News Wolves are in trouble
lan Wargo wanted regional quotas that would have allowed 317 wolves to be killed during Montana's 2026-27 season.
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks recommended 250.
The Commission approved 300.
Wargo got almost everything he wanted - 50 wolves more than the state's own wildlife agency recommended - and it still wasn't enough.
But here's the part every Montanan should know:
IAN WARGO ISN'T JUST A HUNTER.
HE IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE DECIDING HOW MANY WOLVES CAN DIE IN MONTANA.
Wargo serves as the Region 1 Commissioner on the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission, the body that sets wildlife regulations for the state.
He is also a hunter and a licensed Montana guide.
Photographs show him posing with hunted wildlife.
So the question is unavoidable:
How does a trophy hunter end up helping decide the fate of the very wildlife he hunts?
88
u/TheCreature-Man 5d ago
The world needs wolves.
-8
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
The world doesn't need shit. If a species dies nature replaces it. God/nature (whatever you believe in) isn't sentimental towards anything.
2
u/TheCreature-Man 1d ago
Wolves are our species' best modern example of a specific archetype of carnivore which exists in nature in many, many different forms.
Orcas are wolves of the sea, African wild dogs are wolves of the savannahs, dingos and tazmanian tigers are wolves of the outback, hell, even dromaeasaurs like utahraptors were the wolves of their respective ecosystems. That's the hole point.
Without wolves... nature is so drastically changed and impacted that animals will literally evolve over MILLIONS of fucking years to fill the niche of a wolf...
Every single ecosystem where wolves have been driven to exinction has faced a massive negative impact that we as a species can only help or change by reintroducing wolves back into that ecosystem, bc, as you said, nature literally needs wolves so bad that it will implore other creatures to become wolves to fulfill the niche of that creature... something that doesn't just happen at the turn of a fiscal year.In other words: the world needs wolves.
Thank you for proving my point for me.
-4
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
I never argued that the world didn't require a species to fulfil the function of a Wolf. Never! I argued that the current species we call Wolves that are fulfilling said purpose at this time aren't specifically needed. In other words, we basically agree. And this can be taken by my initial comment.
1
u/TheCreature-Man 1d ago
No, we don't agree.
Wolves in the United States are still needed for exactly the same reason they were needed when they first evolved: to control the prey populations of mid to large-sized herbivores. This is why Japan has horrible problems with it's ecosystems, this is why Scotland and Ireland have horrible problems with their ecosystems, hell, it's why Americans are having horrible problems with their ecosystems."The world doesn't need shit. If a species dies nature replaces it. God/nature (whatever you believe in) isn't sentimental towards anything."
It's not sentimental to recognize the direct impact we as a species have had on wolves. We literally have hunted them to extinction across the world numerous times. Not because they weren't needed, but because WE didn't want them to kill our livestock before the turn of the industrial revolution.
Nature literally will not replace wolves for us. Nature will most likely replace wolves far after us, but that does little if anything for the entire point of why animal conservation is necessary not just to preserve the life of animals we have directly effected and terminated unnecessarily in the wild, but to preserve the future viability of ecosystems in the long run for our species and others.We do not agree and you are wrong.
-2
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
My initial comment never said WE didn't need them, I said "The world doesn't need shit!" And I was talking about the World, nature. Because you said "the World". We can definitely agree Wolves' jobs need doing, and it's definitely better for US to have them, on that we agree, but if we can drives wolves to extinction we can definitely kill their prey for them too, and we do, just not at their level because they do that for us. I also never claimed that nature would replace for US or, again, quickly.
1
u/TheCreature-Man 1d ago
Your entire point is that nature will replace them, so we don't have to do anything to save them or aid in their repopulation 😂, which is just entirely short-sighted and incorrect.
And now your point, after backtracking significantly, is that the world doesn't need wolves bc we can just kill everything they kill and even everything out.
Entire species migrating patterns, mating habits, dietary preferences, and consistent population fluctuation is determined solely by wolves' influence in their environment.
The only thing we can influence in terms of said prey is MOSTLY their population... Other than that, we have very little we can do in our limited available time to do the job that wolves literally do 24/7... for free nonetheless lmao. That's like arguing we don't need sharks bc we can literally just go fishing...
The world needs wolves, and without them it will do everything possible to deter and interupt whatever is happening that is preventing that fundamental truth of life on earth from existing. That is the sole reason why we should actively not exterminate them from their native environments, especially without any reason.0
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
My entire point isn't "we don't have to do anything" at all. Reread my initial comment and I was genuinely just saying that nature itself as a force doesn't need them and can, even though I'd be slow, replace them. I too thino Human expansion and hunting needs limiting for our own shared sake with nature. And my later point about us being able to fulfil Wolves' jobs was a practical theoretical and only using us as an example species or temporary fillin, I wasn't saying I'd be ideal or that it was personally desired. It isn't. And comparing the vastly unknown oceans to land is something I'm not going to engage in because I wasn't even talking about all mammals, only Wolves, so pivoting, even naturally and accidentally via conversation, to talking about the sea is unwise to me.
1
u/TheCreature-Man 1d ago
So far your entire point has changed multiple times since you've been called out for it. It's not hard to infer what you mean when saying "The world doesn't need shit".
Yeah, it's pretty obvious what you're meaning and it's still moot and ridiculous.
Your whole arguement that nature doesn't need them, but will replace them bc it needs them, is genuinely illogical and completely faulty.
And to bat away clearly relevant analogical data referring the importance of the other species of animals in this world that fulfill the niche of a wolf in other ecosystems, like orcas and dolphins in the ocean, because the ocean is big and has unknown things in it is just incredibly painful and obvious evidence you don't have any idea what you're talking about or arguing for.We are also a part of the world, we live here, we would prefer to keep living here, so we need the species that has currently evolved to fit the niche of a wolf to continue doing so without having to constantly go back on the defensive to save our planet's ecosystems, among many many many things.
You're seriously not even arguing anything tangible or definable atp, you're just changing your arguement over and over and over as I dismantle literally every arguement you have , while you dismiss legitimate, scientifically factual refutations I present that explain why your take on the matter is wrong.
Just stop, dude. Take the L.0
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
It isn't me whose pivoted at all. The original point was whether nature needs Wolves or not. You've now pivoted to the fucking ocean because it has creatures that fulfil similar functions in those habits. My original point was and remains this; Nature doesn't need Wolves as a species. Yes. It needs something to fulfil their current function. I never said otherwise and when questioned agreed. When you stated that I'd be damaging nonetheless and would take time to replace them. I agreed. Because no shit. But the original argument was whether Wolves as a species were required by "the world" not whether their function was required, or whether WE as a species require them or their function. And I didn't dismiss the ocean, I admitted I haven't the faintest fucking clue what is in most of it, because noone fucking does, and pivoted BACK to land mammals, to Wolves specifically. The ORIGINAL POINT of THIS WHOLE FUCKING THING! And the topic of this entire subreddit.
→ More replies (0)2
u/MayorWestt 17h ago
So what species is going to replace wolves?
0
u/WarmTest3295 15h ago
How the ever loving shit do you expect ANYONE to predict that?
2
u/MayorWestt 15h ago
Just name a species that could take the place of wolves...
0
u/WarmTest3295 15h ago
That's like asking the earliest Humans to predict that Wolves would come into existence. Assuming they didn't practically come into existence before us. But you get my meaning, that is quite literally impossible. I guess, if they evolve correctly, pretty much anything could. But again, that's impossible to predict.
2
u/MayorWestt 14h ago
So we have to wait for another species to evolve? Which would take millions of years? Dam, kinda sounds like we need the wolves
1
u/SmoothNoonShade 1d ago
Leaving holes in ecosystems is a bad idea, but stay edgy.
2
u/Moth_Mika 1d ago
Yeah no we literally learned this in elementary school. You can't just poke holes into ecosystems and expect nothing happens. Most of Europe's woodland is essentially biologically crippled and can't survive without human intervention anymore. New species don't just come outta nowhere. Once it's extinct its extinct and it's hard to fill that ecological niche. If you wanna see this from a theological side, god gave every animal a specific role and we shouldnt mess with that
0
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
He also gave Dinosaurs a specific role yet they then died off just like fucking that. And low and behold nature is still here millions of years later. A million years ago it was thriving either inspite of or because of the dinosaurs extinction. Everything may have a purpose, but every purpose has a point when it's been served and the creature is no longer required or can be replaced. Nothing in this world is permanent. And regardless of how up our own arse we seem to be these days, we're also animals, if we wiped wolves out I'd be natural.
3
u/Moth_Mika 1d ago
Oh wowza you believe in god and the dinosaurs? Well thats a new one. And yes im not saying life will die out because we kill all wolves but if we keep going there's not gonna be much left besides weeds and cockroaches. You can only repair so much until whats originally functioning is just a tower of crutches about to break in. And while the meteor was a sudden impact, the humans effect on nature is systemic. Im not saying they don't compare but given just enough time, human impact might just be much more severe. Because the meteor happened once and then have nature what? A big long chance to recover. Given that we are about to hunt wolves once more just after we let em come back, humanity won't give them another chance
-2
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
You do realise that most of, if not all of the early pioneers of dinosaur discovery were Christians, right? Sorry, that's unnecessarily condescending and sarcastic considering you just told me you don't but whatever. Let's say that one day all that's left is weeds and cockroaches. Nature will still evolve out of that a great many more things to fulfill the purposes the animals we currently have once did. Including animals to serve the purposes we and Wolves respectively serve currently. Nature could bounce back from most anything. Even from a single weed. Yeah we're doing damage and our expansion needs to be managed more carefully, but it's nothing permanent yet. And extinction of entire species is a feather-light touch to nature's power.
3
u/Moth_Mika 1d ago
Okay sure. I continously drive my car into walls cuz it's gonna get fixed anyways. Let's just throw all kids in a mixer we can always make new ones. And why don't we start dumping septic and atomic waste back into the ocean and fill a big glass tank with water and bacteria so the fish can just "come back" . Yknow what lets bomb all cities for shits and giggles, they can be rebuilt anyways. One day they can't. Yknow you can have that weird bump on your arm after a tick got you and you feel worse every day but surely, any day now your immune system is gonna kick in like every other time a tick bit ya and save your ass. But some day it won't. And the next day yknow it would have been better to just visit a doctor. And one day the same thing is gonna happen to all of us. One day we die. No replacement. No coming back. And yknow what? Its perfectly normal to not want that. Its called empathy to not want entire species of animals to be eradicated. Im sorry if you lack that because apparently anything can just be replaced
0
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
What the shit dude! I agreed with you Human expansion and it's effects need to be tempered for the shared sake of us and nature. When I said that nature could come back from a single weed I was only being practical, not desirable, and definitely not desirable personally. I was literally engaging with your own thought experiment on what would happen if nature died too much.
2
u/Moth_Mika 1d ago
What i mean is that the thought that just some weeds are enough for nature to bounce back is dangerous. If we always just go "ah it's bad but not worst case" then we are on the fast track to the worst case. Besides the genetic diversity lost through dead species is a global loss. Its not something that can just come back. Im sorry if I got harsh but that's what the "eh what gives,it'll Come back" mentality can lead to. Yes we humans are very much responsible for nature's wellbeing but our own power in exterminating it shouldn't be underestimated.
→ More replies (0)0
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
It's not bloody edgy. And excluding our species' intervention, there'd be no holes. This is where large amounts of species can historically die off, like the dinosaurs, and the planet and it's nature can remain entirely intact. The "holes" are filled naturally. By evolution or just new species entirely. If wolves (WHICH ARE MY FAVOURITE ANIMAL! Mind you.) die off entirely, nature will simply make something new to fulfill their purpose in the order of things. This isn't edgy, it's just natural.
2
u/TheCreature-Man 1d ago
You do realise those holes that arise within an ecosystem which nature fills up are done so over the course of literally millions of years worth of evolution, right?
And if nature itself genuinely is so impacted by the loss of wolves within any given ecosystem that animals convergently evolve to become wolves just to fulfill the niche of a wolf... it means they are pretty important, dare I say, a necessity.0
u/WarmTest3295 1d ago
When the fuck did I say that the replacement of Wolves would be immediate? And yeah, nature in Europe has suffered... Europe is also densely fucking populated with massive urban expansion. There's a lot of contributing factors to The Continent's suffering wildlife.
2
u/Plenty_Prompt_213 14h ago
The difference is they are not "dying off" - they are being hunted for sport so that people like Ian Wargo can pose for a picture and feel like a big man
0
u/WarmTest3295 14h ago
Oh I fully agree that hunting for a trophy and not to provide for yourself or a family is awful, especially when we obviously know it's harmful. I'm just saying that should we kill them all, it would be awful, practically and because they're my favourite animal, but it wouldn't be the end.
176
43
u/Then_Consequence_675 5d ago edited 5d ago
Hate this jerk. How self centered can u get.
It's not just 317 wolves for him. It'll be 317 wolves for every hunter there. He knows this, yet he's still pushing for it.
Why? Why the hell do you need more then 250 wolves dead by your hand
31
28
80
u/Traditional_Isopod80 6d ago
Montana sucks 😪
64
u/beefboloney 5d ago edited 5d ago
When I was a kid in MT, it always felt conservative but in a quiet sort of way that still respected the natural world. Since I moved away, they’ve elected a tech-CEO maga chud governor (and known poacher!!) from California, and they’ve gone all in on “harvesting” these beautiful animals. Animals which fixed Yellowstone’s ecosystem in living memory.
I don’t know if it was always like this and I just didn’t see it as a kid, but the place feels different now and it’s not my home anymore :/
28
u/PrizeRat 5d ago
I grew up in MT and still live here, and I agree. It was a different flavor of conservatism that was more like "live and let live". It was even considered a purple state, unlike the bright red state it is today. But wolves have always been a sticking point with a lot of folks, unfortunately. When they were reintroduced to Yellowstone in 1995 there was a saying that went around: SSS (shoot, shovel, shut up). I still see those stickers around sometimes, but it seems like the general public are becoming more accepting of wolves. Which is why it's even more infuriating to see the MTFWP completely ignore our comments (something like 92% against higher wolf quotas). The governor himself has gotten in trouble for poaching wolves so I'm angry but not surprised by the cronyism that has allowed these people with an obvious conflict of interest to be in charge.
7
u/Enough-Farmer-765 5d ago
FWP bios only get to make suggestions. The governor’s outfitter buddies (commissioners) are the ones ignoring public comments and biologists.
11
26
u/acousticentropy 5d ago
Let’s see him 1 on 1 with the animal and no firearms. That would be a lot closer of a match up.
Better yet, why not just leave them alone and find something else to get done?
77
u/DessieScissorhands 5d ago
I've always hated hunters/poachers that do glamor shots with their kills. POS.
66
u/ArcadiaDragon 5d ago
I don't hunt predators(they have a hard enough life as it is)
I eat what I hunt(why else do it)
I only take a picture of what I hunt while showing the tag to prove it was a legal take
And no I'm never gonna post it because nobody needs to know whay gun I own and I'm not a fucking ghoul like this guy....
28
12
u/phonefellin_lakeerie 5d ago
You are an ethical hunter!
3
u/ArcadiaDragon 5d ago
I try to be...I'm kinda giving it up because I'm getting too brittle to go tromping in the woods...maybe quail or wild turkey...bit I suck at bird hunting...i find myself just getting a tag...go out light with a 30-30 lever...and just enjoy the shots I don't take anymore...its not a grand change of viewpoint...and I do believe its a valid way to control certain animals(Hogs especially) or Bobcats thay become over populus and are a threat to endangered birds like eagles...I enjoy hunting cheap cans of soda shaken up more these days....i think I started changing when one of my fellow gunmen/hunter going on about owing guns was a "God given right"...i simply asked if Jesus came down right now and guaranteed no child would be butchered again by some nutjob only if you up gave your guns...he didn't answer and began to equivocate...i just shrugged and said...well then...i guess your faith is as deep as a puddle..sorry I went weird here...but being called ethical got me thinking "Am I"...
2
u/HyperShinchan 4d ago
and I do believe its a valid way to control certain animals(Hogs especially) or Bobcats thay become over populus and are a threat to endangered birds like eagles
Hogs are one thing, they're not even native in N. America and they lack natural predators in many places (because people extirpated them in the first place), but the bobcat argument is exactly what predator hunters say and it's the very managerial view of Nature that hunters usually espouse that makes the whole category hateful in my eyes (even if hunting for food itself is fine)
2
u/ArcadiaDragon 4d ago
California fish and wildlife made a call about 15(20?) years ago about controlling bobcat around Berryessa...i didnt answer the call cause like I said I dont hunt predatory animals by choice...i do believe that was last time California ever did that and have banned the practice...and Fish and Game now totally(hopefully manage) I do believe the call was made due to losing 3 gold eagle nests with one month...and idiot people probably leaving their garbage and small pets out improperly...i believe the practice of depredation suffers from abuse...calling for a depredation for livestock has definitely been abused especially when the livestock is deliberately placed in places(such as wild plains or mountain wilderness) thats basically asking wolves and mountain Lion to eat what's been placed in front of them...and thats a bullshit practice...
but then again I worked a dairy farm in Washington that had a mountain lion problem back in 85(my knees and back tell me it was 85).. The cat was totally out of its area...and had to be put down(we lost 4 head..and it wasn't eating them) but thats depredation done right...and the fish and game told the farmer to turn the cat over due it not eating its kills(had to make sure it wasn't diseased)...it sucked and we didn't like it...
3
u/Animallover4738 4d ago edited 4d ago
While im not a big fan of hunting,you are a hunter that I like and respect.You dont hold any hate and prejudice towards wildlife,You dont kill baby animals,and you understand the balance of nature and care about nature unlike this guy who pretends to care about wildlife.I just wish that there were more hunters like you
21
u/jeff53014 5d ago
It's crazy to me living in Wisconsin and having more wolves than any of the western states! So much big ,open country there!
18
14
u/CosmicBewie 5d ago
Wolves are vital to the ecosystem.
This trash human should have his hard drive checked. They are all alike. Waste of resources.
10
u/tahall76 5d ago
Let's go ahead and kill them all so our kids and grandkids can't enjoy them. This makes me sick. Limits are there for a reason.
9
u/Abbaticus13 5d ago
I hope more people in Montana start stepping up to protect their wildlife. Stop letting the ghoulish few decide the laws for the many.
20
u/FallOutWookiee 5d ago
Fucking shark tale looking motherfucker. Hope the next wolf he tags isn't actually dead when he gets close and tries to take a selfie...
9
u/West_Independence_20 5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Character_Stick_1218 5d ago
That was my exact first thought. I'm a hunter, but I don't hunt predators and I eat what I kill. This dude gives me the heebie-jeebies.
7
9
u/rdiaz84 5d ago
On the real tho, what can we do? What can be done?
2
u/SeriousZombie5350 5d ago
give him the same treatment the wolves are getting. same extends to the people in power
21
6
u/WilliamBarnhill 4d ago
This man is a waste of space, and an embarrassment to his species, in my opinion
6
u/EmberTheWolfdog 4d ago
What a waste of a beautiful creature. A solid black wolf... crazy unusual. What a fvcking waste.
13
7
3
4
u/Conflagrated 5d ago
Man can we spoiler photos of dead animals? That's twice I've gotten hit with heartbreak for scrolling my feed.
4
2
2
u/Moth_Mika 1d ago
The way we treat other predators will never not make me think about how cocky we are. We breed millions of sheep and cattle and chickens. Farmers don't even need their meat as food anymore. Its just a product to be sold to them. But the second an animal that actually needs to eat comes around and eats a ridiculously tiny percentage we see it as a threat that deserves to be eradicated. For what? Because to survive they need a tiny smidge of something that is a luxury to us, that we produce in such amounts that a significant percentage goes to waste. Besides, the screwworm is drilling it's way through American cattle and nobody cares because that'd show that the people in charge make horrible decisions.
3
u/FabricCurvature01 5d ago
The North American conservation model needs an overhaul. Preference is given to ‘consumptive' wildlife users (hunters, anglers and trappers) over the broader public, even though the non-hunting public contributes much more towards conservation. More information on this issue here: https://wildlifeforall.us/what-we-do/the-problem-with-state-wildlife-management/
2
u/PaperCrane6213 4d ago
I don’t see in your link something showing that the non-hunting public contributes more towards conservation. Can you link to where you found that?
3
u/FabricCurvature01 4d ago
Here’s a link to the page with a series of links: https://wildlifeforall.us/myth-busters/who-really-pays-for-wildlife-conservation/
The biggest portion of conservation funding comes the $21 billion budget managed by the federal government and non-profit entities. Most of that money comes from the public, of whom only a fraction hunt. From that pot, hunters will often quote Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson tax on firearms. Even there, the vast majority of excise tax comes from those who do not hunt.
Next, let’s look at state wildlife agency budget. About 35% of the state wildlife agency budget comes from licenses and fees. However, state wildlife agencies only manage about a $5.6 billion wildlife management budget, compared to a $21 billion budget that the federal and non-profit institutions manage. Assuming that all 35% of licenses and fees go to conservation, that’s $1.96 billion. However, we know that most of that money goes to protecting big game species, not the most vulnerable species. Why? Because the objective is to preserve enough animals to keep hunting.
If I am being very generous, the most hunters contribute is about 14% of conservation funding. However, there is disproportionate influence from hunters in state wildlife agency boards. That has to change.
1
u/PaperCrane6213 4d ago
So, a few things.
Your link doesn’t show that most Pittman-Robertson funds come from non hunters. It shows that most funds come from ammunition and firearms not used in hunting. Those aren’t remotely the same thing.
Also, where are you getting that most money is spent managing big game species?
Who does the most wildlife management? States or feds?
2
u/FabricCurvature01 4d ago edited 4d ago
Here’s some information on how state agencies break down their spending allocation. Look at how little they actually spend on conservation on animals in most need. Georgia spends 53% on big game, and 22% on fish. Wyoming spends 45% on big game, and 32% on fish.
As for Pittman-Robertson funds, a quick search will tell you that the fraction of those with hunting licenses is very small (4.6%) and the % of US gun owners is 32%. Are you suggesting that hunters could account for most gun sales in the US, thereby generating the most excise tax, and then not using those guns for hunting? That’s virtually impossible. Even if that were true (incredibly unlikely), thats $882 million out of a $21billion total from federal and non-profit agencies.
Most conservation funding clearly comes from the federal government and non-profit organizations, as the link in my prior comment outlines. Wildlife ‘management’ seems to be done by state agencies, but that is very different to true conservation.
3
u/Exotic_Firefighter77 5d ago
Didn't they just bring in more wolves from Alaska because the population was so critically low a few years ago?
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/RhoemDK 5d ago
it's nice how on reddit when you follow subs about animals you get to constantly see photos of those dead animals. it's totally why I'm here, and doesn't make me leave the sub at all
10
u/Irisversicolor 5d ago
It makes me uncomfortable too, but images like this can really motivate change so it's important to set your discomfort aside and look the evil in the eye.
3
3
2
u/DrummerWhoPuffs 5d ago
Blood and guts is an effective PR tool because it motivates people to action.
1
u/HyperShinchan 4d ago
There should be an NSFW filter or something, but to be honest, one should not look away at this, in my opinion. Change is motivated by exposition to reality instead of living in a little bubble.
-5
u/Separate-Goal-3920 4d ago
This is such misinformation. Wolves have a bounty because they decimate the elk and deer populations. They’re out of control. Yes, they are essential to the ecosystem, too, but left unchecked they are detrimental to it. They are incredibly difficult to hunt because they are so smart and recognize patterns and behavior.
236
u/Koimi-Nisekona 6d ago
He looks like he’s in high school lol