Will Defenders put up the lost revenue used to manage all wildlife if they succeed with the motion?

IDFG estimates 70,000 hunters will buy tags for $11.75/each. That's just for the in-state folks.

A low-ball estimate of revenue lost if the hunt is tabled: $822,500.

This is so barbaric. There are NO other options here than putting bullets in an intelligent animal like the wolf? How dark is ones soul they would load a gun and shoot to kill an animal that has survived 300,000 years until man started playing God and Mother Nature. I will pray for you.

Measuring ones manhood--magnified by the power of the killing tool--is only one of the rewards.
The myths surrounding agrarian entitlement, fear of nature, and hatred for wolves enter into the attractions.
Not even to mention Idaho's level of sophistication in relationship to deep south states like Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

To gigi,

While you are conjuring up images of dark souls regulating the numbers of these highly prolific dog relatives, also think of the thousands of elk, hundreds of sheep, dozens of cattle, horses, family dogs, mules and llamas that have had their throats ripped out, or are disembowled or eaten alive from the stomach cavity or rump, as they lay bleeding out on the ground. These are your innocent, intelligent, animals who you find distaste in controlling.

Their numbers increase by 26 percent per year. The Idaho and Montana harvests won't even net out to a zero increase from 2008 to 2009. There will be many hunters and livestock owners who seek a tag, solely for the purpose of regulating their numbers.

That was the plan when they were reintroduced in 1995, so you better get used to it.

this is wolf management. just like the wolves manage the ungulates, deer and elk, hunters will manage the wolves by thinning them.

One must think that the slaughter houses is a quick and easy death for cows,chickens,and sheep,huh Scatcounter?

I don't mind wolves being hunted. It just that I think that the political climate and the people in charge of determining the numbers may be excessive by a factor of 2.

To RKS,

I'm guessing the answer to that question is about as obvious as your question was ...dumb. Or, maybe you would like to ask your dog after an encounter with a wolf pack.

Mickey, the number of wolves picked by MT was exceptionally conservative, at 75. Since ID has about three times as many wolves as MT their number at 220 is not even going to cover the increase in the next year's population. The official wolf population numbers is about 20% below the actual numbers according to Dr. David Mech, the chief wolf scientist for USFWS.

There was very lively discussion by the Commission that could have resulted in a 400+ harvest target for ID. I do not know how they will account for individual harvest targets within each management unit, which seems to be about 15-18 for most. Dr. Mech who has studied wolves for over forty years, seems to think it won't be that easy even to get that many in the heavily forested areas of Central and Northern ID. Not to worry, there will be plenty left for genetic exchange.

Any dog could as easily be killed by a pack of wild dogs,not just by wolves.

I agree that it won't be that easy to bag a wolf in some units once the wolves realize they're being hunted.

Enviros need have no fear, the 9th District will ride to the rescue of the wolves, jsut like they always do to keep enviros happy. They can always use the lack of adequate DNA tests as an excuse. Remember the Western Great Lakes wolves were relisted recently, it is going to take a congressional rule to ever delist, enviros will keep the lawsuits coming against anyone except them having any say over anything.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/aug/02/gray-wolves-relisted-as-endangered-in-great-lakes/

To RKS,

Wolves inherently do not like dogs. They view them as intruders in their territory, as they should. They usually kill them on sight. How many packs of dogs, ready to kill other dogs, do you see in the wild? Wolves are protected under state/federal law. If dogs kill another dog that is sometimes just a property matter between private individuals, with help from the local sheriff or other local law enforcement. If wild dogs kill sheep they are usually summarily destroyed. Problem wolves are protected wild game animals and with a few exceptions must be directly handled by authorized federal or state officials, or a rancher with a limited permit. Only individual wolves are disciplined, either with rubber bullets, or destroyed. Sometimes whole packs are destroyed if they do not stop killing livestock. The numbers of these wolves are not included in the recently announced permitted harvest, and estimated to be over 100 wolves destroyed in 2007 in Idaho alone.

Viva las ninth district!

Scatcounter; I have to ask you and the rest of the people claiming wolves are bloody, killers, causing such enormous pain to their victims. How would you survive if all you had is what you were born with to do it? You ever try to imagine how you would kill an elk? Or Deer, or Dog or any other item on the ‘menu’. I could almost bet wolves get the job done quicker and with less mess than any human could. What about the plants that get eaten, Just because you don’t ‘hear’ them scream, or see them bleed red blood doesn't mean the vegetation doesn’t suffer horrendous deaths? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make a noise? Come on people you can't have life without death.

I would much rather see the animals getting shot than trapped. There is nothing on this planet that doesn’t need managed. People especially. I can see the ‘red-necked’ beer drinker on his four wheeler destroying the efforts, of management, “Just because they can, and it’s a mean old wolf” It’s too bad people have lost their common sense, and let their ego’s get in the way.
Too many trophy hunters out there, and really how tough is it to shoot and kill something. Not very dam hard. Heck Any body can do it. Little kids are making kills everyday.

Ann, you are absolutely right. Survival of wild animals, especially predator prey is not pretty, or humane by human standards. But we as humans do not have to deal with the hypothetical you pose, now do we? Of course, we can watch all that in the national parks if we choose.

My comment to Gigi was only to counter the distaste she found in the killing of wolves, by "dark souls" with rifles and all that. Gotta remember if the wolves had not been reintroduced as experimental populations under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, or allowed to migrate down from Canada we wouldn't be in the moral dilemma of what to do with needing to control a very rapidly growing population. But for the growing population (and conflicts with humans - their livestock, hunting expectations and domestic pets) the choice to control their numbers and confine them to certain habitat, would not be before us today.

I keep wondering what kind of scarey "blood and gore" tactics the wolf advocates will use if a metapopulation reaches 2,000-5,000 and then have to be thinned down by even larger numbers than those contemplated in this hunt. Their war cry will then truly be of massacre proportions. Can you imagine the annual harvest goals of say, 1,500 wolves just to keep the numbers in check, and keep them from doing even more damage to the elk populations, or those pesky livestock, or even other predators with which they conflict like cougar and bear. They do fight and kill each other, but the Defenders of Wildlife don't like to raise those issues.

Out of 220 licenses less than 50 will be filled with a wolf, I would bet.

Since most hunters can't find the energy to get out of their trucks or off their ATVs, 50 would be a pretty high number, really.

The only way to do this by using civilians is to give the licenses to the guides. They're the only ones that know the areas well enough to actually kill enough wolves in certain areas for control.

This should actually provide a short lived comedy before the feds realize the state doesn't have a clue what they're doing and just take it over out of pity.

Remember the wolves were brought into cattle country, knowing they would be hunted and killed and they have been since almost the very beginning. The entertainment factor for wolf lovers was more important than the long term well being of wolves, their competitors, or their prey.
If "balance" had been the goal they would have been planted somewhere where there were no competing predators like the Adirondacks, instead of where there were a full complement, including a few wolves already present.

Fabulous News! Can't wait---Thankyou IDFG for the chance of a lifetime! Twin Falls will be buying up all the tags so the rest of you all need not bother! Mister Lobo will be pretty scarce once the war's on---- Using coyote howlers should produce, Sportsmen's Warehouse better stock up!

Actually Old one, your cattle were brought into Wolf, Grizzly and Salmon Country...turns out you're the new kid on the block and not so "Old" after all...

I hear Oklahoma is a good state to raise cattle...

Salmon?
What about your home, why do you not move out and return it to the wildlife that lived here first? By all means, lead the way in turning homes back to nature!

Hey getatag, perhaps you could getalife, because obviously you canned hunters won't even come close to a wolf, without your usual hunting aids like hounds, bait, snowmobiles, and other tools that the pathetic trophy hunter is used to.

Well Scatcounter, there are a lot of what if's. What if we hadn't killed all the wolves to begin with? What if the "white-man" didn't try to control everything that walks, swims or flies? What if the Native people were allowed to live in peace and harmony among the wildlife like they did for centuries before the invasion? WHAT IF Humans actually used their head for something besides a hat rack? (now that's a novel idea)
But I do agree with you on some. I NEVER agree with somebody completely, makes for a boring life.
The point is the wolves are back, and doing what they do, and for sure not doing it the way humans would like them to.
Jay; I don't like the part where the guides/outfitters only get the tags, I know this area probably better than most guides or outfitters, and bet I could drop a few if the urge hit. But unlike so many, I won't destroy something because I think it's going to do something, If I kill something there is a dam good reason, and I have no qualms about doing it. I don't like poodles, but I'm not out there running them over or shooting them or poisoning them because I think/know they are worthless. (although that's not a bad idea)
From what I understand, Yellowstone National Park is an eco-system, and for it to be complete, it needed the wolf population back. There are far fewer cattle, sheep, etc. hanging around the park, so why NOT put the wolves here? Cattle, not un like the Europeans, brought disease to this area, and people want to destroy the wildlife because they are surviving/thriving disease or predator.
Why don't I move out and leave this land for the animals? because, I'm not complaining about the wildlife around me, nor am I preventing the wildlife from doing what wildlife does. I would prefer the humans to skidaddle, and just come for a visit. But that will never happen.
So with a little common sense, and level heads, this wouldn't need to be a Pi$$ing match on the old outhouse.

Yes Old one...Salmon are a species of fish that travel all the way from the Pacific Ocean up a couple of rivers to a little lake in the middle of Idaho...I think some folk around these parts call this lake "Redfish" or something like that.

My understanding is that these little fish have been making this migration for tens of thousands of years (if not longer)...also turns out the Federal Government with assistance of Tribal Groups and NGOs have been spending billions of dollars trying to "restore" populations of Salmonids much like the "restoration" efforts of the Wolf that we have witnessed here in Idaho.

My "homes" scattered across Idaho and Washington are already open to the wildlife visitors should they dare to enter them. So in a sense, I've already beat you to your suggestion.

Open up them dams and bring back the Salmon Old one and you may see a different prey base for the Wolf...

What's you definition of "accountability"?

Ann,
I'd rather not have to see the wolves killed. However I would like for it to be done right, if it is determined that it has to be done at all. There are no perfect solutions. I recognize that cattle are going to be grazing on public lands and/or private mountain lands no matter what is done. Those people believe that it is their life, and they won't give it up, even if they have to guilt their children into following in their selfish footsteps. But I also recognize that most hunters are from cities or flatlands, and while they may think they know the hills, through their 5 days of vacation each year, they really only know a small little portion of it. Guides, however, live there for months at a time. They have to have a decent understanding of their surroundings, and they are probably going to be the only ones that see a significant amount of wolves. They are also a much smaller group and can hopefully be better educated on what "kind" of wolf to shoot (killing the Alpha male/female is a bad thing). The fed's can pay them a decent wage for it and things get done. We need some sort of solution, leaving things as they are will result in bad things down the road because we are already here and humans aren't going to pack up and change because of the wolves.

If the feds are going to drop out of this mess and leave it to the states, it should not be handed over to G. Willy Got-A-Gun. It won't work. It will not be effective and things will just get worse. How it will get worse, I don't know. But it is pretty evident that the status quo isn't sustainable, for lots of various reasons, not just hunter success rates (and lets be honest, it isn't about how many elk are in Idaho, it is the hunter success rate that is driving this).

Trust me, I'm no friend of the rancher. I think they're selfish, ignorant and they will always have a negative effect on the ecosystems they are involved in. They don't serve society as a greater whole, and their constant political whining costs the states more than any sort of revenue they might bring in. Just my opinion, mind you.

Jay; And a pretty darned good opinion if I do say so. Why not just hire a 'wolf-vigilante' group? I still feel most of the whiners, would cry if we hung em with a new rope.

It is possible to educate without eradicating.
You and I both know that. BUT.............................

Hunting Wolves will help keep the population in check and will not hurt the current balance. We need wolves but we don't tens of thousands of them. They are amazing creatures and I hope to bag one this year.

Bennett, I know what salmon are, I jsut do not see the connection to wolf hunts, are you trying to tell us they will be buying little guns and shoot the wolves when they show up to get a drink? Your homeS? I can understand why you feel the need to tell others how to live, a true enviro, your use of anything is good, only other people are bad.
The thing that puzzles me, we know that wolves were being killed in the east in all of the settlements long before Lewis and Clark heard the call to "Go west, young man, go west", and those are the folks that really, really want wolves along with the Californians, so why not let them have all they want there instead of depriving them by taking wolves somewhere else. Think of the fuel that could be saved by having the wolves right close.
The wolves were hauled to the one area of the entire country that already had all four major predators, grizzly, blackbear, coyote, and mountain lion. Explain how in the world the most complete predator system in the lower 48 would be the one lacking enough predators. There were already an establishing population of wolves in all 3 states, 2 wolves were confirmed in Yellowstone prior to the introduction, and almost stopped it, but the judge got the sob story of how the wolves were already trapped and had to be delivered immediate to save their lives, and ok'd it to continue.

To scatcounter
Wow, gory images you describe. Throats ripped,disemboweled, eaten alive. How does that compare, say to an elk shot in the leg by a hunter and not retrieved. Can you describe how that elk will die? On another note I can ensure my pointers safety in wolf country. I can not make the same claim for "wolf tag country". With 70,000 wolf tags there are bound to be a few idiots out there. No forest grouse hunting for me this fall. Darn it I am admitting that the wolves are going to impact my hunting this year.

Old one,

I had a hunch you knew what Salmon(ids) were and also had a hunch as to your lack of a connection between them and Wolf Hunts. I certainly won't hold it against you as I think we could find this lack of connection to be true throughout general American psyche and politics in general of the "Old" West.

Missing this connection would be like missing the connection between Christianity and War. Like missing the connection to Native/Indigenous Peoples and their connections to the wildlife that surrounds them.

Now I'm going to do my best not to tell you how to live your life but merely point out or suggest how your so called, "old" ideals are based on Piracy. Your reference to the alcoholic adventures of Lewis and Clark are a case in point.

Lack of "accountability" permeates your culture and its values. Piracy at its best...a culture that includes an hour glass.

Well Frank, You make a point. There are elk or deer that suffer from the hunter's error, whether it be a bow or a rifle, and that is a sad thing. How often, I cannot say. You can bet that wounded elk won't escape any predator if present. I only used the imagery to counter a comment by "Gigi," as you will note.

However, I can tell you something more certain, based on research over the past 20 years. Each wolf in the NRM, will manage to inflict its will on between 8-23 elk from October to April each year. Of course they kill in packs so, that makes it a kill about every two days or so, depending on pack size. Say ten wolves = death to 100 -230 elk, or more per year. And then, according to studies conducted by Dr. Scott Creel at Montana State University and recently published by the National Academy of Science, those same wolves keep the elk from the good winter feed and they starve to death or lose body mass in large numbers at higher elevations. This also results in fewer successful calf births, including lower weight calves, on which the wolves also feed. I think the study is available on his web page at MSU.

I am with you on the wolf tags. Some idiot may well mistake a hunter for a wolf. Funny this didn't have to happen at all, if the wolves weren't reintroduced in the first place. Keep them in Yellowstone or other NP's where they will be safe, and find a non-lethal way to control their numbers - birth control anyone?

Scatcounter; first I want to respond to your 'birth-control' remark. The wolves aren't screwing the elk they are eating them.

Also we should never have HAD to reintroduce the wolf. But because of greedy men, a few 'old-wives tales' and the typical mentality of kill kill kill the wolves were all but eradicated. I for one am pleased I have wolves within a 20 mile radius. Along with the Grizzlies a few big cats, etc. Better the four legged than the two legged. (never had my car stolen by a Bison or a wolf let alone a Grizzly)

Contrary to a lot of thinking Yellowstone National Park is NOT a Zoo with cages and scheduled feeding times, it is a Park. It is a place for the animals as well as the idiots that drive here to watch them and the many other splendors we have here. Where the animals roam free. (keyword free) How would you expect wild animals to stay within an imaginary line, when humans don't and they can read the signs? It is a known fact that management needs to happen, but only because there are way to many stupid humans in the world, and they are spreading across this country quicker and thicker than knapweed but that's a completely different story.

I hate the thought that people, like one of the posters here, will actually have the opportunity to get a tag and a wolf. Those are the kinds of people that shouldn't be allowed to get any where near a weapon for any reason. They are the ones that think they know it all and can do it all. When in reality, they wouldn't be able to pour urine out of their shoe with the instructions written on the heel. No matter how you look at them Wolves are a majestic, completely self sufficient animal that deserves respect, even through a scope.

So the point of ensuring that a species does not go extinct is that they be allowed to reproduce and re-populate so that there are enough of them to shoot? I thought we were teaching our children ecology and conservation of our wildlife--a large part of our national heritage? This whole business is shameful. And to compare the cruelty of man to the predator/prey system that was put in place by whatever entity created all life on this planet is just ignorant and arrogant. Any man (or God forbid, woman) who would shoot a wild wolf in the wilderness for "sport" is forever shamed.

Elaine, spoken like a true urbanite. There is no chance of these wolves going extinct.

Idaho offered its excess live wolves to the states who don't have any, and has to date received 20 negative responses - no thanks, keep em. And, no affirmative responses. Why do you suppose that is? Many of the states are in the historic ranges of the gray wolf, but they don't want them, or the headaches they cause - just like this population control / wolf hunt issue that will plague any state who takes them. One would think Colorado would take as many as they could get; they have the largest elk population in the US.

ID, MT and WY don't want so many wolves, and in fact were promised by USFWS that they only needed to take a few. They are being chastised for holding the federal government to its promise of fifteen years ago. MI, MN and WI are ready to manage theirs, and at least WI will consider a hunt in the next two years. All the states want to manage them under approved plans. And, where are we with this, in court time after time, before federal judges who know zip about wildlife management, and are compelled to make legal rulings on esoteric technical legal arguments of interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, advanced by Washington DC based activist groups, who tell lies to their memberships to raise funds.

First off, Ann, that is an old saying taken from a sheep rancher who was at a meeting where enviros suggested coyotes be given birth control instead of killing them. The problem is the wolves are screwing each other and not just the alpha pair, that means more wolves to kill more elk.
We should never have had to reintroduce them since there were already wolves in the area, but enviros are never satisfied unless they are in court imposing their latest whim on other people. Interestingly enough I never see enviros offering to move to make room for any wildlife, but they seem to feel perfectly justified in taking others property to satisfy their whims.
CBear is absolutely right, so Elaine, how many wolves is your state willing to take? How much are you personally willing to give up for them? You seem to have no problem demanding that others donate a few hundred or even thousand dollars worth of livestock to feed them.
I am so sick of the claim that "greedy men/ranchers" eradicated wolves, what about the wolves that were killed and displaced by the early settlers on the east coast, were those folks also greedy? Are you trying to say no "good" person would try to protect their property? If you find termites in your house are you willing to let them continue to eat it up and "learn to live with nature"? Or are you "greedy" enough to call the exterminator? It is really easy to make demands of other people, but dam hard to live your own demands, as the 20 states refusing wolves made very clear.
As for Bennett Larsson Barr, how can any enviro speak of accountability when that is the one thing they have no amount of? They use the billions of dollars they raise to use the courts to force other people to do what they want and take no responsibility whatsoever for the outcomes.
The unfortunate fact is the wolves must be controlled, and the environmental groups must face the fact they cost the taxpayers of this country millions to bring in the wolves to satisfy a whim and they can either charge the taxpayers millions more to continue to pay the government to control them or they can let the taxpayers go shoot them themselves.
Wolves belong in wilderness areas and I don't mean areas laced with trails and campsites, I mean the Canadian wilderness they came from. They were brought in to satisfy the egos of environmentalists who were "restoring nature", but in their own image. There were wolves in all 3 states recolonizing from Canada and maybe even some of the Canis Irremotus that originally inhabited the area. That classification was conveniently dropped to avoid any conflicts with the newly designed wolf population.
I have posted ad nauseum the total wolves killed in Yellowstone during the entire time they were killed in the mistaken idea that they would decimate other wildlife was 56 adults and 80 pups. The most adults were killed in 1918, and that was 21, every other year was in single digits, yet they hauled in far greater numbers than had ever existed. Environmental meddling did not restore any balance, they destroyed a natural balance to satisfy their egos, and as a result hundreds of wolves have been killed by the government, wolves that would have lived if they had been left alone in the true Canadian wilderness they came from. Pat yourselves on the back guys for playing God....or being the devil's advocate.

Elaine, I have one more statistic for you. The state of ID and USFWS authorized kills that resulted in the death of 108 problem wolves in 2008. That is double the number that were dispatched in 2007 (Idaho annual wolf report 2008, page 6, available on the USFWS website). Human - wolf conflicts are the problem, and the people and livestock are not going away.

This is not just about hunting, it is about controlling the wolf population in an economical manner. The government could do it, but that costs money. Having hunters do it, generates revenue for the states, targets areas where the wolves are apparently negatively impacting elk populations, and gives some who want a wolf the opportunity to take one (I personally do not agree with this and would not kill a wolf, but respect the rights of others who do it).

The federal government spends huge amounts of money keeping the coyote population in check in most states from NJ to CA to ND to TX. Just what the H.... makes you think that won't need to happen with wolves as the populations expand. The Mexican wolf has been reintroduced to the Southwest, and they will eventually require control in AZ, NM and to other locations they migrate. Mark my words, this will happen within 10 years or less.

The problem is that so many people who comment on blogs like this know little of the specifics of the intoduction in the states, the biology of propagation or the promises made to state governments when the introduction was sold. By the way, these wolves in ID are what is called a "non-essential experimental population" under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act, which allows for their management. Alot of people lose site of this distinction, if they even know about it.

READ READ READ - go to the USFWS website and learn more before you spout off your uninformed opinions colored by the likes of the wolf advocacy groups who give you practiced one liners that promote their view.

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/

good post marion,, you explained it well... wolves were reintroduced on us for political reasons ,,, now theres too many,,, that has to be fixed,,, hunting them will not decimate their population

Well HELLO Marion I was wondering where you were? Glad to see you are still "forked end down" (aka standing and not belly up)
Actually that was used at a homeowners meeting when some tree-hugger suggested they use birth-control on beavers to keep them from damming up the streams. Better than 15 years ago.
Why should someone move if they are happy with the animals that frequent their area and property? I'm happy with the wildlife around here. That's part of why I'm here. I welcome all of them. Skunks too. Why should some rancher get preferential treatment over me?
To answer one of your questions about greedy easterners, Of course they were/are greedy. Just like everyone else. Are you trying to tell me Ranchers aren't greedy? Get real. They want to destroy every possible threat to their herds no questions asked. Even when the science doesn't back their complaints. how do these stats equate to devastation of livestock producers? "Since the state of Montana began recording livestock losses due to wolves back in 1987, only 1,200 sheep and cattle have been killed. 1,200 killings in twenty years is not very significant when in the greater Yellowstone region 8,300 cattle and 13,000 sheep die from natural causes."
Taken from this site; http://www.answers.com/topic/gray-wolf#Current_.26_Historical_status
Another interesting fact that contradicts yours is this; "
"As early as 1877, wolf hunters used strychnine-poisoned ungulate carcasses to kill wolves in Yellowstone National Park (Weaver, 1978: 7). Federal efforts to eradicate the wolf escalated to such a degree that an estimated 80,000 wolves were killed in Montana alone between 1884 and 1918 (Dawidoff, 1992: 40). By trapping, poisoning and shooting, Animal Damage Control, the federal anti-wolf hit squad, was able to wipe out virtually every wolf native to the United States in a few short decades." http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/94-65.htm



I have to get some horses out so will cut this one short.

Again Marion I'm glad to see your 'type'

Ann, if you remember Dr. Mech admitted that ranchers are only confirmed/ compensated for about one out of every seven to nine animals actually killed. So the "greedy" rancher families are being required to subsidize the entertainment of those sainted, caring environmentalists who are so willing to donate someone else's property to the cause. I'm still around I just get so frustrated with the self importance of those who can dismiss the private property of others so easily, that I give up commenting. Besides I seem to get a lot more spam when I post on this site.

Marion; What makes a livestock Ranchers private property rights more important than someone that doesn't have livestock? i.e. cattle. When I was raising Dobermans and Rotts, I didn't get compensated for a single pup that died. And that was my TOTAL income (at the time). So why should livestock producers? As I've said many times, if you can't pasture your livestock on your own personal property, safely or otherrwise, then cull your animals. Less conflict with both humans and wildlife.
What's good for one is good for the other.
You can bet the Ranchers try to get compensated for every animal that dies or comes up missing, but they have to prove how it died, or where it went. They can't. Not my fault. I know we (when we had cattle etc) could tell exactly what, where and when an animal disappeared. How it was taken etc. But of course we were in the herd every day rain or shine. How many ranchers do that today unless it's calving time? That's what I mean about getting lazy or having too many animals to 'manage'. If that's their income then they should dam well keep an eye on it and not expect someone else to. Sounds more and more like the far left wanting to blame the Bar for them getting drunk and wrecking. Or not taking responsibility for their own actions.

Make sure you vist <a >www.huntwolves.com</a> to find out what you need to bag a wolf!

Marion, why don't you actually tell people that disease kills far more cattle than wolves ever will? Why are you still touting the lies that wolves are destroying ranching?

Why are you back at all, did they kick you off the other forums?

This will be an excellent chance for the outfitters to recoup lost revenue due to dwindling elk. Get some guys out into the Frank Church and trim the packs a bit. But then, that's only if you can't do it yourself. I hear guys are lining up charter flights ahead of the season to do some scouting. Best wishes, All! Hope you fill your tags ---AFTER I fill MINE! Great job Idaho Fish and Game, and thanks for having the guts to do what's right.

Sometimes its refreshing to look at the big picture over a large chunk of time instead of bickering about the details to realize where this is all going to end up. Somewhere between 40 thousand and 15 thousand years ago, humans began domesticating a sub-species of wolf, the dog, the first animal domesticated by humans. About 15 to 9 thousand years ago humans in Asia, Europe and North Africa began domesticating ancestral Sheep, Goats, Pigs and Cows. In a few thousand years, parts of Asia, the Mediterranean area and North Africa became severely overgrazed,evolving noxious weeds that only goats could eat. Columbus, on his second voyage to the "New World" in 1493-94 brought livestock to the Americas from the "Old World" destined to contaminate the "New World" with seeds of noxious plants of the "Old World". So now, about .5 millennium since the second voyage of Columbus, much of the Americas have been severely overgrazed and infested with noxious weeds. The Wolf has been eradicated and is being brought back to parts of its previous range and humans are attempting to restore the predator-prey balance that existed before the white man arrived from Europe with his domesticated herds of ungulates.
I would suggest that Wolf Lover's time and resources would be better spent supporting organizations that are attempting to buy up grazing allotments on public lands so that domesticated animals grazing public lands will become a thing of the past sooner rather than later. But make no mistake about it, even when most ranching of domestic live stock is relegated to the dustbin of history, Wolves populations will still have to be managed but not as much as some would have you believe is necessary. Predator populations generally are prey dependent, when prey is hard to come by, predators die back pretty rapidly from disease, starvation and fighting over territory.

I'm sorry, Mickey, but that is too rational of a post.
I would kindly suggest, however, that the term "Wolf Lover" is fairly antagonistic and really not needed. I wouldn't call ecologists "wolf lovers", nor the scientists that study wolves and suggest control methods/levels.
Also, I don't think that people like Marion will willingly give up grazing allotments that they have held for generations so that cattle/wolf interactions can be minimized. They'll hold on to their unprofitable and worthless "lifestyle" when you pry the deed from their cold dumb hands.

You know why I hate the idea of this proposed hunt? Many reasons actually, but especially because of posts like this from seemingly ignorant, hostile, lazy and otherwise worthless Idahoans who are just drooling to kill something:

By getatag, 8-19-09

Fabulous News! Can't wait---Thankyou IDFG for the chance of a lifetime! Twin Falls will be buying up all the tags so the rest of you all need not bother! Mister Lobo will be pretty scarce once the war's on---- Using coyote howlers should produce, Sportsmen's Warehouse better stock up!

First of all getatag - read the regulations before you get all gussied up to hunt. Regulations clearly state that no electronic calls can be utilized - no trapping, no baiting, no dogs - basically no B.S. I don't know if you "Twin Falls" folks can park the four wheeler and walk far enough to harvest a wolf. I can tell you right now they are not waiting by the shitter to make your day. This is not an assumption - I see your kind every deer and elk season - you lazy piles! And to think you throw your kid on the back of that four wheeler and show them that's actually an acceptable way to hunt. P.S. During your (hopefully) unsuccessful hunt don't forget to pick up your beer cans.

Wolves aren't stupid.

A few may get lucky and be able to take a shot from their ATV, but most will have to spend a fair amount of time tracking and actually hunting these awesome killing machines.

There is nothing like being a predator stalking another predator.

Also a Howler is not an electronic call, it's like a woodwind instrument, and it takes a lot of skill to be able to locate and call wolves.

These will not be "bagged hunts."

The good news is...wolves are finally going to be killed.

Those of you who oppose these management hunts must live in a protected bubble somewhere...like Boston, San Francisco, maybe Seattle??? Wolves are wiping out our elk. It's that simple. Now, sportsmen...who have footed the bill for real conservation in this country (not the likes of the clueless Defenders of Wildlife)...are going to eliminate some of the pestilence the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has forced upon us.

Whether or not Judge Don Malloy stops the hunt...wolves are going to die. Sportsmen have had enough of the political posturing, and with or without federal approval...bullets re going to fly and wolves are going to die.

If it's a war the enviros want, it's a war we'll give them.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Enough of your threats, Tony. Your overreactions are becoming legendary, your lies as well.

Find a new hobby.

Toby, I somehow think you are not one of the sharper knives in the drawer. Comments and threats like that accomplish nothing.
And, just a technical point here, you don't understand the issue - USFWS wants the managment and harvest to go forward, and believes the science supports it. The very creative lawsuits by the environmental groups have it all gummed up, and put judge Malloy in a tough spot. Remember he is accountable to federal appeals courts to properly interpret the Endangered Species Act.

You sure as H.... do not speak for most hunters, sportsmen or informed people on this topic, and you definitely do not speak for me.

Hey Pocatello--- speaking of charter pilots for scouting; there's a few operating out of Hailey/Ketchum that have been great to work with for flying in drop camps and pre-season scouting...Are your pilots coming out of SE Id.?

Love that post about "electronic" coyote howlers!! Ha-ha! Duh*! Yeah...you BLOW into the thing and it makes a sound like a coyote howl...There are some things out there that are not IPOD-esque and actually require some MANUAL operation. Good point, tho--- as a territorial pack would surely come charging in to attack the yote interlopers. Actually, a good tactic would be for hound hunters to set their dogs onto a fresh bear strike ---then have their wolf tags handy when the pack shows up to eliminate the trespassing "new pack".

These guys are great to work with and can get you into the wilderness units in pretty fine style; should be no problem to find some wolves to harvest that will get little pressure after the opener commences. Call McCall Aviation Main Office, McCall, ID (208) 634-7137
The following backcountry airstrips are covered and have an abundance of LOBO:

Airstrip Hunting Unit
Big Creek 26
Bernard 27
Cabin Creek 26
Chamberlain Basin 20A
Cold Meadows 20A
Indian Creek 27
Flying B 27
Lower Loon 27
Mahoney Bar 27
Soldier Bar 26
Thomas Creek 27
Upper Loon 27
Root Ranch 20A
Pistol Creek 27

To RollingBlock:

The Canadians and Wisconsin bear hunters would tell you its tough on the dogs. I think there have been about a half dozen bear dogs killed in WI by wolves so far this year. The Cannucks have figured out that killing wolves first makes the bear hunting a little easier on the dogs.

What I would like to know is how Defenders of Wildlife shill, Suzanna Stone, keeps her dog from being attacked by wolves when she's out among them. Or is it, Lynne K. Stone? They are both wolf advocates, but I can't remember which has a dog. I wonder if they are related.

Toby - I oppose management hunts and I live in the heart of the matter - dead center central Idaho. The wolves are not wiping out the elk or the deer, and they are not killing household pets and eating children in the night. If you want to tell stories do it at a library.
And if you choose to pull that trigger if these hunts are not approved, that is called POACHING and I hope so dearly you would be caught (by me especially) and loose your license to hunt FOREVER! That is what happens when you POACH.
Your tough guy talk is the exact reason I am against a general hunt for the public. You are not educated enough about the delicate nature of this situation. You are not rational enough to do the right thing (especially with a weapon). And you are not enough of a citizen to abide by the laws should they disagree with your view.
A war indeed - but I am no "enviro" - I am a resident of the great state of Idaho and this awesome nature that surrounds me is the reason this has been home for 20+ years and will be forever.

Rhiana, I think most of us can agree Toby is misguided in his views, maybe even an idiot.

However, your observations that wolves are not "wiping out elk or deer and they don't kill household pets..." are just not accurate. The ID game department disagrees with you and produces annual reports every year documenting wolf status and what they do during the reporting period. They are always a year behind on the data, and each year has been worse than the one before as the population increases. The number of problem wolves killed by agents doubled from 50 to 108 last year. That's alot!

It really doesn't matter what you have personally observed unless you are all over the state, tracking wolves, collared elk and knowing the specific formation of new wolf packs, where they feed, breed and disburse to create new packs. There are areas of the state where wolves have decimated elk herds - the Lolo, Elk City or Dworshak, for example. The Sawtooth region is scheduled for a removal of 58 wolves, alone. Wolves eat elk (or deer where elk are not present) - about 8-23 elk per wolf, per year. That is the statistic. It isn't always the weak, injured or old animals, according to recent research. Wolves also keep elk away from low elevation winter browse too, causing them to lose weight and have fewer calves. This really messes with the age structure of the herds and how they are distributed on the landscape.

I don't know where dead center Central Idaho is for you, but if you are somewhere near Stanley (east edge of Sawtooth Region), you are not in the highest wolf concentration areas, but there are lots and lots of wolves to the North, and to the Southwest of you. Not to worry, you will get more soon, unless they are thinned a bit. They have been removed from Copper Basin for chomping on sheep, I think.

If you are much south of Sun Valley, ID game department says there are no reported wolves around you, and that probably has to do with lack of habitat and prey.

Scat:
Elk numbers in Idaho and in the GYP were too high for local biosystems to sustain for a long period of time. Your ranting sounds more like the truck hunting yahoo looking to "get 'im an elk!" rather than a rational person weighing all the facts. Granted, the Lolo herd was decimated, but that was also a combination of factors, something in which the anti-wolf groups have yet to admit.

But please, keep supporting those that lie and that act like drunken clowns with guns, as well as the ranchers like Marion that wouldn't know the truth of wolves if it were delivered by Dick Cheney himself.

Jay, I am afraid you generalize a bit too much, and draw conclusions that are not warranted. Almost as good as the lies you accuse others of.

Please note, I confined my comments to Idaho, and to certain areas therein. Idaho game department, based their wolf quotas on management objectives which included balancing ungulate populations and known high wolf population areas.

I have hunted the same Idaho GMUs for the last twenty years. Our group of four hunters are very experienced, physically strong and hunt hard for up to 8 days at a time, across country and off trails into the brush. No vehicles are driven except the occasional ATV to get us to drop points. We know the area very well, including adjacent drainages. Wolves moved in two years ago, and last year we saw more wolves than elk. These elk do not move with the weather, and browse is always available in the area. We never see elk in groups larger than four or five, so there is no herd migration, and the rut is over. All variables are accounted for except wolves. We saw more wolf poop on trails and old logging grades, than fresh elk tracks or droppings.

We spoke with other hunters on the way out and they had similar experiences and low success rates. Sure, some of these elk have been temporarily driven to higher ground and more dense vegetation, and maybe that is ok. But, the elk were gone, and maybe the wolves have moved on, which might result in some elk eventually moving back in. Funny thing is, ID annual wolf report and maps don't even acknowledge wolves are there, which means they are not accounting for them AT ALL. I told the ID chief wolf guy, Steve Nadeau, of our experience and he confirmed they had no knowledge of individual wolves or packs with collared members to track. I expect to see more wolf data for this area in the next annual report, if they got in there to collar a couple.

As a scientist I am just trying to add reason and good facts to the dialog, like a couple of other posters here. It helps keep the radicals on either side of the issue a little more honest. Don't be so quick to label me.

Quite frankly, I don't want hunters in the woods trying to bag a wolf. I would prefer selective control activities be done in winter by the state or feds, so they can cull the ones they want. But I guess that is too rational, and it would deprive the state of additional license/tag revenues, and cost taxpayers more.

"As a scientist" -- and a comedian?

Anecdotal evidence is for those with no proof or data, not a scientist. I too have had similar experiences, except replace "wolves" with "cattle" in your rant. I, however, didn't generalize my individual experience and proclaim that all cattle are killing elk.

As you can see above, I have no problems with controlling wolf populations. I do have a problems with Rambo's like yourself doing it based on your own lies and subterfuge.

To Jay Kanta,

Did you not read scat's last paragraph? He specifically said he didn't like "Rambo's" (to use your word) in the woods shooting wolves. You strike me as one of those guys who talks so much he doesn't listen to the other guy, and winds up stepping on his own .... tongue.

And yet he uses the talking points of those "Rambos" which is exactly like I pointed out in my first response to him. Later, he felt the need to talk of his own prowess hunting, something I would easily attribute to a gun toting yokel incapable of using anything other than personal emotional "facts".

So who needs to learn how to read and listen?

Jay, I don't know where you came up wth this Rambo crap. I am far from it.

And, I just don't understand you first paragraph. Perhaps you missed something.

As for the Idaho game department's elk management plans, those pretty much speak for themselves, and managers will admit they do not have all the answers- lots of variables in nature.

Same for the wolf programs, whether its Steve Nadeau in ID or Carolyn Simes in MT, Ed Bangs for the USFWS, or Doug Smith, Dan Stahler or some of the other folks at Yellowstone, Dr. Mech at U of Minn., and Dr. Scott Creel at Montana State. There are many others who work with them, or independently. These folks are in the woods all the time, or studying the data compiled by themselves or others. Their observations are consistent and usually verifiable.

Wolves impact elk behavior and numbers- whether you view that as negative or positive is the subject of great debate. If there are more wolves there will be fewer elk, they will occupy different habitat and they will be more wary. Apparently, professional game managers think different from you, and that is why they want to manage their elk, and now wolves. What's your background that makes you an "expert" of sorts?

I tried to describe an experience last fall - and it could have been just as easily been observations from a fall camping trip, which is really the reason I hunt elk - to be with friends and family. So my observations are anticdotal - big stinking deal. What I and others saw seems consistent with the need to control wolf numbers. What's wrong with that?

And, if your answer is there are too few wolves - inadequate genetic exchange and all - my answer is the experts say there are enough, especially Mech. That will probably come out in the Montana litigation, if Judge Molloy takes the time to review the data and listen to the experts listed above, and others. He may grant an injunction in the meantime, and this first hunt might not happen - and that's OK with me.

Now if you have a beef (pun intended) with those public welfare cattle and sheep grazing leases on federal land, I'm with you. I would love to see better preserved habitat - year round for elk, deer, sage grouse and other animals.

Instead of wasting your time blogging, why not get out there and make some $ and put land into conservation for wildlife...or WORK to have more land designated as wilderness? The National Parks have become insular disneyland-like areas for human recreation and wildlife observation. Killing is by no means the Best or singular "management practice.

"Apparently, professional game managers think different from you, and that is why they want to manage their elk, and now wolves."

Fiscal decisions are rarely made with the best available science.

You implied that wolves are wiping out elk and deer. That doesn't pan out with the science. You seem to claim that control numbers are indicative of a greater need to kill wolves, yet you show no knowledge of the balance of predator/prey on the population of the predators, and how they are more precipitous due to many of the current conditions, such as diseases due to rising winter temperatures.

I don't believe that these numbers, or decisions, are made with the best science, nor with even a fair knowledge. They give every indication of a desire to stoke those like Toby that have all the brain power of a pack of angry molerats.

You and I may agree on a lot of points, but the anecdotal evidence and your disagreement with Rhiana says that you're more swayed by emotional pleadings than with the actual science behind the ESA and its intentions. Controlling wolves by using hunters is not going to be successful, it will lead to more Toby's that will rampage through the state, hunting wolves whereever and with no direction. Shoot, shovel and shut-up isn't just a cute saying, it is a way of life for people like Toby and Marion. They just don't have the intelligence for anything bigger than that.

I was wondering, How far back do the population studies go for the elk. It seems that the only reason why people feel that the wolves are dwindling the elk population is maybe because the only numbers we can compare to are from post-wolf era 1930's to now. Has anyone asked what was the population like when this country was inhabited by all predators, including this "fearsome" creature. Maybe because we have not had wolves since the '30s, the populations grew to numbers so large that the elk became complacent and 'safe'. Face it...bears and mtn lions dont need as much to eat so its obvious to me whats happening....Didnt wyoming spend like a ton of money trying to kill the coyote to end up realizing that nothing worked because they control their own populations(naturally). Without wolves here, the hunting for big game became more popular because its herds that were hard to find many years ago, grew to numbers of 20,000 and 30,000...That sure does make picking one out a little more enjoyable. I hear people say all the time now in this SW corner of MT that "its getting harder to get my tag filled in all my normal places. Ive had to go much deeper".
Well isnt that what hunting is.....and besides isnt hunting for the meat...wolves probably taste like dog.
Here's something that everyone fails to mention, but the Beaver...yes the mighty once thought disappeared beaver; is making a comeback since the reintroduction of the wolves..Its a fact..look it up..I have my own theory on why this is; but it does remind me of a fable I heard a longtime ago at a rendezvous about the Wolf and the Beaver, in short
The wolf needed water and was at the riverbank having a hard time when it spotted a beaver. The wolf tod the beaver it needed a drink. The beaver responded by telling the wolf to never prey on him and it will see to it that the wolf would have a place to drink. So the wolf has left the beaver alone ever since..
That story was told to me long before wolves were reintroduced and I recently heard that the beaver is making its resurgence. Funny how naturally nature can manage itself.

First of all, wolves do kill beaver, I have photos of it. The Washburn Expedition kept a very good description and count of the flora and fauna, 30,000 was the elk report (it was September). No wolves mentioned, but Mr. Evarts reported hearing howling the last night of his 37 day episode of being lost and without food except weeds. Lt. Doane's report (which was officially reported to congress) is very complete and can be found in his biography, Battle Drums and Geysers by Bonney.
Another book by Schullery on Wolves in Yellowstone, documents 5 wolf reports, msot of which were sounds, between 1869 and 1880.
Schullery's book is one of the msot complete documents of the wolves. I'm going to try to post the link, on google as it is all online, don't know if the site will take it as it is long.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7te9jmFJcrcC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Norris+Firehole+elk+herd&source=bl&ots=vsXvIlTkmD&sig=ncKkNUywAem1qxKyu0aq5_wwVT0&hl=en&ei=PbyKStWHCJLuswPltIHODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q;=&f=false

The Fearsome Beast: Before white Europeans began poopulating the new world, there were millions of native ungulates, Deer, Elk, Antelope, Bison and hundreds of thousands of predators, Wolves, Coyotes, Grizzles, Black Bear, Bobcats, in balance. If the wolves were capable of driving ungulates into extinction, they would have done it long before the white man arrived. Native American tribal lore does not view the Wolf as a fearsome beast. If you're looking for a real Fearsome Beast, take a look in the mirror before you grab your gun and run out the door to kill something, paleface.

Coyotes are controlled by the food of their prey base (large number of rabbits means large number of coyotes followed by down cycle of rabbits means fewer coyotes - so the biology texts say), but that is all screwed up because man supplements the base with all kinds of things, like chickens, lambs, calves, dogs and cats. That is why FWS, and agency of the Dept. of Agriculture spends alot of time and your tax dollars controlling coyote numbers across the entire United States.

Don't know what is going on in WY, but suspect lots of coyotes are still lethally exterminated by government and ranchers who don't like the coyotes getting lambs or calves. Wolves also feed on some of the carrion of natural mortality wildlife, depriving coyotes of some - and that may even affect coyote numbers in some area, but probably not by much.

I don't know where you got your information on bears, but they too kill elk calves - lots of very young ones in the Spring, then wolves are the biggest killers of elk calves after about 6 months.

And your question about historic elk populations goes back alot further than the 1930's since so many factors have affected numbers. Before Europeans showed first in the East and then the West, in large numbers, there was lots of everything. Even wolves and elk in the East. In some areas elk were plains animals, as were buffalo. There was market hunting in the 1800's, for all edible large game before the turn of the century, and that is when the elk herds started going down in great numbers, to the point that in the 1930's some elk herds had to be reinvigorated by new transplanted elk to wiped out areas. Wolves were viewed as competition for what game remained, and expanding livestock operations, so they were systematically extirpated. However, at the same time logging and clearing of forest overstory allowed for revegetation of plants that were great for elk. This worked much the same way that forest fires allowed for succession of plants. On the down side, man has eliminated or made unavailable much critical winter habitat by developement and stock grazing. If elk do not have lower elevation winter habitat they starve in the deep snow with no forage. An increasing present day population of wolves is also keeping elk from even their reduced winter range habitat, according to recent studies, making them lose weight and have fewer calves.

Does anyone realize that wolves were killed off in the east long before the west was settled? Surely even the most ardent wolf lover doesn't think that was the fault of the western rancher.

Todd,
what point do you have to make with that triviality? Join Marion wherever it went.

The point would be that wolves have been killed by man for survival since the beginning of time. I am sick of hearing how the greedy western rancher killed them all off & must be forced to feed and care for all of the wolves enviros can stuff into a predator crowded ecosystem, no matter the cost to said ranchers.

Jay, I think if you do your research, you will find that most Northern Europe, Russia, China, India and other societies that have had wolves present in areas they have inhabited have reduced or eliminated wolf populations over the last 400 years, as technology allowed them to do so (gunpowder and accurate rifles). This has been done for the very reasons we are discussing on this forum. In India, for example, where wolves are sacred to the Hindi, they killed or seriously injured 74 humans in a two year period. (Source: Wikipedia - "wolf attacks on humans" I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the source, but seems well documented)

Scandanavian countries - Norway, Sweden and Finland have nearly wiped out all their wolves for longer than the US -predation on livestock seems to be the problem there. These countries maintain small populations, and some of the research that has been done on those populations has been the basis for the reintroduction the gray wolf in the NRM.

There have recently been a fair number of attacks on dogs in Eastern Canada, and in the US the Department of Agriculture -Wildlife Services Division has had reports of 131 wolf attacks on dogs so far this year, a number of them in Wisconsin with its growing wolf population. That is about twice the reports of last year.

It will be interesting to see what kind of numbers the states will show in their annual reports for 2009, early next year.

Scatcounter is correct about the wikipedia article. Look at the stats on humans killed by wolves over the last couple hundred years around the world. Invention of firearms seems to have been the big deterrent that reduced the number of wolves and/or educated them that they should stay away from humans.

I am amazed, however, to learn of the huge number of children that have been killed historically, and the recurring incidents involving rabid wolves. Of course, lack of reports or documentation that goes back more than a hundred years probably results in severe underestimation of numbers of incidents to livestock, pets and humans, as well as human deaths.

I continue to be amazed by wolf advocate assertions that "no human has been killed in the US by a healthy wolf." First that is not a true statement based on the data shown. Second, even if the historic attacks are attributed to rabid wolves, it makes no difference to the person injured or dead, or to their families. Rabies is still a risk factor for any wolf in the woods.

The above being said, more people and dogs are injured or killed by grizzlies, black bear and cougar, than wolves. But then, wolves have not been present in larger numbers the US for the last 70 years. Perhaps the statistics will change.

Todd, do you even remotely understand the conversation here? Do you understand that it isn't that Americans wiped out the wolf populations back in the 1800's, but it is the fact that a reintroduction is being fought by greedy ranchers? And what do the east and the west have to do with each other in reference to wolves? Idaho has more wilderness where wolves can roam than any other state.

Did you actually think comparing east and west was some kind of argument against wolves? Or were you just throwing out some kind of lame argument in order to try to remain relevant?

And scat, yes, I know read about most of those. Wolves consider dogs and coyotes to be rivals for food and will kill them when they first move into a new territory (seek them out for killing). For some strange reason that I haven't been able to find, wolves also wipe out large numbers of prey when they are forced to move territories.

kanta,

i think you dont see the point here. nowhere in the article does it mention ranchers. IFG is not trying to exterminate all wolves. this is the first attempt at a hunt to control the population. their job is to manage wolves. they will do a good job and base next years hunt on its results.

try to stay on the subject jay

Jay, I certainly do not profess to speak for Todd, but let me take a crack at responding to your comment.

'And what do the east and west have to do with each other with reference to wolves?"

Wolves were present in the East, and Mid-West, and across much of America before large scale human settlement. Several wolf advocacy groups are pushing a "national wolf management plan." That seems to entail reintroduction to much of the historic range that once accomodated some 300,000 wolves throughout the country. I have not researched the geographic areas where they want wolves, but say Upstate NY, Pennsylavania, Vermont and New Hampshire were target locations. The issues that are currently present in the West, will undoubtedly be some of the same that would come up in those areas. The North Atlantic states would be concerned about impacts on moose and deer, as well as dairy and cattle operations. Penn and NY and a number of other states would be concerned about deer and dairy/cattle operations, as well as impacts on newly reintroduced elk. Yes, elk are being reintroduced in many states. Wisconsin will likely have an elk hunt next year. And, of course everybody would be concerned about more direct human - wolf interactions, like the family dog, or some 8 year old kid waiting at the rural bus stop in winter. Also see my post above, regarding rabid wolves.

Why do you suppose those 20 states rejected Idaho's offer of excess wolves a few months ago? I would like to know how many states will step forward to embrace the wolf advocates' proposed "national wolf management plan."

If we were to send back about 15-20 million illegal aliens to their countries of origin (mostly south of the US southern border), we might have room for a few more wolves. Human population growth and development is the biggest threat to wildlife. Now there is a subject the Sierra Club and Defenders should take on.

And let me close the logic loop for Dave. Wolf numbers must be controlled wherever they are reintroduced. ID and MT have been very responsible in their selection of initial harvest numbers, especially since the reported and verifiable wolf population is in reality probably at least 20% higher than the reported numbers.

WI will likely have a wolf hunt next year, with MI, and MN to follow. Maybe WY will have one under the close supervision of USFWS (I see no reason they could not do an intergovernmental agreement to cover just that), if they can't come up with their own management plan that gets rid of the ridiculous Predator zone.

"they will do a great job"

Yeah, sure. 220 licenses, how many Shoot-Shovel-Shutup kills, and when will actual science manage wolves instead of allowing hunters and greedy ranchers to determine the management criteria?

As for back east, they don't have wolves, yet. So yes, I was trying to stay on topic, unlike Todd that thinks that he can remain relevant through posting nonsense.

And there you have it...those who think wolves wiping out our elk are the greatest thing since Swiss Cheese...and those of us who think otherwise and fully plan to turn wolves into a substance resembling Swiss Cheese this fall...with enough holes to get the job done.

I plan to have one of those Montana wolf tags in my pocket when I hike into the Bob Marshall next month. And I could care less about killing a wolf as a trophy...but I will kill wolves to do my part to stop the carnage of our other wildlife. And like the majority of sportsmen, who really do value our elk herds, I plan to take at least one wolf out - whether the wolf hunt gets the legal go ahead or not.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Scatcounter,

I'm not sure if you had the time or gumption to scroll all the way down to the topic in your source sub-titled "In folklore and mythology" under "Relationships with humans" but you may want to do so in order to understand the hatred or disdain towards wolves that continues to run rampant in Idaho and the rest of "your" 400 year, modern world.

Your source clearly links the "Christian" Doctrine within European Cultures to the near demise or extermination of the Wolf.

Would it then be fair to argue that the "near" demise of the Wolf in the U.S. as a whole is also linked to the dominating "Christian" Doctrine found prevalent in the State of Idaho as well as the rest of the US?

I would certainly argue that it is.

To Bennett,

Sorry sport, I am agnostic.

The sub-article you refer to says. "Humans historically have had a complex and varied viewpoint of wolves. In many parts of the world, wolves were respected and revered, while in others they were feared and held in distaste. The latter viewpoint was notably accentuated in European folklore beginning in the Christian era, though wolves did feature as heraldic animals on the arms and crests of numerous noble families."

The text then follows with a number of negative references to wolves in non-Christian cultures.

I have no idea what the author meant by that overview. I suspect management of wolves in modern times has very little to do with religion. The kinds of crap some of you pinheads come up with never ceases to amaze me.

You make way too much of this...I speak of the "Sportsman's Doctrine", if you must put a title to it. And it simply goes as follows...

Circa 1880-1900...Susbsistence hunting and market harvest of elk, deer and other big game brings big game populations in the West to an all-time low (not sport hunting). Likewise, as the West is settled, predators such as the wolf were drastically reduced, and eliminated in many areas, to permit viable raising of livestock to feed a growing human population (the same humans that elk and deer once fed).

Circa 1900-1910...Continued ranching in the West (to feed a still growing human population) called for further removal of major predators, primarily the wolf.

Circa 1920s-mid 1990s...Sportsmen who valued healthy elk, deer and other big game populations (wildlife in general), invest billions of dollars which finance conservation efforts (and wildlife departments) to rebuild big game populations from near nothing to record numbers (without any help from lame "environmental" organizations such as the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, or the so-called Center For Biological Diversity).

1995-Present...The foolish U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a very misguided federal court system force the "Wolf Recovery Project" upon the Northern Rockies - and big game populations which took nearly a hundred years (and billions of sportsman dollars) to rebuild quickly decline as an uncontrolled and unmanaged wolf population is allowed to run rampant and spread like a disease on the land. Elk herds in some areas drop 30- to 40-percent due to wolf predation, and elk calf survival in others is so low that the numbers cannot sustain a huntable herd - just as the anti-hunting "enviornmental" groups want it.

Present-????...Sportsmen take up arms, with or without federal government approval, and totally eliminate the gray wolf throughout the American West - for the second time.

If it is war the enviros want...it's war they're going to get.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Gee Toby, If you really wanted to make your point, you would shoot your wolf and carry the carcass to the federal courthouse steps and wait for the federal marshal or other law enforcement to arrest you.

Doing it your way scares the h.... out of me, and is kind of disinegenuous to the cause, truly illegal (if delisting gets stopped) and maybe even un-American. Get some cajones, dude.

Scatcounter,

The reference to "Christian" Doctrine and it's link to the European decimation of wolves and other predators appears to be over your "head" as you proclaim to be agnostic. Chances are you're most likely of European stock so we'll stick to your references of Europe and historical human/predator interactions or relationships and how this has transcended into American psyche and management/politics of natural resources today, inherent or not.

Your statement of "I suspect management of wolves in modern times has very little to do with religion." is my case in point. If you recall, the "Nez Perce Tribe", via the "dropping of the ball" of US FISH & WILDLIFE and IDFG, were instrumental in the restoration efforts of Wolf populations in Idaho. Myriad of publications, folk lore etc. link the Nez Perce Tribe and the Wolf as "cultural cousins" with both societies exhibiting severe impacts to their survival. However, as an agnostic, I suspect you wouldn't understand that relationship. Nor the relationships of the noble families who held out with wolves on their shields, despite the pressure to take on this "newly" founded hatred of other predators.

As I type these words on a piece of ground where the Nez Perze and Coeur d'Alene Tribes once met for trading, I can visualize (or in this case romanticize) what it would have been like to be indigenous and those interactions with a wolf including an actual taking and the weight that comes with it.

So if you're on this forum to talk about historical human/predator interactions as well as cultural survival, you've come to the right place. And if you're hear just to call ENVIROs names, my hopes are that you will stay and take home some historical "cultural" or "religious" messages.

And the "Pinhead" title would have been a group I would have fitted into well 25 years ago learning how to telemark ski up at Pilot's Peak at the age of 12...these days though, the Fat Bastards and Hammerheads put me into a different "cultural" category. One that spans 10,000 of thousands of years. And one that you will probably never relate to.

Toby,
do you ever tire of being a complet putz.
I second Cbear, go shoot a wolf, I'll send you a picture of one so you don't nail the neighbors poodle, and go down to the federal courthouse in Missoula on the 31st of Aug and show us what you are made of.
However I suspect that you are all talk and no show.

Yes, Jeffe, we are aware that Malloy has given you a hearing the 31st on whether to stop the wolf hunt, and since he has never to the best of my knowledge ruled against the rich enviros, I'm sure he will stop the hunt again, there are still ranchers around.

Malloy is an activist judge and is most likely, if not guaranteed stop the hunt.

I'd say the chances are 99.9% that he will stop the hunt. You know the wolf introduction is one of the reasons I and others are not impressed by what our politicians say they are going to do with the health care or anything else for that matter. They SAID 300 wolves in the three states, they WROTE a lot of legalese into a big bill that gave them the right to have unlimited wolves and keep them protected forever. What lawyer politicians say is totally different from the way they write a bill. that is why it takes a thousand pages to hide real intentions, and make sure lawyers can interpret it anyway they want.

Toby..I.Suppose you'll be armed when you "go into the Bob".
That kinda gives you an advantage, doesn't it? But, then, that's the only way your kind operate....big gun, little dick. Makes up for amounting to "Nothing" in life....gives you the "power" you never have otherwise.
Bet you have a big rig, a snowmobile and an ATV also.

Toby sounds like a poacher. As a hunter I will turn his pathetic ass in if I hear of wolves being killed illegally anywhere near him. You people are missing the point. Judge Malloy is going to stop the hunt because the management plans are not sufficiently changed to address his concerns when he gave wolves back the protections. READ HIS DECISION. Then tell me how the western states have changed their management plans to accomodate Malloy's decision. People like Toby and Gov Otter are the ones that are politicizing this issue

Todd,
Yes he did.
And I think that to give the states the best chance of prevailing Toby should be made the official representative in the scheduled hearing.
What say you?
However I believe Toby will fold up like a cheap suit if he ever had to actually back up any of his statements.

Hunters snatch up more than 4,000 wolf tags in first day
By Nate Poppino
Times-News writer
JEROME - Hunters lined up across the state Monday morning to purchase wolf tags, as a federal judge agreed to hold a hearing exactly one week later on whether the hunt should go forward.

Responding to a motion for an injunction against the hunts filed last week in Montana, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy on Monday announced he'll hold a three-hour hearing on the morning of Aug. 31 - the day before Idaho's earliest hunts are set to begin.

The injunction, requested by the environmental groups that argue the wolves shouldn't have been taken off the endangered species list, is similar to a successful injunction that stopped hunting last year - including an argument that the wolf populations in Idaho and Montana won't be able to interbreed enough to sustain a healthy population. The two states will allow hunters to shoot up to 295 of the estimated 1,350 wolves in the region, not counting wolves allotted to tribal hunts.

South-central Idaho hunters, though concerned about the possible injunction, joined a wave of their peers across the state that led to about 1,200 tags sold within the first half-hour, despite some computer troubles. Small groups lined up at businesses such as Silver Creek Outfitters in Ketchum, and about 30 people waited to buy their tags at the regional Idaho Department of Fish and Game office near Jerome. The agency has said it will refund hunters if the season is blocked.

Shane Harrison of Jerome arrived at the Twin Falls Sportsman's Warehouse shortly after 10 a.m. He said he was buying a tag because of the effect wolves have had on elk herds where he hunts by Mackay.

"I've been watching the calendar," he said.

Not everyone standing in line at the store was aware the tags had gone on sale. But a couple of people argued that the animals have caused so many problems that Idahoans shouldn't have to buy tags to shoot them.

"A human being's going to have to be killed by one before they say, 'Open it up,'" said Jeannette Hathaway of Twin Falls.

Hunters were split on how easy their hunt would be. Standing outside Fish and Game regional headquarters near Jerome, Gene Dulling recalled recently stumbling on a pack in the Little Wood drainage and declared the canines wouldn't be hard to hunt. Others figure the wolves will catch on quickly.

"The first little bit will be easy because they're not shot at that much," said Gail Lewis of Jerome, adding the wolves will hopefully pull back into the backcountry once they realize what's going on.

Supporters of the wolf-reintroduction effort stayed largely quiet on Monday. One exception - Washington, D.C.-based Friends of Animals, led by Priscilla Feral - called for a national boycott on Idaho potatoes, criticizing Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's support of the hunt.

About 4,000 tags were sold statewide by mid-afternoon. Fish and Game Regional Supervisor Jerome Hansen said agency staff are hopeful the hunt will go forward, and are excited to both manage the wolves and offer the hunt as a recreational opportunity. Not sure how many people to expect Monday morning, the office set out coffee and zucchini bread for people standing in line.

"It's kind of a momentous day," Hansen said.

Come on boys, stop crying...all your type ever do is to analyze things to death...and never accomplish anything.

You'd think the lot of you are Democrats who work for the government, waiting for another government hand out...without a worry how, who or what will have to pay for it down the road. Hey, come to think of it, because of folks like you we're in the trouble we're in right now - with wolves destroying our other big game populations.

If you don't think so, then you boys don't get out much...do you?

Plan A is in place now...if Malloy screws it up...rest assured Plan B will take care of the problem.

Wolves are going to die.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Hey toby- like I said before- if I hear of one wolf shot anywhere near your pathetic ass, I will personally turn you in to the authorities- you are nothing more than a common poacher coward.

C'mon, hunters nor poachers nor both together can possible take as many wolves as the feds have killed. That is why you had them hauled in isn't it?

budpg...

Please do...then I can keep them busy while other concerned sportsmen knock a few more of the elk killing bastards off.

Takes more than the baby doll crying of an out-of-touch-with-reality anti-hunting enviro-nut to get someone arrested. Plus, there isn't enough jail space for all who are going to pull the trigger on a wolf this fall. Likewise, there's more law enforcement here that will side with hunters than you wolf huggers. You see, they hunt as well...and they are also sick and tired of the damage wolves are doing to our big game herds.

One of the local TV stations here in Missoula conducted a poll to see who was in favor of a wolf hunt and who wasn't. And 77% voted for the hunt, and just 22% voted against it...with only 1% undecided.

We might not get 'em all...but we're going to put one hell of a dent in their numbers.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby,
IF the hunt is stopped you will just roll over and stick your butt in the air just like always. All talk, no action.

Jeff E...

Just keep on thinking that way. Got a couple of really long range tactical rifles that need to be put to good use...and I know where there are four very brazen wolves that are already "targets of
opportunity".

I have a feeling you wouldn't know "action" if it ran up and bit you on the ass.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Personally I don't think Toby is big enough to hold a rifle, seems he has trouble marking the outhouse wall with what he does have. The mentality he shows is the same as the people that say they will start shooting cattle if the elk get the same treatment the Bison have been getting. Talk about childish.

You're right, Ann......chances are he was abused as a child. One of the symptoms of this type personality.

At this point in time Toby is the ONLY one to blame for Toby's lack of _________. (Any body can put anything in the blank. I leave that up to the reader)

People like this with "limited" capacity, usually aren't aware of the law and the phrase "conspiracy to commit a crime" doesn't register with them.

logger...

Some people, mostly wolf-hugging Democrats, aren't aware of our constitutional rights, or the phrase "The freedom of speech" and the right to express oneself. (I'm sure you usually let your socialistic leaders do all of the thinking for you...and believe all of their b.s. that flows your way.)

"I think we need to kill all of the wolves."...

There, I said it. I know, you'll come back and say I'm illegally fanning the flames for an armed revolution. But you know, our Constitution covers that as well...and why we have the "Right to keep and bear arms." But, I wouldn't expect you to have much faith in out constitution...being a socialist and all.

Ann...you live in a blank.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby,
((IF)) the hunt is stopped by court action, WHAT will YOU do?
Be a man for once in your life and spit it out. WHAT WILL"YOU" DO?
My guess is wag your butt in the air.

Bennett, Thanks for the clarification of your first comment. Now I understand its context, and it makes more sense. Being agnostic, does not mean athiest or non-religious. The definition is alot more complex, but it is accepting of other spiritual viewpoints, whether Nez Perce, any other tribe or other religions of the world.

Sadly, I do not know what the tribal interests are regarding reintroduction, throughout the West. It has not popped to the surface in any of the writings or dialog I have seen. And, I do not know where to look for it. I do not even know if the view is consistent among all tribes.

I admire and even support the wolf cultural importance to native people and think it should be considered with some weight. It does not come under the Endangered Species Act, except where tribes may be involved in management - and they are. The key issues are still genetic exchange and responsible management plans.

However, I still stand by my observation (not necessarily my preference) that management of wolf numbers and the extent of their range will largely be determined by economic/political factors as well as perceptions (valid or not) that wolves are dangerous to humans, or more importantly, their property, in most wolf - human conflicts. And then, there is the "wolves eat alot of elk" issue. Those are not current folklore, but rather supported by imperical observations and a growing body of research.

In the end, answer will be framed by what the Endangered Species Act requires for this Distinct Population Segment. In the short term, Judge Molloy will tell us whether the hunt will go forward.

its sad that with all the management expertise from the idfg, usfws, and other state and federal agencies this decision would come down to one judges choice. this judge will not be objective, he is an activist.
without the management hunts now slated for both idaho and montana, hunters, and ranchers, and citizens will take things into their own hands.
with a legal limited controlled hunt there would be data and feedback. without that hunt all there will be is chaos and endless investigation. wasting time and money looking for missing radio collars, carcasses, and attempting prosecutions. not to mention that our govt will have to step up their own wolf control, by killing wolves themselves and with bounty hunters after the conflicts.
conflicts and populations are increasing geometrically and for anyone to beleive that this can continue unchecked is in lala land.

Very well said Dave.

Psychopathic Wolf Haters aren't very much higher on the evolutionary scale than the wolves they hate. Like wolves, they fly into a paranoid, testosterone induced rage when they notice a competing predator in their territory who might steal "their prey" and they attempt to annihilate the intruder immediately.
Most Native Americans take a dim view of the attempted extermination of the Wolf because their tribal memory includes a time when Psychopathic Indian/Wolf Haters stole their territory and attempted to exterminate them.

For those of you who believe wolves do not attack people, this last week outside Erzincan Turkey wolves attacked thirteen people in three different villages. Now, I know this is not the United States, but it does serve as one more datapoint, showing that, in fact, wolves do attack people. In this instance, there were at least four children involved, as well as a few people in their 60's.

So for Bennett Larrson Barr and a few other nay sayers, who believe European and Asian fear of wolves is based entirely on folklore, I call B...s....! The big question is whether the wolves had rabies. If so, that would explain the behavior. For those attacked, I bet they simply don't care what the reason - they were attacked by wolves.

Jeff E...

I certainly hope you are better at picking lottery tickets than you are at guessing what I'll do IF the wolf hunt is stopped by Judge Malloy.

I've got one .308 Norma Magnum tactical rifle with a 7-30x50mm scope aboard that can keep carefully crafted handloads inside of 3 inches at 300 yards...

This is one serious long-range rifle that's capable of taking a wolf out at 600...700...maybe even 800 yards. And I'd like to thank the U.S. Marine Corps for making sure that I have the same capability.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

toby- let's be real. i don't think you could take out a chipmunk in a locked closet with a grenade. Have you been reading those gun mags again?

No Bud...

I write for them...and books on shooting too.

Toby
LOBO WATCH

Who would sell a .308 Norma Magnum tactical rifle to a brain dead ex-jarhead?

Toby,

I have visited the website for your organization, lobowatch.com, and been amazed and shocked at some of the things you have in print there, as well as what you have posted on this website. You have idenified yourself by name, your views on possible illegal hunts of wolves, the weapon you would use to kill one or more wolves, and even posted your picture, and antagonized other posters. You seem to think all this is in the spirit of freedom of speech. When speech turns to action, you will have a problem.

Quite frankly you lie as much as some of the wolf advocates, and that does a gross dis-service to many, many sportsmen and hunters, who do not share your views. You slam the USFWS, which has for the last several years, made good faith attempts to delist wolves in both the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes, only to be stopped by well funded wolf advocacy groups in federal court.

It is misrepresntations such as yours, and the radical action you advocate that denigrates all hunters and that is a shame. You certainly do not speak for me, or thousands of other hunters in the West.

Now that I know what you look like, if I see your sorry a... in the woods near an illegally killed wolf I'll step to the front of the line to see that you are prosecuted.

Better yet, if you feel so strongly about your protest of government, why don't you take the carcass of a wolf you shoot, to the federal courthouse steps in Missoula and wait for the law enforcement authorities to take you in, as CBear suggested a few posts back. I think that will get you the publicity that your ego seems to need, along with a stiff fine and maybe jail time. I'm thinking you could use time behind bars.


Oh, yeah, you are either a genius for your effort, or dumber than a rock. I vote the latter.

oh by the way toby- i talked to 3 law enforcement people from the usfws that wanted as much information as I could give them about you and your website yesterday. I couldn't have said it better than archdruid just did- Have a nice day! Keep talking!please!

Toby - you certainly are a piece of work. I am no fan of wolves in larger numbers, but your over the top methods and advocacy for illegal killing of wolves is no solution. And, you defame hunters in general. Wake up you moron.

Archdruid...

Now, there's a name I'll bet you can live up to.

Yadda...Yadda...Yadda...

Hell, I argue these things with fish and wildlife people every day...and I make no qualms that I would shoot a wolf. I also send links to it all to those who work with the western wolf recovery project, Ed Bangs, Western Wolves, Western Environmental Law, and to quite a few state senators and sate representatives.

I'm not so cowardly as to hide behind a phony internet name, such as the likes of you, budpig, and a few others here. I advocate killing wolves...and getting their numBers down to where they belong. And I don't give a damn who knows it. In fact, I want them to know it.

Budpig - you might want to call those three USFWS law enforcement people you supposedly talked to and tell them they must have been asleep at the wheel...as usual.

Here in Missoula, one of our television stations (KPAX) ran a poll on the wolf hunt...77% said yes, it needed done...just 22% said no...and only 1% remained undecided. Believe me boys...there's a virtual army out there that's ready to take action to stop wolves from destroying a hundred years of conservation work to rebuild big game populations...and quite honestly, the majority really doesn't give a damn if there's an official season or not.

USFWS had better deploy every law enforcement officer they have to the Northern Rockies...in Idaho and Montana alone there will soon be close to a half-million deer, elk and other big game hunters out there...and any wolf that gets in their way could be in real danger.

I certainly hope so. Life was pretty good without them. And I feel better days lay ahead - again - with wolf numbers being managed at extremely low population levels.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Well Toby, USFWS is just doing what federal law required, under the ESA. Seems to me they have been very deliberate about what they want to accomplish - false starts and all in both the Great Lakes and NRM, mostly caused by the wolf advocates (which I really do not like).

Just what is it about the USFWS that you specifically do not like, in how they did the reintroduction? And, how would you meet the ESA obligations without changing the law (because that will not happen in the short term)? I truly am interested in ideas.

People like Toby usually end up hoist on their own petard. Let us hope.

What sticks in my craw most about USFWS is that they are not much more than a big bunch of liars. They repeatedly lied to the American public about the impact wolves would have on other wildlife populations...not to mention cattle and sheep production - which much of the West relies on for its economy. They also lied about the numbers it would take to sustain a viable wolf population. And they even lied about the genetic purity of the wolves released in some areas - relying on wolf-dog and wolf-coyote crosses.

If you don't think so, then you are either in denial...or just really don't know as much about what's taken place during this wonderful fiasco as you think you do. Fact is, there are many more wolves than the USFWS is admitting to. If you don't think so, it's just a sign that you don't get outta the house enough to see and realize their impact. One area here in Montana where for the past couple of years I could spend a weekend and see 5 or 6 moose is now pretty much a moose desert now. Likewise, in several areas where, a couple of years ago, I could spend a weekend scouting for elk and easily see 30 to 50 elk, it's now damned hard to even find an elk track.

But, I will tell you what I have seen way too much of this year has been wolf scat laced with bone shards and elk hair.

The project's coordinator, Ed Bangs, has even been quoted saying that it is alright to lie to the public if it is in the best interest of the project.

It's time the USFWS begins telling the truth.

By the way, Mr. Archdruid, my guess is that you work for the government...and are already well aware of these USFWS lies.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

A situation like the killing of 120 breeding rams that just occured in Montana is going to cause a real rebellion if Malloy decides he is going to kiss up to the enviros and prevent hunting and delisting. No one should have the right to impose that kind of damage on other folks just for their own entertainment.

Toby,

Don't be so quick to judge me. I do not work for the government. I think there are way too many wolves, and at least twenty percent more than the confirmed "official numbers" the states and USFWS are using. This number is consistent with what Dr. Mech said under oath in the Montana suit last year.

I also think the reintroduction and delisting has been botched for a long time, and management needs to be in the hands of the states immediately. Even if those idiots in WY can't play, it seems USFWS could delist and retain management authority under some kind of interagency agreement. We are at least three years behind on delisting.

The Dept. of Interior lawyers are far out classed and less competent than the lawyers for pro wolf groups. Had the USFWS been properly advised about the legal problems likely to be anticipated during the rule making, delisting and forthcoming litigation, we would be much closer to having them delisted and under state management. Some of these problems were very obvious and not addressed. If these government lawyers had been in private practice a client would have a basis for malpractice.

Judge Molloy, like him or not, is not the only decision-maker here. His decision, on appeal, will likely be reviewed by a panel of federal appeals judges in Denver. Trial court judges don't like to have their decisions overturned, and the case last summer seemed to be running in favor of the wolfie plaintiffs. I doubt being a Clinton appointee or activist judge had much to do with his decision. What is different about this newly filed case is the issue of designating the NRM wolves as a Distinct Population Segment simultaneously with delisting them. That may not be permissible under the ESA, and was the basis for the delisting to go sideways wth the Great Lakes wolves in a suit filed in Washington DC. There are also some other complications, other than the "lack of genetic exchange" which USFWS will likely be able to show this round.

Regardless I hope Molloy allows the hunts to go forward. Maybe this news of the big sheep kill outside Helena will be the catalyst for that to happen. If the livestock interests are smart they will ask the judge to hear evidence on the kill at the hearing on Monday, and if the livestock owners are not yet a party to the suit they should be.

All this being said, Toby, I still think you are way out of bounds with your advocacy. And you do the movement to delist a disfavor by your self-centered approach.

The hidden agenda of all this is something much bigger. It's a known fact that organizatons like the Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the United States, and more than a dozen others are staunch anti-hunting groups. And they will stop short of nothing to put an end to sport hunting - and this idiotic wolf reintroduction is proving to be a pretty good tool for them to accomplish that goal.

The elk harvest by hunters in Idaho has dropped nearly 40-percent since the start of the wolf reintroduction. And hunter interest in pursuing elk from a fast dwindling elk population is beginning to drop as well...plus the number of permits, especially cow tags, are also on the decline. The same thing is just now starting to happen here in Montana, and in the Yellowstone area of northwestern Wyoming.

If these enviros, and the not-so-innocent USFWS, get their way...and eventually manage to reintroduce the wolf to all of its historic range (which is just about the entire United States), and those packs are also allowed to destroy other wildlife populations (specifically whitetail deer) uncontrolled and unmanaged, there will no longer be a need for those of us who hunt - the wolves will fill that predatory role and keep big game populations pulled down below a level which would still permit human hunters. And that's exactly how the so-called environmental groups and organizations would like it - no matter how many elk, deer, moose, and other big game animals have to be sacrificed.

Just read the article about the 120 sheep killed by wolves near Dillon. If Malloy allows the over-paid heads of organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Earth Justice, and other similar out-of-touch-with-reality groups testify at Monday's hearing...but refuses to listen to ranchers who are being severely impacted by wolves - he needs to be investigated. $omething $mell$ $oured in Mi$$oula!

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH


Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Huge sheep kill was outside Dillon, not Helena. Accurate facts are important.

This is a classic, BUT HUGE, case of surplus killing and I cannot wait to hear the biologists' explanation for this one.

I don't really agree with vigilante law taking the law into our own hands, but certainly share Toby's frustration with the stupidity of the situation. I do believe Malloy is an environmental stooge.
The Wyoming plan is the only sensible plan and the only one that can keep the wolves down to reasonable numbers.
This whole idiocy is not only to prevent hunting, but ranching, too many folks make nop connection between a steer adn a steak, they think they are grown at the grocery store.
This whole wolf thing is exactly why Americans must not accept another pig in the poke in the form of the health care plan written by lawyers. We were told that we were to have 300 wolves in the 3 states total, now that we have in the neighborhood of 10 times that we are told, 300 was where they would start to think about considering how many they would demand before delisting. It was written by lawyers who said one thing and meant another.

Todd, I don't think the reintroduction plan was the fault of the the government lawyers. Back in 1987 thru 1995 and the time of reintroduction it was the biologists who were calling the shots, because they didn't think it was such a big deal. The lawyers were called in after the wolves were out of the pen so to speak, and then they botched the job. That was the problem, according to Archdruid, and I happen to agree with him/her.

It would certainly help the entire situation if people that claim to be advocates of this issue would take the time to actually educate themselves. No matter where you stand on the issue lets start with the fact that in 1984 President Reagan put the whole thing in motion and go from there.

By the way Todd you never answered. Is toby who you would have represent you in court Monday

the killing of 120 rams in the dillon area now has drawn a new line in the sand. the feds removed/ killed one wolf only. this one superwolf took out 18,000 pounds of animals in one night, if we are to beleive only one wolf. or that amounts to 20 pounds for each and every supposed wolf in idaho/ montana. who could possibly not believe that wolves are killing machines, only killing for the sport,. not sustenence
well now you can be sure that many wolves will be killed,,, legal hunt that is controlled or managed,,,, or not.
judge molloy is going to become irrelevant soon. populations and conflicts growing geometrically. the killing of wolves is inevitable , legal or not.

The amount of subsidies (welfare/your tax money) this farmer/corp has received 1996-2006 for operations in Beaverhead county. There are also operations in Madison county that also recieved monies above this amount.

Beaverhead County, Montana $828,170 Rebish & Helle
Dillon, MT 59725

How much govt. welfare did any of you receive during the same period?
Does this excuse having sheep killed on private property?
No.
Should we all be aware of this information.
Yes

Care to be a little more detailed regarding the nature of the "subsidies" Jeff. Can you put it in context for us so we know what it is for, as well as your source. I am not being critical, only wanting to have better source information. Thanks.

jeff eee,

what does that have to do with anything ?

now the defenders of wildlife will have to pay up.

dave
I could give a shit whether DOW pays up or not.
It does sound like from your response that you have no problem with welfare.
You choice I suppose.

Details, Jeff, details...pretty pleeze?

Crop Summary for Rebish & Helle

Crop Payments
1995-2006
Wool Subsidies $240,265
Wheat Subsidies $182,911
Barley Subsidies $172,914
Livestock Subsidies $77,169
Sheep Meat Subsidies $66,369
Counties where payments were made from

County Subsidy Payments
1995-2006
Madison County, Montana $16,742
Beaverhead County, Montana $828,170
Total $844,912

and another branch of the family

Crop Summary for Rebish & Konen Livestock

Crop Payments
1995-2006
Wool Subsidies $89,155
Livestock Subsidies $74,783
Sheep Meat Subsidies $44,799
Barley Subsidies $7,446
Oat Subsidies $690

CBear stated...

"Back in 1987 thru 1995 and the time of reintroduction it was the biologists who were calling the shots, because they didn't think it was such a big deal."

"because they didn't think"...and they're still not thinking!

Well, the problem has become an extremely big deal.

Dave sees the situation as it is. There are hundreds of thousands of sport hunters in Idaho and Montana...and they are not going to sit idly by and do nothing - no matter what the U.S. District Court decides Monday.

I won't know what that is until Wednesday...I'm going fishing in the backcountry, plus hoping to see a few elk, moose, whitetails, mountain goats, and maybe some bighorn sheep - while there are still a few around to still enjoy.

And, I'll be packing my old Ruger .44 Mag just in case ol' Lobo comes close enough...to theaten me or my dogs that is. Self defense is a wonderful thing...more people ought to use it.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Well Toby, Lets hope you will see some big Horns, Because of the domestic sheep they (authoriteis) are now killing the wild sheep. Maybe you would have better luck just going and watching some local herder herd his domestic. And you can fish from his 'pond'. Seems a more fitting weekend in the 'back' country for the likes of ewe.

Now Ann...

I'd bet that seeing the "BACK country" for you and your significant other has something to do with having a fling wolfie style.

You really ought to get out of the house...there's a great, big country out there to enjoy.

Rest assured, I'll be doing some scouting for the upcoming wolf hunt as well.

Back Country Ann...I kinda like that name.

Well, Ta Ta, Got To Go...A good drive and several hours of hiking to get in before evening...and the days are getting shorter. The two dogs are already in the truck, chomping at the bit to get back on the trail...they love getting out as much as I do.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Well Toby Enjoy your back country trip. I live in it so all I have to do is step out the door. Unlike you I'm not afraid of anything in the back country except the humans that THINK they are back country 'woodsmen'
You can save your snide remarks for someone that might care what you think. As for me, I've seen enough of your 'type' to last 100 lifetimes. All tough when they are packing but whimpering in a corner when they are 'unarmed'

Wolves are going to die said a cowardly yellow cur.

Hey Ann...when it comes to snide remarks, you should know. You sure like to throw them around...but just can't stand it when someone throws 'em back at you.

Horst...Horst...Horst...

Stop living in the past...wolves are dying. The sportsmen of this country have had their fill of those who do nothing for conservation...then feel compelled to step in and take over. Well, wolf management has started...and several in Idaho have already bitten the bullet.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

When we moved into the wolves domain, did they hunt us. When we destroyed their areas that the hunt for food, did they shoot us. But,
our answer to them is get rid of them. I was taught at a young age to respect nature and take careof it. Malama the Aina. In other words take care of the land and it will take care of you.

Yes, Emerald dear, the did hunt us and still have in some places. Remember the young man in Canada a couple of years ago that was killed and eaten by a pack of wolves?

By Diamond, what I was trying say is there other ways of keeping the population in control, but killing is not the answer. What not trap them spray or neuter and then release them. Why, do we have to kill till we have to take pictues or go to museum to see what they look like. I have problems trying to visually explain to my grandchildren about things we had when we were younger. Can you see yourself trying to tell the next generation about wolves and how we kill them till they were all gone. We, as humans have the brains that God gave us to solve problems. But, we alway seem to take the easy way out. Aloha Pumehana

Emerald...

You really do not have a clue about life do you?

You need to see a deer with its ass eatin' out by wolves, then left alive to die slowly...or a dog that's had its guts pulled out by wolves...or a cow elk that has had its unborn calves ripped from its body by wolves.

The point is, those of us who live in the Northern Rockies cherish many things far, far more than a bunch of mongrel wolves running around and destroying all other living things. Wolves are as much a pestilence on the land as cancer is to the human body. Do you advocate stopping all research to put an end to cancer?
After all, in its own way, cancer is a living thing.

The very, very last time that wolves went totally unmanaged by man was before man set foot in this hemisphere. Since, man has made efforts to control all things that have a negative impact on quality of life - especially if it threatens a food source. Even the American Indian practiced some forms of management to insure that there were plenty of buffalo, elk and deer to feed their people.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby, you said that I did not have a clue about life. You do not know me and yet you have decide that since I don't agree with you that I do not have clue. I have you ever seeing an animal being shot from a helicopter and got only wounded and not kill instantly. I have seeing eradication of sheep,goats and pigs. Where they are just slaughtered and the meat is just thrown away. Yes, Indians did form some type of managment, but they did in a humane way. Not totally destroy all things.

A'hole Pilikia

Sorry, Emerald, the American Indians ran herds of buffalo off cliffs, and you can bet they didn't die instantly. Was it wrong? Of course not, folks had to survive the best way they could. The same is true today.
No one today is destroying everything, we are trying to keep a balance. Unfortunately the wolves were taken from their wilderness home and brought in to entertain environmentalists, knowing they would prey on livestock and have to be killed. If you must blame someone, blame those who demanded wolves be moved into populated areas where conflicts were inevitable.

Todd,

I Totally agree with everything you wrote. Yes, maybe the Indians
did what you said, but that does not mean we have to behave in the same manner. With all we know or should know, we keep making the same mistakes. Does history have to repeat itself or do we stop it and change.



Mahalo Nui

Emerald,

When all the people are gone from the face of the earth, then just perhaps the animals can rule this planet in total harmony.

What do you propose we do with all the people?

I'm sorry, but you suffer from a severe disorder known as Walt Disneyopia...the unrealistic view that without people, all things will live in harmony.

You don't know me either...but as a United States Marine in Vietnam, I'm sure I witnessed one hell of a lot more guts and gore than you've ever seen. I know a bad thing when I see it...and wolves have no place in a settled community. And the Northern Rockies are a settled community.

Hey, just how much of your hard earned income have you spent on real conservation? Quite honestly, unless you've bought a hunting license or two in your life, you haven't spent a penny. If you donate to organizations like Defenders of Wildlife or the Humane Society of the United States...you have not donated to conservation...you just helped pay for a new Mercedes for one of their top officials.

Like I said, you do not have a clue about life.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby, I guess you are very angry person. Your writing shows it. If I do not agree with you give a label. What you do not know about me is that I do hunt. We feed our family with what we catch, we take only what we can use and no more, I also fish and again we only take what we need. My Husband is also a Vietnam Vet. I lost family members in Vietnam. So, don't judge me. Because I don't like killing animals just for the hell of killing. And just for your infomation I have never been to Disney Land. So take the burn. And, your name lobo watch matches you. Lone Wolf

Okole

Thank you Emerald,

I'll take that last comment as a compliment.

The one thing I have learned about you so-called environmentalists is that you certainly do not let telling lies get in the way of trying to get things just the way you want. So, you are a hunter, and you feed your family by hunting. You try to talk the talk, but I certainly doubt that you can walk the walk.

The wolf recovery project has been riddled with lies since the begining. Many of the so-called "wolves" released were nothing more than mongrel hybreds - wolf-dog and wolf-coyote crosses. USFWS lied about the genetic purity of "their" wolves. The USFWS also lied about their goal - 300 wolves in three states. And that agency continues to lie about the number of wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains today.

And yes...that makes me angry.

Clueless and self-serving ($$$) organizations like the Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club and the Humane Society of the United States have repeatedly intervened in the delisting and management of the wolf...and now our elk herds are nose diving...due to wolf predation...because wolf managfement was not started when it should have been...about 6 or 7 years ago.

And yes...that makes me angry.

Then, we have folks who don't even live where there are wolves, who are not (yet) feeling their negative impact on other wildlife or ranching (food source) jumping in and supporting the non-management of this apex predator.

And yes...that too makes me angry.

But, in this sense, I am not a Lone Wolf. Hundreds of thousands of true hunters and sportsmen in the West have had their fill of this foolishness. And they are angry too.

Wolves are going to die...some already have. Like tens of thousands in Idaho and Montana, I've bought a wolf tag...and I leave later today for several days of hunting, to do my best to kill a wolf - one that if left alive would kill between 22 and 36 elk in just the next 12 months.

My guess is that you really don't live where there are any wolves do you? And your idea of hunting is probably hunting for bargains at the Super Market.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby, your statement from above:

"The wolf recovery project has been riddled with lies since the begining. Many of the so-called "wolves" released were nothing more than mongrel hybreds - wolf-dog and wolf-coyote crosses. USFWS lied about the genetic purity of "their" wolves."

Exactly, and I mean exactly, where does your scientific knowledge come from that leads you, or other reputable sources, to that conclusion?

Toby
I have decide not to get involved with anymore conversations. You have label me again. You justify your ramblings by calling me a liar. Again, you assume that you know everything about my life you know nothing. So, keep all your small thoughts about me to yourself. Aloha, have a good life. Walahau!!!!!

Folks, I don't know why anyone should be surprised that those who had wolves, lots of wolves shoved down their throats are angry. The wolves are being used to try to force folks off their land and out of business. The wolves are an entertainment tax on ranchers and hunters to benefit enviros, who have no investment and no accountability.
The really amazing thing to me is the business they want ended is raising food for our nation. The thing I find beyond beleif is that anyone thinks playing/recreation should have a higher priority than raising food.
Anyone who thinks there are not enough wolves needs to go to Yellowstoen and see what has happened to the elk & moose there. Tehy are at all time low numbers. Where will the wolves go when they can no longer find food there? Straight to family ranches. I think the people of the United States should sue the enviro groups to pay damages done by the wolves.

Scatcounter...

Where have you been? Heck, good ol' Ed Bangs even admitted to the crosses.

Of course, he also stated that it was alright to lie to the American public...if it were in the best interest of the Wolf Recovery Project. And throughout this whole fiasco, USFWS has done more than its share of lying...like how many wolves there really are.

Do some research.

Toby

Toby,

Nope. I'm putting that chore back on you. If you are going to make such bold statements you point out the source in writing so that others can verify the truth and veracity of the statements. You have come up with so much unsubstantiated lippy crap that you should be embarrassed, but you aren't. You also seem to think you are capable to speak for all hunters, and you are not.

You are the best advertisement the pro wolf crowd could have for their fundraising drives since, flash in the pan, Sarah Palin.

Scatcounter...

You're either lazy...or you know that the information is out there, and that the work to research it will only prove how stupid you really are when it comes to this entire wolf reintroduction disaster.

My feeling is, you actually work with the program, USFWS, one of the game departments that has also gone along with the federal lies, or in some manner with one of the enviro groups that keep intervening in managing wolf numbers.

I have bigger fish to fry than you. Remain ignorant of the facts, or get busy and do some research. I, or no one else, is going to do it for you.

Right now, I am working to get the entire shooting and hunting industry organized to file lawsuits against all the intervening environmental groups and the USFWS to recoup the
billions of dollars in damages "their wolves" have already inflicted on the other wildlife of the Northern Rockies and upper Midwest. The goal is to "take these groups to court"...to make them the
"Defendents"...and to make them responsible for paying huge sums of money to foot the bill for the new conservation efforts it will take to stop wolf predation and to bring our wildlife populations back to where they were before idiots released these killing machines into a settled community.

And, guess what, many of the leading firearm, ammunition, sporting optic, and hunting accessory companies are listening and agreeing. Seems there might even be a meeting in the not-so-distant future, perhaps at the SHOT Show in January.

It will be a hoot to put the Sierra Club, the Defenders of Wildlife, and others, plus USFWS on the defense for a while.

So, get busy boy, or girl, get off your lazy butt and learn more about why these organizations and your beloved USFWS are about to have the tables turned on them. Apparently you don't know enough about the issue to have any input of any real value...or, as already pointed out, you are part of the problem.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby,

I find it curious that you want me to prove an unsubstantiated statement you, yourself, made. I did not say I did not believe you, but I am skeptical of yourfacts. I would think you would jump at every opportunity to bolster your position. Again, if you state, "Many of the so-called "wolves" released were nothing more than mongrel hybreds - wolf-dog and wolf-coyote crosses. USFWS lied about the genetic purity of "their" wolves."

Where are the citations to this unconfirmed statement?
And, don't just say Ed Bangs told me. That won't cut it. Furthermore, I doubt he would say something like that. There have been scientists all over North America studying the genetic aspects of this reintroduction, and independent universities as well as government agencies. In any event, these wolves appear sufficient to satisfy the Endangered Species Act, requirements, for the USFWS, and that is, as far as I know, all that matters.

As for your assertion that I work for USFWS or one of the states, it really doesn't matter, regarding the questions put to you.

Yours is the first comment I have ever heard the term "billions of dollars of damages" attributed to wolves. Yet, one more unsubstantiated claim. And, I am thinking the hunting industry types you are courting are not going to put a dime into a project or a lawsuit unless there are some pretty good facts and law supporting your claimed view. And just who will be your lawyer, Toby? Or, have you thought that far ahead?

Dear scatcounter,

Thank you so much for your intelligent conversations base on facts. Please keep the good work. I really appreciate it.

What do you bet Toby will represent himself?

Wow

that guy toby is a fucking idiot.

Julse F Bear...

If you want to see a f#*%ing idiot...go look in the mirror...
you da man...or whatever.

Wolves are dying...aren't they guys? At last count, 72 in Montana...and 138 in Idaho. And many more will bite the bullet next year. My guess is that the more folks learn about the damage they cause to other wildlife, livestock and pets...the more intelligent Americans will call for drastic reductions of their numbers. I'd say eliminating 50-percent of them is about right. That's what it will take to stop further growth of wolf numbers.

Those who have really paid for conservation programs have grown tired of you phonies.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Save An Elk Herd - Kill A Wolf!

Julse F Bear...

If you want to see a f#*%ing idiot...go look in the mirror...
you da man...or whatever.


What? what a fucking idiot

i never even said i was against wolf hunting

but your a fucking angry neck douche bag

WAT IS THIS? You people are so friggin RETARDED y r u hunting these animals at all? Dont you all get fat enough off of the cow massacre used for ure mcdonalds? They were endangered, now they will be again because all you hunters are DUMBASSES. Dam, I'd love to line all of u right up and start a little hunting game of my own. How could you?? It is not all in the hunt, its all in hunter's BULLSHIT. I hope the Defenders of Wildlife kick ure ass, Idaho.

Furthermore, the wolves wouldn't BE a problem if we didn't MAKE it a problem. Just like natural disasters that could have been a lot worse. Are you people too dumb to look after ure pets and keep ure livestock safe? Or is every problem we encounter solved by vigilantes who have no idea what theyre doing as long as they can be trigger happy idiots? I just seriously can't take people's need to dominate everything anymore. Let the animals live. And I guess that just because wolves are hunting animals to SURVIVE and can't let the stupid hunters pull their trigger, it has to become a wildlife issue. Yay. I heard deer were a pest too just because they can come in ure gardedn and eat ure plants. That is the stupidest crap I've ever heard. Just let nature do the dam job it's been doing for millions of years AND SHUT UP. Dang. "Thou shall not kill" should apply to animals too, because lets face it, they cant talk- BECAUSE LANGUAGE IS NOTHING BUT A COMBINATION OF SOUNDS THAT WE MAKE. So i guess they can't have any rights because they cant speak our language. It's just like Hitler. Except with animals. Don't you hunters feel so good about urself, you killed a defensless animal.

Hey Freak...

Do you and Bear breed? I hope not...but you are both the epitome of the greenie environmental group followers. Don't know squat about anything...and don't mind showing your crude stupidity.

But, I can sure tell from your comments that the reality of it all has begun to set in...that the manner in which wolves are detroying wildlife populations has become unacceptable...and the tide of public opinion has turned in favor of greatly reducing wolf numbers.

Common sense is NOT one of the attributes that your side has been blessed with. I'll bet that you an Bear sit around in the evening holding greenie holy rituals, praying to the gods that the Yellowstone mega volcano explodes and rids the earth of all
human beings.

Keep one thing in mind. Neither wolves or humans are native to the North American continent. Wolves kill and destroy everything, until nothing is left. Is that your idea of the natural world? Humans are alsio destructive...but fortunately sportsmen were wise enough to fund modern conservation, which brought elk, deer, moose and other big game populaitons back to record numbers. Your friends at Defenders of Wildlife haven't done squat when it comes to real conservation. They are as phony as you two.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby,
two? Theres two of me??? O.o Ok... Now, then, if we didnt kill wolves like idiots, we wouldnt have to reintroduce them. Lions destroy. Tigers destroy. (Its called hunting prey) Or do they not, because we dont have any cities built on their land? Fact of the matter- Wolves deserve to live anywhere they can, just as humans do. So does any creature. We destroy. We destroy what doesnt have to be destroyed. I dont see anyone hunting people or reintroducing them to a new area. Why is that? Lets face it, people need a serious attitude check. I heard the Gulf of Mexico oil spill could have been prevented if the stupid suit didnt make them keep drilling.

Money.

That's why we make buildings, drill for oil, mass produce meat, chop down forests, advertise, and anything else economical. Sadly, our little economy is still in deep shit as we continue to take down our natural world with it. And so I respect nature like I should. Do you? Or do you just criticize everyone who does? Besides. Common sense may be the thing I still hold on to. Common sense and intelligence dont mix, so am I stupid, or do I lack common sense? you cant have both, and you cant go without one. And for all I know, I'd be hanging out with foxes. They get hunted for a reason that has no more worth than a pile of shit. I can see how much your kind loves $$$ and how little you respect creatures that were here way before you, and know more about living here. Way to go, pathetic slob.

Freak;

You've never ever bought a hunting license have you? If you haven't, then you've never ever spent a penny on wildlife conservation. Period.

Do you live in house? Do you wear store-bought clothes? Do you drive or ride in a car? Do you watch television? Do you buy your food at the market? Do you use a computer? (Well, that last one is evident that you do.)

If you do any of these things...you are a phony. You cannot be the all natural human being you try to depict, and still rely on "produced" products. Unless you live in a natural cave, wear clothing made of leaves and bark, carve your footwear out of wood, and bathe with sand...you are one great big phony.

Hey, do you use corn cobs to wipe your ass?

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

uh... Toby?
Ive read the comments before...
I can see people think ure talking out ure ass, and I must agree.

By Julsie F Bear, 12-29-09
Wow

that guy toby is a fucking idiot.

Pfft. Haha.
Sand is actually a natural softener. I'd gladly live away from people. Clothes... Hmm, I can only imagine theyre made of a plant called COTTON.
Well, seeing as we grow that everywhere, no need to say that we're running out of it. In fact, India produces quite a lot of it. Go rag on them about their store bought clothes. They made this cool new thing called a bike. An older one, a scooter. It migth help all the horribly fat people in the world.
Why oh why
would I buy a license if I dont believe in hunting as a sport? (MAJOR bullshit right there...)
Its called the cute little fundraisers for wildlife. I can feel like Im not murdering someone (i repeat, someONE) and still donate. I do stuff all the time. What do you do? Sit around and try to reason with people that unless you buy a hunting license, you arent helping the enviorment? My ass.

Freak...

Clothes don't grow on plants. Clothes are made on man-designed, man-produced, man-operated machinery.

I think you and your lover Julsie Bear probably do hibernate together in a cave.

When I read a treatise on how you saved the environment by smoking lots of whacky weed, then I might feel you made a contribution to conservation. But, right now, you and those like you are just a bunch of freeloading bums...who like to bitch and moan a lot, but really do nothing to support conservation...except maybe to wear their unwashed man-made clothes until they actually rot from their bodies. I'll bet you use a chunk of horse shit to bathe with...but it still probably makes you smell better than "normal"...for you anyway.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby...
Im questioning your age, because your immaturity amazes me.
And its not just Julsie ive seen.

By CBear, 8-24-09
Gee Toby, If you really wanted to make your point, you would shoot your wolf and carry the carcass to the federal courthouse steps and wait for the federal marshal or other law enforcement to arrest you.

Doing it your way scares the h.... out of me, and is kind of disinegenuous to the cause, truly illegal (if delisting gets stopped) and maybe even un-American. Get some cajones, dude.

By JEFF E
Toby,
((IF)) the hunt is stopped by court action, WHAT will YOU do?
Be a man for once in your life and spit it out. WHAT WILL"YOU" DO?
My guess is wag your butt in the air

As far as Im concerned, Im getting nothing but hot air from you. Use that head, there. You're probably the biggest hypocritical moron here. Now that that's settled, I see that your ways of bathing in sand or whatever are rather blind. If you're so focused on people unable to live off the land correctly, let me remind you that bathing causes for water, and I see a lot of water. Imbecile. Anyway, I STILL don't understand how buying a hunting license could help the wildlife conservation thing. (Wouldn't need to happen if we weren't driving animals out of their poor homes now would it?) Clothes. I can only think cotton and silkworms might help. Lets face the obvious- Wolves. Do not. Destroy jack SHIT. Compared to people. And they never. ever. ever. Will. Maybe if we keep them where theyre supposed to be instead of hunting(which is nothing but a bullshit sport consisting of a waste of time and lives both animal and human) I'd say this whole thing is man's fault to begin with. Wouldn't smoking weed be bad for the air? (You know, smoke? Care to crawl out from your rock?)
Your lack of common sense- created by a mind cluttered with useless info. Congratulations, care to step into the animals' shoes?

No.

Ure too comfy with your precious man made life.

Like I said...not one of you phonies live a true natural lifestyle. You rely on all the same amenities as those of us who choose to be man enough to go out and kill our own meat. Face it, Freak and all the other freaks who think the same way as you, you would have straved to death Back int he days when people actually lived off the land.

When it comes to immaturity, you guys are the one who constantly show your asses.

Hey, here's something I'll bet you guys didn't know. Guess where USFWS got the money to fund the Wolf Recovery Project??? You know that Congress denied funding for the project...didn't you? Well, when that agency was refused federal money for bringing in Canadian wolves, guess what, USFWS just stole that money. That's right, the agency just dipped deeply into the Pittman-Robertson funds that by law were to ONLY be spent on wildlife habitat and fisheries improvement. Okay Boys, Girls and Freaks...you do know what the Pittman-Robertson Act is...don't you? You know, it is the excise taxes collected on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, fishing gear, etc. - a tax that was self imposed by sportsmen to help fund wildlife habitat & fisheries improvement. (That's something your side wouldn't know anything about...you're just a bunch of freeloading bums.) Well, when your gal at Defenders of Wildlife, Jamie Rappaport Clark, became the director of USFWS, she even helped herself to a bunch of that money - giving herself and other USFWS big whigs sizeable bonuses. Now, ain't that a hoot. The wolf recovery project has been funded by some of the $60- to $70-million dollars that USFWS embezzled from those Pittman-Robertson funds.

Just goes to show you, can't trust anyone any more - not in Washington D.C.

Oh yeah, did you also know that Ed Bangs also failed to complete and file the mandatory paperwork required to import those wolves
across the border? But, since it required the true number brought into the U.S., the exact species/subspeices, and the cost of the capture project, it's easy to see why Ol' Eddie didn't file Form 3-177. Then everyone would have known that the wolf being brought in was not endangered...or how many were actually dumped here...and would make someone question..."Where did they get all of those millions of dollars???"

I guess we now have to add theft to the lies and deceit of this illegal project. I have a feeling it will soon get even better. Damned if this ain't like reading a Stephen King novel.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby Bridges,

Well, if you have this all figured out - the illegal tapping of Pittman-Robertson and the bad paperwork for the wolf import, why don't you file suit against FWS and everybody involved?

You have been talking big about having the money and other resources to do it. Man up and get the job done, or shut your pie hole. ,

And exactly what are the damages you would seek in your suit? Or, are you going for an injunction of some sort? Do you want people behind bars?


And Toby, what happened to your mongrel dog argument from last fall. Did you finally figure out that your claim wasn't true?

See...look how you jump to unfounded conclusions. I never did say that "I" would file a suit. But, rest assured there is a lawsuit in the making...and its a dooosey!

State and federal wildlife agency people see the writing on the wall...and some are jumping ship. Some awfully great info is now
being shared. And rest assured, there will be some people doing some time behind bars.

Hmmmm! I wonder how Ed Bangs and Jamie Rappaport Clark look in a blaze orange jump suit.

I'm just into all of this for the satisfaction of watching your house of cards implode...and it's starting to get real shakey.

Hey, here's another tid bit of info I just learned. Xylitol sweetener is extremely toxic to canines...including wovles. When the word gets out, I'll bet there will be a lot of very sweet gut piles and wolf-killed carcasses out there this fall. Very little of the stuff will make a wolf's blood sugar level crash in about 30 minutes. A hunk of meat that's doused with Xylitol...or even the remains of an elk carcass that's sprinkled heavily can easily put enough into a wolf's system to cause severe damage to the liver.

Best news of all, Xylitiol is cheap. A whole pound of the stuff only retails for about $10 to $12 bucks. That'll sweeten up a whole lot of meat.

You guys just got too greedy. You shouldn't have pushed for wolf numbers that have resulted in the devastation of elk, moose, deer and other big game populations. Sportsmen were okay with the original number of wolves proposed...but your side had to push and push and push until numbers are now easily ten times the origianl goal. Hell, we would have even been okay with 600 wolves in all three states. But we sure as hell aren't going to put up with 3,000+ wolves. And if you don't think there are that many, then you are an even bigger idiot that you portray yourself. Now, wolf numbers are going to plummet even faster than elk numbers have.

Toby Bridges
LOBO WATCH

Toby,

You certainly inferred you were going to prepare to file one or more suits.

9-27-09 Toby Bridges:

"Right now, I am working to get the entire shooting and hunting industry organized to file lawsuits against all the intervening environmental groups and the USFWS to recoup the
billions of dollars in damages "their wolves" have already inflicted..."

What happened, did they figure out you are as nuts as everyone else believes? Billions, really?

Nope.

I said there would be a lawsuit, and that I would be a part of it.

My comments were that the shooting & hunting industry, a coalition of sportsman's groups, adn those just sick and tired of the greenie environmental groups' b.s. would pool theior resources...and that is comng together rather nicely.

My role has been to bring these folks together. Like I said, it's going to be a dooosey.

This comment thread has been closed because of multiple violations of our comment policy.