Idaho Fish and Game releases details of its wolf-trapper investigation

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game said in writing today that Josh Bransford legally trapped a wolf in the Red River area near Elk City on March 18.

Bransford had checked his trap the day before and it was empty. He had 72 hours before he would have been to check it again to be legal.

The agency responded to two environmental groups, which criticized the investigation, saying investigators had no evidence that the wolf had been shot by others. F&G said wardens and Idaho County Sheriff’s deputies had interviewed potential witnesses, but could not confirm reports that the wolf had been shot.

“Fish and Game has not found or received reliable evidence regarding the identity of any such individuals or of illegal conduct,” wrote Fish and Game Director Virgil Moore.

The letters were sent to the Center for Biodiversity and the Friends of the Clearwater.

The story generated national headlines and outrage after Bransford posted a photo of himself with the wolf while it was trapped but still alive.

Here is Fish and Game’s official summary:

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game has received numerous phone calls, emails and letters regarding a photograph taken of a licensed Idaho trapper and a live, trapped wolf taken last month along the Red River in north-central Idaho. The trapper later posted the photograph on a website forum for trappers, generating interest and controversy.

The taking of the photo of a trapper with a live, trapped wolf, and the trapper's posting of this photo online are contrary to the ethics and humane responsibility that Idaho Fish and Game teaches in wolf trapper and hunter education classes. This action reflects poor judgment. However, the trapping and harvest of the wolf were lawful according to our investigation.

There were also reports of shooting at the wolf by others, but Fish and Game has not found or received reliable evidence regarding the identity of any such individuals or of illegal conduct.

* On March 18, 2012, Idaho Fish and Game District Conservation Officer George Fischer received a phone call from a trapper who wanted to check a wolf he trapped and subsequently killed earlier that day. DCO Fischer checked in the wolf. It was a male, approximately 3-4 years old with black fur. The trapper had the necessary trapping license and tag and had attended Idaho Fish and Game's mandatory wolf trapping class. The trapper said he caught the wolf on private land in the Red River drainage in a trap set approximately 300 yards from the Red River road.

* The trapper said he checked the trap the night before (March 17) but the trap was empty. The following morning, the trapper received a call from a U. S. Forest Service Law Enforcement Officer notifying him that there was a wolf in the trap, located in a meadow west of the Red River road. When the trapper arrived on scene, he said he used a snowmobile to approach the wolf, which began to fidget as he got closer. He stopped the snowmobile and approached the wolf on foot and waited for it to stop moving so that he could dispatch it. It was during this time the trapper said he posed for a photograph with the live wolf in the background.

* The wolf hunting season was still open at the time the wolf was trapped. The trapper reported seeing "nicks" in the wolf's lower hind legs that he speculated may have been caused by a bullet or bullets fired at the wolf before he arrived on the scene.

* DCO Fischer talked to the Forest Service law enforcement officer, who said the trapper told him he thought someone had shot at the wolf before the trapper arrived on the scene. The officer said he had spoken with a party of woodcutters working on the opposite side of the road from where the wolf was trapped.

* DCO Fischer also talked to a deputy sheriff who arrived on the scene the morning the wolf was trapped. The deputy visited with a member of the woodcutting party, as well as a person out for a walk on the road. The deputy also spoke with three hunters who were driving on the road and stopped while the deputy was talking to the woodcutter. The Forest Service Officer and the deputy did not observe anyone shoot at the wolf and did not receive any indication that any of the individuals they contacted shot at the wolf. Later in the day, the deputy saw the trapper after the wolf was harvested. The trapper told him he thought someone else had shot at the wolf and showed him the "nicks." However, the deputy told Fischer he was not convinced the marks were caused by a bullet.


DCO Fischer believes the wolf was legally trapped and harvested. To date, no one has provided eyewitness information of anyone shooting from the road or of someone other than the trapper shooting the wolf.

It is illegal in Idaho to shoot from a public roadway or to intentionally interfere with lawful trapping. If anyone witnessed that this did indeed occur, they should contact the Citizens Against Poaching hotline at 1-800-632-5999.
However, people should not use CAP hotline resources if they cannot provide witness information.


Idaho Fish and Game repeatedly reminds hunters, trappers and anglers that they are ambassadors for their activities. Idaho requires all wolf trappers to take a trapping class prior to engaging in trapping.

Idaho Fish and Game devotes a significant portion of the wolf trapping class to trapping ethics. In fact, Fish and Game tells attendees that ethics and responsibility are the most important things the class will cover. The wolf trapping class emphasizes respect for animals, including quick and humane dispatch of the animal. Idaho Fish and Game quotes Aldo Leopold in its wolf trapping and hunter education classes: "Ethics is doing the right thing when no one else is looking, even though the wrong thing is still legal."

To charge someone with a crime, there must be probable cause that a specific person acted in violation of a law based on reliable, factual information. Anonymous or otherwise unreliable reports are not sufficient to charge someone with a crime. And just because an action involves poor judgment or unethical behavior does not make it illegal.

Trapper Not Affiliated with Idaho Fish and Game:

The trapper was not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Fish and Game. The trapper was conducting activities in a private capacity, and it is not appropriate for Fish and Game to provide the public with information regarding the trapper's employer or to provide contact information for the trapper.

wolf in trap


This animal was inhumanely treated. If this is legal, it shouldn't be.

You are correct.

This is not sportsman behavior.


This animal was put in here inhumanely. How do you think they got here? They were trapped.
Now people are finding wolves in some places in Idaho that are chewing off their own feet due to cheat grass allergies. How humane is that? They eat their feet right up above the first joint on their toes to try to remove the cheat grass. Boy No one ever thought of that sensitivity. (Cheat grass burrows into skin especially between the toes) No i'm not going to prove I'm right. I've seen that mess. You just prove me wrong. BTW. It is mostly in the fall.

Trapper Legal

These animals who again are not the same timber wolf that inhabited these lands many years ago need to have their numbers reduced in order for our elk, deer and other animals a given chance to survive.....hunting alone will not get the job done....and trapping is just another way of getting their numbers down...although this fella took it a little too far with the pic and all......The folks who pushed this Federal ruling on the state of Idaho should have thought about this possible situation from occuring if they had thought twice about bringing in a oversized caribou killer from the Great North to bring back the quote...Natural State..... Idaho is as natural as it can be with the human population that we have here and with those that visit. Wolve must be managed!

The folks who pushed this Federal ruling on the state

You mean the late Republican senator James McClure right? Or the US legislature right? Look it up. It's on the Idaho Department of Fish and Game wolf timeline page if you need a little help.

Wolves were reintroduced because ranchers didn't want them to reestablish themselves naturally. They wanted the ability to kill them if they killed their livestock. Reintroduction allowed this because of the 10(j) rule in the Endangered Species Act which allowed them to classify the reintroduced wolves as an experimental, non-essential population. Otherwise, wolves would have reesatblished themselves from the growing population in northwest Montana and the whining ranchers wouldn't have had the ability to call in their USDA Wildlife Services buddies to kill them. Just think, if it hadn't happened with the help of the federal government there wouldn't be a hunt and wolves would be able to eat livestock with impunity.

There were no "timber" wolves here before the reintroduction. They were gray wolves just like those transported a mere 500 miles from Hinton Alberta. And, as we can readily see, wolves easily disperse very long distances like the one in California right now. There has to be some long term barrier to reproduction for the subspecies differences to come about like those in your imagination. Just because some guy drew a line on a map in the 1930's, long before the advent of genetic sequencing, doesn't mean that Idaho had miniature "timber" wolves. Of course you would have to have an understanding of science and biology to know that.

You do realize that half of the big game in Idaho comes from other parts of the continent don't you? Bighorn sheep have been moved around all over, elk were reintroduced, mountain goats are moved all over. It happens all the time.

I don't even know why I bother to argue with you but you don't even seem to have a grasp of even the basic facts. You just hear what someone says on the Internet and that's good enough for you.

You have been Buffaloed

Come on......this was not a rep/demo decision.......this was the anti hunting, gun, ranching, trapping, etc. groups who have always pushed for reintro.....back to the natural state programs....who are you fooling.....I know what a wolf looks like and they were here prior to the 1996 intro-release program....they just had different characteristics.......these animals are not the same......regardless what you say....and OH .....these are not bighorn sheep, elk, being released that are different into the environment.....those are herbavoirs not these carno....big differense....when being re-introduced into an say the wolves have changed our local herds in a positive has been one of the biggest disasters this state has ever experienced from a biological standpoint and a financial many zones have declining elk and deer herds in the last 4 years????and the number in rising.....again control them....that is all I am saying.....if you do not like hunting and guns....tough....this is Idaho

Be real

You either identify with trapping animals or you don't. the Lack of Common Sense in this case just adds to the argument. But lets be real...trapping of animals will continue around the world. Just because this is a wolf really has no bearing on the situation.

Who is it?

"the Friend of the Clearwater"

It's a one person show!

Its Friends of the

Its Friends of the Clearwater; a group of local citizens who organized opposing the mega loads on the Montana-Idaho highway (I think Highway 12). Many of the members are long time )several generations) residents and active personally and professional in that area. They are credible, knowledgeable, well educated and respected.

no kidding

ahh. See I have this problem of reading Rock's blog and it's always WRONG. So I'm glad there are others here to help him out.

Also glad to know, that you know the "friends" so well to describe them as knowledgeable, educated, and respected. And I thought everyone from North Idaho was an ignorant redneck, tax-protestor, only bent on lower taxes and keeping Idaho poor and #49 on all the bad-state scoreboards. I must be reading these blogs too much!

Friends of the Clearwater are transplants

they are very few native working citizens, they oppose the working folk, they support wolves and anything Agenda 21 connected. And no they're not respected in this area of Agriculture, Mining and Logging ancestry.

Here we go again

This old garbage about these wolves not being native is trash, lets see the information that says other wise. I will be waiting. Oh and lets see proof that there are 2000 wolves in Idaho and that they weigh almost 200lbs. Same crud that all you anti's push. Can't wait for the feds to strip Idaho of control for lack of being able to manage wolves or any wildlife for that matter.

other pictures

yo momma!
Did you see the other picture of brainsford where the wolf's head is in his lap. That is one BIG dog!

200lbs or 20lbs, that thing wanted to eat your lunch!

simple yes or no, did you see the other pictures?

Not Garbage Hoody

Study your biological history from North to South........animals for the most part are larger up is colder.....harsher conditions....for example white tail deer in Elberta compared to Central Idaho.....not even close in order to survive up North they have evolved to be larger in size, much thicker and they are much tougher animals all the way around.....they are not the same even if their DNA is 98-% identical.....its the environmental conditions that they are raised in......that makes those caribou killers different then the once timber wolves that evolved in this area....oh sure they are very closely related......I have seen our timber wolves that once resided in Idaho......they look nothing like these animals.....the last ones that I saw was in 1992....their color was not even near the color of these new wolves....much darker and they really blended in well.....with our native habitate...and for sure a smaller dog.....these new ones....stick out like a sore far as the 200 lb wolf.....that would be a new record.....with their coat they look much larger wt wise then they actually are......165 is a monster can take any blood data from these animals and tweek any way that you want......but what real makes the difference for me is the eyeball test....they are not the same...


They aren't native. Sorry, I am not going to prove it to you, Research it yourself. Who was your mother last year?

If you haven't seen one then shut the $%#$ up. All you need to do is see one thats been gutted and cleaned and still weighs 125 pounds and are 6.5 feet long with 7 inch diameter paws(reluctantly recorded by F&G) to know they have to weigh more than that. I don't walk around with a scale, but I know people with scales in their outbuildings. So why don't you prove they don't weigh that much.
I don't know about 200 wolves in Idaho but I do know of around 12 wolves taken out of one (1) 9 mile stretch of river in N. Idaho. Just sayin!


Maybe your the one that needs to shut the **** up. Show me even a picture of a 150lb wolf???? they don't exist my friend. The largest wolf I have seen one was caught from the Mollie pack over in yellowstone and if I remember right it weighed 147lbs, these wolves are very large, their main prey is bison. IDFG are morons, when ask Jon Rachael didn't even know how many wolves killed wore radio collars. So who is the idiot here????
You can't prove sorry, no pictures exist of the infamous native Idaho wolf. Your trying to tell me that wolves from Canada couldn't make their way down here...BS, did you not hear about OR7 who traveled down to Cali looking for a mate. Who's the blow hard now. The burden of proof is now on your shoulders.


So you are saying 150 pounders don't exist and in the same post you are referencing one caught in YNP that weighed 147 pounds. And you are so sure 'they don't exist'.

An extra 3 pounds for a fat alpha is impossible?

the story goes the 147 was on an empty stomach. Add lunch and you got something well over 150. How about time of year? Do you think wolves put a few extra lbs for the winter?

Gramma is calling for you.


Ok my bad, Idaho does not have any 150lb wolves. Also Idaho wolves are not feeding on 2000lb bison. I hope your happy now.
Here is another take on how wolves are killing all the elk, this is from Montana.
statistics show that the elk population statewide is doing well with numbers at an all-time high of 112,000. He said the state management objective calls for 90,000 which means about 22,000 elk over objective. He noted that out of six hunting districts in the Bitterroot Valley, two were over objective, three were at objective and only one was under objective: Hunting District 250, up the West Fork.
IDFG claims at the end of 2011 there were under 800 wolves in Idaho and if you go by how many have been killed to date is 378 wolves, this number apparently does not reflect control kills by WS from their aerial gunning mission or that is killed via SSS. So at best that leave 422 wolves and with an increase in tags for hunting and trapping in season 2012 and not knowing how many pups will survive. Could spell disaster.
The trapper in question told one story and is saying a different one now. Ok he broke no laws, so he is an idiot for not dispatching the wolf before he posed with it.
Also if your going to use the argument that there is no way for IDFG to get an accurate count on wolves, then in the same statement you should also accept that there is no way for them to get an accurate count on deer, elk and moose. So its safe to say that there is way more ungulates then IDFG claim and or is handing out tags for.

stop at the border

Oooh, so the fat YNP wolves don't come into Idaho? Those are only in YNP... You are starting to write like the Rock.

RRH you are a sheep in wolves clothing and you're full of it.

see below

See my great post below about wolves well over 150lbs.

Avoiding a bullet

how do you know he was looking for a mate, I think he kept traveling because he kept getting shot at..or maybe he was looking for a free lunch and that's why he ended up in CA!!



Children in Need of Government Management

These wolf articles and other environmental issues are exactly why the Idaho Statesman gets smaller & smaller with each printing. The Statesman, Rocky Barker and Kevin Richert are so predictable and boring when they repeat the same wolf story over & over. Do they expect an epiphany or a change in beliefs from their readers? What makes liberals right and conservatives wrong? Do you "environmentalists" think we "conservationists" will change our minds after listening to your Disney Channel logic? That we will be kowtowed by your superior minds? I haven't purchased a Boise newspaper in years because I already know what stance will be taken by the Statesman.

Has the Statesman staff ever considered providing opposing views in an unbiased format? In fact, has the Statesman ever considered treating the conservative opposing views as if they were anything more than children to be taken care of? While I’m at it I think liberals treat conservatives the same way they treat the blacks and the Indians; like children in need of government management.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein.


The Statesman, liberal rag that you think it is, endorsed Helen Chenoweth. It doesn't get less liberal than that.

And I think your opinion of liberals is off just a bit.

Rather than "liberals treat conservatives the same way they treat the blacks and the Indians; like children in need of government management." It's more like; Liberals think blacks and Indians need protection by the government from the way they have been treated by conservatives.

Helen Chenowith

She at least was her own person. She was perfectly able to stand up to anyone. And did so more than once!.

I don't know about her standing up

but she was more than willing to lie down with them.


That's hilarious. Chenoweth in 1996?
How about if you try to find that 'endorsement'?

Let's see who wrote it and why?

I remember reading it

and I was not happy. She was running against Larry LaRocco and he got caught in an affair with a co-worker and had been making payments to her. Kinda like Petrino in Arkansas. Turns out Chenoweth had had an affair with a married man for years, all the while going on and on about Clinton's dalliance. Total hypocrite, that one.

There are many other examples of the Statesman endorsing the conservative candidate, much to my dismay. The Statesman is not liberal, and it's not really hard-right conservative. It lives in the center-right as far as I can tell. That's my opinion.

Here's a reference to the Statesman's Helen Chenoweth endorsement in a piece by Kevin Richert on 8/11/08...

"Point is, the Democrats shouldn't have been surprised that the Republicans tried to score points off of LaRocco's past. It is troubling. In 1994, the Statesman cited the then-1st District congressman's "falsehoods" and "inexcusable actions" on the matter, writing a lukewarm endorsement of Chenoweth. The issue gave us pause a dozen years later, although we did endorse LaRocco's bid for lieutenant governor."

Lukewarm or not, they did endorse that crazy, lying, adulteress... and believe me, that is NOT the action of a liberal newspaper.

good times

you're making me laugh cv.

History and The Equine Brain

I like the way you liberals re-write history for the sake of current argument. The Statesman ragged on Helen Chenoweth the same as this repeated ranting on the Josh Bransford story.

May I remind you it was Abe Lincoln and the Republican Party who freed the blacks with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863? Not the narcissistic Democrats. What have the Democrats done for blacks? You press them into servitude with Obama bucks and they can't get off of the government plantation. Can you tell me what the XIII Amendment (passed/adopted by Republicans) is? Boy, I'll bet you Dems are green with envy for not thinking of that one.

I'm not surprised the Democrats chose a donkey as their party symbol. You see, the equine brain doesn't have the ability for the left to communicate with the right side. To train a horse or donkey you must teach them to perform each particular task on both the left and right sides. This is why you mount a horse on the left side. This is why liberals or abstract thinkers may never understand individual rights or rugged individualism and like being managed/herded by more government regulation.

By now even the equine brain should be bored of the "Crying Wolf Blues" being presented over and over and...

They wrongly endorsed her, then rightfully ragged on her

And re. history; the demographics of the Democratic and Republican parties changed mightily after the Civil Rights Act in the sixties. Johnson knew he had lost the south when it became law. The George Wallace Democrats morphed into the southern Republicans.

But you knew that.

As far as the wolves go, I'd sooner they were gone. And take the Grizzlies with 'em.

Back in the day

they would have taken the picture with a 35 mm or a polaroid and that would have been the end of it. Nowadays they take it with a phone and send it to be forwarded around the planet. Folks wait around for this kind of opportunity to garner public support to end trapping and wolf hunting.

Trapping is brutal, if legal. 72 hours is a long time to chew your foot off waiting for your nemesis to come dispatch you, whatever type of critter you are. This is an "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it" kind of question. If a wolf is in a leghold trap for 71 hours and no one takes a picture, did it experience any pain?

Trapping is a traditional pursuit, is legal, and that is how it is.

Wolf Photo

Yes the pix is in poor taste. Am I upset about it? No.

I have a picture of a cow elk, fairly intact, with her young calf attached to her by the umbilical cord, laying outside her body. This was a wolf kill. Did I post that picture? No. but I will if you all want. It is just as graphic as this trapped wolf.
So tell me which animal suffered more? The trapped wolf or the ambushed pregnant cow elk. More than one wolf by the way. Judging by tracks, at least 3. One really large one, 2 smaller ones. Boy what a match! And they ate 'NOTHING' Killed her and left. We watched for 3 days, they never came back, although we could hear them on the mountainside above where she was howling and chasing the rest of them.

A lot of us said early on, the wolf introduction was not right, poorly planned with no futures plannng. You all got your way.So here we are.

No we are fighting over wolf rights over elk rights. I don't want elk to suffer. I don't want wolves to suffer. But we are saturated with wolves.What they do is just ugly, so live with your wolf pipe dreams. They are horrible, diseased creatures. And oh, by the way, they may not have got here by a leg trap, but they were trapped to get here. So give me a break. And we haven't seen a native timber wolf up here in about 10 years.

My sympathy meter has gone to zero. I am no wolf fan anymore.

Human vs Animal

I doubt you ever were a "wolf fan" There are serious flaws in your argument where you base one species of wild animal behavior against human behavior, an apple/oranges argument.

Humans have a brain, unfortunately it is not often used, and emotions can easily override its logic, but we still have it. It is suppose to be used for learning, reasoning, problem solving, understanding, responsibility, an entire host of cognitive functions that supposedly set us apart from other animals.

Wolves, like most all other creatures in the natural world, also have a brain; However its function is quite different, more ancient for the trials of survival, instinctive. They do not "think" about how the cow feels, or even know or understand compassion or mercy in a kill, yet their kills are fairly quick, when they kill, the prey does not suffer for very long, it is dead in short order. Now keep in mind wolves only know what to do instinctively, which is to feed and defend themselves, their pups and the pack, there are no photo Ops, or bragging rights.

Humans CHOOSE to let an animal suffer, wolves do not. If one is going to kill something then kill it! do not let it linger and suffer in fear and pain for hours while some DA takes a picture.

The anthropomorphizing personification of wolves as being some evil blood thirst scary creature, are simply the human mind going into fear overdrive. If you want a reasonable discussion on the population control of wolves it must be base on reason, logic, and evidence, emotional rants do nothing. Population control is necessary yes, decimation is not, and a well thought out plan by stable reasonable minds would be the best solution.

But this story was about trappers and this DA picture....I have no use for trappers, and my sympathy level for them is zero. They inflict fear, pain and anguish to any animal that steps in the trap; then they can leave it to suffer for up to 72 hours. Animals will try and gnaw their own foot off to get free. And traps do not discriminate, they slowly bring a painful death to whatever is unfortunate enough to step in it.
BTW I fish and know how to hunt so I'm no hippy dippy PETA groupie, just don't believe in the high and mighty humans intentionally causing great pain and suffering to any animal. Like I stated, if your going to kill it, then kill it quick and as humanely as a human can.


Thank you. Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.


"Humans CHOOSE to let an animal suffer, wolves do not."
You need to watch Wild Kingdom with Marlin Perkins.

That wolf did not chew his leg off. Must not have hurt too bad.
Wolves kill more than they need to eat. Cited cases including a big one in MT.
Wolves do "think". Way more than many humans.
Wolf prey does suffer- ever had the fear knowing you are going to die?
The reasonable plan is we need far fewer wolves than what now exists.
Fear, pain and anguish? Try one sometime. It's not bad if you just use "your thinking" mind to sit still.

I think the "great pain and suffering" is the flaw in your argument.


rangerider45- You conservatives are children. You need to have your mouths washed out with soap. Your mommy needs to lock you in your rooms and throw away the key. The Statesman is reporting the news. Go to bed.


You just proved my point. Thank you Mom.

Wow, that was almost a come on from her! Nice job.


"foreignoregonian" is not anonymous

It is my identity and my philosophy

Would you prefer everyone to be called 'Poster'?

Oh please

There never has been a 200lb wolf and never will be. I am glad that the fence that stretches across the border of Idaho and Canada is in place as I would hate to think any wolves could and would come down here. The BS about wolves being a different color is just that BS. Wolves can be a multitude of different colors. Just as where a wolf is living will dictate its biological clock as far as its size, the amount of pups it has, what it eats. No one ever said mother nature is not cruel. How cruel is it that archery hunters go out and stick an elk only to wound it and lose it causing that animal pain and agony, some die a long slow death and others are strong enough and shot placement was not that good that they continue to live with that arrow inside them.
What it all boils down to is hunters don't like or want the competition for elk, deer and moose. The other problems involves ranchers as most of them are the biggest losers that are lousy stewards towards our land. 90% of all the claimed wolf kills are BS, welfare ranching needs to end, if the rancher cannot make it on their own property then its high time to get out of the business, lets end all grazing on public lands.
The real enemy here is IDFG, they continue to show little re-guard towards proper management of our wildlife. It will be nice when the feds re-list the wolf "ESA BABY"
I don't see you anti's getting all up in arms when one of your own, Rex Rammel and Tony Mayer, get busted for poaching elk.
Between the hunting, trapping, SSS and control measures by WS how many wolves do you think are still left in Idaho????? how many are breeding pair's. Trust me I know more about wolves then you think. The photo in question was in real poor taste, thou he broke no laws and of course the ones who shot at the wolf won't admit it now.


"Trust me I know more about wolves then you think"

So if we think you know nothing... then you win?

Wiki says
-Biggest North American is 175 and agreed by Intl Wolf Center
-Biggest in world is 190 from Ukraine
-Newest reported biggest is from Drayton Valley, ALBERTA (same source as Idaho wolves) 'rumored' at about 230 lbs.

I guess if you believe the krap you read on this blog you can believe the stuff you read on other blogs- lots of blogs repeating teh 230 lbs reference.

AND if the wolf lovers believe "they are all the same" then if an Alberta or Russian wolf can be about 200lbs, then it's only a matter of time and genetics before Idaho scores a 200lbs.

Not every human is 6foot 8. But some are.


Alberta, by the way, classifies wolves as "secure" on their list of animals. Not endangered. And they're just across the border. And they can migrate down here... so why endangered here? There are plenty of them just across the border.

Pimp2, Idaho wolves aren't "endangered" at this point -

as you probably know - just as wolves in Alberta aren't protected by a Canadian law similar to the US Endangered Species Act. They should remain OFF the Endangered Species list, unless Idaho wolves are hunted and trapped to the point that federal agencies or courts step in.

It's a word to the wise, I suppose - to stop mindless killing and heedless waste in Idaho before it goes too far. Actions and photos like this don't help.


Thanks for the update.

My point is there are LOTS of them and in the rest of the world there are more than enough- a surplus you might say. That along with the wolf lovers idea that "they're all the same" that means Great- we have plenty of them on Earth.

We don't need em in everywhere. And therefore there is no point where the feds or the courts need to step- "zero" included.

They were hiding from the BALCO grand jury!

"I swear grandma put something in her sheep! I ain't never done stuff like that, I'm a NATURAL wolf"!


"foreignoregonian" is not anonymous

It is my identity and my philosophy

Would you prefer everyone to be called 'Poster'?

Welfare is on your pavement

Typical propaganda spread by the wolf pimps whom claim welfare by ranchers, such bs. Land of multiple use is what federal lands are from when they were declared federal reserve land.
The proof is that most of the depredation claims are for livestock killed on PRIVATE PROPERTY. The facts are that only 1 animal in 7 or so killed by wolves are ever claimed and paid for depredation. You are a liar, lie and deny, that is the campaign by feds, biologists and wolfpimps for 17 years.
There are still enough wolves in Idaho that the elk aren't in the hills, that there are wolf tracks in every trail, road and snowstorm throughout the forest on every trip one takes.
I took Federal bounties, trappers and poison to wipe em out the last time so I doubt they're in any danger now.

Some soccer mom spilled it from her Albertson's bag.

She needs to clean that up!


"foreignoregonian" is not anonymous

It is my identity and my philosophy

Would you prefer everyone to be called 'Poster'?

These are the same folks

The radical animal rights wackjobs are probably the same people who will be watching Bill Maher.There needs to be some serious "flushing" of libtard transplants in this state.

I thought the pubtards were imported.

Très riches, ouvrier agricole!


"foreignoregonian" is not anonymous

It is my identity and my philosophy

Would you prefer everyone to be called 'Poster'?

Native one in the same

So no one can post a picture of native Idaho wolf......just as I suspected, they are truly one in the same, no difference, all you anti's are just miffed that you can't kill them all off again. Lets petition the government to bring grizzly bears back to Southwest Idaho. Talk to the hand as I have to go tend my venison backstraps on the BBQ...MMGOOD

special delivery

Hey Red,
You tell me your address and I'll get a special delivery just for you to start the SW Idaho Grizzly population right in YOUR own backyard.

He has the trap all ready to go.