Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Plans to Change Montana Wolf Hunt Regulations Draw 6,000 Public Comments

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

July 09, 2012

Plans to Change Montana Wolf Hunt Regulations Draw 6,000 Public Comments

By Chad Love

To say the subject of wolves is a charged topic is a little like saying Ted Nugent has a big mouth (and that's a judgement-neutral statement. Good or bad, you can't deny the man likes to opine, loudly). Just how much passion do wolves evoke? A recent plan to change Montana's wolf hunting regulations drew 6,000 (and counting) comments.

From this story on helenair.com:
More than 6,500 people weighed in on proposed changes to Montana’s 2012/2013 wolf hunting and trapping seasons, and chances are even more comments will be made during a July 12 Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission meeting. Ron Aasheim, FWP spokesman, said they’re still going through what could be a record number of comments received by the state agency, with most of them focusing on the proposal to allow trapping of wolves as well as increasing the bag limit to three wolves per person per season. “The comments came from in state, out of state and out of the country,” Aasheim said. “We got form letters, post cards, Survey Monkey (an online comment mechanism) emails and phone calls.

According to the story, most of the comments focused on a proposal to trap wolves, as well as increasing the per-person bag limit.

What do you think it would take to get 6,000 comments on a hunting/fishing proposal in your state?

Comments (22)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Josh Giannino wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

with the rise in the price of wolf pelts trapping would be a good economic boost to montana, plus 3 wolfs a person is still pretty limited on the large packs out there

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Here in PA the 2 things that would get the most comments: 1) Doe tag allotment numbers and 2) Sunday Hunting

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from northernminneso... wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Its nice to see people actually commenting on the details of the wolf hunt. The comments for wolf hunting here in MN finished up a few weeks ago and there were around 5,000-6,000 comments. But most were of the anti-hunting nature. Since the state legislature said there has to be one most of the comments were worthless. But to the topic at hand if our DNR opened up for comments about tribal (and/or the out of state wisconsin tribes that also participate on our lakes)netting (and/or the out of state wisconsin tribes that also participate on our lakes)on some of the big walleye lakes like Mille Lacs and Leech, then that could top 6,000.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The anti hunting folks are very organized, especially out of state. I didn't bother commenting as I feel it's not my state so I don't have a dog in the fight. I will say the post hunt population was still on the increase last year so they have to do something.

Idaho with the addition of private land tags has some sort of wolf hunt or another going on during every day of the year now.

I sure do hope Wyoming hits em hard so they don't come here. 1 wolf = 20 elk per year

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Trish Harritt wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I find that most of the comments from anti hunters we from the heart, meaning where is yours. Killing for something other than food or if your life (at that moment) is threatened is just plain sad! Stories out of kindergarten ... The Big Bad Wolf. So many people live with wolves in their homes, sleep with them, just plain share their lives as a family. So The big Bad Wolf theory is untrue ... thus, the stories spun by most ranchers is the fear of the big Bad Wolf .... Let them live, the deer and elk population has been proven to thrive when they are present. My guess they are not plentiful due to hunter ... I know many taken out of season (elk/deer) I am just one person but mother Nature did not intend for you to make the call if something should live or die.

-9 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sherri Martin wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

We live in the 21st century and it's time we are all a little more educated especially when it comes to the wolf. The concept of the Big Bad Wolf has been proven wrong time and time again. The wolf has returned balance to a much needed failing ecosystem, they only take down sick and elderly undulates which in turn gives YOU hunters a chance at bigger and better game and as for the livestock it's a proven fact that they are responsible for less than 1% of all attacks. Why is it that you are all so eager to kill off such a magnificent animal that continues to do so much for our environment? We need to find a way to co-exist with one another...to see the good they bring to our world...not run out and destroy them; we have been down that road once before. Didn't we learn anything then? Please let's not make the same mistake again....

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

rockrat- i like the dog in the fight pun....Here in Alabama, we had drawn that much attention over legalizing crossbows until a new commissioner just up and brought it to a vote during a board meeting without advance notice so the bow-snobs would not show up and shout it down. Next one will be the issuing of buck tags...regs changed recently from one buck a day (during a 90day season) to three bucks per year, but get this, the DNR does not provide tags on your license. Their excuse was the computer system couldn't do it. So its just a wink, wink and dont ask dont tell. 49 states have the capability to print tags on your license why can't Alabama. The reason is to slowly get folks use to the idea before actually enforcing the regulation. Until then some hunters will still take out too many bucks and wont control does. BTW, limit on does haven't changed from one doe a day with some areas, two a day.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Sherri and Trish,
I know lots of folks on this subject have a heart but they also have a brain. We are not talking about eradicating a species, we are saying a management plan can sustain all species of game. Game populations are not always static, science not sentiment should come first.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from LeVan Goodey wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

To Sherri and Trish and everyone else who shares your viewpoint. The pro wolf folks have you believing a lot of half truths. Read articles by game biologists such as Valerious Geist and Will Graves and you will find out things such as wolves do not hunt only to eat, they do not kill only the sick and the old, and in Europe the stories of the Big Bad Wolf do have a basis in history. In some years the Russians would lose over 200 children a year to wolves. Wolves have attacked and killed people here in North America. And they carry and spread numerous parasites that can and do infect people and animals. One of the worst is a tapeworm that causes Hytadid cysts The arguement here is not to totally eradicate wolves, but rather to regulate their numbers,

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from dtbc333 wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Well said buckstopper.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Josh Giannino wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I believe the yellow stone grizzly may be a prime example for managing populations, it not only keeps the population balanced, but saves both wolf and human lives by keeping the fear and wariness of man that canadien and alaskan wolves have,

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Debra Warrens wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I am OPPOSED to wolf hunting and trapping of any kind in any state! It is ANIMAL CRUELTY, ANIMAL ABUSE and INHUMANE TREATMENT towards these beautiful and spiritual animals. They are a very important part of our indian heritage and ecosystem. They have always been in NATURE and belong in NATURE. Without them there wouldn't be a balance in nature. Elk would eat the plant life and it would die off. There would be too many elk, deer and caribou. They would die off from lack of food and diseases. Wolves are a part of the CYCLE OF LIFE. HUNTERS and RANCHERS would like us to believe that there is NO real VALUE to the life of a wolf, when in fact they have the same important value as a shark does to the cycle of life in an ocean. We would no more KILL all sharks just because we HATE them and place no value on their lives and put fear in the public's minds, than we would have them believe there is no value to the life of a wolf. The story of the BIG BAD WOLF IS FALSE! There are many ways RANCHERS can guard their flocks of sheep and cattle. They can use guard dogs and donkeys. Many ranchers are now with great success. What this is really about is MEN WITH GUNS who love to shot them and about TROPHY HUNTING. Killing any animal for SPORTS is just WRONG! These animals can feel all the same emotions we do such as fear and pain. We should be protecting them and making sure all their species survive for all generations to enjoy their majestic beauty. They should always be allowed to LIVE and run FREE to play the role in NATURE as they were meant to be.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from dtbc333 wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Debra, you don't seem to be too rooted in reality. First off, hunters are not trying to eradicate the wolf. This is about population management. The simple factr is that it's not the 17 or 1800's. Our population has swelled tremendously and we have spread into what was once wild land. We too are animals inhabiting this Earth and have needs for our own survival. Conflict between humans and wildlife is nothing new by any means, but the problem worsens as city boundaries grow. In order for the ecosystem to remain somewhat balanced, and for constant conflict with humans to be avoided populations of both game animals and predators have to be managed. You can dislike it all you want, but that is the reality of the world we live in. Your idealism won't make cities disappear, or populations shrink.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from elkslayer wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Debra, Sherri, and Trish

all voiced the opinion that the wolves have returned balance to a failing ecosystem. It is true that in parts of Yellowstone riparian areas were damaged where deer and elk were overpopulated and by the wolves reducing the elk numbers, other animal populations increased such as beavers and otters and birds. But what they fail to understand is that outside of Yellowstone park, the role of top predator was being filled by hunters and wolves are not needed to provide any kind of balance.
I have been in the meetings where this issue was debated an every single pro-wolf speaker seems to have the idea that wolves are just like their puppies at home. But that is what happens when you get all your info from the discovery channel.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shazam wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Were I live, it is possible to XC ski into work in the winter. One of the guys was skiing home one evening and was surrounded by a pack of wolves. He drove them off, but I keep my kids close when in the woods and think that we could do with a bit of a cull. You can watch the wolves chase deer onto the river in the winter and tear them apart. Messy.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shirley Wg wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I am truly appaued as to why the wolf has been considered an enemy. How can a beautiful animal be an enemy. They are needed in the ecosystem. They were placed on the endangered species for a reason, to increase their population and now Montana has changed their hunting regulations. What? To kill them off again to put them back on the endangered species again? Next time there may not be any wolves to put on the list again. SHAME ON YOU, MONTANA!!!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The success the wolf has hand the past 17 years in the Western U.S. are unmatched success for a reintroduction of a species. What does this mean? Invasive species success rate is what they have had. I think that the wolf should be treated as the coyote shoot on sight. Even with this aggressive approach the wolf will never again leave the Western U.S. Look at Alberta who has a shoot on sight wolf hunting policy and they can't even put a dent in wolf populations. The myth of the big bad wolf is not a myth and all you have to do is a little research on wolf attacks.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Shirley,
wolves as a species have never been endagered. I would like to know where you live so that we may introduce them to your backyard because you know wolves once roamed most of the the US. I personally would like to see wild wolves roaming the mall in Washington DC.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Louise Wright wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The effects of de-listing have been horrendous, and a beautiful but misunderstood animal has been falsely accused, tragically targeted, and brutally trapped and hunted since then. The SUFFERING by the killed wolves and their families and packs has been so IMMENSE that it is truly overwhelming! I am personally very upset by this and compelled to work endless hours to try and undo a GREAT WRONG.

It is crazy because there is not a legitimate reason to kill wolves! Livestock predation by Montana wolves in 2011 was LESS than 0.011! The link between a wolf (or wolves) and a livestock death was SO RARE that there were few confirmations of wolf predation following examination by Fish and Wildlife. That does not mean that ranchers didn’t phone in their reports and seek money following a livestock death! Indeed they did! But ranchers phoned in 25 times more reports than were found credible after examination. So why are more wolves being killed?? And it is not only a matter of their killing. They have been subjected to thrill kills and torture by people who either love to kill or believe the fairy tale.

THERE IS NO SCIENCE BEING USED RELATIVE TO THE MONTANA WOLF HUNT. To be specific, there is no science regarding the number of wolves because counting procedures have been inconsistent, not to mention incorrectly reported. There is no science employed regarding the number of livestock killed by wolves. There is no application of predation prediction factors (Adrian Treves) because a statewide hunt could never be justified were they employed. There is no employment of scientifically validated humane deterrents; killing is so much easier and apparently more fun! There is no science here at all. Instead, this is genocide based on false information and blind faith in a child’s story! And a nationally beloved, iconic animal has been put through misery and death.

Congressional action to de-list the wolves had a political genesis, not an agricultural or any other foundation. To guarantee Jon Tester’s Montana Senate seat and maintain Democratic control of the Senate, a deal was struck, promising the state’s citizens wolf delisting with a hunt to come. Tester had help from Salazar and the backing of financially sound lobbies. The result has been mass murder without cause.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The most proven scientific deterrent to predators both 2 footed and 4 footed is a bullet. That is FACT. I hope you aren't ever caught hiking in the deep wood and are surrounded in the snow by a pack of wolves. Even here in the South we have a HUGE coyote problem because they went UNCHECKED when introduced and migrated. Not only 'Yotes, but FERREL HOGS are a huge problem. Down here don't get caught after dark, 'yotes and hawgs get REAL aggressive at night when they have the advantage of night vision. Even in my semi-rural subdivision you don't want to be walking without a stick or something to ward off the pack of 'yotes.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pete Braun wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Anyone who has followed this story knows that there's no scientific basis for the hunts. It was purely a politically-motivated move that not only stripped a vulnerable species of much-needed protections, but also stripped the American public of their First Amendment rights to challenge a government ruling in court. If I were the one in the White House now, this would be illegal and violators would be punished severely and painfully.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bradshaw@pa.net wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

To those folks who have this great concept of 'beautiful creatures' and there is no such thing as the big bad wolf, I offer what Ronald Reagan used to say: "It's not that that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Or perhaps the late comedian Jerry Clower said it best: "They've just been educated beyond their intelligence."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from buckstopper wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Sherri and Trish,
I know lots of folks on this subject have a heart but they also have a brain. We are not talking about eradicating a species, we are saying a management plan can sustain all species of game. Game populations are not always static, science not sentiment should come first.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from LeVan Goodey wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

To Sherri and Trish and everyone else who shares your viewpoint. The pro wolf folks have you believing a lot of half truths. Read articles by game biologists such as Valerious Geist and Will Graves and you will find out things such as wolves do not hunt only to eat, they do not kill only the sick and the old, and in Europe the stories of the Big Bad Wolf do have a basis in history. In some years the Russians would lose over 200 children a year to wolves. Wolves have attacked and killed people here in North America. And they carry and spread numerous parasites that can and do infect people and animals. One of the worst is a tapeworm that causes Hytadid cysts The arguement here is not to totally eradicate wolves, but rather to regulate their numbers,

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from bradshaw@pa.net wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

To those folks who have this great concept of 'beautiful creatures' and there is no such thing as the big bad wolf, I offer what Ronald Reagan used to say: "It's not that that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Or perhaps the late comedian Jerry Clower said it best: "They've just been educated beyond their intelligence."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Here in PA the 2 things that would get the most comments: 1) Doe tag allotment numbers and 2) Sunday Hunting

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Josh Giannino wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I believe the yellow stone grizzly may be a prime example for managing populations, it not only keeps the population balanced, but saves both wolf and human lives by keeping the fear and wariness of man that canadien and alaskan wolves have,

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dtbc333 wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Debra, you don't seem to be too rooted in reality. First off, hunters are not trying to eradicate the wolf. This is about population management. The simple factr is that it's not the 17 or 1800's. Our population has swelled tremendously and we have spread into what was once wild land. We too are animals inhabiting this Earth and have needs for our own survival. Conflict between humans and wildlife is nothing new by any means, but the problem worsens as city boundaries grow. In order for the ecosystem to remain somewhat balanced, and for constant conflict with humans to be avoided populations of both game animals and predators have to be managed. You can dislike it all you want, but that is the reality of the world we live in. Your idealism won't make cities disappear, or populations shrink.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shazam wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Were I live, it is possible to XC ski into work in the winter. One of the guys was skiing home one evening and was surrounded by a pack of wolves. He drove them off, but I keep my kids close when in the woods and think that we could do with a bit of a cull. You can watch the wolves chase deer onto the river in the winter and tear them apart. Messy.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from northernminneso... wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Its nice to see people actually commenting on the details of the wolf hunt. The comments for wolf hunting here in MN finished up a few weeks ago and there were around 5,000-6,000 comments. But most were of the anti-hunting nature. Since the state legislature said there has to be one most of the comments were worthless. But to the topic at hand if our DNR opened up for comments about tribal (and/or the out of state wisconsin tribes that also participate on our lakes)netting (and/or the out of state wisconsin tribes that also participate on our lakes)on some of the big walleye lakes like Mille Lacs and Leech, then that could top 6,000.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

rockrat- i like the dog in the fight pun....Here in Alabama, we had drawn that much attention over legalizing crossbows until a new commissioner just up and brought it to a vote during a board meeting without advance notice so the bow-snobs would not show up and shout it down. Next one will be the issuing of buck tags...regs changed recently from one buck a day (during a 90day season) to three bucks per year, but get this, the DNR does not provide tags on your license. Their excuse was the computer system couldn't do it. So its just a wink, wink and dont ask dont tell. 49 states have the capability to print tags on your license why can't Alabama. The reason is to slowly get folks use to the idea before actually enforcing the regulation. Until then some hunters will still take out too many bucks and wont control does. BTW, limit on does haven't changed from one doe a day with some areas, two a day.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dtbc333 wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Well said buckstopper.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from elkslayer wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Debra, Sherri, and Trish

all voiced the opinion that the wolves have returned balance to a failing ecosystem. It is true that in parts of Yellowstone riparian areas were damaged where deer and elk were overpopulated and by the wolves reducing the elk numbers, other animal populations increased such as beavers and otters and birds. But what they fail to understand is that outside of Yellowstone park, the role of top predator was being filled by hunters and wolves are not needed to provide any kind of balance.
I have been in the meetings where this issue was debated an every single pro-wolf speaker seems to have the idea that wolves are just like their puppies at home. But that is what happens when you get all your info from the discovery channel.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Josh Giannino wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

with the rise in the price of wolf pelts trapping would be a good economic boost to montana, plus 3 wolfs a person is still pretty limited on the large packs out there

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The anti hunting folks are very organized, especially out of state. I didn't bother commenting as I feel it's not my state so I don't have a dog in the fight. I will say the post hunt population was still on the increase last year so they have to do something.

Idaho with the addition of private land tags has some sort of wolf hunt or another going on during every day of the year now.

I sure do hope Wyoming hits em hard so they don't come here. 1 wolf = 20 elk per year

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The success the wolf has hand the past 17 years in the Western U.S. are unmatched success for a reintroduction of a species. What does this mean? Invasive species success rate is what they have had. I think that the wolf should be treated as the coyote shoot on sight. Even with this aggressive approach the wolf will never again leave the Western U.S. Look at Alberta who has a shoot on sight wolf hunting policy and they can't even put a dent in wolf populations. The myth of the big bad wolf is not a myth and all you have to do is a little research on wolf attacks.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Louise Wright wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The effects of de-listing have been horrendous, and a beautiful but misunderstood animal has been falsely accused, tragically targeted, and brutally trapped and hunted since then. The SUFFERING by the killed wolves and their families and packs has been so IMMENSE that it is truly overwhelming! I am personally very upset by this and compelled to work endless hours to try and undo a GREAT WRONG.

It is crazy because there is not a legitimate reason to kill wolves! Livestock predation by Montana wolves in 2011 was LESS than 0.011! The link between a wolf (or wolves) and a livestock death was SO RARE that there were few confirmations of wolf predation following examination by Fish and Wildlife. That does not mean that ranchers didn’t phone in their reports and seek money following a livestock death! Indeed they did! But ranchers phoned in 25 times more reports than were found credible after examination. So why are more wolves being killed?? And it is not only a matter of their killing. They have been subjected to thrill kills and torture by people who either love to kill or believe the fairy tale.

THERE IS NO SCIENCE BEING USED RELATIVE TO THE MONTANA WOLF HUNT. To be specific, there is no science regarding the number of wolves because counting procedures have been inconsistent, not to mention incorrectly reported. There is no science employed regarding the number of livestock killed by wolves. There is no application of predation prediction factors (Adrian Treves) because a statewide hunt could never be justified were they employed. There is no employment of scientifically validated humane deterrents; killing is so much easier and apparently more fun! There is no science here at all. Instead, this is genocide based on false information and blind faith in a child’s story! And a nationally beloved, iconic animal has been put through misery and death.

Congressional action to de-list the wolves had a political genesis, not an agricultural or any other foundation. To guarantee Jon Tester’s Montana Senate seat and maintain Democratic control of the Senate, a deal was struck, promising the state’s citizens wolf delisting with a hunt to come. Tester had help from Salazar and the backing of financially sound lobbies. The result has been mass murder without cause.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The most proven scientific deterrent to predators both 2 footed and 4 footed is a bullet. That is FACT. I hope you aren't ever caught hiking in the deep wood and are surrounded in the snow by a pack of wolves. Even here in the South we have a HUGE coyote problem because they went UNCHECKED when introduced and migrated. Not only 'Yotes, but FERREL HOGS are a huge problem. Down here don't get caught after dark, 'yotes and hawgs get REAL aggressive at night when they have the advantage of night vision. Even in my semi-rural subdivision you don't want to be walking without a stick or something to ward off the pack of 'yotes.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pete Braun wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Anyone who has followed this story knows that there's no scientific basis for the hunts. It was purely a politically-motivated move that not only stripped a vulnerable species of much-needed protections, but also stripped the American public of their First Amendment rights to challenge a government ruling in court. If I were the one in the White House now, this would be illegal and violators would be punished severely and painfully.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Shirley Wg wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I am truly appaued as to why the wolf has been considered an enemy. How can a beautiful animal be an enemy. They are needed in the ecosystem. They were placed on the endangered species for a reason, to increase their population and now Montana has changed their hunting regulations. What? To kill them off again to put them back on the endangered species again? Next time there may not be any wolves to put on the list again. SHAME ON YOU, MONTANA!!!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Debra Warrens wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I am OPPOSED to wolf hunting and trapping of any kind in any state! It is ANIMAL CRUELTY, ANIMAL ABUSE and INHUMANE TREATMENT towards these beautiful and spiritual animals. They are a very important part of our indian heritage and ecosystem. They have always been in NATURE and belong in NATURE. Without them there wouldn't be a balance in nature. Elk would eat the plant life and it would die off. There would be too many elk, deer and caribou. They would die off from lack of food and diseases. Wolves are a part of the CYCLE OF LIFE. HUNTERS and RANCHERS would like us to believe that there is NO real VALUE to the life of a wolf, when in fact they have the same important value as a shark does to the cycle of life in an ocean. We would no more KILL all sharks just because we HATE them and place no value on their lives and put fear in the public's minds, than we would have them believe there is no value to the life of a wolf. The story of the BIG BAD WOLF IS FALSE! There are many ways RANCHERS can guard their flocks of sheep and cattle. They can use guard dogs and donkeys. Many ranchers are now with great success. What this is really about is MEN WITH GUNS who love to shot them and about TROPHY HUNTING. Killing any animal for SPORTS is just WRONG! These animals can feel all the same emotions we do such as fear and pain. We should be protecting them and making sure all their species survive for all generations to enjoy their majestic beauty. They should always be allowed to LIVE and run FREE to play the role in NATURE as they were meant to be.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

Shirley,
wolves as a species have never been endagered. I would like to know where you live so that we may introduce them to your backyard because you know wolves once roamed most of the the US. I personally would like to see wild wolves roaming the mall in Washington DC.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sherri Martin wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

We live in the 21st century and it's time we are all a little more educated especially when it comes to the wolf. The concept of the Big Bad Wolf has been proven wrong time and time again. The wolf has returned balance to a much needed failing ecosystem, they only take down sick and elderly undulates which in turn gives YOU hunters a chance at bigger and better game and as for the livestock it's a proven fact that they are responsible for less than 1% of all attacks. Why is it that you are all so eager to kill off such a magnificent animal that continues to do so much for our environment? We need to find a way to co-exist with one another...to see the good they bring to our world...not run out and destroy them; we have been down that road once before. Didn't we learn anything then? Please let's not make the same mistake again....

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Trish Harritt wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I find that most of the comments from anti hunters we from the heart, meaning where is yours. Killing for something other than food or if your life (at that moment) is threatened is just plain sad! Stories out of kindergarten ... The Big Bad Wolf. So many people live with wolves in their homes, sleep with them, just plain share their lives as a family. So The big Bad Wolf theory is untrue ... thus, the stories spun by most ranchers is the fear of the big Bad Wolf .... Let them live, the deer and elk population has been proven to thrive when they are present. My guess they are not plentiful due to hunter ... I know many taken out of season (elk/deer) I am just one person but mother Nature did not intend for you to make the call if something should live or die.

-9 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs