Autumn in Wellsville Canyon, UT. Copyright Ralph Maughan

Autumn in Wellsville Canyon, UT. Copyright Ralph Maughan

It is time for a new page of reader generated wildlife news. Please use “comment” at the bottom to post your news. Do not post entire articles unless you have our permission, or post copyrighted materials unless you own the copyright. Here is the link to the most recent — “old” news.

About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.

472 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife related news? Sept. 30, 2014 edition

  1. Yvette says:

    The 2014 Living Planet Index Report is published. It states they’ve changed statistical methodology and that the global vertebrate population is worse than previously thought. There has been a global decline of 52% of vertebrate populations between 1970-2010.

    I hope they are wrong.

  2. Yvette says:

    That is a beautiful autumn photo, Ralph. I’m so looking forward to the color change. It’s not even started here, yet.

  3. Ralph Maughan says:


    Thank you. In Idaho and Utah overall, the color of the leaves so far this year is not as great as in most years.

    • Nancy says:

      The colors are great over here in Montana Ralph. Unlike past years. Passed a grove of Aspens a few mornings ago that was one of those OMG moments. The trees were decked out in both yellow & orange leaves.

      Decided on my way home to stop and get a few pictures. When I approached the spot a few hours later, there was a semi parked there and next to it stood a guy with his camera. I got out and said “I see you had the same response when you saw these Aspens” and he replied that he’d past the grove (making a delivery earlier) and also vowed to stop on his way home 🙂 It was a dreary, wet day but the colors were still brilliant.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Beautiful photo. It’s a great time of year. 🙂

      • Amre says:

        In my area, fall has just started to arrive in the last day or so since theres a cold front moving through. The leaves aren’t turning yellow and orange yet….

    • Kathleen says:

      Just got back from the Four Corners area and the aspen were at their peak along US 550 north of Durango–awesome! We visited our favorite Wilderness areas on this 50th anniversary year–the Weminuche in CO and the Bisti/De-Na-Zin in NM. Long live the Wilderness Act!

  4. Nancy says:

    “The Forest Service said in the past two years, exploding targets have been the cause of at least 16 wildfires in western states, costing taxpayers more than $33 million”

    A new form of domestic terrorism? Dumb & Dumber?

    • Ida Lupines says:

      What is wrong with people? Surely they don’t believe it is their natural, God-given right to start fires in the forest?

  5. Nancy says:

    Shades of the wild, wild west in Louisiana?

    Just recently the owner of a little country market near me put up a sign on her door that said “NO GUNS ALLOWED IN STORE” She said a Rambo looking guy came in, packing a gun on his hip and scared the crap out of her.

  6. Ed Loosli says:

    Thanks go to the Western Watersheds Project for being pro-active in trying to slow or stop the onslaught of grazing on our public lands… I am very glad Ralph Maughan is including their updates inside this blog.

    We should all support groups like the Western Watersheds Project, the Center For Biological Diversity and other groups that are more action, than talk.

  7. Elk375 says:

    Here is something interesting, pot farms in California are endangering salmon.

  8. sleepy says:

    A New Jersey hiker is killed by a bear, the first known fatality in 150 yrs.

  9. Gary Humbard says:

    State of Wyoming and USFWS requesting reversal of judges decision.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has lost any interest in seeing Endangered Species like wolves and grizzly bears truly recover their numbers and also importantly, recover their still available historic habitat…I hope the wildlife conservation lawyers are sharpening their pencils, because there is no doubt that Dan Ashe is going to unilaterally try and remove the wolf and the grizzly bear from the Endangered Species list throughout the United States. Because Dan Ashe has no interest left for the restoration of rare and endangered species, he should retire rather than dragging the wildlife of the United States down with him.

    • Louise Kane says:
      I posted this under good news for Wyoming wolves but its appropriate here under your post Gary

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Yes Louise, this is indeed good news. Let’s give credit where credit is due – to key activist wildlife conservation organizations and their contributors: Center For Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

  10. Gary Humbard says:

    One billion dollars spent by recreationist on BLM managed land within the sagebrush ecosystem.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      This quote from within the link Gary provided speaks volumes about the B.S. provided by the cattlemen’s best friend, the Washington D.C.-based Public Lands Council; “The study demonstrates the economic importance of access to public lands but that its focus is too narrow. Ranchers are the year-round drivers in the West when it comes to wildlife conservation and in particular, sage grouse conservation … The biggest threats to the bird and its habitat are wildfire, land fragmentation and development — and all of these are diminished by keeping livestock on public lands and ensuring ranchers have the ability to stay in business.” What a load of cow-sh_t.

      Cattle allowed to graze BLM sage-brush country are not only a big loser for the U.S. taxpayers, but they totally denude the landscape, including sage grouse habitat. There is absolutely no redeeming value either economically or environmentally to allowing private cattle to graze on sage-brush lands.

      • Gary Humbard says:

        Ed, I’m sure there are cases where cattle have over-grazed on BLM managed land but overall cattle are well managed on public land and are not denuding the landscape. Cattle and sheep grazing on private land is denuding the landscape, rarely on public land.

        The BLM has been litigated for decades and subsequently, the agency has required ranchers to make changes such as how AMLs are allowed on the allotments, regulated the timing of grazing, and protected and improved water sources. There are numerous studies (see below for one)indicating PROPERLY-MANAGED grazing practices can have beneficial effects for greater sage grouse.

        While cattle grazing has been regulated and continues to be villianized, wild horses are over-eating the landscape. Their numbers are off the chart as the BLM is not able to remove enough of them because of political reasons (not allowed to sell the horses as food). Only a small portion of them are adopted each year and because of budget constraints they can only put so many into santuaries where they have to feed and care for them. Unlike cattle, horses eat 24/7 and roam the landscape 365 days a year. Wild horses are not native, have no predators, breed with 20% annual increase and can live under extreme conditions. Wild horse numbers need to be significantly reduced in Nevada (less so in other states) to benefit the sagebrush ecostystem.

        There is an argument that if livestock were not allowed to graze on public land, then why would the US Government continue to hold these lands in public ownership. If the states were to acquire these lands, they would be managed more intensively or sold to private owners and what would be the end result then. I always remind myself before I make a decision, be careful for what I wish for.

        • Mark L says:

          “have no predators”

          Do mountain lions not predate feral horses?

          • JEFF E says:

            I think they both evolved some what simultaneously.

            • Mark L says:

              no, predate as in eat….they can effectively limit foal numbers much like coyotes do in deer, limiting offspring numbers in a given area. Given, they need a secondary food source due to the seasonality of foals, but the study does conclude they are effective in limiting feral horse numbers (over time as they usually get the very young). Worth noting a biological solution to a biological ‘problem’.

          • Gary Humbard says:

            There are very areas that mountain lions and wild horses share the landscape. Wild horses typically live in open spaces whereas lions need cover to stalk and kill their prey. Wild horse mortality is due to mainly lack of food or water and/or age related. Watching older horses die a slow death is not humane.

            Wild horse populations are significantly over their desired numbers, and thus are adversely affecting the sagebrush ecosystem. There are areas where all of the livestock was removed for years, but wild horses were allowed to maintain their numbers, and the landscape was not restored. The sagebrush ecostystem is a fragile landscape and allowing 1000 pound animals basically free reign needs to be addressed more agressively if we want it restored.

            • Cody Coyote says:

              Gary- the Pryor Mountain mustang herd in northern Wyoming – southern Montana is in fact at elevation and very much cohabitated by purebred Grulla Spanish mustangs dating back to the earliest time of Euro incursion into the area, and a great many Cougars. The Grullas even share their range with Bighorn sheep. They are true wild horses- direct descendants of Spanish mustangs – not turned out quarter horses or feral ranch stock like other Wyoming herds. They’ve been there a very long time.

              Cougars do in fact prey on the Pryor Mountain horses as the opportunity arises.

            • Nancy says:


              “The roundups, aimed at appeasing the powerful Rock Springs Grazing Association (RSGA), are in compliance with a Consent Decree between the BLM and RSGA, a back door deal allegedly encouraged by then-Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar”


    • Barb Rupers says:

      Thanks, Nancy.

      About four years ago three generations of us were visiting in Greeley, Colorado. My daughter, who lives there, took us to an undeveloped city block on the outskirts of town where we observed and photographed a prairie dog colony for about 2 hours.

      This summer she told me that it was destroyed to make room for another civilized project. That is at least twice in that town in the past 20 years for such an occurrence.

  11. Mark L says:

    So the (re)introduction of a coarsing predator…combined with an ambush one…might have a slow steady reducing effect on the 20 percent offspring rate of feral horses? I realize this is not what you are pushing for, both in argument and in agenda, but it’s a way to look at a solution biologically rather than politically. If you aren’t allowed to reduce the horses through legal action and 3s, why not try dancing with the devil and encourage a pair of indigenous predators to slowly eliminate the young of what you dispise? You DD want to see less horses right? Is it the mechanism I suggest that is the problem, or the end result?

  12. Ed Loosli says:

    “Land Use Planning for the BLM (Nat. Wildlife Fed.)”

    Let’s hope in this planning effort, there is a way to permanently make many key BLM wildlife habitat areas free from the ravages of private cattle/sheep grazing.


  13. Cody Coyote says:

    Wyoming’s Brand of Mass Killing With AK-47 Assault Rifle(s). A week ago, a carload of wackos drove around the rural roads of Casper Wyoming and slaughtered a number of Pronghorn antelope with a 7.62mm assault rifle, firing bursts- if we are to believe the Stop signs the also shot up which look like they got hit by 7.62mm shotgun pellets. The Wyo Game & Fish and Natrona County Sheriff are releasing only scant information on this, not even a head count of the carcasses, which are still turning up.–mile-stretch-near-casper/article_2f164a43-b16c-5425-9a4a-ade5818e8fec.html

    This has not made it into the regional or national news pipeline yet , but I hope it does, and I hope it is given some gravity.

    The line between thrill killers going berserk with AK-47’s on Pronghorn in rural Wyoming, and what happened at Sandy Hook, Columbine, VMA, and Aurora is to my mind a short straight line of very few steps…

    • Immer Treue says:

      Poignant comment with the article. The radical elements of the countries gun culture certainly have some explaining to do. Unless of course, for those who would have us believe that a shiny dark helicopter dropped off a team of slick government agents in order to create a scene that might be pinned upon the ignorant yokels who fear and pander said fear of losing their rights to own and abuse the use of guns.

      Boys being boys plinking road signs with a .22 is irrational and wrong, spraying wildlife with an AK-47 is a symptom of the gun culture in this country that is terminal.

      • Jake Jenson says:

        Which gun culture? The criminal gun culture or the law abiding gun culture? How is that rifle of yours doing? Keeping it clean? The culture that does crimes like this likely includes drugs and alcohol. So Ak-47s, drugs, and over consumption of libations. I think the beer culture has some responsibility here. lol..

        • Immer Treue says:

          That bolt action five round magazine rifle is clean and ready to go. So, as a member of the “law abiding gun culture” as little as it might mean, if these miscreants are caught, jail time, fines to the max, and weapons confiscation are in order. Nothing less.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Yes, I’ve begun to see the difference.

    • rork says:

      “Gun enthusiasts, Second Amendment acolytes, and the indoctrinated NRA legionnaires got some explaining to do.”
      Is your solution to idiots with guns to ban guns?

      • bret says:

        Pend Oreille County wolf to be captured, put in zoo

        A female wolf that’s become too comfortable hanging around homes and domestic dogs near Ione will be captured and put in a Western Washington wildlife park, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife officials say.

      • Cody Coyote says:

        Rork- I long ago realized the futility of arguing about guns and the 2nd Amendment with those who already believe they have an absolute All Guns All The Time ” right” to firearms. They cannot be persuaded.

        But peerhpas the vast majority of those who aren’t of that narrown belief system can enable the proper legislation and regulation , to wit:

        Gun owners need to prove to the State they are competent in owning and operating a gun, and have in fact been instructed , Then they need to be tested on their gun accumen . If they pass, they get a license to be a gun operator , for a period of five years before renewing that license by taking a basic test. The firearms needs to be licensed , registered to their owners, and users taxed. Those firearms should have mandatory liability insurance before any of that is allowed.

        In other words, just like my car. Cars and trucks kill if improperly used, too. What is the damn difference?

        Rights are requisite onr esponsibilities and not exempt from regulations. Guns do not get a pass , just because automobiles , nuclear weapons, bioterrorism, directed energy weapons, fighter jets, long range artillery , smart bombs, Gatling guns, Vulcan cannons, M1Ai abrams tanks, bazookas, or even Barret .50 cal sniper rifles are not mentioned in the Constitution because they did not yet exist( and in fact could not even be imagined ) .

        Nobody wants to take your gun away any more than they want to confiscate your Volvo…unless of course you demonstrate you are not competent with it.

        Is there a place for AK-47 assault rifles on the Pronghorn hunting ground ? What’s the difference ?

        • Nancy says:

          Totally agree Cody C.

        • rork says:

          I doubt any of your proposals would have stopped the idiots from their illegal acts. I am fairly open-minded on gun law though. I would not mind registration, but we have so many guns (compared to say, Germany) that it would be expensive to do a good job (like knocking on doors to check on gun storage adequacy).
          But the only way they’re getting my bows is from my cold dead fingers. Just joking – those should be treated similarly, perhaps with weaker storage rules.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Yes, I do hope they are held accountable for what they have done. Are pronghorn endangered? This is why I don’t like hearing wolves being blamed for ungulate decline – humans obviously do more to harm ungulate populations, in many more ways.

    • Gary Humbard says:

      Driving from Pinedale, Wyoming to Rock Springs last year, I stopped off the roadside about 300 feet and found numerous pronghorn antelope carcasses that may have been shot. I don’t know why people would shoot animals for the thrill, but certainly remoteness of the landscape (therefore low risk of apprehension), availability of targets, boredom of life and testosterone of males could all be factors.

      As bad as this crime is, IMO the thrill killing of wildlife is not on the same line as the mass killing of humans. I do not believe the shooters of Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Springfield, OR were ever found killing or harming animals. They were typically ostersized and/or bullied by classmates, became isolated from society and the majority had mental health issues.

  14. timz says:|main5|dl10|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D538967&ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

  15. Gary Humbard says:

    Another study that documents the importance of having top predators on the landscape. Howl!!!!!!!!!

  16. smalltownID says:

    Seminar at the University of Idaho if anyone is up there and interested…….
    Department of Fish & Wildlife 501 Seminar

    Management of Wolves in Idaho – Behind the Hype

    Jim Hayden
    Wildlife Staff Biologist
    Idaho Department of Fish and Game

    Wednesday, October 8, 2014
    11:30 A.M.
    Albertson Building Room 201

    • timz says:

      An IF&G employee talking about the “Hype” behind wolf management. Somehow that just seems appropriate.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Just that fact that the title of this Seminar uses the words “Management of Wolves” reveals the hype that is about to follow. Wolves do not need to be “managed”, they self-regulate and have done so for 10,000 years.

  17. Kathleen says:

    Please disregard if already posted: Invasive bullfrogs in the Yellowstone river

    “Bullfrogs as long as 12 inches when outstretched have been found. One that was caught and cut open near the Audubon Conservation Center in Billings last year had an oriole in its stomach.” What?!!?

    “Bullfrogs were likely introduced to the Yellowstone River region for food, recreational hunting, bait and pest control, and as released pets”…

  18. Immer Treue says:

    The Killing of Wolf Number Ten

    Not as self-promotion, but as part of the education process for those who peruse this blog, I offer this review. In light of the latest Toby Bridges escapade, it fits in well with my take on the aforementioned book.

    As a child, the tales of Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Little Pigs instilled fascination rather than fear with the four-legged ancestor of our “best” friends. As a young cross country runner, a friend and I went for a fifteen mile run and at the half-way mark, we found ourselves at the backside of the local zoo’s wolf enclosure. A wolf watched us as we exited the wolves and walked up to the fence. I grabbed a large branch, stuck it through the fence, and the wolf grabbed it. At fifteen, I played tug of war with a wolf, and the wolf has been close to me ever since that encounter.

    I now share a land with wolves during what can only be coined closer to the end than the beginning… of my fascination with wolves, and my intentions are to share, on an educational level, whenever I can. The above review is for your perusal. A friend recently dropped off a copy of A Wolf Called Romeo, which I am currently reading and will receive future review.

  19. Leslie says:

    I didn’t know Wyoming was paying 7 times the price of a wolf-killed cow!

    • Cody Coyote says:

      Yup. The rate of compensation for predator killed livestock is the state pays for the one that was actually killed and the six others presumed to be killed, with or without corpses. Or something like that. By law.

      It seems to me the best business model for the public lands rancher would be to create phantom herds on paper, then report equally fictitious kills by wolves and collect the booty.

      • Leslie says:

        Why not just invite wolves onto your property to kill your cattle.Easier than rounding them up and shipping them off to market. And more lucrative!

    • Immer Treue says:

      This may have predates wolves.

    • Unkar says:

      The news that the story was apparently fictitious hasn’t fazed Bridges supporters one bit. Apparently, truth is not a standard they adhere to or respect.

      It will be interesting what Bridges has to say when a reporter gets in touch with him. Personally, I feel he is irrelevant, except with his most ardent supporters who overlook and disregard any evidence contrary to their beliefs. In their eyes, “the end justifies the means.”

      • Cody Coyote says:

        – how can we read about Toby Bridges’ latest bombast and not evoke ” The Boy Who Cried Wolf ” parable ?

        … for the umpteenth time.

  20. Yvette says:

    Does anyone know anything about caribou? This sounds like bad news. Their numbers are declining and their movement patterns shifting with some herds getting off course.

    “The herd’s movement patterns may be unusual but they’re all within the range of variability, Dau said.

    “But I can tell you unequivocally that this year was the worst that I’ve experienced at Onion Portage,” Dau said. “I think it’s probably a forewarning of what’s coming.”

    Additionally, the commercial outfitters are causing problems for the local subsistence hunters.

    “Since August, Mekiana said, he’s seen planeloads of hunters arriving in Anaktuvuk only to depart days later with sacks full of caribou.

    “That’s our food,” he said. “We’ve been hurting for the last few years. People keep saying we need to talk with the sport hunters but they don’t care about our traditions; they just care about money.”

    It’s an interesting article.

    • Immer Treue says:


      As most of the “great” remaining caribou herds are rather far removed from large population centers (of people) and numbers fluctuate cyclically, one can blame wolves, or anthropogenic influences: mining; logging; over hunting and wastefulness by both subsistence and trophy hunters.

      Interesting studies going on in regard to anthropogenic effects to woodland Caribou. Heiko Wittmer, is one. The question is: Do logging activities in old growth forests impact caribou numbers. Remember, correlation does not necessarily mean cause… Lichen from old growth trees is important food source. Opening up old growth areas makes better habitat for moose and deer, which in turn brings in more wolves Nd mountain lions which then put more pressure on the remaining caribou. I’ll see if I can find the source.

    • Nancy says:


      Agree with Immer that there many be a number of contributing factors to the decline (there are also clues in the comments below the article) would be interesting to know how much the human population (who depend on the caribou) has increased and if there’s been a rise in the outfitting business (head hunters) throwing migrating herds off track.

      A PDF file on the subject a few reports down on this site:

      Have you had an opportunity to watch the Planet Earth series? Available on DVD. They have some great coverage of caribou migrations.

    • Kathleen says:

      Have you read “Being Caribou”? I really, really enjoyed it. I see that a 70-min. documentary has also been made…it’s available for viewing online.

      “April 8, 2003:
      Karsten Heuer + Leanne Allison
      left the remote community of
      Old Crow,Yukon, to join the Porcupine
      Caribou Herd on their epic life journey. For 5 months the Canadians migrated on foot with the 123,000-member herd from wintering to calving grounds in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and back again — 1500km across snow and tundra. They completed their journey on Sept. 8, 2003 and headed straight to Washington, DC to tell politicians + activists what they found.”

      • Nancy says:

        Excellent documentary Kathleen! Thank you for posting it.

        • Kathleen says:

          You’re welcome, Nancy. I haven’t seen it yet, but if it’s half as compelling as the book (and your response says it is), it’ll be worth the time investment.

          • Ed Loosli says:

            Interestingly, President Obama is refusing to protect the caribou that use the vital coastal zone of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This ANWR coastal zone is not designated Wilderness and the oil/gas companies are coveting it for drilling… With one stroke of the pen, President Obama could declare all of ANWR a new National Monument under the Antiquities Act, however, so far he has not lifted a finger or his pen to protect ANWR.

      • Yvette says:

        That documentary was spectacular. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you for sharing the link.

  21. Nancy says:

    Outside earlier cutting down the dried stalks from this summer’s perennials and noticed that a few of the plants have new growth – columbines, delphiniums. Very unusual, going into the second week of October. Especially after a couple of hard frosts.

  22. Cody Coyote says:

    It’s remarkable how much good first run top shelf news coverage I am finding at Al-Jazeera America these days , such as a series of articles running currently about Pacific Northwest Salmon:

    • Yvette says:

      Al Jazeera is great and they may be the only major news outlet that regularly covers Native American news and issues.

  23. Amre says:

    This is Washington states wolf report for the 2014 summer field season.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Thanks for this article on the world’s over-population bomb. There are some answers to this crises if you look at the countries that now are at zero population growth — Italy and Japan come to mind. The answers seem to be in the EDUCATION OF GIRLS. Not necessarily educating girls about birth-control, but just in educating girls in general, as long as birth control is available. If it weren’t for immigration (illegal and legal) into the United States, the U.S. would also be at zero population growth. In Kenya, since girls have started going to school, the average women now “only” has 5 children instead of 7 and the Kenya birth-rate is still dropping. In Kenya and many other countries, the Catholic church and the evangelical churches are the main obstacle to family planning and this has to be over-come. Italian women for example, who are mostly Catholic, have basically told to Pope, birth-control is none of his business.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Perhaps women/girls require education, men/boys must realize consequence and responsibility. Two way street.

        • Ed Loosli says:

          You are correct Immer, that the boys have to take responsibility along with the girls… HOWEVER in the real world, the researchers note that girls who have the education and power to say “NO” to the boys or take birth-control, are the ones who have fewer children. When the women of an entire country take the lead in their own birth-control the country’s birth rates plummet.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Yes, while boys should take responsibility too, they can never get pregnant. Despite how we try to intellectualize equality, in the real world childbirth and childrearing fall more heavily on females than males.

            Women should also feel it is ok not to reproduce if they decide they don’t want to. “Replacement” is the silliest concept I have ever heard. Civilization isn’t going to collapse if some people do not reproduce. Someone will always be breeding somewhere.

          • Immer Treue says:

            We must be vigilant in this country with the trend in arch conservative/religious covens to take away a woman’s control over her own reproductive life.

  24. Louise Kane says:

    Immer this is for you
    the only Cape Cod beach wolf ever documented

    a bit of indulgence but a friend that posts here and is a well known advocate took this while visiting and it made me think that its now wolf season and animals just like my favorite buddy are in traps, snares and shot and killed for no reason. anyhow is there anything more awesome than a dog or wolf?

    directed to you Immer as I know your love of the breed and good and sound thoughts about wolves

    • Immer Treue says:

      Got interest up. Only have handheld at this time. Can’t get link to work.

    • Nancy says:

      “The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page”

      This is what I get when I click on the link Louise.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Hi Immer and Nancy
        I’m just seeing this
        I don’t know how to make the link work
        if you want I’ll e mail you the image
        you’ll have to ask Ralph for my e mail which is fine and then I’ll send it to you
        sorry do not know how to make the link work

  25. September was an active month for wildlife viewing by visitors in Yellowstone.
    Yellowstone Reports publishes a daily update authored by naturalists . . . always a fun read of activity.

  26. Cody Coyote says:

    Wyoming’s lone Congressional rep Cynthia Lummis is sending up smoke signals that she might initiate a strident Congressional legislative response to Judge Berman’s ruling last week that Wyoming’s wolf management plan is still legally faulty, which halted this year’s ‘trophy’ wolf hunts a day before they were to start. Oh by the way , Lummis and her family own a very large cattle ranch in SE Wyoming near the state capitol.

    OPINION: here’s how I think this will go down./
    Remember that heinous Simpson-Tester wolf rider that was crammed into one of those year end emergency budget resolutions 2-3 years ago ? The rider that totally delisted wolves in Montana and Idaho by fiat ( but not Wyoming since we were in the legal doghouse then , too ) . The one that had a provision that it could not be challenged in Court ? That wolf rider, inserted deep into the COntinuing Budget Resolution which had to pass to keep the federal government running. Sneaky, snarky , cynical, hypocritical parasitic legislation.

    I suspect that Cynthia Lummis will do much the same, since all budget bills originate in the House. She will put in a rider that gives Wyoming all the authority it needs to manage ( kill ) wolves above the ridiculously low threshold of 100 wolves and ten dens. And will similarly bolster it with the ” cannot be challenged in Court” clause.

    Gawd how I wish that part would be thrown into battle to test its Constitutionality. I think it’s illegal to exempt any law from judicial review or court action.

    So—The Do Nothing Congress does have to pass a continuing budget resolution at the very least between now and the end of the year. I’m willing to bet there will be Wolf Rider 2 buried in it somewhere.

    Never mind that Congress is elected to pass meaningful laws to benefit all Americans by consensus…these past three Congresses since Obama took office have been obstructionist and the least productive of any Congress ever. When they do get around to passing bills, they are bad laws done in bad ways to benefit special interests , not the national interest.

    The northern Rockies Grey Wolves are victims of that venality.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Why represent the People’s interest when you more easily represent your own (or that of your big campaign donors?)

    • Yvette says:

      How do any of us stop this type of political maneuvers? I don’t know enough about politics or law to even attempt to answer that question. What keeps any state from going rogue and doing whatever they want if they could such a thing?

      • Ralph Maughan says:


        The way to stop this is to elect a better Congress, but if the Republicans gain control of Congress this November, Lummis’ bill will go sailing through to the President’s desk, probably as part of some package of bills concocted in way that Obama can’t refuse to sign it, not that he would fight for the wolves much, if at all.

        • Yvette says:

          Is there a chance we could get politicians that would pass a law that would make it illegal to add riders? I doubt that will ever happen, but it seems that riders should be illegal.

  27. JEmpey says:

    It is already winter here. I am glad this community has been able to provide food to last until next spring. Always an iffy thing. I would like some that post here to be in that position; just to see.

  28. rork says:

    I can’t recommend this recap of our (moot) pair of MI wolf-hunt proposals, except for this part that I never heard before:

    “Wolves, in due time, learn to become very accustomed to and brazen around humans,” Pete Butchko, state director for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services program, said during a recent round-table discussion. “If you think about wolf prey, they kill moose and they kill elk. What’s a 160 pound Homo Sapien? They’re just not afraid of anything.”
    This person doesn’t sound like a scientist to me, and I’m not blaming the botched version of “Homo sapiens” on him, since that might be the writer’s ignorance. I can’t find the quote anywhere else on the web to get the context (sheep, cows, or human children).
    Full story:

    • Nancy says:

      “Wolves, in due time, learn to become very accustomed to and brazen around humans,”

      Huh…. Thousands of hikers and hunters out roaming around in the backcountry of the Rockies for the past 20 years and no “homo sapiens” have lost their lives yet to wolves. Same goes for the north eastern states who’ve had wolves for a few decades.

      “Given that a handful of fatal wolf attacks have been recorded in India and Europe, experts say such an attack in North America has always been a possibility. But the odds are extraordinarily low, points out L. David Mech, a leading wolf biologist: “Wolves are still not any more dangerous than they ever were.”

    • Amre says:

      Hmmm, not a single person has been killed or injured by a wolf in the great lakes or northern rockies in modern times, as Nancy has pointed out. If wolves were as habituated to people as this WS person suggest, than i wonder why there haven’t been 30 wolf attacks in yellowstone national park already….

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      This is just plain stupid. I doubt hunters and trappers are ever threatened. Threats are illegal. People who don’t like hunting or trapping, even the fiercest opponents, would not find some person who shot a deer or trapped a raccoon and threaten or try to hurt them. It is pointless. There are hundreds of thousands.

      • Nancy says:

        I don’t know Ralph, maybe things are starting to heat up in the more progressive areas of Montana like Bozeman and Missoula, Billings. Perhaps some folks have gotten sick and tired of seeing dead animals, in the back of pickup trucks, paraded around their communities for weeks.

        I know it turned my stomach last year when I pulled up to a local restaurant and had to witness a pickup, backed right up to the front steps, with a bull elk (striped of its hide) laying in the back of the truck.

        Rather than get the meat processed, this yahoo, had to belly up and brag about his conquest, first.

    • Amre says:

      Hunters and wildlife-haters bully wildlife advocates all the time yet nothing is done about that. Yet the moment anybody gives a hunter and/or trapper some plaque, they yell “oh my gosh, they want to kill me!”.

    • Immer Treue says:

      I really don’t know what difference it makes. Most hunters will share information with their close friends, and that’s that. It the ones who believe they have something to prove, parade around town and share on social media…MFWP has nothing to do with yahoos and what is shared on social media.

      • Yvette says:

        And let’s not forget their obligatory picture of them with the dead and bloody animal.

      • topher says:

        “Most hunters will share information with their close friends, and that’s that.”
        I’m reluctant to share my favorite spots with even the closest friends. There is one guy I know who understands this and I don’t mind taking him to some my favorites with the understanding that he will return the favor. Good areas are hard to find and are often defined by the lack of other people. One loudmouth can ruin a perfect spot forever.

        • Immer Treue says:


          “Most hunters will share information with their close friends, and that’s that.”

          I’m not referring to the area they hunted, but the animal they killed while hunting.

    • Kathleen says:

      “He was unable to provide specific examples or say how many complaints the agency received.” Meaning…someone needs to FOIA those records? If they even exist?

      Though this appears entirely bogus, we can be sure that the MT legislature will enthusiastically pass it if not actually fast-track it at the expense of other vital legislation that would actually serve the citizens (as they did for the expansion of wolf slaughtering).

  29. Nancy says:

    Nice lunar eclipse this morning for anyone up this early.

  30. Cody Coyote says:

    Followup to my post from last week about the slaughter of ” many” Prongorn near Casper WY by perps using a ” military style AK-47 rifle) on the evening September 26. The dearth of the initial and followon news about this incident is still somehwat disturbing to me… it’s almost as if the agencies wanted to keep a lid on it.

    Anyway, WyoFile’s progressive columnist Kerry Drake ( formerly with the Casper Star Tribune for many years ) wrote an essay about the incident, saying how difficult it is to defend Second Amendment gun rights when stuff like this happens. WyoFile is a nonprofit news magazine that deals exclusively with important Wyoming issues and politics.

    The huge swath of Comments to Drake’s essay are both entertaining and enlightening…a panoramic snapshot of contemporary Wyoming attitudes about gun culture. (I’ve never seen this many Comments at WyoFile on anything…)

    • Elk375 says:


      Go to the New York Times opinion section and search for the “The Myth of Assault Guns”, it was published last week.

      • rork says:

        I do think we need good work on guns, but maybe work on “assault” rifles yields almost nothing, I agree. Many scientists have pleaded to send in our shock troops – yes, the ever heroic epidemiologists (not a joke – I and others nearby at work have been choked-up often lately cause of Ebola). There’s problems though – parts of “The Consolidated Appropriations Act” essentially makes it so CDC and NIH can’t fund gun safety research – it might lead to scientific ideas about new gun laws ya see, and nobody wants that. Some states have laws that say doctors can’t talk to patients about gun safety anymore. A recent article on SBM reviews a bit of both, and it’s not the only one:
        (If you want to see me really shine, it’s on blogs like that – but not that article.)

      • Cody Coyote says:

        Elk- I do in fact know guys who hunt elk with AR’s and swear by them.
        Does seem like overkill, though , metaphorically as well as technically.

        I was always a Winchester open sight .30-30 guy back in my deer hunting days. For real sport, try guiding an archer on a Bighorn sheep hunt… ,my hunter just had to be up there on top of the mountain two weeks before the rifles. We never got a bow shot off, but he did get a nice ram with his .300 H & H about 20 days into the rifle season.

        • W. Hong says:

          Does the AK-47 style gun shoot the same round as some of the hunting rifles?

          I was able to shoot my first gun ever last Saturday at a friends hunting place, I believe it was a remington gun and it fired each time I pulled the trigger. I believe he told me it shoots a 308 bullet.

    • Nancy says:

      “Frein has been described as a survivalist and military reenactment enthusiast with a hatred for law enforcement, authorities say”

      Still at large…..Although, Pronghorn are use to being shot at, certain times of the year.

  31. Ida Lupines says:

    Would anyone describe a piping plover as ‘sparrow-like’? If so, we really have a nature disconnect. I think of them as ‘sandpiper-like’. There are very, very few of them left.

    • Nancy says:

      Given their size (6-8 inches) compared to other Plovers (9-11 inches) sparrow-like isn’t to far fetched (some sparrows fall within that size)

      My question would be, why the name change? Can’t find Piping Plover in my National Audubon Field Guide but can find Semipalmated Plover (same bird)

      • Ida Lupines says:

        They are two different birds. We have both. I still think ‘sparrow’ is a little bit swinging wild, as the piping plovers and semi-palmated plovers I see are much bigger, nest in the sand, and the biggest thing is that that they are shorebirds and not passerine. “Sparrow” is a pretty broad size category too. Some are very small.

        This article just doesn’t give the full picture to someone who might not know, and even promotes a misunderstanding. These birds are extremely threatened.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          ‘Sparrow’ implies house sparrow to me, although the category for sparrow is so broad and hard to identify it boggles my mind. Seaside sparrow is very endangered, and one (dusky) has become extinct, when the last known individual died in 1987.

          Sort of like calling wolves vermin.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Swinging wild as not in the same ballpark. 😉

  32. Ed Loosli says:

    “Tanzania Appeals Serengeti Highway Court Ban” – Please Help!!

  33. Gary Humbard says:

    Sage grouse numbers are slowly increasing in Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Utah and Nevada as the highs are getting higher and the lows are getting less challenging. Favorable weather is the main driver.

    • Kathleen says:

      Was so frickin’ disgusted to see this in our morning paper. This elder bear has lived inside YNP for the past 25 years without any “conflict management actions” according to the FWP news release:

      And I despise the dishonest use of the word “euthanize.” The bear was KILLED.

      “…officials said they euthanized the bear because of its old age, its physical condition and the property damage it had caused” but not necessarily in that order, right? So now it’s FWP’s job to kill animals because they’re “old”???

    • Nancy says:

      “Many of the comments by agency officials were met with boos and cat calls. They were accused of incompetence and even of deliberately trying to drive ranchers out of business in a government conspiracy to grab the land”

      “Drive ranchers out of business” Now where have we heard that comment before? Goes hand in hand with “they’re killing all the elk”

      Be interesting if someone could do a study on how many head of livestock haven’t been “lost” (due to other predators – coyotes being the #1 killer) because ranchers now have to be a little more pro active about protecting their product.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        I liked the comment:
        “It was a difficult summer for ranchers in wolf country. At least 33 sheep were killed or injured and a cow and calf were killed.”

        I am not certain but it seems that a couple dozen of those sheep were owned by a person that had not used deterrent methods until after the first killing episode. Too little, too late?

        I wonder how many cows and calves died of natural or other causes during that time in Stevens county.

        • Louise Kane says:

          think also that killing the wedge pack costs something like 50,000+
          even if you had to reimburse all those sheep bet you could do it for a lot less than 50K! and still provide partial funding for a range rider

          for the record don’t think those losses in this case should be compensated or in most

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Wow! 🙂

      • Cody Coyote says:

        Interesting typo in the link…32 million ,instead of the actual 3 point 2 million.

        By comparison , 132 million (!) visited the Disney US amusement parks and resorts ; 26 million went to Six Flags ; 36 million to Universal Studios ; 23 million to Sea Worlds.

        Those numbers you can go to the bank with….

  34. Louise Kane says:

    In the line of, Did he really say this

    From Mitch Friedman of Conservation Northwest

    “If a pack started eating Dawson’s cattle, I’d say, kill those buggers,” Friedman, the environmentalist, said. “We know sometimes wolves have to go.

    I noticed CN removed the ability to comment on Facebook after they supported the Wedge Pack killings last year. With friends like these….

    • Nancy says:

      “The rancher is running a private business,” she said. “He needs to have the latitude to run his business any way he thinks is best.”

      “HE needs to have the latitude to run HIS business, any way HE thinks is best”


    • Gary Humbard says:

      Louise, do you not agree there are times that wolves should be killed to prevent future livestock killings?

      Its easy to say that wolves should never be killed but reality on the ground was the rancher did numerous preventive measures (immediately removing carcasses, employed range riders, guard dogs) and still lost 38 sheep. Some say he should know the risks of grazing sheep near wolf packs, only he was not given this information until the depradations started to occur and then moved his sheep soon after.

      I highly applaud the WDFW for their restraint in not killing more than one wolf for the loss of more than 38 sheep. They certainly could have killed more than the alpha female. IMO as a wolf advocate, a “no-kill” policy is a no-progress policy. This is a case where one wolf was lost for the saving of many.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Sometime, somewhere in the past I read that the Huckleberry pack was a known entity. The question that arises is why move a flock of sheep into a known wolf pack territory? I also believe there was a reason for the move into said plot of land, with no hidden agenda. In retrospect, the incident could have been avoided.

        • Louise Kane says:

          yes incident could have been avoided and they shot the alpha female who was a distinctive color.

        • bret says:


          The Huckleberry pack was a known entity, part of the problem was that the Spokane Tribe had collared the pack on the Reservation. The herder or the WDFW did not have location data and the pack was farther North than expected.
          Recently a letter was sent to Governor Inslee to restrict sharing of collar data… stay tuned

      • Louise Kane says:

        Gary to answer your question
        1) I do not believe that wolves should ever be killed on public lands to compensate for livestock losses.
        2) I think the intent of the ESA was abrogated when the USFWS used a 10J exemption for and also called them an non essential experimental population thus allowing them to be killed for livestock losses or for economic reasons.
        3) I think the recovery plan is bogus and outdated and was a compromise that did not reflect the way that other species were treated under the ESA.
        4) I don’t believe that wolves should ever be delisted until the biggest threat to them is addressed, human intolerance. The recovery plan should have addressed intolerance and that this could have been done by mandating education programs in the states that are hostile to wolves. Predator education could be based on biodiversity and healthy ecosystem principles that these state wildlife agencies seem to ignore.
        5) the “kill em all” predator management style in the US is the problem not the predators. Killing predators is wasteful, and random killing of wolves feels punitive to me rather than a solution that might deter wolves in the future or provide a security level for ranchers to protect their livestock. The wedge pack cost 50K plus to kill, as I wrote before that action was not economically or biologically defensive. It was punitive and did more to satisfy the rancher’s desire for revenge than solve any long term issues related to wolf predation. Some ranchers have a mob mentality when it comes to predators. The few that don’t seem to be the exception to the rule. I’d like to see laws and regs that turn that around making it derigueur for ranchers and farmers to automatically think deterrence instead of elimination when it comes to predators.
        6) I think some livestock conflicts with natural predators are inevitable but I also think its a cost of doing business that should be factored in.
        7) I do not believe that random killing of individual wolves through hunting, trapping, snaring or aerial gunning ever solves potential or real livestock conflict problem.
        8) I believe a top down reversal of wolf and predator policy is necessary as a starting point to a solution. Washington looked like it was headed in the right direction but capitulated in the Wedge Pack fiasco even despite a huge amount of public resistance to the killings. There is too much willingness and a great deal of referral to ranching and farming interests. I find it disturbing that the livestock industry has so much power over wildlife agencies when livestock is a private crop benefitting private individuals and wildlife is a publicly owned resource. Wild predators have little or no protection from hunters, wildlife extermination agencies and or the farming and livestock industries and the pressure they and their lobbies put on local, state and federal agencies to over react to real or perceived threats from predators.

        There is an endless cycle of killing predators globally to benefit ranching and farming. Its becoming more obvious daily how biologically destructive these policies are.

        You wrote,
        “IMO as a wolf advocate, a “no-kill” policy is a no-progress policy.” IMHO, as a wolf advocate, when wildlife agencies spend insane amounts of money to kill wolves instead of using that money to develop and implement defensible coexistence non lethal strategies than I think that’s a no progress situation.

        FWIW – the ranchers complaining about the Huckleberry Pack refused a range rider. There are more politics here than meet the eye.

        • Ed Loosli says:

          Louise: Further to your excellent suggestions, I think the pending de-listing of gray wolves in the entire Untied States is so premature, that it would be in severe violation of the Endangered Species Act. Utah, Colorado, California and other states have excellent historic wolf habitat that must be filled before even considering the de-listing of wolves from the Endangered Species Act. I am afraid that once again it will be the wildlife lawyers that will have to save the day rather than the USF&WS, which continues to show its unsavory allegiance to the cattle, logging, energy industries instead of our wildlife.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Jeff E.

      These stories always make me hopeful. I love the resilience of the wolves.

      • JEFF E says:

        this guy travelled ~900 mi as the crow flies, probably twice that in realty, over a way more inhospitable landscape than OR-7 even thought of and this web site gives it a “yawn”

      • Jeff N. says:

        I also recall a few years ago a pilot claims to have seen 4-5 wolves(?) just across the Wyoming border in Utah, I believe near Flaming Gorge. There was discussion about this here on the Wildlife News. Also recall that Yellowstone wolf “Limpy” was with another wolf when it was caught in a coyote trap in Utah.

        Then, as mentioned in the article that Jeff E. posted, there was that group of wolves/wolf like animals viewed from an airplane down near Provo I believe. I wonder whatever became of these alleged wolves and the group that was seen near the border of UT/WY.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        So do I! 🙂

    • Amre says:

      I wonder why this 850 mile journey (likely much more on the ground) hasn’t been reported in the media besides this 1 article yet when 0r7 go’s about 200 miles from NE oregon to Sw oregon he becomes an international superstar.

      The dispersal of this Idaho wolf to Utah destroys the “nonnative” wolf myth.

  35. Gary Humbard says:

    Fence removal and the return of wolves is helping pronghorn antelope in and near Yellowstone NP.

    Next Thursday is the deadline for comments on Salmon ID killing contest so if you want your voice heard, now is the time. Story is on this website.

  36. Louise Kane says:

    “The Utah Legislature told wildlife managers in 2010 to prevent any packs of wolves from establishing within the northern corner of Utah — the area north of Interstate 80 where wolves are delisted, or not protected. Under that law, the state wildlife agency must ask the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove wolves from Utah where they fall under the Endangered Species Act.”

    How sad and ignorant

  37. timz says:

    oops, hawk takes out drone

    • timz says:

    • Nancy says:

      This video brought back “fond” memories Timz of the hawk that whacked me on the head this past summer when I tried to come to the aid of its injured fledgling on the side of a busy road.

      Fortunately it was just a warning whack, not much blood 🙂

  38. Nancy says:

    Hope everyone had a chance to check this out on the WWP website:

    The destruction of wild lands for the sake of a burger or steak. Sad.

  39. Yvette says:

    This is an informative blog post from Patricia Randolph. Wyoming and Idaho aren’t the only states that are showing an inability to manage wolves in good faith and based on science. What is happening to wolves in WI is unconscionable. WI doesn’t even have the ranching and public lands issues that are present in the West. This is about pure hatred. It is the same old crap that has always been present when it comes to predators, especially wolves, in this country.

    It is becoming obvious that states have an inability to manage wolves in good faith and based on science. What we have are states returning to the era of total eradication, but with a new twist, the pretension that they are managing wolves based on a healthy population of wolves and breeding pairs. It is a farce in the case of WI, ID, and WY. 500 years of shoot, shovel and shut-up. Extraordinarily infuriating.

    • rork says:
      has some stuff about that, but they are as bad at providing real links as Randolph (which is infuriating). Summary is that WI has reduced death goals, and is not running out of wolves, though they have been reduced. I admit it seems like they are searching for just how many wolves can be killed without creating a shortage. Bear-hound deaths seem the like the more volatile issue from my futile searches today, and apparently I am supposed to feel pity for the human owners (and I do, but not for the reasons they’d expect).

      • Yvette says:

        Thanks for the additional information, rork. What is your opinion of the situation? You’re in that general vicinity and likely understand what is going on.

        • rork says:

          I’m not so expert, but WI seems to pander to deer hunters lately on several fronts. There’s been new public input on deer density goals recently. Like MI, there’s land there owned for almost no other reason than to hunt deer, and hunters spend zillions. I’m a bit surprised at their rules about trapping and hounds, and wonder if that’s partly being in a republican grip, like we are in MI. I know it seems crazy that these things should be partisan in Great Lakes (ranchers? what’s a rancher?), but it is.

    • Yvette says:

      Nancy, LCC’s were formed a few years back and they are a cooperative between USFWS, USGS, and other federal agencies, tribes, universities states.

      The approach is conservation based on large ecosystems rather than state boundaries. I believe, they have also used the LCC to address climate change on ecosystems and having the LCC didn’t attract as much negative attention as outright saying, “we’re going to work on how CC is affecting our plants and animals.”

      USFWS and USGS are the two main agencies I’ve seen working on the plans and projects. You can get much more information here:

      and this little blog piece is informative.

      The LCC approach is a much better way to handle our conservation than by state boundaries, in mu opinion.

  40. Yvette says:

    This is an interesting article, but it’s sad and unfortunate. Quite a few years back, I remember seeing a program about polar bears that migrated through an Alaskan town. I think it was a different situation than the one presented here.

    I think we’re getting a glimpse of our future. Different regions will be affected in different ways, but we humans are connected to our lands and wildlife. I think it will become increasingly evident, but that is only my opinion. The Landscape Conservation Cooperatives mentioned above is a move in the right direction. I think we may not be too far off when managing wildlife and habitats by state boundaries will not be feasible or the most economical.

    If not us, then our children and grandchildren are in for major changes.

  41. Nancy says:

    “A state advisory committee has agreed that bison should be managed as wildlife in Montana but not allowed to roam freely”

  42. Nancy says:

    Some facts about wolf “harvest’ numbers in Idaho to date (which haven’t been updated in over a week)

    Confusing given the over all limit of “harvest” and where wolves are being “harvested” But surely, the boys, who keep track of the “boys with toys” (guns) are keeping a close watch on the figures, right?

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Nancy: Yes, these “harvest” figures from Idaho are confusing to say the least. From these charts it looks like “harvest limits” are only enforced in limited areas in Idaho, which means that there is no overall wolf “harvest” limit for the State of Idaho as a whole. For Example: In the 2013-2014 season just passed, the specific area “harvest limit” (both hunting and trapping) was 185 — and yet, when the season was over, 302 wolves were killed in Idaho by hunting and trapping (er, “harvested”). I see no upper limit to the number of wolves that can be killed in the State of Idaho. Am I wrong??

      • Nancy says:

        No Ed. I’m also trying to understand (in the PDF files on wolf hunting regs) why a nonresident can slap a deer or elk tag on a black bear, mountain lion or gray wolf.

        • Ed Loosli says:

          Ralph Maughan: Since you are from Idaho and exceedingly knowledgeable, if possible, can you try and clear up the Idaho wolf “harvest” limits or no limits questions from Nancy and myself??

  43. Immer Treue says:

    Here’s one to think about. You know that the usual suspects continually harp: not the same wolf that was here before; there was an indigenous remnant population of wolves that was recovering and the invasive Canadian wolves wiped them out; and the ubiquitous E granulosis spread by the reintroduced wolves…

    All wildlife have endo an ecto parasites. The reintroduced wolves were vetted. What about the supposed remnant indigenous wolves, if indeed they ever existed. Endoparasites such as tapeworm had to have existed in these spectral wolves. The entire tapeworm/E granulosis brought in by the “Canadian” wolves becomes a wash.

    Or perhaps the ghostly indigenous remnant population was a subspecies that evolved to be parasite free, along with all the other “characteristics” the dreskers like to imagine.

  44. Louise Kane says:

    November vote coming up in Michigan that would allow wolf hunt by referendum. An ad by Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, please forward

  45. Peter Kiermeir says:

    This is from a website calling itself
    The subheader claims:
    “….because without America there is no Free World”
    Read what a “Free World” has in store for wolves:
    Part 1: Mexican wolves can devastate a ranch economically in ways not readily apparent or understood by the public
    The Making of a Mexico-to-Canada Wolf Corridor

    And this is only part one! More BS to follow……

  46. Helen McGinnis says:

    High Country News–Has the Obama administration hobbled the Endangered Species Act?
    A new policy may set the law back half a century.

  47. Kathleen says:

    Farmer being investigated for shooting gray wolf in Whitman County (eastern WA near Pullman)

    “They determined that the wolf had been shot by a farmer who had pursued the animal for several miles in his vehicle after seeing it near his farm…”

  48. Ed Loosli says:

    Failure of Feds to Protect Wolverines Prompts Lawsuit

    • skyrim says:

      Besides Earth Justice, who are the other groups involved in this action? Does anyone have this info?
      Thanks in advance. ^..^

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Skyrim: EarthJustice was the lead attorney for the eight wildlife groups suing the feds on behalf of the wolverine: CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY;

  49. Kathleen says:

    “Take bushmeat off the menu before humans are served another ebola”
    Author is Professor of Wildlife Conservation at the University of Salford

  50. Louise Kane says:

    Dear Wolf Advocate:
    Did you know that this week is Wolf Awareness Week (October 12-18)? Join us in starting and sharing conversations about wolves.

    Make plans to stand with us on November 8th in protest on opening day of Minnesota’s dreaded wolf hunt:
    What: Howling For Wolves Rally Against the Wolf Hunt
    Where: Minnesota Capitol, Upper Mall area (outside)
    Date: Saturday, November 8th
    Time: 12pm – 2pm

    Show the public and the media that the vast majority of Minnesotans celebrate wolves living wild and free and do not want them killed. Show them that we deeply oppose senseless killing of wolves and especially wolf killing for sport or recreation. Thrill kills are perverse, and it is nothing but shameful to call the wolf hunt a “sport hunt.”

    On November 8, we will also actively release our new #LiveAndLetHowl campaign. We will tell the media that living wolves and their howls are to be celebrated and protected; not endangered.
    Join us, stand with us, and stand for the wolf.
    This is also the perfect opportunity to remind all the newly elected politicians that Howling For Wolves is here, and we want them to protect our wolves for future generations.

    Dr. Maureen Hackett, Founder of Howling For Wolves
    – #LiveAndLetHowl –

  51. Louise Kane says:

    OLYMPIA – The public will have an opportunity to discuss wolf management with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) leaders during a meeting Tuesday, Oct. 14, in Lynnwood.

    The meeting will take place from 6 to 9 p.m. in Room 1EF of the Lynnwood Convention Center, 3711 196th St. SW, Lynnwood.

  52. Ida Lupines says:

    On Wednesday she is expected to join Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe to view sagebrush conservation efforts on a ranch near Pinedale. While there she will sign nine sage-grouse protection plans in an effort to highlight private and public conservation partnerships.

    With the fate of the sage grouse in the hands of this crew, I hope it doesn’t mean ‘bye-bye birdies’. Compromising our wildlife with those who have their own agendas hasn’t proven to be a good thing – at least is hasn’t been for wolves, bison, and grizzlies. Will we ever learn?


  53. Nancy says:

    Yet another example of wildlife expressing grief over the loss of a family member?

    • Nancy says:

      An act of nature, tree falling during an earthquake, trapping and killing an animal, sad but intentionally laying traps to kill an animal for its fur, for profit? Sick.

      • Louise Kane says:

        +1! sick is right Just because we don’t speak the same language of other species we are ignorant not to appreciate the signs that indicate sentience, sociality and bonding. When it comes to wolves and coyotes where humans document close bonds between them through careful research and long term studies (no less) that make up their family structure it is even more criminal to allow them to be trophy hunted. What kind of people create laws that allow beings with such developed and obvious family bonds to be torn apart so that trophy hunters can shoot, trap, or snare them for sport. It makes me enraged.

    • Yvette says:

      Oh yes, many species of non-human animals know, feel and understand much more than humans give them credit. It is not anthropomorphism.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      It makes the human infliction of pain and suffering on them all that much more horrible to contemplate. And all because we put ourselves and our needs first, and they cannot speak or fight us. 🙁

  54. Ida Lupines says:

    You know, it’s pretty sad that what is considered the more important goal (and by the Federal gov’t too) is to keep wildlife off the Endangered Species List instead of the actual protection of the animal:

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Once these documents are signed (‘with assurances’ that the birds or other wildlife will not be listed), who’s to say that ranchers, energy developers, will keep their end of the bargain? How will it be enforced?

      I hope they don’t come up with a ‘management plan’ like they did for wolves. We know that they plan to kill off ravens and hack down junipers.

  55. Ed Loosli says:

    Ida: I totally sympathize with your frustration with the way the current Federal Government looks at the Endangered Species Act. Sally Jewell (Interior Sec.) and Dan Ashe (Direct USFWS) are spending their time either trying to prematurely take rare species off the Endangered Species list, like the wolf and the grizzly bear, or they are trying to keep rare species off the list, like the sage grouse, wolverine and lynx. With each species these officials should be asking; “Will this species be better off or worse off being under the protection of the Endangered Species Act? Unfortunately, I believe that the way they are actually looking at rare species, is to ask themselves: “Will energy companies, commercial fishing companies, ranchers and logging companies be better off or worse off if this species is listed?” The BLM, Forest Service and Interior are not looking at preservation from the point of view of the animal involved, which is tragic — and illegal.

    • Nancy says:

      + 1 Ed.

    • TC says:

      I would hesitate to call greater sage-grouse a “rare” species, and I certainly would not put them in the same category as wolverines or lynx. They are a species of concern, an indicator species no less, in the throes of a long-term nearly range-wide decline. But rare? Not yet. They’re still a common site and no challenge to find on a lot of range in Wyoming. There is some hope still.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        TC: Sage grouse are rare when compared to their once former huge numbers and the fact is, they are in serious decline. Even the head BLM scientist says the sage grouse is in big trouble, which is the same reason many other scientists want them protected under the Endangered Species Act.

        • TC says:

          Ed – I’ve got multiple sage-grouse publications. I work on them many days every month, and deal directly with academic, NGO, state and federal biologists who have them as primary responsibilities. I don’t particularly need a lecture on sage-grouse biology, ecology, or conservation from you. They are not rare. Multiple populations are showing early signs of stabilization and more than few lek counts this year were encouraging across multiple states. I’m not arguing that they are not a species of concern, and I made no comment on whether or not they deserve listing. They and their habitat represent a significant conservation challenge. Try reading a comment once in a while for what it actually says and stop interpreting what it does not say. Some people here actually know a few things besides you.

          • Ed Loosli says:

            TC: Since you are an expert on the conservation of the sage grouse, please advise me: In you expert opinion from the point of view of the sage grouse as a species, do you think the sage grouse would be better off going forward under the umbrella protections of the Endangered Species Act, or do you think the sage grouse would be worse off as a listed species under the Endangered Species Act??

  56. Nancy says:

    “It also came to light that an EPA official had allowed Dow to edit an agency report on dioxin to remove references to the company’s contamination of waterways in Michigan”

    A little background on this “sterling” company:

  57. Peter Kiermeir says:

    U.S. official tied to jaguar death to remain hidden

    “Six years after Arizona’s only wild jaguar was unlawfully trapped and killed, a judge has ruled that the public does not have a right to know the identity of a federal ¬wildlife official who allegedly covered up evidence during the criminal probe.”

    • Louise Kane says:

      This is a terrible story Peter. The animal was not handled properly, the judge determined that it was not in the best public interest to reveal criminal behavior of the officials and the cover up attempt and the jaguar being snared and dying from the injuries. What an unnecessary tragedy. US wildlife agencies seem to have questionable policies and plenty of employees that think they are above the law.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      The behavior of our government, state and federal, lately isn’t what you’d expect to see in a democracy. I hope the information eventually does come out. Thank goodness for whistleblowers who expose corruption.

  58. Peter Kiermeir says:

    CA (Alberta): An out-of-control herd of more than 8,000 wild elk has overrun its grazing grounds and is now disrupting surrounding cattle farms in southeastern Alberta, prompting calls for a mass cull.

    The elk were introduced at nearby CFB Suffield in 1997 and 1998 to graze on the long grass around the military base, but the original population of about 200 has now grown to number between 8,000 and 10,000.

  59. Jeff N. says:

    Foxes guarding the hen house……?

    • timz says:

      Just a reminder, these two are Obama appointee’s.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Yes timz; President Obama in appointing Ken Salazar, Sally Jewell (Interior Secretaries) and Dan Ashe (Director USFWS) he has shown that he is more interested in the success of the industries of the West (energy, logging, cattle), rather than in wildlife science and the conservation of our natural resources. In some ways Pres. Obama has been worse than Pres. GW Bush Jr, regarding wildlife conservation, which is hard to even imagine that a President could be that bad.

        • Immer Treue says:

          $, economy. Unfortunately, wildlife in itself does not equal big bucks, but the industries that exploit wildlife, in a sense, are another extractive industry,
          In particular with the nascarization of hunting and fishing.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Absolutely stunning. 🙁

    • Ida Lupines says:

      These people are no friends of wildlife. Maybe if Wyoming had done the job right the first time, instead of crafting the plan so that they could legally wipe out wolves in their state, we wouldn’t have to start over again, with comment periods and at great expense. What BS. I’m glad there was someone who wasn’t under the control of special interests for our wolves. Thank you, Judge Jackson, you don’t know how much we thank you!

      • Leslie says:

        Well their response is not unpredictable, since they were the defendants in the suit along with the state of WY.

  60. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Romanian politician calls for the army to help control bear population

    a decision made in late September by the Romanian government to raise the bear hunting quota by the largest margin in recent history. The new quota allows for 550 bears to be killed over the next 12 months, up two-thirds from the 2012 quota.

    At present, hunting is the key method in “controlling” the bear population. It acts both as a lucrative business and, according to hunters, a means of removing specific bears who have been shown to be particularly dangerous to humans and their property.

    “Bears need to be considered in line with other natural disasters, such as floods and forest fires,” Borboly said. “They are out of hand and something needs to be done.”

    Another issue causing conservationists concern is that the bears most feted by hunters are the alpha males, for which foreign hunters often pay up to €10,000 (£8,000) to shoot a single specimen. It is these large males, however, who usually keep populations in check by committing infanticide – the killing of the offspring of other males – in order to be able to mate with their mothers, an evolutionary trick designed to ensure the continuation of individual bears’ genetic codes.

    With the alpha males dwindling in number, the young can proliferate rapidly.

    “These young bears are more adventurous,” explains Domokos. “They are the ones who are more prone to enter towns and so, even though the population could be falling as a whole, we are seeing more and more bears in human habitats. The last few months were particularly disastrous as there was almost none of the bears’ normal food – beach nuts and acorns – available. As a result, in the run up to winter, they are getting desperate.”

    • Nancy says:

      A lot of interesting comments below the article, Mareks.

      More than a few criticizing, more than a few saying “stay out of our business” Kind of like here in the US with wolf management 🙂

      • Mareks Vilkins says:


        “Kind of like here in the US with wolf management”

        the main difference is that this discussion is not about “wolf vs man conflict” but “bear vs man conflicts” which involve human injuries and deaths

        on page 29:

        “The study was conducted in Carpathian Mountains, in the 26 counties, were bear
        exist in Romania. These mountains are 60% covered by forests up to 1600 – 1800m
        high. Above the timber line there are alpine meadows and bushes and at the bottom
        of the mountains crop fields.
        Data were collected about 119 cases of man – bear conflicts, 18 persons were killed
        by bears and 101 injured. From the death accidents, 11 were connected with
        livestock conflicts, in the same period the killing of 3232 sheep, 1003 cows, donkeys
        and horses, 183 pigs and 140 goats was reported to be done by bears. The livestock
        breeders were visited and interviewed about management practices, prevention
        methods used, place and time of the kill and when possible necropsies were
        performed on animals killed by bears. The man – bear conflicts have as the main
        causes the human behaviour and the lack of knowledge about “How to act” when you
        meet a bear. The greatest numbers of conflicts are connected with livestock grazing.
        The alpine meadow management seems to be one of the principal problems in the
        high number of accidents. Due to the overgrazing, the carrying capacity decrease
        and more and more herds are grazing in the forest. These create the conditions for
        bear depredation directly on the herd during the day or on lost animals in the night.
        The shepherd’s try to escape the animals with the help of the guardian dogs and very
        often they succeed. Sometimes the bears respond to these attaches and a great
        number of deaths and injuries result from this confrontation. “

        • Mareks Vilkins says:

          on page 34 :

          4.5. Bears and Humans

          4.5.1. Public Attitudes towards Bears and Bear Management in Romania

          4.5.2. Damage Caused by Bears and Bear Attacks on Humans

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        some interesting info bits:

        FAQ – about Wolves and Bears in Romania

    • Yvette says:

      It is unconscionable that we have not developed and implemented more ecologically balanced methods to handled wildlife.

      What is your opinion of this decision, Mareks? Are there too many bears and are there better ways to handle it if there are?

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        Nancy and Yvette,

        nice short visual summary / introduction to the region with wolf, lynx and grizzly range maps and tables:

        Large carnivores in the Alps and Carpathians


        • Mareks Vilkins says:

          this report (with all it’s photos, maps etc.) is 160 pages long:

          A vision for large carnivores and biodiversity in Eastern Europe

          Safeguarding the Romanian Carpathian
          ecological network

          Professor Michael Soulé from The Wildlands Project is one of the authors; also Ovidiu Ionescu who is in charge of the bear, wolf and lynx survey in Romania.

          “Of the estimated large carnivore populations of entire Europe, Romania accommodates 40% of the wolves (2750 animals), 35% of the brown bears (4350 animals) and 22% of the Eurasian lynx (1800 animals).” ~page 21


          Appendixes on page 105 with the profiles of the wolf, bear and lynx

          • Mareks Vilkins says:


            well, I don’t know about the size of the grizzly population in Romania but I do have some doubts about the claim that they have 8K grizzlies there.
            I wouldn’t be surprised that there are less bears than claimed.

            My position is that either from the money gotten from bear hunt (10K euro for one bear) or European Commission’s funds there should be done proper bear and wolf survey and estimates about carrying capacity and the effect of hunting on the bear population (because Romanian wilderness is of such importance in Europe)

            statistics on the cost to local people & attacks on humans

            All I know is some basic stats like, for example :

            in the 2005/2006 hunting season the hunting bag for the grizzly was 250, wolf – 400, lynx – 150 and wild cat – 500.

            I don’t have statistics about bear attacks on humans.

            In Estonia (17,413 sq mi) there’s ~700 grizzlies, see on page 20:

            “Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine – in Europe”
            December, 2012


            However, we here in Latvia have also doubt about that number 😀

            and encounter with the grizzly is not a joke

            • Mareks Vilkins says:

              Management and Action Plan for the Bear Population in Romania


              on page 5:

              “The distribution area of Brown bear in Romania reaches ~ 69000 sqkm (total area of hunting units), out of which 93% are in the mountains area and 7% are in the hills area and it covers about 70% of the Romanian forested areas”

              On page 9:

              “Taking into account the population size (about 6000 individuals) and the surface of its habitats (about 69 000 sqkm), the bear population should be managed through a plan that is taking into account complex relations between species biology and society developments.

              The plan is based on scientific studies, expert knowledge, long-term game management experience and collaboration between different local, regional and national institutions.”

              • Mareks Vilkins says:

                on page 17:

                “Currently, the Romanian bear population consists of about 6,000 bears, which represents about 35% -40% of the European population west of Russia. This number exceeds the estimated optimum number of bears, which the natural habitat would sustain under natural conditions, minimizing socio-economic impact, estimated to be
                around 4000. This high density of bears is due to abundant food sources provided by humans: in some areas bears congregate to feed on garbage. Also livestock, beehives and fruit plantations are still intensively used as food sources by these animals. (Mertens A, 2000) In addition, in the periods before and during the hunting seasons (April-May; September-November) bears are artificially fed at feeding places in the forest. Especially this, and the fact that they feed on fruits in fruit plantations, probably provides a good food source to fatten for the winter. “

              • Mareks Vilkins says:

                On page 18:

                “The brown bear population in Romania occupies a surface of around 69,000 km2, which represents about 30% of the surface of Romania. This means a density of bears of 0,9bears/10 km2.

                Particularly high densities of bears can be found in autumn in concentration areas, where bears gather in huge numbers to feed on fruit plantations. The two most outstanding cases are: Dealul Negru – Bistriţa, where each year, around 70-75 bears can gather to feed on a fruit plantation of 650 ha and Domneşti – Argeş, where up to 80 bears have been counted entering in the fruit plantation of about 300 ha surface.”

          • Nancy says:

            How would I go about translating these PDF files Mareks?

            • Mareks Vilkins says:


              they all are in English.

              if your question was specifically about:
              “Large carnivores in the Alps and Carpathians: Living with the wildlife”

              then below the brochure’s picture where’s Download attachments – choose the English version

      • Peter Kiermeir says:

        When talking about the bear population in Romania one should not forget that there was a large scale bear breeding programme over long years, for the benefit of the then communist leader Nicolao Ceaucescu.
        He had the goal of being the greatest nimrod of them all. And what could be better for achieving this goal than killing bears – and many of them. Well, the leader is long gone – the bears stayed. This is the reason – combined with the ever present loss of habitat – why Romania today indeed has a somewhat unhealthy overpopulation of bears. Thus reliable numbers cannot be obtained.

  61. Barb Rupers says:

    Transfer of bison from YNP to Port Peck.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Thanks for the support on that other site. Your analysis was spot on, and comments were closed before I could reply to you.

  62. Elk375 says:

    Here is an interesting article with similar comments:

    • Ida Lupines says:

      “Bottom of the barrell” is certainly correct. It doesn’t look like a little bloodshed kept any of them quiet. It looks like they want more – until the wolves are gone, and they can go after elk that will still suffer from human activity. I can’t even follow the conspiracy theories. Whaaaaat? How any of you here can defend this delisting and hunting is beyond me, and you are complicit in it because of it.

      The wolf patrol says one WI zone had gone twice over quota, and the high school graduate/real estate agent running their DNR doesn’t do anything about it.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Elk, I really think you people are living in a time warp/dream world – because hunting is never going to be what is once was due to human overpopulation, encroachment and fragmentation of elk and deer habitat. So you remove all the wolves that you’ve wrongly blamed for killing off elk that they have a right to – what will you do when you find they were not the cause of the (so-called) diminishing elk? I say so-called because the facts just don’t show that elk are less in number, just the opposite.

      One dim-bulb conspiracy theorist in that article you forwarded to us claims that the F&W departments ‘pad’ the numbers of ungulates, and the media hushes it up. Another one requested that poor, outnumbered stalwart knight Bob Ferris of Cascadia Wildlands, who is valiantly trying to deflect this crap, comments be deleted.

      Our administration in Washington’s ivory towers doesn’t want to admit people like this exist. But then again, MT does have a hospital prepared for Ebola, one of the few places that does. Perhaps the survivalists and conspiracy theorists are onto something?

      All of you who think making nice is the way to go, it doesn’t seem to be working well, does it. It’s an epic fail.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Ida: It is unfortunate that the anti-wolf article linked to us by Elk, that was written in 2011 by Guy Eastman has come true. Eastman called for wolves to be “managed” (killed) back to very low levels and that has happened. Wolves are now in such free fall, that it is my opinion that the they should once again be placed on the Endangered Species List. Regarding funding state wildlife agencies that Eastman was concerned about: Because using the best science, wildlife predators like wolves, grizzly bears, bob-cats, coyotes should be taking over much of the human hunter’s roll, state’s must change by funding their wildlife agencies from their general-funds, not from hunting/trapping licenses.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          It could have been written yesterday. Scary! 🙁 But these people need to realize that their era has come and gone. Hunting will never be what it once was, and less and less people will want to do it, the more disconnected they become with wilderness, and leave wilderness to its own, without interference.

          Someone asked what Wyoming needs to do – well, the judge said in order to keep the minimum number they keep harping on, there needs to be a buffer number in place, so that the population doesn’t go below the minimum.

          Will Wyoming commit to an actual number in black and white, that they can be held to? They haven’t been able to for many years, and their management plan was so harsh that it was never approved, (and without a backroom deal with Salazar, it still never would have been), and they didn’t in the quickly thrown-together, Hail Mary addendum at the last minute (seemed to speak volumes). So sit back and relax – this could take years.

          • Leslie says:

            Ida, can you provide a link where the judge actually says she wanted a buffer zone. Never have seen that.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              Not a zone, but a number over and above the minimum – so that it won’t fall below due to hunting and poaching. That was my understanding of it. I can’t seem to download the legal documents, but here is what WM summed up about it: (I hope he doesn’t mind my reposting it)


              I finally had an opportunity to read the ruling in this case. This is a temporary win for wolf advocates, as the basis upon which Judge Burman made her determination that the delisting rule was not adequate is actually very narrow, and a pretty easy fix for WY. Expect a new delisting rule that satisfies the judge’s concern to be in the works within just a few months. It has to do with the need for an adequate and ENFORCEABLE NUMERIC or PERCENTAGE buffer above the 100 wolves/10 breeding pairs for WY. Recall that both ID and MT have an obligation of 150/15 which includes their numeric buffer. The judge will not disturb the genetic connectivity issue raised by plaintiffs, nor will it address the “significant portion of range” issue (or the predator zone where wolves could be killed at will once delisted as long as the overall agreed number plus buffer is met for the state as a whole).

              So, in the end, this will be a quick regulatory/legislative fix for WY, a round of draft regulations and a final delisting rule to correct this technical deficiency. My guess is there will be a wolf hunting season in WY by this time next year, and we know WY will be managing for its minimum number, whatever that turns out to be, and it would seem they can keep them confined to whatever portion of the state they want, as long as they meet the minimum number and there continues to be genetic connectivity.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I don’t know (or at least I hope) that it won’t be such an easy fix as WM thinks it will be. There’s a reason they haven’t done it?

        • Nancy says:

          Counter it with an article like this Ed:

          Could it be possible (and the numbers seem to indicate that) humans are trending towards watching/enjoying wildlife, instead of killing them?

          • Ed Loosli says:

            Yes Nancy, I agree that there is a welcome long term, on-going decline in the number of hunters in the United States. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean that less wildlife is getting killed, and that is because of the way state’s wildlife agencies are funded mainly with hunting/trapping & fishing licenses. Until non-hunters dominate the funding of state agencies, hunter/trappers will dominate and they want to be the “managers” (killers) of wildlife – and not leave the balancing up to wildlife predators.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Probably more a result of electronic gadgetry and creature comforts. Baby Boomers were the last great impulse to carry on traditions of hunting, fishing, and camping. They did not have to be “recruited”. Though folks will do all of the above into the future, the numbers/ percentages are dropping.

            It’s easier to observe, and in that, there is no harm.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Hunters like this are as rare as hen’s teeth now. Where there’s no necessity in modern times, all that’s left is the killing.

  63. Ida Lupines says:

    Here is the latest report from the Wolf Patrol: Lies about wanting non-consumptive users to contribute have been exposed (we tried; they won’t let us) and now the complete disregard for life and law is out in the open now too:

    In just five short days, 60 wolves have been slaughtered statewide, and from what we have witnessed, poaching and illegal hunting and trapping is commonplace. Trap locations are not being monitored every 24 hours as required by law, and are often placed dangerously close to roads and trails where lazy unethical trappers can check on them without leaving their vehicles. After driving and hiking literally hundreds of miles of rural and forest roads filled with hunters, the only place we have seen DNR wardens has been at our base camp watching us.

  64. Ed Loosli says:

    Wow Ida: This report you sent from the Wolf Patrol in Wisconsin is really scary…For those who cavalierly say, “all politicians are alike”, this is an example about how wrong they are. Put it this way, if Democrat Mary Burke were Wisconsin Governor instead of Republican Scott Walker, wildlife conservation would be more balanced and wolves would have a chance. Please VOTE in November.

  65. Louise Kane says:

    I watched a camel being led by the nose over and over to give people rides when it was exhausted at a state fair
    I spoke to the caregivers and they tried to explain away its reluctance to give rides as normal. I remember thinking what a dismal life for that camel. perhaps this one had enough. I’m sure the camel paid for the revolt with its life

  66. Louise Kane says:

    1 less northern white rhino
    6 left

  67. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Businessman-Rancher Preserves Old Florida, Panther Corridor

  68. Immer Treue says:

    Washington Ranchers Question Value of Wolf Study

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Folks should read the linked article. The ranchers do not want objective investigators probing into “wolf killed” livestock. They insist that their mythology must prevail in public discourse because their hatred of wolves is not really based economic loss.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Here is a brief description of some research projects at WSU’s Large Carnivore Research Lab; Carter Niemeyer is involved with some of them.

      • Immer Treue says:


        When one thinks of the money wasted on helicopters and fixed winged aircraft for depredation removal, and if just a fraction of that money was put toward non lethal methods of depredation prevention, and husbandry practices, wolves/predators and livestock problems could very well have been reduced long ago. Death from above only allows new “problems”
        to move in.

    • Amre says:

      When it comes to the wolf debate, there are extremist on both sides, as with many debates. On one hand you have ranching and hunting groups that want every wolf dead, and on the other you have some people who never want a wolf killed for any reason, ever.

  69. Nancy says:

    Interesting comment below the article Immer. Run across Keri’s comments before. A rancher co-existing with predators.

  70. Nancy says:

    Oops sorry – Keli Hendricks.

  71. Ida Lupines says:

    Whatever happened to Mike? I hope he’s ok. SEAKMossback still posts, I believe.

  72. snaildarter says:

    This is really good news for the Florida Panther. Too bad Florida DOT will not build wildlife underpasses between private lands. I wish they’d make an except for lands under conservation easements. The auto is the main enemy of the big cats.

    • Jake Jenson says:

      Toss it on the fire and when the hair burns off its done. Tastes like crab..

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Now don’t anyone take this personally, but I have to say something.

      Isn’t this man worthy of a second chance? His felony is more civil disobedience – not your usual fare of selfish stealing, drug dealing, murderers, arsons, rapists and sex crimes, child molesters and kisnappers, scam artists, and on ad infinitum. In politics too.

      Don’t Liberal Democrats believe in giving felons a second (and a third, and a fourth…..) chance?

      • Elk375 says:

        “In fact, in 1995 he was sentenced to almost five years in federal prison after being found guilty of firebombing Michigan State University and destroying 32 years of research.”

        Ida writes:

        “Isn’t this man worthy of a second chance? His felony is more civil disobedience – not your usual fare of selfish stealing, drug dealing, murderers, ARSONS, rapists and sex crimes, child molesters and kidnappers, scam artists, and on ad infinitum.


        • Ida Lupines says:

          Yes, but my point was in the context of insurance fraud, etc. – selfish, not a form of civil disobedience.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            And no, I don’t advocate it. I see where you are going with this.

            • Elk375 says:

              How about 32 years of research burned up. This forum has people who post and do research, how would one feel if there life’s work burned up in flames.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                It’s happening in Yellowstone Park, it seems.

              • Elk375 says:

                It is happening in Yellowstone Park now? I live 90 miles from Yellowstone National Park and I have not heard of structural fire in the park for years. I have not seen any research burned up. Yes they have shot collared wolves outside of the park but when they leave the park those wolves are no longer Yellowstone’s wolves.

              • Yvette says:

                He served his time and he has said he has regrets about that incident from his youth. Paraphrased, “in the long run it does no good because they rebuild anyway.”

                I’m glad he and his crew are out there. At least we now have witnesses to whether these ‘hunters’ are checking their traps per law (some are not); poaching, setting traps within the 3 foot from the road legal limit (wow, 3 whole feet), and whether they are removing traps when the zone closes.

                “You can run but you cannot hide”….goes both ways.

                He served his time for the arson then served more time for friended an old aquaintance on facebook.

              • timz says:

                I suppose about the same as researchers feel when their collared wolves are shot.

              • Louise Kane says:

                Interesting that many folks here revere Ed Abbey, the author of the essential guide to eco terrorism, the Monkey Wrench Gang yet no love lost for one who actually practiced it and now disavows the violence and destructiveness of his past actions. I’m glad he is out there documenting too.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Yes they have shot collared wolves outside of the park but when they leave the park those wolves are no longer Yellowstone’s wolves.

                I was referring to the shooting of collared wolves destroying research.

                The wolves may have ventured out of Yellowstone, but they are still collared and part of a study, or being monitored. People who shoot these wolves deliberately are willfully destroying research. One year twelve collared wolves were shot, causing the study to be cancelled. There really isn’t much difference. Wolf hunters are making radical political statements.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              He’s owned up to and taken responsibility for what he feels was a bad decision, and he’s adopted a different way now.

    • Yvette says:

      From everything I’ve seen of him he hasn’t tried to hide from his past, nor is he running from his past. What is your point?

      What he and the others are doing is legal. They are adamant that they remain within legal boundaries which is way more than I can say for predator hunters and trappers. Since he and his group have been patrolling in WI they have witnessed multiple trappers that are not following the law. They are not checking their traps every 24 hours, per WI law. I’m surprised to see this post from you. Did I misinterpret your post?

      I’m glad Rod Coronado has the cajones to be out there.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Yes, and he’s been very patient, encouraging, respectful and non-violent out there. And a good attitude during a difficult time.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Or a positive attitude, I should say. I thought maybe I misinterpreted the post also?

          • Ida Lupines says:

            What they have pointed out and is so scary and maddening is how close the traps have been placed to roads, where hikers, dogs, even a child could fall victim to one. Lazy, selfish, and greedy – can you believe five zones are closed in less than a week? Can’t even let other hunters get any, it would appear.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              It looks like they have been breaking the law left, right and center also. What a free-for-all. Checking a trap from your vehicle. *smh*

      • Kathleen says:

        Of course he deserves a 2nd chance. I’m glad he’s out there, too, and simply sharing that link isn’t a condemnation of any sort. It IS an observation of the fact that once one’s personal history includes destructive, illegal activity (firebombing, for example), it *will* be used against you by those who can profit from it and have the means to sway the opinion of others, no matter how much one has changed. What does damage is when they use it to condemn *all* AR activists (certainly part of their agenda). A lesson lies in knowing how rabid killers (e.g., AmmoLand) are portraying a law-abiding activist–going so far as to call the activity hunter harassment when actually it isn’t.

        • Nancy says:

          Always found the word activism interesting – someone or some grass roots groups trying to make things right (often associated with youth and aging hippies 🙂 in a country that seems more and more swayed by power and greed.

          Rod Coronado did do time for his crimes and acknowledges them so pray tell, are there such BIG differences when it comes to crimes? Is there a scale when it comes to “victimless” crimes against society? Whether good or bad?

          Some examples of bad that continue to plague our society:

        • Yvette says:

          I’m glad you clarified! I interpreted your post as being negative about his past as a couple of others on here have done. I knew it didn’t sound like your normal posts.

    • Amre says:

      This is the 21st century and we’re still putting bounties on predators?

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Quote: “When you are dealing with coyotes, it is hard to tell exactly what impact is happening because we do not know their population,” said Leslie McFarlane, mammals program coordinator for Utah DWR.

      In the day and age, when SCIENCE is supposed to lead the way in wildlife conservation, Utah is still taking massive lethal actions against coyotes without having any idea of the number of coyotes they even have in the state.

      I am trying to decide which state is the worst as far as treating predators as part of their natural environment: Is the worst Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, or Wisconsin?? or some other state??

    • rork says:

      “Sustained harvest over multiple years has to have some effect [on mule deer populations].”
      Could be true, but that effect might be very small, so your money could have been better spent on other projects.
      Bounties on pikeminnow in the Columbia probably save many millions of salmon and steelhead smolts, but whether it’s really cost effective compared to liberalizing bass and walleye limits, or running more water, or fighting certain birds, (or removing even one dam) is unknown. In the strict sense it’s not been shown effective at all, since like Utah’s coyotes, there’s no control arm to the experiment. It just “seems like it should help” – like the quote above.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Interesting piece until he got to “…
      when ranchers complain about losing livestock to too many coyotes or cougars, they may actually be pointing out a lack of wolves.”

      This is a leap of faith statement, even with use if the word may, correlation does not necessarily mean cause.

      • Nancy says:

        But fact is Immer, years of studies show that coyotes kill far more livestock (young livestock) than wolves. What I’d like to see is a study on whether coyote depredation on livestock has decreased due to the presence of wolves.

        • Immer Treue says:


          I agree with you on the coyote/livestock issue. The problem is leaping to that “possible” connection that if wolves are around, there may not be coyote problems. There may, however, be wolf problems.

          I just want to say that my advocacy for wolves has not abated, but leaps of unfounded faith about wolves, does not do any favors for wolves. The little short video about wolves changing the course of rivers is another one of these over exaggerations that in the long run may do more to harm wolves than help them.

          • Mark L says:

            I can see your point here, Immer, with the coyote/wolf livestock issue. Assuming coyotes are probably smart enough to know wolves are hunted by humans, they may deliberately den closer to human habitation (and ranches) to deter wolves encroaching on their dens. It would probably be worth the risk to them as they can vary their diet much more than wolves can and still successfully rear young on non-livestock sources.

            • Ed Loosli says:

              MarkL: “…Coyotes may deliberately den closer to human habitation (and ranches) to deter wolves encroaching on their dens.” ????
              As you may or may not know, because of pressure from ranchers, coyotes in most states are considered vermin and are killed continuously. There is an open season on coyotes 24/7 and they are also trapped relentlessly. On behalf of ranchers, The U.S. “Wildlife Services” agency killed over 75,000 coyotes last year – and every year. Except in a few enlightened counties like Marin County, California, ranchers and their hired guns are the major killers of coyotes — not their protectors.

              • Mark L says:

                yes Ed, I’m aware of the 24/7 hunting by humans. However, which is the greater threat to the coyote if both animals are hunting them all the time? To the coyote, wolves are less of a threat during wolf season as they too are hunted, and moreso closer to humans. Human hunting is actually a wash in the coyote’s ‘view’ as we apply a constant rather that a varied pressure on them, overall. The time of day they are hunted by both will eventually make a difference as humans rarely nighthunt for coyotes where wolves are present. Curious if coyotes would eventually wind up more nocturnal where wolves are present.

          • Professor Sweat says:

            Hi Immer (and everyone),

            Long time reader, first time commenter here on TWN.

            Regarding the “Wolves Change Rivers” video you speak of, I can see how the clip makes a complex ecological process sound cut and dry. The claims aren’t unfounded though and I don’t see how the video could do more harm than good. Ever since that video came out, I’ve seen it passed around dozens of times on Facebook and other social media by people I’ve never once had a conversation about wildlife or wolves with.

            The clip does generalize the effect that these predators have on their ecosystem, as the effects have mostly just been documented in Yellowstone and have yet to be proven in other areas where there are different factors in play. However, am I wrong to think that the “WCR” clip is a useful tool to raise awareness and promote dialogue about wolves in a positive way (especially where there is none)? Yes, it is an exaggeration and haters/naysayers will always find an issue to nitpick on this one, but IMO it’s good to know more people are seeing these creatures as an important part of the ecosystem rather than vicious predators.

            When people care, sh*t gets done.

            Sorry for the rant, just wanted to toss my 2 cents out there. I’m big fan of the debates on these comment boards.

            • Ralph Maughan says:

              Professor Sweat,

              My personal view is that outside Yellowstone Park, and similar areas, the effects of livestock are so overwhelming that it is hard to discern the ecological impact of wolves.

            • rork says:

              Sounds like “who cares if it’s true, it serves our purposes” Herr Professor, which carries risk of getting discredited for lying. Then there’s the little trouble about scruples, and whether you have any or not.
              Ralph: Upper MI and Minnesota have areas with few livestock, and just a ways over there, Ontario is not so small. I’ll repeat the local trivia question: how many provinces border the great lakes? 1.

              • Professor Sweat says:

                I can tell you Rorky that I have no qualms in initiating dialogue about wolves and tropic cascades using this example. It may not be as cut-and-dry as the video suggests (bear predation, drought, and hunting have also contributed to lower elk numbers), but wolves are the primary predators of Yellowstone’s Wapiti. The changes to the park have become apparent since the wolves have been reintroduced and it would be a lie to assert that these canids haven’t influenced elk behavior or contributed to this in any way.

                My point is that by demonstrating the positive impacts of wolves as predators in their ecosystem, it helps reverse the centuries-old stigma these creatures endured in the eyes of the uninformed public. And it generates a positive interest to engage others to look further into the issue and make up their mind. No scruples here on trying to promote discussion, son.

              • JB says:

                Seems there are actually three questions here: (1) Has a trophic cascade been initiated in Yellowstone; (2) If so, is it due to wolves; and (3) In any case, could discussing trophic cascades do more harm than good.

                (1) I think the evidence here is generally that PREDATORS are having an effect on elk populations; however, the extent of that effect is hard to determine, probably conditional on multiple other factors, and generally speaking, relatively ‘small’. Note, the example most often given is the ‘effect’ of wolves on Yellowstone’s northern elk herd. However, the leading citation shows that population change in the herd is better explained by human harvest (MT was working to lower the herd size) and climate changes. I would also point out that elk were near an all time high when wolves were reintroduced (regression toward the mean, anyone).

                (2) The trophic cascade hypothesis suggests that ‘top predators’ exert a force on their prey (both directly through predation and indirectly, through changes in behavior); however, ‘top predators’ (cougars, grizzly, and to a lesser extent, black bear) were in Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding area long before wolves. Cougars, in particular, are slightly larger than wolves and both are obligate carnivores. Cougars have also been implicated by Ripple and colleagues in other trophic cascades. So I think the question should be: What’s so special about wolves in Yellowstone? Or put another way, why wasn’t a trophic cascade caused by the presence of grizzly and cougars?

                (3) To wolf enthusiasts and ecological ‘newbs’, trophic cascades sound cool as hell. However, to many human hunters, it sounds like predators ‘stealing’ what I’d like to hunt this fall. To the extent that popular dialogue on trophic cascades inflates the size of the effect of wolves (and other predators) on their prey, such dialogue will make predators seem more risky to hunters, who currently pretty much control F&G agencies.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Dr. Sweat,

              Yes and no with the video. As with all things wolf, much hyperbole exists on the extremes. Pro-wolf folks have been trying to dismiss fairy tales for decades. No sense starting our own. The whole trophic cascade thing was predicted/hoped for… After ~ 70 years of no wolves, Yellowstone changed, as most places do. It’s going to take more than 19 years for real positive change. Perhaps in twenty more years, there will be more data to support such claims. Best to keep things honest, document what has occurred, and continue to build the portfolio.

      • rork says:

        I sometimes catch myself wanting to say wolves may reduce deer less than you might think cause they knock down coyotes, who then kill less deer (or other predator-predator interaction things), but I stop myself, cause I can’t demonstrate that.
        Another one is that deer population control is a benefit of having wolves – can’t demonstrate that where I live either (MI), and other days I’m glad it hasn’t been well-demonstrated cause deer hunters use it as an argument against wolves (not me, mind you). And I’d really like to be able to argue that predators have a goldilocks effect on deer (just the right amount, though perhaps with chaotic waves of high and low density, which themselves may be needed for a full “Gaia effect”), but it’s speculation.
        Ah, Ignorance, my companion, you are nothing like bliss.

        • JB says:


          There is some evidence for this view. You should have access to the following:

          Galle et al. 2009. Trends in Summer Coyote and Wolf Predation on Sheep in
          Idaho During a Period of Wolf Recovery. Proceedings of the 13th WDM Conference, 184-190.

          It details sheep losses to wolves and coyotes over a large portion of the reintroduction period. What they is interesting– wolf depredation of sheep increased pretty much linearly with wolf populations, but coyote depredation decreased relatively dramatically then leveled off. The result: fewer sheep depredations overall. BTW: Make sure and read the last paragraph closely to find a gross error in logic.

          • rork says:

            Thankyou. I’m bummed cause I think my guys in Michigan may not be collecting the data needed to ask the questions properly here, where the opportunity seems great, and ask about deer impact, or at minimum estimate the impacts on coyote density (estimate by yotes trapped per unit effort if nothing better is at hand). Hope I’m wrong and they’re just sitting on it. I see low-hanging fruit everywhere, but maybe with no money, even the low stuff is out of reach. The impact of real data on hunters might prove it’s not simple at least.
            I was aware of a paper or two on just coyote numbers, from Yellowstone, and Isle Royale, but this paper is nice cause it comes after those, and reviews them, so maybe best one-stop reference I know so far (but keep spoon feeding us!). Galle didn’t even ask some of my main questions for such data: how many more or less sheep (as % perhaps) get killed, and not just in summer (somewhat addressed in discussion, where I give credit for mentioning the Idaho ranchers may also have upped their sheep protection game as wolves increase, confounding the issues – but good for the sheep-boys.) I bet every single reader was trying to sum the two curves for sheep killed by coyotes and wolves, and wondering how things went the rest of the year. I did notice that several times “depredation” should have been written “wolf depredation” cause it surely didn’t mean total depredations, and last sentence made several assumptions.

            • JB says:

              My issue was with the 1st sentence of the last paragraph where they assert that increased wolf populations will assuredly lead to more sheep depredations when, in fact, their data show exactly the opposite (there were fewer depredations overall during the time period). Probably not the best review going on in the Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. 😉

  73. Ed Loosli says:

    Nancy: The important point to remember is that, be it wolves or coyotes, based on studies like those at Washington State, other researchers, as well as rancher testimony, livestock/predator conflicts for BOTH predators can be largely eliminated with the pro-active use of non-lethal deterrents, like range riders, shepherds with guard dogs, night fencing, birthing shelters, and fox-lights (called “lion-lights” in Kenya). And also, there is the oh so radical idea of reducing human hunting of ungulates, which would allow wolves and coyotes an increase in their natural food supply.

    • Elk375 says:

      ““With grizzlies and wolves back in the mix, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is one of the few places in the world that has virtually the entire complement of animals that were here prior to European settlement,” he wrote. “This presents us with an historic opportunity to rebalance one of the world’s most important ecosystems with something approaching a natural balance between the species, including humans, all living in a dynamic equilibrium.”

      As long as the Town of Jackson Hole and the surrounding community exist there is never going to be a historic opportunity to rebalance one of the world’s most important ecosystems. The saying about Jackson Hole is that the billionaires have moved out the millionaires.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Elk: And thank goodness some of those Jackson Hole,WY billionaires and remaining millionaires prohibit hunting/trapping on their ranches and are allowing the full compliment of wildlife including wolves, coyotes, grizzly bears and elk to come and go in peace.

  74. Immer Treue says:

    Vucetich to vote no in Michigan.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      What a great video – what’s happened since the delisting is just such a tragic step backward for our country. 🙁

      He’s right about any response to livestock depredation – a generalized hunt is not the answer.

    • Louise Kane says:

      No surprise here with Vucetich one of the few willing to go out on a limb….

      the comments are disturbing as they reflect a level of hateful willful ignorance that is astounding.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Re the comments:

        Yes, what’s with people assuming that because people care about the lives of non-humans, that we don’t care about humans? It’s not one or the other – that problem lies with them, I think.

        “The albino deer, other than their color difference, are in every other way the same as regular colored deer…their health is not compromised by the recessive gene.”

        Why not celebrate nature in all its forms? Why is it up to humans to ‘fix’ things that they think are out of line? It is unethical in the human world, why is it ok to do it to non-humans? If people only knew what they look like when they do these things.

        The thing is, it’s the reflex to kill something that is just so appalling – I don’t know if it is people trying to underscore their misguided right to do this, or if it is just ignorance. It’s a shame that people insist that kids follow this, as if it were a means of survival – but some kids will not, and think for themselves, if it’s any comfort!

        • rork says:

          Search albino deer health and stop cherry picking. Even the article you point to later notes their vision problems.
          I won’t even bother with the last two paragraphs.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Oh my goodness. Such faux outrage. I think you ought not to keep trying to stretch the truth to justify killing.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              I know humans with the condition have health and vision issues – but not sure if deer do. I couldn’t find anything much on it. So ‘killing them to save the herd’ is a stretch. The only problem an albino deer would have is that it wouldn’t be able to escape predators by blending into the surroundings, which deer are amazing at.

          • Yvette says:

            All, another perspective on albino ungulates. (and sacred white bison) Hope all of you will at least consider this perspective in your conversations and decisions. As for the following quote, I don’t know if it is true or not. I’m not familiar with tribal culture in that region. I’d have more confidence in its validity if it came directly from tribal people.

            Native American tribes, although they had cultural differences is many other areas, almost without exception considered the white deer special or sacred. The deer were often called “Ghost Deer” and were a symbol of spirit (or actual spirit) and an omen of good luck. It was considered very bad luck for a hunter to kill a white deer.
            For some interesting stories and legends on white deer in Native American culture, check out the page “Culture and History” (White deer in myth and legend). Although white deer held an exalted status among Native Americans, they have been considerably devalued by those who now see them as merely defective members of the deer herd rather than spiritual messengers.


            Albino moose are sacred to the Mi’kmaq tribe up in Novia Scotia. Some may blow off that concept, but I hope people will attempt to culturally translate the concept. It is of a deeply religious nature and no different than you guy’s Christianity or Judaism. At least the hunters that killed this albino moose did so of ignorance and not maliciousness. They did what they could to make amends. Couldn’t ask for a more respectful response from the hunters following the incident.


            • Ida Lupines says:

              Well, it might have been a better response to have left it alone in the first place. An apology of questionable sincerity once the deed had been done, and meaningless, I had thought when I first read about this. Isn’t anything worthy of respect anymore? Our culture is too ‘self’ directed. There is no restraint on individual behavior. These deer occur so rarely that what harm could there be in leaving them alone, or respecting someone else’s beliefs? It’s a racism that is never addressed in American society, probably because of how our country was founded.

              Whatever range of vision problems an animal may have is no reason to kill it, and I am sure that for this father and son was not the reasoning. Even hunting articles say that it is simply because of the color that hunters want it for a trophy. What a ridiculous statement.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I know we try to accommodate hunters in order to get them to ease up a little – but I don’t have the stomach for it. Sorry.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I think after making the perfunctory apology, they refused to return the head and antlers to the tribe, and kept them as a trophy anwyay. Says it all, I think.

            • rork says:

              “It is of a deeply religious nature and no different than you guy’s Christianity or Judaism.”
              It’s the superstitions-are-all-equal gambit. Maybe religion X says all wolves (or Yazidi) should be killed, and clearly, we should respect their beliefs.

              • Yvette says:

                …..but there is no religion that believes all wolves should be killed.

                Simple respect for another’s belief helps build bonds and helps to break down divisions. One doesn’t have to believe or practice; just respect it and move on.

                But then again, why would I expect an attempt to respect? Lack of it is the history of the formation of this country. Colonialism and totalitarianism with a complete disregard for the Indigenous people who were already here when the Euro-immigrants arrived.

                Rinse, repeat and spread on every last continent. And what a fine mess we’re in today.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I agree, even if you don’t believe in any of those things, can’t you respect someone else’s beliefs?

                I don’t believe that these hunters had never heard of the significance of a white animal. They think they’re pretty special as a human race, don’t they? All you have to do is look at a white deer, buffalo, to know they are something special. And why does killing immediately follow? It’s almost as if we decendants of colonoials can’t give an inch in anyway to native peoples.

                Jim Hnatiuks, who runs a hunting and taxidermy store in Lantz, informed the hunters of their transgression when they brought the carcass into his store. He has also expressed regret on behalf of the hunters, saying that…

                Read more: Nova Scotia’s Sacred Albino Moose Killed by Visiting Hunters | Inhabitat – Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building


              • rork says:

                We have UP people who think all wolves should be killed – I don’t distinguish between if belief is custom or religion or anythingyouwish. Did the Yazidi thing go over your head – I do not respect bad ideas, regardless of origin. Maybe you both respect female genital mutilation if it’s their custom, eh? I have said why protecting mutant ungulates is bad. The folks commenting on one article I saw, more than anything bemoaned the loss of the genes that might have been passed to offspring – I nearly ripped my hair out. I admit that if you’ve got predators that will offset your bias more, you can let the 6-legged deer walk with less concern of the gene getting common.

    • rork says:

      Thanks for link.
      It’s true he might have toned down to human attacks being merely “extremely rare” or such, and I wish he could have squeezed in that the population has not increased lately.

      • Immer Treue says:

        “I wish he could have squeezed in that the population has not increased lately.”


  75. Louise Kane says:–775070621.html?utm_source=ahiaFb

    something different, something rare
    teach your child to kill it
    and with a cross bow so it really hurts

    • rork says:

      You aren’t allowed to use a gun now, and even if you were, it seems like it’s down near me where high-powered rifle is not permitted – bow works about as fast as the guns allowed down here. Check out what broadheads look like – I use devastating ones.

      So, shall we make special laws protecting all genetically defective deer, thereby purposefully selecting for bad genes in the population and creating more disabled deer by breeding, to satisfy the idiosyncratic esthetic tastes of some people who don’t know a nasty disorder when they see one? As I’ve pointed out before, deer with achondroplasia are even more rare – are they even more holy? I’m proud to say we have come up with a very logical answer for that, one that actually considers the welfare of deer. Maybe your ethical stance here is that the enjoyment of ignorant people getting to see hopeful monsters is worth it – like breeding mutant humans to supply a circus freak show.

  76. Louise Kane says:

    Looking for talking points on reasons to vote NO on proposals one and two in MI upcoming vote on whether or not to hunt wolves (a very broad synopsis)you can use these points and video. (Immer posted earlier)
    Thanks Nancy Warren

    This is the text I used:

    Reasons to Vote No on Proposals 1 & 2:

    Proposal 1: Should wolves be a game species?

    Proposal 2: Should the NRC an unelected body be authorized to designate any species, not just the wolf, as game?

    Because the NRC is an administrative body, their decisions cannot be challenged except in court. This takes away our right to vote on wildlife laws.
    NRC commissioners are not scientists and are not required to use scientific data in making their decisions. They have on many occasions (bear baiting, deer hunting) rejected the recommendations of biologists.

    Some say the vote has no significance which is wrong. If either proposal passes, it will become law.


    When the losses of one livestock producer with a history of poor animal husbandry practices (found guilty of neglect last year) was removed from the statistics, there have only been 14-26 livestock (cows, sheep, pig) losses, per year since 2010, in the entire U.P.

    Killing wolves because of fear or hated is not science.

  77. Ida Lupines says:

    Wisconsin Closes Three Wolf Hunting Zones in Animal Protection Effort

    Someone posed the question earlier in one of the threads, which state is the worst for wolves? IMO, Wisconsin takes that dubious honor by a mile. Even Idaho can’t even compare. It’s not bad enough that they have a hunting season, but their shockingly thuggish actions this season fly in the face of their own DNR and rules, taking more, lots more, than the quota. I hope that something is done about it.

    On the plus side, next year’s season may only last a day at this rate.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Pictures of some hunters (trappers?) with their dead wolves. I don’t notice many gloves being worn to prevent infection by Echinococcus granulosus eggs 😉

      • Immer Treue says:

        Bad girl!

        • Barb Rupers says:

          The first time I remember reading one of your comments was regarding Caribou in North Idaho. You had lots of pertinent information and links.

          I commented on the recent caribou picture a few days ago and followed a link you might enjoy. The Spokesman Review has had numerous articles on this topic for several years.

          • Immer Treue says:

            If I remember correctly, if I wrote something about caribou on B cubed, it pertained to a study or two by Heiko Wittmer. One of those correlation/cause conundrums.

            The question put forth was does anthropogenic activity in old growth forests (prime woodland caribou habitat), such as logging, create seral forests conducive to the influx of moose and deer, which in turn brings in more wolves? Caribou become a secondRy prey for wolves, but because there are fewer of them, wolf impact is all the greater.

            I think the verdict was there seemed to be a correlation, but not enough evidence to “support” cause.

            I’ve also put the question out there, in a similar vein, about MN moose. Up when I live, there were few to no deer until the 1850’s. But there were caribou and moose. Logging and mining opened the area to deer. Caribou and for that matter the elk that were up here disappeared. Nothing to do with wolves, but everything to do with over hunting.

            More deer…more wolves, resulting in more pressure on the remaining moose population. I speculate that the deer numbers serve as a buffer for wolves, ie keeps their population “robust” year after year, and thus moose, which have become a secondary source of food, with lower numbers, are that much more impacted by wolves

            Evidence (current) at least seems to support this. Then again, moose are subject to parasites(brain worm and liver flukes) vectored in by deer. Neither has a profound affect on deer, but brain worm is deadly to moose, and a heavy load of liver flukes will quickly make a moose more prone to predation.

            Many questions that require patience, but the local “experts” (sarcasm) pin the moose demise on wolves. I might also add that E. granulosis has been known up here since at least the 1930’s. The moose are still present, and it has nothing to do with the MN DNR hushing the issue, as per a certain website with an astounding discovery of a 1970 report by, of all people, a man who goes by the initials WG.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        You seem to spend a lot of time over there.

    • rork says:

      “Michigan also tried to host a hunting season that would of began earlier this year, but that was stopped due to scientific reports that such hunting would result in too heavy of a decline.”
      Author is mangling UPI’s already-horribly-twisted:
      “Earlier this year, Michigan nixed their plans to host another wolf season after scientists said the state’s wolf numbers were down for the second year in a row.”
      In science this is called “true but irrelevant”: Wolf estimates were very slightly down twice in a row, but that had nothing to do with no wolf season – DNR simply doesn’t have legal ability to host one right now. (Two held up by referendums, 3rd one not yet in force.)
      By next week: scientists panicked to find wolves nearly absent MI.

  78. Yvette says:

    Whatever anyone’s opinion of Rod Coronado and the Wolf Patrol, it looks like he and his group are working intelligently. By that I mean they have witnesses to verify they are staying within the law, and have taken a unique approach to document whether the hunters are working within the law.

    Will it make a difference? Time will tell, but it’s good to see someone take a creative approach to monitor the sportsmanship and ethics of hunters.

  79. Ida Lupines says:

    Bear hounders, being “as territorial as wolves are,” according to one Wisconsin DNR officer, eliminated the entire Ranger Island pack this year, its last wolf found in a trap after season closure. They assert they and their hounds have greater right to public forested lands than wolves do. Wisconsin instituted hound depredations payments in response to hounders’ threats, “If you want wolves in this state, then you better keep those payments comin’.” Only Wisconsin pays for hunting hounds killed or injured by wolves, about $500,000 to date.

    Column: Wisconsin Wolf Cull Puts Gains at Risk

    Wow. Eliminating an entire pack of wolves. Extortion and blackmail. What was that about fenonies again?

    Wolf Hunt Snags Attention

    • Louise Kane says:

      even with new studies showing that hunting does not increase tolerance the DNR still chooses to operate as a hunting club

      “DNR also advocates recreational trophy hunting as a way to promote “social tolerance.” However, in a recent issue of Science, Treves and Jeremy Bruskotter, Ohio State University School of Environment and Natural Resources documented “a decline in tolerance and an increase in intention to poach wolves…following the first-ever regulated wolf harvest in Wisconsin.”

      thanks for that study JB

      • Ida Lupines says:

        “a decline in tolerance and an increase in intention to poach wolves…following the first-ever regulated wolf harvest in Wisconsin.”

        Yes, thank you JB. I wonder what will be done with this information – will they discontinue hunting and only kill wolves for targeted depredation, or will they ignore it and continue on with the same old lies to justify it to the public?

        This outcome has been sad and predictable. So much damage has been done.

  80. Ida Lupines says:

    This kind of thing happens every so often, and you really have to wonder what the motivation is:

    • Yvette says:

      Uggg, I remember when this happened. Didn’t really want the reminder, because these killings were straight up racism. Malicious.

      I liked the reminder of how Natives that were raised traditionally see wildlife (and the natural world) as relations, not resources. That makes a huge difference in approaches to management.

      Lightning Medicine Cloud, a true spiritual blessing was born at the Lakota Ranch on May 12, 2011. He now has joined his earth father and our heavenly father, and Lightning’s mother, Buffalo Woman, also went on to join her son one day after Lightning left the earth.

  81. Immer Treue says:

    Had to drive to Duluth today to get some stuff not available in my neck of the woods. Traveling south on 169, about 20 miles outside of Ely, a wolf trotted out of the woods to my south and was on a diagonal path towards me. I was moving at about 60mph, let up on the gas,and gave the rearview mirror quick glance-clear… So I lightly applied the brakes to give the wolf time to cross safely.

    IF,and that’s a big If, my intentions were otherwise, it would have easily been a late wolf. My point with this lupine auto example is just a while ago, one of the apex rascals of the NRM states made headlines for either: killing wolves on purpose; accidentally killing wolves; or fabricating the whole thing. What was not made up was his bragging. Whether accidental or not, taking glee in killing an animal with your vehicle signals something very, very wrong with said individual.

  82. Barb Rupers says:

    A bit of news from Blaine County, Idaho regarding Wildlife Services, coyotes, and livestock.

    Since depredations by coyotes are not reimbursed, not many of the livestock losses by these animals are investigated; instead many are initiated by reports of livestock being killed by wolves or cougars.

    USDA statistics of numbers of livestock killed by predators are gathered by self reporting producers – they are not verified losses.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Barb Rupers: The article on Blain County, Idaho coyotes & sheep is extremely enlightening. Ranchers like Brian Bean should be applauded and their voices should be allowed to resonate high above the many ignorant voices out there:

      quote – Brian Bean, co-owner of Lava Lake Land & Livestock, which is based at the southern end of the Pioneer Mountains, called coyotes “the number one predator for us”…However, he said, “Lava Lake neither shoots coyotes on its own nor calls in Wildlife Services”.
      “Part of it is philosophical and part is understanding the biological effect,” he said. “The more you shoot or poison or trap or kill them in various ways, the more it creates a pretty big reproductive response. Bean said guard dogs are more effective, and he uses as many as he can. However, he said, he has found that if more than about six dogs are guarding one band of sheep, they tend to start fighting each other.” unquote

  83. Louise Kane says:

    the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission is seeking public input on the new Director position. Click on the link below and you’ll see the link to a survey that provides an opportunity to comment.

    Please share out to your Oregon networks and let’s encourage them to hire a director who will embrace a broader constituency and a more progressive vision for wildlife management. Thanks!

  84. JB says:

    Woman defaces national parks with her “art” in ultimate act of ego masturbation:

    • Nancy says:

      In one article her Uncle said he thought she had talent.

      I’ve seen better artwork in the back of the Rural Montanan magazine, by 10 year olds 🙂

      Other than some hefty fines, she also needs to do some community service like cleaning toilets at JFK for 6 months.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        This is what happens with overly permissive upbringing – kids grow up thinking they are the center of the universe and everything they do is magnificent. And you can’t discipline or shame those delicate psyches, and so kids grow into adults that think they can do whatever they want.

        I hope she gets at least a slap on the wrist and a “now don’t do that again!” She should be made to clean it up everywhere she went – with a toothbrush!

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Something made her think that her <strike<graffitiartwork is better and more important than God’s creation. I’m trying to imagine what that was.

          I think in manmade cityscapes some graffiti is quite beautiful and is modern art, but it is inappropriate in places like national parks and natural landscapes. I’ve even seen initials spraypainted on trees. It’s like kids have become so citified they don’t know the difference between a concrete wall and a saguaro cactus.

      • Yvette says:

        LOL, Nancy.

        Let her come work with me——in July.

    • Louise Kane says:

      wow the ultimate in selfish and ignorant

      • Louise Kane says:

        I get annoyed seeing the interpretative signs, benches, bridges or other items that the park service puts out for humans. I don’t want to see any sign of human presence when out…to use acrylic paint in national parks or wilderness areas is mind blowingly selfish.

    • Professor Sweat says:

      I was really hoping the surface solidification of Superior would have brought new blood to the island this year. At least the last year’s pups are still doing well.

      IRNP is one of those bucket-list trips that has always seemed to elude me and I’ve lived in the Midwest for 24 years.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Great place to go. If possible, after Labor Day as it is cooler and decidedly less “buggy”. Depending upon fitness level, get on the Minong Trail. Might not see anyone for a couple days, but you will see moose and perhaps sign of wolves presence.

        • Professor Sweat says:

          Thanks for the tip Immer, I’ll keep that in mind for when I plan a trip out there. I think I need a few days with less people and more moose. Some wolf sign would just be the cherry on top.

  85. Louise Kane says:

    OK so here is one report completely at odds with claims that “sportsmen” aka fund conservation.

    have a go at it everyone

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Thank you Louise Kane for sending us this terrific link that factually dispels the myth that hunter/trappers/fishermen pay for most of wildlife conservation and management in the United States… I hope this link gets forwarded widely to state and federal government wildlife “managers”, as well as non-profits everywhere.

    • Elk375 says:


      I am getting packed up and to go elk and antelope hunting tomorrow so I have to be short. There is a mistake in Table #2: State Lands 197 Million acres, Land purchased by hunters 4.6% or 7.9 Million acres, Land purchased by non hunting public 187.9 million acres.

      In the west each state was allowed section 16 with the option to get section 36 to support schools. Most western states with the exception of Nevada took both sections. This was not purchased by the non hunting public. This land was either taken from Mexico or part of a settlement with Britain or the Louisiana purchase. The Louisiana purchase was paid for by the American public but at the time of purchase everyone hunted or supported hunting.

      Montana has over 5 million acres of state school trust lands and the MT FWP has purchased over 500,000 acres and has easements on an additional 500,000 acres. I would bet that the above finding could be seriously debated by an opposing view point but the debate would be endless. Most of the MT FWP budget is from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and the excise tax on fishing and hunting gear.

  86. Kathleen says:

    Montana FWP has licensed Fraser bobcat fur farm after receiving approx. 21,182 comments (plus a petition of 900 signatures); of those comments, just 20 supported the proposed fur farm. Comments came from around the world and every state. Wrote FWP, “Fur Farms are a recognized legitimate and licensed business and [sic] Montana.”

    “Legitimate”? Not in any ethical universe. Read the decision here:

    • Elk375 says:


      Is it anybody business that Montana license a fur farm from those around the world or out of state. NO!

      • Louise Kane says:

        I think an important observation is that when people take the time to comment and express their opinions about inhumane practices IMHO and to comment on typical heavy handed “management”, or wildlife killing contests it seems that there are hardly ever any comments in favor and the overwhelming majority of comments are against. Still the agency, institution, state or federal defer to a small minority. 7000 comments in Michigan against a wolf hunt with 13 for and the DNR started trashing comments before anyone knew ho many really came in. 57,000 to BLM against wolf predator derby and looks like they will permit anyhow, close to 1 million against national delisting of wolves. Who do these people work for? It is in fact our business to pay attention when gross inhumane actions take place under our collective noses.

        • Louise Kane says:

          90% of delisting comments against delisting…..

        • Elk375 says:

          It is the State of Montana’s right to license or not license a Bobcat farm under state and federal laws. I do not believe that foreign nationals or out of state residents have any rights to comment on what the State of Montana does or does not do. There are other fur farms license to do business in the state why not a bobcat farm.

          Louise, I think that you would like to get rid of the state legislator and have the US Congress pass all laws in the United States. You do not like the was state like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have so few laws. That is not the way the nation was conceived. The founding fathers in the Bill of rights had the foresight to create the 10th Amendment.

          • W. Hong says:

            I can tell you, being born in China and livings the most of my life there, that a all powerful one government is not very good.

          • Ed Loosli says:

            Elk: Under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, of course, people from other states and around the world have the right to comment on whether Montana approves this bob-cat fur farm. Most of these commenters were hoping that Montana would take the enlightened road here and finally begin to end this cruel and inhumane business of fur-farms. Even though slavery was legal in many countries, some of those countries reversed and took the lead in banning this cruel and inhumane practice and that was the hope in Montana regarding this bob-cat fur-farm. Now it will be up to the people of Montana to take charge and end fur-farming for good — and the rest of the United States and the world will have their back.

            • Elk375 says:

              The 1st Amendment does give everyone around the world the to comment but should the state allow aliens the right set policy, I think not. They have the right to boycott the state but in the summer everything is booked up so either most do not care or it is off radar.

      • Kathleen says:

        “Is it anybody business that Montana license a fur farm from those around the world or out of state. NO!”

        It may not be their business, but they were moved to speak and had the right to speak on a public document made available specifically for comment. Obviously, FWP has no obligation to take their opinions into account. I would wager, however, that FWP got a much greater number of comments from Montanans opposed to the fur farm than the 20 it received in favor. But of course, this isn’t a democratic process, and neither does FWP have to take into account the MT citizens who consider fur farming abhorrent, immoral, and a stain on the state. All they need to do is sit back and say “it’s a legitimate form of agriculture.”

        So let’s look at it this way. Was it the northern abolitionists’ “business” to speak against slavery in the South? I guess you would say NO!

        • Yvette says:

          +1 Kathleen.

          • Yvette says:

            I doubt this bobcat fur “farm” will be open for long. This couple’s lives are getting ready to be hell. Yes, I know they were in operation in the ND.

            There is a big bobcat farm in Montana, The Frazer farm, I believe. Not sure how many more, but fur farms will become a thing of the past.

        • JB says:

          Actually, both the ‘it should be legal because we’ve always done it’ and the ‘it should be illegal because the majority oppose it’ arguments employ logical fallacies (not that MT FWP would recognize a fallacious argument from a sound one). Wouldn’t it make more sense to start by asking: Should we be farming the fur of sentient animals in an era when there is no need?

          • Yvette says:

            If anyone wants to stop the fur farms and trapping stop the market for the fur.

            Make pariahs out of the Kim Kardashion and Patty LaBelle types.

            Look at the tactics of the ‘pro-lifers’ and how they operated at abortion clinics. It has taken decades but their movement has slowly chipped away at Roe vs. Wade. I’m not talking about the ideology, but the tactics that the pro-lifers have used.

          • Professor Sweat says:

            That is an excellent point JB, as acknowledging sentience it also initiates the broader discussion of “non-human people” and where other animals lie in that spectrum. Most of us already consider whales, great apes, elephants, etc. to fall in this category. IMO I think that the number of species under this umbrella is going to greatly increase over time. Given how strongly humans seem to identify with cats, be it a tabby or tiger, I can see a near future that affords more respect to these creatures than the physical and “fashionable” applications that some still still seem to only care about.

          • Louise Kane says:

            good point JB
            you open a can of worms with that assertion
            That question also applies to public hunting of wolves and coyotes and other predators IMHO

            To digress
            I am irked greatly when states have an obligation to solicit comments when they propose or promulgate new regs or review permits (in some cases) and then ignore the comments.

            Elk to address your comment about the 10th amendment and states rights. I guess I see wildlife as a national resource that is being abused. Much like the clean air and water acts were needed to protect water and air that all of us use. I think a national scheme is needed to guarantee biodiversity, to address inhumane and ecologically defective practices like penning, hounding, trapping, snaring, aerial gunning etc. I do see terrible problems with state by state wildlife management
            1) little or no consideration of wildlife populations as a whole especially species that migrate great distances
            2) I think predators need to be managed differently than “game” animals and that consideration needs to be given to their sociality and pack structure (for wolves and coyotes) and their territoriality
            3) not enough refuges from hunting for all species in states where hunting culture predominates state policy even when that culture is a minority
            4) killing contests, trapping and snaring are indefensible not to mention the abomination called penning
            5) hounding – wildlife agencies and state and federal governments spend millions on eradication programs designed to eliminate non native species. Yet letting loose thousands of hounds during hunting and training seasons is ok? Talk about illogical
            6) Baiting and calling, same as above. YOu’ll be fined for feeding wildlife yet baiting bears and other wild animals to shoot them is fine under some state laws.
            I think wildlife management concerns all Americans, wildlife do not respect borders, they are a public trust asset and the states do not seem to look at managing wildlife from an ecosystem wide perspective.

            The US is fortunate to have so many wide and varied ecosystems yet we do a dismal job at managing them for optimal health and diversity never mind the issue of addressing the widespread cruel and inhumane practices that vary in intensity from state to state.

            anyhow I’d not mind one bit if the larger body of Americans had something to say about, let’s just use as an example…wolverines.

            How much support do you think trapping in Montana with a population of 30 would get? How many Americans would support the wolf derby in Idaho, or trapping, snaring and aerial gunning of wolves in the states where they are delisted?

            Federal legislation could presumably address wildlife management better by setting national standards like for air and water and creating a system of review like NEPA. it might take some time but I don’t think the states are handling wildlife well except to treat them as game farms for hunters and trappers.

            Times have shifted and there are millions more like me that would like to see more responsible, humane, ecologically defensible practices in place for wildlife. We might like to actually see wild animals in places where they are not hunted.

            Did anyone read Don Molde’s paper I posted yesterday on funding of conservation? This paper was a good overview contrasted with the claims of most hunters that they are the heavy funders of conservation and wildlife.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              We do have the right to comment, and while I also believe that wildlife belong only to themselves, the ‘non-consumptive users’ (God, how I hate these clinical terms)also should have some say/right in their ‘management’ (I’m getting close to nausea now).

              These animals migrate, and are not in one place or state. It’s preposterous to call them ‘our’ wolves, and ‘our’ elk and ‘our’ bison.

              And yes, please do send some to the Northeast, we’d love to have them in our backyard, but ‘they’ won’t let us. The won’t even relocate the bison to other areas!

            • Nancy says:

              “But noise and dust from activity associated with oil drilling is causing the bobcats to kill their babies, which is prompting the move to new location, he said.

              Arnegard is located within the Bakken oil patch.

              Bobcat fur is sold worldwide and used in trim, hats and coats in cold-weather countries such as Russia, he said.

              “It’s a necessity,” Schultz said in July”

              Repeat –

              Bobcat fur is sold worldwide and used in trim, hats and coats in cold-weather countries such as Russia.

              “It’s a necessity,” Schultz said in July”

              Repeat –

              Bobcat fur is sold worldwide and used in trim, hats and coats in cold-weather countries such as Russia.

              “It’s a necessity,” Schultz said in July”

              Oh and how silly that any of us should think that “bobcats killing their babies” has anything to do with something other than the conditions they live in…….

              Puppy mills come to mind. Another aspect of a “farm raised” animal for the enjoyment of mankind, that draws little oversight from local, state or federal government even though advocates have tried for years to bring this sick industry under control.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Yep. +2

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Comment periods seem to be nothing but pro-forma, and with no intention of taking the comments seriously. Just regulatory compliance.

          • Yvette says:

            +2 back at ya. Ida, you hit the nail on the head with this one.

          • Kathleen says:

            That was particularly true in this case, since Montana code defines fur farming as a form of agriculture. Arguments based on sentience–or cruelty–meant nothing.

            Perhaps what’s needed is a two-pronged effort–one to thwart the market (tho this is much more difficult when the market shifts to China & Russia, as it has recently done) and the other to initiate a fur farming ban at the federal level or, less effectively but perhaps more feasibly, on a state-by-state basis. Where public education is concerned, there’s just no downside to revealing the horrors of fur farming.

            For those who are interested, I’ve linked to an undercover video of anal electrocution of a fox on a fur farm here , one of the lovely methods of “dispatching” sentient nonhumans used by these so-called farmers. It also includes a jaw-dropping quote from the owner of the Fraser fur farm mentioned above by Yvette.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              Just because it has been licensed, does that automatically mean they can open up shop? Maybe the town or county won’t want it, and, like a slaughterhouse, there may have to be environmental review?

              • Elk375 says:

                Not in Montana, not in Lewistown, Montana. We are a land of few laws.

              • Kathleen says:

                Ida…the Environmental Assessment recently commented upon *was* the review. Take a look:

                It assessed potential impacts to the human and physical environment. Agriculture means business, and business means an increased tax base. Rural counties are all for that. From the EA: “This business venture will increase the tax revenue in the county due to new resident and a new agriculture business in the county.”

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I don’t believe it, Kathleen. Something smells a little off about this ‘project’. I still think the place where they plan to do business will still have the final say.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                The ‘environmental assessment’ isn’t much of one. These types of businesses are subject to agricultural inspections I would imagine.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I guess one thing that strikes me as odd right from the get-go is that if it is a farm and the animals are bred and raised in captivity and not wildlife, doesn’t that fall under the USDA? I don’t see how USF&W has anything to do with it at all, or their cursory environmental review. Unless they are planning on trapping wild animals as well?

                The USDA requires periodic inspections too, announced or unannounced, I do not know. Waste disposal and humane treatment of the animals should be addressed.

                Yes, Montana may be a land of few laws, but thankfully the United States has quite a few.

              • Kathleen says:

                No federal law governs the housing, care, or slaughter of fur farmed animals. Nor does USF&WS have anything to do with it–“FWP” refers to MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks, the state “management” agency that licenses fur farms (along with hunters, trappers, boaters, anglers, etc.).

                Montana is both huge and vastly rural; Roy, MT has a population of 108, and a rural fur farm 6 miles outside of a tiny, unincorporated village could easily be buffered by miles of uninhabited land. The place where they plan to do business is the Fergus County, and that’s probably who wrote the comments in favor of licensing.


            • Ida Lupines says:


              It’s surprising to me that there are such a patchwork of laws that are, in this case, much lacking and neglectful. I do have a difficult time believing and understanding it. We have no concern about keeping animals in this way, and yet if it were ourselves, we could not tolerate it – healthcare workers are complaining now about a simple quarantine in order to protect the public health. Good for NJ, NY and IL for doing the right thing.

              I really beg to differ with this man. Fur is not a necessity. Doesn’t Russia have its own fur industry? I wish in order to make a living we would stop parasitizing animals, and this antiquated activity would become a thing of the past. Many countries have done away with it. We are a backward nation in many ways. What kind of person would choose to inflict pain and suffering on another living being, when there are other ways to make a living? I don’t believe for a minute that the animals reacted as they did to the noise from the Bakken; it is probably the horrific conditions they are subjected to. Gross.

              I would not wear fur if my life depended on it.

              • Yvette says:

                “What kind of person would choose to inflict pain and suffering on another living being, when there are other ways to make a living?”

                ……Lazy, slovenly, greedy, shallow, dark and souless individuals. That is the only kind of person that would do this.

                They know what they are doing and why they are doing it. It’s too bad hell doesn’t exist.

              • Kathleen says:

                Fur farming, factory farming, game farming, animals in entertainment, puppy mills, rodeo, trophy hunting, breeding, etc. etc. etc….the evil offspring of the unholy alliance between speciesism and capitalism.

  87. Ida Lupines says:

    Paradoxically, Isle Royale is a place where we have decided on the position on non-interference, when we’re always sticking our noses where they don’t belong everywhere else. Go figure.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Ida: I agree with your keen comment. In my opinion, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is not intervening to save the Isle Royale wolves because these wolves are going extinct on their own – without hunter’s and the government’s help. Wolf extinction is apparently the current government’s goal, for their non-actions speak much louder than their words.

  88. Immer Treue says:

    Minnesota woman raises sheep in wolf country and finds success.
    Lengthy but fulfilling read. Don’t know if her method is applicable in all locales, but it works among the wolves in MN!

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Immer: Thanks for this inspiring article. I think before any sort of wolf/coyote depredation permits can be issued or Wildlife Services can be called in, ranchers should be required to employ similar non-lethal techniques as Janet McNally so successfully demonstrates in Northern Minnesota. Educating ranchers who are set in their ways is not easy, but success can breed success, with ranchers like Janet McNally showing the way.

    • Louise Kane says:

      great article
      thank you

      was out with my GSD buddy this morning
      a wild beautiful fall day big waves in the bay and the herring river overflowing through the sluiceways on a full tide. Not for the first time this year saw a baby seal in the surf. The water in the bay is typically warmer and does not support seals. I’m wondering what this means to see these animals here after decades without ever seeing a trace of them. I wonder if the great whites common in the Atlantic side will also be following? I wish I knew how to create a link so I could post some of the images of the migrating birds, seals and other wildlife seen here.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Out in the woods, reclining on pillowed basalt, cushioned by reindeer lichen with my GSD beside me with the sun already low in the horizon, as I read your post. Cool how nature comes back if given the chance, and the magnificence of witnessing these mass migrations.

        • Louise Kane says:

          what’s interesting about the seals in the Cape Cod bay is that its very unusual until lately to see them here. The tidal bay when it recedes leaves behind a half a mile of sand bars so the animals must be sure they make it out on the outgoing tide. This and the water is warm here. Usually, I may swim even now. Some years back the seals started coming back in droves into the cold Atlantic/Ocean side and then the Great Whites have been following them. People/fishermen have been bitching about too many seals and now we have a healthy population of Great Whites and there is concern about the predators. You can guess what I want to do about it…leave them alone.
          anyhow sometime perhaps if you ever want to see the beauty of Cape Cod you’ll have a place to stay. And is there any better way to experience a great wild moment than with a GSD friend. I’m working on how to create a link to some images I think you and others might enjoy without all of my FB info being posted. thanks for the happy vision. I love your stories of the wolf sightings!

          • Immer Treue says:

            🙂 und Du auch!

          • Immer Treue says:

            Amazing sitting here in the woods. Sun already down, still. Perhaps the last day of comparable warmth as temps tickled the mid 50’s. Sled dogs 2 miles to the east can be heard, as can ravens coursing about looking for that bonanza of a meal. As harsh as it can be up here, currently it’s magic, the calm prior to Winters cold.

            Interesting with the sled dogs. A few years back, my nephew was up here and the dogs started howling as they grew excited at feeding time. I had to play along that they were wolves… I think they (dogs) fool a lot of people, but once you hear the sound of wolves howling, it is unmistakable.

            Ah well, my old pup has been patient, time for food.

  89. Elk375 says:

    This is an extremely interesting article about elk and how there have moved in the last 20 years. I was talking with a bow this evening and there is no shortage of in the Madison Valley but a large number of elk are on private lands. Tomorrow I will be down there hunting as I have a cow tag on the Wall Creek winter range.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Interesting read on elk movement. Not to use as a wolf bully pulpit, but here we are once again where correlation (elk can’t be found, what’s different, well wolves are now here)doesn’t necessarily represent cause. Same thing with the trophic cascade debate. Still much to be learned about our wildlife and their natural tendencies.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I hope you enjoy your trip, Elk.

    • Amre says:

      I hope your trip out there is enjoyable, elk.

  90. Ida Lupines says:

    In 1967, wolves were declared an endangered species. In 2012, they were declared no longer endangered. They’re back, and hunted with an official season to control the population. Editorial writers have written again and again that we Minnesotans were embarking on a great experiment and, at the end, we would learn much that the wolves had to teach us. No one guessed that wolves could teach us how to save money, combat pharmaceutical-resistant diseases, ameliorate drought and erosion, and restore native plant communities. And no one guessed that when they did, we’d be too scared to see or hear any of it. Or most of us would be. But almost everyone is not everyone. Janet McNally, who moves sheep through the northern forest while wolves howl in the hills, is living proof of that.

    I’d add stupid to that. It’s a great idea – and I’m pleased to see that it is a woman doing it – instead of constantly fighting/trying to do one better than Nature, working with Nature and bringing back natural grasses, instead of bringing in cheatgrass, etc.

    The only worry I have is that by the time it does take to get everyone on board with it (and we may never get everyone on board), wolves and other wildlife will be extirpated or on the verge of extinction again.

    There’s a virulent, violent, primitive human force out there when it comes to our wildlife, and wolves in particular, that being overly optimistic doesn’t acknowledge or remedy.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      No one guessed that wolves could teach us how to save money, combat pharmaceutical-resistant diseases, ameliorate drought and erosion, and restore native plant communities.

      And there are those who would still discredit trophic cascades!

  91. Ida Lupines says:

    Speaking of women, I do hope Hillary Clinton will be running for President in 2016. Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have the experience Hillary has, and the Republicans will just chew her up and spit her out before breakfast, just as they did with President Obama. Hillary would be fierce enough and experienced enough to whip them all into shape. She’s about the only Democrat I can stomach right about now. 🙂

  92. Ed Loosli says:

    Illustrated chart of the beneficial results after the re-introduction of wolves to Yellowstone:

  93. Elk375 says:

    I got up to go hunting this morning and the starter went out on my truck; it is fixed now. Thanks Ida for the good luck as I leave in a few minutes. It only happens to me.

    I checked Facebook and there was a super picture of a wolverine on an elk carcass taken in SW Montana by the FWP with a trail cam. Neat picture.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      What a great picture. Sorry to hear about your starter tho, glad it’s fixed now!

    • Nancy says:

      Elk – I wonder where this pic was taken. Had 3 different sightings of a wolverine up the valley from me about a month ago.

    • Amre says:

      Nice photo! Its cool because its so rare to see photos of them form the lower 48.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Great photo! I was looking for the wolverine along with the black bear, when low and behold, no bear, just the wolverine!

    • skyrim says:

      Great image but some inflamatory and idiotic comments to go along with it. 99 percent of the public has never seen one alive and in the wild (including myself). A bear??????

      • Immer Treue says:

        Yeah, just sat down from the ubiquitous getting ready for winter, and popped on the iPhone. Small picture dominated by wolverine sure looks like a bear at first glance.

    • skyrim says:

      Elk, better to fail in your driveway or garage than on the mountain say at the bottom of a gulch or creek bottom. Just sayin’……..

      • Nancy says:

        Skyrim – my starter gave out last winter in a friend’s driveway, many, many miles from the nearest town.

        Long story short – had to have it towed and it turned out to be more than just the starter and much more than what my budget allows for repairs.

        I now start my rig up with a screwdriver. I can live with that 🙂

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Nancy: Thank you for linking us to the article that once again displays the arrogance and the disappointing pro-industry stance of the Obama’s “environmental” team. If the lawsuits against the Forest Service and the USFWS do not succeed in keeping the oil companies out of the Blackfeet’s sacred grounds, then this might come to having to physically keep the drilling/pumping companies out of the Rocky Mt. Front forest… We (outsiders) should be prepared to help our Blackfeet friends in any way that they request.

      • Nancy says:

        “Blackfoot tribal leaders from Montana and Canada are calling on the U.S. government to cancel oil and gas leases on land near Glacier National Park ***that is considered sacred to them”

        Ed – A concept that has yet to gain support from the millions of “outsiders” in the US, who are still terribly ignorant (but hopefully getting a clue) about fracking, drilling and mining on lands, that should be considered precious and sacred, given what’s left of them.

  94. Louise Kane says:

    poachers/trophy hunting guides prosecuted under Lacey Act

  95. Louise Kane says:

    observation by unidentified participant at WDFG wolf meeting


September 2014


‎"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