The three year old had been collared near Cody, Wyoming-

Wolves continue to pass through and perhaps live in Utah.  A small three-year old female, weighing 70 pounds, has been shot by a coyote hunter near the southern end of the Tushar Mountains of south central Utah. This was about 5 miles east of the town of Beaver, Utah. Earlier in December a photo was taken of what looked like a wolf as it was crossing Utah Highway 14 to the east of Cedar City.  That is in the mountains of the Markagunt Plateau about 50 miles south of where this wolf was shot.

The traditional excuse for shooting the wolf was given. The shooter said he thought it was a coyote. This usually means a fine of $500 or less if there is any prosecution at all because there will be no federal prosecution due to the U.S. Justice Department’s “McKittrick Policy.”  This policy is 16 years old. The Justice Department refuses to go to court against those persons who kill endangered wildlife unless it can be proved that they knew they were targeting a protected animal.

Utah is a state with a new coyote bounty. The state gives a $50 bounty for coyotes. The bounty was reestablished in the state with the passage of the Mule Deer Preservation Act. That was about two years ago. In its second year about 7000 coyotes were bountied.

Kirk Robinson, head of the Western Wildlife Conservancy said in Salt Lake City,  “This is a very sad day for wolf conservation and for Utah, . . . .  “All competent wildlife biologists already know that coyote hunting, including our state bounty program, is ineffective, and therefore a waste of money — and now we see that it is also a threat to other wildlife and to wolf recovery.”

Some conservation groups think this was the wolf that recently showed up on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, but that was 200 miles to the south. It is likely that wolves wander fairly frequently into Utah and through the state. There is some evidence they establish a pack every so often, but that has never been confirmed. Many wolf reports are made in Utah. Over the years two wolves have been confirmed killed in Utah or right on the Idaho/Utah border. “Limpy,” the famous Yellowstone wolf, migrated to near Morgan, Utah were he was caught in a coyote trap in 2002. Wolf manager Mike Jimenez came south and picked up the wolf and released him near Grand Teton National Park. Limpy soon made it back to Yellowstone’s northern range.

It is now obvious that long range dispersal of wolves from the Northern Rockies is fairly common.


About The Author

Ralph Maughan

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

302 Responses to Female wolf shot near Beaver, Utah

  1. Brett Haverstick says:

    Just heard about this Ralph. Predictable I guess one could say. Whether it’s grizzly-black bears or wolves-coyote the problem remains the slob hunter. There’s no excuse for mistaken-identity, absolutely none. Your either sure of your shot or you’re hunting license is revoked. And you do a little jail time, too, if you wack an endangered species.

    • I agree with you Brett. You are either sure of your shot or you go to jail for a while and get your hunting license revoked permanently. Hunters know what they are shooting. There is no excuse. Period.

    • All hunters are slobs–and they know it somewhere deep down. That is why they continue to try to justify their senseless serial killing. Hunters rave about how much they “love wildlife.” Interesting, since this is the same thing Pedophiles say about the children they molest.

      • Mak says:

        What is true is that Homo erectus with a much smaller brain, throve for over a million years without recourse to a gun.
        Another truth is that perhaps 200,000 years of Homo sapiens did the same.
        H. s. neanderthalensis did the same for twice that long with many large carnivores and much larger herbivores. (not even bear spray!)

        So, while it is difficult to fault hunters for hunting (I hunted as a child, and still almost never partake of domestic muscle), we SHOULD really, REALLY look at guns – most preferably with a sledgehammer.

      • Wapitime says:

        What an insane comment. Are you kidding me? Insane!

      • Smitty says:

        Wow. You are comparing hunters to child molesters. You are a crazy loon. Let me break something to you sweetie. The meat you eat doesn’t just magically appear at your local grocery store or restaurant. An animal had to die for you to eat. I am a responsible hunter. I respect all the wildlife I see whether looking through binoculars or my rifles scope. I do eat what I kill. So please watch what you say and stop labeling all hunters like the rest of society putting labels on race, cops, ect. And please get another appointment with your shrink.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Hey honey? We’re not talking about race, cops and etc. We’re not even talking about people who hunt for food. We’re talking about people who like to kill for fun, or to vent their misplaced anger on innocent animals when they’d love to shoot me, as an animal rights activist. I have zero respect for them. Zero. And they deserve all the slurs that are appropriate for people who enjoy hurting and killing.

          You expect me to care about calling these people scum? You’d have as much chance of getting sympathy for Charles Manson.

          • Nancy says:

            Hey Ida! Trolls??

          • rork says:

            Read Rosemary Lowe’s comment again Ida.

          • Smitty says:

            I was merely using them as an example as to how our society (yourself included) labels an entire group without possessing the capability to see past their (your) own agenda. I thank you for proving my point.

            • Immer Treue says:

              I’m sure any one of us who posts here could give you any number of anti-wolf sites who use the same tactless reasoning. The difference here is, we have people who hunt, and who have hunted participate on this blog. There are some very vocal anti hunters who post regularly here, but you chose as an example a poster who I don’t know if I have ever seen on his blog before.

              I don’t like to use the term trolling, but you certainly fit the bill as one who came here searching for something inflammatory, right or not, and simply added more fuel to the fire.

              Another example of being part of the problem, rather than even an attempt at synthesizing part of the solution.

              • Smitty says:

                Immer, I apologize if I have offended you or anyone. I am not anti-wolf and I am not trying to fuel the fire. I will however refuse to be silent when an ignorant person labels all hunters and compares us to child molesters. Good luck with your cause.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  No need for an apology, no offense taken. How about putting something on the table, in regard to preventing accidental killing of wildlife.
                  I spent many hours in a deer stand this past season. I am not anti hunting.

                • Yvette says:

                  I had something come up on my facebook feed a couple nights ago. It was from a page called, ‘The Only Good Wolf is a Dead Wolf’. I do not follow the wolf hating pages as they are usually quite disturbing. The picture that came through my feed had a wolf that looked like he was tied to the back of a truck. It was hard for me to tell if the wolf was tied or not, but the message implied they were going to drag this wolf.

                  It’s hard to determine how much is bravado and how much is real. One thing that is not hard to determine is the joy some of these people get from killing wildlife. It shows in their smiling faces posed with the ‘harvest’. The comments that follow are telling.

                  I hope the percentage of hunters that behave as these boisterous and provocative people do is small.

                  Because I follow many animal and wildlife related ‘pages’ on facebook some disturbing ‘posts’ do come through on occasion. Not all are about wolves. Not all are in America.

                  I can understand how someone can feel that ‘all hunters are slobs’ even though we know blanket statements about any group of people is not true. If you were to go look at that page, or one of the many other pages, you will see the horrific and depraved attitude and behavior those hunters post on facebook. It is eerie to know these people are walking among us in society.

        • jon says:

          Yeah, another ignorant hunter claiming he respects wildlife, yet he kills it.

          • Smitty says:

            Are all creatures you would like to protect our just wolves? Implant a small sub dermal transmitter in the wolves. Hunter carry the reciever. Before he shoots he tries to establish a ping. No ping it’s coyote shoot.

            • Mark L says:

              Smitty, you are suggesting tagging all wolves so that they aren’t mistaken for coyotes? Sounds kind of expensive…maybe not shooting coyotes or using a non-lethal deterrent would be a little cheaper? Btw, I hunt too, but think shooting coyotes (or wolves) is just plain stupid in most circumstances.

      • Jay Brimberry says:

        If it were not for hunters there would be no Yellowstone Park (Teddy R.). The father of modern conservation was a hunter (A. Leopold). It is hunters who pay for the land you love through their taxes on ammo. There would be less wild lands for the wolves roam. If you live in a home, drive a car, use electricity you are a hypocrite, because it is lose of habitat that does wildlife much more harm than an ethical hunter. I own woodlands that I manage for wildlife and I encourage predators on my land. But, I am one of those nasty hunters you hate. I promise you, on any given weekend I do more for wildlife, and wild spaces, than you have done in your life. I have turned almost 1000 acres of land that was cotton fields into longleaf pine and wiregrass habitat that is now alive with numerous endangered species….yes, I will run a bird dog through there during the winter and I might harvest a deer or two, but there is much more wildlife there now than there was 10 years ago. Please point out what you have done to improve wildlife.

        • Richie G. says:

          Hunters are not bad but good for the environment ,but people who want to keep predators down to a few that is where I have the problem

  2. jon says:

    That’s how these wildlife haters are getting away with shooting protected wolves. They say they thought it was a coyote. This person should be fined big time and jailed. Any wolf hater who sees a protected wolf can shoot it on sight and get away with it by claiming he thought it was a coyote. I don’t buy this excuse anymore.

    • Amre says:

      Oh I see, another hunter using the infamous ” I thought it was a coyote” excuse.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I can’t help but think of Tweety Bird when I keep reading this excuse: “I tawt I taw a coyote, I did! I did!’ *eyeroll*

        That serial killing/dumping of coyotes in Las Cruces was absolutely disgusting. You’d think many would know the difference by now with so much practice.

        • Mak says:

          Ida, you work hard at ESC and on wolf and related issues – tell us more or link the Las Cruces massacre, please.

  3. Richie G says:

    Their should be some judgment against this hunter
    whether he knew or not, by doing this you send a message to all hunters to be very sure what you shot to kill. If something isn’t done against this hunter ,it sends a message this this can be done without no penalty, Jon is correct they will keep on shooting at will.

  4. Mtn Mamma says:

    Any speculation on why he reported the kill? As frustrating
    and sad as this is, at least he did not SSS.

    • jon says:

      I don’t know if it mattered. Still same result. This hunter took protected wildlife from all those that value wildlife. I’m getting sick and tired of this “I thought it was a coyote” excuse. Wolf haters will be using this excuse to get away with killing endangered wolves. This hunter should be prosecuted, fined, and thrown in jail for years.

      • Yvette says:

        “I’m getting sick and tired of this “I thought it was a coyote” excuse.”

        Me too, Jon. I’ve now been following the wildlife issues long enough to see a pattern of using the “I thought it was a coyote” as the pat excuse. We should start tracking the response of State F&G agency’s response to that excuse. If there are laws to protect wolves that law will only have power if it is implemented and enforced. I suspect the F&G people may be turning their heads the other way when it comes to mistakes made when killing a wolf, and perhaps, other predators.

        • Mak says:

          Should you errantly believe that USFWS or any other entity is ethical rather than conflict-avoidant with states, please read the record of Decision which they presented in November concerning their woefully inadequate updated plan to “recover” the Mexican wolf.
          You can find it in the documents link on their proposal which just closed comment period on Dec 27.

          Here is a summary of UT Title 23. Wildlife Resources Code of Utah. Chapter 29. Wolf Management Act. Part 1. General Provisions , from West’s Utah Code by Animal Legal and Historical Center:
          Under the Utah Wolf Management Act, wolves must be managed so as to prevent the establishment of a viable pack anywhere in the state where the wolf is not listed as threatened or endangered until the wolf is delisted. If a wolf is discovered in an area where wolves are listed as threatened or endangered, the division must request its immediate removal from the state by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

          The law is filled with obvious loopholes, but UT has been trying with a lot of $ to strip Federal power, land, and management from that benighted state (I propose that Utah be entirely returned to territorial status, and all lands return to federal ownership – or BETTER, that the Ute tribes and Shoshone be returned to governance)

          For a link to the (original spelling only a bit over a couple hundred years back)louphole-strewn law:

          • Ed Loosli says:

            I second your motion – “Utah has been trying with a lot of $ to strip Federal power, land, and management from that benighted state (I propose that Utah be entirely returned to territorial status, and all lands return to federal ownership – or BETTER, that the Ute tribes and Shoshone be returned to governance).”

        • Smitty says:

          With all the “I thought it was a coyote” broken record replies read this. With winter coats and this being a small 70 pound female wolf, they look very similar. The area this wolf was killed is frequented by many coyote hunters. There has never been a wolf sighted in this area by any of our generation. So why would anyone think (hunter or not) it was a wolf when its 200yds away. And for the future “it was wearing a radio collar” replies, Utah DWR has tagged some coyotes in the state with radio collars.

    • Leslie says:

      I bet he only reported it because it was collared. If he hid the collar and it eventually showed up ‘dead’, he could get in big trouble then.

      • Mak says:

        collar was the usual huge thing, which nearly completely squashes a wolf’s ruff.

        Collar was also dead, and FWS claimed they were searching for it, to replace batteries. In light of their increasing failure to engage in any protections in dispute by slob hunters, welfare grazers, AFBF, Cattlemen’s associations, or their pet politicians, do not expect them to have adhered to their mandate.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          collar was the usual huge thing, which nearly completely squashes a wolf’s ruff.

          So this is something that contributes and can be addressed also, the collar could make a smaller wolf look more like a coyote by squashing the wolf’s ruff.

  5. Cody Coyote says:

    Regarding that ” McKittrick Policy” of prosecuting confirmed wolf kills at the least punitive legal threshhold possible, that was pioneered by former Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal who was the US Attorney that prosecuted Chad McKittrick for killing the alpha male wolf near Red Lodge MT. This was the first case of an illegal wnaton kill prosecuted after wold reintroduction , and Freudenthal set the prosecutorial precedent for what came after.

    Freudenthal hated wolves before he was Governor, and doubled down on wolves after he became Governor. He was awful about wolves. He was an NRA supporter, and so conservative by Democratic Party reckoning that he would be branded a closet Republican in other states.

    As prosecuting attorney with an ironclad case against McKittrick, Freudenthal could have—and should have —asked for a much more punitive sentence for the blatant killing. Instead he recommended a $ 500 fine and six months time.

    Subsequent prosecutions of wolf killers were done at a low punitive threshhold , starting from the low bar of the McKittrick case. As has been pointed out, the wanton killing of a protected specie can result in very severe penalties—up to $ 100,000 or more and some serious jail time, but when has that proportional sentence ever been handed out ?

    Case in point: A Wyoming Game and Fish large carnivore specialist / biologist by training killed a Grizzly bear on the side of the road near Yellowstone’s East Entrance two seasons ago…claimed he was shooting at a Black bear…spots bear, goes 50 miles back to town to buy a license, return and shoots bear from the highway right of way . A year later he has his day in state Court , local bench .He got a token fine for shooting from the road and taking the wrong species, and paid $ 10,000 restitution for the bear. He also still has his job as a Grizzly wrangler.

    The reasonable doubt of a shooter who can’t tell a wolf from a coyote from a Dachschund is of course a mitigating factor n these sorts of cases , where appropriate. We also have to dumb down the prosecution and dilute the sentencing if it occurs in Utah.

    The bottom line is the legal system is well behind the curve for valuing wildlife and adjudicating it.

    To close on a sunnier note, I am happy that a Grey Wold from my backyard in Cody Wyoming made it 800 miles away of its own volition. To the next wolf I would say go to Colorado instead.

    • Mak says:

      Thank you.
      It is cool to see someone from Cody pro-wolf return. As to recognizing Griz, even though I have not seen one since 05, it is EASY by face slope to differentiate, even if the muscle hump is not seen.

      2 lb of finger pressure by overexcited boys with guntoys, is faster than forebrain ethical communication/reflection.

  6. CT says:

    I do believe reporting the kill is an important consideration in terms of whether the hunter is charged with anything. Yes, mistaking a wolf for a coyote is like mistaking a mule deer for an elk. However, in an area with no acknowledged resident wolves, it is much more understandable to make the mistake. The hunter acted responsibly after the fact. I’d much rather focus on this being a natural habitat for wolves, and send a message to hunters that wolves can live there without enviro-nazis trying to jam up hunters who make honest mistakes. Lots of hunters do want wolves back in UT and western CO.

  7. John Carter says:

    I live with poaching and killing by hound hunters, trappers, horn hunters, bull moose shot and left by my house by local redneck…probably thought it was a coyote…these people are basically just wanton killers and it is tolerated and enabled by weak Fish and Game agencies who get their revenue by selling the lives of our wildlife.

    Remember, Cliven Bundy and his militia run free today, his cows are still on the public lands..

    Remember, Wall Street and Big Banks are not prosecuted for the fraud that cost trillions and recent riders will ensure we the taxpayer still have to bail them out of their speculations…they get the profits when they win the gambling game they are in…we get the bill when they fail.

    We live in a time when all these criminals run free and are rewarded yet enviros are rated highest on domestic terrorist list…protesters are beaten and gassed…

    What’s one wolf to a government system that is broken and corrupt?

    • John, you are so right. These animal serial killers have the protection of game agencies, and many of them are tied to the Livestock Industry–and are hunters/trappers themselves. In our short-attention span society, Cliven Bundy and his neo-Nazi racist cohorts are already forgotten by most. But, some of us do not forget. Livestock are devastating precious public lands, where native wild animals need to roam, including wolves, coyotes, bears, and other non-human life. There will be no peace or justice for native animals while The Livestock and Hunting Industries control these lands. It’s a war against the wild, out there, folks.

  8. Ida Lupines says:

    In order to protect wolves and other wildlife, coyote-killing needs to be limited or stopped. This excuse is getting old now. Even I can tell a coyote from a wolf. And I’m not an ‘outdoorsman intimate with my surroundings and habits of wildlife, hunter conservationist’. Of course, they can’t seem to tell the difference between an ungulate and a human either.

    • Amre says:

      I agree 100% Ida. I’m a person who can tell the difference between wolves and coyotes and grizzly/ black bears, even though I don’t live in the west.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        🙂 Yes. Of course, in the moment might be different, I don’t know. Coyotes seem to have a more narrow muzzle, smaller, and the color may be different? I’ve unfortunately never had the pleasure of seeing/hear a wolf. I haven’t seen a grizzly, although I’ve tried to make myself prepared to know the difference (hump on back, coloration, larger?). I have seen a black bear (at a distance) – they look so harmless eating berries, but I would not want to bother/harass one by getting too close first of all, and secondly, would not want to get into a tangle with a bear, esp. a mother understandably upset and trying to protect her little ones. So even us more urban folks can tell.

  9. Phillip Clair says:

    I agree 100% with the remarks above that state this “hunter and others like him who can’t identify what they’re shooting at before they shoot it should be prosecuted! It’s my belief that they’re men (for the most part) that are just bloodthirsty and want to have more deer/coyotes/whatever to shoot at and use any excuse they can to do so. Stupidity should not be rewarded! It will just make me donate more to organizations like Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club to help rewrite the laws in this backwards state.

  10. Josh Sutherland says:

    You guys are funny, this is literally the SECOND confirmed sighting in Utah in like 100 years. This is probably the first wolf this dude has ever even seen! So stop all the hysterical ranting about him knowing exactly what he was doing. It’s utah not Montana or Idaho, we as hunters don’t “run” into wolves enough to even think that it would be anything but a coyote. Use your heads.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      But wouldn’t it at least cross his mind?

    • skyrim says:

      Hey Josh! Do you live in Mapleton?

    • timz says:

      Making excuses. You “hunters” as you call yourselves should know your target no matter what it is. Using your logic you could shoot an elephant and claim, “gee I’ve never ran into one of these before, how was I to know what it was?”
      No wonder people use the term “slob hunters”, it often fits.

    • JB says:


      I’m sorry, but the current lack of wolves in Utah isn’t an acceptable excuse to mis-identify a target. One of the first rules I was taught as a hunter: Don’t shoot unless you’re absolutely sure of your target. Every year, numerous animals, some endangered, are mistakenly shot and killed by hunters who don’t take the time to correctly identify the animal. Indeed, someone who posts here regularly was shot twice by a hunter who thought he was a deer earlier this year. There is no excuse (and should be no excuses) for such behavior–least of all among hunters. When you make such excuses, you implicitly suggest that this behavior is acceptable and “normal”, thereby contributing to the bad rap hunters get from the non-hunting community.

      Granted, there tends to be a lot of ‘judgy’ and hyperbolas rhetoric on this blog after such incidents. But the fact that you dislike the rhetoric should not prevent you from condemning bad behavior.

      • CT says:

        Josh is in fact spot-on. Strict liability laws that don’t account for honest mistakes tend to breed contempt for law. I think the hunter did the right thing for reporting his mistake. However, even reading some of these comments, I have to say I would understand if someone in the future were deterred from owning up to a similar mistake. I do think it’s obvious the hunter didn’t leave home that morning planning to shoot a wolf.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          OK, we’ll give him some credit for not being part of the shoot, shovel and shutup crowd, but the brazen shoot- right-in-front-of-everyone-because-not- a-damn-thing-can-be-done-about-it crowd.

          No, we don’t know that he didn’t leave the house planning to shoot a wolf – because this stuff is happening on a regular basis.

          But don’t blame wolf advocates; blame the overly aggressive hater for making all hunters look bad.

        • Yvette says:

          CT, think of this scenario: I’m driving through an intersection that has a stop sign that I didn’t see because the sign was partially obscured from tree branch too close to the sign. I T-bone another vehicle and kill someone in the other car.

          I certainly didn’t leave home expecting to kill someone because I didn’t failed to see the stop sign. Should I be charged with vehicular manslaughter (or whatever charge is appropriate) or not? It was an honest mistake. Truly, it was an honest mistake. I didn’t leave the scene of the accident and immediately called 911 and began my best effort to help the poor bloke I t-boned. I feel horrible.

          Should I be charged? It was an honest mistake.

          • CT says:


            An honest mistake T-bone doesn’t get you charged criminally either in the US or in Putin’s Russia. Maybe in Stalin’s Russia or in Hitler’s Germany you get charged anyway. Depends on the world you want for our children. As for civil suits, if it is clear that it was an honest mistake with no negligence, neither does a lawsuit survive summary judgment. As it should be. Consider that hunter an honest good man who reported an awkward thing. Maybe even a LDS honest good man. We wouldn’t hate him for being a Jew and vegetarian, so we shouldn’t hate him for being a LDS hunter who eats meat and reports mistakes, if that’s what he was.

            • Leslie says:

              CT, not so. I remember a woman from Ireland driving on highway 1 on a curvy windy section. No other cars on the road and she was driving on the wrong side of the road–as is customary in Ireland to drive on the left. Instinct had taken over and she was making an honest mistake. Unfortunately, around a curve comes a motorcyclist and she kills him. An honest mistake. Well she got 4 years for vehicular manslaughter. And this was not in Russia or China but the U.S. I cannot get out of a ticket for ignorance–“Oh, didn’t know the speed limit was 30mph here”. Why should “Oh, thought it was a coyote” exempt this guy from the law.

              It is very hard to believe that Utahans regularly see 70 pound coyotes. This guy should have taken a second look.

              • Josh Sutherland says:

                Up until he shot that wolf I bet he would of thought he had better odds of seeing a 70lb coyote than a freaking wolf! You are forgetting, no one has seen a wolf in that area for over 100 years! NO ONE thought there was a wolf there! Do you not understand that? Also using your logic on charging him, if we followed your advice out prison system would be completely overwhelmed in months. Were humans, we make mistakes and some are bigger than others. Every tragedy that happened if we threw people in jail it would be out of control in a very short amount of time. Aunt backs over and kills nephew, life in prison. Horse gets out of pasture and causes a car accident. 10 years in prison. There would literally be thousands of examples of how that would not work. Kudos to the hunter that owned up to his mistake and will face punishment from the law. Not condemnation to hell from most people on this blog.

                • Nancy says:

                  Perhaps the reason no one has seen a wolf in a 100 years in Utah, is because any attempts by wolves to travel there or thru, are met with the same excuse (I thought it was a coyote) by less honest hunters? (or ranchers)

          • Connie Reppe says:

            YES. Yvette, “It” “yours” was an honest admittance to knowing of a partially obscured stop sign’ after the fact.
            “your” a ‘liability to the victim’s living relatives’ and the ‘town, city is a violation(s) liability to the victim’s living relatives’ Avenge the fatal injury vs. accidentally injured
            “It’s” “your” failure to see the stop sign. Your honest club steak. A honest mistake is that you honestly lived an important crucial moment to have kept in complete control ‘in the clutch’ to tell about “it” I’m a person who habitually takes part in coffee.

      • JB says:

        “Strict liability laws that don’t account for honest mistakes tend to breed contempt for law.”

        True, but requiring the showing of intent makes prosecution next to impossible, thus rendering such laws largely ineffectual. The workaround is to make sure judges have flexibility in sentencing. I agree that this guy should not go to jail, but he should pay a fine and do some community service.

        “You are forgetting, no one has seen a wolf in that area for over 100 years! NO ONE thought there was a wolf there!”

        Josh: When I lived in Utah, (2002-4) a wolf was caught in a coyote trap in north central Utah (about a 240 mile drive from Beaver) and two wolves that killed sheep in Idaho were shot on the Utah border. The response to these events in the press was overwhelming (and very negative), and the UDWR conducted numerous outreach events at RAC meetings (the one I attended had ~250 people–mostly hunters). They also established a web page that had an info-graphic designed to help people distinguish wolves from coyotes, a graphic that is used widely by states. The point is, the coyote hunter may not have expected to see a wolf, but any one who hunts coyotes should have known that a wolf sighting was possible and should be able to correctly identify his target.

        The “I couldn’t tell” excuse doesn’t work with ducks, and it shouldn’t work with wolves either.

        • Nancy says:

          + 1 JB.

        • Josh Sutherland says:

          I agree with most of what you said, but the issue is with how the law is wrote. So if people want it changed they should try to get the law changed. Instead of hysterical condemnation of the hunter who already admitted his mistake.

          • JB says:


            To be fair, it isn’t the way the law is written that is problematic, it is the way it is being enforced/prosecuted. But I agree with your point–if the policy is the problem, then the discussion should be about how to change the policy. I also agree that the rhetoric here tends to be hyper-critical of hunters, which really serves no purpose whatsoever. Note–I never took exception to either of those points; rather, I took exception to your defense of the guy who killed the wolf. For what it is worth, I agree that he did the right thing turning himself in, which any decent judge and prosecutor would note. Where we disagree is the idea that his actions should be excused. If all one needs to do is claim to have misidentified his target, then the law is rendered meaningless–every offender has an air-tight excuse.

      • Wapitime says:

        Excellent points Josh!

  11. UTAH. Isn’t that where all the gods in training live???? I wonder what kind of a world most of them plan on creating after they get their graduation diploma.

  12. Josh Sutherland says:

    No hunter in Utah leaves thinking they will even see a wolf! I don’t leave thinking I will run into a panther that crossed over from Mexico! Get real! Coyotes are very common and if I did in fact see a wolf I would probably think it was a feral dog versus a wolf! And yes I would probably be as surprised if I saw an elephant in Utah as a wolf!

    I never said his behavior was acceptable, he killed an animal he was not supposed to and also reported it to the proper authorities. He will then be punished accordingly. How is an honest hunter who made a mistake but owned up to it and reported it a “slob” hunter? Geez people!

    I live in lehi

    • Nancy says:

      Josh, I think what you are forgetting here is he shot a “collared” wolf. How many coyotes do you see in your area running around with collars on? And why didn’t that fact alone, make him stop short of blowing this animal away?

  13. Josh Sutherland says:

    Larry your showing your education to resorting in insults to people’s religions, are you considered a “slob” commenter? I think so.

    • WM says:

      I think Larry speaks truth in this instance. Otherwise, why would a religion seeking relevancy and ascendency in its relatively short history have……Prophets/Apostles? And, doesn’t God speak through the heads of the Church. Amazing is the Power of Myth, but I guess the late Joseph Campbell (philosophy of religion professor at Sara Lawrence College has already spoken of this).

  14. Josh Sutherland says:

    WM and exactly what does Mormonism have anything to do with a female wolf being shot in Utah? For real? He is trolling plain and simple, and you as a sheep are trolling along with… 🙂 congrats

    • timz says:

      Mormons are some of the most vocal anti_wolf people I know, many openly advocating an SSS policy. It’s funny to ask them how their God feels about lawbreaking and how is it he mistakenly created the wolf?

    • WM says:

      Not trolling at all Josh. I think timz nailed it. And, if you have need to confirm the effects of Mormonism on parochial economic interests (anti-wolf being just one) there is a lot of it, if you look. Disenfranchisement of Indians (before the word Native American became popular and theft therefrom), water, land use, minerals, and the list is long. Probably should mention other practical benefits, like Brigham Young and other church elders over the years “sampling” young girls. In some cultures and states, that would be called rape of a minor. Now, that is out of the way, I’ll step off the alleged troll soap box.

      I almost went to grad school in Logan, before I was told “how things would be” for the next two years, if I rejected a lavish invitation to join the Church, after attending a number of social functions designed to lure me in.

      This dumb hunter shot a collared wolf.

      • Josh Sutherland says:

        WM I will just let you have your anti-mormon rhetoric. Don’t have the desire to have a religious discussion on a thread about wolves.

  15. Josh Sutherland says:

    Nancy have you ever shot an animal? Or hunted? Coyotes specifically?

    • Nancy says:

      No I don’t hunt Josh but I’m sure you’re gonna fill me on how this guy was probably out just “messing around” shooting coyotes or maybe he’s one of those hunters that love to get out and “enjoy” nature, while setting up a blind and call coyotes in with distress calls. Scopes on their rifles, big grins on their faces and high 5ing their buddies when they rid the county of one of those pesky varmints…

      That sick mentality re: predators, is all over the internet (YouTube, etc.) because like child molesters, these guys can’t control themselves and need to share their conquests. I digress, sorry.

      • Josh Sutherland says:

        I figured you don’t hunt, it’s easy to arm chair quarterback something you have never done. And now all hunters are compared to child molesters! Geez nothing is off limits on this blog anymore! Mormons and child molestors are now synonymous with hunters I guess! Wow

        • Nancy says:

          Josh, did I say ALL hunters were child molesters? My reference was to the sick bunch who can’t get enough attention and have to post their conquests/kills on line. You know who I’m talking Josh. Google it.

          • josh sutherland says:

            And they can be easily compared to the anti’s that encourage rape and death to the families of those posters. Dont forget there is filth on your side of the aisle also..

            • Nancy says:

              Ah, the anti’s. Tags that are tiresome and attached to both sides of the issue, and mean little if you just care about the welfare of wildlife and wildlands.

        • Wapitime says:

          Josh, great to see another person with some brains on this site.

      • Louise kane says:

        Plus 1 nancy

  16. Josh Sutherland says:

    Timz you at least are entertaining to read! In church on Sunday our lesson was on how wolves are evil and that we should protect our children! 🙂 I really do hope you realize how ignorant and stupid that comment truly makes you look. I mean come on man! You can do better than that, blanket statements don’t hold much weight!

    • timz says:

      Josh it is you who is looking rather ignorant and foolish. Listen to the Idaho Legislature sometime (made up of 40% Mormons) and how they feel about wolves. My Bishop neighbor and his minions are always standing around caterwauling about wolves. Utah’s legislature (guessing largely Mormon) hands out hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to anti_wolf groups. Here’s a quote from one of those nice folks: state senator Allen Christensen introduced a bill that would have allowed state officials to kills or trap any wolf found in Utah. Sen. Christensen has made the following claims about wolves:

      “They serve no real useful purpose.”

      “Despite what Disney portrays them as, being little fluff balls, they make their living by killing other animals and sometimes they do it just for the sport of the kill.”

      Need I go on?

      • Josh Sutherland says:

        Yes you can continue to look like an ignorant fool. You have three examples of people you claim are Mormons that therefore means all 15 million Mormons are rabid anti wolf. Using your logic all white people hate black people, all black people are gangsters and all Hispanics are illegal aliens! Get real! YOU are the problem, stereotypes and blanket statements carry ZERO weight with anyone of any measurable intelligence. Except you evidently! 🙂

        • timz says:

          Sorry, facts are facts.

          • Josh Sutherland says:

            Facts are facts! Lol you would loose ALOT of court cases! Opinions don’t count as facts, if you could show me what study you found that said that the large majority of the 15 million Mormons hate wolves I would appreciate it! Ha

            • timz says:

              Which of my statements is an opinion?
              Here, I’ll give you one, you don’t seem to have much in the way of comprehensive reading skills.

  17. Josh Sutherland says:

    Your opinion is that all Mormons are rabid anti wolf, can you please show me a study or data that supports that. You can’t, which means it’s your OPINION. I typed that slow so you could read it. Your three people you know who are Mormons that supposedly hate wolves does not constitute an entire religion. You keeping up?

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      I agree. Disliking wolves is a rural thing, not a Mormon thing. Rural Utah, rural Idaho, rural Arizona, rural Wyoming, rural Montana are all very much alike this way, but only rural Utah is primarily Mormon.

      • timz says:

        Ralph, I think wolf hatred is or can be a religious thing. (this Josh is an opinion)
        Christianity often represents the devil himself as a wolf. Other religions portray them as mounts for demons, pets of the devil, etc.
        Then there are some religions that hold them up as god-like.

        • Josh Sutherland says:

          Just the fact that you think a religion would spend time teaching it’s members to hate wolves is hilarious enough! I mean child molestors and religion being discussed as valid identifiers of anti wolf is about as far far far left as ya can get! 🙂

          • timz says:

            Josh, if your trying to defend the Mormon church you might want to stay away from the subject of child molesters.

            • Josh Sutherland says:

              Defend the mormon church from someone on a wildlife commenting board that is claiming that the mormon religion teaches it’s members the doctrine of wolf hating!?!?! Lol dude! Come on! You think our conversation is me defending the mormon church? Ha, you hide behind a moniker so that you can pull your big boy pants on and talk crap under the anominity of the internet. Now that is a “fact” not an opinion! Now you know the difference! Tell your bishop hi for me.

        • Josh Sutherland says:

          So it’s opinion that “some” religions may hate wolves, but “FACT” that it’s mormon doctrine to hate wolves. I can’t keep up….

      • ramses09 says:

        Don’t forget MN,MI,WI, disliking wolves. Just as ignorant as the western idiots.

    • timz says:

      Now Josh, get out your tablet and Crayolas, think about your answer and write it down.
      My statements:
      1.”Mormons are some of the most vocal anti_wolf people I know.” The key here is “I know” this is based on personal contact which I have had a lot of. Use your red crayon to write down how this qualifies as an opinion.
      2.”Listen to the Idaho Legislature sometime (made up of 40% Mormons) and how they feel about wolves.” Use your blue crayon this time to describe how this is an opinion not a fact.
      3. “My Bishop neighbor and his minions are always standing around caterwauling about wolves.” I know you don’t know my neighbor but how is this statement an opinion? Green crayola this time.
      4.”Utah’s legislature (guessing largely Mormon) (update 80% Mormon) hands out hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to anti_wolf groups.” Easily checked fact, no opinion here either.
      5.”Here’s a quote from one of those nice folks: state senator Allen Christensen” Easily verifiable, no opinion here. You can choose the color for this answer.

      • Josh Sutherland says:

        All opinions! Do you have verifiers statements from each one that you have referenced? Have you spoken to ALL 40% of the Mormon legislature to KNOW exactly their stand on wolves? Seems to me your doing ALOT of assuming. Anyways I tire of this useless conversation.

        • timz says:

          “Have you spoken to ALL 40% of the Mormon legislature to KNOW exactly their stand on wolves?”

          No, but there votes are public record. Not very bright are you?

          • Josh Sutherland says:

            How many of Utah legislators are mormon? I mean really Timz, you can do better than that. Mormonism has nothing to do with hating wolves, just are your religion has nothing to do with how ignorant you are.

  18. Josh Sutherland says:

    Thanks Raplh! Common sense finally prevails!

  19. Ralph Maughan says:


    I saw today that Utah Wildlife officials confirmed a wolf was seen in the Uinta Mountains Utah back in August. It is thought to be been a wolf that had been radio collared some time ago on the Idaho/British Columbia border, probably a big male wolf. He was last tracked in September. The collar was failing at the time.

    • Yvette says:

      I’m holding out for the DNA testing on the killed wolf to see if it is indeed the lone wolf spotted near the Grand Canyon.

      • skyrim says:

        I just read about that speculation too. Anything is possible but it seems odd that a radio collar would run out of juice in only 9-10 months.

  20. jon says:

    We need to continue to expose these people to the public. For years, we have been told hunters love wildlife and they are the #1 conservationists, but we have seen time and time again many hunters have ZERO RESPECT for wildlife. They see wildlife as a shooting target and these people have the balls to claim they are conservationists when they are saying the only good wolf is a dead wolf? All the who post their coyote kills on youtube are pro-wildlife? Give me a break. Hunters are not conservationists. They want wildlife around TO KILL IT.

    • Josh Sutherland says:

      Oh jeez give it a rest. Talk about repetitive rhetoric. Hell Jon you could just copy the same comment you make and just paste it on every topic. Your blind hatred for hunting is entertaining. By the way how is Australia’s wolf population coming along?

      • jon says:

        My blind hatred of sport hunters is warranted and justified. Hunters who kill wolves/coyotes for sport are sadistic psychopaths who should seek help.

      • jon says:

        I don’t know, ask someone who lives in Australia. If there is any justice in this world, this coyote hunter will be fined and thrown in prison for his crimes against wildlife. Wildlife watchers who shoot animals with cameras, not guns are the only true conservationists.

        • Josh Sutherland says:

          YOU live in Australia, remember I was the one tht turned you onto this blog years ago. You remember your days on YouTube? I have a fairly good memory Jon. Which is also why your the only one posting at 3am. Those of us in the states are sleeping. Anyways hope all is well in the land down under!

          • Nancy says:

            Josh, I’m usually up at 4 am and I live in Montana. Early to bed, early to rise 🙂

  21. Ronnie H says:

    Mormons = wolf hater.. I’ll just leave that simple-minded thought process alone, not to mention it’s a complete Red herring.

    I’ve hunted deer and elk my entire life, yet I have also conducted field research with wolves in Wyoming. Lumping all “hunters” into a single bucket is a foolish way to get people involved with actual solutions to wildlife management. I believe the man should be punished, What I can’t believe is that in 2014- people still think that shooting coyotes is going to lower their population in the long term. Science knows better but unfortunately, many times science is trumped by politics, especially when it comes to large carnivores.

    Wolves in Utah and Colorado will always be an uphill battle due to low dispersal rates relative to adjoining states, and SSS will always be an issue in rural communities.
    My hope is that a few will fly under the radar and establish packs on their own.

  22. CT says:

    Bigotry seems to be an inherent part of much of the organized environmental movement, unfortunately. The anti-LDS bigotry displayed here, along the the cognitive inability to see that an honest mistake is different from an intentional violation, are jarring and disturbing. I support the introduction of wolves in UT. But can find no common cause with the kind of hate so openly displayed in this thread.

    • Immer Treue says:

      I don’t believe it is so much hate or bigotry, but a growing dissonance with the ambient excuse of, I thought it was a coyote, I thought it was a black bear, I thought it was a deer ad nauseum. Cardinal rule, know what you’re shooting at. Period. A thread such as this, with associated vitriol would be nonexistant if not for the I thought it was…

      • CT says:

        Well, with the follow-up from WM about the problem being the Mormons involved in politics, I think it is bigotry. Substitute “Jews” or “Navajo” for Mormon and it looks, and is, real bigoted. What about the problem of African-Americans being involved in politics? To be clear, I don’t think it’s a problem. Blacks, Jews, Navajo, AND EVEN MEMBERS OF THE LDS FAITH, are all Americans and all entitled to participate.

        As for know what you’re shooting at, I have a feeling a number of commenters don’t hunt. The hunter reported his mistake. Should we A) ruin the dirty Mormon’s life, because even if he reported the honest mistake, he is guilty of something, plus it will be fun, or B) treat him as we would want to be treated?

        • CT says:

          Oh, and I’m not Mormon myself, for those wondering.

          • WM says:

            Sorry, CT, not going to let you skate off so easily with the dismissive blanket “bigotry” comment. I like to deal in facts. Religion, politics and money. I have always felt protected civil rights classes need open debate without throwing out some blanket term that makes discussing a topic politically incorrect (PC) – “bigotry” is one of those terms.

            So, let’s just pretend being PC doesn’t take our eye off the ball, as we have frank dialog about a topic (I really don’t care which protected classes it involves).

            Here is another reading for you on the intertwining of religion, money and politics and the dilemmas they pose for this one uniquely American religion which is alive and economically prospering in the West. And, make no mistake there are practical parts of the LDS faith that I find admirable and agree with, but it doesn’t mean we should not discuss the pros and the cons, warts and all together:


        • Immer Treue says:

          I hunt. When a hunter makes a mistake, something needlessly dies. Kind of like incidental take from trapping. But the hunter has the “choice”. I grow weary of the I thought it was excuse, and it matters not what socio/politico/faith said individual belongs.

        • Immer Treue says:


          “As for know what you’re shooting at, I have a feeling a number of commenters don’t hunt.”

          What difference does this make? If the hunting fraternity/sorority doesn’t clean up their own act, mistakes in this case, others will do it for them, and hunters may not like the resulting decision.

          • Richie G says:

            People on this forum is speaking about a church being an organization, this is on the mark. The Catholic church is an organization, when I was in Catholic school, growing up I heard they owned the Sun oil company. What I am getting at ,the “organization” can influence politics in a state, and politics against predators. The western states have a beautiful treasure ,wide open space, it is a shame that some people what the entire space for themselves, sounds almost like a Hitler thing. This may be an extreme comment , but the common denominator is some people want to rule and have everything for themselves, this is where the Hitler mindset comes into play. The west is beautiful and states like Oregon are on the right track in my opinion. Predators in my opinion should be able to roam, if one or two get out of hand ,they should be dealt accordantly, not a shooting gallery.

    • WM says:

      I would tend to agree with you about bigotry, but when a religion is so integrated into the socio-political and economic framework of a geographic area of the country, it is VERY HARD TO DISTINGUISH between what is religion and what is politics, just like a major political party. LDS and LDS church members bounce in and out of the shadows with their politics, and thus it is, IMHO, fair game to call attention to this phenomenon.

      And, as a parting thought about Mormonism and politics, I will leave you with an article about Senator Orin Hatch, former LDS Bishop, who unashamedly takes lobby money from alcohol and tobacco interests. You speak of alleged bigotry, while I speak of self-evident religious hypocrisy:

      As for this particular wolf and its demise, again, it had a collar. And the state of UT has a statute (and formal wolf management policy) that appears to encourage REMOVAL of wolves on sight:

      Part 2. Wolf Management

      § 23-29-201. Wolf management

      (1) The division shall contact the service upon discovering a wolf in any area of the state where wolves are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and request immediate removal of the animal from the state.

      (2) The division shall manage wolves to prevent the establishment of a viable pack in all areas of the state where the wolf is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act until the wolf is completely delisted under the act and removed from federal control in the entire state.

      • Josh Sutherland says:

        I still think it’s hilarious that the mormon church is now being blamed as a co-conspirator in this wolfs death! Lol

        • CT says:

          Personally I think we need an enemy’s list of influential Mormons who may be part of the “anti-wolf movement.”

        • WM says:

          I don’t know about “this wolf’s death,” but here is something to ponder, regarding wolf policy.

          In case some of you don’t think the Mormon Church is involved in agriculture in a very big way, here is more evidence of this:

          They have 5 working cattle ranches (some in UT), and one of the largest cow-calf operations in the country in the state of FL.

          So, I am going to say UT and LDS/Mormon faith (and its vast corporate business holdings) have disdain for wolves, which is not just a “rural” phenomenon, as others on this forum have suggested. The Church and a number of its members either directly or directly have a vested economic interest in keeping predators, including wolves, at a minimum, in UT and everywhere else they have, or would have in the future, livestock interests.

          • Josh Sutherland says:

            Take off your tin foil hat WM and there are no black helicopters flying over your house spying on you. Not a lot of wolves in Florida….

            I just find it absolutely mind boggling that you believe that it is church doctrine and that the church encourages the hatred of wolves.

            • Josh Sutherland says:

              WM you are the prime example of why ALOT of utahns do not want wolves in utah. You are so far out in left field that any sort of common sense management or common ground would be virtually impossible. It would be a circus, the evidence you need is right here on this thread. It would be funny if it was not so alarming tht people truly have these thoughts and make these far flung connections.

            • WM says:

              I don’t think I said anything about wolves in FL, but I did say predators, there. And, it did mention Church involvement in raising livestock in many places.

              So, if the Church had ranches in ID, MN or WI, they wouldn’t weigh in on predator management policy?

              Maybe you should take a look at this video of Deseret Land and Livestock, which runs 10,000 cows. Do you suppose they want to start spending money on range riders, guard dogs, fladry and the like, if it eats into ranch profits. Listen carefully on this video to hear how many times the concept of profitable operations comes up (dollars, profit, synonyms for these terms).

              I’m not the one with the tin hat, Josh. I am just a messenger, hopefully with good verifiable facts and comments which give people pause to think about complex topics.

              • WM says:

                Forgot the link:

              • Josh Sutherland says:

                WM you are the one with a tin hat. It’s just ridiculous the jumps you are making. Gonna go hunting some chukars! Keep that hat on.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  The jumps you are making, are about 4500 miles in error. God protect any wolves in your vicinity if you chose to go coyote hunting.

  23. Richie G says:

    Maybe this is a dumb question, but didn’t the hunter see the collar on the wolf? He should have put two and two together? Maybe the reason he told the authorities because he was scared of being caught ? I don’t know what was in his mind at the time, but with a collared wolf he should at least be fined. Maybe this will send a message to all if he got some kind of punishment.

  24. Gary Humbard says:

    This wolf would probably still be alive today if there was no bounty on coyotes. Utah is one of a half dozen states with bounties on coyotes (Colorado being another) and until policies change there is little hope for wolves to disperse through Utah and Colorado.

    Bounties have been shown to be in-effective in reducing livestock depredation and we all know the benefits that coyotes provide to the landscape. Coyotes have been the most persecuted animal in the US and they continue to expand in numbers and range. Stupidity is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result.

    Our hope for wolves to continue to disperse are in the Pacific Northwest and California where more non-archaic policies are used.

  25. Mike says:

    Hunters are the worst. put the guns down and read a book.

  26. Louise Kane says:

    hunter shoots man in MA
    Jon Way was lucky as is this man

    • jon says:

      I’m glad Jon was ok. If that hunter used a real bullet, Jon would be deceased. it’s sickening that Jon had to go through that.

  27. Theo Chu says:

    The killing of this wolf is very unfortunate. It however is not the end of the wolf world as we know it. History would suggest more wolves will disperse to wherever there is adequate prey and as occurred with OR-7 some will eventually become established. Those of you who are doing all the vicious name calling need to ask yourselves this question. If this was not a dumb mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, why did the shooter turn himself in to face a probable large fine not to mention your condemnation? Why not just walk away as undoubtedly has happened many times?

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I think it is because they know that nothing will happen to them, and that they will receive the benefit of the doubt as long as coyotes are legal to kill, there’s really no way to prove that they ‘didn’t know’ and they can continue this with impunity – the way the laws are set up and the legality of killing coyotes. They get off scot-free and look like good guys (to some) to boot!

      • Ed Loosli says:

        in answer to Theo’s questions: +1

      • Theo Chu says:

        Would you take that gamble – turn yourself in and hope USF&WS doesn’t decide to make an example out of you and prosecute you to the maximum? Any chance he turned himself in because he thought it was the right thing to do?

        • jon says:

          The chances of you being prosecuted is very slim because you have that BS excuse, “I thought it was a coyote”. Seems to work every time.

          • Theo Chu says:

            “Seems to work every time.”It sure didn’t work with the grizzly bear in Idaho just recently.

            I think it highly unlikely that this person intentionally killed this animal knowing it was a wolf. Although you shouldn’t mistake a wolf for a coyote, if you are not expecting a wolf to be within hundreds of miles of where you are hunting coyotes it is not an impossible error. As far as we know this was not a black or white wolf but rather a wolf with similar coloration to a coyote, and a small wolf at that. I commend this hunter for reporting his mistake. Clearly those of you here spewing the most vitriol have never made a mistake yourselves or you wouldn’t be so quick to judge so harshly. Involuntary manslaughter won’t get you the degree of punishment that some of you are wishing on this hunter. Lastly I agree the Utah bounty system is archaic and it may have contributed to the incident. However whether there should be an open season on coyotes is worthy of debate, but it’s a sidebar here.

            • Ralph Maughan says:


              You are right about the recent grizzly bear case, but the McKittrick policy is a federal policy, and a major point about the Idaho grizzly case was that it was a state of Idaho prosecution.

              • Theo Chu says:

                True that. Still I have a hard time believing this Utah hunter, realizing he was likely to see a wolf that day although none had been seen there in decades, reviewed the McKitterick clause before he went afield and then shot the first wolf he saw. Or maybe he shot the first wolf he saw, looked up the McKitterick clause on his iPhone and THEN decided to turn himself in. The other admittedly remote possibility is that he accidentally killed a small wolf thinking it was a coyote and then reported as an ethical (howls in the background) hunter.

                • Nancy says:

                  Theo, my Golden Retriever mix weighs in at 70 lbs. but she does not have near the same height as a wolf.

                  We can all speculate as to what actually happened here but I’m leaning towards the fact that this guy didn’t give much thought to what he was shooting at, he was just shooting something.

                  Stepped outside my cabin a few minutes ago and heard an eerie combination of coyote howls and snowmobiles across the way.

                  Brought a memory back of a ranch kid who loved to brag about running coyotes down on his snowmobile, every chance he got. Can’t address ignorance or stupidity, unless the laws change.

    • skyrim says:

      I can appreciate your thoughts here TC, but I’d have to toss out my understanding of rural Utahn’s attitudes to give it merit.
      You must understand that in these areas it is largely a badge of honor to take out an animal of this caliber. Please consider that this individual was out intending to kill as many cousins (as he could) of this wolf for a small bounty.
      How could this fella brag it up if he had to hide behind the protected, collared matter?
      Add to that the historical issue of zero to minimal punishment.
      I can assure you that after overhearing chatter in rural coffee shops/taverns for close to 20 years, not a breath of what’s legal or ethical enters the conversation when “wolf” enters the dialogue.

      • Theo Chu says:

        You may be right but that’s a lot of negative assumptions about someone you don’t know and have never met. I sure hope I never stumble in your range.

        BTW I grew up near Beaver UT so I am aware of the local custom and culture.

  28. JB says:

    Looking back through this thread, it is hard not to become frustrated by the hate-filled condemnation of this individual and hunters more generally. It accomplishes nothing, and alienates many people who hunt and yet generally agree that the killing of endangered species should be avoided. Rather than rant, condemn and insult, wouldn’t it be a more effective use of everyone’s time to discuss how policies might be altered to reduce such killings?

    Kudos to Cody Coyote for keeping the focus on the problematic McKittrick Policy.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Open season on coyotes stops now. They can only be hunted during narrow seasons as all other wildlife. Varmint status ends, as it has done absolutely nothing to reduce their numbers. Hunter education as per the differences between wolves and coyotes. Ethics and values of all wildlife stressed rather than just the good animals.

      • Theo Chu says:

        I agree totally.

      • jon says:

        Hunters are ignorant. They think killing coyotes will bring back all the deer. They have a gimme gimme gimme attitude when it comes to wildlife. Coyotes are not varmints. If I had to pick who are the varmints, it’s the coyote hunters who are killing these animals for money and because they love killing.

    • Yvette says:

      + JB. Speaking only for myself, I have to work hard to keep my emotions in check. I had to train myself to avoid lashing out verbally (online) for the very reasons you stated. I’m not always successful, but I am better today than I was in the past. It certainly isn’t that don’t feel many of the things that we read. I do. I think lashing out is born of frustration, (and anger in some cases…like me) but the only way to truly work on what is frustrating is to find a way to work on the issue where there will eventually be tangible results.

      • ramses09 says:

        You took the words right out of my head. I lash out & name call (which I do not like to do) because I am frustrated @ the way politics have played out in nature & wildlife. Selfish, hating, horrible people who don’t seem to want to know the science end of the environment. Ignorance & greed is what fuels those kind of hunters.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      These people don’t do much to help the bad reputation they have, do they? It’s like you’re asking us to have pity on a mentally challenged individual, and I guess that’s true and we should. It’s very difficult to try to be understanding and reasonable when we don’t get the same in return.

      The poor coyotes have suffered enough also, it’s time to close this legal avenue around wildlife protection laws. You can see how abused it is with that dumping near Las Cruces. We should stop pretending that everyone is decent, and face the facts that many are not, and there’s no honor system with them.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      You’re asking too much of us, JB. Allow us the same overconsideration you give to hunters. They do absolutely nothing, don’t even respect the law. And yet you condemn us for feeling natural outrage. They do not appreciate it, and think it is all a big joke.

      Why don’t you suggest to hunters what they can do to reduce such killings? Is it because you know it will fall on deaf ears, so you chastise the wolf advocates instead? We’ve made suggestions about what could be done – and yet we get nothing but flak for it, or outright dismissal out of hand because we supposedly don’t know what we’re talking about – stop the hunting contests, give wovles and coyotes protection as species that for totally illogical and subjective reasoning, will always draw the ire of mankind. But nothing ever gets done. Even the recent court case victory is considered by some here to be unfair to these poor misunderstood hunters. But that is the kind of thing that needs to be done to stop this killing, and was done. I hope the same will be done for coyotes, and I’m going to try my damndest to see that it does in 2015.

      Allow us the right to express disappointment and frustration, instead of always pitying the poor killers.

      I simply do not/cannot respect these people. I’ve tried. It’s just too much to ask. They sicken me.

      • Josh Sutherland says:

        Let’s see, so far on this thread hunters have been compared to mentally disabled people, pedophiles, serial killers and the list goes on and on. Can pretty much consider this a wrap! The problem that will always exist between pro/anti wolf groups is that there will never be any compromise. It’s very obvious from the posters on this thread that a wolf should never under any circumstance be hunted or killed. Which will never fly with hunters. The main reason I would never want wolves in Utah is as simple as reading this thread. It would be an epic circus, just like what has been going on in the northern Rockies for a long time. No desire for that to happen here.

        • jon says:

          Well, they are serial killers of wildlife. Hunters kill millions of wild animals every single year. You don’t want wolves in Utah because you don’t want anything eating the animals you want to kill.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            The hunter’s blog in the link I posted even calls some of his brethren mentally challenged.

            As far as this latest wolf killing is concerned, if it had been an isolated occurrence, that would be one thing. But these ‘cases of mistaken identity’ happen quite regularly, and nothing done about them. Someone even boldly shot a hiker’s Malamute while with the hiker, and nothing was done. It could as easily have been the hiker too.

      • Josh Sutherland says:

        Ida please stop with the blanket statements of all hunters breaking the law! You know that is not true, just like how I know not all pro wolf people are similar to the PETA fanatics. And we are not all mentally retarded, throw beer cans out the window and poach animals. You should be smart enough to know that without me pointing it out.

      • ramses09 says:

        Consider me in with you Ida. The killing of the poor coyotes is nothing but a free for all. The killing of that species needs to be stopped also. I’m with you.

  29. Ed Loosli says:

    Another hunter killing…I thought hunting at night is illegal?? If it isn’t it should be… I guess anything goes in Colorado.

  30. CT says:

    So, I check back in after the holiday and — wow, just wow. Religious bigotry and virulent anti-hunting sentiment as acceptable norms. What’s truly embarrassing is I do want wolves to become established in UT and CO. But, you know that feeling when you’re in a room of people who gathered for a common purpose, and you wonder what being in that room says about you? I’m wondering that right now about me. One thing that is crystal is that people actually concerned about the outdoors and species cannot trust the modern environmental movement, as that movement seems quite dominated by people who trade daily in the views so clearly on display in this comment thread.

    • Immer Treue says:

      As with most forums, one can pick and choose who they engage in conversation. Evidently you choose to engage those who are your polar opposites. All things wolf seem to generate this dissonance. So, one can throw back at you, CT, if you want to be part of the solution, or the problem.

      If you came here to “fight”, I’m sure there are those who will accept your challenge. Likewise, if you have ideas, as put forth by JB, that make a thread such as this unecessary, then by all means, do so.

      • CT says:


        Your comments just below show you thanking one of the most active anti-Mormon voices in this comment thread. Pretty clear where you are coming from.

        • Immer Treue says:

          My plus to WM was in regard to the Utah position on wolves and the catering to the likes of Don Peay. If Mormonism has something to do with it, calling a spade is nothing more than calling a spade. Christianity in general has declared war on wolves, as well as on fellow Christians, over the centuries.

          My point in this thread has been how do we prevent something like this occurring again. You choose not to engage on that topic, or voice a solution of your own. Instead you’re continually plodding into non constructive dialogue. Waist deep in the Big Muddy…

          You want to discuss the subject of this thread, or are you just looking for a scrum?

        • JB says:


          As I read WM’s comments, I don’t see anything that is “anti-Morman”? What I see is the use of factual information to point out a link between Utah’s very anti-wolf policy (easily the most anti-wolf, btw) and a political elite dominated by those of the LDS faith.

          By labeling WM a “bigot” in response you yourself have employed a logical fallacy. I would point out that there are good counter-arguments to WM’s points (one of which Ralph made above). Namely, “anti-wolf” (anti-environment really) sentiment is almost ubiquitous in rural settings–whether folks are predominantly Catholic (as they are in Wisconsin) or LDS (as they are in Utah).

          You might also consider that WM is a hunter, and witness the much clearer attacks on hunters on this very thread that he has essentially ignored.

    • Yvette says:

      One thing that is crystal is that people actually concerned about the outdoors and species cannot trust the modern environmental movement, as that movement seems quite dominated by people who trade daily in the views so clearly on display in this comment thread.

      Is that opinion based solely on the comments on this blog, this thread, or on the modern environmental movement overall? If it’s the latter, what things influenced your opinion?

      I do want wolves to become established in UT and CO.

      I see that comment as being in line with most of the regular participants that I’ve seen on TWN. (my opinion) The only thing I’d change is to expand the geographical range of UT and CO. I’d also say that the opinions of the regulars that I’ve seen participate on TWN varies quite a bit. But, given your comment, a common interest has been established. What are a few things that you think would help achieve that common interest? We already know there will be extreme views on both sides of the issue. I see one side as the type like “Smoke a Pack a Day’ and the many other predator hunters that are quite volatile when it comes to predators, especially coyotes and wolves. The other extreme are people that wolves as some type of ethereal being. We probably won’t make much head way with either of those groups. The others that lie somewhere between those two groups are the majority, I think. How do any of us start negotiating a solution? Plus, we have all of the politics and politicians in this fray. Both the federal agencies and the state agencies are influenced or have their chains yanked by the lawmakers. Any suggestions on what the rest of us can do?

      • CT says:


        One rational approach at finding a middle ground is making management of wolves relatively headache-free. For instance, not looking to ruin the life of the hunter in this case. Maybe think about that hunter as a son or husband or father, who probably loves animals, and who did the right thing.

        After that, it would to me seem reasonable to then simply take surplus wolves from elsewhere and import them to CO and UT. Not a big deal if you kill one accidentally, but they get replaced. The message is that they aren’t a threat to people, can be managed, mistakes will be tolerated, but the presence won’t go away.

        The current approach of the organized environmental movement makes wolves toxic. From a resident’s perspective, in terms of hassle and property rights, the environmental movement has made the ideal number of wolves 0. If you change the response so that wolves are an asset, as for instance deer are now, it’s no mystery that it might then be less contentious to have wolves around.

        • Yvette says:

          CT, thank you for responding. I meant to respond sooner. I think you are right about working toward finding middle ground. The middle, of course, depends where along the gradient one’s views lie. I agree that this guy who killed Echo shouldn’t have his life ruined, and I do appreciate that he responded appropriately by telling authorities. I also suspect there is a good chance he was hunting coyotes for the bounty that Utah pays (I do not know this!) but it is a possibility. If coyotes had protection like most other wildlife this wolf, Echo, would likely be alive.

          It is not only wolf management that I’m concerned about, it is wildlife management, in general, especially predator management. With wolves, it is toxic because the extremes are so far apart.

          The current approach of the organized environmental movement makes wolves toxic.

          I differ on opinion with you here, but only on a fine tuned point. I believe issue of the difficulty with wolf management predates the environmental movement. It goes way back in American history. I like your idea of changing the response to make wolves an asset, but given the history of the severity of adverse treatment of this species throughout American history we will have to find a way to reel in the two extremes with the way wolves are viewed. That seems damned near impossible.

          One thing I’d like to see is hunters like yourself speak out against the unethical hunters. That would call for ‘unethical hunting’ to be defined. Maybe a good place to start is the ‘fair chase’ code as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club? I do see predator hunting as unethical and unnecessary. I don’t like killing being passed off as sport. That said, hunting has been in existence since man began walking upright. It isn’t going to go away. To my chagrin, sport hunting isn’t going away, either. In the past, hunting truly was weighted far more toward subsistence than for sport. In our current era, I think that has flip-flopped. I would like to see us move in that direction.

          I think we non-hunters and those that are 100% against predator hunting or sport hunting need hunters. I do believe hunters feel they are being attacked, and when I am attacked my knee-jerk response is to fight like hell. To get beyond that we need dialog and that won’t happen without some degree of trust. To start building a trust we probably should attempt to drop the blanket accusations on both sides; ‘all hunters are deranged killers’ and ‘all animal rights/environmental people are whackos’.

    • WM says:

      Well, CT, I will take responsibility for some of the vitriol.

      Seems folks like you simply do not want to explore rational arguments about exactly why UT does not want wolves, including bold steps to keep them out completely, and importantly the power and influence of the LDS Church in state politics as it applies specifically to this topic (the Church of course is engaged in livestock production and a big game hunting ranc in a big way, as are many church members). UT has taken the most formal and strident position of ANY state, regarding wolf re-population (see post above on the content of the UT wolf management plan as amended by the state legislature (which requires signature of Governor Herbert to become law).

      Aw, heck, let me just quote the law, in part, again. UT has a statute (and formal wolf management policy) that appears to encourage REMOVAL of wolves on sight:

      Part 2. Wolf Management

      § 23-29-201. Wolf management

      (1) The division [UT wildlife department] shall contact the service [US Fish & Wildlife] upon discovering a wolf in any area of the state where wolves are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act and request immediate removal of the animal from the state.

      (2) The division shall manage wolves to prevent the establishment of a viable pack in all areas of the state where the wolf is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act until the wolf is completely delisted under the act and removed from federal control in the entire state.++

      Paragraph 2, of course, refers to the NE corner of UT covered by the Congressional rider where NRM wolves are already delisted.

      So how is this for SCORCHED EARTH UT politics regarding wolves?

      Before you lash out yet again about radical environmentalists, please know I am a hunter, and have lived, worked and played in the West for most of my adult life. I would like to see wolves managed at sustainable levels in balance with other state wildlife management objectives in all states where they can live without significantly impacting ungulate populations or add substantial cost to livestock production. And any wolves above those agreed levels and agreed ranges should be regularly removed through a carefully monitored hunting (and maybe even trapping) program.

      So, UT ought to just take its 200-400+ wolves like everybody else, and shut the hell up, or seek Divine intervention to keep them out, if that is God’s will according to the Book of Mormon. Some might say the Divine intervention has already come thru the word of the Church and the Legislature and Governor, with the above quoted law.

      See, that is the thing about religion, I believe it needs to withstand critical review in a bright light, otherwise it is no better than any other mythology that tries to explain the unexplainable, whether its origin is the Koran, the Torah, or some ice cream eating Baghwan Rashneesh who lured the gullible to Antelope, OR (oh,wait he has already been debunked, as has David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, or Jim Jones and the suicide followers of the People’s Temple in Guyana).

      The LDS Church has a lot going for it, not the least of which is its estimated $40B economic footprint and bold policy of taking care of its own. Of course, to protect those interests it weighs in on a lot of issues where it does business and competes with other non-sectarian businesses. So, what makes you think it doesn’t have a vested interest in keeping wolves out of UT, or at the very minimum as expressed in the statute quoted above?

      My comments are not bigotry, they are based in a rational logical argument that includes uncontroverted facts, supporting a conclusion based on those facts. I am sorry you and Josh Sutherland cannot accept the argument for what it is, rather than to just shout out “bigot!,” whenever the issue comes up. That is the shallow-minded coward’s way out, as well as an example of irrational thought grounded in religious dogma.

      “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

      • Barb Rupers says:

        Thanks for the thoughtful discussions, WM.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Well said. Don’t know if you were the one in an earlier post who said it, but the state of Utah got caught up in Don Peay’s Ponzi scheme to the tune of $300,000 +/- to lobby to keep wolves out.

    • jon says:

      So, we should trust hunters/trappers whose only concern about wildlife is having it around, so they can hunt, trap, and kill it? If you don’t like this pro-wildlife blog, there are plenty of other blogs out there made specifically for hunters and trappers.

  31. Ida Lupines says:

    Any reports on how the zombies are doing spreading out over the hills around Salmon, Idaho?

  32. Richie G says:

    I’m glad to see so many responses, it shows people are thinking about this subject, but speaking about laws being enforced. Their are many laws on the books that are not enforced because the government wants to look the other way. Change really comes from within our people first then our government might follow if the people speak loud and for a long time. But I am still glad the this wolf is get so much attention, we need this forum to speak , we must all thank Ralph for this .

  33. Richie G says:

    I like to share one thought about the wolf, in favor of the wolf. I hate to see and creature roam alone or within a pack,” brings to mind elephants” , but let stay on the wolf. AS I said I hate to see an animal roam for hundreds of miles only to be killed by the bullet of a person. This seems sad to me, now lets say a man was wandering for miles or years, only to be killed by a bullet. The person holding the gun sees the man as a poison on the land, think about this, could this or does this happen to illegal aliens ? Think is this a fair act if committed ? Would not the word harvest be barbaric used in this context ?

  34. WyoWolfFan says:

    I can’t believe there are still bounties on coyotes. What year is this?

    • rork says:

      You get that they are imagining that they can knock down coyote numbers by this, and that this might increase the numbers of lucrative ungulates and some domestic animals – not that I’m saying that will actually work. I believe there are still bounties on pike-minnow in OR and WA on some rivers, and that’s a native fish, in an attempt to increase survival of lucrative salmon species. It’s 2015. That tells us nothing about costs and benefits of such actions. Hopefully we know better than those that preceded us that it’s complicated, rather than oversimplifications of it’s-always-wrong or canines-bring-no-benefits, but that is rarely evident.

      • Immer Treue says:

        “You get that they are imagining that they can knock down coyote numbers by this, and that this might increase the numbers of lucrative ungulates and some domestic animals”

        This seems to be the common denominator, the imagination that killing them (coyotes) will
        Knock down their numbers. However, with their continued spread and perpetual numbers, a right thinking person might disagree.

        I wonder if coyotes were removed from varmint status, treated as a fur bearer, given the same respect as the “good” animals, and were subject to a limited hunting season, what might happen.

        An uproar from the “hunting” community, and here I refer mostly to the “varmint” hunters, would lead one to believe the killing is more important than the hunting/conservation.

        If the objective is to decrease coyote numbers, why not try something different, like leaving them alone. Otherwise, the definition of insanity arises, and the joy of just killing rules.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Immer have you read the carnivore conservation act that Jon Way and I wrote? While we would have liked to have eliminated coyote and carnivore hunting because as you suggest, repeating actions that have no valid management objective and that are cruel and unnecessary is insane. Yet, forced to be pragmatic, we heeded the advice of many reviewers including several here who greatly contributed to the final product. The most recent iteration attempts to do exactly what you describe, to bring coyote and carnivore management in line with that of other species. Sections of the act are heavily influenced by breeding and mating seasons, carnivore sociality and pack structure, and other unique attributes of carnivores that make managing them as game species undesirable. Our objective is to reduce take and to hopefully increase understanding and promote coexistence. Of course as you suggest leaving them alone would be the best option but we were afraid we would never pass it. Hoping to get to that place someday soon. The link to the current version of the act as it stands now is placed below. Among other things, the act requires quotas, reduces hunting seasons, creates refuges, introduces reporting requirements, creates a funding mechanism for non consumptive users, and protects carnivores from unfair hunting practices like baiting, night hunting, hounding, and prohibits penning, trapping, snaring etc. The act also links the state anti cruelty laws to carnivores to prevent intentional cruelty as well as provides for a carnivore specialist within the Department. If you care to comment, I have read enough of your writing to think that your comments would would be most welcome. Whether your suggestions are used or not, if you take the time to review, your name will be added to the list of reviewers and your comments recorded. you can comment through Ralph or directly to me by asking for my e mail. We are constantly learning more through new studies and through public input. As the act is revised that input is valuable.

          I think as you suggest killing is the primary reason for varmint hunters to killing coyotes yet they receive the support of the general hunting community by revving up the fear and hysteria about being overrun by coyotes. I think its a tragedy that these animals are treated so poorly.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Going down into double digit below zero temps, and I’d be glad to go over the act and comment. Thanks for asking.

            • Louise Kane says:

              OK great Ralph can provide you with my e mail. and thank you, always looking for ways to improve.

            • Nancy says:

              I see you’re getting some of the weather that was here first of the week, Immer. 26 below zero Tuesday morning and a high of 9 below for the day. 20 below Tuesday night but thankfully 9 below when I got up Wednesday morning 🙂

              I am ALWAYS in awe of the non humans, wildlife, “other nations” that hunker down and make it thru these brutal temps.

              • Immer Treue says:

                “I am ALWAYS in awe of the non humans, wildlife, “other nations” that hunker down and make it thru these brutal temps.”


                You’ve for that right! Then, at least here, if said creatures survive the winter, a short respite exists before having to endure legions of biting insects.

  35. MAD says:

    I must admit, and I have thoroughly enjoyed the discourse on the topic, especially the introduction of the religious (Morman) aspect by WM & others. I have very little knowledge of Morman practices, and was surprised to learn how they have such massive influence & wealth, but I digress.

    I just wanted to point out a few relevant things when looking at a case like this – from my experiences as a Criminal Investigator and attorney. When investigating cases, and then presenting it to a prosecutor to then file charges, you focus on the probabilities rather than possibilities. So, is it possible that the hunter had an instance of genuine mistaken identity? Of course, it’s possible, but was it probable? We’d have to know many facts not revealed to the public – how long has this person hunted, what animals have they hunted in the past and on that day, how far were they from the animal, were they using binoculars or a spotting scope or have a scope affixed to their rifle, what were the weather conditions on that day, what time of day was it, what color was the coat of the wolf and how similar/dissimilar was it from coyotes in the area, and a bunch of other things too. Only after reviewing these things could we determine the likelihood of whether this was an honest mistake, or an attempt to use the “mistaken identity” issue as a defense.

    I will, however, disagree vehemently with those who often misquote the McKittrick case and the subsequent policy from that case. As the 9th Circuit correctly stated that Congressional intent was deliberate in changing the ESA from “willfully” to “knowingly” violating the ESA, it is NOT necessary that the individual KNOWS they are killing an endangered species. From the decision, “…As these cases and the legislative history indicate, section 11 requires only that McKittrick knew he was shooting an animal, and that the animal turned out to be a protected gray wolf.” The Court also expounds on the differences between specific intent and general intent. Furthermore, the 1998 DOJ McKittrick policy has never been published in the Federal Register, gone through the administrative process required for official agency policies, and is contrary to legal precedent and Congressional intent. Wildearth Guardians filed a lawsuit against DOJ in 2013 against this specific issue in relation to the Mexican Wolves illegally shot, but I don’t know the status of that lawsuit.

  36. Ida Lupines says:

    (2) The division shall manage wolves to prevent the establishment of a viable pack in all areas of the state where the wolf is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act until the wolf is completely delisted under the act and removed from federal control in the entire state.

    I really do hope this isn’t going to qualify as a good ‘management’ plan prior to a national delisting. I hope it is going to be challenged.

    • Josh Sutherland says:

      WM using your logic anyone who likes beef would then be adamantly against wolves. Of course that is not true. I never called you a bigot, just ignorant. If you can show me one official church document stating the church is against wolves I will say you are right. Other than that you are jus making up far flung conspiracy theories based on nothing else than that the mormo. Church owns some cattle ranches. You would not be a good attorney.

      • WM says:

        I suspect, Josh, there are a lot of issues (and votes in the UT Legislature) that involve input from the the LDS power structure, and there is no official paper trail or “document” that is in evidence. Somebody just makes a phone call, or there is a short conversation over a glass of lemonade after church services. Afterall, aren’t there a lot of folks from the legislature in services together at Temple, during the time of year the legislature is in session.

        • skyrim says:


        • WM says:


          One more comment about wolves and Mormons, then I will let it rest (hopefully).

          I did a quick search of the terms “Mormons + wolves,” and this popped out near the top of the list:

          from the Book of Mormon, Alma 5:58-59:

          ++And now, my brethren, what have ye to say against this? I say unto you, if ye speak against it, it matters not, for the word of God must be fulfilled.

          For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

          It is evident that BOTH figurative and literal translation of this passage is possible.

          If you are seeking a Church document that could be construed as Divine guidance on how wolves should be treated in UT (or elsewhere LDS faith is strong, like ID), connecting the dots, I think this might well be the document, or “smoking gun” so to speak, you seek.

          Again, I am not disparaging or blaspheming, but giving facts up for others to draw their own conclusions.

          • Yvette says:

            I’ve tried to stay out of the talk on Mormons and wolves, but I want to add this. The book that I’ve mentioned numerous times on this blog, Jon Coleman’s, “Viscous, Men and Wolves in America”, covers the history of wolves in America from the earliest colonists. Coleman includes history of Mormons from early on when John Smith was still in the East up through the hard times they had when they settled what is now Utah. As a reminder, this was Coleman’s dissertation in history and he now is a history professor at Notre Dame.

            He did such an excellent job of covering the history from early settlement of this continent up through the eradication of wolves in the lower 48. He thoroughly covered the period of when the LDS first formed their church and through early settlement of Utah.

            If we are to believe Coleman’s well researched and well referenced and documented book, than I can say my perception was that the Mormans were notoriously viscous killers when it came to wolves. This behavior continued until they were eradicated. I will say early on it was a matter of survival for them since they were trying to farm and raise livestock in a region not suited for it, and they refused to learn anything from the Indigenous that had lived in the region and knew how to survive in that region for thousands of years.

            I highly doubt that this general mindset simply disappeared after wolves were driven to near extinction in the lower 48.

            I think to get a good understanding of this wolf waltz, or mad tango is more like it, that we continue to do with wolf policy in America it’s worth reading the book. I think it’s a safe bet to propose the depth of hatred and fear of wolves that established itself in American culture beginning with the early colonists has been handed down through the generations.

            • Yvette says:

              “I think to get a good understanding of this wolf waltz, or mad tango is more like it, that we continue to do with wolf policy in America it’s worth reading the book.”

              Expand that comment to include all predators.

            • Immer Treue says:

              I just started “Vicious” last night. Just through the introduction says a lot in mans barbarism toward an animal. An entire chapter does include the Mormons, though not all of the chapter deals with their, as a group, war on wolves.

              • Yvette says:

                Immer,let me know how you like the book. I learned a lot from that book and got great references from his citations. I also learned a lot about the Mormons’ struggles and the horrific bigotry they received in the regions they lived before finally settling in the Utah region.

                I wish I had Coleman’s writing skills! You’ll see as you read the book. I’m glad someone on here is reading it. 🙂

                • Josh Sutherland says:

                  It’s Joseph Smith not “John Smith”. If you think that the mindsets of the early pioneers and current Mormons then you are crazy. That was 150+ years ago, things are slightly different. If you think that the church literally tragedy about wolves in any of it’s meetings you are literally CRAZY.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            People quoting bible verses, believers and non-believers alike, don’t seem to understand metaphor and figurative writing, which is not always literal. Religious texts are great works of literature too, IMO.

          • Josh Sutherland says:

            WM you are grasping for straws as a desperate man. The Shepard/wolf analogy has been used throughout time for centuries. Try harder.

            • Jay says:

              So if that’s just an “analogy” not to be taken seriously (you’re are implying that it shouldn’t be taken seriously, right?), then how do you pick and choose which parts of your book of fictitious parables and “analogies” to take seriously?

            • WM says:

              ++WM you are grasping for straws…++

              Ah, but there it is in black and white in an authoritative book of scripture. And, as Ida notes, some folks can’t tell the difference between literal and figurative speech. So, I will go with what would apparently be a literal interpretive view WHICH IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with formally stated state policy in a state which has policy makers largely of the Mormon faith.

              Prove me wrong with verifiable facts upon which strong inferences to the contrary, might be made, Josh.

              • Josh Sutherland says:

                WM if you honestly think a parable/analogy to teach a gospel message is some conspiracy to kill wolves you are seriously delusional. That’s all.

                • WM says:


                  I did not say conspiracy. You asked me if there was a document that reflected Church policy on wolves. I showed you one – directly from Scripture – even though, as I explained in yet another post, there would be no need for such a document since the majority of UT elected officials who are Mormon, had already formally stated the state’s (and perhaps the Church’s) view on wolves. In fact I quoted verbatim the relevant statute, TWICE. I challenge you to provide any evidence you might have that this is NOT the Church’s policy, especially since the Church is directly in the livestock business, and has a for profit big game operation on its largest UT ranch). Bet you can’t find any.

                  Perhaps it will become clear if you connect the dots. Denial is not a river in Egypt, Josh.

                • Josh Sutherland says:

                  WM you need professional help. Seriously, and it’s obvious I am not the only one that finds your conspiracy theories very very very far fetche. You turned a gospel parable into wolf hating mormon doctrine. Literally the definition of crazy. I am done on the topic of religion ! You are the accuser not me, it’s your burden of proof to show that it’s mormon doctrine to hate wolves. And a gross tragically comical delusional interpretation of scripture is not gonna cut it. Sorry!

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Yawn. If you’re looking for conspiracy theories partner, me thinks you are at the wrong blog site.

    • Josh Sutherland says:

      Ida no one wants wolve in utah, hence the no wolves equals no management plan. There is zero benefit for Utah to have wolves. Just liabilities.

      • jon says:

        Whose no one? You hunters are not the only people out there. I want wolves in Utah and there are many other CONSERVATIONISTS who want wolves in Utah. There are plenty of benefits to having wolves in Utah. Unfortunately, you are too ignorant to understand that.

      • rork says:

        I’m not good enough to say what I might hope for in Utah, but in lower MI I could hope for (but may not get) less coyote, raccoon, possum, more fox, less mice, maybe slightly fewer deer (and hygienic effects on them, and alterations to behavior), more ground-nesting birds (whippoorwill, woodcock, grouses, pheasants). The only thing I can guarantee though, is surprises, cause I think we are actually still pretty ignorant (e.g. effects on beaver, trout).
        PS: Generalizations about people here based on comments from what are actually just a few, well-known characters, who tend toward anti-hunting, is only partly accurate. Those with less extreme views comment less, and don’t contradict everything disagreeable, particularly if it’s coming from well-known cranks, or contain nothing except descriptions of emotional states.

      • Joanne Favazza says:

        “There is zero benefit for Utah to have wolves.” Spoken like a true human supremacist, who sees humans as the center of the universe.

        Wolves and other wildlife do not exist soley for human benefit–they exist for their own sake, and have a right to free and natural lives just as we do.

        Those who view nature strictly in terms of human utility (which is most of industrialized “civilization”) are the reason that all life on the planet is being destroyed.

      • skyrim says:

        That is a foolish statement Josh and I think you know that.

        • Josh Sutherland says:

          Skyrim it would be a lose lose situation no matter what and you know it. The Great Lakes have done an amazing job with their wolf management. And yet they are sued left and right. And they have thousands of wolves! So no matter what it would be a circus, and Utah has no desire to be a pawn in that circus!

          • CT says:

            Minnesota actually just experienced some more of this, with the recent court ruling that doesn’t even allow people to shoot wolves to protect their dogs. That may sound “good” to radicals who realize that the dogs in question will almost inevitably be owned by people not friendly to a radical environmentalist agenda. To the person whose dog may be getting mauled, by wolves that exist in abundance in that state, it is not so good. Again, wolves in the area have been put in the position of being headaches to local residents, which they don’t need to be.

            • Immer Treue says:

              In regard to MN wolves, when wolves were delisted here, many dog owners welcomed the ability to protect their pets, but were aghast at the depth and breadth of the first wolf season. Legal take, live stock depredation and illegal take pushed 1,000 wolves that year. Those who don’t like wolves, it still wasn’t enough. Though I don’t necessarily agree with the relisting of wolves in MN, it became more than obvious, with the zeal with which wolves were killed, and the rise of groups who were willing to go to bat for wolves, that the shit would once again hit the fan. It has.

            • Ed Loosli says:

              Here’s an idea…Protect your private property (dog) with a fence and/or keep it in the house, etc…This way you can live with your dog and also the public can be lucky enough to have wildlife, including wolves in their midst.

              • Immer Treue says:

                In fairness to CT and all those that live rural, a fence won’t do any bloody (not the word I wanted to use) good. If one has acreage, and your dog does not run off, just hangs around the house like most dogs do…or perhap is a working dog…

                Your comment makes about as much sense as the anti wolfers who ask if they can send their extra wolves to cities…

                • Ed Loosli says:

                  I guess our experiences are different. I have friends and relatives in Idaho and Montana who live rural, with acreages from 20 acres to 1,500 acres. They all have dogs in high-fenced back yards, and when the dogs are out of the fenced area their owners are with them. Seems to work fine for them and their neighbors who have had no wolf problems.

                • Nancy says:

                  Immer, I’m more inclined to agree with Ed on this only because I’m more than aware of the worth of ranch or farm dog around here – ZIP.

                  Some ranchers will wait for a litter of “good” cow dogs and jump at the chance to take one off a neighbor’s hand. The words neuter or spay aren’t part of a rancher’s vocabulary. Some will even spent a few bucks, hoping it will be the ultimate cow dog (cuz so and so, says so) but fact is ranch dogs out here are a dime a dozen and few of them EVER see the inside of a ranch or farm house.

                  They are the most unappreciated aspect of ranching and farming life, given their dedication.

                  Could go on and on but who cares?

                • Barb Rupers says:

                  I don’t have wolf problems, but coyotes do live on the property. My border collie would not leave the unfenced yard area unless a human went with her. She really liked going to the creek on a hot day but would not get out of site of the house for over a few seconds when alone even with
                  encouragements like “Go, go, it’s OK”. She would poke her head back around the shop and ask “aren’t you coming?” Unless I went with her she came back to the house.

                  As a pup she had played in the hazelnut orchard with a short tailed young coyote about her age on several occasions.

                  I shall speculate here that the coyote had a short tail and later lost her/his life to a neighbor who ran sheep and had Wildlife Services trappers working their property.

              • JB says:


                I don’t think a fence is necessary. The gist of Ed’s comment is true– if you value your pet, recognize that the outdoors poses some risk for that animal and take appropriate action (whether it is a fence, leash or keeping the animal indoors).

                • Nancy says:

                  Big + 1 JB!

                  The frustration could be cut in half:

                  if you value your pet, recognize that the outdoors poses some risk for that animal and take appropriate action (whether it is a fence, leash or keeping the animal indoors).

                • Josh Sutherland says:

                  I hunt with bird dogs who are consistently 400+ yards away, and I would have no qualms killing a wolf to protect my bird dog.

                • Elk375 says:


                  ++I hunt with bird dogs who are consistently 400+ yards away, and I would have no qualms killing a wolf to protect my bird dog.++

                  How can you effectively hunt birds with your dogs 400+ yards away. A shotgun has a range of 50 to 60 yards, if the birds are 400 plus yards away when they flush, those birds are out of shotgun range. If a wolf attacks, kills or injury one of your dogs a shot gun is useless.

                  I have never hunted with dogs, so school me on why you let your dogs range out beyond 400 yards.

                • JB says:


                  I suspect Josh is here to troll. He’s made a number of comments about how he would kill a wolf if given the chance, apparently aimed at getting a rise out of the usual suspects. Yawn.

                  Good luck on your snipe hunt, Josh!

            • Nancy says:

              So CT, how many dogs are actually getting mauled while they (and their “handlers”) are out there running down (and killing) other wildlife, for fun and recreation?

              Is it taking place on private land, public land?

              When a dog is killed in the “line of fun” do these folks moan the loss of a valued friend (my dog is a best friend) or do they just chalk it up to the cost of fun and recreation?

              When a dog comes back ripped up, sore, exhausted or worse, from a day (or years) of running down say a mountain lion, bear (and yes wolves now) are they treated humanely, looked after? And be careful with your answer CT.

              • CT says:


                Thanks for your kind caution that I “be careful” in exercising free speech. Much appreciated.

                You clearly fail to understand hunting. That’s fine, and again frequently the case for people who self-consciously view themselves as environmentalists.

                Of course, viewing a dog being sore or tired at the end of a day in the field as a negative also shows how out of touch you are with dogs, and with outdoor activities in general. This is again a contributing cause of how costly the presence of wolves has become: people who don’t understand the outdoors are trying to dictate what is done in the outdoors.

                • Yvette says:

                  CT, after repeated posts on how the regular participants on this site fail to understand hunting, fail to understand the outdoors, and fail to understand wildlife shows a failure on your part to recognize the vast experience and knowledge that exists here. IMO, it is lazy and an easy out to simply regurgitate typical accusations directed toward people that may differ in opinion toward hunting, wildlife management strategies and goals, and conservation, in general. Any of us can find that all over the internet. It gets tiring to read the cliches; ‘you just don’t understand hunting’; you haven’t ‘really’ experienced the outdoors’, etc. To me, that is a failure to engage in the conversation.

                  I understand you use dogs when you hunt, and from what I can gather, it is primarily for bird hunting. Do you use the dogs to hunt cougars? Wolves? Bears? Any other animals? Why are the dogs used to ‘hound’ these animals? Do you agree or not agree that it is acceptable to use dogs to run down this wildlife? Why? Do you believe there are hunters that allow their hunting dogs to attack and kill the animal hunted? Do you defend this? If not, are you a hunter that will speak out against it?

                  I know very little about hunting dogs. What is standard of acceptability among those hunters that do use dogs? What does that culture believe is unethical in the use of dogs?

                  I am open and willing listen to other opinions and explanations. It doesn’t mean agreement, but it does mean I try to step in the other person’s shoes to get a grasp of where they stand and why they use the methods they use.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Guess I’ll pile also add to the mix. As one whose lif is not obsessed with hunting, and who has also used dogs for means other than hunting (carrying packs, pulling sleds during winter camping trips, as well as helping on sled dog trips), I find your generalization about some not understanding the outdoors, dictating what is done in the outdoors puzzling.

                  The outdoors is a varied philosophical perspective not monopolized by those who hunt, or hunt with dogs. A working dog is admirable, and a joy to observe in action. Any time one ventures into the wild with their dogs, any of a host of problems can occur to the dog(a) or for that matter, the dog owner. Wolves are a part of the wild.

                  Written as a sit by the wood stove, looking out the window at thousands of acres of woodland blanketed by yesterday’s snow in temperatures hovering near -20°. I’ve just come in from about an hour walk with my old dog. My perspective of the outdoors is no more or less important than yours.

          • Leslie says:

            Josh, qualify your ‘no one’s’. Many Utahans recognize they need wolves and other predators. Utah is beautiful but incredibly impoverished in the wildlife department. I spent two months there last winter exploring Anazasi ruins. Nice scenery, great ruins, but after living in the GYE, Utah’s protected landscapes just don’t have the spirit of the wild. In fact, so much hatred towards predators, my own dog got stuck in a leg-hold trap on a public dirt road walking just a few feet ahead of me; intended of course, for coyotes or any random wolf that might enter! Not true wilderness without the full suite of wildlife.

            • Josh Sutherland says:

              Leslie if you are in the area of the Anazazis don’t expect a to of wildlife! It’s a desert, no where near comparable to Yellowstone. I could show you tons of elk/deer/buffalo at anytime. I have no idea where you got the impoverished idea of wildlife, considering our elk herds are doing better than they have ever done. Deer are struggling though, bison are expanding. Perfect example of outsiders having no idea.

              • Josh Sutherland says:

                And that is just big game, I see tons of rabbits, coyotes, more raccoons around my house that I can count. Chukar populations are insane this year, sage grouse counts went well this year. Birds were up. I mean I could literally go on for days. I have no idea where you got the notion that Utah is a struggling wildlife state. See why we don’t want outsiders telling us what we do and don’t need.

                • Carl says:

                  The dog/wolf issue is not as simple as some people would make it appear. I have two dogs and I don’t feel it is fair to the dogs to keep them tied up all the time but when I do let them run I keep them in site all the time. I have three friends who have had their dogs killed by wolves. One was on a lease in the backyard in the small community of Isabella Mn another was in a yard with a six foot fence, and the third was near a parking lot right after several people had been out cross-country skiing with their dogs. While skiing the trails they kept their dogs close but when they returned to the parking lot they let their dogs play together around the open field near the parking lot while they visited. Unfortunately the lab was killed while they visited. I am not anti wolf but I am not opposed to the hunting season that the state of Minnesota had been conducting. I have heard of several other wolf/dog encounters in this part of Minnesota. In one case the dog killed a wolf when it came into the owners resort on Pelican Lake near Orr.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Well said. Many dog/pet owners in my neck of the woods, Ely area only wanted the right away to protect their pets if attacked, but were appalled at the depth and breadth of the first wolf season up here.

                  With an old GSD who does not wander and a pup hopefully on the way, my dog(a) has always been under voice control, and does not chase wildlife. I have had encounters with entire packs while winter camping, to having line wolves pass closely when in the company of my dog. Perhaps I’m just lucky, or perhaps my presence along with a large dog is deterrence enough. Living atop ledge rock makes a fence problematic, and are not guaranteed to keep a wolf out, or a dog in.

                  Had wolf tracks in driveway this morning. Sometimes I get a lot of wolf activity around the place, more often not, but other than passing curiosity, wolves have generally taken off when I see them. All said, I often consider taking pepper spray along when in the deep woods. If wolf dog encounter occurs, one is just as likely to shot their dog, as they are the wolf.

              • Leslie says:

                Where are your wolves and grizzlies?

              • Leslie says:

                Yes, wildlife seems to be always defined as animals with horns or antlers. Otherwise they are vermin. Your coyotes are on the legislative ‘hit list’, with UT allotting millions in taxpayer monies for bounties. Wolves are not wanted. Sounds like your list is all about prey species and not predators. Not exactly an intact ecosystem you are raving about.

      • Josh- Over 50% of Utah is public land owned by all U.S. citizens. As a U.S. citizen and as a part owner of Utah public lands, I want wolves returned to Utah. So do lots of others.
        I googled your name and it seems that you have no elected authority in Utah or anywhere else. Being a member of the Mormon church doesn’t count.
        Are you related to the Sutherland that was in the news for scamming money from senior citizens over their security systems?

        • Elk375 says:

          Ed 50% of Utah is public land owned by all US Citizens and there are a lots of people who do not want wolves in Utah. So what do we do? Is it your way or the highway (which I believe it is) or is there a compromise. Maybe the compromise ought to be that wolves are free to live on US public lands but if a fee owner wants to kill any wolf on their property it is there right including the use of poison, traps, snares, dogs etc.

          I have discussed this forum with people employed by environmental NGO in Bozeman and the sentiment is that some posters here are anti private property rights or that the rights of the common exceed the rights of the property owner. I know that you believe the rights of the common exceed the rights of private property ownership. Disclaimer: I own 1/20 interest in my Condo Association.

          • Elk375 says:

            Sorry it Larry not Ed but Ed has the same feelings.

          • JB says:


            The dichotomy between “private” and “public” (common) property only really exists in people’s heads. In law, there is a continuum. Some objects are clearly private and possessed only by individuals, others (water, riparian lands, public lands, wildlife) are held in trust by the state and/or federal government.

            A worthwhile read: ‘Goodbye to the Public-Private Divide’ by Eric Freyfogle


          • Louise kane says:

            No one should have the right to cause the suffering that poison traps and snares cause
            On any land public or private these are nuisances with bad environmental
            Consequences and inhumane results

        • Josh Sutherland says:

          Ha nope not related, keep digging! Lol I am mormon, just finishing up my lesson for this Sunday on wolf hating. I will keep you posted! Well I don’t want wolves in Utah, so who gets their way? You or me?

      • ramses09 says:

        Even if there is 1 person in UT. that is willing to have wolves in that state, you possibly cannot say “no one in UT. wants wolves.
        How in the hell do you know the benefits of wolves anyways?? Are you a biologist? A conservationist? Where do you get your info. from. Especially when wolves were in the lower 48 before humans eradicated them.
        Your comment is just plain stupid & egotistical.

  37. Ida Lupines says:

    For example, it is hard to believe that a wolf kill could be worse than this, and all for nothing:

  38. CT says:

    For the person who doesn’t understand how you hunt birds with a dog ranging 400+ yards: you run a pointing breed dog. German shorthaired pointer, Pointer, English Setter, Britt. The dog points, you walk up while the dog points, then you take game. While many pointing dogs work closer, it is not uncommon for pointing breeds to work a half-mile or more from the hunter. Likewise scent hounds (which do not point) may be miles from the hunter. In places like MN, interactions with wolves are a real issue. I have a dog sleeping in the chair across the room from me who is a half-mile (or more) dog, who has brawled with a few coyotes while hunting. It is a real issue.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      “It is a real issue”…My guess, if you look at it from the wolf’s point of view, it certainly is a real issue. One way to avoid a confrontation with hounding dogs, is to end hound-hunting as some states have already done.

      • Josh Sutherland says:

        That’s one way to get the support of hunters! 🙂

      • WM says:


        I don’t think we have talked much here about wolves and dogs that are used to hunt birds or rabbits, or in some cases those that are even on/off leash and are within voice command of their owner. Sometimes it doesn’t end well for these dogs when wolves come around, or when these dogs are taken into areas which may or may not be currently occupied by wolves. Because they are a coursing animal you might not see wolves for some time, then all of a sudden there they are in the area you thought was mostly wolf free, maybe even your home or ranch. See, this is the chance encounter that bothers me – and if my dog (or horse for that matter) was at risk, there is little doubt I would thump a wolf, ESA protected or not. And, you can take your “my friends fence their dogs in” approach and put it where the sun don’t shine, because that isn’t the way most of rural America is.

    • Josh Sutherland says:

      Yep I hunt with English pointers and german shorthairs. Stand point till I get there. I have years of training and who knows how much money invested in those dogs. I have Champiosnhip placements on my pointer, he is worth a lot of money. So if I have to shoot a wolf to protect him, would not hesitate.

  39. CT says:

    As for outlawing hound hunting, yes I’m sure that’s a good way to get more people on the pro-wolf wagon. I note that houndsmen are some of the most ardent advocates for the Jaguar in AZ, so a thoughtful environmentalist who doesn’t simply seek to outlaw all aspects of ways of life that they don’t understand might want to chew on that fact and wonder how houndsmen (and houndswomen) might also come to help wolves as a species if they are viewed as potential allies who might coexist with wolves.

    • WM says:

      Would these be the same “houndsmen” who would run jaguars to tree themor get them to a rock promontory a hound can’t scale, and inadvertently encounter wolves (Because, it seems we have seen results of some of those encounters that don’t work out so well for the hounds, or maybe a couple bird dogs or dogs running bears)?

      Please tell how they ally thing works, I am very curious?

  40. Ida Lupines says:

    They all should be, or are meant to be, taken seriously; religious texts are books about morality after all – but it’s the deeper meaning behind the symbols that are to be taken seriously, not the tools used to tell it.

    Human behavior, and perhaps unfairly many times, being equated with animal behavior. Little Red Riding Hood, for example, I have always thought, was to teach caution about untrustworthy people who may not be what they seem, not wolves. But people used what they observed to be predatory or harmful behavior to tell the story. People’s dual natures, and less than honorable intentions, arent’t anything new.

    It tells you so – these books do not expect animals to behave with human morality, if God made man in his image and not theirs. For those who believe of course. Even for those who do not, these teaching are ingrained in our consciousness I think, are the basis for our legal system.

    I have read the Bible, and probably will read it again, and some of the others, but those not completely.

    • Problems for wildlife ,especially predators, in Utah and elsewhere, started a long time ago when Moses invented God (Jehovah).
      He was tired of his people worshiping Golden Calves and decided to do something about it. He went up a mountain, and after spending a month of so on it, came down and gave lots of directions and laws based on his assertion that he had met with this God, in the form of a burning bush, and that he had been designated by this God to pass on laws and rules that only he(Moses)could receive.

      His depiction of man in Genesis as having “DOMINION” over ALL living things on the earth has been a problem for the rest of those things ever since:

      Bible – King James Version : Genesis 1:26 -“Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; let them have “DOMINION” over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

      Religious humans (through their state wildlife commissions) in Utah and other states,
      use this biblical passage to justify managing (killing) wildlife within their borders.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Well that’s just it – people have a way of picking and choosing and interpreting which biblical passages are most convenient for them, and ignoring the rest.

        Does ‘dominion’ mean care and protection of what you have been made responsible for, or rampant waste and destruction until it’s gone? What did the word translated mean in the original language, or the time period? “Be fruitful and multiply’ no longer applies either! But perhaps in times of famine and war, it did, in centuries past.

        I somehow doubt that a God would mean abuse, mistreat, waste and destroy His beautiful Creation.

        • skyrim says:

          “be fruitful and multiply” is a holy standard in Utah. If you doubt that, try and bring up the idea of population control in Cracker Barrel on a Sunday afternoon in St. George when the dinner bell rings and church is out…..

        • Mark L says:

          just a reminder there’s a part in the old testament that says when you invade or occupy another’s land you are not to destroy the fruit bearing trees also. Actually there are lots of biblical passages that have an ecological inperpretation, but they don’t get as much ‘press’ as the ones that people want to use to justify their causes. Deconstructionists have made this point for decades.

      • skyrim says:

        Interesting theological perspective there Larry. I know the reverence for the sacred bovine went back a long ways, but didn’t know it was of biblical proportions. :O

  41. CT says:

    Yvette said: “CT, after repeated posts on how the regular participants on this site fail to understand hunting, fail to understand the outdoors, and fail to understand wildlife shows a failure on your part to recognize the vast experience and knowledge that exists here. …
    I understand you use dogs when you hunt,…
    I know very little about hunting dogs. ”

    Well, Yvette, congrats for owning up at the end to the lack of knowledge. But, it does drive home that what I said was quite factual: many of the commenters in this thread are opining about things, such as hunters and hunting, about which the commenters know very little. For me to take account of the vast knowledge and experience here, it’s necessary first that commenters display that vast knowledge, or exercise humility and restraint in commenting on areas that they don’t have a good idea of. We’ve even seen commenters attacking Josh as a troll because they, out of ignorance, don’t know that it is routine for hunters’ dogs to be out of shotgun range. There have been comments along the lines of UT being poor in wildlife, which are truly ignorant for anyone who’s spent time in the state.

    We’re at about 250 comments, and if I cross out every comment that is misinformed as to basic facts, and then every comment that is anti-Mormon or anti Judeo-Christian, I’m not going to have much left.

    As for actually explaining hunting to you, I had already explained in brief how people hunt with a pointing breed dog. FWIW, I have no issue whatsoever with people either using the family lab to flush pheasant (and the lab will catch that bird if it can) or people using the family beagle to hunt rabbits. Many people also have no taste for hunting or fishing of any sort, but bird or hike or paddle, and I certainly respect that as well.

    To bring this back to wolves, consider the perspective of residents of a state like UT. Online, they can already see people lined up who 1) pretty clearly on average would like to see some or all versions of hunting either stopped outright, or severely limited, and 2) express, freely, anti-Mormon sentiments under the guise of being “pro-wolf.” So, the presence of wolves isn’t just a cool example of wildlife re-establishing itself, that might even bring more tourism dollars. It means a lot of people are going to be trying to turn many aspects of local life upside down before they are through. That wouldn’t be appealing even if the activists involved knew what they are talking about. When the activists involved are in fact claiming expertise and knowledge while speaking in ways that demonstrate a near total lack of knowledge about basic things — go back and read that attack on Josh, where the commenter “expertly” notes that Josh’s dog is out of shotgun range — forgive people if they don’t sign up for the bus ride.

    • Nancy says:

      “We’re at about 250 comments, and if I cross out every comment that is misinformed as to basic facts, and then every comment that is anti-Mormon or anti Judeo-Christian, I’m not going to have much left”

      Yvette, what CT is trying to say is most, in a tiny percentage of those that actually hunt for food, want to continue to put it to wildlife whether it be with dogs or trapping, etc. An extension of their egos. Plain and simple.

      CT, spent a part of my youth training pointers and setters and attended many field trials back east.

      No birds killed, it was just a group getting together with good, trained dogs, flushing birds.

      Wouldn’t even consider doing that today given how little landscape is left for these birds (or other species)

      Big picture.

      • Elk375 says:


        ++Wouldn’t even consider doing that today given how little landscape is left for these birds (or other species)

        Big picture.++

        I get the big picture but where you live there is millions and millions of acres of land with excellent Ruff, Blue and Franklin grouse hunting in the mountains. The open sage brush country has the best population of Sage Grouse in the US with some Sharptail and Huns.

        This is a huge landscape with upland birds that live there entire life without seeing a human. The hunter and regulations will never hurt the wild bird population. It is you who thinks that a September or early October bird hunter is going to have any effect on birds. It has no effect on the bird population. Once or twice a year I go to Beaverhead country and hunt Sage Grouse in the morning and Mountain Grouse in the afternoon. There is no shortage of landscape.

        ++CT, spent a part of my youth training pointers and setters and attended many field trials back east.

        No birds killed, it was just a group getting together with good, trained dogs, flushing birds. ++

        One of my colleagues trains and hunts Cockers and Springer’s. Last fall she went to Pennsylvania to the national Cocker and Springer Championships and got 3rd or 5th, can’t remember. I have been to several field trials with her and live birds are put out in the field. The dog and owner then works the bird, it flushes and is shot, the dog makes a retrieve. The judges then judge the performance of the dog (I think that there is lots of politics and favoritism judging). Field trials are a bore.

        I wanted to volunteer as a shooter, but I shoot a side by side and the shooters shoot over and unders. Then the clothing: I would have to fly to London and go to Bond Street and purchase $5000 worth of English hunting clothing and wear a dreaded tie. No Thanks.

        • Nancy says:

          “The dog and owner then works the bird, it flushes and is shot, the dog makes a retrieve”

          Used starter pistols (blanks) at our field trials Elk, and the dog (pointers and setters) held point during and after the bird was flushed and flew off. Nothing dead to retrieve. The trial was more about the ability of the dog to hold point.

          “The hunter and regulations will never hurt the wild bird population. It is you who thinks that a September or early October bird hunter is going to have any effect on birds. It has no effect on the bird population. Once or twice a year I go to Beaverhead country and hunt Sage Grouse in the morning and Mountain Grouse in the afternoon. There is no shortage of landscape”

          And continue to keep those happy thoughts alive Elk. Pretty sure the bird hunters thought the same back east about landscape before it disappeared for various reasons – human over population being one of the biggest factors.

          Out here its more likely to be because of years of unchecked livestock grazing and mining abuse, on public lands.

    • Leslie says:

      CT, you are taking some of these comments rather personally. I am not anti-mormon nor anti-hunting as long as its for food and done ethically. I feel UT should allow its full suite of wildlife to exist there, including wolves that were once in that state. There is plenty of good habitat there, and, as Josh says above, elk are doing better than ever!

  42. Ed Loosli says:

    “How can I protect my dogs against wolves?”

    From the Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife website:
    Wolves are by nature territorial and guard their territory from other canids, including coyotes and domestic dogs. Hunters who use dogs or anyone walking a dog in wolf country should take steps to limit potential conflicts between their dog(s) and a wild wolf.
    •Keep dogs within view.
    •Place a bell or a beeping collar on wider ranging dogs.
    •Talk loudly to the dog or other people with you, or use whistles.
    •Control the dog so that it stays close to you and wolves associate it with a human.
    •Place the dog on a leash if wolves or fresh sign are seen.
    •Remember, it is NOT legal to shoot at or attempt to injure or kill a wolf even if it is attacking your dog, except under certain circumstances with livestock working dogs. See the Caught in Act Lethal Control section for more information.”

    • Richie G says:

      Once on PBS or somewhere I seen a picture with an Island somewhere in Canada, I would be lying if I named one. A women who lived in this island was walking her dog and had a gun to protect her dog and her. When a pack of wolves came close she pointed and fired the gun in the air the wolves did get scared. The idea of this film was how the people lived their with bears and wolves. When I once walked in Yellowstone I had a boat horn and pepper spray. A wolf was close to me ,about thirty yards from me. Just looked at me and when his pack called for him he went away that is it.

    • Leslie says:

      Ed, good advice. I live in wolf country and my best protection for my dog is to have him well-trained on voice control. I use the command ‘stick around’ and he knows to stay within 10-15′ of me on any trail. I also use a shock collar as all dogs, and he is no exception, are prone to run after other canines. So far I and my dog have been lucky. I would say that the cougar hunters are the ones taking the most risk, as they sit in their trucks while they send their packs out to tree the cat. Then they locate their dogs by GPS collars which might be far away. With wolf packs around here, they are taking their chances with dogs that are running loose into wild country far from houses.

  43. Ed Loosli says:

    I think what Nancy and other are trying to get across, is that fortunately for the 95% of Americans who do not hunt, there are still opportunities to work their working-dogs in field conditions, without killing wildlife.

  44. Ed Loosli says:

    I should not have spoken for you, I apologize and I don’t blame you a bit for not even participating in non-hunting “bird flushing” with your dogs.

  45. CT says:

    A good read on this wolf and the ability to mistake identity is here, . 10+ paragraphs of thoughtful discussion without a single religious slur, as well!

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Coyote hunting has been banned in Eastern North Carolina in the area containing Red Wolves because so many hunters killed Red Wolves “accidentally”, saying “I thought it was a coyote”.— Perhaps it is time to take this same precautionary action in Utah and other wolf protected states.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Yes. And you know coyotes will be killed anyway, regardless of laws – so why not ban it so they don’t have the legal avenue as well. Since it is ‘so difficult to tell the difference’ – hunting them should be banned!

      • CT says:


        No, coyote hunting hasn’t been banned in eastern NC. In a 5-county area, night hunting of coyotes has been banned, and special permits required for daytime hunting. Again, it helps to get one’s facts straight. For wolves, which are not red wolves and exist in plentiful numbers, it’s not a big deal if a wolf gets shot by accident. There is more than enough surplus in other areas to bring new wolves into an area like UT. Coyote hunters aren’t a big negative impact on wolves. FWIW, hunting canids isn’t my personal taste, but neither is chardonnay. No reason to ban either.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Chardonnay isn’t dangerous; unless you count sulfites I guess. 🙂

        • Ed Loosli says:

          you wrote: “For wolves, which are not red wolves and exist in plentiful numbers, it’s not a big deal if a wolf gets shot by accident.” Petty cold and callus view of wildlife, in my opinion.
          You forgot for some reason, to add that in this part of Eastern North Carolina, “All coyote hunting permits in the five-county area will be suspended if two or more red wolves are shot during the same year on state game lands by hunters who have coyote permits.”
          Utah and other wolf protected states can use similar types of precautionary actions to help secure both wolves and coyotes. And of course, wolves do NOT exist in plentiful numbers in Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, North Dakota, South Dakota, California and as you admit, North Carolina.

          • CT says:


            You do understand that Red Wolves are a different species from the type of wolf shot near Beaver, don’t you?

            • Ed Loosli says:

              Yes, I know the red wolf is a separate species and also that it does not exist in plentiful numbers in North Carolina, just like the gray wolves do not exist in plentiful numbers in Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, North Dakota, South Dakota, and California. They all deserve protection from “accidental” coyote killers.

        • Louise Kane says:

          “it’s not a big deal if a wolf gets shot by accident.”

          red wolf, grey wolf, coyote
          that attitude that its not a big deal to kill a wild animal is part of the problem IMHO.

          Population wise its no big deal if a hundred, a thousand even a million people are killed in an earthquake or tsunami or plague like event. Yet for the individuals and their families affected, it is a tragedy. We know that wolves and coyotes lead extremely intertwined and rich social lives, that they grieve and mourn pack member losses and fiercely protect their pack members. Until humans use these universally known considerations in our management strategies we act as ignorant thugs playing God with others lives.

    • Immer Treue says:

      “Depending on the conditions, it can be difficult to tell the difference between the two,” MacNulty said. “There have certainly been times when I have seen an animal from a distance in low light conditions and in heavy vegetation. I wasn’t 100 percent sure of what the animal was until I watched it for a while. There is a big difference between seeing an animal at 20 yards or 200 yards.
      Conditions under which i would not shoot. No religious slur, no hunter slur.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I don’t believe in religious slurs, or ridiculing people’s beliefs. Killers, however, deserve whatever slur they get. The illogic is stunning. If you don’t know what it is, don’t shoot? Even people aren’t safe.

  46. skyrim says:

    It would appear that CT’s posting above indicates the bounty on Coyotes expired in June 2014. Therefore there was no cash incentive, only the wanton (vermin) destruction matter. Not truly an issue, but takes the “I need the cash” out of the equation.
    There are some valid points for me in this article. I’ve miss-identified many animals in the park over the years, but only for the proper ID for a photo image, or potential image, and only over long distances.

    • Nancy says:

      “There are some valid points for me in this article. I’ve miss-identified many animals in the park over the years, but only for the proper ID for a photo image, or potential image, and only over long distances”

      But Skyrim, would it be safe to say, you thoughts and concerns, didn’t include gunning them down?

      • Nancy says:

        That was not a rash, unfeeling statement Skyrim.

        Got “people” from out of state, showing up around my neck of the woods (Montana) often (and this doesn’t include hunting season in the fall) just looking for areas to shoot “something” whether it be coyotes or gophers, ground squirrels, badgers, etc. And that doesn’t include the locals, also out for a day of “target practice”

        It’s down right scary when you realize how little they know about nature…..

      • skyrim says:

        Yes, it would very safe to say that Nancy.
        I don’t think or reason as a hunter. When I have a successful hunt, the subject of my efforts walk away to “pose” another day.

  47. timz says:

    This guy makes all the excuses for the slob hunter never mentioning if your not sure don’t shoot.

  48. aves says:

    A related article from another state, “Is it time to end coyote hunting in California”:


December 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

%d bloggers like this: