Whereafter For Wolves
How the save-the-wolf conspiracy threatens all hunting.

Judd Cooney

Like the guy in the woods who told his partner, "I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, we're making great time, the bad news is, we're lost." The good news about wolves is that they are here to stay. Wolf populations are growing by leaps and bounds, from the hills of North Carolina to the deserts of New Mexico and Arizona, from the agricultural lands of Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin to the mountains of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The bad news is, we can't do a [beeep] thing about managing their populations using intelligent and effective management tools such as hunting or trapping to control their detrimental impact on game and livestock.

How can anyone manage wolves effectively when groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Friends of Animals, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Defenders of Wildlife, The Sierra Club, and other emotional, nonsensical and politically driven wolf protectionist organizations won't let state and federal biologists do their job? Unfortunately, such organizations have huge war chests of money garnered from little old ladies and other segments of the unsuspecting public who mistakenly believe that they are contributing to the betterment of our world by helping to restore wolves to their former numbers, and in the process restoring the "balance of nature." Money can make a lot of noise, drowning out the voices of reason.

Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan all developed a management plan to deal with their burgeoning wolf populations. Wolf numbers there reached maximum capacity in the wilderness, and expanded into agricultural areas where they are preying on livestock and domestic pets as well as excessively reducing big-game populations. According to David Mech, a leading authority on wolves, eastern timber wolves have long passed the point where they need to be controlled. In fact, by 2005 they reached a point where adequate control might not even be possible.

This population of wolves was estimated to be 1,438 in 1989, 2,520 in 1998 and 3,546 in 2005, increasing at a minimum of 5 percent per year. To bring the population to the required level of USFWS service mandates for perpetuation of the species would require removal of 28 to 50 percent of the current population – an impossible task considering there are so few knowledgeable trappers and hunters available today. According to Mech, unless the states, especially Minnesota, resort to impossible (read that politically incorrect) methods such as poison or substantial financial incentives (bounties?), the wolf population became uncontrollable in 2005.

The eastern timber wolf recovery plan in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan reached the goals set by the USFWS years ago, and were to be de-listed officially from the Endangered Species List this year. However, even with the huge volumes of validated scientific proof of the wolves’ overabundance and devastating impact on game and livestock, several "greenie" groups such as HSUS, The Animal Protection Institute and Help Our Wolves Live, initiated lawsuits to halt the delisting of timber wolves in the three states. The goal of these organizations isn't simply to stop any possibility of wolf hunting, but to stop all forms of hunting. Fighting wolf delisting is just one of the tactics to accomplish their ultimate goal.

Fortunately, groups such as Safari Club International, The National Rifle Association, United States Sportsmen's Alliance, and Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, along with local sportsmen in wolf country, are fighting equally hard to see that the delisting goes through. According to several sources I contacted, it appears that there is a good chance that common sense will prevail. Time will tell.

Canadian wolves imported into Montana, Idaho and Wyoming as part of the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery Program (started in 1995) have made an equally spectacular comeback. In so doing so, they’ve also annihilated the Yellowstone elk, deer and moose populations as well as seriously impacting (killing) lesser predators such as coyotes, red foxes and lynx. The USFWS criteria for the wolf recovery program required wolf numbers to reach approximately 300 wolves or 10 breeding pairs in each of the three Rocky Mountain states for three consecutive years. At that point, if the states had acceptable management programs, control of wolf populations would return to state jurisdiction.

The prolific predators met this criterion by the end of 2002 and were scheduled to be de-listed in 2003. The wolves did their part exceedingly well, seriously reducing the populations of a variety of other animals. In 2003, Western wolves were reclassified from “Endangered†to “Threatened,†a less restrictive classification but still under federal control (or lack thereof). The anti’s couldn't stand it, and in spite of overwhelming information that the growing Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population needed to be managed, lawsuits in Federal Court overturned the reclassification. In 2005, wolves in the West were back on the Endangered Species List and untouchable once again. Their numbers continue to soar out of control.

Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM ) wolves subsist mainly on elk, deer, moose and the occasional bison, but in 2006 wolves killed cattle, sheep, dogs, horses and llamas. From 20 to 30 percent of the wolf packs were involved in livestock predation in 2006. The total number of wolves in late 2006 was estimated at a minimum of 1,300 animals, with 173 packs. Figuring that each wolf eats the equivalent of one four-footed critter a week, or approximately 50 animals per year; it's not hard to see that a drain of 65,000 big game animals is a considerable strain on the resource.

Many elk-viewing areas in Yellowstone National Park are completely devoid of elk and a lot of outfitters outside the park have gone out of business. According to Don Laubach of Gardiner, Mt., who makes his living from the outdoors and has followed every aspect of the wolf recovery fiasco, the prolific wolves decimate the Yellowstone elk population while costing taxpayers millions of dollars in the process. His personal belief is that the anti's and greenies, with their ill-gotten dollars, will continue to keep sensible and effective wolf management tied up in the courts and keep wolves protected through endangered status regardless of how many wolves exist or how detrimental they become.

After all, if the wolves wipe out huntable big game, there won't be hunters to fund the game and fish departments or organizations that fight the anti's every step of the way. Most of the wolf lovers who belong to these organizations don't give a hoot about how many wolves roam the country or how much damage they cause to wildlife or livestock. Their main agenda is to stop hunting.

Keeping the wolves under federal lock and key is a very subtle, devious and ingenious step in that direction. No game – no hunting! Simple, eh?

Yep But the story has one thing wrong there is no true willderness in Northern Wis. One would be hard press to find places more then a couple miles away from a town road. Then even less from logging roads. They live in are back yards up here.

A little Wikipedia to ponder.

The extent of livestock losses to wolves vary regionally; from being statistically insignificant, to having critical effects on local economies. In North America, loss of livestock by wolves makes up only a small percentage of total losses. In the United States, wolf predation is low compared to other human or animal sources of livestock loss.[114]

Since the state of Montana began recording livestock losses due to wolves back in 1987, only 1,200 sheep and cattle have been killed. 1,200 killings in twenty years is not very significant when in the greater Yellowstone region 8,300 cattle and 13,000 sheep die from natural causes. According to the International Wolf Center, a Minnesota-based organization:

To put depredation in perspective, in 1986 the wolf population was at about 1,300–1,400, there were an estimated 232,000 cattle and 16,000 sheep in Minnesota's wolf range. During that year 26 cattle, about 0.01% of the cattle available, and 13 sheep, around 0.08% of the sheep available, were verified as being killed by wolves. Similarly, in 1996 an estimated 68,000 households owned dogs in wolf range and only 10, approximately 0.00015% of the households, experienced wolf depredation.

– Wolf Depredation, International Wolf Center, Teaching the World about Wolves[115]

Good read!

Posting stuff like this, full of half truths and very slanted claims, does no one any good.

I live just on the edge of the range they are moving into. I hunt deer in an area where wolves live. This year, I could take two deer in an early antlerless season, and five deer during the regular season with a youth hunt thrown into the mix in the same area. The wolves roam all the way south in Wisconsin to St Croix Falls and have substantial habitat available between St Croix Falls and Lake Superior. On the Minnesota Side of the St Croix they range Northwesterly in poorer quality habitat the further you move west from the St Croix until you get up into more classic wolf range. They have existed in small numbers for at least thirty years in these areas, coming and going, and seem to be much the same now. In places with enough less broken habitat they form larger and more permanent packs. My experience leads me to believe that over much of the area they tend to be more transient than in the better parts of their range.

I hunt grouse with pointing dogs in this range and have opportunity to find wolf killed deer for an extended period. I don't find them very often. I know that wolves have attempted to take livestock in the area. I do not know of any confirmed wolf kills of livestock. I know people living in the area who say they will shoot a wolf on sight and that I believe have done so. I have seen photographic evidence of a wolf reportedly shot near Osceola Wisconsin on the Minnesota side of the river. The photo included a wolf and a building I recognized to be in the area claimed so I believe it was genuine.

If wolves were going to be a problem overpopulating and then killing off whole deer herds it does not stand to reason that they are not breeding apace with the increase in deer herds when they have had ample opportunity to do so. If they cannot be controlled by hunting or trapping them, certainly it flies in the face of reason to assign the lack of wolf decimation of the deer herd to the opportunistic shooting of a few. Population dynamics being what they are, abundance to the point of overpopulation of prey animals is nearly always accompanied by rapid increase in predators of that specie(s). Dave Mech's studies of the Isle Royale wolves demonstrate the relationship applies to wolves.

I've met Dave Mech and would be surprised if he'd have a lot to say about populations of wolves he has not studied closely.

When I was young I spent time in northern Minnesota at a slave labor camp (grandparents farm) that was in much better wolf habitat and long enough ago that it was not only legal to kill wolves, but there was still a bounty on them. We lost an occasional animal (sheep) to them. In places where they and deer both existed in high numbers and the high numbers coincided with a hard winter I have found where they had worked over deer yards pretty well. I would guess that probably would still apply, but the winters have been very mild for a long time now and that does not lead to the concentration of predator and prey to make such things easier to find. But... one must keep in mind that the deer in one yard may catch hell in a bad winter while another yard not all that far away may go untouched. Along the north shore of Lake Superior there is plenty of prime wolf habitat and coincidentally our best moose population and a very healthy deer population. The deer are so abundant as to be a very big problem on highway 61 along the shore. There are few livestock operations in the area so the wolves aren't eating mutton or beef to speak of, and they aren't doing their part to control the deer either it would seem. You do have to be careful about leaving your dog loose to run though so it does show they approach human populations often enough to cause trouble.

I don't believe what people think they know is always what they do know. In matters where science will have to carry the argument what we don't know has a tendency to be the important part.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Yep But the story has one thing wrong there is no true willderness in Northern Wis. One would be hard press to find places more then a couple miles away from a town road. Then even less from logging roads. They live in are back yards up here.

I think the Boundary Waters Canoe Area would qualify as wilderness and I think this is what he was alluding to. In addition, wolf packs generally prefer areas relatively undisturbed by humans and are only venturing into contacts with humans because of pack expansion as males are born in existing packs. One of the thriving packs (currently 7 animals) in Wisconsin lives in a 14,000 acre state wildlife management area with few roads.

quote:

A little Wikipedia to ponder.

I wonder if you would be so dismissive if it were your livestock being killed. Even if the absolute numbers and percentages of wolf killed livestock is low there are areas where individual livestock owners have been significantly impacted. Consider the source.

Regarding miles58's post: The latest research on predator/prey relationships on Isle Royale indicates that wolves force dramatic swings in the population of their prey to their detriment. Having wolves almost decimate their prey to be followed by their own numbers crashing is not a very good way for rational beings to manage a resource. To have continual cycles where predator caused crashed prey populations rise when predator populations in turn crash may seem attractive to some but proper game management would help populations of both predator and prey be more stable.

quote:

Regarding miles58's post: The latest research on predator/prey relationships on Isle Royale indicates that wolves force dramatic swings in the population of their prey to their detriment. Having wolves almost decimate their prey to be followed by their own numbers crashing is not a very good way for rational beings to manage a resource. To have continual cycles where predator caused crashed prey populations rise when predator populations in turn crash may seem attractive to some but proper game management would help populations of both predator and prey be more stable.

You want to show me where people have maged such a stable balance in the past??? Nature is. Unnatural is when we interfere. Thus far our record is pretty uniformly dismal at managing predator/prey relationships even in isolatd environments like lakes when you look at i over a long term.

The wolves and moos out on the island have not lived together long enough for us to get a dgood enough handle on what's going on there, and that's only 20 miles of rock. What we know is that they follow each other up and down. That part is easy. You don't have to do much more than be able to count to come to that conclusion.

From my seat in the stadium, there is only one solution, and that is NO Wolves at all.
It's a feminine dream that there should be this idiotic balance of nature with Wolves introduced to balance things. That is BULL SHIT.
Only demented Liberals would consider introducing Wolves to make things equal..
If I were King, every Liberal would be forced to witness a Wolf Pack killing a young Elk, or Deer, or any game animal.
Bull Shit!!!

Don

How did the elk and deer survive when wolves were "everywhere", say 200 years ago. By your theory a few wolves will rid the world of every living cloven-hooved, four-legged American critter; probably in about a week and a half. That didn't happen back then, so why is it any more likely now?

If you have an economic interest in getting rid of wolves, I can understand you. Other than that, your position doesn't make sense.

What's your problem with a pack of wolves killing "a young elk"? Are you opposed to a pride of lions killing a young impala? How about a pack of wild African dogs killing something? Is that a problem for you? I think not.

My guess is that doesn't impact your livelihood, or hit you in the pocketbook, so that killing is O.K.

I read where Ted Turner wants to introduce wolves on his Vermejo Park Ranch in New Mexico. I think that is great.

I would trade one less housing addition for one more wolf anytime.

All I know is there are a LOT fewer deer and elk wherever there are wolves. And in some areas, there are virtually no deer or elk.

Several years ago when I hunted Western MT archery season we saw lots of elk and heard many more calling and bugling. Thiis past season if You blew a cow call or bugles all You got were wolves!! When You saw several elk tracks in a herd one didn't have to go very far before a wolf track showed up as well.

The Anti's and Greenies are killing hunting without firing a shot. The wolves are doing it for them. Now they want to introduce them in Colorado. Largest elk herd in the Nation I'm told. Give them five years and that will change.

Sorry Gentlemen I don't agree on the wolf reintroduction at all. And the fact that we spent millions to do it and are still spending money for more studies and monitoring is a total shame.

FN in MT

jackfish I was refering to Wis.

Also having spent a lot of time in the BWCA one soon learns that most of it is with in 5 to 10 miles of a road. Get a gps mapping program and start drawing lines to the nearest rd one well find out how close rds really are. A lot of the BWCA was logged before they made it willderness.

quote:

Originally posted by FN in Montana:
All I know is there are a LOT fewer deer and elk wherever there are wolves. And in some areas, there are virtually no deer or elk.

Several years ago when I hunted Western MT archery season we saw lots of elk and heard many more calling and bugling. Thiis past season if You blew a cow call or bugles all You got were wolves!! When You saw several elk tracks in a herd one didn't have to go very far before a wolf track showed up as well.

The Anti's and Greenies are killing hunting without firing a shot. The wolves are doing it for them. Now they want to introduce them in Colorado. Largest elk herd in the Nation I'm told. Give them five years and that will change.

Sorry Gentlemen I don't agree on the wolf reintroduction at all. And the fact that we spent millions to do it and are still spending money for more studies and monitoring is a total shame.

FN in MT

FN,

Excellent posting; you're right on!!!
Other than destruction of a WHOLE lot of game animals (not to mention farm animals), what good has the reintroduction of Wolves done? What good do Wolves do? Do Wolves enhance anything, in a positive way? Come on all you Liberals, tell all of the good things Wolves do?
Tell me how happy ranchers and farmers are with the Wolf reintroduction fiasco? And, as FN said, look at the money it cost us taxpayers to bring back Wolves to make things worse, not better. Tell me ONE thing Wolves do that make things better? All I see is things got a WHOLE lot worse for other animals and a WHOLE lot worse for human beings. This is Liberal insanity in full bloom.
The reintroduction of Wolves was a Liberal dream, and nothing more.
Read Outdoor Writer's posting below about Caribou Calves increasing in number as a result of killing Wolves. Here's the link:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3411043/m/133103179

As I said before, I would love seeing every Liberal who loves Wolves witness a Wolf pack killing a calf of any breed, a Caribou, or Elk, any calf. And, I would make them watch over, and over, and over, till they puked.


Don

quote:

Excellent posting; you're right on!!! thumb
Other than destruction of a WHOLE lot of game animals (not to mention farm animals), what good has the reintroduction of Wolves done? What good do Wolves do? Do Wolves enhance anything, in a positive way? Come on all you Liberals, tell all of the good things Wolves do?
Tell me how happy ranchers and farmers are with the Wolf reintroduction fiasco? And, as FN said, look at the money it cost us taxpayers to bring back Wolves to make things worse, not better. Tell me ONE thing Wolves do that make things better? All I see is things got a WHOLE lot worse for other animals and a WHOLE lot worse for human beings. This is Liberal insanity in full bloom.
The reintroduction of Wolves was a Liberal dream, and nothing more.
Read Outdoor Writer's posting below about Caribou Calves increasing in number as a result of killing Wolves. Here's the link:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3411043/m/133103179

As I said before, I would love seeing every Liberal who loves Wolves witness a Wolf pack killing a calf of any breed, a Caribou, or Elk, any calf. And, I would make them watch over, and over, and over, till they puked.

How about this...

When Lewis & Clark opened this area there were a hell of a lot more deer, moose, elk and wolves. If you current populations of deer, moose and elk are do genetically diluted that they cannopt withstand the predation of a few reintroduced wolves them maybe the argument abvout keeping the species strong by selecting out the weak has merit and this is just exactly what you need to prevent the eventual extinction of the prey species.

How about that???

and when lewis and clark got here there were damn few human beings. in 2008 very few places on the face of the earth have undisturbed ecosystems or original habitat
in the small areas where our wild life live now to introduce a super predater and one that also has a history of thrill killing and killing more than it can eat just because the prey animal runs from it and triggers the chase,is the dumbest idea allowed,next to supporting the reintroduction.
then to derail the delisting on something as thin as transfered genetics(the outside wolves are not returning to ynp to stir the genetic melting pot)
you don't have to be a wolf expert o know what will happen next.canines, wild or domestic do not share their territory.
thats why they piss on every statioary object,marking their territory and fight any stray that shows up,defending their territory.
i will agree with the genetically diluted mammals and keeping the species strong by selecting out the weak,then we wouldn't have to listen to their stupid f*%king opinions.
Don't care how you do it at your house just don't come to mine and try the same stupid bullshit

quote:

Other than destruction of a WHOLE lot of game animals (not to mention farm animals), what good has the reintroduction of Wolves done?

Not a damn thing! Never have and never will!

If Minnesota is ok with them, let them have them.

Humans are the ultimate thrill killers...

I don't like wolves either but the anti-wolf people are just as much of a threat to hunting as the save-the-wolf people; they just don't know it. Wyoming's hillbilly attitude is and never will get us anywhere other than to make us look like fools. Wolves are here, and they will not go away. People need to accept that fact and come up with ways to deal with it. Killing them all and letting God sort them out is not an option, nor is SSS. Those of you who constantly bitch and moan about them need to come up with some better ideas. Anti-wolf people were their worst enemy during the de-listing and subsequent federal injunction that let to where we are today.

Better ideas? Like we have a say? Not likely! The feds have the final say, this state will be allowed to do what ever the feds tell the state that they can do. There here to stay, under the current regeme that was just elected,it will only get worse, and the only control that may occur, is parvo, rabies, mange, and distemper!

The Wyoming Legislature has a say. They and the hick G&F Commission from several years ago are the reason we are where we are now. The shitbags of that Commission are finally gone now, but the same ole Legislature exists.

Hick Game and Fish? Then and now the best deal going in the USA! Their stance( preditors) was just and very popular across the state, I hope they stand their ground. The legislature is woking on proposals daily. Wolves are what they are, indiscriminate killing machines!

I suppose you oppose the "hick" bucking horse logo to, much the same as liberal laramie!

One way to solve your hatred for the "hick" people of Wyoming, MOVE! I prefer to call them conservative, not liberal or socialist!

Where is your libtard buddy brent? I miss his twisted view on Wyoming politics!

I love the bucking horse, and I am no liberal.

I'm as pro Game and fish as anyone... Was just stating that the commission from several years back was a bunch of retards.

quote:

I love the bucking horse, and I am no liberal.

Good! I knew there was some good in you!

quote:

Was just stating that the commission from several years back was a bunch of retards.

No they were just being conservative, and I agree, if they drop the preditor classification, then I think the feds as well as the prowolf people would relent! But who wants to cave in to them and the likes of them. I wish they would drop it also,then issue tags with an elk tag, sell tags for $2.50, and have a 10 month season, even though public sentiment, via thousands of emails and letters supported the preditor classification.

I haven't posted here in quite awhile, but Kudu, I think we probably agree on more things including most of the wolf issue than we disagree on. I heard you have a crush on Obama's wife???

quote:

I heard you have a crush on Obama's wife???

She is kinda hot! But not progun enough for me!

I got a bison this year! Big bull! Damn they are a handfull, especially alone!

Hey what happened to the guy (forgot his online name) that was from Gillette ( I think) that was always taking sides with you?????

I'm from Gillette. I didn't know anyone was taking sides with me though...

I don't remember the name he went by, maybe he was from Jackson and moved up in your area!

He was the one that doubted me that my son treed 50 cats in one season, I just wanted to tell him he treed 100 bears in one year! Not in Wyoming though!

quote:

I haven't posted here in quite awhile

So what have you been up to?

raising babies... Ouch

Oh boy! Well good for you! Congratulations! Mine are all grown, and out of the house, but never for long!

humans are regulated by laws and seasons for the most part but i will have to agree that unregulated there wouldn't be a butterfly left by xmas.
in defense of the western states they were approached by the feds and asked to support the reintroduction and upon being told "not only no, but hell no"! they were backdoored by the release on federal ground(YNP)
at no point of the reintroduction has anyone told the people of the western states the truth or stuck to the policies and plans related to the release.
wyoming recieved its "stubborn" designation when it fought to classify the wolves under dual status; predator and trophy game, what few people understand is that the large portion of the state that comprizes the predator area lacks large mountain ranges and large population of big game to sustain any wolf populations instead the area is made up of small and large, farms and ranches that are heavily populated in horses,cows,sheep and there is no other option then a wolf pack getting into these areas and causing trouble and costing the state and individual farmers and ranchers more money,and having to be hunted down and killed.they don't stand a chance of establishing a permenent pack so why waste the effort?
i do believe the people of the western states understand that the wolf is here to stay,you couldn't kill 'em all. theres a nursery just over the hill in yellowstone and teton park that guarentees the wolf is here to stay even if you could kill 'em all.
but what happened to rational thinking and common sense and good science to determine whats best for the habitat,wildlife,human inhabitants and ecosystem.that said its easy in my book to see why these people don't trust the feds and anyone else who stand in the way of protecting their livelyhood and wildlife,and adopted a "don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining attitude".
imagine the good people of the u.s. deciding that you need a gang to live in the house at the end of your block.you have nothing to say about it and have no voice or chance to protest or defend your quiet safe nieghborhood.you have to sit by while they grafetti your streets,sell drugs,steal cars,and bang your daughter.
now you might have some concept of how the people of the western states might feel.
yes.... we are a proud,independant,stubborn bunch of folkes that don't care for outsiders mucking around in our buisness especially when we recognise a trainwreck in the making and have it crammed down our throats with no recourse.
anyone who won't defend their castle and lifestyle IS a fool and if it takes a wyoming hillbilly to point it out so be it....oh did i mention i'm a 5th generation wyominite?
play square,play fair and i'll dance. but lie to me or f*&k me 1 time and you have made an enemy that you don't want on your back trail

quote:

but lie to me or f*&k me 1 time and you have made an enemy

That's pretty much what the federal government has done to us in Wyoming, and with the newly established ruler and his court of klintoneastas it will get worse before it gets better!

Another big problem with the wolves that I haven't seen discussed much is their affect on the land itself. The western states are seeing a huge influx of growth and new people moving in either permanently or with summer homes. This has caused land values to skyrocket. Large ranches are sold to developers who cut them up into 10-20 acre "ranch-etts". This results in multiple threats to our hunting and big game populations. First, it removes large tracts of land from the hunting area. Secondly, it brings more people into the hunting area. Third, many of these "ranch-etts" become "weed-etts" as they become infested with noxious weeds. And finally the quality of the open space and open land is lost to "urbanization."

So what do wolves have to do with this? Plenty. As the wolf population has surpassed the USF&W Service's original "recovery goal" and expanded out of Yellowstone and through the neighboring ranching and farming valleys, the wolves are not only killing and stressing our wildlife populations, but they are also killing and stressing the rancher's livestock. This means not only a rancher's loss of livestock killed, but a loss of reduced weight in livestock.

I recently viewed a show on Montana PBS TV where just one cattle rancher experienced a $90,000 loss in the value (weight) of his cattle in one year due to stress put on his cattle from wolves. It won't take very many years of that kind of monitary losses before that rancher will sell out to a developer, and another large section of our hunting land and game habitat will be lost forever. Thanks again, wolf lovers.

ravenr


Well said

sounds like they could do with a little lead ,on the sly

The wolf supporters think they are wonderful animals just doing natures job of removing the weak and sick from the herds. Why not post on every Peta and greenie site video of the true way they kill- chasing to exhaustion, hamstringing, hundreds of bites until the animal is down then ripping its guts out eating it alive. The truth might change the publics love of wolves, then management could be implemented.