Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

‘Famous’ Yellowstone Wolf Killed Legally During Hunting Season — So Why Is the Humane Society Filing a Lawsuit?

Dec. 11, 2012 9:59am Liz Klimas

A wolf frequently seen in and around Yellowstone National Park that goes by many names — 832F by researchers, “rock star” by wildlife enthusiasts, “famous” by others — was killed last week, according to the New York Times. Although shot legally during hunting season, many are upset, and the Humane Society of the United States has even filed a lawsuit against the decision that allows wolf hunting in Wyoming.

The alpha female wolf, which for the purpose of this story will be referred to as 832 F, was tagged by researchers with a GPS collar to track movements. According to the Times, Yellowstone wolf program project director Daniel Stahler said this wolf rarely left the park. 832F is one of eight with the collars to be killed this season, since wolves became legal for hunters in the state after being removed from the endangered species list last year.

Famous Wolf in Yellowstone National Park Killed by Hunters Sparking Lawsuit From the Humane Society

This undated file image provided by Yellowstone National Park, Mont., shows a gray wolf in the wild. (Photo: AP/National Park Service, MacNeil Lyons, File)

Some say the wolf population in the area isn’t yet large enough to allow hunting. On the other hand, ranchers would argue thinning the pack protects livestock and other big game in the park.

On Friday, the humane society and The Fund for Animals filed a lawsuit in an effort to overturn the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to remove the wolves from the endangered species list.

“The agency’s decision to strip Wyoming wolves of federal protection is biologically reckless and contrary to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act,” Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation at HSUS, said in a statement. “Wyoming’s regressive wolf management plan is reminiscent of a time when bounties paid by state and federal governments triggered mass killings that nearly exterminated wolves from the lower 48 states.”

The HSUS estimates that since hunting season began this year, close to 50 wolves have been killed in the state.

The Times reported wildlife photographer Jimmy Jones saying 832 F is considered “the most famous wolf in the world.”

This August 2012 photo shows an image provided by Wolves of the Rockies of the Lamar Canyon wolf pack on a hillside in Yellowstone National Park, Wyo. The pack s alpha female was shot Dec. 6, 2012, in Wyoming. (Photo: AP)

Pat Shipman, in an article for American Scientist, recently wrote about the complex relationship the wolf packs have in the area. Since the population has increased, Shipman wrote that it has had repercussions on other plant and animal populations:

One of the more obvious changes is a decline in the elk population. The herd also tends to stay in smaller groups than previously. Fewer elk overall means that the cottonwoods, willows and aspens along the rivers now form denser, healthier stands because their shoots are not eaten to the ground by over-abundant elk.

Beaver are increasing, damming up rivers, creating new meadows and providing new habitats for songbirds and fish. Coyotes are hard-hit by the wolves, which kill them as competitors. The coyote population has dropped precipitously, since those that are not killed tend to avoid areas with wolves. Because coyotes used to suppress fox populations, foxes are expected to be more common. All kinds of scavengers, from ravens to bears, have more carcasses to eat. Finally bison—which only a few wolf packs have learned to kill—are still growing in number but now wander outside of the park in larger numbers. Perhaps they are avoiding wolves too.

Shipman also includes, among the positive effects of the wolf reintroduction, that ranchers, who had never seen a wolf population problem before now, fear for not only livestock but for the safety of their family.

With the ecosystem effects as well as the implications for those making their lives in the area, Shipman puts the issue succinctly: “How can we balance the rights of the individual with those of the majority?”

Shipman writes that while preserving the wild, natural heritage of the land can come at a price, a “just and equable solution” must be reached with stakeholders in the area.

Read more about the relationship between wolf reintroduction, the bison population and other factors playing into the controversial issue in the Yellowstone National Park area here.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (104)

OpenCarry
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 2:23pm
Kill them all… and if the tree huggers get in the way — its open season… I love beingso sensitive….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dartagnan
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 7:37pm
  what did this wolf do to become famous and who said you had to eat the harvested animal
  native indians servived because of fur
  if you eat you also must hunt
  i know what my dinner had for lunch
  progressives hunt in brightly lighted store isles
  
  Report this comment
- mauijonny
  Posted on December 12, 2012 at 2:55am
  Is our ecosystem “fragile?” I dunno. If it’s so “fragile” why does the Earth have exceptional events (like massive, massive extinctions via things like rapid climate change, meteors, volcanoes, etc..) and still keep on keepin’ on? Sounds to me like Mother Earth isn’t fragile at ALL, but one tough, creative chicka-babe!
  
  Report this comment
- ChefT
  Posted on December 12, 2012 at 10:17am
  “This society calls itself civilized and yet it permits the stalking, wounding, and killing of frightened and often cowering animals, and allows this incredible act to be called a sport. To kill for pleasure and sport cannot be justified or excused. “–Joel R. Saper, in Lewis Regenstein’s The Politics of Extinction: The Shocking Story of the World’s Endangered Wildlife
  
  Report this comment
Seagal45
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:44pm
I say kill them all, they were “reintroduced” in these parts and have ruined elk populations and attacked dogs, cattle, sheep, etc.. If you city dwelling wolf lovers want them around so bad I’m sure no one would mind if they were set loose in central park. Maybe after eating a few joggers you would change your mind. It was an idiotic practice to begin with.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BannedByHuffpo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:54pm
  Wolves were ALWAYS historically part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem for tens of thousands of years before being exterminated in the 1920s to bolster elk populations.
  
  Report this comment
- RabidPatriot
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 1:59pm
  The Humane Society kills more canines in a single year than hunters do in decades. They call it humane euthanization. PETA and the Humane Society kills thousands of animals a year in shelters and then have the self righteous double standard to criticize hunters.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 3:04pm
  “…BannedByHuffpo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:54pm
  Wolves were ALWAYS historically part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem…”
  Ummm, better check your treehugger environmentaal fact book, Banned- the wolves stocked into Yellowstone were not American wolves, but Canadian wolves, a larger breed of animal and certainly not the same species that was ‘decimated’ as you tree huggers like to claim.
  
  Report this comment
- BannedByHuffpo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 5:50pm
  WOLF- you might want to familiarize yourself with geography. The “Canadian” wolves came from Alberta, right across the border from the home of “American” wolves in Montana. Canadian/American wolves differ significantly in size from the Mexican Gray prevalent in the desert southwest in New Mexico and Arizona, but to assert that there is some distinction between an “American” Montana wolf and a “Canadian” Alberta wolf is patently ridiculous.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 6:59pm
  LOL, Banned- Alberta is a long way from Yellowstone, even for a wolf. Living in MN woods, I am very familiar with brush and timber wolves, and they’re a smaller version than what was introduced to Yellowstone.
  I’m also familiar with Mexican wolves, so that point is moot as well.
  What is patently rediculous is your tree hugging enviro weenie attitude toward allowing others to enjoy Yellowstone the way they want. Of course, hunting those precious wolves doesn’t fit in with your panty waist ideas of fair play.
  
  Report this comment
- Rockyspoon
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 7:06pm
  My grandfather was instrumental in erradicating the wolf from Yellowstone and surrounding areas. He was correct in doing so–there is absolutely no need for the wolf or the grizzly, “Wolf”.
  
  Now, if you want to take a bunch of wolves and grizzlies and place them in your city park, please feel free to do so! I encourage it as a learning experience!
  
  Oh, you don’t want such savage creatures roaming around your neighborhood?
  
  Well, neither do those of us living near Yellowstone. So regardless of where the wolf and the grizzly used to roam, there are sufficient problems with such human/wolf or human/grizzly encounters now that they should be erradicated again.
  
  Report this comment
- ChefT
  Posted on December 12, 2012 at 10:18am
  Why don’t I hunt? I could allude to the fruits of exhaustive research into the ecological and biological consequences of hunting, and to collective insights of biologists, ecologists, and naturalists who challenge the prevailing wildlife-management dogma. Yet, fundamentally, the answer can be expressed in simple moral terms: Hunting is wrong, and should be acknowledged to be so not only by those who espouse the strict precepts of the animal-rights credo, but by those who hold a common sense of decency, respect, and justice. When we have exposed the specious reasoning of the hunters’ apologists and stripped their sport of its counterfeit legitimacy, the naked brutality of hunting defines itself: killing for the fun of it. –Steve Ruggeri, “Why I Don’t Hunt”
  
  Report this comment
- RabidPatriot
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 3:15am
  @Cheft
  How did you remove yourself so far from being human in man’s truest form and morph into a navel gazing pseudo-intellectual. Liberals have such a small mental library of what hunting is, who does it, and the lifestyle that revolves around it. The greatest achievements in wildlife conservation were accomplished through hunting program both in the private sector and in government. Conservation will always be more effective than environmentalism. Environmentalism has too many masters with different worldviews. Some wield it as a weapon against capitalism. For others it is a cult. Politicians use it to gain votes or stop projects that they don’t like and abandon it for projects they do like. Hunters and anglers just want large healthy animals filling the woods, lakes and oceans.
  
  Report this comment
BannedByHuffpo
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:34pm
As someone who has frequented Yellowstone numerous times over the past 15 years (3 trips so far this year) I have personally observed the beneficial changes to the park ecosystem since these natural predators were restored in 1995.

Anyone who trys to tell you that wolves are decimating elk herds in the northern Rockies doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Take a trip to the winter elk reserve outside Jackson WY if you don’t believe me. With wolves now present in the Yellowstone ecosystem, elk are no longer acting like cattle, they’re acting like elk.

“Hunting” wolves that predate livestock is one thing. To bait and lure a collared research animal outside the park boundaries for the sole purpose of blowing her brains out, not for food, but to make a fur rug or wall hanging is disgustingly sick. A HUGE amount of scientific research died with that bullet that destroyed 832F. Sickos (yeah, that’s right!) that engage in this senseless slaughter are the moral equivalent of bloodthirsy Al Qaeda or Taliban monsters. I don’t doubt that they’d be entertained by the thrill of killing one with a roadside bomb if they had the chance.

We are not only boycotting Wyoming businesses, but are now actively petitioning the country entertainment acts that draw such huge crowds and significant economic benefit to big Wyoming events like Cheyenne Frontier Days to withdraw from their concerts and blacklist Wyoming and until they revise their senseless wolf hunting regulations.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Jenny Lind
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 1:27pm
  Hunting is OK in my mind when you eat what you kill. Who the hell eats a wolf? Killing a collared GPS tracked wolf is wrong-sorry buddy but that is just wrong, period.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 1:36pm
  ” Sickos (yeah, that’s right!) that engage in this senseless slaughter are the moral equivalent of bloodthirsy Al Qaeda or Taliban monsters.”
  
  ……And there you go. Credibility lost. (Because killing a dangerous predator is the same as killing innocent children)
  
  Report this comment
- mtn-mike
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 1:46pm
  You commented that anyone who trys to tell you that wolves are decimating elk herds in the northern Rockies doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Before you make such absurd comments you need to really read up on the history of the Yellowstone basin elk hear. Before the introduction of the Canadian Timber wolf the elk herds in the Yellowstone basin were at a historical high. That was the bases for the argument to increase the wolf population in the Yellowstone area. Note I said “increase”. There was already a Yellowstone Wolf population in place when the Federal Government introduced the larger Timber wolf to the area. With the larger Timber Wolf in place they have absolutely decimate the elk population in the Yellowstone basin. Being that my family has lived and hunted in the Yellowstone basin for the last seventy years we most definitely have a better understanding of the impact the wolf has had on the elk population then you fifteen years of visiting our great state. When you see the killing of the wolf you see just that. You are unable to see the greater good from it. With the killing of the fifty or so wolf will mean a healther wolf and elk population. This has been goal of game management for over the last hundred years. But if you choose to boycott our Great state over your lack of understanding the necessity of hunting all specices to balance the populations for furture generation than the killing of 832F is lost on you…..
  
  Report this comment
- fukjihad
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 1:51pm
  Kill all the wolves
  
  Report this comment
- sta
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 2:23pm
  I’m sorry about your wolf, however wouldn’t it have been a good idea for those who are researching by tagging this wolf, to have gone out and kept an eye on her? If I’ve devoted so much time and energy to a project, I would have gone out, anesthetized her, and clearly marked her as a research animal. Or even better yet, during the hunting season, pull her out of the wild. The hunt is Oct 1 until December 31 with only 52 wolves allowed to be culled. Instead of just wanting the wolf hunt stopped why not come up with a compromise?
  This looks pretty well managed to me
  http://www.powelltribune.com/news/item/9488-wolf-hunt-season-outlined
  
  Report this comment
- BannedByHuffpo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 5:40pm
  I stand by my statement unequivocally.
  
  So MTN-MIKE and STA, elk herds have been as large as they were over the past 70 years BECAUSE wolf predation that kept the herds in balance were exterminated in the 1920s. If the idiots that exterminated them back in 1920 would have left well enough alone, the natural balance would never have been so severly interrupted. Visit Mammoth Hot Springs. It’s a frickin’ elk petting zoo! As for Canadian Gray wolves not belonging in the lower 48, get real!. Their genetics evolve and have adapted over the 18 years since they’ve been reintroduced to the Yellowstone ecosystem, and there’s no scientific basis in your assertion that they are somehow “too large” and end up “decimating elk”. The Canadian variety was far more suitable than “importing” the Mexican Gray wolf. Regardless, now that elk no longer behave like cattle, “hunters” can’t just pick them off from the hood of a pickup truck. Now they actually have to “hunt” and track them into the back country where they thrive in balance with other species. As for wolves not belonging in an area where they have existed for tens of thousands of years, the species YOU’RE inflicting onto the ecosystem that historically never belonged there in the first place are your cattle and your Black Lab.
  
  Report this comment
- shakedowncrews
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 6:26pm
  ALL animal populations expand and contract regularly, based upon environmental factors. But the idea of “balance” is a bit silly. It’s like a teeter totter–populations of predators increase, prey decrease, until the predators pass critical mass and begin to starve off. Then the prey comes back and the cycle returns.
  Unless the predators are also predated. Killing off a regulated number every year keeps both animal populations in check.
  Varmints such as coyotes are a great example, they are hunted for their furs, exactly as beavers and raccoons and minks, etc. No, generally, they are not eaten.
  But that has nothing to do with it. It’s good to eat what you hunt, but not every animal that is legitimate prey is “edible”. It’s good for the environment for varmint numbers to be reduced frequently. It is well managed by the Division of Wildlife, all you ******** should learn that it was they who brought back the deer and elk from near extinction and it is hunters who help maintain healthy populations.
  
  Report this comment
TheBurningTruth
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:55am
I sure hope that those beavers are performing their EPA studies and getting permits for any dam work their doing.

Here in northern WA, there is a small lake. Years ago the lake level started dropping. The problem was found: a break in a levee. It took something like 9 months to get all the govt permits. By then, the local beavers had fixed the levee and lake levels were back to “normal”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- fxgal
  Posted on December 12, 2012 at 3:03pm
  Good story…what is the name of the lake? We have beaver here too. They are busy!
  
  Report this comment
jay1975
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:49am
So, we encroached on their habitat and then kill them for trying to live in their dwindling home. Yeah, that makes sense.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BasketFullOfPuppies
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:19pm
  Do you not admit that we have a habitat, as well? So, could they be encroaching upon ours?
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:24pm
  That’s our habitat, if you believe in either evolution or the bible.
  
  Report this comment
Marsh626
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:49am
Thank God. The misanthropic environ-mentals couldn’t care less about human safety. They literally think humans are an evil and disgusting pulsing ball of maggots on this planet who are destroying the natural world. They worship nature as a kind of new age religion. They care about animal life than they do about human life. That’s why they’re “reintroducing” all kinds of dangerous predators to our communities and going after anyone who hunts them or arms themselves to protect themselves against their precious little pets as Nazi war criminals.

Wolves ate countless thousands of people all across Europe. If you don’t think they pose an immense danger to human safety then you’ve been watching way too much “Green” propaganda.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- termyt
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:07pm
  How dare you malign the character of maggots.
  
  Report this comment
- BannedByHuffpo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:36pm
  “wolves ATE thousands of people across Europe”
  
  You’ve got to be kidding! What an absolutely BS statement.
  
  Report this comment
- redonred
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 1:01pm
  Your information is skewed. Europe wolves killed humans because humans killed all their food during the 100yr wars. If the humans had buried their dead instead of throwing them over the walls wolves would never have aquired a taste for humans. Humans cause a great deal of damage to animals then turn around and blame the animal. I guess since some are rewriting American history why not rewrite human history as well. I have done research on wolves and I also protect them. Oooo, I to am a dying breed, but home schooling my children with true history shows them how to be better at protecting all and keeping truth alive. Merry Christmas!!!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
LOTO
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:15am
I’m glad the dang thing is dead. I hoped it would be sooner.
I bet others would too if it killed and ate their pet, or livestock, or child.
We used to be able to shot coyotes anytime now there is a season and a short one at that . You cant shoot them at night which is mostly only when they are out. There are so many of the things that you really have to watch your pets and its spooky at sunset. For what? Conservation is releasing copperhead snakes into the wild. WTH? What good could this possibly be for? Now we just have to kill them. Get rid of the government pensions and this insanity will stop.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LIBERALSAREMORONS
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:23am
  You clearly don’t know much about Wolves.
  
  Report this comment
- LOTO
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:54am
  Clearly?
  Lets ask the teacher that was killed by wolves in 2010.
  Oh wait, we cant, she is dead.
  Wolves and bears are not harmless flower picking love bunnies.
  There is no need to populate predators.
  
  Report this comment
- Mustanger
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:58am
  BOSS “Mustanger, why are you late for work?”
  MUSTANGER “I couldn’t get to my car.”
  BOSS “Why?”
  MMUSTANGER “I was waiting for the coyotes to catch and kill whatever they were chasing, and I didn’t feel like killing and dumping one this morning, which would have me more late.”
  Happens about twice a year.
  
  Report this comment
Henry22
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:11am
I live in northern Idaho……..and I can tell you that wolves have devastated the elk population…….I hunt every year in many different area here……..and wolf tracks are everywhere…………even in our driveway………………

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BasketFullOfPuppies
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:27am
  Exactly. As people try to “increase the beauty of nature”, nature has to go somewhere.. and it is often to your front door. Years ago, a friend told me that she had a mountain lion coming into her yard. I thought she was crazy, because mountain lions are notorious for hiding from us. But, she was right. It was coming into her yard and from the look of the tail drag behind the paw prints, it was very old. Her children were in danger and I had no problem getting a depredation permit from Fish and Game. When I finally found it, it had NO FEAR of me. A mountain lion with no fear, is a very dangerous animal.
  
  Report this comment
- jay1975
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:48am
  Wait, so you hunt to kill animals every year and yet you are against the wolves doing the same thing. Dude, the wolves don’t get the convenience of a grocery store, they have to hunt to live. Maybe if you stopped hunting the elk and just let the wolves do their thing, there would be more elk out there.
  
  Report this comment
- G-WHIZ
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:53am
  The reaL-story is: THE PROGS ONLY DO LEGISLATION-BY-THE-COURTSYSTEM!! THEY NEVER USE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE SYSTEM!! The-PROGS use UNELECTED REGLATIONS to do what the CONSTITUTION does-NOT!!
  
  Report this comment
- BasketFullOfPuppies
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:17pm
  @Jay1975. That is a really cool hypothesis, dude, and I respect it. But, if you want it to advance to the status of theory, you should test it.
  
  The biggest flaw in your argument is that of the grocery store. Do you seriously believe that the animals in the grocery store, are somehow different from the animals in the wild? Do you think these animals “volunteered” to become our food? For a hungry man, there is no difference between a rat and a cow, other than the amount of leftovers.
  
  Admit it. We are as much a part of the food chain, as any other animal. If you choose to get your food from a grocery store, so be it. But, don’t deny the fact that you hired a hitman, instead of killing the animal, yourself. You made the same choice as the hunter, with the exception that he looked his prey in the eye. You only saw the finished product.
  
  Report this comment
- stanbeck
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:38pm
  My brother lives in MT. and he has said the same thing is happening there too. Elk population is way down. All the hunters are talking about it.
  
  Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:08am
Responsible Wildlife mangement==Tag system/Hunting…Pays for itself, keeps wild-life levels well balanced, can be adjusted on a yearly basis depending on population.

Irresponsible Wildlife management==Humane Society Method. Let the population grow, pretend there is not a problem until it becomes a danger to the environment and people. Then hire hundreds of people to trap animals and deliver them to a kill house to be gassed. The animal lives in fear for days, low wage workers do a crappy job, administrators suck down high wages to write useless and wrong reports. Years go by, and they don’t even make a dent in the population. The problem becomes embarrassing, and the Humane Society after wasting millions of dollars turns it back over to the State.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- cosmic dogma
  Posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:42am
  So agree with you on the humane association. I have a farm, and barn cats. They are usually dumped on my farm by who knows who and I get them spayed and neutered, try to find homes for the friendliest ones. Keep the others. They are fed twice daily and have water. Even a heated water bowl in the winter. They sleep in the hay bales and have a good life. We have a massive coyote problem, and I lost several barn cats in one year to predation. Plus ducks, chickens…and calves. Went to the humane association and asked if they had any spayed or neutered cats that they were going to euthanize. Granted, living on the farm was risky, but better chance than a gas chamber… They denied my adoption of any cats, preferring euthanizing to adopting to a non-indoor cat household. I found that kind of sickeningly controlling. At least they had a CHANCE to live, and live a really good life, for a cat, with food and freedom to move and play and be alive. After that, my opinion of SPCA plummeted to the point of deeming them extermination centers, with more concern with the proper owners than the proper lives of the animals.
  AND, if they really cared so much for spay and neuter, offer it FREE, on a regular basis, to any pet owner who asks.
  Don’t even get me started on the city dwelling a–h—s who introduced coyotes, wolves, bears, etc., into the countryside. Try looking over your shoulder every night when you go to the barn to feed. No fun.
  
  Report this comment
Priscilla King
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:02am
If the wolf left the park, then she was a danger to the public. Parks where wolves, bears, and other predators roam should have high walls and moats to contain these animals. How can the Park Service find the money to do this? Send me back to their Arlington office for a day or two, I’ll find plenty of cuts they could make!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- txannie
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:11am
  You have got to be kidding..moats, high walls? This is not a zoo. Good grief, I hope you are being sarcastic.
  
  Report this comment
- BannedByHuffpo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:40pm
  “Danger to the public”??
  
  Wolves avoid human contact like the plague.
  
  Report this comment
- Brooke Lorren
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 3:59pm
  If you think that they could easily put a moat or a high wall around Yellowstone, you’ve probably never been there.
  
  Many of the animals that live there have habitat outside of the park as well. Other than the fact that rivers and the like run right through Yellowstone, the place is enormous, and the terrain would make building a moat or high wall around the place quite cost prohibitive, there are plenty of animals that need to migrate out of the area at times. Not just wolves.
  
  Report this comment
paulusmaximus
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:54am
Shipman also includes, among the positive effects of the wolf reintroduction, that ranchers, who had never seen a wolf population problem before now, fear for not only livestock but for the safety of their family. POSITIVE EFFECTS!!! Agenda 21

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RickMik
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:52am
The pelt and fur of the wolf have been prized for their beauty and insulating qualities since before recorded history. And didn’t the president admit to eating “dog”? After the feds banned wolf hunting in Alaska back in the 70′s and 80′s these animals were attacking and killing domestic dogs, livestock and even small children on the outskirts of the cities and the moose population was being decimated. Man is their only natural enemy and the balance of nature will be preserved.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Kitsune
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:45am
If more wolves also means more foxes (sorry guys, check the username :P), then I’m in support of keeping them alive.

More to the point, if they’re on Federal Land, I get the idea of protecting them.

If they’re on private property (and no longer endangered), maybe not so much.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Mustanger
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:35am
The real policy of the west is, SHOOT, SHOVEL & SHUT UP.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- txannie
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:21am
  Especially when it’s a dimwit that brings his pitbull out to his new country home and turns it loose to “run free” and “have fun”…where it then promptly proceeds to attack and kill anything that moves…goats, chickens, livestock guardian dogs that belong to others that have been there and understand what that fence stands for…then gets all bent because you had to kill his “friendly to HIS family” dog that was going for your 4 year old grandchild next….Yea, shoot, bury and keep your mouth shut because there are too many morons that would put an animal life over human life.
  
  Report this comment
- searching for the Truth
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:55pm
  How true.
  
  Report this comment
BasketFullOfPuppies
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:34am
Why is it so hard for them to realize that humans are part of the food chain, and that if we are going to tamper with natural processes, we are responsible for managing them. Without hunting, there is overpopulation and eventually attacks on livestock, as well as people. This is also a good reason not to name animals that are not pets. Lastly, if you are unwilling to take on the role of predator, the only choice you have left, is that of prey. There is no middle ground. Animals do not recognize neutrality.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- guntotinsquaw
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:44am
  Why would you kill what you won’t eat? This is not part of the food chain, this is sport. It is waste, but waste is the society we live in. A shame some people can’t just stop and enjoy the beauty Yah Weh has blessed them with and not have the desire to kill it.
  
  Report this comment
- BasketFullOfPuppies
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:58am
  But, it is part of the food chain. I am a small rancher and I produce food for myself and for others. If I allow predators to come and take my product from me, without giving something in return, then I will go out of business and you will go hungry, because you won’t eat wolf or coyote, either. But, you have no problem eating beef, pork or goat. So, I produce that for you. Don’t ask me to stand by and allow my home and property to be robbed. You wouldn’t do that, would you?
  
  Report this comment
- BasketFullOfPuppies
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:02am
  You should know that the shepherds in the field were there to protect the flock, not to stand by and watch it be taken. Please be careful when you use scripture against others. It may not be your place, or your understanding may be flawed. That is not for me to decide. But, it is not for you, either.
  
  Report this comment
- whitealaskan
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:11am
  @ guntotingsquaw
  Did you not read the rest of the comment? Why can you not understand that wolves kill things and eat them. If they are not controlled then they overpopulate and spread out and then they kill and eat things that we don’t want them to, like our food, or our pets, or our children. Why can you not understand? its not that difficult.
  
  Report this comment
- Mudd
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 12:22pm
  Sometimes you have to thin the herd, no two ways about it. Killing an animal for sport is more humane than watching them starve to death because the population has out grown it’s habitat.
  
  Report this comment
- BannedByHuffpo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 5:45pm
  Be totally HONEST and tell people how much the government pays you for each and every head of livestock that you can prove were killed by a wolf.
  
  Hint; ranchers are often reimbursed for more than the animal would bring at auction on its way to the slaughterhouse.
  
  Report this comment
- guntotinsquaw
  Posted on December 12, 2012 at 10:49am
  Basket Actually, I don’t buy your nasty meat. We raise our own and we hunt. So to answer your question “But, you have no problem eating beef, pork or goat. So, I produce that for you.” Yes, I have a problem eating your product. You “produce” me nothing.
  
  Report this comment
4-The-Truth
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:34am
If you think Obama socialism is bad for business, man trying to balance nature it is much worse. If it’s not trying to kill or you don’t plan to eat it, you have no business shooting it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BasketFullOfPuppies
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:51am
  Spoken like a true city dweller. Well, I’m not one. I’m a small rancher. Coyotes and coydogs are a fact of life around here, and they breed prolifically. If a large rancher loses a couple of head per month, it may be a nuisance, but not a major deal. But, if I lose a head per month, I am out of business in less than a year. That is why coyotes and coydogs hang on fences around here. That is also the reason that some animals are not protected by law. If you ever want to see the damage of prolific and dangerous animals, look at what feral hogs have done. The same way that coyotes can ruin a rancher, a feral hog can do the same to a farmer.
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:00am
  @BASKETFULLOFPUPPIES
  
  Don’t even try. He doesn’t possess the intellect or the will to understand what you’re saying, or even care. His statement tells you exactly what you’re dealing with.
  
  Report this comment
- BannedByHuffpo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 6:01pm
  @BASKETFULLOFPUPPIES
  
  If you’re really losing livestock like you assert I’m surprised you’re “going out of business”. After all, according to a USDA report, wolves and bears accounted for less than one percent of total cattle deaths in the United States in 2010. Individual ranchers ARE compensated monetarily for livestock losses and you know it so please let folks know how much you’ve been paid for any stock you’ve lost to wolves.
  
  Report this comment
Mustanger
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:33am
The re-introduction of the wolf has been a flop where it has been done. The wolf has adapted, the speaker claims “the wolfs keep the elk population down”. However the wolfs would go for the easy kill. Slow Elk, cows. The surrounding ranchers are the ones “feeding” the wolfs. Also when a hunter legally kills an elk, wolfs are drawn in by the gunshot and run the hunter off his elk.
If you want the real stories of the west get “RANGE” magazine. These are the stories we talk about here. The fuzzy media hates people that make an honest living working close to the land. When you bring an expert to a spot and point at the real cause of an event, they’ll look you in the eye and claim “you don’t know what your talking about” I have a degree and you have mud on your boots.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AbrahamsSheepdog
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:23am
We were supposed to be good stewards of our planet. Now we are over run by wolves. They are beautiful predators.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Frederick_Douglass_Republican
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:21am
Seems the wolves have been docile enough to become famous. There are countless photos of that female and many people could identify her. When humans start shooting the wolves do you think they will remain docile and relatively friendly? They won’t. Expect them to stay far away from tourists and for them to be more likely to attack humans once they start viewing humans not as friendly curiosities but as enemies.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Silvertruth
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:37am
  Only semi-domesticated wolves see humans as ‘friendly curiousities’. These wolves are fully wild and see a single full sized human as food. If they were hungry enough, they’d kill and eat an adult human. They don’t have a concept of firearms, or anything beyond size of target and amount of targets. A young human, child or pre-teen is nothing more than a meal to the pack.
  
  Will these same people crying for the blossomed wolf population cry when a person is killed? No, they’ll say it’s justice and that people shouldn’t be in their habitat.
  
  Yellowstone is a MASSIVE park, the wolves can live and breed within it’s borders and maintain their healthy populations. Any of them outside on privately owned land that meet their end from a rancher or a hunter are fair game. Ask an elk how ‘pretty’ that wolf is that trying to choke it down and kill it is.
  
  People need to stop projecting human concepts onto animals, just give them their protected place (like a giant national park) and let them interact with humans outside of that as nature dictates. Yes, people are part of nature folks, get used to the idea.
  
  Report this comment
- Mustanger
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:53am
  @Silver, how true. These docile wolfs see people as an easy food source. What happened to feeding the bears? They stopped hunting. We had a problem here years ago when the Park Rangers from Yosemite would capture a “trouble bear” and release it here. This bear would harass people on its way back to the park. We knew within hours when a bear was released. Is this what is going on now, I think so.
  
  Report this comment
- cosmic dogma
  Posted on December 12, 2012 at 12:54am
  You have been watching too much Disney Channel. The animal kingdom is not kind, nor recognizes your stylish clothing and boots. Wolves eat meat. You are meat. Think about it, without the magical fairy dust.
  
  Report this comment
RANGER1965
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:20am
Hunt them responsibly with tags etc, and the population will be kept at a managable level.

It should be a Tree Huggers wet dream. It’s a wonderful system that keeps things balanced. Doesn’t cost the government a thing and they even make a little money to keep the program running, so it’s also fiscally responsible.

Instead the Humane Society will screw it up, and when wolves become over-populated (about 2 years) they will demand that the wolves be killed humanely, of course they won’t use terms like that, because they are much too sensitive to say “kill”. They will approve of some expensive elaborate trape that takes 20 people to manage, and 8 people to lug it out into Wolf Territory. 3 people to monitor it 24 hours a day.
Once trapped the wolf will be stressed out in fear as another 8 people lug this wolf and trap down to the highway. He will then be driven to a “facility” which is essentially a kill house, but it will have a prettier name.
This house will be staffed by another 20 people. Who will take the wolf in, where he will live without his pack for weeks, while a decision is made by a 30 person board whether or not to kill the wolf. Weeks later the wolf will be executed by poison gas in which he will aphyxiate in fear and pain, for at least 10 minutes.
….And that’s the multi-million dollar “HUMANE SOCIETY” way, to take care of wolves.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ArmedAndReallyPissed
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:05am
  Agenda 21 to the rescue.
  
  Report this comment
mikem1969
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:18am
I could never shoot one of these wonderful animals unless my livestock or the lives of my family were at stake.

Being a hunter myself, I only hunt for food.

With that said, if the state allows hunting, then it is their legal right to hunt.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
loafer4952
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:14am
Wellcome to the real world. Been this way for centurys. Quit crying.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Cavallo
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:11am
“How can we balance the rights of the individual with those of the majority?”

What kind of Marxist garbage is this? There are no collective rights. The collective have the same rights as those of the individual because the collective is made up of individuals. .. oh… wait.. I forgot we live in the new America for a moment.. never mind. Please continue with your State management of lol “rights”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Marcia
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:08am
I’m all for Second Amendment rights, but the meaningless slaughter of creatures is sad.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- nocalifornia
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:19am
  So the slaughter of domestic herds by wolves is ok then? I wish you winey PETA types would stick to the MSNBC site and stop making such ignorant and uninformed comments. Wolves are hunted for two reasons, their pelts and to keep the population down so PRIVATELY OWNED HEARDS of sheep and cattle are not decimated. You do know what private property is right?
  
  Report this comment
- BBlanski
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:34am
  I know you are well educated Marcia, but this is about hunting wolves not owning a gun. Killing a wolf illegally with a bow and arrow, knife, spear, or a water gun is just as illegal as it is with a gun. This also goes to states rights versus the federal government. So when those wolves leave Yellowstone National park they are no longer protected by the federal government. Property rights when a wolf is caught killing sheep or cattle the rancher should be allowed to kill the wolf or wolves on his property.
  
  Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:07am
The eco-idiots of the left want the wolves to have more rights than a human being; if the laws allow for a wolf to be legally hunted during season and it is in an area it can be so hunted, than its the end for the wolf.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Kupo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:17am
  Yeah, and that’s why they want the wolf to become a protected species again, so that it is no longer legal to hunt the wolf. I actually find myself in support of such a thing. I don’t think it makes much sense to reintroduce hunting on a species that was just removed from the endangered species list; especially since I highly doubt that hunters are eating the wolves they kill.
  
  Report this comment
- Average_Joseph
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 10:42am
  I agree 100% with you Snowleopard. And I would like to take it 1 step further: when a wild animal respects my “rights” given to me by God, then I will in turn do the same for it. But I tend to believe if an animal predator has me in it’s sights, it will not be thinking of my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  
  Report this comment
- Kupo
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 11:35am
  Then why not just hunt them to extinction, Joe, if you’re really that concerned with wolves taking away your rights…
  
  Report this comment
- Average_Joseph
  Posted on December 11, 2012 at 2:40pm
  Kupo,
  
  Thank you for your suggestion but I do not hunt. Never did and never had any desire to but unlike you I believe that people that want to hunt should be allowed to; that follows the whole “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” thing that you must not have heard of.
  
  Keep up the good work.
  
  Just An Average Joseph
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.