The provisions allow 11 different tasks that Idaho Fish and Game and the state will be responsible for, eight of those 11 involve killing wolves.

278

The scientific community at large is very critical of the state's proposal because it is clearly the loss of habitat, not predators, that is responsible for the decline in the elk population in the Lolo area. There was so much opposition to this plan and this decision reveals that the true intention of the state is not to manage wolves, but to eradicate them by any means possible.

226

If the Fish and Wildlife Service does undertake a rigorous, scientific process to peer review this, they will have no choice but to reject this proposal from the state of Idaho. The conclusions were reached prior to the state obtaining the data and the data does not scientifically substantiate the conclusions.

165

It's almost impossible to discuss it rationally. It doesn't have anything to do with logic or reason, it's so steeped in myth. And this mythical wolf really doesn't exist.

144

We're going to be looking very strongly at (Fish and Game's) numbers. Bear and mountain lions are dying, and now they want to kill wolves too, in an area where we know the primary cause of low elk populations is poor habitat.

144