Wolf at the Door?

Wolf pack

Longtime Denver Post writer, Ric Soulen, opines in his Colorado Journal that the recent decision to relax restrictions on killing wolves in the Northern Rockies is, “completely insane and without any scientific reasoning or humane sense at all and is being perpetrated for obvious political gain.”

We’d like to commend Ric for one of the most succinct summaries of wolf politics we’ve seen in ages. Click here to read his post.


282 responses to “Wolf at the Door?

  1. Catbestland


    I think it is very likely that someone saw a wolf in that part of the state. It is not too far from where the wolf was filmed a couple of years ago. I hope more make it across the border to safety. I live in south west Colorado in the San Juan Mountains and hear reports of sightings all the time. The San Juans are a perfect habitat for wolves.

  2. CAT,

    I copied this from another blog wat is your opinion?
    “We came over Gore Pass (Colorado) today, May 1,2008.
    We saw what we initially thought was a coyote but on slowing down and really getting a look, 5 of us believe that is was a wolf. Too large and very full coat and thick neck. Dark in color.
    Have there been any sightings in this area?”

  3. PETA’s logic seems to be right on …

  4. Just to throw this out there.. but the last I read on the issue from PETA, they actually opposed wolf re-introduction. Something along the line of it was cruel to kidnap the wolves from their homes and move them to a place where people will want to shoot at them.

  5. Rob or Wendy,

    I got the email about the new logo. However, the logo did not come through. Is there any way you guys can post it here somewhere?

  6. I was hoping to find some thoughtful discussion on the wolf problem here in Idaho, but all I see is the same back and forth arguments used by the anime-loving teenagers on youtube.( although with better spelling, grammar and less obscenities.) I submit that there is no middle ground on this issue. It has been called the “abortion issue of the west”, and with good reason.
    I would like to see co-habitation and I believe it’s possible with ranchers and wolves, but it’s clear that pro-wolf and antiwolf advocates will never be able to find compromise.
    Sorry I wasted my time reading this blog.

  7. Marion, once again, who did i get rid of who disagrees with me? You shouldnt shoot your mouth off if you can’t back it up. I have a strange feeling you will never answer.


  8. Here is a link to an article about the wolf shelters put up to protect kids in NM, they also provide shelter in a storm. (when I was a kid we had to take out chances with both wildlife and storms).


  9. I guess I missed that cat. Does it give a description of the cages? I would think it would be a pretty good sized enclosure. I hadn’t heard of it, but I know there was a school bus stop in Idaho where the families had to keep the kids in their vehicles until the bus got there because a pack of wolves were hanging around, but I don’t know how many. I would think most parents would do the same in dangerous areas.
    There are a couple of schools in Park County in Wyoming with special high fences to keep the grizzlies out, but I don’t think anyone would called them cages. It might be something similar only smaller.
    I have read that the southern wolves are pretty aggressive even if smaller, speculation is beccaue they have spent so much time in and out of human run centers.

  10. Marion,
    So how would you characterize a statement that says, “I realize I am a voice in the wilderness on these human hater sites.”?
    Marion is obsessed with Ralphs site in my opinion Steve, and I believe that it is a bit more that just spreading her usual drivel. Notice how as long as her name is on the recent poster list you never see her but within a day of her name disappearing she will have some moron comment just to put her name up on the reader board again.
    There is something really screwy about this person.
    unfortunately as long as she continues to post I believe a great number of people who read this post abstain just because of the non-stop horse apples coming from her.

  11. Marion, your posting of the same tired propaganda over and over and your unwillingness to back it up or respond to people who prove you wrong is the ultimate form of disrespect. And your trying to get messages to ralph’s site through here borders on obsession. I visit the park for many reasons, watching wolves being one of them, and I spend all of my yellowstone money in gardner, silver gate, and cooke city… Name someone else who was driven away due to my attacks? Also, this may be the united states, but the owner of each blog can decide who can post and what is said. You jump onto a board to push the buttons of people you disagree with then you disappear when the arguments get too factual. It is like you are trying to waste people’s time and get everyone all riled up.

    And you don’t own yellowstone anymore than I do so you can drop this “shut up or get out” mentality towards tourists that I see you posting around the internet.

  12. Miss Marion,
    About the kids in cages. Prett sick huh? allto keep children safe from a curr. If you go to
    wolgcrossing.org you can read all about it. Pictures even

  13. Yet another calf Kill confirmed in the Gila. This one is odd. Seems a healthy pack of 6 or 7? that had never come around humans, has moved off its established range and gone on the hunt around a ranch, been hangin around for a couple weeks. I guess the Alpha Female who had, had 4 litters was suffering from a broken/healed hind leg. The leg was usless. The thinking was she had been at an elk and was injured. Anyway the wolf team packed her off for the vet, and kept her for about three weeks. Meanwhile, the pack started to circle out. Looking for her I guess. When the AF was returned to the pack, they just kept circleing out and run onto the ranch.
    The AM and AF were both wild born. Had not been hand raised or coddled in any way. The wolf team, by interveining has caused a pack that was in no danger and was no danger to anyone. Will now probably become a problem and will be removed peicemeal. This is the stuff we are up against. Stupid ,arrogant Disney style, agenda driven management.

  14. Marion,

    Go back and read some of Frank’s posts. He states that in Reserve, New Mexico they have had to resort to putting their kids in cages at bus stops to protect them from wolves. And carrying side arms and what not. This is not the first time that I have heard this either.

    One of two things will result from this type of child abuse. When the child grows up and realizes that he was traumatized to promote some political lie, he will relvolt and work against everything the parents stood for. Or, he/she will be so traumatized that they will be in need of psychiatric treatment for the rest of their lives.

  15. I have to agree Cat, if anyone is putting their kids in cages for any reason, that is child abuse. I have not heard of it. You have?
    Disagreeing with someone is one thing, calling names is another.

  16. Cat,,
    Am I bein’ disregarded? You havent made me feel that way. We disagree thats all. As to putting the kids in cages. That was the decision of the folks in Reserve. I am in the very southern tip of the Gila. I have had only one wolf on our place, two years back. The fact that he was twenty yards from my porch and completly unafraid not withstanding. He was just being what he was, a habituated hybred dog.

  17. Catbestland


    How does disagreeing with someone equal an attack??? If you will notice, it is not when a person disagrees with the others on this blog, that they are disregarded. It is when they disagree with science and begin making rediculous statements like they have to put their children in cages to protect them from wolves. In my opinion that is a form of child abuse. Do you not see the potential for causing emotional traumatic scarring here?

    And, a person can spend all day long in the park and not spend a dime there.

  18. Stevec, good morning, this is the United States and we all have the right to voice our opinion. Let’s face it just the same half dozen or so of us are posting comments. Once in a while someone else wanders in, but if they are not in agreement with you, they don’t stay long due to your attacks. I guess it makes you feel like everyone agrees with you (and I guess Ralph tells himself the same thing) if you can get rid of anyone who disagrees.
    I don’t know if you go to Yellowstone to see the wolves, if you do and you are boycotting Wyoming, please be aware that Wyoming collects the sales tax on everything sold in the park, so you may want to avoid the park too.

  19. Boys,
    I want to thank you for gettin’ me off the fence. I cannot speak to what is going on in Wyoming, but here in the Gila I will work to have the so called Mexican Grey wolf removed. He not a wolf but a hybred dog and undeserving of Federal protection. From what I read, The wolf program in the North and here in the Gila are apples and oranges. Besides, if shooting a couple of them would cause a tourist boycott here, I know quite a few of the natives who would take on that duty.

  20. I have been avoiding spending money in wyoming since their delisting plan was announced, and I stopped eating beef. It may just be a few hundred dollars per year but I am sure it adds up. I like to feel like I am doing something beyond complaining on the internet. Marion, if you are so “interested” and desperate to harass the folks on ralph’s board perhaps you should beg him to un-ban you. Now be gone… before someone drops a house on you.

  21. Marion,
    you need one of the third grade kids in your neighborhood show you where the spell check function on your computer is again. And please take you meds as prescribed. You sound confused. brooms don’t have feathers.

  22. Marion said. “The wolves chewed the feathers off of my broomstick, so I had to toss it.”

    See,. . . another reason why we need wolves.

  23. Miss Marion,
    You will be pleased to note,(as was I) that the New Mexico coalition of counties, Friday last, UNANAMUSLY passed a resolution that will oppose ANY rule regarding the Mexican curr dog reintroduction program that does not include input from the counties of N.M. Common sence wins again.

  24. Hey, I jsut wanted you to knwo since we produce a huge amount of fuel in this state you guys need to be forewarned and stay home so the state deosn’t benefit.
    As for me I don’t mind if they benefit from my little car or even my diesel truck.
    The wolves chewed the feathers off of my broomstick, so I had to toss it.

  25. I’m always kind of suprised to hear “drilling/ranching/ mining ised int the same breath. Two are extractive and the other is sustainable and can be be benificial.

  26. Keep being a mouthpiece for the drilling/ranching/mining industries. By the time you realize the damage they are causing it will be too late. (you won’t be able to blame all of it on wolves either). What kind of fuel do you use for your broomstick?

  27. Since I cannot post on Ralph’s page, and some of the same folks planning to booycott Wyoming and the other 2 states write here, I htouhgt you need to know you can’t get into Yellowstone without going thru one of the three states. All of the tax collected in Yellowstone goes to one of two counties in Wyoming.
    Since Wyomingdrills for lots of oil/gas, you might all want to quit driving so you don’t inadvertantly buy some of the Pinedale gas for your vehicle (oil turned into fuel at the Sinclair, Wyoming refinery).
    Have a good summer!

  28. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Jeff, I’ll say it one more time. we are 100% deeded. To me that would mean that 0 % is leased . in fact I lease some of mine out, at the very same rate the FS gets. 1.36 per AUM. Now , I just got back from El Paso on a wild goose chase for pump parts and stopped at Fudruckers for a burger. a $100.00 road trip. Now i need to go haul water. (still want my job Jeff) Water that the cows,deer,javalina,coyotes,quail, doves, and everything else just cant seem to go without. The drive gave me some time to think. You boys remind me of southern Babtists. You are saved, the rest of us are hell bound on a rail. You dont’ seem to care to check into anything I suggested. So I assume you like the ideas set out by the “Rewilding institute” That being the case, why dont you be the first to leave? That is what they want.(Of course Dave Forman gets to stay) There is no middle ground in your world. Its an all or nothing propisition. Like I said I was just drivin and thinkin. If this blog is intended to make people think and perhaps change minds, it has suceeded. Congratulations!
    Dont step in anything distaseful boys and stay on those trails.

  29. Frank,
    When looking at the harvest data for GMU 15 and 16a,b,c,and d, the state is saying that just those two units can sustain a yearly harvest of about 2000 animals(as of 2006, latest available). What is especially significant is that a large percentage of that harvest can be cows. Sounds like an exceptionally healthy elk population to me.
    Why won’t you say how much public land grazing you are leasing from me and how much is in the Gila Wilderness?
    According to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 the only “Equity” a livestock rancher can accrue is in the fixtures or “improvements” such as water tanks or fencing that have been installed.
    The fact that banks lend against a grazing lease is nothing more than unsound banking practice.

  30. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    You can also just punch in AG21 and a zilloion articles will come up both pro and con. There is a clear diffrance between wilderness and forest . there are elk in the forest, moving ever toward the edges, where there is food and water. The groups that brought back the wolf said he would stay in the wilderness, well given the conditions way back there he didnt. Elk tags here have MN have bee reduced along with hunt dates. As to the grazing “privilges” It is a paid for lease. paid for. the rancher holds an actual equity position, he owns the grass. he can even take out a loan on said equity position. Are fees to low? most agree that they are and are not opposed to changeing them. the problem is that the congress wants a blanket, one cost deal. There are places where its green all year . those prices should be higher than in the souht where grazing is only viable for a short time. and in fact there are some places where the govt should pay the rancher.

  31. Wolves/coyotes/other dogs will kill dogs. That doesnt make these “hybreds” dangrous to people or especially violent. The eastern coyote is a red wolf hybrid and it will attack dogs with people present. That does not make it a danger to people (no more than dogs). You should try not to buy into the anti-wolf propaganda. It hurts all of your other arguments.

    Maybe all children should be kept safe in cages…

  32. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Todd she does not speak fo everyone. I speak only for myself

    Cats its sounds like “za kamps” to me . No I do not think the curr to be an engineered menace. There is some talk that locals dumped some but no proof. Whewether humans caused the problem or not, a problem it remains. Ant DFG officials are in fact worring about what happens if and when these hybreds in the southern Rockies hook up with the Greys in the North.
    Lastly, Isaid pretty much the same thing when I was informed about Ag21 and who was involved. I think I said ” Thats knda like something out of Orwell, yuk yuk” However, I did what you have not. I looked into it. I’ll tell ya what. If you dont care to read RANGE just trot down to your local Farmers aasn. or ranchers assn. ask them they ALL know about it. Myself, I read Animal Agenda from P.E.T.A. “Earth First” and any other greenie lit. I can aquire. I wna to know what my enemy is doing.

  33. Catbestland

    “Human occupation zones” Is that like concentration camps????

    “The wolf we have here is no wolf” So, do you believe that these are genetically engineered versions of the dire wolf, created by the same UN Agenda 21 secret spy guys and pushed out of black helicopters to chase you off your home??? You actually believe this stuff???

    If hybrids are a problem it is the ones that were raised by people as pets and then when they mature, people can’t handle them because they have no idea how to be their alpha, so they dump them out in the woods. Again people caused problems. Not wolves.

  34. Frank,

    You say we all want the same thing — meaning healthy forest, game and fish?

    “I’d really like to see them gone,” said Barbara Marks, who chairs the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association’s wildlife committee and operates a cattle ranch with her husband that includes 225 acres of private property and 71,775 acres of public land.”

    Sounds to me like this person who represents a lot of ranchers is not really interested in wildlife — or at least certain wildlife. They graze about 50 public acres for each one deeded, yet can’t deal with a couple wolves? There are only about 50 of the wolves running around in all of AZ and NM combined. Dogs takes more cattle than the wolves — yet this group wants “to see them gone.” You tell me Frank, who is the radical here?


  35. Frank,
    her is a excerpt from the Taylor grazing act of 1934.
    “Grazing privileges must be safeguarded adequately but must not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands. § 315b.”
    I believe you will notice two things in this sentence.
    1. grazing on public land is specificially a PRIVILAGE.
    2. that privilege does not create any right , title, interest or estate in or to the lands.
    So how much of the public land (read that my land ) do you have the privilege of grazing? Is any of it in the Gila Wilderness.

  36. So Frank, just to clear — you started out by saying there were no elk in the Wilderness because there is not good feed, now you say there will be no elk in the Wilderness in five years. I have been listening to the outfitters in WY/MT/ID saying the same thing for a decade — and the result is bigger herds each year, more tags and more farmers complaining of crop damage.

    Yes, cattle were in the Gila long before rail — but the number increased by about a factor of 100 or more once rail showed up. Like anything else, too much of one thing can ruin everything.


  37. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Jeff we are 100% deeded.

  38. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    We are off the 152 near San Lorenzo. ya jump off the 25 at TorC. How far off are ? for fishin purposes?

  39. Frank,
    So how many acres of public land do you lease for grazing privileges and is any and how much in the Gila wilderness area.

  40. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Todd , outfitter pages are wonderful advertisments.
    However what they are touting is what was. It is absolutly true that area 15 and 16 particularly 16 c were wonderful. Call any outfitter in the Gila you choose ask them the condition of the elk herds today. From what those guys are saying there will be virtually no elk in the Gila in five years. I take my information from them. I dont’ know what part of the Gila you are refering to as far as bank erosion I run around in the areas from cliff up to Glenwood and spend some time around the area where Beaver creek and Taylor creek join up that is private land with cows on it year round. everything there looks pretty healthy to me. The fishing is ok, except for a large sucker population. and Todd the cattle were in the area 100s of years prior to the rail. The Spaniards brought em. Todd I do not in the least dispute that cattle have done damage. What I am saying is that cattle managemet practices have vastly improved and continue to do so. Cattle men have become far more savy. We are at a point now that cows can actually be used as a managment tool. not just allowed to graze in a haphazard manner. I dont really like the enviro movment . wanna talk about lies? But they have forced cattlemen and loggers to reexamine thier methods, and that as it is a good thing. There was a time that cattlemen loggers and conservation groups worked together. We all want the same thing a healthy forest, game, fish and open space. The alternitive is that ranchers go broke and sell out to developers as is happening in reserve. I will tell ya. I have seen that movie once already in My beloved California. It aint pretty. The Rancher is part of the solution.

  41. Frank,

    I am not sure who you think your audience is, but if you expect to get away with bald face lies it will not work. You are an elk hunter, right? The Gila Wilderness is known for the trophy elk. Units 15 and 16 are some of the most sought after tags in the country. So all those trophy bulls get big and healthy — but you say that there is little grass and no prey. Let me tell you something about big bull elk — there are always cows around! If you think there is no prey base in the wilderness, then you need to get out into it my friend!

    From one of the outfitter pages:

    The Gila Wilderness & National Forest…America’s largest wilderness area has produced some of the biggest bulls in the world. We feel this is attributed to some important factors…

    The sheer vastness of this region gives elk practically unlimited range. Excellent water, feed and cover help produce large herd numbers. In addition, the Gila Wilderness with its southerly location makes for a longer growing season, hence larger antler size than normal.


    so Frank, I would appreciate it if you stuck to something close to the truth. I know poets are are allowed to take liberty with words, but I did not know that the liberty extended to facts. I spend a lot of time in the Gila (out in the bush, as you say), and I know my way around a rod, rifle and all that goes with it.

    And one last stubborn fact for you — those Gila river banks that move around so much today, carving slices across the flood plains and eroding the soil — none of that existed before the trains brought cattle to the Southwest and, eventually, into the Gila. I know you don’t like to hear it and certainly won’t believe it — but that does not mean it is not true.


  42. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Steve I kid you not. If you go to wolfcrossing.org you will see for yourself. Wolves are not coyotes and hybred wolves are far more vicious than dogs. people have had their dogs killed in front of the house here.
    Jeff ours is 100% deeded but we are very small. Also it is not a grazing “privilge” it is a paid lease whreby the ground is leased but the rancher owns the grass. He holds an equity position, as per the Taylor grazing act of 1934. Most of the allotments within the Gila wilderness are in a “Non use ” position, though most within the Gila Nat Forest are active. The non use is due to the same factors that are making the wolf program fail. The wilderness is so degraded and decadnt that there is little viable grass and little or no prey base for the wolf, so hes comin to town…

  43. Frank,
    how much of your ranch is private property-in acres, how much is in grazing privilege allotment? How much inside the designated Gila Wilderness?

  44. Frank, you can’t be serious about children waiting in cages. You are aware of the number of dog attacks per year in this country… Not to mention people in every state living with coyotes/ rabies etc and not putting their children in cages.

  45. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    actually, the clock on this blog is not correct its a hour off . it was 5 am. yeah today was short on the front side I had to go to town to the skin doc, get some feed and the like. it varies . Sometime in the spring and fall I’ll be goin till midnight.

  46. Catbestland

    Well Frank, . . . I just don’t know what to say

  47. Frank,
    I assume your a rancher, Your day started at ~4:00am. You started posting here again at 11:00 am.
    7 hr day.
    I start work at 4:00 am and work till 2:30-3:30 pm. 5-6 days a week.
    10-11 hr day
    Where can I get a job like yours?

  48. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    While you are in rangemagazine.com read NATURES LANDLORDS, THE ARROGANCE OF TNC. by the way our current sec. of the tresurey is the former c e o of TNC

  49. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    OK All of the orgs you listed are involved with the projects mentioned. All are chapions of and finacial supporters of UN ag 21. It is globalisation on a grand scale. It proposes confication of all private property in the west and the removal of all rural residents to “Human occupation zones” that is the term used in the text of ag21. The groups mentioned and others are using the endangered specis act to facilite this. The wolf is being used as a tool. These groups dont give a rip! about the wolf. Now the articles suggested in Rangemagazine.com were TAKING LIBERTY and The Greening of america (3parts) by Michael Coffman Phd also American Forests, the great Lie. Written by a forester that quit the FS in disgust, as have many others. There is now a Taking Liberty website as well.
    You spoke of control. When handling large unrully livestock, any notion of real control goes out the window. “If you would hear the laughter of the gods, tell them your plans…………..” I dont know who said it but its true.
    As I said I am not for eradication of the wolf. The wolf we have here is no wolf , but a hybred. Wolves taken in recent months have had DNA work done. The F&G will not release the data. Why? also, Nowhere in the Gila is a wolf further than six miles from people. These animals were hand raised in many cases, they have no fear. In Reserve NM children now await the bus in cages. We also have rabies in the area and wolves are seen near Silver City and in the Membres. All I want is real wolves if we must have them and the ablity to treat them as any other predators. as I have said before without the wolf we already have three Apex predators. the Lion (saw a monster cat yesterday morning) the bear and us. plenty of balance I think

  50. Frank,

    I forgot, ranching is friendly to SOME wildlife, what I call “rancher preferred” wildlife. But what about predators. Are they not wildlife too. In fact, they are very esential parts of the wildlife equasion. Without them, your “rancher preferred” wildlife cannot maintain healthy populations.

  51. 1. Wild Earth Guardians, Defenders of Wildlife (although I do have some questions about their lack of attention to the bison issue,) Nature Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity and many others. I think if they get too large like DOW that is a problem too.

    2. I am familiar with these orgs. I have seen information on the Rewilding Instutute Carnivor Conservation plan. I don’t know too much about it. The Wildlands Project Sky Islands Project, while I don’t know too much about it, sounds like a good plan to me. That entire area down there I’m sure is badly in need of some sort of protection.

    And UN project 21, What can I say, It is yet another step in the direction of Globalization. I don’t even know if it matters what anyone thinks about that. It is going to happen and no one can stop it. No matter what side of the political fence you fall down on.

    I am not seeing any reference to any articles in your posts, only something about John Denver and Rolling Stone.

    At 52, the fire in my belly is just beginning to burn. Maybe you should give up beef.

  52. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    2.At the moment abatement of cheatgrass is limited to either highly intense labor or chem. treatments. Can we both agree that pestisides are a bad choice? So what is left? cheatgrass is good forage the cows will eat it. at present there is no better solution, it is something when most are doing nothing. Cheat was introduced in winter wheat seed along with russian thisle back in the 1800s, it gloms on to everything and everybody. It is in all but Alaska, and Florada. Hard to blame cows for its spread. But rhey can be used as a partial control.
    3 Most large grocery stores and the big one Wally World operate on 3% why do they stay in busness? I’m not going to get rich. at 54 the fire in the belly is dwindled. I have enough . Most ranchers in the US net about 30 k per year. Hardly “Fat Cats”. As ranching being unfriendly to wildlife, that just isnt so. If it was We wouldnt have to run off the hunting hoardes every year. We see deer and antalope and sometimes elk in mungst the cows. The private lands are far in far better shape than the forest. Texas is a prime example.
    4 I do indeed and working with animals and not owning an alarm clock. All of that. Farmers love the land too. Farming has damaged the land to a degree. Unless we wish to live in a cave and eat roots it is unavoidable. What is more important I think is true sustainablity. As I have stated ranching has been and continues to be sustainable. You are correct cows did come from europe. the first being from the Iberian area of Spain. An area that in both climate and vegitation closly resembles the S/W. Grazing has gone on there for thousands of years, and it is a beautiful country. This I have seen. You I am sure live in a house that is heated, electrifed, and has piped water. You drive a car. You knowingly or unknowingly support companys that do damage to the enviro. So , why would YOU choose a life style that is harmful to the land in any degree?
    Now, let me pose a couple questions of my own.
    1 Which groups do you think are doing the most good for land, water and wildlife quality in the west?
    2 Are you Familiar with “The rewilding institute”, the “Wildlands project” or the “Sky islands project” or UN agenda 21 and what are your thoughts?
    3 did you read any of the articles I suggested?

  53. Catbestland


    1. How does compromised ecosystems and poluted water sources and a land void of wildlife equal sustainability?

    2. How is letting cows eat the cheatrgass which would continue destruction of the ecosystem, and perpetuate the problem, an answer to the cheatgrass problem?

    3. Why, if you only make 3% profit, would you continue in an eco, and wildlife unfriendly “way of life”?

    And you raise one more question.

    4.+ You say you love the land. There is no question but that the land has been damaged to some degree by ranching. The degree to which that land has been negatively impacted is debated by both sides, but no claims that it has not been damaged to at least some degree.. So. what is it thay you love about the land? Do you love it in it’s compromised condition or do you love doing the compromising? You obviously don’t love it in it’s natural condition because it’s natural condition would preclude the presence of cattle. So, if you love the land, why do you choose a “life style that is harmful to that land to any degree?” Or, is it the control of the land that you love?

    There is no need to be insulting, I am just seeking clarification. Just answer these questions.

  54. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Cat, What are these pressing questions I have not answered? Watch your step. cause if cow poop was a snake………
    Steve C sorry, It was you who sent the chat grass article, thanks
    Gotta go, the day begins.

  55. Catbestland

    Well Frank as usual, you are wrong on all counts. Just answer the questions.

  56. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Civility really isnt big on your list is it Cat. Why is it that when the science fails you , you go right to shrill and insulting. Your “facts” seem right out of a forest Defenders handbook. I’m sure you didnt look into any of the articles
    I suggested, being as you dont need any additional information. As to why we ranch, speaking for myself I love the land, as for the money its enough. The only “Fat Cat” rancher I know of is the darling of the eco crowd, Ted Turner. I also rather doubt that you were ever on our side. in fact (just guessing here) that you or your folks (are you over 30?) listened to to many John Denver records and left some urban hole to “trek” the wilderness, wear Berkinstocks, and bake bread. I would invite you to go back. Oh, and as to stepping in cow-t. Its just grass and water , get over it.

    I probably was to windy, tryin to get it all in. Thanks for the cheat grass thing. horrible stuff. Bare ground is our worst enemy. As to the streams in the north country. I really couldnt’ comment, havin not seen em. Like I said here in the Gila the banks move, depending on rain, grazing pressure and the like. but here Im not seein anything such as you describe. The fishery here is becoming a “monoculture” for lack of a better term. The Gila trout is all the Game and Fish dep. seem to care about.

  57. Frank,

    Check this out. Some good cheatgrass info.


  58. Frank,

    You sure talk a lot for not saying much. Cows ruined the best cutthroat trout fishing in northern New Mexico. And no, these banks are not fixing themselves. It has been about a decade now — and the erosion is just getting worse. The grass that held the stream in place was lost when the cattle collapsed the banks. Now the stream banks are eroding (bare dirt). No cover for the trout, no places to rest, no shade to cool the water. For someone who supposedly gets out in the bush you sure don’t seem to know much about erosion in the Southwest.


  59. Catbestland


    The presence of cows IS a major reason that the water table dropped. Elk and bison do not have the same grazing habits as to cows. Elk and bison are constantly on the move. Cows are not, and their loitering in and around riparian areas, (craving the humididy of their native lands of Errope and India) has caused the drop in the water tables. Every hoofprint flattens stream bamks and sucks the water out of them causing broader shallower streambeds and warmer water where native fish species cannot survive. Let cows eat the cheatgrass??? So, destroy the rest of the ecosystem by letting cows eat the cheatgrass thereby perpetuating the problem in a never ending cycle???? Fencing the forests was a bad idea to the ranchers because ranchers wanted the WHOLE forest for their cattle instead of just most of it. The fact is that fences would not have been there if the cows weren’t.

    It is because exploitive ranching has been going on in the west for 400 years that the west is in the shape it is in now, although ranching has only been going on at the level that has caused so much destruction for about 150 years. How does compromised ecosystems and poluted water sources and a land razed of it’s native wildlife equal sustainability???

    You do not have the right to a certain “way of life” at the expense of the right of others to enjoy the benefits of healthy ecosystems and native wildlife populations. Public lands are NOT YOUR lands. And the wildlife that was destroyed to support ONE industry does not belong to you. It belongs to ALL of us.

    You’re darn right my bias is showing. I’m sick and tired of losing wildlife and healthy ecosystems (and having to hike through cows__t so that a few archaic fat cats can enjoy “THEIR WAY OF LIFE” I can tell you that for every greenie that went to Your side. Ten came to ours. I am one of them.

    Why don’t you answer the questions I asked before. If your way of life is so unprofitable, why do you continue to do it??? Is it pride?? Control??? To make a point??? What??? Why continue to destroy wildlife and ecosystems if you are not profiting???

  60. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    So, the mere presence of cows is the reason for the water table dropping? what about large herds of Bison or elk? No one talks about paleio managment. The indians burned off the bush every thirty to fourty years.
    What we see today in the pinion juniper (p/j) band is not “natural’ at all. The eco systems of the west REQUIRE a large grazer. every hoof print is a mini eco system, a little water tank. every plop a fertilizer factory for little microbes to thrive in.This is visable and provable. for example the Lepard Frog is thriving in raparian areas that are reularly grazed. as to cheatgrass the best way to remove it is to let the cows eat it. That goes for the tumble weed too. The FS, TNC and FG have no abatement program. The ranchers helped the FS fence the forests but informed forest mngers that it was a bad idea. Fences hamper movement of all manner of animals not just cows. Yes some places reqire a section or more for one AU. That makes it automatilly bad? (although it does reqire a leggy horse) You compare ranchers to slave owners and call ranching exploitive. When ranching has been going on in the west for over 400 years. I would call that “sustainablity” And to say that progressive intelligent grazing practices are just a PR ploy? We just know more than we used to. Yes again, there are no guarantees, only a democrat would tell you diffrent.
    I have made a life for myself . Why must I leave? What about my rights? How in the world does the rancher step on yours? Hitch up your britches pilgrim, your bias is showing. Lastly, If Im wrong why do so many notable rabid greeinies come over to our side? folks like Dan Dagget, formerly of Earth First and Tim Findley formerly of Rolling Stone who now writes for RANGE. I dont see any of our folks movin camp.

  61. Frank,

    What you are touting as good stewardship by ranchers is merely them trying to make up for all the damage their cattle have done. It is fact that when cattle are present, the water table drops which allows for the growth of the more fire proned shrub in place of healthier forest flora. Not to mention the invasion of the VERY combustour weed, Cheatgrass. And are you trying to say that the Forest service would have insisted that the barb wire be placed in the forest if there were no cows there. Of course not.

    Western ecosystems simply cannot support the demands of cattle grazing. If you love ranching so much, go somewhere where it is feasable. The midwest or back east or something. In Az and NM it can take as much as an entire section of land to raise one cow. It simply is not worth the loss of our wild lands and wildlife so that one group can claim that they love their way of life. Ante-bellum slave owners loved their way of life too. But that exploitive lifestyle came to an end as well. Ranchers just need to find something else to do. No one is guaranteed a way of life anymore. You have to make one for yourself that doesn’t step on the rights of others.

    As Todd mentioned it only takes a few bad apples to ruin something for everyone. That is the case with everything.

  62. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Sorry to be so long winded, but a couple more points. Those very dangerous and ugly fences in the forest were installed at the FSs insistance. Ranchers cooperated(it used to be that way) The FS bought the wire and the rancher provided the hands. Im told there used to be wonderful big gathers and brandings before the 60s. Would have loved to seen it! Cows can be and are being used as fine management tools. In the last 50 yrs range management has come alooong way, along with forestry science. On our little outfit, people think I spent big money to hand clear the 20′ ally that runs inside all my deeded land. No. it was intense brief grazing. How did we keep em in the ally? So simple, hold em off salt for a month, walk the lane with a sprayer of salt water and spray the bush. Presto! Got raparian areas overgrown? send in the cows. Just dont let em camp there, thats when the damage occours. You actually herd the cows and use them as big hairy brush hogs. Also we are loosing millions of board feet of lumber cause the FS will not allow companys to go in and spot harvest or take standing dead trees from burns. That is just rediculous. We need to look at our overall management practices, who is mandating them and why. I tell ya true folks. Forest policy is made by “green” groups that want you and me out of the woods. If you go to rangemagazine.com and poke around a little you might just see that.

  63. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    One dosnt have to far into the forest to see that it is dying. pick any western state, get out of the “beauty strip” and it is a sickly, overgrown firetrap. Cows are real good at getting dead stuff to the forest floor. what they dont eat they trample. Healthy forest carries 40 to 70 trees per acre. At present the forests carry 5 to 700 in most places. Aldo Leopold said “Those things that once were the ruin of the forest may now be their salvation. The Cow, the ax, fire and the gun”. (Greenies here love ol Aldo, cept that ) Fishin’!! Todd I might take you up on that! What fish really need is water. Im at 6500′ and the pinion juniper has pretty much dried up att the little water here. In AZ they have done some serious bush abatement and creeks dry for decades have returned. Here though, our Gut and feathers dept, in their wisdom hve poisoned off hundreds of miles of water that held small mouth, brown, speckled and rainbow trout for the benifit of the Gila trout which is bony as a crp, has wiskers and is little less than a colored sucker fish. So the fishing here is marginal at best. Fires in the west have grown in intensity due to a fuel load 5 times the norm, ruining far more water than cows. go back to those erode banks in a year, they will look far diffrent, mebbe you are just mad cause the hole you knew are gone? lol lazy fisherman! How much do you pay to fish? except for a licence fee nothing. Sportsmen and ranchers foot the bill for everybody. Ranchers put the water into much of the forest, serving all the diverse life therein. We aint black hats, honest

  64. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Greetings all, First, I will applologise for any spelling errors. Installing tool bars of any kind is a bit over my head. In tech areas Im what you would call “special” so I will ask all to kindly go for content. Now to the meat.Why ranchers ranch? Cause theres is not just a livlihood but a life. Few people can really say they love thier jobs. You have to love it, if you didnt you would quit. Its just that hard. Apex preditors, here, prior to the hybred wolves being reintroduced we had three, loin, bear, and us. more than enough for control. Yes many parts of the forests are fragile, no question about it.. However it is really had to blame the rancher for thier destruction. heres why. with the advent of the Clinton admin, Forest permits were drasticly curtailed. This trend continues. Ranchers could keep less cows on less land for shorter periods. Overgrazing then, on federal and state ground is pretty much moot. On private lands it still happens but it is rare. Why would the rancher dependant on the resourse, destroy it?

  65. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Greetings all, First, I will applologise for any spelling errors. Installing tool bars of any kind is a bit over my head. In tech areas Im what you would call “special” so I will ask all to kindly go for content. Now to the meat.Why ranchers ranch? Cause theres is not just a livlihood but a life. Few people can really say they love thier jobs. You have to love it, if you didnt you would quit. Its just that hard. Apex preditors, here, prior to the hybred wolves being reintroduced we had three, loin, bear, and us. more than enough for control. Yes many parts of the forests are fragile, no question about it.. However it is really had to blame the rancher for thier destruction. heres why. with the advent of the Clinton admin, Forest permits were drasticly curtailed. This trend continues. Ranchers could keep less cows on less land for shorter periods. Overgrazing then, on federal and state ground is pretty much moot. On private lands it still happens but it is rare. Why would the rancher dependant on the resourse, destroy it?

  66. Catbestland


    You don’t have to show me anything. I have lived in the Forest of Southwestern Colorado for years. I have hiked just about every trail in the area and many in adjoining states. I see first hand the devastation that has occurred to the ecosystems because of the presence of cattle and sheep. I well know that these ecosystems cannot prosper without the presence of ALL of it’s primary components including the keystone predator, the wolf. All aspects of the ecosystems are enhanced by it’s presence.

    I am still trying to do damage control on my land that was once overgrazed. The wildfire damage is far greater in areas that have been grazed than those that have not. Noxious weeds are pervasive. Barbed wire fences kill thousands of animals annually.

    The wild places have vanished BECAUSE of ranching I will take you to places where I live that will make you sick when you realize how beautiful they could and should be were it not for the offensive presence of cattle. And all for what???? You say not for profit. Ranchers only make a 3% return. For what then???? Pride??? Control??? To make a point??? What???

  67. Frank,
    Blogs do have spell check. Install the Google tool bar on your computer. There may be others but that is the one I use. Personally I look forward to conversation with you from time to time. Just hope you do not become a Marion.

  68. Hi Frank,

    It is kind of funny that you would think that Marion must know something — since she is one of those “ill informed urbanites” that invariably live in town and do not go into the bush.

    And, yeah, I know there’s stuff in the bush. I get out into it. I also know that cattle grazing has ruined some of the best backcountry cutthroat fishing I have have had the honor to fish. You are right, the majority of ranchers try to be good stewards — you also know as well as I do how fragile some parts of the Southwest landscape are. It only take a couple disrespecting ranchers to destroy treasures that can not be replaced — like our cutthroat fisheries. You are more than welcome to bring your rod out this way and I can show you the trampled, eroded banks that were once overhung hideouts for spectacular Rio Grande Cutthroat.

    Say what you want about those environmental groups, but one of them (Forest Guardians) is doing more — by far — than any fishing group to restore our streams and fisheries. Near as I can tell the only reason they are doing it is because the like healthy streams. I can’t really argue with that.


  69. The hate of locals for tourists in many areas is baffling to me. They bring in tons of money to wyoming/montana/idaho whether they are wolf watchers or not… Marion, I suggest you start a group such as the buffalo field campaign. You can call it the cow field campaign. You can devote yourself to saving the 1% of cows that wolves kill per year (and it might get you away from the computer). It seems to me that you have just about as much of a stake in ranching and hunting as I do…

  70. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    You must know some things…
    While hunting here in the Gila is a profitable and viable income to rural communities, ( as is grazing and logging.) The much touted “wolf tourism” harelded by the wolf lovers has failed to to make it self seen in any way. I think it is mostly the desire of the greenies is that you see nature from the couch. In some production from Disney or The Nature Conspiricy.Also, the largest support for wolves come from ill informed urbanites and recent pilgrims who invariably live and town and dont go into the bush. (theres stuff in the bush)
    It should be noted that the groups that have championed the wolf, dont really care about the wolf. The wolf is but a tool in the effort to get people that own land in the forest out of the forest. For those that think me crackers, you have but to look at statements made by such groups as the ALF and ELF (recognised by the FBI as internal terrorist groups) or from Earth First, Forest Guardians or The Center for Biological Diversity. Or, you could go to rangemagazine.com look under special reports, and read the very fine article “Taking Liberty” by Michael Coffman PHD.

    I so wish blogs had spell check!!

  71. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    Many of those ranchers have been on the land for generations. (So much for the myth of “sustainablity”) For the most part the “wild places” you describe would have long ago vanished without them. They have been good stewards for the most part, and have gotten better over the last 50 yrs. It is sad that the greens are mired in 1970 feel good science that has been and continues to be debunked. “Nature speaks in the language of results”. Cats, I will make you the same offer I have made on TV , Radio and in print. Come on out. I will be glad to show you the real state of the forests managed by the Gumment and their minions. You can compare it to private lands that are grazed and logged. I made this offer two years ago. Thus far, no takers. While we are at it I can show you what a “real Job looks like. Ranching is 365/24/7. And if you like gambling you will see that ranching is the ultimate crap shoot.

  72. A job is a job Marion, seems like anything would be better than a 3% return. Besides do you have something against waiting on tourists who come to see wolves? I waited on plenty of hunters who came to my town to hunt.

  73. Cat, are those jobs you suggest the ones waiting on tourists who come to see the wolves?

  74. Frank,

    Maybe a “rancher working off a 3% return” at the expense of wildlife and the ecosystems, should consider getting a job and leaving the wild places to wild inhabitants.

  75. Frank "Two Jump" Morris

    I just have to jump in this! Greetings from New Mexico, Beautiful land of entrapment”
    I see so many lovers of the wolf here! Most, I am sure are safely esconsed in some urban environment. With the wolf howling from the “Animal planet”. They have never seen a cow/ horse/ sheep/ eaten alive from the rectum. Or know that every calf loss represents a sizable loss (approx. 1000.00) to a rancher working off a 3% return. However, they will go on adinfinitum about “overgrazing”. Yet another subject that they have no working knowlage of nor could they discribe. (Not to worry, the FEDS even have trouble with that) and then go on to deride the ranchers use of “Public Lands”. A news flash here. “Public Land” is a legal description and as such has not existed since 1978. Ranchers use Federal land. We here in N.M. do not want the wolf eradicated. What we want is for these hybred, habituated preditors to be treated as any other preditor. By such treatment, they will learn fear of man and move away from humans , into the greater Gila forest/wilderness, where they will soon starve as the wildreness is almost devoid of prey animals anyway due to the strident efforts of well meaning, well funded, ill informed bunny huggers who have insisted that the forest become the decadent, dying, deseased fire trap that it is today. There is a saying; “Nature speaks in the language of results”. Truer words were never spoken.

  76. Well..here you go …Ron is active again!!


    This is long but very interesting.

    Anti-wolf activist Ron Gillett arrested for assaulting Lynne Stone
    March 25, 2008 — Ralph Maughan
    “Anti-wolf activist arrested for assaulting wolf advocate. Anti-wolf activist Ron Gillett allegedly attacks wolf activist
    Lynne Stone says she took pictures of the Anti-Wolf Coalition director, then he grabbed and shook her.” By Rocky Barker. Idaho Statesman.

    Posted in Uncategorized.
    35 Responses to “Anti-wolf activist Ron Gillett arrested for assaulting Lynne Stone”
    Robert Hoskins Says:
    March 25, 2008 at 9:49 pm
    It would be edifying to learn the reasons why Gillette was released on his own recognizance after he had been arrested for and charged with assault and battery. For some reason, this doesn’t sound like common practice. Can anyone out there enlighten us?

    Chuck Says:
    March 25, 2008 at 10:15 pm
    I hope Lynne is ok. One of these days Ron Gillette is going to push the wrong person and end up in the hospital instead of going to jail.

    Ralph Maughan Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 7:18 am
    There was a “No Contact Order” issued by Custer County that says Gilett must stay 300 feet away from her. This order was in place before Gilett was allowed to be released from jail on his own recognizance.

    Stone remains a bit shaken up with a sore hand and arm. She says she is relieved that a “No Contact Order” was issued. There have been several other incidents where Gillett followed and harassed her. One involved 3 women on the highway west of Stanley. These were also reported to Custer County law officials.

    Some attacks on Stone are being made on Rocky Barker’s article in the Idaho Statesman today. Stone says they are “flat out lies.”

    vicki Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 7:28 am
    Well, I guess this is not a huge suprise. The man is obviously enraged and irrational, in my opinion.
    I truly hope Lynne is okay. This should get some press in a larger venue too. It should shed light on the polarization of the two sides of this issue. It isn’t being seen as the catalyst for nation wide, if not world wide, change in managing endangered species.
    I hope she sues him, so that can be made public too. Aside from th emotional damage and physical pain she has endured, she has suffered this man’s tongue lashing for so long. There needs to be the lesson that bullying people is not the way to handle anything. (Although cattlemen have bullied the control of public lands away from the public.)
    Stone is a strong woman, and she will obviously muddle through. I wish her well.
    The men in my family, and most true “cowboys”, would say…
    “Why don’t you come pick on a man your own size?” This shows how cowardly Mr. Gillett is. No man with integrity would let him speek on their behalf in the light of this. Abuse is abuse. Period.

    Robert Hoskins Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 8:19 am

    I agree with you entirely here. What I don’t understand is that when an entire society, the western cowboy/multiple use culture, which has acted for over a century collectively as Ron Gillette has acted individually in abusing land, wildlife, and people, a fact that is undeniable, you advocate “communication.”

    That some cowboys are nice doesn’t wipe away the ecological, political, social, and economic damage done and being done even now by the culture. Communicating with the few does nothing to change what the many have done and are continuing to do. Wolves, bears, elk, bison, bighorn sheep, etc., are worse off now than they were 30 years ago. Recovery of wolves and bears doesn’t mean much if their protections are lifted and under state management they are faced with the free for all that wolf opponents have promised.

    At every turn, wildlife are losing. All that the collaboration and communication rhetoric that fills people with hope is doing is hiding what is happening on the ground. It’s clear enough if you look at the ground instead of listening to the rhetoric.

    Ron Gillette isn’t just expressing himself; he’s also expressing a culture that is pervasive and inherently violent and destructive. To deal with what the many are doing one has to fight. It’s collective self-defense.

    It’s not environmentalists who declared “war.” It is that bad.


    Save bears Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 8:50 am
    Gillette, needs to be monitored very closely, his pattern of behavior has escalated substantially over the years concerning the wolves..he is following a very predictable path that is prevalent in another sector of society and that is the path that often ends up in serious injury or death in a domestic abuse situation. Now that it has reach this point, he has lost any semblance of self control that he may have had at one time. Having worked with abuse victims in the past, once this line is breached, the level of anger as well as the level of violence normally gets worse. The county officials need to take this incident very serious and make sure it is not cast aside as a mistake..I would strongly suggest that anyone that has occasion to interact with Gillette in the future, do so with the utmost caution and diligence..

    Larry Thorngren Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 9:37 am
    Two years ago a stranger came to my booth at the Mountain Mama’s Art Show in Stanley and started to berate me for daring to have wolf photographs for sale. Some one who knew him pulled him out of my booth and away. I asked and was told that this crazy asshole was Ron Gillett.
    He is not rational and needs some jail or institutional time.

    Mack P. Bray Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 9:54 am
    Lynne deserves our support; she’s a great woman; her dedication to wolves is phenomenal and is to be applauded.

    Gillett is a dangerous man; a time bomb that could explode at any time. He deserves some jail time and possibly some time in some type of institution that could begin the process of rehab.

    “My name is Ron Gillett, and I used to hate wolves.”

    Denise Johnson Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 10:49 am
    I find it appalling that he was released on his on recognizance, when there was an order in place against him approaching her!!!
    Lynne has made it no secret about her fears of him, for herself as well as others.
    I wish to give Lynne my best wishes and support. I find her strong will and passion an inspiration. She is truly an amazing person. And have hoped someday to watch the wolves of Idaho with her. Is the gathering still on in June???
    I hope she recovers from this traumatizing series of incidences with this crazy man Gillett. He must really be intimated by her in so many ways to brazenly and physically attack her and try to steal her camera.
    Maybe she will sue and own his resort there in Stanley and turn it into a “Wolf Watching and Protection” operation. Howls that for Karma??

    Save bears Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 10:55 am

    The reason he was released is because they issued a protection order, at least that is the way I am reading it, not that there was a protection order already in place, if the protection order was already in place, I am sure he would have been held and could not have been released without seeing a judge and possibly posting bond…I am pretty sure this has been charged as a misdemeanor if the protection order had been in place, it would have been elevated to a felony…at least that is the way it happens in most states, but of course I am not familiar with the ins and outs of Idaho laws..

    Robert Hoskins Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 10:56 am
    I did not realize there was already a restraining order against him. This makes the decision to release him on his own recognizance even more incomprehensible. It seems deliberate.

    timz Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 10:58 am
    It’s Custer County folks.

    Catbestland Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 10:59 am
    I hope she sues him and gets his land and turns it into a wolf preserve. Maybe we should all go to Stanley wearing wolf T shirts. Maybe that would, for good, push him over the edge of the mental health precipice that he is teetering on.

    Save bears Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 11:00 am
    Ralph Said:

    “There was a “No Contact Order” issued by Custer County that says Gilett must stay 300 feet away from her. This order was in place before Gilett was allowed to be released from jail on his own recognizance”

    Which I read to say, they issued one, before they released him, not before the incident happened, often times in a domestic violence violation, the perpetrator is given the “no contact” order at the jail, before he can be release on his own recognizance…This is the way, I read what Ralph posted, he assaulted her, he was arrested for assault and battery, was issue a citation, that included a “no contact” order and then released, in other words, he can have no further contact with her, until such time as the case is adjudicated..

    Ralph Maughan Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 11:18 am
    That is correct.

    sal Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 11:37 am
    Save Bears is right.

    I have a story of an encounter with Mr. G. waaay back in 1993.

    I am a small female and he is a burly/fat six footer. I was operating a bus for a river rafting transport outfit in Stanley all summer and late in the season I had the misfortune to encounter this clown out in the Frank Church Wilderness, about 8 miles in. He was vehemently insistent that I had to get out of his way as he was on his way back to town with an empty bus. I was heading in to Boundary Creek “put-in” and had clients on board, a small wheelbase trail in tow, and several hundred feet past the nearest pullout around the bend behind me.

    Mr. G. pulled right up to my bus, radiator to radiator on a one lane forest road on a mountain pass, screaming at me to get out of his way.

    I calmly insisted that I had the right of way and that he could just back up into the pullout about ten feet behind his bus.

    He then threatened to get me fired when he got back to town.

    I told him he’d be doing me a favor and was welcome to get me fired when he got back to town, but first he’d need to back up into the pullout behind him so I could get by him and out of his way so he COULD go back to town and get me fired. Otherwise, we could be there all morning until he figured it out.

    He kept threatening me to the point of flinging himself out of his bus and stormed over to my bus screaming epithets and such. My clients were stunned. If they hadn’t been there, I am certain he would have physically assaulted me right there.

    Finally, he decided that I was not going to obey his commands and since there were witnesses, he chose to get back in the bus, grinding the gears hard, backed up and barely gave me room to pass.

    I blew him a kiss as I slowly inched by him. I don’t know what the passengers did by means of thoughtful gestures out the windows but he was cussing at them too. I was kind of hoping he’d have a heart attack or something to teach him a lesson for being such a pig.

    When I delivered my clients to Boundary Creek, they gave me a standing ovation and a nice tip. Kind of made it worth the trouble.

    He’s out of control, has been for some time and is now, obviously, unable to control his most offensive abusive behavior in public.

    Save bears Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 11:49 am
    For those that are pro wolf, fortunately Ron is his own worst enemy as well as HIS own best friend, which is normally the case with these types of individuals, he just does not realize as the vocal mouthpiece for his cause, he is doing far more harm, than good, I hope Lynn is okay, as I don’t like to see anyone physically hurt, and there is no reason for it, I do hope the authorities stand up and take notice of this, because it could lead to more physical confrontations with those who are pro wolf..these types who are prone to the escalation of violence, do not get better, they may become quiet, but there is another trigger point that WILL set him off, I just hope there is no one in the way.

    Physical violence is a mental condition, that is difficult to treat, and based on his past, he is definitely one that needs to be strongly treated, under the supervision of mental health professionals…he is showing the progressive signs of mental deterioration and reasoning power, which in fact is an illness that often times can be treated, unfortunately at his age, as well as background, it could be difficult…and is only successful in about 30% of the cases…

    As I said earlier, I would strongly suggest anyone who has occasion to interact with him in the future, please take the utmost care and be very serious about it..in other words folks, be VERY careful when you are around him in the future….

    Robert Hoskins Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 11:52 am
    Let me get this straight: the restraining order was issued as a prerequisite to releasing him on his own recognizance after he was arrested for assault and battery? Is this standard practice?

    Save bears Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 11:59 am

    Yes, it is in most jurisdictions in the US, especially when it is a first offense…As I said, I have worked with domestic violence victims and normally this is a first step, unfortunately, it is not the best step, anyone that resorts to this type of violence, should be required to talk to a mental health professional that is versed in domestic abuse, As Ms. Stone and Gillette have history, there should have been a 24 hour hold put on him, until such time as he could be evaluated, unfortunately now, he has been charged, for what he believes was his right, and will focus on her as a pinpoint of his frustration as well as anger….

    He needs to spend some time with someone familiar with this pattern, he has hit a wall, or a trigger point, that will escalate in the future..

    As I said, be very careful out there folks, especially when dealing with Gillette, he is what we call a ticking time bomb, and he could actually drag some of his cronies into it with him…

    Working with Abuse victims, I take this type of action VERY serious…

    Layton Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    I don’t know who the Ron Gillette that you had the confrontation with was, but the Ron Gillette that used to run the Triangle C rafting outfit in Stanley (he’s sold it now) stands all of about 5′8″ or 5′9″ and must weigh about 150 or 160.

    “Burley, fat six footer” doesn’t even come close. I’ve known him for about 20 years.

    That surely doesn’t excuse anything about his behavior but the man is not anywhere near that big.


    sal Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 12:11 pm
    Well, it was a wild guess as to his actual height, but he’s still looked pretty “round” whenever I saw him then. My point was, he’s bigger, by weight at least, and has no second thoughts about fiercely approaching someone while in a rage. there is no reasoning with this clown and he should be p;aced in facility to keep him from just running out and accosting anybody he deems worthy of his vile presence and its implicit negative content.

    I don’t care who knows him, he isn’t safe to be let out, even in the wilds of Stanley from the looks of it.

    timz Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 12:14 pm
    “I hope she sues him and gets his land and turns it into a wolf preserve”

    It’s a nice thought but his place is right in the middle of dowtown (such as it is) Stanley. Would not make very good wolf habitat.

    Robert Hoskins Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm
    Save Bears

    Thank you for the information. I will say that it makes no sense, but then, much of the law as it is doesn’t make sense.

    I would agree with you; the problem now is that he might drag some of his buddies into this, and they’re under no restraining order–not that, as it seems, restraining orders mean all that much.

    It has not been my impression that people like Ron Gillette are amenable to therapy, given the culture he comes from and the unhealthy focus he seems to have on wolves to the exclusion of anything else. It doesn’t seem that you can deal with what he is, but only with what he does. That seems true of all too many people we run into who are of the “multiple use” persuasion, such as the fellow in Montana who talked publicly about putting a bullet into the head of a woman conservationist at a Forest meeting.


    SmalltownID Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 12:22 pm
    Same guy Layton. I hope Lynne is ok and that is as bad as it gets. It is amazing that people can reach that point. As save bears put it, he is his own worst enemy.

    I don’t think it is fair to say Ron Gillett is the paradigm of ranchers Robert. Aren’t you the one who keeps comparing ranching to slave labor? As save bears would probably tell you there is his type in every demographic.

    Denise Johnson Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 12:30 pm
    Save Bears, thank you for all the information. I appreciate your clearifing the “No Contact Order” misunderstanding.
    As this is not his first encounter with Lynne, it maybe his first offense. Lynne, has been warning people about him as you have for quite sometime. I’m sure she appreciates your stressing the point in her behalf. I hope the courts take it as seriously as you have pointed out.

    Robert Hoskins Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Actually, I referred to multiple use, not ranching. And my point is that we constantly run across people like Gillette more than perhaps you’d like to admit. The fact is, there is a strong component of violence in western culture, where it’s considered legitimate to lash out violently against those you don’t like. Conservationists make a good target, especially women conservationists. Intimidation of opponents is the response of first choice here in the West, and subsequent responses escalate from there in the wrong direction. I object strongly to that.

    Do you deny it?


    One more for ya Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 12:33 pm
    Why hasnt lynn posted here yet>>?

    Could it be she is busy developing some more psycho angry man photos for her site….both these individuals need to GROW UP!!!!!

    She is under no obligation to post to my blog. At any rate, the extent of her injuries are being evaluated today. The Stanley clinic was closed yesterday.

    She has some photos of the “psycho angry man.” I’ve seen them. You describe them well. Ralph Maughan

    Layton Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 1:10 pm
    Oh for cryin’ out loud Robert,

    Now you are letting your pathological hatred of ranching and cowboys color your opinion of anybody in the west. Aren’t you getting just a bit carried away??

    To accuse people from the west as somehow being more prone to violence and especially violence toward females is just so much BS.

    If you dislike the west so much — why are you still here?? Seems to me that you ought to take some kind of a chill pill and loosen up your hatband a bit.

    Ron Gillette is a stupid little moron — fortunately he is no more typical of western culture than you are. There are red eyed radicals on BOTH sides!!


    Robert Hoskins Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Sounds to me like you’re denying the facts. Ask the women conservationists in the West who have been stalked, had dead animals left on their doorsteps, suffered from threatening and harrassing phone calls night on end, and received threatening letters, aside from being assaulted like Lynne. If you want to claim that it’s happens all over, well, fair enough. The KKK works that way too wherever you find it.


    SmokyMtMan Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 3:14 pm
    A little off-topic, sorry about that, but….

    Robert Hoskins says: “That some cowboys are nice doesn’t wipe away the ecological, political, social, and economic damage done and being done even now by the culture. Communicating with the few does nothing to change what the many have done and are continuing to do. Wolves, bears, elk, bison, bighorn sheep, etc., are worse off now than they were 30 years ago.”

    I don’t accept for one moment that a person as eloquent and intelligent as yourself can actually blame ‘cowboys’ for the environmental ills of the West.

    The vast majority of ecological damage in the West is directly attributable to large corporations whose business is primarily natural resource extraction and the influx of large numbers of new residents into the West.

    How many gas wells are in the West? How many acres of forests have been logged? What is happening to the air quality out West? What is happening to wildlife habitat as parts of the GYE have become among the fastest growing residential areas in the U.S.? What ecological changes have climate change wrought in the West so far? What has caused these hard and long droughts? What are the far-reaching affects of the large-scale mining out west?

    Robert, I would like to let you know that of all those ecological problems just mentioned, not a single one can be attributed to ‘cowboys”. I am not a cowboy; hell, I have never sat on a horse in my life. Have no interest in ever doing so, either.

    But put the blame where it belongs: on big business, not ‘cowboys’. And big business works hand-in-hand with our government officials so that the U.S. economy is supplied with the natural resources it requires to function.

    Do you personally use oil, natural gas, metals, electricity, wood products, etc? Where else will these products come from if we exclude our public lands from any use whatsoever?

    And blaming ‘cowboys’ for the West’s environmental ills is ignoring the reality of the West’s history of exploitation.

    vicki Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm
    I advocate communication because to do otherwise would make me as barbaric as those who you oppose.
    They have communicated on some small level. Maybe you could learn to communicate too, and I mean no offense. I have just noticed that you have a tendancy to be somewhat abbrasive when you make a point. I also admitt to the same myself.
    I would say you boast a wealth of knowledge, but your presentation and written demeanor make it very hard to agree with you. I think you would get a lot more people to see things your way if you just stated things a little more kindly and with a bit more compassion.
    Remember, no man is right 100% of the time, but a good man is gracious all of the time.

    Jim Holyan Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 5:19 pm
    I’ve been a wildlife biologist with the Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Program since 1997. I have to side with Layton on this one that to make broad generalizations is to misrepresent all sides of the wolf issue. The efforts Lynne Stone has taken to prevent wolf-livestock conflicts most assuredly deserve recognition and praise. Ron Gillette’s actions in physically assaulting her most assuredly deserve scorn and criticism. One summer evening in 1998 (maybe 1999), while I was living in Stanley and almost daily monitoring the Stanley Basin pack, a woman that I did not know at the time, knocked on our residence door and as soon as I swung it open began a verbal tirade (with some expletives thrown in). She was very upset as to why we couldn’t just leave the wolves alone and do something to remove the livestock that were present within the pack’s home range. I attempted to explain the wolf program’s strategies/motives behind our management direction, but made little impression on the guest. After a mostly unsuccessful communication she went away unsatisfied and still upset, and I was left wondering about the very impassioned (if not hostile) visitor. A few days later I learned the identity of that woman- Lynne Stone. She has changed her style from confrontation to one that engenders tolerance/cooperation, while still maintaining her strong pro-wolf stance. I respect her passion and sincerely feel she has prevented the deaths of numerous wolves through her efforts. While I doubt Mr. Gillette is capable/willing to alter his viewpoints/behavior, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but still don’t condone his actions.

    Kathryn Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 5:38 pm
    Thank you all for your information about the latest mess in Stanley. I have hopes of spending some time in Stanley this summer volunteering with Lynne. This confrontation and the atmosphere in Stanley makes me a little bit uneasy about going there. This may be a stupid question, but are there any local pro-wolfers in Stanley other than Lynne? Maybe I just keep reading about the anti wolf people in the Stanley area? Thanks for any input from everyone.

    Don Riley Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 5:57 pm
    Go with Lynne, you will have a ball. Ron Gillett is an aberration, albeit a dangerous one as has been well documented. If he shows up just leave without confrontation.
    Carry bear spray, you should anyway. If he becomes confrontational and is unarmed and you cannot avoid him, drop him. Then call the sheriff ASAP.

    Stanley has plenty of good people as well as weirdos. Don’t let this guy have any control over your life.


    Ralph Maughan Says:
    March 26, 2008 at 5:58 pm
    I think the atmosphere in Stanley toward wolves is now either neutral to pro-wolf. They’ve had them around for more 12 years now and nothing much ever happens except for an occasional dead calf or sheep, and the ranchers who lose them don’t live in Stanley anyway. They bring them in, in late spring.

    The holdouts are some old-line families and a few men around town. I think of Stanley as safe, except for you know who.

  77. Buffalo Field Campaign
    PO Box 957 West Yellowstone, MT 59758
    (406) 646-0070 phone
    (406) 646-0071 fax


    Mammoth Visitor’s Center Temporarily Closed

    For Immediate Release, March 26, 2008
    Contact: Buffalo Field Campaign, Dan Brister 406-726-5555
    On Site Contact: 513-263-0787

    Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park – Two West Yellowstone women, Miriam Wasser, 20, and Cat Simonidis, 22, locked themselves together around a post inside the Mammoth Visitor’s Center in Yellowstone National Park at approximately 10:30 this morning to call attention to the Park Service’s slaughter of nearly 1,000 bison since February 8. Upon discovering the women, Yellowstone officials closed the visitor’s center to members of the public and the media, including reporters from CNN, CBS, and an independent film maker. The women were extricated, arrested, and taken to the Mammoth jail at approximately 12:30 this afternoon.

    In spite of receiving thousands of calls, letters, and emails from concerned citizens opposed to the bison slaughter, Yellowstone National Park remains intent on capturing and killing bison. As the women staged their action, Yellowstone Rangers captured between 30 and 50 bison a few miles away. Between February 8 and March 26, Park rangers have captured more than 1200 bison on the north side of Yellowstone National Park. While the government’s official reason for the slaughter is to prevent the spread of brucellosis from wild bison to cattle, no such transmission has ever been documented.

    In a statement Miriam Wasser explained her motivations: “Faulty brucellosis science and politically motivated carrying capacity figures used in the plan are no excuse for the hazing, capturing, and slaughtering of the last genetically intact, free-roaming bison population in the United States. This issue is black and white: the Park Service is meant to protect and preserve wildlife in National Parks, not indiscriminately slaughter hundreds of buffalo, or compromise their wildness by quarantining and holding them in pens. I am doing this to illuminate the wrongful actions of the Park Service, actions which must STOP!”

    The women sent a letter to Yellowstone Superintendent Suzanne Lewis asking the Park Service to withdraw from the Interagency Bison Management Plan and to protect, rather than slaughter, the bison the agency is entrusted with protecting. The letter, full statements written by the women, and photographs of the action can be viewed on the Buffalo Field Campaign website at: http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/media/press0708/pressreleases0708/pressalert032608.html

    3,208 wild American bison have been killed or otherwise removed from the remaining wild population since 2000 under actions carried out under the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP), as well as state and treaty hunts. The IBMP is a joint state-federal plan that prohibits wild bison from migrating to lands outside of Yellowstone’s boundaries. Wild American bison are a migratory species native to vast expanses of North America and are ecologically extinct everywhere in the United States outside of Yellowstone National Park.

    Buffalo Field Campaign strongly opposes the Interagency Bison Management Plan and maintains that wild bison should be allowed to naturally and fully recover themselves throughout their historic native range, especially on public lands.

    Buffalo Field Campaign is the only group working in the field, every day, to stop the slaughter of the wild American buffalo. Volunteers defend the buffalo and their native habitat and advocate for their lasting protection. Buffalo Field Campaign has proposed real alternatives to the current mismanagement of American bison that can be viewed at http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/actnow/solutions.html. For more information, video clips and photos visit: http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org.

  78. I recall Marion saying that she is afraid wolf activists will turn violent and attack ranchers… I guess the anti-wolf psychos crossed the line first.

  79. I think Wilford Brimley would get jealous…

  80. I hope that b_____d Gilett gets the S___t sued out of him and You Know Who gets enough of his money to buy her own Wolf Preserve.

  81. Marion,
    I believe Ron Gilett over in Stanley is single. You should check it out. That would be a match made in heaven.

  82. On there all the time. He really manages to collect a good variety of news stories over there.

  83. I know it is Ester, my dinner is ready…
    kind of…:)

    I was reading some posts on Ralph’s site.
    Good reading.
    I hope I can meet this guy in person.
    He lives not that far from me.

    And the blog is awsome. People do argue and have somewhat diff points of view.
    Steve? Have you visited Ralphs’ site?

  84. It doesnt really matter if a new thread is started. Things usually end up going in the same direction…

  85. Marion. Thank you.

    BTW.. does anyone know how to start a new topic thread here.
    Intersing topics:
    Wolves return to Utah..for how long?
    Yellowstone Buffalo slashed by 25 %

    and what can we as individuals do to protect our wildlife – at least in the National Park?

  86. Izzy, I NEVER in anyway indicated that the killing of those animals was not a terrible thing. It was vandalism pure and simple, and it is only my opinion that it is at root a fight between the two property owners.
    Vandalism of ANY kind is beyond my ability to understand, and I most certainly condemn it, no matter what the reason for it is, or who commits it.

  87. Marion,
    do you read what you write…
    bloody killing of buffalo is not a biggy for you…
    oh.. no biggy ….buffalo got in between families in conflict so lets kill them like we did this to many of them in 1800’s ..skin them, kill them, chop them …

    you said:

    And the property owner gave the guys who did the slaughter the right to go in and do it.

    ..so I can do the same to the cattle?
    or will i go to jail..?
    wow…you lost it…
    I am telling too much beef proteein kill brain cells….


  88. Marion, so little beef is produced in the rockies that all grazing allotments could be given up and all cow production could stop tomorrow and the price of beef would most likely be unaffected.

    I hope you had fun spreading your propaganda around the Billings Gazette for the past week. Marion gets proven wrong>Marion disappears for a week>Marion returns and repeats same garbage>cycle repeats.


  89. Good on you Izzy, you can do it. I have been vegie for 18 years. The price of beef should go up. Just like the price of any poison, drugs, whatever. I hope we develop alternative energy sources and therefore, should not have to beg for oil.

  90. The Colorado situation is not even about poaching. The situation is exactly the same as if it had been 30 head of cattle. It seems to be shaping up as the buffalo rancher letting his animals graze on another person’s property without permisssion. And the property owner gave the guys who did the slaughter the right to go in and do it.
    The whole thing is a fight between neighbors as near as I can tell and has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, poaching. buffalo per sey, or anything else. I got the impression from the article that there had been bad blood between the two for some time and this is a result of that fight.
    Glad to hear you’re giving up beef, Izzy, the price is going to keep going up as more and more grazing allotements have to be given up. I only hope we can always have good American beef, not have to beg like we do for oil.

  91. Today I have made a very big decision.
    I decided NOT to eat beef.
    I love good filet mignon..no more…
    I do not want to support people who have no respect for wildlife.
    My husband thinks I will not be able..heheheheh
    I will give my best try.

    Day 1….:)

    And I still can’t belive we poached the bisons or we distroyed 25% of Yellowstone Americian Bison population…
    Shame shame…

  92. Those guys are not “hunters” they are POACHERS. Two very different things.

  93. If wolves killed 30 cattle in one sitting it would be the end of the world…

  94. Out of topics but….another example of cattle and bisons…

    PARK COUNTY, COLORADO – Deputies are still counting the number of bison that were killed on Wednesday across several hundred acres of land. Park County Undersheriff Monte Gore says they received a 911 call on Wednesday around noon that a group of hunters was actively gunning down the bison in an area in Park County near Guffey.

    “I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Gore. “It’s tragic.” Residents who live nearby are calling it a “massacre” and a “bloodbath.”

    According to Gore, they are still processing the scene and have yet to determine how many bison were killed, but 9NEWS has learned it is at least 30 bison. Park Coutny Sheriff Fred Wegener says they were killed over several days.

    Authorities say they have interviewed about 14 people and say it’s possible the group that shot the bison was hired by another person. “It appears to have been some sort of hunting activity, now to what extent, I don’t know,” said Wegener.

    “It looked like they’d been harvesting these animals, which leads me to believe they were hunting them.”

    The bison were part of a private herd owned by the Downary family, which also owns the Elk Mountain Cattle Company. Authorities are investigating whether the shootings are connected to a property dispute. The bison were on an area of land that belongs to another family that residents told 9NEWS has an ongoing dispute with the Downary family.

  95. Rob, or anyone who may know.

    I don’t know if you can answer this or not, but maybe you can point me in the right direction. Do they still use those TTDs (Tranqulizing Trapping Devices) with leg/foothold snares when trapping wolves for reasearch or collaring or, transporting? If so, do they follow up the initial dose of tranquilizer received from the divice with additional tranquilizer or sedative? I am doing a minor research project and am having difficulty locating information on the subject.

  96. WWWBD?

    What Would Wilford Brimley Do?

  97. What does working have to do with hiking? I work 40-50 hours a week and I look forward to getting up to NH to hike or going on my annual trip to yellowstone. I think that you have completely missed the point of why people care about these lands. They are a good way to escape from the daily grind… “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people”. Not “for the financial benefit of a few people”.

    Greybull must be the oatmeal and “diabeetus” capital of the world if Wilford Brimley lives there…

  98. I just want to know whether Wilford Brimley really lives in Greybull.

  99. Marion,

    You said. . . “I definitely think that backcountry use more than a mile from highways should not be allowed. . . ” Does that apply to cattle and sheep as well?

  100. Yes, Marion — all backcountry travelers are on welfare. When I heard you say this stuff five years ago I thought you were just ignorant, but now I know that you know the facts and choose to be offensive. You can’t find a community to start a thoughtful discussion (i.e. Rene) so you choose instead to offend, bait and flame others trying to have substantive discussions. This is actually why Ralph (and others) have banned you. It is not because you bring a different viewpoint, it is because your purpose is never to explain or understand, it is solely to irritate and inflame. Your hateful rhetoric is so detached from reality that you are left with a set number of rants that are equally funny and sad.

    And your shtick never changes — you just move from blog to blog with same, tired, uninformed rants to find a new group of people to offend. I can dig out your post at Yellowstone.net from years ago that are nearly verbatim as these. Do you just cut and paste this stuff? Isn’t there anything better to do in your urban neighborhood than this?

    Enjoy your day,

  101. Todd, you are right, I seldom hike, I had to work for a living. That doesn’t mean I don’t go a mile or so, and I like to check how the exclusive folks who feel all land should be jsut for them, actually treat it. You don’t have to be a mile in to find toilet paper, diapers, water bottles etc from time to time. But of course as long as it is left behind by the people who are good enough to have access, it doesn’t matter. If you’ve never seen it, you haven’t hiked far.
    I definitely think that back country use more than 1 mile from highways should not be allowed. Yellowstone is stuffed to the brim with wildlife and some of it try to avoid humans. Those humans are determined that their right to follow is supreme.

  102. Marion,

    When you are hiknig down a narrow brushy trail, which happens to be the same one that cows use, It is almost impossible to miss their pies. I think it is against the law for humans to poo without digging a hole and burying it. It might not be but this is what anyone who has respect for the land and other hikers do. Maybe ranchers don’t. That’s probably what you’ve seen.

  103. Marion,

    When was the last time you got more than 10 ft away from the road? You made it pretty clear over the years that you were never much of a hiker.


  104. I share the land with cows in the mountains, I know what a cow pie looks like and seldom step in one, I guess I prefer that to a human pile covered with toilet paper blowing in the wind. I do enjoy all of the wildflowers thecow poo feeds. Ranchers cannot and do not prevent you from using their allotments.

  105. So they SHARE the land. I guess that is fair if you like camping around cow feces, trampled grass, and muddy streams (provided the ranchers would even let anyone camp/hunt/fish in their grazing alotments).

  106. Sorry about the Wilford Brimley thing — I had to look up Greybull on Wikipedia because I couldn’t remember which county it was in, and it claims that he is lives in Greybull.

    Then I clicked on the link to learn more about him and it turns out he’s a big proponent of cockfighting.

  107. No they do not make up the difference, and in fact congress is talking about eliminating it altogether, and almost did last year.
    Is Mr. Brimley supposed to be the richest man in America or something and responsible for providing your recreation?
    I’m at a loss to understand the connection to cockfighting. I guess as far as Larry Craig, one could compare him to Gov Spitzer (D) NY, at least Craig did not prosecute others for doing what he was doing…. I know, I know that is the Democrat way, so accept it.

  108. Be sure you clarify the terms of the “Cockfighting tournament.” If you don’t want the illustrious Larry Craig in attendance. I know bad taste, but I couldn’t resist.

  109. Summary of PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) from BLM:


    If Big Horn County isn’t getting its PILT funding, take it up with Congress. Or better yet, take it up with the geniuses who got us into this war.

    Or ask Wilford Brimley for some money instead — maybe he could hold a cockfighting tournament to raise money.

  110. Thanks, Jeff E!

    Marion, you’re forgetting about all the federal payments to counties that more than make up for the fact that local governments can’t tax federal lands.

    Keep in mind, too, that it’s people in Connecticut and Illinois and other populous eastern states that contribue taxes that pay for the upkeep of those lands.

    Also, those nice Forest Service and BLM salaries in tiny little towns are a boost to the local economy.

    The “we don’t get property tax from federal lands” argument is so ludicrous, I never even hear anyone else make it anymore.

    Agree with Cat that “more right to share” isn’t a very clear statement.

  111. Marion,

    What does “ranchers have more right to share the land than others have to demand exclusive rights to it.” mean??? Share with whom? They certainly do not want to share it with wildlife. Ranchers are the only ones who claim “exclusive rights” to it. They also are the only ones who are destroying it.

    Locals are not paying property taxes on public lands. Who is demanding that it is free to them??? All the hikers, campers outdoor enthusiats etc. that I know would gladly pay a visitation fee in order to keep their lands ecologically healthy. We all pay our taxes to maintain those lands and the only one who benefits from our tax dollars is the rancher.

  112. Sap,
    “3. Majority, plurality, in the context of an election, poll, or other voting situation resulting in a statistically based statement, both denote an amount or number larger than some other. In situations in which only two candidates, options, or positions are concerned, the terms are interchangeable, though majority is by far the more commonly used: She beat her opponent by a large majority. The proposal received a large plurality of “Yes” votes. When three or more choices are available, however, a distinction is made between majority and plurality. A majority, then, consists of more than one-half of all the votes cast, while a plurality is merely the number of votes one candidate receives in excess of the votes for the candidate with the next largest number. Thus, in an election in which three candidates receive respectively 500, 300, and 200 votes, the first candidate has a plurality of 200 votes, but not a majority of all the votes cast. If the three candidates receive 600, 300, and 100 votes, the first has a majority of 100 votes (that is 100 votes more than one-half the total of 1000 cast) and a plurality of 300 votes over the nearest opponent.
    Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
    Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. ”

    I respectivly disagree.

  113. Ranchers have more right to SHARE the land than others have to demand exlusive rights to it. Especially when you consider that locals have to pay increased property tax because federal land is not taxable, and we carry the burden. On top of that those who are demanding exclusive use also demand that it be free for them.

  114. From wikipedia:

    “A majority, also known as a simple majority in the U.S., is a subset of a group that is more than half of the entire group. This should not be confused with a plurality, which is a subset having the largest number of parts. A plurality is not necessarily a majority, as the largest subset may be less than half of the entire group.”

    Score one from the lady from Greybull.

  115. Marion,

    Please answer the question I posed to you. Do you believe that ranchers have more right to Public Lands for their animals ( destructive cattle and sheep) than the majority of the population who wish to see their animals, (wildlife in all it’s forms, including wolves which contribute to the health of the ecosystem) inhabit their rightful places there. .

    What has locality to do with it? Ranchers do not live on the public lands that their cattle destroy. Why should they have the right to control/exploit it. Are you saying that city folk are not entitled to a say in their public lands? Are you saying that city folk are incapable of understanding the matter from all sides? I believe that there are many city dwellers that have a firm grip on the situation, a great love for the wildderness and wildlife, and would take issue with you.

  116. 49% is more than 39%.

  117. more slippery than a night-crawler on a wet lawn

  118. Well it is also a fact that the further folks likve from wolves, the more comfortable they are with the introduction.
    Math is not my long suit, but I don’t belieeve that 49% is more than half. If you read the actual stats in that 1984 article by Bath, you will see that even though he said 49% were ok with the whole thing, the numbers don’t actually add up in the charts he provides. On top of that the question was having wolves in Yellowstone. They made a point of asking if folks thought the wolves would migrate out of the park and become a livestock problem, overwhelmingly the ranchers did. Even more overwhelmingly the environmental groups were sure they wouldn’t. And most folks did not think they would. They of course were out by the time the second load arrived.

  119. Marion,

    That is something that I am curious about too. Half the people in Wyoming have expressed a desire to have wolves in their state. The percentage is higher in Montana and Idaho and Colorado. Why should their will be ignored? Do they not have just as much right to the use of public lands as do ranchers? Do they not have the right to see the animals that they cherish thrive on lands that are natural habitat for those animals (wolves)? Especially since the land prospers with the presence of wolves and suffers with the presence of cattle. After all the wolves are owned by these people that want them just as much as cattle are owned by the ranchers. Why is it that you think that the ranchers will should take precedence over the will of the majority of the people?

  120. Marion,
    I have posted that same information to you that Steve just did several months ago. At that time I backed you into a corner and you finally had to admit it. Better step your meds up another level. Like I said , more slippery than a night-crawler on a wet lawn.

  121. Hey Marion, the following quote is from Wyoming’s own wolf plan. They are the most biased source of all against wolves and there you can see that there was a higher percentage of people in favor of wolves being reintroduced than against. Why should the views of half of your state be ignored? These arent east coast liberals, they are one out of every two people you walk by on the street. I would LOVE to see how you lie and blow this off…

    “Wyoming residents were split on their views towards wolves prior to reintroduction, with 49% in
    favor and 39% opposed to wolf restoration into Yellowstone National Park (YNP) (Bath 1991).”


  122. Marion, say something that proves it is not so. We all know you wont…

  123. The majority of poeple in Wyoming did NOT, and saying it does not make it so.

  124. Marion,
    You continue to ignore the fact that the MAJORITY of Wyoming residents favor wolf reintroduction. Can’t come up with a good fib to explain that?

  125. Sorry, Cat, I must have you confused with someone else who said it was greedy of the ranchers to sell to developers rather than to an environmental group or just keep it for wildlife.
    You do realize much of the unsettled land out here is not going to support wolves or cattle don’t you, maybe antelope and jackrabbits (maybe some that Joel Berger couldn’t find)? I don’t think wolf packs, especially the size of these mega packs would survive on antelope, at least I would hope they wouldn’t be able to do to them what they are doing to the Yellowstone elk.
    this is off subject some, but does anyone know if they do DNA testing on the wolves when they dart them and do the other stuff? With all of the breeding of multiple females and into other packs, and it appeared from Kathie Lynchs report even the same female breeding with different males, I would think it possilbe for pups from the same litter to have different fathers/DNA.

  126. AND . . . there are over 300 million acres of “unsettled” land in the west. This is where wolves should be.

  127. Marion,

    When did I say ranchers should not sell to developers or to the outfit with the most money????? I’ll tell you when. NEVER!!!!! In fact I have said “No one cares what people do with their private land” It is the PUBLIC lands that need protecting. When you are proven wrong. (which is always) You have to make up nontruths in an attempt to change the subject in hopes that people won’t notice how wrong you about the previous subject.

  128. Marion,
    you almost sound human. did you change/increase your meds?

  129. Steve, of course she didn’t say sell to developers, in fact she has indicated that they should not sell to developers or the outfit with the most money, but rather to have it “protected”. the fact is once you run them out of business the only way they can recoup any of their investment is to sell for the highest price possible.
    I love wildlife, all of it, I don’t even mind the wolves in reasonable numbers, even though I do not beleive settled land is any more appropriate for them than it was 400 years ago on the east coast. I do hate the idea that the wolves have to be increased until the ranchers are put off the land. And that seems ot be the essence of your love of your fellow man.

  130. Marion,

    The only blind hatred that is glaringly apparent here, is yours for the wildlife that may inconvenience some ranchers’ ability to exploit to the point of depletion, our natural resources.

  131. When does she ever say they should sell to developers?!! STOP putting words into people’s mouths!

  132. The little ranchers were probably forced out and they chose to sell to big corporations that could withstand the losses to introduced predators on top of all of the other things that go with ranchers. Are you saying that they should have sold to developers instead?
    You may be able to force individuals to pay for their own thousand dollar cowss that wolves eat, but you cannot prevent them from finally selling their land to the highest bidder. One thing you guys pay no attention to is the fact the majority of wolf kills take place on private property, (I wrote to DOW over 2 weeks ago and asked if they have a breakdown of payments for livestock on private versus public land, they have never answered except for the auto answer that they would reply in 5-10 working days). In your blind hatred of ranching you try to ignore that millions of acres of private property is involved that can go to development or trophy ranches.

  133. Catbestland

    In addition to the environmental skew there is also a class skew regarding multi-million dollar cattle operations in the west as apposed to small time operators. Of the 300 million acres of grazed public lands in 17 western states, 500 of the 23,000 permitees hold 47%. The top 20 permitees hold nearly 10% of the acreage. That is nearly 30 million acres held by 20 permitees. That adds up to a lot of subsidy. Any way you look at it, the fat cats of the cattle industry are getting richer at the expense of our wildlife and ecosystems, while the small time rancher who, for the most part does not use public lands are going out of business and being swallowed up by the larger operations. The USDA statistics noted that while there were 700 fewer producers in Montana in 05 than 06 the production actually went up. So if Marion is looking for someone to blame for putting hard working ranchers out of business, she need look no further than the cattle industry itself.

  134. I feel bad for ranchers in wyoming and montana. Losing a couple hundred cattle per year to wolves must really put a huge dent in the 4 million cattle between the two states. If the government doesnt spend tens of millions of dollars killing wolves to prevent these losses the cattle industry as we know it could disappear in a few hundred years!!! When will the world wake to this injustice?!!!!!

  135. I read somewhere online (might have been the casper star tribune) that Marion produces more BS than all of the cattle west of the mississippi combined and that it is statistically the second highest factor contributing to global warming… Way to ignore Jeff!! A quiet majority of people in wyoming support wolves but unfortunately there is a vocal corrupt minority ruining everything!

  136. Cat – I think the skew there reflects the environmental differences between South Carolina and Montana — there are probably lots of little 20-cow operations in SC; it takes a lot more land to run cattle in Montana so the operations tend to be a lot bigger.

    Keep in mind that beef production in Montana is not all that dependent on public lands.

    See (posted months ago by Jeff E. ,thanks!):

    There’s a map on page 21 of that document that shows how much each western county relies on public land forage. The vast majority of Montana counties get 0-10% of forage from federal land; all except one get get less than 31% of their forage from federal land.

    Without federal forage, cattle production is virtually subsidy free, until they get shipped to Nebraska to eat massively subsidized corn.

  137. Catbestland


    Yet again I stand corrected. The statistics I read reflect the numbers of producers in states. South Carolina has more cattle producers at 14,000 as compared to Montana at 11,400.

    This, in my view is even more disturbing when you consider that public lands are controlled by VERY few ranching operations who gain enormous profits from a highly subsidised industry.

  138. Poopie talk,

    Marion..compare cow manure and wolf poopies…
    Lady..be serious…I have 3 dogs and they will never out poop the cow…

    wow….BTW I have a picture of a wolfie pooping..adorable…
    not like a cow…
    pooping cow is not adorable.. :)~

    PS. Marion, I gave a you a compliment for taking nice pictures. Where is the ‘thank you’

    you are very welcome…

  139. Since it keeps coming up, maybe WEG ought to have a hot link to the USDA cattle inventory?

    Cat, South Carolina has 400,000 cattle.
    Montana has 2.4 million.
    Wyoming has 1.3 million.

    The same page where you can find this information also lists the top five for ALL cattle (cows, calves, feeder cattle, dairy cattle): Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, California, Oklahoma. The three Plains states there have huge feedlot operations that tend to be stocked with calves from the major beef calf production states — like South Dakota, Missouri, and Montana.

  140. Catbestland


    Yet again, you do NOT get it straight. Yet again you twist what I said, that the time is coming when the vast majority of the nation will not tolerate paying taxes to support a small number of PUBLIC LANDS ranchers, while they exploit the nation’s natural resources and destroy it’s wildlife and wildlands. ESPECIALLY when it is realized that these ranchers contribute VERY little to the nations food supply. It will not be what I want. It will be the ONLY choice left.

    Here again you refuse to accept statistical facts. Montana is NOT the 2nd largest beef producer. The USDA statistics link was posted for you about a month ago. Has your dementia progressed so far that you do not remember that thread? The tiny state of South Carolina produces more beef than Montana. Beef eaters of the nation will not miss Public Lands grazed beef one bit.

  141. Marion – by what measure is Montana the second largest cattle producer?

    Without looking it up, I’ll hazard a guess right now that for beef calf crop, it’s Texas #1, followed by California, Missouri, and then maybe South Dakota. But I’ll let YOU spend your Sunday looking it up (hint: National Agricultural Statistics Service)

    I won’t even address the logical fouls you’re commiting by saying that Cat wants the right to destroy industries that don’t suit her, or that she wants the right to tell people they can’t have beef.

    You’re the one who asserted that ag is a “huge part” of Wyoming’s economy; Cat is refuting that factual assertion. But you then change the argument to “Cat wants to destroy industries and deprive people of food choices.”

    I, too, value food production, and I think concentrating all of our food production in a few places is a bad idea. But let’s keep our facts straight, please.

    Everyone should look at this map of “farm dependent counties”:


    Looks to me like Niobrara and Goshen Counties in Wyoming are the only ones considered farm dependent by the USDA. Any wolves there?

    Looking at Montana, it looks like Madison County and Sweet Grass County are the only farm dependent ones in the GYE. I would wager that alot of that farm income in Madison County is winter wheat and waxy barley, although there are also 50,000 mother cows here, too. But last I checked, wolves weren’t eating a lot of waxy barley.

    Like I said, I’m not saying that these numbers mean ag should be destroyed. But you’ll have to find a different argument than “wolves will wreck Wyoming’s economy!!”, because they evidently won’t.

  142. So let me get this straight Cat, you believe that any industry that might not have a huge impact on the country as a whole should be destroyed if it makes you happy?
    Either you do not understand, or your refuse to consider how much private property is involved in what you want destroyed.
    Montana is the second largest cattle producer in the US, Wyoming is down the line aways. Are you saying that it is your right to determine whether those who do choose to eat beef can have it or not?

  143. Catbestland


    You refuse to admit, even in face of all the evidence that has been presented to you, including USDA rankings, that the “main industry” you tout ( Western beef industry), contributes very little to the nations food supply. It exsist ONLY because of the great subsidies provided by tax payers, so that a FEW large cattle producers can reap huge profits from the exploitation of our natural ecosystems. The rest of the nation has to suffer the loss of our wildlife, wildlands, clean air and water just to keep them living in the manner that they are accustomed. This situation cannot continue without irreparable damage to those ecosystems which the rest of the country, at some point will no longer tolerate. Those ranching operations that do not make the changes required to maintain ecological and bio-diversity will not survive. Those who have the insight to understand the exigency will either adapt to a more eco-friendly system or seek other means of support.

    A good example is the post civil war era. Those plantation owners who could no longer profit off the exploitation of other human beings, (slave labor) went by the wayside. In fact the entire cotton industry in the south (where cotton was King) virtually dissapeared. Those who were able to adapt to the changing times survived. The nation can no longer afford to give a “free ride” to Public Lands ranchers. The economical and environmental costs are too high.

  144. Perfect case in point Marion.
    The MAJORITY of Wyoming residents favor wolf reintroduction. It is actually stated in Wyoming’s plan.

  145. I do not own cattle, in fact I grew up on a sheep/mink ranch, we milked our cows.
    Like it or not agriculture is a huge part of our economy in this state, the other being the mineral industry. I do not want to see the loss of one of the main industries destroyed to entertain city people who are willing for any sacrifice to be made……. by someone else!
    Here’s a wolf picture for you. they leave their messe behind jsut like cows do.


  146. Hi.
    This is for Marion. You take pretty good pictures. Really.
    How about some nice pictures of wolves to support a good cause. Donate them to schools so children can learn about them, give them to your friends.
    Cows and wolves can cooexist.

    Marion, do you own cattle?
    Just want to know because it seems like you dont’ even care about anything else but cattle.
    What legacy are you going to leave for your children? grandchildren?
    Cow manure?

  147. Marion,
    How about your never ending line of 300/100 in each state was the number that would initiate delisting regardless of any other benchmarks being achieved……………..such as the fact: the single biggest fact , that has prevented the delisting process to begin is the state of Wyoming. Like Steve says, you will just ignore facts when you can’t misrepresent them.

  148. There you go again… Just because I am against raising cattle in a tiny portion of the country does not make me “hate food producers”. I am sure the millions upon millions of cattle from the mississippi to the rocky mountains are enough to sustain the population. Marion logic: I am against the public paying to grow cows in greater yellowstone: people eat cow: therefore I am against producing food and for people starving. Nobody on this board, including those extremely opposed to cattle ranching hates food producers… We all eat!

  149. I admit to being wrong about the dumps, but I remembered thinking they had closed one one year and then closed the rest the next.
    My reference to the removal of the id and refusal to identify those killed sure looks to me like they were trying to hide what they did. That is also in the same book. If you remember correctly they even killed Marian when she ended up in a picnic area looking for food.
    Of course they have never admitted that it was NPS management or mismanagement that killed off the bears.
    Just saying that I am wrong doesn’t mean that I am. I do quit posting for awhile when the blind hatred of the food producers gets to me.

  150. SAP, Marion serves an important purpose. She reminds us of how the “other side” thinks and personally she motivates me to give a little bit extra every year to defenders of wildlife…

  151. Marion, you don’t respond to half of what I or others say proving you wrong. And when the deck gets stacked enough against your BS you stop posting all together for a few weeks until a new story is posted so you can start up your cycle of propaganda all over again. I might add that you post the EXACT same things over and over regardless of what the story is, even if your wolf hatespeech is completely off topic…

  152. OK, Marion, how about right in this thread. Regarding grizzlies, you wrote (26 Feb):

    “NPS nearly destroyed the gizzlies 40 years ago with their politically correct feel good policy of closing all fo the dumps simultaneously.”

    I took the trouble of looking up the correct information:

    ‘YNP didn’t do everything perfectly, but it’s not true that they closed “all fo the dumps simultaneously.”

    Look it up – page 196 of Frank Craighead’s book, Track of the Grizzly. YNP’s first step in 1968 was to “drastically reduce the volume of refuse food at the Trout Creek dump [Hayden Valley]”.

    They didn’t totally eliminate garbage at the dumps until 1971.

    It was a more rapid phase-out than the Craigheads argued for (they wanted a 10-year phase-out), but it wasn’t a simultaneous closure of all the dumps.’

    Your response?

    “If you have read the Craighead book, you are aware that the NPS removed all of the ID that had been put on them so the number killed could not be tracked and it was easy to blame other people for it.”

    That sure doesn’t look like someone admitting they were wrong, or being grateful that someone provided accurate information. Looks like an evasion to me.

    There are plenty of other instances where people provided you with peer-reviewed scientific citations and you just ignore the information, or denounce the researchers as biased.

    I think your real goal is to just waste the time and energy of people who have a different perspective on the world. Shame on us for letting you accomplish that.

  153. look over anything you have posted here or anywhere else that you have been challenged on. You and I ran thread on this site to nearly 200 comments not long ago. That would be a place to start. Also add anything that concerns what you think you know about wolves.

  154. Jeff, do you have a particular instance you are referring to, or just throwing it out for general consumption?

  155. Muhammad saad

    Conservation of every species is my motto,
    every conservation of natural resource on sustainable basic.
    I am young man and doing my work on the conservation of Grey wolf in Pakistan. I wish to become a member of canid group.
    Please mail me about latest information about wolf and its conservation and make the difference.

    Editor’s Note: Muhammed, please visit the WildEarth Guardians website to request information.

  156. Marion, Unlike yourself who will not admit when your wrong even when confronted with fact after fact. You just slink off to another web site and start all over again.

  157. That is true, he admitted to being wrong. On the other hand what else could he do when other biologists in the park were speaking out about the bunnies being there?
    The worst of it was wanting to “reintroduce more”. That would have made the Mexican wolf program look like a howling success.

  158. At least he admits when he’s wrong, Marion.

    As for how much money he spent . . . based on what I’ve read and heard, probably very little. I would speculate that Dr. Berger’s jackrabbit observations (or lack thereof) were incidental to his other travels around GTNP & YNP, so there was probably no actual research budget for it. Then he spent a little bit of his time and other people’s time finding out what some other folks had been seeing.

    If it had been me, I would have posted a small reward for photos or for jackrabbit carcasses so that the general public would share their observations, before making such claims.

  159. Here is one reason for my lack of confidence, particularly in Berger’s “research”, which is never available in detail. How much research money do you think he might have spent on this?


  160. Cat, that is only 4.5 cents a day for a cow to eat, sleep, and poop on public lands! Maybe I will dress like a cow next time I camp in a national forest and see if I can save some cash… Marion, why is it that every study you don’t agree with is a poorly done and bad study? Do you know how involved and difficult it is to do any research let alone wildlife research? I have been published in medical journals for studies in which all variables were controlled and that was extremely difficult. I have also worked on a coyote study and I can tell you that wildlife research is one of the most difficult things because of mortality, unpredictability of animals etc. I also seem to recall you discrediting researchers who did a study saying that wolves are a boost to the economy. Maybe instead of sitting on the sidelines pissing and moaning you should do something constructive to help the situation…

  161. Catbestland

    The tax payer is paying for the ranchers use of the land. $1.35 per cow /calf pair per month where they loiter in riparian zones by the hundreds crapping in our water sources, hardly constitutes fair market value for the use (destruction) of that land. Wildlife watchers have to pay as much as $15 per night to camp and must stay 200 ft away from water sources. This is all the more intolerable when you consider that the “removal” of wolves and other predators is done strictly at the behest of that 23,000.

  162. Who is paying for their use of the land?

  163. Catbestland

    I read the coalition letter to axe the Fed. predator eradication program. Great job. How can we help? (other than donations of course) Who can we call or write?

    I was particularly moved by the fact that there are 71 million wildlife watchers in the US as apposed to 23,000 public lands grazing permitees. Whose interested should be better represented here???

  164. This is what I would actually call a research on fawn survival, determining all causes of death.


  165. Find me some actual figures on what killed the fawns, how they were able to determine whether wolves were in the area or not, since the Tetons are pretty infested with them, not as much as Yellowstone, but still a lot.
    This team does some of the poorest studies, at least what they publish is very poorly done and always reaches a specific conclusion that appears to confirm their original conclusion. Kind of like the jack rabbits in Yellowstone that vanished in 91….except for thsoe being seen by other bilogists.
    A 34% survival rate is about normal for Wyoming overall, including southern Wyoming where the vast majority of the antelope in the world live. That despite the fact that I-80 cuts right thru it. and fawns get hit on the roads. There is no question that coyotes predate heavily on pronghorn fawns, but wolves protect them???
    How long after tagging them did they go away far enough to be sure coyotes did not follow their scent to the babies? When I photograph them, I go to a hill or somewhe i can see the general location of the fawn and watch for predators to smell out my tracks so I won’t be responsible for a kill of a baby like this one.


  166. Can cows protect other species?

    Interesting article..Marion for you to read also…
    ScienceDaily — As western states debate removing the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act, a new study by the Wildlife Conservation Society cautions that doing so may result in an unintended decline in another species: the pronghorn, a uniquely North American animal that resembles an African antelope.

    The study, appearing in the latest issue of the journal Ecology, says that fewer wolves mean more coyotes, which can prey heavily on pronghorn fawns if the delicate balance between predators and their prey is altered. According to the study, healthy wolf packs keep coyote numbers in check, while rarely feeding on pronghorn fawns themselves. As a result, fawns have higher survival rates when wolves are present in an ecosystem.

    “People tend to think that more wolves always mean fewer prey,” said WCS researcher Dr. Kim Berger, lead author of the study. “But in this case, wolves are so much bigger than coyotes that it doesn’t make sense for them to waste time searching for pronghorn fawns. It would be like trying to feed an entire family on a single Big Mac.”

    Over a three-year period, researchers radio-collared more than 100 fawns in wolf-free and wolf-abundant areas of Grand Teton National Park and monitored their survival throughout the summer. The results showed that only 10 percent of fawns survived in areas lacking wolves, but where coyote densities were higher. In areas where wolves were abundant, 34 percent of pronghorn fawns survived. Wolves reduce coyote numbers by killing them outright or by causing them to shift to safer areas of the Park not utilized by wolves.

    While pronghorn are not endangered, the population that summers in Grand Teton National Park, part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, had been reduced to fewer than 200 animals in recent years. Since wolves were reintroduced in 1995, the pronghorn population in Grand Teton has increased by approximately 50 percent. These pronghorn have the longest migration — more than 200 miles roundtrip — of any land mammal in the lower 48 states. The Wildlife Conservation Society has called for permanent protection of their migration corridor, known as “Path of the Pronghorn,” to prevent the animals from going extinct in the Park. Representatives from the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service recently pledged support for protecting the corridor.

    If delisting occurs, Wyoming and Idaho have announced their intention to reduce wolf number by 50percent and 80 percent, respectively. At present, there are an estimated 300 wolves in Wyoming and 700 in Idaho.

    “This study shows just how complex relationships between predators and their prey can be,” said Berger. “It’s an important reminder that we often don’t understand ecosystems nearly as well as we think we do, and that our efforts to manipulate them can have unexpected consequences.”

  167. Marion, your hot air is all I will ever need to keep warm.

  168. Did you happen to read this paragraph? It ws what happens with 99.999999999999% of cow manure on the planet.
    As cow manure decomposes, it produces methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. Scientists say controlling methane emissions from animals such as cows would be a major step in addressing climate change.

  169. Catbestland

    I found that information under occupational hazards I posted the link on one of these threads.

  170. I would love to read up on these cow deaths. Do you have any info on them?

  171. Catbestland

    Not to mention that cows kill an average of 28 people per year and wolves 0. If anything we should be protected on our Public Lands from these proven people murderers. It’s only a matter of time before a cow kills someone on Public Land. Maybe ranchers should be required to post HUGE bonds for the priviledge of grazing on Public Lands because they place the public in danger.

  172. People die crashing helicopters while shooting coyotes. That is a fact. People have not been killed by wolves since reintroduction. Also fact. So this boils down to people DYING while doing the dirtywork of marion and all of the other wildlife haters. Is it worth it marion? It is a matter of time before bison hazing results in human death as well. And don’t get me started on the poisons used for predator control throughout the country… These are all things we should be worried about… not wolf attacks.

  173. Catbestland


    You are always touting on this and other blogs that the reintroduced wolves are not the same as the ones that once inhabited the tri-state area. You have claimed that they are larger and require more prey. As far as I know ( and admittedely I am no computer whiz.) there is no way to link to specific comments.

    If this is not the case, are you now claiming that the RE-introduced wolves ARE the SAME as the original extirpated ones? If so you should have no problem with them reclaiming their rightful place in the ecosystems.

    As far as attacks on humans, you did claim differently with your speal on the about the Alaskan wolves attacking a dog accompanying it’s owners while jogging. REMEMBER??? Stating it was only a matter of time until it happened here?

  174. Well Cat, you surely make up your own “facts” don’t you? Please post links to all of the above statements supposedly made by me.
    The one and only ungulates counted in Yellowstone so far as I can find out are the northern elk herd. It was 19,000 when they were desperate to haul in wolves to control them. The hunting licenses were decreased from 2300 to 100. We now have 6200, all but about 2000 of them in Montana and out of the wolf area of YNP.
    The Norris herd which does not migrate had dropped from about a 600 stable population to 240 the last time they were monitored a few years ago. I seriously doubt their single digit calf survival is going to reverse that.
    As for the buffalo, they certainly do not seem to be decreasing their population much do they?
    As for attacking humans, the possiblities are folks trying to protect their animals from an attack and rabid wolves. I have never claimed differently.

  175. Catbestland


    According to Marion, they eat whole herds of deer and elk and what they don’t eat, they slaughter for fun. She thinks that these mega wolves have been forced upon her and are just waiting until they have run out of sheep and cattle and then they will start on she and the others just like her. This was all part of the plan by enviro groups to get the ranchers land. I think Montell Williams needs to visit Cody (or where ever she lives) with his bus full of free drugs.

  176. I would love to know what prey species in canada these “superwolves” live off of. Doesnt get much bigger than bison and elk…

  177. Marion,
    I just can not resist making you the fool………again.
    Now pay attention.The distance from Hinton Alberta, Canada to West Yellowstone Montana is 657 miles.
    Between the two places there are no insurmountable obstacles such as impassable mountains, uncrossable rivers, or oceans, not even the great wall of china (sorry, but no, the Canadian border does not count). So the short story is that there is nothing between Alberta Canada and Yellowstone that would cause an isolated population and thus a sub-species of c.l. lupus.
    Okay, still with me?
    Now imagine if you will a soccer ball(you know what that is I hope) and how all the segments are arranged. If you took that cover off the soccer ball and and laid it out flat it would be a good representation of how wolf pack territories are interlocked and is exactly how the territories of wolf packs could be viewed historically across the distance between what is now Hinton Alberta and Yellowstone. And no Marion I am not implying that wolf pack territories are symmetrical. nice try.
    Add that to the fact that in all those packs there would have been dispersers going in EVERY direction plus the well known biological fact that wolves can and will disperse 500 or more miles, it should be transparently clear to the most casual and uninformed that there are not different sub-species involved with the wolves in Yellowstone and Alberta Canada now or historically.

  178. Two wolves do not make up a viable population…

    Izabel, I don’t see how marion could do much of anything besides sitting infront of a computer all day. If you have perused the internet at all you will see that he/she/it is the first to post on just about every wolf related story on every website. Kind of sad really… If she focused some of that energy into anything other than wolf hating, such as a charity to help these starving suffering ranchers, she would probably be very productive.

  179. Ok..I have few questions. Please fogive me my ignorance.
    Maybe someon can help me.
    Who is Marion? Where does he/she live? Does he/she has a cat or a dog or a pig or does he/she live alone in the cave…
    Why in the world she/he gets the attention from so many people?
    Can we just use our energy on something else?
    He/she will never GET IT.
    Brain washed!!!!!! wolf and coyote and bear and any other animal hater.

    DEAD BRAIN CELLS from eating too much beef..
    He/she will never GET IT.

    🙂 sorry…I have been participating in this blog for just few months and noticed that he/she gets all the attention.
    It is like an ego boost for Marion.
    Lets not allow for that..
    Go away go away….
    bad spirit..

    And…we celebrated Yellowstone B-day on March 1st.

  180. Catbestland


    Marion has been brainwashed into believing that the Canadian wolves used for RE-introduction are some sort of prehistoric super carnivor that somehow survived the last extinction period of about 10,000 yrs ago. Or she imagines that they have been genetically re-engineered for the purposes of terrorizing the ranchers of the Northwest. It doesn’t matter how many DNA test show that they have the same genetic make-up of the ones that were extirpated. Convenient how they claim they now want the original wolves back when they KNOW they killed them all.

  181. Marion,

    Are you aware that our government went on an all-out extermination spree to get rid of the wolf from the U.S. so livestock producers could run their cattle wherever they wanted?

    They wanted to “sanitize” the country of predators!

    That is criminal and abhorrent!

    We are now trying to “rectify” the damage done by the loss of wolves!

    Get it?

  182. Where were the wolves brought back from? and yes there were at least 2 wolves confirmed in Yellowstoen when the Candians came in.

  183. Barb, the “bringing back” argument is useless because Marion believes that wolves never left yellowstone…

  184. I can honestly say I’d rather live near packs of “dangerous” predatory animals than people who fear and have contempt for them. Those same people usually have dogs too but they don’t fear them for some reason even though their dogs have a much higher chance of killing or injuring a “child.”

  185. Marion:

    You said: “One of the reasons the wolves were brought in was because some felt there were too many elk in Yellowstone….. ”

    Your thinking is completely wrong on this issue.

    The wolves were not really ‘brought in.’ They were “brought back.”

    Big difference.

    Our native predatory animals were pushed out, exterminated, killed, and forced out of their homes on behalf of the livestock industry.

    it’s not like anyone is bringing something in that doesn’t rightfully BELONG there.

    And to put your fears into perspective, YOUR DOG (if you have one) has a much higher chance of attacking anyone including a child (!) than a predator.

    Maybe you should be advocating to exterminate domestic dogs if you are concerned about the safety of people.

  186. You are right about Cooke City/ Silver Gate, Izabel. They put up a brand new motel 6 in cooke in recent years and I know some fo the motel owners in silver gate and they have seen a marked increase in business from wolf watchers. I also know a number of wolf watchers who moved to cooke/silver gate permanently to be near the wolves. More year round residents = more business in town = a healthier local economy. Although the wolf haters will tell you that the towns around yellowstone are being abandoned because of wolves I have seen first hand that that is not the case.

  187. I leave in Utah, I am not a yuppie. I supported wolf effort from the very beggining.
    Having wolves in YSNP has econmic impact on Cooke City, Gardiner and West Yellowsone. People bring money to the area. 2007 had the highest number of visitors. Marion, where do you think they spent the money?

    Also, as we cut the packs (kill them)what is going to happen to the eco system?
    Also, the small genetic make up of left over breeding pairs will cause inbreeding problems.
    The rentroduction was done very carefully.
    There was a reason behind it. Read some books and some stories on Ralph’s site..ah..right…you are banned from there.
    Elk will do fine.
    And ranchers get compensated for the loss.

    Again, maybe you should make a trip to YSNP and the area and witness some matther nature magic happening there.
    It should soften your heart…
    I think, the first pups from this mating season will be born in mid April…

    YNP WOLF Field Notes, Feb. 16-24, 2008
    By © Kathie Lynch

    Two hundred and twenty six wolves in nine days—that’s an average of 25 wolves per day! From February 16-24, 2008, Yellowstone treated wolf watchers to a veritable bonanza of wolves—I saw an incredible 44 on my best day! Nowhere else in the world offers such a fantastic opportunity to share the lives of wolves in the wild.

    The breeding season in February draws wolves from near and far. It always amazes me how they just seem to appear and then disappear. Interloping males materialize to try to lure females out of their packs, and females try to sneak away to rendezvous for a day or two. New groups may form for a few days and then just dissolve away.

    We even had a mysterious group of eight (five grays and three blacks) appear in Oxbow Creek pack territory and then in Little America. The group had too many blacks to be the Oxbows, which only have one black. There was some conjecture as to whether it might be the former Buffalo Fork pack, which left the Park years ago. Or, perhaps it was part of the Unknown Group, which cost the Sloughs so dearly when they held them under siege two years ago. Regardless, we were glad to see these mystery wolves disappear to the north up Slough Creek soon after they appeared.

    Former Slough 527F and her group (fellow Slough disperser “The Dark Female” and an unidentified gray male) frequented Little America, usually sleeping the day away. Unfortunately, the other Slough female, “Sharp Right,” who had also been driven out of the Slough pack by alpha 380F, has disappeared from 527F’s group. We can only hope that “Sharp Right” has found a mate of her own.

    The main Slough pack stayed mostly out of sight, except for an especially memorable visit to Slough Creek. We had left them bedded around noon, and when I returned to check on them four hours later, it looked like nobody had moved a muscle. I went on to the west to look for 527F’s group in the Peregrine Hills; while scoping for them, I heard a mighty chorus of howls rise from Slough Creek. I headed back and found the Sloughs on a march to the southwest. All 14 surrounded a bull elk, but he stamped his feet at them and they went on their way. What an impressive sight they made strung out in single file, the 12 blacks contrasting boldly in the shining white light.

    The sight made me think of the Hayden Valley pack and its shining white light, the late alpha, 540F. I did not hear of any sightings of what remains of her pack (an adult female, the newly collared black pup 638M, two gray pups, and the newly collared gray male 639M, who has joined them). Everyone hopes that they have found a new home in the Swan Lake flats territory left vacant by the disappearance of the Swan Lake and Gardiners Hole packs.

    The breeding season seemed to get off to a slower than usual start this year, but, surprisingly, it was still going strong into late February. By February 22, at least 20 good ties had been observed. Evidently, the mating pair must stay coupled together for at least 10 minutes to maximize the chances that the breeding will be a success.

    The most surprising tie occurred near Elk Creek between the Leopold pack alpha male, 534M, and the Agate Creek pack beta female, 471F. Everyone was shocked that 534M had left his own alpha female (Leopold 209F) and traveled over to woo an Agate. Things must have gone well, because 471F then spent some time over in “Leopold Land” on the Blacktail Plateau with some other Leopolds. I wonder what kind of reaction 534M got from 209F when his girlfriend came to visit!

    Other Agates were busy breeding too. Alpha 383M got together with a gray yearling; alpha 472F bred with a black interloper; a black yearling female bred with a (different?) black interloper; and our wayward girl, 471F, found yet another black interloper beau.

    One gray Agate pup has a severely damaged, perhaps broken, rear leg. A driver reported accidentally hitting a wolf, but wolf project personnel were unable to find its body. Soon after, the Agate pup showed up with the bad leg, so it may have actually survived being run over. The leg is completely useless, but the pup seems to get around just fine on its three good legs and doesn’t appear to be in any pain. It runs and plays with the others and even made it up to the top of Specimen Ridge and then back down and over to Elk Creek.

    One day we saw an amazing sight way up on top of Specimen Ridge above Little America. An interloper black male repeatedly mounted Agate alpha 472F, while wandering Druid 302M and the Idaho wolf B271M hovered nearby. It was finally all too much for Agate alpha 383M, who rushed in to break up the party.

    All eyes were on the Druid Peak pack too, of course. The alphas, 480M and 569F, had bred earlier (on 2/3/08); pups are expected about 4/6/08, after a 63-day gestation period.

    The Druid’s six highly eligible yearling females, who came into estrus for the first time, seemed to enjoy playing the field. Their two suitors, the “Light Gray” male and the “Dark Gray” male, had both been hanging around the Druid pack since last November. Poor old 302M has had a constant challenge trying to chase those two guys away from his nieces and daughters for three months!

    The long suffering interlopers’ big chance finally came when the soon to be eight years old proverbial favorite 302M left for six days on a little scouting trip of his own. His travels took him at least as far away as Elk Creek and the Agates–where he spent an entire afternoon lying around in the warm sun with a lovely gray yearling female!

    While 302M was away, “Dark Gray” managed to abscond with five of the six Druid yearling females! For four glorious days, the blacks “Bright Bar,” “Dull Bar,” and “White Line” and the grays 571F and “Low Sides” stuck with their guy. At various times, he bred with all except “White Line” and 571F. Sadly for him (but probably best for them in terms of raising pups), the females all finally returned to their natal pack, leaving “Dark Gray” lonely once again in Lamar.

    Not to be outdone, the “Light Gray” male was observed breeding three times with “Bright Bar.” Of the two interlopers, he is the one who has usually been most well received by the pack (except by 302M, of course), and he has been the most persistent. No matter where we found the Druids each day, “Light Gray” was sure to be around, seated patiently nearby howling his heart out or traveling the length of Lamar Valley scavenging for food on old carcasses.

    The saga of these two persistent gray interlopers’ attempts to join the Druids is a constant reminder of the events three and four years ago when a certain very persistent black interloper (302M) and his sidekick (the future 480M) endured constant persecution from the late, great Druid alpha 21M. After 21M’s death in 2004, those two Leopold brothers became the new Druid alpha (480M) and beta (302M) and went on to save the Druid pack from dissolution (along with 21M’s last two daughters, 529F and 569F). Time will tell if “Light Gray” and “Dark Gray” leave a similar legacy. But, for now, one thing looks likely—the two gray interlopers will probably be the fathers of some Druid pups. And that’s a legacy to which 302M can relate!

  188. Funny, I havent met any “yuppie” wolf watchers. My friends and I are hones hard working people who can afford to take one vacation a year. We go to yellowstone to see wolves. You should stop being so dishonest and so dramatic. I am sure that these wealthy beef barons have a lot more money and influence than the evil east coast yuppies who are for wolf reintroduction…

  189. No specifics, just an open door to an adequate number. Obviously that means different things to different people. To the family by Meeteetse with a young child and a wolf den on a hill near the house, and wolves chasing their cows thru the yard, there are way too many. To the Yuppie getting into their car in Denver, there are not nearly enough, and never will be. One of the reasons the wolves were brought in was because some felt there were too many elk in Yellowstone, and I guess moose too, since wolves the world over love moose if they can get them, and that they needed to have thier numbers controlled. Yet for some reason some of the same folks think wolves should not be controlled even though they are very prolific breeders and according to the report even breeding back and forth between packs. Is that logical?

  190. Marion,

    Didn’t Rob just outline that for you?

  191. I’ve been reluctant to admit it, but Steve C. is right: debating things with Marion just takes your time and energy away from doing good things for the wildlife we care about.

    On many occasions, Marion has had some very good insights, and I often appreciate her perspective.

    She’s not alone in this, but with the delisting and 10j revisions at a high boil, I think she’s spending WAY too much time in front of the computer and is not contributing to an enlightening discussion anymore.

    I will continue to look forward to her great photographs and her great one-liners, but I can find them over at the Billings Gazette or New West. But — and maybe we’ll all need a 12-step program for this? — I’m not going to engage her in debate, or respond to her posts any longer. It is not productive.

    THe weather is beautiful here today, so I’m going to go ride my horse. Marion, I hope your ankle is better so that you can get away from the computer soon.

  192. All I’m asking for are firm definable requirements that will get them delisted, something that says this is exactly what you must do, I do not feel it is fair to keep moving the goalpost back. I do not feel every single elk will be killed, but I do think they will kill until there is not a sustainable population left in Yellowstone, then they will leave.

  193. Rob, don’t let her suck you in!!! It is an endless circle of arguing!!!

  194. Actually Marion,

    It was a Communist plot to wrench control of the Northwest out of the hands of ranchers so that we could establish a base of operations in the US disguised as “Greenie Enviro” groups. That is why we had a super killing machine breed of wolves genetically engineered (Usama Bin Lobos ) and planted in your state, to drive you out. They are just practicing on your cattle and sheep. They are waiting for the signal from our leader to attack all who oppose them. (They have computer chip receptors implanted in their brains). And when we have been successful, WATCH OUT. We will fill the world with our ultimate goals: clean air, clean water and a balance in ecosystems.

  195. That’s right, Marion. The whole point was to, “get a death grip” on ranchers.

    Please, stop crying “wolf”! Do you really believe that wolves are going to eat the Northern Range herd into extinction? The fluctuations in that herd’s size has not been linked to wolves as even the primary cause, let alone a significant contributing cause.

  196. In other words you are saying you did not dare put what you wanted in the plan or it would never have gotten off the ground? By saying 300 and a lot of legal gobbeledegook you got a death grip on us, and never, ever intended to let go.
    If you want wolves in more places, haul the overload from here to those places. It is not reasonable to expect us to keep raising them until they are finally crowded out across the continent.
    Look at the elk count, of 6200 elk left in the northern herd, only about 2000 are left in the park, that has to be an all time low.
    If you read Kathy Lynch’s report, it sounds like the wolves are breeding like rabbits, with all kinds of unidentified wolves joining the fun. What happens when the food is so scarce that the wolves leave? Will you blame the ranchers for it or those who can never have enough?

  197. Marion, I’ll sum it up for you as simple as possible: We want wolves restored to “all or a significant portion” of the range they once roamed, just as the Endangered Species Act requires. Presently, in the Northern Rockies, they roam less than 15% of their range. In the lower forty-eight states, wolves roam less than five percent of their range. In both cases, the range presently “occupied” cannot be considered a “significant” percentage.

    The whole problem here is that the government is trying to say that the 300 wolf “goal” was a trigger for delisting. That number, developed by very credible scientists, had nothing to do with meeting the requirements of the ESA. Instead, it was developed as the “minimum” viable population number for wolves to be considered “viable” in the region. The ESA does not speak to numbers of critters, it speaks only to recovery of the species across “all or a significant portion” of range.

    I realize that this is not what you want to hear, but that’s the whole reason we are howling about delisting.

  198. Actually in at least one case rangers flew to Utah and brought the wolf back, I seriously doubt the got the cheap fares.
    As I thought, you guys have no intention of limiting yourselves with a statement of what si satisfactory. There is too much money to be made in lawsuits along with the feeling of superiority you get from having control over other people.

  199. Marion, on February 27th, 2008 at 8:27 pm Said:
    Oh the wolves have made it into Utah and Oregon, and some evidence into South Dakota.

    They got killed in Utah. Too bad…Utah is another state with same opinions as Idaho…

  200. She won’t read it. And if she does she will get a completely different meaning from it that has nothing to do with the actual letter.

  201. The entire Letter of Intent is on Ralph’s blog. It is too long to post here. It delineates the problems with the State plans. You can read it there.

  202. OK, let’s go at this from a different plane. List exactly all of the requirements you have to accept delisting the wolves. Tell me what it is you want.

  203. Marion,

    I’m really beginning to worry about you. If this this is the way you really feel, it isn’t healthy. You really need to seek professional help. I’m sure ther is a mental health center near you where you can get counceling at a low or no cost. They’re there to help.

  204. “Human hater sites?”. . . . paranoia, thats another symptom.

  205. Marion, you are the one making this about human hating. Before hearing your blubbering I disagreed with but did not hate the opposition. I have been curious about something… How are you the first person to post on EVERY wolf related story published on the internet? Are you just one person? How can you be everywhere at once?????

  206. Marion blubbers,
    “As for being tired of what I say, I am well aware that I am a voice crying in the wilderness ……..”
    Grandiosity; a well known component of dementia.

  207. A voice in the wilderness??? Please. More like all over the internet and newspapers.

  208. like i said, more slippery than a nightcrawler on a wet lawn.

  209. The feds accepted the plan that 10 of 11 biologists agreed was scientifically acceptable, including David Mech. Ed Bangs wants to get out from under responsibility for what is happening to ungulates. If the minimum necessary for delisting was irrelevant why even bother to put it in? Just say in the beginning that when wolf lovers say the number is adequate, they will delist and not before. Facts have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
    Since the wolves are not yet delisted and not likely to be for many years, all of the wolves, including the lady that toured to Colorado were before delisting. No roads are cut off, there is evidense that at least one more is in RMNP.
    I would love to see the hard and fast specifics of what would be accpetable to you people, and an explanation of why it was not included BEFORE the wolves were trucked in.
    As for being tired of what I say, I am well aware that I am a voice crying in the wilderness on these human hater sites, that you do not want to hear, but there is a nasty little thing called the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

  210. Rob,

    Is Sinapu/Wild Earth Guardians on board with the 11 conservation groups who have notified the USFW of their Intent to Sue? Are they contemplating a seperate action?

  211. Marion – haven’t you written elsewhere (before yesterday) that all the elk on the Northern Range would be GONE soon?

    And now that the latest count shows what looks a lot like stabilization, you change your tune, and you want to quibble over whether they’re in the Park or somewhere between Gardiner and Dome Mountain.

    They’re stabilizing. They’re not going to spend as much time in places where it’s easy for wolves to find them, run them, and kill them. Things have changed, but wolves aren’t going to kill all the elk. Maybe, with our good moisture this winter, the 2009 count will show a little increase.

    But right now, I’d think you’d take a little comfort in the fact that the last three counts have been fairly consistent, showing no major declines.

    And note this from the Gazette article:

    “Even the latest elk numbers are above state population targets, which are for 3,000 to 5,000 elk north of Yellowstone with about half wintering on or near the state-owned Dome Mountain Wildlife Management Area in Paradise Valley.”

  212. Mario mis-represents again,
    “The rule said the wolves were to be delisted when we had 300 for 3 years, that was in 2002.”
    As has been proven to you time and again the rule says a MINUMUM of 100/300, and an acceptable management plan in place for all concerned parties. Wyoming did not have a plan accepted(the courts will show otherwise) until last year so the biggest road block to going forward has been in fact Wyoming state.
    But then you know all this, you just do not have the personal integrity to admit it.

  213. “only about 1/3 left. . . as they try to escape the wolves.” Is that along with all the women and children and orphans who are fleeing for their lives with hordes of bionically bred (these are the ones from Canada) wolves in pursuit, sent by Satan to torment ranchers and their families? Well ya know, what goes around comes around. Maybe it’s for all those wolves extirpated into near extinction in the first place or maybe it’s for stealing the land from the Native Americans. You know what they say Karma can be a B_____.

  214. Marion,

    The wolf made it to Colorado BEFORE delisting. All that will change if Wyoming’s plan is not stop.

  215. Jeff, if it were as easy to explain as dementia I would feel a lot better. I am afraid that her goal is to taunt and disrupt and spread her propaganda across the message boards of everyone whom she disagrees with… Unfortunately I can’t ignore her propaganda and I get sucked in to her game time and time again.

    Marion, so the livestock industry can throw money around and outright bribe politicians to get their sweetheart public land deals and predator control programs and that is somehow okay but environmental groups can’t utilize the legal system to make sure the laws are upheld… You support the side of special interests and bribery and you think that enviromental groups are all about controlling people. You really need to evaluate your priorities. Now be gone, before someone drops a house on you…

  216. Oh the wolves have made it into Utah and Oregon, and some evidence into South Dakota. What more do you want, wolf highways built?
    I do hope this fight which is shaping up to be a whopper since we have many times the wolves we were required to have wakes up the American people to just what is being done to everyday Americans by folks who have no investment or responsibility, just power of lawyers.

  217. The rule said the wolves were to be delisted when we had 300 for 3 years, that was in 2002. It did not say that after the fact, that lawyers would start deciding how many more are necessary, and what other restrictions you wanted.
    As for dispersal corridors, how do you thnk the Swan Lake wolf made it to I-70 in Colorado? it didn’t take a plane.
    This is why the ESA needs to be overhauled and every single requirement on the part of everyone designated prior to any implementation, absolutely nothing left to the whim of lawyers. The goal post keeps moving via enviro lawyers. Environmental word is worth nothing. We did our part, but it isn’t enough. The elk report today shows 6200 elk left in the northinern herd, but only about 1/3 left in Yellowstone itself as they try to escape the wolves, that is just over 2000.
    I truly believe the whole environmental movement is about controlof people.

  218. Marion,
    As steve says you repeat the same argument everywhere on the Internet, you are repeatedly proved wrong and than do it all over again. if that is not proof of dementia I would like to Know what is.

  219. Maybe that’s why Wyoming is 43rd on the list.

  220. Marion,
    It amazes me that you have made that argument so many hundreds of times now and you fail to note that it is a MINIMUM. Do you know what minimum means? Do you need it explained? Do you think if they managed for the minimum that the population would survive? Heck, 300 wolves forced to mate with one another would result in inbreeding eventually. But you would know nothing about inbreeding… or would you?

  221. Marion,

    There are many and we have argued them numerous times on this site. The one that sticks in my craw the most is that there are supposed to be dispersion corridors to allow for populations to spread and not become problems because concentrations in one area. Obviously with the re-classification of wolves to predator status (another problem) where they can be destroyed on sight in three quarters of the state, by any means possible does not meet that criteria.

  222. Cat, can you please list what part of the plan where we have failed to honor our word? Not what you think we maybe, might, possibly not do if it should drop to 40 below on the 4th of July. Actual cases where we did not keep our word to raise 100/300 wolves.

  223. The success rate for “trophy” deer/elk is a very small number. I personnally have not killed a deer or elk in over 4 years. I have had many opportunities. But I dont want to shoot a young bull. The 6 year old bull is not always the case, we have WAY to many mature bulls on alot of our units. Sometimes as many as 40-50 bulls per 100 cows. Which lowers the amount of calves each year. So I am hoping that they increase the tags soon. And those mature bulls have survived many a hunting season. Just because someone wants to kill a good respresentitive of the species does not mean they care any less about elk/deer. Just becasue I want to kill a big buck does not mean I care any less for a young buck, or a bear or a beaver or any other animal.

  224. Elkhunter,

    The difference as I see it, and admittedly I am no expert, is that, that spike bull has not had the opportunity to prove that it’s geneitc make up is superior to others. The six year old buck has because it has shown that it has characteristics to survive through sometimes adverse conditions. In my opinion the proven superior speciman should not be hunted but be allowed to continue to breed. The spike may well be in possession of the same attributes but has not proven it yet. Of course I am not advocating that all spikes should be taken. But I think the superior specimans should be left alone to insure that their genes are passed.

  225. I understand where your coming from. What is the difference if I shoot a 1 year old spike bull, or a 6 year old bull? I eat and use both regardless of size of the antlers. And every hunter I know uses and consumes the animals they kill, if they dont they give it to those that will. Also trophy hunters are usually the ones that fight to protect habitat and the health of our game herds. So usually we are the ones donating millions of dollars to protect what we love. In SLC at the annual Hunt Expo hunters generated over 15 million dollars that goes right back to protect grow and preserve habitat etc. And regardless if the focus is to grow populations to hunt, if we preserve 10,000 acres, all animals benefit. From skunks and cougars, to elk and deer.

  226. Marion,

    That “word” was not unconditional. The ESA had guidelines that must be met by a State Managent Plan, and many people believe that those quidelines have not been met. This gives them legal grounds to contest the management plans in Court.

  227. Marion –
    The Gardiner late hunt wasn’t set up as a social program to give people easy access to elk. It was supposed to reduce herd size, targeting elk that stayed inside YNP throughout the regular hunting season.

    It worked (along with all the other factors known to have reduced that herd).

    And before we mourn the Gardiner late hunt, I have never talked to anyone who regarded that as a quality hunt. The standing joke about it was that you didn’t really need to bring a rifle, just your elk tag and some running shoes. It was an ugly thing when those elk crossed the line and shooters cut loose — crippled animals, fights over who shot what, general mayhem.

    I notice that rather than address the peer-reviewed findings I posted, you respond with anecdotal observations instead. The point of Eberhardt et al.’s findings was that hunting by humans was having a big effect on the population because it removed prime breeding age cows.

    Human hunters going after cows tend to just pick one out of the group and shoot. I can’t say I’ve ever tried to select them for any characteristic of the cow elk I’ve killed, other than I had a good clear shot and no chance of hitting an additional elk.

    Wolves, on the other hand, have to catch what they can. Under some conditions (say, deep crusty snow) and with just bad luck sometimes for the prey animal, that could be almost any elk. But more often than not, research shows, wolves are going to get the ones that are a little slow and in poorer condition.

    For more interesting peer-reviewed reading, you can also visit Dr. Mark Boyce’s website, and download articles directly:


    I especially liked the 2007 publication by Kauffman et al., which discusses how particular spots on the Northern Range have been easy places — due to terrain and other landscape features — for wolves to kill elk.

    The Kaufmann article reports that open, grassy flats near roads and streams were such places. Not sure which Norris herd meadow you refer to, but Gibbon Meadows, Elk Park, and that big meadow northeast of Norris Junction would meet these criteria.

    Elk may be figuring these things out and learning to lower their exposure to wolves. I doubt very much that the elk will recover to 23,000 strong; I also doubt that we want them to get so overpopulated again.

  228. First of all SAP, the Gardiner elk licenses have dropped from 2300 before wolves to 100 the last few years. Don’t know if there will even be any more. So scratch hunting, eliminating it is not going to save the herd.
    The Norris herd does not migrate, and does not migrate, but only an occasional elk is seen where once calves played in that meadow, and where the rut was a joy to behold. This year there was one crippled bull and 2 cows part of the time, empty the rest. The calf retention when they did count was 0-4 per 100 cows.
    Barb, we all have things we don’t like, for instance I don’t care for people who make their living playing instead of contributing to health, education, production or something like that, but I certainly do not feel my opinion matters as long as it is legal. I don’t hunt either, but that is me, and let’s face it the hunting instinct is a part of the survival instinct.
    Cat, you surely realize if the folks in these 3 states had been inclined to kill wolves wantonly, they certainly could have done it with all of the remote land we have. We gave our word to support 300 wolves for you, and we have kept it. Please don’t use what you think we might possibly do as an excuse to break your word in the matter.

  229. Barb,

    I agree with you in that trophy hunting is distasteful to me, especially in a time when the earth and all of it’s creatures is need of nurturing not murdering. I do concede that trophy hunters have the legal right to do what they do. We can only hope that most will eat what they kill. Unfortunately this is not always the case. And the truth of the matter is that SOME hunters can actually be allies in our fight to protect the wolf. They actually appreciate that the wolf actually enhances the hunting experience by increasing the challenge. You are correct in pointing out that the bible does not support trophy hunting. In fact the only example given to us is that of Nimrod, the “Mighty Hunter in opposition ot God.” Things did not go well with him. In fact his city fell on him.

    I hope you are correct when you predict that wolves will be very difficult to hunt. I hope hunters are not given the chance in the near future, because of law suits, giving wolves a chance to disperse into Colorado first. One question, What is the fascination with killing every sort of animal. I’m not trying to be offensive here, I’m just trying to understand. Just because I don’t like trophy hunting doesn’t mean I don’t like some of the people that do it. I just think different.

  230. Barb, “Trophy Hunting” can have many descriptions. I eat everything I kill (except coyotes), when I hunt deer/elk I hunt for the largest bull/buck I can find. I enjoy the challenge and I like to kill a mature animal. I could go out and shoot the first 2 year old little buck I see, but I also enjoy the challenge and time spent in the woods.
    With wolf hunting, I would imagine that not very many people would be eating them. They are probably not very clean animals, parasites etc, I am not an expert but I would bet you could get sick if you ate one that had worms etc. I could be wrong I am not an expert on that though. As for the hunt, I can promise you that it will be FAR from easy. They are animals that are primarily nocturnal. The majority live in remote areas and LARGE thick canyons. The reason the Feds find them so easy is because of radio collars. I am sure that a few will get killed right of the bat, but it wont take them wrong to realize they are threatened, and then I promise they will be very difficult to find. Look at Canada, I talk to outfitters that hunt them, and they say you rarely see them, but they are everywhere. They are amazing creatures, so dont underestimate them, they will not just sit like cows on the side of the road and get shot. I can guarantee that the success rate will be very low.

  231. I do not believe in the concept of “trophy hunting.” I know it’s been done for ages, but if you don’t eat what you kill, seriously, why kill it??

    It seems there are better ways to spend one’s time than to kill animals for the “thrill of it.”

    It is not respectful to Nature (and God’s creatures) to kill something needlessly. I don’t recall anything in the bible saying “trophy hunting” is OK. “Dominion” does not always mean killing. It means stewardship too — taking care of them — protecting them (St. Francis).

    Religion aside, (or morals) what I really fear about the wolf de-listing is that it will give everyone who hates wolves (and other predators) a chance to go kill them out of hatred. The hatred that is spewed from various forums and blogs about wolves and coyotes is truly frightening. Several years ago, the Ted Nugent hunting website had photos posted from a blogger of a wolf hanging dead upside down and posters were making fun of it.

    How can we respect people like that when they don’t respect other creatures?

    Wolves do not deserve this treatment. They are too smart and too magnificent.

    I, for one, will continue to support them as long as necessary — I think that will be — hmmm — the rest of my life!

  232. Me and Mack started trading blows, and I was asked to leave. I dont harbor any hard feelings though, its Ralph’s blog and he needs to keep it under control, and its an issue that gets people fired up, so sometimes emotions run high. I really only disliked a few people, Mack and Mikarooni were about the only ones that bugged me. Everyone else I got along with fairly well.

  233. Elkhunter,

    Sorry to hear you were booted from Ralph’s blog. Out of all the trophy hunters posting, I always thought you made some of the best points. These issues DO need accurate perspectives from both sides.

  234. SAP,

    I stand corrected. thanks

  235. Marion – as you know, bears are omnivores.

    The Yellowstone grizzly population eats a lot of meat, true, as well as whitebark pine seeds. They have notably few berries in their diets.

    One reason for the paucity of berries (in addition to a dry climate) is huge ungulate herds keeping berry-producing shrubs browsed down to nubs. Service berry, huckleberry, buffalo berry . . . so, it may turn out that grizzlies will ultimately see some benefit from the reduction of the Northern Range herd.

    I’m tired of all this whining and crying about the Northern Range herd.

    If wolves hadn’t been reintroduced, I’d bet you would be among the chorus denouncing Yellowstone’s out-of-control elk herd, too.

    There are many factors besides wolves that reduced that herd (which was too big anyway) — drought, liberal hunting regs, the recovery of grizzlies . . . wolves are in there somewhere, but drought and human hunters are probably the biggest factor.

    Here’s a peer-reviewed citation:

    Journal of Wildlife Management (volume 71(2), 2007) by L. L. Eberhardt et al, “A Seventy-Year History of Trends in Yellowstone’s Northern Elk Herd.”

    From page 594: “reduction of harvests of prime-aged female elk to decrease removals of animals with high reproductive value and increase adult female survival appears essential. We analyzed the relative impact of removals by hunters and by wolves . . . and found that the impact of hunters is far more important than that by wolves, a finding of broad significance.”

    AGAIN: “The impact of hunters is far more important than that by wolves.”

  236. Cat, I did NOT say that the wolves would kill the bears. They are taking all of the prey that both need. As the elk food source continues to diminish, the griz will of course go outside of the park and onto private property looking for food, and get into trouble.
    The elk are now approaching historic lows that followed a very bad winter that followed severe reduction of numbers by rangers. They were able to bounce back since they didn’t have anywhere near the number of buffalo to compete with, only bears for predators, maybe a few lions. Now the depredation will continue until the numbers get so low that the wolves leave.
    As the bears get pushed out by the lack of prey, they as well as the wolves will prey on private property.
    If you have read the Craighead book, you are aware that the NPS removed all of the ID that had been put on them so the number killed could not be tracked and it was easy to blame other people for it.
    On top of demanding that we provide your entertainment we have to pay for it. One tenth of 1% of the US population lives in Wyoming, and the whole burden will be dumped on us in addition to the lost revenue from livestock destroyed by the wolves. On top of that as the hunting opportunities drop due to lack of game hunting revenues will also drop.
    I would really like to see wolf proponents willing to allow the delisting go thru we have many many times the number of wolves we were supposed to have, so reevaluate in 2 years or even one year.
    I would also like to see those groups who raise money to “save the wolf” buy the tracking collars and help with the tracking and monitoring. that would be a big expense and it surely is a part of “saving the wolf”. In addition it would eliminate any suspicion that anyone was fudging the numbers.

  237. Cat – wolves HAVE killed grizzlies, but it’s very rare. I would leave it to more dedicated Lamar Valley troopers to pass along observations, but in hundreds of hours of watching grizzlies and wolves, it seems that they tend to steer clear of each other – the exception being big male grizzlies, who can be pretty bold with wolves.

    Female grizzlies with potentially vulnerable cubs tend to definitely avoid wolves, but at the same time I doubt anyone would say that wolves go out specifically hunting grizzlies.

    I don’t subscribe to Marion’s hysteria about wolves pushing grizzlies out of the Park, or wolves returning grizzlies to the brink of extinction, and so on. But it’s not a true statement to say “Wolves don’t kill Grizzly Bears.”

  238. Marion – I’ll say it again, “politically correct” is a meaningless label, and I think you should stop using it.

    AND, in this case, you’re wrong about Yellowstone NP’s dump closures.

    YNP didn’t do everything perfectly, but it’s not true that they closed “all fo the dumps simultaneously.”

    Look it up – page 196 of Frank Craighead’s book, Track of the Grizzly. YNP’s first step in 1968 was to “drastically reduce the volume of refuse food at the Trout Creek dump [Hayden Valley]”.

    They didn’t totally eliminate garbage at the dumps until 1971.

    It was a more rapid phase-out than the Craigheads argued for (they wanted a 10-year phase-out), but it wasn’t a simultaneous closure of all the dumps.

    AND, if you go back through the historic mortality figures (I have), you’ll find that YNP’s big error was failing to do something about garbage and other attractants (including domestic sheep allotments) OUTSIDE the park at the same time. Because THAT’S where the bears got killed in far greater numbers as the dump closures progressed.

    The bears simply moved outside the Park to Cooke City, Gardiner, West Yellowstone, Island Park, and other places, looking for what they knew of as food.

    Sure, there were probably some unrecorded “control” kills in YNP, but there were probably also quite a number that went unrecorded on the sheep allotments along the western boundary of the Park, as well as in restaurant dumpsters in West Yellowstone and other places.

    Ok, what was this thread about again?

  239. Marion, Marion, Marion,

    here we go again. In the first place. Wolves don’t kill Grizzly bears. It is the Grizzly who runs a wolf pack off of a kill. It is a proven fact that Grizzlies (as do numerous other species) benefit from wolf kills. You didn’t seem to have a problem with ranchers “helping themselves to other peoples property” (Native Americans) because it felt good. And you are wrong again, about compensation for wolf depredation. All proven wolf depredations are paid for. And before you go spouting the story of the wolf who killed a whole herd of sheep for fun. You might consider the fact that that was a wolf hybrid. Problems with wolf hybrids are human caused.

    And yes the entire country HAS paid the bill for wolves and we don’t want our investment destroyed by a minute bunch of ranchers who think the entire nation OWES them a living.

  240. OK, I’ve tried about 10 times to post it. Maybe it’s some glitch with the Census bureau. Look up US Census, State rankings. It gives you some choices. Click on “Adult Education” It will give you a list of state education rankings for persons with BS degrees or higher.

  241. Marion,

    I am trying to post that link and for some reason it is not letting me. I’m working on it.

  242. Cathy Bestland

    Marion, here is the link. Sorry, I meant to post it in the earlier comment.


  243. Cat, I posted that to show that not only did the ranchers ahve the highest eduction, all of the things they said would be problems with the wolves were what has come to pass. Do you have a link to the education listing that you posted? I don’t recall being asked on the census how much education I have.
    Izabelam, the fact of the matter is the environmentalists agreed to have 100 wolves per state and 300 over all, now they want 10 times that, and we may be closer than is admitted. Their word is no good, it is impossible to believe anything they say, or trust them.
    The overabundance of wolves may imperil the grizzlies. Already the prey base in Yellowstone is badly diminished. A grizzly sow and cubs is no match for a 15-20 pack of wolves. By the time the bears come out of hibernation in the spring the wolves have already eaten all of the winter kill that the bears so desperately need.
    Sadly NPS nearly destroyed the gizzlies 40 years ago with their politically correct feel good policy of closing all fo the dumps simultaneously. Now they have rebounded and they have trucked in wolves to eat one of their main food sources of protein….elk.
    Whether you like cows or not, you should not have the right to feed someone elses property to your wolves, and we have to pay for it on top of that.
    DOW took in 30 million dollars in donations to “save the wolf” they paid out about 100,000. Nearly 10 times that came out of the pocket of individuals. Do you feel someone has the right to help themselves to your property if it makes them feel good? For anything?
    DOW does not in any other way support wolves, nor do any of the wolf support groups, they only file lawsuits. The entire country has paid the bill for the wolves. Now Wyoming with 0.10% of the population will have to bear the cost alone. Why are not any of the “save the wolf” groups paying any of the cost?

  244. Marion, I am not here to argue and I apologize if I was to strong, but I am tired of goverment ignoring the fact that first we introduced the wolves, spent money and time (I pettitioned for re-introudction). Now, we are going to kill them in the most brutal way ( all palns are avaiable on the web and specify cruel technics of management (aka killing) . So we kill them and we reintroduce them again. People come from all over the world to see the wolves. They leave money in Cody, Cooke City, and around. People hear them howl in the morning and you can see the joy in their eyes.
    Wolf is American as mustang , bison and ..Harley Davidson is.
    Goverment support big money.
    Cattle and sheep is money.
    Who cares that cattle piss is poisoning our streams and ground.

    Look, I live in Utah and I am part timer in Idaho and I have been living in States for 23 years.
    I am not a just a ‘tree hugger’ – not to offend a tree hugger.
    I just feel that goverment has not respect for us regular people.
    I will stand up for the wolves and all creatures being disrespected.

  245. Sorry, I forgot to post the very link that was the point of my comment. This not meant to offend anyone. It is just to point out that I believe, that education is the keay to tolerance.


  246. Oops sorry I forgot to post the link.


  247. Marion,

    US Census on State educational rankings. Notice Colorado is 5th highest and Wyoming is 43rd.

    My point was that hopefully wolves will fare better in a state where the average population is a little better educated especially in matters of the environment. Of course there are well educated people in every state.

  248. There is a wonderful article on the delisting on newwest today. I jsut wish everyone would take it to heart. Unfortunately not everyone does. I guess it makes too much sense.


  249. Ralph kicked me off of his blog, about 2 months ago.

  250. So you are not worried about anti-wildlife forces flying, shooting from and sometimes crashing helicopters, and placing poison (legal or otherwise). These are all things that happen regularly and have resulted in human deaths. But you ARE worried about pro-wolf forces attacking ranchers… something that has never happened. Seems kind of a weird way of thinking to me…

    The government can’t please everyone all of the time. Things happen every day that we have no choice or control over. Do you ever worry about your public lands being stripped clean by energy, mining and lumber companies? You have no voice in that… It is really sad that you focus exclusively on the wolf issue just like all of your western politicians want you to as they strip our national treasures clean behind your back.

  251. Steve, I am very concerned about the poisoned meatballs. I believe Gillette was finally convicted of one. All of the others were in places inhabited by dog or where people stopped to let their dogs run.
    If you remember a fellow was picked up walking down a Jackson street after midnight wearing a long glove, and turned loose. Local news reports the next day stated the fellow was a known activist against dogs being allowed to run and harass wildlife. His name was never revealed, the news was never repeated, and there was never another poison case (the Gillette case was earlier). I kept saying at the time, the meat balls were in areas where dogs would be found, including the Teton View turnout in Buffalo Valley, not in places where wolves would be likely to be.
    Izabelem, I do not hate wolves, I most assuredly do not like what they do, and I feel you should be free to deal with as many as you wish. I do not feel you have the right to demand other people deal with them in their homes because you want them there.
    This is a hate site:
    And a quote from that site:

    WOLF NEWS 2/11/2008


    Montana FWP (Fish Wildlife and Parks)
    has extended the
    comment period for Wolf Hunts
    until February 13, 2008.


    Please comment now and or sue
    the Montana FWP to stop this.

    As well as the USFWS who wants
    to delist Wolves to stop this.

    This is because even kids will
    be indoctrinated into hunting them

    I am worried about violence from this kind of mindset, and remember this hatred is directed at those who brought the wolves in and those forced to deal with them and pay the costs.
    I will keep posting as long as I can and where I can, we were given no choice or voice in the wolf introduction even though we would have to pay the bills, we have to deal with the problems, and individual families are paying a huge cost in cattle losing weight, run down, calf loses and uncompensated wolf kills. The wolves were imposed on us by those who wanted wolves, but did not want to deal with the problems they bring. You may not like to look at these facts, but they are true.
    A couple of things I corrected Ralph about, he stated on another site that moose do not eat hay….they do, any rancher in moose country can tell you that. Not too long ago I posted something from his page elsewhere and he told me it was in error, so I posted his whole link.

  252. Marion,
    you have never proved Ralph wrong. Not speaking for Ralph but as an observer who has experienced the same thing with you, is that when you are confronted with incontrovertible facts you become more slippery than a night crawler on a wet lawn, Until you are backed into a corner which there is no escape and then you post on some other website the same horses— that you just were proved completely wrong about all over again. That and your habit of purposely hi-jacking threads.

  253. Marion,
    I am peaceful..just reading posts..BUT you got me mad now.
    You should be banned from all sites.
    You dont’ bring anything positive. You are just one negative, closed minded wolf hater…
    Just like Otter in Idaho.
    Now, do you hate bighorn sheep also? They lost batle with Idaho domestic sheep.
    Do you hate bisons too? They lost battle with Montana cattle.
    So..what do you like? Cattle pissing in the streams?

  254. Violence from wolf supporters?! Are you f’ing kidding me? Are you at all concerned about wolf opponents lacing meatballs with poison? Ralph’s website has many people posting who don’t completely agree with him. Elkhunter for example leaves many thoughtful and posts on ralph’s site. You were most likely banned for spreading the same propaganda over and over that you spread all over this site. Wolves are a small portion of ralph’s site. If you read it without being so narrow minded you would realize that he posts stories about every aspect of wildlife and the environment. His students are very fortunate to be taught by someone so dedicated.

  255. Nope, I called Ralph and proved him wrong on several occasions on other sites. I only tried the other name because he had me banned from the first time I tried to post on his site. Ralph does not like disagreement at all, and most of those who dare disagree with him are soon gone, and that is his perogative. My only concern would be for his students and whether they are forced to accept and promote his views to get credits in his classes.
    You of course are free to ignore my comments.
    If the wolves ever actually come off the lsit at any number, my concern is violence from avid wolf supporters who go ballistic when a wolf is killed for killing livestock even, and get wilder if a wolf is sport killed. Valuing wolves over humans is a eal concern to me.

  256. Could it be that the rancher is not ranching responsibly? Not disposing of dead animals quickly enough? Not taking non-lethal measures to limit wolf conflicts? Could it be that the remedy to 3 dead calves is much more expensive than compensating for the value of the three calves themselves? You don’t know that it isnt the rancher’s fault just as I don’t have any idea that it is the rancher’s fault. All we and ralph can do is speculate. What we do know is that the rancher won in the end and got his dead wolf pack… You squawk so much about “planting” wolves near ranches. What about all of the native wildlife that ranchers kill? What about the poor bighorn sheep that are dying and will continue to die because of sheep ranching?

    PS: If you want to comment on ralph’s posts maybe you shouldnt have gotten yourself banned from his site. The threads on this blog are complicated enough without you commenting on another blog here. Posting under multiple names was it?

  257. Nope, I thought I’d nominate Ralph, for blaming the victim. He’s figured out that it is the rancher’s fault the wolves are killed for eating so many of his calves (3 + injured in one week). The rancher is at fault because the wolves have hit him before, it cannot possibly be a problem with the wolves, it has to be the rancher’s fault.
    Of course this would not have happened if the wolves had been left in their Canadian wilderness home instead of being planted near ranches. As hysterical as folks get when wolves are killed for killing a few thousand dollars worth of cattle, I have to wonder what they thought was going to happen. It was a given when they hauled them in that they were going to have to kill lots of them becaue they would prey on livestock.

  258. Marion, will you be nominating the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition for the Nobel prize then?

  259. Cat, I read your comment on Ralph’s page about the uneducated in Wyomig who oppose wolves. I thought you might be interested in this study by Bath & Buchanan done in1984 about feelings about the wolf plans. Guess who had the highest education? Yep the ranchers!

    Be sure you also note the predictions of what would happen and see who was most accurate.

  260. Rob,
    First off a wolf is not a human, and the alpha’s own pups will kill him/her to attain the alpha position. It drives me crazy when you guys paint wolves out to be these amazingly social creatures that are almost human. I know they have packs, but they are also very adaptive. They are animals. And they have hunted wolves forever in Canada with almost no laws or regulations. And they are not extinct. Are their brothers down here stupid? the same argument you use for elk is applicable here. I gurantee after that first hunt and wolves realize that humans are a threat, they will be hard to find. I hunt coyotes every year, and they are everywhere, but we are not successful every trip. So I imagine hunting wolves in the Frank Church Wilderness area WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.

    I agree with you Heather, so why the fear that they will be slaughtered opening day? The numbers are plenty high enough for a hunt, at the expo in SLC the IDFG was there and I asked them about the population in ID. He said the numbers that are stated are MINIMUMS. So around 800 counted in ID. He said that was the absolute minimum. And if you have seen the areas of ID that they inhabit, no roads, and VERY thick canyons. So I would imagine they did not count every wolf. I do care about hunting elk, so do alot of other people. I care about wolves also, and I think they should obviously have a part in the ecosystem, but I dont think they should be exempt from any sort of hunt.
    Also, watch what happens in YNP this year after the HUGE winterkill that the Northern Herd will experience. Then you will have all the grizz/wolves kill all this coming years calves. You will probably have recruitment in the single digit numbers. 2006 was the first year in over 5 years that recruitment was out of the teens. I bet you will see the Northern herd around 3000 animals this year. Heather, they are both sides to this issue, and until you “wake up and smell the coffee” and realize that there needs to be a compromise. And people wonder why sportsman and the hunting community wont step up and help out with the wolf issue, because we all know what your agenda is.

  261. That sounds like something Marion would do. She is vehemently anti wolf.

  262. Thanks Todd, I may have her confused with someone very anti wolf at a mgmt meeting last winter. She was stating to the crowd that wolves would come into your yard and steal the children! my eyes were rolling into the back of their sockets!

  263. Elkhunter: I am very glad they are hard to find – just shows you how resilient they are. watching you probably. the wolf hunt is a bad idea based on the history of villifying this animal. the numbers are not high enough for recovery let alone a hunt. I know you’ll have your opposite opinion on this , but just so you know there will be no way of convincing me out of mine. killing the alphas in the pack leads to more vulnerability for the pack, especially if there are youngins to feed. think about it-its just plain logic. I really dont care about the elk hunting. I care about the wolves. there are many many more elk. time to wake up and smell the coffee.

  264. Elkhunter, how much chaos do you think it would have caused in your family if you mom and dad had suddenly “vanished”? Maybe you and your sibs would have “adapted”, but you might have turned to robbing banks to get by.

    Wolves are social animals, and the alphas in the pack are the ones that teach and that lead. Killing the alphas has profound implications for the behavior and survival of the remaining pack members. The same is true of coyotes.

  265. They’ll do much better when the lawsuits are filed and the injunctions are ordered.

  266. I dont think that shooting an alpha male or female will cause all that much trouble. They have been hunting wolves in canada and alaska for YEARS. I talked to alot of outfitters at the SLC expo about wolf hunts in Canada, he said they are very hard to find, let alone kill. But he mentioned that they are everywhere. You just never see them. So i would imagine their brothers we brought down here will do just fine with a wolf hunt. They will adapt just like any other animal.

  267. Heather,

    Don’t let Marion fool you, she lives in the city (not on a ranch). While she lives closer to stop lights than wildlife, she acts as if she wrestles grizzlies in morning and wolves in the afternoon. The reality is that her living situation is just like the majority of American — city life.


  268. Marion:
    I would sacrifice anything to live on your ranch Marion with wolves in co existence. I would have a camera out everyday shooting pictures to put on the net. I would have video cameras filming them. As far as if I had cattle or other kinds of livestock, I would not let them overgraze the national forest for a pittance. I would have range riders and dogs protecting the livestock that I had. And, if an alpha male or female fed on one of cattle I would not have a cow! It could be just the fact that I have to give one or two up – part of the territory. I wouldnt yell about how ugly it is, but realize the wolf is a predator like me. they kill, eat, leave and come back sometimes. I would do everything else I could do to keep the wolves away rather than shoot the alphas so that the others are left more vulnerable and then complain to the FWP. And ultimately I would not use the wolf as a scapegoat for every one of my problems, including a sprained ankle. I would think of how long the wolf had been here before me, and kept a natural balance with nature before welfare ranching of the modern age. People like you are ruining years of hard work and millions of taxpayer money to reintroduce the wolf to the wild west, much of it wild forest. Which should stay that way. I dont have a huge ranch like you. I’ve been in this country all of my life, from Irish and English immigrants – I dont have your luck. I wish I did.

  269. Marion,

    Sorry about your ankle. Be sure you take Chondroiten sulfates and glucosamine and Methylsulfanolmethane (MSM). I’m sure you have soft tissue damage as well.

  270. Did you trip over a wolf?

  271. sorry to hear about yor ankle. hope you heal well and fast.

  272. Jeff, that is the problem, not only am I snowed in, but I have a broken ankle to boot and cannot get out. There just hasn’t been much worth replying to on here.
    Actually we agree, sacrifices must be made for the wolves to live in this populated country we now live in instead of the wilderness where they were. Our main disagreement is whether those who want them should have to make the sacrifices or whether they should be able to force other people to sacrifice for them.

  273. darn it Marion, here we was hoping you was snowed in and we would not have to read any of your drivel until breakup.

  274. The difference is it would be you having to make the sacrifices and change YOUR lifestyle. The wolves were in perfect habitat when they were loaded up and brought to ranch country, which is NOT appropriate habitat. If you don’t want them bad enough to sacrifice yourself, then you should not be allowed to invade other folks homes to satisfy your fantasies.

  275. Excellent article!

    As far as the comment from someone that they should have reintroduced wolves to urban areas, that would make sense if it were appropriate habitat.

    So, sorry, that argument doesn’t hold water.

  276. That is not a very well written article. Thats of mis-information and assumptions. He should of done some more research.