Moscow, ID– Aerial gunning of wild wolves is underway in remote and rugged areas of the Clearwater National Forest, conducted by the federal “Wildlife Services” agency at the behest of the Idaho Fish & Game Department. The government is using helicopters to kill wolves in the so-called ‘Lolo Zone,’ which covers portions of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and stretches north across the North Fork Clearwater drainage. Approximately 50 wolves have been killed from the air in the Lolo Zone since 2011, despite the low wolf population in the area and throughout the state.

Aerial gunning operations are occurring in remote areas of the Clearwater National Forest. The North Fork Clearwater contains close to 1-million acres of roadless public wildlands that qualify for wilderness designation. These wildlands offer some of the best habitat for large carnivores in the entire Lower 48. Despite this, the IDFG seems to be trying to sanitize the wild landscape for game animals.

“The Idaho Fish & Game Department is wrongfully blaming the decline of elk populations in the Lolo Zone on native carnivores, including gray wolves,” said Gary MacFarlane, Ecosystem Defense Director of the Friends of the Clearwater. “Everyone, including the Idaho Fish and Game Department, knows the decline is due to long-term habitat changes in that area. Targeting predators like recovering gray wolves is unscientific, won’t work to boost elk numbers and violates the wildness of these public lands.”

“Excellent habitat for native predators like gray wolves, lynx, wolverines, and fisher exists throughout the Clearwater National Forest, including in the Lolo Zone,” said Ken Cole, Idaho Director of Western Watersheds Project. “But the Idaho Fish & Game Department wants to turn this wild country into an elk farm and that’s ridiculous and inappropriate.”

Conservation groups are especially concerned by the precedent of the wolf killing in the Lolo Zone that uses radio collars to track the packs, because earlier this year, the Idaho Fish & Game Department landed helicopters in the iconic Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness to collar elk and “accidentally” collared a number of wolves, too.

“The collaring of wolves appears to be one strategy that Idaho Fish & Game uses to track down and kill wolves in the Lolo Zone,” said Gary Macfarlane. “It is likely that the department collared the wolves in the Frank Church area so that they would eventually know the location of those individuals and their entire packs. We suspect that the wolf collaring that took place in the Frank Church may end up being used to kill wolves there too.”

Money from the Idaho Wolf Depredation Board funds the aerial gunning operations in the Lolo Zone. The fund is a combination of fees collected from hunting licenses and state taxpayer dollars.

“It’s important for the citizens of Idaho to realize that their hard-earned tax-payer dollars on being spent on helicopter wolf gunning operations,” said Ken Cole. “Governor Otter should be spending that money to fund public schools, highways and other important services, not on the killing of Idaho’s native wildlife.”

About The Author

Press Release

243 Responses to Wolves in Idaho’s ‘Lolo Zone’ Being Gunned Down by Government

  1. Zoe Berger says:

    I can’t stand it! How can these thugs be allowed to do this? Who is paying them? How is this legal? What can be done? grrrrrrrrrrr

  2. Ida Lupines says:

    What? Not again – what’d we tell ya? Lying sacks, the lot of ’em.

  3. Ida Lupines says:

    Great. I wish these departments would stop kissing ranchers’and hunters’ asses. And look at the thanks they get for it in places like Malheur.

  4. Barb Rupers says:

    I wish it were unbelievable, but it is not.

    IMO Feds should be in charge of at least non-game species in wilderness and roadless areas.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Can someone please explain how Idaho gets to dictate what happens on federal lands that are designated as wilderness and where the killing is incompatible with the intent, spirit and execution of the legislation?

  5. Ralph Maughan says:

    Too many people fought to keep the Lolo free of development to have this happen — turn it into a &—ign game farm.

    Not only wolves, but the Idaho Fish and Game Department has been required to also kill lots of bears and cougar.

    I love elk and deer, but let’s face, they are kind of boring and common. For example, I live in Pocatello — 3 minutes from Main Street in my truck. I have deer and elk both wintering on my property.

  6. Yvette says:

    Ralph, what is the best way for us to respond? What is the reasoning for this lasted killing spree and why are they also killing cougars and bears?

    As long as hunting, especially that of ungulates, is promoted as entertainment and sport this is going to continue.

    There have been approximately 29,000 mountain lions legally killed by hunters in the last ten years. I don’t know how many bears or how many wolves. I’m sure there is a number on the wolves.

    Does IFGD seriously believe that wolves are the reason for fewer elk or are they doing this for spite?

    • Barb Rupers says:

      I wrote my two Senators and Representative:

      After all the effort and expense of getting wolves reintroduced into the Wilderness areas of Idaho in 1995-6 it seems like a waste to be killing them by helicopter in the Lolo Zone most of which is in a designated Roadless area including parts of the Selway-Bitterroot wilderness of Idaho; quite likely the same will happen with the illegal tagging of wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness thus enabling Wildlife Services to more easily find wolf packs.

      The intent of Congress in designating wilderness areas was not to produce elk for hunters. Many factors are interplaying in this area which keep elk numbers low.

      Leave the wolves and other predators alone.

  7. birdpond says:

    Sharing this everywhere – There needs to be massive public outrage. There is a very deep dysfunction in our country.

  8. jon says:

    IDFG are disgusting scum.

  9. Brooks Fahy says:

    This would be a prime time for a rally on the steps of the Capitol. There comes a time where you have to put your body out there. This has gone on long enough.

    I’d also consider opening up your wallets and making a donation to two fierce defenders of wildlife and wild lands: Friends of the Clearwater and Western Watersheds Project.

    • Yvette says:

      One problem is those of us supporting conservation for all species, including predators, is we’re spread out over the nation.

      What I’ve thought might be a solution to us being spread out is for the conservation NGOs to band together on issues. You guys have done it for legal cases, so it can be done for rallies and marches. One example is the way Bills McKibbon at organized international events on a specific day. There was a lot of success with that and it got attention. Via online, the volunteers organized interested groups with whatever event/action they were taking for that day.

      • sue hodges says:

        I think they are planning a vigil and March based on the murder if Cecile, in Washington d c. In July. I don’t have details.

    • Thank you very much Brooks. One thing people can do right now is call and complain to the Idaho Department Fish & Game. Alot of people are calling the Clearwater office in Lewiston at 208-799-5010. There is no legal hook right now but we can still apply public pressure!

      • Yvette says:

        Thanks for the phone number Brett, and what do you think about an approach like McKibbon took with ‘Day of Action’?

  10. jon says:

    The fact is they have been killing wolves in the lolo for a few years now and they are still claiming wolves are killing too many elk. They want every wolf in the lolo dead.

  11. rork says:

    Have the Clearwater National Forest managers been OK with the with this kind of stuff for the last 3 years? How does that work?

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      They say game is matter of state responsibility and management.

      • Zoe Berger says:

        RM Who is “they” saying that? It seems obvious the IDFG is acting irresponsibly. They aren’t managing. They are just murdering. Do they have to answer to anyone or can they just do what they want? Don’t the feds have some role here? I can’t stand it! And if we do reach any conclusions here it will take too long. For this month anyway.

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          Zoe Berger,

          The basic problem is their boss, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission. They are nominated by the governor and approved by the state legislature which has dropped off the right end of the political spectrum.

        • WM says:


          IDFG is just following its federally approved plan, and it still has more wolves than the plan requires (or federal law for that matter), or they want for multi-species management which is clearly state responsibility anywhere in the state, including federal lands, and designated Wilderness.

          • Zoe Berger says:

            There is a serious flaw in the system that permits destruction of life, particularly in this manner. I don’t see any decent way but surely aerial gunning, trapping and poison are not humane methods. This is obviously not a concern of Otter et al. But there seem to be enough people who are horrified by this continued assault. Is there no voice for this?? After all, aren’t they all being paid by taxpayer money? The numbers arrived at are so slanted – and arbitrary – it really makes no sense, aside from the barbarity of it all. Thank you for your clarification though. I still think they are just a bunch of thugs. Now I’m speechless and voiceless it would appear.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              The plan isn’t based on any kind of science, but the absolute minimum number of wolves the state can get away with. It really isn’t saying much to say they are ‘just following the Federally approved plan’, any more than ‘following orders’.

              The day Otter leaves office will be a day of high fives and celebration. I wish Idaho believed in term limits.

              • Zoe Berger says:

                It really seems – as someone here basically mentioned – the plan is to eliminate wolves entirely so they can have their elk AND cattle. There is no one overseeing them and they don’t care that there is opposition to their behavior. They have no respect for nature that’s for sure. I just can’t believe they aren’t policed. But there it is. Thanks Ida.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  You’re welcome – WM obviously knows more of the legal fine points than I do – but I think the whole thing has to do with getting the reintroduction approved, and only the minimum number was acceptable by the state. Now, whether it is a genetically healthy number or not, wolf scientists are being held to it. 100 wolves.

                • WM says:


                  I think you are commenting outside your pay grade. Working meta-population in the Rocky Mountain DPS for each of the 3 states – ID, MT, WY. That means connectivity for passing on genes. Management by each state at or above 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs. Likely that means at or above 1,000, while wolves expand to OR and WA (where they are also federally delisted per the rule)increasing the population even more (along with likely net in-migration from Canada).

                  There is also a genetics memorandum of understanding, too. Here is the one between ID, MT and FWS (there is a reference here to the Greater Yellowstone Area, which is shorthand for WY which is not a signatory, and YNP). Some folks might actually learn something if they read it:

          • JB says:


            So the state is going to spend thousands of dollars to kill wolves in a vain attempt to boast elk numbers (which are down because the habitat isn’t there) so that they can sell more licenses to hunters who want to kill elk? Really? I think what this is really about is showing dem ‘greenies’ who is really in charge.

            BTW, you’d better hope that the commission doesn’t find something more valuable then elk. Then you’ll learn what it’s like to be on the outside looking in.

            • WM says:


              Ah, but most folks forget the ESA is a danger of extinction statute to protect certain at risk species (and, of course, to some degree the ecosystems upon which they rely, but that doesn’t seem to be too much of an impediment to wolves in the West or Midwest at least).

              In addition to the “get them greenies” vendetta, they seem to think such an investment, however large or suspect, will depress or at least hold the line on wolf numbers, as well as keep the revenue stream from hunters propping up the rural economy AND likely keep quiet a few livestock operations from having to make larger capital investments, and long term operations costs to “wolf-proof” their businesses so they can continue to make a profit.

              So Governor Butch has taken heed of a playbook from history. Keep the emotional wolf issue front and center, and they will forget about the other failings of government. Sort of like a twist on “give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.”

              By the way, JB, can you tell us what those wolves are eating, if they aren’t eating elk that supposedly aren’t there?

              • JB says:

                What does the ESA have to do with the state of Idaho’s decision to kill wolves on federal public lands? Certainly I made no mention of the statute.

                “By the way, JB, can you tell us what those wolves are eating, if they aren’t eating elk that supposedly aren’t there?”

                Well, they could probably survive by consuming KKK members and Tea Party-types, but I suspect we’d have heard about that. Honestly WM, do I really need to mention compensatory mortality again?

  12. Ida Lupines says:

    If Idaho is supposedly mangling its own wolf population, the Federal government should cut off all funding/help for this. What a bunch of hypocrites – still having taxpayer-funded Wildlife Services pay for it. The Federal government should cut them off entirely, as they say they want.

  13. IDHiker says:

    Obama could order Wildlife Services to cease and desist if he wanted. He’s just not interested. He’s the only person that can stop this.

    • birdpond says:

      Why don’t we ask him to? Seriously – Despite his horrid track record, it almost seems as if he’s trying to make up ground now that he no longer has to capitulate to the other side. Maybe? Maybe he would be receptive now if we ask. At least it’s worth a try –

  14. Joanne Favazza says:

    If wolves and other predators cannot live in peace in remote areas like this, where are they supposed to go? This is an outrage. People need to be “managed”–not wildlife.

  15. Ida Lupines says:

    From the HCN:

    If coyote hunting doesn’t do much to reduce the population, we’ve got to ask why there’s a place in a civilized, modern world for the gleeful killing of a species simply because humans have the last vestiges of an urge to kill in our reptilian, triune brains. I also nearly am keeling over from the smoke blowing by the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commission’s response:

    My opposition was really more in regards to I don’t believe we’re at a point where a regulatory approach is the right course,” commission head Jeremy Drew says. “We’ve tried to deal with controversial topics through a regulatory process in the past and it’s been very difficult to get both sides to come to the table and try to find a consensus-based approach.”

    Translation: ‘We don’t want to risk losing’.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I realize that comment wasn’t politically correct. Apologies to the real snakes and reptiles out there!

  16. Jerry Black says:

    I listened for years to people and conservation groups that say “boycotts don’t work”………well, nothing else has worked, absolutely nothing, and wolves continue to die despite “consensus building” and “collaboration”. Threats of boycotts and bad publicity were the reason the 20 year battle to protect the Great Bear Rainforest was recently successful, so it can be done.
    Some of the “corporate” so called conservation groups that have made millions of dollars off the backs of wolves need to step up and initiate a boycott and a publicity campaign against the state of Idaho. JMHO

    • Joanne Favazza says:

      Agree with you 100%, Jerry. Time for the Big Greens to step up and put their money where their mouths are.

      • Louise kane says:

        The sad part about the big greens is that they keep making money on their campaigns
        One in particular I have a big gripe with and its not hsus
        I find it amazing and disconcerting that they don’t work together hire a coordinator and highly paid marketing specialist to fight predator policy
        Lots of commercials media campaigns and a documentary like blackfish would get some attention
        Instead they squabble and send out endless contribution requests and are highly inefficient at grass roots efforts
        It’s a shame

        • Yvette says:

          “I find it amazing and disconcerting that they don’t work together hire a coordinator and highly paid marketing specialist to fight predator policy.”

          ++++ Louise.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Do remember, that even if for a short time the threatened Alaskan boycott did end aerial hunting of wolves.

      I’m sure that my boycott of Idaho potatoes isn’t doing much by itself…

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        Immer Treue,

        Idaho potatoes are not that much of the economy there anymore. Big dairy is the the ag interest of weight.

  17. Mara Fiorello says:

    If people want to live in the wild or near the woods, they need to respect the wildlife that has lived there years before humans. Wolves help maintain the eco balance. They hunt to eat only. You have a farm near by,that’s your problem. It’s not the fault of the wolf. Aerial killing is inhumane. That is senseless and distrubing. It sounds like the movie The Hunger Games. Killing people of lesser means than those that are fortunate. Wolves lives matter.

  18. Gary Humbard says:

    Nearly all of IDFG funding comes from licenses, federal funds, and grants and with a reduction in hunting and fishing licenses (partly due to the economy), naturally the agency is going to look for improving hunting success. According to the attached document, this area is far from a “elk farm” and while habitat degradation is one of the leading causes in the overall reduction of elk in this area (IDFG has little control of habitat) as stated in the document “However, at the present time and at current elk population status, wolf caused mortality is the major factor limiting calf recruitment and cow elk survival and, therefore, elk abundance and achievement of Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) objectives”.

    I personally would rather see natural processes occur and let predators roam the landscape without threats from humans; however, until there are new ways to fund wildlife agencies, these actions will continue. IDFG is doing its job of managing wildlife for those that DIRECTLY provide revenue to the agency.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Thus the sh@t storm when Montana proposed a fund to which the general public could contribute for wolf/game management. Money talks, even when those firmly entrenched don’t want the new money/new ideas stirring the pot.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        There was quite a discussion here on that topic showing a split opinion with valid arguments on both sides. I decided for it when the anti wolf folks said they wanted no meddling in their F&G department.

    • rork says:

      What I find somewhat amusing in that report is that their wolf hunters and trappers aren’t able to get it done on their own. I do find that somewhat understandable: My motivation to go kill a very large package of meat (elk) is fairly high, but my desire to go after wolves is nearly zero. I don’t really need wolf-skin robes. I guess if my elk hunting success was low, I’d go cry to the state government to send some real wolf hunters out there, cause I didn’t want to bother myself.

      • sue hodges says:

        Selling those furs to China and Russia. I thought that was common knowledge

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Yes. This is why I fear for the grizzles when they open hunting season on them, because they’ll be selling their gall bladders and other body parts – despite all the fanfare about grizzly recovery.

          Facts don’t seem to coincide with the rhetoric – time and time again we see that wildlife watchers and other recreationists contribute more to state coffers than the killers – but we still are repeatedly being told it is the hunters who do. I’m glad we’re not talking about the mafia!

    • Mary Ann High says:

      Gary, funding for wolf killing has changed since 2011. In 2014, Butch Otter signed a bill “to create a $400,000 fund and establish a five-member board whose job is to authorize the killing of wolves that come into conflict with wildlife or livestock. The money comes from the state’s general fund.”
      And in March,2015 this: “BOISE – Idaho lawmakers voted Tuesday to spend another $400,000 in state tax funds next year to kill wolves under a year-old program…“The state of Idaho… made a commitment that we would spend a large amount of money over a number of years, and that commitment comes out to about $400,000 a year,” Bair said.” Taxpayers are footing the bill. They take money from me and every other taxpayer in the state for this.

    • Mary Ann High says:

      Elk and wolves did just fine together for thousands of years without our intervention. IDFG wants to artificially inflate elk numbers to sell more tags by intensive predator killing (elk farming), yet they continue to hammer the old age class (trophy) bulls, the most successful breeders, and allow hunting in the rut, neither of which is helping their elk numbers. And historic, illegal salting practices that attract elk and concentrate them geographically continue, making elk more vulnerable and increasing hunting success rates. These practices are bad enough in non-Wilderness areas, but have absolutely no place in Wilderness, no matter who pays for it. Not according to the Wilderness Act.

      • birdpond says:

        Not to mention that disease and parasites are more easily spread when large numbers of elk and deer gather at these feeding stations – Just idiocy, but they are idiots with power.

        The idiots are also selecting for the weak, scrawny and unadorned by picking the trophy bulls over and over. They are destroying the very species they claim to love. Logically, since the antlerless are less likely to be ‘harvested’ (hated that word), then those will be the foundation for future generations. This isn’t restricted to elk hunting – Stupid people select for rattlesnakes that no longer rattle, because any poor snake that has the audacity to WARN FIRST rather than biting (so both parties can walk away alive) gets tracked down and hacked to bits. Smart?? Idiots and haters tracking down and killing any buzzing snake they hear? Brilliant humans. The only rattlesnakes that will be left are those few more likely to just bite first rather than risk discovery by letting us know that they’re there, minding their own business, looking for rats to eat. It’s already happening. We are leaving only the non-rattlers to survive to breed and pass that tendency along.

        Aren’t humans, and those great, big, wrinkly brains we’re all so darned proud of, just . . .awesome?

  19. Trish Marie says:

    I just e-mailed Secretary Vilsack at his official government e-mail address and the message bounced back because “the recipient’s mailbox is full.” ???

  20. WM says:

    Amazing what IDFG is having to spend just to hold the line on their management objective for wolves. Makes one wonder what the December-January count was in these units.

    Over the past year or so Ken Cole’s statements have lost considerable credibility in my mind. Sorry, Ken, you jumped the shark sometime back. Elk farm in the Lolo? Really? And, by the way those wolves are eating something if they are increasing in number and staying there – something like 50 packs in the combined Dworshak-Lolo units. That is what is so much horse poopie in Ken’s comment.

    • Jerry Black says:

      ” Ken Cole’s statements have lost considerable credibility in my mind.”
      No doubt WM……”You’re a legend in your own mind”…can’t remember who said that, but I do know, WM, that you’ve driven many very credible people away from this blog…just look at the very few that regularly participate here.

      • WM says:

        Sorry Jerry, I’m not buying it, unless you consider Chicago Mike a credible sort (I think that was kind of group dogpile, however). On the other hand, Ken drove YNP Wilderness ranger and bison expert Bob Jackson away, and he stated the reason why when he left? Or maybe, IDFG’s Mark Gamblin who was treated pretty rude here by most here who didn’t want to hear the other side of an issue.

        • timz says:

          Gamblin never presented the “other side of the issue”, all he did was spout the F&G company line over and over again.

          • Ralph Maughan says:


            Glad you and WM remember Mark Gamblin’s tireless effort to convince us that the Lolo elk were in some awful predator pit.

            Regarding Bob Jackson, it was me, not Ken Cole. I had to put him in moderation after a series of increasing shrill or strange comments. He soon resigned. Too bad, he had a fine career and a lot of information.

      • WM says:

        And Jerry, you ever been in the area being discussed? I’ve been in as far as Moose Creek about 30 miles in the heart of the Selway-Bitterroot. There is a maintained airstrip there which pre-dates wilderness designation, and I believe is still used.

        I will submit the concept of wilderness administration many have today differs from the concept of wilderness when the act was passed in 1964 (despite the language everybody quotes) and when many were designated, and a lot of folks regularly hunted even in the backcountry. I got in there on horseback and on foot in the 1990’s. Heck, some purists are even objecting to horses now, notwithstanding nearly 50 years of horse use in Wilderness. The concept of designated wilderness is evolving out of bureaucratic administration of it, because most of this stuff was not even thought of at the time the Act was passed, and my WA Senator Scoop Jackson was chair of the Senate Interior Committee. I wonder what he and other drafters of the law would think about how some are interpreting it today?

        • Jerry Black says:

          Yes, WM….I have actually flown in and out of Moose Creek several times prior to losing my FAA physical because of a health issue

          • WM says:


            Do you believe you have defiled the “wilderness ethic” by flying in?

            See, I think it is important for folks who have used wilderness in this manner, legally, to speak up. Wilderness is what Congress says it is in any particular wilderness designation. There are many grandfathered air strips in designated wilderness in ID, and other states, which are used frequently. Wasn’t the airstrip at Fish Lake, also in the Selway-Bitterroot, scheduled for some kind of improvement or something, not along ago?

            And, I also bet most folks don’t know the FAA advisory on flight over wilderness, monuments and national parks etc., is just a “request” to stay 2,000 feet above the terrain, and there is some fuzzy interpretation about lateral distance from the highest terrain, which means to some pilots they can go lower in wilderness – and this doesn’t even have anything to do with a wildlife agency doing work in wilderness with aircraft, which is a pretty common thing from my memory.

            By the way, back to the Moose Creek strip, I bet Lizard Lakes and the lakes around Fenn Mountain to the SW are impressive from the air.

        • Louise Kane says:

          I’m betting nobody imagined wilderness as an area to helicopter in and shoot wildlife.

          • Louise Kane says:

            The images I have seen look like a scene from hell. I try to imagine how anyone might do this and fail to comprehend the ugly cruelty, stupidity and single minded purpose used to justify chasing down terrified animals and razing them with bullets leaving many to die in agony while their pack mates watch.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Jerry, sorry, but that is simply not true. WM is one of the few on this blood who keep the conversations honest.

        • timz says:

          Bullcrap, he’s a pompous ahole who belittles most everyone here and obviously a closet wolf hater.

          • Immer Treue says:

            We are all entitled to our opinions. I don’t agree with everything WM writes, but I’ll tell you this, what he does write is worth reading because he uses law and logic in regard to wolves, and is aware of the fact that wolves carry impact wherever they are found.

            When I used to peruse one of the daffodil sites they would quote and praise WM one day, and become apoplexic with Condemnation the next.

            WM is willing to demonstrate the coin has two sides.

            • JEFF E says:

              I think all animals carry impact wherever they are found….after that it becomes mainly a matter of perception.

          • WM says:

            “Bullcrap…” says timz, who rarely offers opinion supported by authority (or sometimes even much deep thought). His comments are often venom rich. and sometimes expletive filled, directed at those with whom he disagrees. And, he “carries,” right? That ought to create the dynamics for some interesting conflicts.

            As for the closet wolf-hating. Not really. I just want fewer wolves in some places, while more of them in other places that don’t have them. Either way, it would appear their numbers will be managed wherever they are. And that is where the tension for some resides.

            Maybe ID, once again, should offer wolves to CA and see if they would take them this time. Even better if CA would ask, yes? Maybe the Sierra Club ought to craft a poll to achieve such a result.

            • timz says:

              At least I have the balls to use my name. Maybe some of you whom WM has accused of running folks of the board could work that same magic and rid us of this narcissistic prick.

              • Joanne Favazza says:

                Amen to that, timz.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Boy timz. You were just given a logical reply and responded by lashing out and further ensnaring yourself in the tar baby.

                Where are you when one of the real “multiple personality” wolf haters makes there appearance on these pages?

                I’m not writing this to create a pissing match, and certainly not attempting to throw gasoline on the fire. I like wolves, and it’s probably the major reason I participate on this blog site.

                I disagree with what’s happening in the Lolo and for that matter in BC. Finally where I live in NE MN, it’s becoming evident that though wolves are impacting moose, there is something else going on that makes wolf impact minuscule.

                Save your vitriol for the empty bottle that may or may not come back this way. Have a go at him, and I’ll most certainly tip my hat to you.

                • timz says:


                • timz says:

                  Immer,You stick up for someone who starts a conversation like this.

                  I think you are commenting outside your pay grade. ”

                  I from MN I know what that cold can do to your brain, maybe you should go south for a while.

                • timz says:

                  “but I’ll tell you this, what he does write is worth reading”
                  Does that include his belittling of Ken Cole who with his org has done more in a week than WM will do in his whole life?

                • rork says:

                  “Does that include his belittling of Ken Cole?”

                • WM says:


                  Strikes me you are not a happy person. If I upset you, do yourself a favor and save yourself the increased blood pressure episodes, and the possibility of a coronary event or a stroke. Just don’t bother to read my posts. As for dear Ida, well, she has lots and lots of opinions expressed her in numerous posts, many not grounded in facts. Thus the intro to my comment; sort of a gesture of frustration on my part; call it an imperfection if you like. We all have them, as you seem so eager to point out with vitriolic fervor.

                  Go outside, take a deep breath, and if you can manage one, try to smile.

                  You (well we all) should have something to smile about today. Authorities have just snagged Clive Bundy at Portland International Airport. Let’s see if they keep him. 😉

                • Immer Treue says:

                  I speak up for someone not afraid to speak the truth. Once again, when and if that real wolf “hater” comes back on this site, rip into him.

                  As for MN cold, double digit below zero past two evenings, and I think in the -20’s tonight. Dressed properly, pretty mentally stimulating.

                • timz says:

                  that was directed at WM, no one else

            • Louise Kane says:

              Idaho’s treatment go wolves is disgraceful no matter how they or others try to whitewash it.

              Please you can;t be arguing that Idaho with it’s tens of millions of acres of public land and wilderness is suffering from a few hundred wolves…..

              • timz says:

                I’m as happy as a clam except to when I get to thinking there are people in the world like you. That saddens me a little.

                • Zoe Berger says:

                  Good god what is that supposed to mean?? Louise is seeing very clearly and is expressing very well what a lot of people are feeling.

        • Mareks Vilkins says:

          that is simply not true. WM is one of the few on this blood who keep the conversations honest.


          WM rarely put some meat in his posts – basically he’s just a horseshit seller

          like when for years he tries to sell that D Mech is saying that 20% of wolves go undercounted (meaning ‘lone wolves’). Pure rubbish.

          Mech in

          says that on average 10-15% go undercounted … but the funny part is that Minnesota and Idaho wolf surveys take that into account (MN – 15% and ID – 12.5%)

          but don’t hold your breath, Immer – one can bet Wilderness-horseshit-Muse will keep spreading his party line, though

          • Mareks Vilkins says:

            also his stats about wolf’s energy budget put in proper context his contention that “I just want fewer wolves in some places, while more of them in other places that don’t have them.”

            I guess, he’s preferred wolf density is smth like 2 wolves / 1000 km2

          • rork says:

            You are being a bully, for no good reason that I can find.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Maybe Mareks is disgusted with comments that excuse or justify wolf and predator policy that should have ended when Leopold noted that the mountain was less wild…

              • rork says:

                I get that. Maybe some of us don’t read of have forgotten the comments where WM has helped explain the law history about 100 times, but I do.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Every once in a great while I know how savebears perceived this comments on this blog.

              • Nancy says:


                I still don’t know what I was waiting for
                And my time was running wild
                A million dead-end streets
                And every time I thought I’d got it made
                It seemed the taste was not so sweet
                So I turned myself to face me
                But I’ve never caught a glimpse
                Of how the others must see the faker
                I’m much too fast to take that test

                (Turn and face the strange)
                Don’t want to be a richer man
                (Turn and face the strange)
                Just gonna have to be a different man
                Time may change me
                But I can’t trace time

                I watch the ripples change their size
                But never leave the stream
                Of warm impermanence and
                So the days float through my eyes
                But still the days seem the same
                And these children that you spit on
                As they try to change their worlds
                Are immune to your consultations
                They’re quite aware of what they’re going through

                (Turn and face the strange)
                Don’t tell them to grow up and out of it
                (Turn and face the strange)
                Where’s your shame
                You’ve left us up to our necks in it
                Time may change me
                But you can’t trace time

                Strange fascination, fascinating me
                Changes are taking the pace
                I’m going through

                (Turn and face the strange)
                Oh, look out you rock ‘n rollers
                (Turn and face the strange)
                Pretty soon now you’re gonna get older
                Time may change me
                But I can’t trace time
                I said that time may change me
                But I can’t trace time

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Change is good. However, change that results in some of the wolf,blogs, populated by those that know nothing about wolves other than they are pretty, or feed the stereotypes perpetuated by the anti-wolf cadre do the wolf no favor.

                  WM made a comment he’d like to see fewer wolves in some areas am
                  No more in other areas. Wolves do what wolves do, and sometimes they bring hardship to people. Everybody likes to quote Mech, even the “bad guys”. Mech, “wolves are neither saints nor sinners except for those who would have them so.”

                • Immer Treue says:

                  And more wolves in other areas

          • WM says:


            Please don’t misquote me. I believe what I said, was more or less paraphrasing Dr. Mech and his sworn written declaration in the NRM Delisting suit before Judge Donald Molloy in US District Court in MT, in conjunction with other things he has said, putting them all together.

            Pay attention here Mareks:

            1. The comment is in regard to the NRM operating as a whole – the meta-population in the areas of MT, ID, WY, the eastern 1/3 of WA, the eastern 1/3 of OR, and a tiny smidge of NE Utah. That would be the NRM DPS area.
            2. It is limited to the NRM, at least as far as I know. That doesn’t mean MN with its 2,700-3,000 wolves.

            The comment was that the undercount or under-estimate in the NRM could be UP TO 20 percent (that is a range, sport). And, the degree or percent of undercounting, according to Mech would tend to INCREASE over time (that would be percentage or numbers of individual wolves/packs) as the range over which these expanding populations would roam.

            If you stop to think about it (and I doubt you do) that is pretty logical, because there would be less collaring and more and more ground for those who do the counts to cover, maybe with less resources. And, in my own Western WA, when wolves make it to the heavy tree covered canopies and dense reprod logging units I bet conditions are there for considerable undercounting. Heck, WDFW is already undercounting them as they expand range and pop up somewhere new to be counted for the first time. They only count “confirmed” packs. WA had an official 30% increase from 2014 to 2015, for example.

            Contrast MN as an individual state, where most of the range is known and occupied. The counts are done heavily relying on observations of others (every 5 years officially), and wolves don’t seem to be moving so much to the south so they say because of the habitat, or they may out-migrate into WI where others count them as a part of that state’s count.

            And, let’s recognize that in the vast NRM the counts are typically done in winter, with a lot of it by aircraft over large areas. And, some here don’t want helos or fixed wing aircraft flying over designated wilderness in places like ID or MT – which would tend to result in undercounts.

            Heck Mareks, Idaho alone is 3.3 times larger than your entire country of Latvia. So, I don’t think you have any sense of scale here.

            And, it seems most places wolves are in the US and elsewhere the numbers are managed to keep them at less than natural biological densities. Doesn’t make any difference whether that is in North America, most of Europe, Siberia or even the Middle East.

            So, if anybody is full of horse shit you might look in the mirror.

            So if you feel the urge to pee on somebody feel free to a little weanie waving.

            • Rita k Sharpe says:

              Wow, It’s come down to a weanie waving contest, and here I thought size didn’t matter.

              • WM says:


                Oh, for an edit button. I didn’t intend to publish the last sentence (I thought I had deleted it, replaced by the one above it). My bad. But at least you know what I was really thinking. 😉

            • Mareks Vilkins says:

              so, stellar horseshit seller is at it again:

              1)if a breeding pair have 6 pups it makes 300% increase but re-read Dan MacNulty’s paper


              “Wolves will kill for more space, new USU study finds”

              the conventional thinking is that large carnivores are limited by the abundance of prey in a given area,” MacNulty said. “But what these wolves are ultimately limited by is the amount of space they have to raise their pups in safety.”

              “For those concerned about wolf populations, even when you have super abundant prey like in Yellowstone, there are limits to wolf population growth. There is an intrinsic limit to the number of wolves that occupy a given space,” MacNulty said, adding that because rival packs will attack and kill rival wolf pups, their numbers are self-limiting.

              “What this paper does say is, though there is this notion that wolves will increase like a locust without any sort of natural limit, that idea is not supported by the data,” he said.

              2)let’s compare wolf densities among different states

              – in Poland wolf’s range is 61 5oo km2 and there are 1276 wolves (2014) or 20.75 wolves per 1000 km2

              – in Germany wolf’s range is 12 -13 000 km2 and there are 250 wolves or 19.2 – 20.8 wolves per 1000 km2

              – in Minnesota wolf’s range is 70 000 km2 and there are 2221 wolves (2015) or 32 wolves per 1000 km2

              – in Wisconsin wolf’s range is 44 000 km2 and there are 771 wolves (Dec 2014) or 17.5 wolves per 1000 km2

              – in Montana wolf’s range is 79 000 km2 and there are 554 wolves (Dec 2014) or 7 wolves per 1000 km2

              – in Idaho wolf’s range is 132 000 km2 and there are 770 wolves (Dec 2014) or 5.8 wolves per 1000 km2

              150 wolves in Montana gives 1 wolf per 527 km2 or ~ 2 wolves per 1000 km2

              150 wolves in Idaho gives 1 wolf per 880 km2

              3) in MN wolf surveys were done in 2013, 2014 and 2015

              4) wazzock, read how the wolf survey is done in MN, ID or MT for that matter

              5) lone wolves usually get killed in intraspecific violence

              6) in ID,MT etc wolf biologists would be interested to undercount wolves?
              get serious, palooka

              • WM says:


                Not all of ID or any other state is wolf habitat. Just like the southwestern half of MN is supposedly not wolf habitat (at least that is what all their maps and bureaucrats say).

                Wolf per square mile is an idiot’s argument.

                • rork says:

                  He seems to have estimates of the actual wolf range (from somewhere). Montana is 381000 sq km. The densities are lower out west, and that could be partly cause people keep them below carrying capacity. I’m not surprised that the wolf density would be lower in the rockies than the other places sighted anyway though. MN and upper MI, which I know, have allot of meat running around, in a convenient size.
                  PS: As I’ve pointed out many times, upper MI has pretty much proven wolf density has limits. I expect new counts out about mid April. Our deer are the lowest in a long time, but I don’t think it’s that much cause of wolves, it’s weather, and cover. If we have deer go up, we will see if a few more wolves can fit, and how many.
                  I’m not saying you either one of you doesn’t know these things. Calm down guys.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  see, horseshit seller again have no clue what is said in MN,MT,ID, etc annual wolf reports / surveys. WM is a bigot & rabid gnat.

                  Like he was mouthing about Oregon’s wolf delisting before he read Science Review

                  All these stats are from state wolf reports & surveys, stumblebum

                  And in Mech/Boitani’s ed book they are using wolf density (the number of wolves per 1000 km2) as meaningful concept to describe wolf population dynamics etc.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  to counter bozo who spreads horseshit:



                  From 1996 until 2005, the Idaho wolf population was estimated using a total count technique that was appropriate and feasible when wolf numbers were low and a substantial number of wolves were radiocollared. Since then, as the wolf population increased in size and distribution, we have used an estimation technique that is more feasible for a larger population that is more difficult to monitor. In 2006 we began using an estimation technique that has been peer reviewed by the University of Idaho and northern Rocky Mountain wolf managers. This technique relies on documented packs, mean or median pack size (mean or median of the sample pool of packs where pack counts are considered complete), number of wolves documented in small groups not considered packs, and an estimated percentage (12.5%; Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 170) of the population presumed to be lone wolves. The calculation uses a total count of wolves for those packs where we have a high degree of confidence that we observed all pack members, and applies the mean or median pack size to the remaining documented packs with incomplete counts.


                  Occupancy modeling provides a useful methodology for estimating distribution using multiple survey methods in a robust sampling design (MacKenzie et al. 2002). To further evaluate distribution of wolves in Idaho during 2013, a single-season occupancy model was developed using hunter observations (n = 4,656) and radio-telemetry data (n = 36 packs) with 9 covariates: forest cover, elevation, slope, antlered deer harvest density, antlered elk harvest density, hunter days expended, cattle density, sheep density, and month. We estimate 61% of Idaho (132,162 km2) was used by groups or packs of 2+ wolves during fall 2013.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:


                  From 2007 to 2012, estimated area occupied by wolf packs in Montana increased from 39,521 km2 to 79,275 km2


                  Montana wolf packs are monitored year round. FWP conducts ground tracking and flies 1-2 times per month to locate collared animals and determine localized use throughout the year and the number of wolves traveling together. Den sites and rendezvous sites are visited to determine if reproduction has taken place. Additional
                  information is collected, such as identification of private lands used by wolves, identification of public land grazing allotments where conflicts could occur, and common travel patterns. At the end of the year, FWP compiles information gathered through field surveys, telemetry, and public reporting.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:


                  After accounting for the assumed 15% lone wolves in the population, we estimate the 2014-15 mid-winter wolf population at 2 221 wolves, or 3.2 wolves per 100 km2 of occupied range
                  Given an average territory size of approximately 189 km2 and assuming occupied range unchanged since 2013 (70,579 km2 ; Erb and Sampson 2013), we estimate a total of 374 wolf packs in Minnesota.

                  If bozo would be reading wolf reports / surveys he would know that in MN, ID and MT wildlife managers also use metric system (not only imperial one).

                  what a schmuck

                • Mareks Vilkins says:


                  you could undercount underpants in your drawer but don’t lecture MN, ID etc wildlife managers how to do wolf survey. Don’t.

                • WM says:

                  The problem with your tangential argument is that in each the underlying foundation premise is “documented,” “confirmed,” “bserved,” packs. The official estimates always preface their numbers as MINIMUMS. All packs don’t get counted in the allotted time period of the surveys. That is why the undercounting consistently occurs (even if dispersers are some how accounted for.

                  And, Mareks, you will want to be honest when quoting Mech and Boitani. I found the language on page 7 enlightening:

                  ++Unless it assumes a breeding position within the pack, which is rare, any wolf born into a pack will leave it. In fact, each wolf pack can be viewed as a “dispersal pump” that converts prey into young wolves and spews them far and wide over the landscape. On the average, then, a thriving pack of three to nine members producing 6 pups each year…thus “pumps out” about half its members annually.++

                  This language follows on P. 12, under the heading Sex and Age of Dispersers:

                  ++ Wolves of both sexes disperse, and there seem to be few consistent male-female differences in dispersal characteristics. In some regions or times, males apparently disperse farther or at a higher rate….However, at other times or places females disperse farther on average. [Wolves, Behavior, Ecology and Conservation. Mech and Boitani, editors (2003).]

                  Go ahead and do the wolf habitat and wolves/ or sq. mi. It means very little in the context of a “risk of extinction statute,” the ESA, and a functioning and expanding meta-population of the NRM -even if wolves are hunted at reasonable harvest levels.

                  And, Mareks, I have said here before it seems the OR state delisting efforts are premature on the sparse numbers alone. So, don’t misquote me AGAIN.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  That’s all, stumblebum?

                  Idaho held its first regulated wolf hunting season from fall 2009 through spring 2010. Since then wolf numbers have been going down until Dec 2014 because IDFG documented 360 wolf mortalities in 2014, a 24% decrease from 2013.

                  That is, wolf killing not only stopped the growth of wolf population but actually immediately reduced it (so much for “[wolf] dispersal pumps”, “reasonable harvest levels”, “up to 20% of wolves are undercounted” etc.).

                  Because of those NRM “reasonable harvest levels” wolf dispersal to new regions with suitable habitat (in CA,UT,COL etc) has been slowed down significantly.

                  D Mech’s summary of several studies about the percentage of lone wolves (aka ‘dispersers’, ‘nonresidents’) is not on page 7 or 12 but on page 170 (as it was mentioned in ID’s annual report, buffoon):

                  “[lone] wolves compose about 10-15% of a wolf population in winter on average”.

                  Apparently bozo isn’t even capable to use Mech & Boitani book’s index properly. Sigh.

                  Mech’s point was about undercounted lone wolves but ID,MN etc survey take this into account (12.5% and 15% respectively).

                  In OR’s Science Review biologists assume 3 wolves would immigrate annually from surrounding populations (so much for “functioning and expanding meta-population of the NRM”)

                  It is obvious that you haven’t read neither MN, ID, MT annual reports/surveys nor OR Science Review – you are a phoney and showing it again and again and again.

                  Moreover, elk numbers in ID & MT have increased despite the presence of wolves and wolf killing will not improve elk hunter success rate.

                  Obviously 5.8-7 wolves per 1000 km2 is too much for ‘mainstream hunters’. Why? Because they feel ‘entitled’ to score some elk & deer and to no end are whining about wolves who eat 12-23 elk in six months (when in reality a wolf consumes 12-23 elk in a year). Therefore to kill 30-35% of wolf populations in ID & MT for those ‘mainstream hunters’ is a ‘reasonable harvest level’

                  keep schmucking around and spreading horseshit, bozo

    • Nancy says:

      “The 2012 IDFG Report changes what is considered a breeding pair. Instead of identifying the adults in a breeding pair as “an adult male and an adult female wolf”, the IDFG changed that to “≥2 adults” with no specification of sex. Because it is difficult to identify the sex of the adults, without a close observation, it appears that IDFG is sidestepping this requirement”

  21. Barb Beronski says:

    Leave the Wolves “Run Free and be Free Forever “

  22. Ralph Maughan says:

    I just want to say that Idaho didn’t used to be this way.

    Thirty years ago it was a moderate and kind of green state. That is how the large wilderness areas were protected.

    Because almost everyone here in Idaho is White, more of less by accident, racists and nasty right winters from California and other states targeted it. They even thought a white homeland might be established. That hasn’t happened, but we oldtimers are outnumbered and sit here with a rotten Fish and Game department, in a corporation dominated state and a declining economy and environment.

    • TC says:

      I’m not sure the entire country used to be this way. When Donald Trump is a serious contender for the Republican nomination, especially given the campaign he’s run – you just gotta stop and ponder when exactly it was we finally came completely off the tracks…

  23. JEFF E says:

    Don’t know if this has been brought up or not.
    Remember the bureaucratic rule of thumb: Always spend all available money so that an ever increasing amount can be demanded and thereby claim some sort of relevance to justify continuing existence.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Just reading the comments – yikes. No science there. I’d say ‘vermin’ is in the eye of the beholder.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Yeah, and the broken record in those comments was the one who has graced the pages of TWN.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Her(?) comments are so full of hate – using words like ‘saturated’ and ‘vermin’. What is wrong when people direct such emotional and irrational hatred towards an animal? This person really needs to step back and get a grip. Wolves are no different than other predators – I’d have to disagree that they have a greater impact than other predators, except in certain minds. They are targeted way too intensely.

          People like this woman, and somebody by the name of somsai really need to get a grip on reality. He gets way too ‘excited’ about the wolf issue, it’s the only thing he contributes over at Remington’s blog. The rest at least will discuss other things on occasion. RR should stick to philosophy. 🙂

          • Barb Rupers says:

            RR and TR’s brother, Al in Alaska, are the most frequent “contributers” at Remington’s current blog. RR should get an award for saying the least of importance in the most number of words. I don’t consider him a philosopher; he sure doesn’t know much about science; and nothing about religion predating about 4000 years ago. He lives in southern Idaho and claims to spend months per year in the local wilderness areas but seems to daily be on his computers.

            • Yvette says:

              “He lives in southern Idaho and claims to spend months per year in the local wilderness areas but seems to daily be on his computers.”

              Barb, that is funny! I don’t know who you guys are talking about, but that comment is hilarious.

              • Barb Rupers says:

                Greg Farber (Fibber) lives in Bellevue Idaho; posts most recently as RattlerRider, and before that as GoldDust. He was booted off of here some years back but occasionally comments under various names. Also booted from the Spokesman Review.

                Recently he commented on TR’s that businesses in Idaho were being affected by poor hunting as the wolves were destroying the game. I caled both these he claimed were closed – “Smiley Creek Lodge, closed, South Fork Lodge closed” – they were both open for business. I didn’t bother to check his other “facts”.

        • skyrim says:

          Immer… strikingly similar prose to one I can think of hereabouts.

    • birdpond says:

      OMG – Great point – Maybe this isn’t about ‘wolf problems’ at all but about their paychecks. Having worked for a city run zoo, yes, I this makes sense.

      Can we find a way forward with this insight??

  24. Kevin Jamison says:

    Ralph, fifty years ago Custer County was solidly Democratic. Andrus, Church, Orvil Hansen got substantial support. Tourism was modest but viable.
    Lately, I have to ascribe the political climate to constant media overload confusion and an epidemic of self-serving lies by those who benefit by status quo ever enriching their bloated wealth.
    Rural westerners are especially vulnerable to the anti-everything regulatory pablum shouted over increasingly radical right outlets because they see their “lifestyle” being assaulted on many fronts. Economic pressure, increasing isolation, declining opportunity and the persistent nagging annoyance of anti-grazing activists
    who haven’t yet learned the art and science of Congressional influence. Meaning, Ketchum donors are going to have to step it up.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Kevin Jamison,

      While I didn’t live in Idaho 50 years ago, I know you are correct about this.

      When I was a kid growing up in Rexburg, there were legal slot machines in stores of this nearly 100% LDS town.
      A bit earlier, Idaho had a socialist U.S. Senator, Glen Taylor. Although he was a Democrat, in 1948 he was the Vice Presidential candidate for the Progressive third party in the Harry S Truman/Tom Dewey election. The Progressives got about 5% of the vote with a far left platform that pretty much blamed the U.S. rather than the Soviet Union for the then-emerging Cold War.

      Idaho was a lot different then than now.,SenatorGlenH.html

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Aren’t they supposed to keep USF&W updated on their wolf mangling activities so that they are not relisted again if the state goes too far? “State and Federal officials keeping things under wraps” sounds more like Idaho F&W and USDA Wildlife Services, to me.

      • Zoe Berger says:

        Ida I just had a quick look at your links, thanks. It is completely disheartening. It’s worse than following the elections. It seems only one side can win no matter what the topic is. Otter isn’t the only sneak. Thugs and sadists. It’s breeding season, no? grrrr

    • Ida Lupines says:

      How awful. It is truly sick. I wish we could send back these people to wherever their hellish ancestors came from – bringing this irrational hatred and violence here.

      • jon says:

        20 other wolves have been killed in the lolo since the wolf hunt began 7 months ago, so total, 40 wolves have been killed in the lolo since August 2015. IDFG are scum.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I don’t know how this Todd Grimm (he is well named) character can look himself in the mirror every morning. And what can you say about Butcher Otter – and now, I’m beginning to question the intelligence of Idaho’s populace for continually voting for him.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          I don’t think a boycott will work – because Idaho doesn’t have anything anybody would want. The only thing they have going for them is that beautiful scenery.

        • jon says:

          There will be a place in hell for those that work for wildlife services and kill wildlife for no good legitimate reason.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            You’ve got to wonder when the Federals gov’t will step in and say enough is enough – this isn’t management of a formerly endangered species. Idaho is flying in the face of them, but what can you expect I suppose – look how they’ve let the Bundy’s run amok.

            • jon says:

              wildlife services needs to be defunded and all the people that work for it unemployed and put in prison for their crimes against wildlife.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I know that some people ask for our sympathy for them – I have no sympathy or respect for them. I’d be seriously concerned about those wolves ‘mistakenly collared’ in the Frank Church now too.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Ha! That will be poetic justice – when the conservatives defund them, after all that kowtowing to them. It can’t get any worse for the wildlife.

                • Zoe Berger says:

                  It is so very disturbing. I was happy to get notification of this latest Wildlife News but I thought somehow there would be suggestions/solutions here. While the boys are hashing it out further up on this blog (it’s mildly amusing/mildly upsetting) Otter and his crew are committing murder and getting away with it. Yes, the Frank Church…and Wisconsin, Michigan et cetera. They are all a bunch of thugs. It’s just about impossible to bring this to the attention of someone who could stop this. I don’t think anyone in any kind of power wants to touch it. Suggestions?

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  I don’t know what we can do about secretive backroom deals that set this all in motion. My suggestion is to expose them for the scum they are at every opportunity, and to keep the public informed of what their tax money is being used for. We need to somehow find a way to stop the reliance on wildlife ‘services’ for good. 🙁

            • Kathleen says:

              USDA Wildlife Services IS the federal government. And the Forest Service–also the federal government–doesn’t seem to be objecting.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I wasn’t clear. It’s one branch of the Federal Gov’t, the Forest Service is another, and USF&W is another – I thought that after a species was delisted, if it wasn’t managed properly, then the appropriate Federal agency would step in and relist if necessary? What’s worrisome is just how far Idaho is pushing, as if they don’t have to be accountable to anyone.

                But USDA Wildlife Services seems to be a rogue agency, and contrary to the ESA and USF&W. They don’t seem to work together, and that is the problem? I don’t think wildlife services is needed any longer. I do think a Notice of Noncompliance by the Forest Service is a stern warning, and putting the guilty parties on notice, and a very big deal.

  25. Yvette says:

    It’s an election year. Shift direction. Where does Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton stand on all of the issues that come across the pages of TWN? I do not even bother with asking where the republicans stand. Waste of energy. I’ve not heard on peep from either Sanders or Clinton on the issues of our public lands, wilderness and wildlife. The following issues come to mind:

    1. The unnecessary killing of wolves in the wilderness that is now happening in ID, and will happen again in the future.

    2. The coyote/bobcat/crow killing contests where there is no data collected on the “harvests” of those sentient animals. For sure with coyotes they are not collecting weight, age, gender, or numbers of “harvests”. I know my state doesn’t even bother with a hunting season. I think most other states have similar laws.

    3. The use of bait for “hunting” bears.

    4. The use of dogs to hound cougars, or traps to ‘hunt’ cougars.

    5. The use of traps, an antiquated, arcane and insanely horrific method to ‘hunt’ any living being.

    6. The laws on the use of traps where numerous pets have fallen victim with no consequences to the trapper.

    7. The ‘states rights’ groups that trample and destroy sensitive habitat area or areas that contain artifacts. The ‘states rights’ groups that are working to get as much federal public land away from that status and into privately owned land.

    8. What will a Sanders or Clinton Administration response be to another situation like the Bundy NV standoff in 2014, or the militant take over of our federal buildings and land?

    9. How will their administration respond to a rancher who refuses to pay grazing fees for over 20 years?

    10. What the do they plan to do with USDA’s Wildlife Services division? Are either of them even aware of WS and their awful history of torture and abuse?

    11. Will they be willing to work on repealing McKittrick?

    I hate that Idaho FG is once again on a wolf killing rampage, but I also hate that 29,000 mountain lions were hounded, trapped and slaughtered in the last ten years. I hate that bobcats are being trapped; that dogs are being shot because some hunter ‘thought it was a coyote’.

    All of these issues seem to manifest from three major things: Livestock, especially the free range livestock on public lands; land extraction like oil and gas; and sport/entertainment hunting.

    I realize now that wolves bring out the high emotions with most of us. They came so close to being totally extirpated from the lower 48 and they were so unmercifully persecuted in the past. But is it ever going to change if we never get a better handle on misuse of our public lands by oil and resource extraction and ranchers?

    • Ida Lupines says:

      They came so close to being totally extirpated from the lower 48 and they were so unmercifully persecuted in the past.

      You are absolutely right about that. I hate that all of the other wildlife suffers too – but wolves were and still are unfairly singled out for reasons that have no basis in fact but only what we have projected upon them for centuries, at least in Europe, and every where Europeans have set foot. Wiped out there in some areas, and then to nearly succeed in a new country only 200 years. American influence helped wipe them out in Japan. It’s appalling.

      The majority of people eat beef, and guzzle oil and gas. We are stubborn in our beliefs, such as those who believe there won’t be enough elk for them if wolves coexist. Were there ever elk there in the kinds of elk farm numbers these people want to parasitize? They do migrate. They make no sense. I don’t care whether hunters have elk, to be honest.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Yvette, I too was thinking the same thing. I heard Bernie Sanders say that we can no longer deny climate change and that there is a moral obligation to do something about it. Yet nothing by any of the “candidates” (If you can qualify Trump or any of the republicans as presidential material). One interesting thing to note, I heard on one of the debates in the post brouhaha that Raul Grijvalia is a close friend of Bernie Sanders. if Sanders won that could bode well if he were chosen as a cabinet head.

      I’m so disgusted by this latest news. Its almost too much to bear sometimes. Too sick, too disheartening and too sad.

      • Yvette says:

        “I’m so disgusted by this latest news. Its almost too much to bear sometimes. Too sick, too disheartening and too sad.”

        It is, and I doubt there will be any change on how and what ID does to wolves. Maybe if we can eventually turn a page on the other issues I mentioned, mainly the ag and the hunting then our wildlife will fair better.

        We must keep the republicans out of the WH. I don’t even want to think what a Trump or Cruz would do with wilderness or any of the public lands. Look what McCain and Jeff Flake did with the Oak Flats.

      • birdpond says:

        Louise – Then we need to ASK THEM.
        Ask them specifically. And keep asking until we get answers. I’ve asked, but no answer so far. Loss of biological diversity is the greatest threat facing the planet right now. Even more than climate change. Everyone here already knows that. We’re in the middle of the 6th great mass-extinction event in the planet’s history, and this time it’s all human-driven. Saving biodiversity needs to be a campaign issue, but it won’t be unless they know their potential supporters demand it.
        Let’s ask loud enough to get their attention. We’d better do it fast as this speeds up.

    • TC says:

      Yvette – I (and more significantly, most pollsters and savvy politicos) give Sanders a chance just slightly above 0% of being elected our next president, even if he can pull off the Democratic nomination. Something about self-labeling as a socialist and pie in the sky unfundable mandates, in a nation of slightly less-than-brilliant voters that then immediately conjure up the Berlin Wall or Stalin (don’t even bother putting any thought into that). Leaving Clinton. Who may have a chance, should she find a way to cap the self-destructive mode currently engaged. And my guess is – not a single thing on your list even registers on her radar. Not remotely. Much like President Obama. Bigger fish to fry. Or fail to fry, with a Republican majority in both houses.

      • Yvette says:

        TC, I agree with what you say except the part of Bernie having a 0% chance; maybe that was true a two months ago but I don’t think it is today. I still think Hillary will get the nomination, and yes, the things we on this board are most concerned about are off the radars of all those running. Except maybe Canadian Cruz and Trump who both will be salivating to get all the public land into private hands.

        How do we get these issues on Sanders and Clinton’s radar? We definitely must keep the bat$hit bunch in the republican line up out of the WH, but America is near falling off the right side of the globe.

        • Nancy says:

          Another good read:

          Yvette, I am as concerned as you are about the issues you brought up but I think most of them are in the hands of the states & local government and that’s where they need to be addressed.

          • Zoe Berger says:

            That is probably true, but the states must have to answer to the feds, no? When it is apparent that they are committing such wrongful acts, they should be stopped. There are potentially so many branches involved it’s a real mess trying to maneuver through it all. Where to start? Nobody is taking responsibility, it seems.

          • Yvette says:

            Addressing it on the state level is big problem in many states. Jim Infofe is one of our senators. Jim Lankford is the new guy. Bridenstein is my regional rep. Getting anything done in OK that doesn’t have to do with God or oil is like trying to shoot a target with your hands behind you and cuffed to a chair bolted to the floor.

            I can contact my state reps and senators but it’s a total waste of time. I’ve taken that route, but and Bridenstein will respond months later. They are what they are and they won’t change.

            • Zoe Berger says:

              I just had to check although I didn’t really, but all the reps in Idaho are R so I gave up even trying to contact them. Quite the image you just described! This is all so disheartening and upsetting. Maybe contacting all the Ds is a way to start?

        • birdpond says:

          We need to come right out and ask them, en force – It’s the only way. If they ignore the issue that will tell us what we need to know. I’ve written to some and so far no response. We need more people demanding attention to this issue, and to the human-driven loss of biological diversity around the planet. I believe it’s at least as big a crisis as climate change. Bigger, actually.

          Hope the Center for Biological Diversity is successful in their suit – It started before the killing had taken place, I imagine they will include the travesty in their suit. Does anyone know of any other lawsuits?

    • birdpond says:

      Then we need to ASK THEM.
      Ask them specifically. And keep asking until we get answers. I’ve asked, but no answer so far. Loss of biological diversity is the greatest threat facing the planet right now. Even more than climate change. Everyone here already knows that. We’re in the middle of the 6th great mass-extinction event in the planet’s history, and this time it’s all human-driven. Saving biodiversity needs to be a campaign issue, but it won’t be unless they know their potential supporters demand it.
      Let’s ask loud enough to get their attention. We’d better do it fast as this speeds up.

  26. Rich says:

    The problem with gunning wolves from aircraft is that it is a very expensive, risky and foolish endeavor. If elk hunters (and yes I have hunted elk but not recently) were required to pony up $400K to make their hunt more pleasurable, most would not. That is of course the reason why all Idahoans and Americans as well are being taxed to cover the cost and why the IDFG wants a secret operation.

    In addition to the cost, the risk factors in aerial gunning are high and several pilots and gunners have paid the ultimate price over the years. And yes I have been to the Bitterroot Range and Moose Creek under my own power (kayak and hiking) and can testify to the verticality and unforgiving terrain. I can also assure you that this is not the place to be flying low and slow. Even in a helicopter with the ability to auto-rotate to a safe landing, wind currents can be tricky in mountainous areas. Again if you were to ask most hunters whether it would be worth putting someone’s life at risk to make their hunting easier, most would likely say no. This would probably also be true of the businesses that might stand to benefit from an influx of hunters.

    That raises the question of why the IDFG is cavalierly spending our taxes and putting human lives at risk to kill wolves in the Lolo area. A casual observer would conclude that it is because the activity is being paid for by taxpayers without their concurrence or knowledge. In fact one could probably safely wager a substantial sum on the outcome of a vote by Idahoans and the nation as to whether they would prefer to have thousands of dollars of their taxes spent on gunning wolves in a wilderness area or spending a similar amount on education, cancer research, or many other activities with long term benefits for all citizens. Perhaps it is time to demand that our taxes be spent on higher priority issues that can be justified in the light of day.

    • rork says:

      I did mean to comment earlier that those are gonna be some pretty expensive elk they are trying to make.

  27. Ida Lupines says:

    I think Hillary will be much better than President Obama and Sally Jewell re environmental issues. With her husband Bill, it was a good two terms, and we had one of the best Interior Secretaries we have ever had, and for two terms. However, I have gained sympathy for Sally Jewell. What a difficult job.

    I lean toward Bernie, and I’m pleased to see that he’s being welcomed by African American voters and has made some good remarks about including Native American voters. But I fear TC may be right when he says that our country isn’t progressive enough for him and that the word ‘socialism’ is going to be used like ‘liberalism’. Under know circumstances can the Republicans take over the White House, it would be like Malheur revisited. I’m amazed at how well Bernie is doing.

    “Ida out of her pay grade” was WM being gentle. 🙂 I don’t mind a little arguing, and for the most part, WM contributes a lot of knowledge. Some things, believe it or not, I let slide.

  28. snaildarter says:

    I am often drawn to Bernie’s outlandish statements with agreement and amusement, but I don’t think America is ready to elect and 74 year old Jewish socialist from Vermont. And if the GOP controls Congress and the white house everything that has been accomplished to protect America The Beautiful over the last 120 years is at risk. Vote for Hilary and make sure all the millennials you know don’t sit this one out in protest. That could mean disaster

  29. Ida Lupines says:

    I don’t know that Hillary would appoint Bill to any cabinet post, nor does she need to. But they must see eye-to-eye on some things, and discuss similar views, those views must have drawn them together in the first place. In all the years we’ve known them, we can see that. I’d love for Bernie to still stay connected in some way, a cabinet post or VP. And of course Raul Grijalva either as Interior Secretary or in a similar post. Of course, all of it would have to be confirmed anyway.

    I’ll be watching very closely to make sure I vote as carefully as I can.

  30. Here is a link to Wildlife Services in Idaho with names, phone numbers, e-mail addresses etc. :

  31. Gary Humbard says:

    Many of you on this site, rightfully expect wildlife agencies to use the best available science regarding wildlife management. In the IDFG document I posted on 2/9, the agency used numerous sources in deciding how best to improve elk survival and ultimately improve elk hunting opportunities in the Lolo Zone. If you don’t believe hunting big game is appropriate, then I can better understand your objection to the killing of wolves.

    For those of you who do believe big game hunting is an appropriate sport, I have yet to see “thought provoking” discussions as to why IDFG should not take actions to reduce predation by wolves. TC did mention the safety and cost factors of using helicopters, however, this method has been successfully used in the past in this area, so I presume this was not a “red flag” to IDFG. I like to visit this site looking for new information and I challenge you to read the relatively short IDFG PDF document and explain your argument for its flaws.

    I have noticed in our society more and more that if God forbid, someone disagrees with you they are put down and marginalized. I see no use in this mentality and in fact believe that different points of view are beneficial. I hope more of us on this site consider other points of view before they hit the “post comment” button because it will benefit all of us.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I personally don’t believe the department(s) should focus solely on big game hunting. I also don’t think the best science is being used to manage wolves. The wilderness should be left to wilderness, and hunters can hunt elsewhere. God knows there’s enough available to them already.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Or in other words, ‘elk survival’ so that hunters can kill them isn’t that important to me. Why can’t they go to the areas where there are enough elk – and why do they have to have every square inch of available land open to them? There are other groups who the game departments do not represent – talk about being marginalized! They don’t even feel we need to be kept apprised of their activities until after the fact. The respected scientists I read do not agree that the best management is being applied, and write letters to make this known.

        I agree, why subject government employees to the dangers of helicopters in the mountains (or wildfire) simply to kill wolves, (or to build homes where they shouldn’t be built)? Because of the rabid contingent who want them eradicated, that’s why.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        It’s just plain indefensible and arbitrary. Where are the statistics that show this method is helping elk numbers? (They won’t divulge them). Why don’t they just increase the hunting quotas? It really just smacks of doing whatever the state wants because they can. There’s no science involved.

        Most predators (which human hunters are), follow their prey, not expect them to be hand delivered with virtually zero effort except exercising their credit card at Cabella’s.

      • birdpond says:

        Hunters should not have access to every acre of land. Some places should be left free from human meddling, as historic or scientific reservoirs. We need to have these places not just for the ‘control group’ they provide as humans pervert the rest of the planet, but for our souls. Not everything needs to come down to usefulness (by humans) and money. Like a disease or cancer, hunting and trapping influences the ‘nature of nature’, creating a trophic cascade of our own doing, in a bad way. Some places must remain sacred. If a designated wilderness area isn’t granted this right, what will be? Do we need to petition to change the designation to something else?

    • Yvette says:

      I printed the paper and plan to read it tonight. I respect what you are saying about people being marginalized if they disagree with someone.

      Your comment isn’t directed at me and those of us who believe killing for entertainment is not a sport. This argument is an ethically and morally based.

      I do plan to read their paper because I want to know how they based their decision.

      The challenge for me will be whether I can read their justification with an unbiased eye. I wonder how unbiased IDFG was when they wrote this justification.

    • rork says:

      I think elk hunting is fine, if there are elk running around that need to be shot, or that we can afford to let be shot. It does not immediately follow that I think we should gun down extra wolves in an attempt to make a few more elk, unless 1) I only care about the money it brings from hunting, and I don’t, 2) I want my own elk, and I don’t, 3) I think it will actually work and be cost effective, which I doubt, 4) my valuation the wolves themselves and their side-effects is low, which it is not, and 5) I think the side effects of greater elk densities would not be a bad thing. That last one is true some places, but it’s not always the case.
      I’m really curious what’s gonna happen in upper MI and MN in the next decade – the deer are way down now, and perhaps some of the land will recover finally.

      • rork says:

        I do get why IDFG would want to try it, I should have added. They do care about the money, and their constituents do want their elk hunting more than wolves. When I go there, I’m fishing, so my take is different. Cougars for example – they are cool. I’m glad to pay for them with ungulates if that’s the calculation.

  32. Zoe Berger says:

    I just got this in an email…more unpleasant reading.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      They need to be taken to court and sued – I have a feeling that the courts will agree this approach is much too aggressive, plus there needs to be a full accounting of where the funds go and have gone, and facts to show that it needs to be continued at all. If there’s a hunting season already, why do they need the helicopter killings? Why not just one, not both if any meddling is needed at all? It is a National Forest, so some accountability is needed.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        To me, they’ve gone below and beyond the Congressional safety net of Tester. This isn’t about delisting, it’s about unacceptable treatment of wildlife in a National Forest when they already have a hunting season. I’m not saying hunting is needed at all, but just to go along for argument’s sake – why can’t they just increase the regular quota, or eliminate the hunting season entirely and just go in with a helicopter? Surely they do not need both? Plus, I’d have to question the legality of not letting the public know what their activities in a National Forest are.

        I’d also like to know what any next steps are with regard to the Notice of Noncompliance (breaking the law) in the Frank by collaring 4 wolves by ‘mistake’. Sending a hunter in one year, then deceptively collaring wolves under the guise of collaring elk, I hope next year three strikes and they are out of the Frank.

        • Zoe Berger says:

          It seems it really all gets back to money and greed which means there is no room for compassion, forethought or changing direction. I wonder who is paying Otter et al. I imagine it has something to do with steaks. This is really more on them than Otter et al. And it also means there is no reasoning with them since they are quite comfortable acting out these outrageous and completely unreasonable antics.

  33. Ida Lupines says:

    Whatever became of the wolf stamp? We’re always hearing about how ‘oh woe is me, hunters are always contributing to wildlife and wildlands’ and you birdwatchers are not – but when it came down to it, and ‘non-consumptive users’ *eyeroll* wanted to put their money down, the hunters had a hissy fit, and then of course the discussion was ‘tabled for further review at a later date’. Has that later date arrived and will it ever? 🙁

    • Elk375 says:

      Ida, forget the wolf stamp. Just buy a Montana non resident combination hunting license for $895 which includes one elk, one deer, fishing and bird hunting then you can be one of us. Welcome to the club.

      The wolf stamp is dead.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I’m not saying I’m against subsistence hunting, just going in with aerial Gatling guns, that’s the awful image I get, anyway.

      • Zoe Berger says:

        What, no wolves included? grrr

        Here’s more reading I just got in an email – this one rather pleasant with some good thoughts.

      • JB says:

        That’s right Elk, the wolf stamp is dead. And it should be known that it was killed by hunters who don’t want non-hunters to have a voice in wolf conservation and management. Proving that they value their control of F&G agencies more than they value actual conservation outcomes.

        • JB says:

          So who deserves the title of ‘conservationist’ — the person from another state who offers to pay for the conservation and management of a species without getting anything at all, or the resident hunter who works to ensure that funding from ‘outsiders’ will never be used to conserve wolves in Montana?

          You can bet that acts like this will be remembered, Elk. And when the shoe is finally on the other foot…

  34. Gary Humbard says:

    The wolf “control” operation has been completed with 20 wolves killed. Not that it makes any difference but it appears that ~50% of the Lolo Zone is outside designated wilderness. There is a contact name and phone # to question the effectiveness and other aspects (cost/benefit and safety) of this action.

    Elk 375 commented the wolf stamp may be dead for now in Montana, but if enough of us continue to work for the ability of non-hunters to specifically designate funds for the conservation of all predators, it will happen. Just as it took years for Clive Bundy to come to justice, perseverance and patience will rule.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Gary, I know comments get a little heated here, but I and I’m sure everyone appreciates your input and your experience. 🙂

      • Gary Humbard says:

        Thank you Ida for your kind words. I appreciate your input as well.

        Having worked for a federal agency and specifically on environmental documents, I have tried to emphasize the importance of folks on this site providing substantiated information when giving federal agencies input. Since federal and state agencies are governed by laws and policies, they simply respond to emotions and generalized comments with “thank you for your input”.

        I think this site works best when we listen to other opinions and learn from each other. I realize this is a “blog” but I always do my “homework” before I post because I want to provide the what, why, when, who and where answers.

        I don’t know if public input ultimately stopped the coyote killing contest in Salmon, Idaho but I rested well knowing I did my best to stop it.

        • Zoe Berger says:

          Thank you for your words of wisdom and insight into how to approach commenting to agencies. However, I am so consumed with anger and disgust at the killing I can’t get beyond it to gather facts that they will understand. It seems so twisted to me to murder wolves so there will be more elk to murder – or cattle for that matter. I don’t think I am alone. That voice should be allowed to be taken as seriously as any well documented argument. It’s a pretty simple concept, no? I think the coyote killing contests were stopped by lawsuit(s). Thanks again, Gary.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Jeez. This agency really has to go. It has no place in our modern country, where wildlife populations, especially predators, and precipitously lower than before, and it runs contrary to the ESA.

      I was appalled reading about Wyoming, the petulant prima donnas these states are, trying to stop wardens from investigating and prosecuting poaching cases, because ‘it’s not their job to enforce the ESA’.

      It most certainly is their job to follow and enforce the law of the land.

  35. Ida Lupines says:

    There’s a protest scheduled for President’s Day:

  36. Amre says:

    At this point, it’s hard for me to be surprised at what these fools do. Without legal action or relisting or something, I don’t see it changing anytime soon.

    • rork says:

      That author has previously claimed gunning was done in designated wilderness (and seems to think the entire Lolo is designated wilderness). Allot of people here seem to be claiming that too. Maybe I haven’t been paying enough attention, but I don’t think I’ve seen that reported by anybody I trust yet. Please point.

  37. rork says: also makes claims gunning was in wilderness, but do not document it.

  38. Ida Lupines says:

    Wolves bring hardship to people.

    I don’t know if I can go along with that entirely. People bring hardship to wovles too, and most times, unnecessarily – whether due to irrational superstition and myth, or unrealistic expectations. That’s life.

    But often, the hardship is greatly exaggerated. The world and everything on it wasn’t put here at our pleasure. Even if the Bible says it was – it implies a responsibility too, a two-way street. Humans have a tendency to think in a very self-serving way. Human idiosyncrasy is far from being an amusing little quirk, but can be very dangerous.

    Protecting wolves from irrational persecution does not mean they are being given saintly qualities. It means we don’t want to lose them to extinction.

    Thanks for the Bowie clip, Nancy! I have to agree with Kathleen, I feel very lucky to have lived during a time of such great musical creativity. My parents gave me the music of the 50s and early 60s, I had the mid-to-late 60s, 70s, 80s and more. The world we are headed for now is going to be mediocre, overmanaged, and dull, and whatever sells.

    • Immer Treue says:

      “Wolves bring hardship to people”

      Whether you go along with it “entirely” or not matters little. The point I’m trying to make is this, spread out over the entire livestock spectrum, wolves have negligible impact. However, if you are a small farmer or rancher, the impact of wolves can be devastatingly large.

      If you are a small operation on private land, and lose stock/pets, the effect on you is significantly larger, and produces hardship, above and beyond the normal cost of business.
      No one is arguing that wolves have not been subjected to the irrational behavior of man.

      As far as The Bible…whoooooooosh!

      • Ida Lupines says:

        It just isn’t reasonable to complain about nature and expect animals not to behave the way they are designed to. Take active steps to protect pets and livestock; I know that people don’t think they should have to do anything, that they have the primary right, which isn’t reasonable either. I don’t want my tax dollars going to propping them up and killing wolves. I’d rather mine at least go to protecting wildlife and wildlands.

        From the facts, it doesn’t seem like wolves have as much impact on ranchers as they say they do – and nobody owes ranchers a living. As we see time and again, the gov’t gives them a little helping hand which in the past was a buffer against risk, but today is not really needed.

        It isn’t reasonable for people to complain that wolves present hardship – and it is really outlandish to want to remove them and every other threat from the landscape so that an unnatural process like raising non-native livestock can take precedence!

        As far as the Bible sentence, you and I both know that another fallback rationale for Christian animal exploiters is that “God” gives them dominion over the Earth and everything on it – but not any responsibility for it.

        Here’s an interesting article from over at Exposing the Big Game:

        Cattle Kills Rare in Wolf Occupied Areas

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Hmmmm…. another $600,000, and spent a hell of a lot better than calling in Wildlife Services and funding vague committees. Somebody should fly a copy of this via paper airplane to land right on Butch Otter’s desk –

        • Mark L says:

          “As far as the Bible sentence, you and I both know that another fallback rationale for Christian animal exploiters is that “God” gives them dominion over the Earth and everything on it – but not any responsibility for it.”
          Ida, I’d argue that this depends on the version of bible you are reading. Why would God (through scripture) go through this long list of descriptions like ‘beasts (mammals) of the land’ without implying that ‘beasts of the sea (…whales, seals, walruses, etc.) are not in our domain. Same for ratites on land, did He say we could have domain over all of them, or did he specifically exclude birds that don’t fly? Why go through the effort of naming all these different animals just to say “hey, you get ALL this anyway!” or maybe there was a different reason.
          In some earlier (pre-King James) versions of the bible, we didn’t have domain over everything. Interpretations change over time, just like evolution itself.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Yes. I’m only speaking about those who use it as a justification for their actions. When you read it, at least I feel, that this all is a creational wonder – not a carte blanche to use up and destroy.

            Like the Constitution, there are those who see only what they want so that they can justify their actions, and forget the rest, or anything that might contradict them.

  39. Ida Lupines says:

    This may not be news to anyone else, but I thought I’d post it anyway. What about those ‘mistakenly’ collared wolves again, under the guise of collaring elk? Coldblooded:

    • Mark L says:

      So the best thing you can do for a collared wolf is shoot it? (At least in some states?)
      I think we discussed this exact possibility several years ago on this site

    • Zoe Berger says:

      Yes Ida – I’m still reeling from having read about this a couple of weeks ago. It is extreme torture and honestly, I don’t know how these humans can live with themselves.

      What we really need is a bunch of atheists running all these departments. Even better if they were all vegetarian.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I hate that they call them “Judas” wolves too – it’s humans that betray all life on the planet daily. It’s not the poor wolf’s fault that he or she has been victimized. Same story for most life on the planet, human included.

        There’s still that Biblical remnant in our minds, even for atheists, I think. Our obsessive need to keep track of stuff is strange – but it’s good to know without technology like this, we’d never be able to keep up.

        Sure, their might be some helpful use for tracking collars, but by and large, it’s a means to keep track, and has great abuse potential – giving out coordinates to hunters, and who knows what USF&W is doing without the public knowing – as in those ‘mistakenly’ collared wolves.

        Every year, it’s a new way to get around the protections – but I hope as each new devious methods is used, their dishonest options will become less and less.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Sorry, that should read ‘there might be some helpful use’.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          So I hope these people, Wildlife Services in particular, will get caught in their own loop. Yay!

          • Zoe Berger says:

            Yes – the obsession to keep track bugs me too. It is necessary for science but it does mean interfering, so it is double-edged. But these monsters and their audacity take it to a truly unacceptable extreme. As I said, it’s abuse/torture. I don’t see them catching themselves up. One can only wish.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              Hopefully in time, they will. Science without ethics, we can see the results of that over history. Science with ethics, and not just for ourselves, is a goal we have yet to reach.

              I’m off to see The Revenant. Have a good day, all –

  40. richard benton says:

    all this well intentioned rhetoric. Has any of it stopped the murder of even ONE innocent wild hunter? I think what are we going to do .I suggest a triage approach. Identify no 1 goal,2,3,4 and so on. Get 1-2-3 DONE. Put all your resources -total commitment. Identify direct action techniques that haven’t been co-opted. This calls for some deep thought. Read a book called “The Way of the Ninja,kodansha intl press.A suggestion would be hire dedicated trackers, fund them-scare wild hunters away from kill zone QUIETLY.A hunt sab nobody even knows happened.” I dunno,chief,we couldn’t find none of them damn varmints, nowhere. Any ideas? We can do this thing, right?


February 2016


‎"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: