No quotas, long seasons, trapping, electronic calls, 3 wolf bag limit-
Many will argue that Montana FWP will throw caution out the window for wolf hunting in 2012-13 season. After two hunts in the space of three years did not clearly reduce the Montana wolf population, it looks like the state’s wildlife commission will issue rules to try to make a big reduction in the wolf population.
The official wolf count in Montana was 653, although that snapshot in time was deceptive because it was taken in the middle of hunting season. The important figure would be the wolf population after the hunt was complete (probably in the 500s). At any rate, the goal population for now is 425.
Montana has had the usual complaints about wolves — decimation of elk herds, massive destruction of livestock, people threatened by wolves. In reality, no one has been killed, bitten, or probably even chased by a wolf in Montana (or anywhere else in the 48 states). Livestock losses to wolves in Montana are down steeply from the high in 2009 when about 95 cattle were killed statewide and about 205 sheep. By 2011, these figures had dropped to 73 cattle and just 12 sheep statewide. As far as elk go, the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission chair recently gave a public presentation telling that the Montana elk population is at an all-time historic high.
The Helena Independent Record reports on the Commission’s plans. Big Changes Proposed . . . By Eve Byron.
This proposal is now out for public comment. Hearings must be held and Montana state game laws needs to be changed by the legislature to allow previously unfair practices like electronic calls and 3 animal big game limits be allowed. The FWP Commission will make it final decision at its July 12 meeting. There will be five public meetings for taking public comments.
– – –
To respond to the proposal
Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on June 18, better before May 10. The commissioners’ names are: Ron Moody, Bob Ream, Dan Vermillion, A.T. Stafne and Shane Colton.
Mail: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, MT 59620-0701
Phone: (406) 444-2535
Well, what about the US Fish & Wildlife Service 5-year “probation period” after a specie is turned over to a State for ” management” , whence if USFWS deem the population is threatened it can demand some immediate changes or even that most dreaded action : RE-listing ?
Would USFWS have the political courage to RE-list the wolf in Idaho , Montana, and Wyoming if these canicidal hunts get out of hand ?
All the states have to do at this point is keep the population above, or “say” that the population meets minimum numbers. That will give the livestock industry ~4.5 years to change the ESA so that wolves will not be considered for re-listing.
Livestock drone Simpson opened that door.
Then, if the ESA ends up being changed the MOU that is Idaho’s “official” position on wolves will go forward.
and that is to remove wolves from the state by any means necessary.
The 5-year probation is just a minimum. The USFWS can keep a watchful eye over the states for a longer period if they choose.
so what do you think the probablity of that is?
Right now there is a concerted effort for overhaul the ESA and as I said before Simpson/Tester has kicked open that door with the wolf being the poster boy for the push. Personaly, I believe FWS will back away from wolves at the first possible moment, all the while declaring a big victory for the ESA.
I agree that the probability of FWS using their emergency powers to relist is extremely low (before and after the 5-year monitoring period). However, now that they’ve been delisted a new listing petition could be filed if states were over-aggressive in their efforts. You can bet that this idea scares the collective “bejesus” out of states, as there will be no “experimental non-essential” status if relisting occurs.
The states will not risk going below the minimum, all the while supporting a revamp of the ESA which would prohibit listing wolves. Anyone that believes the states/livestock industry are content with the current status quo or feel that it is going to swing back in favor of wolves on the landscape does not understand the level that the livestock industry dictates politics in the NRM.
++…as there will be no “experimental non-essential” status if relisting occurs….++
Interesting aspect. I have no basis to doubt this conclusion, and certainly have not studied it, but wonder if it would not be subject to debate/litigation (?) under the rider, at least.
Perhaps. Seems more likely that FWS would simply list as “threatened” (as opposed to “endangered”) which provides essentially the same mgt. flexibility and would avoid lawsuits.
USFWS have pretty much washed their hands on the wolf, they no longer have the will or the political desire to be involved in this any longer. This is based on what I am hearing from my friends that work for USFWS.
As the leader in chief is over in the desert commiting our young to needlessly being killed and injured, while filling the bank accounts of drug runners and corrupt leaders with our tax dollars. But hey, he was better than McCain right.
What are you talking about Timz, I don’t like Obama, never have never will, I started telling everybody what was going to happen BEFORE he was elected and was condemned, remember he was the environments new messiah. And guess what, I didn’t vote for Bush either!
SB, my comments were not directed at you, just a comment on the current state political will in general. Get in power, stay in power, to hell with the cost.
Ok Timz, sorry about that and I will say, I agree with you on the Get in Power, Stay in Power, we need to completely clean house and start over.
“…they no longer have the will or the political desire to be involved in this any longer.”
Fortunately, their legal obligations are not constrained by the collective desires of agency politicians. Regardless, the FWS is not going to act to relist when the states have not even demonstrated a capacity to reduce wolf populations. Idaho may have killed 40% of its population, but that is near the upper threshold of what wolf populations can handle in terms of human mortality–meaning, we won’t know about the “success” of this year’s hunting and trapping efforts (in terms of their effects on wolf populations) until next year’s population estimates are out. Stay tuned.
USFWS is basically washing its hands of the wolf issue. The wolf plan in WY is almost exactly the same plan that USFWS rejected earlier where the wolves in MT and ID ended back on the Endangered list. But now that plan is acceptable. The sooner they accept it, the sooner they can be done with the business of wolves. Also, the little deal between Sen. Barrasso, Salazar and Ashe probably helped with that.
Be thankful for 5 public meetings/hearings. That will stall things a little longer than only 4 public hearings before they go ahead and do what they want to do anyway.
“We will manage wolves just like any other game species.”
That is now in the same category as;
“Once you get that vasecetomy we will have sex all the time.”
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
I’m not surprised to see these folks go to the extreme. Electronic calls? What kind of lazy,fat-ass hunters need these?
I am beginning to think both the states and the feds could care a less about the wolves. Thats pretty sad.
Chuck, you closer than you know.
It’s been essentially a ten year anti-wolf propaganda campaign. It will swing back, like it has before.
“It will swing back, like it has before.”
Ha! Another of agreement. Will wonders never cease?
“It will swing back, like it has before.”
I’m not so sure this time. I’m afraid that, if Romney and the GOP gain full control this time, we could be in for something much worse than we’re used to seeing. There is whole little propaganda machine aimed at convincing the environmental movement that Obama is no worse than the GOP. And, it is true that Obama has let some western issues continue to fight themselves out rather than get painted out of the center; but, any true conservationist who thinks staying home or voting third party this November is the right strategy may discover that it simply provides a close enough margin to recreate November of 2000 in Florida and that didn’t work out well.
Well said, especially from the semicolon on.
We agree on many things, but probably not this. Even Bush didn’t gut the ESA.
I voted for Obama in 2008, but will not do so again. Perhaps if he hinted at hiring a progressive SOI I might, but that hasn’t been the case. Obama seems to be caught up in the “cobwoy image” that many insecure males find themselves leaning towards. It’s all faux bravado that usually stems from a lack of information, and clearly Obama is pretty much clueless on wildlands and wildlife.
Okay, enjoy Romney, who has proven that he’ll do or say or support whatever his handlers want him to. Just remember who his handlers will be and what their cultural background will be. If you like what that culture has done with the control it’s acquired in AZ, UT, ID, and MT, then you’re gonna love it.
Something to consider about the up-coming election: The system of laws that we use to regulate the environment at the federal level rcody because of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution–and especially, the Commerce Clause. One or two more appointees like Scalia and we may find that interpretation turned on its head, and federal environmental law completely undermined.
Frankly, the thought of Romney in the White House doesn’t bother me much; but the thought of him appointing Supreme Court Justices terrifies me.
Sorry should be…
“…at the federal level EXIST because of the Supreme Court’s…
yes the potential to nominate sc justices is terrifying. We are dealing with this and seeing the results in may decisions including Citizens decision.
The risk is not just in the Executive Branch. Recall the D’s lost the House in the mid-term election, giving the Tea Party wackos enough weight to shut out moderate R’s. This round both the House and the Senate are at risk and fully in play. If Romney makes it to the White House imagine the prospects of a perfect storm for ultra right conservative agenda advance – maybe because some idiot liberals thought a third party protest vote or just not participating in the election would actually accomplish something of value to the environment or otherwise.
Mike, your reasoning most of the time astounds me and defies rational explanation.
WM” If Romney makes it to the White House imagine the prospects of a perfect storm for ultra right conservative agenda advance – maybe because some idiot liberals thought a third party protest vote or just not participating in the election would actually accomplish something of value to the environment or otherwise.”
I agree excepting to the term idiot liberal and insult to Mike. Liberals believed that Obama would make good his promise of some of the more progressive areas of his agenda. Its disappointing to some of his policies look more like a moderate republican stance. But you are right, its no time to vote for an even worse choice. Hopefully, with the first term completed, if relected, we may see less deference to the right.
Why should any elected official be responsive to the desires of a constituency that will vote for him no matter what he does?
If voting against candidates we disagree with is unacceptable then I’d love to hear your “rational” non-idiotic way to hold elected officials accountable.
“If voting against candidates we disagree with is unacceptable then I’d love to hear your “rational” non-idiotic way to hold elected officials accountable.”
Not to answer for WM, but if you think a candidate’s performance is unacceptable then by all means, vote for someone else. However, in our two party system we are rarely afforded the opportunity to vote for someone with whom we agree on all issues (actually, this is why the two parties spend so much time trying to “pre-package” issues into neat, dichotomous ideologies). If I chose not to vote in an election every time I disagreed with a candidate, I would never vote at all. But choosing not to vote could have other consequences, (i.e., the candidate with whom I agree less actually wins the election). It’s a pickle to be sure.
I may have mentioned this once before… but after cycling with friends one day, we were talking about the 2nd Iraq war. One of my more conservative freinds asked if we knew why we were in Iraq, and everybody talked about W’s agenda.
He said you’re all wrong. We were in Iraq because of abortion. Everybody’s jaw dropped, and he explained that it was one of those “issues” that made the pro-life people side with Bush. That was enough to give him the votes he needed. He won. We went to Iraq, for no real apparent reason, had two unfunded wars, and depending on how you look at things went into enormous debt during, and because of his policies during his tenure.
He put the country into a sh^t basket. Would Gore have done any better. We’ll never know. But do be careful for what you wish.
As things are playing out, Obama has disappointed quite a few people. If Romney gets in with undivided houses, I shudder to think what will happen to the common people in this country. Be careful what you wish for. Our elected representatives do not represent us, they represent money. Wolves will be something in the distance in a rear view mirror, and hunting will slowly but surely become a province of the rich.
I agree Mikarooni, I have been terribly disappointed by the Obama administration starting with Salazar’s appointment yet the alternative really scares me.
So sticking with what we have is the best course of action?
You don’t like that do you? You’d like us to get all disillusioned with Obama and go for Romney in a fit of self-destructive pique wouldn’t you? If you were any more transparent, we could use you for optical glass.
I am transparent because I don’t like Obama? I don’t like Romney either, so that puts me in a position.
The United States was the first modern democracy in the world, but despite this enormous innovation and the expansion of the suffrage to almost everyone in society, American democracy has not been innovative for many years. It is slipping backwards.
There are numerous alternative methods possible for voting that would be much more likely to translate public opinion, including the views of subgroups, into a meaningful election.
They are almost never discussed by the media, or in the media; and certainly not by the longstanding Republican-Democrat duopoly.
I think the the conservative elites are more interesting in abolishing democracy than in any meaningful reforms. By “meaningful,” I am talking about reforms that would allow a real change if people wanted it (and they do).
“translate public opinion, including the views of subgroups”
Isn’t that what they do during their after dinner conversations at Davos? Isn’t that enough? What more would you want, given that they’re very busy people and they want to get over to the night’s main party event?
Well, my plan is to vote for a third-party candidate. ANY third-party candidate, even if I strongly disagree with their platform.
Here’s why –
I live in Idaho and my vote for president doesn’t matter. Idaho is going for Romney no matter what. The most mileage I can get out of my vote under the current system is through trying to break up the duopoly by trying to get public funding for some other party. It’s a baby step, but may contribute to the viability of alternative parties in the future.
Any semi-viable third party could at least steer the debate toward actual issues that matter (rather than pre-packaged caricatures and wedge issues). If nothing else it’d make the two major parties actually stake out positions rather than just defining themselves in opposition to the other guy (similar to how the large field of Republican candidates this year forced them to clarify how they’re different than the others, not just the anti-Obama). A broader debate is better for democracy.
If I lived in a swing state, I’d vote for the candidate less likely to nominate more Scalia-types. That guy has done more to harm this country than Bush (who he helped elect) over a much longer period.
Those who would chastise other people’s voting choices should consider that we’re not all similarly situated. An Idaho vote for Obama is like pissing into the wind.
I am a hunter and do not want any species eliminated only managed.
If anyone can prove to me that this introduced wolf was native and that the 70 million dollars from the Pittman Robertson Act was not used illegally. Ed Bangs failed to file the appropriate EIS and file the form 3-177 for importation of any species including wolves. The USFWS has covered up a lot that was illegal.
Whether it’s a hunter, fish and game or an environmental group there will always be a personal agenda to manage wildlife the way they see to be the best.
Since the wolf was introduced not reintroduce it will survive as the coyote has. The coyote has no quotas or seasons and is trapped and hunted and the numbers are
As for no one being threatened or attacked ask the woman from Idaho that shot the wolf at point blank and debunk her claim.
What would it take to prove to you the wolves brought down from just across the border were native?
Ed Bangs had the best possible response to this question about the nativity of the Grey Wolf brought down from Canada to GYE. That question was first asked in the mid-90’s and to my mind long ago resolved as being irrelevant to the discussion. But I’ll give you Ed’s zinger again anyway .
The question was about the reintroduction of a non-native Grey Wolf…the dissenters claimed that the subspecie Canis lupus irremotus was the wrong animal.
To which Bangs turns to Carter Niemeyer and says…” Canis lupus IRREGARDLESS”.
Canis lupus is the Grey Wolf. Subspecie is in the rhetoric of the bemoaner. The subspecie of the wolf is barely more relevant than the ” breed” of a dog, which really isn’t. It’s why you can breed a Poodle to a St. Bernard and still call it a dog thru and thru.
Subspecies mainly are delineated by the traits they impart to the progeny, such as disposition, not the genetics themselves. Grey wolves are grey wolves, Robert, whether Yukon wolves today or the extinct Colorado wolf from 1850.
As for your other tangential question about the illegal diversion of Pittman-Robinson funds, I’d be of the mind that issue is/was a nonstarter . Besides, it happened almost 20 years ago. Where were the lawsuits and what were the court decisions ? You’d think the likes of Bob Fanning, Toby Tunnel, and Rockhead and their legions would have marshalled a massive lawsuit if it were valid. Hired Mountain States Legal or some other Wise Abuse Movement crony . The use of Pittman Robinson funds may not have been entirely cleanly done given Gingrich’s shiutdown of the federal governemnt altogether , but regardless that water went under the bridge three administrations ago. Like your federal agencies don’t do stuff like this all the time ?—you should be more concerned about Medicare fraud oil company subsidy shenanigans, rancher subsidy scams, the corporate food agribiz, and waste of tax dollars on more substantial issues than this , of which there are many. Canis lupus nonstarterus. Old news.
Please get current.
So Robert–what you’re saying is you’re opposed to things like transplanting bighorns or mountain goats from high populations to augment low populations, and certainly you’re opposed to all the non-native Yellowstone elk that form the basis for most, if not all elk populations across the west?
“….all elk populations across the west.”
Not only across the west but the mid-west and eastern states too. The horror of course is that the historic populations of elk east of the Mississippi were of a different subspecies. And maybe less than ironic is that the livestock/farming industries back east were the biggest opponents of reintroducing elk .
Prove that “70 million dollars from P-R was used illegally” and that Ed Bangs even had to file 3-177 form or if he did that it was not.
While you’re at it Robert, prove that Canis lupus on the north side of a arbitrary, political border is different from Canis lupus south of that same arbitrary political border.
Thanks for parroting those same old, tired, stupid arguments.
++If anyone can prove to me that this introduced wolf was native and that the 70 million dollars from the Pittman Robertson Act was not used illegally.++
It was my understanding that Jim Beers and a bunch of his followers were putting together a war chest to litigate the alleged illicit use of the Pittman Robertson funds for the re-introduction.
To my knowledge this has gone nowhere in the last two years, so it must have been Beers blowing smoke out his back side, just to get one more ride on the speaker circuit for a handsome honorarium fee. Time is to put up or shut up on that issue.
Rockholm is another one getting wealthy off donations for his lawsuit against the feds. Been going on for at least 2 years and he’s done nothing.
We haven’t heard much from Rockhead in awhile. Wonder what he and his faithful half=wit sidekicks are up to?
I heard it thru the grapevine
Dressed like a tree, smelling of elk scent, sounding like an elk. That wolf was responding to what it would normally do. It probably, to sound a bit anthropomorphic, never had the chance to say WTF, and got blasted for it’s own natural curiosity.
Ask ma’iingan if the same scenario( cammo, scent and maybe calls)has not occurred with deer hunters in Wisconsin.
And, please inform us about the physical and behavioral characteristics of the “native” wolf to which you refer, and how they differ from the present wolf population.
“Dressed like a tree, smelling of elk scent, sounding like an elk. That wolf was responding to what it would normally do. It probably, to sound a bit anthropomorphic, never had the chance to say WTF, and got blasted for it’s own natural curiosity.”
This is so much more true than most people realize. You can bring a wide variety of “wild” animals right up to you by your own either deliberate or inadvertent actions. If you or your surroundings make you look, sound, smell like something they would normally need to investigate, they will come in to investigate. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re “hunting” you because they “hunt” humans, it generally means you or your surroundings have confused them. Do bears come to gut piles to “hunt” humans? No, they come to gut pikes to run off the wolves they think have killed an elk and “discover” humans.
While in Alaska I once brought a coyote to within 15 feet of me; I was dressed normally, smelling of fresh deodorant, and lying on my stomach making mouse-like squeaks. He slowly walked in, very curious looking until I got uncomfortable and stood up; then he made for the hills. One of the neatest experiences I’ve had in the outdoors.
I was once stream fishing dressed in camo sitting on the bank, not moving.
An eagle was soaring about a half mile off and probably several hundred feet in the air. As I stood up to change spots I raised my hand up to adjust my hat and a couple seconds or so later heard the swoosh of the eagle pulling out of its stoop only a couple dozen yards away as it realized that the flash of my hand was not a jack rabbit or some other prey.
I had a somewhat similar experience along the same lines as a kid while walking my enormous tabby cat on a leash through tall sage near the margin of the Mammoth Hot Springs school playground. When a coyote trotted by on the playground, I crouched down and tried the same squeaking technique while holding the cat. The coyote came at a run and was just over a jump from us when I also lost my nerve and stood up. The cat squalled and I got some painful scratches and puncture wounds. The coyote swapped ends in mid-jump, ran a few yards, stopped and looked back while the cat continued to growl. I imagine it must have thought I’d simply gotten to the distressed prey first.
I guess I should point out the moral, if it isn’t obvious: Never call a predator while holding a large cat. After admitting to being a cat owner, I might as well go all the way and admit that my favorite animals to watch in Yellowstone during those years were coyotes.
LOL! Having owned several cats over the years, I would take your moral one step further: Never try and accomplish anything while holding a cat (especially if what you’re attempting has any potential to result in a loud noise). I’ve still got a scar from that lesson.
Admitting to being a coyote and cat lover, eh? You’d better ask Ralph to delete this thread before word gets out! 😉
I love the cats I have had in the past, they were my companions on those many camping trips when I needed someone to talk with, the darn Persian’s I had were very funny!
And that only shows how useless stereotypes are, SB. I would’ve never pegged you for a cat-lover! 🙂
lol I have no idea what to make of that story. I just picture a freaked out huge tabby.
I’m still trying to picture a cat on a leash….
There were two enforcers of the leash law for pets in Yellowstone: NPS and the coyote population. In reality, NPS only had to enforce the size limit (40 lbs.) and the coyotes handled the rest. Although a leash was supposed to be held by a human hand, pretty much everybody tied it off most of the time at their back door. We did the same and left the door open so he could get inside, assuming he had the sense. A coyote must have made a grab for him once because we heard tremendous caterwaul. I got out there very quickly and saw the coyote right at the door and the cat just inside looking like a raccoon, with a puffed up tail. Another time, the neighbors called and alerted us that he was being stalked — I similarly managed to save the neighbors’ dachshund across the street. We briefly tried a body harness on him when he was young and quickly gave up after shedding some blood, but he grew quite used to a collar.
Robert for whats its worth, I recently attended a lecture if you want to call it that, by Carter Niemeyer, what I took away from him is, he has been on both sides, having to prove the innocence of a wolve, to having to enact lethal control. From listening to him he has no agenda other then to set straight the untruths as well as the truths of the struggle of the gray wolves. He was part of the re-introduction program. When a man of his background speaks I listen, what does he have to gain by saying that the wolves brought down from Canada are no different then the wolves that were here before???
Since the beginnings of taxonomy there have been taxonomists that are lumpers and those that are splitters.
And, then I have found in politics there are lumpers who are sometimes splitters and splitters who are sometimes lumpers.
Moral of the story, the objectivity of classification is dependent on the subjectivity of the classifier.
“And, then I have found in politics there are lumpers who are sometimes splitters and splitters who are sometimes lumpers.”
That’s funny. My experience in politics has been that democrats are always hampering themselves with internal splits and republicans are always lumpy.
The problem is there’s no liberal representation in this country. It’s all center-right. Republicans have been excellent at moving the Overton Window. They easily sacrifice short term victories for the bigger picture.
Obama provided a big assist by refusing single payer and the public option before negotiations even started.
What I find most amazing by this is the fact that “By 2011, these figures had dropped to 73 cattle and just 12 sheep statewide.”
This is a statistical non-issue compared to just about every other way that cattle die. Then of course couple that with the “record high elk numbers” article attached here.
It really is incredible that MT knows they are in a sticky situation with a microscope on all decisions related to wolf mgmt and they cower to whining forces that can’t even back their claims of destruction caused by wolves – both elk hunters (that complain about wolves) and more especially livestock industry.
It says a lot about society when animals are treated like this with no evidence. I ponder Gandi’s quote in relation to what appears to be a bunch of rednecks in MT making decisions on how to manage a species that means a lot to a lot of people that seem to have no say in how wildlife is managed: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
I noticed in your initial comment that you had said no one had been killed, bitten, chased etc in montana(or anywhere else for that matter) Just to be fair i remember a wolf from the gibbon pack in Yellowstone being euthanized after chasing people on bicycles on several occasions. although rare, it does happen. Although i am very pro wolf, not all of them wear angel wings either
Yes, it is possible a member of the Gibbon Pack chased one or more bicyclists after having being illegal fed a number of times, or maybe it just followed them.
Because an animal does not kill people or hurt people does not imply they are angelic. However, it does mean they are not an active menace to people, as has been claimed ad nauseam.
Here is an alert from the group Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, a group favoring the rich hunter interested in only two or three kinds of animals to hunt.
It is on the proposed Montana wolf hunt regulations for the 2012-13.
– – – – –
ALERT from the anti-wolf folks
If you can only make one wolf meeting this year…drop everything and attend the meeting that’s taking place in Helena this Thursday…May 10th.
This is very short notice…but with a wolf trapping season on the agenda, it is expected that several major anti-trapping & anti-hunting organizations/groups will be there to protest. One of the groups calling for its members and followers to protest the meeting is FOOTLOOSE MONTANA. Another is the SIERRA CLUB.
Note, this meeting IS NOT BEING HELD at MT FWP Headquarters. Instead it is being held at the new FWP Wild Center at 2668 Broadwater Avenue in Helena.
They are apparently expecting quite a turn out…and are moving this meeting to a larger facility.
Today or tonight…drop the FWP Commission an e-mail…and share your thoughts about what needs done.
firstname.lastname@example.org Please don’t put it off…do it right now. One more thing, please forward this to as many people you know who will do it.
– – – – – – –
To respond to the proposal
Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on June 18, better before May 10. The commissioners’ names are: Ron Moody, Bob Ream, Dan Vermillion, A.T. Stafne and Shane Colton.
Mail: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, MT 59620-0701
Phone: (406) 444-2535
As a former Native Montanan and of Crow ancestry, I vehmently object to your callous and coldblooded want to kill more wolves!! Enough with wanting to rule and kill all in these damned, backwards Northern states. This is caveman intelligence. Learn to co-exist with nature, with these animals that deserve to live in peace and have roamed those parts long before the white man. Move down South and be with your own hateful kind, the kkk. Sincerely, one who has shared this land with the wolf.
About a week or two before the meeting,
I sent letter to the FWP, warning them that if
they proceed with this barbaric proposal,
that I will no longer support the state
of Montana, politically, nor economically.
Here’s what I wrote to the director of Montana’s FWP:
“Director Joe Maurier:
I am writing to express my strongest opposition to
your proposal to allow aggressive hunting and trapping
of our noble wolves here in Montana.
For one, such barbaric practices are outdated and it has no place ANYWHERE
in the modern 21st Century and it should be banned FOREVER!!!
It has never been ethical nor humane.
Traps are inhumane and dangerous to ALL wildlife species,
pets, and yes, even human beings and I’m strongly against trapping.
If you allow trapping and aggressive wolf hunting in Montana,
be forewarned that I will no longer support this state,
politically, nor economically, and thus Montana, like Idaho,
Wyoming, and other anti-wolf/anti-wildlife states,
will be boycotted indefinitely until these barbaric practices are
done away with forever, regardless of how long it takes.
I’m already boycotting Idaho and as far as I’m concerned,
I don’t want anything to do with that state because of
its deep hostilities towards our wolves and
like-minded wildlife advocates alike.
If you don’t want Montana to end up blacklisted and ostracized,
like Idaho and Wyoming, by tourists and wildlife advocates
who live in these volatile states,
I’m strongly urging you to give up
the trapping proposal and stop dwelling in the 19th Century.
If you refuse to listen, then don’t expect many tourists
who came here before, to visit Montana ever again,
nor expect any new visitors to travel here.
If I was a tourist, I would scratch Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Wisconsin,
and any other anti-wolf/anti-wildlife and anti-freedom states such as
Arizona and Alabama, off of my vacation list,
and travel to friendly, loving, open-minded, freedom-minded places such as
Hawaii and other Pacific islands,
or perhaps some places along the Caribbean.
I am hoping you will take my message into serious
consideration, as well as the consideration of my
Just remember that the whole world is watching.
If you don’t want Montana to suffer economically,
politically, and socially, then leave our wolves
and other wildlife alone and let them live in peace
as God intended to be in the first place.
In addition, I’ve created a message video
to share with the world on what’s going on
with our wolves and encouraged the public worldwide
to launch a full-scale boycott of these volatile states.
The video is seen on YouTube:
Please view this important message and share with
the public and wildlife like-minds, near, far, and wide.
I want these crooked politicians and bureaucrats put to shame
for what they have done!!!
I’ve just sent out another e-mail,
slamming the FWP for their continued
status quo of pandering to the special interest minority.
This is what I wrote, plus sent them a
link to my message video:
“To: Montana’s Fish, Wildlife & Parks;
I’m writing to express my deep disappointment
and outrage that you’ve chosen to continue
the status quo of pandering to the special interest
minority, based on their lies and greed,
and voted unanimously to proceed with
this barbaric proposal to engage in the illegal
practice of aggressive hunting and trapping
of our noble wolves.
Not only your proposal is illegal,
it is also offensive and a flagrant insult
towards our Native American brethren who revere
wolves as part of their spiritual faith,
and thus, very sacred.
Because of this, I’m boycotting this state…
Politically first, and if you still continue to
pander to the greedy special interests,
my boycott will extend on the economic front as well.
Even though I reside in this state, don’t expect me
to purchase any more products that are made here in Montana.
Instead, I’ll buy items that come from somewhere else..
And forget Idaho and Wyoming, ’cause I’m boycotting
those states as well, along with Wisconsin, Alaska,
Minnesota, Iowa, Utah, and any other anti-wolf/anti-wildlife state.
Now, if you re-consider and decide to
scrap the barbaric proposal,
then I’ll suspend my boycott.
You know, I’ve already created a message video
to share with the rest of the world and urged
the public to avoid doing any business and/or
vacationing in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,
and other repressive states.
I think you should view this video
and listen to what I have to say.
Here is the link:
Please discontinue with this unholy proposal
and show respect to our Native Americans’ ways and
revere ALL creation as very sacred.
Billy “The Wizard” Angus
I hope these birdbrains get a clue and
stop messin’ with Nature’s creations!
and one day manunkind
slowly bowed his head,
he was so sadly alone,
all else he killed.