« Discussion Topic: Hunters Pay As Crop Prices Spark CRP Crisis | Main | Brit Lands 200-Plus-Pound Cat »

April 11, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.

Discussion Topic Update: Wyoming Wolf Kill Now Up To 10

From the Casper Star-Tribune:

At least 10 gray wolves have now been killed in Wyoming since the animals were removed from the federal endangered species list.

All of the canines have been killed in the state's new wolf predator management area, where it is now legal to shoot the animals on sight. All 10 have been taken in Sublette County.

Four wolves were destroyed by USDA Wildlife Services agents Monday on a ranch near the border of the state's new trophy game zone for the animals, a spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department confirmed Tuesday.



If you can't eat them why hunt them? Does anybody eat wolfe? I guess you could make a full body mount and put it in a glass case in your living room and have bragging rights.

Mike Diehl

At the very least, one could make several comfortable pairs of slippers.


These wolves have met the minimum number needed to delist them since 2002. They do an incredible amount of damage to the wildlife and domestic animals in their area. Nobody is trying to exterminate them the way our ancestors did starting in the 1600's until the mid 1900's(In 1913, Wyoming enacted a bill that would fine anyone $300 for setting a wolf free from a trap. Thats a lot of now, let alone than). All the states that are starting wolf hunts have a plan that has been scrutinized to the extremes to make sure this doesn't happen again. It's time for us to realize that we are not moving into the places they live (in any animal situation, wolves to white-tail), they are simply moving back into THEIR indigenous habitat. We as hunters and stuards of our land must manage these animals of all types. The wolves in the said region have been descimating elk populations over the last several years and have been putting guides out of a job. If this goes unchecked it is very reasonable to believe that these wolves would become more accustomed to humans and begin preying on Spot and Fluffy, and maybe your children. In some cases, this is already happening (Kenton Carnegie, 2005, wolf attack victim, fatal). We have proven over the last hundred years that regulated hunting and trapping is the best way to control these circumstances and create a better place for future generations. Good shooting boys and keep up the good work!

Matt Mallery

Wolves have never preyed on humans. I have no idea why this keeps getting mentioned.


The way I understand wolf, or any other predator, behavior is they cull out the old, sick, weak, inferior members. Just the opposite of what hunters are after. Hunters that see them as a threat should look at them as a fellow hunter, one that is after the animals that they themselves wouldn't give a second look. They do provide a service, and there must be a way to get along without indiscriminately destroying their kind. For the ones that are finding their way into trouble, our kind has always had a solution for them. The killing of an entire population - isn't that called genocide - is not what wildlife management should be about.


If people are going to write on here about Wolves, learn to spell so you are not as ignorant as your statements. Its the sportsman and women who fund most of the money for all game. Wolves are ruining everything we have worked to restore.They need to be managed like every other species. They don't kill just the weak and old, they kill for fun and leave alot to waste. Look to Alaska and Canada within the last few years and Wolf attacks that have been documented! Get your facts straight.

Cattle man

Yes, we need to kill them all before they kill every last one of my cows and calves, they will eat every last piece of livestock in the entire state along with every elk and mule deer with any type of antlers leaving nothing for the hunters.

Give me a break, "shoot on sight" if you want to hunt them, do it set a season, set a limit and charge a bunch of $$$$$ so some once a year "hunter" can become a he-man by shooting a wolf from 300 yards away with a .338

I Really Don't Like Wolves

Seriously, you guys are rediculous, with Matt Mallery in the forefront: "Wolves have never preyed on humans..." You need to learn how to conduct actual research, and in what contexts to search for information, if you think you can't find documentation of wolf attacks. Please call the Idaho F&W, the Montana F&W, the Wyoming F&W, the Canadian equivalent of F&W, the Alaskan F&W. They have everything on record, but whether they will have an actual person answer the phone, or have someone there who knows how to find that information is subject to much debate.

Midnight Banjo, you say wolves only kill the old, sick and weak in prey populations. Do you know that for a fact? Or are you just spewing the stock arguments that the pro-wolf camp told you to memorize? Why don't we crunch some numbers?
Okay, this is a demonstration of just how many deer and elk a typical pack of wolves eats per annum, and is based off the standard that the average wolf eats 12.5 lbs of meat a day (set this low because they don't always eat every day), and that the average deer weighs 175 lbs and the average elk weighs 300 lbs.
At those averages, each deer provides 14 "servings," and each elk provides 24 "servings."
A 4-wolf pack eats a deer in 3.5 days, and an elk in 6.0 days.
An 8-wolf pack eats a deer in 1.75 days, and an elk in 3.0 days.
A 12-wolf pack eats a deer in 1.2 days, and an elk in 2.0 days.
A 4-wolf pack eats 50 lbs a day, totaling 18,250 lbs per annum; an 8-wolf pack eats 100 lbs a day, totaling 36,500 lbs per annum; and a 12-wolf pack eats 150 lbs a day, totaling 54,750 lbs a year.
The average wolf pack diet is 60% elk, 35% deer and 5% other. This means that by the averages, and according to the totals:
A 4-wolf pack's 18,250 lbs/annum equates to 10,950 lbs of elk, 6,387.5 lbs of deer, and 912.5 lbs of other meat per annum. Thats 37 elk and 37 deer per annum, plus whatever goes into the "other" category.
An 8-wolf pack's 36,500 lbs/annum equates to 21,900 lbs of elk, 12,775 lbs of deer, and 1,825 lbs of other meat per annum. Thats 73 elk and 73 deer per annum, plus the "other" meat.
A 12-wolf pack's 54,750 lbs/annum equates to 32,850 lbs of elk, 19,162.5 lbs of deer, and 2,737.5 lbs of other meat per annum. Thats 110 elk and 110 deer per annum, plus the "other."
The home range of a pack of wolves is averaged at 55 square miles.
In most areas (Yellowstone NP is my standard) of wolf habitat, elk and deer population densities are somewhere around 8 animals (each species) per square mile.
This means that the average wolf pack's home range encompasses roughly 440 elk and 440 deer.

Midnight Banjo, you stated that wolves only take the old, sick and weak. If I were to synthesize your statement and my data, I would have to agree that anywhere from 8.4% to 25% of the elk and deer in the population are old, sick or slow, creating an average of 16.7%.
Why don't you go out there and try to find 17 old, sick, slow and decrepid elk out of every 100 you can('t) catch, and 17 old, sick, slow and decrepid deer out of every 100. The numbers simply do not support your statement.
Besides, anywhere wolves take up to 25% of the elk and deer populations, wolves need to be thinned out, because how long can that be sustained, if the recruitment rate (aka survival rate) of elk calves and deer fawns is not much higher than that 25% (which in many areas is an accurate figure)?


This is definitely a controversial topic. Hopefully a solution can be reached that is fair to everyone.

Matt Mallery

Again, there is no documented case of a wolf attacking a human.And so what if they do? If you go outdoors you must be prepared to deal with the dangers, if you can't deal with it, go to the mall instead.Are we going to kill every snake, bear, and cougar just to make it safe for humans? Of course not. That is not real wilderness, that is Disneyworld. I don't want to hunt in Disneyworld, I want to hunt in the wilderness. Cattle do more damage to wildlife than wolves. Wolves are wildlife and a part of the ecosystem. How can we hunters take pride in "restoring" wildlife when we are wiping out certain species at the same time? It makes us look like selfish rednecks.


Matt Mallery

You need to look up and read,
"Hunter and Hunted: Relationships Between Carnivores and People" by Hans Kruuk, Cambridge press, 2002.

Hopefully, it will enlighten and educate you so that you may never say again; "... no documented case of a wolf attacking a human."!



I would have to agree with Matt Mallery that wolves are a natural part of nature. We have already destroyed billions of acres of land that used to sustain many "dangerous" animals, such as the wolves and bear. With every house, mall and highway we build, we are taking away land for animals. The problem is not whether animals are dangerous, its a problem of humans pushing them out of such a large area of land that they have no choice but to prey on livestock and domesticated animals. The problem is the humans, not wolves!



The problem is twofold. Man seeks to live in peace with nature. Nature, unfortunately, is not as "peaceful" as we think.

It has already been proven that when developement moves into a habitat, most of the wild creatures, adapt and still, though in smaller numbers, reside in that same habitat!
Case in point, a lady in California found a young, male cougar living under her front porch.
Disneyism, the idea that wild animals are cute, cuddly and gentle, is what normally gets people hurt.
Yep, we, as human beings, take out lots of "habitat" annually. But the animals are resilient, just like man. Both can inhabit the same spot, but both man and beast must seek an "uneasy" peace!
A cow moose, attacked and killed a student at a book store entrance at an Alaskan college.
A photographer entered the pen of a rutting whitetail buck and was gored to death for his efforts.
Wildlife is beautiful. Wildlife is awesome. But, wildlife, herbivore or carnivore, is (are?)dangerous!


I Really Don't Like Wolves

Hey Bubba, thanks for pointing Matt Mallery in the right direction. Now if he was only smart enough to move that way...

Mallery, who said we were wiping out a species? Those days are long gone... You should know that what we're all after (or what we should all be after) is HAVING populations of all indigenous species, but only in reasonable quantities, and in the areas that are still suitable for their habitation, so that there is the least amount of negative interaction possible between nature and humanity. Its really that simple. Thats why they're shooting wolves on sight in PORTIONS of Wyoming. Key word: PORTIONS. That means only in certain areas; areas where humanity has irreversibly rooted itself, and where wolves would never be able to coexist without preying on livestock, pets and probably people too.

And this is expressly to Darin:
Humanity is "THE Problem?" Really? I know a way you could really help all the animals out.
You do live on this earth, if I'm not mistaken, right? You wear clothes that are made from materials gathered from this earth, right? You live in a house or apartment building made from wood, steel, concrete or stone taken from this earth, right? You eat things that are grown on farms on this earth (vegan or not), right? You drink water-based liquids, right? You expel bodily waste, right?
Unless you are some kind of alien or non-physical being, you do all of these things.
According to, and in an extension of the logic behind your statement that "humans are the problem," these things are the effects of the problem of the "human footprint" on the earth.
Not only that, but also according to and in an extension of your logic, you need to remedy them. How, you may ask? I'll tell you:
Become a nudist.
Go live in a cave.
Stop eating.
Stop drinking.
Stop pissing.
Stop crapping.
In fact, the only way to alleviate the earth of these problems is to fully remove humanity from it. So the best thing for you to do, if you truly believe in what you say, is to move to Mars, where there are no animals for you to displace.
But you're not going to do that, are you? Why not? Do you suddenly not believe your own words? Do you not want to help the animals? You cruel, heartless beast!
"Wait!" you're thinking, "How the hell did I go from the guy who wants all the animals to be safe and happy to the guy who not only can't do anything to help them, but doesn't give a s--t about them?!"
I'll tell you. You have just seen how rediculous your argument is. You've realized that the only way to truly practice what you preached in the statement "humans are the problem" is to become some kind of Eco-terrorist and suicide-bomb farms, ranches, meat-packing plants, grocery stores, office buildings and, yes, homes, and kill humans and yourself in the name of saving nature.
Surely you won't do any of these things I have described will you? No being a nudist? No living in a cave? No fasting? No holding it indefinitely? No moving to Mars? No killing yourself in the name of nature?

What? You must not be a "true believer" after all...

Matt Mallery


Well said.

Bubba,most animals don't adapt all that well to human encroachment. A cougar caught living in a backyard will be killed , or relocated to an area that already has cougars. A parcel of habitat can only hold so many of it's own kind. so anouther cougar will leave and go where? To the subarbs maybe. Eventually it will be killed.

As far as the guy who hates wolves, anti-environmentalists have been screaming for years how anyone who drives or eats or lives is a hypocrit.This is nonsense. We are not asking anyone to do that. How about this, instead of becoming obease like millions of Americans, eat a normal healthy diet. Instead of driving a hummer, drive a vehicle that gets better mileage. Have two kids and no more. Buy a pre-built home instead of having one built. Humans are the problem.We have created a culture of excessive luxury and comfort as well as conspicuous consumption. we buy things to show off how succesful we are, and we have exported these ideas to other countries like China.This Earth has 6 billion humans, and another 3 billion will be here in 100 years. A rational being cannot believe in infinate growth on a finite planet. If people would stop having more than two kids, we could hit zero population growth and maybe even see a reduction in human population, which would improve the quality of life not only for animals, but humans as well.


Matt Mallery, google Kenton Carnegie and tell me what you read. By reading your thoughts I am willing to bet you won't do this research, but it's worth a shot. Nobody wants to eradicate anything here. I revere wolves and think they are beatiful animals. But they are just that, animals. If they go unhunted they destroy other types of animals that we as sportsman work so hard to conserve. Your emotionaly based ignorance is the type of thinking that can destroy an entire ecosystem and cost us millions of dollars economically and a few human lives in the mix. Another FACT is that wolves kill any other type of dog on site for superiority. Do your research Matt Mallery and others. We as sportsman need to know the facts and do the research. If you are willing to see beyond your emotions read "The Politically Incorrect Truth to Hunting." It is a wonderful book backed with all the scientific facts and facts in general. Read it and make your own decision.

I Really Don't Like Wolves

Matt Mallery, you either you did not read my last post, did not understand what you read in it, or you can't read at all. I think its a pretty fair choice between the three.

I DID NOT argue that "anyone who drives or eats or lives is a hypocrit." I did not argue that because, yes, that is nonsense.

What I DID argue is that anyone who claims that humanity is "THE Problem," yet does nothing about the "problem" that they are necessarily contributing to is a hypocrite.

Your first argument illustrates exactly the point I made about how some of the land on this earth is no longer suitable habitat for certain species, like wolves, cougars, bears, etc. So why would you argue that we should try to allow them to live in places (such as the zones of Wyoming where wolves are now being shot on sight) where they cannot do so without negatively affecting the lives or livelihoods of the people that live there now? It is contradictory to do so.

You gave some methods of correcting "the problem" as you see it. But I have some bones to pick with you:
I agree that obesity is a huge problem in America, but it is not my problem. I am not obese. I eat healthily, if not healthier than 90% of the US population, and am more physically fit than the same 90% of Americans.
I don't drive for 9 months out of the year, because I live where I work for those 9 months out of the year. And during those other 3 months, when I do drive, I drive a vehicle that gets upward of 25-30 miles/gallon.
I am not married, and have no children.
I don't own my own home. Like I said I live at my workplace for 9 months out of the year. The other 3 months I spend my time running around visiting all of my family.
I don't buy into the idea that "the guy with the most toys at the end of the game wins." I only buy what I need, and I use what I buy.
Sure, other countries may want to imitate our "consumer culture" but that is merely their expression of how fortunate we truly are here in America.

About Earth's population, and how fast it will gain 50% of what it has now:
I agree that a rational being cannot believe in infinite growth on a finite planet.
I realize that it is true that the human population could be stabilized, or even reduced if people stopped having so many children, but it is debatable whether this would improve the quality of the lives of those people still here, or that it would really make a difference in the quality of the lives of wildlife.

You may be more advanced in years than I, and you may have come to the conclusion that humanity does much harm to the Earth. You may thus think you have the right and the calling to demand that younger people live according to your rules. But let me ask you some questions:
How many children do you have?
What kind of car do you drive?
What kind of home do you live in?
Where is your home?
What do you usually eat for dinner?
What did/do you do for a living?

Now let me tell you something:
I am 20 years old; a junior in college with most of my life still ahead of me. I have a wonderful family: three siblings and two parents with their marriage still intact after 24 years. I have a girlfriend that I plan on marrying someday and starting my own family with. I want to own my own home. I want to live where I want to. I want to do whatever I want for a living. I want to live life to the fullest. I, like you, love the freedom that we enjoy in America.

But here is my point, both for this post and from my last post:
Just as it would be presumtuous for me to tell you what to do with your life, who do you think you are to tell me that I, along with whoever else, should sacrifice all my hopes and dreams for my future for the sake of limiting the human population of, and our impact on, this earth? Who are you to tell me how and what to eat? Who are you to tell me what to drive? Who are you to tell me how many children to have? Who are you to tell me where to live, and what to live in? Who are you to tell me how to live my life?
The point is that it is not yours, nor anybody else's place to do this. All you can do is live how you think you should, and let me live how I think I should. And it is not yours, nor anybody else's place to condemn me for living how I think I should and how I want to.

Besides, what makes you think you CAN get everyone to see things your way, and to follow your guidelines on how to "preserve the planet" and so, you say, improve the quality of their lives?
How do you get the natives of Africa and South America (those are the real places of population explosion) to stop having 10 to 12 children? Even if everyone in the US stopped having children entirely, our population would still grow due to immigration, as would that of the rest of the world, even as millions are immigrating to the US.
What makes you think you can get everyone to live in low-environmental-impact high-rise cities, and use only a tiny fraction of the earth's surface for farming/mining/logging/etc.?
What makes you think you can remove all signs of human activity from the rest of the surface of the earth, so that it could "return to nature?"
None of those things is reasonably or remotely possible, so just let things go, for you cannot control the future of the world. The only future you have any legitimate say in is your own, so don't demand that I change mine to match your desires.

Dave in IDAHO

Matt Mallory has been anti-wolf blogging for years. He is fixated. He does not listen or learn. He spouts his oppinion as fact. I have gone round and round with Matt Mallory in the past for nothing, waste of my time. It makes no difference to him if he is proven wrong. He still sees wolf management as some kind of evil. Matt Mallory doesn't seem to be a complete moron, he just won't learn - or accept an apposing point of view. Since he is not debating or offering points worth discussing - AGAIN, then I think Matt Mallory's posts should be set aside as rants from a fanatic.


I understand where you should learn from opposin' views (that's how new ideas grow), but I don't believe Matt should have to change his views completely. Everyone sees the world differently and we all learn through others views, it's how we take that information and grow from it that we mature. Now I will agree that both sides put up a good defense but I'm not gonna change all the way do to one side havin' more "facts" then the other. So don't put down others cause they don't see the world the same way, we all are right in one way or the other.



"I dont really like wolves" you make some good points. although the problems with population comes from India and Asian countries...you're in college aren't you? read a book. I've known people like you who go to a couple years of school and know so much more than everyone else. Don't believe everything your precious professors tell you.

I Really Don't Like Wolves

Dave in IDAHO,
Thanks for pointing out how stubborn (could that also be stupid?) Mallery is. And yes, most of his "logic" is merely the rantings of his emotionality, rather than his mentality. He needs to grow up.

Thank you for acknowledging my points. I really enjoy it when someone can recognize studied and applied logic.

But about the "problems with population comes from India and Asian countries" thing: Yes, I agree that your statement is partially true. But I left India and some of those other overpopulated Asian countries out purposely, since everyone knows they are hotbeds of huge population growth. Its places like poor, rural Africa, and South and Central America that are the "sneaker waves," the one that we feel the effects of, but rarely see as problems until its too late.
Besides, some of those overcrowded Asian countries (like China) have already violated individuals' rights and mandated that couples have no more than one (or two children in some cases) child.

And I kind of expected that bit about how you think I seem to be an impressionable youth, who just goes with the flow and follows whatever is placed before him.
But I resent it all the same.
I do not believe everything my professors tell me. I research things on my own. I learn by observation, rather than simply hearing, believing and repeating what the grapevine says about complicated issues. And through my research and observation, I have reason to believe that I have come up with a pretty solid worldview, built upon firm foundations of logic, reason, morality, and justice.

What we have in this case here today is a case of you looking down on me, and discrediting me because I am young. But I think my words and beliefs prove the fact that I am not just some fool swayed by the wind of hot air from the mouths of so many pompous professors. You see, at the majority of the public universities and colleges in this country, the only opinion given any time in the classroom is that of the left, the environmentalist nut-job and the anti-war, anti-everything America was built on in the first place. My words and my beliefs are contrary to the beliefs pushed down the throats of 90% of the highschool and college-age students in this country.
So you can see why I take offense at your comment that since I am young, and still in school, I must therefore be foolish, impressionable and easily swayed by the bellowings of professors:
It simply is not true.


I really don't.....

Hey buddy don't pop a vein, I don't consider any young person to be false and I'm sure Rob doesn't either. We are all humans and have the same right to say what we believe, but trust me when you get older your views will change. When I was younger I would have said shoot all the wolves (to relate to the story), but now I feel differently on this matter. Not completely different but a little. So don't worry no one is ignoring you because of your age.


I Really Don't Like Wolves

MPN, I'm not about to have an aneurysm or anything. I'm just having fun entrapping you old codgers in logical snares that you even take the care to help me set up!

But, like Vizzini from "The Prince's Bride" said, "Wait till I get going!"

You just proved my point by saying that when I get older, my views will change. The direct implication (whether you think it is or not) of that statement is that you think I am "young and foolish," and that with time and age I will "see the light" and become "wise and knowing" like you.
It just goes to show that you really should choose your arguments, comments and words carefully. I would then relish the challenge.
But, on the other hand, I don't think there is any more to debate, since it has been shown beyond a doubt that we are not after the extermination of wolves, nor should we bend over backward to allow them to roam freely and unchecked in the range and ranchlands of the west. We've also found that wolf populations should be kept at a low number, for the sake of the rest of nature, and for the sake of the interests of humanity.

Dave in IDAHO

I Really Don't Like Wolves, ahem... OK, so you must know that I am on your side and feel markedly the same as you on this issue. That said, I am old. And you my young friend are mighty touchy about being young. You are trying awful hard to impress upon us old codgers how educated you are. But you ARE young. And whether you like it or not, if you truly educate yourself your views/opinions about some things will indeed change. As I am old I feel I can say stop playing games to try and trap your debating counterparts and try to understand them. Of course there is no way to tell how old someone is on these blogs unless they tell you, and tell the truth. Your clever traps will not help people to see your point of view, they only tend to alienate.

I Really Don't Like Wolves

Dave in IDAHO, I know you and I feel the same wavelength about wolves.
And I know, I am young. 20 is young.

But what pisses me off is that many people even just 10 years older than I am tell me that I am young and foolish, just based on my age.

Age does not necessarily determine wisdom: For all anybody knows, I could be a Biology major, specializing in Ecology and Environmental Science, enrolled in a pre-forestry or pre-fish/wildlife management program at the U of Montana, or the U of Idaho, and writing my thesis on the positive and negative dynamics of reintroducing wolves to the Lower 48. In such a case I would expect to know a heck of a lot more about the issue discussed in this blog than pretty much 99% of the general public out there.
Still, that wouldn't mean I think I know everything about everything. Though I may have extensive knowledge in one area, I may be totally lacking in others. But I would recognize this, and would not profess to know everything there is to know about these other things.
The fact is that I do know a heck of a lot about wildlife management and ecology, though I do not claim to be a prominent "expert" in the field, and I do recognize that my opinions could change. But that has not happened yet, nor do I think it will any time soon, because all the evidence I have come across points me in the direction I am facing now.

As to my clever traps, well, its just the formal use of rhetoric; and I am only asking questions, and drawing conclusions from the responses I get to those questions. We see it all the time coming from politicians, and everyone else out there who ever vied for any kind of authority.

Our Blogs