It is time for a new “wildlife news” thread.

Please put  your news, links and comments below in comments.  Here is the link to the thread being retired (March 16, 2013).

Bighorn sheep near Challs, Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan

Bighorn sheep near Challs, Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan

 
avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides.

357 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? April 3, 2013 edition

  1. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    The Idaho Chapter of the Sierra Club is looking for a new “Chapter Director” — a paid position. This is an opportunity for outdoors loving folks who want to make a living keeping our beautiful country intact to keep us healthy and whole, and our wildlife abundant and diverse.

    I thought I’d try announcing this on the Wildlife News to spread the opportunity beyond tradition conservation group hiring channels in the media. Ralph Maughan

    Sierra Club position – Chapter Director, Idaho

    Sierra Club is looking for an enthusiastic person to lead our conservation work in Idaho. Our new Director will work to spread the public knowledge that the Idaho Sierra Club is a local, easy-to-connect-with conservation group that gets things done. S/he will work with local Sierra Club executive committee to organize and implement conservation campaigns, such as creating a clean energy future for Idaho and lands-based programs including protecting the Boise River watershed.

    The ideal candidate will have at least three years of experience in organizing (on-campus organizing counts), and have a passion for environmental and/or social justice work. Frequent evening and weekend work is required.

    Since its founding in 1892 by John Muir, the Sierra Club has been working to protect communities, wild places, and the planet itself. We are the oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We are a non-profit organization with 1.4 million members and supporters. Our overarching goals are to secure a safe and healthy community in which to live, smart energy solutions to combat global climate change, and an enduring legacy for America’s wild places.

    To examine the full job details and apply, please visit: http://idaho.sierraclub.org/staff

  2. There’s a great new book out on wolves called “Wolves in the Land of Salmon”. It’s worth checking out. http://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Land-Salmon-David-Moskowitz/dp/1604692278
    The Mount St. Helens Institute is hosting Dave for a talk and photo presentation related to his book in Portland, OR on April 16. http://mshinstitute.org/index.php/programs/volcano_views_and_brews

  3. avatar Nancy says:

    No mention as to how this is affecting aquatic life, waterfowl or other forms of wildlife.

    How many more states out here in the west are gonna open up to this kind of destruction when the price is right?

    http://www.thenation.com/article/171504/fracking-our-food-supply

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “Any chance US ranchers would be interested?”

      Very interesting article Theo but I’d have to say Fat Chance there would be any interest – the only good predator, is a dead predator, in the minds of many ranchers in the west.

  4. avatar Nancy says:

    Laugh for the day 🙂

  5. avatar jon says:

    http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/apr/04/landers-wolf-reintroduction-continues-to-confound/

    “Propaganda from anti-wolf websites spawned predictable tirades. One man lectured the panel on the subspecies of wolves reintroduced to Idaho. A woman read seven pages of scary information she’d downloaded about wolf parasites. Neither of them wanted to hear wildlife experts explain why their worries were moot.

    “The majority of wolves are not gray wolves,” another man said with authority. “I’ve seen a white wolf that was 160, 170 pounds. It was a long way away but I know the wolves I’ve seen are not the Canadian wolves at all. These wolves have been planted here and the Game Commission isn’t coming clean. They’ve definitely planted wolves here.”

    He stopped short of saying there is a Santa Claus.”

    These people who hate wolves and live in rural areas are real experts on wolves I tell ya. LOL

    • avatar jon says:

      From the article.

      One woman repeatedly called wolves an “invasive species.” After the third time, a brave man to the side of the room called out, “So are cows.”

      Anne Byrd offered a message Fish and Wildlife officials ought to heed. She said she didn’t want to see any more slides or hear any more biologists. She said she knows what she wants to know and she wants wolves gone.

    • avatar Theo says:

      If you eat grocery store bought burger, a pound of which may contain meat from 2000 different cows according to one report, the possibility of there being a little horse in it is probably the very least of your concerns.

    • avatar Peter Kiermeir says:

      We had a(nother) little „food-scandal“ quite recently here in Europe, especially Germany, with horse meat from Romania found in ready to eat meals like Lasagne. Millions of packages have been collected and destroyed. Basically, there´s nothing wrong with horse meat – it was more or less a problem of wrong declaration of the contents of the packages. However – and that was the worst thing, they also found some antibiotics and other stuff in some samples.

    • avatar WM says:

      Awesome! What most folks don’t realize is that Boulder Cr. east of town, from my recollection, can be legally dried up from water diversion appropriations. For this new otter habitat, this propably required the City of Boulder to purchase in-stream flow rights for the purpose of maintaining a minimum stream flow to support an aquatic ecosystem through dry times of the year. A sucker is mostly a prolific warmer water fish (can’t recall if they are native or introduced). But apparently for these otter a good food source- yum.

    • avatar atlas says:

      there was a river otter living here in san francisco in and old bath ruin but its since left.

  6. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    It is good news.

  7. avatar WM says:

    A pretty well balanced article on the MI wolf stop the hunt ballot issue. Not unlike the NRM the delisting criteria were met years ago, and should have been delisted, but there is HSUS right in the middle of things – and they never want them delisted or hunted for their own animal rights reasons.

    http://www.clarkstonnews.com/Articles-News-i-2013-04-03-251034.113121-sub-Possible-Michigan-wolf-hunt-sparks-debate-locally.html

    • avatar rork says:

      These days balanced means overdone on both sides perhaps.

      But here’s the classic stuff you hear every day around me, from a bear hunter using bait (yes, we let you feed the bears):
      “Bradley suggests the wolf population has devastated the elk and deer populations”
      “The calves, fawns and bear cub population is way down in the Upper Peninsula due to the wolf,” he added.
      The thing is I’ve never seen anyone use data to make those points, and I think if there was reasonably good data, they’d point to it all the time. The deer population of our UP has been rising three years straight I think – winters are the principal factor. The coyotes were pretty damn good fawn killers too – it’s complicated.

    • avatar rork says:

      Oh, here was MUCC’s take on it.
      http://www.mucc.org/2013/03/release-mucc-statement-on-wolf-petition/

      As with quack doctors, if you had evidence that something (a hunt) will help with the things people care about then you would present that evidence, otherwise it’s better to change the topic to considering the intentions of some adversary, or share some testimonials.

  8. avatar jon says:

    http://magicvalley.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/search-for-fish-and-game-commissioner-starts-from-scratch/article_61dc73c3-1930-5235-8996-0f6461a5bdf5.html

    “We’ve been shorted quite a bit without a commissioner,” he said. “If we had a problem or a concern, we used to go directly to our commissioner who could speak on our behalf. We haven’t had that in some time.”

    Collins, who is considering applying for the commission seat, said that he doesn’t believe the commissioner’s qualifications need to change.

    The commission isn’t designed solely for the sportsmen of Idaho — it’s for the citizens, he said.

    “We have all types of people on the commission,” he said. “But unfortunately I think a lot of these appointments are selected not on merit but on politics.”

  9. avatar JEFF E says:

    http://www.adn.com/2013/04/04/2851718/unalaska-police-blotter-confession.html#storylink=rss#wgt=rss

    I swear I am going to live here. The only police dept. I have ever seen with more than a half cents worth of common sense.

  10. avatar Robert R says:

    Just curious!!
    There are a number of so called reality shows which I will not name. Most have trapping and hunting and show animals being killed and animals in traps being killed.
    There is lynx,fox,coyote,wolves,wolverine,martin,bear, and all ungulates being killed.
    Yet with all of you against trapping and some against hunting I have never seen none of you people protesting theses shows.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Robert,

      Don’t have TV. So I miss ALL the trash.

    • avatar SAP says:

      Robert – some of the comment threads run into the hundreds on this site. So it’s understandable you might miss some commentary. The TV shows — the ones I label “shooter porn” — have come up many times.

      I have hunted — and eaten what I killed — since I was about six years old. The commercialized, competitive, egocentric, “hey, look at me!” crap I see on those hunting shows doesn’t look anything at all like the tradition I was raised with. Big Money has taken over hunting and turned it into a way to sell camo clothing and other needless garbage. It used to just be kind of something people did — wool logger pants, an old 30-30, and a thermos full of black coffee was your deer hunting gear. Now people spend literally thousands of dollars every year, putting up game cams, buying hydraulic deer stands, six sets of camo clothes, timed feeders with antler growth supplements . . . you name it. Hunting is declining, but the companies don’t care because they’ve figured out a way to squeeze 100 times the cash out of the few hunters that remain.

      Anyway: I think those TV shows suck. I think the Cabelas video games that my nephews play suck. I think if hunting is not just going to dwindle away and finally get outlawed because only a tiny tiny minority still wants to do it, hunters are going to have to turn back to fair chase and respect for the animal. To me, that means treating the animal with dignity, and keeping its death private and solemn. I see those d#8c%h*ads high-fiving each other and whooping it up when the animal goes down, I want to choke them.

      Need examples of what I’m talking about? How about Jeff Foiles, convicted poacher and duck abuser:

      http://www.citypages.com/2011-10-26/news/fallin-skies-jeff-foiles-busted-for-illegal-hunting/full/

      We’re gonna see if we can’t shoot their beaks off,” Foiles boasts to the camera at one point, his chiseled, goateed face streaked with camo paint. Later, he quips that an upcoming hunt “will be a bloodbath, and you’ll need blood goggles.”

      These are ducks, mind you, not kiddie porn producers or Bernie Madoff or someone you should despise. Ducks. Full of personality, doing their thing, looking for a place to rest and maybe get a craw full of feed.

      In addition to US federal poaching charges, Foiles was convicted in Canada for cruelty to animals. Not content with being warped and sadistic, he also has to be narcissistic and stupid to commit such atrocities in front of a camera:

      “Mr. Foiles holds the bird up and calls it “Mrs. Mallard.” Mr. Foiles wrenches the duck’s neck and manipulates the head so the bird is looking at him. He states, ‘look at me when I’m talking to you’. He continues to wag its neck back and forth, the documents state.
      “It goes on to note that Foiles is seen in the video slapping the bird’s head.
      “Playing to camera, Mr.Foiles opens the wounded duck’s mouth several times and makes ‘quacking’ sounds. Mr. Foiles moves off camera and kills the duck.

      That enough “protesting” for you?

      • avatar Robert R says:

        Sap the ones I’m referring to are life style shows in Alaska and Canada. Although this last year a hunting show was protested for wolf hunting in Montana. They tried to get the show canceled.
        That’s funny you mentioned (shooter porn) I call fishing guides (fish pimps).
        I to hunt and believe as you do about the hunting shows.

        • avatar Nancy says:

          I would imagine some of the worst shows keep the “horns & hides” crowd happy til the next hunting season rolls around 🙂

          An interesting comment from a hunter re: some of the hunting shows out there:

          “i don’t remember who first said it but it’s still true today: ” no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the american public”
          i wonder how long it will be before “the hunger games” becomes reality”

          http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/whitetail-365/2012/08/hunting-terms-loathe-ground-shrinkage-hit-lists-and-lung-butter

          • avatar Ida Lupine says:

            Good article. Nice to know there are hunters and anglers out there who are juvenile idiots. Such horrible terms to describe something. We truly are devolving.

            Even lower are those who would step right up to cater to the bad tastes of the American public, no matter how low it goes. Blech!!!!

            • avatar Ida Lupine says:

              Opps, sorry that should read ‘nice to know there are hunters and anglers out there who are *not* juvenile idiots.’ We truly are a country whose people never grow up, but are in a perpetual adolescence.

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:

        Repulsive. What a man, torturing a defenseless duck. And a female one. I wasn’t aware these programs existed. You bet I protest them. I agree, these people suck, big time.

        It used to just be kind of something people did — wool logger pants, an old 30-30, and a thermos full of black coffee was your deer hunting gear.

      • avatar WM says:

        SAP

        ++…wool logger pants, an old 30-30, and a thermos full of black coffee was your deer hunting gear. ++

        I yearn for those simpler times, …and the obligatory Snickers candy bar.

        We “tolerate” too much in our society today, in the name of commerce, and free speech/expression. One very good reason we do not have cable TV in our home.

        And the big-ego commercial/criminal hacks like Nugent or Foiles need to go behind bars for a very long time (maybe take some sponsor leadership and TV producers with them),IMHO.

  11. avatar Harley says:

    Salle,

    Have you been watching the Minnesota Bound eagle nest cam? With the Decorah eagles deciding on a different tree, I’ve gotten my eagle fix this way. The male is very quirky and very entertaining to watch.

    http://sportsmansparadiseonline.com/Minnesota_Bound_Bald_Eagle_Nest_Cam.html

  12. avatar alf says:

    Is Tim Sundles back in Salmon ?

    This off the website of a Missoula TV station this AM.

    SALMON, Idaho –
    State and federal authorities say 10 poisoned meatballs have been found in central Idaho near Salmon.

    Officials with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management issued the warning Friday after a pet dog was treated by a veterinarian after eating poisoned bait. The dog is expected to recover.

    Officials tell KIFI-TV (http://bit.ly/17j0mFw) there could be more of the poisoned meatballs in the Badger Basin area.

  13. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    This is why wolves shouldn’t have ever been taken of the Endangered list. There is irrational antipathy towards them by ‘individuals’ such as this. That’s as polite as I can say it. The only way they could get delisted is by a last-minute budget rider precluding judicial review! Says a lot, I think. Governing by budget rider is the preferred method nowadays. So now, we’ve got legal hunting and illegal killing as well, when we would have only had to deal with the illegal killing. 1184 wolved killed, and more and more ways to do it every day is a disgrace. Wolves may never be able to have anything but a threatened status with the insane way people view them, despite facts.

    • avatar jon says:

      People who hate wolves will put out poison meatballs even if wolves are protected. The fact is anyone can throw meatballs out with poison in them and not get caught. It’s such a cowardly act. The person who did this knew that any animal including dogs could come into contact with the meatballs and eat them.

    • avatar savebears says:

      Ida, trying to keep an animal on the endangered species list, that is not endangered is just as underhanded as passing a rider on a budget bill to delist them. Both actions are not ethical and it is a misuse of power.

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:

        I don’t agree, SB. It is endangered by poachers and irrational haters. If they need to be ‘managed’ it should be left in the hands of USF&W, who seem capable enough, from the looks of it.

        • avatar savebears says:

          Ida,

          You need to read the text of the Endangered Species Act. Currently wolves are a recovered species in their regions, with the exception of the Mexican Wolf, you want to keep them on the list because of acts that may happen. Current counts are showing that all the states are maintaining numbers above the stated recover goals.

          Honestly, I have to say, with the attitude of the USFWS service the last couple of years, I don’t believe they can management them effectively, they have not managed any species effectively the last few years and have been reluctant to place anything on the list, it has taken lawsuits to get them to do much.

          • avatar savebears says:

            Also, I will add, there may be certain threats from some poachers and irrational people, but that is not a definition of endangered, endangered is the strong possibility of them going extinct in a good portion of their range, which wolves are not at that level.

            • avatar Ida Lupine says:

              It’s all a matter of time, I’m afraid. I do hope they keep the Mexican wolf as endangered.

            • avatar Louise Kane says:

              SB you wrote” there may be certain threats from some poachers and irrational people, but that is not a definition of endangered” I beg to disagree. irrational people present the greatest threat to wolves and brought them to their endangered status and are bringing them right back to that status. Stupidity, ignorance, hate and sleazy political agendas are behind the new Montana legislation and the other inhumane and ass backward laws that are being pushed for and passed. Could there ever be a more ridiculous and self evident or absurdly tragic proof of the danger wolves are in? Arguing whether 200 or 400 wolves will trigger a relisting, or whether this many wolves keep populations viable in Montana, our 4th largest state containing tens of millions of public lands. It speaks legions about how fd up the states’ “management” of wolves are. A national shame

              • avatar savebears says:

                Disagree all you want Louise.

              • avatar Rancher Bob says:

                Louise
                Montana hunts deer so are deer in danger of being eradicated?
                Montana hunts mountain lions (2013 quota of 690 +) are lions in danger of being eradicated?
                In 2011 89% of confirmed livestock depredations occurred on private land. Just because Montana has “tens of millions of public lands” does not mean it’s all suitable wolf habitat.
                Your management style is fd up because only a bigger number is the proper management goal it has nothing to do with balance.

  14. avatar jon says:

    Bad news for Montana wolves. SB 397 passed its third reading in the senate and I believe now heads to the house. SB 397 if passed would allow a 10 month long hunting, trapping, and snaring season on wolves and calls for only 200 wolves in Montana. Montana FWP have said they want 400-500 wolves in Montana. This bill also targets bears and hounds. They removed baiting of bears, but hounds would still be allowed to be used to chase black bears.

  15. avatar jon says:

    http://www.greatfallstribune.com/viewart/20130404/NEWS05/304040021/Montana-lawmakers-endorse-bills-restrict-bison

    I hope the Governor of Montana has his veto pen ready. Seems like there is an all out war on wolves and bison by republicans in Montana.

  16. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    A third bison bill is heading to Gov. Steve Bullock office after passing both chambers. Bill 305 would reclassify wild bison as domesticated animals if they have ever been held captive or privately owned.

    Talk about devious. Nevermind the reasons why they were held captive or privately owned.

    Good article, Jon. Thanks!

    • avatar Rancher Bob says:

      Ida/jon
      I would suggest reading bill 305.
      What makes a bison a wild buffalo?
      Is the size of it’s pasture make a buffalo wild?
      Does turning a buffalo loose make the buffalo wild?
      Is it wild because of the name or genetics?
      Is a buffalo a wild bison?
      When is a buffalo property and when is a buffalo a wild animal?
      Feel free to insert horse or pet wolf or pig or cow into the above questions.

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:

        They are being preserved from extinction – literally being held. That and the on and on and on and on … claims of brucellosis despite repeated clean bills of health. They are a wild animal. If they weren’t threatened in this way, they would be out where they belong. Some are raised like cattle for food – but it isn’t a general classification of domestic animal. I don’t hold out much hope that the bill won’t sail through, though. They are wearing themselves out passing laws in anticipation of stuff – worse than the enviros filing litigation. 🙂

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      The bills underscore the division between wildlife supporters who want to see free-roaming bison restored to the grasslands where they used to roam by the millions and landowners who say the time of the bison has passed.

      What do they offer as an alternative? The Interior’s and others’ vision of a modern West isn’t very appealing and doesn’t measure up. Gorgeous photo with the article.

    • avatar Robert R says:

      Get over it!! It may not be history but urban deer, invasive wildlife is becoming a big problem in some areas and in most cases hunting is the only way to control the population.

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        “Get over it!! It may not be history but urban deer, invasive wildlife is becoming a big problem in some areas and in most cases hunting is the only way to control the population.”

        wow

    • avatar WM says:

      Louise,

      History Channel is probably a mischaracterization of what this once fairly objective and history oriented cable channel has become. We don’t have cable at our home, but sometimes visit friends who do, or occasionally channel surf at a motel when we travel. So, admittedly, my observations of show content are snapshots of what has occurred over time, years in fact. The interesting thing about periodic snapshots is that change seems so much more obvious, when you don’t see something for months then check in to see the change, then don’t see again for months, as the cycle goes.

      The A & E entertainment group, which owns the History Channel has augered in to become just one more sleazy business venture appealing to the lowest common denominator and voyeurs of a sort who want the disgusting stuff for whatever reason. In the instance you report with a link to yet a new show called “chasing tail,” about dueling banjo types killing deer on private estates, presumably for population control. I have not seen its cousin show, “Swamp People” which apparently has been on awhile, but I can only imagine that show’s content, and how this new one might be a close relative.

      It is also interesting the two top executive spots for A & E are held by women. So much for taste and objectivity for either sex- its all about profit from the TV show lineup. I am glad we don’t have cable. I tend to believe that programming for fringe conduct – much of it EXTREME- whatever the topic makes some in our society believe that conduct is the norm and acceptable behavior in our peers. Then this crap from the US, is available for all, wherever they are in the world, as an information source to aid in their formation of opinions about who Americans are, and their place in the world – greed, disregard for desirable human values, materialism, violence.

      Maybe the guy who wrote this piece is right, with this statement: “The only thing more prevalent on television nowadays than sexual innuendo is stupidity, or in the case of the History Channel, irrelevance…” Disgusting.

    • avatar Mark L says:

      Louise,
      stop…..watching…..T…V. It’s mostly fiction.

      • avatar savebears says:

        Mark,

        The same could be said for much of the internet.

        • avatar Mark L says:

          True. And I have no input on what goes into TV shows (realistically). I do have a voice on the internet…we all do. Even fiction has an underlying morality, you just have to look harder to see it.

        • avatar Nancy says:

          SB, depends on where you spend your time on the internet and what’s near and dear to your heart 🙂

          Can’t deny the fact that on blogs like the Wildlife News, many people gather to share news about wildlife and share places, effected by that news.

          And we are kind of like family here – we nit pic, stomp our feet and often scream obscenities because we claim (depending on the area we live in) to know that area well or atleast better than others that might or might not of taken advantage because they could…… for generations.

          RB points out that “Just because Montana has “tens of millions of public lands” does not mean it’s all suitable wolf habitat” but fails to point out the fact that tens of millions of those same public lands” are also NOT suitable (and never have been) to cattle which he holds near and dear to his heart 🙂 as perhaps a longtime rancher.

          Few of us actually see the damage cattle do unless we live nearby and see the effects. But I do try and keep an open mind 🙂

          • avatar savebears says:

            I don’t think many realize that we don’t have as much public land that they think, over 67% of Montana is privately owned. East of the divide is questionable wolf habitat in many areas. People need to realize the majority of wolf populations is in the NW part of Montana and we have a lot of privately owned land up here as well.

            • avatar savebears says:

              But to add, we do have some large wilderness areas up here as well as Glacier.

              • avatar Nancy says:

                “People need to realize the majority of wolf populations is in the NW part of Montana and we have a lot of privately owned land up here as well”

                Point is the impact by wolves on livestock populations is so fricken small compared to other reasons like disease and lack of responsibility.

              • avatar savebears says:

                Nancy,

                I never made the claim that wolves have a large impact on livestock. In NW Montana they really don’t have much of an impact, of course we don’t have the cattle that other parts of the state do, we have far more horses and we have some sheep. Again, where the majority of wolves live in Montana, there is not a lot of livestock to impact.

              • avatar savebears says:

                By the way, how did we get to talking about livestock? This started with Louise posting a link to a blog bitching about a show on History channel?

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        Mark L what are you talking about….just a chance to take a jab. Read the post, I’ve never seen any of those shows. I’m disgusted by the thought of the programming.

      • avatar WM says:

        ++stop…watching…..T…V++

        Apparently some have taken the advice. Seattle Times front page today:

        “Broadcasters worry about ‘Zero TV’ homes”

        http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020731116_apuszerotv.html

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          Could TV go the way of land line phones?
          Been without a TV for about a year now and do not miss it. Where I live, high speed Internet is not yet available (with a degree of affordability), so the alternative is smoke signals.

          Cable/sattelite… In accord, why pay for 100’s of stations one would never watch, yet still be inundated with commercials on the ones you might watch?

          Catching up on movies from local library, and rentals. Alas, no redbox here either.

          Learn how to read. It is an art. Find a wordsmith or two and appreciate language.

          Never could understand visiting friends and family and the idiot box would go on.

          Finis.

          • avatar Harley says:

            The whole cable thing, I wish I could pick and choose which channels I could get. It would be maybe 15? I do enjoy the netflix instant streaming. Lately I’ve been only doing the essential email checks and than just settling down to either a good book or a movie. It’s been an interesting change to not be so connected online. I think as long as I had books, I could survive a world without TV.

  17. avatar Nancy says:

    “By the way, how did we get to talking about livestock? This started with Louise posting a link to a blog bitching about a show on History channel?

    Not sure SB. The conversations here seem to bounce around a lot between wildlife, livestock, ranchers, hunters, public & private lands and

    the rights of all of the above 🙂

    Mean while, I heard spring was here in our parts even though I just had a little front come thru and it dumped half an inch of snow.

  18. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    The first Annual Wolf Report issued by the Wyoming Game & Fish Department since it took over wolf management will be posted on its website this coming Thursday , April 12.

    It will of course give us lots of numbers and a few charts, and build to the company line.

    I’ll be more interested in what it will NOT tell us , to wit:

    1. The locations of the wolves eradicated for ” control” purposes last year ; e.g. livestock depredation incidents real or imagined. I would accept spatial resolution down to the 1/4 Section where the animal(s) was reported to have preyed, and if different the location where the animal(s) was put down.

    2. Collaring summary , with enough info to determine how many wolves in how many packs were collared ( VHF locator or fulretrieved or how frequent the overflights are taken

    3. Location within a 1/4 Section of all trophy wolves taken during the TGM hunts. Ditto the wolves taken as PRedators. Ditto ditto other mortalities.

    4. The Biggie: money. Last year, Wyo G&F had well over $ 400,000 to spend on Grey Wolf management…. $ 325,000 appropriated by Legislature directly for that , and $ 125,000 in ” other” monies, which i rpesume are the federal grants or USFWS support payment.
    Please break out where that money went.

    Wyo G&F has had nearly as much money to spend on wolves the last few years, even when this management plan was stalled by the Courts. This coming year, Wyo G&F is facing some serious financial restructuring and cuts of up to 10 percent in its overall budget.

    The money budgeted for, and actually spent for, wolf management needs to be scrutinized.

    Come Friday we’ll have some talking points. The above are some of mine going in to release of the annual wolf report this week.

  19. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Midwest Wolf Stewards Conference.

    In Michigan

    http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/events_midwestwolf.asp

    • avatar Robert R says:

      Louise that sure makes my day! Kind of old news and a good copy and paste.

      • avatar jon says:

        robert r, do you support or oppose Scott Boulanger’s bill sb 397?

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        Robert perhaps you missed the point of the article which was that most people are not in support of Montana’s outrageous anti wolf bills and of wolf killing. I’ll post it again, does it still make your day?

        “Second, the most recent figures indicate that only about 5 percent of the U.S. population still hunts, and even in Montana, with the highest number of hunters per capita, the number is only around 19 percent. So, what does that have to do with wolves?
        Well, polls of Americans consistently show that while 82 percent support hunting for meat, that number plummets to 20 percent for trophy hunting, and if trapping is involved, support drops off a cliff. Clearly, wolf hunting is the very definition of trophy hunting, and by including trapping in the mix, Montana FWP and Montana hunters give themselves a black eye with those 292 million Americans who no longer hunt — the same Americans who control the public lands on which you and I hunt and fish.
        Having hunting guaranteed in the Montana Constitution will do us little good if our irresponsible actions and attitudes toward wolves turn those millions of non-hunters into anti-hunters, who decide we can’t be trusted to responsibly and ethically hunt on federal public lands.”

    • avatar JB says:

      That’s a nice explanation of what could lie ahead if states continue down this road. The anti-wolf folks are keen to stick their thumb in the eye of the much-feared “anti-hunters”; however, they don’t seem to realize that their actions will only drive more people away from hunting. They’ve won the battle, but through their overzealous actions may lose the war.

      • avatar WM says:

        JB,

        More on the “Law of Unintended Consequences.”

        I don’t doubt there is some risk to what is happening in MT, WY and ID as states start down the road to reducing their respective wolf populations, well beyond what many of us anticipated after delisting.

        However, the dynamic is complicated. There are larger forces at work – livestock interests, states that continue to chafe at what they perceive as federal meddling in how they manage wildlife and conduct their affairs. Some of this is bubbling upwards and back to Congress with R control of the House and a narrowing margin in the Senate.

        Don’t know what to make of this letter from 70 plus Congress persons to USFWS asking for blanket delisting of wolves, but it seems to reflect building anti-wolf momentum in some quarters. I expect there are other Congressional supporters of the concept who don’t want to sign up for political transparancy reasons. The core uprising is from representatives and senators from the West, its dominated by R’s, but there are a few D’s who have joined in, and interestingly from some states that have no direct interest or ever would. Read the short petition here. Notice those at the top – Orin Hatch and Ms. Lummis:
        http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/releases?ID=2ace93cd-51dc-405c-854a-08621e855ec9

        Part of it, as I have said before, is negative reaction by federal elected officials to the protracted pro-wolf litigation, some of which is still pending.

        Is this petition a minority view of Congressional sympathies, or something more? Will the momentum change, and if so, why? Are some here going to lay criticism directly on Sally Jewell (if confirmed by the Senate), should she be the messenger of a blanket delisting decision? Lots to think about, including the “Law of Unintended Consequences.”

        • avatar JB says:

          WM:

          I suspect that just as many congressmen could be found that support re-listing wolves. In fact, wasn’t there a similar letter to that effect floating around several months ago?

          Wolf politics are nothing if not complicated, but I think it is safe to assume that the same general rule that applies to most politics applies here as well: that is, politicians will do what they *think* will get them re-elected, which, nowadays means winning their primary.

          But, my comment wasn’t about politicians, it was about interest groups and what they convey to others who are not part of those groups. Unfortunately, what the hunting groups who are vocal on the wolf issue are conveying is not an image that any respectable sportsmen is keen to associate with.

  20. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    Last Thursday the Large Carnivore Coordinator for Wyoming Game & Fish gave a lunchtime talk about Wyoming’s Wolf program past present and future. Mark Bruscino of Cody —who has been the grizzly bear manager since Wyoming took over the day to day bear wrngling years ago, recently inherited the state wolf manager directorship— was actually on the team that captured and relocated the Alberta wolves to Yellowstone in 1995 and ’96 along with Cater Niemeyer , David Mech ,and others. Bruscino should know wolves, therefore.

    I attended the talk and what I heard was the COmpany Line and quite divergent from ecology and zoology , however.

    – here’s the link to the Billings Gazette article today. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/wildlife-official-says-wolves-unlikely-to-thrive-outside-wyoming-s/article_2d9ce87a-b75b-58b1-85e4-5e213d81ca09.html

    By ” Company Line ” I mean the Wyo G&F has adopted the same shortminded philosophy for ” managing ” wolves that they have used for Grizzly Bears these past 15 years…containing them inside an artifical ” Zoo Zone” map line drawn around Yellowstone in NW Wyoming, and constraining the bears and wolves to remaining inside that zone for POLITICAL , not ecological or zoological reasons. it should be noted tha the Primary COnservation Zone for grizzlies is almost identical to the Trophy Wolf Management area for wolves. Not a coincidence —after allowing for that silly ” Flex Zone” for wolves in far west Wyoming where wolves have a couple more months freedom to travel as ” trophy game” before being treated as common predators. I append that by saying a large percentage of the wolves killed as predators during Wyoming’s initial wolf hunt this past autumn were killed right on that Flex Zone boundary. Bruscino’s own PowerPoint graphics showed that clearly.

    Wyoming does not want any ebars of wolves outside the Zoo Zone. They claim the bears and wolves will not thrive outside that area, which is utter bunkum and bogus. Bears in northern Montana are heading east into the cedar and sandstone breaks , and they would like to be able to leave the Wyoming Zoo Zone for adjacent areas if the only could. And of course we have seen wolves disperse over huge areas fromtheir Yellowstone core…wolf 514F left Livingstone Montana and traversed nearly 3,000 miles in five states before she was poisoned illegally in northewrn Colorado. Other wolves not radio collared led Wildlife Services on a merry chase in the Big Horn Mountains and central Wyoming a few years ago , dining on untended domestic sheep as wolves are wont to do. Where were those romantic Basque sheepherders and rugged photogenic cowboys anyway ?

    Yup. The WYo G&F Company Line as espoused by Bruscino is one of containment inside a map line drawn for political, not pragmatic real world zoological ecological , reasons.

    The reason wolves will not prosper in Wyoming outside their trophy zone is they get shot. QED.

  21. avatar Louise Kane says:

    From Exposing the Big Game – Jim Robertson

    High Time to Send the Cowboys Packing
    Posted on April 8, 2013

    The sad story of wolf “recovery,” since their unjust removal from the federal Endangered Species list in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes states, reminds me of some Western b-movie wherein trigger-happy cowboys and corrupt cattle ranchers ride into a peaceful town, oust the sheriff and replace order with chaos, clear-headedness with insanity and serenity with violence.

    So unprecedented is the ongoing slaughter of an endangered species immediately on the heels of their purported recovery that I can’t think of any situation to compare it to. The only hypothetical analogies I can think of is if the U.S. resumed full-scale whaling or sealing the day after those animals recovered or allowed people to shoot recently endangered eagles again, lest they prey on someone’s chickens.

    After all, eagles are predators, aren’t they? Well, yes, sometimes, but they’re also the symbol of our country.

    Wolves too are symbols. To those who revere wilderness, wolves represent nature unspoiled—a time before the merciless reign of humankind. But to wolf-haters, they are symbolic of something scary—the eventual evolution beyond their avaricious way of life.

    Caught in the middle are the wolves themselves; all they want is the freedom to roam and their fair share of what has always been theirs—before human politics turned them into a bone of contention.

    It’s high time some gunslinger-with-no-name drifted into town and sent those wolf-killing cowboys packing.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “Caught in the middle are the wolves themselves; all they want is the freedom to roam and their fair share of what has always been theirs—before human politics turned them into a bone of contention”

      bears repeating….

      “Caught in the middle are the wolves themselves; all they want is the freedom to roam and their fair share of what has always been theirs—before human politics turned them into a bone of contention”

  22. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Counting Wolves: not a Perfect Science

    http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/live_news_detail.asp?id=8431

  23. avatar JBurnham says:

    When the Earth Moved
    What happened to the environmental movement?

    “Today’s enviro movement is bigger, richer & better connected than it was in 1970. It’s also vastly less successful.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/04/15/130415crat_atlarge_lemann?currentPage=all

  24. avatar Louise Kane says:

    FROM: FOOTLOOSE MONTANA
    Contact: Connie Poten, rattlefarm@gmail.com, 406-549-4647;
    Filip Panusz, info@footloosemontana.org, 406-274-7878.
    WOLF TRAPPING: FOOTLOOSE MONTANA COUNTS PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT TALLIED BY MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS
    STRONG PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST WOLF TRAPPING ESCALATES EVEN HIGHER
    MISSOULA (April 1, 2013) – “Public comments against wolf trapping submitted to FWP skyrocketed from 10 to 1 against trapping, to 374 to 1, after Yellowstone wolves were killed,” reports Filip Panusz, wildlife biologist and executive director of Footloose Montana, a Montana nonprofit corporation promoting trap-free public lands for people, pets and wildlife.
    In the spring of 2012, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) asked for public comments regarding proposed wolf hunting and trapping regulations that called for an unlimited number of licenses to kill one wolf by gun and one wolf by trap.
    Footloose Montana has just tallied the public comments. The count totaled 6,997 comments against trapping wolves versus 753 for trapping wolves, roughly 10 to 1, or 90% against trapping of wolves.
    In spite of public opinion, FWP increased the trapping allowance to three wolves per license, with a mandatory one-day trapper education class.
    “This is not a popularity vote,” responded then-director of FWP Joe Maurier to an earlier query by Footloose Montana on how many comments were needed to reconsider trapping. “Comment is what it is – comment. The commission will vote based on all the facts and circumstances.”
    In November, 2012, after eight Yellowstone wolves, including collared wolves, were slaughtered in the first weeks of the wolf hunting and trapping season, FWP received an astounding 40,291 comments and petition signatures against hunting and trapping around Yellowstone Park, compared to 108 for trapping. For every person for wolf trapping, there were 374 people against wolf trapping.
    Most comments were emailed independently or through the official FWP website. The majority of known out-of-state comments were from people with a direct Montana connection. They visited Montana regularly, grew up here, had relatives here, or owned homes and property here. Many noted that the trapping of wolves, particularly around Yellowstone, would hurt Montana’s tourist economy.
    An example: “Today I cancelled a hunting trip to one of my favorite units. We have been hunting in MT for several years. I will not support a state government that allows indiscriminate animal cruelty and traditions that are antiquated and from ignorance. Once children were forced to work in factories and sexual abuse was not a crime. Trapping and snaring are in that same area ….”
    The most frequent pro-trapping commenters were Robert Fanning, Pray, Montana, and Toby Bridges, Missoula, who writes a website called LOBO WATCH. They connect Commissioner Bob Ream to a so-called United Nations conspiracy called Agenda 21, which they claim is responsible for the reintroduction of wolves. Bob Ream did not support the reintroduction of wolves.

  25. avatar Louise Kane says:

    Posted in duluth tribune…..Sunday circulation is between 40,000 to 50,000.

    http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/263397/group/News/

  26. avatar Robert R says:

    What a joke playing people’s emotions who know nothing about wildlife.

    • avatar Louise Kane says:

      what a joke ignoring the majority wishes to push forth hunting when the majority of Minnesotans and Americans oppose it and know nothing about the preposterously underhanded tactics to kill them every way possible. what a joke huh? I’m glad so many have you to tell us all about wildlife.

      • avatar savebears says:

        Care to sight your source showing the majority of Americans?

        • avatar Louise Kane says:

          OK SB the opinion piece I just posted, as it references Minnesotans references a DNR poll that shows the majority of Minnesotans do not support hunting wolves…..as for the rest of America Pew did some polls before delisting that showed the same thing, I posted something here earlier today about Montana as well.

        • avatar Louise Kane says:

          care to cite your sources that show a majority of Americans support killing wolves?

    • avatar jon says:

      Know nothing about wildlife? Can you please explain what you mean by that. If people didn’t have emotion, they wouldn’t be fighting to save wildlife Robert. Are you opposed to sb 397 or do you support it robertr?

      • avatar Robert R says:

        Jon yes I was against 397.
        Jon and Louise yes people have emotions toward wildlife, but out of that majority there is a majority that probably could not tell you about habitat or the animal it’s self.
        They can Google about an animal and read the propaganda and become a supporter.

  27. avatar jon says:

    Sb 397 was heard today in Montana and the majority of people who showed up to testify were opposed to it. Hound hunters, non-hunters, bowhunters, etc all opposed sb 397. Montana FWP showed up as well and they were opposed to sb 397 as well. 31 people showed up to testify and 28 were opposed to the bill and 3 were for it. Who were the 3 that were for it? Keith Kubista and his Montana sportsmen for (killing) fish and wildlife buddies.

  28. avatar Louise Kane says:

    Hi Jon,

    thank you. I see the bill introduced etc but I could not find the testimony, maybe I just did not listen long enough. In the archive it did not specify where to look and I did not listen through the entire thing….I’ll give it another shot in the AM

    • avatar Mark L says:

      Robert R,
      This does bring some new aspects to the drone issues, like when is an assumed ‘private’ hunt no longer private, and when is being ‘in the wild’ not being in private.

    • avatar JEFF E says:

      A few years later I met Nikita Ovsyanikov, a behavioural scientist who’s been living with polar bears in a wildlife reserve in northernmost Siberia for over 20 years. Wrangel Island, his study site, is one of the world’s largest, busiest polar bear denning sites, but Ovsyanikov wanders the island freely, unarmed.

      “Polar bears, he says, are inherently afraid of people. To them, humans are “big, active, and a danger to them, and they have to keep their distance.” They may be carnivores and fearsome predators, but in some ways polar bears can be more vulnerable than their omnivorous cousins, says Ovsyanikov. “

  29. avatar JEFF E says:

    http://www.skookumbrand.com/

    Just ordered one each of these for my wife and daughter.

    Support Native industries

  30. avatar Connie Poten says:

    åPRESS RELEASE ******************* APRIL 1, 2013
    FROM: FOOTLOOSE MONTANA
    RE: COUNT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RE WOLF HUNT/TRAP PROPOSAL
    Contact: Connie Poten, rattlefarm@gmail.com, 406-549-4647;
    Filip Panusz, info@footloosemontana.org, 406-274-7878.

    WOLF TRAPPING: FOOTLOOSE MONTANA COUNTS PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT TALLIED BY MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS

    STRONG PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST WOLF TRAPPING ESCALATES EVEN HIGHER

    MISSOULA – “Public comments against wolf trapping submitted to FWP skyrocketed from 10 to 1 against trapping, to 374 to 1, after Yellowstone wolves were killed,” reports Filip Panusz, wildlife biologist and executive director of Footloose Montana, a Montana nonprofit corporation promoting trap-free public lands for people, pets and wildlife.
    In the spring of 2012, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) asked for public comments regarding proposed wolf hunting and trapping regulations that called for an unlimited number of licenses to kill one wolf by gun and one wolf by trap.
    Footloose Montana has just tallied the public comments. The count totaled 6,997 comments against trapping wolves versus 753 for trapping wolves, roughly 10 to 1, or 90% against trapping of wolves.
    In spite of public opinion, FWP increased the trapping allowance to three wolves per license, with a mandatory one-day trapper education class.
    “This is not a popularity vote,” responded then-director of FWP Joe Maurier to an earlier query by Footloose Montana on how many comments were needed to reconsider trapping. “Comment is what it is – comment. The commission will vote based on all the facts and circumstances.”
    In November, 2012, after eight Yellowstone wolves, including collared wolves, were slaughtered in the first weeks of the wolf hunting and trapping season, FWP received an astounding 40,291 comments and petition signatures against hunting and trapping around Yellowstone Park, compared to 108 for trapping. For every person for wolf trapping, there were 374 people against wolf trapping.
    Most comments were emailed independently or through the official FWP website. The majority of known out-of-state comments were from people with a direct Montana connection. They visited Montana regularly, grew up here, had relatives here, or owned homes and property here. Many noted that the trapping of wolves, particularly around Yellowstone, would hurt Montana’s tourist economy.
    An example: “Today I cancelled a hunting trip to one of my favorite units. We have been hunting in MT for several years. I will not support a state government that allows indiscriminate animal cruelty and traditions that are antiquated and from ignorance. Once children were forced to work in factories and sexual abuse was not a crime. Trapping and snaring are in that same area ….”
    The most frequent pro-trapping commenters were Robert Fanning, Pray, Montana, and Toby Bridges, Missoula, who writes a website called LOBO WATCH. They connect Commissioner Bob Ream to a so-called United Nations conspiracy called Agenda 21, which they claim is responsible for the reintroduction of wolves. Bob Ream did not support the reintroduction of wolves.
    The purpose of Agenda 21, according to Fanning and Bridges, is to take away guns and hunting, reduce the human population by 80 percent, conduct a federal land grab for more wilderness for predators with restricted human access, and force people to live in safe zones, among other goals. Ted Turner is the main financial backer of the Communist Manifesto and Agenda 21, according to Fanning, who claims wolves to be a bioweapon to achieve this “diabolical” agenda.
    In response to pressure from wolf advocacy organizations as well as to the expense caused by the destruction of scientific studies due to the deaths of Yellowstone collared wolves, the FWP commissioners closed areas along the north boundary of Yellowstone National Park to hunting and trapping. However, state District Judge Brenda Gilbert issued an injunction saying not enough notice was given before the closures. Wildlife officials decided not to try to reinstate the closure because the season would be ending by the time the order would have been lifted.
    The question is, why does FWP ignore overwhelming public opinion and continue to press for more trapping of wolves, mountain lions and other predators, including wolverines, which are about to be listed “threatened” by the US Fish and Wildlife Service? Gifts to FWP from the trophy hunting organizations Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Safari Club International may account for the FWP’s aggressive reductions of predator populations. However, the by-catch of ungulates, as well as threatened and sensitive species in wolf traps causes untold suffering and wanton waste.

  31. avatar JEFF E says:

    So it looks like New West has finally had its re-launch.
    Unfortunately they have decided to use face book as he vehicle to comment.
    Not gonna happen, at least for me. Don’t need Zuckerberg as a big brother.

  32. avatar JEFF E says:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-an-impotent-gun-control-solution/2013/04/09/cb6a6770-a153-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

    “….nothing proposed in the gun-control debates would have prevented the mass killing of children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and everybody knows it. At best, tighter gun laws will make us feel better.”

    Indeed

  33. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    Newsflash: the first annual Wyoming Wolf Report has quietly been published , two days early.

    http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/imgs/QRDocs/WYWOLF_ANNUALREPORT_2012.pdf

    • avatar CodyCoyote says:

      I jut skimmed the report and noted that as expected the detailed map charts that Wyo G&F Large Carnivore Supervisor Mark Bruscino projected at his lunchtime talk last week showing (a.) the locations of trophy and non-trophy hunted kills, and (b.) more importantly the location of reported wolf depredations on livestock / control actions, were not included.

      Hmmm…. OK to show at a public talk but not include in public report of same ?

  34. avatar Louise Kane says:

    http://www.misenategop.com/senators/readarticle.asp?id=5815&District=38

    Sleazy Tom Casperson R, Michigan introduces bill to circumvent citizen;’s initiative under guise of protecting hunting rights. The citizen’s of Michigan passed a bill against hunting mourning doves in the past and now look like they have a good chance of protecting wolves.If you visit Casperson’s web page he preaches about the rights of constituents and about having one’s voice heard. Apparantely byspassing 257,000 signatures of wolf supporters by pulling a sleazy underhanded move advances democracy in his mind. Slimy, sleazy, hypocrite.

    • avatar rork says:

      THere were several news stories today. DNR slowly dribbling out details of their hunt proposal, before they show the science they think justifies it. Interviews on radio with pro-hunt and pro-endangered advocates. This will probably simmer for awhile, and I could write long reviews or synopsizes of each, but that might happen so often in the near future, that I better not get started.
      Must help kill tumors.

    • avatar JB says:

      I am really sick of every Tom, Dick and Harry using the “we-need-to-manage-wildlife-scientifically” argument to suit their political agendas. Newsflash: Science cannot tell you whether you SHOULD hunt wolves; at best it can give an idea of what will happen when you do…or don’t (bounded, of course, by error).

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/
        another link with HSUS take on MI legislation and a post from Nancy Warren

        Don’t be shy about calling this sycophantic hypocrite’s office.

        from Nancy Warren….
        Here we go again… I apologize if this is duplicate for you. I learned of the attached bill last night. It is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow, where it is expected to pass and be taken up quickly in the the Senate. Calls are urgently needed to Michigan Senators and Representatives. Ask them to oppose Senate Bill 288. If you are not a MI resident, please pass along to a Michigan voter!

        Find your senator: http://www.senate.michigan.gov/fysenator/fysenator.htm
        Find your representative: http://www.house.michigan.gov/mhrpublic/

        Background:
        In 1908 Michigan added initiative and referendum to its constitution. Initiative is the right of citizens to propose and vote on new laws and referendum is the right of citizens to vote to approve or reject new laws passed by the legislature. Even in 1908 referendum was limited to laws which did not have certain appropriations (spending) in them. The idea, presumably, was that you didn’t want citizens to interfere with the ability of the state to pay its bills or manage its budget.

        In 2004, the Michigan legislature designated the mourning dove as a game bird and authorized a hunting season. Through the referendum process, Michigan voters rejected the law 69% to 31%.

        This past December, Governor Snyder signed into law PA 620, designating the wolf a game animal, authorizing a hunting season. 253,000 signatures (90,000 more than necessary) were obtained within 67 days and submitted to the Michigan Secretary of State. If certified, this issue would be placed on the November 2014 ballot to be voted upon by registered voters.

        Under current law, legislators can designate a species a game animal and then the Natural Resource Commission decides whether there should be a hunting season and establishes the rules and regulations governing the hunting season. A few years ago, legislators designated the Moose a game species, but the NRC did not establish a hunting season.

        New Development
        Yesterday, Senator Casperson introduced SB 288, which allows for either the legislature or the Natural Resource Commission to designate a species a game animal. It therefore, removes the checks and balances. The Commission would then have the authority to designate a species a game animal and develop the rules and regulations for the season. Citizens would not be allowed to challenge a NRC decision through the referendum process.

        Senate Bill 288 includes an appropriation of $1 million by including the appropriation, this law, if signed by the Governor cannot be challenged through the referendum process.

        Impact
        It would mean, despite having the required number of signatures for the people to vote, citizens would be denied that right and wolves would become a hunted species. But, this is not about wolves. Any species, under this bill, can become a game and a hunted species.

        Talking Points
        We need to maintain the checks and balances under current policy
        Wildlife belongs to all citizens
        Citizens must be allowed to challenge wildlife laws through the referendum process

        Nancy

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        Here is what the hypocrite Casperson has posted on the homepage of his website…

        “It is important in a democracy that citizens help keep their legislators informed. In order to be true representatives of the people, legislators need to know the thinking of their constituents on those issues upon which decisions will be made, and the facts on which such thinking and conclusions are based. As a citizen, you can help insure good legislation on state and national levels by communicating with your elected representatives at the proper time.”

        I guess the 257,000 voices that signed the petition to stop a wolf hunt just are not communicating their displeasure with a wolf hunt at the proper time. This bill by this sleazy politician sickens me.

      • avatar rork says:

        JB: hope it’s not too late for you to notice me thanking you for this comment. It’s not new, but now it’s more eminent in my mind, and I’m thinking more clearly that way.
        I’m grateful. Please do that repeatedly.

    • avatar rork says:

      Michigan’s DNR recommendations for a wolf hunt are out:
      http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/WCO_No._6_of_2013_-_Wolf_Regs_416487_7.pdf

      Pretty modest, 47 dead wolves desired. In 3 areas. 2 options that are pretty trivially different (how licenses are sold). No dogs, no night hunting. Leg hold traps, guns, bows, and crossbows permitted. Our NRC gets to make the call, but I’d expect it to adopt one of the proposals. It doesn’t really review data about depredations or other conflicts – just anecdotes about the 3 particular areas. Is it relatively modest partly due to recent anti-hunt activism? Maybe.

  35. The Idaho Fish and Game Department is hosting a live chat meeting on the web concerning elk management. They will be doing this tonight (Wednesday) from 7-9 pm and tomorrow 7-9 pm.
    This might be a good time to weigh in on wolves and elk.
    Go to the IDFG webpage during the posted times and click on chat.

  36. avatar JEFF E says:

    nature program on PBS has show about wolves and grizz in the park. on right now

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Be on the alert for the new book

      “Beavers in Russia: Incisors through the Ages”

    • avatar Robert R says:

      Beavers can be a very aggressive animal in the right situation, cornered,trapped or cut off from the safety of water.
      I have been on the receiving end myself and the only thing that saved me from being bitten was my dog. I will tell you it takes one big dog to whip beaver and that lab gave up and the beaver lived to see anther day.

      • avatar JEFF E says:

        Robert R,
        I think that is true with most animals.
        Every animal in existence possess(lost by humans) that biological certainty that at some point “”I”” may be the food source, so it always comes as a big surprise when it happens. You then have a lot of gnashing of teeth and flailing of arms, about the why and the how, and this or that animal should be wiped out, but the simple fact is that there is ALWAYES a chain of events that lead to the conclusion regardless of the animal involved.

  37. avatar alf says:

    I had the following e-mail exchange over the past several days with my son, a wildlife biologist, who lives in Roslyn, Washington :

    SON (08 April) : “This is pretty crazy. An actual wolverine sighted two days in a row out in the Badger pocket area ESE of Ellensburg; low elevation @2000ft but plenty of ground squirrels.”

    ME (09 April) : “Any photos ? Sure it wasn’t a badger ?”

    SON (10 April) : “Yep it was a wolverine; plenty of witnesses described it. I asked the same question.”

  38. avatar aves says:

    Great blue herons have returned to Cornell’s web cam:

    http://cams.allaboutbirds.org/channel/8/Great_Blue_Herons/

    Scroll down to see videos of heron breeding and courtship.

  39. avatar SEAK Mossback says:

    This may already have been posted, but the expanding (re-introduced) sea otter population in SE Alaska has many parallels with the NRM wolf issue, although it has been playing out much more slowly, largely because sea otters have a much slower reproductive rate (as well as some significant natural predators) and advance in territory much more slowly than highly productive and mobile canids. However, many of the other issues are the same — arguments over the balance of economic value/loss due to competition for human-used food resources, aesthetic (tourism) values, provision of important ecological services — as well of course as inevitable “moral” issues for some. I would also have to say though that the disagreements have been on a lower plane than NRM wolves as far as emotion, as I think both sides recognize at least some validity in the other perspective. Nobody is saying that sea otters don’t have benefits in promoting kelp forest habitat important to fish and other species, nor denying that they have a very impressive individual daily consumption rate on high value shellfish and are substantially impacting some shellfish fisheries (some of which, including most dive fisheries, are relatively new since the 1980s while others like dungeness crab have been around much longer). A state senator from Sitka has proposed a $100 bounty to incentivize native harvest, although it is probably not legal under the MMPA — he is mainly using it to open discussion about limiting further sea otter expansion:
    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130315/bounty-sea-otters-bill-proposes-100-otter-southeast-alaska

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130325/waiting-mutiny-proposed-southeast-alaska-sea-otter-bounty

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      There’s a lot of threats to the shellfish industry; besides human overconsumption, there’s acidification of the waters where they grow which affects shell development. They will go extinct from this alone and acidification threatens the entire food web. I don’t think an otter’s consumption rate is a drop in the bucket.

      Seals are blamed for cod decline, when we all know that it is overfishing and modern fishing techniques that are to blame. We see the same thing with wolves being blamed for the so-called decreases in elk and deer, and of course the first plan of action is to eliminate them. It really is the ‘more for me, I want it all’ mentality. How we can begrudge another animal their entitled food is outrageous to me. Seven billion people are on this planet, and the numbers of other animals are pathetically small.

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:

        Those cruise ships sound like monstrosities also – I can’t imagine dumping effluent at sea. That’s really going to help the marine life. 🙁

    • avatar Louise Kane says:

      I could not have imagined it getting much worse for wolves or wildlife in Montana….yet it just did.
      Ignorance, hate and ugliness driving out perhaps the best qualified and most dedicated commissioner of any of the western states. really tragic

    • avatar JB says:

      The comments over there should embarrass Montanans. A bunch of partisan drivel.

  40. avatar rork says:

    In today’s little Michigan wolf ditty, the NRC met yesterday (maybe just want 43 deaders now) and the new wolf census numbers are out: 658, down from 687 in 2011. I have no details of methodology (but believe those are admitted to be underestimates). Oddly (teehee), that we might already be at peak wolf is not making the they’re-out-of-control people that happy. Much BS being flung about by all sides in several interviews and comments in articles, as usual.

    http://michiganradio.org/post/will-effort-stop-wolf-hunt-michigan-be-derailed

    I wish I could point to better reporting, but I’ve found no better coverage yet.

    Oh, http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/wolf_hunt_michigan_casperson.html is another (this site is famous for dumb comments, I should not have joined them).

    • avatar jon says:

      Savebears, tell everyone the good news about sb 397. Didn’t you say this bill was going to pass and get signed by Bullock?

      • avatar savebears says:

        Jon,

        No I didn’t, I said It would be interesting to see which way it goes.

        • avatar savebears says:

          And what does it have to do with the link I posted about wolf populations in the Northern Rockies?

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      “If there is grass growing anywhere in MT, then cattle should be eating it for $1.35 per pair per year. Is this the “modern world” that Mr Brenden is referring to?”

      Love the comments. People won’t have the same Little Red Riding Hood superstitions and fears about the bison. What a gorgeous picture accompanying the article. Who would not want that?

    • avatar savebears says:

      They have been going after bison since before I moved to Montana. This is really nothing new, that is why we have groups that are fighting for them.

  41. avatar Leslie says:

    WG&F announced their quota for the 2013 wolf hunt will be 32 animals. Wolf advocates are saying that their low population will cause inbreeding. WG&F has not set what their hunt quotas will be in each region yet.

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/northern-rockies-see-sharp-drop-in-wolves/article_8c97532a-b7e1-5c90-90aa-3152a00f5abd.html

    • avatar jon says:

      Not 26?

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      This game playing needs to stop.

    • avatar jon says:

      The obvious reason why Wyoming fish and game is cutting the quota on half is because of all the wolves killed in the predatory zone. Letting wolves be killed in the predatory zone any time will lead to the wolves being relisted. Newborn wolf pups and whole wolf packs can be killed if they are in the predatory zone. It’s sickening.

  42. avatar WM says:

    Salmon release to the Elwha River, during time dam deconstruction, and an unexpected high silt load results in substantial mortality (and expensive) loss. This can’t be good and, though the article does not address it specifically, it may have been preventable to some extent. Lessons for the next round of releases(?).

    http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20130412/NEWS/304129979/dead-salmon-found-along-silt-choked-elwha-river-after-hatchery-release

  43. avatar Leslie says:

    Correction, the proposed quota is 26 for 2013.

  44. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Wisconsin “outdoorsmen” favor dog-wolf hunt.

    “The training window allows hunters to train their dogs in snow, when they can easily identify through tracks whether a wolf is alone and avoid confrontations with a pack. The identification requirements mirror the standards for bear hunting dogs.”

    Huh!??? Until that possible lone wolf joins up with its pack mates. Methinks recipe for disaster. Wolves will die, but how many dogs? Then we’ll have to listen to more of the wailing about how the Gd wolves killed their dogs.

    Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/science/article/Survey-Wis-outdoorsmen-favor-wolf-dog-hunt-rules-4421903.php#ixzz2QMA08wuu

  45. avatar Jeff N. says:

    http://summitcountyvoice.com/2013/04/14/biodiversity-more-wolf-turmoil-in-the-southwest/

    This is good news. Some on here have voiced their displeasure with this group, who have successfully litigated on behalf of endangered species on numerous occasions. When litigation is all you have….use it.

    The Obama administration continues to disappoint in regard to the ESA. Groups like The Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds, etc..have proven to be invaluable.

  46. avatar Ron Kearns says:

    Arizona Game and Fish Commission Chairman Jack Husted resigned several days ago and the commission is going to vote to select a new chair and vice-chair.

    Webcam at 12 Noon today (in 20 minutes AZ/MST/PDT)

    http://azgfd.net/artman/publish/NewsMedia/Commission-to-hold-telephonic-meeting-on-April-17.shtml

    http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/CommissionCam.shtml

  47. avatar Ron Kearns says:

    This is the best link for information regarding Mr. Husted’s resignation, including the letter he sent to Governor Brewer.

    http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2013/04/12/game-and-fish-commissioner-resigns

  48. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    A nice retrospective article at High Country news in the form of Q & A on the 35 year career of Louisa Willcox as an advocate for the Grizzly Bear , and an environmental activist. She carried a LOT of water over three decades…

    http://www.hcn.org/articles/on-thirty-years-of-grizzly-bear-conservation-in-the-northern-rockies

  49. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    Fascinating article in the Jackson Hole news & Guide today of some finds from the ongoing Cougar studies in the Jackson area, which took a quantum leap this past year when researchers began using nocturnal video cameras to observe the big cats 24/7.

    http://jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=9767

    I had no idea that Wolves were decimating Cougar populations—especially the cubs—to wipe out the ” competition “. Makes sense, though.

  50. avatar Robert R says:

    The grizzly is the next predator battle. These grizzlies will show up on historic grizzly habitat and not so friendly out of the way places. They have to expand out of the national park zoos and they will get into trouble.
    http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20130418/NEWS01/304180017?odyssey=mod|mostcom

    • avatar Mark L says:

      The shame of it is that the exporter (poacher) has already made half his money on the scales (to be ground up). The meat was probably going to be all profit for him. The mules on the boat now pay the real price (jail) unless they turn in their bosses.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        “The mules on the boat now pay the real probably going to be all profit for him.”

        Isn’t this par for the course, in nearly all walks of life.

  51. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Spring!?!???

    Just wondering in other parts of the country, what has your Spring been like, as

    Here in NE MN we have a fresh blanket of somewhere between 10 -16 inches of snow and awoke to the morning warmth of -6/-9° from two different sources.

    Lakes still have as much as 3 to 3.5 feet of ice on them ~ three weeks prior to Walleye opener.

    Winter has been long, though no -40/-50° degree stuff,plenty in the sub 30’s and 20’s. With deer dropping fawns soon plus bears rousing from hibernation, and wolves, after a hunting season, how will the scenario play out?

    • avatar savebears says:

      You deer drop this early? Boy we don’t start seeing fawns until the first part of June.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        savebears,

        You are correct. June here also. Point I was making is with exception of those who are feeding deer, there’s not much for them to eat at this time. Fat reserves must be very low, and with recent snow covering everything, pickings must be small for deer.

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      Spring has been late, but we are finally seeing blossoming of flowering trees and shrubs, lawns greening up. Last frost is predicted for first week of May. The usual rain and sun for April. It was 70 yesterday here, unusual. Normal to be in the 50s-60s this time of year, but we do sometimes get an unseasonably warm day or two until Spring arrives for sure.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Southeast Idaho has had temperatures below normal and precipitation also somewhat below normal. We are in a mild long term drought condition.

      I spent much of the late winter and so far the spring in the deserts of Arizona, California, and Nevada.

    • avatar rork says:

      Southern Michigan has been cold too. My flowers are way behind schedule.
      MI DNR biologists had a press release today warning that UP deer may be badly impacted, and that it can already be predicted that it will be somewhat impacted. Deer skinny and lethargic. It seemed easy until Feb. But what happens at the end is ofter most important – when they are already in bad shape. (We had two hard winters, then 3 easy ones, I think.)
      Some people will blame the DNR policies, or wolves, if they see or shoot fewer deer.

  52. avatar WM says:

    “Enviro,” Michael Robinson from Center for Biological Diversity, goes at with AZ Game & Fish Commission and Cattleman’s group over Mexican wolf delisting.

    http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/desertblog/az-game-and-fish-enviro-square-off-over-mexican-wolf/article_804d52a8-a710-11e2-bbfc-0019bb2963f4.html

    What will USFWS do with a blanket wolf delisting proposal?

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      WM,

      I know you have little affection for Robinson.

      “”The commission believes that by developing a state wolf recovery plan, the Arizona Game and Fish Department will have more flexibility to make management decisions that benefit wolves, other wildlife populations and Arizona communities.”

      The commission also cited the Fish and Wildlife Service’s recent, annual Mexican wolf census, which found 75 of the wolves in the wild this year, compared to 58 a year ago. While 20 wolf pups were born and survived in the wild in 2012, environmentalists note that only three known Mexican wolf breeding pairs are living in the wild.”

      What I would like to understand from the above statements Arizona would do to “benefit” wolves PRIOR to delisting, and what they might do to get population up to a “robust” level prior to any mention of hunting; and stand behind stiff penalties for the I thought it was a coyote excuse.

    • avatar JB says:

      Q: “What will USFWS do with a blanket wolf delisting proposal?”

      A: Have their asses handed to them in court.

      • avatar savebears says:

        Time will tell JB

        • avatar savebears says:

          Just to add, the courts don’t quite seem to see things the way many of us do now a days.

          • avatar JB says:

            “Just to add, the courts don’t quite seem to see things the way many of us do now a days.”

            Um…what the heck does that mean? I’m not sure about the way you see things, but I think its safe to say that the courts don’t see uniformly. However, you might want to consider that a “blanket” delisting will leave potential plaintiffs to pick their district/circuit. You can bet that they’ll pick the one where their likely to get the most favorable outcome. Also consider that the USFWS tried a blanket delisting before (in 2002) and were rebuffed by the courts. Now let’s ponder the fact that USFWS couldn’t get wolves delisted in the NRMs–that took an Act of Congress. So what do you think the chances are that they’ll get Mexican wolves delisted with less than 100 wolves on the ground, with the 9th circuit on call for the appeal in case the District court doesn’t rule favorably?

            • avatar JB says:

              I should add that conservation groups will view such a proposal extremely skeptically, and I’d be willing to bet they will line up in opposition. A “blanket” delisting of a species that includes whole regions of the country that lack said species will be viewed as giving FWS/NMFS carte blanche to “give up” on recovery of any species anytime, anywhere.

              • avatar savebears says:

                JB,

                You have your position based on what has happened, and I have mine, I think eventually this whole mess will end up in the Supreme Court, then all bets are off.

                If really seems to piss you off, when someone has a different take on things than you do, and you don’t seem to realize that when things get in the court all bets are off, we have seen it time and time again.

                Many thought the Congressional rider was going to be found unconstitutional and low and behold, the most liberal court in the land, the 9th said it was, go figure!

              • avatar savebears says:

                Just another thing to add to this, and I will bow out again, I think in the next 5 years, we are going to see a complete rewrite of the ESA and things are going to change a whole bunch, the ESA is interfering with many things now a days, and I am not saying I agree.

                You watch, either it will be repealed or the whole scope of the act will be changed.

              • avatar JB says:

                SB:

                Personally, I think there are aspects of the ESA that should be changed to make it easier to administer and allow for more funding to be spent on RECOVERY, rather than simply listing. That said, I don’t think the ESA is likely to be changed at all in the near future. Why? First, outside of a few very red states, the ESA is an extremely popular piece of legislation–something that’s exceedingly rare these days. Second, we know that many conservatives would like to weaken the act; however, Congresspersons from liberal areas would take a lot of heat if they allowed legislation to pass that did anything to weaken the ESA. Thus, outside of making a few big business leaders happy, they have no (zero) incentive to touch the act, politically–especially given that amending the Act means that their conservative counterparts would undoubtedly seek provisions to weaken it–provisions their constituents would hate.

                So here’s my prediction: The ESA won’t get touched unless conservatives control all three branches of government including a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. (Which is to say, it’s not likely to happen.)

              • avatar JB says:

                “If really seems to piss you off, when someone has a different take on things than you do, and you don’t seem to realize that when things get in the court all bets are off, we have seen it time and time again.”

                SB: I’m not pissed off at all, I just disagree with you. You seem to enjoy making apocalyptic predictions about what will happen in the courts while providing only vague justifications for your positions–e.g., “this whole mess will end up in the Supreme Court, then all bets are off”. What the heck does that mean? What mess? What path will lead it to the Supreme Court (that is, what do you think the court is likely to consider)?

                If you’re going to make specific predictions, at least have courtesy to ‘show your math’ (i.e., be specific); else, it seems you’re just spouting off with little knowledge to back up your positions.

              • avatar JB says:

                By the way, as recently as 2011 the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the ESA (a case reviewed by the 9th Circuit). That marked the 6th time in recent memory that the court has refused to hear such a challenge.

                And you might consider that the 9th Circuit’s decision to uphold the budget rider delisting wolves had nothing to do with its political leanings–it was bound by its own precedent.

  53. avatar Kathleen says:

    To make a nice Mother’s Day tribute to your mom (or any other significant women in your life) AND to help out wild bison and the people who protect them, check this out
    http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2426/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1272658

    In addition to everything else they do for the Yellowstone area wild bison both in the field and in the halls of government, the BFC folks are also standing out there at highway’s edge day and night during the spring migration–keeping bison and motorists safe.

  54. avatar Robert R says:

    This could be promising but might be to exspensive and possibly in some way be used on other non native weeds.

    http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/discovery-could-cheat-cheatgrass/article_8bde1a97-1069-5a5f-be84-5554ae491cee.html

  55. avatar Louise Kane says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tExAqeGXRZU

    really awful canned hunting in South Africa

    this is the type of activity that should be banned everywhere

  56. avatar Rancher Bob says:

    News for Montana tourism. Has the national economy and the wolf hunt hurt Montana tourism?

    http://www.kpax.com/news/montana-tourism-industry-continues-growth/

  57. avatar Peter Kiermeir says:

    Who is talking about wolf hunt in the article and poll? It just says: “Of the more than 600 Americans polled for the study, most said they would not delay a trip to Montana despite rising gas prices”.

    Talking about tourism potential: The page of the MT Tourism Conference reveals why tourism from abroad, especially Europe is so highly treasured (despite some contradicting statements of a famous governor emailed out two years ago when I remember correctly, when wolf watchers from Europe complained about the anti-wolf policy).
    http://www.travelmontana.org/conference/2013_files/presentations.asp

    Scroll down to bottom of page.

    The conference elaborates further on why tourism originating from within the US is quite stable. Again without mentioning the terms “wolf” or “hunt”.

    • avatar Rancher Bob says:

      Peter
      You hit on the whole point of my post unless one brings up wolves, it’s not a issue with people who visit Montana. Surveys about wolves start with a outcome, this survey was about tourism, no mention of wolves. There has been several studies looking a tourism that have come out the last four months, of the ones I read no mention of wolves. Montana will manage wolves as we will, people will visit and those who want to blackmail the state can stay home and bitch on their computers. We have fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing and more, you can do one or do them all, a state with just over a million population and 10 million visitors a year. Sure everyone would like to see a wolf and they can if they spend a little time at looking, but Montana tourism is about much more than just the wolf.

      • avatar JB says:

        The question that is not answered: would tourism be even greater were MT to adopt more “wolf-friendly” policies. Surveys that have attempted to tease out specific reasons for visiting Yellowstone suggest that $35 million in park tourism can be linked to wolves. (I’ll point out that I think MT’s approach to wolf management has been measured. Unfortunately, that’s likely going to change as MT adopts a more “aggressive” management program despite lowering wolf populations).

        • avatar Rancher Bob says:

          JB
          I would say on one hand yes there would be different people coming to Montana if there was less wolf hunting. On the other hand seems we’re doing just fine with our current plan. How aggressive Montana’s plan becomes will be set by how easily we approach our population goals, as with any goal, some goals come easily others require more aggressive action.

          • avatar JB says:

            “How aggressive Montana’s plan becomes will be set by how easily we approach our population goals, as with any goal, some goals come easily others require more aggressive action.”

            Bob: I’m glad you wrote this, because it is EXACTLY the sentiment that I hear expressed by managers. No question that this is a logical and pragmatic approach. The problem (as many see it) is that such an approach makes no considerations for the welfare of animals, nor the concerns people have about fair chase and the humaneness of various methods of take (and that doesn’t even get us started on whether the population goal is acceptable).

            So MT will push on more aggressively and the controversy will continue…

            • avatar Peter Kiermeir says:

              “Different people” could be true. Tourism and the impact of tourism on the economy is a recurring subject on this blog. Thus I´ve done it already on several of these occasions, please let me explain my thoughts as a “foreign tourist” again: Yes, Montana – the West in toto – has lot to offer to a tourist. Breathtaking nature, the “wild-west” feeling, we Europeans so dearly love – especially my generation, that grew up with horse-operas – John Wayne being the icon of my youth! I have visited the whole US over the years frequently, when flights became affordable, later with my wife, even later with the whole family. I always had a certain affinity for America and Russia, but with the Iron Curtain tight, it was for a long time a lot easier to go to America! It was ok for me to spend my hard earned money –and a lot of that on vacations to the US – it sums up, believe me(Yes, I admit, I was a lot happier whenever the exchange rate was in favor of the EURO). I (we) met many fine people and collected unforgettable impressions. It was fun! Having developed an interest in carnivore conservation, bear even more than wolf and a special interest for the tiger, this lead me to visit many states on this globe and the more I traveled, the more insight I got. Sorry, for coming to the point so late: I no longer travel to the American West because of the wildlife policy, because of the anti-predator policy, because of these overwhelming hunting fetish (No, I´m not anti-hunting). I know of many people here in Europe that said: “ I´ll not go to America as long as G.W.B. is president”. This was never an obstacle for me and my family. But your wildlife policy absolutely is. The fun has gone! Just thinking that the guy on the next table in a restaurant could be one of these sick real wolf-haters…..

              • avatar Mark L says:

                To second Peter’s comments, remember that as the ‘North American’ wolf wanes, the ‘European’ wolf waxes, gaining watchers on a yearly basis (and easier to watch due to location). The same for elk in the southeastern US…you can go to Tennessee or Kentucky to see them now with some planning. Oh, and bison too.
                I’d say that a ‘monopoly of wildlife’ has been broken in a way, and a lot of animals that have been a ‘western’ mainstay can be found in other locations now, for good or for bad. It’s not just wolves.
                Many of the European people under 40 didn’t watch westerns as a kid, and hence don’t have the same draw to the West as the older ones do either. Our fairy tales really do rule our lives…more than we know.

            • avatar Rancher Bob says:

              JB
              AS time goes on population goals will change I believe.
              As far as fair chase and humaneness is there a scientific definition of fair chase? Because I hear lots of definitions of what would be fair for wolves. Some think that what is fair for their dog should the definition. I have friend who lost his dog to wolves, maybe we should use his definition of what would be fair.
              One thing about the issue is the wolf is like no other animal so how can it be managed like other animals.
              Second Montana will be more aggressive and the controversy will continue for SOME while it will fade for most.

              • avatar JB says:

                Bob:

                No scientific definition; “fair chase” is ethics, not science. According to the Boone & Crockett club:

                “FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.”

                I don’t know what you mean when you say, “Some think that what is fair for their dog should be the definition”. Last time I checked, we don’t hunt dogs?

                I’m also not sure what you mean when you say that the wolf is unlike any other animal? Wolves are quite similar to coyotes, though they lack coyotes ability to make a living eating smaller prey. They’re similar in their social structure to coyotes and other social carnivores (e.g., African wild dogs, African lions, etc.). We (collectively, people) have managed wolves in the US, Canada, Europe, Scandinavia, Russia, et al., and policies range from total protection to eradication.

                Bottom line: The aggressive policies of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho (and I would add, Alaska) are keeping wolves in the spotlight, which actually works to the long-term advantage of those who want more protection.

                It takes two to make a teeter-totter work. 😉

              • avatar Elk275 says:

                “It takes two to make a teeter-totter work.”

                I have never heard that quote before, it is one that I will remember for a long time.

              • avatar Immer Treue says:

                JB,

                ” Wolves are quite similar to coyotes, though they lack coyotes ability to make a living eating smaller prey.”

                Wait a minute, there are droves of people, well perhaps a half dozen, who would swear on a stack of holy bibles that the remnant indiginous wolves of the rocky mountains were doing just fine on the smaller prey. Pray tell.

                Varjostaa?

              • avatar JB says:

                Immer:

                Those folks live in a fantasy world, as you well know. The next time you entangle yourself in a conversation with them, you might find this paper useful (link below). It discusses why (i.e., energetics) large carnivores (i.e., > 20kg) are forced to make their living on larger prey. Coyotes occupy a unique position (at just below 20 kg) where they are able to swing in either direction–that is, make a living off of voles and field mice, or larger prey (i.e., deer).

                Elk:

                I almost wrote “it takes two to tango”, but that didn’t capture the back-and-forth policy we’ve seen with wolves. Others (myself included) have used the analogy of a swinging pendulum to describe the policy, but I the teeter-totter analogy works much better to describe the drivers of that policy.

              • avatar Immer Treue says:

                JB,

                Thanks.

              • avatar JB says:

                No worries. The paper I sent is probably overly complex. A better explanation of the carnivore dichotomy is available in the following pub:

                Carbone et al. (1999) Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores, Nature 402, pp.286-288.

              • avatar Rancher Bob says:

                JB
                Seems we all have a different idea of what would be a improper advantage when hunting wolves.
                Maybe when I have more time we can continue, but to say a wolf is similar to a coyote, is like saying I’m similar to three dollar Mike.
                I always enjoyed my time on the teeter-totter when younger, as Dennis the Mennis said, I’ll grow up when being a kid stops being fun. 🙂

  58. avatar Atlas says:

    I used to live in Scotland this comes up in about every year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22220384

  59. avatar Immer Treue says:

    At times, the matter of starvation I’m the wIld has been brought up on this site. Too many predators, and predators starve. Too many prey and they starve. Hunters say get rid of wolves and let “us” manage the ungulates… MN has seen a MN Winter temperature wise, but the Winter has extended through April. We have seen 50 once this Spring, and perhaps a few days have reached 40’s. We were sun zero just a few days ago after close
    To 16 inches of fresh snow. We may hi the 50’x and actually see 60’s this weekend.

    It is Winter weather that is the big deer killer up here. Out for my morning two mile walk with the dog, he excitedly ran of the roads into the woods with tail
    Wagging, and a young buck was apparently stuck in a snow bank. I called the dog off, and the deer pulled itself from the snow and struggled toward us, as we walked away. Two miles later, as we approached the cabin, the dog ran up a snowshoe trail, and apparently the same young buck was struggling in deep snow, and just laid down. I walked up to it, no attempt to escape.

    Unless it is sick, starvation has set in. A friend came out with a bit of alfalfa, and we set it by the deer. You could see skin draped over bone. We made the decisio not to put the deer out of its “misery”.

    Here’s my point. This deer was five months old going into winter. The last snow we had has been really tough on young deer on their own. How a wolf has not found this deer is beyond me with all the droning of wolves killing all the deer. A hunter will not “harvest” a 5/6month old deer. In Winters such as this, starvation is real. One of the reasons to have a predator that hunts 365 days per year.

    Hopefully this little buck makes it. The tell-tale callings of ravens will alert me if otherwise.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Immer – went to take my friends (dogs) for a walk yesterday afternoon and noticed a white “rump” in the sagebrush just past my fenceline. Went back to the cabin and got the binoculars and realized it was a mulie doe, bedded down on the hillside. Alone, not another mulie in sight although for the past month, I’ve seen them in groups of 30 or more.

      Later that evening went to let one of the dogs out for the evening and a lone (very thin) doe was just past the fenced yard, feeding on the new grasses.

      She seemed not to notice me or my dog, perhaps she was one of the many deer who’ve passed thru from birth, who found me and my space, non-threating 🙂 or hunger might of kept her there.

      Will never know her story but as you mentioned – the tell-tale callings of ravens (and magpies) will alert me if she doesn’t make it.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        Nancy,

        Compared to some places I have called home, winter is so long in N MN, that one forgets there is something called Summer. At this time, all creatures great and small not finding man provided nutrition, are in one mode only, survival. Everything is just hanging on, and as yet, no sign of bears.

        With no doe season in my neck of the woods last year, to get deer numbers up, it may matter little.

    • avatar rork says:

      Above I mentioned Michigan DNR press releases preparing us to see allot of dead deer thanks to slow-to-stop winter weather. (Not in the southern lower though, where there is essentially no winter kill.)
      That hunters don’t harvest fawns is not completely true. I kill them. They only supply half the meat though, so if tags are tight, you do have to do a calculation. Lately, with plenty of tags, I’d rather have two fawns than 1 adult though, cause they taste really good, and the pieces are of more convenient size (they way I butcher). I trade deer for salmon (from WA) and to another person for lamb/turkey/ducks/chickens, and both people specifically request fawns. It probably is true that many hunters feel it is stooping, but for me and my partners, it’s taking the least important animals.
      In the late 80’s and 90’s, when we had huge populations up north and folks didn’t want to shoot does (some still don’t), steelhead fishing after a hard winter sometimes meant seeing dozens of dead deer per day, each curled up under a conifer. There were way too many deer, but our DNR was slow to admit and act on that, perhaps because of hunter wishes, which were ignorant.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        Rork,

        “That hunters don’t harvest fawns is not completely true.”

        I understand and accept your rationale. Yet, most will not harvest fawns. Been a long winter here, and with the past discussions about starvation in the wild, I stand behind my comment of having predators out there 365 days per year “help” prevent this from occurring. My game camera picked up a wolf close by about a month ago. Unless its been poached, it’s one of a small pack that frequents the area. Hard to Believe they have not found this fawn.

        • avatar rork says:

          I certainly did not mean to detract from the point that predators offer deer control, if there are enough of them. I was just stumping for more fawn eating by humans. This is a deer hunting blog, isn’t it ;).
          Ofcourse wolves alone might not suffice. Our most esteemed elder deer biologist (J. Ogoza) formerly would teach that except in mild winters, up north essentially every fawn was doomed when populations were constantly at carrying capacity (less predators then, few does shot). Most hunters still don’t get the implications of that – they bitch about the coyotes eating fawns, though ya can’t hardly tell it has any effect.

          • avatar Immer Treue says:

            Rork

            “. Our most esteemed elder deer biologist (J. Ogoza) formerly would teach that except in mild winters, up north essentially every fawn was doomed when populations were constantly at carrying capacity (less predators then, few does shot). Most hunters still don’t get the implications of that – they bitch about the coyotes eating fawns, though ya can’t hardly tell it has any effect.”

            Agree

  60. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    BS. Nobody outside of hunters will visit Montana if you don’t have the wolves of Yellowstone. I’ve read jus the opposite about the barbaric goings on in general in the Western states, and in the entire country, right now. Sounds like ramping up the PR to me.

    • avatar Rancher Bob says:

      Ida
      If you do a search of Montana tourism studies you’ll find that Montana has a lot to offer besides hunting. U of M study shows Yellowstone had very small increase last year compared to other parks. If one looks a the revenue from fishing on the Missouri and the Big hole rivers they alone beat Yellowstone wolf revenues. I would guess most people visit Montana during the summer months, very little hunting.
      As the Idaho F&G guy said the wolf is of no more importance to the ecosystem than the earth worm.

      • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

        Rancher Bob,

        I would say the Fish and Game guy was pretty stupid because earthworms have an enormous ecological impact, or was they what he was trying to say? I doubt it.

        I should add that the role of earthworms is not also positive either. See Minnesota DNR’s page on invasive earthworms, for example. http://tinyurl.com/6jpoc

    • avatar savebears says:

      Actually Ida, there are still a whole heck of a lot of tourists visiting Montana, non-resident hunter numbers are down due to changes made in the tags available to outfitters, but we continue to show an increase every single year, including the years we have had wolf hunting.

      People are still visiting Montana despite the rants you hear on the various blogs, boycotts have not worked, we just keep seeing more and more visitors.

  61. avatar WM says:

    Looks like the two suits filed in federal court over the WY wolf delisting will take parallel paths, for now. Judge Berman of the US District Court for Washington DC decided to keep her two cases and consolidate them, instead of transferring the cases to Judge Johnson in Cheyenne, where the other is pending. She is a bright East Coast bred judge from Harvard, and were I a betting lad, different results will be achieved at the trial court level (though based on the law, of course). Have not yet seen her ruling, yet. This is bound to get interesting as things progress. HSUS is just giddy over it, while FWS and the state of WY are not so much.

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/court-dual-lawsuits-proceed-over-wyoming-wolves/article_54a5d4ac-c32d-5f0b-8afd-6e768bd13c52.html

    • avatar Mark L says:

      Somebody has WAY to much time on their hands….
      (it was funny though). The elk urine was odd though.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      One thing about the Onion is that some people always believe the stories are genuine news. I just want to point that out before some member of Congress puts the article into the Congressional Record. 😉

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      Ha! Funny. 🙂

    • avatar Pointswest says:

      I have started a Facebook page to advocate this idea — if there are any facebookers interested. You just need to ‘like’ the page. I have lots of good info and photos. I have one of bison on Henry’s Lake Flats taken about 1875.

      https://www.facebook.com/CalderaNationalMonument

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Don’t do Facebook but thanks for the link PW, I’ll pass it on to friends who do. Hey and good to see you back 🙂

        • avatar Pointswest says:

          I’m thinking Wildlife News should move to Facebook. It is easy to post stories and articles and to post photos. Facebook has been crafted to draw people in. They’ve been at it for awhile and know what works. A subject like the GYE or wolves would attract hundreds and would do so through friends. New people would be exposed to it everyday.

          • avatar Pointswest says:

            …I got 10 followers to my Caldera National Monument page in the first 24 hrs. I wonder if it will grow exponentially. I have lots of good stuff to post.

          • avatar savebears says:

            The Wildlife News is already on Facebook.

            • avatar Pointswest says:

              Yes…I saw earlier today that it was on Facebook with 1,800 followers. All the stories are there but few comments.

              • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

                I might be wrong, but my experience is that Facebook is not a place that generates sophisticated (sometimes) comments like the Wildlife News here does.

          • avatar Mark L says:

            What’s Facebook?

            (just kidding, but I don’t Facebook and hope Ralph won’t go to it.)

          • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

            We have had a Facebook page for some time. Some people like the Facebook way of viewing the web, and we pick up a couple hundred more readers on Facebook. There is no reason you can’t have both.

            Pointswest, I checked out and liked your Caldera National Monument Page on Facebook. It will be interesting to see if this idea has feet. I’m sure almost everyone who goes to Island Park knows there is something special about it. Just what is it?

            • avatar Pointswest says:

              It is that the Snake River Plain, that was formed from the Yellowstone hotspot, channels moisture up to IP where the high elevation caldera forces it up to cool off and precipitates out of the air mass as rain and snow. IP gets a lot. The calderas are then flat and all that water meanders around in slow clear rivers and streams and forms several ponds and lakes…an abnormally high concentration of riparian habitat for the arid interior West. The ignumbrites from the Lave Creek Eruption have formed the Madison and Pitchstone plateaus that are very porous yet very high and wide that literally scrape moisture from the passing air mass so that water percolates down to the floor of the Henry’s Fork Caldera and springs from the ground in three class 100 springs (Warm River Springs, Buffalo Springs, and Big Springs)and dozens of smaller springs. This spring water is crystal clear and relatively warm so that it does not freeze in winter. The moose, waterfowl, and other riparian creatures love that.

              • avatar Pointswest says:

                Class 100 springs are very rare. Idaho has a few in the Snake River Canyon near Twin Falls and Montana has one called Giant Springs but I think that’s it in the West. IP has three Class 100 springs and all are scenic with beautiful clear rivers that run from them.

              • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

                Pointswest,

                Thanks for the list, and don’t get me wrong, I have loved Island Park since I was age two or three and we would go “up” there. We lived in Rexburg, ID

  62. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    On the occasion of Earth Day appeared this purposely duplicitous essay by Dave Perry in the Laramie Boomerang that does a sly job of rebuffing the so-called ” Environmental Conspiracy ” in Wyoming . You have to read it slowly.

    http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2013/04/24/opinion/letters_to_the_editor
    /doc51775e7a4faef353781216.txt

    Not sure if this is the same Dave Perry who was news editor at the Powell Tribune m worked at the Riverton Ranger, and was recently the editor of the Rawlins Daily Times ( all in Wyoming), but it seems so.

  63. avatar WM says:

    Ralph recently mentioned Pyramid Lake in NV, where Lahontan cutthroat trout are indigneous. NY Times article on the sad history, complex biology and efforts to bring back the really BIG ones.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/us/lahontan-cutthroat-trout-make-a-comeback.html

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      Yes, everyone should read this, but it takes a paid subscription.

      I should put up a story about the story.

  64. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    Sorry about that! I didn’t know if some of your readers subscribed or not. I liked what I heard in the interview, and it is exactly how I feel about it.

    http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/wildlife/study-utility-scale-renewable-energy-threatens-mojave-biodiversity-hotspots.html

  65. avatar Leslie says:

    I hadn’t heard of this rare species of canine called the Maned Wolf. Very beautiful endangered animal. Watch the video
    http://rewilding.org/rewildit/earth-day-2013-take-action-for-the-maned-wolf/

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      Gross. But I truly believe that this deviant behavior is ‘allowed’ by our society as a misguided safety valve for the protection of society as a whole, and we don’t value animals’ lives as much as human. The ‘getting is out of their system’ method. Only problem is it doesn’t work very well, as like any other drug or deviant fix, you need more and better to get the same high.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “And they wonder why we call them psychopaths or compare them to serial Killers?”

      YEAH!! Excellent article Louise! The sad thing is, many of them are passing this sick behavior on to their children…………..

    • avatar JB says:

      “Great article”? Seriously, Nancy?

      “Flaunting the fact that they’re still legally entitled to their predatory perversions as long as the abused are only wild animals, they don’t hesitate to tell their Facebook friends that they “feel ‘orgasmic’ when hunting, trapping, killing, butchering, and even eating their victims…
      And they wonder why we call them psychopaths or compare them to serial Killers? Anyone who gets sexually aroused at the sight of a trapped, struggling or suffering animal should be preemptively executed for the good of the many. ”

      Much of the early psychological researcher that emerged in the 1940s-60s set about trying to figure out how Hitler used propaganda to find support for exterminating a whole group of people. One finding that emerged is what researchers now call “demonizing the other”, whereby propaganda is used to argue that the other group of people are bad/evil/sub-human and therefore, not entitled to the rights and privileges granted to the in-group (i.e., the good folks). This quote is a perfect example of demonetization of an out-group.

      (And yeah, I know the “other side” does it too, and it’s just as wrong when they do it.)

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:

        Very true. What’s just appalling is that after the horrors of the 1800s with wolf extermination, that it has arisen again in the 21st century, when we supposedly are more educated and reasonable. We aren’t.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Yeah but JB, do ya really think its all propaganda?

        “they don’t hesitate to tell their Facebook friends that they “feel ‘orgasmic’ when hunting, trapping, killing, butchering, and even eating their victims”

        • avatar Ida Lupine says:

          Just ‘ewwwww’. Like schoolboys, I think they just enjoy grossing people out.

        • avatar JB says:

          Nancy:

          I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking. The propaganda is the part where people are being demonized (and dehumanized) to the point that the author contends that they “should be preemptively executed for the good of the many.”

          The message being sent is that killing wolves is wrong, presumably because these animals should have moral standing; yet the same author would revoke the moral standing of wolf-killers (so killing wolves is bad, but killing wolf killers is just fine). What a bunch of nonsense.

      • avatar WM says:

        JB,

        I agree. There is also an aspect of the “wolf killer – sadist,” which is designed, whether conscious or unconscious, to taunt the other side. And, they do it because they can, in hopes of eliciting (or even INTENDING) a response to escalate the exchange. I think it can be compared, a bit, to trash talking between members of sports teams.

        In this instance, the Kathy Taibbi response to which Louise directs us, is just replaying en masse the most disgusting of the wolf killer team (if one can call it that), in hopes of enraging the pro wolf crowd. The behavior, if viewed from afar, is quite candidly juvenile, and immature on both sides.

        The sexual inference is just male wolf-killer locker-room talk, and nothing more, dispite the Taibbi spin. I have, in the past, found her writings to be just as inflammatory as the anti’s.

        • avatar JB says:

          Agreed. I think they’re being intentionally provocative with the purpose of sticking their thumb in the eye of pro-wolfers. I suspect many are losing friends (or at the very least, the respect of some of their friends) because of the outlandish and disgusting comments they make.

          What bothers me more about these comments is that they may change the norm (i.e., what is considered “acceptable” behavior) in these areas.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        JB,

        “…One finding that emerged is what researchers now call “demonizing the other”, whereby propaganda is used to argue that the other group of people are bad/evil/sub-human and therefore, not entitled to the rights and privileges granted to the in-group (i.e., the good folks). This quote is a perfect example of demonetization of an out-group.

        (And yeah, I know the “other side” does it too, and it’s just as wrong when they do it.)”

        I agree with you. Yet, attempting to communicate with the antis is no longer worth the effort. It turns into a blood bath of innuendo and name calling. Yea, I’m pro-wolf, and also for “sound, reasonable, rationale, realistic management” of wolves.

        Rancher Bob and Robert R in particular on this site take their lumps, and with dignity, reply in kind. Its pleasant having dialogue wirh them. Try to do that elsewhere with the blog envy folks and they attack everything about you EXCEPT your argument. Establish a bit of common ground and a “pinch hitter” comes in and turns it into a quagmire. I no longer bother. Soon as I see the “wolf pimp” Eco-nazi jargon come out, dialogue is finished.

        Barb Rupers brought up, elsewhere, an ongoing dialogue you had with one of the more vocal anti-wolf folks, and you thoroughly dismantled every “argument” he brought up. I admired the way you avoided getting personal, and if you know the article, or if Barb Rupers could copy the article, it would be a good lesson for all on staying cool, standing ground, and answering challenges.

  66. avatar WM says:

    If the LA Times is to be believed, FWS intends to go forward with its Draft Rule to delist wolves in the lower 48. It has not yet been published in the Federal Register, but it looks like the waters are being tested. Mike Jiminez is quoted.

    Of course, Jamie Rappaport Clark of Defenders has jumped into the skirmish, as well. This is going to get interesting.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wolves-20130426,0,280341.story

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      Some scientists agreed with the decision to delist the wolves. But several took exception to some of the findings that the agency included in the document, including the scientifically disputed issue of defining wolf subspecies.

      “It’s a little depressing that science can be used and pitched in this way,” said Bob Wayne, a professor of evolutionary biology at UCLA.

      I take exception to the line in the article that says wolves’ presence on the landscape have always elicited passionate responses. The passionate response, at least from the pro side, comes from the irrational and needless persecution they face. They always list livestock predation as the primary reason they must be ‘managed’ but the article doesn’t give the real numbers, 1% or less animals lost?

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        Ida,

        To borrow a phrase, “they’ve come a long way baby.” When wolves were, let’s put it bluntly, exterminated in all but NE MN prior to the 1950’s, there was no one to speak up for their value. People were still steeped in the mythology of wolves as the evil incarnate.

        Things are a bit different now. Wolves will continue to be both iconic and controversial. Wolf advocates cannot allow their guard to drop, yet must be fair in management practices. That means individual wolves will continue to die, sometimes entire packs.

        It will be a marathon race, with the “winner” being neither the first nor the last, but somewhere in between. The pendulum swings, or as JB brought up yesterday, the teeter totter teeters.

        Livestock losses are indeed small, save where the impact is greatest. The feedlot mentality for ungulates must come to an end, yet wolves appear to have have had great impact in some places. The stakeholders affected by this have an arguably legitimate beef.

        The efforts of those in charge of wolf reintroduction, and natural repopulation of suitable habitat should continue to be thanked and supported (even if one doesn’t necessarily like what they have to say). The involvement of common people (go Pulp)has made a difference, and must continue to do so.

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      Some scientists agreed with the decision to delist the wolves. But several took exception to some of the findings that the agency included in the document, including the scientifically disputed issue of defining wolf subspecies.

      “It’s a little depressing that science can be used and pitched in this way,” said Bob Wayne, a professor of evolutionary biology at UCLA.

      I take exception to the line in the article that says wolves’ presence on the landscape have always elicited passionate responses. The passionate response, at least from the pro side, comes from the irrational and needless persecution they face. They always list livestock predation as the primary reason they must be ‘managed’ but the article doesn’t give the real numbers, 1% or less animals lost?

      • avatar Rancher Bob says:

        Ida
        Math is a funny thing, less than 1% of animals lost. Using math one can also find that for every known wolf living in Montana or Idaho 2.5 head of livestock died due to wolves. Those kind of numbers say livestock predation by wolves is quite high,IMHO. Just a matter of how you want the math to show your cause.

        • avatar Nancy says:

          Until you look at just how many livestock LIVE/are raised in Montana or Idaho RB. In the millions if I recall.

    • avatar JB says:

      Interesting, indeed. This policy is a function of the FWS/NMFS’s interpretation of the “significant portion of its range” text in the ESA. Essentially, significance means whatever the hell they say it means and it can change from species to species and need not include the geographic size of range contraction.

      Yet another means by which FWS/NMFS can deny and limit the listing of endangered species in the future.

    • avatar Louise Kane says:

      Why wouldn’t Jamie R jump into the skirmish. Someone has to. Do you think its right to delist wolves in areas that they once inhabited and not a single one is now known to be present? Right to delist them in this anti wolf, wolf slaughtering environment? I feel such outrage about this, I find it hard to fathom that such a thing could occur yet, its not the least surprising.

      This from Jim Robertson today. This quote is heartbreaking
      “wolf proponents need to realize that their wildlife policy-makers will continue to up the ante each time we accept the new status quo.”

      from Jim Robertson……

      How Much Are WE Willing to Tolerate?
      Posted on April 27, 2013
      For the first decade or so after their reintroduction to Yellowstone and central Idaho in 1996, the Federal Endangered Species Act safeguarded wolves from overzealous hunters and trappers, but as the director of the USFWS pointed out, the ESA is “not an animal protection act.” Blanket protection of any non-human animal goes against the grain of our political agencies, which are ultimately only answerable to the one species with the any hope of representation—Homo sapiens.

      The right of an American species not to be hunted to extinction is a relatively new advancement. At present, it‘s about the only right extended to the nonhumans in this, the land of the free. Now that wolves are off the Endangered Species list in any state with even a minor population, the feds plan to remove them from the U.S. list completely, casting any pioneering individual or would-be wolf pack to the mercy (or lack thereof) of whichever state is fortunate enough to be graced by their presence.

      An organized bunch of thugs, anti-wolf fanatics have been on point, lying in wait for the day wolves lose all protection and are deemed “fair game” for their killing pleasure. Lately a deceptively named hate-group calling itself “Big Game Forever” has been luring Utah state funds away from essentials such as schools and into their anti-wolf agenda. Just recently they leached $300,000 for their campaign against wolves in that currently wolf-less state.

      Others, such as South Dakota, have hastily re-classified wolves from the status of protected to “varmint,” in the event that any lost wolf happens by. Even “progressive” Washington state jumped on the bandwagon, allowing people to kill wolves without permit and changing the wolf’s status to “big game,” ahead of their anticipated complete removal from federal ESA protection.

      A classic example of what will happen the minute wolves lose federal protections was made clear yesterday as Washington state lawmakers approved “Emergency Rule WAC 232-36-05100B Killing wildlife causing private property damage” which includes the following provisions:

      1) An owner of domestic animals, including livestock, the owner’s immediate family member, the agent of an owner, or the owner’s documented employee may kill one gray wolf (Canis lupus) without a permit issued by the director, regardless of its state classification, if the wolf is attacking their domestic animals.

      (a) This section applies to the area of the state where the gray wolf is not listed as endangered or threatened under the federal endangered species act.
      (b) Any wolf killed under this authority must be reported to the department within twenty-four hours.
      (c) The wolf carcass must be surrendered to the department.
      (d) The owner of the domestic animal must grant or assist the department in gaining access to the property where the wolf was killed for the purposes of data collection or incident investigation.

      (2) If the department finds that a private citizen killed a gray wolf that was not attacking a domestic animal, or that the killing was not consistent with this rule, then that person may be prosecuted for unlawful taking of endangered wildlife under RCW 77.15.120.

      The “Emergency Rule” is bad enough as it stands, but if ESA wolf protections are lifted nationwide (as is currently planned), points (1a) and (2) will be moot—there won’t be any area of the state safe for wolves, nor any “endangered wildlife” designation to discourage poaching. This is why the wolves, though arguably “recovered” in some areas, need to remain under federal ESA protection nationwide.

      We can’t let them lose what little protection they still have in this country. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forge ahead with their plan for full removal of wolves from the ESA, we need to continue to press our new Interior Secretary Sally Jewell for both their continued protection as well as the re-listing of wolves in those states where out-of-control culling is driving them back to the brink of oblivion.

      Washington’s “emergency” rule was crafted in response to a letter from ten state legislators urging their Fish and Wildlife Commission to act quickly “to maintain social tolerance for gray wolves in northeast Washington in the timeliest manner for residents.”
      Hmm, killing wolves to “maintain tolerance,” where have I heard that before? Oh that’s right, it was from wildlife snuff film producer and wolf-hunter Randy Newberg who told NPR News that wolf hunts in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho are easing the animosity many local people feel toward the predator. “Having these hunting seasons has provided a level of tolerance again,” Newberg told NPR.

      Let me get this straight, in order to placate and appease good ol’ boys and get them to put up with the presence of one of North America’s most historically embattled endangered species, we have to let them kill some of them once in a while? Wolf hunting and trapping are just a salve—a bit of revenge-killing for them–why not let them have their fun? By this logic, they should also be entitled to shoot an Indian every so often (like their forefathers who tried to wipe them out), to help promote tolerance and social acceptance.

      It’s time to remind our politicians that the wolf-killing Calvary is about as outnumbered by those of us who appreciate wolves as General Custer was at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

      What’s happening now in Washington is just how it started out in other states whose wolf-killing policies are now completely out of control. Washington wolf proponents need to realize that their wildlife policy-makers will continue to up the ante each time we accept the new status quo.

      The question is, how much of a wolf-kill massacre are we willing to tolerate before we go on the warpath?

      • avatar Rancher Bob says:

        Louise
        I think the point of the delisting move at this time is that there is no fear of people like you on the war path. No images come to mind that even comes close to being scary.
        The wolf army, going on the warpath, these images are not working.

        • avatar Nancy says:

          “No images come to mind that even comes close to being scary”

          Might it have something to do with your comfort zone RB? Surrounded by like minded people and a few politicians that go out of their way $$ to cater to that kind of comfort zone 🙂 rather than thinking ahead about the wealthy newcomers that are moving in these days “left & right” buying up lands and they have no problem with keeping what’s left of wild, wild.

          And its a funny thing (or not) about generations of families who’ve lived close together and off the land – and then there’s that generation that says “enough’s enough” (seen more than a few of those situations) and a chapter closes and the ranch is suddenly up for sale or on the auction block.

          Food for thought……

          • avatar Rancher Bob says:

            Nancy
            And why do those people want to live here in Montana because for generations it’s been the last best place. And how did it get to be the last best place, because of the large tracts of land owned by ranchers.
            Why are those people buying ranches because land is the best investment and some people have so much money it has to go some where. I ran into a guy last year he was a investment banker, he had 20 million a month to use to buy ranches, that was his job, buy 20 million a month in ranch land.
            Lastly why do you think those ranchers are selling? Mostly their tired of putting up with crap from all sides, people like you who don’t really understand any thing about ranching.
            Then again what does this have to do with going on the war path?

        • avatar Louise Kane says:

          Rancher Bob not a surprising comment from you, sadly…

      • avatar bret says:

        Louise, in regards to Washington, “tolerance” is written into the wolf plan it did not just come up in some snuff film.

        Washington’s wolf policy is not out of control; few if any wolves will be killed under this new policy and will have no impact on long term wolf recovery in the state. In the long run it is a god compromise because the alternative would be rural lawmakers and county commissions writing their own “wolf plans” and cooperation would have ended w/ WDFW.

        As far as your Native American reference, the Colville’s are the only people who can legally hunt wolves.

        • avatar Louise Kane says:

          Bret
          the washington plan was very exciting initially. It seemed the state was going to use its citizen’s input. Since the wedge pack fiasco, its been all downhill folowing the trend of other states. Its like the ground hog day movie where the same bad day keeps being repeated. Goes something like this. Take citizens input….discard in favor of special interest groups that are loud, obnoxious and expert at spreading fear, hate and lies. Revise laws immediately against public input and start killing wolves and or other predators. Hysterical knee jerk responses that do not honor facts, interested parties other then sports hunters and livestock businesses and that ignore public sentiment. If the agencies don’t jump to fast enough then some crony lawmaker will create some BS law to appease ranchers and trophy hunters. Brett Washington’s policy is getting out of control and up to speed with the other states.

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:

        (2) If the department finds that a private citizen killed a gray wolf that was not attacking a domestic animal, or that the killing was not consistent with this rule, then that person may be prosecuted for unlawful taking of endangered wildlife under RCW 77.15.120.

        There’s your loophole. A license to poach, kill first and explain later – so nobody will do that, of course.

        These people are making up the rules as they go along, and it is hard to believe that our country’s leadership is clueless.

        • avatar Ida Lupine says:

          And if anybody is prosecuted which I sincerely doubt, I can’t wait to see what the penalty will be – a slap on the wrist and a nominal fine.

          • avatar Mark L says:

            Not so different from how some groups of humans were treated in the past. They are just following a template….

  67. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    Do you have a idea of the best views in Idaho? I got this email, and I certainly should spread it.

    Hello Ralph,

    I hope you’re doing well. My name is Sarah Stewart, and I’m a freelance writer for Backpacker magazine. I’m writing a feature highlighting the best views in all 50 states for an upcoming issue, and I’d love your input. I’m hoping you have a nomination or two for the best views in Idaho. Here are a few guidelines:

    1. The view must be one you have to hike to (roadside overlooks don’t count).
    2. The viewpoint should be an exact location, not just a general area.
    3. If possible, please include a brief description of how to reach the viewpoint (which trails/route to use). If you have a GPS track or UTM point for the viewpoint, include that too!

    Do any favorite views come to mind? If so, feel free to send nominations my way as soon as possible–and please share this with any fellow hiker friends who might also want to nominate a favorite view or two for this article!

    Thanks for your help!

    Sincerely,
    Sarah Stewart
    stewart.sarahlynn@gmail.com
    352.514.4244 (cell)
    http://www.sarahlstewart.com

    • avatar WM says:

      Ms. Stewart, of course, seeks this information for money. Freelance writing is how she makes a living.

      I have found over the years, the best way of destroying the places you love, is to widely tell everybody where they are. It is stories like this that trashed the Wind River range, with over-use. This is one reason I do not like and do not buy “Backpacker Magazine.” I selfishly hope her project receives little input.

      • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

        WM,

        I understand the way you feel. I have heard it before, and it is true to some degree. However, backcountry recreation is declining. I think the threats to these places are overwhelmingly development projects. I mean that I consider the giant natural gas developments to have caused the ruination of the Wind River Range.

        People will act to protect places they have not been to and to save things they will never see, e.g., tigers. Photos can be great motivators.

      • avatar Louise Kane says:

        good points from WM and Ralph although I tend to agree with WM. Its hard when beautiful places are exposed in these articles and become commercialized. The Caribbean was ruined like this, literally loved to death. Other places I love have also been impacted negatively after this kind of exposure.

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      A big game outfitter and outspoken opponent of wolves had 13 sheep killed by the predators on property north of Gardiner, federal wildlife officials said.

      Certainly questions credibility.

  68. avatar JEFF E says:

    http://newwest.net/2013/03/28/welcome-to-the-new-new-west/

    too bad they are using facebook to run the comments.
    how am I ever going to find my friends?
    “chicken little” Bob Fanning
    “little” barry coe
    “honey wagon” todd
    “truck-stop” chandie
    Scott “cuckold” Rockholm
    “altered” reality 22
    three twigs
    the maine jellyfish

    a few other bit players

    where are you?
    did someone turn on a light?

  69. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    Earth Day vs. Tar Sands- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/22/1204018/-Earth-Day-vs-Tar-Sands

    “Tar sands bitumen contains 11 times more heavy metal than conventional oil, which is bad enough, but to make it possible to pump the sludgy bitumen, it must be mixed with another hydrocarbon, usually a natural gas distillate. When a tar sands spill happens, the distillate vaporizes, releasing toxic chemicals into the air. And if the heavy bitumen that’s left behind gets into the water, it doesn’t float like conventional oil — it sinks. No proven protocol exists for cleaning that up”

  70. avatar Louise Kane says:

    another Jim Robertson post
    whats that news tag line ….keeping it honest?
    Its something like that

    anyhow thanks Jim for keeping it honest

    An Answer to an Anti-Wolf Extremist
    Posted on April 29, 2013
    Here’s a letter to a local Washington state newspaper from a budding anti-wolf extremist, followed by my response letter…

    “Damage wolves do”
    Dear Editor:
    I am writing in response to Lorna Smith’s column (April 3), “Why are we so afraid of wolves?”
    It’s not the wolf itself, it’s the killing they do to our deer and livestock that I’m afraid about.
    I have a friend who lives in Arlie, Mont., where the wolves are abundant. He states that the wolves have completely destroyed the elk herds in his area – and are now preying on the deer.
    He also states that the economy has really suffered in the area as the sportsmen are not coming to hunt anymore.
    Also, there was an article in the April 2013 Western Horseman magazine. One of the featured articles was “Range Riders of the Upper Green.” The story is of Doc Foster – his main job was caring for the cattle. He states that dealing with the predator-livestock conflict took most of his time – that the wolves attack the cattle herd in a pack and focus on dragging the cattle down by the back and hindquarters. “They are killers,” Foster says. “They [wolves] eat the heart, liver and lungs and then go on.”
    Is the wolf an animal we want protected in our area?
    Seems like several new wolf pairs have just “arrived” in Washington state lately.
    Betty Wagoner
    And my response?…

    Dear Editor,

    It’s bad enough to read a damaging letter from an anti-wolf extremist (“Damage wolves do”) who asks, “Is the wolf an animal we want protected in our area?” as if it’s our birthright to pick and choose which species are welcome and which are not. But when the main thrust of the letter seems to be to spread disinformation—aimed at striking terror in the hearts of hunters—that “wolves have completely destroyed the elk herds” in Montana, well, someone has to set the record straight.

    Having recently lived in Montana, I’ve seen and photographed my share of wolves, but also thousands of elk; and some of the mule deer herds were nearly a hundred strong in places. According to a 2012 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department survey, there are 141,078 elk in the state, 55% over their management “objective” of 90,910; but rather than allowing wolves to solve their elk “problem,” they want to reduce the number of both elk and wolves. That policy is not scientific; it’s downright kill-happy.

    Meanwhile, there are currently fewer than 600 wolves in that state (hunters and trappers killed nearly 200 last season). Yet Montana wildlife officials say they are hoping to reduce the wolf population to around 450. Of course, that number does not even come close to representing a recovered state wolf population by any historical standards when you consider that 10,261 wolves were destroyed between 1884 and 1886 in Montana alone after a bounty was first initiated there—or that 380,000 wolves once roamed the lower 48.

    An alleged threat to the cattle industry is certainly no excuse for today’s rampant killing of these important predators. Out of the approximately 2.6 million cattle in the state, only 74, or .0003%, were taken by wolves in 2011.

    But if there has been any drop in business for the trophy elk hunting industry, it’s because wolves keep elk on the move; wilder and less complacent. In one of their most telling remarks, Montana hunters have complained that wolves make elk “too hard to hunt.” Ever their lackeys, state game managers have used that claim as an excuse to promote wolf hunting, rather than sticking up for wolves by pointing out that they are just doing their job of preventing elk from over-grazing.

    So next time you hear hunters complaining about wolves, remember, it’s not because they really think wolves are going to eliminate all “their” elk—they just don’t want to have to walk too far from the pickup truck to make their kill.

  71. avatar Leslie says:

    What happened with this? I just saw this and was outraged. Grizzly bear to be massacred to get money to plow the roads in the Tetons.

    http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=9705

  72. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    There will be other requirements. The hunter must shoot only within a mile of the bear and is limited to an automatic weapon “of a calibre no smaller than .50 and with a magazine or belt capable of holding no fewer than 50 rounds,” according to regulations released Friday. To preserve the environment, rounds of depleted uranium will be prohibited. Also, the hunter “will be required to carry a can of bear spray that’s expired and must expel its contents in the area of the kill after downing the bruin,” the regulations read.

    Oh boy. Sounds like today’s modern hunter. ; )

    • avatar savebears says:

      You ladies, do realize what date this was published on, Right?

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:

        🙂 But at first it sounded like one of those coyote contests.

      • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

        I recall that Ken Cole wrote an April 1 article here in TWN that was taken at face value too. It is good to look at article dates.

  73. avatar Leslie says:

    I’d call this ‘blood money’. Really! Kill an animal on the endangered species list in order to plow the roads!! In the national Park yet. I find this decision really disturbing and a terrible precedence.

    • avatar savebears says:

      Leslie,

      Look at the date on the article!

      • avatar Leslie says:

        Yes SB, I know the date but I just saw it. And want to know what happened with this. Its not that outdated. April 1.

        • avatar SAP says:

          Yes, April 1. April Fool’s!

          • avatar SAP says:

            Satire is a really useful way of exploring our values, though. I can see why you took it seriously — there are people who would take it seriously and applaud it, too.

            • avatar Leslie says:

              Thanks SAP, now I get it! Kind of slow on the uptake.

              • avatar Leslie says:

                What’s scary is that it seemed not to far from truth

              • avatar SAP says:

                Not far from the truth at all. How far will we go?

                Back in 1729, Jonathan Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal,” satirically suggesting that rural Irish peasants kill two birds by eating their own children:

                http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

              • avatar savebears says:

                Come on Leslie? I read it on the first and read it now that you have posted it and could see right through it from the first lines.

                Yikes!

              • avatar Leslie says:

                SB, call me gullible.

              • avatar savebears says:

                Leslie,

                I don’t think gullible is what I would call it. I think certain people are on the lookout for any little thing they can use.

              • avatar WM says:

                Apparently, there will always be “gullible” humans. Satire is not always the hook that catches them.

                The Orson Wells, “War of the Worlds,” November 30, 1938 (Halloween eve, by the way should have been the clue), is a prime example. Wells narrated a series of evening radio news bulletins, convincing a segment of our society that the world was actually being invaded by Martian aliens. It actually created fairly wide-spread hysteria and panic lasting for several days. In this instance, Wikipedia is probably a credible summary source:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)

                And then there are the Sasqatch sightings.

              • avatar WM says:

                Apparently, there will always be “gullible” humans. Satire is not always the hook that catches them.

                The Orson Wells, “War of the Worlds,” November 30, 1938 (Halloween eve, by the way should have been the clue), is a prime example. Wells narrated a series of evening radio news bulletins, convincing a segment of our society that the world was actually being invaded by Martian aliens. It actually created fairly wide-spread hysteria and panic lasting for several days. In this instance, Wikipedia is probably a credible summary source:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)

                And then there are the Sasqatch sightings.

              • avatar Mark L says:

                True, but I thought “Harry and the Hendersons” nullified the sasquatch fear thing….you know, ‘Disneyfied’ it like everything else?

              • avatar Immer Treue says:

                Gullible is gullible. Perhaps those with an agenda, or as sb alludes,”on the lookout for anything that can use,are more prone to falling for these spoofs.

                Savebears, did you see the one about Bullock to ban archery hunting? Gotta read the whole thing, not just the title. Pratfalls for those reloading with a response prior to reading. Interesting on how one fell for that hook line and sinker.

                Also helps, yes to look at the date, and be alert around the first day of April. Some of these are elaborate.

              • avatar savebears says:

                Immer,

                On its face, that article was filled with so many ridiculous items.

                There are enough actual true articles out there that bound on the bizarre and extreme, that we need to be very careful when spreading information.

                Especially when on blogs like this have many more uniformed readers that never post, but simply use information posted here to move their agenda forward.

              • avatar Immer Treue says:

                Savebears,

                Agreed!

  74. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    Ugh. I’m glad I don’t contribute to that ghastly business in any way.

  75. avatar Louise Kane says:

    Dr. Jon Way’s new book My Yellowstone Experience is now published and available. I just saw news of it. Looks amazing. Congratulations Jon!

    http://www.myyellowstoneexperience.org/bookproject/

  76. avatar Ralph Maughan says:


    Attention

    Shortly, we are going to replace this post and the many comments with a new “Have you heard any interesting wildlife news.”

Calendar

April 2013
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

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: