Not One Wolf.

Wolves should not be killed to protect livestock grazing on public lands, and certainly not in National Forests. 

Not one single wolf.

“The Bridger Teton National Forest missed a chance to promote the public interest over private businesses when it decided in its draft management plan for the Upper Green Allotment to continue to allow ranchers to run livestock without any significant changes to protect the public’s wildlife and other values.

The Upper Green is perhaps the most important non-protected wildlife habitat in the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Yet the BTNF treats it as if the best use of this land is as a feedlot for private cattle.

Worse for our native wildlife is the fact that the Upper Green is a crucial wildlife corridor. It is regularly used by grizzlies, wolves and as a migration route for pronghorn, elk, and mule deer. The mere presence of domestic livestock creates massive conflicts, and the Forest Service has done nothing to reduce these conflicts.” – George Wuerthner

Again, I ask you to please take the time to voice your opposition to livestock grazing, on your public lands, in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Your comment must be received by November 21, 2017, and your objections must be received by January 8, 2018. Should you wish to compose your own letter, please see this blog post for talking points.
If you prefer, feel free to personalize and copy the following letter. Send your objection via email directly to Dave Booth from this post. Send your email here:

Alternatively, you may submit your comment here.

Dear Mr. Booth,

Thank you for taking the time for my comment regarding livestock grazing in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. I believe livestock should no longer be permitted to graze in the allotments on the Upper Green River project area, and select “Alternative One –  No Livestock Grazing”.

It is impossible to produce livestock in the west without a multitude of negative impacts including soil erosion and compaction, water pollution, the spread of invasive weeds, spread of disease from domestic animals to wildlife, changes in plant community structure, interruption of natural nutrient cycles, disruption of natural fire regimes, and degradation of riparian zones.

I disagree with the compromising and domestication of our public lands with fencing, water tanks, pipelines, and other infrastructure designed to make our public lands better “stock yards”. The Upper Green is a crucial wildlife corridor. It is regularly used by grizzlies, wolves and as a migration route for pronghorn, elk, and mule deer. Not only does livestock grazing reduce the ability of the land to support native herbivores, but the mere presence of domestic livestock creates conflicts with predators such as wolves and grizzlies, which are, more often than not, “removed”.

Wildlife is one of the five purposes of the national forests under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, and the Forest Service is obligated to manage for healthy, viable populations of wildlife under the National Forest Management Act and the agency’s own regulations. With such extensive grazing allotments, this obligation is ignored.

To reiterate, I select Alternative One – No Livestock Grazing, as I understand it:
Under alternative one, livestock would no longer be permitted to graze in the six allotments on the Upper Green River project area. Livestock grazing would be eliminated and current term grazing permits would be cancelled. Livestock grazing would cease two years after notice of cancellation.

Livestock grazing should *never* compromise our wildlife’s ability to thrive, and, certainly not on our public lands.

Thank you for your time.


Your name

Send a tweet to your following: Help save #Wyoming #wolves #grizzlies and #wildlife. Comment against largest @forestservice grazing allotments by January 8, 2018 Tweet4Wolves

Please also tweet this to your following: #Wolves should not be killed to protect livestock grazing on #publiclands #StandForWolves Take Action by January 8, 2018:  Tweet4Wolves

“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

Copyright © 2016

[COPYRIGHT Intheshadowofthewolf, name and webpage]. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

12 thoughts on “Not One Wolf.

  1. Save the wolves and other beautiful wildlife and keep the cows away from public lands and National Parks. Cows in the UK are put in fenced grazing fields and not near any area that is not fenced off, even when the cows are on common land they are fenced in. So that the wildlife is protected.

  2. The first thing my husband said to me when he heard Trump won the election was “They are going to kill all the wolves.” I am working on the tweets and sending your letter. Thank you for your diligence.

  3. The Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics commented (November 21) supporting Alternative One. 😊 Their comment:
    “Dear Mr. Hoelscher,

    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on your proposal to authorize livestock grazing on the Badger Creek, Beaver-Twin, Noble Pastures, Roaring Fork, Wagon Creek, and the Upper Green River allotments. Our comments on your proposal focus on grizzly bear conservation, especially as it concerns livestock/grizzly conflicts on the Upper Green River allotment.

    The Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan requires the Forest Service to “[p]revent needless encounters between grizzly bears and people.” B-T LRMP at 145 (emphasis added). Although the DEIS quotes the “needless encounters” standard, nowhere in its text do you explain why livestock grazing in the Upper Green River allotment, where “[n]early all conflicts and grizzly bear deaths in the project area, including those associated with cattle management,” is needed. DEIS at 317.

    None of the three justifications in the DEIS’s “purpose and need” statement identifies a mandatory requirement, i.e., a “need,” that justifies a finding that continued grizzly bear people-related deaths in the Upper Green River allotment are warranted. The first, “[c]ontinue to authorize livestock grazing,” is circular reasoning and does not explain independently why livestock grazing, per se, is needed. The second, “[c]ontribute toward achievement of Goal 1.1 of the Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) which directs the Bridger-Teton National Forest to support community prosperity,” is not mandatory and, thus, not needed. The LRMP defines “goal” as a “desired end result,” i.e., not required (see also definition of “goal” in the 1982 NFMA regulations: “A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. It is normally expressed in broad, general terms and is timeless in that it has no specific date by which it is to be completed”). The third, “[u]pdate the allotment grazing management to reflect Forest Plan direction,” can be met only by Alternative 1, not by the preferred alternative of livestock grazing authorization in the Upper Green River allotment. Only Alternative 1 prevents “needless encounters” between grizzly bears and people and, thus, meets Forest Plan direction.”

Comments are closed.