>snip< Varley and his wife run Yellowstone Wolf Tracker wildlife tours, one of a dozen or so guiding operations sanctioned by park officials. These kinds of services are at the heart of a thriving wolf watching tourism that a University of Montana study found pumps millions of dollars into counties surrounding the park each year.
That economic argument is just one used by wolf advocates critical of growing hunter and trapper wolf harvests in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Some are like Varley, who has no gripe with wolf hunting elsewhere but wants a kill-free buffer around Yellowstone. [The old, "not in my back yard" mentality] Others, often from outside the Rocky Mountain West, want to halt all 
lethal action on an animal that was classified as federally endangered just a few years ago.
On the flip side are those who demand that Montana kill more wolves, which they say harm ranchers’ bottom line and deplete elk and deer herds. “We’d like the state to take much more aggressive measures in certain areas to bring these predator numbers down to a more tolerable ratio with prey populations,” says Rob Arnaud, president of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association. “We’ve got hunting outfitters around Yellowstone going out of business because of wolves.”
Full article: http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2014/wolves.htm#.UxpKmGeYZla
Exposing the Big Game 
Perhaps they can become “gathering outfitters.”
I think that Varley is being extremely selfish, caring only about YNP wolves but not giving a damn about the hundreds of other wolves that are suffering horribly from the senseless atrocities being committed against them. I guess his bottom line is all that matters to him–not wolves. Positively shameful.
Varley says in the article that every wolf that steps out of the park and is killed by hunters is money out of his pocket. Seems he doesn’t really care about YNP wolves either. They are just a commodity to him, nothing more. Again, positively shameful.
” Some are like Varley, who has no gripe with wolf hunting elsewhere but wants a kill-free buffer around Yellowstone. [The old, “not in my back yard” mentality]
Great quote….it’s part of the Yellowstone “groupie” mentality. To clarify what I mean : those that visit “Disneystone” multiple times a year to watch wolves, but have never seen a wolf in the “wild” outside the Park and are oblivious to the suffering and killing of wolves throughout Montana. The 7 wolves that were killed near my son in laws ranch in the Blackfoot Valley are every bit as important as the Yellowstone wolves, yet these Yellowstone “visitors” are content to “compromise” other wolves lives away.
Then there’s the tour operators, who make money on the backs of wolves, bison etc, but, rarely if ever, are outside the Park fighting for other wildlife………….all about $$ I guess
Exactly right Jerry, the wolves elsewhere in west matter as much as those named wolves inside the park. Yellowstone is a pretty big park, but nowhere near vast enough to fully recover a wide-ranging species like wolves.
There has to be a buffer around Yellowstone. If not, hunters and wolf-haters will target Yellowstone wolves first, then take out the wolves outside of the park who don’t even have that protection. Wolves protected in the park are always going to be a thorn in the side of the haters. They’d love to be able to get rid of them. Don’t let them, and don’t make it easy for them. Yellowstone wolves are the ambassadors for our North American wolves all over the world.
We can see it happening already – how many collared wolves have been shot by lazy-ass hunters since they were delisted?
I agree about the buffer. What galls me to no end is that Varley seems only to care about park wolves and none of the others that are suffering. And he really doesn’t care about park wolves either: they are just “money in his pocket.” Read the full article, Ida, and see my comments above.
Like everything else in our modern world, It may come down to a matter of economics, and economics only, I fear. But, whatever works to protect them.
I fear for a world in which economics is all that matters.
But according to this article, Varley only seems to care about protecting park wolves. What about all of the others that are suffering? Don’t they matter as well?
Of course they do – but we have to start somewhere. If the park wolves aren’t protected, there’s no hope for the others at all. JMO. This Varley may only care about money in his pocket, but I’d rather that than hunting outfitters and ranchers whine about losing money. Varley at least wants live wolves.
The wolves in the park are already protected; writing off the rest of the wolves in the state is starting nowhere. Wyoming has a policy of treating any wolf outside Yellowstone as vermin to be shot on sight. Do we want Montana and Idaho to follow suit?
I’m really offended at the article’s premise that allowing hunting and trapping of wolves promotes tolerance. That’s the crap argument that was thrust down our throats when wolves were delisted, and look what’s happened since. Wolves are not safe anywhere and are killed with the most brutal spectrum of means, from traps and snares to aerial gunning.
Where does the concept of compassion fit into this issue? Does it not matter at all that these “recreational” activities disrupt and destroy wolf social fabric? As far as I’m concerned, compassion and mercy MUST be part of the conversation. I’m not naive enough to think that I won’t be ridiculed by wolf hunters, trappers, outfitters, and “managers.” Yet I insist that there are factors to consider other than simply the science defining the minimum number as a “healthy” population.
It seems to me that ranchers, hunters, trappers, outfitters are getting everything they want, short of total eradication. That’s some tolerance, alright.
You’re 100% right that compassion and mercy MUST be part of the conversation. And who cares if we are ridiculed by psychotic killers who should be wearing straight jackets, locked away in padded cells, rather than being given the first and final word when it comes to wolf “control” and “management.” Evil will continue to rule as long as we accept the spin that their selfish speciesism is the “sensible” approach.