lawsuits assured

Northern Rockies Gray Wolf Delisted

Comment By steve kelly, 2-21-08

What science? Most of the minimum viable population science I am aware of requires at least 500 breeding adults, whether it's wolves or fruit flies. Then there's the connectivity issue. Can wolves actually exchange genes over the entire landscape, or are some groups incapable of interbreeding due to impaired habitat? Without connectivity, long-term viability even less likely. The frenzy before the post-Bush era.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 2-21-08

It is probably being obstinate to insist that government decisions be based on science.

Comment By rkeith, 2-21-08

That's what you guys always do, isn't it? Scream "Base your decisions on science!" until you don't like the science, and then move to tie everything up in the court system as long as you can. You wouldn't be so contemptible if you weren't so hypocritical.

Comment By Robert Hoskins, 2-21-08

Well, rkeith, since you're so knowledgeable, why don't you tell us what science supports delisting?

Comment By Bob Fanning, 2-21-08

Push for 5,000 and you get zero.
Lawsuits work both ways.
The 'service' turned D.P.S. on the wolf protectors by delisting in reintroduction states.
Was it not a contract /compact with the States of Montana Idaho and Wyoming when the U.S.F.W.S. requested permission from Congress and the courts to break the Endangered Species Act as per "The Wolf Implimentation Rules of November 18, 1994" and reintroduce 78 to 100 wolves into Yellowstone National Park ?

Does it not also hold true, that once the terms of that compact was broken, that every wolf outside the boundaries of YNP exist illegaly? How will you protect something that the courts rule is here illegally?

Does 'best science available' even matter when those who present it come before the courts with dirty hands ?

Which is precisely why FOTNYEH s' stated primary goal of litigation is to "first prove the USFWS broke the law in the administration and implementation of the wolf introduction program".

Comment By Jim Greer, 2-21-08

So, all these wolves we now have in western Montana and northern Idaho managed to get here from the Yellowstone reintroduction, but all of a sudden there's a "connectivity problem"? Yeah right.

If the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, etc etc etc, were so worried that the recover goals were too low, they should have been filing suit years ago to address that, rather than trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. But then, I honestly believe these groups would be filing suit no matter what. If they were to get their way, then when the numbers reached 3000, they'd still find a reason to keep them on the endangered list.

Comment By pendejo, pack enforcer, 2-21-08

This issue is far from over, but it seems to me, in my unscientific point of view, that wolf populations are increasing and generally getting along pretty well. It also seems that Idaho is completely incapable of managing anything, and Wyoming isn't doing much better. Montana has some forward-thinking conservation vision, however.

Set my brother, the wolf, free!

Ahhhwwwooo!

Comment By bob onit, 2-21-08

I will set them killers free with my 300 mag when the season opens this year ...Yee Haw

Comment By Byron Weckworth, 2-21-08

Cool heads and thoughtful actions must prevail. Science tells us a lot of things, populations smaller than 1500 have persisted and thrived, and populations greater than that have declined and failed. Minimum population viability analyses are based on theoretical models and, like any model, they have quite a gradient of outcomes when applied to the real world. Science also tells us that wolves are quite resilient creatures and respond to moderate levels of mortality with increased litter sizes, resulting in population rebounds and even increases. Increases in numbers of pups per generation means increases in numbers of dispersers and thus (in this system) likely an increase in their range. I believe these are all goals of any pro-wolf agenda. Science shows that areas such as southeast Alaska where wolf harvests are as great as 30-40% annually, are healthy in numbers and genetic variation. The reason for wolves demise in the first place was federal bounty programs that encouraged aggressive trapping and poisoning regimes. These practices are not likely to ever be approved in the future.

Again, cool heads and thoughtful acts must prevail. Extreme pro-wolf folks would have no wolves killed, and extreme anti-wolf folks would have all wolves killed...well I hate to break it to them, but neither of these is a likely outcome. There will never be a Golden compromise that we all agree on, but the majority of intelligent and thoughtful people, on both sides can come to a compromise. Sometimes wolves may need to be taken out to protect livestock, that's a fact, but wolves are also a healthy and necessary component of the ecosystem, an ecosystem that provides for the enjoyment of all, pro and anti wolf alike. With appropriate management, 1500 wolves is enough. Perhaps there is a better way for Defenders and Sierra to spend the millions of dollars that their lawsuits will cost. How about instead they set up objective public education programs to help create a knowledgeable public and dispel the myths and rumors about wolves. An educated public makes educated voters which results in educated policy and management (hopefully).

Comment By rkeith, 2-21-08

Hey Bob Hoskins- lol!

and Hey Bob Onit- 10-4 to that, more power to you!

Comment By Dave Skinner, 2-21-08

Cool head. Yep. Thoughtful action...a Mauser 98 is thoughtfully designed, does that count?
The "scientists" that advocate for multi-thousand populations are coming from the perspective that all wildlife populations should be "naturally" self-regulating, free from any and all evil human influence. There will be a vastly-diminished or nonexistent pool of surplus game for hunting, which means see ya hunters. Never mind the impacts of depredation on livestock production efforts (see ya ranchers). That's a political outcome desired by a political movement. Period.
Madame Stone can huff and puff all she wants, here's hoping she doesn't blow the West down.

Comment By Marion, 2-21-08

First of all, the best science waaaaay back in the 80s and early 90s said 100/300 wolves would be about the right number to delist them. Of course the FWS and enviros giving their word that the wolves would be delisted at the 100/300 proposed is totally worthless. I would not believe an enviro if they said 5000 were enough, they wouldn't be if it would mean losing control over ordinary people and their property. Now they are too cheap to even pay for their entertainment, push it off on us.
Remember the 1567 is an estimate based on actual wolves seen, there are probably a total of 2000+ if they ever saw all of them. FWS can lose a 22pack for nearly a year on the elk refuge with collars remember? So it is ludicrous to believe they all have been counted. As for the connectivity, remember the wolf that killed all of the livestock and was a mixture, including Canadian and Great Lakes, well of course that was not one of "your" wolves so the ranchers forced to protect it for a year lost close to 100,000 worth of livestock, that came from their own pockets.
Environmentalists have no intention of having wolves controlled as long as there is a ranch left, 100/300 was a lie.

Comment By Matt Mallery, 2-21-08

As a hunter and gun owner, you idiots with the "shoot, shovel, shut up" mentality embarass me. Your comments are more of a threat than PETA ever will be. You are trying to convince an a nation concerned with it's wild places that hunters are ignorant rednecks who just love to kill anything that moves. I am 100% for wolf restoration. They belong on the land. I am an omnivore,they are carnivores, and hunting and eating meat are natural for both of us. I love a successful hunt, but sometimes success means seeing a rare wild animal, even if I don't kill it.

Comment By Bruiser, 2-21-08

Pendejo

pendejo is a spanish slang word for idiot,stupid or dumass.

El es un pendejo.
He is a dumass.

Comment By bob onit, 2-21-08

Pendejo LMAO it fits him too

Comment By jedediah redman, 2-21-08

Killing other species is a natural thing.
I would assume that is the science at work here.

Comment By Byron Weckworth, 2-21-08

The rhetoric based on myths and rumors are rampant in recent comments. Mr. Skinner, if there is not enough game for humans to hunt than there is not enough game to sustain wolves at any population number. Healthy wolf populations do not mean the end of ranching and hunting. Certainly numbers could go down, but we've already proven as humans we're not very good at keeping ungulate populations at healthy levels. I know more than a couple farmers and ranchers who wouldn't mind at all there being a couple less deer and elk feeding off their fields and hay bales. Marion, the count of 1500 wolves, as you even said yourself, is an estimate based on those they actually saw. That's not to say they personally counted 1500 wolves, but rather they used the number they counted along with educated calculations based on natural wolf densities, to come up with an estimation. There very well may be more than 1500, but there could also be less. I would argue the exact number doesn't matter much, maybe there are 2000, maybe 3000, what matters more than this value is how are we going to manage them in a way that is sustainable to healthy ecosystems that INCLUDE human land use such as ranching and hunting. Now you can rant and rave about who's lying, who said what, and what have you, and I agree that people need to be held accountable for their words and their actions, but ranting and raving is not very constructive. Your energies and efforts would be better spent in thoughtful and civil commentary as to your concerns. No matter how much you hate wolves, they're here to stay. And no matter how much you love wolves, some are going to be shot and trapped. Some of you will continue with your witty, self-serving banter on either side, and, God bless you all, our freedom of speech allows any idiot with a keyboard to make a comment, heck maybe I'm an idiot too...But the only way this issue is going to be resolved is by level-headed and thoughtful efforts of both sides. I know that's asking a lot when any government is involved...But keep in mind, if your primary source of information is the newspaper or popular internet sites and magazines, then you are not well informed. If you really do care, and you really are concerned, educate yourself, go a step further. Remember that the majority (and the majority is not your friends and people you "know") is closer to the fence on this, and the emotional, uneducated, and ignorant rants that some of you make are just pushing them in the opposite direction, and that does no good for garnering support for your ideas.

Comment By Bob, 2-22-08

I don't understand the opposition to wolves. We have an expanding wolf population and there is no reduction in big game herds. Ranchers are paid for their loses to wolves. Why is there such resistance to wolves?

Comment By vagabond, 2-22-08

Thank you to the cool rational heads making constructive comments above. There are two issues to be considered. One, what is a viable gene pool to ensure that the species is not completely inbred and has the problems associated with that, and two, if there needs to be some management of the numbers...reduction at some point, why not create a very expensive trophy hunting system so it is controled thoughtfully and the money generated can go towards conservation, habitat and research programs. Matt is absolutely correct when he says the yee-haw attitude expressed here is an embarrassment. I am personally not a hunter but believe it has its place both in wildlife management and our western culture.

Comment By Marion, 2-22-08

Bob, If you truly believe that there is no reduction in big game herds you are listening to the hype that combines all of the elk herds in a state in one statistic instead of identifying the herds in wolf infested areas that are dropping dramatically. No herd has been as dramatic thought as the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, which dropped from 19,000 (over objective) to 6700 over a year ago, no counts since. The Norris elk herd, which does not migrate is nearly extinct, no more calves playing in the meadows.
Of course you totally ignore the cost to the families living here long before folks too lazy to go to Canada to see the wolves in the wild insisted on bringing them in where they could have beef and mutton and of course a few dogs, horses, etc. These families have paid thousands oout of their own pockets for the livestock eaten by wolves. DOW compensation is nothing more than a fund raising ploy. Even FWS admits they only pay aout 10% of the actual losses, that ranch families pay the rest. Wolfers pay absolutley nothing unless they donate a few buck to various enviro groups to file more lawsuits against us.
The wolves were present on the east coast and eliminated there, long before the Rockies became a part of the US, that is where the big introduction should have started. But of course thsoe who want them cannot be expected to put up with the problems, that is for the half million people in Wyoming to carry the burden for their entertainment.
We obviously honored the agreement we didn't want and let the wolves reproduce like mice and instead fo 100/300 in 10 years we have nearly 1600 counted, and probably at least 2000 total, but the wolfers lied and have no intention of honoring the numbers they put in place in the beginning. If the locals burdened by this whole thing had been even slightly as dishonest as the wolfers they would have actually SSS, instead fo jsut ventilating about it. As a result there is no number enough to the various enviro groups as long as ranch families still live and survive here. There is no end to their greed.

Comment By jedediah redman, 2-22-08

Gotta maintain that culture, vag!
If there were Azteks still wishing to maintain theirs would you be so generous?

Comment By Jack, 2-22-08

There will never be enough wolves to satisfy these radical environmental organizations. Wolf reintroduction was the best anti-hunting tool ever invented. Who do you think paid for Montana's successful game mangement programs... the hunters!! FWP is funded to a large part with hunters dollars under the PR program.Wolf fans seem to think these animals are there to feed wolves. What is FWP doing in YNP now peddling wolves with wolf people in YNP? "Back from the Brink" crap on TV is funded by the Sierra Club and there is FWP peddling wolves.Shouldn't FWP be peddling hunting of wolves to protect game herds? They seem confused.Yes,wolves kill livestock we all know that but big game animals 365 days a year,plenty of big game animals. Wake up Montana. The gray wolf was fully recovered 6 years ago according to the USFWS own wolf recovery plan and FWP wants 5 more breeding pair min. than in that plan. Don't plan on a hunt soon the same environmental nuts with fight it. It's a hunting and anti hunting issue. Bringing wolves down from Canada was the biggest wildlife management booddoggle in history.The Canadian biologists warned us and said it would be a huge mistake and they will never be controlled..I have their letters.Wolves were also in YNP and Montana before the illegal introduction. FWP please tell us why the wolf hunt..."TO PROTECT GAME HERDS" can you say it?FWP please stand up and fight for the wolf hunt. Support the wolf hunt on "Back from the Brink"FWP,support hunting.

Comment By Frank N, 2-22-08

What Marion fails to mention, and always fails to mention, about the Northern Range Yellowstone herd, is that the 19,000 was an historical high. Never before was it that high. It was universally considered to be too high, and the State of Montana had a big role in bringing this herd down through the Gardiner late winter hunt, which was put in place for the one purpose of reducing the size of this herd. Also never mentioned is the fact that this herd was already dropping PRIOR to the introduction of wolves. A couple thousand animals died the winter BEFORE introduction (winter kill), and several thousand more in the next couple of winters before wolves were in sufficient numbers to have much of an effect. We often hear how 3,000 bison are too many for Yellowstone National Park to support. Can you imagine what 19,000 elk IN THE NORTHERN RANGE ALONE were doing to the range? They were starving to death before wolves were ever there. They were destroying valuable riparian habitat. Back in the fifties, 5,000 elk was considered by biologists to be the carrying capacity of the Northern Range, and elk above this number were shot by sharpshooters (just as they are planning to do in Rocky Mountain National Park now) to keep numbers down. This information is all available on the Yellowstone web site. In fact, one stated objective of biologists back then was to restore the willows, aspen and beaver to the Northern Range by reducing elk. Oddly, those objectives were not met (even with elk numbers lower than they are today) until wolves returned to keep elk moving around NATURALLY.
One more time: the 100/300 figures were MINIMUMS (the smallest possible number) to CONSIDER BEGINNING the de-listing process. The numbers were never MAXIMUMS, nor were they promises to anyone that this would be a limit. That's kind of like your kid comes to you and says, "Can I have some money?" You say, "How much?" They say, "I need AT LEAST ten dollars". Does that mean that's ALL they want? That's all they need? That's all they will ever want? Come on! I'm REALLY tired of hearing THAT one.
I have no problem with de-listing. What I do have a problem with are the "management" plans put in place by the states (especially Wyoming and Idaho). They do not insure a sustainable population, they do not insure the ability of wolves to disperse to available suitable habitat (Colorado, Oregon, Washington etc.), nor does it protect livestock interests (as older, more experienced wolves are killed in hunts, leaving pups and less experienced animals to seek easier prey, there will be more livestock loses, not less).
Minnesota, a state with less habitat, more cattle (than any one of the NRM states), and more people (than any one of the NRM states), has more wolves (than all three NRM states), has managed to come up with a very reasonable, well thought out management plan that protects all parties. Especially considering the amount of antiquated animosity expressed by public officials and others (like some posters to blogs such as this), it is vital that Montana, Wyoming and Idaho do the same.

Comment By Matt Mallery, 2-22-08

One thing to keep in mind is that cattle do not contribute much to western economies. The idea that the economy will collapse because we as a nation produce less beef is a myth perpetuated by the ranching industry.

Comment By Matt Mallery, 2-22-08

Vagabond,

I agree that fees from trophy tags for wolves, once numbers are where they should be and stable,my be acceptable. Look at the African nations. The money made off of lion and leopard tags alone is incredible. It goes back into wildlife management and helps the local people make a living, as well as providing an incentive to preserve wild places.The anti wolf crowd is throwing much revenue to the wind with their irrational fear.

Comment By bearbait, 2-22-08

Hold it!!!! The Endangered Species Act protections given to an introduced exotic subspecies, the MacKenzie Valley phenotype of the grey wolf, from a species found through out Asia, Europe and North America and hardly endangered, has worked. In a little more than a decade, we are up to our assets in wolves in three states, and more to come. This thread is a bunch of professional whiners who won their fight, now bitching about delisting, which is the realization, the bureaucratic award, of success! You won!! Quit already. Enjoy your success. Dance with your wolves. Howl about your good fortune.

It is time to quit the phony rancher economics green shibboleths, the personal attacks on any who do not agree with wolf reintroduction. The whole of this deal was based on an emotional virus of compassion for wolves in order to gain control of land and raise money for the green agenda. It worked. It was a grand success. The beef deal is that ranchers are going to get rich raising grass fed beef on less land, because the animal feed industry has moved to making biofuels so greens can motor around with self serving, congratulatory bumper stickers, a moving mini billboard as it were, as they speed down the interstate to the next cause. And if wolves make ranching unprofitable, the land values will make a sale to an amenity buyer or subdivider a forgone conclusion. So long habitat. Hello conflict.

The corn belt beef feeders will abandon beef to farm for the fuel tank until market pressures make animal feed once again profitable. That, of course, will depend upon how Congress subsidizes the mega farms. Subsidies and tax breaks will determine if Farmer Brown or Farmer Ltd. will grow corn or switch grass. The rancher with little arable land and only graze from undependable rainfall will harvest that growth with cows or sheep, and you and I will buy "range fed" meat at a huge premium. So the pressure to graze more is now on because the farm feedlot fuel is now going into cars and trucks in the form of biodiesel or E10 or E85 or whatever your state calls it. My only complaint is that I pay the same now, for fuel that drives my car 20% fewer miles per gallon. You know about politics being local? That one is about to take a big bite out of the left and their green supporters. Less for more does not garner votes.

The greens got the change they demanded. Now there are the unintended consequences to deal with. We have wolves a plenty, in sustainable numbers, and with it, greater pressure on Western graze. The conflict issues will be with us for a long time.

Comment By Marion, 2-22-08

Frank, in the first place no one asked us to give them our money, they used the strong arm of a liberal congress and courts to give it to them.
Matt, just who are you to say that other people do not have the right to own and protect their own property because you want to be entertained by wolves mating and killing? I believe the livestock is the third largest industry in Montana, further down the line in Wyoming because of our minerals.
I am well aware of the winter kill of the elk just before or as the wolves were trucked in, I do not know a better example of letting nature control the population instead of bringing the bloody entertainment of wolves to the park. Just because people were too cheap and too lazy to go where the wolves truly ran wild.
Take another look at the video of the downer cows that has been in the news. There is not a beef cow there, they are dairy cows, probably got them for free or nearly so, is that the beef you want people to eat so you can take the cattle ranches for your pleasure? Look at some of the videos from other countries that we will be buying beef from, that's really what you want?
When you get rid of all of the beef ranches with cattle and wildlife grazing side by side and see instead gated communities and trophy properties fenced off, are you going to continue to pat yourselves on the back?
Why are you folks not putting up thousands of dollars of your own money like the rancher families are being forced to do? Because you feel they owe it to you to provide what you want? Adopt a ranch and help count the livestock and pay the difference in losses to the wolves of actual value and what DOW has paid, which I understand stops when the delisting is filed, even though it may never be allowed to take effect.
I know I get pretty radical, but I cannot understand the kind of selfishness that is willing to insist on a sacrifice what someone else owns for their own enjoyment.
By the way Frank, want to take bets on whether the elk will have dropped below 6000 this year....if they ever count?

Comment By Dan Ackerman, 2-22-08

For those on either side of the wolve issue,and are interested in the TRUTH regarding the wolve and it's true impact on the lives of game,livestock and humans. Get and read a copy of Will Graves book WOLVES IN RUSSIA. He spent some forty years studying the Gray Wolves in Russia. He documented the infectious and deadly deseases and parasites the wolves spread through game herds, livestock and human populations. He further documented the human deaths and injures,the adults,and children sustained while tending the herds of livestock,waiting at the school pick-up,or just walking through the forests.
When you think about the wolves in Russia, keep in mind that these villagers are unarmed,have no ability to obtain poisons,and their very limited ability to trap has little no affect on the overall population of the wolve pacts. The wolve has no natural preditore to control its conduct or population. Therefore , it is a fact, that when the wolve population grows and their food requirements change they WILL be in town.
Mr. Graves was consulted prior to the reintroduction of the wolves into YNP by the FWP. His body of work was completly ignored, AND NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. And the product of that can be seen in the big game herds in YNP and in the Gardner, Mt. area migration,or lack there of.
It seems to me that we as conservationists should concider sharing our wealth. Live trap several hundred wolves and re-introduce them into Central Park in New York City, the Addarondacs in up state New York, the Pocanos of PA. and last but not least, Golden Gate Park, in the middle of downtown San Francisco.
It seem only fitting that we share the wealth of our good fortune.
And every chance we get we should thank the FWP for standing tall in the face of what they knew was a wrong minded idea and protected at all cost, the big game herds, the ranchers, the herds of live stock. But these are the natural resoures of Montana and the property of the people of Montana, things they have taken an oath,and sworn to protect. By their actions it is obvious that they owe a greater debt to the will of the environmentalist groups than they do to the PEOPLE OF MONTANA .
Those interested in obtaining a copy of WOLVES IN RUSSIA,can go to http://www.willgraves.com or http://www.wolvesinrussia.com

Comment By pendejo, 2-22-08

Bruiser couldn't be more wrong about what my pseudo means. Clearly he/she has never been to Mexico. Seems he/she is the dumBass. That's right, there's a 'b' in dumb, you dumbass. Stop using wikipedia; you're showing complete ignorance. Wanna try again, without wikipedia? (Or you could simply ask).

Yo soy el pendejo. Nadie mi bato, puto.

Back to the subject:
My neighbors are all cattle ranchers, and we're surrounded by 8 FWP confirmed wolf packs. Guess what they complain most about? Not wolves, but water. The drought hurts worse than wolves ever will.
Again, I'm not following the science, but it seems the correctly re-introduced wolves (the gray kind) in the N. Rockies are doing pretty well. Why not de-list and eventually hunt? Although that's going to mean the ranchers shouldn't be able to shoot cattle predators, just like they can't shoot hay predators.

Comment By Matt Mallery, 2-22-08

Dan,

Rights. Protect their own property? They are grazing cattle on our land. Land owned by all taxpayers, and most of us want the wolves! As far as going to canada, why should I have too? The wolves belong right here in the USA. Today we restore the wolf, tomorrow the griz, and then the jaguar in the southwest. We owe that to the children of this country.

Comment By Marion, 2-22-08

Matt, you are a little behind the times, we have recovered the grizzlies that were done in by NPS politically correct policies. Now the trick will be to keep enough food for them with the wolf population growing by leaps and bounds and taking the majority of it. The decline in elk numbers insdie of YNP is especially bad when one considers the dwindling white bark pines and cutthroat trout.
Cattle are grazed for a few weeks each year at most, the rest of the time they are being killed in their own home pastures, sometimes within sight of homes. Are you really entitled to make folks and their animals unsafe in their own homes?
I wrote to DOW last week requesting the information on how many of the payments were made for livestock on private land vs, on public land. To date they have not sent an answer.

Comment By Matt Mallery, 2-22-08

Marion,

you are a little behind on your natural history of this continent. Grizzlies once existed outside of Yellowstone.The ranged from Canada down to Mexico. From the California coast to the mountians of west Texas.What effort is being made to restore them? None. Too many humans consuming to much, and of course the politcal pressure from ranchers that stop any restoration effort in it's tracks. As far as cattle on private land, I have not heard anyone say a rancher does not have the right to defend his own property. But since the vast majority of ranching in the west in done on BLM and Forest Service land,what right do the ranchers have to tell me that I cannot restore wolves to land I pay for?

Comment By Jack, 2-22-08

The wolves from Canada is not the same sub-species that existed here originally they are EXOTIC to Montana.Wait until they get in the Missouri River breaks and bring down that elk herd.Those wolves are larger in size and have no problem bringing down a big game animal but a little more reluctant to take on bison. When they were brought here from Alberta and B.C. the NPS said "the wolves will stay in the pantry and not leave Yellowstone". But they did... WOW.. lot's of brain power there NPS!The bison population has been increasing. If you want to talk about range conditions in YNP the last people you ask is the NPS personnel.They haven't done any range studies in YNP for years. The last people qualified was Walter Kittams 1953-62 and Dr. Charles Kay later.YNP is a national disgrace.FWP hasn't even been doing winter elk surveys of the northern herd. As far as mule deer and wild sheep are concerned the killing machine wolves took care of them.Wolves have destroyed the diversity of wildlife in YNP including moose ,native coyotes and beaver. Are we going to use sportsmen's dollars for the Montana wolf program?FWP is yet to answer that question. FWP must justify protecting game herds not livestock and still they can't use PR money for wolves. Perhaps someone can tell me what a FWP wolf coordinator does. FWP has a room full of them what do they do? Send them out on a dog and pony show to promote hunting of the overpopulated wolf population killing and mauling our treasured big game animals. Now it's moose feeding killer wolves. FWP says "we don't have data"...hell, they never had any on wolves not even a literature search on what wolves feed on 'red meat' BIG GAME ANIMALS in the literature.Please get that dumb ad off of TV "Back from the Brink" with a FWP spokesperson FWP sounds like the national park service.Look at the Alaska F&G;site for information on wolves. Tell FWP to look there as well.

Comment By Matt Mallery, 2-22-08

Jack,

It'snot YNPs fault they have not done studies. They can't afford to do studies.Nor can any National Park for that matter. Bush has slashed the land management budges so severly for his war, that the NFS, NPS, and BLM can't do squat!

Comment By rkeith, 2-22-08

Okay Matt-

You can have the Griz on YOUR land, and you can have the Wolves on YOUR land. Now, that should make YOU responsible when they come onto MY land and kill MY dog on MY porch or kill MY cattle in MY pasture... both of which have happened. (Yes, the griz, too.)

You said, "As far as cattle on private land, I have not heard anyone say a rancher does not have the right to defend his own property." Well, you're hearing it now. We were told by wildlife officials that we were not allowed to even fire over the wolves heads in an effort to make them shy away from the ranch house, because that would be 'harrassment of wildlife.'

Marion- keep up the good fight. This thread has devolved, as it always does, it pure anti-rancher and farmer rhetoric. Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

Comment By Byron Weckworth, 2-22-08

Actually, much research is ongoing in YNP. Take a look at the biology and wildlife programs in your state universities, even abroad at universities in Alberta, people are doing research on YNP, on bison in the park, research on elk populations and wolves, on wolf/cattle relations, on wolf/coyote interactions, on the INCREASE in biodiversity in YNP since the restoration of wolves. Just because you don't read about it in your Outdoorsman magazines or in the newspaper, doesn't mean its not happening. YNP itself is not a research organization, and few parks in the country have strong research programs. You have to look elsewhere besides popular pamphlets and cover stories to get appropriate and up to date information. And I'll be the first to admit that academia does a poor job at disseminating the results of such research to a popular audience, but it is being done.

And you guys that go on about wolves killing everything and being killing machines. Come on, lets use some common sense. Wolves have been on the landscape in North America (according to fossil records) for almost half a million years...and if you don't believe in an old world and adhere to the literal interpretation of the bible, that is still thousands of years. Regardless of your scientific acceptance, wolves have been around a long time...my point being, if they killed everything and breed like mice then why are there still millions of big game around? According to your assertions, before wolves were extirpated from the lower 48 states in the last century they would have had plenty of time to kill and eat everything. How about where wolves have persisted without reductions in numbers, as in places in Canada? Why haven't they bred themselves into the millions and eaten every last moose, caribou, elk, muskox, and deer in sight?

Some of you make some very valid points, but then when you spout off asinine comments like wolves as killing machines eating everything, I just stop listening, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. When you talk about putting wolves in San Francisco and New York City you just sound like an idiot. Its people like that who create wolf supporters out of people who are on the fence, or who would otherwise not care either way. Your comments are neither original (we've been hearing the same not-so-witty comments for ten years) or relevant to a constructive discussion.

Comment By matt mallery, 2-22-08

rkeith,

I'll accept responsibility for what wolves do on your land as soon as the anti wolf, anti environment,pro extractive industry crowd accepts responsibilty for the near elimination of the wolf, prarie dog, jaguar, bison, black footed ferret, and more species of native plants than I care to think about.

Comment By bob onit, 2-22-08

Bottom Line here boys and girls ....come Huntin season I will be one of the many who get to kill a Wolf and then after the full body mount is done you are all welcome to come see the wiley ole DEAD wolf in my Trophy room Thank You FWP for allowing US the Freedom to Hunt this Creature which does not belong in OUR world

Comment By Jack, 2-22-08

Matt this may come as a shock but budgets were increased and have been over the past 5 years. The Wildlife Management Institute reports on the budgets and you can recieve their newsletter free. Pres. Bush signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act P.L. 110-161,Dec.26,2007. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service received 1.36 billion 30 million above 2007,National Wildlife Refuge System 434.1 million 40 million more than 2007, BLM 1 billion, National Forest System 1.47 billion 132.4 million for wildlife and fish habitat management and the list goes on .The NPS recieved increases as well. These budgets are considerably higher than the Clinton admin.The NPS doesn't have a clue on how to do range studies and allowed many range exclosures to fall down.They have no interest in range they are on this 'natural regulation' baloney. Problem is the federal agencies are mis-using this money.What is BLM doing with the wildlife budgets? They( MT. State Director) will not respond to my request even as a part of a freedom of information act request.The problem is the agencies are pooling wildlife/fisheries money and the manager spends the money as he or she sees fit in many cases their spending is detrimental to the wildlife resource.BLM for example wasting money on the Pumpkin Creek land exchange.So Pres. Bush has increased these budgets not cut the budgets.This is a matter of public record on budgets so I won't debate it here.The Wildlife Management Institute is a very reliable source and budgets have been on steady increase.Don't believe the agency when they say we don't have money and pin the rap on Bush.They probably have more money than they need. They are not accountable for this money and anyone mis-using this money should be fired!!!

Comment By matt mallery, 2-22-08

Bob Onit

PETA, HSUS, and all the other anti hunting factions thank you for your comment. You make hunters look bad and do their work for them.People who have been sitting on the fence regarding the hunting issue now see myself and ethical hunters as dumb redneck hicks.

Our world? We have only been here 100,000 years Bob. Humans have only been in North America 15,000 years. The humans who decided they could not co exist with wolves have only been here 500 years (amazing how the Indians co-existed with wolves for so long, when you can't seem to), so how the hell is this "our" world. But if it is our world,many of us have decided we want to share it with wolves rather than being greedy parasites that live in fear of anything that we don't understand.Bush's days in office are numbered. The wolves will be re-listed eventually.

Comment By matt m, 2-22-08

Jack,

This is simply wrong. I know many who lost there jobs at the BIA, for example. Bush as increased funding for only one aspect of land management, forest management and wildland fire suppresion. Why? Because that is what the timber industry wants. Ask any NPS ranger (whom I choose to believe over Bush) and they will tell you of the outsourcing woes, cuts in programs, layoffs, and lack of funds for hiring that have happened over the last seven years.

Comment By Jack, 2-22-08

Matt do you believe the Wildlife Management Institute? The figures are there they are not mine look them up I did. I don't talk to NPS rangers I'd rather talk to the wall!!!

Comment By Marion, 2-22-08

quote: "you are a little behind on your natural history of this continent. Grizzlies once existed outside of Yellowstone.The ranged from Canada down to Mexico. From the California coast to the mountians of west Texas.What effort is being made to restore them? None. Too many humans consuming to much, and of course the politcal pressure from ranchers that stop any restoration effort in it's tracks. As far as cattle on private land, I have not heard anyone say a rancher does not have the right to defend his own property. But since the vast majority of ranching in the west in done on BLM and Forest Service land,what right do the ranchers have to tell me that I cannot restore wolves to land I pay for? end quote

I can answer about California, they are too busy making money, building huge houses, and telling Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho how California wants their states managed.
As for "endangered" predators on private land, no the rancher cannot kill or as someone else has pointed out even"harass them. Last fall (2006) 4 grizzlies were removed from a ranch just outside of Cody where they had joined cattle on the feedline (grain). Wyoming F&G;moved them to a wilderness area. Grizzlies in Wyoming have frequent flyer miles as they get moved from being too close to people to wilderness areas and then griz from that area that get to close are moved to another and so on. Two elementay schools in Park county, Wyoming have had to have grizzly detering fences built around the school yards to keep the griz out.
what more do you want, griz working as Wal-Mart greeters in Cody?

Comment By bob onit, 2-22-08

matt mallery CRY ME A RIVER SONNY ......Redneck! well im kool with that and I hate people like you and it is OUR world and I have my belief and you have yours ...and I'm retired at the age of 53 and own 300 hundred acres of prime wolf timber in Western Montana ,so if you would like to call me names or include me in what you see as Most Hunters are then whatever ...yer the fool at the end of the day

Bottom Line here boys and girls ....come Huntin season I will be one of the many who get to kill a Wolf and then after the full body mount is done you are all welcome to come see the wiley ole DEAD wolf in my Trophy room Thank You FWP for allowing US the Freedom to Hunt this Creature which does not belong in OUR world

Comment By matt mallery, 2-22-08

Bob,

what the hell does you owning land and being retired have to do with anyhthing? Is that supposed to impress me? Is this a mark of the intellegence you believe you have? It is not our world. To quote Chief Seattle "the Earth does not belong to us,we belong to the Earth". There you go. And you missed my point entirely. My point is that anti hunters love guys like you. You when people over for their side. Good job. Thanks for endangering my hobby.

Marion,

Those kids at those schools should be so greatful if they ever get to see a grizzly.Most kids in this overpopulated, over developed, over urbanized country never will.

Comment By bob onit, 2-22-08

Matt I never got a chance to see a dodo bird and it didn't change my life and as for me and my retirement with more land then yer whole family! and the fact that I'm retired already makes me a whole hell of allot smarter then you!!!! and dude I could care less what anti hunters think or what you think I just love messin with liberal dirtbags like you and the rest of the schmoes on this blog


Bottom Line here boys and girls ....come Huntin season I will be one of the many who get to kill a Wolf

Comment By Matt Mallery, 2-22-08

Bob,

At least I have a family.I imagine you live a very lonely life in your trailer on your 300 acres. With your personality to keep you company, and your ego. enjoy!

Comment By bob onit, 2-22-08

lmao GEEK!

Comment By Matt Mallery, 2-22-08

Bob,

Your comments speak for themselves.You will never be taken seriously on this website again.You are a disgrace to Montana, but don't worry, I'll move there and smarten the place up a bit.

Comment By bob onit, 2-22-08

Matt,just as i thought you don't live here so stfu yer a disgrace to the human race let alone where ever you hang yer stinkin hat

Comment By mike, 2-23-08

Bob,

Is Matt really correct that you have no family and retired very early just to live alone in a trailer on 300 acres in the woods? Is there more to your story? Do you have a drinking or other drug problem? Do you have a medical or mental issue that drove you to this end? Do you need help? I sense your pain. There must be a way to help. How can we help to release you from your obvious pain?

Comment By bob onit, 2-23-08

Well mike that is very sweet of you to be thinking of me,and so gay.
I love the way you city slickers think of us rednecks ...its jus too bad you will never get a chance to live in a place like me,and now as the rescission nears it will be even farther from your eyes....its sad that more treehuggers like your self wont get to enjoy the Back country because of money ...but I can send pictures

Comment By Marion, 2-23-08

I really think it is time to taek wildlife management out of the hands of spongers and rich environmental lawyers and make each state responsible for the wildlife in it's own state. there is not a single state that did not have wolves, so worry about your own state and give up your habitat for wildlife instead of demanding that someone in another state give up theres to make you happy.
By the way Matt, I am eternally grateful I am a native of Wyoming and am thrilled that I can see griz so often, nonetheless when they start sharing lunch with the school kids that is too much of a good thing.
As for the wolves, why were they worth all of the money and heartache and grief to move them from their home in the wilderness of Canada to ranch country. I see no big thrill to them, they are wild dogs and a dog is a dog is a dog.

Comment By Jack, 2-23-08

So has everyone been checking their land access maps where you will hunt your first wolf this year? Let's see... the chance of seeing one during the day is about as good as winning the big lottery. Are you going to hunt wolves like deer? Tell us FWP how to hunt wolves that are 95% nocturnal. Will FWP hold wolf hunting schools? I sure wouldn't want to waste my permit on a coyote. I don't think I will buy the $19 permit unless FWP points out the exact spot where I will find one probably on a carcass somewhere. I don't have the time to wonder over the 'wolf landscape' looking for one. Don't let the wolf people take delisting to court FWP or USFWS. When will the 'official' delisting document hit the street we have been waiting for 6 years now? It's supposed to be this month and only 1 week left. Can we make it on St. Pat's day in Butte?

Comment By mike, 2-23-08

Bob, sweetie, you're the one living alone and still gay about it. Don't bother to send the pictures; I live relatively close, but in a much wilder and better area, and can take my own pictures. I also own a lot more than your scrawny 300 acres and sure don't need to live in a trailer with only my own handshake for company, if you get my drift. You arrogant loudmouthed ne'er-do-wells are all alike.

Comment By mike, 2-23-08

Oh golly, Marion, I just read through your comment. You think "a dog is a dog is a dog?" I guess you should know.

Comment By matt mallery, 2-23-08

Bob,

Y-O-U-R is the the correct spelling of "yer". Go back and finish High School.

Marion,

A dog is a dog is a dog? There are hundreds of species of wild dogs around the world. Learn a little about wildlife and maybe you will appreciate the Earth's wonderful diversity, which it is our obligation to protect.

Comment By bob onit, 2-23-08

Hummm! Jack you have brought up some very good points ...but I'm kewl I seen 7 yesterday up the east fork near the chain of lakes in the morin and I realize they are nocturnal,but I have them down and havin been a licensed outfitter in western Montana for over 20 yrs I know the land and I know their haunts along with several of my huntin buddies ....and we all cant wait for the day to put the bullet in the bone

Ahhhwwwooo!

Comment By chaka khan, 2-23-08

Idiots. Spouting Hate. Name calling. Great.........

Comment By Jack, 2-23-08

That's good bob. I know there are some on the wolf refuge of the Sun Ranch but we can't hunt there. Just follow the elk and you will find the wolves right bob? The wolves are pretty much all over SW Montana. Do yo have some information on wolves killing big game where you hunt at bob? What if the environmentalists take de-listing to court bob? There goes wolf hunting for another 5 years or more.I hunted in Alaska bob about 80 miles south of King Salmon. Wolves howling all the time but you never see them. Most wolf kills are when the hunter happens on one feeding on a carcass.Even in Alaska the hunter success is very low.A couple of shots and they will become more nocturnal.Good luck on the hunt bob too bad you can take 6/hunter. There is probably some behind Teds place to but we can't hunt there either.With all the wilderness proposed by the USFS there will be no hunting about anywhere. Have you bought your tags bob? My guess is we won't see a wolf season for 10 years by that time we won't have elk to hunt either. Your thoughts bob?

Comment By bob onit, 2-23-08

Bob we have great sucess calling them with predotor calls and have got withen 100 yds of them and have a great collection of pictures to show for .I love watching them in the wild they are a great family type animal and are always goofing off ,and yes on my ranch which doesn't have a trailer on it ,just a small 7,000 sq ft log home we have 2 different packs that visit and yes they kill for fun they are like us ,we have lost cattle a dog and cats don't make it here ,we have seen many elk,deer and moose killed by wolves and what is funny they don't eat their kill....It will be just a matter of time before they start hanging out in the more populated areas through the Bitterroot valley and Jack the treehuggers will probably win ....but not on my property

Comment By Jack, 2-23-08

7,000 sq ft log home bob you must have a big trophy room. If I decide to buy permit can I hunt on your place? I have a .300 Weatherby magnum that should do the trick that is if we have a season at all. I feel sorry for you living so close to Missoula bob.

Comment By bob onit, 2-23-08

70 miles from the zoo is perfect for me and jack that 300 will work good but a 17 hmr will do the trick they are just dogs remember and yes without braggen we have a big trophy room since hunting has been my love for 40 yrs and I have hunted all over the world...I love the smell of gun powder in the mornin

Comment By Jack, 2-23-08

Yes bob, I figured you did. I sold about 1/2 of mine but should have kept the 31 " mule deer head. Got that one in 1956. Lucky if you see a 2 pt anymore. I do have a good caribou I got in Alaska.My close friend I hunt with has hunted all over the world as well.He hunted a lot with Jack O'Conner and was on O'Conners last hunt in eastern Montana. Did you know Dunkan G. over there? No, I think I would use the .300 on a wolf.

Comment By Chaka Khan, 2-23-08

Uh.....so I don't mean to insinuate, but.... uh....braggarts of large guns and log cabins are sometimes compensating for the lack of large other things...... um. Sexual frustration, injured ego, and loneliness often manifest in overcompensation of possessions and abilities of largess. Somehow this discussion which could focus on the US policy of a special species has become a dating chat room for reclusive old dudes. Get a room?

Comment By bob onit, 2-23-08

No I never had a chance to meet duncan,and rarely get over to hunt the east side of Montana,we did up to about a few yrs ago hunt prairie dogs over there and had a blast for years ,but we killed them all so now we jus go over as far as the missiouri breaks and kill everything that moves ...on private property

and chaka dear you need to use spell check or get off the drugs so you can think right

Comment By A sledhead, 2-23-08

its beyond me that people would actually be against managing ,..(killing to reduce pack size )the wolf , these animals are very efficient hunters and will distroy entire heards of deer elk antelope ,moose....ect ,... im one of the fortunate ones who sees them all the time in the sula area ,.... i love hearing them once in a while ,....i enjoy seeing them too ,..i also have caught them on film ,...but too many wolves are bad for everyone

Comment By bob onit, 2-23-08

will sled I agree with ya totally the treehuggers like sierra club and peta don't live here and never visit here,they just want to play with people lives from their concrete jungle homes and while not even living in reality ...None of them have a clue about the wild

Comment By A sledhead, 2-23-08

bob ,.... true that !!!!.... the pepole that live with them every day bear the brunt of it all,... my dogs are scared shitless ,..my neighbors cattle and horses are in jeopardy especially the past 2 weeks ...all this sunshine has firmed up the snow and the wolves can run on top now while the moose and other heavy game still sink ,.....not much of a fighting chance any more ,.... there are 3 fresh wolf kills within 15 miles of my house i found today sledding

Comment By bob onit, 2-23-08

yeah not many really have a clue and its sad we have to deal with their fantasies,next they will want to give the Indians back their land which would be the right thing if we are going to be so anal about the preservation of life

Comment By A sledhead, 2-23-08

well 1 thing is for sure ,... now that its NOT a federal offense to kill them flea bitten mainge carrying bastards ....people wont hesitate to drop some lead behind their ears ,.... again ,... i am glad the wolf is here ,...just 1 more thing to shoot at ,.... and cabelas will be paying high dollars for them to put in their stores

Comment By A sledhead, 2-23-08

well 1 thing is for sure ,... now that its NOT a federal offense to kill them flea bitten mainge carrying bastards ....people wont hesitate to drop some lead behind their ears ,.... i like having the wolf here ,... its another animal to hunt and cabelas pays well for wolf hides

Comment By A sledhead, 2-23-08

oops ,...... posted twice .......my bad

Comment By bob onit, 2-23-08

yeah I jus want a full body mount for my trophy room but 30,000 from cabellas is a good price for a dog

Comment By Jack, 2-23-08

If you can find a copy of the book "Animal Life of Yellowstone National Park" by Vernon Bailey,Chief Field Naturalist,1930 (I have a copy here) there is interesting information about wolves. "The large gray wolves at times have become abundant in the park and wrought great havoc among game animals. During the summers of 1914 and 1915,they were especially destructive in the park and were following the elk herds to the high pastures of Mirror Plateau,returning with them in winter to the valleys along the Lamar and Yellowstone rivers. They breed rapidly,constant care must be exercised to prevent serious damage to game." Park Naturalists were not unhappy to see the wolves reduced in large numbers by hunting and trapping. The wolves were very destructive to many forms of wildlife in those early accounts. Game populations increased following the wolf reduction program.The Naturalist referred to them as game species also intersting. So here we are in 2008 with similar problems we didn't learn from the mid 1900's.History repeats itself. Also, the bison in YNP originated from game farms and were treated like domestic livestock and fed hay at the buffalo Ranch inside YNP also in that book.

Comment By AJ, 2-23-08

IF good laws,proper game management and the use of hunting and its associated revenues helped restore our turkey,antelope,deer and elk herds this past 30 years then contolling a expanding and efficient predator like the wolf makes alot of sense.

Comment By bob onit, 2-23-08

AJ that was the best post in here ! bottom line

Comment By jack, 2-24-08

Except the wolf re-introduction was illegal and Jamie Clark then Director of the USFWS used PR dollars for it which was also illegal.She is now Executive Director of the Defenders who will fight delisting. We will wait and see but wolves will never be controlled in Montana.Wolves have nothing to do with game management by the way they are the dominant uncontrolled predator.We will sacrifice hunting opportunity to feed wolves.Delisting will not happen and we will see who is correct soon. It will be back in court by radical environmentalists.

Comment By Marion, 2-24-08

Jack, thank you for that book referal, I am going to try to find a copy. I have posted ad nauseum about the actual number of wolves that were killed in Yellowstone to "extirpate" them. 14 were killed by the army during their 32 years of management. Another 122, 80 of which were pups were killed by NPS from 1916 thru 1926 when they quit killing them. There are more than that 42 year total running in Yellowstone today. And of course the only care taken is to keep them as healthy as possible and keep them breeding and feeding.
AJ, you are so right, unfortunately the hysteria and rage of some wolf supporters at any removal of wolves for any reason worries me that they may resort to vioolence if the wolves are ever hunted for sport.

Comment By bob onit, 2-24-08

Ya know I really don't care if I kill one or not but they are jus a pack of vicious killers that are heading towards being out of control and they will be heading for a small town near you soon ....and our pets don't stand a chance

Comment By AJ, 2-24-08

I,m not ashamed of being a hunter or that I'd enjoy a backpack hunt for wolf in the montana wilderness.A few wolves taken per year in what would be a highly regulated hunt, to help manage a delicate ecosystem that we as a whole have heavily altered is the least of of the overall problems that we have on the wolf issue let alone the rest of the wildlife and environmental concerns.

Comment By Huh?, 2-24-08

Is this a discussion about wolf de-listing, or an NRA dating chat room? I mean, this discussion string contains dozens of statements of misinformation. It is sad that a discussion that could thoughtfully tackle this tenuous issue, turns into an avenue for people who feel strongly about one side, without seeking to understand the "other" side, to boast about their "300 mag"s, large log homes, and "Brokeback" feelings toward one another.

Comment By <:(((><, 2-24-08

lol HUH you have been Owned ya Noob......

Comment By Huh?, 2-24-08

uh....What? Huh?

Comment By Bruce, 2-24-08

http://thelibrary.springfield.missouri.org/lochist/periodicals/wrv/V4/N2/w70e.htm
1864 Marion County, Arkansas. 3 dead
The scene where it occurred was sad to look upon by the one that made the discovery. The awful circumstances was in the shape of three human beings slain and eaten by wolves. It was supposed they reached near the base of the hill the first day, they stopped in the timber for the night and were attacked by a pack of wolves during the night and destroyed. Their awful doom and destruction can never be accurately described, but never let us imagine the heart rending shrieks and dying moans of the unfortunate family. This mixed with the noise made by the wolves snapping and snarling was certainly awful.
It was told by those who discovered their remains that the evidence on the ground showed that the woman made a desperate effort to defend herself and her children. She had fought the wolves over the space of half an acre. Stones, clubs and chunks of dead wood that she had used in resisting the atack lay scattered on the down-trodden grass. They were the only weapons of defence and she made desperate use of them to the finish.
Probably she had beaten them back and kept them at bay for some time before the ravenous beasts finally overcome her and gloated in the blood of the helpless human creatures. Their fate was simply awful. Who can imagine the consternation and terror of these poor beings when they were attacked by the vicious and hungry pack, and with loud screams and hard struggles were forced to yield their lives in such a horrible manner. Their destruction is sad to reflect upon.

Comment By HUH, 2-24-08

"more of us THEN your type"?..."you have been pwned"? ...What a joke. Maybe there are a great number of people who hate, but that is a pretty sad way to live. In that mind set, other opinions don't matter -- only those opinions of ones self and their immediate cohorts. THAT is not Democracy - THAT is not American.

Comment By <:(((><, 2-24-08

Killing all the Native Americans was that done in hate,democracy or was that just being un-American....dont come in and whine because your site has been taken over by wealthy gun toten, liberals haten rednecks like me

Comment By HUH, 2-24-08

That does not make any sense. Feel free to be a "wealthy gun toten, liberals haten redneck". Great. I hope you don't think "killing all the Native Americans" is okay or that you are thinking of killing people....not cool.

Comment By <:(((><, 2-24-08

dude you don't have a clue I never said anything about killing anyone thats in your dna you came in here and started bashing us for speaking our mind

Comment By jedediah redman, 2-24-08

It appears people whose personhood is completed by the ability to kill animals with a high powered rifle have taken over this site; and now are exhibiting their basic anti-intellectual biases.
So long as these fools are permitted to buy and use weapons, civilization is threatened more by them than by imperialists like Dick Cheney...

Comment By Bruce, 2-24-08

It appears the LIES of the pro wolf side are exposed with truth.
Make sure you carefully read the true documented wolf attack that resulted in a woman and her 2 children death. Your precious wolves kill and eat people. ANOTHER PRO WOLF LIE EXPOSED.

Comment By <:(((><, 2-24-08

jedediah redman you have no idea what you are talking about so please keep your stupid comments to yourself ...because a unarmed American is a true FOOL

Comment By jedediah redman, 2-24-08

That is probably not too much of a stretcj <:(((><.
I have become convinced over my lifetime that most Americans are fools; so it would follow that, if they were disarmed, they would simply become unmanned fools...

Comment By <:(((><, 2-24-08

auh ! What?

Comment By <:(((><, 2-24-08

Environmentalists and animal lovers claim that wolves only kill the old and infirm. They claim that they kill only what they need for survival. The pictures and testimonies at natureswolves puts the lie to those claims.

These same folks claim that wolves never attack humans. That too is a lie.

http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/wolf_pics.htm

Comment By jedediah redman, 2-24-08

Fools can be led by other fools to believe just about anything.

Comment By <:(((><, 2-24-08

yeah and I know you are one of them if you have nothing to say then .....well my folks taut me manners and you have none

Comment By <:(((><, 2-24-08

I will bet you don't within a thousand miles of a wild animal ...with the exception of the Zoo unlike me who live with them

Comment By jedediah redman, 2-24-08

You're counting the skunks, then..?

Comment By <:(((><, 2-24-08

jedediah redman Mister Redman your a joke

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/feds_delist_gray_wolf_in_northern_rockies/C38/L38/