For Immediate Release: Howling for Wolves in Helena

Advocates Rally in Montana Capital to Demand End to Wolf Slaughter

What: Press Conference and Rally
When: Friday, October 14th, 2011; 12pm-2pm
Where: Montana State Capital Building, 1301 EAST 6TH AVENUE, Helena, Montana 59620-0801


For Immediate Release

Dustin Rhodes, Email, Phone: (202) 906-0210
Contact: Edita Birnkrant, Email, Phone: (917) 940-2725

Helena, MT—Montana’s state-sponsored wolf-killing scheme began on September 3, 2011, with the goal of killing 220 wolves—even though Montana doesn’t know how many wolves live in the state. Friends of Animals (FoA), Predator Defense, members of Howl Across America and wolf advocates are pushing back.

“We’re showing up at the Montana State Capital Building to confront Gov. Schweitzer on the state’s hellish wolf slaughter which has meant more than 50 wolves died so far in Montana and Idaho,” says Friends of Animals’ Washington,D.C. Correspondent, Dustin Rhodes.

“Montana’s know-nothing eradication scheme for wolves is based on irrational fear and deceit,” says Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals.

Hundreds of wolves will be killed in Montana this winter, jeopardizing their very existence, unless a federal appeals court overturns a congressional maneuver orchestrated by Sen. John Tester of Montana to remove the wolves from the federal Endangered Species Act. Friends of Animals filed a brief as friend-of-the-court in the Ninth Circuit in support of the wolves’ re-listing, and the issue will be argued in federal appeals court on November 8, 2011.

“Montana clearly favors wolf-hating ranchers and hunters over wolves and their defenders,” Feral says.

Montana resident and wolf biologist Jay S. Mallonee has written extensively on wolves and the lack of data that Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks uses to justify killing them.

In 2009, 97 cattle were lost to wolves out of 2.6 million in Montana—.02% of the state’s cattle. Mallonee’s studies debunk the claim that wolves significantly affect the elk that hunters covet. (Jay S. Mallonee’s research can be viewed at

The state agency is, Mallonee adds, “either manipulating the data or they are completely incompetent.”

“Hunting wolves caters to hatred and bigotry, because there is no real justification for killing these animals,” Mallonee says.

A tight-knit group of bureaucrats concocting numbers to facilitate wolf-hunting must be stopped, FoA says.

Montana includes two major national parks, Glacier and Yellowstone, and touts its historical, cultural, natural and water-based recreational sites. “Until Montana adopts sane policies, we’re asking people around the world to stay out of them. Wolves don’t belong to Montana or any other state. They belong to themselves and to the planet,” Rhodes says.

Published in: on October 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm  Comments (16)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

16 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. What a fine right minded statement. Wolves exist for themselves. Wolves belong to no one.
    For the Wolves


  2. I disagree. The wolves belong to all of us and it is our responsibility to protect them. Not only do wolves provide wildlife diversity, they cull out the weak and diseased animals to guarantee a healthier stock. They share their kills with other animals (ex. grizzlies) and have been tamed and used by ranchers as guard dogs. Angela Stevens Truth About Wolves


    • If you can own them and protect them, another can own and kill.
      Once property, then whose property? Who gets to decide whose property? That is surely the wolves, your, our, my dilemma. That wilderness and her many constituents are a publicly owned resource hasn’t helped wolves. The idea Resource is already close to death. If you and I recognize the importance of sustaining eco systems in their complex diversity, if we wish to maintain watersheds and old growth trees, there are others who claim some greater human need necessitates dams and clear cuts. Our anthropocentric, human centered world view causes as it permits every kind of imbalance and injustice. Speciesism is dominionism writ large.
      A friend mailed a miscellany, the words of Standing Bear. It’s posted. We would have to be his people to fulfill that which you deem our responsibility. People who kill and clear cut weren’t raised in awe and respect for Nature. That some of humankind retains or wins back an innate sense of interconnectedness is nothing short of a miracle. Is this a year of miracles? We’ll see November 8th.

      From the Proposed Revised Edition
      Universal Declaration of Animal Rights
      (The entire document is posted)
      Considering that Life is one, all living beings having a common origin and having diversified in the course of the evolution of the species, – Considering that all living beings possess natural rights, and that any animal with a nervous system has specific rights,
      Considering that the contempt for, and even the simple ignorance of, these natural rights, cause serious damage to Nature and lead humanity to commit crimes against animals,
      Considering that the coexistence of species implies a recognition by the human species of the right of other animal species to live,
      Considering that the respect of animals by humans is inseparable from the respect of people for each other,
      It is hereby proclaimed that:
      Article 1
      All animals have equal rights to exist within the context of biological equilibrium. This equality of rights does not overshadow the diversity of species and of individuals.
      Article 2
      All animal life has the right to be respected.
      ten articles in all…

      If humanity were to adopt this code right now how long would it be before man developed the cognitive and spiritual means to live as the Lakota lived?

      Chief Luther Standing Bear – Oglala Sioux
      ‘But the old Lakota was wise. He knew that a man’s heart, away from nature, becomes hard; he knew that lack of respect for growing, living things soon led to lack of respect for humans, too. So he kept his children close to nature’s softening influence.’

      ‘In talking to children, the old Lakota would place a hand on the ground and explain: “We sit in the lap of our Mother. From her we, and all other living things, come. We shall soon pass, but the place where we now rest will last forever.” So we, too, learned to sit or lie on the ground and become conscious of life about us in its multitude of forms.’

      Hunters and logging crews, oil Moguls weren’t raised in awe and respect for Nature. As individuals they were brutalized by parents who had in turn been brutalized, blunted by materialism. They are from a long line of hard people, hard because they’ve lost any and every connection to Nature save the one, resource.

      To argue, and I have, that nature is a resource held in common, that Safe Enjoyment of Wilderness is a right, is to talk in terms of commodities. The idea resource is a seed of moral destruction as Chief Luther Standing Bear clearly understood. You can’t appeal to hard people to play fair. Of course we do and say everything we can. But until mankind as a whole relinquishes the idea of Earth as a resource there will be no end to the struggle and losses. We must sit in the lap our Mother knowing it is from Her that all living things come.
      For the Wolves


  3. Given all the scientific and factual data that exists, enough to swamp the wolf-haters in any sane discussion, it is a shame that a few conservation groups choose boycott as a strategy. This sort of antagonistic conduct merely lowers these organizations to the level that we think of the wolf haters as usually occupying.


    • Not sure where you are coming from on this Travis but boycotts can be a very effective tool to bring attention to a serious subject. When those in power, in this case the governments of the wolf states, are not listening to the will of the people, boycotts can be a way to gain their attention by the loss of tourism dollars, that result from the boycott.

      Boycotts and sanctions are used all the time.. If everyone decided not to visit Yellowstone National Park for a year, it would be quite the economic loss. It would cause local businesses who rely on the park to pressure their state governments to stop the practice that is causing the boycott, in this case, the wolf hunts. Boycotts are a form of protest. Wolves bring 35 million dollars annually to the GYA and people come from all over the world to see them. How are tourists going to react when they realize Wyoming plans to allow unregulated killing of wolves in most of the state, putting the entire wolf population of Wyoming in extreme jeopardy, including wolves in Yellowstone.

      Congress intervened and politically delisted wolves, wolves have now been turned over to brutal state management and are being killed for political reasons, that is the simple truth. No amount of reasoning with the anti wolf crowd is going to change that. They are not concerned with factual data, scientific or otherwise. They want to rid the states of wolves.

      Wolves do not belong to Montana, Idaho or Wyoming. They belong to themselves. Just because they exist inside the boundaries of those states doesn’t mean they should be killed to benefit a small but vocal minority who has the ear of those state governments. If wildlife watchers choose not to visit those states because of their brutal actions against wolves, that is their right.

      For the wolves, For the wild ones,


    • Discussions about wolves are rarely sane, Travis. And as Nabeki said, there are a lot of people out there who don’t really care about the facts and figures. Hurting their wallets may be the only way to get through to them. A number of the arguments for killing wolves are, at least on the surface, economic — wolves cost ranchers money by eating their stock, wolves discourage out-of-state elk hunters from coming and bringing money to the state, wolves put outfitters out of business, etc. There are all these claims floating around that keeping wolves in the Northern Rockies costs money, and whether the claims are true or not, people cling to them. Therefore, it seems quite sensible for us to prove by demonstration that hunting wolves ALSO costs money. A boycott also has the potential to stir up the people who were kinda sorta pro-wolf, but were being apathetic about it. If they realize that the wolf hunts are going to hurt not only the wolves, but also the local economy, maybe they will finally be motivated to raise an outcry. Again, people generally care more when their wallets are involved.

      I realize there is a potential for all of this to backfire, but what we’ve been doing up until now hasn’t worked very well. All of the playing nice, rancher coexistence programs, education, etc. hasn’t kept wolves from dying. Maybe it is time for something different.


      • Excellent response captain sakonna. Sixteen years of placating ranchers, treating them like victims for miniscule livestock depredations, has got to stop. Ranchers are not being put out of business because of wolves. Wolf Hysteria and Moral panic applies here.

        For the wolves, For the wild ones,


    • Travis — Your remarks about antagonistic conduct smack of something weird. It’s Friends of Animals who called for economic boycotts of states that persecute wolves. If you have a problem with that, I’ve heard it all before — especially from folks in Alaska who benefit from tourism — but to say a group is lowered to a level wolf-haters occupy is ridiculous. Factions rise and fences are erected when those who said they shared a compelling vision get into the details of how to best express activism.

      The shame you refer to is entirely reserved for those sitting this battle out, and, of course, the repulsive array of bureaucrats and wolf hunters.

      Friends of Animals is in the lawsuit now being appealed with a court date scheduled for Nov. 8th. We’ve invested our contributors’ monies to file an amicus brief, and if we all prevail, wolves won’t be hammered, mutilated, plundered by the sorry states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Put that in your pipe, Travis, and smoke it.
      If you won’t join a Howl-In rally in Montana on October 14th, don’t tear down the people who dare to raise the bar.

      Priscilla Feral, President
      Friends of Animals


  4. You can count on me.


  5. It’s confirmed, Holly and I are planning on coming up. I think a fellow from Bozeman named David is coming also.


    • Terrific cs!!

      For the wolves, For the wild ones,


  6. Yes. The wolves belong to themselves. And yes to boycotts. One can hardly make sense of what ranchers say and claim. Good laws stand in for good sense. Boycotts are a valid non violent means to good laws. But if greedy government agencies would stop to count their tills, hunters might find themselves in check. Never can 12% of the population pay in licenses what Yellowstone has made in international trade since the translocation of wolves to the park. Yellowstone has played host to millions of people from all over the world who’ve visited for no other reason than to view these dangerous animals at close proximity. They’ve done so without fear or mishap. Reports say wolf watchers stand in a hush. A wolf in the wild like a moon that hangs over a mountain before its descent is a personal experience. For wolf watchers there’s no place like Yellowstone on Earth.The wolves will net millions in perpetuity if only they are let to live. But worth more than the millions to Yellowstone will be the wolf watcher’s take home sense of justice. People travel from afar, eat at restaurants and stay in hotels in order to endorse that sense of justice and to be confirmed in their belief that where there is wilderness things are as they should be. The world is well where wolves live.
    Good luck to all with the demonstration.
    CMM For the Wolves


    • Thanks so much, Charlotte.

      As for Travis’ hostility:

      That anyone allowed to post here should be undermining
      groups who dare to show up outside Gov. Schweitzer’s office begs the question: why? Haven’t we heard enough nonsense without meeting such an attitude on a wolf advocacy blog?


      • Yes, I agree Priscilla, Travis did slip through and normally I would have deleted his post, As you said this is a pro-wolf blog, a sanctuary where wolf advocates can gather in peace. BUT the interesting thing about this situation is he was not a anti wolf poster but was apparently someone supporting misguided vfews held by a few conservation groups. A very similar post showed up on Wolf Warriors right after his. Obviously they were trolling, trying to start a controversy where there is none. I thought it was useful to show that.

        For the wolves, For the wild ones,


  7. We can never keep quiet when it comes to helping those in need!!


    • Ruth so true. Simon Weisenthal said: All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

      For the wolves, For the wild ones,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: