I posted this to point out that I doubt many will be running down wolves because it will be too dangerous.

      • HOWLColorado says:

        It’s tough to claim it wasn’t hunting Pointswest. Financial benefit doesn’t change that.

        Money can certainly be an effective desensitization tool. People will do things others wouldn’t consider for money. I don’t deny or doubt that. However, it’s still hunting.

        I also think, at the core, you sort of missed the point. Running wolves down with snowmobiles is just one example of what people in Wyoming can do. Whether they will do it is irrelevant (Mr. Cole selected a historical example), but the point remains. Predator status in Wyoming simply means that wolves can be killed in any way, for any reason in pretty much any place in Wyoming – that was the overall point. With the hatred for wolves being what it is for many of the angry people, I am sure there will be a fair smattering of truly inhuman techniques used. I am also sure that many hunters will stick to their own ethical code and wouldn’t think of doing the things which history indicates they could.

        • PointsWest says:

          I visited Italy a few year ago and was amazed at how unprotected many of the artifacts from antiquity are there. The colossal head of Constantine from a statue, for example, is in a small courtyard on the Capitoline exposed to the rain, birds, and tourists. This is the Roman Emperor that brought Christianity to western civilization and the sculpture is 1700 years old. There are buildings and sculpture everywhere in Italy like this.

          If something of that age or importance was in the US, it would be hermetically sealed behind glass. I could not understand how the Italians could care so little about their heritage and belived some organization such as the World Heritage Organization should step in to preserve these precious objects in Italy. However, after having several years to reflect upon this, I can see that Italy has protected these items for centuries. Maybe they survived precisely because they are not hermetically sealed behind glass. Maybe if you protect something too much, it will attract destructive personalities to it. Are you sure you want all these special protections for wolves? You might only be tagging and bagging them for every nutcase who wants to destroy something.

          • HOWLColorado says:

            The fragile and horribly degraded Declaration of Independence is sealed in an argon (I think it’s still argon) filled case, and hidden below ground overnight and protected from direct light. It represents America’s most prized artifact.

            While Italians would be saddened to see damage dealt to, and using your example, Constantine’s head, it would not really devalue the statue. It is one of many such artifacts and it bears millenia of damage already.

            Stonehenge is now shut off from the public because people have done massive damage to the monument. Who knows why the Sphinx in Egypt has no nose – I doubt it was a Napoleonic cannon ball, but maybe it was. And I can assure you, the Mona Lisa is not treated with anything but the utmost security – much as the US protects their Constitution and other documents.

            The point is, that each artifact is valued differently and protected differently based on many criteria.

            I don’t think choosing to hermetically seal away an artifact indicates anything more than the fact that the artifact would not survive if it were not treated that way.

            One problem with your analogy is that wolves are not being treated the same on any level. Wolves are special in the grand scheme of conservation because they have always been treated differently – as a greater threat, or with greater fear. They are extinct in vast parts of the southern 48 for that reason. They are reintroduced because they are a little unique as true Apex predators. We protect them more aggressively because people, even today, see some false, exaggerated, fairy tale monster that slaughters thousands of livestock and represents a significant threat to humans.

            Added to this, wolves are being treated differently for political reasons.

            You can’t avoid protecting wolves more aggressively because they are under more threat and as you suggest, they could be under more threat because they have been made the poster child of organizations like Defenders of Wildlife and so it goes. They are a special animal, and until hunters, ranchers, and others accept that they are not the monsters they continue to portray them as, wolves will continue to receive special treatment.

          • JB says:

            Well said, Howl.

          • PointsWest says:

            Howl writes: “Mona Lisa is not treated with anything but the utmost security”

            I think the Mona Lisa is a good case in point. It has been attacked many times by crackpots acting out some childhood trauma who were trying to draw attention to themselves. If pro-wolf forces put wolves up as some great symbol surrounded by “warning protected species” signs, you will get more wolves killed.

          • JB says:

            “If pro-wolf forces put wolves up as some great symbol…”

            What do you mean if? Wolves have always been a symbol; it’s just that the symbol has different meaning to different groups of people. Wolves were a symbol of gluttony and cowardice in the past; today they are a symbol of wilderness for some, and a symbol of an over-reaching federal government for others.

            If you want to stop wolves from being a symbol, I’m afraid you missed the boat by several centuries.

          • PointsWest says:

            You cut half my sentence off JB. I said, “If pro-wolf forces put wolves up as some great symbol surrounded by ‘warning protected species’ signs, you will get more wolves killed.”

            Putting them up as a symbol is fine…have noooooooo problem with that. If you are going threaten anyone, however, who does not pay homage to your symbol with laws, law enforcement, and stiff penalties, you may be inviting trouble to your symbol.

            The wolf population, in the real world, may be better off if wolves are treated just like another preditor under the law.

          • JB says:

            “If pro-wolf forces put wolves up as some great symbol surrounded by ‘warning protected species’ signs, you will get more wolves killed.”

            But that’s exactly what the ESA did, and wolf populations expanded under ESA protections? Your premise seems to be that wolves would be more protected without formalized protection (something I’ve heard others claim as well). This could be true, but my money is on lower populations sans formal protection. Here’s why: The people who would removed will kill them whether protections are formalized or not; however, a substantial portion of the population is dissuaded from killing wolves when it represents a violation of the law.

          • PointsWest says:

            No I didn’t say that. That is another argument.

    • Mtn Mama says:

      “I used to run coyotes and foxes down with a snowmobile….There is no way I would try it with a wolf and I am experienced. I doubt many others will try and run down wolves. You’re worrying over nothing.”

      PointsWest- Why would ANYONE put this on their resume’? You are boasting about what is better off as a skeleton in your closet. You are living proof that we do have something to worry about.

      • PointsWest says:

        …because it is the truth and I see no reason the hide it. Everyone was doing it. $200 ($800 adjusted for inflation) was a lot of money and few cared about coyotes. Few care about them today. Probably less than half survive the winter anyway. Those that survived my depredations, probably had an easier go of it with less competition for food.

        • willam huard says:

          “Everyone was doing it” and “Few care about them today” What BS.. I don’t know one person in my whole community that would even consider running down any animal with a snowmobile….Coyotes are thriving and have learned to deal with human beings -evil degenerates who persecute animals.The coyotes will get the last laugh and they will piss all over your grave

          • PointsWest says:

            Most I knew with snowmobiles would run down a coyote when they’re pelts were worth $800. I’m sure most in West Hollywood would not, however.

          • timz says:

            So your saying you hung around with a bunch of sick psychos who kill for money.

          • PointsWest says:

            …yes, I hang around with members of the human species who have done it for eons.

  10. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Quoting a statement contained in several articles: Governor Matt Mead said in a statement: “……. but I think we have come up with something that fits with Wyoming’s values and economy,” I wonder what these values are.

  11. JB says:

    Several months ago I posted that I believed eventual federal legislation protecting wolves (at least in some area) may be an inevitability in the long run. If such legislation was enacted, it would further restrict wildlife manager’s ability to effectively manage wildlife to meet trust obligations. Unfortunately, arcane regulations that allow for this kind of treatment of wildlife makes such legislation all the more likely. People who would suggest that such treatment of wildlife is reflective of Wyoming’s value system are wrong–rather, it is reflective of wildlife policy-making bodies that refuse to update regulations consistent with current value systems. In a number of cases, such refusals have led to ballot initiatives that were avoidable were common sense (and common values) protections put in place.

    • willam huard says:

      It would help if there were some Fed hunting regulations, because obviously we can’t trust hunters and local legislative bodies to enact rules and laws that protect wildlife. There are these new thrill killers, hound hunters and trophy hunters that are going way over the line

  12. Judianna Dakota says:

    The stupidity, greed and hate that eradicated masses of wildlife over a 150 years ago has obviously never left, and is peering its sadistic evil head out AGAIN. I truly believe in karma, what goes around comes around, but it is not reassuring at this time, because the innocence of nature suffers, and when nature is damaged to such ruthless degrees we all pay the price.

  13. naturalist598 says:

    Come on people. Which side is really the most full of hatred? Virtually every one of your posts show how full of hatred you are – hatred for people that would kill a wolf of course. People are the real villains on this earth right? At least certain groups of people who think differently from you, right? That’s exactly the same response that the Nazis and Communists had for people who’s opinions and values differed from their own. Yes, I am comparing you to those villanous, murdering groups of human beings. It’s a very short jump from where you are now with your current beliefs and feelings about people that don’t love wolves to the point of believing that those same people should be eliminated from the face of the earth, simply because their beliefs and values concerning those vicious wolves and other predators differ from your own. Wolf-lovers should be required to watch at least a dozen or more videos of wolves killing their prey – elk especially. It ain’t very pretty and much uglier than running down a wolf with a snowmobile and shooting it in the head. But wolves are only doing what God designed them to do, right? To rip a living animal apart so it can fill its stomach and survive. It’s OK because your beliefs and values and mother nature say its OK. Well, my beliefs and values say that we don’t need to allow wolves to increase in number all the way up to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, and then to bless them for their killing and all of the associated pain, terror and massive suffering that they will always inflict on their prey. The world is not a utopia and never will be. You all need to grow up.

    • Ken Cole says:

      But should just anything be allowed? That’s exactly the scenario we will have in Wyoming under this agreement.

      I’ll admit that I am feeling a little bit of hatred right now. It’s only natural when you have government sanctioned destruction of wildlife and the landscapes they depend on.

      The BLM happens to be the worst but they don’t manage the wildlife, they just lie for ranchers and oilmen.

    • willam huard says:

      And you need to get a clue. Wolves kill their prey to survive. It’s not a moral issue. Only hunters that have this false sense of entitlement to game herds criticize wolves for the way they kill their prey. You sound like an idiot

    • Daniel Berg says:


      I know anti-wolfers like to paint wolf supporters as all city-dwelling people who know nothing more about wolves than what they see in a Defenders of Wildlife mailer. Fuzzy pups frolicking around in the grass, right?

      One of my first exposures to wolves as a child was through a book written by Mech about arctic wolves. One of the first pictures I saw was of a musk-ox carcass being eaten. I remember being curious about the green sludge that I learned was part of its stomach contents. Watching a million videos of wolves taking down prey won’t change my opinion that they have a place in the NRM.

      The idea that people should kill or torture wolves because they don’t kill elk as humanely as you’d like to see has always been one of the more absurd and hypocritical arguments of the anti-wolf crowd. Go ahead an cast judgement on the entire predator-prey relationship while you sink your teeth into a bacon cheeseburger. Humans are exclusive in their ability to determine how humanely animals are killed for consumption. Even with this ability, most of us don’t really care how much suffering our future meal goes through before it is killed. The least we can do is refrain from judging animals that have no concept of the pain they inflict.

      • jon says:

        “The idea that people should kill or torture wolves because they don’t kill elk as humanely as you’d like to see has always been one of the more absurd and hypocritical arguments of the anti-wolf crowd. Go ahead an cast judgement on the entire predator-prey relationship while”

        100% in agreement with you. Wolf haters always use that lame argument to make wolves look bad, Wolves use their teeth to kill just like other wild predators such as lions and leopards do.

      • Ice says:

        Daniel, very well said.

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      Naturalist, is it better to leave elk around so they can die from a bullet or arrow wound instead? Either way, life isn’t pretty for elk in the wild, few die of old age.

    • PointsWest says:

      I am a hunter but I do believe some so called hunters are immoral. Here in Los Angeles, I never talk about hunting. Some people just hate hunting and hunters and other people hunt for all the wrong reasons. Too many hunters I meet in the city seem to hunt simply because it gives them a sense of power and because they enjoy destroying life. They are the Ted-Nugent type of hunters. I do not like these people and do not want to be associated with them…so I am generally quiet about hunting here in Los Angeles. So while I defend hunting, I agree that many hunters are immoral and I do not like them.

      A saying dating back at least to the Roman Senate is that, “you cannot legislate morality.”

      • Redleg324 says:

        I think it is kind of humorous when people say, “you cannot legislate morality”. Because I think all legislation is just that. Now if you argue that 100% of the population subject to the legislation will not agree with the morality represented by the law, I agree. But again all laws have a moral arguement inherent to the law IMO.

    • James says:

      i have watched plenty of wolf interactions with elk and bison- most were unsuccessful hunting attempts- and it certainly isn’t uglier than running down a wolf with a snowmobile and shooting it in the head.

      every species has its place in the food web and wolves do the job they evolved to do.

      running down wolves with a snowmobile or shooting them from planes is just inhumane and cruel.

      comparing people who use this blog to Nazis and Communists is hilarious (and a little weird).

      are you in a one room cabin somewhere in Montana writing your manifesto?

      • Ken Cole says:

        Actually, according to the IP address, they were in a BLM office. After reading the comment a couple of times the more alarming that is.

      • PointsWest says:

        1) It was a coyote, not a wolf.
        2) It was done for the pelt and the human species has killed animals for fur for at least 200,000 years. It is perfectly normal and natural.
        3) The only people I have compared to Nazi’s is the Tea Party. I’ve never compared anyone to Communists on this blog.
        4) I live in Los Angeles in a million dollar plus house, am an engineer, and my net worth is probably ten times what yours is.

        Are you living on the drag somewhere showing society what a nice behind you have?

        • willam huard says:

          Whether it was a coyote or a wolf- you’re still an ignorant fool, regardless of how much money you make or how big your house is. Sometimes you sound like a full fledged loon

          • PointsWest says:

            …name calling. You are so wise William. …so respectable. Name calling adds so much to your credibility. It always has.

          • Daniel Berg says:


            I don’t know either your or PW, but based on the comments I read here over time, you and him probably have more values in common than you might realize.

            You read enough of the stuff at other blogs to know who the real loons are.

        • Harley says:

          Haven’t people on this blog spoken highly of Mr. Carter Niemeyer? What makes him different for doing something in his past (I’ve been reading the book btw) from Points West? Just curious…

          • Daniel Berg says:

            Great book, isn’t it? I hope he writes another one.

          • Harley says:

            I’m finding it fascinating! It was recommended by a few people so I thought I’d check it out.

          • Nancy says:

            Harley – Somewhere on my bookshelf, I have a book that promoted the smoking cigarettes. It claimed smoking can reduce stress AND help people suffering with arthritis. (If I recall, it was published in the 40’s) Plus according to all the advertising in magazines, billboards and TV back then….. smoking is relaxing and all your friends are doing it too!

            The word addiction never entered anyone’s mind back then (unless they were among those suddenly getting righteous about those other additive drugs like heroin or MJ) when it came to cigarettes. Afterall, there was so much “good” advertising by the tobacco industry promoting its “benefits” singing the praises of tobacco use, while they amassed their fortunes at the expense of……..

            Are you aware that one, if not more of the original Marlboro Men died of lung cancer?


            Neimeyer’s book Wolfer was a terrific read – you can literally feel the transformation taking place, in his life as you read, when it comes to the BS so prevalent out here in the west, regarding predators and wildlife in general.

        • James says:

          PointWest, actually I was responding to Naturalist598 comparing people on this blog to Nazis and Communists.

          But, now that you and I are conversing with each other I will say based on what I have read that you are a bit of a “loon”.

          Ok, I will take the bait. I used to sell what engineers like you design. My compensation over the past 20 years left me very comfortable and retired at 45. Sounds like you are still working.

          Maybe you should stop drooling on your keyboard and work a little harder at your day job.

          Hopefully, that will keep you occupied and off of snowmobiles.

        • Jay says:

          Well PW, I’ll have you know that designed that little plastic thingy that goes on the end of your shoelace that keeps it from unraveling; I am worth approximately $196.35 bajillion, live in a diamond encrusted,7 million square foot home, and hire engineers like yourself to wipe my behind for me.

  14. naturalist598 says:

    I must apologize. I did go overboard on my last post. I know you are not really hateful, just disappointed with the outcome of the recent court decision and the proposed management actions that will be implemented. And no, you are not Nazis or Communists. Again, I apologize.

    • Ken Cole says:

      What? Did I hit a little close to home?

    • JEFF E says:

      when grizzlies catch an elk calf,(or you) they just stand on the catch and start to eat, alive or dead. When a shark(or 90+% of the fish in the world) hit a food source they just start to eat, alive or dead. When a snake hits a prey animal they just swallow it whole, alive or dead,sometimes paralyzed with venom. When a croc or alligator pulls down a ungulate they just start to dismember and feed.When a raptor hits a prey anaimal it will just start to eat, or return to the nest and feed the chicks, alive or dead.

      Start to get the picture?

      Animals do not consider the fine line between alive and not. In fact I believe that the only animal that does not eat, or start to, it’s prey when still alive are the the majority of the feline species, and that is probably because they can not afford to let dinner suddenly get up and run away.
      you may be many things naturalist598, but a naturalist is certainly and obviously not one of them.

      • jon says:

        Suffering is something that goes on in the wild everyday, so why these wolf hating loons are demonizing the wolf because how it kills and because they kill their prey alive seems very ridiculous to whine about, but then again, they demonize for wolf every chance they get. Wild animals do notfollow a rule book that says they have to kill an animal first before eating it.

        • jon says:

          Meant to say eat their prey alive.

          • jon says:

            Lions eat their prey alive too.

          • jon says:

            although this may be very sad and gruesome to some, this is the reality of what goes on in the wild, so why in the hell are wolf hating hunters demonizing wolves for eating their prey alive when other animals do it as well?

  15. Ann Sydow says:

    Ken is NOT exaggerating, as anyone who has been involved in this “wolf war” for very long would know. Try reading “Of Wolves and Men.” I believe it was written in the 70’s and it has a chapter documenting what kind of torture was inflicted on wolves during their (last) extermination. I read it in 1990,and have been an advocate for wolves ever since!
    What i don’t get is the disconnect among many when it comes to wolves vs dogs. Killing a dog with a snowmobile? Shooting it with arrows? Trapping? Poisoning? The public would be outraged if those things were inflicted upon dogs. Why aren’t more people up in arms over it happening to wolves? Dogs and wolves share 99.98% of their DNA. Our dogs are simply wolves bred over and over to amplify the traits that make them fit into our lives as pets and companions.
    I work with wolves at a wolf education center in North Idaho and i can tell you they are extremely intelligent! And their social bonds mean everything to them. This hunt will destroy wolves in more ways than one.

    • HOWLColorado says:

      The anti-wolf movement is trying very hard to propagate the idea that dogs aren’t descended wolves. It hurts their arguments for exactly the reasons you are stating in your post. They are trying very hard to separate them.

      To be entirely clear, dogs ARE wolves. There are many biologists who believe dogs are so close that they should be classified as canis lupus familiaris.

      I have spent a lot of time researching the wolf-dog connection. Why did humans in the middle east 16,000 years ago decide that wolves were a good partner for us?

      Wolf pups exhibit all the same behavior and body language that dogs do. In many ways, dogs are wolves which stay “emotionally” sexually immature.

      • jon says:

        From Ed Bangs,

        How closely related is the dog to the wolf?

        Basically if you drop your beagle in a blender and look at the DNA it’s pretty indistinguishable from a wild wolf. All dogs came from wolves. And just through intensive breeding we made them look as different as they do—all the different breeds. But your dog is a wolf. Many of the behaviors are exactly the same, just with slight modifications. You know when you scold your dog, how it just curls up and makes itself really small? When a wolf is threatened, it tries to make itself appear as meek as possible to keep other wolves from beating up on it. You know when you take a bone away from a dog, how it growls at you and its hackles go up? Wolves who want to appear threatening also try make themselves appear larger. The hair goes up. They stand more erect. You know when you teach your dog to not go out of the yard or not go in the flower bed—and your dog learns that for the rest of its life? It’s just something it won’t do? That’s the same reason that wolves never attack people. Behaviorally, they just don’t recognize people as anything they want to screw with. And they live their entire lives without ever trying it.

  16. wolfsong says:

    I think, perhaps, that this “article” says a great deal about the wolves and any other predators future.


  17. Immer Treue says:


    Please show the site(s) where anti Wolfers are trying to propagate that wolves are NOT descended from dogs. It’s all in the DNA, plus the curious nature of wolves, one of the things the infamous Valerius Geist twists into danger for humans, and the wolves social structure makes them the only canid other than African Hunting dogs, makes them the only possible “source” of origination for dogs.

    Interesting research of late will go to waste when the indiscriminate hunting of wolves begin. Much of passed research on wolf behavior was based upon captive wolf packs. This would be comparable to basing human social behavior on studies done in prisons.

    Don’t know what to think in terms of some of the comments on this thread. Humans are capable of just about anything, from acts of great kindness to unthinkable cruelty to each other. I think we have another phase of wolf wars beginning. This time they do have a rather benevolent public on their side. If carnage does in fact occur, they will have a voice, unlike the past.

    Of the three states, Montana appears the most rational. Idaho regresses, and Wyoming has lost it’s collective mind and concsience.

    I’ve had some interesting conversations here in N MN over the past couple weeks. The anti wolf folks out west are approaching the pathetic in terms of their every excuse to cull wolves.

    • jon says:

      Let me guess, because they think wolves are wiping out all of the deer in Minnesota? You already know what a hunter’s answer is going to be as why wolves need to die from a hunter’s bullet.

    • HOWLColorado says:

      A self-proclaimed biology professor posted the following in response to a debate about dogs being wolves which started me looking around for what else anti-wolf people are saying about dogs and wolves:

      “This is not proving the origin of the dog (referring to an cited study of wolf and dog mtDNA), unfortunately for you, because as the document goes on to explain itself, DNA of Chinese wolves have been linked to over 1576 dogs that they ran tests on. No, really? All dogs have wolf DNA in them – this isn’t rocket science. Dogs have bred with wolves for thousands of years. The fact of the matter is that dogs did not descend from wolves. Fact. Dogs evolved from a “wolflike” ancestor. Present-day wolves and dogs shared an ancestor, and for the majority of us biologists, that common ancestor is EXTINCT. Perhaps a clarifying illustration for you would be like comparing wolves and coyotes. Wolves and coyotes also evolved from the same ancestor, but the coyote did not evolve from the wolf. Where is that ancestor now? Extinct.

      I strongly suggest you read Luigi Boitani, Raymond Coppinger, and Susan Crockford’s books on dog domestication.

      Google “Pinocchio Hypothesis””

      Go ahead, do what they suggest.

      This is the most commonly cited “evidence”


      … even when they don’t deny dogs descended from wolves, they instead quote studies such as those cited at the Hungarian Canine Science Forums about how wolf pups can’t be domesticated in a single generation, that dogs are attuned to humans and display higher levels of intelligence than wolves, etc.

      It’s really amazing how they will intentionally misinterpret things to separate wolves and dogs.

  18. Immer Treue says:


    As I am again on handheld, I can’t reply directly to your thread.

    Actually quite the opposite. I have Superior National Forest all around me. One of my friends up here has over 20 deer stands sprinkled through the area. He hunts like some fish, based upon wind direction, weather, etc and if one stand is not productive, he moves somewhere else. He says deer are all over the place, and that it’ pure BS when folks say the wolves are killing all the deer. An article in a local paper up here says there are an awful lot of does with twins this year.

    Asked a friend who lives just down the road from me if he is afraid of letting his kids play outside. He said absolutely not.

    E granulosus is up here, has been up here, and will continue to be up here. Nobody has their panties in a bunch. People ride ATV’s up here. What’s the concern? Wash your hands.

    Guy who works for Forestry Dept. And does some trapping Says wolves responsible for livestock depredation need to be culled, but that has already been going on for years.

    The “informed” folks up here look at what is going on out West and just shake their heads in disbelief.

    • ma'iingan says:

      Minnesotans are the model for coexistence with wolves. Unfortunately, things aren’t quite so rosy in the neighboring WGL states. Of three wolves I collared last autumn, all three were dead by gunshot before the first snowfall. This spring, we found the carcass of an 8-year-old lactating female, collared the previous year – shot dead. Her pups perished in a den somewhere. A yearling female, fitted with a GPS collar provided by Dr. Mech – nowhere to be found, but the collar was located in a lake. People here are starting to listen to crackpots like Rockholm, and talk about e. granulosus. The poachers who shoot wolves are responsible for their own actions, but it’s clear what fuels them – lawsuits that have allowed the wolf population to grow to nearly three times the delisting level, with no end in sight.

      • WM says:


        I hope JB and Immer read this comment. It raises doubt, from someone who apparently knows, about their previous assertions that proliferation of wolves beyond agreed recovery levels is a non-issue in the WGL outside MN, while litigation from groups like HSUS keeps them listed.

        Losing collared wolves to the 3S crowd is an unfortunate and expensive scientific tragedy, which certainly does not help the case for delisting. However, I doubt the morons who do it have that part figured out.

        Would it be your belief collared wolves are being located electronically by the 3S wolf killers, given you have had so many losses?

        I am not sure where you are located, but understand historically up to 34% of MI collared wolves have been killed illegally (MI Wolf Management Plan 2008, p. 16, citing unpublished data from 1999-2006).

        • ma'iingan says:

          It’s certainly possible that bear hounders who possess radio telemetry receivers are able to scan the “wolf” frequencies, but actually locating an individual animal close enough to target it would be an extreme needle-in-the-haystack exercise. Each radio collar has its individual frequency, which would be unknown to the poacher, and ground telemetry in summer foliage is limited to less than 1/2 mile. I believe that people are actively and clandestinely hunting wolves, but I think the encounters are more by chance than by design.

        • JB says:

          I suppose the release of these articles is timely:

          Is hunting wolves key to their conservation?


        • ma'iingan says:

          I believe that 34% was derived from recovered radio collars. Savvy poachers have learned to disable the transmitters after killing the animal, leading us to believe that the animal has either dispersed out of it’s normal range or that the transmitter has failed. And our illegal kill rate has definitely ramped up since 2006.

        • JB says:

          “It raises doubt, from someone who apparently knows, about their previous assertions that proliferation of wolves beyond agreed recovery levels is a non-issue in the WGL outside MN…”

          Let’s define “non-issue”. For me (personally) illegal killing is only a problem insomuch as it impacts the population. We know (from previous research), that wolf populations can sustain pretty heavy over-winter mortality (25-40% of the population, depending on who you cite) and do just fine. Of course, for someone concerned with populations (as opposed to individuals) the best gauge is this: is the population still growing, or at least stable? Answer: Yes. Thus, illegal killing is not an “issue” in this regard.

          Regardless, you seem to be suggesting that wolf populations would be safer sans ESA protections. I would apply the same test to this type of assertion (i.e., will the population decrease, or continue to remain stable). I would submit that the people who would take the time and effort to kill wolves illegally will absolutely continue to do so once they are delisted, plus you will have ADDED mortality from legal harvest and control. Does this mean Midwestern states cannot manage wolves? No. Does it mean that they should continue to be listed. No. But I am very skeptical of the argument that wolves would be better off without the protection of the ESA. That argument relies on the haters of wolves (and the federal government) to be satisfied with delisting, which I really doubt.

          • ma'iingan says:

            There’s a school of thought that claims once wolves are given trophy game status (which is the intention in my state), they will be more highly valued and that illegal killing will subsequently be reduced. In fact, some in my agency are totally convinced that this will be the case. I’m skeptical, but I’m anxious to see the effect of delisting – the illegal killing pisses me off greatly.

          • WM says:


            I am certainly NOT among those who say delisting will be better for wolves in terms of total population numbers. It makes no sense.

            I think delisting will to some degree diffuse some of the anamosity (a term I have used in the past is “safety valve”), and perhaps reduce the illegal killing, especially as density drops with legal harvest. That only makes sense. In part, it would be a function of fewer opportunities for poaching, but also less motivation for the bad guys because there would not be so many wolves allegedly impacting the prey base.

            I was stunned by the apparent numbers of collared wolves in MI that had been taken illegally, and from what ma’iingan says, the recorded statistic may even be low for the reason described.

            I haven’t checked the respective state reports in the NRM, but I don’t think historically the illegal take of collared wolves is anywhere close to 34% there(somebody please correct me if I am wrong).

            That was my reason for challenging past comments I believe properly attributed to you, that mostly everybody just gets along co-existing with wolves in the GL, and nobody thinks about it much. Clearly somebody has been thinking about it and acting. Maybe you were excluding parts of WI and MI, where it appears a fair number are being taken illegally, and where there is pressure for delisting and hunting, notwithstanding the past agreed management plans with the five year waiting period, etc.

            Approved delisting plans, as we know, can be easily amended. Such is the case where the WGL delisting is 10 years behind where they thought it would be, and with a new obstacle to confront – the assertion of two species (which by the way have been managed as one since ESA protections were put in place).

          • JB says:

            If memory serves, illegal killing in the NRMs is about 10-12%; though, lethal control actions are more numerous.

            The problem I have with relying upon illegal take as an indicator of a state’s “tolerance” for the species (or what some call “social carrying capacity”) is that a tiny fraction of the population is engaged in these types of activities (less than 1%). When your management response to illegal mortality is to turn around and do the job of this group for them (i.e., kill more wolves) have you actually created tolerance, or merely capitulated to the intolerant?

            In a paper my colleagues and I published a few years ago, we gave the following warning (which I still view as relevant):

            “…while we collected data for this study the UDWR conducted a series of scoping meetings in order to involve Utah residents in the management process. They found 719 of 897 attendees (80%) identified ‘‘do not allow wolves in Utah’’ as one of their top 3 management priorities (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication #:05-17). However, our survey, which used probabilistic sampling and weighted data to accurately reflect
            regional population distributions, found over half of respondents
            agreed with the item ‘‘I would like to see wolves in Utah.’’ Moreover, results from the 1994 survey were statistically identical, suggesting public opinion on this issue has not wavered. The lesson is that managers often hear from their most vocal critics or those most involved in particular wildlife issues. It is easy to see how such experiences can color managers’ perspectives, resulting in a skewed perception of public opinion.”

            Again, I fully support removing wolves in the Great Lakes from the ESA and allowing states full management authority. However, I worry about wildlife management objectives will be set in the future…and the extent to which they will be driven by a vocal minority.”

      • JB says:

        “The poachers who shoot wolves are responsible for their own actions, but it’s clear what fuels them – lawsuits that have allowed the wolf population to grow to nearly three times the delisting level, with no end in sight.”

        When wolves are delisted in the Great Lakes (soon I hope), we will get to put this theory to a test of sorts. Once federal protections are removed, the unnamed, uncaught poachers will be become vocal stakeholders, bending the ear of the state agencies to their ends. Your collared wolves will still be shot, the only difference is that it will be legal. Maybe this will satisfy them and the whole controversy will go away…I really don’t know? What I know is that the population (outside of MN) has been increasing under ESA protections. What will happen when they are delisted remains to be seen, but we eradicated them before when there were far fewer people, fewer roads, less reliable ballistics, optics were in their infancy, and agency trappers road horses instead of helicopter gunships.

        • JB says:

          The fundamental (and unanswered) question is: can wolf populations thrive when management objectives are driven by rural hunters and farmers, or is their success a result of their protection from such local interests? Stay tuned…we’re going to find out.

  19. Immer Treue says:


    Lose the POTATOS ESP if from Idaho, cerial, bread,chips, rice, most, if not all of the sweets .go with the vegetables, spices and meat is all of a sudden more affordable.

    • Harley says:


      Are you advocating a boycott of Idaho spuds? 😉

      Because of certain dietary restrictions of some people in my house, we tend to stay away from the ‘white’ foods. Potatoes, white bread and rice though for me, rice is the most difficult. I’ve acquired a taste for authentic sticky rice! I try to compromise with wild rice though… We’ve been also trying to do the fresh veggies more often too. Nothing beats freshly prepared veggies in my opinion!

  20. Immer Treue says:


    Collared wolves being shot in Wisconsin and Michigan is bad. For every collared wolf killed, one must wonder how many non collared wolves are SSS. Every blue moon someone gets caught, but not often enough.

    Can’t help but wonder how much of this would go on even if there were a season on wolves, Wiscinsin in particular. There has got to be someone crunching numbers in terms of the cost of deer due to agricultural
    Damage and collisions with autos now and prior to wolf numbers

    Back to the SSS. In my opinion, it was alive and well in the NRM states prior to wolf reintroduction. One of the reasons dispersers from
    Canada were never able to attain viability in Wyoming or Idaho. It wasn’t until the Feds put the entire area under ammagnifying glass
    That the locals started to throw hussy fits.

    I know in MN. There are folks who really don’t like wolves, mostly old timers and needless to say some ranchers, but most of the hyperbole
    Is a non issue.

    • ma'iingan says:

      The gathering storm in Great Lakes wolf delisting is the USFWS insistence in claiming that lupus and lycaon be considered as distinct and separate species, which has been refuted by some very recent research using the SNP genotyping microarray. USFWS was taken to task over this issue in the NE region during the recent public comment period, and this controversy will no doubt provide plenty of fodder for the next anti-delisting lawsuit.

  21. naturalist says:

    I just know I shouldn’t post this so late at night when I’m so tired, but here goes.

    Why do you all believe that our current population of wolves in the Northern Rockies are still persecuted and endangered? I’ve sat at the table with some of the most knowledgeable career wildlife biologists in NA. They all tend to agree that if there were no immoral denn killing, no helicopter gunning, no legal trapping, or even if unregulated “shooting-on-sight” was legal, this current population wolves would continue to exist into perpetuity with us, all other factors being equal. Those wolves do have one thing in common with dogs, they will breed abundantly.

    No, these wolves should not be persecuted like they were in the past, and neither should we continue to condemn the people that did the persecution. That is history. Times change, and values change. Wolves are predators, and humans are predators. That won’t change.

    Please don’t elevate wolves above the humans you hate – like the ranchers for example. Are those ranchers any different from the Native Americans that your ancestors the settlers, and the U.S. Government drove off the land? I think not. So now, should we repeat history? Drive the ranchers and government managers off the land so you can hold the land for a higher and better use? For What? For recreational freedom among protected populations of wolves, grizzly bears and feral horses? How many grizzlies did Lewis & Clark have to dispatch only to save their own lives and those of their men just to hike over the Rockies along now tamed and named streams and rivers? What if your wives, children and livestock were camping out there with you in the same situation, subject to the untamed, uncontrolled environment of an unmanaged Rocky Mtn. west full of protected predators?

    When will the cycle of egotism and predjudice and hatred stop? It’s true, all of these cultures and these life forms can’t sleep together in true peace like in Disney movies. Instead of condemnation of everyone that you think is evil or otherwise might disagree with you, try to find solutions so that there is a balance of all lifeforms and cultures in the Rocky Mtn. Ecosystem. Maybe then all of us govt. bureacrats, ranchers, Native Americans, regular citizens, and even you pure environmentalists can enjoy the special beauty of seeing a living, wild wolf, or wolves, in their natural environment, living among all of us together. I know my wife would like that – she spent all of her life as a rancher’s wife and daughter in Idaho before she met me. But she would like nothing better than to hear a wolf howling in the wild (she never has yet), even if it might be close to her family’s ranch and cattle and horses. Thats called ‘love’. And if we can’t have that, at least we should have somewhat of a greater understanding and tolerance of each other’s values, including each of our “sub-cultural” values, when it comes to the idea of living in the Rocky Mtns with grizzlies, wolves and other particularly dangerous predators (esp. us humans, right?). Let’s try it.

    • Harley says:

      Kudos to you for posting that on this blog.

    • Ken Cole says:

      I don’t think that many here elevate wolves above humans. I think that people here want there to adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect them once they become delisted. Currently those mechanisms don’t exist, especially in Wyoming.

      Yes, those ranchers are different than the Native Americans they displaced. Far different.

      I’m sorry, but there is no other group, aside from Wall Street executives or Oil executives, that feels so entitled to a “way of life” than ranchers do. I know, as a BLM employee, you think it is your job to protect ranchers from the evil, communist, Nazi environmentalists and ensure that they never have to bother with meeting Standards for Rangeland Health (SRH) but that is not the purpose of the BLM. It seems that the only parties who matter to the BLM are those who want to graze, drill, or develop our public lands into oblivion at the public’s expense.

      There is never a circumstance that the BLM can find to reduce grazing. When an allotment is meeting SRH, when it isn’t, or even if the allotment has turned into a cheatgrass hell, the BLM refuses to even consider reducing AUM’s and listen to the viewpoint of someone other than a rancher. I have seen it over and over again on EVERY permit renewal EA I have ever seen. Only when the BLM has had its ass whipped in court repeatedly will that option ever be considered in an EA but the preferred alternative, and always the one chosen for the Final Decision, is to maintain the same number of AUMs with some “range improvements” which make things even worse. That happens, even when the actual use is far below the permitted AUMs.

      Your agency is corrupt beyond comprehension.

    • Ken Cole says:

      What if your wives, children and livestock were camping out there with you in the same situation, subject to the untamed, uncontrolled environment of an unmanaged Rocky Mtn. west full of protected predators?

      Not that this situation is what is sought, but how in the hell did Native Americans ever survive? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • Ken Cole says:

      And how do I know you are a BLM employee? Because your first post was from a BLM computer.

    • um . . I have to point out that having read the entire long version of Lewis and Clark’s journals we will never know if they needed to defend themselves against bears because every bear they saw they shot on sight not giving it any chance of any other behavior other than aggressivenesss. . except for two notable cases; one where Lewis forgot to load his gun and didn’t shoot the bear and the bear let him go and another where McNeil took refuge in a tree from a bear he thoroughly annoyed and then the bear wandered off. . . so during that time no one was even looking for bears to be anything but instantly lethal because that is what they thought the natives were telling them when in fact the natives were telling them that bears need a bit of respect.

      • Nancy says:

        +when in fact the natives were telling them that bears need a bit of respect+

        As do most, if not all species, who are trying to make their way around this over populated, human dominated world, they now live in……..

  22. jon says:

    With all of the hate filled and vile and disgusting comments written by hunters/ranchers on the internet regarding wolves, it’s no surprise that many hate/despise ranchers and hunters for their views on wildlife. There is a reason why ranchers/hunters are hated/despised by some environmentalists.

    • Bob says:

      But how do you feel about Ken Cole killer of endangered fish. Removing the protective slime from more than half a fish must be just like gut shooting a wolf. Yes that fish swam off after the photo but it’ll die just like a gut shot. Ken likes to claim the high ground, but he’s a killer and a slow one at that. Anyway back to work.

      • jon says:

        Bob Fanning, 2012 candidate for Montana Governor. Tell me Bob, what do you plan to do if you get Brian Schweitzer’s job? How’s your lawsuit coming?

        • Elk275 says:

          Jon, you do not have a vote in the State of Montana, so why not ask your candidate questions that would affect your well being. We the people of Montana will elect our new governor without the help of a certain Maine resident.

          I do fear what will happen if a Republican gets elected governor as the Democrats have no real candidate now. I am afraid of the stream access law and the privatization of wildlife. There are those who want to privatize everything

          The other day I signed a petition to over turn the state’s medical marijuana law, not that I think the old law is good. We need to demonstrate that the voters are able and will over turn laws that are going effect them.

          The voters are going to have to be ready if ,and when the Republican’s decide that 100 years of modern fish and game law is not relevant to their needs in the 21 Century. I have mentioned that the hook and bullet crowd needs to be ready with petitions immediately to stop any law poorly written law that effects access, land purchases or ownership of wildlife before it can become effective.

  23. Immer Treue says:


    Isis not write that the proliferation of wolves in MN was a non issue, but the panty waste excuses of western states interms of their wolf population, fewer wolves, larger area and smaller human population added together create an hysteria that brings to mind all the fairy tales associated with wolves!

    Makes one want to take a purgative. Perhaps I’ll read Will Graves Wolves in Russia edited???? by the illustrious Val Geist and have a good laugh and puke at the same time.

    • WM says:

      LOL. Similarly reading news releases from the Center for Biological Diversity written by Michael Robinson is an effective purgative for me, especially when he quotes himself with some pretty much over the top statements.

  24. PointsWest says:


    There are many reasonable people on this blog who genuinely care about the GYE, about wolves and grizzlies, and about wildlife in general. Many are very knowledgeable and interesting. There are also many here who use this site as a safe place to vent their rage and hostility towards the world or to act out. Some are gay, some are vegan, some have gender identity issues and have never even been in the outdoors let alone to the GYE. I believe their posting here has nothing to do with the real world.

    When I first started reading this blog, there was a celebration going on because a grizzly had attacked and killed a man and mauled his son. All sorts of fun and derision was being poked at these people because they were hunters and had been hunting when the attack took place. You regularly hear people on this blog advocate murder of hunters or anti-wolf people. When the wolf hunting started a couple of years ago, a woman was on here inviting people to her blog where she would reveal the names, phone numbers, and addresses of people who had legally killed wolves.

    These extreme people are in the minority but they are a very vocal minority who are obsessed with this issue. You will never win with them. It is not about reality to them. They will insult you and frustrate you when you finally get fed up and leave, they will have considered it a victory.

    Meanwhile, the state of conservation and wildlife protection in the US is hitting an all time low.

    • naturalist says:

      Points West:

      Regarding your last response specific to my last post. You are absolutely right. Its seems to me though that those extremists actually own and run this blog site. There is no reason to even try to discuss any issues with them. This site is here only for one thing. To promote their views and their ideology, and woe be it to you if you have a different opinion. This will forever be my last post here. I simply can’t stand the vibrations of hatred that permeate this forum. Thank you Points West, and Thank you Harley, for you’re supportive replies. But they’ve won their victory with this victim. I will not be back. I can hear them cheering now….. Do you think they will even allow this message to post? And does it really matter……..???? Best wishes to you all.

      • Daniel Berg says:


        That’s a disingenuous statement. Having someone disagree with you on a blog does not equal persecution. “Victim” Do you think you could cheapen that word any more?

        I’ve been reading this forum for a couple of years and there are a variety of different opinions from a variety of interesting individuals that can really get you thinkig.

        • willam huard says:

          Naturalist comes on this blog and equates that people that care about wildlife think like NAZIS, and now he/she is a victim? You can criticize my posts all you want- but I advocate for wildlife conservation to put wildlife and their welfare first- before hunters, trappers, and ranchers. Unfortunately the exact opposite is happening….And when people oppose these prevailing cultural norms like running over coyotes with snowmobiles somehow we are labeled extreme or my favorite-“anti”.
          Among PointsWest’s outrageous nonsensical rants this week like “it was a coyote not a wolf” I will agree with him on one comment-“Meanwhile the state of conservation and wildlife protection in the US is hitting an all time low”
          MR Gamblin himself made the comment that the 72 hour trap check polcy is not a good example of science based wildlife management- So I have to ask the obvious question- Why isn’t the focus on the animals welfare.
          Sometimes I wonder how diffferent the policies would be in the west if lets say Raul Grihalva was appointed Sec of the Interior instead of the rancher that occupies that position now

          • ma'iingan says:

            Running over coyotes with snow machines is a “prevailing cultural norm”? Do you really believe that?

          • jon says:

            it appears so. A few weeks ago I posted a link to a hunting forum where hunters were talking about running over coyote pups. They think this is normal behavior. it’s very disturbing people think this kind of thing is considered normal.

          • willam huard says:

            The “method” of killing coyotes by snowmobile may not be the norm but treating them like vermin certainly is. There are states that have the opinion that certain wildlife has no value as if they have the right to make that judgement.

          • willam huard says:

            Coyotes and prairie dogs get even less respect than wolves.

          • jon says:


            Is it considered normal and ethical behavior for a hunter to want to kill a coyote pup or run them over?

            I’ve seen a few hunters say coyote pups would make a good mount in their trophy room. Where is the respect for wildlife from these people? All they seem concerned with is killing wild creatures for ridiculous reasons.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “Is it considered normal and ethical behavior for a hunter to want to kill a coyote pup or run them over?”

            Absolutely not – who is saying this is normal and ethical? Nor is it a “prevaililng cultural norm”. Do you know any hunters who would consider it so? Or do you search out statements by a few depraved individuals on Internet forums and use them as a broad brush to condemn hunters in general?

          • willam huard says:

            Someone had posted this story on this blog a few weeks back-


            There are these thrill killers out in the woods wreaking havoc on anything that moves…..What type of a hunter shoots a bear 11 times and then as the bear falls back into the dog pack the hunters allow the dogs to “have some fun with her”
            Legislatures legalize this garbage.

          • willam huard says:

            I’m trying to pull up the “bear hounding is Wisconsins shame” and I can’t get it to come up

          • JB says:

            “Do you know any hunters who would consider it so? Or do you search out statements by a few depraved individuals on Internet forums and use them as a broad brush to condemn hunters in general?”

            ma’iingan: Unfortunately, the hunters that are posting are all too often advocating these kinds of things. I absolutely agree with you–this behavior is not the norm, nor would most hunters consider it ethical, it’s too bad more hunters don’t speak up to condemn this sort of thing.

            Jon and William (like many wildlife managers) are confused–believing that the vocal minority is representative of the silent majority.

          • Elk275 says:


            I would like to see that article, too. A black bear is easy to kill. Eleven shots, I doubt it, one heart/lung shot from a 270, 308, 30-06 or a 7 mm will kill a black bear immediately regardless of the size. If one shot did not killed the bear, then the second or third shot would be lethal. Been there and done it many times, I love to hunt bears but have no interest in shooting another one. There is more to the story as there is to all stories. Do not believe everything you read.

          • willam huard says:

            Elk- the story is up- took me three tries… thanks Paul for posting the story also. The story is pretty clear elk. This is what some people do for pleasure- pretty sadistic if you ask me. And to go along with the coyote is vermin theme, this form of hunter entitlement also uses coyotes and foxes for bait (called penning) in probably 10 states…..All supported by generally Republican legislatures

          • jon says:

            is using hounds on bears, cougars, etc considered ethical because I personally see it as cowardly. The dog is doing all of the work and all the hunter has to do is point and shoot while the animal is up in the tree probably terrified to death, but I’m certain the hunters who use hounds consider this normal and ethical. If there was a vote throughout the country as to what people think of using hounds to tree wild animals so they can be shot, I’m fairly certain the majority will come out against it. The hunters I’ve seen to want to run over coyote pups with their trucks probably think that’s normal behavior on their part. Afterall, coyote are deer killing vermin to them and any good coyote is a dead coyote to them. As someone who has visited hundreds of hunting forums, I’ve seen very little hunters say positive things about wolves and coyotes. This obviously doesn’t mean that all hunters feel this way, but I have no doubt that a lot of hunters feel some animals are worthless vermin such as wolves and coyotes.

          • jon says:

            elk, is this considered ethical?

            A hunter kills an albino 47 pound black female cub


          • jon says:

            As you can see in those pics, all 4 of those bears are fairly small with one weighing in at just 47 pounds and being albino. With things like this going on, it’s no surprise that non-hunters don’t get along with hunters.

          • jon says:

            and as you can see the comments to that article, they are sickened and disgusted that the hunters shot 4 tiny bears. Killing a 47 pound female bear is nothing to be proud of and it’s not ethical.

          • willam huard says:

            What are you talking about? I’m providing examples of unethical hunting practices that are condoned and defended by legislatures. Now anytime hunter entitlement is questioned by people that are horrified by these activities they are labeled antis or greenies or marginalized as liberals.

        • Elk275 says:

          I read that article. Think about it would a owner of a pack of hounds allow them to attack a wounded bear that had 11 arrows shot into it. I doubt it. The protruding board heads would slice up kill the dogs or the vet fees would kill the dog owner.

          If it was a small bear it would be dead with eleven arrows before it fell out of the tree. That is check station hear say and nothing more. It takes 4 points to draw a black bear license in Wisconsin and the bear would not be thrown into the garbage after the hunter spent 4 years trying to draw a bear tag.

          • willam huard says:

            I found it interesting Elk how you talked about vet fees, injured dogs, and never once considered that the story is true or how unethical the whole situation is. Hounding is completely unethical. Do you think the dogs know if the bear is too small or not? Do the dogs say- gee we shouldn’t chase this mother because she has two cubs?

          • ma'iingan says:

            @william – thanks for reinforcing my point. I questioned your perception of hunting and you tripped all over yourself searching out the most depraved example of unethical hunting practices you could find, and then you try to present this as the norm.

          • Elk275 says:

            Jon and William

            I have seen thousands of Coyotes in my lifetime in the wild. Of the thousands that I have seen I do not think that person driving a truck could run over a coyote. The coyote would start out 100 yards ahead and would run faster than the truck driver could drive across the landscape, the truck’s front end and suspension system would be destroyed long before contact with the coyote. It may have been done once or twice, but it is not a common method of hunting coyotes in the west. Trucks are to expensive.

          • jon says:

            ma, I do believe that many hunters in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming without question hate and despise wolves. In these places, it is the Norm to hate and despise wolves and I would not be shocked if most hunters in these 3 states want wolves eradicated.

          • jon says:

            if someone wanted to run over a coyote pup, I’m sure they would. Why would anyone even think of doing something like that?

          • Elk275 says:

            Jon and William

            There is a difference between what the law allows and ethics. The article about hunting with dogs in Wisconsin mentioned that if Wisconsin was a true democracy then bear hunting with hounds would be illegal. If people think that way, then why don’t they change the law. The anti hound hunters should initiate a voter initiative and restrict hound hunting.

            In Montana several years ago on organization called Footloose tried to ban trapping on public land. There drafted a voter initiative, presented it to the Secretary of State, and the initiative was approved. Footloose attempted to obtain the needed signatures on the petition, they were unable to obtain the signatures to put their initiative on the ballot.

            There are people in Montana who think that trapping is unethical and wrong. State law allows trapping, they had there chance to use the democratic process to change the law and it failed. Why. The public did not want the law changed. If one think’s that trapping is unethical that is there belief , but the law recognizes trapping. Each and everyone has there ethics, each ones ethics differs, but ethics are not law. Footloose is going to try again in the next election and I wish them luck using the democratic process.

          • willam huard says:

            Elk you are right, ballot initiatives are one way to approach this issue.

        • Harley says:

          The problem, at least as I see it, is that when a hunter does speak up, he’s shot down immediately for the simple fact that he is a hunter. I know people here have said there is no hate speech, it’s just on the other side etc. etc. but I’ve seen plenty of anger directed towards hunters, ranchers and anyone associated with the BLM or Fish and Wildlife people. It’s no wonder they don’t post here. Now, to be fair, the same treatment is given to those of you here if you were to post on hunter’s blogs. It seems neither side really wants to hear what the other is saying because they are too busy condemning them.

          • ma'iingan says:

            Thank you, Harley. I’ve actually been labeled a “PETA whacko” on a hunting forum, simply for advocating for wolves on the landscape. And it got even worse when I divulged that I worked in wolf management – I was then portrayed as an agent of Satan himself, commissioned to destroy hunting by “planting” wolves.

          • jon says:

            If you like wolves or feel they have a place in the environment, you will be called that and worse. tree hugger, hippie, bunny hugger, enviro nazi, etc. the list goes on. It’s either you think like them or they view you as the enemy. This is a culture war we are in.

          • jon says:

            and honestly ma, that hunting forum you were called a peta wacko on, what do you think of wolves and coyotes?

          • Harley says:

            But see, the problem is people get too busy calling names. Like I said, if Jon posted on a hunting blog, he’d be shot down just because he believes what he does. If a hunter, or I should say when a hunter (because I’ve seen examples of that here but I don’t know for certain if Jon posts on hunting blogs) posts here, he’s evil and ganged up on and dismissed as irrelevant because… he’s a hunter. It happens both ways. So when someone says, wow, I wish more ethical hunters would speak up and show this is not the norm, I just shake my head and think, no, any hunter in his right mind wouldn’t even try to talk to anyone here because he would be hated. Yes. Hated. Just because he hunts.

          • JB says:

            That’s funny, Harley. I’ve hunted occasionally throughout my life and I believe the same can be said for all three of this sites moderators? Elk275 hunts, WM hunts, Jay hunts, Ryan hunts…in fact, I’d say the majority of people who post here regularly hunt or at least supportive of hunters. Jon and William are both vocal critics of hunting who post here often… It seems your characterization of this site suffers the same flaw in logic that has trapped Jon and William–that is, you’ve found an example of two people who are very vocally against hunting carnivores and assigned the same label to the rest of us.

          • Harley says:

            Well ok now JB…

            You do give me pause for thought.

            I may have to review and rethink my position.

          • WM says:

            ++the majority of people who post here regularly hunt or at least supportive of hunters++

            Appreciate the support, but I would modify the sentence above as follows:

            ++the majority of people who post here are at least tolerant of hunting, and even a few of them hunt or have hunted in the past.++

            Then I would follow it with this one:

            ++There are also a small few who go out of their way to find extreme (and often rare) examples of unethical hunting incidents or practices to underscore their disdain for hunters generally, unfairly applying these characteristics to all hunters. They even carry their rants, unjustly to individuals whom they barely know (and only by their posts on this forum)in a constant effort to discredit otherwise substantive comments. ++

          • willam huard says:


            What is hunting today? Is hound hunting hunting? Is canned hunting hunting? Is penning coyotes and foxes in order to “train” your hunting dogs hunting? You have seen the research where support for hunting drops as you get into the trophy hunting, hunting with dogs, spring hunts, hunting over bait -aspects of “hunting”. Where I grew up “hunting” was about fair chase. Fair chase is an afterthought that falls on deaf ears or is conveniently ignored. Whenever anyone questions hunter entitlement or some of these more egregious practices that are clearly forms of animal cruelty the labels “against the hunting heritage” or “they want take away your second amendment rights” nonsense is used against you.
            If you lived in Wisconsin would you enjoy listening to an injured bear crying in the woods all night? I wouldn’t. These people will face a backlash- it is coming

        • jon says:

          In Colorado recently, they banned hunters from killing bears in their dens after that hunter crawled inside a bear’s den and shot it to death. If this is considered unethical, why isn’t hunting with dogs?

    • JB says:

      Pointswest says: “You regularly hear people on this blog advocate murder of hunters or anti-wolf people.”

      I have been posting on this blog fairly regularly for three years and have never (let alone “regularly”) seen anyone advocate murder. Your statement is beyond your normal hyperbole, it’s an outright lie.

      “Some are gay, some are vegan, some have gender identity issues and have never even been in the outdoors let alone to the GYE.”

      What?! This is exactly the kind of statement that continuously puts you at serious odds with many who post here. You are stereotyping people based upon their responses to a variety of wildlife and public lands issues; moreover, you are using stereotypes to imply that these social categories (veganism, gender identity, sexual orientation) have some relevance when assessing the validity of some individual’s point of view. They do not. Your comments on this thread are utterly preposterous.

      – – – –


      Consider that when you introduce yourself by accusing people of hate speech, you’ve pretty much guaranteed a hostile response. I’ve been posting here for three years (after Ralph began moderating the comments) and have found the diversity of perspectives represented here is great–and it is an attribute. Ralph’s desire for rational dialogue has meant that some “extreme” perspectives on either side have either gotten themselves banned, or been worn down and left on their own. I note that despite your insistence that the site is run by “extremists” Ralph and Ken have let your posts through and responded quite rationally given the hostility of your initial post. You might consider moderating your tone and sticking around?

  25. Howl Basin says:

    PointsWest, you have certainly vented on this blog and done your share of name-calling. You are one of the reasons that some good pro-wolf people won’t read this blog anymore. Your comments are one of the reasons why many others have started their own websites & pages where we don’t have to listen to your stupidity. Where did you ever come up with pro-wolf folks have “gender identify issues”. Or your claims that people have “never been outdoors”. Then you assert that some posters on this blog are gay or vegan. WTF? And you had a good time giving the detailed report of your sadistic running coyotes over with a snowmobile, so you could shoot them in the head with your pistol.

    • PointsWest says:

      Howl writes: “Where did you ever come up with pro-wolf folks have “gender identify issues”. Or your claims that people have “never been outdoors”.

      That’s “gender identity” and not “gender identify.”

      Well…I am not going to start psychoanalyzing people again, but I get it from reading the comments that A FEW people make. I never said it was true of everyone. Many have stated very explicitly that the were vegan.

      Why don’t you take a poll where you ask how many here are gay or bi? …or are bi-curious because I get the impression there are quite a few.

      For every person I have scared away, the rabid name-calling, murder advocating animal-righteous have scared away 10.

      • Ken Cole says:

        I honestly don’t think I’ve met anyone in the conservation community who has any “gender identity” issues. I think you’re just pulling that out of your ass.

        I don’t think that I’ve met very many who are bi-curious either. It has nothing to do with these issues anyway.

        It sounds more like you are painting the readers of this blog with a broad brush containing your own preconceived notions than anything else.

        • PointsWest says:

          You’re mixing my words. I am in the conservation community. I’m not gay. I said that only a few who post here might be gay. And I have no problem with that except that some are very irrational and this is a purely symbolic issue with some of them (not all).

          • Ken Cole says:

            I never implied such. It seems like you feel that the people on this blog are the “other” or not part of “normal”.

          • PointsWest says:

            I think there are plenty of normal people on this blog.

          • Ken Cole says:

            I don’t, but I don’t think that it matters much either. I don’t consider myself normal or mainstream in any fashion but that doesn’t mean that my viewpoints aren’t valid.

      • PointsWest says:

        I will point out that West Hollywood (only 4 miles from where I live)is the most progressive animal-rights, anti-fur, and anti-hunting place in the world and nearly all of the city government are gay and something like 60% of the male population of West Hollywood are gay. There is an undeniable connection between the animal-righteous and the gays.

    • Daniel Berg says:


      It’s unfortunate that there are well-informed individuals who won’t read or post here.

      I can’t tell you how much I have learned about wildlife issues since I started reading this blog. That’s one of it’s greatest values; giving people like me who are not professionally involved with wildlife or other environmental issues, but who want to know more a great place to read interesting information, opinions, and follow the evolution of debate. How many folks like me read this blog and never post? I’m willing to bet it’s quite a few.

      If you have relevant experience and have been offended here, I would ask that you please consider the people like me who value your opinions and stand to lose with one less view point to consider. Obviously none have an obligation to educate folks like me, but I can promise you the cause is better for it. Not only do I get a lot of good information here, I get pointed in good directions to further my education.

      Spreading valuable opinions across many blogs has its benefits for the posters I’m sure, but it puts folks like me who only have a certain amount of time to allocate at a disadvantage.

      A blog is never going to be perfect for every person who posts. People will get offended from time to time, there will be comments you think are silly, ignorant, insulting, or irrelevant to some degree even with moderation. By walking away though, you’re losing an opportunity to reach a larger group of people and have a positive impact on an important issue.

  26. Immer Treue says:

    In terms of wolf delisting and management, whether in the GL states or NRM states, sound biological management that appeals to the constituents in those states, a very vocal minority. It just does not make sense to kill wolves just to drive the population down to some arbitrary number.

    Would it not make more sense to: have heavier hunting pressure in areas where livestock depredation is a concern; heavier hunting pressure in areas where wolf prey populations are most affected; have more hunting pressure in areas where John Doe’s dachshund made the mistake of chasing a wolf; and last, with tongue in cheek, have more wolf
    Hunting pressure around all those bus stops that have proven to be sites for wolves looking for lunchables.

    Folks who hunt bear, cougar, or raccoons with dogs, sorry folks, nature has an equalizer. You take yor own chances.

  27. Immer Treue says:

    Please allow me to add, if it is to be a wolf culling season call it as such. To manage and harvest an animal seen by so many as important, for the love of whatever god you choose to believe in or not, it’s starts when there coats are prime, and when the young of the year are out of rendeVous sites and closes when females are carrying pups.

    I’m sorry on that last one Mark G. With all due respect, I know you have a career to maintain, and as a career man, I know you have to follow orders, but gosh, doesn’t your conscience bother to in the least being force fed from the ranching and hunting lobby? Idaho/Wyoming who cares, same difference. Sell out in terms of wolf management.

    Wisconsin and Michigan, depends on how the general public is mobilized. Minnesota, I have hope when the time comes they will get it correct, and use science rather than loud mouth philosophy.


    You are so right when you write the 3S crowd shooting of collared wolves does more damage to their cause than good (my play on yor words) but they are too dense to understand. Studies about wolf pack dynamics, and the effect or not on these very same scoundrels, are in play. Education.

  28. Immer Treue says:


    This is a wildlife site. It os a prowildlife site, and the pro part includes wolves and habitat protection, so people give their opinions, thoughts and ideas. Call me a bird of a feather, but I see little hate and an awful lot of tolerance for people’s comments. Moderation occurs so it does not turn into a slammfest.

    This is a site frequented by folks who love the outdoors, and includes hunters. Fisherman, campers, photographers, professionals in the field of wildlife… and people who just enjoy things wild.

    It is not a site for the promotion of deer and elk to feed lot status for the purpose of their harvest.

  29. jon says:

    I was sent this by someone.

    “I talked with IDFG today and he admitted that “unofficially” they estimate the Idaho wolf population at 9000 animals. They also stated that we won’t be able to kill enough of these “wolves” to make a difference in the elk and deer populations for at least 10 yrs.”

    9000 wolves in Idaho, ok.

    • Nancy says:

      Well Jon, that makes perfect sense if you believe the rumors that there are no elk left in Idaho because hunters can’t find them anymore in their favorite “always been there before” haunts 🙂

      • jon says:

        If this is indeed true, it’s very disturbing that Idaho fish and game are teling hunters this. 9000 wolves? Gimme a break! Some people exaggerate to no end.

        • rtobasco says:


          You state – “I was sent this by someone.”

          “I talked with IDFG today and he admitted that “unofficially” they estimate the Idaho wolf population at 9000 animals. They also stated that we won’t be able to kill enough of these “wolves” to make a difference in the elk and deer populations for at least 10 yrs.”

          Is your “someone” a reputable source? It is exactly this kind of hyperbole and rumor that incites negativity from all sides. This issue continues to be divisive because neither side can maintain rational thought for any length of time. Folks are too busy name calling and exploiting the latest rumor, thus rendering themselves incapable of exercising any opinion that is remotely objective.

          I too, have a friend employed by IDFG. He’s quite surprised by this “unofficial” population estimate. I have no way of knowing, with any accuracy, what the true wolf population is. I tend to think the figures are likely to be manipulated according to an individuals and/or agencie’s bias.

          This sSounds like a less than credible rumor to me – and apparently folks are all too willing to buy it, all the while maintaining their attack on Mr. Gamblin of IDFG for his weak science. You can’t have it both ways. You lose what little credibility you may have thought you had when you offer up rumors such as this as a basis for your belief that IDFG and Idaho sportsmen/women are intent upon eradicating wolves from the state.

          We’re all entitled to our own opinions but if your going to wage war on IDFG and hunters you should at least attempt to dignify your stance with information a little more substantial than a rumor about a rumor passed onto you by “someone.”

        • WM says:


          If “someone” told “someone” the earth is flat, and you learned of this, would you believe it, and then keep repeating it over and over again to others as if it were truth?

          Now, just thinking this through, for your benefit, if it had been 9,000 wolves, and knowing that a wolf will eat between 12-23 elk/year, using 18 as an average, that would be about 163,000 elk per year. Idaho has how may elk? Maybe a shade over 100,000. Doesn’t even pass the laugh test, now does it, jon?

          On the other hand, I have heard unofficial estimates from reliable sources, of about 900 wolves in ID, which is even supported by extrapolating the testimony of Dr. Mech in his Declaration Under Oath in the delisting suits. Of course, there are higher estimates that border on 1,000 wolves (jon, just to be sure you understand, that is “one thousand wolves in Idaho”).

          As for it taking 10 years to bring ungulate numbers back in to equilibrium before wolves (BW), that might actually be an outside time frame with worthy of some credibility, especially when one looks at how some wolf local populations have messed with the age structure of some herds (taking the very young, some rut weakened but genetically superior herd bulls, and old cows)that might not be too much of an exaggeration, considering how long a taper would be required to harvest/kill wolves which are reproducing even while a harvest might go on over several years. Maybe Mark G. can comment on the timeframe required for change of this nature.

          By this, I am not suggesting I support whittling wolf numbers down to anything below about 500, or the number in the 2008 management plan, even though I have seen dramatic impacts on numbers of elk and their behavior, in the areas I hunt.

  30. Immer Treue says:

    But hunters do post on this site, it’s just that the hunters on this site are not the ones who believe they are entitled to “THEIR ” deer and or elk. They are also willing to share the deer and elk with wolves, and have a good understanding of the important roll wolves play in the environment. The hunters on this site don’t contribute to fairy tales such as Yellowstone is dead, nor do they make wild claims that wolves have dropped the Lolo elk numbers from 20,000 to less than 2,000.

    The hunters on this site don’t cherry pick quotes by David Mech, and twist his words to fit their arguments. This is not an anti-hunting site, but unethical hunting is certainly exposed.

    Harley, I’ve “sparred” with some of your aquaintences on “neutral” sites and have been referred to as all the stereotypes mentioned by Jon as well as other euphemisms. The Rock himself has called me a liar.

    The hunters who post here are also not sleeping with the ranching lobby.

    I’ve been living on venison the past few days. There are plenty of deer for those who hunt. There are plenty of deer for wolves.

    • Harley says:

      I know. It works both ways. I am in no way vilifying everyone here, nor am I protecting anyone there. I guess I was mostly responding to a comment about the wish for more ethical hunters disputing the techniques that have been labeled the norm.

  31. Immer Treue says:


    Perhaps the antis on either side feel they have the most to lose. The lightning rod is the wolf. Wolves had nothing to fall bac on when bison were killed to starve out the Indians, and market hunting removed everything else. There are probably more deer in this country now than when the pilgrims arrived. Nobody understood the multifaceted benefits that wolves provide to even the fragmented ecosystems we now have until recent years. Hunters in particular should be able to understand this.

    Bottom line is, wolves have folks ready to advocate for them this time around. Many of us believe a hunting season last year would have served as a pressure valve. Others believe that what seems to be coming down the line was going to happen anyway. the more wolves killed, the more the anti hunting/pro-wolf crowd will fight back, in both the NRM states and the GL states.

  32. CodyCoyote says:

    Late to the Party , but I have a couple of concerns with my Wyoming’s wolf management plan, which is all but a done deal. Just keep in mind it most certainly won’t go into effect this year since it requires legislative approval and our infamous Lej doesn’t meet till next February . But I wouldn’t put it past Gov. Madd Meat—excuse me, G. Matt Mead— to call a Special Session to enact this one thing, probably in Cheyenne shortly before or after a UW home football game next door in Laramie. And believe me, , they would come hither, all in a dither, to do ” meaningful legislation” — which is mostly an oxymoron in Wyoming

    But having said that , we could be hunting wolves in Wyoming come January if the Moon stars and planets align over the next Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife winter banquet. Bits are being faunched.

    Wyoming would very likely be hellbent on getting the wolves ” managed down” to the plan levels of 10 breeding pairs and 100 animals outside Yellowstone A.S.A.P. by hammering wolves straightaway , relentlessly.

    The defined mechanism and policy that would enable wolf population reduction in Wyoming are not clear, but it likely will not be pretty. Or slow moving. That ” well armed militia” thing, doing their patriotic duty as good cowboys to kill dem damn wolves.

    Thus the emotional momentum to eradicate wolves on a somewhat legal, state sanctioned ,olly-olly-oxen-free schutzenfest and trapathon will ramp up quite rapidly in Wyoming. Does anyone here recall Wyoming’s brief Glory Days back in winter 2009 when we had an initial state wolf ” hunt” during the brief twilight zone time period when we had a state wolf plan that Judge Molloy hadn’t injuncted yet ? It only lasted a few weeks but was the only game in town. That’s where the tale of the guy chasing a lone wolf 35 miles on his snowmobile came from, hence the literary thrust of this blog article.

    There was Wolf Fever in Wyoming. There is no cure.

    I’m concerned the opening days of any Wyoming wolf hunt will be carnage with vigor, unless the resultant state plan has buffers to prevent a sudden kill-down of wolves and instead tapers and tempers the management , similar to Wyo G&F putting firm quotas on winter Cougar hunts and closing the season when those quotas are met. Wyo’s initial wolf plan in 2008-09 had a clause requiring all wolf kills regardless to be reported to G&F within 72 hours, in or out of the Trophy Zone. We’ll see.

    My concern bordering on grave apprehension is that once Wyoming opens the gates on state sanctioned wolf hunts, they will lose control of the game. The existing SSS wolfbaiter wolfhater wolf adjudicators will just be red-shifted a little further. What was illegal before now being legal–shooting wolves openly— will now push to musketeers further into outlaw territory where they will keep shooting wolves without regard for seasons , limits, and those annoying rules. Why do I say that ? because any penalty for taking a wolf outside the regs ( read: poaching with extreme prejudice ) will not carry much penalty at all. And remember, for some reason known only to Ed Bangs and God , Wyoming still has its ridiculous Predator Status where wolves are nuisance vermin in 80 percent of the state.

    In other words, there is absolutely no disincentive for any redblooded rubythroated outdoorsy type to not shoot every darn wolf he/she/it encounters in Wyoming. Poaching is already a state pasttime.

    Before Ed Bangs left USFWS — or maybe because of it— he devised that odd ” Flex Zone” plan to allow wolves to (maybe) make it to Idaho during dispersal and mating season. I personally think Bangs made a deal with the Devil to settle the NRM wolf jam , or was told to in no uncertain terms by Pontius Pilate ( read: Ken Salazar) on behalf of Obama cardinals. Bangs’ ” Flex Zone” is a half-baked half hearted halfassed ploy to appease the concerns Molloy laid down condemning Wyoming for not allowing wolves to disperse to nearby states for genetic viability. When the biology and ecology are set against the politics and redneck pragmatics of managing that Flex Zone, it falls apart pretty quickly. It may technically appease the COurt on genetic dispersal issue, but on the ground it won’t be worth squat, regardless of the level of enforcement or lack thereof. Doesn’t matter.

    Bottom Line” Wyoming is as Wyoming does.

    Just watch us if you don’t believe that. We gunna hunt us up some woofs…

    • Ken Cole says:

      I think one thing is very clear, there will be a lot of wolf killing going on in the predator zone just like last time it was open.

      I should say that I’m not sure that there will be a lot of the type of killing that I describe in the post. But the fact that the methods used to kill wolves are totally unregulated just seems totally unreasonable.

      Where are the people who talk about the vaunted North American model of conservation? This is nowhere near consistent with that model.

    • skyrim says:

      “rubythroated”… Luv it. (In this age of enlightened poltical correctness”

    • Nancy says:

      +In other words, there is absolutely no disincentive for any redblooded rubythroated outdoorsy type to not shoot every darn wolf he/she/it encounters in Wyoming. Poaching is already a state pasttime+

      CC – I share the same kind of landscape (wilderness) and the same concerns you have here in Montana, as the locals get ramped up to “hunt us up some woofs”

      16 years since wolves were reintroduced just south of me and I’m still waiting for those monsterous packs to form, numbering in the hundreds, waiting to eclipse the landscape, devour everything and anything in their path – elk, deer, moose AND Livestock (left more often than not, unattended, sitting ducks) so
      to speak, and lets not forget all those kids at local bus stops 🙂

      FACT IS – its all boiling down to screw ecology in what’s left of wilderness areas and wildlife, because “mankind” is way to busy bringing about the destruction of our own species……….

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      I suspect due mainly to terrain that wolves will be reduced some but hold up pretty well in Idaho and western Montana, unless there is a lot of unexpected dedicated trapping effort and/or broadened standards triggering federal pursuit. Unfortunately, the open landscape in much of Wyoming (particularly the predator zone) combined with the apparent interest and lack of regulations you describe is going to leave most of the state scorched earth for wolves.

  33. Redleg324 says:

    I think it is interesting how several people have commented on how they do not like the word “euthanized” versus “killed”. In my opinion it goes back to some of the other conversations of culture. I think that possibly our society being so politically correct in our discourse may be coming full circle and now people are demanding less “political correctness” and more “straight talk.” Not sure, but an interesting possibility. The politicians will have to relearn how to speak to the masses.

    • Daniel Berg says:

      The politicians method of communication = SPIN.

      A timeless tradion. The pendulum occasionally swings between moderate spin and downright shameful spin. Right now I welcome the return of moderate spin.

  34. Redleg324 says:

    I should have added “harvested” to the above comment as well.

  35. Nancy says:

    Red – not sure I’m understanding your comments. Should the fate of other species we share the planet with, be continuely left up to politicans (and their agendas – depending on who voted them in to office and THEIR agendas) or should mankind start taking a serious look at how those decisions in the past, have negatively impacted/effected the planet now?

  36. Redleg324 says:

    Nancy, my comment was primarily an observation about how it appeared to me that maybe our “culture” may be going away from political correctness due to some people demanding the more harsh language of “killed” rather than “euthanized” or “harvested”.

    Now Daniel Berg brought up a good point about “spin”, and that may be what the hangup is for people rather than PC.

    As for the fates of other species we share the planet with, I think there is a lot of things that play into it. Just about everything effects it in some shape or fashion since we are all linked together as passengers here on earth. People get upset when people make comments about how man feels he has dominion over the other animals. Well, I am not sure of any other animal on earth that could eradicate every other species if it chose to.

    As to the question you posed Nancy, their fate is in large part left up to the politicians who are voted into office since they are the ones who make the laws, (at least in most countries that care about environmental and animal causes). Some lawmakers aren’t really voted into office in many of the countries who don’t care. And like you point out that those people who vote them in or (extrapolating here)those who get them elected, have agendas as well. I am not really sure activist judges are the long term answer either. I do think truthful (no spin or screwy statistics being cited)conversation from all sides of the issue is important to come to a meaningful compromise of the issues. The question ,IMO, for all sides is how much compromise is “OK” at this point to move foreward. I guess what I am saying is the answer is in the middle where compromise can occur, not on the extremes. I do think mankind has and will always look at decisions of the past to see not only what didn’t work or help, but what did work out well. When people want to take hindsight decades later and judge and punish people (usually long dead and gone)for the way they lived their lives in another time, they are not moving forward. If they use that 20/20 hindsight in a positive manner, instead of a negative manner, we can probably move forward to achieve greater things or to make sure the mistakes of the past do not occur again. No, you can not make everyone happy all at the same time about everything. But the question is how do we get our government to work for the majority of the people again, instead of thinking they are an elite ruling over the majority for the benefit of the financial elite. I think the majority of the people have to take responsibility for their government and get involved in the entire process to include being the “watchdogs”.

    I feel this blog is part of the process in getting the dialogue flowing, the sharing of ideas, and information. Yes, alot of the extreme elements on both sides get on and resort to namecalling, lieing, threatening, etc. What is the result? I feel their agenda or position is weakened by that. At least I know I hold the opinions of people like that in less regard than the others who keep it together.

    Hopefully I didn’t jump around too much or get too confusing, which I tend to do a lot. To conclude Nancy, it is up to the Politicians how we go from here, and IMO the majority of the citizens better get ahold of the process to get politicians elected who build consensus and move forward for the longterm benefit of the majority of the people and not just a party or industry.

  37. Nancy says:

    +I feel this blog is part of the process in getting the dialogue flowing, the sharing of ideas, and information+

    Red – not ignoring your comments to my questions! This is my busy time of the year workwise and when I get home…. got critters, gardens and a host of other things to take care of before I even make it into the cabin.

    But you nailed it with the above comment – and its a damn shame there are not more sites like Wildlife News out there when it comes to addressing the issues and “sharing” ideas, especially when it comes to wildlife and whats left of wilderness areas.

    Would guess (and its a modest guess) that 70% or more of the people that post here, don’t live in this part of the west but they do care about wildlife and the land (as in public lands and wildlife management on those lands) they research and have a clue… and many are just not willing to leave it up to local politicians and special interests groups (who cater to and make the same, tired old excuses, year, after year, after year) when it comes to wildlife and wild lands AND their right to continue to exist.


August 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