I'm a newspaper website in Spokane, Wash.!

Polldaddy
Check out Polldaddy, the most easy-to-use survey software around. Start creating beautiful online surveys today.

Create an Online Survey

Should Judge Donald Molloy grant the injunction to stop wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana?

Posted 8 years.

103 Comments

  • jewels - 7 years ago

    hi ive just cum across this site due to me havin an indian friend whom would love to go basck to her roots, trace back to her ancestors. whom once ran with the wolves so beautiful and now so rare. why take sumthing so strong and beautiful away from its homeland when for centurys this animal as struggled to survive and evolve just like us...its there land we are the tresspassers. if anything they got the rights to kill if anyone enters ther territory just like us. SO HOW BOUT FINDING SOME WERE ELSE TO RAISE YOUR CATTLE AND STOP INTRUDGING ON THE WOLVES LAND. IM SURE THEY JUST WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE NOW........

  • roundup - 7 years ago

    Have you ever seen an aniamal as it is being killed and eaten alive by a wolf. I wonder if the young teacher in

    alaska was crying when the wolves were eating her and pulling her from limd to limd in peices. How would you like

    to have that happen to one of the young, innocense people in your family? Think about it Judge Molley.Read the

    article in the Alaska magazine.Don't tell me they don't kill people because they sure do.All he is doing is trying to

    show his power and not what is best for the country ,

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Here's what wolves can do to cattle: http://www.huntwolves.com/cowkill-wyoming

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Mike,
    I just wanted to say thank you for posting the link to the Yellowstone Insider website. I've had a chance to read through some of the information they offer and it appears to be very informative and for the most part un-biased (from what I've read).

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Windwalker, I thought you might find this interesting. This deals with BLM Land, and I'm sure the US Forest Service, and State Land and other public lands handle the grazing of public lands similarly. I will say that BLM land and other public land is not always desirable (as far as tourism goes anyways). A lot of public land that is out on the prairie is not something a tourist is likely to go visit (I know this is true for states like Montana and Wyoming and I'm sure plenty of others). Now, the public land that is on the mountain is another story. You must also remember that there is also PRIVATE land on the mountain too. Not all mountain land is public. I think we all agree the mountainous areas tend to be where the wolves are going to be. But to try and tell me that this public land shouldn't be managed by ranchers, who do pay to lease the public ground for their use and pay taxes to already help support these public lands, shouldn't be allowed to do so is ludicrous. In the link below you'll see that the BLM Land is not just leased so ranchers can throw however many head of cattle they want on the land. The BLM is more strict than you think and I'm sure that goes for the US Forest Service and State Land too. Sorry to keep getting off on this tangent, but I had to post this link, and obviously some of my own comments.

    http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Sorry, I accidentally posted the same link twice. I didn't think it posted the first time.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Please check out this website, read the article, then get back to me. We should learn from what has and is happening in Minnesota. The man who wrote this and who was involved first hand is not just somebody throwing their thoughts out there.

    The man who wrote this is John Hart, he is a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Services program in Minnesota.

    http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/wolves_humans/perspectives/wolf_door.asp

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    I would like you all to read this article I found. Please pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs. This article talks about one wolf in particular in Minnesota. The man who wrote this is John Hart, he is a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Services program in Minnesota.

    This not somebody who is just throwing their thoughts out there. He actually knows what he is talking about.

    http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/wolves_humans/perspectives/wolf_door.asp

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Check out the video I found. I'd say most, if not all the animals in these videos are healthy and unlucky rather than sick and/or weak.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2MtSW3cs3o
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96YxxXEDT-s
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2xdRGQ4HT0

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Windwalker,
    Wolves do not hunt and kill just the weak and sick. There have been documented cases in which wolves kill and do not return to eat what they have killed AKA sport killing.
    "Our" Public Lands includes private individuals in case you didn't know. Private individuals pay taxes too.
    "Public Lands leased to private landowners, benefit private landowners and no one else." Excuse me, would you rather see the grass un-grazed and fueling forest fires? I would see that as benefiting everyone. Yes, there are people who do overgraze (both private and public); however, there are restrictions as to the number of cattle that are allowed on public lands. The number of cattle allowed can and does change throughout different years, usually because of drought.
    I am a hunter and I have to agree that people who hunt do tend to hunt from the top down, but I think that is because most people "want to get their money's worth". By this I mean, if I am going to pay $$ to shoot a deer or whatever, I want to make sure I am killing a lean, healthy animal that I can harvest the meat from. I would not want to shoot an unhealthy animal that I cannot eat. I'm not sure on all state hunting laws, but I do know that some, probably most, states require that you remove all usable, edible parts from the animal. Therefore, if you hunt and kill an unhealthy animal, what are you to do? You'd have to leave the animal lay? Right? This is debatable, but I'm not going any further.
    There are bad seeds when it comes to anything and everything. Unfortunately, people tend to form opinions around those few bad seeds out there. I've never came upon a carcass that I suspected was due to a hunter not harvesting the meat and/or just harvesting the head and rump. Not to say this doesn't happen, because I'm sure it does. However, I highly doubt it happens as often as you believe.
    I also have to agree though that sport hunting (human's who do this) does occur and there should be something done about it especially if the animal is not being properly harvested. I have discussed this several times with people I know.
    I also must agree that some hunters are exaggerating the effects of wolves on elk, moose, and deer populations. I do however think that wolves may be adversely affecting some of these populations in isolated areas. As a whole though I doubt the wolves are destroying these animals to the extent some hunters think.
    This is not a matter of making money like you are trying to make it into. Turning this into a tourism game is not smart. The purpose of reintroducing wolves was not to help tourism, it was to help control the elk population in Yellowstone, which it seems to have done. The USFWS is trying to help maintain a healthy wolf population, which includes making changes due to human interaction and other reasons. Let's face it, the human part of this equation is not just going to disappear.
    Scientific research has been done. The problem with some of it is that the scientists are doing the best to make projections or educated guesses as to what will happen in the future. I'm not going to lie, I think Idaho and Montana's wolf seasons will be a test. The data collected from this hunting season will no doubt be added to other data that has been collected over the years. What makes this hunting season difficult is that there has been no data regarding hunting wolves (obviously, since there has never been a hunting season on wolves). The only time wolves were ever hunted was when they were exterminated. The goal at that time was to exterminate them, that is why it happened. We can all look back at our mistakes and make changes. Let's not exterminate them, but let's not let them continue to populate out of control.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Here is a pretty good website I've found. I haven't had a chance to look through the whole site, but this page did grab my attention:

    http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/wolves_humans/perspectives/big_bad_wolf.asp

  • Windwalker - 8 years ago

    Then, there is man. Man not only kills any species he comes across for sport, he also kills his own kind as well.

    So yes, man will and has killed for sport and will continue to do so. Too many times, I have come across the remains of deer lying in the woods with noting removed but the head and a hindquarter. Anyone else who has spent their lives in the woods as I have, will have had the same experience too if they have lived long enough. A real hunter will be as angered by this action as much as I am.

    So let’s not get all confused, there is a difference in a hunter and a “sport killer”.

    So now that we understand all of these things, the question remains. What can we do that will help all of our species to remain and insure that they will last as long as man himself lives and walks on the earth?

    Maintaining that wolves kill the healthy bulls and bucks is not a sound argument. How many heads do trophy hunters take?

    Hunters want a compromise. OK, if you want the predators brought under control, then let’s bring the sport hunting under control as well. Fair is fair right?

    There is one fact that has either been ignored or neglected. Wolves will control their own population. Given time, they will seek and find a balance. Almost all wild animals will do this to a point.

    Now back to wolves killing cattle. If we stop leasing public lands to private individuals, then we can utilize this land as a wildlife buffer, nature based tourism, wildlife watching tourism and other non-evasive recreational purposes.

    WASHINGTON -- Calling national wildlife refuges "economic engines," Interior Secretary Gale Norton touted a report released Thursday that said the refuge system generated $1.37 billion in economic benefits in 2004.

    That is more than was generated by all Public Land grazing lease payments, which equaled $13,086,335.

    It does not take a lot to understand that the area, which will benefit the most people as well as the wildlife, is wildlife refuges on Public Lands.

    Wildlife Tourism generates billions of dollars as well in economic investment. Meaning that, it creates jobs, wildlife tourists spend money on equipment, lodging, food, and travel.

    Can Idaho and Montana really afford to miss out on this kind of economic development?

    Logically, wolves are more important to state and national economy alive rather than killing them.

    It is time that we look at this issue from the facts and not from the emotions. Lets be realistic and be educated on the issues.

    I urge that both sides of the isle back up and take a long look at the facts. Some things can be done with success, some things can not be accomplished in the short term.

    If we the People are going to continue to have a country that will be worth handing down to our grandchildren, we are all going to have to work together to accomplish this goal.

    As for the legislation that has been passed, I doubt that anyone believes that proper scientific research has been accomplished. It must be done in order to know the true level. That is what most of the Wildlife Organizations including ours has sought.

    Until this has been accomplished, then we are managing wildlife based on politics. This is exactly what almost annihilated the bison-bison.

    I respect everyone’s views. I may not agree with everyone, but I respect each and everyone opinion as long s it is expressed without disrespect to others.

    I also believe that unless we all learn to work together and find resolutions, that we stand to lose far more than just the endangered species that many of us have fought to preserve for a long time.

  • Womdwalker - 8 years ago

    The first thing I would like to say is that being vulgar and rude is not going to cultivate support on either side of the argument. It simply demonstrates a lack of vocabulary.

    There are many misconceptions on both sides of the isle. Many people on both sides of the argument have never even seen a wolf.

    We have been rescuing wolves for over twelve years now.

    It is important to remember that no species lives in a box.
    Wolves do not hunt for sport, they do hunt the weak and the sick. Rarely will they take on a strong adult animal, but it does happen though not often.
    The reason is simple. Survival. the Pack can not afford to lose members. Attacking a Bull Elk in his prime with a strong rack, would more often than not be a suicide mission.

    The exception is, when there is no other choice.

    Wolves will indeed kill cattle. Beef is not the food of choice, but an easy meal is an easy meal. We all like fast food once in a while.

    The solution to this problem can be greatly resolved easy enough.
    The majority of cattle killed by wolves are killed on public lands leased for grazing.
    OK..public lands belong to all of us. If people leasing public lands for grazing do not want their cattle exposed to wolves, then lets not lease OUR public Lands to Private individuals any more.

    Public Lands leased to private landowners, benefit private landowners and no one else.

    The income from the leasing of public lands will not even repair the damage done to range land. And don't bother telling me grazing doesn't harm range land. It most certainly does. I was a ranch hand myself when I was younger. I have seen the damage.

    Now lets clear up another fiction about wolves. First of all, wolves have NO fear of humans. They simply have no use for humans. Wolves are more likely to attack out of fear than to attack because they are not afraid.

    Real hunters who live off of the land and are not just out there to put a head on the wall know that strong natural predators, mean strong, healthy herds.

    The absence of natural predators, leaves selection solely in the hands of hunters who predate from the top down (Kill the strongest first).

    This means that more weaker animals survive than should, resulting in genetics from the shallow end of the gene pool.

    This is evident in herds that have been absent of natural predators for too long. The end results will be a gathering of the rack in bucks and bulls. Tines wil lgrow closer together at the tips, they will start to develop arch that extends out ward 30% or more above normal. The antler trunk size deprecates as well as over all body mass throughout the herd.

    A prime example of this kind of genetic degradation can be seen on a number of military reservations where there is a complete absence of natural predators as well as a ban on hunting.

    Now for those folks who want to ban all hunting.
    Sorry, that is an extinction road too. Before you fight for a total ban on hunting, maybe you might want to take a look at those same examples.

    A total ban on hunting with the absence of natural predators results in species genocidal evolution.

    In the real world a compromise between hunters and natural predators will not happen. Humans must be first.

    Sorry hunters, but yes hunting done incorrectly can and has and does lead to species eradication. Easter Bison case in point. Near extinction (Intentionally) of the Bison Bison.

    How do we fix what is wrong. And I think that most hunters and I mean real hunters understand that there is a problem.

    First I would like to qualify "hunter"

    A hunter is not someone who goes out and shoots just for the fun of it. A true hunter eats what he kills and never takes more than he needs. This is the way of the warrior. Regardless of what Race or Tribe he may be from. A true hunter will respect the land as much as the environmentalist.

    Those who go out and kill for the fun of it are the very worst of all predators. There are such animals

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    Good article about wolves

    http://www.yellowstoneinsider.com/issues/wolves/wolf-attacks-on-people.php

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    You people seriously need to quit acting like children and quit calling people names and cussing. Let's all act like adults here.

    I'm not saying you can't post it, I'm just saying you might want to think about why wolves aren't on the top 10. You obviously didn't read what I posted earlier. I'm not saying you shouldn't "fear" those 10 animals for your pets sake. What I'm saying is that wolves are much more of a concern in areas where there do exist and exist in large numbers (such as the Greater Yellowstone Area and other places wolf numbers are thick). Have you noticed where wolves live there aren't a lot of humans? But, a lot of them do have pets to you know. They should have the right to protect their pet if it is being attacked or harassed by a wolf as well as anyone else who may have a pet being attacked or harassed by a wolf. You have the right to kill those top 10 animals that attack your pet, correct?? Why shouldn't you have the right to kill a wolf if it is doing the same??

    I never said I'm better than others or thought it for that matter. Why do you all think you are gaining ground by putting words in my mouth? Or making fun of me? Or calling me names? Or cussing at me? Do you see me doing that to any of you?? NO.

  • Kim - 8 years ago

    Rodeoclown, there are people on sites that clam wolves will kill your pets and therefore that is a reason why wolves should be shoot. So, I posted what animals to fear as far as your pets are concerned. People need a prospective. Besides, I can post what I want! Don't bully me like you do a cow in your rodeo show. You JERK You think your better than others FU

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Kim,

    Who said that wolves were in the top 10 list of animals to attack pets? Besides that, most of the animals in that list will attack ANY type of pet. The wolves most likely victim (as far as pets go) would be the dog. For those of you who consider horses pets and not work animals, they would also be likely victims as well as other ungulate pets. There are also a lot more of those animals in the top 10 than there are wolves, so that is probably one of the reasons they fall in the top 10! There is a much more likely chance that one of the top 10 are gonna attack your pet, seriously think before you post random things like that.

  • Kim - 8 years ago

    Top 10 Animals To Attack Pets
    -----------------------------
    1. Snake
    -------------
    2. Coyote
    -------------
    3. Raccoon
    -------------
    4. Squirrel
    -------------
    5. Scorpion
    -------------
    6. Javelina
    -------------
    7. Porcupine
    -------------
    8. Ground Hog
    -------------
    9. Skunk
    -------------
    10. Rat
    -------------

    Wolf is not even on the list!!!!!

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    People can kill people for protection, I'll agree with that. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some kind of consequences, whether in the courts or personal issues. I was referring to people killing animals for protection. There is a certain point where it is accepted and there is a certain point where it is not. There is nothing black and white. Who's to say they were really protecting themselves? That is a question that will arise whether you killed another person or an animal for your protection.

    I can see where a court would/could find fault with a person who killed an endangered species because it was attacking their livestock though. In this case it can become an issue of trust and who to believe. People doubt one another and we surely don't trust one another very often either.

    Wildlife in America has been hunted for several hundred years, the only animal that I'm aware of ever becoming extinct or exterminated in areas is the wolf (in the US). The intention of allowing wolves to be hunted (or any animal for that matter) is not to "wipe out everything". Last I checked, BIOLOGISTS are the ones approving the hunting of wolves and other animals (USFWS or Game and Fish, whichever or both). Biologists are much more educated than you or I to make these kinds of decisions.

    I am in the middle. You can believe what you want. I'm not extreme right (where people think they have to kill all the wolves), but I'm sure not extreme left either (where people think nothing should be killed). I'd like to see wolves, but I'd like to see them managed...sounds to me like that's in the middle.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    I don't believe you! People can kill people if they are being attacked, that is ridiculous. No court is going to find fault with a person who is defending their life. You may think you are in the middle but you are not! I can admit I am not in the middle. Besides, you won the wildlife in America will be destroyed so be glad for the what man is accomplishing. People in Idaho and Montana can kill and wipe out everything then you can go ahead and kill one another. I don't care!

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    "People have always been able to kill for self protection so that is not an issue." Wrong. You can't legally kill an animal that is an Endangered Species or otherwise protected! Only now are they not Endangered Species. I do agree that they should have allowed ranchers to kill to protect their livestock, I think that would have made it easier on everyone.

    I have a problem with hunters claiming that the wolves are destroying the elk and deer. I do however believe this is true in some areas, but certainly not all areas.

    I don't like referring to myself as being one side or the other, I'm more in the middle. I do like wolves, that is where you are making the mistake. Please, quite putting words in my mouth. It's not "my side" it's the biologists who are making these educated and scientific decisions. Notice how the ones who are having a problem with all of this are mostly environmentalists and animal welfare groups and NOT biologists?

    In case you forgot, Idaho and Montana are not the only places where this wolf species is located. This particular wolf species is found in great numbers in Canada (where they came from).

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    I LOVE wolves. They have an energy and a spirit like no other animal. When they howl, it is like heaven to my soul. I see beauty, pride and strength in these animals and I see similar behavior in my dogs, which I also LOVE.

    So the word then is "management" that is where we mainly disagree.

    I disagree about inbreeding, I have had pure bred dogs that had a lot of problems, (the vet said they were do to inbreeding) but I don't care to go over that crap again.

    Your point about ranchers not having a lot of money, who does. No one wants to go into business and loss money but that is what happens in all businesses so, Grow up!

    I am surprised however that the law went to this extreme, to allow a wolf hunt. It would have been better for everyone, if they would have just allowed ranchers the kill to protect livestock. (People have always been able to kill for self protection so that is not an issue). Anyway, that would have made more sense because there is a clear reason why they are being killed. And we would not have these ugly trophy pictures displayed on the internet.

    Your side would say, they are being killed because there are to many, but what gives your side the right to make that judgement just because you don't like them. I can find many things I don't like about the world and those who are in it. Does that give me the right to go out and start killing?

    My opinion is that I don't think there are to many wolves in Idaho. So, I don't believe "management" is necessary. The numbers for the entire state is between 800 and 1,000 at best. That is NOT to many. That is actually very few for a species. So, we will NEVER agree on that point, and there is no use talking about it.

    We see things different and THAT is THAT!!!!!!

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    I'm not saying inbreeding can't become a problem, what I'm saying is that I don't think it's as likely as you make it seem.

    I found this from a study on some Scandinavian Wolves (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1629062):

    "This indicates that impact of inbreeding can vary substantially, even within the same species, depending on the random subset of genes from the source population drawn by the founders, and succeeding random drift. For the famous wild wolf population on Isle Royale in Minnesota, USA, 50 years after founding by only two individuals there still is only some indirect evidence of demographic effects of inbreeding (Wayne 1991; Peterson et al. 1998), but a detailed analysis of inbreeding, of the type demonstrated in this paper, has not been used."

    The wolves in Scandinavia (Norway & Sweden) became functionally extinct and then approximately 2 wolves immigrated to south-central Scandinavia (from the edge of the large Finnish/Russian source population) and began breeding. They started out with maybe 2, but probably no more than 6 wolves. Assuming that they were all genetically distinct, the numbers still are much less than half of the 14 genetically distinct wolves (assuming since they all came from different packs) that were brought into the Yellowstone area. Genetic variation between these wolves should guarantee them a long lasting genetically sound population especially if wolves keep migrating and moving around a lot.

    I think it would be smart if the USFWS did a study like this. However, it is obviously difficult to do with wild animals. There is not a controlled environment, where as the environment surrounding domestic or captive animals is much more controlled. Maybe they already did a study when they started with the original 14 wolves? I don't know.

    Yes I can see the difference between ranchers having problems and trophy hunting. However, the purpose of the wolf hunt is to manage the wolf population. I will agree that ranchers and hunters benefit, but so does the wildlife (not just the ungulates either, the wolves benefit too). I am glad Defenders of Wildlife are helping ranchers.

    Mike, you didn't answer my question earlier.

    Why are you so interested in wolves?

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    rodeorulz, I still think inbreeding can become a problem for any species. If cats are breeding with family members at some point there will be a problem. Different breeds of dogs, have inbreeding problems all the time. Look it up!!!

    I have only seen wolves at the zoo. They are always hiding, they look scared. It is not a good experience for me because I feel and see, the stress coming from the wolf. I want wolves brought to CA from Idaho and put into a preserve or into the wild whichever, I would love to see a wild wolf. I am not afraid of wolves at all but then I was raised in Oakland CA where we have 100 plus homicides a year, people killing people and 100s of pit bull maulings. Pits run wild in the streets and people just have to be careful, thats all. If you are scared it just makes the pit react worse. It's life in the city. Ranchers have to deal with life in the country. I live in a country setting now and there are a lot of coyotes.
    Neighbors tell me they see moutain lions in the hills behind my house. I hike there twice a day but I have never seen a one.
    No matter where you live there maybe some kind of problem. There are parts of Oakland, that have big RATS and people are afraid of disease. so, it is always something.

    Now you realize that we have gotten off track from the original problem, this wolf hunt. The wolf hunt is about TRACKING DOWN wolves that are living away from people, in forest and mountains and killing them. These are wolves that are NOT near livestock. If you want to allow ranchers the option of killing wolves that come near their livestock, then that would be different law. We are talking about this law, which allows hunters to track down and kill any wolf, even tricking wolves in order, to kill them. This law has is about trophy Hunting. The men right now that are killing wolves take pictures because the dead wolf is a trophy to them. That is what is happening right NOW with this wolf hunt. That is what we are NOT happy about.

    Can you see the differience between problems a rancher may have and trophy hunting?

    I know Defenders have been doing there best to help ranchers. I've seen it on there website and I have seen it on T.V. They use explosives to scare away wolves form livestock and pay ranchers for their losses.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Here is the wolf that was brought to Yellowstone and Idaho in the mid 1990's:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_occidentalis

    Here is the wolf that was probably there first:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_nubilus

    Note the size difference, among other things.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    I forgot to mention a couple of things.

    The wolf being introduced into Yellowstone also helped manage another animal, the coyote.

    The rancher's side of things...any loss is a great loss. If a rancher can prevent that loss, they will do anything/everything they can legally do. Minimizing losses is a big thing to ranchers. Being a rancher is not an easy job. You have to conquer losses every year (unfortunately). When something unexpectedly happens, maybe you lose a bunch of cattle to some disease you didn't know they had or a stray wolf comes in and kills a bunch of calves, the rancher feels sick and disgusted. Sick because there was nothing he/she could do to prevent the sickness until the problem was discovered and disgusted because a wolf that is causing problems to his/her cattle is still on the loose and probably causing or will cause someone else problems. A problem wolf is a problem wolf. The only method I've found that sounds possible (which was from a link someone on here provided) was the soft release method which sounds like it has an increased success for problem wolves, especially if they are released far from livestock.

    Most ranchers you will find are NOT rich people. The loss of a few animals might not seem like much to you, but it is to them.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    I am interested in wolves because I live in one of the states that has wolves. I grew up on a ranch, so I understand the rancher's side of things. I do hunt, but do not consider myself an avid hunter. I hunt for food and could care less about trophy hunting. I would love to see the wolf prosper (which it is!) and not be exterminated (which I doubt will ever happen); however, this does not mean that I want to see the wolf go un-managed.

    How about you? Why are you so interested in wolves?

    DNA was a concern in Yellowstone. They wanted to be sure they had genetically diverse wolves so that when it came to reproducing there was no inbreeding. Have you ever looked at a domestic dog's pedigree or a horse's pedigree? You will find that quite of few of these animals have multiple ties to the same dog/horse and sometimes multiple ties to multiple dogs/horses. The effects of inbreeding are apparently not that common with these two animals. The domestic dog I think is a prime example since it is a descendant of the wolf. Even if you look at domestic cats, you'll see the same situation. My parents have farm cats and they have kittens, sometimes there are even brothers and sisters breeding. Out of my lifetime there, I never once saw a deformed or handicapped kitten/cat due to inbreeding! I'm sure if I spent the time looking it up, I could find you some statistics of the probability of getting an animal with some inbred problem. Given these examples though I'd say the likelihood is still fairly small.

    They saw the wolf as needed in Yellowstone because of the outrageous elk numbers (because hunting is obviously not allowed in the park, so they couldn't use hunting to help reduce elk numbers). The wolves have helped fix the problem in Yellowstone. This does not mean that the rest of the area needed wolves to help "fix" any problems. I suppose this would be because hunting is allowed outside the park. They certainly have played an important role and I see no point in exterminating them (like so many of you believe is going to happen). They help balance out the ecosystem just like all other animals, even though they can be a nuisance to some people and animals.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    rodeorulz, may I ask why you are interested in wolves. Are you a hunter, rancher, do you even live in these states that have wolves?

    DNA was a concern when they first introduced wolves to Yellowstone. It was in one of the articles, you had said you read it.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    I don't remember who brought up the DNA issue, but I was reading a report that Defenders of Wildlife released in October 2000 "Wolves Around the World - The Global Status of the Gray Wolf" and this is what it said about the wolves in Greenland:

    "Greenland boasts the world’s northernmost
    population of wolves. Although hunters and
    trappers eliminated the wolf from Greenland by
    the early 1930s, the northern part of this massive
    ice-entombed island was recolonized in 1978 by
    two wolves from Ellesmere Island. Since then,
    the wolf population has climbed to some 100
    individuals. The wolf is now completely protected
    in Greenland, and illegal trapping or hunting
    has not been a problem."

    DNA didn't seem to be an issue for Greenland. If it was an issue Defenders of Wildlife sure didn't mention it.

    I have also found in this report the FWS (in 2000) was evaluating the NE for possible reintroduction of wolves there. Once again, it sounds to me like our USFWS does care about the wolves!

    Section 3 The Challenges of Wolf Management in this report answers some important questions when deciding on wolf management strategies. I thought this was quite interesting. I highly recommend you all read this and pass this report on to others you know. I'm interested in knowing if they have released a more recent report though. Let me know if any of you hear of a more up to date report from Defenders of Wildlife.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Mike,
    I visited the link you posted. Sounds like a good cause. It seems to me though that 1.5 acres (approx. 65340 sq. ft.) is a little small for those wolves, considering packs establish territories ranging from 30 to more than 500 square miles (19,200 to 320,000 acres). Otherwise it sounds like a good idea. I would guess that wolves may act a little different in the refuge as they would out in the wild though, but should still help all of us understand wolves better. I would like to know how and what they feed these wolves though? Do they bring in live food or do they bring in meat already dead? Just curious.

    The fact that the one wolf got about 15 feet from the person who wrote that kind of scares me too. A wolf would NEVER get that close to a person in the wild unless it had been associated with people or lost its fear of people. The wolf is already at risk if it is ever to be released into the wild!
    I think refuges such as this should only allow people to get so close to the wolves. Maybe a good distance that would be relative to how far they would let a person get to them in the wild (I would guess several hundred yards or more). They could then put up something similar to a spotting scope for people to view them. This would allow minimal human interaction better. I would think this would also give them a better chance at being in the wild. Feeding the wolves would still be somewhat difficult though. There would almost have to be some human interaction.

    We all want to get as close as we can to wildlife, but we all need to realize that if we want our wildlife to stay wild, we are better off keeping our distance and perhaps buy a spotting scope or something similar to be able to view the wildlife from a safe distance (safe for them, safe for us).

    I would certainly agree that refuges are good for the most part. They serve a purpose, but sometimes that purpose can do more bad than good.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    Seeing the wolves on youtube from wolf.org was great Thank You!
    I found a wolf perserve in julian ca. I will have to make the trip, I live in northern ca. I wanted to visit Wolf People in Idaho but now that I see what the Idaho people are like, I won't go. I send her money and will continue. I want to support her and her wolves in Idaho. I bought her dvd about her wolves and it is GREAT.
    Here is the site for Julian ca, it has info. on wolves, coyotes and dogs.

    http://www.desertusa.com/mag05/nov/wolf.html

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    I don't know them but if they are helping wolves I should find out about them and see if they have any suggestions for how I can help. I'll look them up online.
    I come to this site to be surprised on how many people are still voting yes to save the wolves even though the decision has been made.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    wolfhoshootshunters: If game and fish doesn't care about the wildlife, why would they have allowed wolves to be brought back to the Rocky Mountain region? They must care! They must have seen wolves as essential to our ecosystem! They saw a need for wolves!

    For the last time, why do you insult me? Why do you say offensive things? I'm not insulting you or saying offensive things am I? That kind of language is absolutely UNNECESSARY! Please, grow up and quite saying such childish things.

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    wait minute you sound familiar are you friends with a guy named justin forte in lake Elsinore CA? you have that site called heart of the wolf.org?

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    wolfwhoshootshunters, do not worry, I won't. I have know time for games. I am calling and emailing governors, safeway, whole foods, costco, campbell soup company you name it. All to let them know about the Idaho boycott.

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    thier not lies rodeozucks, their from scientists and biologist who are not paid by F&G or the government to lie like those who work fort eh government and F&G to benefit the hunter and not us. like the fish police have, they are more honest then F&G. boycott Wyoming as well remember limpy? those bastards killed limpy and on purpose to piss us off. mike don't give rodeozucks my youtube video i don't want trolls polluting my page with government sponsored BS

  • kelly ann - 8 years ago

    We have called markets, restaurants, fast food places such as mcdonalds, jack in the box, etc. Telling them we are BOYCOTTING all products from Idaho, like Idaho potatoes and stopping tourism to these states that support the Wolf Hunt. We are emailing Governors from different states, that we will not tolerate this level of abuse to innocent animals. It is a sick reflection on our country to allow this wolf hunt to continue. BOYCOTT IDAHO!!!!

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    wolfwhoshootshunter: I found you on youtube, it was GREAT. I will get an account with them in order to stay in touch. Defenders has figured out areas that would work for wolves to live here in CA. it is on there website.
    I wanted to visit Idaho and other states to see the wolves but now that I know those states are full of crazy hateful people, I will have to wait for when wolves come to CA. and see them then. It will be good for CA tour industry.

    We must keep our eyes on saving wolves and not worry about wolf haters!

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    wolfwhoshootshutner: Where do you get your "lies" then??

  • Kelly Ann - 8 years ago

    http://gov.idaho.gov/WebRespond/contact_form.html
    This is the website to leave messages for governor of Idaho.

    Please leave a message to the governor of Idaho, asking him to work with Defenders of wildlife to safely trap and remove wolves out of his state to other states like CA. Defenders website has already decided on areas that would work well for CA. Please be civil. We may not agree with this governor but we have to work together.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    I will make some and pass them out in Berkeley, I go there a lot. Thanks good idea.

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    i made some bumper stickers that say don't buy idaho save the wolves boycott idaho the hippies in san fransisco can help im sure they would help.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    My wife is Kelly Ann Conner and we are putting together a facebook page to tell people to Boycott Idaho and Montana. Her name is how to find us if you have a facebook page. This is going to have to be a grass roots effort to save the wolves because we are not getting any respect from the government. We are going to network with others, for as much help as possible. Many resturants and fast food, buy potatos from Idaho. So we can not buy french frys or any potato produces. Tell local markets not to buy from Idaho. I buy only from CA. to support my state. CA. is pretty good about animal rights but if they change, I will stop supporting CA. also. We have to work fast because the wolves are in big trouble and the pups will be here in spring and they will be orphaned if we don't work now.

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    nop i don't watch those types as they piss me off. i got a few videos if you want to see then you can. if you have a youtube account ill add you as a friend the title is wolves fight back and i got a few other ones you would like.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFU5UbQkEuY&NR=1

    Here is another hick that just wants to kill a wolf!!! He is proud to be able to kill!!!
    Has nothing to do with protecting livestock or people. This is just senseless killing.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK1mZ4fL6Pk

    Have you seen this?

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    I am a big animal lover, even the mountain lions that live around my house, do not worry me. If I were to see one, I would not tell authorities because they would kill it, when it didn't even do anything and that is wrong. But people have unfounded fear and we need to find a way to make them feel as safe as possible so the wolf and other wildlife can survive all this stupidity.
    It doesn't seem to me that these states have that many wolves by the numbers that have been mentioned. I think this is about money, the ranchers want the wolf out. They have been lying about not shooting wolves because they had been protected. The wolves have been shot and poisoned by ranchers for a long time. I think we have to get some wolves out of there, it is not safe for the wolf. The people are lying too, they are safe, they know it, this is all a load of crap that Idaho and Montana are pulling. Obama and Ken Salazar do NOT care about wolves so we that care about this species need to get them out of the cross hairs of these guns. 70,000 tags is a very bad situation for these poor wolves. I would love to see them back on the endangered species list but I think we lost that battle when Judge Molloy passed the buck to Salazar a rancher, a wolf's biggest enemy. I am embarrassed that there are such small minded people in the U.S, like those in the northwest.
    Now as far as setting aside areas for animals and wildlife where people cannot build homes or ranch, I am all for that. That would be my perfect world. More National Parks and Wildlife preserves, wild ranges for wildlife only, would be GREAT!!!!
    I think people need animals more then animals need us. They only need us now because we have to give them a voice and find ways to protect them from other humans.

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    you seem like a swell guy but mike here we only got 850 wolves and about 400 in montana not enough to go around and the wolf has a different personality then a mountain lion. the indians never had troubles with wolves they never killed a animal to boost their buffalo population they let nature take its course as nature takes care of its own. the wolf needs protection like the eagle cause the wolf represents wilderness and wolves are the children of the earth. you in california i assume you know those mcmansions are a big issue as those houses steal the wildlife habitat and thos fires that burn them im glad those houses get burned. like i said we have no right on manipulation wildlife for our own gain that is what wildlife management is all about and it needs to stop. nature does take care of its own. our foothills are house free and we would like to keep it that way its more scenic. aniamls and humans can coexist. the Indians had no problem.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    My point is the wolf has been, what you call "managed" to the point of extinction and there is know doubt in my mind, that if wolves get out of control or enter people populated areas they will be killed. That is why I brought up Mountain Lions because here in CA. they are feared by some (NOT ME) so, when they are spotted around areas where there are people, they are KILLED. So, what is your problem?

    This fear about the wolf is so childish.

    Wolves are migrating for many reasons, all animals migrate. Food sources maybe moving, fires can drive them out, they will follow mountain ranges etc.!!!!
    I never said that Idaho and Montana did not have to many wolves because I don't know. They may have to many or they are just TYPICAL hunters that want to kill wildlife.

    Defenders, a non-profit group is willing to help the people in these states and they are wasting a lot of time and money in courts instead of using money to relocate wolves to wildlife preserves or other national parks areas, where ever they maybe need, Yellowstone can't be the only area that realized the wolf was needed in there park.
    And that will perserve the special DNA from 70 years ago that makes what we call the American gray wolf, today. These preserves do not have to be big, they can be small and "MANAGAED" since that seems to be the PROBLEM people have about wolves.
    I want the wolves to be taken away from the Northwestern states, because I'll tell you, (if these stupid hicks ever do decide to wipe out the wolf, history shows us it will not take them long). Then the U.S.A will have caused the extinction of our beautiful American gray wolf TWICE... SHAME on us, if we let that happen.

  • wolfwhoshootshutners - 8 years ago

    the same as the ones here in the 30's that is so you don't get confused

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    and this wolf is the same wolf that was here before. no other place the wolves would of come from. all your statements you said are the same as Gillettes BS. their close to it. sorry but save our elk site and those others are not pro wolf but are anti wolf sites where you guys get your lies. your saying the dire wolf is the Canadian wolf the dire wolf was a large wolf but sorry the dire wolf is extinct thus adding the wolves here are the same.

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    and they did not come back because you anti wolfers take pictures post it in the paper trying to make a excuse or watch the kill or take it so the wolf does not come back cause you want to brain wash the public on your excuses that you guys pole. it sickened me seeing that guy on the front page on the 2nd. maybe ill pose with his dog but then i will never become a evil redneck like you guys.

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    when you said it has been proven! There have been videos, I'm sure if you look on youtube you'll find some. There's been photos too. that sir is anti wolf bias and is the stuff ron gillett uses. that is what they use as a excuse. im against wolf management the wolf needs protection like the eagle. and sorry but 850 wolves in Idaho and 400 in Montana is not enough as those are the numbers now well deduct 3 out of the 850. we still don't have the right to manipulate wildlife populations for our own gain which that is all wildlife management is about killing a animal for the hunters gain and profit. F&G don't even care about wildlife like i said they only care about the greedy little rednecks and the profit they make.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    wolfwhoshootshunter: You need to calm down. Did you actually read anything I wrote on here? I'm not by any means "anti-wolf". I am however pro-wolf MANAGEMENT. I want wolves around, but I think that they need to be managed. I'm not going to repeat everything I already said since that would be pointless, but maybe you should go back and read what I wrote. Wolves DO kill for sport, not always and probably not often, but it has been proven! There have been videos, I'm sure if you look on youtube you'll find some. There's been photos too. They have been confirmed wolf kills where they did not come back to eat the animal. Sport kills are when a wolf attacks and animal and for example tears a hole in the back end or flank region of an animal and often the animals suffers and dies later. Look it up!

    I am not trying to get you to change your mind and become "anti-wolf". I just hope that you all will someday realize that we all need to meet in the middle. Keep the wolves, don't exterminate them, and help manage the numbers so the wolf population is at a healthy number for our ecosystem.

    Do you really think only 5% of the US population hunts? Where did you find this statistic??

    TO EVERYONE COMMENTING ON HERE: enough with the name calling and offensive comments on here! Do you feel better after saying those things?? How would you like it if I started saying things like that to you??

    Don't you think a wolf can be aggressive but also loving and social? If you want to compare them to humans you'll see that humans can be all of the above.

    You also forgot to mention the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf, the original wolf that lived in the Rocky Mountain region that became extinct. This wolf was quite different than the Canadian Grey Wolf.

    Thank you for finding some "alternative" options for ranchers "These methods include fencing livestock, lighting, alarm systems and removing dead or dying livestock that may attract carnivores like wolves." However, what kind of fencing for livestock are they suggesting? I'd be interested in knowing. Alarm systems and lighting are good ideas where electricity is readily available, but what about areas where electricity is not readily available? Removal of dead/dieing animals will obviously help.

    Many fairy tales also misrepresent the wolf by leading people to believe that they never do anything villainous or lead them to believe that they are never dangerous. They can be villainous, dangerous, loving, and gentle. They are a packaged deal just like people and all other living creatures.

    I won't be available to comment over the weekend (no internet) so I'll be interested to see how many comments I get back Monday.

    I hope you all have a wonderful weekend! :)

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    As the ancestor of the domestic dog, the gray wolf resembles German shepherds or malamutes. Wolves are making a comeback in the Great Lakes, Northern Rockies and Southwestern United States.

    Height 26-32 inches at the shoulder
    Length 4.5-6.5 feet from nose to tip of tail
    Weight 55-130 lbs; Males are typically heavier and taller than the females
    Lifespan 7-8 years in the wild, but some have lived 10 years or more
    Diet

    Staples Ungulates (large hoofed mammals) like elk, deer, moose and caribou.
    Also known to eat beaver, rabbits and other small prey. Wolves are also scavengers and often eat animals that have died due to other causes like starvation and disease.
    Population

    There are an estimated 7,000 to 11,200 wolves in Alaska and more than 5,000 in the lower 48 states. Around the world there are an estimated 200,000 in 57 countries, compared to up to 2 million in earlier times.
    Range

    Wolves were once common throughout all of North America but were killed in most areas of the United States by the mid 1930s. Today their range has been reduced to Canada and the following portions of the United States: Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Mexican wolves are found in New Mexico and Arizona.

    Thanks to the reintroduction of wolves in 1995, Yellowstone National Park is one of the most favored places to see and hear wolves in the native habitat.
    Behavior

    Wolves live, travel and hunt in packs of 4-7 animals on average. Packs include the mother and father wolves, called the alphas, their pups and several other subordinate or young animals. The alpha female and male are the pack leaders that track and hunt prey, choose den sites and establish the pack's territory. Wolves develop close relationships and strong social bonds. They often demonstrate deep affection for their family and may even sacrifice themselves to protect the family unit.

    Wolves have a complex communication system ranging from barks and whines to growls and howls. While they don’t howl at the moon, they do howl more when it’s lighter at night, which occurs more often when the moon is full.
    Reproduction

    Mating Season January or February
    Gestation 63 days
    Litter size 4-7 pups
    Pups are born blind and defenseless. The pack cares for the pups until they mature at about 10 months of age.
    Threats

    The most common cause of death for wolves is conflict with people over livestock losses. While wolf predation on livestock is fairly uncommon, wolves that do prey on them are often killed to protect the livestock. Defenders is working with livestock owners to develop non-lethal methods to reduce the chances of a wolf attacking livestock. These methods include fencing livestock, lighting, alarm systems and removing dead or dying livestock that may attract carnivores like wolves.

    Another serious threat is human encroachment into wolf territory, which leads to habitat loss for wolves and their prey species.

    Overall, the greatest threat to wolves is people’s fear and misunderstanding about the species. Many fairy tales and myths tend to misrepresent wolves as villainous, dangerous creatures.

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    This FAQ is about Wolves and basic facts about them.

    Last Modified: July 12, 2007

    1)What is a Wolf?
    2)What are they?
    3)What constitutes a pack? What is a pack for?
    4)How many Wolves can be in a pack?
    a) What do they eat?
    5)Where do they live?
    6)How many species of Wolves exist?
    7)What is the greatest enemy/rival of Wolves?
    a)Reasons.
    8)Recent History -- War for the Wolf
    a)The Past -- War Against the Wolf
    9)Closing

    1)What is a Wolf?

    Wolves are a species of canid, the ancestors of dogs.
    They have been around for more than a million years.
    They are predators, who make sure prey species dont
    grow out of control to keep the environment in balance.
    Keeping prey in line keeps vegetation in line.

    2)What are they?

    Wolves are canids who form packs.
    Packs are family units that allow Wolves to be able to hunt and survive.

    3)What constitutes a pack?

    Wolf packs consist of many members. One is, the Alpha Male,
    who is the male leader of the male Wolves of the pack.
    Another is the Alpha Female, who presides over all the female Wolves of the pack.
    The Beta's are the male and female that are the second in command. You
    also have standard members of the pack who hold no rank.
    And the lowest of rank, is the Omega.
    The Omega's role is to relieve stress and is the scapegoat for activity within the pack.

    What is a pack for?

    They as said before are family units, but are also an efficient means to hunt prey.
    Hunting prey by themselves is risky and the risks of death are higher.
    Thus although Lone Wolves exist, they usually are not Lone for long.

    a)What are Lone Wolves?

    Lone Wolves are usually yearlings who want to form their own packs.
    They do this by leaving the pack and seeking another Lone Wolf.

    4)How many Wolves can be in a pack?

    It can be from at least 2 and as many as 15.

    a)What do they eat?

    A variety of prey. Though one of their most common prey is Elk.

    5)Where do they live?

    In the United States, it is in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Michigan, Wisconsin,
    Minnesota, Wisconsin and Alaska. They live in a small fraction of their former range.
    Before the subsequent colonization of the U.S., they lived in the entire country.

    They are also in China, Asia, India, and even in the Middle East.

    6)How many species of Wolves exist?

    Many. Here are the ones that are known to exist, along with their ranges.
    Some are also extinct, and their former ranges are listed.

    Wolves in North America:

    Gray Wolf = Canis Lupus
    Range = U.S. (15% of former range), Canada

    Arctic Wolf = Canis lupus arctos
    Range = Ellemere and Melville Islands

    Eastern Timber Wolf = Canis lupus lyacon
    Range = southeastern Canada to New England
    (Possibly the same species as Canis Rufus)

    Buffalo Wolf or Great Plains Wolf = Canis lupus nubilus
    Range = North American Plains
    (Extinct in this region)
    NOTE: Some speculate that they still may be in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

    Mackenzie Valley Wolf = Canis lupus occidentalis
    Range = Alaska and the Western part of Canada

    Mexican Gray Wolf = Canis lupus baileyi
    Range = Southeastern Arizona, New Mexico, Southwestern Texas
    (Extinct and only existing in Captivity and reintroduction efforts that are ongoing) (Rehnmark pg. 14)

    Red Wolf = Canis rufus
    Range = Southeastern U.S. but also once roamed Eastern Canada and Central Texas. (Rehnmark pg. 16)

    Wolves in South America

    Maned Wolf [Thanks to Agnes Corbett of Care2.com]

    Wolves in Africa

    Ethiopian Wolf = Canis simensis
    Range = Ethiopian Highlands
    (Population is nearly extinct) (Rehnmark pg. 17)

    Wolves in Europe and parts of Asia:

    Common Wolf = Canis lupus lupus
    Range = Europe and Russia

    Tundra Wolf = Canis lupus albus
    Range = Northern Russia and Northern Scandinavia (Rehnmark pg. 15)

    Wolves in Asia:

    Steppe Wolf = Canis lupus campestris
    Range = Central Asia

    Ezo Wolf of Hokkaido = Canis lupus hattai
    Range = Hokkaido, Japan
    (Extinct)

    Honshu

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    rodeorulz wolves don't kill for sport they kill to survive unlike a hunter who kills for sport then much to survive. im tired of your anti wolf sh**t saying wolves kill for sport or wolves will lose their fear of humans BS. and like i said before you don't kill to control populations you only kill a certain amount of predators for your gain. we can not play god we can not decide which animal to remove for our gain. we can't kill off the human population so their is no need to kill off a certain amount of aniamls. like i said about F&G they don't give a flying crap about wildlife or us. only the hunter and their are more of us then hunters only 5% hunt the rest shop for food or are vegetarian. i don't need to go to your anti wolf sites. stop brain washing the rest of us with your BS. sham for your granddaddy reading you brothers grim. this is not the 1500's this is not a fairy tail stop with your anti wolf BS. since hunters like to abuse the second amendment they don't deserve to have it.
    Wolves have been in the world of Native Americans since the beginning. They are revered not only for their strength but also for their endurance. Wolves can sustain life with little food or water for extremely long periods of time. This was something that the Native Americans hoped for in their own selves.

    Today, the wolves can be seen in numerous Native American arts. They are depicted by watching over people while they sleep or as a journey to the spirit world.
    One can look to the many tribes of the Native Americans to see stories that tell about wolves. The Sioux, Cherokee, Lakota, and others all have stories about how the wolves helped in the development of man. The creation story of the Cherokee has a wolf in it as well as the story of the woman who was left behind in the Lakota tribe and the wolf saved her. Just as Romulus and Remus were supposedly saved by a she wolf and they then founded Rome.
    This side of the animal was first seen by the tribes of the Americas. The Native American tribes recognized this and they have incorporated the wolf into many of their myths and legends. The wolf will forever be associated with the Native Americans, and learning more about this relationship can help one to better understand the world of Native Americans.
    Since the beginning of time, the Native Americans have been associating their lives with that of animals in the wildlife kingdom. One of the most misunderstood of these animals is the wolf. For years, the wolf has been seen as an aggressor, when in reality they are very loving and social creatures.
    The White Man must
    Treat the beasts of this
    land as his brother.
    What is man without
    the beasts? if all the
    beasts were gone, man
    would die from a great
    loneliness of spirit. For
    whatever happens to
    the beasts, also happens
    to the man.We yield to our neighbors,
    even our animal neighbors
    the same right as ourselves,
    to Inhabit this land.All things share the same breath - the beast, the tree, the man, the air shares its spirit with all the life it supports. (Chief Seattle)
    Many Native Americans credit the wolves in teaching them about the importance of family also wolves were seen as relatives and models for how we act with each other. The Native Americans call the animals the children of the earth The wolf they call big mouth, Legend says the wolf sent spirit messages to the world beyond.

    God made these wolves &all animals for His purpose& pleasure.Beware God says the revenge is His alone.Don't kill His animals,unless for food.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Mike, regarding your coyotes comment. I never said I was afraid of coyotes, not once did I say that. As a matter of fact I get out a lot. Most coyotes are afraid of humans, but they have adapted in a lot of areas and are not scared of people. Coyotes are even moving into the suburbs of Denver. Colorado has very strict trapping policies, which is probably one of the reasons they are moving into towns. In one of the comments I posted above it also talked about how people feeding the coyotes (not just wolves) in Yellowstone causes them to not fear humans and behave quite contrary to how they would normally behave. There are also coyotes out in the wild who are not afraid of humans, these do however tend to be younger coyotes who haven't figured out what a human is yet. Coyotes are a lot like wolves in that they too have a "safety zone" and the coyotes that you are running into probably have a different safety zone than other coyotes, did you think of that as a possibility? How far would you say a coyote will run before he will stop and look back at you? It's a lot easier to be scared of a mountain lion verses a coyote. Mountain lions are much bigger and stronger and getting accustomed to humans, which makes them more dangerous to humans. Coyotes are generally more scared of humans and not even close to as strong as a mountain lion, making them much less dangerous to humans.

    Please, quit putting words in my mouth.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Mike, the wolves have NOT been "managed" to the point of extinction, that is not management, that is strictly extermination. They were exterminated in the early 20th century, which by the way was not even the same wolf that was re-introduced in Yellowstone in the 1990's (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles02/truth_about_those_canadian_wolf.htm). Extermination usually happens due to irresponsibility, which I hope we as Americans have learned from with the wolves the first time around. At this time you as a citizen are not allowed to "legally" kill a wolf unless there is a season and you have a tag. The only people who don't have a tag who are legally able to kill a wolf are those who are part of the USFWS or those who work with them.

    It looks to me like they are working with Defenders of Wildlife. You don't see the courts saying "go out and shoot all the wolves, we don't care what Defenders of Wildlife say" do you?? Those in the courts should want to preserve wolves and yes we all know there are those in government who are very one-sided and this is where issues arise. This goes for both sides of the issue.

    Why are the wolves migrating? Did you stop to think what is causing them to migrate towards CA? I would bet that one of the biggest reasons is that there are getting to be too many wolves in too small of areas. Mind you that wolves have very large ranges that likely overlap with other packs. I would be willing to bet that overpopulation is one of the biggest reasons they are spreading out over such a large area.

    As far as DNA is concerned, yes we should look at science and make careful decisions regarding inbreeding. I'm not sure how much inbreeding effects wolves, but I'm sure it does. If the wolves being shot do happen to be alphas then inbreeding would be come more of a concern. I'm sure after this first hunting season the USFWS will look at the results and make adjustments for the next season.

    Ranchers have a love and passion for their livestock too, one that wants then to be able to protect them just as you want to be able to protect the wolf. I also don't know that many ranchers that make very much money from livestock so I wouldn't use the term greed.

    Everyone is bias, that is true. But I'm not being extreme here. I don't want to see all wolves killed but also don't want them to just reproduce freely to numbers that endanger them and others. Science as many people say is fact, which for the most part I agree with this; however, we both also know that scientists are also biased. I applaud any scientist who truly does do his/her best to put it as it is without his/her opinion added into anything.

    You said "We can only HOPE that our worries about the future will be taken into consideration." Are you not worried about what happens down the road if wolves reproduce freely and don't have any assistance with managing their numbers?

    Whoa there...wolves attacking people is not a big issue yet, but in the article it mentions that it could become an issue if people keep feeding the wolves (which they have been caught doing). I also said that I feel that it could become an issue if they become unafraid of people. I consider myself fortunate that I was able to see a wolf in Yellowstone in June. It was the first wolf I've ever seen in the "wild". It was a big, beautiful black wolf. He didn't appear to be scared of people and was about 600-700 yards away from a very large group of people. I also overheard others say that there had been more earlier, but I don't know how many or if they were closer or not. Next thing you know they are going to be 250 yards and closing.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    Now, I know about coyotes. I come across them about 2 or 3 times a month hiking with my dogs in the hills at dusk and dawn AND coyotes are AFRAID of people. They see me and RUN every time. So, that one will NOT work on me. You will have to tell that crap to someone else. The people where I live, run into coyotes all the time also, and no one is afraid of them, people talk about enjoying seeing them eat the pears from the trees, near our neighborhood. The Mountain Lions they are afraid of but not coyotes. Nice try! Hey, do you get out much? because you are afriad of to many things.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    The wolf is migrating and is needed in parks and reserves around the country, as pointed out in these articles. Defenders and others would no which areas would be best suited. As the wolf migrate or if they are transplanted to different areas, those new areas could decide how many are needed and how many would be a threat to people. As I said before, here in Northern CA, which by the way is a state the wolf is headed, we have mountain lions and they are shot when they come down from the hills near people. The idea that people will not be able to defend themselves against wolves is wrong.

    The wolf in the north west have been breed from 14 wolves, canadian wolves maybe coming down and mixing with and adding new blood line to the packs, i'm not sure but it is the DNA that I worry about with the wolf. What I am saying is Idaho and Montana could work with Defenders inside of fighting in courts with them. There maybe a solution that can work for both sides.

    Wolves are going to be killed, history proves that, they can also be taken to extinction, history proves that too. On this side of the fence, there is love and passion for the wolf. On the other side there is fear and greed coming from money made by livestock. The wolves have been managed to point of extinction so, I am not sure what else you want. As far as being scientific, which one of us is not bias. People will argue the RESULTS of any test, they do it all the time.

    Posting what you hear, think and even feel is a big part of the internet. The real power is in the hands of politicians and law makers. We can only HOPE that our worries about the future will be taken into consideration.

    On the internet they invite people to come and see the wolves in Yellowstone. Can anyone tell me why they would do that, if they believe as some do, that the wolf will attack and kill them and their children?

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    I have been trying to post some information I found in one of the links above and it won't post, so I'm going to give you the link and you all need to check it out. It indeed states that wolves could become like coyotes and lose their fear of humans.

    Look under the "Yellowstone Wolves Receive Handouts" title on the Wolf Updates page of the link mike posted on/at 2009-09-10 23:03:48 ET.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Mike, I checked out both of the websites that were posted above. I already comment on both of them too. I used the word transplant instead of relocate though. Same difference.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    Did you read the other article on the steps people took to relocate wolves to Yellowstone?

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    This is to the other Mike...

    You do realize by stating "men are idiots" that you are calling yourself an idiot right? Who ever said I was from the northwest? You are making assumptions here. At least ask where I'm from before you "state" where you think I'm from. Last I checked I also was not bragging, but rather correcting the statement you made earlier.

    To "harass" is described in many ways at this link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=e8n&defl=en&q=define:harass&ei=cHGqSv__OoeOtAOgvIjtBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
    For example: exhaust by attacking repeatedly; "harass the enemy" or annoy continually or chronically (just a few examples)

    The wolf didn't kill the horse because the hunter was able to legally step in and protect is horse from being killed. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to sit around and twiddle my thumbs if I had a wolf harassing my horse, especially when I had a tag, making it 100% legal to protect my horse from the wolf! What would you have done if you would have been in that guys situation?

    One more thing, can we PLEASE not refer to insulting people and name calling? Do you really think that helps you win ANY debate??

    To whichever Mike posted the link (http://ecosystem-preservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/bringing_the_wolf_back_to_yellowstone) Thank You. It was very informative. However it doesn't project what could happen if wolf numbers are not managed. If wolf numbers continue to grow at the rates they are what will happen to the wolf, ecosystem, and other animals? I think that is the biggest question that NEEDS to be answered. It needs to be answered from a scientific standpoint more than anything. We all can base our opinions on things we've heard or just simply what we think, but a non-biased scientific standpoint is what we all need, including myself. If you can't admit this you may want to think twice about posting on here then.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    mike, I checked out your website (http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/wolves.html) and found it very informational. It sounds like the way wolves are reintroduced/transplanted to different areas today is the hard method, because there always seems to be wolves being transplanted somewhere else and causing the same problems wherever they are being transplanted. The "soft method" for reintroduction sounds like an excellent way to also transplant wolves. Maybe this would help them adjust better to their new "home". I would be interested in knowing how many of the transplants are soft releases verses hard releases. If you find any numbers or articles, etc. let me know. Maybe USFWS or whoever is transplanting wolves needs to look more at the soft release method (even though it looks like it takes a long time and a lot of effort). Sounds pretty effective according to this website.

    One other thing in the article I wanted to address. It referred to a pack of 3 wolves in which the alpha male was killed and how the pack fell apart. I would agree that in the case of small packs such as this example, the death of an alpha dangers the pack greatly. I feel that this was especially the case because there were no other males in the pack to fill the void and with a mother and pups I would assume it to be difficult for her to search for a new mate or alpha male. However, I still do not feel that in the case of larger packs (where there are multiple males and females) that this would be quite the case. When there is a wolf to fill the void, the void will likely be filled (whether a wolf already in the pack or a wolf from another pack or simply a lone wolf).

    Thank you again mike for the link! Very helpful. I think EVERYONE on here should read it.

    We all still need to remember though that this was about 14 years ago and look at how many wolves we started with and how many there are now. Look also at the number USFWS wanted to reach. It has been exceeded. Now it is time to keep the numbers at a well managed number so problems don't arise (both sides of the issue at hand).

  • mike - 8 years ago

    the last word is yellowstone then it will work.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    Sorry it did not work this should.

    http://ecosystem-preservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/bringing_the_wolf_back_to_yellowstone

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    http://ecosystem-preservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/bringing_the_wolf_back_to_yellowstone

    This article explans why the wolf was brought back to Yellowstone.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    Sorry, it was 1 wolf that was harassing the hunters horse so he killed the wolf. Harassing the horse, what does that even mean. I thought the wolf is so bad why did not the wolf kill the horse. These guys are so wimpy, I'm surprized they don't have their mommy's with them, when they are out shooting.

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    The 2 freaks that killed to first 2 wolves in Idaho. The wolves were harassing his horse and the other used a wounded coyote call to lure the female wolf so he could kill her. Those hunters are the BIGGEST LOSERS!!!! What a joke! They were NOT in ANY danger. Men are PURE EVIL!!!!! That story was disgusting and if I were you, I would not brag about the way you idiots in the north west trick animals then kill them. SICK!!!

  • mike - 8 years ago

    http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/wolves.html

    I hope you can go to this site to see how the wolf was introduced and relocated to Yellowstone. This article can explain what people did to insure there would not be inbreeding. It also, explains, that as people worked with the pack, they learned that wolves wanted nothing to do with them or areas in which the people were, which was near the gates. The wolves stayed at the back of the park away from people, they called it the safety zone.
    There are many national parks in the U.S that Defenders of Wildlife would know better than I, which ones could use the wolf as a predator for overpopulated dear, elk etc. The wolf is back because we needed them to manage dear etc. in Yellowstone.
    I give money to Defenders but I do not work for them. They have a staff designed to figure the proper balance and needs of nature.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    You are right humans should be more scared of humans. This is not a matter of being scared of the wolf at this point, this is a matter of assuring that they remain in the ecosystem successfully (not too many and not zero either).

    The game and fish departments knew from the beginning that numbers would eventually need to be managed when numbers reached their projected goals. (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2005/articles02/truth_about_those_canadian_wolf.htm) I encourage you to check out the previous website/article. There is some interesting information in it.

    Unfortunately, yes, there are individuals out there who want to wipe out the entire wolf population, but we all know that the wolves will never be exterminated again. This is thanks to groups like Defenders of Wildlife and such. They will also never be exterminated thanks to groups like the game and fish department.

    I already addressed the "transport them to remote areas" issue in one of my other posts, check it out.

    I know nothing about Ken Salazar, I do however hope that he doesn't take a "one-sided" choice and that he does look at both sides. This DOES NOT mean that he should let them be exterminated or let them flourish freely. I'm sure science would agree that wolves need to be managed.

    Mike, I would LOVE to hear what you would suggest a rancher or anyone for that matter do to solve these issues? What "humane" and SUCCESSFUL alternatives to a management quota do you suggest? I would really enjoy to hear what alternative options you have come up with. I'll be sure to pass them on to others and see what they think. Just how does Defenders of Wildlife plan to "address the problems Idaho and Montana have, in a humane way"? Please enlighten me.

    As far as inbreeding goes, I doubt that would become an issue with the number of wolves right now, but I would agree that if the numbers got way below a "safe" number issues could arise.

    It isn't migration that is causing them to move, they have to move because there are too many wolves where they started (most likely Yellowstone). By nature they are also very big travelers and travel more than most if not all predators (or have a greater range). Overpopulation and the want for something else is how man and animal got to where they live now.

    The hunting of these wolves is to fill a quota that is to manage the number of wolves. They haven't attacked yet, but if they population keeps continuing to flourish we will likely be seeing a greater toll on livestock, wildlife and hopefully nothing else! Actually, to be more correct these wolves are likely being called in and killed. For some individuals it is a matter of protecting what is yours. One of the first wolves taken in Idaho was shot by a man who didn't even intend to use his tag; however, he woke up one morning while on a hunt to find a wolf harassing his horse. He didn't think twice about protecting his own horse by shooting the wolf! (http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/884635.html)

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    There are many so called problems in the world that both man and animal cause. Do you want a gun to kill everyone and everything that causes a PROBLEM. Because I am sure that could be arranged.
    Ranchers, like anyone who is in business has to assume some loses. They can then write off those loses. Stock market, real estate all lose money, that is business. You make money, you lose money. Ranchers cannot expect that livestock, will be an easy money maker, just like anyone that goes into business can not expect pure profit.
    Wolves migrate so I do not worry about them going back. They are migrating now that is how that got from Yellowstone, to these other states. Migration is how man and animal got to where they live.
    A wolf that causes a problem for people will be killed so, do not worry your head about that. There are Mountain lions that come down from the hills where I live and they are killed by men as soon as they are spotted. But the wolf hunt in Idaho and Montana is about men going into the forest, hills and mountains and killing wolves to fill a quota. These are wolves that did not attack livestock, pets or man. They are being TRACKED DOWN AND KILLED can you see the difference?

  • Mike - 8 years ago

    We are all animals and we are aware of behaviors and survival methods that have been a part of this world since the beginning of time. But this is about protecting a species from extinction. If you listen to Idaho and Montana they want to poison and shot as many wolves as possible. Some of them will even admit to wanting the wolf wiped out. They have only been allowed so many kills this time but ranchers are in the courts wanting the law to allow them, to shot more wolves.
    The fear people have for wolves is exaggerated. People should be far more worried about men killing men. Wolves want to stay as far away from people as possible. If these states feel they have to many wolves, we should work together, to transport them to remote areas in other states. I worry, that since the wolf has been taken to the brink of extinction, that inbreeding problems will occur in the future for this species. How many times can a species be taken to the brink?
    The American Gray wolf is part of our native pride. Wolves have been along side Native Americans and Americans since the beginning. People who want to protect wolves are upset because we are losing. The judge passed the buck to Ken Salazar who is a "RANCHER". The wolf is in big trouble and those of us who love the mystical beauty of the wolf, feel the pain.
    The problem with man is that guns are, in fact, a fast and effective way to solve problems you think you may have. The gun is TO FAST. It would not take long for men to wipe out wolves forever, if he decides to but if evolution is going to take place, men will have to look beyond the "GUN" and "THINK" of other ways to solve problems. I hope people will stop the wolf hunt and allow Defenders of Wildlife the opportunity to address the problems Idaho and Montana have, in a humane way! I want to thank people, for not giving into the unfounded fears, that others would like them to believe about the wolf.

  • Denise Kinsey - 8 years ago

    Wolves have been around virtually unchanged for about 20 thousand years. They are beautiful, graceful, and misunderstood. The world will sufer deeply if these awesome creatures are not protected by man. Please help stop the slaughter of wolves everywhere!!!!!!
    Denise Kinsey

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    wolfwhoshootshunter: One more thing I'd like to add: If MY dog was killing your livestock or causing problems, I would put my dog down. That would be the responsible thing to do. I'm pretty sure in some states it is even legal for a landowner to kill a "stray" dog that comes onto their property. It may even be legal to kill any dog that comes on to your property that is causing problems. So to answer your question earlier "can i go into your home and kill you dog?" I would be okay with it if my dog was causing you problems. However, as the owner of the dog I would have been much more appreciative of you if you would have let me know my dog was causing problems so I could have taken care of the problem.

    mike: There was one other comment you made I forgot to address earlier and that was: "Defenders are willing to transport wolves to remote areas in other states." Transplanting the wolves somewhere else does not always work. Usually the wolves return to their home range. What you refer to as "remote areas in other states" may be remote to you, but to a local rancher or hunter this remote area happens to be where they spend a lot of time and for the rancher this could be where he/she has summer pasture for their livestock. These transplanted wolves can cause just as many or more problems where they are transplanted at. By moving them it also does not take away any killing instinct they may have formed towards livestock. All you are doing by transplanting is moving the problem so somebody else has to deal with it.

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    wolfwhoshootshunter: Is insulting people and calling them names compensate for your small penis? I never said anything about killing off the wolves. ALL of our ancestors are at fault in one way or another for exterminating the wolf decades ago. It is our responsibility to help keep the wolf, but if we want to keep the wolf we NEED to manage the wolf. I never said that wolves don't kill the weak and sick, but they DO kill more than just the weak and sick. LOOK IT UP and you'll find this yourself. I never said that wolves are going to snatch kids from the bus stop, however I think it is certainly a possibility if they get to accustomed to humans and are no longer scared of us. Look at what happens when bears and other animals lose their fear of humans. A wolf is also more than just "a big dog". They are not domestic and certainly not meant to be pets. I'd like you to go and catch one of these "big dogs" and make it your pet and then get back to me on that.

    mike: I am thankful that Defenders of Wildlife is stepping up to help ranchers who suffer from cattle/sheep/etc. loss. I think it is very honorable and respectful for them to step up to the plate like that. However, maintaining the wolves is still a necessity that I wish Defenders of Wildlife would realize.

    tornandbroken: Hunting is an essential way of life for some people. Why would you want to stop that? It is also an essential way of maintaining wildlife numbers. For some individuals it is also for sport. Legally people can't do much to protect their livestock from wolves. Even Great Pyrenees dogs (used to protect flocks of sheep) cannot stand up to wolves. Great Pyrenees are very large dogs mind you. The most efficient way to protect livestock is with a gun. How do you suggest ranchers protect their livestock? Eating livestock is not their way of eating, in fact livestock are domestic animals therefore not being their "natural" prey. Wolves natural prey would be animals such as deer and elk. Wolves also kill for sport, in case you were unaware.

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    aw go Fyour self rodeorulz. those site ae full of anti wolf crap they do take down the weak and sick they are not a threat to people or they will not snatch kids from bus stops their not a Michal jackson so F off. your grand daddys killed off the wolf so you can have your stupid cattle. your teh greedy fu##ks we bring back the wolf to fix a eco system you f$$$ed up. that one jerk who posed with that wolf on the front page of the statesman he just proved how small of a penis he has. hunters can't be a man unless they kill a innocent animal thus adding they need to kill to make them feel macho and compensated for their small penis. the wolf is no more then a big dog can i go into your home and kill you dog? its the same concept.

  • mike - 8 years ago

    Defenders of Wildlife has been working with ranchers to scare wolves away from livestock, they have given ranchers money for their loses, when wolves feed on their sheep and cows. Defenders are willing to transport wolves to remote areas in other states. They have been willing to do anything to stop this unnecessary wolf hunt. The north western part of the U.S has a cruel and small minded solution to the wolf. It is obvious that all they really want is to shoot a wolf. They think this will prove how tough they are but we know better. Shame on them!

  • tornandbroken - 8 years ago

    any kinda hunting should be stopped , wolves are such beautiful creatures , they attack livestock because its their way of eating , maybe people who are concerned about their livestock should do more to protect them , especially since they know about the wolves killing them ! all stupid ass wankers if u ask me !! g.i.m.p.s

  • rodeorulz - 8 years ago

    Many of you appear to be clueless. The wolf population is flourishing. However, it cannot continue to climb to such numbers that are not only unsafe to humans and their livelihood, but also for the wolves' own safety and health. Wolves, contrary to popular belief, DO attack healthy animals, they do NOT attack and kill just the weak, old, and young. Look it up and you'll find this. They do attack livestock and kill many calves and sheep every year along with other domestic animals. Wolf numbers NEED to be maintained. They do not need to be exterminated though, as many of you believe is going to happen with the new hunting seasons in Montana and Idaho.

  • Ardy, Spirit Dove - 8 years ago

    To see what is happening now with the wolves is awful. This is pure evil. The hope of Obama is not a hope anymore. Shame on you Obama...Shame on you killers who kill the wolves just for fun. You are disgusting!

  • ann aslan - 8 years ago

    they were her long before us. kill your self instad that make me happy. leave my lovely animal alone or send them to norway. we have to few. i hope you can take them. i will pray for you. thanks

  • kelly ann - 8 years ago

    Judge Molloy passed the buck to Obama and Ken Salazar Interior Secretary. So, now the fight has to start again, putting pressure on the administration. Obama is busy with war and healthcare and it looks to me, like Obama does not care about the wellfare of animal. I hope, I am wrong. If he can see polls like this one, maybe he will understand, that Americans care deeply for the lives of animals. I personally want to thank everyone for your yes vote on this poll!!!!

  • Karen Diane Knowles - 8 years ago

    This idiocy and brutality should be stopped for the sake of the wolves and for us humans.

    STOP KILLING the wolves for the sake of the unarmed and innocent individual mothers, fathers, and cubs that are gunned down, as well as for the preservation of the species as a whole.
    STOP KILLING the wolves for the sake of humane education; we need to demonstrate to our children compassion and peaceful co-existence, not oppression and brutality.

  • cheyenne - 8 years ago

    I will fight you hunters until hunting becomes outlawed. Your mentality gives me nothing but the creeps, you are an aberration of nature, I don't know what goes on in your sick minds. You are disgusting!
    In regards to Obama, I didn't vote for him because he supports hunting and he is not pro animal. The only people who would get my vote are Kucinich and Nader.
    And as logic goes : hunters kill wolves because wolves kill elks ... so that means in logical deduction that I can kill hunters because hunters kill elks too

  • Hilde Aaseth - 8 years ago

    To see what is happening now with the wolves is awful. This is pure evil. The hope Obama is not a hope anymore. People from all over the world is in shock! Also here in my own country Norway. Shame on you Obama...Shame on you killers who kill the wolves just for fun. You are disgusting!

  • Sharlene - 8 years ago

    It is terrible how can any one turn a blind eye to such cruel acts taking place this must stop most animals are becoming extinct we should be protecting our animals not killing them off they have as much right as us to be on this planet who thinks they have got the God given right to take that away from them what ever you give out in the world comes back to you one day its all about power it disgusts me.

  • chris - 8 years ago

    lets hunt the hunters...makes about the same sense to me
    we can then post to a website our kills

  • Diane Symons - 8 years ago

    THE HUNTERS DO NOT REALIZE THAT OUT OF THEIR TAX DOLLARS a few years ago Idaho transported wolves out of Idaho..cost allot of money...after removing so many wolves that were not bothering anyone...they live the cycle of life...after YOU payed for the plane rides when I can't afford to fly out to visit my family who live in Idaho and are beside themselves this is happening we paid lots of money...then they found out the wolves walked back to Idaho..DUH.. now they are on a killing fields. When people can kill for the sake of killing it is not just hurting the wolves but letting many killers out there taking there anger out..and if one can kill for the sake of killing an animal they will KILL a child or adult without a blink of the eye. This is a major problem..and we the people must stop it...by contacting the HUMANE SOCIETY they need to do there job...PETA, ASPCA, IFAW. where are they now we need them they have the authority we do not we can just voice which will help...Lets all keep voicing to stop this madness

  • Ioannis Zambartas - 8 years ago

    It is a matter of humanism and civilization.

  • danny - 8 years ago

    to be honest i live in england and we have no wolves here well used too....which ever way you look the land belongs too the animals not us. And im guessing these hunters think they are big and hard when they shoot a wolf try fighting it with your hands n see what happens u pussy's!!!!! the wolf will get its revenge and unfortunatley 4 us the wolf doesnt understand good and bad people so u will all be fuked

  • MO - 8 years ago

    Yes, Judge Molley, please grant the injunction to stop wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana... for my own personal reasons... this is my request. Thank you.

  • Cassandra Langer - 8 years ago

    After all our hard work in bringing these noble creatures back from extinction. We need to see them flourish. They are absolutely crucial to the chain of life. We have an unfair advantage and we should do something about the balance of power. We have an obligation to be responsible not irresponsible when it comes to other species. They were here long before us and they help to keep nature in balance. Can we say the same for our own species--I think not. So please stop this senseless slaughter and try to institute some sane policies when it comes to our wolves.

  • jade beckman - 8 years ago

    im from australia and over here so many people are discusted at this killing field of wolves this is inhumane and can not believe this is going on in a country that is ment to protect the rights of animals, have a look at the polls there are more of us that do not agree with wolf hunting and so many more arround the world, this is as bad as the japenese whale hunting, hopefully you are a desent man with a good heart that can see the outcome of this and see that this could lead to other things that will distroy the reputation of your country!

  • jade beckman - 8 years ago

    im from australia and over here so many people are discusted at this killing field of wolves this is inhumane and can not believe this is going on in a country that is ment to protect the rights of animals, have a look at the polls there are more of us that do not agree with wolf hunting and so many more arround the world, this is as bad as the japenese whale hunting, hopefully you are a desent man with a good heart that can see the outcome of this and see that this could lead to other things that will distroy the reputation of your country!

  • GREY WOLF - 8 years ago

    i don`t think these people realise just how important these wolves are to the balance of nature. they have to stop this senceless killing of these beautiful animals!!!!!

  • linda pontonas - 8 years ago

    i am appalled of of what is happening to these beautiful gray wolves they deserve to live and be protected as all animals are i am an wolf lover and think this should be outlawed because these are beautiful majestic animals as all animals are why should this be allowed to continue why why why just for the pleasureof these hunters for to show off that they killed a grey wolf and for its fur or to hang its head on theyre house wallls this is crazy how would they feel if someone hunted them down how would they feel ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  • wolfwhoshootshunters - 8 years ago

    stop this wolf hunt. wolves don't deserve this death sentence. this is nothing more then for blood and lust and greed. I am writing you to stop the slaughter due to wolves will be in danger Idaho is incompetent on managing wolves Idaho has a anti wolf coalition to eliminate wolves and wolves will be in danger but also with climate change it is also not a good idea and here is the scientific facts from what scientists say they say that the wolves are not declining elk herds the hunters are the ones responsible for the elk decline hunters take down the strong and with the stronger elk gone it leaves the week elk to breed and causes the herds to be week and decline their population hunting must be banned to save the elk populations from declining. Idahoans don’t want the wolves removed from the state more Idahoans and the whole American country support the wolf only a small minority don’t support the wolf we need the wolves in this state America needs the wolves. The FWS and F&G officials are incompetent on managing wolves they have ranchers and anti wolf people in their pockets not to mention scientists who are also in their pockets and are manipulated. By F&G and FWS. This is the 21st century not the 1900’s there is no need for hunting. Now a days hunting is nothing but a sport. We have cattle to support us for food. Please save the wolves and prevent them from falling in the states hands. Wolves are important in America and America needs its wolves the NRA are also a threat to the public and to the wolves The Eagle represents America freedom for all and the wolves represent the American west wilderness wild and free a important animal to America that needs to protect like the Eagle. Why The United States Fish And Wildlife Service Is Rigged In The Favor Of Hunting Interests?

    1. On every state fish and game board of commissions which is made up of 11 seated officials, atleast 6 have to be hunters which riggs it in favor of the hunting interests everytime.

    2. The seated 5 non hunters are often pushed out of the board to make it a board exclusively made up of hunters.

    3. The United States Fish And Wildlife Service treats wildlife as a commodity to exploit for money and manipulate wildlife populations for the benifit of hunting interests. It is done under the fancy term of "wildlife management" which is really manipulating wildlife populations at the whims of hunters and hunting interests.

    4. The United States Fish And Wildlife Service is an agency for the welfare of hunters and not for the welfare of wildlife.

    5. Federal fish and wildlife officials and state fish and game officials make the wildlife decisions with hunting interests behind closed doors before they even begin to hold their public comment periods. When these public comment periods are held, it does not matter how many people voice against the decision or how much outrage the public expresses because the decision was already made behind closed doors with the hunting interests and the voices of the public will be ignored regaurdless.

    It is clear that the policies of The United States Fish And Wildlife Service violates the standards of democracy in this country because these policies are rigged in the favor of hunters and other special interests over the will of the public and the welfare of wildlife. As a matter of fact, only 5% of the general public hunts. It is not a democracy when a minority gets rule over the majority.

    This is why I personally feel that The United States Fish And Wildlife Service's policies and board of commissions rules need to be changed. Either that or this government agency should be dismantled and a new wildlife agency be put in its place with policies

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment