Footloose Montana strongly opposes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to open or expand hunting and fishing opportunities at 111 federal field stations, including 107 National Wildlife Refuges and four National Fish Hatcheries. According to the Service, this proposal would open up 95% of the national wildlife refuges and create more than 1,450 new hunting, fishing (and trapping?) opportunities. This would represent the largest expansion of killing opportunities for so-called ‘sportsmen’ in the history of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

With this sweeping proposal, the USFWS again demonstrates its willingness to yield to pressure from sportsmen’s organizations, even to the point of handing over control over federal lands and wildlife to state wildlife agencies—and the organized trophy hunting, fishing and trapping interests that direct them. It has been estimated that hunters in the US alone kill between 100 and 200 million wild animals annually, the majority for ‘recreation. In addition, trappers kill between 6 and 21 million wild fur-bearing animals annually. But even these staggering numbers of animal victims along with the fact that hunting is already allowed on 400 refuge units and trapping occurs on more than half of the refuges don’t seem sufficient to satisfy state wildlife agencies and sportsmen.

The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWR) spans more than 95 million acres and includes 568 national wildlife refuges that provide habitat for more than 700 species of birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian species, and more than 1000 species of fish. These lands, water and wildlife are owned by the American people, funded largely through taxpayer dollars and are intended to conserve wildlife, habitats, biodiversity, and ecological integrity for present and future generations.

National Wildlife Refuges Should be “For Wildlife First!”

National Wildlife Refuges were created because Americans recognized that wild animals needed places where protection from harm came first. The first refuge, Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, was established in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt in response to the commercial slaughter of colonial nesting birds. The refuge system emerged as a corrective to excessive killing and habitat destruction. Killing wild animals was prohibited as its central purpose was to provide refuge.

Today, millions of people visit refuges each year to observe wildlife, photograph birds and mammals, hike, learn about nature, and experience the wonder of encountering wild animals living freely. According to the Service's own visitation statistics, wildlife observation and photography attract far more participants than hunting. Yet this proposal prioritizes expanding chasing, shooting, fishing and trapping wild animals while doing nothing to expand opportunities for wildlife or for the benign public (‘non-consumptive’) recreation.

Wildlife Refuges Are Already Compromised

While the original concept created refuges as sanctuaries for wildlife, this was followed by an era of erosion when ‘sportsmen’ organizations, especially trophy hunting and trapper organizations, started to demand more access and more killing opportunities ...even in places of ‘refuge.’ The USFWS has strayed far from the original concept of refuges as sanctuaries. Indeed, on its various website pages dedicated to the promotion of hunting in wildlife refuges, USFWS explains that the “refuge habitat produces a surplus of renewable resources that are harvestable.” According to the agency’s view, hunting (and trapping) apparently are “healthy recreational activity that are not only steeped in tradition as part of America’s heritage but does not threaten the resident animal populations or species.” Motivated by such anthropocentric convictions, for the past three decades, the USFWS has been involved in constant efforts to expand hunting opportunities for sportsmen by increasing acreage, the number of species to shoot and trap, and the types of weapons that can be used. The agency even goes so far as to advertising wildlife refuges as destinations for “trophy hunting ... or bucket-list destination hunting.”

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

Congress reaffirmed the purpose in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, which established the mission of the Refuge System:

"to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans."

While hunting, fishing (and trapping?) are designated as "priority public uses," Congress made clear that these uses may occur only when they are compatible with the mission and purposes of each refuge. Priority use does not mean primary purpose, and hunting was considered only one priority among fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation.

Congress never declared that wildlife refuges exist for hunters, anglers and trappers. Congress declared hunting (and trapping?) a priority use but only one of several and only if it is compatible with the refuge’s mission, not an automatic right. This radical proposal would change that.

The Current Proposal—Extremely Problematic

1) This proposal omits information on whether hunting also means trapping. Montana’s state wildlife agency, the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) commonly view trapping as a type of hunting. ii If this proposal assumes the same definition, it is incomplete, possibly misleading and needs to be revised. For the purpose of this letter, we assume that trapping is included in the definition of hunting.

2) Overall, this proposal fails to explain how killing wild animals for recreation, fun, trophies and profit is compatible with any purpose of any wildlife refuge.

3) This proposal fails to adequately address the ecological role and intrinsic value of wild animals themselves. Despite governmental agencies’ human supremacy views and attitudes, wild animals such as wolves, mountain lions, bears, coyotes, ducks and birds are not living targets or ‘natural renewable resources.’ To the contrary, scientific research increasingly recognizes their ecological importance, their intelligence, their sentience, and their complex social and behavioral lives. We are in an era of rapidly accelerating species extinctions, and at a time when growing human development, ongoing biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation and loss, climate change, drought, severe wildfires, food shortages, and diseases are placing unprecedented pressures on wild animals. It is now that refuges should serve not as additional arenas for ‘sportsmen’ killing even more unsuspecting animals but rather, as places of heightened protection and resilience. If refuges simply mirror surrounding state regulations, they cease to function as refuges in any meaningful sense.

4) We are particularly concerned that this proposal advances a broader policy direction that increasingly hands over the management of federal land and wildlife—both owned by the American public—to the states and with that, to trophy hunting and trapping interests. Specifically, the alleged ‘inconsistency’ in and ‘need to align’ wildlife refuge regulations with state regulations is nothing more than an attempt to liberalize the typically more restrictive refuge regulations down to the state level and provide even more access to land and wildlife, and even more killing opportunities for trophy hunters, including bow hunters, anglers and trappers.

The USFWS explicitly states that it seeks to "align" refuge regulations with state fish and wildlife laws and to remove what it characterizes as "unnecessary restrictions" (Federal Register, 91 Fed. Reg. 23541, 2026). This raises legitimate questions including:

1. Who considers restrictive hunting regulations on wildlife refuges “unnecessary”?

2. Who benefits?

3. Why does the supposed need to align only go in one direction?

Why not make liberal state regulations align them with stricter wildlife refuges regulations? The USFWS’ website states that “The decision to permit hunting on national wildlife refuges is made on a case-by-case basis. Considerations include biological soundness, economic feasibility, effects on other refuge programs and public demand.” Obviously, more restrictive regulations about killing wild animals on refuges exist for good reasons. However, this proposal reflects a troubling philosophical shift as it aims at eliminating this case-by-case evaluation and provides a blank check to trophy hunters, anglers and trappers. If this proposal is adopted, ecological and biological considerations would be subordinated to the goal of expanding hunting opportunities. National wildlife refuges would be managed not according to what wildlife and ecosystems need, but according to what trophy hunting and trapping interests demand.

Ostensibly, the true goal is to liberalize more restrictive refuge regulations down to the state level, in order to provide even more access of public lands, this time around, special refuge land, to ‘sportsmen.’ More control handed to the trophy hunting and trapping industries, and even more killing opportunities for outfitters and ‘sportsmen,’ For example, Montana state regulations allow hunting and hounding of mountain lions (the latter includes using a pack of dogs to chase mountain lions to exhaustion up a tree) from which the outfitter’s client or the ‘sportsman’ then can conveniently shoot the animal. Montana’s second-largest wildlife refuges, the CMR and UL Bend refuges, only allow mountain lion hunting but not hounding for good reason as this would greatly disturb other wild animals. However, if this proposal passes, both hunting and hounding will be allowed on the two refuges.

Conclusion

Congress made wildlife conservation the mission of the refuge system, and aligning refuge regulations with state hunting rules should never be automatic. The USFWS has an independent legal obligation to determine whether an expansion of hunting or hunting methods, such as hounding, chasing mountain lions to exhaustion across the refuge landscape before s/he gets shot), is compatible with the conservation purposes of a National Wildlife Refuge. That compatibility determination—not state preference—is supposed to be the controlling standard. This proposal would radically eliminate this measure of caution and allow states aka trophy hunting, fishing and trapping interests to take over authority and control.

But if you haven’t had the luck to see one, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that you will.

On Friday, June 12, 2026, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission will decide two major issues affecting mountain lions:

• Mountain lion quotas for the 2026–2027 fall and winter seasons

• Whether to allow hound hunting of mountain lions in the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

The meeting begins at 8:00 a.m. at the Montana Heritage Center in Helena, 225 N. Roberts St. The public may testify in person or by Zoom.

These decisions determine whether Montana continues down the path of predator persecution, or whether we begin to protect the rare and sensitive species that belong to all of us.

1. Mountain Lion Quotas

In 2023, over the objections of Fish, Wildlife & Parks staff and many lion hunters themselves, the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission chose to dramatically increase mountain lion quotas. The goal appeared clear: kill more predators.

The fact that no one truly knows how many mountain lions live in Montana did not seem to matter. What mattered was the continued pressure to reduce predator numbers for the benefit of special interests.

The proposed change this year would reduce the quota by only 26 mountain lions in Region 3. This will have little to no meaningful impact on the steep decline of lions across the state. Last year, 417 mountain lions were killed during Montana’s 7.5-month-long killing season, less than half of the statewide quota of 872.

FWP’s mountain lion quota proposal information is available HERE.

Mountain lions are often blamed for declines in deer and elk, but science tells a far more complex story. Human hunting pressure, habitat loss, disease, drought, severe winters, extreme wildfire, and other climate-driven forces are major factors affecting ungulate populations. Killing predators does not magically restore deer and elk populations.

Still, Montana’s predators continue to be scapegoated.

The trophy hunting industry, including outfitters and guides, promotes the myth that predators are the primary threat to big game. But mountain lions are not simply obstacles to trophy elk and deer. They are native carnivores, ecological regulators, and sentient animals with family bonds, territories, and an essential role on the landscape.

And now, even many lion hunters are warning that Montana has gone too far.

In comments submitted to the Commission for the June 12 meeting, 12 out of 15 commenters opposed the high quotas. Many were lion hunters who described seeing sharp declines in lion populations across the state. Only three commenters praised the high quotas.

Here is what some of the lion hunters had to say:

“I believe the quota for lion management unit 411 to be too high to sustain a healthy population of mountain lions…

The fact that kittens without spots can be harvested is unsportsmanlike and an atrocity to our sport. If a sportsman can’t tell a mature cat from a kitten, then they shouldn’t have dogs. I personally know of a group with dogs that killed a female and two young kittens traveling with her. This group then bragged about how they had a triple lion day. These are not houndsmen in my opinion – is that the kind of face you want for lion hunting?

Saying that eliminating lions will cure the mule deer decline is poor management practice at best. … a landowner told us they had seen 6-8 mountain lions on their property with game cameras. We looked at these shots and realized their 6-8 lions were actually 2 yearlings that loved to be photographed by trail cameras and had taken up residence on their acreage. There are so few mature toms to keep youngsters moving which a mature tom will do very well.”

—Casey Terry, Lewistown, Region 4

“The number of lions in Region 2 simply cannot support these quotas. The female quotas especially need to be drastically reduced. We as houndsmen are seeing a huge decline in lion population. Oftentimes hundreds of miles are drove and no lion tracks are found. For every female killed, usually 2-3 kittens are also starving.”

—Adeline Richardson, Huson, Region 2

“All regions would benefit from a reduced quota as what is happening to our lion population should be considered criminal. Thank you for taking consideration to this issue.”

—Kirk Fleming, Columbia Falls, Region 1

“Personally I spend over 100 days per winter in pursuing mountain lions with hounds and saw a VERY significant decline in population. Another year of this raised quota will result in a population decline that will be nearly unrecoverable.”

—Wyatt Terry, Lewistown, Region 4

These are people who spend time on the ground, following tracks, reading snow, and witnessing what is happening to lions in real time. They are telling the Commission that Montana’s mountain lions are being overharvested.

The Commission should listen.

One of the few supporters of the high quota was the CEO of Safari Club International, one of the largest and wealthiest trophy hunting organizations in the world.

“The proposed Montana Mountain Lion Quotas generally demonstrate responsible and sustainable management of mountain lions…

SCI is dedicated to protecting the freedom to hunt and we appreciate the continued partnership with the FWP and the Commission. SCI is always first for hunters.”

—W. Laird Hamberlin, CEO, Safari Club International

That statement says a great deal. Montana’s wildlife should not be managed for trophy books, outfitter profits, or special-interest politics. These animals are publicly owned wildlife. They belong to all Montanans, including those who want to see them protected, not persecuted.

2. Hound Hunting in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend Wildlife Refuges

Image: Wildlife For All

The Commission will also vote on a late amendment that would allow hound hunting of mountain lions in the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge.

Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bans hound hunting of mountain lions on these refuge lands. But FWS has agreed to let the state take over wildlife management, and FWP is now proposing to allow hound hunting of mountain lions in the CMR and UL Bend from December 1 to February 1, or until “appropriate harvest quotas” are reached, beginning in 2027.

What are the proposed quotas?

The proposal does not say.

This is deeply concerning. These are wildlife refuges. The very word “refuge” should mean something. These lands should offer shelter, not expanded opportunities to chase, tree, and kill native predators.

FWP describes the change as an “additional opportunity” on refuge lands. But for whom? Not for mountain lions. Not for the ecosystems that depend on them. Not for the public that believes refuges should function as safe havens for wildlife.

If passed by the Commission and adopted by FWS, this could set a dangerous precedent for wildlife refuges across Montana.

There is no evidence of mountain lion overpopulation in these refuges. There is no clear scientific or conflict-based reason given for the proposal beyond limiting “potential impacts to wintering elk.”

In other words, mountain lions are once again being targeted to appease those who view predators primarily as competition.

Mountain lions already face enormous pressure. Their territories and food sources are increasingly fragmented by development, roads, hunting pressure, and recreation. They endure long hunting seasons. Females are killed. Kittens are orphaned. Family groups are disrupted. Animals are chased by hounds, treed, and shot.

This Is a Public Trust Issue

Montana’s mountain lions are not private property. They are not commodities. They are not simply trophies, targets, or threats to be eliminated. They are part of Montana’s wild inheritance.

The commercialization of wildlife is in direct conflict with the spirit of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which once emphasized that wildlife belongs to the public and should not be managed for private profit. Yet today, that principle is being undermined by the very industries that benefit from turning wild animals into opportunity, revenue, and trophies.

Mountain lions help maintain healthy ecosystems. They influence prey behavior, remove vulnerable animals, and shape the wild communities around them. They also have their own lives, families, territories, instincts, and ways of being.

The deadline for written comments on the quota proposal has passed, but you can still make your voice heard at the June 12 meeting.

Testify Against the Eradication of Montana’s Mountain Lions

Please testify by Zoom or in person against the continued destruction of Montana’s rare, sensitive, publicly owned mountain lions.

Tell the Commission:

• Montana’s mountain lion quotas remain far too high.

• Lion hunters themselves are reporting serious population declines.

• Female quotas must be drastically reduced.

• Kittens and dependent young must be protected.

• Predator scapegoating is not science-based wildlife management.

• Montana’s wildlife should not be managed for trophy hunting industry pressure.

• Mountain lions deserve ethical, science-based protection.

You can also write the commissioners directly at:

fwcomm@mt.gov

Meeting Details

When: Friday, June 12, 2026
Time: Meeting starts at 8:00 a.m.
Where: Montana Heritage Center, 225 N. Roberts St., Helena
How to testify: In person or by Zoom

Register to comment by Zoom HERE by Thursday, June 11, at noon.

No advance sign-up is needed to testify in person.

Speak Up for Wildlife Refuges

Please also write and testify against the proposal to allow hound hunting of mountain lions in the Charles M. Russell and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges.

Wildlife refuges should be places of protection, not expanded killing grounds.

Tell the Commission:

• Hound hunting does not belong on wildlife refuges.

• The proposal lacks a clear scientific justification.

• No proposed quota is provided.

• Allowing this could set a dangerous precedent for other refuges.

• Mountain lions should not be persecuted to benefit special interests.

• Refuge lands should provide actual refuge for wildlife.

Write your comment against this proposal HERE.

Register to comment by Zoom HERE by Thursday, June 11, at noon.

You may also testify in person at the Montana Heritage Center, 225 N. Roberts St., Helena. No advance sign-up is needed. The meeting begins at 8:00 a.m. on June 12.

You can also read and comment on Region 2 Commissioner Jeff Burrows’ amendment and Region 3 Commissioner Susan Kirby Brooks’ amendment to the quota proposal by June 7 HERE.

Montana’s Mountain Lions Need Us

This is a critical moment for Montana’s predators and for the future of wildlife governance in our state.

Please take time to speak for mountain lions. Speak against cruelty. Speak against commercialization. Speak against the takeover of our publicly owned wildlife by trophy hunting interests.

Montana’s wild cats are disappearing from the landscape.

We cannot stay silent.

Thank you for your steadfast work on behalf of Montana’s treasured wildlife!

Across America, concern about dark money in politics is growing. When Pete Buttigieg recently spoke in Butte about Initiative 194, a ballot proposal designed to prevent corporations from contributing “anything of value” to political campaigns or candidates — he touched a nerve that extends far beyond elections. Because in Montana, one of the clearest examples of concentrated special-interest influence is lethal wildlife management.

For decades, Montanans have been told that increasingly aggressive wolf killing quotas, expanded trapping seasons, neck snares, predator killing contests, and anti-predator policies and massive, recreational trapping of "furbearing" animals merely reflect “science-based wildlife management.” But follow the money and a different picture emerges: a tightly interconnected political culture in which trophy hunting and trapping organizations exert extraordinary influence over lethal wildlife policy.

For example, the state of Idaho makes payments to the Foundation for Wildlife Management, infamous for offering cash payments and prizes to wolf killers in Idaho and Montana; FWP receives donations connected to major trophy-hunting and trapping interests, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Montana Trapper Association. These organizations fund a senseless war against wolves and “furbearing” animals. They also try to normalize the distorted view that Montana’s wolves and other wild animals are not essential members of the living world but rather targets whose deaths should be incentivized and celebrated.

FWP — a private trophy hunting and trapping club?

When organizations, whose predominant interest is to protect trophy hunters and trappers, contribute financially to wildlife-killing programs, they help shape public narratives and political expectations surrounding predators. They create a culture in which Montana’s wolves and other wild animals become politically expendable and increasingly vulnerable to extreme, out-of-control lethal “management” policies implemented by anti-wolf and anti-wildlife legislators, a state wildlife agency that benefits financially from sending wolves to their brutal death in a neck snare, foothold trap and getting shot in their gut to inflict maximal suffering.

If we recognize that corporate money can distort democracy, why would we assume organized financial influence cannot distort wildlife governance?

Just like dark money from corporations with certain interests influencing politics (which petition 194 would end), so does dark money from trophy hunting and trapping organizations help ensuring a continuation of senseless trophy hunting of wolves and trapping of wild animals for their fur and for profit.

Wildlife policy may seem emotionally distant from campaign finance reform, but the underlying issue is identical: concentrated power shaping public systems in ways that do not reflect broader public values. Most Montanans do not trap or shoot wolves, in fact, a recent survey found that 74% of Montanans’ support wolves. Most Montanans do not support cruelty toward wildlife such as trapping, in fact, 52% support an end of trapping altogether. Yet, every year, wildlife management becomes more cruel and more aggressive, e.g., longer trapping seasons, expanded snaring and kill methods, more trophy bear and mountain lion killing, weaker protections and increasingly aggressive anti-predator rhetoric.

Yes, the slaughter is “scientific” in the sense that proponents of lethal “use” of our wild kin have figured out how many individual animals can be shot, run over with snowmobiles, mass-killed at wildlife killing contests, and how many can be drowned or their neck broken, stomped and beaten to death in traps and snares, before their population collapses. So what? The ensuing annual wildlife slaughter to please trophy hunting and trapping interests is ethically indefensible.

If we had a state wildlife agency that takes care of the whole — the land, the species, the ecosystems and our relationship with all, supported by science and ethics, that would be something to be proud of.

The reality in Montana is that a relatively small but politically organized network of corporations and organizations exerts outsized influence over governmental institutions that are supposed to serve the public as a whole. Unlike ordinary citizens though, corporations along with trophy hunting and trapper organizations often bring money, lobbying capacity, campaign relationships, and ideological cohesion. Over time, certain politics or lethal wildlife management become normalized not because it reflects broad public ethics, but because it reflects the values of those with the greatest institutional access and financial influence. This is not democracy.

If Initiative 194 is ultimately about protecting democracy from concentrated influence, perhaps we need another petition to prevent trophy hunting and trapper organizations from contributing “anything of value” to political campaigns or candidates and to FWP.

Anja Heister is the executive director of Footloose Montana.

Federal District Court Judge Donald Molloy overturned the decision by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) that denied Endangered Species protections to wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain region. Judge Molloy found numerous unfounded assumptions regarding the future condition of the gray wolf, despite knowing about bias in population estimates and anti-wolf prejudice in state governments’ wolf management. FWS also failed to consider historic range in its assessment of whether the species is endangered or threatened through ‘a significant portion of its range.’

“It seems that state management plans will trend precipitously close to threatening the continued existence of the gray wolf in the western (distinct population segment), even if they would not result in immediate extirpation,” Molloy wrote.

FWS was ordered to reconsider Endangered Species Act protections for wolves, this time using accurate information and also considering the ever-expanding killing methods, bounties, and quotas under state management.

“Unfortunately, we’re not surprised to see another activist decision in favor of environmental extremists,” said Kaitlin Price, spokesman for Gov. Gianforte’s office. “If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appeals the decision, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks will be there to support them.”

The next day, August 7, trophy hunting organizations appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And just last Monday, April 13, 2026, the same organizations, Sportsmen’s Alliance, Safari Club International, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, filed their opening brief “to defend the delisting of gray wolves and advocate for state-led wildlife management” to the Ninth Circuit.

Translation: kill all wolves.

The Sportsmen’s Alliance slogan is “Defending the Heritage of Hunting and Trapping.” A leader in the trophy industry, the Sportsmen’s Alliance has fomented wolf hatred to a fever pitch. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the industry shouts that wolves kill all the coveted elk, deer, and bighorn sheep. This message is calculated to distract local hunters from the privatizing of these ungulates by wealthy out-of-state trophy addicts.

The trophy industry believes its own propaganda. This is where trappers are useful. In Montana’s 2025–2026 wolf killing season, trappers trapped and snared 40% of the 248 wolves reported killed. Cruelty, like morality, is of no concern.

The Sportsmen’s Alliance takes credit for leading the defeat of Footloose Montana’s 2016 ballot initiative, I-177, “Montanans for Trap-Free Public Lands.” A commercial produced by its Washington, D.C., public relations firm saturated TV, billboards, and radio. Avoiding the word ‘trapping,’ it warned ominously that I-177 would cause poison in schoolyards, was bad for families, ranchers, and wildlife, and would cost the state millions.

In reality, I-177 would have banned commercial and recreational trapping on public lands, with exceptions for science and to protect property and safety. The state budget office said I-177 would cost the state about $60,000 once. Voters were shocked to find out what they voted against; they had no idea, and everyone we interviewed at poll exits was against trapping.

The Safari Club International allows illegally killed wildlife in its huge record books. The secret of its success is fueling competition for killing the most animals of all kinds of species, endangered or not. There are endless circles to win: for instance, all bear species on each continent, leading up to all bears worldwide. In one instance, a woman competing for bears simply put her hand on the gun of the guide aiming at an Alaskan brown bear from an airplane. When the plane landed, she was off to get another bear in another country, not waiting to see the trophy she paid handsomely for.

State officials in WY, ID, and MT have willingly ceded wildlife management to the trophy industry. Former MT Region 5 Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Brian Cebull, a former Safari Club official, said, “the main pressure was reduction of predators and increase in ungulates. The concept wasn’t just targeting lions; it was black bears and wolves. Stay the course. When I hear sheep populations are healthy in these areas, maybe we’re having an impact.”

Once the most respected hunting organization in the country, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) traded conservation for trophy profits in 2007 and declared war on wolves. The turnaround came with the new president and CEO, David Allen, who called for shooting wolves from the air and gassing wolf pups in dens. In 2012, the family of Olaus Murie, known as the father of modern elk research, demanded that RMEF cancel the organization’s Olaus Murie Award to scientists because the foundation’s “all-out war against wolves is anathema to the entire Murie family.”

Starting in 2016, RMEF gave $25,000/year (and maybe still does) to the Foundation for Wildlife Management for reimbursement or bounty payments to wolf killers. A former marketer for NASCAR, Allen offered the state of Montana $50,000 to hire Wildlife Services to aggressively kill more wolves and said “the next step is the grizzly bear.” In 2018, Kyle Weaver, whose career had been with the NRA, took over as president and CEO. He is continuing the very profitable path Allen cleared. A mainstay of this successful economic approach is wolf hatred.

In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, these three organizations will attempt to overturn Judge Molloy’s decision to allow wolves to be placed on the Endangered Species List.

Twenty conservation organizations, including Footloose Montana, stand ready to uphold Judge Molloy’s 105-page decision based on science and ethics. Together, we work to defend and protect our older, truer heritage, the American heritage of native wildlife on our landscape.

This is not a profit-motivated effort. We have the riches of Montana, our wolves and all wildlife. They belong to everyone and are worth fighting for. They should never be commercialized at any price.

Wyoming’s wolf torturer Cody Roberts is now a convicted felon for committing an act of cruelty against a young wolf, first running her over with a snowmobile, and then taking the injured wolf to a bar, where he tortured the helpless wolf before dragging her outside to shoot her. Roberts is part of a subculture of ‘sportsmen,’ who engage in the practice of ‘whacking’ memorized via photos and videos online; e.g., one photo shows a coyote plastered in the snow under a snowmobile after being chased to exhaustion. The camera arranged on the snowmobile captures the man running over the coyote several times, then grabbing the coyote by the tail and swinging the animal to beat his head against the snowmobile, again and again, before tossing him to the side.

While Roberts’ case and whacking events have been documented in Wyoming, it is clear that whacking of carnivores and other acts of cruelty also happen in Montana; A reported 249 wolves were killed by hunters and trappers during the last kill season, which ended on March 15; the MT Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife recently celebrated the killing of 80+ coyotes and other wild animals as part of a wildlife killing contest. Former Senator Mike Phillips’ attempts to make whacking and wildlife killing contests illegal were shut down in the 2019 legislature. In November, we need to vote for candidates who actually give a damn and want to help end the cruelty against Montana’s wildlife once and for all.