“War on Wolves Act” Senators from Midwest and Wyoming introduce bill to strip protections from endangered gray wolves

January 24, 2017 Washington, D.C. —

Senators from Minnesota, Wisconsin and Wyoming yesterday introduced the “War on Wolves Act,” a companion bill to legislation introduced last week in the House that would strip federal protections from wolves and allow trophy hunting and trapping of the species in four states.

If the legislation passes both chambers and gets signed by the president, it would hand the fate of wolves in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Wyoming over to states whose management wolf plans two federal courts ruled inadequate to securing the species at legally required population levels in absence of Endangered Species Act protections.

In Wyoming, this would allow the state to resume a hostile management program that allowed for unlimited shoot-on-sight killing of wolves across 85 percent of the state. The legislation would further strip citizens of the right to challenge these lethal programs in court. The appeals process of two federal court decisions that restored federal protections to wolves in those four states are still underway. Decisions on those cases are expected any day.

The following is a statement from Marjorie Mulhall, Senior Legislative Counsel at Earthjustice:

“A new congress has resurfaced an old vendetta against imperiled wolves. If this legislation is signed into law, wolves in Wyoming will be subjected to unregulated killing across the vast majority of the state, and even on the borders of Yellowstone National Park numerous legal loopholes will authorize widespread wolf killing.

Americans widely hailed the return of wolves to the Northern Rockies two decades ago as a triumph of the Endangered Species Act, but now this ‘War on Wolves Act’ would allow for the same unregulated killing that nearly wiped out the species in the first place.

 Politicians should not meddle in the science-based listing status of a particular species at any stage, but now is an especially bad time as these cases are still playing out in the courts. We urge those who support the protection of wolves to call their senators and representatives and tell them to vote down this lethal legislation.”

Responses to "Minnesota, Wisconsin and Wyoming have decided to eradicate wolves"

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 252 of 252   Newer›   Newest»
  1. Anonymous says:

    There is solid,scientific evidence that wolves enrich the area they are in in multiple ways. This has been documented and filmed. Who are the rancher's who want them dead? Trophy hunting? Disgusting.Idaho tried this. You would think we would know more about our environment and the balance that is required to keep it healthy rathaer than ALWAYS GOING FOR $$$$$$!!

  2. Anonymous says:

    So sad, this just cannot happen

  3. Once again America Why ?? We already know that this will fuck up the eco system as shown in the Yellowstone National park footage of releasing the wolves back in it fixed it .. IS THERE A PETITION for this ?

  4. Anonymous says:


  5. Unknown says:

    RezQDogs - agree 100%. I always find it hilarious when people have such strong opinions as Anonymous, but not the guts to identify themselves. De-listing wolves would be a calamity. We were in Yellowstone last fall and attended a "lecture", at a wolf and grizzly conservation centre. The decimation of the wolf population had far-reaching effects and I cannot understand why these nitwits can't get it through their heads, that if you remove or weaken, any one species it affects all the others - including plants and treess. It's outrageous.

  6. Anonymous says:

    How about an analogy that you save everything conservationists might even be able to understand. Lets just say that you have rats in your house and they are breeding and multiplying and are eating your food every night. You would like to get rid of them, but some judge in Washington D.C. tells you that there aren't enough rats and that you can't harm them. Now extrapolate that to the guy that I talked with in Rhinelander, Wisconsin who had his pet labrador killed by wolves in his own back yard. Do you think that you or that guy is going to tell yourself that those animals are cute, cuddly and furry? Nope, neither did he. Shoot, shovel and shut up which is also know as the three S rule in the state.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Leave them alone they are a beautiful animal why do people think that it ok to hurt them,you all should be ashamed just for think about this item makes my blood boil. How would you like to be hunted!!!!!

  8. Anonymous says:

    There have been more constructive rational replies here from the pro hunting and trapping group than any of you emotional, save everything types with nothing what so ever to substantiate your argument for saving wolves. Lets put things into perspective with an analogy that even you can understand. Lets say that your house has rats and they are breeding and multiplying. They are eating your food and destroying your property every evening. Now some judge out in Washington D.C. has passed a law that says rats are all protected because there are not enough of them. Lets extrapolate that to a conversation that I had with a man from Rhinelander, Wisconsin who had his pet labrador killed by wolves right in his own back yard. Do you think that you are going to let some law prevent you or him from doing everything that you can to get rid of the problem? I don't think so and we employ what we call the three S rule here which stands for shoot, shovel and shut up.

  9. ResQDogZ says:

    Anonymous - are "rats" an indigenous, endangered or threatened species? Was that hapless companion animal - living in an area known to be a home territory of predators - under constant observation/supervision by his guardian/owner? As much as I sympathize with that unfortunate and devastating loss, the responsibility for a companion's safety and security lies with his/her guardian: Personally, I NEVER leave my ten "forevers" outdoors, unsupervised or unattended - even within the confines of their 6' chain linked perimeter - mostly, to preclude predation and malevolence from our OWN "species"...
    And just so you know? We reside in far northern Minnesota - home to wolf, bear, bobcat, and (declining) moose populations - so we're well aware of predators and the precautions we must implement, living in THEIR environment.

  10. Barrie from PA. says:

    Stand up to these 8 people who will spell doom for hundreds Wolves.Contact your US Senators. (2 for every state)and plead with them to keep the Federal Regulations to protect Wolves in place.

  11. Irene says:

    These beautiful creatures deserve to live.

  12. Anonymous says:

    This is disgusting you must not let them do this

  13. Anonymous says:

    The Republicans say the are for "Right to Life", but that can't be because they only want to destroy life at every level. They are the party of hate and destruction. With any kind of luck maybe some of their gun toting lunatics will destroy some of them.

  14. Blaming wolfs for the decrease in elk and moose populations is like blaming cormorants for eating all the salmon in the Snake and Columbia Rivers. The Corp is preparing to exterminate them. It's so sad.

  15. Unknown says:

    To Anonymous at 11:37
    You are a complete idiot. Wolves are one of the most sacred animals to the indigenous tribes. It is the white man who has killed them almost to extinction. Do some reading first if you know how to before making dumbass comments about something you know nothing about!!!

  16. Anonymous says:

    Ranchers and farmers will kill anything that in anyway damages or lessens the market value of their "product". We have already managed to kill 85,000,000 buffalo which had the nerve to eat the grass ranchers presumed to think belonged to their cows. We slaughtered 5,500,000,000 (that's 5.5 trillion) passenger pigeons primarily because they landed in huge flocks on farmers’ fields and trees. I’ll support the wolves, humans don’t seem to be having any problem expanding their population like lemmings across a dying planet.

  17. Anonymous says:

    If we are talking National parks where no hunting is allowed you might want to look at the Isle Royale graphs of how wolf predation has diminished the moose population there. When the wolf population is up the moose population goes down and the reverse is also true. There is no hunting or other predators on Isle Royale except the wolves. That said Wyoming, Minnesota and Wisconsin ARE heavily hunted states totally capable of managing their wildlife through hunting. Hunters contribute billions of dollars annually for conservation not only for the hunted species, but the entire natural environment. How much are you bleeding heart liberal bunny huggers contributing?

  18. Anonymous says:

    Eradication should be geared towards tyrant, sociopath murderers, instead. The world would be a better and safer place!

  19. ResQDogZ says:

    To the "anonymous" troglodyte citing Isle Royal graphs (alone), I suggest you actually try READING THE ENTIRE HISTORY to gain the TRUE perspective of that unique location - perhaps next time, BEFORE you embarrass yourself with inaccurate assumptions (can you say "alternative facts"???):


  20. JOyce says:

    https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/r3wolfrec.htm First the taxpayer pays to eradicate, then pays to protect, then pays to eradicate, then pays to protect. Sounds like the wolves belong to US not the politicians or ranchers that don't want to lose their free grazing rights.

  21. Anonymous says:

    All species have a "RIGHT TO LIFE "

  22. ME says:

    Most people are saying NO!! But the government does whatever it wants no matter what the PEOPLE say. :( Our government are nothing but TERRORISTS!!! Money making entity who is EVIL!!!

  23. We are killing all species at an alarming rate- why are wicked killing cattle? Because we have decimated the elk and deer herds that used to Ross these lands. Stop the killing! Establish an ecosystem that allows these beautiful animals to live!

  24. Anonymous says:

    It would be great to have an easy way to share this on Twitter. Just a thought...

  25. Unknown says:

    This is heinous. Wolves balance the ecosystem.

  26. Anonymous says:

    ResQ... you are so typical of the concrete conservation sanitized society when you cannot offer a constructive rational opposing argument, then you resort to name calling. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, go back and reread some of the dark age drivel these anti-everything people are writing here. Actually I do know quite a bit about Isle Royale National Park and have personally hiked on Isle Royale Island. You? I only use that as an example because someone else brought up Yellowstone National Park and if anything Isle Royale is a much better example of the balance of nature in a pure predator prey environment. The key words there though are "National Park" which isn't representative of Wyoming, Minnesota or Wisconsin. Wisconsin as an example has probably the best managed deer herd in the entire country, but their hands are tied because some judge out east will not let the wolves be managed at the state level where they should be. And I did say managed, not eradicated.

  27. ResQDogZ says:

    "Anonymous" (not proud enough of your opinion to identify yourself, are you?):
    I proudly wear your "concrete conservation sanitized society" member label as a compliment (despite your intended negative connotation)... as opposed to the arrogance of those humans who - in their self-righteous, self-aggrandizing egotism - feel that hunting/culling/killing is their God-given prerogative, and that they alone possess supreme knowledge about what is good and proper "population management"...
    Thanks for "nit-picking" with respect to my suggestion that poster here actually READ the entire Isle Royal study (conducted for decades) to perhaps find applicability to the balance between these two natural species - moose and wolf - toward a broader perspective than to apply that knowledge solely to a minute, exclusive area within defined boundaries (your "national park" vs. "open space", specious contention)>
    But hey - if you're content with your myopic concentration and narrow scope - more power to ya!

  28. Anonymous says:

    You pathetic sacks of shit. Leave the innocent wolves alone. I wish your mothers fell down massive flights of stairs when you were in the womb

  29. Unknown says:

    Watch the You Tube videos on how the wolves brought back the rivers. We need them; they are part of the ecological system!!!!

  30. God says:

    More people are killed by humans daily than wolves (forget about yearly)
    So why don't you go fix the problem with humanity before you go turn your blind rage onto these majestic animals

  31. Anonymous says:

    Wolves seldom attack humans, in fact very few records of them doing so exist. As long as there is plenty of natural prey, wolves prefer not to attack domestic livestock.

  32. Unknown says:

    Is there a petition going on to fight this? If not we need to make one!!!

  33. Anonymous says:

    DNA tests show that wolves in Minnesota are the remnants of wolf packs that once roamed the Great Plains in the USA. They are not "timber wolves" as once believed. Wolves in Wisconsin originate from Minnesota wolf packs that radiated eastward into Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula. As such, Minnesota and Wisconsin wolves represent the only viable remaining populations of wolves originally from the lower 48 states. They should be left alone.

  34. It is wrong to kill innocent animals who have done nothing to anyone. If the population gets too large, then move them to another state or trap and spay/neuter them. But it is INHUMANE to kill an animal in the wild simply because man wants to pass a law! They are an endangered species and need protection from man not annihilation! STOP this madness and worry about killing criminals that are the real threat to our society today!!

  35. Unknown says:

    As a Texan very interested in the biology and ecology I would like to urge against this. I'm aware I'm no where near those states but since this sounds like a federal case is it worth it to reach out to my Texas representatives?

  36. Anonymous says:

    According to the Wisconsin DNR, a wolf kills 20 deer a year and their diet consists of 80% whitetail deer. Where is all the misguided compassion for the poor deer herd? Maybe a trip to Barns & Noble to pick up the book "The Real Wolf" would be a good read for most of you.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, and if a wolf pack can normally be made up of from two to nine wolves, probably a normal pair and a litter and Wisconsin has at least double the 350 packs that they think they can support, lets do the math. Figure 5-6 wolves to a pack even though packs as large as thirty have been observed. 700 packs times 5 wolves is 3,500 wolves in the state mostly in the northern half. 3,500 wolves times 20 deer each is an annual mortality of 70,000 deer! That is unsustainable.

  38. ResQDogZ says:

    Yet another "Anonymous" write:

    "3,500 wolves times 20 deer each is an annual mortality of 70,000 deer! That is unsustainable."

    According to the Wisconsin DNR (last updated in January 10, 2017), for the 2016 deer hunting season(s) 235,225 licensed bow hunters and 598,867 licensed gun hunters killed the following number of deer:
    Archery season: 48,107
    Crossbow season: 39,621
    Gun deer season: 202,102

    That's actual, recorded, statical data stating 289,830 deer were killed by hunters for "sport" (and let's not trot out that tiresome, invalid argument that some were killed for "meat", as there are plentiful alternative farmer-direct and supermarket sources for such protein requirement), vs. your unsupported hypothesized figure of 70,000 wolf kill.

    I would submit if there is ANY species responsible for your hysterical "unsustainable" concern, you should look in the mirror and join your fellow-hunters in finding your "slaughter-sport" elsewhere... like the "unsustainable" human mortality rate attributable to the wanton, irresponsible proliferation of firearms in this country!

    Kindly stop your inaccurate characterization of the wolf species - an historically natural participant in the environment balance - as depriving you of your selfish need to kill something - ANYTHING!

  39. ResQDogZ says:

    And to the other less-than-courageous "Anonymous" poster, who postulated "one thing, I would venture a guess that all of you great animal loving "conservationists" are all pro choice. It always seems to be that way. No concern for the million plus babies that are slaughtered every year, but heaven forbid kill an animal. Now that is truly disturbing."

    Let me suggest - if you're so intent on establishing "quotas" on environmental "sustainability" - that you redirect your inappropriately contemptuous disdain for pro-choice advocates toward population control of the only species that actually, demonstrably DOES threaten the existence of every living thing on this planet: "man-kind", (the quintessential oxymoron, if ever there was)!

  40. Anonymous says:

    This makes me sick. Where do we protest? Who do we call?

  41. STOP YOU SICK SICK PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  42. Anonymous says:

    War on Wolves Act should not pass would allow for the same unregulated killing that nearly wiped out the species in the first place.

  43. Unknown says:

    Please do not pass this bill! Wolves are here for a reason and a good reason for the balance of nature. All you idiots do is to make some of our animals extinct from your stupid moves. This is their land and just because you decide to settle there does not give you the right to eradicate the wolves who were there first! Learn to co-exsist!

  44. Anonymous says:

    Stop this ridiculous killing of wolves, they are necessary! Every wild creature is part of the natural balance. Humans are not good for the planet.

  45. jaspur says:

    I propose a bill to eradicate those senators and the people who support them.

  46. Anonymous says:

    You guys are sick, low, and disgusting. Anyone who agrees with this needs to give their damn head a shake!! Absolutely horrible!

  47. Anonymous says:

    I've been away for a few days, so I thought I would check in to see how you environMENTALists (i.e. nut cases) are getting on with your remedial wolf writings. ResQ wants to redirect the topic to babies and abortion, wow! And what possible difference does it make if I sign myself as "Anonymous" like so many of the rest of you and now I'm a bad guy because I can put forth valid, rational support for managing the gray wolf population. I don't chastise you for your recreational shopping, golf playing or what ever it is that you like to do to recreate, so why am I the bad guy just because I like to hunt and fish and enjoy nature? Yesterday I walked 4.3 miles through the woods and saw exactly one set of deer tracks and more predator tracks. Today I'm just back from another nature walk where I saw absolutely nothing for wildlife while most of you don't even leave your couch or fenced back yard. Most of you are suggesting that the 834,092 of us that bought a Wisconsin deer hunting licence should stop deer hunting and let the wolves manage the deer herd. Another WOW! Please visit: huntingworksforwisconsin.com to see that hunting in Wisconsin has a ripple effect of 4 billion dollars annually to the state. How much are you huggers contributing? I have deer using my yard ten feet away from the front door eating my hostas down to ground level, but I'd much rather have that than wolves in my yard attacking my labrador retriever and that is what you would have if they were not regulated. Wisconsin has tried to reintroduce an elk population into the Clam Lake area in the northwest portion of the state and all they are doing is feeding the wolf population. Kentucky in contrast has no wolves and their elk reintroduction program has been a tremendous success such that they are exporting surplus elk into other states including Wisconsin. There could be a lesson there for those of you with any kind of a rational mind.

  48. ResQDogZ says:

    ResQDogZ (that's me) did NOT introduce the babies/abortion irrelevancy - yet another nameless troll did that, while further attempting to assign character flaw to "environmentalists" and those of us who cherish the sanctity of life (in addition to our own species, which the preponderance of white male, "entitled" and anonymous poster who troll this and other blogs hold in utter disregard).

    "I don't chastise you for your recreational shopping, golf playing or what ever it is that you like to do to recreate, so why am I the bad guy just because I like to hunt and fish and enjoy nature"

    Perhaps your conscience is telling you you're the "bad guy", because for OUR "recreational pursuits" , we do NOT "enjoy" nor involve taking the lives of others as a means to "recreate"... which is anything BUT similarly "sporting or enjoyable" for the victim of your amusement.

    And WHY does the argument for justification from you people ALWAYS come down to MONEY??? Is that your sole value???

    And how does Kentucky's "reintroduction" program - such a "tremendous success... that they're exporting SURPLUS elk" correlate to your self-proclaimed necessity to "hunt" and cull wildlife populations as mandatory to maintain the "balance of nature"???

    You might just as well skip the reintroduction of species into the wild, and simply expand your canned "hunting farms", since they're obviously too many for Kentucky's "natural - sans predators - environment' to sustain, and those proliferating numbers merely serve to support your personal assertion of the need to kill as part of some twisted "natural order" in which the hunter is portrayed as some magnanimous, benevolent overseer.

    Try reading the research from the State of Kentucky: "Elk are native to KY and were present until the mid 1880’s, when the population was eliminated due to habitat degradation and overhunting. This is why the Kentucky elk program is considered a restoration, not an introduction.[The Elk Program] funding is provided through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, boating registration fees, and federal grants based on the number of licenses sold in the state. The Elk Program is tasked with managing the elk herd in the state to provide ample hunting opportunity while balancing the needs of consumptive and non-consumptive user groups."

    So it seems their program exists primarily to provide "ample hunting opportunity", so it only seems fair that hunters pay for that "privilege"...

    I really feel for your hosta... (a non-native species of Asian origin, first imported to Europe in the mid 19th century and later to the U.S. - a favorite food of deer, rabbits, voles, slugs and snails - and highly toxic to dogs, cats, and horses), introduced on "your land" (in a region populated by deer and wolves LONG before our species advance our inexorable encroachment and decimation of "their" environment. I, too, have hosta - and lilies, which my local deer population are welcome to enjoy. If their loss is so devastating, why not replant with local, indigenous flora that deer DON'T find attractive... like milkweed, to help reintroduce and sustain imperiled monarch butterfly and bumblebee populations?

  49. Anonymous says:

    Well Q, I guess that we will just need to agree to disagree on a number of different issues. Money isn't my be all end all, but the states certainly would be in bad shape without the revenue that outdoor recreation including hunting provides. That four billion dollars annually for Wisconsin is 4,000 million dollars and that is a very significant contribution when you stop to think that a city like Green Bay is ecstatic for a five million dollar boost to their economy for a home Packer game. A deer herd will double their size in three years if they are not being managed through hunting, predation or starvation because they have eaten the winter range forbs foods down to nothing. You would be looking for an influx of those hunting, magnanimous, benevolent overseers when the deer population overpopulates to the levels seen out on the east coat and you risk a $3,000. deer collision car repair every time you leave your driveway. Hunters eat the meat that venison provides to their family and because wild venison has no antibiotics or fat marbling in their muscle tissue like beef or pork, it is very low in cholesterol and way healthier for people to eat. Starvation or wolf predation seems a colossal waste of the resource to say nothing of the cruelty of being eaten alive by a wolf. You seem to think that hunters enjoy killing animals. Reminds me of a tenant of mine who said that I must "hate" deer because I hunted them. Nothing could be further from the truth as most of us ave a great deal of respect for the animals that we hunt. I don't hunt deer just to kill one, I hunt for the experience of being able to hunt them. This last year I passed on five different bucks and never fired a shot, so I might be an exception. Unless you are a card carrying vegetarian, a deer, elk, moose in the wild is a meat source and while people can buy meat at the store, all you are doing is paying for someone else to have killed and processed your meat source.

  50. Anonymous says:

    These animals have as much right to live as we do. Why must everything be about "killing" today!!Man is the threat to everything...Not the other way around!!For God sakes~~Leave the wolves alone***Put forth some time & effort into saving them not destroying them...You should all be ashamed of yourselves****You make me sick to my stomach■

  51. Anonymous says:

    The wolves were eradicated once from Wyoming and they had to be reintroduced. Look up keystone species.

    Wolves are an important part of the ecosystem and to introduce legislation is the height of human folly. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

  52. Anonymous says:

    That Sucks! What a bunch of losers. We need wolves for our eco system.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 252 of 252   Newer› Newest»

Write a comment