According to a state records request submitted in November, as well as publicly available information on the Idaho Fish and Game’s website, there have been 193 wolves killed since April 1st of this year. The records request response contained information for documented mortality from April 1, 2012 to November 25, 2012. Since then an additional 23 wolves have been reported killed on the IDFG website.

According to the IDFG there have been 123 wolves killed in the hunt (2 were killed in last season’s hunt which lasted until June 30 in some areas), 43 were killed by USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, 13 were killed by trappers, 4 were illegally killed, 3 were killed by unknown causes, 3 were killed in vehicle collisions, 2 were killed by private citizens to protect pets of livestock, 1 died due to natural causes, and 1 was killed due to wounds inflicted by a hunter or trapper who didn’t recover the dead wolf.

Undoubtably the total number of wolves killed is significantly higher than what has been documented because many of the natural deaths and poaching incidents are not detected.

The IDFG also reports that 15 radio collared wolves have been killed since April and that there are 49 remaining collared wolves in Idaho.

Wolf Mortality from April 1, 2012 to December 18. 2012

Documented Wolf Mortality from April 1, 2012 to December 18. 2012

avatar
About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole, Western Watershed Project’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator, is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is also serves as a member of the board of directors for Buffalo Field Campaign and as a member of the Sierra Club Grazing Core Team. He can be reached via email at: ken@westernwatersheds.org

75 Responses to 193 Idaho Wolves Killed Since April 1st

  1. avatar Nancy says:

    A 100 visits to this thread since it was posted today Ken.

    Be interesting to know how many (who visited the site) were concerned about the death of these wolves and how many out there celebrated another dead wolf.

  2. avatar josh says:

    I dont feel joy or sadness Nancy, everyone all along knew that wolves would eventually be hunted. Even you, it was part of the re introduction process from day one. Dont know why everyone always acts so surprised that it happened. This did not come out of left field, you knew since the first wolf stepped out of a box in ID that they would be hunted.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Josh,

      I agree with Ida. It’s not the hunt. I always knew there would be a hunt. It is the fact they are trying to drive the wolf population way down. They are not holding wolf hunts as they do for the kinds of animals they manage for sustainability.

      They want token populations only.

      • avatar Mark L says:

        Idaho=Norway? So now there will be a token population that’s never allowed genetic variance. But, they’ll probably never be shot like this year again, so the ‘ole timers’ will talk of 2012 as a banner year 30 years from now.

        When Walmarts and Bass Pro Shops are everywhere.

        And Democrats move to your state because it ‘safe’ and prettier than Cali. Enjoy!

      • avatar JEFF E says:

        I agree, it is not that wolves are subject to hunting, it is the irrational mindset of the state gov. Recently I had to force feed an official of the Idaho F&G dept the fact that Idahos “official” position is that Wolves be removed by “any means necessary” and is even referenced in the “official” management plan.

        The fact is the executive branch of Idaho is nothing more than an extension of the livestock industry, and that industry will, and is doing every thing in its power to remove any other animal besides cows and sheep from the landscape. Predators are the high profile target, but all one has to do is dig just a little bit and it will be glaringly apparent that predators are just the “tip of the ice burg”

        • avatar Jon Way says:

          Very well put Jeff E and Ralph. And this is why myself and many others here have an almost guttural/visceral (I can’t quite put my hand on the best word to use) response when Mark G. frequently claims that this is responsible management and then goes on to say that all user groups are listened to.

    • avatar cody says:

      Yeah but it’s not because they’re being hunted it’s the way the states are doing it. With Other big game animals, They normally have a quota and roughly 10% of the population are killed each year. But with wolves, especially an animal that just came off the endangered list, are being killed with absolutely no quota and certain states are killing 60 to 75 percent of wolves there. This is not just another animal being managed and hunted for fun, these are innocent animals being killed because of hate and these states are trying to get rid of them.

  3. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    I didn’t expect that people would go off the deep end about hunting them, though. I thought it would be a more rational process, not a return to the 16th century.

    As far as hunting goes, I’m not a hunter nor a red meat eater, but deer and elk are hunted by predators for food, so I don’t see what humans do as that much different from wolf or mountain lion, or bear, as long as it is strictly for food and fair chase hunting.

    • avatar Robert R says:

      Ida just to let you know a lot of people eat both mountain lion and bear.
      Bear and lion can both carry trichinosis I don’t know what wolves carry other than parasites.

      Trichinosis is a disease caused by eating undercooked meat containing cysts of Trichinella spiralis. Trichinella spiralis can be found in pork, bear, walrus, fox, rat, horse, and lion meat.

      For the 193 wolves killed that was expected because there was no other management plan to decrease the population. As much as most hate hunting and trapping and the number of wolves killed you must think more of wildlife services when they in some instances kill whole packs where hunters are limited.

  4. avatar Jeff says:

    I think wolf hunting will normalize with a couple of seasons. Sport hunting of wolves will not jeopardize their numbers, some people are crazy irrational about wolves, but I also know people who like wolves who bought wolf tags. I don’t know anybody who actually shot one. I think the rhetoric from afar seems bad but the reality is maybe 10% harvest? They shoot 200,000 whitetails in Missouri alone. 193 wolves in Idaho, 50-60 in Wyoming—I think harvest numbers will dwindle as enthusiasm and novelty of hunting them diminishes over time.

    • avatar Louise Kane says:

      Jeff its a nice theory but it did not happen yet. Montana added trapping to its arsenal of hunting methods, the season is longer in some areas. Idaho is also longer and Wyoming’s plan is the worst. Its not getting any better, this idea that killing wolves appeases hunters and livestock owners is not founded in fact.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      “I think harvest numbers will dwindle as enthusiasm and novelty of hunting them diminishes over time.”

      A comment also made by David Mech.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        The “enthusiasm” for hunting coyotes certainly hasn’t diminished over time Immer.

      • avatar Jon Way says:

        And if the enthusiasm dwindles then IDFG will show their true colors and figure out other ways to kill them like they do with coyotes. Gov’t agents, no bag limits for ppl that like to slaughter them. Hopefully they do it egregiously so the nation can see how wildlife is (mis)managed under this great “North American Model of Wildlife Management”.

        • avatar Tim says:

          Maybe we should take up the Asian model of wildlife management or the European model of wildlife management. Wait neither of those continents have much wildlife left. You may not like every aspect of North American Model but it has conserved vast amounts of hunt-able and non hunt-able animals for decades. I spent $98.25 for my Idaho fishing license, $169.75 for my hound permit, $31.75 for my bear bait permit, $20.00 for my archery permit, $186.00 for my bear tag, $186.00 for my cougar tag, $31.75 for my wolf tag, and $416.75 for my elk tag all paid to the state of Idaho. Total for just my license, permits and tags $1,140.25 and I only killed one ruffed grouse this year. What did you contribute?

          • avatar Jon Way says:

            I spend thousands of dollars per year on Wildlife Watching. The fact that it does not go to your tag does not mean I don’t contribute to environmental groups. My taxes preserve land, I donate to env. groups that buy and manage land, and I am an American that owns millions upon millions of acres of land. I do plenty buddy and to think that I have no say in wildlife mgmt b.c I have to buy a hunting license is a joke, in my opinion. It is an outdated model that needs severe updating to account for all users; the problem is most hunters probably don’t want it to change b.c they know that they effectively own our nation’s wildlife, not the general public.

            • avatar Jon Way says:

              sorry, that should’ve said “does not mean I don’t contribute to wildlife conservation”.

            • avatar Louise Kane says:

              “It is an outdated model that needs severe updating to account for all users; the problem is most hunters probably don’t want it to change b.c they know that they effectively own our nation’s wildlife, not the general public.” Nicely stated thank you

            • avatar Tim says:

              Thank you for helping preserve habitat. That aside I spend thousands of dollars a year on top of my tag fees when I go hunting. I spend 30+ days in the spring hunting bear with my hounds and 20 days in the fall hunting elk,bear and grouse. This isn’t an I spend more than you thing. It Comes down to where the money goes. The fact is that in Idaho IDFG is in charge of managing all wildlife and they get all there money from hunters and fishermen. I do believe hunters like WM, Craig, myself and all the other license holders of the state of Idaho who actually pay for the management should have the most say. Now in Washington where I live all hunting tags go into the general fund and WDFW is allotted there fair share. They have to do this because license fees would not pay for the proper oversight of commercial fisheries. Washington has a very diverse wildlife commission as well that doesn’t seem to help wildlife all that much. They are doing all the things that folks like you want and I don’t see any benefit.

          • avatar Louise Kane says:

            Tim, I know I’d spend 10 times that yearly fee to fund predator friendly management, and its not because I’m wealthy. It just matters to me. If time devoted to an issue counts…. then I can guarantee you I have paid this fee many times over. Mr Way can speak for himself, but I know for a fact his contributions to the science community re coyotes and predators came at great personal sacrifice and dedication.

            • avatar Nancy says:

              Thanks for pointing that out to Tim, Louise.

              Jon Way has also submitted some very interesting articles (here on Wildlife News) with regard to predators and their important role in the ecosystem.

              Perhaps Tim (now that you’ve got some down time from hunting) you could resource the archives and learn something new about the predators you pay “so dearly” to hunt.

              • avatar Tim says:

                Nancy, I have enjoyed years of first hand studying of the animals I hunt. Just an FYI my season is not done. It is cougar season right now and I have a young dog that needs some further training. Its also wolf season and while I don’t hate wolves I don’t want them in the areas that I like to run my dogs. I think wolves are fascinating creatures and are the top hunting dog but I’m just fine with going to a national park if I want to see one. Now bears and cats on the other hand I would like more of. I wish Idaho would institute a female quota on cats in the panhandle and get rid of that stupid two bear limit they just put in this year in the panhandle.

    • avatar Mike says:

      ++I think harvest numbers will dwindle as enthusiasm and novelty of hunting them diminishes over time.++

      That’s giving way too much credit to predator hunters. They are the hard core extreme, and are dug in for life.

  5. avatar Jeff says:

    I disagree about the enthusiasm over coyote hunting—most states west of the Mississippi have a wide open season and they are quite prolific. A few yahoos are dedicated coyote hunters, but the percentage of hunters in our society is quite small and shrinking and the percentage of hunters who actually hunt predators is tiny. A lot of noise by a few, but not a huge number in the end.

    • avatar aves says:

      Most states east of the Mississippi also have open seasons on coyotes too, thanks mainly to the sheep industry. Coyotes are “quite prolific” because their persecution leads to survivors having larger litters or raising more pups to the age of disperal because of less competition for food.

      I agree that only a tiny percentage of hunters got out and specifically hunt for coyotes. But a good deal of hunters will still shoot any coyote they come across to, in their minds, protect deer, foxes, turkeys, livestock, etc.

      Either way, coyote management should not be dictated by the minority of hunters that specifically target them nor by the livestock industry.

    • avatar Savebears says:

      Jeff,

      Actually studies have an increase in hunters number the last few years, JB posted a link to a USFWS study last month and if I remember right it a pretty good increase in hunter numbers.

  6. avatar Jeff says:

    As far a predator killing via government agencies—I am very skeptical, my comments are specific to sport hunting and to clarify I don’t hunt predators and have no interest. I would like to see tax dollars removed from state and federal agencies that kill predators. If a rancher wants to pick up the tab individually or collectively to control coyotes on private land during calving/lambing season go for it, but public subsidies of these activities should stop immediatly in my opinion.

    • avatar rork says:

      Interesting. For wolves, I’ve mostly been thinking I’d rather have more government agency help (at any level) than a hunting season, cause I’ve been fantasizing that would be better targeted (kill whole packs if need be, kill in the places with greatest conflicts).
      That’s not exactly the dichotomy you were talking about, but lessons appreciated.

    • avatar ma'iingan says:

      “If a rancher wants to pick up the tab individually or collectively to control coyotes on private land during calving/lambing season go for it, but public subsidies of these activities should stop immediatly in my opinion.”

      I think the risk there is opening up the field to amateurs who will try the cheapest means possible, i.e. homegrown poisoning campaigns or other egregious methods. And forget about non-lethal methods – no producer is going to spend $1800/mile on fladry.

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        I do agree with you here Ma’
        still hating the over the top wasteful, inhumane predator policies that have changed little

      • avatar Jeff says:

        I believe humane restrictions need to be kept in place and unfortunately I don’t think there are any within 87% of Wyoming. I’m ok with predator status in parts of Wyoming but I do think it fosters disgusting human behavior when there is no regulation of take—run down with snow machines, dynamiting dens etc…

        • avatar Ida Lupine says:

          What? Just when you thought people couldn’t sink any lower … I hope a stop it put to this ridiculous mgmt plan asap.

      • avatar jb says:

        “I think the risk there is opening up the field to amateurs who will try the cheapest means possible”

        And you would lose any government oversight as well

  7. avatar Richie G. says:

    And this is called a sport? People hurting others in sports at least hurts each other,but to take it out with all the high powered weapons on animals that are no match,this is called sport. O.K. to each his own,but sounds so stupid. Not far from the Roman days,is it.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      “with all the high powered weapons on animals that are no match,this is called sport.”

      A metaphorical oxymoron.

  8. avatar Mark L says:

    Also, if we allow conservation to be ‘boiled down’ to how much money is spent to say you’ve accomplished something, then we’ve already lost the battle for wilderness.. If someone uses political capital, or a discovery of a mundane rarely seen non-game species, doesn’t this hold as much weight as the above mentioned techniques? If your currency is money, or papers (publishing), then what of those that choose another path…a different currency?

  9. avatar Nancy says:

    “I wish Idaho would institute a female quota on cats in the panhandle and get rid of that stupid two bear limit they just put in this year in the panhandle”

    Given the money you waste to kill wildlife, I’m all for wishing you’d get a real set of balls for Christmas and realize it NOT all about you and what you can waste for enjoyment, with guns :)

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Nancy,

      A misplaced (in regard to where it appears), but very “ballsy” reply.

    • avatar Tim says:

      That’s ok Nancy I think my balls are just fine. I enjoy hunting these animals because I enjoy working with pursuit dogs not for kill. Ive never killed a lion and only one bear. Maybe someday you can move back into town and stop encroaching on that wildlife habitat. I guess we can all wish. :)

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Call it like I see it, Tim.

        I don’t hunt or chase down wildlife on my property so not sure what you mean by “encroaching on that wildlife habitat”

        • avatar Tim says:

          Well Nancy you have talked about all the wildlife that you see around your house. Do you really think they like you being there? Your not swift are you?

          • avatar Nancy says:

            Since they don’t flee at the sight of me Tim (Mulies even take naps in my yard) I’d venture a guess that you have more of a problem with me being here, than they do :)

            • avatar Tim says:

              And I wonder how many other species would be there if your house wasn’t.

              • avatar Nancy says:

                I wonder how many other species would be around, period, Tim if you didn’t enjoy sport hunting so much?

                *** $169.75 for my hound permit, $31.75 for my bear bait permit, $20.00 for my archery permit, $186.00 for my bear tag, $186.00 for my cougar tag, $31.75 for my wolf tag, ***

              • avatar Tim says:

                Probably not that many since folks like me are the only ones paying for state management of those animals. Where do Idaho and Montana get the money to pay the biologists they employ? Not from you.

            • avatar topher says:

              “Since they don’t flee at the sight of me Tim (Mulies even take naps in my yard) I’d venture a guess that you have more of a problem with me being here, than they do”
              The fact that they are sleeping in your yard seems a sure sign of habitat encroachment,whether you care to admit it or not.

              • avatar Nancy says:

                Topher – There are hundreds of thousands of acres in pastureland and sagebrush covered hills (not to mention forested areas) surrounding my 50 year old cabin.

                The Mulies come and go and if they choose to rest in my yard with so many other areas to choose from, I’m obviously not a threat. Co-existing comes to mind :)

              • avatar Rancher Bob says:

                Nancy
                You have to admit fragmentation of wild lands, fences and subdivisions are things you rant against even if the cabin has been there 50 years. You are also part of the problem. Your cabin garage chicken coop and driveway are all lost habitat to wildlife, but it is fun to live right in that habitat.

              • avatar Robert R says:

                Tim the reason why sportsman pay is called the Pittman Robertson Act and that’s primary to the sale of license.Just how many do not pay the state lands use fee besides hunters and fisherman, makes me wonder?

  10. avatar Nancy says:

    “Probably not that many since folks like me are the only ones paying for state management of those animals”

    Thanks for the insight Tim.

  11. avatar Nancy says:

    “You have to admit fragmentation of wild lands, fences and subdivisions are things you rant against even if the cabin has been there 50 years. You are also part of the problem. Your cabin garage chicken coop and driveway are all lost habitat to wildlife, but it is fun to live right in that habitat”

    I suppose I could just tear the cabin, the little coop and garage (an old pole shed) down and live in a tent Bob, but it would be a gain of only about 1,000 square feet.

    I kind of look at it this way – if I’d not bought the property, I’m faily certain (because its a great location, incredible views) there would be a home on it 3 to 4 times that size by now, surrounded by an acre or more, of manicured, watered lawns (with shrubs, trees, flowers) nice paved driveway instead of a dirt one, complete with an owner that would have no problem taking pot shots at any deer who happen to “encroach” on that lush, green finery.

    I’m sure you’ve seen places like that popping up around you Bob.

    • avatar topher says:

      I suppose that’s one way to justify it.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Not a justification topher.

        Simply put, I bought an old, existing cabin. And the property surrounding it, consists of sagebrush, bunch grass, native grasses & weeds. Probably why the Mulies (and a host of other wildlife) drop by to forage and rest :)

        • avatar Savebears says:

          Nancy,

          I did the same thing, there has been a home on the property I own since before the turn of the century, it was homesteaded in like 1895. No problem with wildlife where I live, they frequent the property daily.

    • avatar Rancher Bob says:

      Nancy
      Don’t matter if your land has a tent, a small house, large house or gravel pit, you can’t admit you have a negative impact on wildlife, that’s the only point. Sure deer stop to rest and feed but what of the predators that fear the presents of you and your dog. Your land is safe for deer because your there. That’s the common problem found on this blog people don’t see their own negative impacts only that of others. It’s easy to justify, hard to admit.
      Anyway enjoy the holidays and New Year.

      • avatar Savebears says:

        Bob,

        I get quite a few coyotes and Mt. lions through my yard several times a year, have had coyotes take fawns in my yard, even have wolves that live pretty close to the house, although I know I do have an impact, based on what I have observed it ain’t much.

        • avatar Ida Lupine says:

          Doesn’t sound like much of an impact. What’s bad is very large homes and three-car garages, etc. We have lots of wetlands where I live, so I wonder if my house and others around it may have been on wetlands. My new thing is to try and plant native plants – not difficult because they are quite beautiful. I think at it becomes more and more developed, wildlife is disappearing near where I live. I haven’t seen as many deer nor heard any coyotes lately. We do have lots of birds of every kind.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        RB – before this cabin was here (over 50 years ago) the land was ranchland, belonged to a big ranch across the way. When the powers to be decided to put a real road thru (and split the parcel off) it was too much of a hassle to shuffle cattle to such a small area.

        It was sold and the new owner put up the cabin. When he decided to move on, he sold the property back to the original rancher and it was used for years as a ranch hand’s quarters.

        Too many horses were kept on the property for a few years and the ground was beaten down when I moved on to it.

        Left alone, the property has slowly converted back to a natural state.

        Blue bunch grass was an oddity when I moved here, its now abundant over the property and as I said, so are other native grasses & weeds.

        http://www.usu.edu/weeds/plant_species/nativespecies/bluebunch.html

        The deer cycle thru RB, take advantage of the forage and move on, I’m on their route :)

        And what predators? A few miles from me the area has been heavily subdivided, with new homes everywhere. Everytime a bear or mountain shows up, they are trapped out or shot. Wolves show up occasionaly but when they do, the ranchers start whining and they too “disappear”

        I try and tread lightly RB.

        Happy New Year to you!

        • avatar topher says:

          It sounds like your one of the better things to happen to this piece of property in a long time. We all have some impact on wildlife. My house was built on the Pocatello valley floor in the early twenties and there is an old picture floating around of an elk standing on the hill behind my house.When I was a child one of the neighbors ,who was about ninety at the time,told me stories about the indians who used to frequent the west bench of Pocatello when she was younger. I think we all have some impact ,even if just by the space we occuppy,on wildlife and sometimes on the people who occupied the space before we did.

          • avatar JEFF E says:

            the west bench of Pocatello was wintering ground for elk numbering in the thousands. look just north and slightly east of kinport and “bull hollow” is still there. they were all killed off before there were any effective game laws in Idaho and in addition the sho-bans heavily hunted them so as not to otherwise starve in the winter.

  12. avatar Leslie says:

    RB, I have a 60 year old cabin I live in. I put my trail camera up where my spring comes in. I also regularly track in those nearby woods. I have everything, you name it–wolves, cougars, bobcats, grizzlies, black bears, bobcats, keep going…elk, deer, etc. I know what you mean about encroachment, and agree, but there are ways to live lightly and ways to not. The billionaire that owns the bottom lands may not have homes there (thank God!), but his ranching methods are abominable–he believes every last piece of grass must go into his cows and when they leave in Oct, there’s nothing much left for the elk that come from the Lamar to winter here. There’s ways to be smart on the land and ways to exploit. I have been replanting native pines, restoring the wetlands on my spring, planting native berries and bushes.

  13. avatar Leslie says:

    “ways to be smart and ways to exploit”…in which I meant you can choose which. I think most people haven’t a clue what the difference is.

    • avatar WM says:

      I think something that most people miss is that everywhere there are people, there are roads, the surfaces of which have no vegetation, and then there are the rights of ways, where vegetation has also been modified, and often fences which impede travel of some wildlife, while creating a source of injury and death of others.

      Elsewhere, where people change or eliminate vegetation with a yard, ornamental plantings, and structures, it also affects native habitat. Mostly it is negative, but sometimes good. I have mentioned here before moose like to hang out under the deck of a friend’s house in WY, away from drifting snow, and with their backs up against the cement foundation of their daylight basement, that retained radiant solar heat from the day, below the deck. They and the deer that show up eat mostly anything in the garden.

      We also know some wildlife (usually prey)tend to seek refuge where they think their predators will not go. Elk seeking to hide among the NP HQ buildings away from wolves at Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone, or the town of Banff in that Canadian Provincial Park.

      Nancy, who comments here, spoke of her bird feeders and partly covered deck as providing some needed winter seed. and shelter for small birds. My folks used to clear snow and spread corn. as well as keep a small pond/stream, open of ice, as best they could, for Canadian geese, wood ducks, widgeons and mallards in the Yakima Valley. That left their covered deck with an obligatory poop patch from the waterfowl that wandered up to the house and looked in the sliding glass doors (80 year olds really like that when the wildlife gets close as you sit on the sofa or are eating dinner). Then, when I first moved to back to the NW, I lived on Lake Washington. There were pilings outside my door. A couple of Canadian geese used to hop or fly up to these, a couple about 10 feet above the water, look into my lake facing window, and squawk and make a fuss, until I tossed them some bread, sometimes long before the sun came up, or I was ready to get up. They had learned this before I showed up.

      Food conditioned and habituated wildlife abound wherever people are. They all seek the easy meal, and the safe haven they believe they might find wherever people are and don’t hassle them. On the other hand, if the yard dog chases them, or the inhabitants of the house shoot one, maybe they aren’t around so much.

  14. avatar Jenna Marbles says:

    I think that it is no surprise that they are getting killed. that fact that they are getting killed illegally is not okay. I think that killing them for a reason is okay. People should not go off the deep end and kill them just because they can. It is not okay to kill off the species. These animals are amazing in a rational number.

  15. avatar Mark Laube says:

    When you realize the thousands of dollars that hunters toss out to packers and guides for hunts of Elk & other traditional game animals it is little wonder to read the emotional responses on packers websites regarding wolves and wolf- kill sites. Endless complaints of how wolves are the cause of every failed hunt and life disappointment.
    To a hunter out $10,000 with no kill of his own and a packer out repeat business, seeing 1 wolf kill will cause suspicion, two sites will cause anger and seeing three will seal the issue that all wolves outside of zoos are an anathema to be removed. You are more likely to change the men’s religion than change their minds with facts. Regulation will not work. Money will. The hunters will, for a time, go elsewhere But, IF, AND ONLY IF, the packers and guides can make MORE money with ecotourists wanting to see and photograph the wolves and their prey than they make with killing those animals the situation will change within a very few seasons. the one immutable trait of the human mind is ” what I BELIEVE is good for ME is, in FACT, universally good; what I believe is bad for me is wrong, unjust, immoral, an outrage and must be stopped”.

Calendar

December 2012
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

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