Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission meets Monday-

Five years ago few would have ever believed they would think of trapping wolves right on the YNP boundary, given its status as a national park and the clear knowledge the wolves are concentrated in northern part of the Park near the boundary. The reality today is trapping is supposed to start in Montana Dec. 15 despite a hunting season that has already killed 10% of the Park’s wolves as they stepped across the Park boundary. Wolf conservationists are getting at least a hearing tomorrow (Monday) by the commission.

The AP story gives the details.  Montana may limit wolf trapping near Yellowstone Park. Dec. 8. 2012

A lot of people are upset about this, and upset still more at the fact that a Wyoming hunter killed the Park’s (and maybe the world’s) most famous wolf.  “The Most Famous Wolf In The World” Has Been Killed.” Dec. 8, 2012.

– – – –

Note: On Dec. 10 the Commission did end the hunt and the upcoming trapping season in Montana along the YNP boundaries. Story, see
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.

141 Responses to Montana might limit the upcoming trapping season for wolves along Yellowstone Park’s boundary

  1. eileen murphy says:

    Thank God if it does limit the trapping season. No wolf should be trapped right outside the limits of the Yellowstone Park. And definitely no wolf should be trapped inside of Yellowstone Park. Yellowstone Park is full of families and hikers who want to see wolves alive. It is a national park set aside for preserving wildlife of all kinds. It is getting to be a sad world when people shoot animals who are beloved. Just leave the wolves alone. They certainly don’t want anything to do with us, with good reason.

  2. jon says:

    This FWP commission seems far less radical than the Idaho fish and game commission. By not doing anything about this, they are saying it’s basically ok and acceptable to shoot and trap yellowstone wolves that many people pay to watch. If FWP doesn’t do anything about this, there is going to be a public backlash against them from all over the US by non-hunting conservationists. These fish and game commissions tend to favor hunters and trappers while continuing ignoring the what the non-hunting majority want. I expect FWP to not do anything about this and they will continue to let hunters and trappers kill yellowstone wolves. I do think commissioner Ream does care that yellowstone wolves with collars are being killed.

  3. jon says:

    I think these commissioners favor too much in the trapper and hunter’s favor and these commissions need non-hunting conservationists on them to speak up for those that love wildlife, but don’t kill it with their guns or traps.

    • Savebears says:

      They are a hunter and fishing commission Jon, there purpose in life it to work on hunting and fishing. In many states, they have wrote rules to say you have to be a licensed hunter to even sit on their commissions.

      • jon says:

        recently, there was a non-hunter added to the Nevada wildlife commission. These wildlife commissions are favored to the hunter and trapper’s interest and I believe this needs to change. They need to put non-hunting conservationists on these wildlife commissions.

        • Savebears says:


          I could care less about Nevada, I know there has been many states that have either proposed rules or passed rules that require a certain amount of time as a resident as well as being a licensed hunter to sit on the states game commission. State game commissions were set up by hunters for hunters to regulate hunting and fishing. In Montana, they are supported in whole by hunters and fisher persons, there is no state support or financial influx from the general fund.

  4. jon says:

    As of right now, they know of 88 wolves in the park and 88 wolves is not a huge number of wolves. With wolves dying in the park from numerous reasons and hunters and trappers killing wolves that happen to find their way out of the park, the yellowstone wolf population could be in real trouble. We can’t control wolves from dying from natural causes in the park, but people can help protect them from hunters and trappers who want to do harm to them.

    • Savebears says:

      As I posted earlier, and being a former employee of FWP it is fine and dandy to say you are going to look at the situation, but I seriously doubt they will change anything at least for this year.

      In my experience with the agency, I would say, they are doing this more to look like they might do something, than actually do anything. It is a move to placate the people who are lodging complaints, so don’t get your hopes up.


      You did read Carters post last night, saying the same thing I have been saying? Once they leave the park, they are no longer Yellowstone wolves.

      • jon says:

        Then wolves in yellowstone will continue to be killed by hunters and trappers if FWP decides not to do anything.

        • Savebears says:


          They will not be killed in Yellowstone, they will be killed in the state that is holding a legal hunting and trapping season, hunters and trappers are not killing wolves in the park. Stop exaggerating.

          • Savebears says:

            And I will repeat as former employee of FWP, I can’s say I expect them to do anything, except take it under review.

          • jon says:

            What I mean sb is that yellowstone wolves will continue to be killed by hunters and trappers and this is going to happen once the wolves in yellowstone leave the park.

            • Savebears says:


              yes, they will as long as there is a legal hunting or trapping season going on in the state they end up in. As I said, even Carter stated that in a post yesterday.

              • jon says:

                And something has to be done to stop this. What? That is the million dollar question. But if something is not done, I promise you there will be a public backlash that will be felt. You got many thousands of people from all over the US watching what is going on in the northern rockies with wolves.

              • Savebears says:


                The backlash is not going to be as large as you like to believe, thousands out of millions? Come on.

              • jon says:

                I said many thousands, not millions sb. I know you may think this is a small issue, but they are a lot of Americans who care about wolves paying attention to what is going on with the wolf issue in the west. I expect FWP to not doing anything, but I will not be surprised at all if FWP ends up getting many thousands of angry emails and calls. Don’t think this will do anything, but it will let them know that many people from all over the country are angry that they did nothing.

              • Savebears says:


                At least you and I are in agreement on one point, mine is a perspective of a former employee, yours is as an observer speculating, but neither one of us think they will do anything.

                As has been stated before, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana really pay very little attention to what non-residents have to say when it comes to wildlife management in their perspective states, I know this for a fact.

              • Savebears says:

                Yes, Jon, you did say many thousands.

              • jon says:

                sb, the pro-wolf lobby is much bigger than you think.

              • Savebears says:


                I know there is a large pro wolf group, but that is not the key, the numbers of them willing to actually do anything is not all that large, that is why we find ourselves in the position we currently are.

                The hunting and ranching community has been far more active then the pro wolf community.

                And in reality, the pro wolf community is really not based in the states that actually have wolves. Like I said, the state game agencies pay little attention to non-residents, even Louise found that out when she called.

              • jon says:

                there is a pro-wolf community in Montana.

              • Savebears says:


                Why do you keep doing this? I never said, there was not a pro wolf community in Montana, in fact there is one in Wyoming and there is one in Idaho, but they are not stepping up to the plate like the hunting/ranching community is, we see very little from them when it comes to news article, news stories on TV and other media.

                It is fine to be pro wolf, but if you don’t do anything, then you won’t accomplish anything, look at what is going on and tell me how effective the pro wolf communities have been!

              • Savebears says:

                Anyway Jon, you and me going round for round on here is like a dog chasing its tail, we can mouth the words all we want, it is not changing a damn thing.

                We will have to wait and see what happens.

              • Savebears says:


                I base my comments on actually being a former employee of FWP and hearing the exact same thing about Bison. They said they would study it and it took until this year before anything was even started moving forward.

                I think I know a hell of a lot more about FWP and the Game commission here in Montana that you do, if you read the last article link I posted, they said the burden of proof is going to be on the advocates.

          • Mike says:

            You don’t know that, SB.

        • jon says:

          sb, those wolves in yellowstone are seen by many thousands of wildlife viewers. Some people go to yellowstone to see specific wolves they have seen before. I don’t think FWP will do anything myself, so I expect more and more yellowstone wolves to be killed by hunters and trappers and I feel bad mostly for all those wildlife viewers who go to yellowstone to see specific wolves and wolf packs they have enjoyed seeing. They will not be able to see these wolves anymore once they are killed by hunters and trappers. It’s very sad because yellowstone wolves are protected and still hunters are a way of killing and trapping them legally.

          • Savebears says:


            I will repeat my comment from yesterday, I have travel to the park many times to photograph specific Elk only to find out they were legally taken during a hunt. I didn’t get mad, I didn’t demand a buffer zone, etc. Once the animal is outside the park, it is subject to the laws and regulations of the state it is in.

      • Mike says:

        ++You did read Carters post last night, saying the same thing I have been saying? Once they leave the park, they are no longer Yellowstone wolves.++

        If you leave the North Fork to do some shopping in Kalispell, do you no longer live there?

      • Connie says:

        I don’t buy it. These wolves are Yellowstone born and bred.

  5. Ida Lupine says:

    SB, but was your elk wearing a collar and part of a long-term study, and familiar to millions?

    • jon says:

      There are a few thousand elk in the park and only 88 wolves.

      ” An estimated 10 wolves from Yellowstone National Park have been killed by hunters this month, adversely affecting the park’s wolf research program, one of the longest studies of its kind.

      “Losing the wolves has been a big hit to us scientifically,” says wildlife biologist Douglas Smith, leader of Yellowstone’s wolf project, which has tracked the wolves since their reintroduction in 1995. The killings came just as researchers, who are partly funded by a 5-year U.S. National Science Foundation grant, were set to begin the wolf project’s annual winter survey of the canids’ predatory habits.”

      • Savebears says:

        But yet Smith has said, he believes that up to 50% of the population could be killed with no adverse effects to the overall population.

        • Barb Rupers says:

          How recently did Dr. Smith make that comment that 50% can be killed with no adverse effects. One half of 80 estimated wolves at this time brings the population to about 40 wolves, slightly above where it was after the two year wolf reintroduction back in 1995-’96. That appears lower then one would expect after 15 years of “recovery”.

          • Savebears says:


            That was earlier this year in a meeting in Billings that I attended, I don’t know if it made it to the press, I will have to do some searching.

            We have to remember, the park is not the only population of recovery, it was the whole population in the NRM. I don’t believe it is reasonable to kill 50% of the population, but then again, I am really not an expert on wolves and population dynamics of the species.

            I know as with coyotes, if you kill a bunch of wolves, they are going to respond with increased breeding activity to make up for that lost animals.

            • jon says:

              If that’s the case, what’s the rationale for killing as many wolves and coyotes as possible if they are just going to respond with increase breeding activity?

              • Savebears says:

                Christ Jon,

                Your like a endless loop tape, you ask the same questions over and over again. Are you never satisfied with the answer you have already received?

              • Louise Kane says:

                Jon there is no rationale, predator “management” is seriously flawed. Its built on the presumption that predators need to be kept at artificially low numbers to protect game animals like ungulates. A great many people are just as outraged as you at the injustice of the way wolves are being managed. The terribly compromised wolf “recovery” plan is working against wolves. I know that there are some NGOs working to have that plan revisited. I went back to read some of the comments and here are two that stood out,
                I was reading through some of the comments made by the reviewers and two notable came up….

                Dale Seip, a wildlife ecologist that was one of the reviewers, noted during , “Presumably, delisting is not going to result in some rampant slaughter of wolves. It would be useful to state the management consequences of delisting the species….If conditions have been suitable for wolves to increase over the past few years, so long as those conditions do not drastically change, there is no major risk in delisting. However, if delisting would lead to drastic changes then there would be concern” (USFWS 2002). I think this comment reflects the concerns of many and one of the reasons that delisting was litigated. That and the absurdly low recovery numbers. As relates to that, the western gray wolf recovery coordinator, Ed Bangs, who implemented and evaluated the 2001 survey said about the recovery goal, “I, personally, think it is too low” (Morell 2008). I have hope that one of the NGOs will revisit pushing for a more comprehensive recovery plan, that is national in scope. The recovery plan now stinks. As for coyotes and other predators, especially for coyotes, humans are so creatively barbaric, thoughtless, and inhumane towards these animals it defies any explanation I can think of. A national carnivore conservation act is in order, as I’ve stated before.

              • Louise Kane says:

                sorry for the rushed post a duplicate sentence.

    • Savebears says:


      some of the elk that I photographed in my early visits were collared, also many of them were known by hundreds of thousands.

      I know a lot of people followed this wolf, as they have others, but I seriously doubt it was followed by millions. You guys need to stop exaggerating numbers.

  6. Savebears says:

    Anyway, we will just have to wait and see what happens, but again, I would not get my hopes up, at least not for this season.

  7. RobertR says:

    Even if there is a buffer zone of 100 miles around Yellowstone, sooner or later the animals will get comfortable and be killed any way once they go outside the buffer zone. Yellowstone is not the only place where wolves are collared and studied.
    You cannot manage ungulates without managing predators!
    If someone has a management plan present it because hunting and trapping is the only tool for management.

    • jon says:

      I don’t have a management plan, but why does management always have to mean one thing? That’s killing. You see no other ways to manage something other than to kill it?

      • Savebears says:


        There are quite a few species in Montana that are managed without hunting, currently the major one is Grizzlies, there is no hunting allowed for Grizz and even with the comments last week, it will be several years before you see any hunting of Grizz in Montana.

      • Mike says:

        Because of a gun culture.

        • Savebears says:

          Mike, the gun culture is not going anywhere in this country, gun sales have been at an all time high for the last 4 years and more gun companies are opening up here in Montana every single day.

          You live in some fantasy world Mike. You are but one of many voices, and as many on here say, your voice is not well respected or even listened to much anymore.

  8. Ralph Maughan says:

    One thing some people forget to say is that Yellowstone Park is a symbol of America. National Parks were an American invention. It’s the first national park and while folks’ have their preferences, it is probably the greatest Park if a poll was taken.

    There are many elements to patriotism (or as a political scientist would call it “nationalism”). Portions of it are love of the people, the country’s cultural history, its political institutions and/or ideals. Also there is love of the land.

    One study showed that for at least a quarter of Americans love of land was an important element of their patriotism. It is a symbol of our national unity.

    Lack of concern about keeping the Park inviolate from intrusions from local or special interests is offensive to patriotic people like me and to many other people, whether it is protecting the wildlife, the geysers, the open space, or the lakes and streams.

    Now I read that about a quarter of the self-identified Republicans (and no doubt a few independents and Democrats too) tell public opinion polls they want to secede from the Union. I suppose much of this is just strong disappointment that the election didn’t go as they wanted it.

    If they are really sick of our country, however, I say “God damn them to hell!” I hope Americans will make them keep their traitorous hands off our Park, and I wish they would emigrate. There is no mechanism for a state leaving the country, but there is for individuals to renounce their citizenship and go.

    I hope my position is clear.

    • Mark L says:

      Hear hear!

    • Mtn Mamma says:

      AMEN RALPH! Preach it brother!

    • Savebears says:


      Very clear and you will get no argument from me on your post.

    • Rancher Bob says:

      Good point but very funny when if you were to ask for symbols of America, you would also get your hated cowboy. We are a country settled by trappers miners and rancher three things you spend your time fighting. It’s easy to pick and choose what’s important to one’s self. Voicing one’s concerns is what makes this country Great.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I don’t hate the cowboy or rancher or miner. Anything but! They are all emblematic of our country, but there is room for our emblematic wildlife too, and our first National Park and other wild areas. I feel badly that our overseas visitors are disappointed. 🙂

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        Rancher Bob,

        I my views do not win, and that often happens, I am not packing my bags, saying I hate America, or that my state should become the Republic of whatever.

      • JEFF E says:

        I was apparently under the miss-understanding that this land was long settled by Native Americans before your heroes ever made an appearance.
        Thanks for clearing that up for me.

        • WM says:

          Jeff E.,

          I know you would appreciate this. I saw a Tee shirt awhile back on what appeared by physical features to be Native American male. Black Tee with red and white lettering, “Homeland Security – On duty since 1492.”

          • JEFF E says:

            I have one similar. You should see the looks when I wear that through airport security.

            • JEFF E says:

              which is every time I go through airport security.
              When I am in Alaska, there are usually a couple of Natives working that get a real belly laugh, as in Arizona, New Mexico. Only Utah in the west do they fail to see the humor/irony.
              Then the further east the more tense they get when they finally understand what is written. Also the further east you get less and less that will even have a clue what it means they just know that it makes them uncomfortable.
              Just one of my small social experiments. probably does not mean much.

      • Mike says:

        ++We are a country settled by trappers miners and rancher three things you spend your time fighting. ++

        And by slave owners, too. And by men who didn’t allow women to vote. We jettisoned those “traditions”. Time to jettison trapping, too.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        Yes, fur trappers, ranchers, and miners broke open the interior American West . Were the reason the Manifest Destiny-driven US Government drove out the natives or sequestered them on reservations to rot. But soon went obsolete. They also extracted a helluva lot more than they ever put back.

        Sorry, Bob…your ranchers miners and trappers got no longstanding claim , but became a huge liability to the later population and the land itself. They still are in too many natural resource scenarios .

        The ” custom and culture ” argument and any notion that ” the West is mine because my grandpappy got here first ” is not valid. The clerk at the Courthouse gave your ancestral landed aristochracy and homesteaders a deed for land never really truely owned, just taken by force. Big difference.

      • JB says:

        Rancher Bob:

        Sure, people disagree regarding which symbols are most positive and important. But I’ll bet you a six pack that if we asked a random sample of people to rate them, YNP would come out ahead of cowboy and rancher?

        • Rancher Bob says:

          First of all I agree with Ralph’s post, if you read my post.
          Second the U.S. has many great symbols including buffalo and Indians, each rated as important to the individual.
          Third I found it funny that Ralph was on his soap box preaching the symbolism of parks when he spends a large part of his time attacking american symbolism, seems that seeing some humor is frowned upon.
          Lastly I’ll pass on the bet, I’ve seen enough random surveys.

    • I agree Ralph, but I would like to keep Yellowstone safe from the intrusive research industry, as well as the hunters. I didn’t take my annual trip to Yellowswtone this fall because I am so tired of seeing so many wolves with radio collars.
      Some years ago, I was watching 19 wolves (2 gray and 17 black)howling on the ridge downstream from the Slough Creek campground and trying to figure out how to get a photo of this incredible event. As I started in the wolves direction, their howling was interupted as Doug, in his yellow super cub, repeatedly buzzed the pack. He harassed the wolves until they headed north out of the park. If he is so concerned about them being shot when they leave the park, maybe he should leave them alone so they stay in the park.!!!

  9. Elk275 says:

    I think the FWP cpmmission might put a small buffer around Yellowstone National Park on public lands excluding private lands. Once that buffer is established then it becomes next to impossible to remove. This is my guess.

    I have heard from very good sources that several large ranches between Gardiner and Livingston are planning intense wolf trapping with more than one trapper. These ranches want the wolves off of their private lands; trophy elk hunting is big money wolves bring in no money on private lands.

    • Savebears says:

      If they were to put any buffer up, besides the couple of units they have currently closed down, it is not going to apply to private lands and it shouldn’t. Wolves are not an endangered species so trying to get the land owners to stop hunting or trapping on their private land, is never going to fly.

  10. Mike says:

    Montana FWP sees the writing on the wall. The dead Yellowstone wolf story is all over the globe. Soon, hunting wolves will be seen as whaling is seen (despised).

    It won’t be much longer until wolf hunting is banned.

    Thank you, hunters. Once again you are the catalyst for change.

  11. Leslie says:

    SB: “I know there is a large pro wolf group, but that is not the key, the numbers of them willing to actually do anything is not all that large, that is why we find ourselves in the position we currently are.”

    You must know why this is? There are some real scary crazy wolf haters out there and I for one wouldn’t want to be in their gun sights. While they go around with hate-wolf bumper stickers, if I had one on my vehicle I might come back from shopping and find my car wrecked. These people are the same mentality that lynched people in years past.

    • Savebears says:


      There are some real crazy wolf lovers out there as well, that have made threats as well. I have never heard of an incident where wolf hunters have vandalized a pro wolf persons property, little bit of paranoia going here?

      I have gone toe to toe with wolf haters telling them exactly what I think of their stupid BS and am still here talking about it.

      I do however carry most of the times these days, but it is not because of wolf haters, it goes back a bit further to another pro animal group that caused millions in damage in this country as well as made what was determine to be credible threats against hunters.

      • Mike says:

        SB –

        Yes, there are crazy wolf lovers. The difference is of course that their brand of crazy isn’t so insane that it segues into picking up an deadly weapon and blowing the brains out of a animal fresh off the endangered species list (or posing for a photo in front of a tortured one).

        That’s the kind of crazy, the “actionable” crazy we have to worry about.

      • IDhiker says:

        I carry virtually all of the time these days also. Living in the Bitterroot Valley, it is the other side that I am concerned with, and one should be, as they make their views well known. Paranoia? Perhaps it is the world we live in. Leslie, I’m with you on this one. There’s no way I would put a “Sahara Club” or similar bumper sticker on my rig.

        • Savebears says:

          All I can say, is your are caving in, you are letting them take your freedom away, I will be damned if I do.

  12. Leslie says:

    Edit: ‘had one’ meaning a pro-wolf bumper sticker.

  13. Leslie says:

    Glad to hear you think they are ‘safe’. I think I’ll tie my horse to a tree though.

    • Savebears says:

      I didn’t say, I think they are safe, I said I think they are full of BS and anyone that actually stands up to them will see them slink away with their tail between their legs. They don’t have the balls to go up against someone who will call them on their crap.

      • IDhiker says:

        SB, I have seen this happen, and so I agree with you that these people often won’t face someone who, “calls them on their crap.”

  14. Leslie says:

    Ah, so its a lot of puffing up. I’ll keep that in mind

    • Savebears says:

      As you know Leslie, we have wolf haters that love to do a lot of puffing up in these three states.

  15. Richie G says:

    Oh sb you finally admit you are not an expert on wolves the species great, now does the park have a border fence,where hunters will know the boundary. What I am saying,their is a chance they could be killed inside, do all hunters have ethics?

    • Savebears says:


      I have never said I was a wolf expert I have always said I have worked with other species.

  16. Richie G says:

    P.S. I agree Ralph,well said.

  17. Ida Lupine says:

    We’ll see what Gov. Schweitzer says about trapping outside the Park (and I don’t mean Albert). 🙁

  18. Ida Lupine says:

    I don’t know if this has already been posted, but it’s a little frightening:

    Marshall Tate said that a few years ago he’d be deep in the backcountry elk hunting on a day like Saturday.

    “But here I am — an elk-hunting guide in a wolf-trapping class. Wolves have basically put the outfitter out of business.”

    • Ida Lupine says:

      and more:

      Tom Barnes, president of the Montana Trappers Association, said the classes are popular for a simple reason.

      “Because they want to get rid of the damn wolves,” he said. “A lot of us didn’t want wolves. And now that they are here, all that the citizens and sportsmen of Montana are asking is that we control the buggers.”

      Although some Montanans may not want wolves in the state, Barnes said his group and FWP are “strongly concerned about the ethical treatment of our furbearers and we don’t want things to go south on us.”

  19. Mike says:

    Like I said all along, hunters and ranchers are to blame for the anti-wolf mentality in the Rockies. Anyone who somehow thinks hunters have nothing to do with it is in blatant denial.

    It does not come from anywhere else. And now, there will be very real blow-back as more and more Americans realize what’s been going on near their first national park.

    • jon says:

      Well said Mike.

    • A Western Moderate says:

      BS. I used to be vocally pro-wolf. No more. It wasn’t hunters or ranchers that changed me. It was the endless crap from extremist jackasses like you. The years of propaganda and lawsuits made me realize what the wolf issue is really about… and it isn’t wolves.

    • JB says:


      Your horn is broken. It only plays one note (and not very well). 😉

      • WM says:

        The interesting and unfortunate thing about discordant off-key noise is that it makes the whole orchestra sound bad, giving critics the opportunity to pan the performance of all.

      • JEFF E says:

        sure that is not a kazoo?

  20. Mark L says:

    Western Moderate,
    let me get this straight:
    you changed your view on the survival of an apex predator (a real live animal) based on how others presented their argument for and against the animals’ existance? This may be a ‘Western’ habit, but it’s not a ‘Moderate’ one. That sounds spineless in my opinion. Sad…..just sad.

    • A Western Moderate says:

      No. I changed my view about the “pro-wolf” movement. I still am awed by wolves. I am disgusted by the methods that extremists use to push their political agenda and can no longer align myself with that side.

      • jon says:

        What about the extremists that represent the anti-wolf side? Are you disgusted by their methods as well?

        • Savebears says:

          Again, Jon, Same questions over and over again, you are an endless loop tape.

          • jon says:

            You sound cranky today sb. I take it you are not pleased with FWP’s decision today regarding yellowstone wolves.

            • Savebears says:


              I could give a shit about the decision today from FWP, I am a bit surprised, but I think you are putting way to much into it.

              What I am cranky about is you asking the same damn questions every single day on this blog.

              • jon says:

                I believe you do care sb. You seem mad about it. I am surprised as well. Why on earth would you waste time about caring about what others are saying on a blog? Go get some fresh air sb for your own sanity please. You worry too much about what others are saying on a blog. This is a blog, it’s all it is. Why someone gets mad because what others are saying or doing on a blog is a little bit silly sb.

              • Savebears says:

                Jon, you say the exact same things everyday, you ask the exact same questions every day, you are redundant, you are an endless loop tape that has no more knowledge that what you can read in blogs or news stories, you are a patsy.

        • A Western Moderate says:


          • jon says:

            I think it’s a good thing to recognize when both sides have their extremists.

            • A Western Moderate says:

              Agreed. I couldn’t call myself a moderate if I only recognized extremism on one side of an issue.

  21. Savebears says:

    I am simply amazed, I just heard that a small portion of the area adjacent ot Yellowstone was in fact closed…I guess the story is in the Billings Gazette. Maybe we will see a change in FWP one of these days. Reading the article, which is very small says it is not a permanent closure.

    • Elk275 says:

      Here is the story:

      Montana wildlife commissioners have closed some areas outside Yellowstone National Park to wolf hunting and trapping after several collared animals used for scientific research were shot in recent weeks.

      The closures were approved Monday on a 4-to-1 vote by Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission. Commissioner Dan Vermillion cast the lone dissenting vote.

      Saturday marks the opening day of Montana’s first wolf trapping season since the animals lost federal protections last year.

      With at least five collared wolves from the park shot this year, commissioners say they want to guard against too many being killed.

      But Commission Chairman Bob Ream says Monday’s action was not a permanent closure.

      Wildlife officials say the statewide wolf harvest is down 18 percent this year.

      • Elk275 says:

        Now while the “small brains on this site are cheering about this wolf closure” one must remember the FW&P’s voted to aquire nearly 5,000 acres of private land which will now become Wild Life Management Areas purchased with hunter’s money.

        • Nancy says:

          “FW&P’s voted to aquire nearly 5,000 acres of private land which will now become Wild Life Management Areas purchased with hunter’s money”

          Which means exactly what Elk, to those of us in the catagory of “small brains” on this site?

          • Savebears says:


            It means those lands will be managed based on the wishes of the hunters and fisher persons in the state of Montana that paid for them.

            • Elk275 says:

              There is or was a bumper sticker that said “habitat what part do you not understand” Without habitat there will be minmal or no wildlife. It is important now more than ever to aquire land for wildlife before it is lost to development or becomes so high priced that it will never be obtainable. To much money, time and energy is being used other things such as wolves and grizzlies.

              In the last eight years the MtFW&P’s has aquired over 250,000 acres with various sources of funding some federal, some state and some hunters. I think the MTFW&P’s now owns close to 1/2 millions acres.

              • Leslie says:

                C’mom Elk. Hunters money aren’t the only money that buys land for habitat conservation. Lots of conservation organizations do too. You are right tho that habitat is key, key, key. I wish I had gazillions to help the Y2Y group for protected corridors and cores

              • Elk275 says:

                C’mom Leslie

                What did I say: “with various sources of funding some federal, some state and some hunters.” I should have added NGO’s and other small non profits.

                “I wish I had gazillions to help the Y2Y group for protected corridors and cores” I wish I had gazillions too, I would do the same. You and I might meet at the yearly banquet for being the largest donors. Good luck to both of us.

              • Leslie says:

                I did try my luck on the 1/2 billion dollar mega lottery but…

              • JB says:


                My favorite bumper sticker says: “The Lottery is a Tax on People who are Bad at Math”.

            • Nancy says:

              A small victory in a sea of land out here currently being sold, bought up and privatized?

            • Mike says:

              I helped pay for those lands, and I don;t want wolves hunted on them, or any predator.

              • Elk275 says:

                Mike you have no say on it. Sorry.

                When did you buy a Montana Hunting license?

              • Savebears says:

                Mike, you have not bought any of those lands, they were purchased by those who buy hunting licenses in the state of Montana.

                As I said earlier, you are but one in a voice of many, your not going to get what you want, accept it and get over it.

              • JB says:


                I don’t want to speak for Mike, but as I recall, he was moving to Montana. Assuming he is now a resident, he has a say, as wildlife and public lands belong to all the state citizens–not just hunters.

              • jon says:

                Good luck in Montana Mike. I am sure you will be able to make a difference there.

    • Mike says:

      ++I am simply amazed, I just heard that a small portion of the area adjacent ot Yellowstone was in fact closed…I guess the story is in the Billings Gazette. Maybe we will see a change in FWP one of these days. Reading the article, which is very small says it is not a permanent closure.++

      MFWP is considerably more intelligent than the groups running Idaho and Wyoming.

      They see the writing on the wall. Create a buffer, or wolf hunting turns into whaling, and is banned.

  22. john says:

    not on wolves, but the old article concerning the coyote trapping in WY, and imagine this, a bad old republican land and animal hater is leading the charge,,,,

  23. mike28 says:

    Has anybody thought about using fladry to keep them inside the park, they use it to keep wolves off of private ground, Just a thought.

    • Salle says:

      Fladry only works for a set amount of time… 30 – 90 days or so, after that the wolves figure out ways around it and/or figure out it isn’t all that scary anymore. AND it is not that cheap, there are many miles of boundary around a park that is 2.2 million acres in size and includes some pretty rough terrain, just not practical in so many ways. Would be nice if there was some way to do that but habitat doesn’t follow straight line imaginary, politically set boundaries. And then, if you made all the wildlife stay inside those boundaries, the park would then be little more than a zoo, even though it’s approaching that anyway which is sad.

  24. Leslie says:

    Louise wrote: “Ed Bangs, who implemented and evaluated the 2001 survey said about the recovery goal, “I, personally, think it is too low” (Morell 2008). I have hope that one of the NGOs will revisit pushing for a more comprehensive recovery plan, that is national in scope.”

    This is the basic problem–ALONG with the WY flex and predator zone–with the delisting. They never thought wolves would be so successful and got tied into that 100 and 10 numbers. I think we’d all be much happier if those numbers were adjusted and made realistic for genetic diversity, habitat carrying capacity, and connective corridors. I don’t think that’s asking too much.

  25. Richie G. says:

    Don’t wana have trapping around the park when people are drinking egg nog in those lovely cabins inside the park while singing Christmas Carols,do we?

  26. Richie G. says:

    These paying customers want to wake up early on Christmas Day to watch wolves in Lamar Valley,now where does the money go to? The people of Montana who are hired by the park,just for this purpose. Money that the residents will spend in their own state,for food,gifts,supplies, for their kids,etc,etc,. P.S. So their children can have a nice Christmas too. How many jobs are linked to the parks resources,can anybody answer this question,and the outfitters who run the rapids during the spring,and anything else I can’t think of at the present.

  27. Dora Herbert says:

    This is quite upsetting, troubling even. I have always been against hunting and trapping for controlling wildlife. Hunters are thinking more for their gain rather than the overall goal of preserving and controlling wildlife. Pretty soon, the world’s most amazing wildlife animals will be endangered if this does not cease.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Dora Herbert,

      You write, “Hunters are thinking more for their gain rather than the overall goal of preserving and controlling wildlife.”

      I think this is a faulty generalization. There are all kinds of hunters with many motivations and differing degrees of skill. Some have an ethic and a thoughtful about both hunting and a rationale for hunting. Others are just doing whatever.

      I support hunting in general, but I do not like to see hunting of rare birds or animals. A general bias against carnivores is, to me, the biggest black eye, one that too many hunters wear with pride.

      I also don’t like canned “hunts,” or rich bas- – – who hire everything done for them so they can have a trophy which proves, well . . . I guess that they are rich and unethical.


December 2012


‎"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