" Does anyone doubt the outcome? The judge already stated for publication that he didn't want any more wolves killed. That seems pretty plain as to his intentions, so why the farce of legality or fairness from a court? "

" The Idaho plan to kill 518 wolves could persuade the judge to grant an injunction.
Wyoming G&F is playing it smart, with a planned trophy hunt well below the expected reproductive rate.
Wyoming is being fairly conservative (for now), while Idaho's "kill-em-all" approach looks like politics, not science. "

" I grow SO weary of the overblown emotionalism that continually finds its way into this debate. "Scores of wolves have been killed since the states took over management this spring - blah blah blah." Egad - oh my oh dear! From Merriam Webster - 1 (or plural) score a: twenty b: a group of 20 things — often used in combination with a cardinal number c: an indefinitely large number. Scores??? Last I heard 37, which is not quite twoscore; therefore the plural designation is not warranted, is a figment of the writer or reporters imagination, and is furthermore grammatically incorrect. Let there be no mistake that scores and scores and SCORES of wolves have been killed since INTRODUCTION (reintroduction is also a misuse of words). Yes they have been aerial gunned in a most merciless fashion, almost since the very year they were introduced. Shot while trying to escape from either fixed wing aircraft or helicopters. With real high powered bullets. Not necessarily killed outright. Decapitated by FWS personnel and left to ROT where they fell. Would not make a nice Disney movie you could take the kiddies to. And the folks responsible for this full scale slaughter are NONE OTHER than FWS (the same folks who turned them loose in the first place), in conjunction with USDA WS. This was OK with the enviros. They liked it. Things were hunky dory, and life was good. Pass the latte and sprouts. Now all of a sudden they are SO upset that wolves (some wolves that is) are being shot by someone other than WS. Where was their indignation, their outrage, their sense of needing to do something urgent, while FWS was aerial gunning wolves BY THE SCORE? What is the difference? It is important to point out this had no adverse impact on the population. The article conveniently fails to mention how many of the 16 shot here in WY were aerial gunned by WS (25% at a minimum). Why is this fact overlooked? This is more hype than a true news story. The lawsuit is destined to fail, because there is no evidence of any negavtive impact to the population from delisting. "

" Well said crazy horse! "

" Crazy horse, I wish you were ight, but it is pretty apparent the judge is going to follow his own values, and not be particularly interested in legality.
Inky, read the Idaho plan again, they are manging to maintain 518 to the 700 plus wolves they now have, infact probably over a thousand since thy have pupped. "

" Maryon you r ryte the jude is a lyberal tre-huggar I think we shuld shot the woofs I wihs I had a heleochopper to fly arond and shot the wooves they are bad I want theym to dye Pappy sez dont go on teh helochopper if yew r drynkin drunken but woo cares I want to shot them wolfs yay. "

" It isnt like Idaho or Wyoming should be at all surprised of this lawsuit is successful. It seems as if they intentionally came up with extreme wolf plans to force the federal government to retain control of wolves. It is a shame Montana has to suffer because Wyoming and Idaho are so stupid and backwards... "

" It's about wolf 'densities' ...the number
of wolves per 1,000 square kilometers and who gets to decide those numbers
and densities.
Congress never intended these extreme wolf densities when allowing
experimental wolves to be released into Yellowstone National Park.
In winter of 2000, Kurt Alt, supervising biologist Montana Fish Wildlife and
Parks region 3 {Bozeman} regarding the Shiras moose going extinct in this
area said in the Bozeman Chronicle ; "The Yellowstone Ecosystem has the
highest wolf densities in all of North America.". That was eight years ago
with wolf populations growing each year at a 34% annual rate.
Wolves never, ever, existed in these numbers and extreme densities.
In Missoula, Montana on the 29th of May in federal district judge Molloy's
court room, litigation launched by animal rights and environmental extremist
groups seeking an injunction to block wolf delisting will begin .

I'll be in that courtroom with 50 years worth of bounty records {1895
through 1945 }to prove that wolves never existed in these numbers or
densities.

Wolf introduction and assigning federal protections to wolves, was a
scientific fraud and an assault on the civil rights on the people of Montana
, Idaho and Wyoming. "

" Since the Endangered Species Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, no species has ever come off the list to face a hunting season the very first fall. No species has ever faced an official objective of REDUCTION of one third of the entire population (in Idaho), or a shoot on sight "management" policy (Wyoming). The intent of the ESA is not to give a bunch of yahoos something to shoot at. The intent is to recover a species in a significant portion of its former range. Ranchers should have every right to protect their stock from the small minority of wolves which account for less than one half of one percent of livestock losses, but running wolves down on snowmobiles, having weekend "wolf killing parties" and shooting animals on sight, is simple mean spirited barbarism based on beliefs that are rooted in ignorance. Idaho changed their management plan after the fact, and Wyoming's plan was illegal from the get-go. In my opinion, judge Molloy has little choice, if he follows the intent and purpose of the Endangered Species Act, but to order this injunction. "

" Well said Frank N, the FWS violated the ESA law when they agreed to the states plans to begin with. The judge has an obligation to enforce the law! The Great Lakes regions are a prime example of how this whole thing should have gone but instead politicians have screwed this up for everyone to satisfy a small minority of people.

Hey R.T. maybe wolves did not exsist in those densities because of the bounty? "

" Frank N.
I thought the intent of the Endangered Species Act was to prevent a species from going extinct. With wolf populations in North America at tens of thousands and in the world at 100,000 plus, just how are they "threatened" as a species? And are they really worth nearly $10,000 per wolf per year to regulate/protect in Wyoming? So, are you advocating no (human) control of the wolf population whatsoever? Surely, you're not that clueless. "

" Thanks Tguide - I can't believe how misinformed a lot of these people are. Yes wolves are being shot. But they've been shot the whole time. Nothing new here, so why the big deal? Furthermore, there has been no negative impact on the wolf population the whole time they were aerial gunning wolves. Willy makes a good point which I also agree with 100%. Canadian grey wolves are not now, nor have ever been, "endangered". Fanning also makes a good point. We'll have to see if the judge pays any attention to the original recovery goals. If so, I don't think there is a case. If not, back to square one I guess. "

" Hello Marion - I fear you may be right, hope not. We'll see. There was a lot of time and money spent getting to this point. Hopefully we don't backslide now. "

" If you folks cannot see what is wrong with killing off a third of the entire wolf population in a region then you have no sense to begin with. Also FWS numbers never came even close to the numbers that Idaho is proposing to be killed. "

" Why did we bring the bald eagle back from the brink in the lower 48 if so many existed in alaska? Just because you don't value a species doesn't mean that it should not be restored and protected throughout its historic range. Lets say climate change killed all of the bald eagles up north. It could have wiped out the species if they were not protected down here. Willy, simply saying that a species exists somewhere so it is not worth protecting is pretty shortsighted and some day the argument may apply to a species you value... "

" Any verdict against the pro-wolfers means nothing.

They will just re-sue until they get their way whether that is the will of the majority or not.

These people are self righteous, spoilt children with nothing better in their shallow lives to do.

We are attacking the wrong problem. We need to be attacking the pro-wolfers themselves and not trying to satiate their assaults on the state in court. "

" A while back, the wolf lovers were praising the 'introduction' as a great success story. Now that wolves can be legally killed by citizens, and that there will be hunting seasons, they are crying to judges and 'reporters'. This really isn't about the wolf as it is about trying to keep the great citizens of these three great states from legally killing a wolf!! You are exposed as the emotional alarmists that you are!!! "

" Dunn, I can think of no bigger assault on the state than industries such as ranching, mining and energy development buying off politicians for political influence. And Boohoo, it seems as though wolf haters are the emotional alarmists here... I have read claims that they will eat our children (communities in the southwest even go as far as to build wolf proof cages for their kids to wait in for the bus), drive elk into extinction, and that they are killing the ranching industry... The day any of these extremely unlikely things happen I will shoot the first wolf myself. "

" Mr R.T.
It was a civil rights violation against the people of Montana to kill all the wolves in the first place just to accomodate an exotic species"cows".
You are truly a legend in your own mind....totally insignificant. I can't think of anyone I'd rather see testify for the anti-wolf crowd. "

" So why is it that the "enviros" always win these law suits? Could it possibly be because the government doesn't bother to abide by the law? Surely you recognize that if it was just some "liberal judge", these cases would be over-turned by a higher court. Bottom line: killing 600 wolves in the 3 states (combined) the first year is way over the top. The anti-wolf folks handed this one over on a silver platter. (Thanks.) "

" Steve C., I'm not anti-wolf, but there needs to be a balance and compromise. The wolf plan that was accepted by the USFW (and Wyo) was a viable compromise. A core area (Greater Yellowstone ecosystem) was established to maintain a sustainable population of wolves. The vast majority of the wolves in Wyoming reside in that core area. So, why not give a plan that was 10+ years in the making a chance to work?

Just what is the wolf's "historic" range to you? Didn't they exist throughout the entire nation at one time? Is that what you are advocating? And oh, yes, global warming or maybe a meteor or comet could hit part of the earth and wipe out an indigenous species in that locale. Yep, I'll have to give you that one! "

" Like with most problems, technology can provide an answer. Wolves and coyotes are like dogs in that they have a sensitivity to high pitched sounds. Areas where cattle and sheep graze need to have high tone sound devices as part of that area. Such devices could be attached to certain animals or installed on fences, posts, or other infrastructure. The sounds would not be heard by humans, horses, or livestock. The investment is of a minimal expense largely. Further research could refine this approach to a point where it also could be used on other predators, including rustlers. Wolves would quickly learn to stay away from cattle due to the strong discomfort it audibly causes them. "

" camenzind says the states can't be trusted. where is the science in that? where was the outrage last year when WY officials killed 63 wolves, or 23% of the population, and the wolf numbers grew by over 24%? What upsets you so is legalized wolf mortality by the citizens. We are living with about four times the breeding pairs than what was originally called for. Why don't all you whiners learn to live with some hunting!! "

" Bill, Have ever once set foot off of the concrete? Life in the open seldom works out like an article in a science magazine would have us all believe friend.

Logger and Steve C, Following your logic, the invasive species that must be eliminated to solve this problem is not four legged; it is two legged. Hence once your type of short thinkers eradicate mankind we'll have no issues at all. I have to ask, were there some T-Rex's still around, would you also support reintroduction of these top predators back on their original range? That is where your reasoning takes us. Beware the unintended consequences of your incomplete thoughts. "

" When are people going to realize, that the number in the original recover plan, which was 10/300 WAS NOT A GOAL, that was a minimum number to trigger delisting, there was never a goal number proposed, there was no upper limit number on what would be the eventual population numbers..That said, I could care less if they are here or not, but I have a very strong feeling that if they are put back on the list, there is going to be a glut of illegal killing going on, the SSS mentality will become prevalent. They need to be off the list, let the states manage them for a minimum of a year to actually establish what is the facts on state management... "

" "The investment is of a minimal expense largely."

Ok, I'm sure your check will be in the mail tomorrow to help implement such an idiotic idea? "

" The state’s plans for wolves exceed the fed plan for numbers. Wolf pimps need to take a deep breath and count to 10. The wolf introduction has been a raging success and numbers need to be managed to reduce the conflict between man/wolf and balance the ecosystems were wolf numbers will undoubtedly crash at some point as they feed their way through the local prey animals. (Lolo Zone in Idaho) All modern big game animals have flourished under hunting management. No other group of people contribute more money and focus into the well being of wildlife than hunters, period. Wolf pimps should be happy that wolves will be hunted. Wolves will benefit in the long run.

People are concerned about the number of wolves to be killed in Idaho. Most of these people probably have never hunted and don’t realize that this will be a pretty tough task to complete on a predator like the wolf. (Read impossible) Even if it does happen it leaves the wolf population well above the original goals and well above the Fed standards. I am really not sure what all the beefing is about? Wolf pimps need to find another corner to stand on; wolves have been a sleazy success. "

" Well said Ryan! "

" Carmine, your arguments are weak and have no basis in science or logic so you feel that you have to put words in my mouth to make me seem like I am an extremist. Sad really... "

" Marion and crazy horse, perhaps you want to educate yourself with the article below?


Article by Jim Doherty, March 30, 2008

One late summer afternoon in Alaska's Brooks Range, my wife and I
encountered a pitch-black wolf poking its head above a thicket of willows. Standing awkwardly on its hind legs, it checked us out; then, curiosity
apparently satisfied, it dropped down on all fours and loped off, wagging
its bushy tail as if it didn't have a care in the world.
That was a few years ago. Today if there's one thing wolves aren't, it's
carefree. Across Alaska and the far West to the upper Midwest, a new war
on Canis lupus, the North American gray wolf, or timber wolf, is underway.
By the time the wolf became one of the first animals to be covered by the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, it had been hunted, trapped and poisoned
into extinction everywhere in the contiguous United States except Montana
and Minnesota. Its amazing resurgence since then is one of the nation's
great environmental success stories. But if the ranchers, hunters and
other special interests prosecuting the new campaign against it are
victorious, they will undermine not only the law that gave rise to
endangered-species recovery but also the integrity of ecosystems in which
wolves historically have played a vital role.
When the Bush administration decided recently to terminate federal
protection for wolves throughout the northern Rocky Mountains by the end
of this month, one Interior Department official said it was because the
animals have become so numerous that they no longer need Uncle Sam to
watch over them. In fact, the decision had nothing to do with numbers and
everything to do with politics. Transferring the responsibility for
managing wolves to Idaho, Montana and Wyoming now is a farewell gift from
the outgoing president to his staunch supporters in a part of the country
where hating wolves is the code of the hills.
As ranchers see it, the wolf's special status is a symbol of the
Washington bureaucrats who exist primarily to shove onerous regulations
down their throats. So the wolf handoff can be easily viewed as the
settling of an old score. Idaho's Republican governor, C.L. "Butch" Otter,
has vowed to "bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself." Wyoming's
Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, goes Otter one better: "In terms of
reducing the packs, that's always been a state objective from the outset."
Together, the three states are determined to whack back the 1,500 wolves
currently occupying the Rocky Mountain region by as much as 80 percent, to
a barely sustainable minimum of 300, even though dozens of distinguished
scientists believe that assuring the future of this still-recovering
species would require a population of somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000.
Wyoming has come up with the toughest wolf-management plan. In addition to
authorizing an annual trophy hunt in the vicinity of Yellowstone National
Park, it gives ranchers carte blanche to shoot wolves on sight everywhere
else. Freudenthal says he doubts that "any packs outside Yellowstone . . .
are even necessary."
The Western states lobbied long and hard to get wolves back under their
jurisdiction, but it wasn't until former Idaho governor Dirk Kempthorne
was appointed secretary of the interior two years ago that they began to
make headway. A coalition of environmental groups has served notice that
it will attempt to block what is euphemistically referred to as "lethal
control" in a federal court next month -- but by then, wolves will already
be under the gun. Can each of the three state game and fish departments
monitor its targeted wolf packs diligently enough to ensure that they
don't disappear altogether?
In Wisconsin, where I live, agitation to "do something" about wolves was
on the upswing long before the state took over management of the 600 or so
animals that roam here a year ago. Hunters complained about depredations
on game and dogs. Livestock owners were upset about assaults on cattle and
sheep. Adding fuel to the fire was the usual hyperbole about wolves
attacking children, menacing hunters and chasing joggers. The other day, I
saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck parked outside a local saloon that
proclaimed: "Wolves: The original terrorists!"
Polls show that most Wisconsin residents are laissez faire about wolves,
but those who loathe them wield far more political clout. On April 14, an
influential sportsmen's group will ask its members statewide how they feel
about a "public harvest." This is almost certainly a prelude to the
initiation of hunting and trapping seasons aimed at bringing wolves -- now
concentrated in the north, but dispersing southward -- more in line with
the state's "target population" of 350 animals.
There's a huge disconnect here. Deer populations are out of control,
especially in the southern part of the state. If, in the absence of
wolves, deer overrun their habitat, the inevitable result will be a ruined
environment and starving animals.
This is what I see going on in my neck of the woods, in the southwestern
part of the state. Hungry deer are swarming over our evergreens and fruit
trees like hooved locusts. Native plants are disappearing, and most of the
wild-growing cherry, oak and maple saplings have long since been chewed
up. Just as alarming, scientists have discovered a link between
overcrowding and the spread of chronic wasting disease, a deadly brain
infection that affects deer. And deer aren't the only problem. A number of
national parks and forests in the West are contending with the severe
environmental consequences of exploding elk populations. One solution some planners are considering involves, wouldn't you know, reintroducing
wolves.
So here we are. We understand that wolves are a cure for what ails us, and
yet we're getting ready to start slaughtering them all over again. The
only thing that can prevent this is an aroused public, which has yet to
show any signs of materializing.
This brings us back to Alaska, where recent history is instructive. In
1991, the governor announced plans to start killing wolves as a way to
provide more moose for hunters. It wasn't long before the threat of a
nationwide tourism boycott compelled him to beat a hasty retreat. But when
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game went ahead with an even more
ambitious eradication program four years ago, popular outrage was
conspicuous only by its absence. Since then, nearly 750 wolves have been gunned down. If a bill now before the state legislature removing the few
remaining restrictions on wolf-control passes, which seems likely, the
carnage is certain to get even worse.
Yesterday the wolf was the poster boy of the American conservation
movement. Today the only poster it's on says, "Wanted: Dead." It's a sad
comedown for what had been a stirring comeback. "

" Steve C, Carmine got you. Your logic's final extension is in fact illogical. You put those words into your own mouth by not thinking the agenda all the way through. "

" Steve C, Give it a rest. Your hate of all things other than wolves has poisoned your judgement. Lashing out in every direction only makes the case that you are in fact an anti human activity nut. You have become your own worse enemy and you're winning no new allies. "

" Sprout Eater, Your single offering, a piece of subjective evidence writen by a like minded person with an agenda, stands not in support of an arguement, but helps to make that point that you have no logical argument. Now, do you actually have a point to make and can you substanciate the point with well reasoned thought and facts? We're all waiting (yawn). "

" These wolf loving city people are all coming here becuase the city has to many people right?

This is of course eating up habitat building houses for the city people coming to Wyoming. Hence the wolves will soon have nowhere to live in Wyoming.

Solution; SEND THE WOLVES TO THE CITIES TO THIN OUT THE PEOPLE. Then the city people left over will not have to move to Wyoming and the wolfs habitat will then be saved.

Now, wasn't that easy? "

" Lynn, please refer back to my comments and enlighten me as to how i am advocating the elimination of humans by pointing out the alarmist thinking of wolf-haters.

Independence, there is a place in this world for cows, elk, humans, wolves, insects and everything else. How am i lashing out? You are being a bit dramatic... And if there is one thing i hate it is small minded idiots like yourself distracting from the real debate with drama (how is that for lashing out?) "

" Sprout eater: Your just another bleeding heart that has no concept of habitat management! We don't expect you to know any better. But, stick around and we"ll educate you! "

" Fantastic article Sprout Eater. Thanks for posting it. Too bad none of the losers advocating wolf introduction into big cities or New York and California, along with the mental midgets who hate wolves because ... well ... because ... well ... ummm ... well just because they're wolves will read OR understand it. They're just not too bright. But that's cool, they claim to live here in Wyoming where the bar isn't set too high anyway, if you know what I mean. Right on dude - good post, and stay frosty! "

" "What", perhaps you should check your grammar and spelling, but the point I am trying to make is this.

Thanks to corrupt minded politicians, Cheney (your former WY statesman), Dirk Kempthorne (DOI and former ID Gov). Butch Otter from Idaho, and your wonderful WY politician named Randal Luthi , head of MMS (see below), whose hands are in the back pockets of oil, gas and mining interests, this earth, NATURE and all the great wilderness wildlife icons of the West havent got a chance. Now, if you think your current governor, Cheney, Dirk Kempthorne, Butch Otter, King George Bush, and Randal Luthi are fine upstanding citizens that really care about the future of this planet, then I think you should start educating yourself about the real facts, and stop thinking that these guys are looking out for you. That's all. Luthi is the guy that is working with his buddy Kempthorne to allow shell oil, BP and all the rest of the oil companies to drill off the coast of AK. Kempthorne and Luthi and Cheney are working for the oil companies, gas and mining interests. they could give a rat's patootie about polar bears, whales, etc in the coastal areas of AK. What do you want to do here, decimate all the big animals, wild animals of the west, and have a bunch of cattle and elk running free?

Randall Luthi, director of the Minerals Management Service. Luthi is a Wyoming native who in the 1980s served as an intern to then congressman Cheney. He had become a state representative, then retired to private law practice, when President Bush called on him in early 2007 to be deputy director of Fish and Wildlife. Just months later, he was named the new director of the M.M.S. "

" So just what is your point Sprout Eater? If you have one! "

" The thing that amazes me is that a lack of wolves is a disaster in Wyoming, etc, but there are no wolves in most of the other states and guess what, they survive, their lives go on, they have wildlife, their ecosystems haven't collapsed, none of the things that enviros fear if they can't control Wyomingites with wolves.
I am sure the country is in much worse shape ecologically in other states, so why on earth were they not insisting on wolves in their own states???????? Just think then you wouldn't have to come here and put up with us and our values. "

" Steve C and his cohorts are offering only circular logic and appeals to tradition to support their chosen positions on this subject. If this is what the environmental lobby thinks will rule the day, they require some education in basic argument (philosophy 101 might help). Until then, this is just more back ground noise that cannot lead to a reasonable solution to this or any other issue. "

" We are well ahead of the number of breeding pairs and individual animals now. If the pro-wolf political lobby does not want us to control the animals' numbers now, at what level of wolf population will they agree to controls? This is a very open ended argument on the part of the pro-wolf lobby. Why are we allowing them to dictate via the courts without them offering a complete alternative plan, backed by science which can be analysed and negotiated? If we offered a similar partially cooked argument they would point out the error in our logic immediately (by our offering an incomplete plan, or in their case, no plan at all). Don't be snowed by these people, they want only one thing, total control over the decisions made regarding our environment as though they own it and us. This is completely unacceptable and we must not allow them to continue dictating to the rest of us as though we do not exist in this argument. "

" Tguide - I don't believe Grout Eater (EcoSprite) has a point, other than he has read an article by some pinhead named Doherty. Doherty has no point other than he likes wolves because he claims to have seen one in AK. It wagged it's tail. Probably Doherty would have liked to pet it, but it wisely ran away before he could impose his love of wolves on it. Well good for him. He weaves a rambling pointless tale that is not supported with a SINGLE fact. As for Doherty, he demonstrates only his ignorance of the original introduction plan and recovery goals. Wolves being delisted has EVERYTHING to do with numbers, as wolves have exceeded the recovery goal five fold. If I were Doherty, I'd spend less time writing and more time deer hunting. Do the evergreens, fruit trees, wild-growing cherry, oak and maple saplings a favor Doherty, and buy yourself a deer rifle. More time hunting and less time flapping your lips would help save your native shrubs which are endangered by the big bad Wisconsin deer. "

" Steve C, Sprout Eater, et al; What is your desired endstate?

What is your global goal that you see as achievable for the wolves and wild life/open spacse in total?

Where are you going in the long run and what is this goal based on that supports it? "

" While I enjoy reading about far fetched conspiracy theories, jusy what are Doherty's qualifications as a wolf and biology expert? Can you please elaborate Mr Sprouts Lover? "

" If I write an article based on my experiences afield will you offer that up as "evidence" too Sprouts? What if my opinion does not back your position? Does my article then have less credibility than Doherty's? If so, can you tell me why? We're both just independant writers, sharing our annecdotal observations. "

" I have cohorts now? I would like to see wolves restored to the northeast. It isnt all about controlling wyoming as you all seem to think. I feel that there is room for hunting and growing cows as well as room for complete ecosystems in the last of our wild spaces. I would like to see public lands management be more balanced towards wildlife as opposed to it being so slanted towards supporting the minority of people who ranch. The thing that most of you ant wolf zealots seem to ignore is that most reintroduction supporters would support wolf hunts if the state wolf plans didnt lean towards eradication as opposed to conservation.

Judge, you talk about me having circular logic yet you offer no examples of how my logic is circular. It seems as though you are contributing far less to the conversation than I am... "

" Steve C., A large percentage (90% +/-) of the wolves are in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Of that "trophy area" where hunting is allowed (outside YNP & GTNP) the Wyoming G&F plans to allow 8% of the wolf population to be killed. The wolf population has been expanding at 25% per year. JUST EXACTLY HOW IS WYOMING'S PLAN LEANING TOWARDS ERADICATION??? "

" Steve C, stock are raised. They are not grown like soy beans. I also must question your true motives and intensions. Above you say that you are not out to control Wyoming. What can you offer to make any one here believe you? We are under assault constantly by demanding groups with similar outside views all telling us what to do and how to do it all because we have some wildlife and open spaces left unruined (and your state and others do not). We are now used to being lied to and insulted you see. Now you too have jumped into our home here in Wyoming with your jack-boots on and stomped on our livelihood, disrespected our values, called us ignorant red necks and ignored our concerns and experience living here for generations. When is the next PC "cause" that will compel you do so? So you can see that we have no reason to trust you or any other group of outsiders as all seem to want to control what we do and how we do it in our own home state which in reality has no affect what so ever on you or your home state. "

" Joan, the only person here who mentioned red neck is you. Freudian slip? Maybe you should stop putting words into my mouth. Why do you make it about wyoming when there are three states involved and many more states that have wolves?

Willy, if you can't see the weaknesses in wyoming and idaho's wolf plans that is your issue i guess. I am not going to explain my views for the millionth time because it will change no minds. "