u/FabricCurvature01

In January, a hunter killed a protected Colorado wolf, mistaking it for a coyote. There has been a lot of criticism of how lenient the punishment was (a citation, and a $140 fine), but not a lot of commentary on why this person was out there killing coyotes in the first place.

Colorado has at least banned killing contests, but coyote killing is rampant (clearly). Killing coyotes serves no purpose other than entertainment for the killer. Coyotes under stress will breed at a faster rate. Further, killing disrupts family structure, creating more transient individuals; who are more likely to predate on livestock. Therefore, if the objective of killing coyotes is to reduce livestock conflicts, precisely the opposite is likely to happen.

Our treatment of our wild predators is abysmal. I was reading Dan Flores’ Coyote America, and was shocked at how the Bureau of Biological Survey (later to be absorbed into the UWFWS) carried out a vicious extermination campaign against our wild canids from the 1880s through the mid twentieth century. 

Among their most abhorrent techniques was laying millions of strychnine tablets across the west. Animals would suffer painful muscle spasms, and die in unnatural, rigid, positions. I wonder if, as a society, our indifference towards wildlife has been caused, in part, by federally and state sponsored killing. There must be a broad conversation around wildlife ethics. 

Montana’s FWP has finally admitted that that their iPOM model-based wolf population estimates were wrong: Something conservation groups have been saying for years. They have revised the numbers down from 1094 to 725; a reduction of 369 wolves. What’s even more troubling, however, is that Montana is still pursuing an aggressive hunting and trapping quota of 250; roughly 1/3 of Montana’s wolf population. 

Here’s a look at the dramatic reduction in wolf population over the last few years according to the revised iPOM model (iPOM 2.0) from their report:

https://preview.redd.it/bm3lrv5ev6ih1.png?width=976&format=png&auto=webp&s=d6176c04ef3d0e4e438de952d3230d0797627474

The ‘harvest’ is far too aggressive. By the FWP’s own admission, according to iPOM 2.0, the wolf population could drop below the 15 breeding pairs needed to sustain a population within 3 years (see bottom of page 39 in the report). In fact, if you look at the 95% confidence interval for the current population level (618 - 836), hunting and trapping 250 wolves (on top of removals by the FWP) could put them below sustainable levels within a year. The proposal does not leave any margin for disease and poaching either. Some biologists argue that iPOM 2.0 overestimates the population significantly as well.

Tell the Montana FWS that this quota is too aggressive. Call for a moratorium on hunts. At the very least, ask for a drastic reduction in the quota. You can submit your comments here (select the dropdown "Fall 2026 - Winter 2027 Furbearer / Wolf Hunting and Trapping Seasons, Quotas, and Regulations"). Comments are especially helpful if you live in MT, and comments are needed by the 12th.

Wolf hunts are simply not necessary. Recent studies have shown that wolf hunts do not reduce depredation numbers significantly, because wolf depredation numbers are already low (68 in 2025, and 62 in 2024, for MT). Another study from the university of Montana has shown that 74% of the public are either very tolerant of wolves, or tolerant of wolves, and want them protected.

You can borrow talking points from this post by the NY Wolf Conservation Center.

Montana’s FWP has finally admitted that that their iPOM model-based wolf population estimates were wrong: Something conservation groups have been saying for years. They have revised the numbers down from 1094 to 725; a reduction of 369 wolves. What’s even more troubling, however, is that Montana is still pursuing an aggressive hunting and trapping quota of 250; roughly 1/3 of Montana’s wolf population. 

Here’s a look at the dramatic reduction in wolf population over the last few years according to the revised iPOM model (iPOM 2.0) from their report:

https://preview.redd.it/xe4gh2laetgh1.png?width=976&format=png&auto=webp&s=32155b5593c0a82af147c2abb3a9841c98640ea7

The ‘harvest’ is far too aggressive. By the FWP’s own admission, according to iPOM 2.0, the wolf population could drop below the 15 breeding pairs needed to sustain a population within 3 years (see bottom of page 39 in the report). In fact, if you look at the 95% confidence interval for the current population level (618 - 836), hunting and trapping 250 wolves (on top of removals by the FWP) could put them below sustainable levels within a year. The proposal does not leave any margin for disease and poaching either.

Tell the Montana FWS that this quota is too aggressive. You can submit your comments here (select the dropdown "Fall 2026 - Winter 2027 Furbearer / Wolf Hunting and Trapping Seasons, Quotas, and Regulations"). Comments are especially helpful if you live in MT.

Wolf hunts are simply not necessary. Recent studies have shown that wolf hunts do not reduce depredation numbers significantly, because wolf depredation numbers are already low (68 in 2025, and 62 in 2024, for MT). Also, a recent study for the university of Montana has shown that 74% of the public are either very tolerant of wolves, or tolerant of wolves, and want them protected.

You can borrow talking points from this post by the NY Wolf Conservation Center.

Montana’s FWP has finally admitted that the iPOM models they’ve used to estimate wolf populations have been overestimating wolf populations. They’ve now revised down their estimate from 1094 to 725, which is a huge change. This confirms what conservation groups have been saying for years - that the wolf hunt quotas are far too aggressive.

In fact, in 2025, a federal judge ruled that wolves in the Northern Rockies wrongfully denied protections. One of the concerns was the errors in measurement of wolf populations. Now we can see first hand what that means. The Montana FWS has had to reduce its population estimate by over 300.

The sad part is that wolf hunts aren’t even beneficial, as suggested in this study. Livestock depredation numbers are already low (62 for 2024, and 65 for 2025). These numbers are minuscule compared to deaths from disease, and even livestock deaths caused by domestic dogs.

On top of this, Section 125 of the Appropriations Bill is still alive in congress. This section would remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves everywhere, despite the valid concerns about the health of populations. This bill, as written, should not pass.

Yellowstone's oldest wolf pack, Mollie's Pack, has been spotted outside Yellowstone National Park (in Wyoming). Wyoming's wolf hunting season begins 9/15. Although there were pleas to close the hunting season in the area in which the pack dispersed, Wyoming Game and Fish approved killing up to four individuals in the area (area 1). From the article:

“They are one of the most studied, scientifically important wolf families in the world,” Marc Cooke told commissioners. “Once they are gone, decades of irreplaceable knowledge are gone with them.” 

Cooke, who’s the vice president of Wolves of the Rockies, the day before had emailed Game and Fish commissioners a letter asking them to temporarily close hunt area 1.  

“Wyoming has been getting pretty beat up lately with some wildlife issues, and I think there’s an opportunity here for you folks to do the right thing,” Cooke said. 

This is all very sad, and is likely a death sentence for the wolves, given how hostile Wyoming is to wolves. This comes on the back of the distemper outbreak that killed a significant number of wolves this past year. Also, park wolves don’t fear humans the same way other wolves do, and may not avoid hunters.

I am going through regular news papers to see what they have said about veganism, animal exploitation, etc.

​

Found this and more of this in The Guardian

"They were father and son, roaming Catron County as part of the Sawtooth pack. Within a month of each other, both collared Mexican gray wolves were trapped on private property near Datil.

The father was left to die of thirst before his body was placed beside a highway, according to authorities. The son was shot in the spine and beaten over the head, his body moved onto public lands where cattle graze."

This is yet another attack on gray wolves by Dave Prestin (R-Cedar River). Wolf depredation livestock losses are minimal, and there is no evidence that wolf hunts are effective in any meaningful way. This is simply an effort to placate lobbyists, including trophy hunters. If you reside in Michigan, call your reps and ask them to oppose this bill.

If calling your reps is time-consuming, you can use forms like this one.

A reminder that proponents of wolf hunts do not represent the majority of Americans. Even among rural communities where wolves reside, support for wolf protections is strong.

The Senator Mike Lee squeezed an amendment that would end the Roadless Area Conservation Rule into an unrelated bill: Senate Bill 140 (the so-called “Wildfire Prevention Act”).

The Trump administration’s proposal to destroy the Roadless Rule is extremely unpopular, so he’s now trying a backdoor amendment to an unrelated bill. Tell your senators to vote no on SB 140.

Needless to say, over 99% of Americans want the Roadless Rule protected.

The House Appropriations Committee has passed a funding bill that undermines the Endangered Species Act: It includes 21 poison pill riders that would remove protection for vulnerable species. It includes provisions that delist wolves nationwide, delist grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, and block protections for wolverines. Section 125 of the bill not only delists gray wolves, but also prevents judicial review; which is especially sinister.

The bill also slashes the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s budget by 5%, and slashes the ESA listing budget by $7million. In addition to this, the bill cuts EPA funding by 20%, and enforcement by $169million.

A descriptions of all poison pill riders are listed here in a letter sent to the Appropriations Committee by a group of over 80 conservation groups.

Here’s a statement by the Center for Biological Diversity on the bill.

Urge your congressional reps to remove the riders in the spending bill that undermine wildlife and the environment.

You can use form submissions as well. Here’s one from the NY Wolf Conservation Center. However, calling is much more effective.

The House Appropriations Committee has passed a funding bill that undermines the Endangered Species Act: It includes 21 poison pill riders that would remove protection for vulnerable species. It includes provisions that delist wolves nationwide, delist grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, and block protections for wolverines. Section 125 of the bill not only delists gray wolves, but also prevents judicial review; which is especially sinister.

The bill also slashes the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s budget by 5%, and slashes the ESA listing budget by $7million. In addition to this, the bill cuts EPA funding by 20%, and enforcement by $169million.

A descriptions of all poison pill riders are listed here in a letter sent to the Appropriations Committee by a group of over 80 conservation groups.

Here’s a statement by the Center for Biological Diversity on the bill.

Urge your congressional reps to remove the riders in the spending bill that undermine wildlife and the environment.