Genetic tests indicate wolves are from Alberta/Montana.

WDFW wolf

Wolf: photo Washington Department of Wildlife

Yet another pack of wolves may be present in Washington State. They are protected by Washington’s endangered species laws however they are not protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act in the eastern third of Washington.

Signs of wolf pack found in Pend Oreille County
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

Update 7/13/09:

King5 has a slideshow of the wolves photographed and another article about the wolves.

Possible resident gray wolves in Pend Orielle Co.
By TRAVIS PITTMAN / KING5.com

The new article indicates that WDFW is also investigating reports of wolves from the Blue Mountains in southeast portion of the state.

Update 7/14/09:

Second wolf pack confirmed in Washington
Associated Press

WDFW wolf

Wolf: photo Washington Department of Wildlife

WDFW wolf

Wolf: photo Washington Department of Wildlife

WDFW wolf

Wolf: photo Washington Department of Wildlife

WDFW wolf

Wolf: photo Washington Department of Wildlife

WDFW wolf

Wolf: photo Washington Department of Wildlife

WDFW wolf

Wolf: photo Washington Department of Wildlife

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole, Buffalo Field Campaign‘s Executive Director, is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He was formerly the Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project.

61 Responses to Second wolf pack in Washington State.

  1. avatar Barb Rupers says:

    Great news!

  2. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Good to see. If we can be responsible with wolf management we will continue to see wolves dispersing into Washington. Maybe some more will discover Oregon, Colorado, and Utah.

  3. If wolves reinhabit more of the West, then it won’t be so critical what states like Idaho or Wyoming do regarding wolves — fewer lawsuits and less bad feeling.

  4. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Ralph, I think that approach is a good one to look at. Do you know if that has been used with the fish and game departments of those states?

  5. avatar Hilljack says:

    I think wolf managment is not really managed by the Fish and Game biologists in Idaho but the game commission which acts on political rather than biological advice. I speak with many of the state biologists and believe they want to see a health wolf population. I also think Washington and Oregon have more wolves than reported. Oregon has 2-4 packs and Washington probably 3.

  6. All of these states have wolf plans of a sort, and a population more enthusiastic about wolves than Idaho’s.

    A secret to saving a species is just like saving your monetary investments — don’t put them all in the same basket.

  7. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    A secret to saving a species is just like saving your monetary investments — don’t put them all in the same basket.

    Exactly, that is why I think they need more reintroductions, especially in the Southwest.

  8. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Ralph, does Utah have a population more enthusiastic about wolves? I have never read that anywhere. I have read that 70% of Coloradans support reintroduction and I have heard that Washington and Oregon are more enthusiastic about wildlife. From what I have read it seems like the livestock industry and sportsman’s groups have a huge stranglehold in Colorado.

  9. I think JB (haven’t heard from him for a while) has some figures on Utah. No they are not much more enthusiastic than Idaho, but Colorado, Oregon and Washington are.

  10. avatar JB says:

    Sorry, Ralph. I’ve been visiting family in Michigan for the past few weeks and just got around to peeking in here today.

    Generally, Utah residents have positive attitudes toward wolves and are supportive of “natural” recovery (though not reintroduction). As with most states, urban residents are more supportive than rural residents; hunters are mixed regarding wolves.

    For more info see:
    Bruskotter, J. T., R. H. Schmidt, and T. L. Teel. 2007. Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biological Conservation 139:211-218.

    Bruskotter, J. T., J. J. Vaske, and R. H. Schmidt. 2009. Social and Cognitive Correlates of Utah Residents’ Acceptance of the Lethal Control of Wolves. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:119-132.

    Abstract: A number of trends suggest public behavior and sentiment regarding wildlife, and especially charismatic mega-fauna such as wolves (Canis lupus), changed in the latter half of the 20th century. Declining hunter participation, support for trapping ban initiatives, changes in wildlife-related policy and the portrayal of predators in the media all point to changes in the way US residents view wildlife. Yet, while many researchers have examined attitudes toward wolves and other wildlife species, few have empirically assessed such attitudes over time. We conducted a mail survey of Utah residents in 2003, replicating the methods of a 1994 study, in order to determine if Utahns’ attitudes toward wolves changed over the last decade. In addition, we compared the attitudes of relevant subgroups (i.e., big game hunters, rural residents, urban residents) across the two studies. Our results demonstrate the relative stability of attitudes toward wolves in Utah for all groups assessed, and offer important insights into questions related to the assessment of wildlife-related attitude change.

    and

    Abstract: The objectives of this study were to: (a) determine the acceptability of several methods of lethal and non-lethal wolf control, (b) identify factors that explain acceptability of lethal control, and (c) test a model for predicting acceptability of lethal control. Data were obtained from a mail survey of Utah residents (n = 709). Non-lethal forms of control were more acceptable than lethal forms control. Acceptability of lethal controls varied among stakeholder groups. No such variation existed for non-lethal methods, suggesting these methods are less controversial. Stakeholder group identification (i.e., agricultural, environmental, hunting, wildlife advocacy) impacted acceptability of lethal control. These effects, however, were reduced when beliefs about wolf impacts and attitude toward wolves were controlled. These two factors explained 42% of the variance in the acceptability of lethal wolf control. Path analysis supported the proposed model, suggesting effects of stakeholder identification on acceptability of lethal control are mediated by cognitive factors.

  11. avatar izabelam says:

    Utahns are against wolves or bears or any wildlife.
    Recent killings of 2 black bears in Utah country proves how ignorant they are.
    Also, plans to hunt bighorn sheep on Anteope Island is stupid.
    Ralph, I bet you heard about bears and bighorn plans.

  12. avatar izabelam says:

    Statistics say one thing, people say another thing. I can run my own statistics in the place where I work. 🙂 bad numbers for wolves, coyotes or any other predators.
    Some even think that bison is BAD for YSNP. The classify them as vermins.

  13. avatar JB says:

    Izabelam: I heard a lot of opposition to wolves in Utah as well–especially in the rural areas; but attitudes in the rural areas simply are not representative of the whole state (and far more Utahans live in urban areas than in rural areas). Rather than launch into a lecture I’ll leave you with a quote from the first paper:

    “…while we collected data for this study the UDWR conducted a series of scoping meetings in order to involve Utah residents in the management process. They found 719 of 897 attendees (80%) identified ‘‘do not allow wolves in Utah’’ as one of their top 3 management priorities (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Publication #:05-17). However, our survey, which used probabilistic sampling and weighted data to accurately reflect regional population distributions, found over half of respondents agreed with the item ‘‘I would like to see wolves in Utah.’’ Moreover, results from the 1994 survey were statistically identical, suggesting public opinion on this issue has not wavered. The lesson is that managers often hear from their most vocal critics or those most involved in particular wildlife issues. It is easy to see how such experiences can color managers’ perspectives, resulting in a skewed perception of public opinion.”

    It isn’t just the perception of wildlife managers that can become skewed.

    JB

  14. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Izabelam, why do you think hunting bighorn sheep on Antelope Island is stupid? Also, I think anywhere out west you are going to get different attitudes about wildlife. Plenty of ranchers in particular view just about anything as vermin. You probably have plenty of residents in the rural areas who have the Montana and Idaho view of the only animals that are worth anything are the ones that can be shot and eaten or made into cool trophies. I would imagine in Colorado you would find similar sentiment with the big cities, whereas states like Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho that have no big cities are anti-wolf even in the majority of the bigger towns simply because it is fashionable (that is my personal theory anyway).

    JB, I think natural reintroduction via dispersal is probably the best way for wolves to enter Utah. They have plenty of routes through Idaho and Wyoming. The residents also have time to get used to the idea, much like people in Washington have now and happened in northwest Montana and Wisconsin.

  15. avatar Dave says:

    Unfortunately, just when the wolf populations in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana are building up to the point where significant dispersal is likey to result in the recolonization of Utah and Colorado, these growing populations are going to be reduced by hunting seasons. So close to recolonization, and yet so far!

  16. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Dave, from what I understand Montana is allowing 75 wolves to be harvested. That may still allow some to to recolonize. As far as Idaho and Wyoming it could be a different story.

  17. avatar Save bears says:

    I think you are under a misconception, there is not going to be a hunting season in Wyoming until such time as the case is settled in the courts or Wyoming comes up with a acceptable plan..but at this time and in the foreseeable future they will continue to be on the endangered species list..

  18. avatar jdubya says:

    I sat on the Central RAC board (part of the Division of Wildlife Resources review system) when the plan to adopt a wolf management program was debated. These meetings would usually start a7pm or so, and last until 9 to 10 pm. This one went to 2 in the morning. Suffice to say virtually all groups represented in such meeting were virulent anti-wolf, led by the attitude of SFW and it’s founder, Don Peay, that the only good wolf was a dead one, hopefully shot in Alaska. There had been a wolf working group that put together a plan which SFW refused to sign (but the Farm Bureau did). However, the day of the meeting the Farm Bureau put out a “new” plan which was much more punitive and restrictive.

    In my view the Utah wold management plan is a joke, all of the aces are in the hands of the grazing and hunting interests. There are consistent rumors of wolves in the state, and a shoot and shovel response. There are some outstanding locations for wolves to be introduced into and they could flourish, but it would take significant federal interference for such animals to be protected in Utah.

  19. avatar JB says:

    jdubya:

    You are correct. Don Peay of SFW was on the original working group. He pulled out at the last minute and refused to sign on (since the plan didn’t call for the total elimination of wolves). Don Peay then started pulling strings with his friends in the legislature. Suffice it to say, many on the conservation side were not happy with the plan that finally emerged. But it is important to note that Peay’s and SFW’s views are NOT representative of what most of Utah thinks.

  20. avatar jdubya says:

    JB, you are correct when you state “most of what Utah thinks” but I am sure you know that majority opinion can be quite irrelevant especially in a place like Utah. As in other western states, the grazing interests far outweigh their value and the fears that groups like SFW can spread can poison any well. I think the only thing that would really make an impact would be for a pack of wolves to truly settle in Utah and either be allowed to live (unlikely) or be exterminated which might raise the public’s ire to the extent that a re-working of the plan would be in order.

    I am waiting to hear about the new Utah cougar management plan and to see if it is any more enlightened that it’s previous version.

  21. Idaho F&G has its June wolf report available. So far this year, Wildlife Services has killed 30 wolves in Idaho. 44 new wolves have been radio collared and 10 old wolves have had their collars replaced. This means that their are 54 radio collared wolves with new batteries in their collars to lead outfitters and hunters to the packs if the season starts as planned in September. I have no idea how many old collared wolves still have working collars on. I am sure that more will be collared this summer. Collar frequencies and receivers are routinely given to ranchers to monitor wolves near their livestock and some ranchers outfit in the fall, so the collar frequencies will be available to anyone who spends a little time asking. With almost every pack having at least one radio- collared member, the coming wolf hunting season should be easy for anyone with the proper radio receiver and a snow mobile. Thats a 10-4 Big Howler. Over and Out.

  22. avatar Ryan says:

    In this discussion of Statistics etc, shouldn’t part of the discussion be who is directly effected and who is not? As a general observation most urban dwellers are not directly affected by wolves presence. In fact 90% of them will never even search out a wolf in the wild or ever see one. Where as rural interests will be much more directly affected by wolves presence. Should this be taken into consideration. It seems to be taken into consideration on other issues, why is this only more special?

  23. avatar JB says:

    “…you are correct when you state “most of what Utah thinks” but I am sure you know that majority opinion can be quite irrelevant especially in a place like Utah.”

    Yes; the RACs ensure that ranching and hunting interests will continue to dominate wildlife policy in Utah.

  24. avatar JB says:

    Good question, Ryan. The answer depends upon what you mean by “directly” affected. Is some directly affected when a wolf eats a deer they might have had the opportunity to shoot at? Or are they only directly affected when they lose a pet or livestock to wolves?

    After you make that decision you’ll need to determine how you define urban and rural, and how you will weight the opinions of both groups. Will you just ignore urban residents, or will you assign extra weight to the views of rural residents? If the latter, what will the weight be? Will they be given twice is much influence over policy decisions regarding wolves or maybe three times is more appropriate?

    Now consider that most of Utah is FEDERAL land–meaning it belongs to everyone in the U.S. Should residents of other states have some say in how wildlife is managed on these lands? What about the tribes (much of the best wolf habitat in Utah is on Ute tribal lands)? How much influence should they have?

    I would NEVER advocate that wildlife managers make a decision based solely on public opinion; but if they are completely unresponsive to the will of the public, they may find the decision is made for them via ballot initiatives.

  25. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    Who knows what the hunt will mean for wolf dispersal ?

    As for wildlife departments, there is little doubt that “rural” folk will be overly represented with regard to management on public lands – and in my mind the hunt isn’t necessarily the large problem/threat – it’s that ranching interests will still have government extirminators wiping out wolves/packs at will on top of the hunt, and with an arbitrary hunt potentially disrupting pack behavior – it’ll be interesting to see how affected wolves respond.

  26. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Save bears, I knew that Wyoming did not have a hunt yet, I just meant if and when they get an acceptable plan.

    JB, I think that everyone should have a say when federal land is involved because it belongs to everyone in the US. While I will agree that everyone should have say in other ways (ranchers, hunters, Native American tribes, urban, rural, whatever) science needs to be the ultimate decision-maker in any of this and not one group, which is what the livestock interests and to a lesser extant hunting groups have had.

  27. avatar Ken Cole says:

    Notice the photos I added to the article which are credited to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife making them public domain. Also, WDFW is searching the Blue Mountains for wolves.

  28. avatar Save bears says:

    PW,

    I actually knew you did, I was more addressing my comment to Dave..

  29. Thanks for adding photos and story, Ken.

    Of course, wolves look a lot different without their winter fur, but the gray wolf looks skinny.

  30. avatar Jim Holyan says:

    Mr. Thorngren,

    You are off the mark with your comment in regards to the prevalence of telemetry equipment being provided to livestock operators in ID (unless we have very different definitions of “routine[ly] given…”). I am a wolf project biologist with the Nez Perce Tribe and responsible for providing ranchers with historic wolf-livestock conflicts this type of equipment. Currently we have on loan 3 set-ups and I’m not aware that IDFG has given out any. Those operators are provided only with the frequencies of wolves in their immediate vicinity (typically 1 or 2), so it’s not like any particular person knows the frequencies of every radiocollared wolf in the state, of which there are ~75+ (don’t have the data in front of me). While it is true that any livestock producer could illegally give the frequencies out, it is also possible that any hound hunter with the proper gear could take the time to just scan through every possible frequency combination and find a radiocollared wolf. Your supposition that wolf hunters will be able to use frequencies to track and kill wolves, though possible, in my opinion, isn’t likely.

  31. avatar JEFF E says:

    There is no way in hell these wolves are from Canada. They are obviously NOT 200 lb’ers and do not have their K’9s plowing ditches in the ground as they walk. As we all know that is the defining characteristics of (drum roll) the dreaded Canadian Grey Wolf.

    8*))

  32. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Never heard the canine thing before Jeff. If these are Canadians they must be anorexic.

  33. avatar JEFF E says:

    PW,
    I’m just being (slightly) factitious
    I tend to be that way after a day at work and then browsing a few anti web sites to see what they are up to.
    8*)

  34. avatar Hilljack says:

    Those wolves from Washington look just like the one I have seen in Idaho and Wyoming. I was reading about the concern for hunters finding wolves with telemetry gear and I think the odds are so low it is not relevant. I have sat there going through freq’s trying to find the right one for a deer and gave up after hours of searching. It was quicker to drive 6 hours round trip to the office and get the right number. I also think all of you need to lay off the biologists some. Until you have spent hours getting yelled at by antiwolf people and called everything from a lier to other 4 letter words you have no idea what we go through. I am banned from my wifes family gatherings for life now because they are all sheep ranchers and I am a pro wolf biologist. I am also from Idaho go figure!

  35. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Sometimes those anti sites can be a good laugh. You wonder how someone intelligent enough to create a web site can actually think that way.

  36. avatar Jay says:

    Mr. Holyan, thank you for providing some factual information to counter Broken Record thorngren’s latest diatribe. I’m sure he’ll counter by saying you’re lying, though.

  37. avatar timz says:

    “State department of Fish and Wildlife biologist Dana Base says the next step is to put GPS collars on the adults. A motion-detection cameras had captured photos of the pack earlier this year, but biologists needed confirmation of their presence.”

    Why can’t they just be left alone?

  38. avatar Ken Cole says:

    Second wolf pack confirmed in Washington
    Associated Press

    The article goes one step further than previous articles by saying that these wolves are CONFIRMED.

  39. timz
    I can only echo your comments. Why can’t they just be left alone?
    It is hard for me to think of animals as wild when they are constantly handled and equipped with GPS collars. It also makes it easy for Wildlife Extermination Services to find and kill them if they should eat a cow. I think that most collaring projects are more about a never ending meal ticket for wildlife biologists than for anything else.
    Jim
    How is your meal ticket doing? I have attended a few of the anti-wolf meetings here in Idaho. I assure you those folks will find a way to use the collars to find and kill wolves. It has nothing to do with hunting wolves. They are interested in extermination. Shoot 5 tag 1.

  40. avatar Save bears says:

    Larry you are so far off base about biologists, that it is not even funny anymore, you obviously have had bad experience with biologists and it is clouding your comments…but as a biologist, I can tell you, you are full of S**T….

  41. avatar timz says:

    They know there general location, they got pictures, I see no legit reason to collar them.

  42. avatar timz says:

    “Shoot 5 tag 1”
    I have already overheard several people saying this is exactly what they’re going to do.

  43. avatar Ronnie says:

    I agree with Larry,, although I know I am full of it already!!

  44. avatar Brian Ertz says:

    The political reality in Idaho prompts me to agree with Larry as well – the collars are to kill wolves – there is almost a visceral need to “manage”/”control” them. It’s a different ball-game with state control. I won’t take a position on collars for research , I don’t believe I have to with the Idaho boys in charge.

    The want to manage them is so deep, that the IDFG Commission began to discuss how to get into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness to collar, one noted that it’d be unlawful, another suggested he might’ve figured out a way around NEPA, then another suggested it might be better not to have the conversation on the public record. They paused, laughed, then carried on onto the next agenda item. You might have seen the video I got of that exchange on YouTube.

    IMO, collars in Idaho = dead wolves. Either directly via location of a pack in the vicinity of a livestock depredation, or indirectly as IDFG wants to maximize the counts of wolves so they can maximize the take of wolves.

    These guys are using science as a weapon against wolves. Collars. That’s a problem that I think is deserving of a bit of reconsideration in a post federal wolf management world.

  45. avatar Layton says:

    Collars = dead wolves.

    Shoot 5 = tag one.

    “their are 54 radio collared wolves with new batteries in their collars to lead outfitters and hunters to the packs if the season starts as planned in September”

    “Utahns are against wolves or bears or any wildlife.”

    “From what I have read it seems like the livestock industry and sportsman’s groups have a huge stranglehold in Colorado.”

    “I think wolf managment is not really managed by the Fish and Game biologists in Idaho but the game commission which acts on political rather than biological advice”

    Could I have another dish of paranoia please? And perhaps some more of that Little Chicken (or was it Chicken Little?)?? 😉

  46. avatar Save bears says:

    I agree Ryan,

    Things have got so far out of hand on BOTH sides of this issue, it should be a comedy on Broadway..I would pay money to see that play!

  47. avatar Save bears says:

    Brian,

    Perhaps they are, but why would you expect them to do anything different than the side your on? Science can be used for good or bad, but I guarantee you, it will be used for both sides, when an issue gets to the point this one is, now we will see, who’s science is better…

  48. avatar John d. says:

    Layton,

    From what I’ve seen and heard the last few years, its entirely possible.

    “I think wolf management is not really managed by the Fish and Game biologists in Idaho but the game commission which acts on political rather than biological advice”
    This statement particularly so.

    It happens everywhere, especially on animals that are not liked and considered vermin by the less educated lot. Paranoia? How’s about:

    – the wolves will wipe out our game if they aren’t controlled
    – they will kill our children at bus stops
    – they bit my uncle and now he’s fighting for his life in hospital
    – they killed my dog while I was walking him in the woods/right on my doorstep
    – they will wipe out my livestock if they aren’t controlled, I have to shoot them to teach them a lesson
    – they stalk people looking for an easy kill
    – the introduction teams fed them on livestock meat so now they go after cattle
    – they are massive brutal killers over 300lbs
    – they aren’t native like the small solitary wolves that lived here
    – they’re just like coyotes, but bigger and more vicious

  49. avatar Barb Rupers says:

    WOW! So what is the source of the 300# mythical wolf? Ralph, did you start that one as a joke?

    I remember reading on saveourelk.com about 200 pounders – they seem to have backed off of that one.

    The average weight of the adult wolves introduced into Idaho was 101 pounds. The Alberta wolves were a bit larger than the ones form BC

  50. avatar John d. says:

    A [supposedly] young hunter from Wisconsin, I only know him as ‘Craig’. Said his brother shot a wolf and couldn’t get his arms around its stomach.

    There’s also a Facebook group entitled “Shoot a wolf, Save Elk” complete with the image of a dead strung up ‘Canadian’ wolf. The comments would be hilarious if not for the threats of poaching.
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4567876899

  51. avatar ProWolf in WY says:

    Layton, I think that many anti-wolf people have much more paranoia about wolves. All the talk about elk herds decimated and 200 pound wolves seems paranoid to me. These are non-scientific claims. I am not sure if I believe whole-heartedly that Idaho will use the collars to locate and kill wolves, but with the rhetoric going around I don’t think that people are totally off base by having these theories. As far as the comment that I made about the livestock industry and sportsman’s’ groups having a stranglehold in Colorado, I say that because it seems strange that with all of the push I have read to reintroduce wolves in Colorado that it is ignored so much. I think that anyone can agree that the livestock industry and sportsman’s groups do have a lot of say in politics.

    And the story is Chicken Little. 😉

  52. avatar Ryan says:

    Save Bears,

    We should start a play, I could write it part of it. I’ll write the part about wolves solving every issue know to man except for AIDS.. They could do all this if it wasn’t for the Evil beer drinking, pick up driving, white man trying to hold them down.

    You can write about how that a wolf can steal your soul by looking you in the eye, they weigh up to 400lbs, and they can eat little children whole. Please also include tales of 1 wolf killing 2000lb bulls, hundreds of sheep, and an attack trained german shepard all in 1 night.

  53. avatar JEFF E says:

    Ryan,
    have we been drinking?

  54. avatar Jeff N. says:

    Jeff E.

    I think Ryan would appreciate it if you did not accuse him of “drinking” based on the content of his previous post. He would rather it be worded as:

    Ryan,
    have you been “harvesting” cans of barley and hop beverages?

    Thank you.

  55. avatar Ryan says:

    Jeffs,

    No I wish, I have a pregnant wife who decided no booze harvesting for her = no booze harvesting for me 🙁 .

    Seriously if you have heard some of the, for lack of better terms, shit that comes out of both sides of the issue. I would like to have my play be a Satirical Farce, but right now its on track to be a tradgedy… No matter which side of the issue your on.

  56. avatar Save bears says:

    Can someone point me in the direction of the thread that appeared here a few months ago, that concerned the law passed in Idaho that was talking about the issue of “Worrying” Livestock and the ability to shoot those wolves if they were, I don’t seem to be able to find it..

  57. avatar JEFF E says:

    Ryan,
    In other words your stressed?

  58. avatar RW says:

    Jeff E and Jeff N,

    I think Ryan made a good point that the two of you blew over, sidetracked, and tried to discredit. I believe SB made a comment about you sidetracking conversations in another post. I believe that wolves are very interesting animals and have an important role, but I can also understand livestock producers concerns. I believe they truly see wolves as an additional threat to to their livelihood (yes, I used the “threat to livelihood” phrase) along with efforts of environmental groups to eliminate grazing on public lands. There is hysteria on both sides of the issue that is counter productive.

  59. avatar Ryan says:

    Jeff E,

    Who isn’t right now, my home life is relatively unstressful compared to my line of work. Thats always stressful, I run big box retail remodels with nearly impossible schedules and unqualified subcontractors working on losing profit margins.

  60. avatar rick says:

    “Utahns are against wolves or bears or any wildlife.
    Recent killings of 2 black bears in Utah country proves how ignorant they are.” -Isabelam

    I don’t think this is a good example of how ignorant “they” are. According to the Deseret News:

    “…the bear was first spotted by a small girl playing with her sister at a group campsite occupied by 15 children and parents. Adults moved the children into vehicles and attempted to frighten the bear, but they were forced to contact the camp host when the bear stayed. The camp host tried to frighten the bear by firing his shotgun in the air and throwing rocks at it, but it remained close to campsites.”

    While this was a bad outcome for that bear, it sounds like some appropriate actions were taken to first try to chase the bear off. While peppering the rear end of the bear with some shot may have persuaded it to leave the area, you can understand the camp host’s concerns when the bear did not run off especially after he fired the shotgun into the air. He probably also had in mind the sad events last year when a bear pulled a boy from his tent and killed him after the bear was chased from the campground earlier that day.

    Isabelam, if Utahns are so ignorant, you can surely find a better example then this.

Calendar

July 2009
S M T W T F S
« Jun   Aug »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: