Casper Star-Tribune Online

Advanced Search

Groups challenge wolf delisting

Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:

trib.popular

By CHRIS MERRILL
Star-Tribune environment reporter

Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:05 AM MST

LANDER -- Gray wolves will be removed from federal Endangered Species Act protection next week, barring a last-minute court injunction.

But on the eve of the official announcement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a conservation group filed a petition claiming the agency's decision to delist the predators ignores the best available science.

And once the agency announces its delisting decision today, a coalition of up to 10 conservation groups says it will challenge that decision in court.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is scheduled to announce its plans to delist wolves this morning, and the rule will be published in the Federal Register Feb. 27.

The states of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana will assume management of wolves 30 days after the publication of the rule, barring a federal court injunction against the decision.

The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a petition Wednesday calling for the Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare a comprehensive recovery plan for wolves throughout the United States, based on the best available science, which the group says the federal agency has ignored.

"We're trying to get the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to get to real recovery, which is about defining recovery goals based on what the science tells us, not on 30-year-old piecemeal plans," said Louisa Willcox, a wildlife advocate with the NRDC.

Sylvia Fallon, a geneticist with the NRDC, said the Fish and Wildlife Service never developed a recovery plan for wolves as a species, and instead chose to treat separate populations in the Southwest, Midwest and Rockies differently.

"We are petitioning Fish and Wildlife to develop a plan for the species as a whole," Fallon said. "The recovery plans, developed in the '80s, are out of date, and not based on the best available science."

The current recovery goal as defined by the Fish and Wildlife Service -- which, Fallon said, would allow for the total Northern Rockies wolf population to drop to about 300 wolves -- is an insufficient number to maintain long-term genetic viability, Fallon said.

"The science that was available at the time, and has developed since, tells us that a population actually requires somewhere in the range of 2,000 to 5,000 wolves to keep them genetically viable," Fallon said. "Over time there will be genetic decay and inbreeding if there aren't more wolves, with more connectivity between the Idaho, Montana and greater Yellowstone populations."

Melanie Stein, a representative of the Sierra Club in Jackson, echoed Fallon's concerns.

The Sierra Club is opposed to wolf delisting, Stein said, because the animals are essentially isolated -- there is no genetic mixing among the Yellowstone, central Idaho and Montana groups.

But not all conservation groups are on the same page regarding delisting. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition plans to announce its support for the delisting decision today.

"We want to move to the point where residents in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana feel ownership over wolves, and the responsibility for balanced management," said Craig Kenworthy, a conservation director with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. "And the best way to do that, and the best thing for wolves in the long run, is to have careful and balanced state management."

The coalition is committed to working with states and residents to ensure that balance, Kenworthy said.

"We think it's time to move from protection to management, and to continue the success of the recovery. We want them treated like we treat other wildlife. We want them managed," he said.

While the NRDC and the Sierra Club claim the federal government has overlooked the best science, Ed Bangs, the federal gray wolf recovery coordinator, said there is currently no evidence of genetic decay among the wolves, and if any arises in the future, the states are committed to solving that problem.

"We've got more wolves in more places than we ever thought we'd have," Bangs said. "Fourteen years ago there were none, and now there are 1,500 wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, throughout most of the suitable habitat."

The wolf population has been increasing by about 24 percent per year since 1995, Bangs said, and as a result, stockgrowers and landowners in the three states are starting to have more conflicts with wolves.

"The big issue is, until we delist, it isn't a success story. The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is essentially to put me out of work," Bangs said. "In the long term there are some concerns about genetic diversity. I don't share them personally; right now there isn't a problem. But if it ever becomes a problem, the states are required to take care of it. It's included in their agreements."

Environment reporter Chris Merrill can be reached at chris.merrill@trib.com or at (307) 267-6722.


Freudenthal fights waste plan		The trouble with money

Article Rating

Reader Comments

There are 37 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

Tguide wrote on Feb 21, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Thank you GYC for some common sense! Louisa Silcox is an extremist and has an entirely different agenda! The NRCD needs to go away because they are composed of morons! Their tax exempt status needs rechecked! "

crazy horse wrote on Feb 21, 2008 10:10 AM:

" Agreed Tguide. I think these people need to get a real job and be productive, contributing members of society for a change. While I am surprised that the Greater Yellowstone Coalition has split ranks, I also commend their decision to support the rational and inevitable outcome of introduction. I see MT has a wolf season in place. Soon earthling will be able to get his long awaited wolf taco and fur hat lol. "

Frank N wrote on Feb 21, 2008 2:45 PM:

" Big, older, more experienced wolves will be the first killed in a hunt, because they will be the most attractive to hunters...and the most bold (waiting back as other animals get away). This will result in younger, less experienced animals looking for easier prey, because without guidance they won't know how to take down fast, strong prey on their own. This will result in more livestock, pets etc. being taken....because they are easy and slow. This will result in more wolves being killed in "control" measures. Which will result in wolf numbers dropping below "threshold" numbers and the re-listing of the species in a few years. However, this time they will not be experimental, nonessential....they will be on the regular list, with all the protections that go along with that. Minnesota has a much better wolf management plan that protects livestock interests and wolves. Hunting is a bad idea with social animals such as wolves. If we ARE going to have a hunt, some system (at least) should be put in place to protect the alphas. There are ways to identify these animals. This, at least, would protect the social structure of the pack. "

jm_82801 wrote on Feb 21, 2008 4:54 PM:

" To bad these two previous comments are by red neck know nothings!
Defining recovery goals based on what the science says is a logical thing to do. There has been pressure on F&W S from the rnaching community before the wolves were reintrodued in 1995.
"

N8tive wrote on Feb 21, 2008 9:00 PM:

" OK they want to sue then they should pay all of the court costs. It's time to end the free ride and the BS. I'm tired of paying so these nazi goons can railroad their views through the court system. "

Tguide wrote on Feb 22, 2008 8:42 AM:

" To jm_82801: I have a bachelors in Range Management and a Masters in Wildlife Management! I take you comment as being a "red neck know nothing" offensive! I also can spell, "ranching" as opposed to "rnaching"! Who's the red neck? If loving this state, living in the outdoors, driving a 4x4 (by choice), hunting and fishing, having some commen sence, and listening to country and western music defines me as red neck.......I'll take it every time! "

crazy horse wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:43 AM:

" WOW Frank - you have it all figured out. Quite the elaborate scenario. Most bold (waiting back as other animals get away) - protecting their mate, offspring, and pack members I suppose - we have a great start on a Disney anti-hunting movie here. Get a grip pal. Is somebody on the grassy knoll? As for your observation that the ranching community has opposed introduction jm - very astute there. If you are worried about genetic diversity, just bring a few wolves down from AK or Canada every once in a while. "

disgusted wrote on Feb 23, 2008 5:30 AM:

" jm_82801, supposedly they were using "best science" when they were so hot to introduce the wolves and insisted that 100 per state 300 for the area would be a very acceptable number, we now have many times that and suddenly best science is thrown out the window and the cry of more, more, more rings throughout the land.
How many wolves have been hanging back when the choppers are out there chasing, shooting, darting etc? That is without a doubt the silliest thing I have ever heard. "

earthling wrote on Feb 23, 2008 12:15 PM:

" Good substantive post Frank N, and quite probably right on the mark. Tguide writes like he's a flaming mouthpiece for the logging, minerals and corporate farming special interest groups inside the DC Beltway. I've said it before, IF wolves ever are allowed to be hunted here in Wyoming (that is after the years of court challenges are settled and assuming that kind of reckless management is allowed) it won't be long before the wolf is again listed as endangered. And there's NO WAY the feds are ever going to allow Wyoming to manage them again. You just can't trust the public to do the right thing when it comes to something this important. Now watch all the experts come out and try to shout me down. "

Wyo wrote on Feb 23, 2008 2:41 PM:

" I just don't get it. Canada and Alaska still hunt wolves, much more liberally than we will be able to in the lower 48, and they have no shortage of them. Why do the environmental groups think that as soon as the wolves are delisted that they will be hunted to near extinction. It is in the best interest of the three states to maintain a large enough population of wolves so that they do not become listed again. Wolves will NOT be listed again because of over hunting. The wolves will be managed just like bears and mt. lions on a quota system. Once the quota is met the season is closed. If too many wolves are killed because of livestock related issues then it is likely the quota will be reduced for the next year. The management by the states works and WILL work for the wolves. Bears and lions have been hunted for ever and they are not in danger of being listed, in fact I would say the bear and lion populations in all three states are qute healthy. It appears that Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho will maintain around 900-1200 wolves which should be plenty to maintain a healthy and viable population, and if that isn't a big enough number than no number is. I just hope that these silly lawsuits are quickly dismissed by the courts. That way this fall I may be able to go on my first ever wolf hunt! "

John wrote on Feb 24, 2008 8:28 AM:

" All of this gibberish is fine, but when does the hunt start, and how do I apply for a license? "

Marion wrote on Feb 24, 2008 9:36 AM:

" The problem is the environmentalists think everyone is as conniving and dishonest as they are, so of course they can't trust anyone, they themselves have no trustworthiness. "

Willy wrote on Feb 24, 2008 11:42 AM:

" Great post, Wyo.

My fears are the exact opposite of the "earthling" types. After the first year, I don't think hunting will make a dent in the wolf population. They will adapt quickly to human presence, become increasingly nocturnal, and the weekend warrior will come home empty handed. It will eventually come down to aerial hunting by the state to control the population. You want controversy, wait until that happens! "

DM wrote on Feb 24, 2008 7:37 PM:

" Wow another conservation group attempting to stop the American public of the right to happiness. Where do they get off? What sort of legal stand can they make? License or no, if I see a wolf in my sites, it's good as dead. They shouldn't have ever been "reintroduced" as they say, they were there all the time and I have pics to prove it taken in the early 90's above Lander! The Wyoming Government are morons for paying out the arse for reintroduction and the conservatists are morons for trying to stop the licensing. I'd sure ike to know, bottom line, what this wolf project has actually cost the taxpayers...not the figures they tell us about, the total cost for everything including studies, tracking, court costs etc. Sure would be nice to know how much I've paid to put my life at risk......Think of it, we, the tax payer, paid for all this reintroduction, now they try to lobby and stop us from shooting the wolves so we actually paid for the Government to indirectly kill us! Maybe next year they will legalize pipe bombs it's the same damn thing!
Wow my verification for this line of crap is 6butt.....how fitting "

Tim W wrote on Feb 25, 2008 6:17 AM:

" I guess Wyo has never compared the size of Alaska and Canada to the land area of the GYE. Pity. Such basic information that is so easily obtained and he still makes a fool of himself. This issue isn't going to come out of the courts for a long time. So all you guys chomping at the bit to buy a wolf license should take that money and continue to make the payments on your 14x70 and rusty 4x4s. And if Tguide is a mouthpiece for the special interest groups that want to rule and exploit Wyoming, then Marion MUST be his boss. "

Tguide wrote on Feb 25, 2008 8:15 AM:

" My..My..earthling and Tim W, why continue to carry on the diatribe? Your right thou Tim W the GYE is'nt the area of Alaska and Canada, my goodness you do know a little geography! That's been one of my points all along, or did you not understand it.....we don't have UNLIMITED wolf habitat in this three state area! What part of this do you guys not understand! And Wyo's comments are right on. We will manage this population accordingly and I believe the G&F will do an admirable job. Why can't you accept this? And if they stick their noses outside of this zone (remember the recovery zone earthling?) they will be "controled"! Get over it guys, you lose! "

Willy wrote on Feb 25, 2008 9:47 AM:

" To Tim W: If you're agreeing with Wyo that there are a lot of wolves in Alaska & Canada, then would you agree that they are not in danger of going extinct as a species? Wasn't that the original idea behind the ESA? Also, there are environmental groups backing the delisting, so don't be so confident that the process will get tied up in courts. "

crazy horse wrote on Feb 25, 2008 10:08 AM:

" Well well - earthling and timmy tooo. Don't let your rabid fear of progress rule your thought process at this critical juncture fellas. Wolves have been shot, are being shot, and will continue to be shot - just as they are in Canada and AK. Your predictions of doom and gloom for the wolf now that they are delisted are unfounded; it will simply be other people shooting them. Regular western folks like yourself. Folks such as myself, Tguide, Wyo, and John. I assume Frank is going to pass entirely or go strictly after wolf pups in his effort to protect the alphas. So don't despair - this is a great success story. Now even you two will be able to get a license and join in the fun. Remember - you get both a wolf taco AND a fur hat lol. Enjoy... "

Wyo wrote on Feb 25, 2008 1:13 PM:

" I'm fully aware that Canada and Alaska are much larger than the GYE, which Tguide brings up a good point. We don't have nowhere near the habitat they do. That being said Alaska has much more land, many more wolves, and adjusts it management practices accordingly. The fewest number of wolves you can harvest is 5 per year, and as many as 10 per day in some areas (I have the Alaska hunting regulations sitting in front of me). So in the GYE the three states have devised proper plans to accomadate the number of wolves and taken into consideration the area where they belong and don't belong. There will be a limited hunting season and a person will not be able to harvest more than one wolf per year. It's sad that so much money has been wasted dealing with frivolous, ridiculous, and common senseless lawsuits and unfortunately probably more to come. The states have managed every other game species within their boundaries pretty well, and even though the wolf is not popular there is no reason they won't manage them properly. Wyoming has more wolves than mountain goats, and we don't seem to be having troubles keeping their numbers stable, in fact both areas where mountain goats are found are at objective. As I said before Wyoming is capable of properly managing wolves and believe it or not our biologists know much more about this than people like TimW. The environmental groups can complain all they want, and try their lawsuits, but in the end the states will have control over the wolves and we WILL be HUNTING them sooner or later. "

earthling wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:44 PM:

" If anyone thinks that the public, especially some of the make-believe wildlife managers who post here, think that the public can be trusted to self report wolf kills within 10 days, then you'll be really surprised whn the wolf IS LISTED AGAIN. I'm giving it 2 years after the public is allowed to shoot wolves on a 'predator' basis before Wyoming loses forever its chance to manage that species. So to Tguide, sorry pal, but you will lose. Do try to over it. Like I've said before, guys like you are the best advocates wolf supporters have ever had. You just don't know it. "

Ellen wrote on Feb 26, 2008 2:49 PM:

" All, The preservationists, not to be confused with conservationists, like Tim W, earthling and others fail to understand one simple fact; the earth is now and always will be changing. We, mankind, are a user of resources. The most threatened of which is open space. Their real enemy, if one exists at all, is the developer, followed by a close second; emotion based legislation. It is the loss of require habitat of sufficient quality that is pushing wildlife into a corner in North America. Look to Asia, Europe and elsewhere, where only tiny pockets of wildlife cling to existence. We have to learn from their negative example and do better or we too will end up as one giant interconnected city from sea-to-shining-sea. Regulated hunting has done only one thing for all wildlife populations; increased them and ensured their continued success, as game or trophy species animals then become valuable to mankind and not just an annoyance or something to "look at." Set the emotions aside and evaluate the facts which for themselves stand in strong evidence that the value of wildlife management via regulated hunting is long proven here in America and abroad. "

highmarkin wrote on Feb 26, 2008 9:36 PM:

" Ellen great comment!Too bad Tim and ol' earthling have to bash anyone presenting facts.The problem with them is that they have had their stomachs removed and replaced with a window so that they see things from a different view if you know what I mean.They are exactly why I refuse to listen to anyone from that side.They are not Natives or residents for that matter of this state.Perfect example of a transplant loudmouth that accuses anyone who hunts of being a cold killer and having no regard for animals.Nothing further from the truth boys.If it was not for hunters and true conservasionist we would not have what we do now.Why don't you focus more time and your wasted money on improving habitats instead of on ridiculous lawsuits and high priced lawyers?You flap your mouths and point fingers but it's obvious from your comments that you are totally out of touch with reality.Tim and earthling just what is your problem with people from this state?I have a feeling that you both found out that Brokenack Mtn. was just a movie and moved here hoping to hit the jackpot!Sorry boys.The people of this state are tired of people like you telling us how to live.So get your U-Haul and pack your sandals and cat and go home.I am being ignorant because you two have been.You need to get out and find out how many great people are in this state before you throw your judgement out.Frank I have no idea where you came up with that garbage but allI can say is WOW!Domestic dogs have enough instinct to chase animals still.If you really think that wolves have not passed that trait on then you are just as misinformed as most of the anti everything's here.Tim and earthling try going farther than the driveway of your house then maybe we will listen to you. "

Wyoelkhunter wrote on Feb 27, 2008 6:09 AM:

" You are right on Ellen when you differentiate between preservationists and conservationists. Conservation is defined as "wise use of natural resources. Most hunters would agree with this approach and have in fact supported conservation. The trouble is that extremists on both sides get all the attention and all the reaction. Even people that are relatively moderate find themselves sounding extreme when they react in anger to an extreme irrational remark in a forum like this. Over time people endorsing legitimate philosophies like conservation get lumped in with the more extreme preservationists. Also, ethical sportsmen get lumped in with the slob hunters that make comments like "the only good wolf is a dead wolf "

Reasonable discussion is impossible when the extremists take over and we all lose. I would guess that everyone on this forum probably has one thing in common and that one thing is a love of the outdoors and wild places. Some of us believe in harvesting wild meat and others do not. I f we keep fighting among ourselves I'm afraid that the developers will be the only real winners "

Willy wrote on Feb 27, 2008 7:59 AM:

" To Earthling: please review the wolf demarcation line between the 'trophy" area and 'predator" area. The vast majority of tthe wolves exist within the trophy area (i.e., NW Wyo) . Statistically, the wolves shot within the predator zone won't really matter to the overall number. Like I've stated before, I don't think Wyoming will get the desired kill from hunters and the overpopulation of wolves will eventually have to be controlled by aerial gunning to control the numbers. I've seen wolves in the wilderness areas 3 times now (NOT Yellowstone National Zoo) and see how they react to human presence. I'll bet that aerial control will happen and de-listing will not even be an issue. "

crazy horse wrote on Feb 27, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Soooo earthling - I take it you will not be getting a wolf license? How bout you timmy? No fur hat? Time will tell, but don't hold your breath on wolves being relisted. Listen to Ellen boys - she makes some very valid points. And remember - if you all had not insisted wolves be turned loose here, we would not be faced with the prospect of them being shot en masse today. Think about that carefully for a while. "

Rascal wrote on Feb 27, 2008 3:19 PM:

" When will Ellen run for public office?! She's got my vote. We need more direct conversation, based on facts and tempered with commonsense like her's. All the yelling between one another ensures only one thing and that is wildlife and habitate will suffer and the developers will get rich while the people loose resources that belong to all of us. If you really look at it hard the greenies, ranchers and hunters should all be in the same camp. How can we get there from here? "

Tim Wolf wrote on Feb 27, 2008 7:00 PM:

" Yeah, I hope the US does turn into another Europe or Japan. That way guns will be outlawed and we won't have losers poaching trophy game or predators. Heck, none of the losers who have guns now will have them then. Too bad Ellen didn't figure mankind's contribution to the rapid change taking place now. Too bad none of the rest of you did either. Highmarkin was right in that other post when he described himself as a "4th generation native jerk". I'm from Wyoming - born-raised-never-ran-off-and-then-came-back, and it sure seems like I have a better handle on what's right for the state or the fear based legislation you boys who are crying "wolf" have. The wolf was re-introduced to resore balance to the GYE and it's been happening. But it wasn't until the hunters and ranchers started wailing about unproven depredations did the special interest legislature of this state come up with that half-baked plan to allow Doofus Blue-Collar to hunt wolves in order to regulate numbers.
And Willy, just how you gonna prove where you shot your wolf when you have a full 10 days to do so? I can't believe responsible hunting advocates can't see the fatal flaw in that legislation. This bad law is going to yield bad results and Wyoming is going to be out of the wolf management business. Hopefully, forever. "

steve wrote on Feb 28, 2008 4:15 AM:

" Tim - you think that the name calling makes you better than everybody else? I have yet to read a valid argument from you. Do you base all of your decisions on emotion? If you admire the Europeans and Japanese so much get a visa and move. Owning a tool does not make someone a loser, as you state. People do stupid things, except you I'm sure, and you would condemn everybody that might have something in commom with that person. Where is the logic there? "

DAKOTA wrote on Feb 28, 2008 6:00 AM:

" It's not the developer who's the threat to Wyoming, Ellen. It's the lazy and greedy ranchers who are selling their land TO the developer that's the real threat here. I think all the mental midgets who are saying we need to kill off all wolves are missing the best point of having the wolf listed as endangered. That point is: with a listed species roaming the countryside, there won't be no development in those areas. Lazy and greedy ranchers won't be able to sell off their lands to be subdivided and posted to keep recreationists from getting too close to their McMansions. Plus, flatlanders will be too scared to move here because there are wolves in Wyoming. If a lazy rancher don't want to work the land, then he can sell it to a conservation trust. He won't make near as much money, but then again, he won't have to worry about no wolf lifting a leg to mark on his fence posts, and he'll still have money for the bars. "

Willy wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:13 AM:

" To Tim Wolf: The G&F has the right to make you go to the kill site if they want. They've always had that right in a case of suspected poaching of any species. You can observe gut pile, blood, boot prints, tire tracks, hoof prints, etc. to verify that you took the animal where you said you did. It's no different than poaching any other species outside of the designated hunt area. Could what you suggest happen? Absolutely. Are there significant consequences to such actions if caught? Absolutely. Just like every other criminal act. "

John wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:25 AM:

" "...Doofus Blue-Collar..." hunters indeed. Step aside Tim Wolf and let the games begin. Again, enough gibberish; how do I get a license? "

Ken wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:28 AM:

" Tim Wolf, Have you been to Europe or Asia in recent years? If so I doubt that you'd being singing that tune. By the way, fire arms ownership in Europe and Japan (much of the rest of Asia too) is alive and well. It is highly regulated, but it is not forbidden and there is also very limited hunting in Japan (and much more in other parts of Asia) and the hunting tradition is also alive and well across most of Europe. They simply do not have the open spaces left that we do now and their urban crowding, traffic, polution and crime are terrible. Your should do some research and learn a thing or two before you speak laddie. "

highmarkin wrote on Feb 28, 2008 8:31 AM:

" Awww! You gonna be ok Timmy? I was calling you a jerk in my posting you dope.Looks like Timmy does not like to be sterotyped like he does everyone else.For your info loudmouth you pro-wolf dopes are a SPECIAL INTEREST GRUOP!Your nothing but a hack Tim.Every time you post on here you show us just what you don't know.I can see, as well as everybody here, that you are grasping for something to get a hold of.It's over Timmy.There is hope for you though.I see that now they are considering prarie dogs for endangerment so I thought you would like to know.Hate to see you miss out on that wagon too!Get out your rainbow shirt and sandals Timmy and get em! "

crazy horse wrote on Feb 28, 2008 9:41 AM:

" The "half-baked plan to allow Doofus Blue-Collar to hunt wolves" simply replaces the half baked plan to have WS aerial gun wolves, which in turn arose from the half baked plan to "reintroduce" wolves in the first place. Face the facts timmy - wolves have been shot, are being shot, and will be shot. Doesn't matter by whom. Should have left them alone in Canada. "

Barbara wrote on Feb 28, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Tim Wolf, Your personal re-spin of history and your assaults on other who also have vested interests in this debate do nothing to offer a creative solution that is acceptable to all. Now, bright and vocal one, thinking like an adult, where is the acceptable middle ground? They that can be mature enough to work together finding that are the real leaders that actually care about the natural balance. The rest are just annoying, unnecessary noise makers. Which camp sonny do you fall into; pick a path like a man. "

RJ wrote on Feb 28, 2008 4:04 PM:

" to all those huggers out there here is a web site you can got to and see first hand just how wonderful those mangy wolves are.www.saveourelk.com "

Keyatta wrote on Mar 2, 2008 3:16 PM:

" RJ come on. Those are photos of dead deer and elk, which could have been snuffed by anything including "hunters", poachers, cars, dogs. No one says wolves don't kill elk/deer. They kill just like humans do. It’s the competition to kill ungulates that some folks just can’t stand.

Face it, the force behind getting rid of all predators, including wolves, is so bubba can have more animals to shoot outta his pickup window. It's all about who kills first - You or a bear, cougar, wolf, coyote, eagle….whatever
"

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.

Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.