

Wolves, not drought, kill elk, hunters say

“Bill Hoppe, president of the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, called (Doug) Smith’s conclusions (that drought caused the general decline in elk body condition) a lie. “Doug Smith wouldn’t have much fat in his bone marrow either if he got chased 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by a bunch of wolves,” he said. “The area in and around Yellowstone park is being devastated by these wolves. . . .”

” Nobody seems to care if the wolves eat everything, he said. “These wolves, they will eat somebody before it’s all over. You can’t have that many people skiing and snowshoeing and have this many wolves and not have somebody get hurt. These wolves aren’t afraid of you. The are not one bit afraid of a person.”

“Bob Wharff, executive director of Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, also said wolves, not drought, caused weaker animals.“The reality is, wolves create sick and weak animals,” he said. “

Folks might have noticed Bob Wharff started posting here today. I think these folks sat down and thought up a new argument because of crumbling credibility about wolves hurting elk. The brucellosis scare tactic is also wearing really thin after 20 years.

Bill Hoppe should really stop this fear-mongering that wolves are going eat someone. They seem to be the only big animal that hasn’t hurt someone around here. There is a real likelihood of being eaten alive, but it’s not from big animals.

– – – – –

This article tells us what is really going to eat us alive, and it isn’t pretty. That little girl, who the wolf was going to eat, has a million times greater chance of her arm dissolving in pus from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), pronounced “Mersa.”

Tagged with:
About The Author

Ralph Maughan


46 Responses to Anti-wolf invents new argument

  1. avatar Monty says:

    The “evolutionary dance” of prey & predator–how each species benefits, in the long term, from the interaction between prey & predator–is lost to individauls like the above who “preach such nonsense”. Of course they also believe that creationism is science & evolution is a vast liberal plot!!!

  2. avatar chuck says:

    Its funny when the anti wolf people are losing ground at the lies and deception they will spew

  3. avatar Robert Hoskins says:

    Consider this. In the 70 odd years since the publication of Aldo Leopold’s seminal book Game Management, we have been unable to teach the relatively simple basics of game management to most hunters. They think game management is a form of agriculture that wildlife biologists practice to provide a steady and reliable game product to hunters.

    They also think that predators that kill game animals are criminals deserving the death penalty.

    Ralph: is there a way you can place the entire story on this site? I’d like to read it whole.

    That’s the nonsense we’re getting out of SFW and the Friends of the Northern Herd.

    Given this long-term failure to educate hunters about game management, it is ludicrous to think we can teach them the fundamentals of wildlife ecology and conservation biology. And I say that as a hunter.

    Our problem is that the politicians listen to these people. What a shame.

  4. Robert,

    I think they were created with political help to divert the attention and curiosity of hunters and others away from what is really going on in their states.

  5. avatar ghost grizzly says:

    I think as a requirement for a hunter education certificate and to obtain a hunting license one should have to read a Sand County Almanac.

  6. avatar Mack P. Bray says:


    Hey, Bob Wharff, Executive Director of Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Wyoming, how about confirming or denying the quote above.

    Which is it? Is the quote accurate or not? Did you or did you not say it?

    And if you didn’t say it, I suggest you consider sueing the News & Guide for libel. Why? Because the statement makes you look like an idiot.

    Mack P. Bray
    My opinions are my own

  7. avatar BW says:

    Mack P. Brayn,

    Coming from you, I’ll take that as a compliment. Thanks!

  8. avatar Mack P. Bray says:

    Folks, note how Bob Wharff, Executive Director of Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Wyoming, rarely or never answers a direct question.

    This is not a sign of an honest person.

    One last try:





    Mack P. Bray
    My opinions are my own

  9. avatar catbestland says:

    Oh Bob,

    “Wolves, will eat somebody before it’s all over with…” Funny thing that wolves have NEVER killed anyone in the USA but cattle kill an average of 28 people per year. Why don’t you push for open season on range cattle. I’d buy a tag for that.

  10. avatar Mack P. Bray says:

    cat, “cattle kill an average of 28 people per year?”

    Do you have any evidence that any of the cattle-caused human deaths have occured on public land?


    Mack P. Bray
    My opinions are my own

  11. avatar skyrim says:

    In some circles cat there is an open season on range cattle and tags are not required. Of course I’m not advocating such, but it does exist. Had I a sidearm back in my river running days I can assure you that there would have been many bloated bovines floating downstream in the Green, Yampa and Colorado Rivers. Self Defense!
    Saw an interesting quote in a trail registry down in Canyonlands once that always struck me; ” Beautiful country, scenic views and lots of tasty cows along the trail for snacking”

  12. avatar catbestland says:

    This website refers to deaths due to the cattle industry. It does not go into detail as where the deaths occured but does esplain that trampling was the major cause of death. Trampling can take place on public lands as well as on private ranches. The simple fact that cattle are known, repetative people killers should be enough to keep them off public lands.

    Otherwise, Skyrim, I am with you, I feel the need to protect myself from known people killers. We should be able to shoot range cattle in self defense.

  13. avatar JB says:

    Good grief. I thought the presidential candidates were getting loose with their claims! The next thing you know, they’ll be telling us that wolf reintroduction was actually an Al Queda plot to weaken the nation’s food stores in preparation for an all out invasion of terrorist Muslims.

    Be afraid! Be very afraid!


  14. avatar JEFF E says:

    BW is not going to answer you. Engaging in debate that can be referenced to in the future is not his style and I would bet he is saying to himself how he could have been so stupid as to allow himself to be quoted saying something that your basic sixth grader biology student would laugh himself sick upon reading.
    I often have wondered why Nate Helm, BW’s Idaho counterpart, doesn’t post here and have concluded that Nate is much more politically savvy than BW, as one would expect from one who spent years as an aide to Idaho’s senator Craig. No, Bw’s forte is going around slapping Bubba on the back and encouraging those 100,200, 500 dollar contributions to help fight the imminent social implosion by wolves BYYY GAWD.

  15. avatar Jay says:

    What happened to Bob Fanning? Wasn’t he the previous “Friends” (I love that part of the title) of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd Such That They Prosper So That We Mayeth Shooteth Them With Glee? Does anybody know if he weaseled out of the bet proposed by Todd Wilkinson(?) over Bob’s comment that the herd would be extinct in 3 years? I have a sneaking suspicion that he didn’t follow through.

  16. avatar Buffaloed says:

    I have to say that I think that the deaths, referred to in the link provided, by cattle are likely due to accidents at holding facilities and not attacks by cattle. I’ve been to the buffalo capture facility at Stephens Creek in Yellowstone and I have seen a few situations where people could easily be injured, especially if they fell into the facility. These types of facilities are really dangerous for bison, cattle, and people alike. I seriously doubt the likelihood of an attack by cattle on public lands. That being said I don’t think it’s impossible but using that as an argument seems to be as good as saying that wolves are going t eat children at the bus stop.

  17. avatar JB says:

    In lieu of making absurd claims, I suggest we play with numbers:

    Idaho=83,500 square miles
    Montana=145,500 square miles
    Wyoming=97,800 square miles
    Total: 326,800 square miles

    In 2006, there were an estimated 1,300 wolves in these three states. Assuming an even distribution, that’s roughly one wolf per 250 square miles (or one wolf in a 16 x 16 mile area).

    However, wolves aren’t evenly distributed across all of the States, so let’s assume they occupy 1/4 of this area (roughly 80,500 square miles); that’s still only one wolf per 62 square miles (or one wolf in a 8 x 8 mile area).

    Tell me again how it is even possible, for 1,300 wolves in an 80,000-300,000+ square mile area to devastate anything? Frankly, I seriously doubt that 1,300 wolves have any kind of impact–there simply are too few of them.

    (Just for comparison, you might want to consider the human population density in the three state region–roughly 2.8 million people over 326,800 miles equals 1 person per .1 miles square. That’s 2,500 times the current wolf density.)

  18. avatar Chuck says:

    Yes Bob lets see your proof. Or do we just put you in the same catagory as Ron Gillette. You know its funny I have watched the wolves and elk in the same valley’s, its funny that I don’t remember watching those elk running for their lives, heck I even seen grizzly bears in the same valley with the wolves and the elk. If your going to make stuff up, at least let it sound halfway true.

  19. avatar catbestland says:

    That is my point exactly. Wolves have never killed anyone in the US. Yet the argument is made that it is a matter of time before people are eaten by wolves. If that argument is put forth, the argument that cattle are more dangerous must be considered. The statistics speak for themselves. If a human were injured or killed by wolves in a captive situation, you can bet that would be used as an argument against wolves on public lands. The simple fact that cattle have killed people should restrict them grazing on public lands. Dogs are required to be on leashes at all times on most public lands because of the possibility that they may bite someone even though only 12 people die each year due to attacks by them. Cattle are responsible for more human deaths and should be held to the same restrictions. Yet they are continually released unsupervised on public lands putting people at risk. Not to mention being allowed to deficate in our water sources further exposing humans to illness and death due to disease.

  20. Another thing you need worry about is sheep guard dogs. If you are walking, hiking, biking, etc. and come upon a band of sheep, watch out for the guard dogs.

    They are trained to be unfriendly. While there are not many attacks on people, it is more likely than an attack by a wolf by far.

  21. avatar Mack P. Bray says:

    Good point about possible attacks by sheep guard dogs, Ralph. How ironic – dogs used to protect sheep from wolves are more likely to attack humans than wolves.

    In Wyoming, by law, sheep are afforded a higher degree of protection from dogs than are humans. Wyoming statues state that if a dog attacks sheep, the dog WILL be put down; if a dog attacks a human, the dog MAY be put down.

    JEFF E, I’m certain you’re right; Bob Wharff will never answer a direct question with a direct answer. Nate Helm *has* posted here… I’ve read what Wharff and Nate Helm have written and Helm is by far the more articulate and seemingly more intelligent of the two.

    JEFF E: “…Bw’s forte is going around slapping Bubba on the back and encouraging those 100,200, 500 dollar contributions to help fight the imminent social implosion by wolves BYYY GAWD.”

    As I recall, Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife of Utah received and auctioned a sheep tag for $80,000+.

    Chuck: “Yes Bob lets see your proof. Or do we just put you in the same catagory as Ron Gillette.”

    Those two are definitely in the same category: unwilling to reason or listen to reason; not mindful of science; obsessed with DEVIL WOLVES.

    Mack P. Bray
    My opinions are my own

  22. avatar Dan Stebbins says:

    “These wolves are not afraid of people” – Bill Hoppe

    Here is a personal experience that illustrates clearly why I can’t take these claims from the anti-wolf contingent seriously.
    In ’02 while tracking with the Wolf Project winter study, I was on Dave’s hill @ Slough Creek with about 40 people watching the Druids. The Druids were the most watched wolfpack in YNP at the time. So if any pack was not afraid of people this would be it.
    Anyway the Druids took down a cow elk across the creek from us about a 1/2 mile distant. Two people from this larger group hiked down off the hill & walked unseen by the Druids behind a rise to within 1/4 mile of the carcass. The Druids numbered about 14 wolves & had not begun feeding When these two folks popped into view 1/4 mile from the carcass ALL 14 wolves spooked & ran away from their fresh carcass. Surely if they were unafraid of people these wolves would’ve at least defended this carcass, right?

    As for the second quote about wolves creating sick & weak animals… I’d like Mr. Wharff to show me some proof, some scientific evidence, something that would back this claim up.

    These folks seem to use unfounded & sensationalist claims to try and sway peoples’ opinions. I do know that the people that are swayed by these claims aren’t paying attention to what the scientific data tells us.

  23. avatar Concerned says:

    FONEY may run their mouths, but in the hunting industry as a whole, they are not taken very seriously, they make absurd claims that can not be back up with facts and figures and frankly give the whole hunting community a bad name and image, I know this industry very intimately and they are more of a fringe group, who have big mouths, very little power and are a thorn in the side of most of the hunting community. I really wish some of these young whipper snapper news reporters would start talking to the average hunter instead of the smaller more vocal groups, then there would be a little less bias…

  24. avatar Monte says:

    Sheep dogs are a danger. I’ve killed two of them in self defense and have come close at other times. Go armed in sheep country would be my advice. Wolves, while far less dangerous than sheep dogs, are dangerous animals and will eventually hurt or kill someone. To deny that is naive, but grizzly bears maul people every year and we don’t eradicate them. There is always some risk in wild country. That’s the way it is.

  25. avatar Mike Post says:

    I must agree with “Concerned”. Hunters observe changing conditions in the elk herds they hunt and only are provided answers to their questions by the ranchers and outfitters they deal with. You have to try hard to get educated on the wolf issue by unbiased sources.

    Given the other forms of attack on the heritage of hunting it is not surprising that many hunters (not all but many) are ready to believe outlandish conspiracy theories from the only sources that profess to support the future of hunting. Hunting is still the main form of wildlife population management and the main source of funding for conservation efforts. More of the folks posting here need to start working that side of the fence in order to combat what is right now a very effective anti-wolf propaganda effort directed at the hunting community who, by the way, also vote and belong to very effecting hunting/conservation groups with significant lobbying efforts in play.

  26. avatar BW says:

    It amazes me that those which criticize my opinion for lack of scientific proof are the same individuals which praised Doug Smith’s opinion as factual although he didn’t produce anything in the way of scientific proof either. Go back and reread the article again. No where does Mr. Smith produce any documentation to support his claims either; yet, you continue to call me names and make disparaging remarks directed towards me personally. You have verified the fact that people will selectively stand up and praise statements unsupported by anything other then opinion but viciously attack anyone who dares to offer up an opinion which differs from yours.

    The park biologists have done their best to document the deaths of some 2000 animals over a 13 year period. The article states that “Biologists have documented a decline of about 50 percent – from roughly 20,000 animals to about 10,000 – in Yellowstone’s elk population since federal officials started reintroducing wolves to the park in 1995.” If the population has decreased by over 10,000 animals what killed the other 8000+ animals? Since studies have shown that wolves often consume the entire animal at a kill site and only 20% of the loss is accounted for I am skeptical that something else may in deed be happening. Shoot away all you want, as I have stated before, my opinion is mine.

    Mack P. Brayn,
    Did you answer any of my questions? Didn’t think so.

  27. avatar Concerned says:

    Doug presented a theory, which I am surprised that he didn’t push it as an absolute, he did state, he wanted to continue to study to see if his theory pans out or not..I am one will to wait until such time as the facts and figures prove or dis-prove his theory..

  28. BW,

    Did you see the condition of the Yellowstone range in about October this year — going into winter?

  29. avatar Buffaloed says:

    Bob you obviously don’t believe in the process of science. I don’t think that Doug is presenting anything as fact but the evidence is on his side and until you can disprove his hypothesis with anything other than focus group rhetoric then I will disregard your garbage.

    You are doing the same as what you accuse Doug of doing by making claims that you can’t back up and asserting them as fact and disregarding any other possibilities. You want wolves to be the sole reason for the decline in population of the northern herd and anything that says otherwise is just opinion. What is your evidence?

    The problem Bob is that you or your surrogates are not doing any of the work to back up your claims. Doug is and has been for many many years.

    Bob, did you consider that late season hunts, drought, and predation may have brought the northern elk herd into greater equilibrium with their resources?

    What studies are you referring to?

    Opinions are just that. They are not fact and I am perfectly willing to change my opinion about wolves but there is so much information to indicate that wolves are not the major factor in the decline of the northern elk herd. Elk will never disappear from Yellowstone. They may become unhealthy or die due to weather, disease, and range condition but prey populations influence predator populations not the other way around.

    You seek no balance in the management of elk when you feed them. You are doing them no favors by keeping them in crowded conditions and dependent on human feed. You are likely going to have a much worse problem on your hands soon with CWD but we all know here that you are not interested in the welfare of wildlife but of WELFARE TO outfitters and ranchers at the expense of taxpayers and wildlife alike.

    Have you answered any of the questions that I have put to you? No. If you don’t I will just have to assume that you are afraid to debate on anything other than opinion. In short, I will have to think that you are a coward.

  30. avatar Jay says:


    I’m sure you’re aware the late cow hunt was put in place by MTFWP to INTENTIONALLY reduce the number of elk on the northern range, right? Yes, wolves eat elk, but even you can see that killing upwards of 2200 prime-aged cows during the late cow hunt (mean age = 6.5, 1996-2001), in addition to the october hunts, just might have something to do with it, can’t you? Factor in the addition of another mouth to feed (wolves) in addition to the other predators, heavy human harvest of the prime reproductive category of females, drought-related reduction in production and calf survival, and guess what? The population is going to drop, no surprise there, right? Mission accomplished by MTFWP, but they’re not going to say that. You also fail to mention that elk numbers were in a pretty steady decline from 16-17k in the early thirties, down to 5-6k by the late sixties, all without wolves around to blame. How can that be? This latest drop from a peak of around 25k elk in the nineties was no doubt aided by wolves, but you can’t deny that the MT FWP program to reduce elk numbers was successful.

  31. avatar Chuck says:

    It has been brought up numerous times that the numbers of elk that were in the park prior to the re-introduction of wolves in 1995, were at an unhealthy number. With those numbers your just asking for disease and dewindling food source.

  32. avatar BW says:

    Buffaloed said: “You are doing the same as what you accuse Doug of doing by making claims that you can’t back up and asserting them as fact and disregarding any other possibilities.”

    I am in fact doing exactly what Doug Smith did, I expressed my opinion. I have never said that wolves are the sole reason that elk numbers are declining. One thing I do agree with Robert Hoskins on is the fact that this is a complex system. I am willing to admit that several factors contributed to the decline in elk numbers. I can tell you that I am equally aware of the technique described by Doug Smith in assessing the condition of animals by looking at their bone marrow. I have done this numerous times as well. It really only confirms that the animals have been under extremely stressful conditions. The point that I am making is that other factor besides range condition can and do contribute to the overall condition of individual animals. SFW has been putting significant money towards research to demonstrate the relationships between ungulates and wolves. We are not personally collecting the data nor are we interpreting it. Once our study is concluded we will also have the science to back up our claims. This study is a multiple year study. Hopefully after three years we will have enough data that we can start talking about it with the data to back up what we are saying until then it is all subject to speculation, much as Doug Smith has stated.


    I will answer any question you want to ask of me. Unlike Mr. Mack P. Brayn, who insist on insulting me at every chance, you seem to be interested in debating.

    Several have stated that MT FWP had long sought to reduce the size of this elk herd through extended late season hunts. I always thought one of the reasons used to bring wolves into the area was to help control this herd as hunting alone didn’t appear to be achieving their goals of reducing the population. Once again I will say it; I know that wolves are not the only factor contributing to the decline of this elk herd. No let me hear one of you admit that wolves are playing a role in the reduction.

  33. avatar Jeff N. says:

    BW – OK I admit it and I believe most of us agree and admit that wolves play a role in declining elk numbers. Isn’t that one of the reasons they were reintroduced in the first place?

    Now admit that you are a half-wit and go away.

  34. avatar Concerned says:


    Anyone that says wolves are not contributing to the decline in Elk populations are fooling themselves…

    The key is, are they as much as a major factor as many have said, or are there other dynamics involved in addition to the wolves?

  35. avatar Jay says:

    Did you read what I wrote BW? Seems I said wolves were a part of the equation.

    Just curious, who’s doing the research you mention? If it’s legitimate research and you can get it published in a peer reviewed wildlife journal, I look forward to reading it. If it’s the kind of junk that Ron Gillett spews as “science”, then do everyone a favor and toss it in the garbage can.

  36. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Bob Wharff – a question. Why do you dislike wolves so much? Why is your group, Sportsmen (sic) for [some] Fish and [some] Wildlife so hell-bent on destroying coyotes, fox, wolves, lions, bears and the like?

    Have you ever read “God’s Dog”, a story of coyotes?

    If anyone out there has a bumper sticker that says: “Real Men Don’t Kill Coyotes” — send me one and I’ll send you a check. Or, for that matter, the one that says “Real Men Don’t Kill Wolves”.

  37. avatar catbestland says:

    Bob Wharf,

    Oh let me guess, the research is being done by Charles Kay with the Independant Institute?

  38. avatar catbestland says:

    Lynne Stone,

    I used to have several of those bumper stickers that read “Real Men Don’t Kill Wolves” If I can find one I will send it to you. It may take a while to locate as I have moved since I had them. I placed a bunch of them on local rancher’s pickup trucks at the local coffee shop but I think I still have a few.

  39. avatar Lynne Stone says:

    Cat – maybe it’s time to make up a new bunch of bumper stickers. I had the “Real Men Don’t Kill Wolves” sticker on my previous Toyota pickup. Recall being parked at a ski trail head and coming back to a napkin placed under a windshield wiper with the words:

    “Real Men don’t drive cheap Jap trucks – you stupid wolf loving fool!”

    This incident happened near Ketchum in Blaine County, the wolf-loving, liberal, Democratic stronghold of Idaho. Wish I’d caught the anti-wolf SOB messin’ with my rig.

  40. avatar catbestland says:


    Good idea and maybe we should come up with some more slogans. How about “Real women hate men who kill wolves.”

  41. avatar Robert Hoskins says:


    Could you tell us just who SFW is giving money to for this wolf-ungulate research? As I recall, SFW (or maybe it was SFW-Wyoming’s predecessor, Elk for Tomorrow, I don’t remember which) funded Garvice Roby’s report on elk feedgrounds, which I didn’t find particularly accurate or edifying. For example, Roby claimed, without any supporting data, that closing elk feedgrounds would cause up to 80% mortality in the seven feedground herds. That, quite frankly, is nonsense.


  42. avatar Jay says:

    That was my point when I asked if this will be appearing in any sort of peer-reviewed journal. If they can accomplish that (which I sincerely doubt), then it will be worth reading. Otherwise, just more BS propaganda.

  43. avatar JB says:

    BW says: “Once our study is concluded we will also have the science to back up our claims.”

    Bob: With all due respect, this is your fundamental problem. The scientific process is a method for DISPROVING a hypothesis (claim). In correlational studies (those that can’t be done using experimental methods–nearly all studies involving wild animals), this involves (1) looking at the existing evidence and coming up with a reasonable hypothesis, (2) constructing a study that allows you to disprove that hypothesis. This last part is important: just because 2 things are correlated does not mean that one caused the other. Thus, even when your data seem to support your hypothesis (e.g. X and Y are positively related) you still need to be skeptical that there may be some other cause that you didn’t account for (e.g. W).

    Thus, when you make claims like, “The reality is, wolves create sick and weak animals,” without scientific data to back up those claims, you appear uninformed, biased, and generally unfamiliar with the way science works.

    Doug is a biologist and scientist who has been working with wolves and elk for a very long time. When you reach that status (i.e. are deemed an expert in your field), most people are willing to give you some room to speculate on relationships. Thus, you can’t really compare your speculations with Doug’s.

  44. avatar Jeff N. says:

    Lynne – Real men, like Bob W., are measured by how many trophy elk racks they have hanging on their walls. Real men, like Bob W, aren’t afraid of wolves but are concerned about the dangers the wolf poses to the women, children, and grannys living in wolf country. Real men aren’t afraid of wolves….. well…accept for the elk hunter in Catron County, NM who was purportedly tree’d by a rogue, vicious, blood lusting pack of lobos in New Mexico.

  45. avatar Dan Stebbins says:

    I’m not sure, but I’m hoping you weren’t addressing that post about Doug Smith’s article to me. I said nothing about that article at all. What I did was ask you for the scientific research that backs up your claim that “The reality is, wolves create sick and weak animals,”.
    You said this was “reality”, and therefore I asked you what proof you have. Changing the subject by attacking an article that I never mentioned, makes me think you don’t want to answer the question.

  46. avatar Morgan says:

    It is unrealistic to say wolves will eat everything, because they won’t. It just goes to prove even more that hunting by humans is not needed in those areas; wolves can ‘control’ elk and other animals naturally. Sadly, some of these people aren’t ready to put their guns away, and that causes a problem. Hunting of the wolf should not happen now, because more than ever these animals need to be protected. Pups are dying of an unknown disease, and if it spreads to the older wolves, their population will fall naturally. As it is intended. Yes, nature is cruel, but death happens to the best of us, humans can’t control that. If they starve to death, so be it, the elk herds will once again rise, and so will the wolves. When people go in and take what they don’t need, it only slows the process.
    And the ‘real men are measured by the how many trophy elk racks they have’ is bull. That is a pathetic way of thinking, and sorry, that isn’t going to make your balls any bigger. I hate to tell you that but sadly, it is the truth. Any man who hunts does not get any respect at all in my eyes. Jeff, you have only proved how ignorant you really are with the blood lusting pack nonsense, try and educate yourself, the big bad wolf doesn’t exist. Time to come into reality.




~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: