Plaintiffs in the case against the wolf killing plan for the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho have learned that at least 7 wolves have been killed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game hired trapper as of January 2nd.  It is possible that more have been killed but communication with the trapper is conducted only when the trapper calls out using a satellite phone which is kept turned off most of the time.

From the court filing:

Plaintiffs learned from counsel for defendant Virgil Moore that, as of January 2, 2014, IDFG’s hired hunter-trapper had killed seven wolves within the targeted wolf packs, six by trapping and one by hunting, and that more wolves may have been killed as of today. Defendant Moore’s counsel further advised that IDFG’s only means of communication with the hunter-trapper is a satellite telephone in the hunter-trapper’s possession, and that, to preserve the phone’s batteries, the hunter-trapper turns on the phone only when he places a call.

In response, the plaintiffs have filed a second motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with an expedited briefing schedule.

acrobat pdfRead Second Motion for TRO

Plaintiffs, represented by Tim Preso of Earthjustice, include Ralph Maughan and three conservation groups—Defenders of WildlifeWestern Watersheds ProjectWilderness Watch, and Center for Biological Diversity.  The case, which was filed yesterday, challenges US Forest Service’s approval of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s plan to exterminate two wolf packs in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness on the grounds that it violates several laws, management plans, and policies which are meant to protect wilderness characteristics, wildlife, and natural processes within wilderness.


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.

343 Responses to Seven Wolves Killed In Idaho’s Frank Church Wilderness by Government Hired Trapper

  1. cobackcountry says:

    Well, I haven’t been on lately. I am disappointed to have my latest point be “What the f?” I am beyond sick of the rants that regularly occur, along with copious amounts of monies expended on behalf of things that are not truly in jeopardy.

    So much time is expended arguing over who can smoke what, and who can marry whom. Yet, marijuana and humans are hardly in need of protection. Can the environment get a flippin’ break? And why can Idaho’s clucks have some one go in and halt the activity until legal recourse has been exhausted?

    This makes me sick. I guess laws and history be damned? The mighty ranching owned, and formerly free and pristine, state of Idaho is supreme to rationality?! Urgh.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Yes. Good to see you!

    • Steve says:

      Right on! The same old tired arguments are used to kill wolves – they kill too many deer, they kill too many elk – never that they have cascading positive effects on the ecosystem such as providing carrion to other species, culling the sick and old, keeping ungulates from lingering and overgrazing riparian areas so that beaver and songbirds can proliferate. Wolves also make for smarter elk that by nature should be wary of predators. But the Forest Service just sends in a trapper into RONRW, to hell with NEPA. I’m pissed that the Dems, just to bag a few red states, are not opposed to all this.

      • WyoWolfFan says:

        Those arguments are tired. It’s sad that nearly 20 years on we are still having the same arguments going around about wolves.

  2. Ida Lupine says:

    How disappointing. 🙁

  3. cobackcountry says:

    Thank you to those on here who are a part of trying to end this madness.

  4. topher says:

    Holy crap! Are wolves that easy to trap? I wonder if these wolves are more susceptible to hunting and trapping due to their limited exposure to hunters.

    • Nancy says:

      topher – most of the wolves killed in WI were trapped not shot.

      • topher says:

        I was just curious if anyone thinks wolves in the Frank behave differently due to the type of humans they might be exposed to.

        • Jeff says:

          I doubt it, the Frank and all big roadless areas in the west are heavily hunted by outfitters so it isn’t like this is the first guy with a gun that they’ve crossed paths with.

    • Immer Treue says:


      All it said was seven wolves were killed. Doesn’t say how. Trapping with bait, much easier than hunting. The guy has not been in there that long, has he. There’s something else much more efficient than trapping. I hope to hell that method was not used.

      • Nancy says:

        Imm er – “six by trapping and one by hunting”

        • Immer Treue says:

          My apology. Read through it too fast.

          • Nancy says:

            Immer – Carter mentioned in a comment below that wolves are not easy to trap and wondered if he may have been using snares, given his quick success.

            My thought is this trapper was probably given the green light – use what ever means possible. Wouldn’t surprise me either if he’s allowed to keep what he kills. Wolf pelts are going for $300 to $500.

            In Wisconsin, sixty-seven percent of the wolves were taken by trappers:

            Read more from Journal Sentinel:
            Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

            • Immer Treue says:


              I agree. I’d also guess that snares and bait would be more productive than leg holds. My concern was if he was given the go ahead to use items of a chemical nature.

              • Melody Scamman says:

                Immer, that was my thought, too, and I hope it is not true. But an ex-employee and whistleblower of Wildlife Services said they had access through another agency to illegal poisons in canisters. The video is on YouTube. It is chilling. I don’t know if the trapper in the Frank Church also works for WS, too? I am sick over this, heartbroken!
                The only account of wolf behavior in the Frank Church is that they are very shy of humans, as far as I know. There is a PBS video that can be watched online for free ( River of no Return). It has a short clip of the wolves and their pups and they appear very frightened of humans.

  5. Zig Pope says:

    This is sickening. And Sally Jewell needs to fired for her massive mishandling of our wolves and wild horses. ID must be hell on earth, to have such sadists live there.

    • Jeff N. says:

      Not sure if Ms. Jewell is deserving of your ire. As the Secretary of the Interior, she really doesn’t have any say in the management of an animal that is not currently listed on the ESA, and she certainly has no jurisdiction in regard to national forest lands, the domain of the USDA.

      However, this situation is sickening, which is to be expected from Clem and his minions. But the continuing lack of regard from the Obama administration and the NFS is very sad and troubling. Where did the days of Babbitt and Domeback go.

      • Jeff N. says:

        Edit….Jewell has no say on wolf management in ID, where it is not listed on the ESA.

        • Jeff Geist says:

          Obama hand-picked Jewell. Jewell controls USFWS. This whole thing is Obama’s doing. Obama is a puppet of Big Energy. Obama is into exterminating wolves nationally. He will soon announce the “Jewell” plan to take wolves off the ESA nationally. He doesn’t want them showing up in eastern KY where they’re doing mountaintop removal for coal. In fact he doesn’t want ESA-protected wolves showing up anywhere that there’s land that can be fracked and and sand-tars oil-mined and/or any other lumbering, drilling, or digging. Obama is a puppet of Big Energy. They made him Presidents for this moment. If wolves were allowed to stay on the ESL then there would be habitat restrictions accruing to their ESA protections which would make it harder for the diggers and drillers to do what they want with the land = rape it. That’s why he’s killing the ESA for wolves (and killing the ESA too) all over the country. So that the despicable sand tars oil folks and frackers and other drillers and diggers can have their way with the land wherever and whenever they want to and the hell with the people who get poisoned by it. This is much more about this than it is about the ranchers. Obama and big energy want to misdirect people from what they’re really trying to do making it look like it’s all about the ranchers. That’s BS. Yes, are they siding with the ranchers? Are they exacerbating deep feelings of hatred of wolves just like the deep feelings of hatred of Jews that a lot of Germans used to have and probably still do? Yes, of course. But it’s about what’s under the earth that they’re interested in, and they don’t care what land is despoiled and what animals are killed as long as they get what they want. They’re all effing criminals and they pay off 88% of the Congress to look the other way while all this merde goes down. They’re killing horses coz they know eventually someone will say “oh, they’re really wild and they need to be protected by the ESA. So kill them first and they don’t have that problem. This is particularly important for free-ranging animals like horses and wolves. For the most part, mountain lions aren’t ESA-protected and for the most part have been. Where they have been state protected all the states are taking away those protections. They killed 100 lions in Nebraska that were mostly transients from the black hills after they’d been protected in Nebraska for ever. Get the idea. Lions kill cattle. But the government does or used to pay handsomely for the hamburger lions and wolves kill. It’s not about that, as I keep saying. You guys worry more about freak blizzards like in ND that killed 800,000 head of cattle. What are wolf kills compared to that, particularly when depredations are government paid for. Obama is hiding between Sally Jewell of the Interior and Mr. Ashe of the USFWS, and needs to be called out as responsible for all this. I think he should be impeached. Like I say, he and the A-hole Big Energy people who literally put him in power are trying to de facto destroy the ESA AND the Environmental Protection Administration. Cattlemen are a calculated misdirection. Cattlemen dealt with wolves before, got paid real well for depredations and would do it again if the law were enforced. Plus there are many ways to keep wolves away from cattle and you all know it. This killing is simply sick and criminal. Obama doesn’t have the balls to say himself that he’s delisting wolves all over America because he’s basically a coward, a liar, and has broken virtually all his campaign promises regarding the environment. He wouldn’t know what the truth is if it were sticking out of his head. He throws people under the bus. He needs to be held responsible by any of you who would like your state to remain wild in any way at all. The best thing imaginable would be for the people of ID to rebel against the wolf killing. That would really eff up Obama and his Corporate Brothers. It’s a joke how people like Rush Limbaugh, a real buffoon, make him out to be a terrible Liberal “”; he’s really a Republican, and worse than that, he’s the biggest sellout President we’ve ever had. So show the country you’re not all A-holes in ID – which is what people are starting to think as they slowly arise from their deep, deep slumber – and tell the wolf killers AND Obama (I call him “WolfSlayer”) to go to hell.

          • Joanne Favazza says:

            Jeff Geist: Love your post.

          • Melody Scamman says:

            Jeff Geist, sorry I didn’t see your post sooner! You are putting the pieces of the puzzle together and I hope more people are brave enough to do so. The more who question why those who’s job it is to protect wildlife and wildlands just draw a paycheck on our dime and give us the political tap dance. Meanwhile animals die, resources are plundered and waters are wasted and contaminated. You missed a couple of puzzle pieces. This is above both Obama’s and PM Harper’s pay grade. This goes back 30 years to UN Agenda 21, at least! That explains why wolves were only given an experimental listing under the ESA list. Have you noticed who ends up with the plundered creature’s fur and the oil? That filthy tar sands oil is going to be shipped through Enbridge’s pipelines, reported to be made in China, and destined to be shipped to China on huge tankers. You may have read my posts where I have said ‘manifest destiny, part two’? Well it is that’s North America’s part in it. In China, it is full on industrial revolution. They can’t ‘fuel’ an industrial revolution without fuel and raw materials. Wolves are raw materials. They are cut into thin strips and sewn onto Ski parkas and turn up on the racks of sporting goods stores and even Wal Mart got exposed selling them. I have seen them in person on Eddie Bauer jackets. I saw a photo of an entire jacket by that brand by typing in a master search on cragslist under for sale ‘wolf’.
            So basically, if you follow it through, they buy our raw materials cheap, finish them in China and sell them back to us on credit. That pretty much makes us indentured to the ‘company store’. Except for the 1%, we are all too busy working two jobs or broke down from doing so, running around trying to get health care so we can go work two jobs again… or the darker side, the addictions that come from hopelessness and loss and self-medicating for pain of all sorts. Two age-old ways of control of a certain population: debt and addiction. Oh, and taking away property. What may have seemed like a small and unrelated case, in Groton, Ct. About a few waterfront homes of working people, only a few, to build a hotel, the SCOTUS decided it was the best use of the land to be a hotel to be built and privately owned and the people who had owned it had to move out and their homes torn down. Of course nothing was built. The case was to get land out of the hands of private citizens. Experimental, just like wolves on the ESL. The big energy companies and their pet politicians pulled the biggest heist in history, it just took them a few decades to put it all together. You are right, they still have a few fatal chops left to deal out to the EPA and they are running like cats, unraveling the fabric of the ESA but they won their big case, the one that let’s private corporations take citizen’s land. Forests, Wildlands, Seashores, nothing is safe or sacred in the face of progress at any cost. Not even two wolf families in the middle of nowhere. I think the disturbing feeling people just can’t seem to put their finger on is this: WE are those wolves in the FC. We are in this with them, like it or not. If we don’t fight back legally, and protest loudly and confront the media as to why they won’t cover the story, then they will not stop. Ever.

          • Montana Boy says:

            What happened to Mr “I’m here to keep the conversation honest”, JB?

            • Melody Scamman says:

              MB, I wish there was something we could do to keep the politics out of conservation. Unfortunately, none of us has the power to stop the heartbreaking wolf killing and the sick coyote contests by handwringing and tears, if we did, it would have been over the very first time it happened. Greed needs exposing. I am not shaming or calling names, just exposing things external to wildlife but directly affecting their survival. I think that is relative. It was not our choice to have wolf politics turn into what appears to be a huge conspiracy theory. But it did. I would much rather go back to teaching strangers about wolves with ambassador wolves. I wanted a quiet retirement! But I will not turn my back on dirty politics and look the other way and pretend everything is normal because it is anything but normal. This started out about justice for wolves. I have heard so many people’s stories of being screwed out of their water, whole towns, in fact, and the things I have learned from them and the networking I did with the anti-fracking people, with people in Idle no more fighting the destruction of fragile environment and endangered creatures and other issues all factored into my opinions of what is going on external to the usual wolf advocates vs.ranchers and a few politicians argument. Everything is a learning experience if you have an open and fearless mind. You don’t have to agree with the connections I make, you don’t have to even like wild wolve or other predators. But at some point, you have to reach a saturation point for what you will accept from politicians and wildlife officials and want to hollar ‘ I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore!’ Then we all find common ground and stop the madness so we can go back to living peacefully and enjoying nature as it should be.

            • JB says:

              “What happened to Mr “I’m here to keep the conversation honest”, JB?”

              He hasn’t had a lot of time lately. 😉

      • Zig Pope says:

        That would be the point. They need to go back on.

        • Jeff N. says:

          Certainly what is happening in the NRM states, Idaho in particular in this case, should be enough to take blanket delisting off the table.

      • BC says:

        Who is Clem and minions?

        Jeff is referring to Clement “Butch” Otter, the governor of Idaho. You need to use a valid email address to comment on The Wildlife News -admin

  6. Ida Lupine says:

    Is that close to the two packs?

    JB, to me, what makes the moral high ground is people who don’t kill. It is a moral imperative over the entire world, every religion and philosophy since the dawn of humanity.

    I appreciate the ethics video, and I agree that it is difficult, almost insurmountably so. Everyone who has ever spent time on the internet knows how quickly things devolve into ad hominem attacks.

  7. Julie says:

    It says in the article 6 trapped and one hunted. What jerks in Idaho.

  8. mandyinseattle says:

    The timing of this is good as was the timing of the “family fun wolf hunt” in Idaho a couple of weeks ago to demonstrate to the secretary of the interior how states “manage” their wolf populations without federal oversight and ESA protection.

    Do your job, Secretary Jewell!

    I wonder why this slaughter wasn’t halted while the court considers the matter?

    Idahoans have lost their damn minds and disgraced themselves as citizens and stewards. I won’t step foot in that state or spend a dime on anything that comes from there. They’re shameful and their governor should be impeached.

  9. mandyinseattle says:

    And can we PLEASE find another photo of a wolf or wolves instead of using the same stock photo of the same wolf for every story?!?

    If we could expose more people to loving images of wolves, it might reach them on some deeper, emotional level. There are many more photos of wolves. Find one, please. Thanks

  10. Karen DeBraal says:

    How can it be that this exterminator can’t be reached? Isn’t this an emergency? Insane. Seven beautiful wolves murdered. No wonder I felt like crying all day. I am sick to my stomach.

    • rick says:

      Having attended two Idaho Fish and Game meetings open to the public, I believe that around 80% of Idaho citizens are concerned with trapping and want fewer wolves killed. It would be wonderful if someone, with background, would organize this majority.

      • ramses09 says:

        I, also have attended a F&G meeting. I have to say that 85% of the folks that were there were there for the wolf – not against. But, the haters are surely haters. I took everything in me to NOT punch out 3 ranchers, 2 brothers & their Daddy making comments every time someone went up to speak up for the wolves. There are folks who care for wolves in ID. I think that fear is a big issue with coming out in support in that state.

        • IDhiker says:


          I have seen the same thing numerous times here in Montana. The “haters” as you say, are often loud, rude, and aggressive. They try to intimidate those with another viewpoint, which I believe is premeditated. But, they are basically windbags and people need to stand up to them.

  11. YSCHUSTER says:

    Devastating news.

  12. Yvette says:

    I was afraid of this—that he would already have killed many. So, by January 2nd, it is seven lives lost. Six with traps. Horrific way to die. Traps should have been illegal decades ago. Who knows how many more he has killed by now. Maybe all of them.
    I have so little to offer other than to vent. It has been one horrific killing season for wolves, and we’re only in the second year since they lost the protection of ESA. At this rate how long before their numbers are so low that they bottleneck?
    It seems the only thing that will save wolves from the bloodthirsty, Jeremiah Johnson wannabes is for them to be put back on the ESA. And time if of essence.
    What ever happening to subsistence hunting? It all seems to be about ‘sport’ and ‘trophy’ hunting now.

    • nabeki says:

      “we’re only in the second year since they lost the protection of ESA”

      Yvette…Idaho and Montana wolves were delisted in the Spring of 2009 by the Obama Admin. This is the fourth wolf hunt in these states and every year they get more brutal.

  13. Brian Ertz says:

    They can’t stand the idea of a place that is free from their self-entitled paternalistic “control” – their “MANagement.”

    It is akin to the self-entitled creep, the patriarchical expression of dominance, grabbing at the rear or breast of an unknown waitress.

    This is a violation.

  14. Wendy gingerich says:

    What are they trying to do wipe the hole wolf population out. This makes people very angry and this is so wrong never going ldho.

    • Randy Grams says:

      You have hit the hjt the center of the bulls eye. Yes Iam Canadian, live in a small north central Alberta community. Spent most of my 51 years on the planet living in BC and the Yukon. Have watch Wolvesfrom a distance for years. Yes the state goverments iun at least 6 states are or will try to elimanate the wolf population, as small as it is. I have read and re-read many of the studies that have been done over the last 30 years and in every study there is one point that keeps coming up, cattle killed by wolve is less than 1%, cattle deaths caused by weather, health, injury 85-90%. That stat speaks volumes. Wolvf packs are a family unit, a breeding pair and ussually the off-spring of 3-4 years of breeding plus pups less than a year old. Wolves only kill the sick injured or weak. Out of 10 possible wolf kills, wolves get 1 kill. thats only 10% of the kills they attempt. It’s mostly the Human hunters that bitch nand complain about not bagging that trohpy deer or elk. And deer and elk populations are up 90% of all time high population numbers over the last 10 years.So who’s trying to pull the wool over everybodies eyes, your local state govenors, persons in charge of your forests, dept of fish and game, just about anybody in government that holds a high profile office. So at the next state election find out who is fo or against wolves and wildlife and vote for instead of letting governments dictate. Another stat that I just found, in Alaska’s famed Denali National park, a very large population of wolves has disappeared over the last 5 years or so. Not sure of the exact number, but all the wolves are gone. Yellowstone national park had 31 wolves from Alberta and BC transfered there in 1995 after the natural population of wolve were decimated. The population increased to about 100, now down to about 85 and there’s some who want them gone as well because the elk and deer numbers are down, probably back to where the enviroment can sustain, how many acres have been destroyd by wildfire over the last 5 years. I apoligize for turning a short comment into an editorial, can you tell that I am 1 pissed off Canadian over this travisty against nature, hope so, next time the US comes looking for wildlife, in Canada, to replace what has been lost, go to hell!

      • Lea Bayliss says:

        Hi Randy,
        I am Canadian too – have been living in the Yukon for 30 years. Am outraged as well with what is happening in several of the states – wolves being slaughtered simply to meet the needs/wants of special user groups. it seems wolves are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Persecuted if they come close to humans and persecuted when they live way out in the wilderness boonies. But Canada isn’t innocent either – look what they are doing to wolves in order to accomodate oilsands expansion – they are destroying boreal forest that supports caribou – caribou are dying, so wolves are being blamed. Aerial shooting and poisoning of wolves is rampant right now in northern alberta. And in BC – around Kamploops where wolves including nursing and pregnant wolves can be hunted all year round. There is a mindset that is driving this species to extinction – all around the world. don’t know what we can all do about it. Sorry for my rant!

        • Melody Scamman says:

          Glad you exposed the Canadian side of this! You mentioned the Alberta Tar Sands. That is the ‘can of worms’ behind both governments looking the other way, giving away the keys to the kingdom to wolf killers. We all figured it was dirty politics, that’s a no-brainer. But beyond that, people stop at just blaming the politicians and don’t see the reason why this is being allowed to happen. Follow the oil money. Look at the maps of where they want to put Super Corrodors for Keystone XL and other pipelines for oil, gas, fresh water, electricity and they want a 12 lane highway from Canada into Mexico! Remember NAFTA? Look up SPP and TPP. Look up the Sierra Club maps of the proposed Enbridge pipelines. That info is on Wikipedia and a website Exposing TPP. I can’t get to the links right now, sorry, tablet is malfunctioning. I got Exposing TPP from Public Citizen. Wolves lives for Oil was another post from Sierra Club.

      • AG says:

        “Wolves only kill the sick injured or weak.”

        No. Actually, just change the “only” for “often” and it will start to make sense. Its been a couple of time i see this on the internet and i think it makes pro-wolf people a bit foolish.

        Its better having a comment or opinion with facts and things that are true (and maybe as well, puting references) than just put some random facts that pretty much looks like the right side hyperbole.

        • julie long gallegos says:

          OK – let’s just say “often” and then keep in mind that wolves don’t have a choice – they are doing their natural job. But humans always have a choice. In fact, you could say that making choices is the humans’ “job”. And choosing to eradicate a species in the most sadistic ways possible, is a bad choice. And that, to me, is the elephant in the room, just as much as tar sands/fracking territory/grazing land is.

          • Melody Scamman says:

            Julie, many good points being made here. I just wanted to point out that it is nearly always about money/power in the end.
            I have heard so much about this but wolves keep dying. Rumor mill is in high gear. Ken is right. But kids remember, don’t play in the woods alone!

    • ramses09 says:

      In a nutshell – – YES

  15. Amy says:

    Ill never spend a dime in Idaho as long as they continue this spree of murder. The same goes for all wolf massacre states. Boycott them all-

  16. deborah green says:

    I imagine the “killer” out in the wilderness is using any means, legal or illegal, he cares to use to just kill up wolves so people have about a couple more elk to kill for their pleasure of ending their lives as well. Typical “ignorant” reasoning because no logical reasoning is “wanted”. As far as elk, the MORE wolves, the MORE elk there are; kill all wolves and your elk will LEAVE. You destroy your own prey animals you want to kill, and you wolves you want to kill for fun..and your coyote you want to continue to use as live target practice, trap and sell for PENNING (U.S. politician legal felony dog fighting). But your hired killer(s); I imagine this is what they are doing with dogs rather than trapping them or even doing kill shooting. LEGAL IN GA, AL, etc. Setting packs of dogs on WILDLIFE to rip it to pieces…Same as penning; same as FELONY DOG FIGHTING. U.S. politicians make these deviate activities LEGAL.

  17. Carter Niemeyer says:

    Wolves are not that easy to trap and I am puzzled by this person’s success is such a few days. Makes no sense to me that he trapped that many wolves in such a short time unless he was using snares.

    • jon says:

      This trapper arrived there in early December, so he has had a month in trying to kill wolves. My main question why wasn’t this lawsuit filed earlier? I’m just curious.

    • Jeff says:

      Loved your book! Very informative. Thanks

    • Wolves are not as hard to locate and approach as Idaho hunters and the IDFG would have you believe.
      I noticed in the photo of IDFG Trapper Gus Thoreson that he has two dogs with him. If he uses his dogs to attract the wolves and sets snares, he might have better than average success in snaring the wolves. The dogs would also hear the wolves howling at a much greater distance than a man could hear them, which would help him locate the wolves.
      My daughter and her husband once had a dog that would howl upon the command “howl”. He loved to howl with me and my grandson in her living room.
      If Thoreson has trained his dogs to howl, the wolves would answer any time they heard the dogs.
      I was camped in the Mammoth campground in Yellowstone and was serenaded one night by wolves, coyotes and the park employee’s dogs from the nearby housing area, all howling at the same time.
      I can imitate the howl of wolves well enough that I can get them to answer if they are within hearing range. I called a pack of seven wolves to within a hundred yards near Garden Valley, Idaho a few years ago. I did not get any great photos, but I could have killed most of them if I had been a wolf hunter armed with a rifle.
      Are these wolf packs radio collared?

      • Melody Scamman says:

        Maybe he was waiting for his dogs or a captive wolf to be in heat? That could throw the wolves off, maybe if they get her to pee in certain places? All hell used to break out until I got all the females spayed here ( somebody is gonna call me on that but it’s a $600 vet bill EACH so it took me a year and a half to do). The neighbors all have big, male dogs, it really was not a hard decision to make. The whole neighborhood howls now. The wolfies ( my name for wolfdogs), the coyotes and the neighborhood dogs. Sometimes the humans. That was a good observation that you made! I don’t know nor does anyone, I guess, for sure, what is going on in Idaho but I share the concern as to why this was done so fast with no legal intervention? Do they have some secret fast track order system where they can kill wolves before the order can be stopped by a judge? Who actually owns the wolves in the FCWA? You need some Constitutional Law experts to stop this. I do not know laws or give advice but I can say may be able to help answer a simple question of who exactly is being deprived of their ‘property’… no time to form new charitable org. Use a friendly, fly under their wing. One with deep pockets. Hopefully, someone will have an ah-ha moment and figure out how do this fast enough!

  18. Anita Chittenden says:

    Terribly sad that the help to stop the killing of these beautiful Wolves did not come soon enough…Designated Wilderness Areas where native wildlife should be able to live in peace and without the destruction of human interference…Wolves in this Wilderness doing nothing..just trying to survive…This is appalling that Idaho could not see fit to just leave these Wolves alone…I hope there can be an immediate stop for anymore Wolves being trapped and tortured by this hired barbarian trapper..which is also being able to stay in a USFS backcountry cabin which is on public lands owned by each one of us…I hope he gets escorted out of this beautiful Wilderness…as he has no appreciation and does not truly know the true meaning of what the Wilderness Act of 1964 stands for…The IDFG are not capable of managing Wolves…What they did is not was a slaughter of Wolves that were doing nothing! How long did he leave the 6 Wolves to suffer in the traps? What else did he trap while being out there?

    This is what is written about the Frank Church river of no return wilderness


    Because of its size the wilderness area provides a secluded habitat for a wide variety of mammal species, including some rare, vulnerable species. The wilderness is inhabited by a large population of mountain lions and gray wolves. Populations of black bears, as well as: lynx, coyote, and red fox are scattered throughout the area. Other observable ruminant wildlife within the wilderness include: bighorn sheep, mountain goats, elk, moose, mule deer, and white tail deer. While this area has been deemed as one of the few remaining areas in the contiguous states with suitable habitat for grizzly bears, no established populations are known to exist. The wilderness also offers some of the most critical habitat for wolverines in the lower 48 states

  19. Barb Rupers says:

    I have read Ralph’s reports for 20 years; it started with being elated because of the upcoming reintroduction of wolves into the heart of the Frank Church Wilderness; the details of the individual wolves released, then following the progress of the packs expanding into other national forest lands and minimal impacts on ranchers; to the current situation about the lack of protection and the violation of wilderness by the killing of 7 wolves by January 2, 2014 in that same wilderness.


  20. Christine Oliver says:

    This news makes me heart-sick.

    Do we know how many wolves are believed to be (have been) in the two packs combined?

  21. mandy says:

    Secy Jewell has the final decision on whether wolves are re-listed and federally protected under the ESA, so I’d say she does have something to do with wolves in every single state. We are all awaiting it, any day now, and trying to remain optimistic.

  22. mandy says:

    Thank you, Randy Grams, for your eloquence and passion… It’s not too long.

    That’s awful to hear about Alaska wolves.

  23. mandy says:

    Mr. Gus Thoreson is from Salmon, ID. Shocking. I wonder if the family fun wolf and coyote slaughter was his idea. How depraved.

  24. mandy says:

    Young Gus sure likes to kill bobcats.

    I’m going to take this opportunity to let everybody know that there will be a wolf rally held at Yellowstone Natl Park at the Roosevelt Arch entrance in Gardiner, MT, on June 28-29. I’m calling it Wolfstock, and it’s a family-friend event to raise awareness and educate and organize for wolf protection.

    The event page is “Speak for Wolves – Yellowstone 2014,” and it would be great to get as many of us there and organized to be more effective. Put it on you calendar.

    PS: Hi, Carter! Glad to see you here, would love to see you there. I hope you’re right that wolves aren’t that easy to trap.

  25. mandy says:

    Before I go to bed, I want to say I’m so glad we all have an opportunity to share our comments here because it’s a useful outlet, emotionally, and we can learn from each other. I appreciate it. Thanks to everyone who works to protect the very Symbol of the West. <3

  26. Kirk Robinson says:

    I cannot seriously believe that the recent spate of cases in which the USFS has acceded to the demands of state fish and game agencies in UT and ID, to introduce exotic species or kill imperiled ones, on federal public land, does not have at least the tacit approval of the President of the U.S. Which leads me to wonder what can be wrong with a person who is willing to sacrifice wild lives, maybe entire species, for no reason at all? It’s a thought that troubles me greatly. He gets no political favors at all in return from the likes of Butch Otter, Gary Herbert, Orrin Hatch, Mike Crapo and company. Not that it would be okay if it were otherwise, but at least then you could understand why this is allowed to happen. Maybe one of you can enlighten me on this.

    • Louise Kane says:

      whats as troubling to me is what is Jewell thinking as she takes office and proceeds to move forward with a national delisting plan seeing how the states are managing wolves. Something is rotten in Denmark

      This news made me very sad. Thank you Ralph and others for the lawsuit. Those bastards

    • IDhiker says:


      I understand what you are saying. Why kiss up to people that will never support you, or compromise in your direction.

      This behavior seems to be a common problem with Obama. I also think he just isn’t interested in wildlife issues.

    • Steve says:

      I’m afraid our Obama has no real connection to nature. He is a one-percenter, corporate statist. Once in a great while his administration will push an enviro-enlightened policy – like the EPA monitoring greenhouse gas emissions – but those are few and far between. Observe the BP Gulf spill and how the feds enforced BP’s no-fly zone over Deepwater horizon (banning journalists) and how the White House initially confirmed a low, LOW rate of five thousand barrels a day for the Gulf spill, when it was actually ten times that, calculated by scientists watching the underwater footage. Used to be the Dems stood for the environment, like when Frank Church pushed to create the River of No return Wilderness in the early eighties, which a trapper currently invaded with acquiescence of the Forest Service.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        And as if the budget rider wasn’t bad enough, to propose delisting in the entire lower 48, after seeing how badly the delisting is being abused by the states! I really can’t believe it. It’s all about votes and power for either side, nothing else.

  27. Ida Lupine says:

    All killed by possibly somebody’s relative or drinking buddy in Salmon, ID, who can just walk right in to a protected wilderness and do this. I would think that Sally Jewell could take action and either stop the proposed delisting in the lower 48, or relist them due to votes of ‘no confidence’ by the American people in the state’s management.

  28. Zoe Berger says:

    As an American living in Canada I am appalled by what is going on in both countries regarding wolves. That horrible killfest in Salmon was extremely upsetting and really made me think that the people involved needed to be educated. This nonsense in Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness – what a name in this context! – however is of a completely different ilk. They are killing one species presumably so that they can kill another species? Do I have this right?? Isn’t a wilderness supposed to be a place where wild creatures can live without the threat of human intervention? Yes it is sickening and upsetting and all that and it’s good to have a place here to vent but there must be some way to stop this murder! Please somebody suggest.

    • Steve says:

      It is truly sickening. Wilderness is a sacred legacy, but most Americans are completely ignorant or complacent of the implications of bad wilderness “management” in their own country.

  29. Jerry Black says:

    Couple of interesting fb pages dealing with this:

    The ‘hired gun” appears to be an IDFG “biologist” according to his facebook page

    • Nancy says:

      SaveWesternWildlife? How horribly misleading is this site Jerry? Save wildlife, because a minority of humans want to have the opportunity to shoot & trap them, for fun and profit?

  30. Ida Lupine says:

    Is there really a guy there doing this? My first thought was that it was a hoax, but maybe it is just denial on my part, that something so horrible could be allowed to go on in the 21st century.

  31. Richie G. says:

    Let me ask is this really about hunting elk, or are the people who live their just afraid to walk in a forest with wolves, sounds silly but is their some truth to this. Do they get to choose what kind of wildlife live their, and in his facebook page he holding a dead bobcat or some animal like that and he is has his arms around his dog, so what does this say about the man. Can’t help but read into his pictures, it tells me he wants to choose what animal lives and dies where he lives. I would appreciate any comments on this sb , or others IDA, anybody ?

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Yes, I think you are right. I also think it is about deciding who lives and dies where they live – they want power and control of the land. No gov’t, no wildlife that they can’t use, no national parks, no nuthin’. No nothing, eventually is what will happen as well.

    • Yvette says:

      There is a good research paper from 1989, titled, “American Attitudes Towards Wolves: A History of Misperception”,Valerie M. Fogleman. Journal: Environmental Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, Spring 1989

      It’s in the JSTOR database, and I believe you can set up a free account where you can put up to 3 articles ‘on the shelf’. I sat up the free account, but I’m a student so I was able to get the library to obtain a .pdf digital version for me.

      This article is interesting and covers some history of the human/wolf relationship from the earliest European immigrants to this continent. It discussed that ‘fear of the wildness’, and need to ‘manage and control nature’.

      It’s definitely worth reading for those that want to try and understand how ingrained and where the fear and loathing of wolves (and other predators) is in our society.

      I’d put the pdf in my wordpress blog, but I didn’t see how to do that. I can email the .pdf for anyone that wants to read it.

    • julie long gallegos says:

      Maybe this mentality is the origin of the phrase “your own private Idaho”?

  32. Richie G. says:

    Ida this may sound silly but are they afraid to walk among the wolves or any predator animal ? Sounds silly to me because they live in the area, also in their a bigger picture that they want hunters from other states to feel welcome that they can hunt with no wolves as predators behind their backs. So they can hunt without fear that a wolf is behind them ?

    • Ida Lupine says:

      They shouldn’t be afraid, because they have the advantage, many times over. If it were just hunting, that would be one thing. But they want guaranteed success; so much so that some outfitters were caught maiming animals to ensure that their clients would get one. This is the big difference in so-called hunting today – there’s no fair chase, a sense of entitlement, and greed behind it. Maybe 300 years ago it would be one thing, but today there are 7 billion+ people on the planet, and taking over habitat daily. The animals are not going to be able to survive.

      That’s why this going into the Frank Church is so disturbing. Besides it being the height of arrogance to think that we can ‘manage’ wildlife and account for all mortality of them, most of us would like to think that there are a few places left that are relatively undisturbed by humans and their endless needs.

  33. Richie G. says:

    P.S. Thanks IDA

  34. The IDFG will host a public hearing for comments on any subject at 7:00 P.M. next Wednesday, Jan. 15. It will be held at the Washington Group Headquarters(Former Morrison-Knudsen buildings) in Boise(Down the street from the IDFG headquarters.) The IDFG director’s secretary told me, when I called a few minutes ago, to come in at the entrance near the water fountain and follow the signs. To testify, you fill out a card upon entering the conference room and when your card is drawn, you will have 3 minutes to say something.

  35. Joanne Favazza says:

    I continually have to shake my head and wonder: How the hell is all of this happening under a Dem administration? If this administration hadn’t signed off on Tester’s backhanded delisting rider, these wolves and countless others would still be alive. I utterly loathe Obama and can’t stand the sight of him. Ditto for all of the Dems in Congress, too.

    • julie long gallegos says:

      Joanne – I completely commiserate in disappointment with Obama and his complete inattention to American wildlife. You say you loathe the Dems in Congress? They aren’t all rolling over for pro-hunt gun rights groups. Assuming you feel the same way about the NRA supported Republicans? Throwing Congressman Raul Grijalva (AZ) and the 80-odd members of Congress who signed his letter in with the contemptible bunch who didn’t sign is easy but not fair and they who signed need to be reminded and pushed in every way possible to keep pressure on.

  36. snaildarter says:

    This is a new low for the Forest Service. At least I’m glad to see Earth Justice is involved. The Sierra Club has been so focused on Global Climate Change they aren’t giving things like this enough attention and they need to be. When you have a President like Obama who probably has very little knowledge or interest in the outdoors he must be trained on what the important issues are; so when you limit your lobbying almost exclusively to Climate Change, things like this can happen. I know CC is a nightmare and they are expecting a million+ species to go extinct but both India and China are pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than the US so the chances of success are slim. Let’s not forget the issues and victories that brought conservation this far over the last 110 years. To be honest I naively thought taking wolves off of the ESA might not be so bad, obviously I underestimated the power of right wing talk radio to use wolves as an antigovernment tool and to stir up a totally irrational hatred for wolves.

  37. Strix O says:

    Any word yet on the expedited request for a Temporary Restraining Order?

  38. Jim D. says:

    I am a concerned hunter, i have spent time unarmed around our greatest predators in North America, i don’t believe fear is a factor at all, although i give Grizzlies the highest respect and distance possible. My hunting ethic is to never allow pursued species to suffer during harvest,including wolves, this takes a tremendous effort to accomplish. Until you have witnessed the carnage of wolves on healthy prey,i question your passion. The amount of misinformation in these comments is most appalling.

    • MIce says:

      Jim D. Your comments reveal your ignorance. This wolf killing assignment was born out of greed…and greed is the root of all evil.

    • Jake Jenson says:


    • Immer Treue says:

      Jim D,

      With respect.
      “My hunting ethic is to never allow pursued species to suffer during harvest,including wolves, this takes a tremendous effort to accomplish.”
      As it should be. No othical hunter should do otherwise.
      “Until you have witnessed the carnage of wolves on healthy prey,i question your passion.”
      This has been discussed many times on this blog site. Wolf kills can be rather messy, from the beginning to the end. The tools of you trade are rifle/bow and you can safely practice your ethic at a distance from your prey. The tools of the wolf are its teeth, and cannot make its kill from a safe distance. By the nature of its teeth, that it attacks prey much larger than itself, and said prey has an opportunity to defend itself (I’d make a healthy wager more wolves are killed by their prey than are human hunters)there is great struggle and resulting messs. I have tracked deer and moose pursued by wolves, and often wise, it ain’t pretty. And I agree with you that wolf advocates should see this first hand.

      Yet, wolves do what they must to survive. An ethical hunters ethics cannot be imposed upon wolves. Yet one must remember the lack of ethics that is all too often demonstrated by human hunters, which by the nature of supposed superior intellect, makes them more vicious and malicious than the actions of wolves struggling to survive using the only method they can to make their kill.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Well said, Immer. I can’t understand why hunters always come up with this line of reasoning, it’s nature. They are not human!!!! I’m not put off by seeing it because I know that is nature’s design. It’s no different than grizzlies or mountain lions, or human beings. I’m more disturbed by human behavior than wildlife. One need look no further than how we’ve treated our own kind in the past, or what goes on in a slaughterhouse.

        This gentleman may take care to not allow an animal to suffer, but for every one like him there are many others who do not care about that little detail, and others actually want the animal to suffer because of their own projections of myth and misinformation onto this poor creature. There’s a disconnect here that is disturbing and not based on reason and science. (We’ve talked about dognitive dissonance, now we can talk about projection.) Sorry for the typo, but I decided to leave it because it seems appropriate.

        • Melody Scamman says:

          Ida, I agree. Projection is a big problem with humans hunting wolves but mostly with those ones who trap a wolf then poke it’s eyes out with a coat hanger then set a pack of hounds loose on the helpless, terrorised animal. Oh there is just as big of a ‘mess’ there but most of it is inside the minds of the psychos who do horrible things because the can get away with them.
          BTW, the worse thing I have ever seen in person is family from SE Asia buy an old milk cow from a farmer and he let them butcher her in his driveway. They put a tarp on the driveway, led the dried up old cow over on it and slit her throat. There was blood everywhere! And little kids in diapers sitting in the blood, watching the cow die. The whole scene went on for hours and it was disgusting beyond belief, you will have to take my word for it as it is too graphic to write about. But way worse than any wolf kill. Humans are the animals. Wolves are just being wolves. Of course humans are different, most of us have empathy and ethics, but some are just wired wrong and a dangerous person. Others kill out of desparation. It’s all how you feel afterward, I think? If, in fact, you do feel anything.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Good God! I thought I had heard everything. A wolf kill looks downright humane compared to that first example. Nothing beats trapping for sheer human depravity if you ask me. And to think this is considered a human right. Blech!!!

            • Melody Scamman says:

              Ida, they were the worst… wolf hounders in Wisconsin. Nothing is lower or sicker than their hounders. It isn’t hunting, it’s rigged dog-fighting. It was reposted by Wisconsin Wildlife Ethic about a month or so ago. Nobody noticed those coat hangers or sharp sticks until I said something. I don’t think people can bear to look anymore? I did not mean to hurt your feelings, I am sorry. But we need to expose these sicko’s actions before Sec. Jewell makes a decision on delisting. Wish I had a hard drive, I would archive all this stuff! Everyone says prove this or that and all I can do is makes a few notes or try to remember where and when I saw what. It’s very frustrating for me and for everyone!

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Not to worry (on either count). You didn’t hurt my feelings, and the pics haven’t gone away. I’m sure some enterprising soul has kept them. 😉

                • Melody Scamman says:

                  I can’t open the picture on my tablet, Ida, but if the wolves are both stuck in the eyeballs, those are the people that are sick enough to dream up blinding wolves for the amusement of their beer buddies. Look closely, the wolves are bloody. That would be the dogs and that would be a violation.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Look closely, the wolves are bloody.

                Yes, I saw that. So in order to keep the wolves from ripping into their dogs, they tried to blind them.

                This is the DNR’s idea of ‘hound season running smoothly’, and these lowlifes have no fear of repercussions and have no shame. I wish they had sent that lobotomized-expressioned governor of theirs walking when they had the chance to recall him. And Casperson is creepy looking too.

              • Melody Scamman says:

                Thank you, Ida, again and again! These guys don,t want to believe what I say, it is safer to think the woods are full of idealistic, honest people enjoying the great outdoors and subsistance hunters feeding their families, and the woods are, but psychopaths also troll the woods for their victims. Mostly coyotes and wolves take the brunt of the abuse, as I have described. I really appreciate you finding those photos. Wisconsin Wildlife Ethic archives any vile abuse they can find for the same reason… people don’t believe it unless they see the graphics. They have some sicko’s hounding coyotes, getting off on their mangy hounds tearing a female coyote apart as she tries bravely to escape, then the sickos stab her so they can get off more on the blood.
                They let her bleed out slow while the hounds continued to attack her. It was so disturbing that the webmaster put a Warning notice on it, yet the two hounders that posted it were proud of ‘their work’. We could run that by Christine but I do not have a problem saying they show many signs of psychopathy. All these sickos share one trait… that proud, twisted grin when showing off their ‘work’. Two psychopaths are much more dangerous than one when they like to top each other. Things can escalate to human victims because animals are not enough anymore. The way the guys in the video were more excited that it was a female coyote, makes me very concerned for the young women of the area where these hounders live. People need to see this nasty video and the photos you found. For two good reasons. 1) They may know the men doing this and should report them to the local authorities. If it is really disturbing, they should probably forward it to the FBI just in case they have open cases nearby but over county or state lines. These creeps figured out if they do their thing in a different state or county, they are less likely to get caught. The wildlife biologists are probably wondering why I posted this conversation, I think it is to their advantage to learn, if they don’t know, or believe, that these people are in the woods, too, maybe stalking them to get to a wolf the easy way? The second reason I posted this is political. Forward these photos to your politicians. The photo speaks 1000 words, all you have to add is ‘ This is why delisting wolves from the ESA needs to be stopped!’
                I think Wolfwatchers also archives this type material? It doesn’t matter if it happened in your State or not to fight delisting.
                I agree with you about those politicians in Wisconsin have got to go and so does their wildlife regulatory board.

              • Jay says:

                Those are zip-ties that they used to attach their hunting tags, not coat hangers poked in their eyes.
                For Christ sake, look before leaping.

              • Immer Treue says:


                Thanks for pointing that out to her. Looking at the picture, you can even see a tag. The big question is how in the heck did she come up with the idea of poking their eyes out? Wooooooooooosh!

              • Jay says:

                Good question–I don’t think melody really thinks things through before blurting her thoughts out.

            • Melody Scamman says:

              Ida, I consulted with my husband re: how wolves are tagged. He said mostly in the ear or the foot. I said ‘Have you ever heard them tagged through the eyeball? He said ‘what?’ So I told him that I saw wolves that had been hounded with what looked like wires in their eyes. So his reply was in his 63 years in the woods, he has never, ever seen an animal tagged through the eyeballs! ‘It’s bulls**t!’. He got very angry and said something about how some people ruin it for law abiding subsistance hunters. His own mother used to shoot one deer a year she needed to feed five kids. But after she shot it, she would cry for days! And another reason to question the tagging story… wouldn’t they only tag one eye? There were wires in both eyes. I have to agree with my husband.

          • Elk375 says:


            ++ Projection is a big problem with humans hunting wolves but mostly with those ones who trap a wolf then poke it’s eyes out with a coat hanger then set a pack of hounds loose on the helpless, terrorized animal. ++

            Do you have evidence that the above has happened. I doubt it.

            The cow thing: If the cows throat was slit it will in quickly not prolonged over hours. It took several hours to brake up the cow and there will be blood.

            Years ago my brother had five bum lambs and in the fall they were butchered. The butcher come out and each lambs throat was slit and hung up, pelted and gutted. I was not there, it was no big deal. We enjoyed excellent leg of lamb, lamb shanks and lamb chops for a long time.

            • topher says:

              I worked locally as a butcher and meat cutter for a few years and it was very rare to see an animal live more than a second or two after the shot. Usually the legs fold up and they are dead before they hit the ground. There was very little suffering if any at all. Now before everyone freaks out I would like to say that it was a mobile unit and in no way resembled a commercial killing floor. The animals all lived happily in the pasture until the day we arrived.

              • Melody Scamman says:

                Topher, the did not own a gun, just a machetti, and they didn’t have a clue. But I am sure they all got really sick. Read the first post, there is a clue in it about why I am so sure they all got sick! That won’t bring our innocence back or the cow but just sayin’ people can be way, way worse than wolves though wolves do make a mess. And me or my husband would not eat at any exotic SE Asian places even if it was free! That must have been close to 20 years ago and we can’t even stand to think of it.

            • Melody Scamman says:

              The wolves that were hounded and had what my old eyes believe to be coat hangers in their eyes was on the Wisconsin site, posted by the grinning psychos with their dead wolves and reposted by the Wisconsin Wildlife wolf site. I don’t have a hard drive, just a tablet, can’t save or print. Sorry. But somebody send Elk the photo, it is no big secret!
              As for the cow, the farmer freaked out so my husband and I kept him company so he could calm down, he was real old and we thought he might have a stroke. We were up in the barn looking down on it. The people who butchered the cow had zero idea what to do or how do do it. Everything that could go wrong, did. My husband can verify that, and he grew up in a big farming family with a dairy business. He knows his cows. Like I said to Ida, I am not going to go into details on this public blog, it was too gross, too cruel, anything else is just too graphic. It takes a lot to freak out and old NH cow farmer, and nobody knew how to to stop it once it started. Now a days a few cell phone calls with photos and somebody can figure out what happened and what to do fast. The world is changing fast.

      • Montana Boy says:

        Do you think we could impose the ethics of how a lion or even a grizzly kills to wolves? They both use the same tools yet the wolf chases a prey for long distance then seems more interested in the eating than killing. Its simply what happens when you have a gang of predators instead a single predator. Or do you think one animal with claws trumps several with out? Like you said more people need to see the results of predator kills. Then compare prey kills between other four legged predators.

        • Jeff N. says:


          I’m not going to answer for Immer but what do you mean by “impose the ethics” of a lion or grizz in regard to making a kill? Are you maintaining that mountain lions and grizz have the intelligence to understand and hunt with a standard of ethics, and wolves don’t?


          moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior.
          “Judeo-Christian ethics”
          synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience More
          the moral correctness of specified conduct.
          “the ethics of euthanasia”
          the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

          • Montana Boy says:

            You tell me. All I know is a lion or bear stalks, short chase then kill or escape. You ever seen a predator attack where the animal is being eaten while it struggles to escape. All the while walking on it’s own guts. The blood trail shows where each time the animal is pulled down then struggles up again and again. I see a lot of predator kills in a year. Even a lowly coyotes makes a faster kill than wolves.

            • Rita k Sharpe says:

              RB, Do you just say this stuff just get someone’s gander? I guess, the wolf, is just a bad animal in your eyes, for it doesn’t kill as fast , neat, and clean, as you would like it to be .As for me, it’s just part of Nature , and it can be beautiful but it certainly has it’s moments of brutality . Some hunters,at times, do not make a quick kill, but most will give all effort in locating the wounded deer but then there are a few that just would rather wait for the next one to show up.

              • Montana Boy says:

                No need to make this stuff up. I’m the one comparing animals to animals while most here like to compare humans to animals. The wolf is just another animal yet why do some here hold the wolf in such high regard over other animals. The wolf has no more or no less value than any other animal. Some here need to understand more about wolves other than how they look.
                I’m just here to learn some and make some others think just a little even if I have to get a gander or two.

              • Jay says:

                Are humans mammals, mb?

              • Jay says:

                Maybe the question I should have asked is, not being animals, which of the other 4 kingdoms of life do humans fall under: plant, Protista, monera, or fungi?

              • jon says:

                MB, maybe because animals like the wolf and coyote are some of the most persecuted animals on the planet. A lot of you hunters hate the wolf just because it eats elk and deer, yet you have no problem with other hunters that kill elk and deer.

            • Ralph Maughan says:

              I have to comment on Montana Boy’s apparent horror of wolf attacks on their prey. Some of the most exciting outdoor experiences I have had is watching elk and wolves battle it out. Usually the elk win. Those few wolves that live more than 4 or 5 years are not common, even where they are not hunted. Wolves found dead of natural conditions almost always show many broken bones that have healed, more or less. Watching them, my heart races and I imagine myself as both the elk and the wolf. I cheer for both and for neither.

              People view the outdoors differently, but I don’t judge every viewpoint as having the same quality. I say to Mountain Boy, “man up.”

              • Montana Boy says:

                I have no problem with how nature works. It’s just interesting how defensive you all get when someone points it out. Are my comments a lie? No, yet everyone gets defensive, so why is that Ralph? If that’s nature way why the anger or attacks? Again attack the content not who is making the comment.
                Remember I’m the insensitive one.
                Then there’s always censorship.

              • Jay says:

                Who sounds defensive here? Myself, I think your “point” is rather silly. Who cares whether coyotes are better killers than wolves? Is it a contest? It’s almost along the lines of “who would win in a fight between a grizzly bear and a tiger”. If it bothers you how wolves kill, take it up with evolution.

              • JB says:

                Wow. Could not help but get involved on this one.

                MB: You suggested that we might “impose the ethics of how a lion or even a grizzly kills to wolves”. You then go on to talk about how elk/deer suffer more when killed by a wolf. The clear implication is that, in your view, wolves are less ‘ethical’ than lions.

                Then you defend these comments with the following: “Are my comments a lie? No, yet everyone gets defensive, so why is that Ralph?”

                Why do people get defensive? Because you’ve imposed human moral standards on animals incapable of moral reasoning and implied less value based upon the way an animal kills. These animals don’t have a choice; they kill to survive, and they are given different tools. Lions are solitary ambush predators; it is/was adaptive for them to kill quickly. Wolves are coursing predators–they could not earn a living the way lions do.

                In our society, people can choose what they eat (and some do choose not to eat animals). People can also choose how they kill, and unlike predators, we are aware that these methods have consequences for the animals we hunt.

                Besides all of this, I would argue that it isn’t healthy for people to kill an animal in such a way as to prolong its suffering–so choosing to kill quickly is not only good for the animal being killed, it is good for the one doing the killing.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Watching them, my heart races and I imagine myself as both the elk and the wolf. I cheer for both and for neither.

                Beautifully said, Ralph. This is Nature.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Allow me to add to what I alluded to last night. For those so appalled at what a wolf does to its prey…

                That elk or deer admired by so many would not be what it is if not for the selective pressures of perhaps 100’s of thousands of years of predation. And I would submit, that the speed and endurance of elk and deer is largely the product of wolf predation. One must look at the entire picture. Natural selection is all about food, survival, and reproduction. Take the selective pressures of wolves out of the equation, I’d hazard a guess that elk would not be as impressive as they are now. There would be no advantage.

                But then again, one must understand these processes, and as man further removes himself from that comprehension, we continue to slide into a life out of balance, or Koyaanisqatsi.

              • Melody Scamman says:

                Yup, you nailed it, Ralph!
                I would just like to add that as you said, it was before they were hunted. Now, I have heard from trophy hunters they go for the Alphas. So do the hunter/trapper guy’s, they proudly told me they kill the Alphas to put the pack into a state of confusion, then pick the rest off if they can. So there is no wise, old teachers left. No one to teach the yearlings, of course they screw up!

              • Montana boy have a seat better yet you’ll need to either stand or sit on the floor because the chair is for Ralph. And, watch your step…don’t kick the steel bowl of guts including the dressed rabbit. Selective hearing, thinking? Here’s a pencil with paper and a mirror to see a refection of yourself. Underline, highlight; in vain glory.

            • Jeff N. says:


              “The wolf has no more or no less value than any other animal.”

              Interesting comment. Do you want to elaborate? Seems to me that comment may undermine your viewpoint.

              Also, I think a discussion with you and many others in regard to how the wolf hunts and kills is a dead end. You seem to assign a different standard to how a wolf kills as opposed to a cougar, as if the cougar has killing “ethic” (your word) that is more suitable to you. The fact that you cannot/will not accept that these animals have evolved over thousands of years in their behavior renders an argument with you pointless. Your coyote example amplifies this.

              Would you be more tolerant of the wolf if it changed its behavior to suit your standards and went for the throat or struck down with its paw and broke its quarry’s back? Is the wolf, in a conscience sense, just being evil and sadistic in regard to how it hunts and kills? Does the same apply to the python who strangles it’s prey? You tell me.

            • Rita k Sharpe says:

              The bear has it’s strength, the puma has it’s stealth and the wolf has his pack. Good night all.

            • jon says:

              I don’t understand why you hunters continue to demonize certain wild animals for the way they kill. Wolves have to used their canines in order to kill. It’s not pretty, but as others have said, it’s nature. If wolves were able to use guns to kill elk, I bet they would. Stop acting like you hunters are more humane than wolves in regards to killing prey animals.

              • Zach says:

                It is sad that hunters will condemn wolves for “sport kills”, yet most hunters I know have no problems going out into the desert/woods and doing the same thing by using various rodents and birds for target practice. Most people just don’t like getting called on their bullshit.

        • Jay says:

          Ever see a deer with its jaw blown off and unable to eat for days, or a leg shot off, or gut shot and in agony for hours or even days? Or a deer laying in a ditch with a broken back from being hit by a car, unable to do anything but struggle in futility? I have.

          • Montana Boy says:

            How about humans with the same?
            What would be your point?

            • Jay says:

              You don’t get the point?

            • MIce says:

              Montana Boy, what exactly is YOUR point? Are you really concerned with how those deer and elk are killed by wolves… (I don’t think so) or just using this fact to sensationalize your story? I think you are trying to imply that wolves actually enjoy these prolonged death scenes, am I right? What you are doing is anthropomorphizing, look it up. Wolves probably aren’t the best “killers” in the predator world so when they wound prey and back off its called strategy and this my friend is done to avoid injury. I could continue to spell it out but maybe you should do some research yourself…educate yourself!

        • Immer Treue says:


          When I course through who has posted on TWN, you’re one of the folks I automatically read. We don’t see eye to eye on all things posted here, but I respect what you have to say. Then I read this. Wwwooooosh. This doesn’t sound like you, but reads as if you got coached by one of the infamous daffodils.

          When I responded to Jim D, it was respectfully. I could have responded with the sarcasm I’m prone to use, and said something like hunt with your mouth and see how clean things remain, but I didn’t. I explained my point, and tied it in with his comment about ethics. And I concluded with, by reading between the lines, that if ethics and hunting are so important, perhaps the time has come to stop worrying about wolves and begin worrying about those who increasingly gives the hunting community a black eye.

          If not for the tenacious pursuit of the wolf…

          “The caribou feeds the wolf, but it is the wolf who keeps the caribou strong.” – Eskimo proverb

          Another one out there about the wolf that keeps the deer swift.

          If you buy into the evolutionary scheme of things, if we didn’t have wolves, we wouldn’t have elk and deer, we’d have, well, cows.

          • Montana Boy says:

            I get tired of human hunters being compared to the wolf, why not compare the wolf to other predators instead. Even then a pack of wolves are poor killers. Problem is we can’t compare how humans, wolves bears or lions each kill. Neither can we compare how we manage them. You have to admit the lack knowledge in comments here is appalling.
            The wolf is held in high regard here by people who have no idea, and more people should see what you, Jim and I have seen.
            As you know I have no problem with wolves and I have no problem with hunting and trapping wolves. I do have problem with the wolves only do good thought, or the need to excuse them some how. They do what they do we all need to call it like it is more often instead of making excuses.

            • Jay says:

              So its a safe assumption that after you’re done chastising folks on this blog for putting wolves up on a pedestal that you’ll immediately be jumping over to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation forum to point out their foolishness in their idolatry of the Exalted Elk?

            • Jeff N. says:


              “Problem is we can’t compare how humans, wolves bears or lions each kill.”

              You contradict yourself, read you comments.

              I’ve witnessed the now long gone Slough Creek pack take down a pregnant female bison in the Lamar valley. It was a 90 minute endeavor (probably pretty quick from what I’ve read about wolves taking down bison) and it was not pretty. How did I know the cow bison was pregnant? I’m sure you can figure out the answer. Did I feel bad for the bison? Hell yes. To me it was agonizing watching the scene unfold.

              But it was fascinating and totally raw. It was freezing cold that morning but for 90 plus minutes I could have been standing out there in my underpants and not felt a thing.

              To your point, I get tired of people like you applying perceived “acceptable” hunting methods to wolves. You say we “can’t compare” but in your previous post(s) you draw comparisons. And round and round we go.

            • Immer Treue says:


              You get tired of human hunters being compared to wolves. My original comment to Jim D was in regard to his supposed ethic compared to wolves.

              “…My hunting ethic is to never allow pursued species to suffer during harvest,including wolves, this takes a tremendous effort to accomplish. Until you have witnessed the carnage of wolves on healthy prey,i question your passion….”

              Credit where credit is do, complain to him.

              • Montana Boy says:

                Looks like my comments last night were more than a bit unclear, live and learn. Good to see the old gang all fired up and on the fight. Until I have more time, keep your powder dry so to speak.

            • Nancy says:

              “They do what they do we all need to call it like it is more often instead of making excuses”

              Sit and watch this MB/RB and then get back to some of us here about making excuses:

            • cobackcountry says:

              Why not compare wolves to other predators? Why do we need to? While the method may be different, the end result is the same. You said yourself in an earlier post that wolves seem to be more interested in eating than killing. (Ugh, eek, sigh, gasp- bounties of ranchers and hunters every where surely would protest such a statement). So, why then do we need to compare what wolves do to what bears or coyotes do? The facts are, they eat. How they eat is no more consequential than if you use a fork or chop sticks.

          • Jeff N. says:

            “What but the wolf’s teeth whittled so fine the fleet limbs of the antelope?”

    • JB says:

      Ethical and compassionate hunters should attempt to dispatch animals as quickly as possible–not just for the animal’s good, but for the good of the hunter. And as Immer stated, humans hunters have the tools to do this. Wolves–like any other carnivore–have only the equipment that nature gave them.

      P.S. Agree with you though about misinformed comments.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        P.S. Agree with you though about misinformed comments.

        You mean like the one about the 200 lb. wolf who tried to cross the Canadian border and wasn’t stopped at US passport control? *eyeroll*

        • For what ever reason? Canadian border agent would see an eye for an eye with a U.S. Customs agent. But rather instead the U.S agent replied; keep the Canadian passport, it’s a two-bit souvenir and as for the ending of story “was in seventh heaven in the wolf’s new home”

    • Yvette says:

      There is something about this post that resonated with me. I will assume that you make a fast kill when you hunt, so that your prey doesn’t suffer. For that, thank you. For me, I won’t use the word ‘harvest’ when referencing the killing of a life. We harvest crops. With hunting it is a kill—whether it is the wolf on an elk, a lion on a gazelle, or a human’s bow, bullet or trap that strikes his prey.

      A wolf is just a wolf. They can’t pick up a gun or a bow and make a quick kill to reduce the ‘carnage’. Wolves have evolved their hunting techniques to survive and be fit as a species. Humans, on the other hand, have a choice. Personally, I see no justification to hunt for any reason other than subsistence. In my sister’s home we ate elk. My brother-in-law would kill one per year. It was a financial necessity. It wasn’t a sport, and it certainly wasn’t a trophy. He didn’t need to hire an outfitter or pay a guide. He didn’t use a tree stand. He didn’t need a truck bed loaded to the hilt with hunting gear or, pull a trailer with a 4-wheeler loaded with even more hunting gear. He simply went out in the fall and killed an elk. That was the primary source of meat for my sister’s family for the next year. That is subsistence hunting, and in my opinion, the only justifiable reason to hunt. Unfortunately, for those of us that have seen the anti-wolf, anti-coyote, anti-predator facebook pages and websites what we’ve witnessed is carnage. It is carnage perpetrated on other species for no reason other than for enjoyment. Humans have a choice to not participate in torture by trap, or hounding by dogs to prolong the suffering of the victim. A wolf just needs to eat, and they can only use skills they evolved for their species to survive. That is not carnage.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Well said. I think subsistence hunting is the only morally acceptable form of hunting, just as other animals do to survive.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          And I noticed in your example only one elk was taken per year. I don’t understand our current obsession with elk numbers, it’s simply greed.

          • rork says:

            Cause two elk is more than one needs for most families. (I want 3 whitetails/year, which is lots, and that’s less than an elk.) “Elk numbers” is about how many are available, if lots, more families could have one. Sheesh.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              Sheesh yourself – the problem is the constant fear of there not being enough for humans, which is bogus. It isn’t about familes, it’s about outfitters, such as what we’re seeing in the Frank Church. It’s pure greed. Elk are not whitetails deer, incidentally.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                By that I mean that the whitetail deer are overpopulated because their natural predators have been removed from the landscape. I don’t believe coyotes can do it alone.

      • rork says:

        Yvette: You irked me with the tree-stand part – shot your foot clean off there. So I may as well make two other points:
        I’m not fond of harvest either, but it is shorter than “shot and recovered” (usual phrase among my friends) or “killed and recovered” – killed doesn’t imply recovered. I think “bagged” is the old word to imply you actually got the meat too. You may want to read Leopold’s “Game Management” too: the idea is that grouse and deer are largely a crop obtained by human management in many places, so we shouldn’t think of them as gifts anymore. Considering them just gifts leads to bad things: I could explain at length, but a big part is lack of incentive for land holders to be good stewards, and folks instead thinking of it as wanting “get my share” of the free lunch. It’s not a free lunch.
        The other thing is about subsistence hunting. I can’t argue that’s what I do, cause gain is perhaps close to equal to cost of hunting and travel. For many others the gain is obviously less than costs incurred. If we relied only on true subsistence hunting where I live (MI), the land would be utterly destroyed by deer. So I flag your attitude (and Ida’s) as utopian. Intentions don’t count, results do.

        • Yvette says:

          I’m not following why the tree stand part irked you. I’m in Oklahoma so it is mostly deer hunting here, and I’m constantly hear someone talk about their deer stand. We’ve had two hunters die this year from falls from their deer stands. Down here I see a lot of guys going down the highway with their trucks packed to the hilt, and it strikes me as silly.

          My brother-in-law hunted elk in MT on the Northern Cheyenne reservation. My nephew hunts elk where he lives in OR on the Umatilla reservation.Even now there isn’t much expense in the way and method in which they hunt.Not everyone has their options.

          I won’t ever grasp why people kill/hunt for sport or trophy. It may be utopian of me to think hunting should be reserved for subsistence or supplementing one’s diet, but it’s the way I’ve resolved my personal views on hunting. It will never happen so I am thankful for those hunters that do limit what they kill, and eat or provide meat to those who do need it. There are a lot of should haves that will never be, but it people hunted this way rather than for sport/trophy it’s likely there would be much less hysteria over wolves being responsible for declining elk populations, IMO.

        • Hunters who use tree stands usually use bait to attract what ever they are trying to kill. Here in Idaho, hunters attempting to kill black bears, are allowed to put a fifty gallon barrel full of old donuts or french fries under the tree the stand is in. Bears are shot while their heads are in the barrel eating the bait. How this is considered “fair chase”, I will never know.
          Deer hunters often bait the stand area with grain for some time before the season starts.
          They use trail cameras to make sure the deer are using the bait before a tree stand is set up. Fair chase??? I call it slob hunting.

          • Melody Scamman says:

            The really sneeky slob hunters just smush rotten apples into the tree bark opposite a good tree to sit in. Some just sit on the ground if they are old or too fat to climb a tree. They put some sage in the dryer and fluff it into their clothes to take away the human smell. I’m sure there are many more ways that they cheat.

          • rork says:

            “Hunters who use tree stands usually use bait”
            Citation please.
            I’d note that people using ground blinds can bait too. You seem to be claiming a baiting by elevation interaction – got evidence?
            Anyway, it’s not like the treestand is the problem.
            I and my companions use the trees, and we never bait – cause we use new trees, so baiting makes no sense (it’s counterproductive if you are good, better to leave no trace). Using the trees helps get deer very close, so we can make good shots (this is bow hunting).
            I don’t consider using cover scents to be cheating, not that I use them – smell like nothing is the better tactic, and is part of why being up high helps. We make deer vocalizations at times, and deer will then often approach from downwind, and “bust” you.

            • Melody Scamman says:

              Rork, those hunting over bait rules change depending on what state you are in. Don’t try it in Maine for one. You said you don’t. That’s good. Glad you don’t use those commercial scents or Bell’s Seasoning stuffed in all your pockets. It’s good you have friends if you should fall out of a tree. It happens more than most people might guess. So I have one question for you. Do you use the whole deer, like every bit of meat, nothing goes to waste?
              Oh and I knew you meant bow hunting. I passed hunter education the same year I got my tractor trailer licence, so that would be almost 30 years ago, next year it will be. I drive snow plows, the big ones. Not this year though, maybe time to hang up my hat? Too much pain. Be careful in those trees. Someday when you get old every darn thing you ever broke will come back to haunt you. You guy’s know I only shoot with a camera. It’s a valid choice. You still have to know what you are doing in the woods. I do not like slob hunters who poach, trespass w/o permission on my land and leave a trail of beer cans. I especially do not like to find tree stands and leg traps or conibear traps. It’s my land, I bought it and pay the taxes. We have a big backhoe, traps go in hole and get buried. I’m just a cranky old fart now, like wolves more than most people. I like trees, too, the deer ate my fruit trees but the wolfie pen is next to the trees, the smell of wolf pee keeps deer out of my trees.

        • MJ says:

          If we relied only on true subsistence hunting where I live (MI), the land would be utterly destroyed by deer. So I flag your attitude (and Ida’s) as utopian. Intentions don’t count, results do.

          We are in a world where the current momentum and large scale trophic cascade is guided by the previous extirpation of wolves and other carnivores. This is circular thinking.

          Our view of wildlife as one expendable source of consumptive pleasure after the other is not the “solution” to the damage done by our view of wildlife as one expendable source of consumptive pleasure after the other. The emotion that many are referring to is righteous indignation, I’m sorry but enough! Stop the insanity!..

          We can’t correct population imbalances overnight but we need to stop contributing to the problem, and allow our policy to catch up with our knowledge base. We need to use the non-violent means we have to resolve problems. We need to respect our wildlife and our world. We need to “grow up” and act like caretakers, not consumers with a credit card gone wild.

          • rork says:

            Some of us hope for a middle earth, where we can still occasionally kill and eat a real salmon, indulging our instincts, but have human influence hard to detect. Philosophy will not help with the deer overwhelm here and now though.

            • MJ says:

              We could use some more sense than making the problem worse. How much of what we are doing is to keep the hunting going for people who are sport hunting, kill the wolves who eat elk and deer, then kill the elk and deer.

              We need to stretch our minds a little and problem solve. Need to start somewhere.

            • Melody Scamman says:

              They don’t do that for long because they won’t have the ability to survive Winter.

      • Ann Frances says:

        Agree and thank you.

    • Kirk Robinson says:

      Will you please site at least one comment on this thread that supports your claim about appalling misinformation? No one has said that wolves don’t kill or that it doesn’t look messy. They do and it does. So what? What’s your point?

      I’ve seen wolf kills in Lamar Valley and fresh mountain lion kills not more than two miles from downtown Salt Lake City. Does that count as having first-hand knowledge of the carnage caused by large carnivores? Or is this something that only elk hunters are capable of discerning. With due respect to J.B., I think your remark is B.S.

      • Steve says:

        So true, what is the point of the quick kill argument,or who suffers more. The point is there are too few wolves and westerners want to wipe them out – all over again.

    • JEFF E says:

      I believe that all predators will start to eat there prey at the soonest possible moment whether or not said is still alive with the possible exception of some of the cats, and that is because ,I believe, they can’t afford to have dinner get up and run off.

      National Geographic ran a lead-in to one of its programs for a few years showing a coyote feeding on a still mobile bull elk and apparently had been at it for awhile. All a grizzly bear will do is get to a point where the prey is immobile, often just by standing on it, before they start to feed, even some human cultures will eat whatever as it is still alive.
      This is really a useless conversation and one that has come up countless times over the years.

      • JEFF E says:

        (In reply to Jim D) looks like the software is putting comments in the wrong places.

  39. Anita Chittenden says:

    I am wondering if the IDFG are going to add these 7 Wolves killed to the number of Wolves killed so far? Please correct me if I am wrong…according to the map..this area where this trapper is the Middle Fork of yesterday it was states that 12 Wolves were killed by guns and 2 by trappers…These deaths should be added to the Wolves killed so far in this horrible hunting season of Wolves.

  40. Steve says:

    Just discovered this site today. Great!! Makes me feel that I’m not alone in my love of nature and efforts to follow enviro-issues. Completely mystifies me how so many of my life-long friends just don’t get the imperative of defending the environment and wilderness from the profiteers. Thanks to all and later for sure.

  41. Richie G. says:

    Did you say 12 now killed and 2 more by traps Anita this is horrible and our man Tester is also in charge of a fast track new trade agreement with China and Vietnam and he will be the ambassador to China. Look what I am saying is Obama is afraid period, he is fast tracking this new free trade agreement and as for wolves and wildlife he is staying out of it. He does not have a family that was part of Washington, almost all other presidents did except for Carter and look what happened to him. Obama is afraid of a fight IMHO. Ralph and Ken and Earthjustice are alone, no backing from Washington or the great Testor. I really think if Hillary was in this would not have happened, because Bill was for wildlife and the environment. We need leaders who stand up for wildlife and the outdoors to fight for wolves and all other predators.

    • Ann Frances says:

      I think Obama does not want to tread on feet of gun lobby, NRA, or hunters.

    • Anita Chittenden says:

      Richie…The 12 and 2 are stated on this site here..posted the link below..hope it shows up..and I am assuming those numbers are not part of the 7 Wolves this hired trapper has already killed..which 6 were killed by traps and 1 by gun shot I had read

      • Ken Cole says:

        Since there is no quota for the Middle Fork Zone then the Idaho Department of Fish and Game is not going to add these wolves to the tally. They haven’t done so in the past for the wolves they kill in the Lolo. Take a look at the tallies in the left column and the spreadsheet. The Middle Fork Zone tallies don’t include the 7 wolves so I added them to the IDFG control tally.

    • Melody Scamman says:

      Richie G. Political reality check time. Bill Clinton brought us NAFTA, next came SPP under “43” and now we have TPP under UN Agenda 21, under Obama. If he is afraid of anyone it is the people who support and invest in these huge trade deals. Most of the politicians don’t really give a rat’s ass about nature or wild animals. Obama didn’t have any pets when he got elected, his kids had to beg for the dog, uh Red Alert there.

  42. John says:

    Here is article describing the importance of large carnivores in the maintaining a healthy ecological balance

    • Steve says:

      This is exactly the point – we need large carnivores, especially on public lands.

  43. Richie G. says:

    Thanks Yvetta how can one get that article ?

  44. Ida Lupine says:

    Idaho is starting to catch it in the press:

    What’s The Matter With Idaho

    • joan massey says:

      I read that article and agree with what is said, however I think that the real reason there is a war on wolves is to make it easier to put through the oil sands pipeline. Our stupid Prime Minister here in Canada has removed protection from over 2million rivers and streams down to less than 200. This means you can cause issues with navigation on the unprotected rivers and streams and not trigger an environmental assessment anymore. All to allow the pipeline through. The oil sands extraction already (the companies) already have the rights to much more land. Much of which is inhabited by wolves. Guess what will happen here. Time to remove the power from politicians and give it back to nature.

      • Melody Scamman says:

        Yay, Joan get’s it! It’s way above Harper’s pay-grade, sadly, every time we get one of these trad agreements crammed down our throats, we all lose rights and the multinational corporations gain rights. How else dors one explain corporate personhood? I would suggest personhood for wolves and other animals endangered by man.

      • Steve says:

        Right on.

  45. Richie G. says:

    Thank you Ann I agree but I will still add he is afraid, he let New Jersey go to Christie without a fight.

    • Melody Scamman says:

      Obama can’t run again, he really doesn’t care. It’s now that he can really take on projects that add to his legacy and the DNC war chest.

  46. Deborah says:

    Interesting and intelligent comments on this site. I’ve enjoyed reading them. I would take issue with one of the points made about how those of us who have never seen a wolf kill idealize wolves and are misinformed. When it comes to animals, I’m the most tender hearted person you will ever meet. I can’t bear the thought of any animal suffering. But I’m not a fool nor am I misinformed and the brutality and “carnage” described so graphically by some of you does not change my opinion that these wolf hunts should be stopped. Wolf “lovers” are often painted as being emotional and irrational. I find that ironic since its so convenient to those who want to kill them to evoke images of pregnant bison being savaged by evil wolves.Yes nature is cruel but it does not compare to the intentional cruelty of humans which never fails to shock me.

    • Jeff N. says:


      I’m assuming you are referring to my post regarding the pregnant female bison that was taken down by the Slough Creek pack. I do hope you read my entire post and also the ones that preceded it. You may get a better idea of my views on how wolves have evolved in their hunting ways. I believe you have misunderstood my intent.

      • Deborah says:

        No, actually I’ve heard that story numerous times on different sites or ones just like it. It was just the first example that came to mind. Sometimes its a pregnant cow or a pregnant moose. For maximum impact, the prey is always pregnant so that we bleeding hearts recoil in horror and demand their extermination.
        I read through all the comments and it was late. I don’t know that I was replying to one individual post.

  47. BC says:

    Somebody should go into Cabin Creek and follow Gus around a bit, take some pictures of his snares and his slaughter. It would be nice to know how many other non-target animals he is killing. Though don’t harass the guy, I suspect he has a hair trigger and wont hesitate to be violent. He has already demonstrated what he is capable of.

    One of the outfitters that guides elk hunts in Cabin Creek is Mile High Outfitters of Challis ID (near Salmon), check out their Facebook page. They have been investigated for poaching and wasting elk meat in the past. Im gonna book a $8,000 guided elk hunt with them next fall. Maybe now I can get that trophy elk Ive always dreamed about to hang on my wall, now that all those pesky wolves are gone.

    • Elk375 says:


      Do you have $8,000 to go on a guided elk hunt? Let’s be real. Gus also has three mules and there is no way you could ever keep up with him.

      • Nancy says:

        And you would know Elk 🙂 And how is Charlie doing since his great escape?

        • Elk375 says:

          He is costing me $200 a month to eat and poo. I give him 3 apples Christmas Day, it’s the least I can do for my buddy. I will always have to take a horse with me on any solo ride.

      • BC says:

        The outfitter charges between $5000 to $10000, which includes everything you need for a 7-10 day big game hunt. Not many people can afford a guided hunt back there, thats another reason why what is going on is so absurd.

        A mule/horse will walk at about 2.5 to 4 miles an hour on the trails in that country, a reasonably fit person could keep up. Plus, he has to stop to set traps and shoot the animals in the traps. I suspect you have stock experience and already know this.

    • rork says:

      “I suspect he has a hair trigger and wont hesitate to be violent”
      So classy.

      • BC says:

        I shouldn’t accuse him of being capable of being violent towards people just because he kills a large amount and wide variety of animals for money. Your right, thats not a classy thing to post. Though, trapping is not too classy either.

        What I mean is I don’t think he would be too happy about someone following him around taking his picture.

        • rork says:

          I’d be pretty pissed if someone fiddled with me too (and I’ve seen pistols drawn – not that I’ve ever had one).

    • Ida Lupines says:

      🙂 I’d have to agree with Elk – there are very few would have the experience to keep up with this man in this kind of environment at this time of year, I’m afraid. It’s not like a local park.

      • Elk375 says:

        I have never been able to keep up with horses even in my twenties when I was in the mountains for several months at a time. Most horses are not able to kept up with mules over many days and long distances.

        Then there are the rim to rim trail runners in Grand Canyon National Park who run from rim to rim in one day.

        • Melody Scamman says:

          Hey Elk, I like mules, too! Very useful creature. Also, I like to cross an old time appy with a TN walking horse. Best of both worlds. Sure footed and smooth ride and they don’t need shoes in the woods.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Here’s a shocking story that puts it in perspective, I think. This private plane went missing in the Idaho mountains Dec. 1 and was only just found…Friday.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          I guess I’m a little skeptical that there is actually a trapper out there, at this time of year?

          • Elk375 says:

            I think that he is not the only trapper out there. In the years gone by several trappers have spent the winter in FC trapping martin. The some with the Bob Marshall.

            • IDhiker says:

              There was a trapper in the Middle Fork and Big Creek country for several years recently that gave IDFG and the USFS fits. He allegedly broke many wilderness regulations and fish & game regs, but the country is so remote in winter he could get away with it. Wardens went in to try to catch him in the act but couldn’t, and the USFS presence in winter is non-existent.

              Jim Akensen of the Taylor Ranch saw his piles of skinned animals. The trapper left many signs of his work, such as flagging, wires & nails on trees, many of which I removed.

              The USFS did manage to locate a big cache of traps he left along the Middle Fork one summer and they confiscated them. Finally, the trapper developed a heart condition and left the area for easier trapping country. He pretty much trapped out a huge proportion of the bobcat population while in the Frank by himself.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Finally, the trapper developed a heart condition.

                I’m sure all the animals are relieved at that!

    • IDhiker says:

      Mile Hi Outfitters have also been investigated for using chainsaws in the wilderness, caching materials, and leaving bear attractants such as food waste, all violations of wilderness regulations.

  48. Nancy says:

    While there’s no thread on the TWN regarding good books to read (although there really should be 🙂 Ralph, Ken?)

    Here’s one IMHO, that addresses why mankind felt the need to get so righteous, decades ago:

    Wolf Willow. A History. a Story, and a Memory of the Last Plains Frontier/Wallace Stegner

    And, one of my favorite writers on the subject of how we must try and draw the line – Edward Abbey, if you can find his books.

  49. Mule22 says:

    Throughout this entire thread there is a lot of judgement, assumptions, and accusations being made about the trapper. What a lot of people don’t seem to understand is that hunting and trapping is a part of our culture out here in idaho/montana/Wyoming. Its ok to disagree, but it’s not right to accuse him of being violent or to attack him personally. I also would not recommend trying to follow him around.

    • Anita Chittenden says:

      To Mule22

      Is trapping not violent?

    • Nancy says:

      This is a part of India’s culture Mule22. Do you think it not barbaric?

    • rork says:

      Point is, this one trapper is not the real problem.

      • Nancy says:

        Morning Rock 🙂

        If the information about this trapper is correct (that he’s also biologist?) You do have to wonder whether he questioned (as so many others have) the decision to go into a true wilderness area, to cull wolves.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        No he doesn’t – but the one IDHiker mentioned sounded like a psycho, acting like he does not have to follow the rules. The ones like that are a problem.

    • Yvette says:

      Mule22, the thing about culture is that it evolves. There are numerous examples in all people’s cultures that support that statement.

      Humans have hunted since our existence began, but sport/trophy hunting is a fairly new phenomena as it’s done in our society. What I think each of us should examine is why do some people feel the need to hunt for sport or trophy? We can speculate on the reasons, but what value does it serve? I realize a micro-economy has developed around it, but that is not a value, IMO. I believe there are some people that simply enjoy killing. Others will hunt only to eat.

      Trapping, on the other hand, is inhumane, heinous, unethical and immoral. That is my opinion, but when a life is painfully held in a trap and chews off their own leg to get free that is atrocious. I realize some traps are designed to kill instantly, but why trap in the first place? With the exception of scientific study, is it necessary?

      Hunting and trapping is not a cultural activity reserved only to MT, WY, and ID. Hunting is a big money maker in states like OK, TX, and NM. I hear the same point about ‘it’s our culture’. Last week there was a ‘Coyote Calling Contest’ in Elk City, OK where there were prizes awarded to biggest, smallest and most coyotes. This is common, and they all claim the same thing, ‘it’s a part of our culture’. These coyotes weren’t bothering anyone, so why go out and purposely call them out so one can kill as many as one can? Because it’s someone’s culture?

      It’s just my opinion, but I think we can alter our approach to hunting and trapping. Trapping is something that is painful and cruel to the animal that gets caught. That is a life, and we should not take that lightly. We can change our cultural mores to be more ethical toward other species. We’ve done it before with other things. We can do it with hunting and trapping, too. It starts with civil dialog between those with opposing views.

      • JB says:


        Thank you for taking the time to articulate your objections without blanket condemnations and stereotypes.

      • cobackcountry says:


        Your opinions are well stated. I commend you for that.

        I do vary in my opinion of how old sport and trophy hunting is. To call it “new” would be entirely based on a person’s ideology of civilization. I personally think that there is some historical validity to sport hunting going as far back as Egyptian pharaohs if not further.

        There are most certainly people who enjoy killing, and that is inclusive of all beings. However, killing and hunting are not the same nor are they exclusive of one another.

        Cultural activities are such a broad reaching arena, and to thwart off one would negate the reasoning for many more. Trapping, while cruel, is a means of income for some as well as a means of clothing, feeding and sheltering their families. That is an extremely tiny fragment of a population. This trapping was done outside of the boundaries of those conditions, and in my opinion outside the boundaries of the law.

        I agree that dialogue is our most powerful tool. I don’t necessarily come from a place where I would condemn hunting. I do come from a place where I think an absence of exclusion of law leads to chaos and destruction.

        Thanks for your thoughtful post.

        • cobackcountry says:

          *absence OR exclusion

        • rork says:

          Enjoy killing is rare I think – I’ve never encountered it personally. But some anti-hunters mention it as their theory, sometimes after saying they otherwise don’t get why folks hunt (like someone repeatedly commenting that, for the life of them, they don’t get what good wolves are – even though they’ve been told 20 times).
          Recreational hunting is old.
          So there are other reasons people like to hunt besides killing, not that it’s just one cause or simple. Consequently I get tired of people saying they can’t understand it. Don’t expect a good explanation from the average coyote hunter.

          I could tell a metaphorical story about how I like to pick blueberries (again), and all the pleasures entailed. It ain’t cause removing the berry from the bush is so cool. Maybe I could change it to a mushroom hunting story. The difference between that and deer is the higher cost (I mean that technically = decision theory) of the animal’s death to me, which is a complicated thing. There’s also the winnings, mostly deer meat (and less deer, but my personal effect is miniscule).

      • rork says:

        A related exercise: Why would anybody want to climb K2?

        • Immer Treue says:

          Doesn’t have the panache of Everest, yet the fraternity of the high altitude mountain climbing understands the difference between the two.

    • IDhiker says:

      Hunting is definitely a big part of western culture with many participants. Trapping, however, is only a cultural norm with an extremely small number of people. Only a faction of a percent.

      • Scott MacButch says:

        Well that “fraction of a percent” just managed to waste a very rare wolverine just west of Arco, Id – as Doug Chadwick says “the one animal that knows no quit”

        • IDhiker says:

          How true. The “fraction of a percent” account for huge numbers of both “target” and “non-target” species every year. Around 50,000 trapped animals killed in Montana alone each trapping season, and that’s just the ones that are reported. No one knows the numbers of non-targeted and unreported animals killed.

  50. Ida Lupines says:

    These guys don,t want to believe what I say, it is safer to think the woods are full of idealistic, honest people enjoying the great outdoors and subsistance hunters feeding their families, and the woods are, but psychopaths also troll the woods for their victims.

    It’s sad really. I consider these people enablers. I do believe animal abuse, misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. are all connected.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      And I forgot pedophiles. I almost lost my breath one day when at a place I hike, there were signs posted about a pedophile taking children into the woods. I better not ever find them.

      • cobackcountry says:

        While there are certainly bad people in the woods, I’d say there are far more bad people else where.

        “These guys don,t want to believe what I say, it is safer to think the woods are full of idealistic, honest people enjoying the great outdoors and subsistance hunters feeding their families, and the woods are, but psychopaths also troll the woods for their victims.

        It’s sad really. I consider these people enablers. I do believe animal abuse, misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. are all connected.”

        What is safer to do is: Accept that there are good and bad people every where. Be prepared to deal with the worst, and hope for the best. The same could be said of going to the grocery store.

        The fact remains the same in a grocery store as it does in the forest- the good out number the bad, they just are not as sensational to talk about.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Yes, I agree. The good people do outnumber the bad. But those few bad can do a lot of damage, as we are seeing with the wildlife abuse. I don’t see how people can minimize that. In the grocery store there are other people, in the forest there are not. Animals, not being able to speak or fight back, cannot deal with them.

    • Melody Scamman says:

      They appear to feel an unusual sense of entitlement and that rules and laws are for other people. That is only the case in reality if a person was a member of the royal family at least 100 years ago. We can’t apply these rules of special birthrite since at least the 14th ammendment here to certain humans, so now we only can legally put animals in chains. We meaning humans, not you and I, but generally speaking. So why do some people consider people different from themselves to be targets, either for vicious attacks or captivity or both? I already mentioned entitlement. So why do some people feel entitled to wipe out the last animals of their kind? Same lack of wisdom? Same entitlement that makes them feel they have a right to beat their wives and children? Same lack of ability to function within a lawful society? We all know these people, either as the guy with the grotesque display of endangered species in his trophy room if he’s rich, a pile of illegal fur if he’s not, or through seeing that house on your street where the wife never comes outside because she is not allowed to. We know abuse when we see it.

  51. cobackcountry says:


    Maybe, but I am far more concerned about the majority of bad that we find in our legislature! They are the truly damaging beings that we need to minimize.

  52. I remember a famous Idaho trapper. His name was Claude Dallas. Seems that he killed two IDFG employees when they found him illegally trapping bobcats near the Nevada border.

    • IDhiker says:

      Yes, trapper Claude Dallas shot and killed IDFG wardens Bill Pogue and Conley Elms when they confronted him at his backcountry camp. Dallas was a big-time violator.

      Both wardens were shot by Dallas with a .357 revolver, and then finished off with a shot to the head with a .22 caliber rifle. This was in January, 1981. Dallas spent 22 years in prison, and was released in 2005. So far, he’s had nine years of freedom since then, after brutally killing two officers.

  53. Ida Lupine says:

    Oh really – they attached them in their eyes now? Never seen that before. Only with the hounders. How convenient.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Because there are other pictures on other websites???? And it still doesn’t really legitimize what they are doing, try as you may. Immer tends to be an enabler at times, all for the sake of ‘can’t we all just get along’.

      • Jay says:

        Personally I don’t think using hounds to run down prey is fair chase, but that is beside the point. There’s a simple explanation that anyone with a modicum of common sense can see.

      • Elk375 says:

        How do we all get along? I know we agree with Ida, Melody, Mike and Jo, they have all the answers.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          We don’t – at least I don’t. But I just wonder why some refuse to call out bad behavior, and just try to make all hunters seem like fine, upstanding citizens and their violent behavior acceptable and normal. Those websites are atrocious. Are we to pretend they don’t exist?

          • Melody Scamman says:

            If people did see the wildlife abuse that hounders post as examples of having had a really good time, especially on those wolf-hater sites, they would not try to defend them.
            You guys who put those of us with empathy down would doubt I even know hounders. Well, I do. Not by choice but two hounders have been cousins in law for almost 40 years. Both of them are cousins, not brothers, same clan. Both abused small animals as teens, larger animals later and one chopped a man’s arm off, the other kidnapped and raped a 12 year old girl, the same guy who liked to poke the eyes out of caged animals and both did time in prison in different States. Oh, and one got shot in the head by a jealous husband! That family has many notorious members, bad and good. But nobody wants the hounders around.
            Where the State politicians ‘turn a blind eye’ to the unethical, all hunters will be looked upon poorly, even if it is a very small population who abuse trapped or caged animals. And the politicians don’t get a pass on it either. Meanwhile, what is the wolf toll now, lest we forget?

      • Immer Treue says:


        “Enabler, eh? I add that to elitist and dick waver that I’ve been likened to here, and add that to the litany of names the ‘daffodils’ have called me. Let’s once again look at the issue of poking wolves eyes out with coat hangers.
        1. You and Melody have offered no proof.
        2. Why go to the trouble of trapping a wolf, then have to handle it to ‘poke’ it’s eyes out, then release it so your dogs can chase something that can’t see where it’s going, just to shoot it?
        3. Then post pictures of a wolf with its eyes ‘poked out’ for the whole world to see, including the WI DNR.

        The argument doesn’t make sense.

        Occam’s Razor comes into play here. The simplest explanation usually explains correctly, in this case, the wolves were tagged.

        Prior to making/supporting such outrageous claims, do a bit of research to prove that claim, plus this is not the platform for such claims, as one might think that the WI DNR would appreciate the knowledge, or lack of, shared here.

        I’ve made mistakes before, and offered to eat crow, have to eat raven now as all the crows are gone, providing I have some Chardonnay to wash it down. In this case, I’m confident brother raven has nothing to fear.

        • Immer Treue says:

          Haven’t been able to find a WI wolf tag with proper tagging procedure. ma’iingan, are you out there?

          • ma'iingan says:

            “Haven’t been able to find a WI wolf tag with proper tagging procedure.”

            The carcass tag must be affixed to the jaw with the hunter’s own fastener, and the matching pelt tag must be affixed to the pelt between the eye and lip, again using the hunter’s own fastener.

            End of mystery, although I’ve enjoyed reading Ms. Scamman’s vivid hallucinations about poking wolves’ eyes out before setting the hounds on them.

            • Melody Scamman says:

              @ma’iingan, @Immer: glad you guys are amused. So we all know anatomy here, I won’t waste time in gruesome details. Just that it is totally unnessassary to poke the eyeballs out, read closely… BOTH eyes! Not removed, just blinded. There were no tags anywhere on either wolf in any of the photos on Wisconsin Wildlife Ethic. But hey, I don’t have professional training in these things so I consulted with someone , retired with a military training in threat assessment. His answer, after serious review of all material was one word: psychopath. And just for the record, he is part of the hunting community.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Ugh. I would not be surprised at all if this were true. Wisconsin has been especially vicious out of all of the delisted states. They know the dogs might not stand a chance with the wolf otherwise. It’s done I have heard with horses destined for the slaughterhouse too. We have to face up to the worst in human nature.

              • Immer Treue says:

                I’m not amused at all. First, I’m antagonistic toward the depth and breadth of the wolf hunt in Wisconsin. Second, I was not amused by the conclusion that you made and Ida supported.

                My crow/raven/Chardonnay statement was I’m not afraid to admit fault if indeed I was wrong. ma’iingan confirmed I was correct.

              • ma'iingan says:

                “There were no tags anywhere on either wolf in any of the photos on Wisconsin Wildlife Ethic.”

                Better check your glasses. In both of the photos of wolves with hounds on that website, the animals are clearly tagged exactly as the regulations dictate.

        • Melody Scamman says:

          Immer, thank you for at least taking an interest, most people won’t touch animal abuse even when they see it in person. Not because we don’t have empathy, but because abusers are bullies. Have you actually read the rules for wolf-hounding in Wisconsin? Those are bad enough! I do understand how you approach this scientifically, ergonomically, using your best info. You are braver than most people who look at their shoes before dealing with wolf-hater’s facebook

          • Immer Treue says:

            A while ago JB made a comment that ~ 10% of the population Are whack jobs. There’s not much you can do about them. I’ve somewhat “matured” on wolf issues. I think there is still gross exaggeration about wolves. Alas, Little Red Riding Hood is alive and well. However, some of the pro-wolf organization commenters are rather lamentable, and are pandered to by these organizations. See Brian Ertz comment Conservation organization …,

            Problem is, hand wringing and sketchy claims won’t help the cause. The antis are polished with their anti-wolf prose, and capitalize on the BS put out there on many pro-wolf sites. The anti wolf sites have three things going for them: it’s legal to kill wolves; ranchers; hunting lobbies that push that wolves are killing all the deer/elk. About the only thing pro wolf folks have is collective disbelief.

            The time for crying is over. The time for conservation organizations pushing stuffed animals is over. The time has come for collective effort for a say in what goes on in each individuals state that has wolves. The time has come for those of is who live rurally to stand up to the anti-wolf bullies. The time has come to find a way to filter through all the anti wolf bullshit so that it no longer sticks to the walls. And though unpopular, the time has come to understand that wolf hunting is legal, but non consumptive users of wildlife must find a way to sit at those metaphorical decision making tables in regard to the shape wolf hunting takes in each individuals state.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Yes, I realize the wolves were tagged – but of the many dead wolves we’ve had the displeasure to be exposed to, I’ve not seen them tagged in quite this way before, more with the tags on their faces. I’m no expert of course, but I don’t see too many correcting me. It’s supposed to be on an animal’s ears? The onus isn’t on me to prove it factual or not, I’m just questioning it, and I wouldn’t put anything past some.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            And yes, it is terribly terribly unpleasant to observe these macabre grinning fools, but I feel we at least owe it to the poor animals to see what is actually happening to them.

          • Immer Treue says:


            • Ida Lupines says:

              What do you mean ‘huh’? Isn’t it obvious? We’re told ‘scientific management’ of a recovered species, but instead we get a sadistic free-for-all. WI went over its quota by six animals, which the newspapers referred to as ‘slightly’ over quota. That isn’t counting what we don’t know about.

              • Immer Treue says:

                “The onus isn’t on me to prove it factual or not, I’m just questioning it, and I wouldn’t put anything past some.”

                Huh? This country, innocent until proven guilty. When you post:support the crap you did, you were the “enabler” of anyone who wants to post unsubstantiated garbage, on either side if the fence.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                We’re not in a court of law, Immer. DNR and F&W are the ones who have to prove they are doing a good job here, not me. They are allowing an anything goes type of ‘management’. As an American citizen, I have a right to question it and get an answer.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Here’s the Dr. Mech quote I like:

                This is a quote from David Mech’s book, The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species.

                “Unfortunately there still exists in certain segments of human society an attitude that any animal (except man) that kills another is a murderer.To these people, the wolf is a most
                undesirable creature.Once blinded emotionally by such hate, the anti-wolf people fail to see that the wolf has no choice about the way it lives; that it cannot thrive on grass or twigs any more than man can. To them the wolf pack is a cowardly assemblage of wanton slayers, the animal’s howl a bloodcurdling condemnation of all the innocent big game in the country.These people cannot be changed. If the wolf is to survive, the wolf haters must be outnumbered. They must be outshouted, outfinanced, and outvoted. Their narrow and biased attitude must be outweighed by an attitude based on an understanding of natural processes. Finally, their hate must be outdone by a love for the whole of nature, for the unspoiled wilderness, and for the wolf as a beautiful, interesting, and integral part of both.”

                Outnumbered, outshouted, outfinanced, outvoted, outweighed, and outdone. I love it.

                Good night! 🙂

              • Immer Treue says:


                Then file a complaint.

                As far as the over kill, the DNR set a final date/time. Hunters/trappers in the field were to follow that. Did they? If they did, no law was broken. Starting to sound like Save Bears, and sense his frustration.

                If a final closure time was made, and no one exceeded that, then what is your point?

                If no laws were broken, what is your point? I do not care for wolf hunting/trapping, and that sentiment has been expressed on this blog for over four years. What’s your point?

              • Ida Lupines says:


                I would like to see a more rational approach to wildlife management. If they need to be managed, they shouldn’t by hunted in every way possible. It’s a task, done humanely, not fun and games. People with mental problems shouldn’t be allowed to hunt and torture wildlife. A professional wildlife employee, or experienced, ethical hunter should – not everyone.

                I don’t want to see the hard work that people did to help preserve the species, all destroyed.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Sort of like President Obama’s new gun background checks – ‘mental defectives’ (shockingly politically incorrect language for Democrats, I know) should not be allowed to have guns.

              • Elk375 says:


                Wildlife management is done by the state, you as a concerned resident of MA have no say in how a Western or Great Lakes manage their wildlife.

              • WM says:


                You might also recall Dr. Mech’s comments and context regarding that very statement, bringing it up to near present, on this very forum:

                ++Dave Mech says:

                September 8, 2012 at 11:15 am

                This replies to WM’s Sept. 7: 3:36 pm question about how my views about wolves might have changed since the quoted material from my 1970 book “The Wolf.” The short answer, which I stated in some article since then was that the wolf haters have long ago been outshouted and outvoted and that the wolf’s long-term need is for the preservation of as much wild land as possible.

                Without the widespread poisoning that originally wiped out wolves, the species can survive any kind of management by the states including Idaho’s, once their population has reached several hundred.

                I have always tried to be as objective as possible about wolves and wolf management and not let my personal views get in the way of my professional views. When I challenge writings by others it is not because I disagree with their slants on wolves, but rather it is to correct what I believe is their mistaken assumptions, analyses, conclusions, or facts.

                However, there is not time for me to keep up on these blogs, so this will have to be my last post.++

              • JB says:

                “Wildlife management is done by the state, you as a concerned resident of MA have no say in how a Western or Great Lakes manage their wildlife.”

                Elk: While your statement about control of game is correct, it obscures the issue of how wildlife are managed on public lands. Clearly the nation has an interest in such management. Indeed, the nation’s interest was part of the reason for preserving so much of the West as federal public lands. If western states don’t find a way to recognize this interest, they may find their control over wildlife is further eroded.

                WM: Mech’s “defense” of current policy hinges upon the notion that wolves cannot be eradicated again without the use of poisons. That is a claim that is controversial among scientists. And, of course, it avoids altogether the question of how wild animals should be managed and (more generally) treated.

                And then there’s the NAM, which states claim to follow. One of it’s central tenets is that ‘wildlife should only be killed for a legitimate purpose.’ It would be interesting to have a debate about what (whose) purposes are being served by Idaho’s management.

              • WM says:


                ++And then there’s the NAM, which states claim to follow. One of it’s central tenets is that ‘wildlife should only be killed for a legitimate purpose.’ It would be interesting to have a debate about what (whose) purposes are being served by Idaho’s management.++

                Though some might disagree, it appears IDFG has already rationalized following the NAM, in its current action in The Frank Wilderness, and its overall wolf management posturing, here:


  54. Richie G. says:

    Wisconsin has Scott Walker as their governor that tells the entire story I think he has to run soon, with all the enemies he’s made their is a good chance of him being kick out.

  55. Richie G. says:

    Melody isn’t this considered inhumane way of hunting with dogs, they as only supposed to track the wolves now have six dogs go tear them up. Why can’t the humane society reach out and use this against Scott Walker in his campaign bid for a second term. They tried to kick him out once, it failed but I think their was vote tampering. So why not use this against him in his next campaign. I think he turned down medicare for the state. This cold be a big nail in his coffin, the societies for wolves should make this a vehicle for an commercial on the air against him. Union people hate him so lets add to their numbers. Try to get defenders involved or earthjustice.

    • Melody Scamman says:

      Richie G.
      Most people believe it is legalized dog fighting. Not only can the use six hounds, they can change out dogs if they get worn out during the chase! The intent is for as many as six fresh dogs to hound one poor, worn out wolf to it’s most unfortunately cruel end. The hounds are not supposed to be allowed to rip the wolf apart but the hounders can’t keep up with their hounds. The best guess they have is for their radio collars to stop moving away. (BTW, should you find a radio collar and want to play a little joke on the hounder , strap the collar to the underside of a local bus, ha-ha!) Not the wolf’s collar, that goes back to the agency that collared the wolf! Anyone who shoots a wolf with a research coller on it should be made to pay for all the lost research but so far nobody has made that into law yet. So much for caring about tax dollars of the average citizen! Of course they should get the dog rescuers involved in this and the hounds are just as much victims as the wolves. I have relatives by marriage there in Green Bay. They say they don’t have anything to do with those hounders or wolf hunters in the upper parts of Wisconsin. So I said, yes, you do, you allowed Walker to stay in office! Well, we do not approve of him… so it is same old, same old, I guess ( hand wringing and crying for wolves but otherwise, no involvement).
      I can’t affect Walker’s political career by voting, since I live in Maine, but I can tell people who live there in Wisconsin that they will have the chance to undo Walker at the polls! Stand at the polls with a sign with some gruesome poster off the wolf hounder’s facebook page! I don’t know the rules there for out of state people holding signs but it is certainly worth checking on! When I was younger, I used to help Ralph Nader with environmental and other issues, we never got bothered for holding signs at polling spots or rallies of the ‘opposition’. I worked polls in NH and MA. No one asked me for any ID. But times have changed. One should check before assuming that is true in today’s world.
      If we want big animal rights .org’s to show up they should be invited by locals, not to say we all can’t invite them but if they are there on the behalf of the local citizens and have a signed letter stating such, it would be harder to oust them. Of course, one can always be a moving billboard by putting signs on the sides of a cargo van. And if you can find an empathic reporter willing to expose the abuse, then that would be a lucky break for wolves! It is good to see people who care! Although I am talking about one state, any state that allows wolf hunting is in need of new, more enlightened leaders and to disband the wildlife commissions, reforming them with people who will follow a new mission to only ‘manage’ animals when there is a dangerous over-population which the land can not support.
      I am a big fan of continuing to let wolves disperse naturally as well as relocating, rather than shooting, mated pairs, to former wolf habit. Wolf education is priceless now, as are people with ambassador wolves that people can touch. Once they touch a wolf and learn they are not that different from northern breed dogs, it is not an easy thing to kill them anymore because the fairytale demon is gone, dispelled in the connection made between man and ancient dog. I asked a trapper to touch Zoey once, at a yard sale. He was afraid. He said ‘she really won’t bite me? I said ‘No, not at all, she likes to have her back scratched’. He very timidly reached over and patted her head. He said ‘Are they all this soft?’ I said “Each one is unique to some extent, I can tell mine apart with my eyes closed.” He said ‘Have you ever been bitten? I said “Yes, but only by dogs, not wolves”. And always in a situation where they were being treated for injuries, such as porcupine quills being removed. I have a lot of scratch scars from rescuing barn cats and from wolf pups clinging to me. They like to fall asleep in my arms, just like human babies. The contact with wolves is the missing link of putting the humanity back into the people who believed the lies about wolves. At the moment, for wolve’s safety, it has to be a limited number of ambassador wolves, wild wolves need to be kept wild to preserve their fear of man until a permanent cease fire between wolves and man is reestablished.
      That cease fire will require a move out of the dark ages we have imposed on our fellow creatures. For this to happen we must all get along long enough to set the world right on the value of wolves.
      Not everyone is going to agree with me that wolves need personhood because of what is being done to them by mentally disturbed humans. If a corporation can have personhood, why not an endangered animal? Not endangered by numbers necessarily, but by human’s irrational fears and brutal killing bred of ignorance. We have to stop seeing wolves and other highly intelligent creatures that mate for life as numbers. They are families. Education was and is always the key.

      • Eric T. says:

        Nice blogapotamus……..brevity is the source of wit, or so they say.

        • Melody Scamman says:

          Eric T, sorry, I wrote that much but I was asked complicated questions. Many times I can answer much quicker, but if wolves are to be saved, science is necessary, if all the collared research wolves are being targeted, there is a reason, not just lazy slob hunters tracking their signal. The ESA requires te best available science. If there are no completed studies because the wolves are all dead that were in the study, then there is no new science never mind best available science. Think ahead. 🙂

      • Richie G. says:

        To Melody; I heard on MSNBC that Obama admitted he is the middle of the road President and he said this in front of Hillary this was on one of the shows. I really do not remember the entire point of the issue. It sounded like he admitted he cannot do all the things he stood for, but hi kind of pointed to Hillary. It kind od makes sense he has no family power behind him, no political clout I said this before. But Bill Clinton had Hillary’s family we might be on the right track if she gets in, remember Bill brought Bruce Babbitt in the introduction was his thing. I know I said much of this before,

        • Melody Scamman says:

          Richie, Bill gave us NAFTA, very bad for all wildlife.

          • Richie G. says:

            To Melody he did not do everything correct I was reading in the Times a huge article ion Bill. According to Bill he had both houses in his first term. He tried gun control and Healthcare with Hillary, people resented Hillary was in their meetings , the republicans made him pay the second term with money from the NRA. Still yes Nafta was bad and he signed on his last day in office. I will tell you something else in the summer of his last term their was a government contract from the Air Force for Kellog Browning root forgive my spelling I am in a hurry. The contract was for 400 prison cells to be built in Quanatomo Bay. Now he was know as the best Environmental president and that was stated on many show pbs included. So he was in on the introduction of the wolves and I think Hillary would help.

  56. IDhiker says:

    I heard from a friend of mine who just retired from the Payette National Forest, that the wolf count in Big Creek is now up to nine. Can’t verify this, but that was his information.

  57. jon says:

    Another article written by Toby Bridges. Toby says in the article that many hunters are illegally killing wolves. This about debunks the myth that hunters are conservationists and that they love wildlife.

    • IDhiker says:

      Toby Bridges is such a piece of work! He openly incites people to break the law, implies he does, and is proud of it. Mostly, though, he is a bag of wind.

      Although some on here will claim most hunters are ethical, obviously Toby disagrees with them. In Toby’s world, virtually all hunters are with him, and from his description of the meeting, he’s right.

      From my experience though, these meeting attendees are a well-organized and strident group of extremely aggressive people who run this debate through intimidation.

      If most hunters are ethical, they must be the “silent majority.” Time to stand up and take a stand, perhaps?

      • jon says:

        Not only him, others like Scott Rockholm and Ron Gillet do the same thing. These wackos are telling hunters to illegally kill wildlife in order to make Idaho an elk farm. Hunting has been taken over by a group of extremists who want nothing more than to eradicate predators so that these hunters can have more elk and deer to kill.

  58. Logan says:

    I enjoy this site and many other conservation minded websites because I love wild places and wild things and am an advocate for wilderness and roadless areas. I enjoy reading about wild animals and the places they live. I do not own an ATV nor my knuckles drag along the ground.

    However, I do hunt and fish. My wife refuses to eat feedlot meat so deer and elk are a large part of our diet. I love having wolves in Idaho, they belong here I also hope that the grizzly bear populations expand and I wish we could transplant a few into certain areas. That said I also believe in limiting the wolf numbers so as not to outcompete humans for game animals. I do not think that wolves are killing all the elk, I work hard and I find elk when lazy hunters who don’t get off the seat of their ATVs see nothing. However I dispute the argument that wolves have improved the ecosytem and filled some gap that caused the environment to be out of balance. This was true in YNP where the elk were severely overpopulated. Due to the wolves reducing the elk population in YNP the riparian areas are healthier and a greater number of small mamals and birds are present in the now better habitat. However in the rest of Idaho, hunters have managed elk populations and those problems didn’t exist. Where riparian areas were and are damaged is due to over grazing of cattle.

    I enjoy this site but I do not enjoy being on the recieving end of so many of the extreme anti-hunting comments. While I agree that many hunters are low intelligence lazy and ignorant I find many environmentalists that share a similar level of ignorance. The greatest conservationists of the late 19th and early 20th century were hunters, and hunters continue to fund the majority of conservation efforts.

    • Montana Boy says:

      Read this Doug Smith article it concludes what you just posted.

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      I certainly agree with much of what you say. Wolves have not been able to improve the ecosystem as planned. I think it is because they are continually harassed and killed by USDA’s Wildlife Services and Idaho Fish and Game, plus the wolf hunt not being based on the principle of sustainable “harvest.”

      Most important though is the presence of so much livestock outside the core of central Idaho. The impacts of cattle especially just overwhelm everything else.

      • Immer Treue says:


        ” I think it is because they are continually harassed and killed by USDA’s Wildlife Services and Idaho Fish and Game, plus the wolf hunt not being based on the principle of sustainable “harvest.”

        Good rationale.

    • Yvette says:

      Logan, I think you have made key points, and important points if any of us are to move inward from the extremes of either side.

    • JB says:


      Thanks for posting. Always nice to have another rational voice around these parts. Regarding your comment about the ecological effects (aka benefits) of carnivores, you might be interested in this very recently published review:

  59. Joby Hawk says:

    I read the article by Doug Smith that someone posted above, in which Smith makes some comments that I knew would be seized upon by those who support the current wolf “management” in the Northern Rockies. Because Doug Smith works for the federal govt. in Yellowstone, he has to be very careful about what he says due to all of the politics surrounding wolves. I’ve worked for the Park Service and had to walk a fine line when it came to controversial issues. It will be interesting to see what Doug Smith has to say when he finally retires and can speak freely without fear of retribution.

  60. Ida Lupines says:

    The greatest conservationists of the late 19th and early 20th century were hunters.

    Yes, but that was a long time ago, and it’s been mostly all downhill from there, with an increase in momentum in the 21st century. Who could hold a candle to them today?

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I’d say since mid-20th century.

      Believe it or not, I came here with an open mind about hunting, and ethical hunters. But over time, I’m just not seeing a lot of evidence of ethical hunters, just more and more mindless killing. I think my BS tolerance has been reached. You certainly won’t find ethical hunters on Facebook and the like.

      There really is no compellingly good reason in modern times to justify killing off predators and other wildlife. And to think that we can take the place of predators and manage the environment equally well or better is beyond hubris.

      I can kinda sorta almost (not really) understand why the President signed the continuing (and continuing…) budget resolution with the Tester rider, but I simply cannot understand why the Democrats will not rectify this terrible situation, and want to delist in the rest of the states, and continue to chip away at the Endangered Species Act.

    • rork says:

      Just near me (MI):
      I have sandhill cranes in the thousands by me that folks 50 years ago would weep to see. Wood duck (and other waterfowl) up thanks to greater care, and continental-scale action. Bear are tolerated and respected – we’ve got lots. The big owls and hawks are now common. Maybe you haven’t heard, but we have wolves now – in 1964 we still had bounties on them. Our osprey and mute swans have serious momentum (and you know where that money came from). We take great pains for Kirtland’s warbler. We fight for butterflies folks have never heard of. I could name dozens of other positive changes, though admit some downhill – almost all of it due to more human overwhelm on the land (not bad hunters).
      “I’m not seeing” might be because you selectively seek loudmouths.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Our osprey and mute swans have serious momentum (and you know where that money came from).

        I certainly do. The Audubon Society.

      • rork says:

        Mute->trumpeter. Must control anger.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          I figured you must have meant trumpeters. 🙂

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Why? Just let it all out; you’ll feel better, and won’t have to go out and kill something.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            I’m glad this came up. While I’ll never love hunting because I am philosophically against it, I can tolerate them on the landscape, especially the elusive ethical ones we hear so much about, and as long as it doesn’t go overboard (Idaho). Yes, they help conserve wild lands because they need a place to hunt.

            Today, we no longer need to hunt for food and very little for protection – so what we have left if just the killing. People who can take the life of an animal without emotion, simply because they have that power, I don’t know what to say about that. It’s not good. To me hunting is a societal-sanctioned outlet for (typically male) aggression, and displaced anger. It’s no coincidence that with our economy so bad and people out of work, there’s been a resurgence in hunting and violence.

            • Logan says:

              I have nothing against anyone who does not want to hunt and respect their reasons for abstaining from an activity that I enjoy. However, I believe that anyone who opposes hunting for ethical reasons but will go to the store and buy meat is missing an important link in their chain of reasoning. Since I don’t know how you feel about eating meat I won’t jump to any conclusions I am just making a general statement regarding personal ethics and eating store bought versus hunted meat.

              I refute the statement that hunting is no longer needed for food. I value the meat I kill as highly nutritous and free of chemicals and hormone additives. Before we get into the cost benefit ratio of hunting versus buying organic beef I will mention that many people spend a lot of time and money on hobbies that do not have material returns. I view my time and money spent hunting as hobby costs and the return I get in meat lasts me the entire year. I have not bought red meat from a store for over 10 years. I carefully butcher my animals and wrap the meat, grind hamburger and sausage and make salami, jerky and bratwurst at home all free of the additives that the same foods have when commercially purchased.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Well that’s fine – but not all hunters hunt for those reasons, and those of you do who appear to have some standards ought to distance yourselves from those who do not. Nobody has to hunt in modern times, they choose to – and put their needs above any other. What I object to is wanting to get rid of predators because we want the elk and deer all to ourselves. That isn’t right.

                But hunted meat isn’t pure either nowadays, with all the pollution and poisons humans have dumped into the landscape.

                Regarding the trope about meat-eating, I have said many times here that I don’t eat meat (I eat very little animal products of any kind), and I have always questioned seafood as being considered ‘healthy’ with all the pollution in the oceans (although I do eat it because you’ve got to eat something). You can’t avoid additives of any kind in our food today, especially when so many many animals are factory-farmed for our large population to consume, and it’s only going to get worse.

            • rork says:

              Even if I did not hunt at all, I would still want others to do so to knock the deer down near me. Plus, wait for it – you eat them. 12 lb neck roast with guests last night was awesome. And I am OK with milking hunters for money to do good things with. Many help conserve wild lands cause they love that land. In many of the same the ways you do.
              “Without emotion” and all that followed is bull pellets, vastly over-generalizing based on a few strange people. To post crazy hunter-insult comments once in awhile wouldn’t be so bad – can you try to limit yourself though? It would help this blog.

              However, I grant there may be some “get food” instincts, or even “hunt” instincts. Folks that did not have them may not be our ancestors, eh?
              I don’t need to pick blueberries – must be just for the killing. Spinach too – I even eat the babies, laughing ghoulishly.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        You paint a very rosy picture, but it sound quite selective also. Whatever gains we have made are not due to mighty hunters alone. MI has also started hunting wolves (yes, I know, I know, it’s a euphemistic ‘management’ program). Nobody needs to seek out loudmouths and people who enjoy killing (euphemistically calling themselves hunters), they make themselves known. Somebody posts something here almost every day, and Ken’s wolf tally speaks for itself.

    • Nancy says:

      Ida – an interesting read from over 40 years ago. Pan down the page to the letter (Other Face of Conservation) written by Wendell Beaver:

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Is Wildlife Becoming Old-Fashioned?

        This is what I’ve wondered myself! But it’s interesting to see the same problems we have today being talked about 40 years ago. The way the Federal gov’t talks about progress, you’d think wildlife and natural farming are becoming passé. What really threw me was when the Obama Administration approved experimental GMO crops in not just any open space, but wildlife refuges!!!

    • Ken Cole says:

      One guy, after briefly commenting that he was a hunter and got a six point elk this year, stood silently in front of the commission with a sign that read “I’m pro wolf and I hunt” for the remainder of his three minutes.

      • Jake Jenson says:

        Anyone can notch their tag and fill out the harvest report however they like. No one checks it. They don’t even check if harvest reports are not filled out and tossed in the trash can. And they always sell more tags, there is no punishment for lying, or for not reporting.

  61. Ida Lupines says:

    The revised elk management plan would consider making it a policy to hire professional trappers and hunters to target wolves here, along with considering aerial removal of wolves.

    So I guess it wasn’t a stretch to think that they actually meant ‘take to the air’ to mean aerial hunting and not just the use of an airstrip!

    • Ida Lupines says:

      What I don’t understand is what is the big rush to do this?

      • WM says:


        ++what is the big rush…?

        Top 10 +1 Reasons that MIGHT explain wolf control in the Frank now (rather than waiting a year):

        0. Wolf numbers are above IDFG management objectives for the Middle Salmon Zone, and wilderness hunters did not reduce them.
        1. Wolves are easier to track/spot/trap in the snow.
        2. Pelts are at prime in winter, and this would be important if the trapper keeps them as part of his compensation, or they are otherwise of commcercial or educational value to IDFG.
        3. Calving season is just around the corner (some elk cows and calves won’t be eaten by wolves not there).
        4. Not so many people in the Frank this time of year to object.
        5. Availability of this particular trapper/hunter.
        6. Availability of the FS cabin the trapper is using.
        7. Wolf population will increase in the Spring, when new pups are born, likely requiring a delayed control action to kill even more wolves.
        8. Because they can, and FS implicitly supported legality, access and method (contrary to allegations of the plaintiffs in the suit).
        9. Whining outfitters (maybe the biggest reason)
        10. IDFG/Governor Otter get political/PR credits showing they are “doing something about the wolf problem,” for their constituency.

        We don’t have to like them, but they are indeed, reasons/rationalizations for the “rush.”

    • jon says:

      I was about to post this, thanks Timz.

  62. Ida Lupines says:

    But he spoke for hunters across Idaho who no longer find it relatively easy to find elk in the place where they have hunted since their youth.

    But is it realistic to think this way? Nothing stays the same forever, for anyone. It’s not the wolves’ fault, it’s human growth and ‘progress’.

    • Logan says:

      I agree that it is not realistic to think that animals should always be found where they have been in the past. Habitat changes and animal habits change.

      The distressing thing about this to a hunter is that the elk popoulation trend is increased numbers nearer to private land to which the average hunter does not have access. The declinpopulations in the Lolo, Selway and Northern Idaho is in the bulk of the states national forest where the majority of elk hunting occured historically. Hunters who have decades of history in one area find it hard to move on from the ridges and canyons that they have an emotional connection to.

      I have hunted in wolf country, seen their tracks, heard their howls although I have never seen one. I am fascinated by them and the other large mammals in Idaho. I don’t understand why wolves are the hot button issue. Why are wolves more beloved by the pro-wolf crowd than bears or mountain lions.

      Here’s the thing, IDFG will not risk lowering the wolf population to the point of relisting, it just isn’t in their best interests and the ranchers who still want to kill them all are too extreme as are the people who want to protect them all. I would say that 90% of the hunters I know do not want to exterminate the wolves.

      So I would much rather see the energy and funding used to fight the wolf battle go to a more critically endangered species like the woodland caribou of northern Idaho and southern British Columbia. Recently a proposed protection area of over 300,000 acres was reduced to just 30,000 and I haven’t seen the outcry that this deserves. I suspect it is because woodland caribou calves don’t look as cute as wolf pups.

      • bret says:

        Good luck Logan, search FB- wolves and then search caribou see what you come up with?

  63. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Elk group opposes lawsuit over Idaho wolf management
    “There is nothing illegal about this management activity,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “It clearly falls within the guidelines of Idaho s federally-approved wolf management plan.

  64. Ida Lupines says:

    That website that Nancy forwarded was terrible. There was someone with a balaclava icon, not happy with the pace at which wolves are being killed in Idaho. He’d like to see poisoning. I’m sickened that there are people like this out there. We need to know about it.

    • Melody Scamman says:

      Ida, I agree, we must be informed. We must also pass along info, along with warnings, of graphic content. The more the haters spew their hate…and poison meatballs… the quicker the public wakes up to that it’s just not any Elmer Fudd off to get himself a wrabbit in the woods. Which website did Nancy tell you about?
      I thought I’d have the netbook up and running by now but I came down with bacterial pneumonia and I didn’t want the kids here to set it up. So I am just trying to get by with a defective tablet. I am still not well but now it is more just using the albuterol mist and trying not to work too hard. Snow is still coming down and it is beautiful here. I wish I could share a photo with everyone!

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Sorry to hear you aren’t feeling well, Melody. Yes sweeping unpleasant facts under the rug allows them to continue on.

        JB wants nothing to do with that site, and giving it web traffic and I don’t blame him – but one of Nancy’s posts links to it. It’s on one of the Frank Church threads or the general wildlife thread I think. Suffice it to say that I was surprised to see how well they know of individuals on TWN.

        I love the quotes Nancy linked to also – the serious ones of course but there was one from Jimmy Carter that always makes me smile – when people turn up the heat too high and complain about cold I say ‘put a sweater on!’ and I didn’t realize that Jimmy Carter said that.

        Have a good day!:)

        • Melody Scamman says:

          Ida, thank you. I do remember Jimmy Carter saying that about the sweater, it reminded me of Mr. Rogers on PBS, that my son watched back then. Another saying from those days comes to mind. ‘Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana’. 🙂 A favorite of T.J. Thompson, founding member of ‘The Fool’s Guild’ and eldest son of Dr. Thompson, former head of the AEC. I guess growing up in Las Alamos under tight security made ‘Jeff’ a bit of a fool to let off steam? I miss him, the last time I saw him 10 years ago, he was not looking well, I expect he passed on, though I wish I knew. He stayed with us for many years and told us stories of staying with the Hopi and about their stories and medicine. It wasn’t until he was gone that I realized him to be ‘Trickster’, sometimes a coyote, sometimes a man.
          I am still on the mend, I’ve had pneumonia before but never from gastric acid, that is awful hard on the lungs and hurts like lungs on fire. I’ve been treating it with inhaled steroids for a couple of weeks. I may start myself on antibiotics tomorrow for a week? Anyway, folks, if the Doc says don’t sleep on your back, seriously, please don’t because you never want to wake up unable to breathe, and thinking you are going to die. The truth be told, I’ve not spoken but a few whispered words since. Perhaps why I have been so long-winded in writing is I’ve not got the wind in person, yet? 🙂 But I expect I’ll live. If you don’t see me on any blogs, don’t worry, probaby means my tablet finally died, not me.
          Thank you for telling me that JB doesn’t want to bring attention to the wolf-hater sites, I didn’t know. I would not link to them or post their photos even if I could but their deeds, crimes against wild animals should not be taboo to mention although always with prior warning not to engage them in any way. I found myself quite shocked so many here did not know. I think the worlds of wolf rescuers and wolf biologists should have much common ground for the sake of knowledge. We are all traumatized by what is going on in the FC! Rather than argue, we should form alliances and present a united front for wolves and other creatures that need us. I know that I do not want to live in a world without wolves.
          Ken, please give my e-mail address to Ida. And thank you for all you do!

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Yes, I’d love to share emails.

            I just finished watching the coywolf special on PBS. How intelligent they are. What doesn’t kill them truly does make them stronger. Thank God!

            Hope you’ll be feeling better soon.

            • Melody Scamman says:

              Hi Ida, thanks again! 🙂
              I’m still not well yet, have to have an endoscopy and biopsy. But at least I will outlive this tablet! Did you get my e-mail address yet?

  65. Jeff Thomas says:

    Those federal lands belong to the people, when did we give them the right to wipe out wildlife in a wilderness area? Where is the government that I elected to manage these lands properly? If wildlife can’t live their lives minding their own business in the wilderness where can they live? People of this age have become obsessed with weapons and trophies. If it moves it is fair game. We are as blood-thristy now as we were in primitive times. Man is totally missing the big issue by destroying nature whenever given the opportunity. Judgement day will come when our ancestors will wonder “what the hell were they thinking?” I am sure they are not using humane methods to do their dirty work. Just another of a long list of cases where “jobs” and money take precedence over maintaining a balance in nature and compassion for wildlife. I will certainly make my friends and family aware of this and encourage them to boycott Idaho. I’m not sure we have enough time and money to fight battles like this, I believe we are literally outgunned. Let’s hope sanity will return to the world in our lifetimes.

    Don’t give up trying to make a difference!

    • Logan says:

      “Those federal lands belong to the people”
      Yes, and many of those people are hunters who support this action and elect officials to pursue these type of scenarios. The majority of Idahoans support this action. Wildlife have been managed and controlled in the wilderness areas since long before the wilderness act, why is it that there is only this outcry when the subject is wolves?

      “If wildlife can’t live their lives minding their own business in the wilderness where can they live?”
      Valid point but the wilderness act recognizes hunting as a traditional use of wilderness. National Parks on the other hand do not allow hunting so I guess the wildlife there can live and mind their own business.

      “People of this age have become obsessed with weapons and trophies.”
      I both agree and disagree with you here. I as a hunter am sickened by the trophy hunting obsession. I don’t think that people today are more obsessed with weapons than in past generations. It is just that the extremists on both sides of that arguement have become more obstinate and vocal.

      “Man is totally missing the big issue by destroying nature whenever given the opportunity”
      I don’t think that 2 packs of wolves constitute the whole of nature. As a whole, wolves are doing very well, killing these packs won’t change that.

  66. Yvette says:

    “I don’t think that 2 packs of wolves constitute the whole of nature. As a whole, wolves are doing very well, killing these packs won’t change that”

    I hope you will give pause to the above comment.

    Not knowing another’s personal history or how they formed the principles that guide their life all I can do is ask them to think about things from other angles. Why would any of us kill something that isn’t an immediate threat? Why do humans, especially those of us in the Western world, place our importance and value so much higher than other species? Are we? Truly?

    As for wolves doing quite well, I think we need to know what threshold we’re measuring against. Before the colonists of this continent went about the westward expansion and eradication policies wolves numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Are they really doing well? If so, we obviously aren’t using the wolf’s historical population as a baseline.

    With the current laws and attempts to push new anti-wolf policy how long before their numbers are but a few straggler packs?

    • Logan says:

      Ivette, you are right to question what threshold we use as a measuring stick. However, if our measuring stick is the conditions that existed before european colonization then of course we are dismally below that mark. Without removing humans entirely from the landscape we will never achieve pre-colnial conditions.

      Also, do we really want pre-settlement conditions? For example, the Lolo region of Idaho, when Lewis and Clark passed through they nearly starved for lack of game to kill and eat. If our goal is to restore conditions to pre-settlement then we should go into that region and kill every animal. Now obviously that is a highly exagerated example and used only to show that depending on our sources we could make dismally low estimate for certain areas and wildlife even using historical documentation.

      Even though in some cases we have recorded examples of local flora and fauna such as the Lewis and Clark expedition through the Lolo, we really don’t have a full picture of how things were. Had it been like that in the Lolo for 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? Natural forces can cause huge swings in wildlife populations. Probably at one time before the forest grew in so thick and locked out sunlight to the plants deer, elk and moose ate the Lolo had been covered in wildlife including wolves.
      If left completely alone it could be that in another decade or two there will be no elk left in the Frank church and once they are gone or nearly so the wolf population will follow its prey base and decline also to very low numbers. Maybe after another decade or two elk populations will grow follwed by an increase in wolves.
      My point is that left by itself there is no guarantee that any animal population will always have large numbers and depending on where in the cycle the population swing was when documented we could have extremely high or very low estimates of what populations were back then. Also our population estimates are based upon current habitat conditions and carrying capacities that are different than existed 200 years ago.

      As I am very interested in reading early records of exploration in the northwest, specifically Idaho I request that if you know any records/journals that shed light on animal populations in any part of Idaho during early exploration, fur trade era and settlement I am interested in additional reading especially if it might change any of my opinions expressed above. In the readings I have done I think people would be surprised to learn how different things were between what we think it was like back then and how it really was. Ken Cole’s recent article on this sight “Is it Time for Domestic Sheep Zoning Laws in the West?” confirms much of what I’ve read about bighorn sheep. Most people would be surprised to learn how numerous they once were compared to mule deer and elk which they typically think of as always having been the most abundant species.

      • Yvette says:

        Logan, I agree with you. We won’t acheive pre-colonization conditions. I do think we need to consider what truly what is the population levels we should strive to achieve. Probably, the wolf biologist have researched this, but I still wonder if the numbers they use as threshold or was that threshold set based on compromise of various stakeholders’ interest.

        On the previous post, I do hope you will think about why it’s not important that these two packs will be lost. I struggle with the concept that most of us humans put so little value on the life of a non-human species. In this case, these two packs are being killed for what reason?

        I will be glad to share any legitimate records I might fine on animal populations of the Idaho region. If you live in Idaho you might try to see what historical information and/or stories that the Nez Perce have handed down through the generations. Just a thought.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Not long. “Two packs” taken by itself, in isolation, many not sound like it will have any impact on the species, but it will not stay at just two packs by the looks of things. We’re seeing escalation of wolf killing every year – together with all of the extreme hunting (9 mos of the year or close to it) and increased takes in the Rocky Mountain area, two packs or more is quite a lot IMO. There will be changes in laws, new laws made, lies told and discovered, and still the numbers will increase and the hunts will continue. That’s the way it looks anyway.

  67. Ralph Maughan says:

    Yesterday the Idaho Department of Fish and Game released its predator management plan for the Middle Fork area of the Frank Church Wilderness.

    The plan details IDFG’s intentions regarding wolf removal in the Middle Fork area. Specifically, it makes clear IDFG’s intention to reduce the wolf population in that area by 60% through several successive years of professional hunting and trapping efforts in order to inflate the local elk population.

    The plan is available for review here: It is a download.


January 2014


‎"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