Caviar and maggots! Michigan Policast 010 August 17 2014

August 20, 2014

This show is a bit late due to my recent road trip across the country.  We delayed it so that I could participate, but it didn't work out, so today you get Amy and Walt without the Christine.  (Try not to notice the significant improvement!!)

We have a bit of audio from Governor Snyder lamenting about his leaky roof.  You want to hear this audio, if you haven't.  Frank Beckmann is doing his best to set Snyder up as a regular guy who can relate to the flooding disaster, and then …. facepalm.

Here's the audio by itself:


There's also a brief conversation on the erosion of democracy in the state.  We have an interview with Kristi Lloyd of Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, who has worked on two petition drives on the wolf issue.  Both have been destroyed by the legislature.  In short, the legislature engaged in some political maneuvering to make the citizen petition drives irrelevant.


For more information on how you can help keep Michigan wolves protected, visit



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

194 comments on “Caviar and maggots! Michigan Policast 010 August 17 2014

  1. Frances Bonner Aug 24, 2014

    Great information, thank you! I disagree that people do not care. If you simply look a social site like a Facebook site, Keep Michegan Wolves Protected who has 13,381 likes to educate and involve the many people who do want to invest in wolves.

    • kristilloyd Aug 31, 2014

      Yes, Frances, there is a lot of support in Michigan as seen by the ballot initiatives, and letters to the editor and editorials. Also by comments like yours. Thank you!

      • Chandie Bartell Sep 1, 2014

        In Idaho most rural working people never had time to participate on surveys, ballots, petitions, on-line networking, or robo-calls like NGO organizations that fund these artificial petition drives like the HSUS. Like most online or phone call surveys they are not an accurate representation of public opinion, as the questions don’t leave an opportunity for open discussion. Also the uneducated public can be falsely influenced by false misinformation published by groups like Human Society, especially in more urban states like Michigan if they don’t have the advantage to understand the North American Model of Hunting/Conservation’s history or the “model” that has been the most successful wildlife management program in the history of the world.

        • Christine Barry Sep 1, 2014

          There’s a lot of opinion here, nothing backed up by any data.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 1, 2014

            Good try I live in Idaho

          • kristilloyd Sep 1, 2014

            Which still proves nothing, Chandie.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 1, 2014

            Not so fast read my entire comment of information.

            What model of wildlife management does the state of Michigan by Michigan state law use? In Idaho that is Idaho Section Code 36-103, based on the North American Model of Hunting/Conservation.

            So if my comment proves nothing, then explain to me by “law” provided in your state wildlife management program, what “model” of management are they using, since they accept Pittman Robertson and DJ excise taxes from sportsmen in your state. How does preventing wolf management, fall under that wildlife model? How does having the HSUS donate 1,000,000 dollars of petition drive monies “fit” in with the North American Model of Hunting/Conservation?

            Scientifically provide your objective for preventing wolf management in your state.

            Are you trying to claim that the HSUS is not an anti-hunting organization? Explain please and provide “data” that proves HSUS is not anti-hunting.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Funny you bring up P-R and J-D funds because the initiative from CPWM cuts off those funds because they asked for free hunting and fishing licenses for active military members. No taxes paid on free licenses.
            Michigan also bases hunting on the NAMWC. HSUS isn’t a hunting organization. That wasn’t a donation, that was the cost of printing petitions, the website, materials.
            Look up the statute yourself. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources.
            Wolves in MI ARE managed. The law already provides for a wolf, or wolves to be lethally removed for chronic depredations or caught in the act of attacking livestock or pets. Several wolves have been removed, wolves are being managed. There is no science that supports killing random wolves as a benefit to livestock. Not here, not in Idaho.
            Yes, why wouldn’t this organization let the voters of MI vote on their initiative and instead give it directly to the legislature? The governor wouldn’t have hesitated to sign it if it had passed the voters. CPWM didn’t want it to go to the voters, they wanted the Republican-dominated legislature to get it instead.
            Why would hunters sign the petitions if HSUS was anti-hunting? Hunters did sign both of them. They are opposed to the wolf hunt in that there is no scientific evidence given to have a wolf hunt in MI. Here is why there was a wolf hunt last year….

            Just because an animal isn’t endangered doesn’t mean it should be hunted, or “managed”. The DNR said the hunt was to reduce conflicts with livestock. Killing random wolves via a hunt can kill wolves that never touched a cow. Hunting can lead to more packs especially if a breeder is taken out. The surviving mate will find another and create a new pack. More wolves means more room to roam and they just might find themselves on a livestock farm.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Let’s get this straight your State Wildlife Department in Michigan doesn’t accept any federal excise tax monies from the USFWS on Pittman-Robertson fund excise taxes at all, or the D-J fund? REALLY????????

            You answered my other question, you don’t know the Michigan Statute Code for wildlife management in Michigan, since you told me to look it up myself.

            If Michigan is using the North American Model of Hunting/Conservation, then wolves would need to be “managed” to benefit other wildlife. I’m sure you are aware of the studies in Canada that have proven that wolf control helped boost moose, elk, and caribou populations. I can provide those for you if you want to see them. As in the past our elk herds, moose, and other ungulates grew with the help of predator control in North America, with sportsman establishing the North American Model of Hunting/Conservation.

            Can you show me the Science research that proves removing wolves does not help livestock predation??????? I would like to see that, since that is how ranchers and farmers living in the 19th century and turn of the 20th century in wolf impacted areas were able to prosper after control mechanisms. Historical references in Wolves of North America go back to the 17th century on wolf controls benefiting the Colonists.

            I agree with you killing “random” wolves does not insure that livestock won’t be attacked again, you have to kill the entire “pack.” I would like to remind you of a National Case recently, the Wedge Pack that was taken out at the Diamond M Ranch in Washington. After the pack was removed after 27 losses, the family hasn’t lost anymore livestock. I’ve personally interviewed this family when they were experiencing hundreds of death threats during this time by wolf activists.

            Kristy says “Yes, why wouldn’t this organization let the voters of MI vote on their initiative and instead give it directly to the legislature.”

            This was Merle’s reply “Merle Shepard, chair of the Citizens For Professional Wildlife Management committee, pointed to Proposal G of 1996 and said that Michigan voters already approved a law giving the Natural Resources Commission the exclusive authority to regulate game hunting.

            “What it comes down to is, we did that once,” Shepard said last month. “You’re just going to keep getting out-of-state organizations coming in with big money and pushing the issue up and up until they outspend you on emotional ads to get people to vote on something. That’s just the wrong way to manage wildlife.”

            The bill wouldn’t establish a second wolf hunt season, but it would leave that decision in the hands of the Natural Resource Commission, which approved the state’s first hunt last year. Because it includes an appropriation, the measure would not be subject to voter referendum.”

            We don’t live in a Democracy Kristy, you should know that. Constitutionally we live in a representative form of government, where citizens go to their representatives they vote for Republican, Democrat, or Independent for legislation. That is exactly what the Citizens For Professional Wildlife Management committee did.

            Kristy, this claim is false by you. ” Why would hunters sign the petitions if HSUS was anti-hunting? Hunters did sign both of them. They are opposed to the wolf hunt in that there is no scientific evidence given to have a wolf hunt in MI.”

            Right I would like to see what the % of those hunters were. lol No real traditional hunter supports the HSUS.

            Are you claiming that you “speak” for Michigan sportsmen, and that the 297,000 registered voters that signed the petition to advance the pro-hunt bill don’t count? These are registered Michigan sportsman and they are hunters.

            Kristy-There is no scientific evidence to have a wolf hunt in Michigan?

            What are you serious, with one wolf hunt in the state of Michigan there was time to conduct scientific studies on hunts???? I doubt it.

            Again “hint” there is plenty of Science in Canada/Russia to confirm that strict wolf control management is required to benefit ungulates, and hunting alone will not achieve this, you also have to trap, snare, and apply aerial gunning in addition to hunting.

            Kristy- Just because an animal isn’t endangered doesn’t mean it should be hunted, or “managed”.

            Well that is your opinion which is not based on Science. In this case we are talking about the Michigan wolf, which is NOT listed on the Endangered Species List federally.

            Kristy -The DNR said the hunt was to reduce conflicts with livestock. Killing random wolves via a hunt can kill wolves that never touched a cow. Hunting can lead to more packs especially if a breeder is taken out. The surviving mate will find another and create a new pack. More wolves means more room to roam and they just might find themselves on a livestock farm.


          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            That is not what I said. I said that the legislature accepted and passed the wolf hunt initiative which includes free hunting and fishing licenses for active military members. Which cost $1.00 anyway. Other hunters, anglers will pay those taxes. Looks like their petition wasn’t very well thought out, was it?

            The DNR did not say deer or any other wildlife are being negatively affected by wolves. They are a benefit by lowering coyote numbers and providing food for other wildlife. Nothing needs benefitting by hunting wolves.

            Hunting wolves in AK wouldn’t improve moose or caribou numbers and the AK Board of Game said as much. Yes, provide that info. It’s a quick fix, a band aid, at most. Killing predators doesn’t benefit ungulates in the long run especially since they have their own health issues.

            You misunderstood. Targeting the specific offending wolves reduces conflicts with livestock. Some of the wolves killed in the hunt last year hadn’t been involved in livestock depredations. Others were killed in areas where there had not been depredations as far back as 2010.

            Nature hates a vacuum, other wolves will fill in the Wedge pack’s territory. And McIrvine will probably still let his cows roam into the Colville Nat’l Forest.

            Regulating and designating are not the same things. He is wrong so you using his statement makes you wrong, too. The petitions from KMWP had nothing to do with the NRC and the regulation of game. One petition sought to repeal the law that designated wolves as a game species. That is NOT what Proposal G is about. You can quote Merle from now til Doomsday, it is not a relevant comparison and not the same issue.

            The MI Constitution says we can redress our government through the referendum process. We did that. CPWM wasn’t trying to repeal a law, they created a new one. Big difference.

            It’s not false, look at the photos on KMWP’s Facebook page. Ethical hunters don’t kill what they don’t eat. How many wolves are eaten? Stop with the “real” hunters thing.

            I never made that claim about speaking for hunters. You jumped to that conclusion. How, I have no idea, but true to form, you did.

            There is nothing anywhere that shows the science in hunting wolves. The science shows that hunts can increase wolf packs and therefore more wolves. They don’t live like elk or deer in large herds. MI has two leading wolf biologists (Isle Royale study, have done studies in Yellowstone, Canada) and testified to the House and Senate Natural Resources committees last year when the subject of a wolf hunt was starting up. They provided the science of hunting wolves, it was disregarded. But the hunters will say that last year’s hunt was based on science. It wasn’t. Go read that news article and see the headline…lies and half truths. That one.

            The bald eagle isn’t hunted and it’s off the Endangered List. Moose are not endangered but also listed as game, but there is no hunting season on moose. Not my opinion, it’s a fact.

            Why kill wolves that have never been involved with a conflict with livestock if the goal of the hunt was to reduce livestock conflicts, current conflicts. The number of conflicts will be reduced now anyway since that farmer that baited wolves with deer legs sold his cows and is selling his farm.

          • Bobalee Sep 2, 2014

            Just a couple of simple questions, Chandie.

            1) Does NSSF stand for National Shooting Sports Foundation?

            2) Is the traditional ammunition of which you speak that which uses lead?

            You must be aware that lead is a toxic substance for humans as well as many wildlife species.

            Today marks the 100th anniversary of the death of the last passenger pigeon. I hope the California condor, threatened primarily by lead from bullets, does not gain that distinction. Remember, extinction is for ever.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            You would think these caring conservationists and sportsmen wouldn’t want to accidentally, or intentionally, poison wildlife with lead ammo and fishing tackle. How terrible to stop using lead.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Data please? Yes these horrible sportsmen have used lead since they started protecting wildlife with the Lacey Act in 1900.

            Hunting became regulated and guided by scientific research. In 1878, Iowa instituted the first bag limit on birds. Lawmakers passed the Lacey Act in 1900, prohibiting market hunting. Ding Darling created artwork for the first Duck Stamp in 1934. The Pittman-Robertson act was passed in 1937, through which hunters voluntarily imposed a tax on themselves, ensuring that a portion of the sale of all firearms and ammunition would be expressly dedicated to managing the wildlife entrusted to the public. The Pittman-Robertson Act generates $700 million annually, which is distributed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to state fish and game agencies across America.

            Simply put, the United States has the most successful wildlife management system in the world. Hunters and anglers have contributed more financial and physical support to that system than any other group of individuals.

            And this was done WHILE using lead.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Lead is poison, Chandie. Lead paint ring a bell? It’s the same lead. It’s toxic.

            I shouldn’t have to post data to show that lead is toxic to wildlife. It’s pretty much common sense.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Interesting Kristy. I’ve lived in Idaho all my life one of the top big game hunting states in the lower 48, or once was the top big game hunting state, and NEVER have I personally experienced, heard, studied, researched, or read where our wildlife has toxic lead poisoning. I’ll have to ask IDFG if we are losing wildlife due to lead-toxic poisoning. lol

            Remember this is the same meat we eat.

            What do you think the lead concentration levels are if you had to “map” out a grid in one hunting game unit in Idaho?

            Banning lead is ridiculous. Our country fought several wars on United States soil, on top of hunting being part of our heritage since the first lead musket ball was fired.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 3, 2014

            That’s entertaining. I’ll have to share this link that IDFG is promoting alternative ammunition instead of lead.

            Won’t ever happen

            Wild game is not a threat to consume, I discuss this further down.

          • Bobalee Sep 2, 2014

            Your living so close to the lead mining area in Idaho I am surprised that you have never heard about lead contamination.

            While in college I prepared waterfowl livers of birds taken from the Coeur d’ Alene river and associated lakes for spectrographic analysis. They contained elevated levels of lead.

            There is lots of information on this; search for it with “Coeur d’ Alene river” and “lead”. The link is to an article about the deaths of swans caused by this element in that river last year.
            I am sure you don’t care about the plight of condors since you don’t hunt them but the main cause of death in this species is from lead they ingest from carrion.


          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            That’s from mining, and those levels were mainly due to funding WWII. That wasn’t from hunting.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Wildlife usually aren’t poisoned with lead until they are shot with lead ammo. Lead ammo cannot be used to hunt water fowl in Idaho. You should know that since you are so up on Idaho’s hunting regulations. A fish swallows a lead weight but gets away. An eagle plucks that fish out of the water and eats it and unintentionally also consumes the lead that has spread throughout the fish’s body. Now the eagle is poisoned. Scavengers are poisoned by scavenging carcasses that have been poisoned by lead.
            Maybe you should research this now. Or, call IDFG in the morning and ask them.
            Lead, in any form, (ammo, weights, gas, paint) is toxic. Which is why it was removed from paint and gasoline. Hence, unleaded gas.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 3, 2014

            Kristy says: Wildlife usually aren’t poisoned with lead until they are shot with lead ammo.


            Not true: If that was the case wildlife we harvest would not be safe to eat, if it is “poisoned” as you state when shot with lead. Absolutely false.

            And since I have personal first hand experience with this lifestyle since we live on wildmeat and I’m 53 years old, and my family did, grandparents did, neighbors and community I know this is FALSE.

            So I did a quick search since you don’t accept first hand experience and knowledge from the people that are effected by everything you want to “ban”.

            The Effect of Lead on Human health

            Lead is a toxic element. However, all metals are potentially toxic, yet many metals are essential for life in small quantities. Indeed, most things can be toxic in sufficient quantity, or sufficient concentration. What is important is not that a metal is defined as toxic but the level at which it becomes a toxin i.e. harmful. Lead occurs naturally in various environments and at a variety of concentrations. Other metals which are also considered toxic include aluminium and silver, which like lead, also occur naturally.

            Game meat is enjoyed by many people across the country as a lean and flavorsome alternative to other meats. Anti-lead campaigners claim that eating game shot with lead could result in lead poisoning. However, after centuries of game consumption we are not aware of any cases of lead poising resulting from the ordinary consumption of game.

            Kristy says: Lead ammo cannot be used to hunt water fowl in Idaho. You should know that since you are so up on Idaho’s hunting regulations.

            Where did I mention water-fowl hunting??? We don’t hunt waterfowl.

            I don’t hunt waterfowl and haven’t since the 1980’s. I have never purchased non-toxic buckshot grains to load, as we quit duck hunting over twenty years ago. It was fun to hunt with our dog, but duck meat isn’t that good so we just don’t do it.

            Fish don’t swallow lead weights they swallow hooks. Once in a while they can break the line and take the rigging. But we have never had “fish” trout, whitefish, blueback, steel-head, ever swallow lead weights, they are up to high on your line.

            Although game meat does contain residual amounts of lead, the contribution of lead in the average diet was found by the European Food Standards Authority to be highest, by a large margin, in potatoes and grains.

            Game meat was found to make a very small contribution to overall lead in the diet, behind almost all other common foodstuffs. (See chart below, EFSA Journal, p.53.)
            Research in the US by the University of Illinois in 2008 into the effects of eating venison shot with lead, was misquoted by many anti shooting organisations as being a cause of lead poisoning. To clarify the situation, the University was forced to make the following statement:
            “Mike Plumer, University of Illinois Extension Natural Resources Educator, says the Center for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that the use of lead ammunition poses no health risk to people. In fact, in their study in North Dakota, they found that the average lead levels in hunters tested was actually less than the average American. As for children of hunters, those under 6 had lead levels less than half the national average and children over 6 had levels even lower.

          • Bobalee Sep 3, 2014

            Not FALSE . . . .
            If you will read more carefully in Kristi’s post you will see that she is showing a chain of events that occurs after wildlife (plural) are shot with lead ammunition. The lead enters the food chain and is detrimental depending on the amount ingested by following consumers – especially to top predators.
            Glad to read that you don’t hunt waterfowl – both for your and their wellbeing.

          • Guest Sep 3, 2014

            you sportsmen are worthless anti-wildlife terrorists. a good sportsmen is a dead one

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Oh and like the Maine bear hunt? Where ending the use of traps, dogs and bait means a ban on bear hunting? It doesn’t. It gives the bear a fighting chance. Usually referred to as “fair chase”. I know you’ve heard of that, right?

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Have you ever bear hunted before?

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            No, but there is nothing stopping bear hunters from getting bear hunting licenses and going into the woods to bag a bear. They just can’t do it with bait, traps or dogs. Hardly a ban.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            That’s the point. You don’t understand how to hunt this predator. If these tools weren’t effective, your-side wouldn’t be trying to “ban” them. But they are effective and that is why they are important so we can manage all wildlife, and protect our crop of fawns and calves their first two-weeks of life when black bears predate upon them.

            People don’t accidentally “run” into bears while out hunting, or scouting for other wildlife or bears, frequently enough to manage them through sport-hunting alone.

            States that have banned hound hunting, have experienced population explosions of mountain lions and black bears.

            This is hard on ungulates. and effects recruitment.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Which states have banned hound hunting for bears and lions and what was the change in their numbers after the ban?

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 3, 2014

            Not so fast, you still haven’t answered my questions about “ranchers” that fake depredations reports to get “compensation.” How does that work? I’ve asked you this several times. You make claims that ranchers out West are not honest about livestock depredations so what are you basing your opinion on besides Western Watersheds and George Weurthner’s book.

          • Guest Sep 3, 2014

            conservatism is a mental illness.

          • kristilloyd Sep 3, 2014

            I didn’t say ranchers were faking the reports. Read what is on your screen. They don’t write up the reports but you should know that with all your experience from living in Idaho. Haven’t you ever seen a report by a Wildlife Services technician?

          • Bobalee Sep 3, 2014

            Read Wolfer by Carter Niemeyer for some added background. He has worked with people on both sides of the issue and has had lots of “boots on the ground” experience. Additionally, he has an interesting style of writing.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Oct 5, 2014

            Carter…lol…What a racket!..spends the first 1/2 of his life killing them for the $$$$ and the last 1/2 kissing them for the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.Hopefully, Someday–he will be in jail for what he has done to Idaho….

          • Bobalee Oct 9, 2014

            Surely he must have the highly transmissible disease Echinococcus granulosus by now after handling all those wolves for ranchers. 😉

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Hmmm, sounds like the slob hunters want to sit in the woods, watching their bait pile, hoping for a bear to get caught in a trap after being chased by dogs. How very ethical. Still doesn’t “ban” bear hunting. Unfair advantage goes to the hunter. Your crop of fawns, in Maine???
            Still waiting for your proof of population explosions of bears and lions after hound hunting was banned. Which states would those be?

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Caught in traps after being chased by dogs????? Ha OMG. That’s funny. Obviously you have NO clue how bear hunting works with hounds!!!!! That’s why you should stay in the city and out of our business with predator management. That’s good Kristy!!!!!

            You don’t use traps. haha It’s a chase that isn’t for the inexperienced or out-of-shape individual, because it is tracking. You don’t “trap” the bear you “tree” it. haha.

            Bear baiting hasn’t been allowed in my unit for a while, they adjust this with the number of bears and their impacts.

            Baiting is just another tool, much easier than hound-hunting which is the “chase” with (NO traps) haha … based on trained dogs locking onto a scent and your ability to keep up running -tracking through brush, woods, dog-wood, thickets, slash, until your hounds tree the bear, then if you choose to harvest it you shoot it and tag it. Same with mountain lions and hound hunting. Mountain lions are nocturnal and “rare” to see so hounds are mandatory to keep their populations managed.

            There are no trapping season for bears in Idaho. I don’t know of any state that traps bears. Only bear traps I’ve seen are big barrel traps that are live-traps they climb into that agencies use.

            I don’t live in Maine, so I don’t know their fawn crop, I can get that from Tom Remmington. I do know they have a bear population problem that will get worse if the Animal Anti-Hunting Groups win this November on the ballot with help from the HSUS. Why would you want people in Maine to not be able to manage bears, and have to call agencies to trap them or lethally remove them instead of sportsmen manage the problem???? That doesn’t make sense at all. It’s also not the North American Model of Hunting/Conservation either.

            What do you have against hunting??? You KNOW nothing about it.

            Records: What I have are the population impacts bears have on our calves and fawns in different units in Idaho especially in the Lolo, and how changes are adjusted. They are reports full of data and graphs, that were compiled for mainly the Lolo Unit, and they are in hard-copy as I subscribe to the newsletter.

            Examples: California is a perfect example of a state suffering from over-population of bears and mountain lions due to trapping and hound-hunting bans, and a complete ban on mountain lion hunting. The state department lethally removes mountain lions when they are reported to be dangerous. Many people of been killed by mountain lions in CA since the ban on cougar hunting completely.

            Oregon has an over-population of mountain-lions due to banning hound-hunting. I get that information from the sportsmen in that state. Bill Kelly can educate you about that as he lives in Oregon.

            It’s just common sense where you don’t have hound hunting, baiting, or trapping you’re going to have predator problems with bears and mountain lions.
            This effects populations of ungulates, but throw in wolves and you have a situation that spirals into a predation pit.

            NOW- Where is your information on depredation of livestock being skewed?????? You haven’t addressed that yet, you try to side-step-it, but you don’t provide one example of a ranch report/ study out West, and WE know you can’t provide first hand experience/accounts.

            Still waiting. Then will move to stewardship range livestock management criteria for lease contracts.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            I was referring to Maine, as plainly seen in my comment. There is a ballot initiative in Maine to ban bait, traps and dogs for hunting bears. Which is not a ban on bear hunting.
            Still looking for proof. Because you say so doesn’t make it true. “Many people of been killed by mountain lions inCA since the ban on cougar hunting completely”. Really?

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 3, 2014

            You are unaware of all the lethal removals of mountain lions in CA, problems with their deer herds???? Got to get to know some hunters then, because that is a hot topic for CA. Also a hot topic for residents that experience high mountain lion encounters and attacks on their pets.

            Here is a list of “confirmed” fatal cougar attacks on people in California only.

            As far as the state of Maine I read Tom R. blog and know that state is fighting a ballot by the HSUS to ban bait and hounds. Like I explained before take away the tools to hunt black bears, and hunting them with out hounds and bait isn’t effective.

            If you would like to discuss this with Tom R. ask him yourself, he can educate you about what is actually going on in his state.

            Banning bait and hounds is like tying the hands behind sportsmen to manage bears. It’s not based on Science, and it’s an-Anti-hunting agenda.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            CA didn’t have a mountain lion hunt. The use of dogs was prohibited for bears and bobcats, not cougars. Even when classified as a game animal, there still was no hunting of mountain lions in CA.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            No kidding. I CA banned mountain lion hunting period.

            I got to shoot a porcupine in my pear tree

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014


          • Bobalee Sep 4, 2014

            Since the ban on hunting them in 1990, there have been three people killed by cougars in California; the ban is not the cause for these deaths as there were others prior to that. Although not a desirable number since three deaths occurred I would not classify it as “many” as you did.

          • kristilloyd Sep 5, 2014

            Remember, I mentioned hysterical ignorance? Classic case right there.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 1, 2014

            Who funded your petition drive Kristy? Let’s start there.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            OK, let’s. UP residents asked the HSUS for help and they accepted. It’s not like they barged out of their office in Lansing and took it upon themselves to get the petition drive going.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Which means the HSUS funded the petition drive for $1,000,000. Thank you

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            And RMEF donated $15,000. And the Bear Hunting org donated $100,000. The Hunting Dog Federation donated $10,000. Don’t act like there is no money on the other side.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Donated for what the Sportsman of Michigan initiative drive. If they did why were these groups forced to come up with $125,000 in an united effort to use the legislative process to protect Michigan hunters?

            $125,000 also came from the organizations fund raisers and donations, not the EAJA act “our tax-dollars” through litigation abuses.

            $125,000 compared combined vs $1,000,000 creates an unbalance to take the rights away from 1 out of 6 Michigan citizens that support hunting. The sportsman group, if they did get funding from these united groups on this subject were still grossly under-funded compared to the huge war-chest of the HSUS.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            There is more money, I gave the specific amounts that they, the Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management, made public. CPWM is not without funding.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Who Owns The Environmental Movement

            Funding from the Foundations

            There are several thousand groups in the United States today involved in “saving the Earth”. Although all share a common philosophy, these groups are of four general types: those concerned, respectively with environmental problems, population control, animal rights, and land trusts. Most of these groups are very secretive about their finances, but there is enough evidence on the public record to determine what they are up to.

            Table 1 lists the annual revenues of a sampling of 30 environmental groups. These few groups alone had revenues of more than $1.17 billion in 1990. This list, it must be emphasized, by no means includes all of these envirobusinesses. It is estimated that there are more than 3,000 so-called nonprofit environmental groups in the United States today, and most of them take in more than a million dollars a year.

            The Global Tomorrow Coalition, for example, is made up of 110 environmental and population-control groups, few of which have revenues less than $3 million per year and land holdings of more than 6 million acres worth billions of dollars, is just the best known of more than 900 land trusts now operating in the United States.

            Table 2, lists the grants of 35 foundations to two heavily funded and powerful environmentalist groups — the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council — for the year 1988.

            The data available from public sources show that the total revenues of the environmentalist movement are more than $8.5 billion per year. If the revenues of law firms involved in environmental litigation and of university environmental programs were added on, this figure would easily double to more than $16 billion a year. This point is emphasized in Table 3, which lists the top 15 environmental groups receiving grants for environmental lawsuits and protection and education programs.

            To get an idea of how much money this is, the reader should consider that this income is larger than the Gross National Product (GNP) of 56 underdeveloped nations (Table 4). The 48 nations for which the latest GNP figures were available have a total population of more than 360 million human beings. Ethiopia, for example, with a population of 47.4 million human beings, many starving, has a GNP of only $5.7 billion per year. Somalia, with 5.9 million inhabitants, has a GNP that is lower than the revenues of those groups listed in Table 1. Not a single nation in Central America or the Caribbean has a GNP greater than the revenues of the U.S. environmental movement.

            With these massive resources under its control, it is no surprise that the environmentalist movement has been able to set the national policy agenda. There is no trade association in the world with the financial resources and power to match the vast resources of the environmental lobby. In addition, it has the support of most of the news media. Opposing views and scientific refutations of environmental scares are most often simply blacked out.

            Where do the environmental groups get their money? Dues from members represent an average of 50 percent of the income of most groups; most of the rest of the income comes from foundation grants, corporate contributions, and U.S. government funds. Almost every one of today’s land-trust, environmental, animal-rights, and population-control groups was created with grants from one of the elite foundations, like the Ford foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. These “seed grants” enable the radical groups to become established and start their own fundraising operations. These grants are also a seal-of-approval for the other foundations.

          • Guest Sep 3, 2014

            who signed the petitions inbred moron? ALL MI CITIZENS. You are a worthless right wing inbred

        • kristilloyd Sep 1, 2014

          Well, Chandie, I hate to break it to you but the citizens of Michigan have a right, provided in the Michigan state constitution, to redress the government via the ballot initiative and getting petitions signed and circulated by registered MI voters. A minimum number of signatures is required and when met or surpassed within a specified time frame the petitions are turned in to the Board of Canvassers office which is overseen by the Sec’y of State’s office. Nothing artificial about it. Names on the petitions are checked through voter registration information. You are always quick to point out the out of staters getting involved in Idaho’s business yet here you are poking your nose in MI business. And I imagine WA state’s business too now regarding the Huckleberry pack. How very hypocritical of you. Which is typical. There, screen shot that, make yourself happy. MI is “urban”. Really? One of the top ag states in the country yet it’s an urban state. Who knew?
          Funny you bring up the NAMWC because the organization that pushed for the wolf hunt, made up of hunters, trappers, anglers, totally disregarded the model, specifically #’s 1, 3, and 7. The hunter guidelines went out the window on that one. Perhaps you would enlighten the other readers what those 3 principles are. Remember, no googling!

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 1, 2014

            Actually Kristy I’m very interested in Michigan state law. Since I have found that out-of -state citizens like yourself, have continually interfered with wildlife management in my state personally impacting my community, neighbors, friends, and myself, and I think this issue is an important lesson for all rural populations, sportsmen, ranchers, and people that are interested in private property rights.

            Michigan State Constitution allows legislature law-makers 40 days to act on initiatives.

            ” Michigan is one of eight states with an indirect initiative process allowing citizens to send a bill to lawmakers for consideration, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

            The process is entirely legal but can “strike some people as unfair and deceptive,” according to Bill Ballenger, a former Republican state lawmaker and founder of the Inside Michigan Politics newsletter.

            “There’s an expectation that when people sign a petition, they think it’s going to be on the ballot, but plainly the language of the constitution gives the option for lawmakers to act on it within 40 days,” he said. ”


            So explain how this is Unconstitutional within your State, when it states that your representatives that are your law-makers, have the legal right to “act” on these initiatives within a 40 day time-frame?

          • kristilloyd Sep 1, 2014

            Well, ol’ Merle is wrong. Proposal G gave the authority to regulate the taking of game, which is not the same as designating game species. Designation of a game species is not the same thing as regulating game species. The Senate had that authority and to circumvent the first petition against the wolf hunt, the Senate passed a bill giving the NRC their authority. Since the NRC is appointed and not elected, the petition could not be directed at the NRC, so the Senate gave its authority to the NRC. Not the same thing, but many make that mistake about Proposal G. Be as interested in MI law as you want to be, you are still wrong and so is Merle. And since when have you been so interested in MI state law? Yep, big out-of-state organizations like Safari Club Int’l, Rocky Mt. Elk Foundation, Nat’l Turkey Federation. The NRA.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Since Michigan had a wolf hunt before wolves would of been “already designated a game species.” Where in Michigan “law” did they change from a “game-species” from the last hunt to a protected endangered species again?

            Please address this: The Michigan Constitutional 40-day period legislature/lawmakers are legally able to act on citizen initiatives?

            I’ll repeat this for you: “Michigan State Constitution allows legislature /law-makers 40 days to act on initiatives.

            ” Michigan is one of eight states with an indirect initiative process allowing citizens to send a bill to lawmakers for consideration, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

            The process is entirely legal but can “strike some people as unfair and deceptive,” according to Bill Ballenger, a former Republican state lawmaker and founder of the Inside Michigan Politics newsletter.

            “There’s an expectation that when people sign a petition, they think it’s going to be on the ballot, but plainly the language of the constitution gives the option for lawmakers to act on it within 40 days,” he said. “

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Wrong again, wolves WERE designated a game species before the hunt otherwise there couldn’t legally have been a hunt on them. They are not protected in Michigan by the ESA. They are still delisted.

            The 40 days comes after the certification of the petition by verifying the signatures on the petition. The legislature, in those 40 days, could accept and vote on the initiative or they could reject it and let it get on the ballot in Nov. They accepted it and passed it. Citizen initiatives do not go into effect until 91 days after the last legislative session, which would be March. Because there were enough signatures on one of the petitions from KMWP that put the wolf hunt on hold until voted on in Nov.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Then why did you say this?

            Kristy-“Proposal G gave authority to regulate the taking of game, which is not the same as designating game species. Designation of a game species is no the same thing as “regulating” game species.”

            I understood that, and knew wolves were taken off the federal Endangered Species List, through-out the entire United States, (except for the Mexican wolf program), and since you had a “hunt” in Michigan, Merle is correct that Proposal G can be legally in effect, since the DNR had already designated them a “game species” before.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Wolves were not taken off the Endangered List throughout the entire US. Proposal G gives the Natural Resources Commission the authority to REGULATE the taking of game…the rules, regulations. One of the petitions is to repeal wolves being designated (NOT regulated) a game species. An animal can’t be regulated if it’s not designated as game first. The petition from KMWP has NOTHING to do with Proposal G or regulating the taking of game. Proposal G has nothing to do with their the petition for the wolf hunt either. They confuse regulating with designating…two different things.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 27, 2014


            The move by the Michigan state legislature to subvert HSUS’s latest attempt to restrict hunting rights garnered strong support from Michigan citizens. The petition to send the bill to the Legislature received over 297,000 signatures, far and away more than HSUS and its front group, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, received for either of their initiatives.

            While the hunting ban proponents relied on their typical animal rights messaging, the support for SFWCA was based on scientific research from state animal biologists, a need to be protected from a potentially dangerous species whose population has increased over the past few decades, and common sense reasoning that a ban on wolf hunting is harmful to citizens as well as the state’s economy.

          • kristilloyd Sep 27, 2014

            Nope, wrong again, as usual. This isn’t over and we haven’t lost. There is no wolf hunt this year in Michigan, can’t really call that a loss. We still got more signatures and didn’t pay up to $5.00/signature like the org behind this initiative. We aren’t cutting out the voters. We had Republicans in the House that voted against this initiative. We aren’t using fear mongering. Many other animal populations have increased over decades as well.
            Please explain in your own words, instead of copying/pasting something you think is correct, how it affects the economy.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 27, 2014

            That’s not what the Michigan Sportsmen Coalition says. You didn’t win a victory by ending a wolf hunt, long term you lost as the HSUS was exposed for using their funds to dictate wildlife policy using emotions NOT Science.

            I’m not going to answer any of your questions until you answer the one I asked you weeks ago. For example you stated that ranchers falsify their livestock report records out West on wolf depredation.

            Where is your information on that????? where????

          • kristilloyd Sep 28, 2014

            Since you don’t live in Michigan you don’t have a fucking clue as to what has happened here. Just why do you have to rely on something for information about something going on in Michigan?
            You don’t have first hand knowledge about anything in Idaho either. You live in your own little bubble surrounded by conspiracy theories and extremists and ignorance and hate. You don’t have a grasp in reality there either.
            Yeah, just look at all my ignorance here on this page, wow. It’s just overwhelming isn’t it? All the information I have provided can be proven and is documented. Unlike yours. Agenda 21 is a load of crap, too.
            Oh, remind me again, just where is that money that Robert Fanning had asked for in donations to sue the gov’t over the reintroduction? How is that case coming along? Find a lawyer who doesn’t think you all are nuts and doesn’t want to be associated with people like you?
            What is the Michigan Sportsmen Coalition? Oh yeah, a group that thinks the government is coming for their guns. Another conspiracy. Can’t let go of those can you? What is published on the internet….well that just HAS to mean it’s true!
            Well, let’s see…is there a wolf hunt this year? Nope. Do the hunters want one? Yep. They don’t get one. Why? Because our petitions put it on hold. Who got what they wanted and who didn’t get what they wanted? Did you find those pics of staged trappings yet? Where are they if you don’t know how to copy/paste them? So HSUS was exposed for using emotion? Oh yes, those sportsmen…that can NEVER explain the science of the wolf hunt. None of them have ever explained it, because it doesn’t exist.
            Ok, pay attention this time…ranchers don’t fill out the investigative reports and many of them don’t even report dead livestock. Yet they will bitch and scream and holler and stomp their feet that a wolf killed a cow or a sheep, but yet they don’t have the suspected depredation investigated because they don’t report the incident. Then they bitch about not being compensated. Wildlife Services does a half-ass job of investigating depredations…yup, a woof done that. Here’s your approval for a check.

          • Chandie Bartell Oct 3, 2014

            Haha stay professional now don’t cuss makes you look hysterical! Spokesman for the Wolves of the Rockies loses it on internet media.

            Wow you never even stepped foot out West, YNP doesn’t count, and you have been trying to force your anti-hunting ideologies in Idaho and the Western Rockies for 4 years.

            How can you be a Spokeswoman for the Wolves of the Rockies when you have NEVER been out WEST EVER or lived with wolves?

            Sent a copy of your rant to the Michigan hunters too.

            Make sure you friend a fellow Michigan-Ted.

            Ted Nugent

            August 27 ·

            A GREATDAY FOR MICHIGAN, WILDLIFE & OUR BROTHER THE MIGHTY WOLF. GONGRATSALUTE all you Michiganiacs as it was surely WE THE PEOPLE who did the heavy lifting to educate our elected employees about scientific sustain yield wildlife management. Good wolf hunting everyone as we keep this majestic beast balanced, healthy & thriving as an asset to MI America & The Spirit of the Wild!

            Victory In Michigan As Scientific Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act Becomes Law.

            August 27, 2014
            Washington, D.C. – Safari Club International (SCI) congratulates the Michigan House of Representatives for their bipartisan effort passing the citizen-initiated Scientific Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act (SFWCA) today. With today’s vote the SFWCA becomes law.

            “SCI would like to thank the House members for their bipartisan support in protecting science based conservation in the state today by supporting SFWCA,” said Merle Shepard, Past President of SCI and Michigan resident. “In addition to the elected officials who support scientific wildlife management, SCI would like to thank the Michigan Bear Hunters Association, Michigan Hunting Dog Federation, Michigan Trappers and Predator Callers Association, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Upper Peninsula Whitetails, Inc. of Marquette County, Upper Peninsula Whitetails, Inc., Upper Peninsula Sportsmen’s Alliance, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, National Rifle Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The sportsmen’s community truly came together in support of SFWCA and to take a stand against HSUS’s constant ballot box bullying.”

            Out-of-state anti-hunting groups, led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), have launched two referendum drives in Michigan seeking to overrule Michigan’s wildlife biologists on game management decisions. With their deep pockets, they know that once they get on a statewide ballot, it’s just a matter of spending millions of dollars in misleading advertising. They are currently trying the same strategy in Maine, just as they tried it here in 1996 and in 2006. SFWCA puts an end to the constant referendums and campaigning for proper wildlife management and replaces it with proper scientific management of wildlife.

            The Scientific Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act:
            Ensures that decisions affecting the taking of fish and game are made using principles of sound scientific fish and wildlife management;
            Provides for free hunting, fishing and trapping licenses for active members of the military, and; Provides appropriations for fisheries management activities within Michigan necessary for rapid response, prevention, control and/or elimination of aquatic invasive species, including Asian carp.

            “We are proud of every Safari Club International Member who volunteered their time to ensure the final passage of the Scientific Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act this week as it became law,” concluded SCI President Craig Kauffman.

          • Chandie Bartell Oct 4, 2014

            Wrong you stated before and many times they fake depredation reports all over social media. So how was that done? I know an agent employee has to fill out the forms, but you claim the stats that are reported, not all are legitimate and that ranchers fake the reports blame depredations on other predators other than wolves? Now you are changing your story. Why because you don’t have a clue.

            As a matter of fact you have never been out West (except YNP) have never lived in ranch/farm country, and you have NEVER met a rancher and spoke to anyone that has suffered livestock losses to wolves. I have and live by them. First hand experience.

            So that is your proof up above?????? Conjecture-guessing? Where did you get that information?

            Regarding Gun Control-You don’t pay attention to Congress do you or Government. To deny Agenda 21 is to ignore that Clinton signed the Executive Order for it. You can get a copy of Agenda 21 from your Congressman mailed to your door.

            Ever here of:

            The U.N. Resolution 2117?

            U.N. resolution lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION, DISARMAMENT —”

            HOORAY – 53-46 vote – The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution.

            In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.

            Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

            Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? .

            In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.

            Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

            Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
            Baldwin (D-WI)
            Baucus (D-MT)
            Bennett (D-CO)
            Blumenthal (D-CT)
            Boxer (D-CA)
            Brown (D-OH)
            Cantwell (D-WA)
            Cardin (D-MD)
            Carper (D-DE)
            Casey (D-PA)
            Coons (D-DE
            Cowan (D-MA)
            Durbin (D-IL)
            Feinstein (D-CA)
            Franken (D-MN)
            Gillibrand (D-NY)
            Hirono (D-HI)
            Johnson (D-SD)
            Kaine (D-VA)
            King (I-ME)
            Klobuchar (D-MN)
            Landrieu (D-LA)
            Leahy (D-VT)
            Levin (D-MI)
            McCaskill (D-MO)
            Menendez (D-NJ)
            Merkley (D-OR)
            Mikulski (D-MD)
            Murphy (D-CT)
            Murray (D-WA)
            Nelson (D-FL)
            Reed (D-RI)
            Reid (D-NV)
            Rockefeller (D-WV)
            Sanders (I-VT)
            Schatz (D-HI)
            Schumer (D-NY)
            Shaheen (D-NH)
            Stabenow (D-MI)
            Udall (D-CO)
            Udall (D-NM)
            Warner (D-VA)
            Warren (D-MA)
            Whitehouse (D-RI)
            Wyden (D-OR)

            46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

            Graham Votes Against Gun Control

            WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made these statements on his votes on gun violence legislation in the United States Senate today.

            “President Obama wanted three things on gun control — ban assault weapons, limit magazine sizes, and expand background checks. He lost on all three.

            “I’ve always been confident if the Senate debated the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment would win. Today we saw that President Obama’s politically-driven solutions to gun violence could not withstand scrutiny from Congress and the American people. Substance won out over the unsound solutions President Obama and others were pushing.

            “I’m very pleased the Senate took up, debated, and voted on gun violence legislation. I was always ready and willing to vote in support of what I believe.”

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            He was talking about the wolf hunt initiative from CPWM, not the ones from Keep MI Wolves Protected. The one that bypassed the voters.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Here is the language for Proposal G. It has NOTHING to do with the designation of game species by the NRC and that was the purpose of the second petition, to repeal the law where the Senate gave their authority to designate game species to the unelected, appointed NRC.,_Proposal_G_(1996)

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            When was this other wolf hunt? The state had not had an organized hunt on wolves unless you are including the period of time when they were trapped for bounties, which ended decades ago. They were on the state’s endangered list before the federal endangered list. Federally delisted in Jan. 2012.

        • Bootsontheground Sep 2, 2014

          Support? were you most of your signer’s were from out of state they can’t vote here.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            The petitions were circulated by verified MI voters and signed by MI voters.

          • Chandie Bartell Oct 7, 2014

            Paid for by a California based organization and the HSUS

          • Guest Sep 3, 2014

            Do you ever get sick of being a dumb retarded rural inbred?

        • Bobalee Oct 8, 2014

          These were open public meetings concerned with the reintroduction of wolves into YNP and central Idaho’s Frank Church Wilderness held in the 1990’s:

          “A seemingly endless round of public meetings and hearings was held in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and elsewhere. I believe 45 in total were held. According to both Hank Fischer’s and Thomas McNamee’s books on the wolf reintroduction, the incredible number of hearings was the product of
          bureaucratic caution and an attempt by the Farm Bureau to try a muster a
          anti-wolf majority somewhere in America at an official public meeting. I
          attended the hearing in Idaho Falls, Idaho, where 45 people spoke in favor of
          the reintroduction and three were against. Note. Wolf supporters outnumbered opponents in every hearing in the west except the one in Cody, Wyoming, where the anti-wolf organizers finally got their long sought majority.
          Most of the testimony at these hearings, however, was devoted not to Idaho, but to the potential Yellowstone wolves, both pro and con. The large numbers of hearings belie the later claims the federal government just “dumped wolves” on unsuspecting Idaho citizens.”

        • Bobalee Oct 12, 2014

          Prior to the wolf reintroduction into YNP and central Idaho’s Frank Church Wilderness there were many meetings held in the area and letters of opinion accepted from citizens including “rural working people”.

          “A seemingly endless round of public meetings and hearings was held in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and elsewhere. I believe 45 in total were held. According to both Hank Fischer’s and Thomas McNamee’s books on
          the wolf reintroduction, the incredible number of hearings was the product of
          bureaucratic caution and an attempt by the Farm Bureau to try a muster a
          anti-wolf majority somewhere in America at an official public meeting. I
          attended the hearing in Idaho Falls, Idaho, where 45 people spoke in favor of
          the reintroduction and three were against. Note. Wolf supporters
          outnumbered opponents in every hearing in the west except the one in Cody,
          Wyoming, where the anti-wolf organizers finally got their long sought majority.
          Most of the testimony at these hearings, however, was devoted not to Idaho, but to the potential Yellowstone wolves, both pro and con. The large numbers of hearings belie the later claims the federal government just “dumped wolves” on unsuspecting Idaho citizens.”

  2. sunshine888 Aug 26, 2014

    Lloyd is the only “hysterical” one here. She will never save a single wolf & does not know anything about livestock depredations, yet spends an inordinate amount of time on facebook degrading ranchers. She lives in a safe, wolf-free city, insulated from any conflicts or losses from wolves.
    The wolf lovers are experts at faking massive amounts of “signatures” on “Save the Wolves” petitions.
    256,000 signatures in 70 days? There’s a red flag, or should I say, ‘fladry” , right there. Unless every single signature is verified as a real person, these petitons mean nothing.

    • Christine Barry Aug 31, 2014

      Unless you can verify that at least one of those signatures is fake, your opinion on those petitions means nothing. The rest of your comments are addressed in the podcast.

    • kristilloyd Aug 31, 2014

      Well I have to disagree and thanks for proving my point regarding hysterical ignorance. The signatures were verified by the Board of Canvassers through the Secretary of State’s office, the same agency that verified the citizen’s initiative from our opposition. Twice they verified signatures and certified our petitions. I guess the signatures on their petition meant nothing too.
      There will be no wolf hunt in 2014 so it looks like some wolves were saved. Also, my organization in MT got the quota lowered outside of Yellowstone so wolves will be saved there as well.
      I don’t live in a city.
      I know livestock depredations are avoidable or lessened with diligent use of non-lethal methods. I know that subsidies and compensation are a drain on our economy and public lands. I know livestock depredations are exaggerated and loosely investigated, if at all, in the western states. How about you tell me what you know about depredations and the democratic process in Michigan?

      • Chandie Bartell Sep 1, 2014

        Looks like other Michigan registered voters in your state had a higher quota of valid signatures to take to their Michigan representatives to over-turn your Humane Society funded petition drives.

        The initiated bill was sent to the state Legislature last month by Citizens For Professional Wildlife Management, a hunting and conservation coalition that collected an estimated 297,000 valid signatures in a statewide petition drive.

        Regarding you self-proclaimed knowledge of open-grazing requirements and experience out West on BLM and USFS lands please provide your expertise towards the questions below. Please don’t provide “google” links.

        Explain the process of how to confirm a livestock depredation and the variables involved in this process on open range out West? Experience not “google” with this process please through real-life work related jobs on ranches or speaking and working first -hand with ranchers out West. How does a rancher go about trying to get livestock “confirmed” as a wolf kill for example. What agencies does he contact? What variables can create difficulties with confirmation reporting? What is the economic impact on the rancher for losing livestock beyond the market price of the animal? How does this effect his injured livestock, and their ability to produce?

        Please provide data on your knowledge of depredations being exaggerated in the Northern Rocky States. I have “some” of that information but it isn’t provided on “google.” Sources and examples of real ranchers you know first hand please that you work with or know (real-life) not “google.” I live in the NRM State of Idaho, and know first hand how depredation records are a scam an unreliable living NEXT to ranchers regarding the illegal Canadian wolf experiment.

        How many wolves are in Kalamoozo, Michigan and the lower UP where you live? How many ranchers do you personally know in the upper UP in Michigan? Have you spoke to them face to face, contacted them by phone?

        Where do you get your information about Western open-grazing multi-use management when you don’t live in the West? Is this information from George Weurthener’s book, Welfare Rancher, or a wildlife blog, or from personally experiencing open-grazing livestock management stewardship personally yourself? What experience do you have working with ranchers that own open-grazing leases on BLM and USFS lands?

        Also please provide information on grazing lease allotments in the West, and what is required in a grazing lease. You can start with stewardship and grazing improvements that must be met for all wildlife that shares that grazing lease. How many farms and ranches have you worked on with first hand knowledge and experience? What states? Years of experience? Description of job duties?

        How does livestock grazing management improve wildlife populations?

        • Bobalee Sep 1, 2014


          You certainly are demanding considering that 4-5 years ago you did not even know BLM was a federal agency. Can you answer all your own questions? “You can start with stewardship and grazing improvements that must be met for all wildlife that shares that grazing lease.” and finish with “How does livestock grazing management improve wildlife populations?”

          Where is the division between the lower UP and the upper UP in Michigan? Just curious. Kalamazoo is in the southwest LP of Michigan.

        • kristilloyd Sep 1, 2014

          Looks like you are wrong, again, Chandie. The first petition had 256,000 signatures and the second had 225,000 so ours had more. The petitions have not been overturned, they will still be on the ballot and voted on in Nov. UNLIKE the one from CPWM which bypassed the voters knowing that the public would vote it down. They also had about 17,000 signatures rejected as being non-valid signatures.
          Would you give me your address so I can mail the info to you or can I fax it to you with the sources that I often provide via links. It’s the internet. I provide proof, documentation, facts with their sources so it can be checked. I don’t use blogs, like you do. I will use links to support what I say. Don’t kill the messenger, absorb the information contained therein. Stay with me now….livestock depredation evidence is finding hemorrhaging, or bleeding, under the skin so the animal has to be skinned, usually on site, for clues to the culprit. Wolves don’t bite like cougars, their jaws crush moreso than a clean bite like from a cat. Tracks near the carcass and recent sightings of wolves or other predators in the area are two clues. Location of the bite marks, size also can help in determining what killed the animal. Amount of blood can determine if the animal was killed or scavenged after having died from another cause. Classifications are confirmed, probably or inconclusive. Confirmed losses by wolves are compensated market value of the cow, sheep. Probable is partial compensation. No compensation for inconclusive. Investigators from state wildlife depts and/or Wildlife Services do the examinations. Well, except for ID, MT, WY because wolves kill everything, nothing ever dies from any other causes, it’s always wolves. It is up to ranchers to contact the state wildlife dept. Ranchers like Peavy in ID just call Wildlife Services directly.
          You’ll recognize some of these names I’m sure.

          Funny that you call the records a scam, can you prove that? If anything, the scams are ranchers trying to get $$ when there is no proof that wolves killed a cow or sheep. Chandie, Wildlife Services is in the business of killing predators, why would they “scam” anything? Most of the confirmations are, yep, a wolf kilt that thar one. Here’s your check. Have a good day.
          Just because you live next to ranchers doesn’t mean a thing. Show some proof.

          I don’t know where “Kalamoozo” is. I don’t live there. The “lower UP”? That makes absolutely zero sense. MI is in two parts…the Upper Peninsula (UP) and Lower Michigan, the part that looks like a mitten. Hold out your left hand, palm facing away from you. See that? That is what Lower MI looks like. There is no such thing as the lower UP. Maybe you should look at Google Maps.

          MI has its welfare farmer too. John Koski. Why don’t you google him yourself for information about him and his $30,000 in compensation; the $200,000 spent on him to help him; the guard donkeys he let die and then was prosecuted for and convicted and fined. He’s the Peavey, Hoppe equivalent in Michigan. Slob ranchers. But called farmers in MI. His land was private, not public though like the other two I mentioned. There are many other livestock farmers that don’t have depredation issues. Make sure you read the part about him baiting with deer legs and leaving carcasses on his property, in violation of the law.

          Livestock grazing management does NOTHING positive for wildlife. Native wildlife are pushed out of the area for the sake of livestock. Wildlife catch diseases from livestock and vice versa (pneumonia given to big horn sheep by domestic sheep. Elk transmit brucellosis to cattle) Bison are killed for the false belief that they transmit it to cattle. Overgrazing leads to erosion and the spread of noxious weeds. Cow feces and urine ruin rivers and streams. Riverbanks are worn down which can lead to flooding. Livestock gets predators killed and injured via trapping, poisoning, aerial gunning. Let’s hear your story about how good livestock grazing is helpful to wildlife.

          The BLM does not enforce its rules as much as it should. Take your pal Cliven Bundy in Nevada for instance. Also, by their own account, the BLM does a crummy job of “stewardship”.
          Make sure you read page 10, from the BLM itself…NOT good stewards of the land they are in charge of.

          Public lands ranchers, primarily in the West, pay $1.35 per AUM (animal unit monthly). This is a cow-calf pair, 8 sheep or goats, or one horse. Public lands ranching does not contribute to the work force, they have very few employees and particularly in Idaho, the employees are Peruvian, not American citizens. These ranchers receive subsidies, sometimes referred to as “welfare ranching” since it is the US taxpayers that provide the funding for the subsidies. The ranchers collect far more than what they pay in for grazing leases or AUM’s. The last time the AUM was increased was in 2007.

          Of course you still won’t be satisfied, Chandie. You’ll find something else to go off on. But please, prove that anything I wrote is wrong. Please, do it. I

          • Bobalee Sep 2, 2014

            That is a very succinct, honest, knowledgeable response.
            The primary reason I studied the sciences was because I disliked writing, it never came easily.
            Thanks for all the work you do to protect wolves and other wildlife.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Thank you, Bobalee. Very much appreciated.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

            You sound like Heckle and Jeckle…lol

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            So your counting both petitions together?

          • Guest Sep 3, 2014

            The vermin sportsmen were too cowardly to put this to the voters of MI because they would lose. There is no wolf hunt this year in MI and wolf hunters should be eradicated completely.

          • Bill Kelly Sep 2, 2014

            so you got 2% of michigan’s population to sign a ballot initiative. you do realize there are more hunters in Michigan than that alone, not to mention hunting family members. still looks like you are outweighed. All you can do is cry and stomp your feet

          • blockmccloud Sep 3, 2014

            There will be no wolf hunt this year you anti-wildlife terrorist. Hunters need to be eradicated

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            So why are these numbers provided for the other petition that don’t match yours above?

            Petitions for two anti-wolf hunt referendums contained valid signatures from an estimated 214,000 and 183,000 registered voters, respectively.

            So this article and it’s numbers are incorrect?

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            I guess it depends on what the source says. KMWP needed a minimum of 160,000 signatures the first time, got over 250,000. From every county in the state, including the UP. The second petition got 225,000.

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            What’s your source for this info?

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            I posted it

          • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

            Where did you find this info? As in where did you get it? From that book? Really?!! None of those sources are credible, especially Will Graves. A NM rancher, a ID rancher, an elk biologist, an anti-wolf blogger, a lawyer who represents ranchers….no wolf biologists, no wolf researchers…anti-wolf, every single one of them. Like I said, not credible.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            Stop it. These are a fraction of the accounts documented in great “(detail” with names of RANCHERS, name of their ranch, locations, dates, number of depredations wolf kills, numbers of unreported/unconfirmed kills, injured and mauled animals.

            Some of these studies I posted the name of the person conducting the study and for what University and the results.

            Will Graves is a renowned expert- Property Rights Foundation of America®

            Founded 1994


            Will N. Graves
            Author and International Expert
            Millersville, Maryland

            Keynote Address

            “The Truth About Wolf Reintroduction”
            Fifteen Annual National Conference on Private Property Rights

            Mr. Graves has been an avid hunter, fisherman and sportsman since his youth. While still a college student at the College of the Americas in Mexico City, studying Spanish and international marketing, he was hired by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry in Mexico. In that capacity, he worked for American-Mexican Commission to Eradicate the Foot and Mouth Disease (CAMPEFA), an organization formed to prevent the spread of the foot and mouth disease from Mexico into the U.S. He became the Chief of a Livestock Inspecting/vaccinating Brigade in a horseback only area in a tropical rain forest with headquarters in the village of Cozolapa, Oaxaca.

            In 1965, he started research about the American wolves and focused on the differences in reported wolf behavior in Russia and the reported behavior of wolves in the U.S. He continued his research on wolves in Russia and the U.S. throughout his career in government service where he utilized his linguistic and research skills. Graves believes that wolves have a legitimate role and place in the ecosystem. He also believes that their numbers need to be carefully managed as a result of scientific research on their impact on given areas. Following his retirement he completed his first book, Wolves in Russia, and is now working on a second book on the same topic.

            Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages
            By Will N. Graves
            Edted by Dr. Valerius Geist, Ph.D.

            Wolves in Russia unmasks the Disneyesque view of wolves propangandized in the U.S.

            To order see web site:

          • Bobalee Sep 5, 2014

            I read in a couple of media reports that Gene Eastman’s horse was not a confirmed wolf kill.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 9, 2014

            Did you speak to Gene Eastman himself or his wife, and the fact IDFG CO Bill Snow made out the report, (with wolf tracks all over in the horse’s corral right by their house) and David Cadwalder of IDFG Clearwater Region said he didn’t want to document wolf kills for 5 years on horses or livestock???? Why do you think Gene Eastman went public with this story in the first place.

          • Guest Sep 3, 2014

            is that why the anti-wolf side was afraid to take this issue to the voters in November? You are a clueless inbred. A good wolf hunter is a dead one

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

            Kristy…For the love of wildlife…Go find another hobby!…our critters can’t take many more of your theories or glitter fartin’ wolves!…..Our game agencies have been kissing wolf azz long enough too…..and it looks like the Pretenders of Wildlife are finally figuring it out too….(( “””Defenders of Wildlife is not opposed to hunting of wolves. We represent hunters as well as other conservationists and animal rights people. We have a very wide spectrum of people that are our members, but we’ve never been opposed to hunting ….Suzanne Stone””))…she claims her complaint is wolves aren’t managed like other predators….No kidding…they aren’t LIKE other predators Cougars and bears have been blamed for years for the damage wolves are doing….In you description of a wolf kill… forgot to mention that wolves kill and leave the animals lay to waste……..whereas cougar and bears both cache their kills and eat it all before killing again…..
            You say “””US taxpayers that provide the funding for the subsidies”””..So what??…WE provided the funding for wildlife for over 100 years……you don’t whine about that do you??. destroying our wildlife is ok with you…..You people have caused an economic-wildlife-ecological-biological disaster from hell…But thats ok isn’t it??? You don’t whine about food prices either. You should complain about paying the non producers-not generational farmers and ranchers that provide for your every need…..
            Stop using products from animals…But that’s not convenient for you is it???..But, by god everyone else should stop…lol…Your hypocrisy has always amazed me… say ranchers collect far more than they pay in…How about you??..What do you do to contribute to your daily needs???…NOTHING!!!..Can’t wait til the day you do…pucker up!!!…You’ll be kissing farmer butt soon…

            reminds me of the study up by the wedge…there was one of your hippy dippy projects above a rancher with 2500 head of cattle….the study showed the water was 300% cleaner when it left the ranchers property….Ooops..another fail.

            This man has studies going on all over the world…Including Idaho..You should be paying ranchers to fix the land you nutbags have destroyed with your hands off BS….


          • kristilloyd Sep 4, 2014

            Yeah, every rancher is going to practice holistic healing. Uh huh.
            Well, when taxpayers contribute over $200 million and get back about $20 million that seems just a bit unfair. Add in the cost of Wildlife Services, the few employees that ranching employs, the amount of the beef that is exported…yep, public lands ranching is great. Not all ranchers abuse the land they rent from taxpayers, but many don’t and the BLM (also paid for by taxpayers) don’t enforce their own rules, and this is by their own admission.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 4, 2014

            You missed the point Kristi….What you call abusing the land.( too many cows on an allotment, perhaps or maybe water systems constructed and maintained by the rancher?) is not abuse-cattle don’t hurt a thing….and all wildlife benefits from the water….So what if corrals and a loading chute are constructed???…..
            Manure ‘contaminated” mud???…lol….nutrient rich as it gets…which was shown in the Davis study I linked to you, proved it causes no harm. Farmers and ranchers used to spread manure on their fields-But thanks to over regulation…..and high cost…..petrochemicals are used now…can’t have that manure contaminated mud returned to the soil can we??…… our soil is dying and it sure as hell isn’t the cows doing it….
            Did you happen to catch how much area in the world that can actually raise livestock OR crops??….probably not–

          • Bobalee Sep 4, 2014

            The “contaminated” mud ending up in Samish Bay frequently shuts down the commercial shell fishing there. It harms not only critters in the bay but also the pocket book of the those harvesting the beds.
            Why could not these two farmers comply with existing laws as had the others in similar circumstances in that area?
            There are many detrimental effects of cattle grazing. For example – birds that drown in watering troughs are certainly harmed.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Oct 5, 2014

            Solved by merely putting a piece of wood in the floats ya know…..squirrels and chipmunks benefit too… .But Nooooo…must completely remove cattle/water sources instead!……a little logic goes a long ways!…..How many decades did the cattle and shellfish cohabitate in the area before agenda driven “science” declared otherwise??….Many regulations include the words “Where practical”….way more people, WAY more often, eat beef and use their byproducts than consume shellfish…and to use a term you use like gospel…What was there first????

          • Bobalee Oct 9, 2014

            From Kristi’s link: “The Clean Samish Initiative works to eliminate bacterial water quality violations in Samish basin waters by March 1, 2012. High bacteria levels in Samish Bay have prompted the Washington Department of Health to make 14 temporary shellfish harvesting closures in 2010 and 11 so far in 2011. Over the past four years, these closures have curtailed harvesting for 29 days in 2008, 39 days in 2009, 68 days in 2010 and 55 days so far in 2011.”

            Do you believe waste products going into a commercial fishing area should not be regulated in order to protect shellfish harvesting, both commercial and sport?

            “Marine toxins found in shellfish are typically the result of the ingestion of one of a number of different types of algae. The algae and the toxins exist in low concentrations at all times. However, during warmer months a phenomenon called a Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) can occur. Better known as a red tide, an HAB dramatically increases the amount of algal toxins present. HABs can cover very large areas, sometimes as large as 1,000 square miles in size.”

            “Mollusks are the most likely shellfish to become toxic. They are filter feeders living off of the algae in their environment and can accumulate very high levels of toxins during harmful algal blooms. Shellfish can eventually pass the toxins through their system, but that can take anywhere from days to months after the bloom has subsided.”

            Read more about the toxins produced:

            The run off from the sited cattle lots is fertilizer for the algal blooms in Samish Bay.

          • Ernie Meyer Oct 5, 2014

            in Washington state the also run forensic exams. What you find in the stomach proves a lot.

    • “sunshine” – From your many posts on Montana news sites regarding this issue I get the feeling you are a Montana resident. Since you post baseless charges anonymously and apparently aren’t a citizen of our fair state, that’s a “red flag”. I get the feeling you are a troll for some organization dedicated to trophy hunting (don’t think you’re eating wolf meat…). How about a little “sunshine” from you? Who are you?

  3. Chandie Bartell Sep 1, 2014

    Kristy Lloyd is too immature, inexperienced living in an urban area, unprofessional, and emotionally abusive towards the public, let alone to be a “spokesperson” or voice of authority on any subject regarding wolves, private property rights, and more significantly in the realm of educating the public on a subject she is lacking in real-life impact content.

    Her abusive petty verbal attacks on facebook targeting ranchers, calling them Welfare Ranchers, and sportsmen and women, calling them inbred, ignorant, hysterical, slob-hunters etc. in the past four years in the Rocky Mtn. States on facebook has permanently injured her reputation.

    Michigan hunters sent screen shots of her verbal abuse, name calling, and attacks targeting ranchers and sportsmen in the West, and towards themselves to their Michigan representatives to educate them on the “smear” tactics of the extremist environmental activists that want to end all hunting, by not managing predators. Hopefully Kristy Lloyd has learned her lesson that the public she wants to advocate against won’t tolerate her social-media bullying tactics.

    Human Society, Anti-Gun, Anti-Hunting Organization funded the Michigan Wolf petitions. This leaves the normal citizen in Michigan or any state out of the ability to have their “voice” counted in a Representative Republic, as they can’t compete to educate or litigate against such a powerful well-funded organization. This is why the Citizen Initiative Drive got busy with their own petition to stop well-funded NGO organizations from interfering with their private property rights, and hunting heritage.

    Humane Society funded these petition drives for over $1,000,000. Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, a coalition funded primarily by the Humane Society of the United States, organized two successful petition drives in a bid to prevent wolf hunting.

    The Humane Society is a radical extremist anti-hunting, anti-ranching, anti-private property NGO animal rights group.

    • Christine Barry Sep 1, 2014

      Enough of the personal attacks. Stay on the issue if you want to post here.

      • Bill Kelly Sep 2, 2014

        looks like Chandie is staying on topic. after all, its wolves, hunting, ballots and the lunatic fringe.

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          the lunatic fringe being you anti-wildlife terrorists

        • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

          and “Guests” comments are ok??…Go figure!

      • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

        Really???…Maybe you should put ‘guest’ in check…THOSE are personal attacks…Not Chandies comments…

        • Christine Barry Sep 3, 2014

          I did take care of the guest comments when I saw them.

    • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

      Hunters signed the petitions from Keep MI Wolves Protected. Why would they support an “anti-hunting” organization? “Emotionally abusive”, really? Can I see these screen shots? You saw them, right? Otherwise you wouldn’t know they existed. Or are they in a file that you keep? Oh that’s right, after saying you keep files on people (me) you said you don’t have files. You seem to forget things you say (lie about). The citizens of MI signed those petitions. The name of the organization is pretty clear, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected.
      And why do you still spell my name wrong?

      • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

        Oh, Kristy stay on topic. I’ve told you many times that dozens of people you have bullied out West have recorded your comments with screen-shots. I don’t have them as I can’t make a screen -shot. I stand by that statement, so take responsibility for your posts on social media.

        • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

          Whatever. You strayed off topic when you made that comment about me being emotionally abusive, etc. I responded to you.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 2, 2014

            You’re one of the representatives of this anti-hunting “wolf” petition drive, so that makes you part of this topic.

    • Guest Sep 3, 2014

      We are the MAJORITY you conservative inbred and inbreds like you who hate wildlife are the minority. There will be no wolf hunt in MI this year. You lost

      • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

        lol…..They are the ones that live with wolves..they are the ones with the guns……How do you s’pose that will work out for you..or the wolves???

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          A good rural inbred is one that gets infected and dies by e granulosus. The greatest rural inbred management tool there is 😉

  4. Bill Kelly Sep 2, 2014

    kristilloyd Frances Bonner • a day ago
    Yes, Frances, there is a lot of support in Michigan as seen by the ballot initiatives, and letters to the editor and editorials. Also by comments like yours. Thank you!………………………………….. Ummm I would assume many michigan voters gould give 2 shits less about wolves. Considering there is almost 10 million residents in Michigan. How many siganatures do you need for a ballot? lmao.

  5. Bootsontheground Sep 2, 2014

    I for one am glad this nonsense about saving wolves will go down in this state. People are tired of having dogs killed by this worthless pests and livestock attacked or killed. There are no wolves worth saving. Increase the take numbers for this animal.

    You don’t like that one how about this one, it happened after the 4 dogs were killed.

    Here a good oldie for you Emotional Wolf Lovers to cry about.

    • kristilloyd Sep 2, 2014

      Then hunters should not let their dogs run loose in the woods in known wolf territories. There is a map of dog attacks available to anyone who wants to know where they are. Apparently training on rabbits, raccoons is more important than keeping a dog safe.

      • Bootsontheground Sep 2, 2014

        I can see you know nothing about working dogs from that stupid comment, hunting or stock protection dogs do not work on a leash. All are being killed, it is cheaper in the long run to just kill wolves to stop the killing of dogs. What is going to be next? I guess people would be ok in your mind set. So you stay with your mind set and we will stay with the dead wolves

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          dead ranchers/sportsmen are good rancher/sportsmen rural parasites need to be eradicated

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          Rural inbreds like you suffer from a mental illness called conservatism. You are a wildlife hater. ranchers and sportsmen are subhuman rural vermin dead ranchers/sportsmen is what we will stay with

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          Dead ranchers and sportsmen

      • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

        That’s FUNNY since you are the ones whining about your hippy dogs getting caught in traps…Setting dead animals up in phony traps…One of my favorites was the brand new shiny trap with the road killed cat…you will stop at nothing to bleed hearts (and wallets ) dry….WORKING dogs don’t belong on a leash…as per law.. hippy dogs do

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          traps need to and will be destroyed on sight. A good trapper is a dead one because dead trappers don’t hurt our wildlife or our dogs.

          • Bobalee Sep 3, 2014

            Comments like this that suggest death to anyone is not productive to the dialog.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 4, 2014

            Just so you know….when we were fighting for our hunting rights and wolf control in Idaho- we were running out of options and the eco facists were winning every battle…so we started screen shooting comments like yours to show our agencies and legislatures the kind of people they were listening to (mostly out of state or country) instead of to us…they found out most of the supporters thought they were a wolf…wanted to be a wolf…or wanted to do a wolf…….this would have been a good one to send them…….You threaten to destroy traps…against the law in most states…..and threatening a hunter is a federal offense….So, Thank you coward…Have a nice day!

        • Bobalee Sep 3, 2014

          What is a hippy dog?

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 4, 2014

            Dogs that live a miserable life in a city with idiots that feed them vegetarian diets….and get to take a walk only once in awhile….and people wonder why dogs bite them!!!!…..Maybe it should be against the law to own dogs in cities!

          • Bobalee Sep 6, 2014

            But city people have the right to own a dog and you are suggesting infringing on that right by making it unlawful?
            Additionally you are jumping to conclusions in your description of a city dogs life: miserable, vegetarian diet, few walks, . . . .

        • kristilloyd Sep 4, 2014

          Hunting dogs don’t get caught in traps? Do they have a special trap detector? Hunting dogs do get caught in traps. If a hunter takes his/her dogs into the woods, where wolves and other predators live, they shouldn’t whine and complain about losing them. That is on the hunter who made the conscious decision to put running and treeing wildlife above the safety of the dog.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 4, 2014

            Not that I’ve ever heard…..Why is it ok for you to whine when hippy dogs get caught??

          • Bobalee Sep 6, 2014

            Are malamutes working or hippie dogs?

            How about when a sled dog is shot while on a skiing tour with its owner on national forest land? No action was taken against the wolf hunter who killed this pet.


          • Chandie Bartell Sep 27, 2014

            Nope this phenomena just started with the HSUS staging trapping photos.

          • kristilloyd Sep 27, 2014

            Care to show these staged trappings? Still doesn’t mean dogs don’t get caught in traps. You are just repeating the garbage from the hunter’s org which can’t defend itself any other way but slamming HSUS.
            What, couldn’t explain how not killing wolves via a hunt hurts the state’s economy, in your own words.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 27, 2014

            When the “guys” get done producing the you-tube videos to expose them.

          • kristilloyd Sep 28, 2014

            What “guys”, other ID idiots?
            YOU are the one talking about how hunting wolves helps MI’s economy, or how not hunting them hurts MI’s economy. Nice explanation, apparently you don’t have one, as usual. YOU brought it up. Why bring it up if you can’t “discuss” it? Because you have no idea what you are talking about, that’s why. You intentionally ignore information which is provided for you but you would rather blather on and on and argue yourself silly…hysterical, willful ignorance.

          • Chandie Bartell Oct 7, 2014

            Stop the name. Nope they are not from Idaho but they are professional trappers.

    • Guest Sep 3, 2014

      the worthless pests are the vermin ranchers and their vermin sheep. a good rancher/sportsman is a dead one

    • Guest Sep 3, 2014

      there are no ranchers/sportsmen would shaving. They should all be eradicated. Rural parasites need to be obliterated

  6. Tyrell Wolfe Mares Sep 3, 2014

    “Hysterical Ignorance”? Livestock depredation is not hysterical ignorance considering these are people’s livelihoods we are talking about. For these people, it’s not just a business, it’s their way of life and everything they have put into them. It’s funny to hear this from the very same person who goes as far as making death threats towards people who disagree with her position even though Kristi Lloyd has never resided in wolf country let alone had any dealings with livestock depredation or had some other kind of sufficient in person contact with wild wolves. In her mind, all wolf hunters are “poachers” because they are participating in the wildlife management practice of predator control which is needed, regardless if you like wolves or not. Like it or not, it is needed. Too many predators of any kind will deplete prey populations resulting in a higher frequency serious human/ wildlife conflicts and livestock depredation since they don’t have a food source. On the note of livestock depredation, back in the 1930s and 40s, the US Biological Survey found that primary wolf habitat is located on farm and ranch land. Then I can bet I will hear that “humans are not natural to the ecosystem” but the truth is humans have been around just as long as modern wolves and since the beginning of human existence, humans and their interests have been part of the makeup of the environment. Also, there are two sides to every story and Michigan residents of all ranks, especially on the Upper Peninsula are opposed to wolves and the state wildlife managers have witnessed what has happened in the Northern Rockies and do not want to have a repeat on their own watch because it is their responsibility to manage Michigan’s wildlife for ALL residents, not let it get wiped out like the wolves are whipped out the elk in the Lolo Zone and not cater to one single special interest.One a side not the Lolo herd’s days are number and that is because of over-predation in
    combination to inadequate management that has resulted in outright
    failure. Going back to what’s going on in Michigan, bureaucracy by nature hinders the flow of organization action, be it public or private sector so the smooth flow of such efficient killing of wolves is not possible. Investigations have to be done. Reports have to be written. People have to be interviewed. It’s a long time consuming process just to kill one wolf let alone dozens. Kristi Lloyd also stands on the animal rights platform so I can assure you all she does not know one single hunter because animal rights is anti-hunting. At this point her credibility is shot and it very well should because because she never had none to begin with. She will lie to you until she is blue in the face just to push her agenda which only serves her own personal interests.

    • Guest Sep 3, 2014

      hunters and ranchers are anti-wildlife terrorists

      • Tyrell Wolfe Mares Sep 3, 2014

        Sportsmen are what fund wildlife conservation hence the Pittman-Robertson excise tax and the funds raised from hunting licenses. Ranchers provide wildlife habitat and in arid areas of the west, developed water so wildlife could exist where they previously could not. How can we be “anti-wildlife”. You extremists are responsible for the theft of the Pittman-Robertson excise tax dollars that were used to fund the wolf which has resulted in catastrophic wildlife depredation. You all are the anti-wildlife group of people because you all will go to any length to include actions that service to the detriment of our wildlife just to forward to an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment but everything to do with control As for the terrorist part, terrorism is defined as the use or threat of use of violence in order to achieve political and ideological objectives. That is what you people do with killing livestock, making death threats, and spiking trees. You don’t have a clue Guest and quite. You are a coward hiding behind some screenname but that is how you all operate, in the shadows plotting against your fellow man. You people are sick.

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          sportsmen are worthless anti-wildlife terrorists that should be eradicated. you are a coward and so are ranchers/sportsmen.

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          You are anti-wildlife because you kill a ton of wildlife. A good sportsman is a dead one.

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          look you little worthless bastard, you ranchers and sportsmen are rural parasites.

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 3, 2014

            Kristy’s friends showed up.

      • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

        and you are still a COWARD

    • kristilloyd Sep 3, 2014

      Wrong, I have never threatened anyone, but I have received those kinds of threats.
      Example of that hysterical ignorance…wolves depleting prey populations. Well, wolves and moose have been living together for 50+ years on Isle Royale, the moose are doing much better than the wolves. Wolves and prey have been living in their environments for about 40,000 in the Yukon area and the wolves haven’t killed off their primary prey, moose or wood bison. How many years do ya reckon it’ll take? Another 40,000? I suggest you read the book Wolves of the Yukon by Bob Hayes. Chock full of real life information.
      I have never said wolf hunters are poachers. Prove it.
      Wolves in Michigan ARE being managed, even without a hunt.
      Wolves were on that primary ranch and farm land before those farmers and ranchers and were basically wiped out in the Rockies and MI.
      Just what qualifies as “modern wolves”?
      There are many upper MI residents who want wolves on the landscape and appreciate them. Wildlife is held in the public trust, go read the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Wildlife in the state belongs to ALL residents of the state. Not ALL residents want wolves killed for BS reasons and lies from the DNR, NRC and legislators.
      Overhunting by humans has contributed to the declining Lolo herd, as well as poor food sources, the drought and wildfires. Elk numbers are at or above IDFG’s objectives in the majority of elk districts.
      Investigations are done. One farmer had more depredations than the other 899 livestock farms in the UP. He got kill permits, the DNR and Wildlife Services tried to work with this farmer but he wouldn’t cooperate, even though he signed a contract that he would. He was eventually cut off from compensation due to his lack of cooperation.
      I am not an animal rights activist. There’s the ignorance again, and you shouldn’t make assumptions either. Doesn’t help your case.
      My agenda, uh huh, right. You should do some homework about Michigan’s wolf hunt and how it came to be. Might cure some of that hysterical ignorance.

      • Chandie Bartell Sep 3, 2014

        What Tyrell is referring to is YOUR friends who you teamed up with on social media threatened, harassed, slandered, cyber-stalked on social media for years and you never “checked” them on that, and were in the back-ground during that mischief at times taking part and reveling in it.

        That is ancient history.

        Kristy says: Over hunting by humans has contributed to the declining Lolo herd, as well as poor food sources, the drought and wildfires.

        Regarding the Lolo Herd, what Game Units is the Lolo Herd in Kristy? Where are you getting your information on that herd as it is inaccurate. Also I know one of the outfitters that has a license for that area and many sportsmen that hunted those units you are WRONG!!!!!!!!

        ONLY 25% OF THE CLEARWATER RANGE IS USED BY THE LOLO HERD. It’s not a habitat problem.

        Then take that herd and follow it’s history for the last 30 years, and break down the management of tags sold for each sex/age , mature bulls, yearling bachelor bulls.

        Factor in bear tags sold to see a correlation prior to the illegal Canadian wolf release.

        Then factor in what IDFG did when they allowed USFWS Carter Niemeyer to and Steve Nadeau to transplant cattle killing wolves into the Lolo Selway in 1995.

        *The Clearwater Herd was only using 25% of it’s range. It was not a habitat problem!!!!

        Wolves were introduced in 1995 when the herd was app 16,000, and IDFG has stated publicly AFTER PRESSURE in 2009 wolves were the MAIN cause this herd spiraled into a unsustainable herd.

        All other variables can be adjusted, but wolves are what destroyed the herd as they can’t be managed like other predators.

        It wasn’t hunters it was IDFG mismanagement of that herd prior to the Canadian Release, but like all mismanagement those variables can be adjusted.

        Wolves crashed the Lolo Herd in the Clearwater!!!!!

        • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

          The Lolo herd is done for…No calf recruitment…less than 10 calves surviving….But Kristi doesn’t care about that either…Just her mighty wolf..

          • Guest Sep 3, 2014

            like you inbreds care for the elk. Elk are on the planet to feed other animals inbred.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

            Yes they are…. humans are animals too…where do u get your food??..The grocery store where no animals are harmed???

          • Bobalee Sep 3, 2014

            This is new news for me. Reliable data from whence?

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

            Ifang…I’ll post the graph on my FB page…….that’s why they went in and removed 50 + wolves…Sadly, it was to little too late…

          • Bobalee Sep 4, 2014

            I do not have a FB account.

          • Bobalee Sep 4, 2014

            How about putting the graph on here?

          • Guest Oct 5, 2014


          • Brandy Shale Davis Oct 5, 2014


          • Brandy Shale Davis Oct 5, 2014

            Send me a message….The pic won’t load here…and let me clarify…less than 10 calves PER 100 cows…..have to have 25-35 depending on the area to keep a herd viable….

          • Bobalee Oct 6, 2014

            10 calves per cow is a lot better than 10 surviving period.
            Thanks for the clarification.

          • Bobalee Sep 5, 2014

            When and by whom was it determined that there were less then 10 surviving calves in the Lolo herd?

        • Bobalee Sep 3, 2014

          Your point is? The units under discussion (10 & 12) are in the upper most parts of the Clearwater basin. Down river has not to my recollection been included in the Lolo region so I would agree that perhaps 25% is not used by the Lolo herd – it never was.
          Recently you posted information from Duval regarding the over killing of elk in the Lolo as the result of hunting regulations.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 4, 2014

            What’s your point??..I lived in Clearwater county for 12 years…you could go North, South, East and West and find elk…not anymore….and Yes…I believe IFANG over issued tags….that’s the hunters fault??…NOT

        • Bobalee Sep 5, 2014

          Where can one find this 19 year “study” so they can read it for themselves and not have to rely on the interpretation (regurgitation) of others?

          • Chandie Bartell Sep 27, 2014

            George Dovel has the IDFG as leading the study with the biologists names. Call them up and get copies.

      • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

        If the wolves are doing so well on Isle Royale…why are you people wanting to introduce more wolves??..
        Here is a quote from you a couple days ago..

        “”Wolves were not successfully reintroduced in MI. 3 of 4 were poached. Most likely by those with hunting licenses””..Yes kristy…You consider all hunters poachers except when it suits you.
        over hunting by hunters in the Lolo??…you have OBVIOUSLY never been to the Lolo….IFANG can stick their objectives up their butts…they are not managing for abundance as mandated by law and now, by our Constitution …But, we are working on that!…You are going to see us hammer wolves back to manageable numbers and we will try to kill 30-50% every year thereafter…THATS how you CONTROL wolves to benefit all wildlife!…and that is exactly what we are going to do!

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          killing sportsmen benefits all wildlife. A good sportsmen is a gut shot one.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 4, 2014

            I don’t know what makes you so stupid…But, It works well!!

        • Guest Sep 3, 2014

          and the wolves will continue to manage the elk, deer, and moose like they have been doing for millions of years and hopefully sportsmen and vermin ranchers start to get infected with e. granulosus. a good sportsmen/rancher is a dead one!

        • kristilloyd Sep 3, 2014

          The wolves are not doing well on Isle Royale which is why some people want wolves relocated to the island.
          Just how likely is it that non-hunters would go out and poach wolves, or any other animal? That reintroduction was regarding the UP, not Isle Royale. 4 wolves were moved from MN but one was hit by a car and the others were killed by humans. If you ever read about someone being convicted of poaching, what gets taken away? Their hunting license. I did not say all hunters are poachers, they aren’t.

          It seems that in most of the management units elk numbers are too high, high enough that farmers want more elk killed. So instead of focusing on the overall state of the elk population you stick on one area, which has had problems before the wolves came back.

          • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 4, 2014

            No they didn’t Kristi……we were not at capacity at all..We do not have 103K elk…that is a blatant lie from Ifang!….and Yes…now, the southern farmers are having huge problems with predator displaced elk due to wolves…the elk feel safer around humans than in the woods where they used to be….to feel that is normal or ‘natural” is stinkin’ thinkin’……wolves are relentless 24/7/365 predators…our the elk never get a break from them unlike they do from cats and bears…..Why aren’t you demanding the elk be moved like you do for wolves???? And why can’t we have elk in every area that has supported them very well in the past???…The panhandle…dead…the Clearwater…dead…the bitteroots (by your buddy Gary Wilson’s own admission…DEAD….why??…Land without wildlife is just real estate…..Why do you want to look at just landscape or smile while you stand over a wolf killed elk??…..
            So what if the wolves aren’t doing well on the island??….you have no right to interfere with nature…or is that rule just for us???

        • kristilloyd Sep 4, 2014

          The wolves are NOT doing well on Isle Royale and some people favor relocating wolves to the island.
          The reintroduction was to the UP, not Isle Royale. Those 4 wolves were killed by humans. One was hit by a car and the others were poached. Funny how when you read about a poacher being convicted what is taken away from him/her? The hunting licenses. Really, how many non-hunters do you think are out poaching wildlife?
          Hope you get low enough to have the Feds come back to Idaho.

        • Bobalee Sep 5, 2014

          Who said the wolves on Isle Royale are doing well? No one here that I read. The problem there appears to be a lack of genetic diversity. It is a bit tough for moose or wolves to get to that island. One wolf did cross the ice this winter to the Canadian shore and shortly thereafter was shot. Some biologists think that introduction of new genes would be best – others say let it play out by itself.

      • Brandy Shale Davis Sep 3, 2014

        I also remember you saying that people raised rural are raised in the culture of killing…But do you see rural kids taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates…No…you surely do NOT! Obviously…Children raised by city nutcases have no respect for anything….or anyone.

      • Bobalee Sep 5, 2014

        That is an interesting situation in UP Michigan with so many depredations on one farm! But I doubt that Chandi and Brandy are interested in investigating that situation. Perhaps some other readers will be.

        • kristilloyd Sep 5, 2014

          That farmer was (finally) prosecuted for the deaths of two guard donkeys and the removal of another one before it might die on his farm after pleading no contest. He was sentenced, paid a fine/costs which were rather low, $1,900 for the damage he did. He has since sold his cows and his farm is for sale. He does own a smaller farm, one where he actually resides.

        • Chandie Bartell Oct 7, 2014

          I’ve read about him. That is one farmer who should not be an example for all farmers. Calling ranchers slob ranchers, welfare ranchers is name calling and is inappropriate, and Bobalee you have seen her do this too and you are just as guilty. So why isn’t Kristy being fair and balanced and reporting on other farmers depredation problems in the upper UP?

          • Bobalee Oct 8, 2014

            Well, Chandie
            Perhaps Kristi doesn’t report on the other farmers in the UP because over the past three years there have been, according to the MDNR, 136 verified attacks by wolves on livestock and dogs. Considering that 119 of these were on the one farmer under discussion it seems silly to list the next most unfortunate keeper of livestock or dogs.

            I have never used the adjective slob in any discussion. I am not going to look at all of Kristi’s posts to check out her usage, but I recall having read it in some of your dialogs.

            Nor do I think adding the adjective welfare to some ranchers is inappropriate.


          • Bobalee Oct 12, 2014

            The 68-year-old farmer has had more cattle killed or injured by wolves than any farmer in the state, 119 in the past three years, according to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Government-paid sharpshooters and trappers for years have killed dozens of the wolves who’ve taken a liking to Koski’s cattle.
            The MDNR said there were 136 verified attacks by wolves on livestock and dogs over the last three years. So Koski’s account for 87.5% of the loss. He obviously isn’t representative of other farmers in the area!


      • Guest Oct 4, 2014

        Tyrell was referring to your buddies as you set in the background participating in the mischief from the side-lines.

  7. Chandie Bartell Sep 27, 2014

    Michigan Sportsmen Groups Strike Major Blow to HSUS The move by the Michigan state legislature to subvert HSUS’s latest attempt to restrict hunting rights garnered strong support from Michigan citizens. The petition to send the bill to the Legislature received over 297,000 signatures, far and away more than HSUS and its front group, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, received for either of their initiatives.

    While the hunting ban proponents relied on their typical animal rights messaging, the support for SFWCA was based on scientific research from state animal biologists, a need to be protected from a potentially dangerous species whose population has increased over the past few decades, and common sense reasoning that a ban on wolf hunting is harmful to citizens as well as the state’s economy.

  8. Brandy Shale Davis Oct 5, 2014

    2010 is the last 1 I see..

  9. Chandie Bartell Oct 6, 2014

    Truth: Keep Michigan Wolves Protected had fewer signatures (183,000) for their second referendum than their first (250,000), showing diminishing public support for them. It’s highly likely that is was fewer of the same people who signed the second as the first, because they used the same California-based collection firm to get their signatures. Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management, however, will collect more than 350,000 signatures, over 100,000 more than either of the anti-hunting referendums.