Category: Uncategorized

“The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, “What good is it?” If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”   ― Aldo Leopold, Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold

There is a big problem in America today.  It is the acceptance of “bad-science” as well as the use of “ignorance” to make overwhelming and certainly detrimental decisions in regard to our nations wildlife and natural environment.  This is compounded by irrational decision making by government agencies, and when challenged by the general public, the Justice Department steps in and protects the government agency rather than the Public.  There is a lot obviously wrong with this situation!

But it goes further, into the realm of our legislators catering toward small lobby groups and corporations only, and to hell with the rest of the general public.  Within nature we can actually look at previous decisions in regard to Wolves, and use this example toward just about every bad decision made within the past ten years.

Proof of Bad Decision Making

By the end of 2012 there existed many States in America that used “bad science” and “ignorance” to proclaim the Wolf as, stated simply here, “. . . a predator that had to be removed. . .”  Interesting that this situation directly involved terms such as “. . . to enhance elk and deer herds in Idaho or Montana for example. . .” or “. . . to protect our cattle and elk herds. . .” and on and on.  The fact of the matter is the situation also cost the taxpayers in the millions of dollars within each state, in order to develop these “kill-only” management principles’, and directed entirely toward the Wolves.

One sportsman’s lobby group went on to say Wolves are bad for the environment.  They (i.e. the wolves) often killed out of lust for the kill or the actual enjoyment of killing.  Some went further to state Wolves attacked people and especially kids.  There exist nothing to support anything the sportsmen’s lobby groups have stated as accurate; absolutely nothing.  So this journalist will not waste your time any further on neither what the sportsmen’s groups nor the lobby groups say as factual, since there is simply nothing to substantiate their claims.

On the other hand there does exist an overwhelmingly amount of evidence combined with “good science” based on quality research and quality data gathering and other well noted information resources.  This is all pertinent and well known before the Wolf massacre began, and yet ignored by both State and Federal government agencies and legislators.  Why is that, do you suppose?

Proof of Ignored or Neglected Science Facts and Data

The discussion here centers on the qualities of Wolves within an Ecosystem.  There does exist prevailing benefits.  Currently these benefits being ignored in many government agencies that are paid to know at least the basics of environmental or ecological management — but apparently do not.  One has to ponder their decision making process, and exactly what fact based science their decisions based upon?  Well, none!

So it becomes apparent we have a problem with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  They supposedly have the know-how to decipher nature’s language, as their in excess of $100,000 a year employee’s salaries says as much, and so our tax money tells us.  But do they, or do they simply ignore the specifics for their political or personal income agendas?  So why would this government agency ignore good science?

Good Science does Exist

“It’s all here,” the Cristina Eisenberg, Research Scientist said. “You just have to know the language.” ¹

“Until about 1920, wolves patrolled these meadows, which have long been an important wintering ground for elk. Then humans hunted the predators into extinction here, and for 60 years or more the elk grazed in peace. By the mid-1980s, however, wolves were recolonizing the landscape, straying south from Canada to reclaim this western fringe of GlacierNational Park.” ¹

“The 100-year-old aspens grew up with wolves. So did the 20-year-olds. There are no middle-agers, Eisenberg said, because without wolves to run the elk, all the young aspen sprouts were browsed to death.” ¹

“It is,” she said, “quite clear and profound. The wolves leave an indelible mark on the entire ecosystem. . . Eisenberg’s work shows that before wolves were killed out, about one in every six aspen trees grew to reach the canopy. When wolves were absent, perhaps one in 300 made it. . . Her findings: Wolves increase biodiversity; wolves affect elk behavior more than elk populations; and aspen growth in elk winter range is directly related to wolves.  It’s pretty rock-solid,” Eisenberg said. “The information coming out is unbelievably clear.” ¹

Then we come, again and again and wherever the use of taxpayer money is in controversy, to Welfare Ranching and its dubious entry in the mooching-off our government system, and simply obtaining a lot of taxpayer money under false pretense.

“While Idaho taxpayers are facing budget cuts to public education and health care, ranchers are busy writing self-serving bills to provide money for “studies” that will paper over destructive impacts of livestock grazing. . . Meanwhile, lawmakers also sought to line their own pockets by trying to pass bills that would give themselves and other big landowners special hunting licenses that they could sell for exorbitant prices while giving the Idaho Department of Fish and Game the shaft.” ²

And in the matter of their research, “. . . Will it look at places like Hart Mountain Wildlife Refuge in Oregon where livestock have been absent from the landscape for 20 years and sage grouse populations have dramatically flourished while they have declined throughout the rest of the state? Doubtful. . .” ²

Important to note here, when Welfare Ranchers involved they simply wish to kill anything and everything other than the cattle — and that includes the ecological system as well.  They simply use up a section of our PublicLands and then move on, all the time collecting government stipends for doing so — taxpayer money!

Welfare Ranchers simply do not care about much, other than receiving their government money, which they have relied upon for decades now, and under false pretense.  They are not the mom and pop ranchers of yesteryear!  They will lie out rightly about Wolves killing their cattle, and this has been proven time and again, and a subject for a later article.

Killing the Wolves and Then What

Montana is another State that had out rightly lied about their Wolf problem.  But this happened within all of the States promoting Wolf Hunts, well referenced, but too many for one article.

These same States were told time and again, out rightly, there was no shortage of elk or deer.  This information was referenced from reliable data.  Wolf Advocates stated repeatedly elk and deer herds had increased over the years, due to mismanagement, and certainly had not decreased what so ever.  But as the tale goes on, Montana Fish and Game and in cahoots with the U.S. Fish and Game, opened the season on the only animal that kept elk and deer in check for a better Ecological functioning system.  Now Montana has an over abundance of elk and deer, and totally out of management capacity.

Oh and by the way, they will be asking the federal agencies, yes indeed, yours and my tax payer money, to supplement their monetary situation to rid their state of the overabundance of elk and deer.  Think about the next time you view a photo of a psycho holding up his Wolf Kill and grinning, or bragging about torturing a Wolf before killing it.  Our tax money played a large part of them having the ability to do such activity!  And that, folks, is outright disgusting as well!

But the story gets even better, unscrupulous one might say, and criminal fiction has once again been surpassed by reality, and our government agencies lust and greed for money.

“Rep. Nancy Ballance, R-Hamilton, submitted House Bills 375 and 376 to allow more local control over impacts from deer, elk and antelope that forage on agricultural land. HB375 would make FWP reimburse landowners for crop damage. . . My bills are intended to give farmers and ranchers some relief from the deer damage they’re experiencing,” Ballance said.  . . . I’m here to tell you this is a serious problem. It’s been talked about for 30 years and it’s not gone away. The remedies are not working.” ³

Well!  Wait a minute here!  The entire Wolf-Kill landscape was predicated on Wolves damaging and the extravagant overkill of elk and deer — now we find this not to be the truth what so ever!  And we find yet another damaging situation, “. . . a recent Supreme Court lawsuit stated that when people acquire property in Montana, they do so knowing that wild game will be present. He added that they estimate they would lose about $18 million in federal funding if the money is diverted for crop damage.” ³

And now, quite by accident we discover that the Montana sportsmen and the State Fish and Wildlife pulled another fast one on America and delisting of the Wolves.  That is within the Supreme Court decision and within it’s context, it protects the Wolf and other wildlife.  How far that protection goes we do not know currently, but will certainly look into the situation.  Essentially, it was to have ranchers acknowledge presence of wildlife when purchasing their property, and the State of the Federal government not responsible for consequences of or in regard to any present wildlife in the state.

Conclusion

The facts still remain, overall documented losses of livestock to wolves are less than one percent, considerably less than losses to weather, disease, and other dangers. Wolf kills are difficult to confirm, and indeed Welfare Ranchers have been caught in outright lies about Wolves killing their cattle.

This is largely due to reimbursement of the killed cattle by Wolves program — yes, it has been proven fraud had been committed on at least 96% of those cattle-killed and taxpayer money reimbursed.  Yet, Welfare Ranchers as well as sportsmen want Wolves all wiped off the face of this planet, and because –.  I do not think it odd that many of these people requesting such things are ignorant not just of wolves, but of life in general.

Once again we find a rivalry between outdoor sportsmen, who assume they know everything; Welfare Ranchers, who assume they know everything; corporations, who pay government employees and legislators under the table for their use of Public Lands; and Animal Advocate groups that quote directly from firm scientific facts and data.

Profoundly and within many different situations, our legislators and government agencies, who also think they know everything, leans favorably toward lobby groups and money.  And just as often good and common sense science within managing our natural resources and wildlife remains ignored.  This simply leads to bad decision making.  What a surprise, huh?_____________________________________________

1.  “Tracking science: Biologist’s findings show forest diversity, health influenced by wolves”  http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/territory/tracking-science-biologist-s-findings-show-forest-diversity-health-influenced/article_3ec9fc54-c01f-11de-bf16-001cc4c002e0.html

2.  “Idaho ranchers want more taxpayer money for grazing “studies” Billings Gazette, 02/28/13 http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/02/28/idaho-ranchers-want-more-taxpayer-money-for-grazing-studies/

3.  “Bills would give counties more control over wildlife,” Billings Gazette, 02/14/2013,  http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/bills-would-give-counties-more-control-over-wildlife/article_8584d7a3-8e5d-5d4e-bf78-e5223fe2d00f.html

“. . . Hunters and trappers today make me feel like it’s unsafe to go into the mountains any more. Too dam dangerous with them there. Why, they shoot anything that moves. Leave their traps with animals in them, letting them die and waste away before going to get them. No good to anybody then. Makes me mad, disgusted what some of them do in my mountains — my family settled this area — it’s very sad!” Bob Pritchett, In Mountains for 70 years now, brought up by a pioneer family along the Rogue River. . .

It goes without saying that wolf hunting today is done not only irresponsibly, but abusively.  Management of the wolves, not only in America but on an international basis, has developed into a tale of horror, abuse, torture, and mayhem.

This is documented and proven many times over, shown time and again by wolf hunters and trappers own photographs and slurs.  These are found on social networking sites on the Internet, as well as trapper or hunter blogs, and goes along with their outward ignorance — presented within the perspective of bragging-rights.

More disgusting is the outright slaughter of the wolf management paradigm established by government agencies, both State and Federal.  Civilized options do exist and without killing, but presently being ignored; essentially, this means that our government agencies ignore good science and good management principles, for a minority of people and lobby groups.

Ignorance or Arrogance?

Also ignored by these same government entities is the reality, the necessity of the wolf within the chain of natural events in their ecosystems and environmental complex (review references).   Ironically, our government agencies have ignored, in total and as mentioned, good Science.

After perusing many references toward sound principles of wolf management this journalist finds no reputable Research Biologist making a direct statement that the present wolf kill is, in fact, necessary.

As a matter of fact just the opposite exists.  All attest to the fact the wolf is needed, and a significant part of the life-cycle within all environmental communities they exist within.

Most go as far as stating, beyond a doubt, the wolf needs to be relisted on the Endangered Species List before being eliminated in total.  And as all Research Biologists will state, as a matter of fact, there exists many options other than killing the wolf for management.

There Are Options / Alternatives

Here are two separate discussions, mindful I might add, that relate to reality — options and a different attitude toward the Wolf population that works — key word here — WORKS!

What is going on in Oregon State should be recognized as a template to manage the Wolf Population: http://www.oregonwild.org/about/blog/greater-than-less-than

Livestock and Wolves — A Guide to Non-lethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts:  http://www.defenders.org/publications/livestock_and_wolves.pdf

Keep in mind the foremost stated conflict with Wolves is the fact of misrepresentation, as a derelict killer of animals and people.  Just the mentality alone, of this perspective is ignorant and uneducated — but to claim it as reasoning for a Management-by-Kill action is absurd and moronic, with no details to back it up in science or within real time, to say the least.  There exist many more options, but as stated, ignorance apparently is much more simple to deal with, and on a Selective-Information mentality (i.e. make up the truth or change history), rather than deal with the real world — real workable options — real resolution to problems!

No Science No References = Bad Choices

No argument is without two sides.  The hunters and trappers state they are a significant part of the primary wolf-management ideology.  Those who keep track of such activity say, “Absolutely Not!”

One magazine article after another, in publications and whose demographic-audience consists of hunters and trappers, generate their misinformed and positive remarks toward the current wolf management situation.  These non-science articles are quoted by hunters and trappers, then used time and again by hunters and trappers within their discussions.

Wolf Advocate vs Hunters / Trappers

Wolf Advocates have been criticized for demonizing licensed hunters and trappers.  Hunters claim they contributed more to the restoration of wildlife in America than any other group.  Not so surprising their statement about their contribution remains unproven, with no references available what so ever to the public, other than perhaps magazines catering to their hunting or trapping readership.

And not so surprising, hunters and trappers supposed contributions are not documented within established science reports.  But there does exist statements made by many experienced hunters such as Bob, as quoted above, and very negative toward today’s hunters and trappers.  Many of us who spend time in the mountains, for example, throughout the year see and notice the cumbersome hunter and trappers, and their waste and irresponsible conduct toward nature, as it is quite obvious.  And it is escalating into vast numbers across America.

The situation comes to mind of a few years back.  Several hunters come up to Oregon for Elk.  They shot twelve Bull Elk, and simply left them to rot in a circle around their campsite.  Yes, they left the Elk there, untouched except for the bullet holes.  More than likely a photo-op and comparable to the photo-op’s of wolves after the kill.  Or the trappers who shoot bear, on many occasions, only to cut the paws off and take the teeth, for money.  The rest of the Bear left to rot on the side of the trail or in a roadside ditch.

When the livers and ovaries of Bears were bought for large amounts of money, this too become critical to the Bear’s world.  Is this contributing to the natural habitat?  Many say NO!  Many noteworthy scientists say that the hunter and trapper history speaks for itself when talking about irresponsibility on a large basis and in regard to our nation’s wildlife.

That hunters and trappers that demonstrate irresponsibility, bad ethics, a shoot anything that moves basis, is not to be considered — nor ever has been considered good science nor a positive contribution toward restoration what so ever; The lack of any mention within science, anywhere, of hunters or trappers being a part of an ecologically sound situation speaks for itself.

As a matter of fact hunters and trappers offer no science or reference material to support any of their statements.  Their education, most often bias, is not management level criteria to be involved within a wolf-management-decision making process.  Hunters and trappers simply want to kill wolves for sport, and no other discussion exists in their minds.

Hunters / Trappers Their Own Worst Enemy

We need go no further than the hunters and trappers of today and their brag.  They place photographs on Facebook, for example, of outright abuse of wolves as well as morbid torture of wolves, wolf families, and wolf puppies.  Then have the gull to ask legislators in their common state, to apply more legal attributes’ to gassing wolf families and wolf pups in caves or their dens, to shoot them from the air, or worse, they ask us all to accept the outright torture of wolves as something that should be done!

A short series of photos show a hunter had chopped all four legs off of one male wolf.  The other hunters are standing around the campfire, beers in hand, laughing while the wolf struggles for it’s final gasp of life, crawling across the campsite for help.  But there is none available.  The wolf is kicked and stomped until death, by those same mentally impaired individuals within that campsite.

We can site further photographs of hunters and trappers as well, as the abundance of photographs of abuse and torture of wolves on the Internet quite large — all have one thing in common, the pride of the hunter or trapper over the tortured death of a wolf.  Our government agencies are allowing these types of situations to go on and on, and do nothing about them.

We can only derive that the current situations demonstrate the compliance and approval of such actions as mentioned within this article, and of those management people within government agencies currently.  These managers of our wildlife, no doubt, should be taken into account and held responsible for the abuse, torture, and mayhem that exists today.  If this type of behavior is allowed, by those same managers, one has got to wonder how they become public officials and responsible for our wildlife.

As taxpayers, we have got to wonder why they still hold these positions, after reviewing just a small portion of the photos available on the Internet right now.  To photoshop the photos, most often, was not done, so that is not a legitimate excuse, rather ignorance at its best fed to a hopefully gullible pubic.  No, these people holding a public trust, a public office within a government agency must now be held responsible.

One photo depicts a wolf, its leg still in trap.  The wolf then shot in the hip and shoulder after being trapped, and the trapper allowing it to bleed to death.  The trapper, in this instance, glows with pride over what he has allowed to happen and within the foreground, the wolf dying slowly in the background.  This photo went viral and the individual is also a government worker.  Ethical and moral complaints filed against this government worker, but as odd as it sounds was left ignored.  A government agency employee!

Good Science = Good Decisions

“. . . [Wolf] Management agencies have claimed that the recovery and public hunting of wolves is based in science. A review of their statistics demonstrated that data collection methods did not follow a scientific protocol which resulted in flawed and often incorrect data.” ³

“. . . Therefore, the quotas proposed for public wolf hunts are completely arbitrary, and management decisions in general have not been based on facts. This has produced a wolf management system that lacks scientific perspective and does not utilize what is known about the wolves’ role in sustaining healthy ecosystems. Instead, the absence of verifiable data suggests that management decisions are often based on opinion and politics rather than science.”  ³

“In reality, all four components of population growth (births, deaths, immigration, emigration) would need to be known for an accurate assessment of wolf population numbers. However, emigration is a guess and immigration is completely unknown. Together, they are half of the equation to determine the total number of wolves, either throughout the year or by December.” ³

Disqualification and Irresponsible Conduct

There exist many noteworthy and not so costly options within reasonable wolf management (review references list).  Unfortunately, for the hunters and trappers today it becomes quite obvious the current delisting and hunt does not fit the situation for a proper and responsible wolf-management-paradigm.

Even if we take away the hundreds of photographs depicting wolf abuse, torture, and outright mayhem, all done within the past few months, we can still come to a reasonable conclusion about an open-hunt and wolf Kill.

Without much regulatory oversight, and the obvious outright hatred directed toward wolves for falsified reasons and misinformation, conclusively trappers and hunters do not have the mentality to handle any types of management paradigms what so ever.  It is, for all intents and purposes, a situation out of control — and mismanaged in total.

Conclusion

To assume hunters and trappers create a healthy and wholesome environment in our forests and mountains remains ludicrous at best.  Demonstrated beyond a doubt, the hunting and trapping industry require heavy regulatory and even observation laws, in order to take away the obvious abuse, torture, and mayhem that is present today.

Listed after this article are sound scientific references.  This reference material are considered good science within the scientific community as well as the academic community.  The references and scientific findings demonstrate beyond any doubt Wolf Hunts and the Delisting of Wolves from the ESL (i.e. Endangered Species List) to be in error.  The delisting and the hunt remain inexcusable within our government agencies, and as well quite costly to the taxpayers of America.  The hate-filled management principle that does exist currently must Cease!

It is disgusting and deplorable to actually assume those who have taken leadership roles within our government and within the decision making process, are not making appropriate decisions’ based on good science, as they should.

Good decision making is based on Good Science.  Good Science is based on good data, good data retrieval techniques, and well researched ecology systems.  Ecological systems studied and researched throughout the years shows, beyond a doubt, the wolf is and always has been within the scientific process, a positive inclusion within any natural or wild ecological system!

It is simply time for an over-haul of our government agencies and the personnel within them.  It is time for good management and good leadership skills based on provable data and science, taking the place of bad decisions that lead to debatable issues, costly to taxpayers.  There exists today useless slaughter of our wildlife, and the ruining of our environment.

Good decision making is obvious — bad decision making is just as obvious and disgusting and especially in this instance.  If you need evidence simply Google wolf hunt on your computer — and you will be as shocked, as most of us, at what you see — and the people in the photographs call themselves civilized!  You be the judge!

__________________________________

1. Bangs, E. E., Fontaine, J. A., Jimenez, M. D., Meier, T. J., Bradley, E. H., Niemeyer, C. C., Smith, D. W., Mack, C. M., Asher, V., and Oakleaf, J. K. 2005. Managing wolf-human conflict in the northwestern United States. In People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence?, eds. R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinwitz, pp. 340-356. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

2.  Stop Shooting Wolves, You Maniacs, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/stop-shooting-wolves-you-maniacs.

3.  Mallonee, J. S. (2011). Hunting wolves in Montana – where are the data? Nature and Science, 9(9), 175-182, ISSN 1545-0740. http://www.wolfandwildlifestudies.com/downloads/natureandscience.pdf

4.  Mallonee, J. S., & Joslin, P. (2004). Traumatic stress disorder observed in an adult wild captive wolf (Canis lupus). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 7(2), 107-126.

5.  Livestock and Wolves — A Guide to Non-lethal Tools and Methods to Reduce Conflicts, Defender’s of Wildlife, © 2008 Defenders of Wildlife; http://www.defenders.org/publications/livestock_and_wolves.pdf

2. Creel, S., and Rotella, J. J. 2010. Meta-analysis of relationships between human offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS ONE 5(9): e12918. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012918. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2F journal.pone.0012918

3. Estes, A. E., Terborgh, T., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., Carpenter, S. R., Essington, T. E., Holt, R. D., Jackson, J. B., Marquis, R. J., Oksanen, L., Oksanen, T., Paine, R. T., Pikitch, E. K., Ripple, W. J., Sandin, S. A., Scheffer, M., Schoener, T. W., Shurin, J. B., Sinclair, A. R., Soulé, M E., Virtanen, R., and Wardle, D. A. 2011. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science. 333:301-306.

4. Federal Register. 2011. 50 CFR Part 17. <http://www.fws.gov/idaho/graywolves/Delisting050411/WolfDelist050511FINALRULE.pdf>Nature and Science, 2011;9(9) http://www.sciencepub.net/nature 182.

5. Fuller, T. K., Mech, L. D., and Cochrane, J. F. 2003. Wolf population dynamics. In Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation, eds. L. D. Mech and L. D. Boitani, pp. 161-191. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

6. Hamlin, K. L., and Cunningham, J. A. 2009. Monitoring and assessment of wolf-ungulate interactions and population trends within the Greater Yellowstone Area, southwestern Montana, and Montana statewide: final report. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Wildlife Division, Helena, Montana, USA. http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=36743

7. Hebblewhite, M., White, C., Nietvelt, C., Mckenzie, J., Hurd,

T., Fryxell, J., Bayley, S., and Paquet, P. C. 2005. Human activity mediates a trophic cascade caused by wolves. Ecology. 86: 1320–1330.

8. Lopez, B. 1978. Of wolves and men. Touchstone: Simon and Schuster.

9. Mallonee, J. S., and Joslin, P. 2004. Traumatic stress disorder observed in an adult wild captive wolf (Canis lupus). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 7:107-126. http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/187_s153276 04jaws07023.pdf

10. Mallonee, J. S. 2008. Movements of radio collared wolves and their significance on pack assembly. The Journal of American Science. 4(1):53-58 <http:www.americanscience.org/journals/amsci/0401/07_0339_Mallonee_movement_am0401.pdf>

11. Mallonee, J. S. 2010. The truth about wolves. Flathead Living Magazine. Summer:108-111.

12. Mech, L. D., Smith, D. E., Murphy, K. M., and MacNulty, D. R. 2001. Winter severity and wolf predation on a formerly wolf-free elk herd. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(4):998-1003.

13. Mech, L. D., and Boitani, L. D. 2003. Wolf social ecology. In Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation, eds. L. D. Mech and L. D. Boitani, pp. 1-34. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

14. Mech, L. D., and Peterson, R. O. 2003. Wolf-prey relations. In Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation, eds. L. D. Mech and L. D. Boitani, pp. 131-160. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

15. Miklosi, A. 2007. Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition. OxfordUniversity Press.

16. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 1999 – 2010. Wolf recovery status: annual reports. http://www.fws.gov/mountain%2Dprairie/species/mammals/wolf/

17. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2007. 2007 Montana white-tailed deer distribution and population estimate. http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=29793

18. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2008. 2008 elk objectives and status. http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=36361

19. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2008a. 2008 mule deer status. http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=36461

20. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2009. Montana gray wolf program.

http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=42353

21. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2010. FWP fact sheet, questions and answers: Montana’s regulated wolf hunt. http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=39994

22. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2010a. The 2009 Montana wolf hunting season summary. http://fwpiis.mt.gov//content/getItem.aspx?id=41454

23. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2011. Fact sheet: Congress delists Montana wolf population. http://fwpiis.mt.gov//content/getItem.aspx?id=50145

24. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2011a. FWP Commission approves wolf hunt season and quotas. http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/hunting/nr_1470.html

25. Packard, J. M. 2003. Wolf behavior: reproductive, social, and intelligent. In Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation, eds. L. D. Mech and L. D. Boitani, pp. 35-65. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

26. Packard, J. M. and Mech, L. D. 1980. Population regulation in wolves. In Biosocial mechanisms of population regulation, eds. M. N. Cohen, R. S. Malpass, and H. G. Klein, pp. 135-150. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

27. Raven, P. H., and Berg, L. R. 2004. Environment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

28. Rutledge, L. Y., Patterson, B. R., Mills, K. J., Loveless, K. M., Murray, D. L., and White, B. N. 2009. Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biological Conservation. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.017. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320709004583

29. Sime, C. A., Bangs, E., Bradley, E., Steuber, J. E., Glazier, K., Hoover, P. J., Asher, V., Laudon, K., Ross, M., and Trapp, J. 2007. Gray wolves and livestock in Montana: a recent history of damage management. In the Proceedings of the 12th Wildlife Damage Management Conference. pp. 16-35.

30. Sime, C. A., Asher, V., Bradley, L., Laudon, K., Lance, N., Ross, M., and Steuber, J. 2009. Montana gray wolf conservation and management 2008 annual report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana, USA. <http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt08/index.html&gt;

31. Sime, C. A., Asher, V., Bradley, L., Laudon, K., Lance, N., Ross, M., and Steuber, J. 2010. Montana gray wolf conservation and management 2009 annual report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana, USA. <http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/wolf/annualrpt09/index.html&gt;

32. Switalski, T. A., Simmons, T., Duncan, S. L., Chavez, A. S., and Schmidt, R. H. 2002. Current public attitudes toward wolves in Utah. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues. 10(1):1-3.

33. U. S. Congress. 1973. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544. http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/esa.html

34. U. S. Congress. 2010. H. R. 6028, 111th Congress, 2D Session. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr6028ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr6028ih.pdf

35. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. 2007 Census of Agriculture: state profile – Montana. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/County_Profiles/Montana/cp99030.pdf

36. U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. National Agricultural Statistics Service – Montana cattle and sheep losses to predators. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

37. U. S. District Court. 2010. Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Salazar, et al., 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010). <http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/docs/wolves/ruling1.pdf>8/30/2011