January 17, 2018

Wolf Perverts Attempt “Citizen’s Arrest” on Idaho Governor

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

*Editor’s Note* – I think the insanity speaks for itself.

“”This is hurting us,” she said. “If you take out one species, it will cause immense environmental damage. We are trying to stop it now. It’s inhumane. It’s horrifying. I can’t not be here.”

The group left the steps to confront the governor in his office, citizen’s arrest warrant in hand. The warrant, which was a print-off, came from a friend of the group. Protest organizers weren’t sure which judge issued it, since the signature wasn’t legible.”<<<Read More>>>

  • GoldDust

    Even mentally ill folks deserve a vacation away from their straight jackets and padded cells.

  • GoldDust

    I picked this off an articles comment section a couple of days back, and they claim we’re responsible for the failure of any conflict resolution concerning our established right to hunt and gather and preserve the resource most beneficial to mankind which is not dog meat. What these wolf pimps fail to see coming is a political conflict resolution known as Civil War. I hope they enjoy it.

    Getting a little whacked;


    “In Wisconsin they want to know what the secret to the success wolf Hubters have had. This is my response – No!!! Their secret to successfully killing wolves is that NO ONE on the other side (wolf lovers) understands that the only way to stop the killing of Wolves by hunters IS “to kill the hunters”. Until a hunter/trappers believes that HIS life is in danger for killing a wolf that a person with a gun is hunting HIM/HER then they have zero reason to stop killing wolves. If a man with a wolf in the bed of his truck is found shot to death, found shot in the field amoungst his wolf kill for the day, or, a trapper is found “trapped” and dead in his own trap then the killing of wolves will continue. Hunting down hunters and trappers will not immediately stop the slaughter of the Wolf – but it will have many hunters and trappers thinking very, very hard after a number of them have been shot by irate ciitzens who know that while shooting a few wolf hunters won’t stop the killings immediately it will lessen the number of hunters who target wolves…If you want to fight back – take a hunters class, a marksmanship class and buy a rifle – my personal preference is for a 50 cal sniper rifle with flash suppressor and silencer (just like the military uses) – but that is overkill – you don’t need that for hunters that post their trophies out in the back of their pickup…”

    “The Washington State incident: This provides the reasoning behind the action of gunning down the sharpshooters…. If you do not stop them they will continue killing wolves. If you do not act aggressively to stop the slaughter of the wolves then the shooters have nothing to fear – they need to fear that they too are now prey to be hunted as others do not condone their personal vendetta to exterminate the wolf!!! And if see one of those planes hunting wolves I will do anything I can to down it.”

    • Idaho_Roper

      You just have to love these morons, their stupidity is self exposed. I would love to see the silencer on a 50 cal that also sported a flask suppressor. They obviously play to many video games. This pissant would fill his drawers if he/it even realized the size of a 50 bmg round, and I know for a fact the puss would never have the kahonas to even pull the trigger much less be able to hit anything with it. Like all cowards they hide on the internet and talk tough. His/it’s personal favorite? Hahaha thanks for the laugh ….

      • somsai

        “flask suppressor” that’s when the Mormon bishop shows up at the barn dance.

        • GoldDust

          LMAO, and steals the flask for himself..

      • Shirley_Mae

        Seems like somebody that has to hide behind a 50 cal with a ‘flask suppressor’ is the real coward here.

  • GoldDust

    I’ve read a ton of religious and philosophical discussions over the years, here’s another one;

    Mech, based upon other studies calls Creels article flawed;

    “Creel did not address my comments. I never questioned the elegance of Creel and Rotella’s regression analysis or the slope of the regression. I only addressed the statement in his paper that human offtake would take “63% of the Montana population.” This statement is wrong and deceptive and exhibits a biased attempt to discredit wolf management in Montana. Human offtake is nowhere near 63% of the Montana population as minimum raw count does not equal the Montana population.

    If Creel had stated that “the estimated human offtake in 2010, when divided by the minimum raw count of wolves at the end of 2009 yields the number .63” he would have been accurate, as that’s what he did. However that number is meaningless. It compares apples and rutabagas. The estimated human offtake is just that, an estimate of what might occur in 2010, projecting into the future. As I pointed out in my comments, the minimum raw count at the end of 2009 is just that – it is NOT the Montana population, nor does it purport to be the Montana population. It is similarly misused earlier in the paper to suggest that humans killed 44% of Montana’s wolves in 2009, again false.

    Creel argues in his response that he was “logically consistent and statistically unbiased” in his method of assembling data. That may or may not be – I did not question that in my comments. However his conclusions and misuse of simple math are wrong and deceptive. It is one thing to be consistent in use of data and analysis, it is quite another to be consistently deceptive.”—Bob Ream


    Competing interests declared: Wolf researcher for 40 years and currently Chair, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission.—Bob Ream

    “1. We are not sure why this comment was re-posted, but please see the comments below for a lengthy discussion of this point, and why it does not affect the inferences in our paper.

    2. Dr. Ream argues that “If Creel had stated that “the estimated offtake in 2010, when divided by the minimum raw count of wolves at the end of 2009 yields the number 0.63, he would have been accurate.”

    For direct comparison, here is the passage from our paper:

    “A harvest of 186 wolves together with 145 killed through predator control would yield a total offtake of 331 wolves, or 63% of the Montana population, which was estimated to number 524 at the end of 2009.”

    We believe that this sentence is clear and easily understood in context. The paper repeatedly cites the original USFWS annual report that is the source of the original count of 524. The attributes of the count are described in detail in the original study. Recall that our meta-analysis compiled 48 estimates of population growth from 21 populations, so there is a practical limitation on the level of description that can be provided for each data point.

    As we have stated before, Dr. Ream argues that the projected offtake of 331 wolves should be related to some other estimate of population size, rather than the official USFWS count of the number of wolves known to be alive at the beginning of the year. We agree that the offtake could logically be expressed as a proportion of population size on some other date. We agree that one might apply methods to estimate the degree to which the USFWS count is an underestimate of total population size. Either of these adjustments to the USFWS count would require careful justifying analysis. For now, we believe that the official USFWS counts are the most accurate and reliable published estimates for comparison across years and locations.”—Scott Creel

    We guess, we assume, we project, we try to tell the future, we think, we thought, might be, maybe, could be, we want to hear this because we want it to be true, we estimate; We looked through billions and billions of trees rocks and bushes and decided USFWS has the most accurate assumptions;

    “we believe that the official USFWS{wolf} counts are the most accurate and reliable published estimates for comparison across years and locations.”—Scott Creel

    Meta-Analysis of Relationships between Human Offtake, Total Mortality and Population Dynamics of Gray Wolves (Canis lupus)

    And here is Mech’s critique and exchanges with Creel.

    The wolf science gods have spoken;

    “Readers interested in this subject should also see Webb, N. F., J. R. Allen, and E. H. Merrill. 2011. Demography of a harvested population of wolves (Canis lupus) in west-central Alberta, Canada, Can. J. Zool. 89:744-752. That paper shows (1) why recruitment needs to be explicitly considered in assessing harvest rates and population change (lambda) as per Gude et al. (2011); (2) that wolf populations can sustain 34% annual harvest, contrary to Creel and Rotella; and (3) that natural mortality is reduced with human-caused mortality as per Fuller et al. 2003.”—David Mech

    “Webb et al’s 2011 study is well executed, and their paper is an important contribution to our understanding of harvesting’s effect on wolf dynamics.

    Nonetheless, an unusual by critical feature of their data is important to note, when evaluating Dr. Mech’s inferences:

    1. Webb’s study examined a population in which two thirds of the human offtake was through trapping (rather than shooting). Trapping and shooting yield very different patterns of mortality across ages.

    2. As a consequence, 71% of the wolves killed in this study were immature individuals, not yet contributing to population growth, with low reproductive value.

    3. Furthermore, loss of immature wolves has not been shown to disrupt pack stability and the probability of subsequent reproduction, as has been shown for loss of adults, particularly alphas.

    4. For these reasons, it is not surprising that the maximum sustainable offtake rate estimated by Webb’s study (34%) is higher than the rate of offtake that yields lambda =1 with more typical harvests. Indeed, this very point is the final sentence of Webb et al.’s abstract:

    “We suggest that a high proportion of juveniles harvested and the spatial structure of the registered trapline system contributed to the sustainability of harvests.”

    5. The 34% maximum sustainable harvest rate reported in Webb’s study falls right at the edge of the 95% confidence limits from Creel & Rotella (2010)’s analysis. In contrast, it is less than half of the maximum sustainable harvest rate (77%) suggested by Gude & Mech in their 2011 paper.”—Scott Creel

    “In reply to Creel’s response to my 31 October 2011 comment, I offer the following:

    1. There are few data available indicating that trapping and shooting result in harvesting different proportions of breeding wolves.

    2. The human take under fair-chase rules almost always consists primarily of non-breeders, simply because those form the highest percent of any wolf population and because those are the most vulnerable.

    3. It is correct that loss of non-breeders tends not to cause pack disruption, whereas loss of breeders does. However, I know of no data that indicate that the proportion of breeders taken by public harvest in the NRM is any different from that elsewhere.

    4. For the above reasons, this is why the Webb et al. study’s conclusion typifies those of other harvested populations, contrary to Creel.

    5. The Webb et al. estimate of 34% sustainable yield not only falls at the extreme edge of the Creel and Rotella 95% confidence limit, but it falls well within the Gude et al. model estimates. The Gude et al. model correctly identified every wolf population increase in the NRM during 1999-2009.”—David Mech

    • somsai

      I saw that and bookmarked it. Scientifically much of what the pro wolf folks used to state as fact has now become laughable. I think the scientific community has come to some broad consensus, and the era of the magic wolf is coming to an end.

  • GoldDust

    Expect this will catch on and be the new normal, anti hunting/environmentalist/ anti wolf management people will be following hunters around on public lands. Nothing good will come of this, unless escalating the division and angst between consumptive users managing wild carnivores for the preservation of consumptive use and people that are simply anti hunting/anti wolf or wild carnivore management is a good thing. Civil war..

    It’s come to this;

    “Friends of the Wolf, I am asking for your support to get my team of wolf defenders in the field September 15th, for the opening weekend of Montana’s wolf hunting season. Our objective is to prevent the death of the six wolves from Yellowstone National Park that can legally be trapped or shot by sport hunters. With your support, I pledge to dedicate my efforts throughout the Fall to publicizing and exposing the travesty that is wolf management in Montana, Wisconsin and Minnesota.” —Convicted Eco Terrorist Rodney Coronado

    News Release

    Activist Teams Enter Yellowstone Backcountry To Document And Protest Montana Wolf Hunt
    Contact (satellite phone) 881-631-613-954.

    Sept 14, 2014: Americans outraged with the killing of wolves from Yellowstone National Park (YNP) have organized the Yellowstone Wolf Patrol, whose members have entered the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness to monitor and document Montana’s wolf hunt which begins September 15th.

    Nine members of the Wolf Patrol are currently trailing hunters, who in the last two years, have killed wolves belonging to packs originating from YNP where hunting is prohibited. Wolf Patrol members are opposed to the sport hunting of wolves in Wolf Management Units (WMU) 313 and 316, and are asking Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) to immediately stop the hunt before more wolves are killed.

    Yellowstone wolves cross over from the park into WMU 313/316 where since 2012, twelve have been killed by hunters. At least three of the wolves shot in the 2012/2013 season were of high social rank (alpha female or beta male), thus negatively affecting reproduction, hunting behavior, and territorial defense of these unique packs. 7 of 10 (70%) packs living primarily in YNP had at least one wolf killed by hunters.

    Wolf hunting in WMU’s 313 & 316, negatively impacts the local economy, including wildlife guide companies, hotels, restaurants, park tourism, and other wildlife-observation-based industries.

    Yellowstone National Park is one of the few places left in the world where wolves can not only be studied, but also provide tourists from all over the world an opportunity to see a wild wolf. The recreational
    killing of apex predators is negatively impacting important predator research while also robbing wildlife watchers of a once in a lifetime opportunity.

    Yellowstone Wolf Patrol supports the growing economy in wolf tourism, and believes that MFWP is catering to a few special sport hunting interests, all at the expense of one of our nation’s most pristine

    “In allowing the killing of Yellowstone wolves, MFWP is not just shooting wolves, but also itself in the foot, because this hunt is giving the entire tourism industry a black eye.” says Patrol member, Julie Henry, “We are not opposed to Montana residents filling their freezers with elk, but the wolves were here first, and deserve protection from recreational killing.”

  • wolf moderate

    Thanks for the laugh! What are these whacos thinking.