Montana governor authorizes wolf kills
Gray wolves are at the center of long-running tensions between Montana ranchers and the federal government.
February 17th, 2011
03:32 PM ET

Montana governor authorizes wolf kills

Entire packs of endangered gray wolves may be killed under new directives from Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

Schweitzer ordered wildlife officers not to investigate or prosecute ranchers who shoot wolves that attack livestock, and he authorized the killing of entire packs that endanger livestock or elk.

The Democratic governor outlined his initiative Wednesday in a defiant letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a copy of which was published on Schweitzer's website.

"At this point, I can do nothing less and still maintain my commitment as Governor to uphold the rights of our citizens to protect their property and to continue to enjoy Montana's cherished wildlife heritage and traditions," Schweitzer wrote.

Montana livestock producers are frustrated over rules that protect wolves, which were hunted to near-extinction in the early 20th century.

Gray wolves killed livestock at a rate of one animal per day in 2009, including 148 sheep in one herd in August that year, the Missoulian newspaper reported.

Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for the Department of Interior, told the Missoulian that wolf management should be turned over to states with approved management plans.

"But the governor's letter is not the answer," she added.

"It's unnecessarily heavy-handed," said Mike Leahy, director of the Rocky Mountain region for Defenders of Wildlife. "Any concerns that wolves create can be addressed in a targeted fashion, and there's no reason for states to start whacking wolves in large numbers."

"The frustration over wolf impacts on the ground is overblown," he added. "These are impacts that are manageable."

Gray wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1973. They were briefly delisted in 2009, but a 2010 federal court order put them back on the list (PDF), and the federal government issued a rule in October to comply with the order.

Montana's two U.S. senators, Democrats Max Baucus and Jon Tester, introduced legislation last week to remove gray wolves from the endangered species list.

As of December 2009, there were 319 wolves in the Northwest Montana population zone (PDF), 173 of them adults, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

There were 106 in the Yellowstone National Park population zone (PDF), where wolves were reintroduced as an experiment in the mid-1990s.

Post by:
Filed under: Animals • Environment • Montana • Nature • Politics • U.S. • Wolves
soundoff (1,003 Responses)
  1. Liberty Queen

    The problem is human over-population and a complete disregard by these humans for all life on planet earth.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Kim

      I could not agree more! Humanity likes to cull other animal populations, however, fails to see a problem with our own overpopulation. If left alone, Mother Nature does a pretty good job without our "help."

      February 18, 2011 at 12:49 am | Report abuse |
    • collins61

      Save the planet, kill yourself.

      February 18, 2011 at 2:02 am | Report abuse |
    • Janet


      February 18, 2011 at 3:22 am | Report abuse |
    • Hilo, HI

      LQ I completely agree. THE GLUTTONOUS BREEDING HABITS OF HUMANS ARE KILLING THE PLANET, yet we go on and on about 'the damage' caused by a few hundred wolves! PATHETIC.

      February 18, 2011 at 4:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Cause&Effect

      Agreed, and well said. Too often people don"t realize that we took away their land-what the hell do you animals to do as we keep taking more? I'm sure with today's technology there should be a better option. But an idiot governor wants to make a name for himself. No we humans do what we do best-wars, kill needlessly; remember how we eradicated the buffalo? Hell we do it to our own species why are we so surprised by such actions...Lets not find a balanced measure lets just kill/destroy as the answer.

      February 18, 2011 at 4:40 am | Report abuse |
    • lsm

      I absolutely agree there are entirely too many humans. The human gene pool needs to be chlorinated. I'd start with all the humans who don't accept the fact that humans have evolved to the top of the animal chain. If you live under a roof, wear clothes, eat anything at all I'd agree you are ARE part of the problem. Perhaps you would be compelled to do the right thing and be part of the solution. I'm sure the wolf doesn't know the difference between sheep meat, or human meat. As A matter of fact it probably all tastes like chicken

      February 18, 2011 at 6:22 am | Report abuse |
  2. Fred Barnett

    "Children of the night. What music they make" Save the wolves.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:33 am | Report abuse |
  3. hammie

    Stats are wrong, there is more grey wolves than they are reporting. Just shoot'em and be done with it.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:35 am | Report abuse |
    • activist

      how about we shoot you and deal with it?

      February 18, 2011 at 1:19 am | Report abuse |
    • collins61

      How about save the planet, kill yourself. Lets see how committed you are "Activist". Or are you about asking irritating questions?

      February 18, 2011 at 2:05 am | Report abuse |
  4. Deborah California

    The cattle and sheep ranchers are distroying the land. It is all about greed and profits. The wolf was re-introduced to help keep the deer and other populations down, now they want to kill the wolf.
    Nature takes care of itself, it is all about the cattle and sheep. We know the old saying "money talks and $%&3 walks"

    February 18, 2011 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Zac

      Your logic is flawless... People eat. People wear wool. It's not all about profits and the big corporate boogeyman. Wake up.

      February 18, 2011 at 12:47 am | Report abuse |
    • Nowletssee

      @deborah. Spoken like a true left coast vegetarian. Tell us, what animal used to wanter on the spot your house sits on and the streets you drive to work? Or for that matter, the fields where your veggies come from? You don't think animals were "removed" from those spots so that you can live and eat? Even if you are a veg head? Really?

      February 18, 2011 at 12:53 am | Report abuse |
    • Derek

      A friend of mine lost two of his four prized steers to wolves. He wasn't a big evil corporate farm. Those steers were supposed to be his college tuition for the next semester. (and this in a state where the DNR claims to only have a few wolves and millions of white-tailed deer) I'm not saying killing them indiscriminately is the answer, but to ignore the problems permitting them free reign causes is naive.

      February 18, 2011 at 2:52 am | Report abuse |
    • Cause&Effect

      Oh god forbid you lost two steers; how many wolves had died-the ecosystem is laid out by nature-if you dont understand than go read a book or spend sometime in nature. And god forbid you don't eat meat, oh my; as well as not being a Christian we shall all be dammed for that.
      People who say they will gut this and gut are prime example of lack of balanced decisions we have in government. Prime example of the next to commit a serious crime against any living thing.

      February 18, 2011 at 4:47 am | Report abuse |
    • Farm kid in the military

      I am not going to blast anyone who has an opinion, they are what makes our county with it is. I am going to speak on fact having grown up raising livestock, hunting, and being an outdoors enthusiast. Wolves play a vital role in controlling populations of herd animals by having an effective hunting strategy and needing to eat on avg one deer a day or an elk every two to three days (for a normal pack). The problem comes when you change the situation from deer and elk that run faster, farther, and jump fences wear as livestock cannot. The answer for the wolf is simple, eat the easy meal and who can blame them it just makes sense. Yellowstone is perfect example of what will happen if nature is left alone, to some extent. The population of prey is high, then the population of predators is high, this is how nature is. Now comes the part that people tend to get a little crazy about, partly because of understanding or lack of understanding as it would be. When a predator population in any area gets too high the food supply becomes less and the predator population will fall. This cycle has gone on for as long and animals have been on earth. I know several farmers in MT that have had problem with wolves and livestock. Some handle it different then others. I am by no means smart enough to make a decision on what should be done one way or the other. I think that some form of REGULATED hunting should be permissible to keep wolf populations in check, also I think that farmers should be compensated for loss of livestock due to predator kills(I know in most cases they are but it can be a drawn out process and bills do not wait for the government to pay you), this would help keep farmers from wanting to kill all of the wolves. We all want to see the populations of all our north American animals thrive so we can pass along to our children their wonders, but it won’t come from knee-jerk reactions from either side of the argument.

      February 18, 2011 at 6:13 am | Report abuse |
    • Haemisch

      @Cause and Effect:

      Derek said nothing about religion. You're letting your biases show. And yes, losing two steer is a big deal to someone who doesn't have enough money to pay for college without them.

      February 18, 2011 at 7:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Loriel

      This reply is for Derek.....I can understand what you are saying and I am sorry that happened to your friend. However, it is their land too. Do you really think we can be so egotistical to say that we just kill off every animal that gets in our way? They have to eat also. Can't you see the double standard?

      February 18, 2011 at 7:23 am | Report abuse |
  5. CC

    Why not round up Gov. Schweitzer, Kendra Barkoff, and the rest of the group attempting to remove the Federal protections for the Gray Wolves and declare open season on them. That's exactly what they are doing to the Gray Wolves! They will not wait until livestock are attacked before killing the wolves, but they will go out and hunt them down and kill the adults and then destroy any pups they might find in dens. These animals kill only what they can eat and no more, and there are methods to help farmers and ranchers protect their animals. They don't want to bother and would rather erradicate an entire species of animal so they can increase the numbers of other animals that the wolves would prey on. The wolves serve a purpose and their numbers are dwindling due to the greed and stupidity of those like Schweitzer, and it is because of their stupidity we have thrown off the natural balance of our country. Schweitzer is probably one of the many who profit from providing hunting sessions for those who would like to take down an elk and if the wolves decrease the number of elk, well then he and his state don't make as much money. It is vile and disgusting the lack of respect Schweitzer and those like him have for Federal laws they do not agree with; and it is vile and disgusting to simply destroy animals because you don't want to bother with them or find them a personal nusance.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Nowletssee

      Why are there so many people on here advocating murdering of people because they do not agree with them. You are sick CC.

      February 18, 2011 at 1:07 am | Report abuse |
    • Phred

      @nowletssee, possibly because wolves are endangered, and inbred redneck morons are not?

      February 18, 2011 at 1:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Aurora

      I beg to differ with you on the comment that wolves will only kill what they will eat. That is pure unadulterated #@%#*!
      I grew up in AK, where there is a healthy wolf population. I have observed them in their denning areas, watched pups grow and watched the interaction of the packs. I have also seen with my own eyes and had the opportunity to read official reports of numerous animals being killed and only one or two were partially eaten. The rest were just killed as if it were a game. I challenge you to go to AK, Canada, MT, Minnesota, Michegan or anywhere else that there are wolf packs and spend some serious time observing them and their habits. Then you can come back and make informed and not misinformed statements. As to thinning the packs, that is not all bad, but control it. Don't just make it random or an open season. I would worry more about coyotes going after the weak and young in most cases than I would the wolves, as long as there is not a several pack or large pack concentration in a relatively small area. Use common sense in making comments and know more of the subject which you choose to comment on.

      February 18, 2011 at 3:14 am | Report abuse |
    • warren41

      I agree with you 100% CC. It really made me sick to read this article.

      February 18, 2011 at 3:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Loriel

      Phred.......good one.

      February 18, 2011 at 7:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      Right on Aurora! Too many people posting on this topic that have no idea what gray wolves have done in the last 5 years to Montana, Wyoming and Idaho elk populations. 100 years of sound wildlife management down the tube! Once the elk herds are completely decimated in these states (another 3-5 years) the wolves will REALLY start keying in on the livestock. The Governor is stepping in now because he sees the writing on the wall and is taking action before it's too late. And BTW, these Gray Wolves were NEVER part of the Rocky Mountain ecosystem. The original rocky mountain wolves were a different subspecies, 20-25 lbs lighter than these Canadian killers. Do a little homework and you will find that wolf reintroduction in the West has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific wildlife management

      February 19, 2011 at 1:00 am | Report abuse |
  6. Gary

    Is this the same Gubernor that blocked the buffalos from the state? Let's see, no buffalo to eat the browse, now wolves if they get offed, maybe the stockowners have this guy in hand? Or, he can dial up Palin to show him how to shoot

    February 18, 2011 at 12:42 am | Report abuse |
  7. michael

    If I was a shepherd who lost 148 sheep to a pack of wolves in one year, and I was forbidden from killing them - I would be quite upset. It is injustice to allow the wolves to run havoc on people, and not allow even self defense (which is forbidden in the case of these wolves).

    February 18, 2011 at 12:42 am | Report abuse |
    • J

      Perhaps these people shouldn't be building their ranches in, what is essentially, the wolves' kitchen?

      February 18, 2011 at 12:51 am | Report abuse |
    • michael

      Who's to say? Maybe the wolves should go elsewhere. I don't see any animal rights activists doing something meaningful like buying the sheep or property up. Hell, they could donate the sheep to the wolves that way and see what happens.

      February 18, 2011 at 12:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Nathan H

      Micheal, your comments are just foolish. Wolves have existed in Montana since long before the Europeans showed up and started building ranches there. It is not the wolves that are the problem it is the encroachment of humans on their natural habitat. As far as I am concerned the ranchers can either build better fences or live with the consequences.

      February 18, 2011 at 1:11 am | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      Here is a novel idea: Fences!!!

      Now where is my Nobel Prize?

      February 18, 2011 at 1:22 am | Report abuse |
    • michael

      Wolves can get around fences- fences are not foolproof nor does it make sense to fence everything in. That said, who cares whether the wolves were there first or not? Life happened. If you want to follow your train of logic down further, then humans shouldn't be allowed to be at peace anywhere but between the Tigris and Euphrates. I am not foolish to take a principled stance; it's hypocritical to allow the wolves to kill at will but take the right to protect the sheep away from the humans. The wolves do not have a claim to rights; rights are derived from human nature and purely within the domain of resolving conflict in society.

      February 18, 2011 at 1:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Janet White

      I have a real question to ask any rancher or farmer in any state. If any of your livestock are killed by a wolf,
      coyote, Fl Panther (that population is growing here in Fl), bear, illegal hunter, does the state reimburse you for your livestock? I am assuming it would be more likely for this too happen by living in the west.

      February 18, 2011 at 1:38 am | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      Maybe they are not too good of a Shepard if wolves are out smarting them. Just because this idiots don't know how to co-exist or raise life stock in a safe environment doesn't mean they should shoot everything in sight. This is cruel and should be dealt with swiftly by the Federal Government to prevent this from happening. Its like holding a lollipop in front of a child and slapping them when they lick it. Don't put it there in the first place if you have a problem with the child wanting it.

      February 18, 2011 at 2:00 am | Report abuse |
    • SelfishHuman

      Hey dipsh&t, these farmers(huge businesses) don't want to hire the labor to watch their investments. Hire more cowhands, sheephands, shepards whatever, to watch the livestock. If I owned an apartment building and they kept getting broken into, I would hire more security. Not go out and cull the human population.

      February 18, 2011 at 2:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Life

      I completely agree with you MichaEl! Life happened and life is happening rigth now. Let the wolves and coyotes eat their prey. If the Europeans don't like it they can move their ranch to texas or elsewhere. That is life right?

      February 18, 2011 at 6:35 am | Report abuse |
  8. Nowletssee

    OK, does anyone find it odd that everyone in Montana who are actually affected by this are for it, and everyone else is against it? And you claim they are talking out of their a$$e$? Really? Tell you what, if you don't want us killing them, come on over and adopt one. Heck, take two. Their free. Go ahead and take them home to where you live and lets us know how that works out for you.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:48 am | Report abuse |
    • Nathan H

      Why would we adopt them and remove them from their natural habitat? The wolves are exactly where they are suppose to be. I can't really say the same about the ranchers though. Build better fences to keep the wolves out or shut up.

      February 18, 2011 at 1:21 am | Report abuse |
    • vscalia

      You are the sick one. What the hell? Taking off with your kids? I don't believe wolves take off with your kids. That was a cartoon movie I believe, which just shows how far your intelligence goes. Turn on the big people tv, and read the big people stories before you run your mouth. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Isn't it past your bed time? Do your parents know you are still awake. Children need a lot of sleep at your age. You are pathetic. Oh and btw before you ramble on some more, I'm not a democrat and I eat meat. A**

      February 18, 2011 at 1:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Jim Davis

      Those Wolves are our Friends, we should let them eat us, because we are not worthy. We're just greedy humans that deserve to die, (sniff, sniff...) Wolves are more important than us, they were here first...... ???!
      What a bunch of weeners.

      February 18, 2011 at 3:07 am | Report abuse |
    • warren41

      I have a wolfdog and he is a great animal.

      February 18, 2011 at 4:03 am | Report abuse |
    • Matthew

      Nathan H:

      1) This is NOT their natural habitat. The grey wolf NEVER existed in the United States until man brought them in. Wolves were here in the Yellowstone area previously, true. However it was a much smaller species than what was brought in from the Canadian wilderness. What has been done is akin to saying, "mountain lions died out there, so let's bring in African lions to replace them." Both are wild cats, after all.

      2) I've noticed you often talk about fences in this thread. Do you have any idea of the cost per foot for a fence that will keep wolves out? Do you have any idea how many hundreds of miles of fence would be required?

      3) Even if the funding for fencing were to magically become available and all private ranch land could be fenced off, that would not end the problem. The wolves have decimated the wild game herds in Yellowstone. When they started to run out of prey there, they spread into the surrounding MT lands. They have now decimated the herds here. Elk and moose are now rarely seen in any numbers when their used to be large herds of them. Will a level of natural equilibrium be reached? Certainly. That is not the problem, however. The problem is what happened when new packs formed and left Yellowstone. Once they moved into Montana they found more elk and other wild prey. They also discovered domestic prey. Outside of Yellowstone it is impossible for wolves to naturally achieve an ecosystemic balance with their prey without first all but wiping out both wild AND domestic prey. It is therefore necessary for control the wolf population by other methods.

      I won't say nobody, but few are advocating the extermination of wolves. What IS being advocated - and what Montana's governor is allowing - is control of the population. There is a very big difference there. At the end of the day, what is wanted is no different than control of other wild populations such as elk and deer. We monitor populations and issue only enough hunting tags each year to keep the populations at a level where they will remain healthy without risking overwhelming the land's ability to maintain them.

      By thinning the wolf population we can allow the elk and moose populations to recover. This then means that the remaining wolves have less need to poach on domestic herds.

      February 18, 2011 at 9:00 am | Report abuse |
    • KLS

      I live in northern Minnesota with approximately 5,000 wolves. Have for decades and it has not been a problem. Folks in Montana must be (insert your favorite adjective here) if they find it problematic to live with 319 wolves. Would you like some cheese with your "whine?"

      February 18, 2011 at 10:03 am | Report abuse |
    • Cool

      KLS- and what exactly is the elk population in Minnesota? That's what I thought.

      It' s not about exterminating wolves, it's about MANAGING them so that the once great game populations of the West are available for both sportsman and predators in the future. A healthy population of wild game will aid in deterring wolves from killing livestock. Without human intervention, the West will end up with dead woods and a full-scale Wolf vs Rancher war

      February 19, 2011 at 1:16 am | Report abuse |
  9. montananative

    Here we go with this Sierra Club bull*&*$ again. Every time this subject comes up in the news people who say that ranchers should be able to defend their livestock are crucified. THOSE LIVESTOCK REPRESENT THE LIVELIHOODS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES, YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT THEY WILL DEFEND THEIR HERDS. When the wolves were reintroduced, many communities (including the one that I lived in for 20+ years) wanted nothing to do with it. But of course a special interest group that was thousands of miles away just had to put the wolves back in Yellowstone. Schweitzer has given ranchers a chance to take their herds back, and to do what they should have been doing all along without fear or reprisal from the government, or some pathetic special interest group. If you aren't from Montana, then stay out of making policy that affects Montanans.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:54 am | Report abuse |
    • Jayson

      I don't think you can quite call raising sheep a livelihood. It is a dying, unprofitable industry. Though that may sound harsh, it is nothing but the truth. The fact remains that raising sheep degrades the environment and actually works to darken the long term economic outlook of Montana. You can kill every wolf in Montana and it won't change reality.

      February 18, 2011 at 1:16 am | Report abuse |
    • SelfishHuman

      If you raise sheep, you might be a Redneck.

      February 18, 2011 at 2:28 am | Report abuse |
    • Janet

      Maybe it does matter to Americans who live outside Montana. Wolves are an important part of the ecosystem. Livestock, by the way, is deteriorating our own species' chances of survival in a MAJOR way because of the methane they emit–please refer to the UN's report "The Long Shadow of Livestock." It is unfortunate that ranchers see their livelihood as threatened. The best response I can give to that is to consider a new profession! When I couldn't find a job that'd pay a living wage, I went back to school to become a nurse.

      February 18, 2011 at 3:34 am | Report abuse |
    • KLS

      Do a little math....365 + 148 = 513 livestock animals killed in one year by gray wolves. 513 has got to be a very small percent of the total livestock population in that part of Montana. Plus, those ranchers WERE reimbursed for their losses. The net effect on the financial fortunes of those "thousands of ranchers" was likely zero. Heck, some of these ranchers probably made more money by claiming a loss than selling their livestock on the open market. Be careful what you wish might just get it.

      February 18, 2011 at 9:58 am | Report abuse |
  10. dabuekekee

    According to National Highway Safety Traffic Administration statistics, there are 1.5 million car accidents annually caused by deer, 1 billion vehicle damage, 150 fatalities, 10, 000 injuries every year. Overpopulation of deer and elk, and overgrazing of livestocks caused by lack of natural predators like wolves may end up increased risks of human fatalities and destruction of nature. It proved in Australia long time ago. They killed dingos to protect livestocks, but dingos also prey on wild rabbits. Without natural predators, rabbits proliferated to billions, competing with sheep and cattle, causing overgrazing and aggravating desertification and drought of Australia.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:55 am | Report abuse |
  11. Richard

    "The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated"
    anonymous source, but oh so true. SAVE THESE WOLVES!

    February 18, 2011 at 12:55 am | Report abuse |
    • michael

      Go – save them. Adopt a few.

      February 18, 2011 at 12:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Jayson

      I believe that quote is attributed to Mahatma Gandhi

      February 18, 2011 at 1:19 am | Report abuse |
    • U Wood GagAMaggot

      Oh joy... a treehugger. You're probably one of the stupid suits in D.C. trying to tell ranchers how to manage their business. MYOFB.

      February 18, 2011 at 4:23 am | Report abuse |
    • Cause&Effect

      LOl redneck ranchers wouldn't have a business if not for the animals and nature in it....And why duh?! do you thing they are ranchers>>>because it is a "Business" duh. Cruel morons need to be placed in cruel places-and chased like wolves till they are caught, maybe then they'll learn how it feels.
      To all those dumb-asses on here, that dont know that without a balance ecosystem/nature they'd be dead. It starts with wolves, trees, lets take out papaya trees because people in the state are allergic to them. Find a balanced answer, isn't that what human beings are supposed to be good at-hmmm maybe not, were the idiots.

      February 18, 2011 at 4:54 am | Report abuse |
  12. roseternal

    This is sick. Why take the wolves home and lives. Maybe humans should stop having babies and taking up all the animal and nature space instead.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:57 am | Report abuse |
  13. Joel

    I can't stand that woman! She has no brains. Her show of Alaska is such a ...

    ah, sorry, wrong party. Let me rephrase:

    This is completely understandable, this is the most humane way to deal with these animals and will completely avoid their future suffering. I totally support the Governor.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:58 am | Report abuse |
  14. Cryssi

    I just got called out for a comment i made about the south i said to reply to a comment about montanans ya it was wrong. I live down south i am from the north and people down south kill alot of things that arent even a big danger to anything. I was kinda freaked out when first moving here because of the way people would just pull out there guns and shoot things they didnt want digging holes in there yard and thats ok because they arent cute or something i guess I am not saying that just to be mean its true.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:58 am | Report abuse |
    • For Cryin Outloud

      Was a matta you? Don't like being in the cross-hairs? Go home.

      February 18, 2011 at 4:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Cryssi

      Ya thats it

      February 18, 2011 at 4:42 am | Report abuse |
  15. seang

    rednecks. they should shoot them all.

    February 18, 2011 at 12:58 am | Report abuse |
    • Nowletssee

      @Seang. Right, because you think shooting a wolf is wrong, you support murder. Nice logic.

      February 18, 2011 at 1:02 am | Report abuse |
    • Jim Davis

      Yeahh, kill all humans and let the animals take back their rightful throne as the leaders of Earth.
      Oh, wait, U said kill all REDNECKS, but U get to live, because U say so....... Okayyyyyyyyfine.

      February 18, 2011 at 3:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Yee Ha

      C'mon down and try it boy.

      February 18, 2011 at 4:27 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31