Interesting wildlife news (reader generated)

It is time to create a new page of “Interesting Wildlife News.” It has been a long time since we have had a new page. The page and comment loading time has become slow.  Do not post copyrighted material.

Here is the link to the “old” wildlife news of July 24, 2018. From there you can access links to older pages still.

Please post your wildlife news in the comments below

About The Author

Ralph Maughan

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

126 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? Nov. 25, 2018 edition

  1. avatar Nancy says:

    Many people would of called an exterminator. But he has some advice on not doing that.

  2. avatar Nancy says:

    Insane, its OUR public lands!!!………..but who’s got answers on how to stop it!!

  3. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2018

    Wisconsin CWD spreads on deer and elk farms as control efforts stumble

    • avatar Mat-ters says:

      What is tragic is the attempt by some to set this animal up for failure, there ignorance to the catastrophic consequences of habituation of this animal, and the lack of push back to groups that abuse laws to the point they set the grizzly up for failure.

      • avatar Hiker says:

        And just how do you know that bear was habituated? From what I read this occurred in the Yukon Territory near a small village. They estimate that there are 7,000 griz in the YT. Most of those bears should be hibernating now, but recent warm weather has brought some out. Also, this incident is still being investigated. We might not know more for awhile. It may have been just a tragic accident.

        What “groups that abuse laws to the point they set the grizzly up for failure” are you referring to? Do these groups operate in Canada? What laws are these “groups” abusing? Are these Canadian laws? Where do your accusations lead? Your posts always seem the most ridiculous, I’d laugh but two people died.

        • avatar Mat-ters says:

          Hiker, My comment stands as is…. It is evident that I was talking in generalization by the end of the comment where I finish with “set the grizzly up for failure” It is certainly not based on this particular bear. This bear has shown us how dangerous the species is and shows us that letting it expand into poorer and poorer habitat is indeed the wrong thing to do. It has to be managed.

          • avatar Hiker says:

            “habituation of this animal” Not sure how general this statement is. Everyone should know by now how dangerous a Griz is. Any attack makes national news. How often do we hear about attacks by deer? Yet they are more common. You are more likely to be hit by lightening then attacked by a bear.

            “It is evident that I was talking in generalization by the end of the comment where I finish with “set the grizzly up for failure” It is certainly not based on this particular bear” You always make general statements, maybe try being more specific. Every bear attack is different to some degree and should be treated that way. More details are needed in this case. Had these people seen this bear before? Did they assume that bears were all asleep? Was this bear in poor condition when it hibernated? All important questions to answer before we (you) jump to conclusions.

            “This bear has shown us how dangerous the species is and shows us that letting it expand into poorer and poorer habitat is indeed the wrong thing to do” I don’t know where better habitat for a Griz exists. If I were a Griz I would choose the wilds of Canada.
            By the way, do you have any comment on my statement about Canadian law? You stated “groups that abuse laws”. Just wondering what laws you were referring to.

            As always, looking forward to your reply.

            • avatar Mat-ters says:

              Hiker, It’s quite evident that the US ESA is one of the most abuse laws there on the planet. Reform is needed!

              Yes lots of questions….the late season non-hibernated bear probably isn’t as rare as some may suggest here.

              A few decades ago I was deer hunting in WI. My perch was on the edge of an ash swamp…. among the deer I saw that opening day was a fisher that put on a show to the east of me. Later that day, I heard something to the north west and looked to see bits and pieces of something black going through the swamp headed north. Being that I had saw the fisher earlier, I didn’t think that much of it. I didn’t put up the binoculars (or brown enough to put the scope) on him. As I’ve done for decades, I sat the whole day. On the walk out, I discovered that what I had saw was a pretty good-sized bear had gone through. I have a lane from the stand that walks me out of the swamp. In the freshly melted snow from mid to late afternoon….was a perfectly preserved print of that bear walking in my crusty foot prints from the morning. The next day I took a handful of kids and one of the sister-n-laws down for the ¾ mile walk to see the bear print. I showed them how my tracks going in before morning light were made in snow that was not as packy as it was when the bear came through on my walk out. I would have had a good look at the bear had I been looking west when he went through, He was on the shooting lane for about five yards from the south before heading north northwest where I had saw him. And wouldn’t you know, THIS YEAR walking into the same spot in the swamp the Friday morning after thanksgiving was another bear track in the fresh overnight dusting on the ice in the swamp. The unmistakable tracks made a good picture with todays modern phones!

              Those weren’t the first nor be the last time we will see a bear during the gun season, which traditionally starts the Saturday before Thanks Giving every year. When I was, kid the old timers always talked about the bear that came out of a deer drive a few years before every time we did certain deer drive. They also talked about how the deer hunters were allowed to shoot bears decades ago. Almost, every year or so that talk in town is how someone had seen a November bear….. It’s not all that rare and most certainly has about as much do with “climate change” as the ESA has to do with saving the Bald Eagle.

              As far as Canadian law on the Grizzly…. History tells us that man has always killed Grizzlies. It is “unnatural” to restrict the limited harvest of Grizzlies.

              • avatar Hiker says:

                Science tells us that Griz were expanding east when White settlers encountered them. The Griz had expanded out of Eurasia and halfway across NA before being driven to the brink of extinction in the lower 48. The Native Americans that I have worked with in the West have explained to me the reverence that they had for bears. I am not sure how many they were able to kill since the Griz population was expanding before WE arrived. With bows and spears my guess is that they kept a healthy distance from them. So much for history.

                You didn’t really explain your reference to Canadian law. I think, based on your posts, that you used this latest bear attack to once again attack the ESA, EVEN THOUGH THE ATTACK HAPPENED IN CANADA AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ESA.
                To say that “It’s quite evident that the US ESA is one of the most abuse laws there on the planet.” is a joke. People in this country overwhelmingly support protection for endangered species. It’s only a vocal minority who have a problem with it and that’s because the ESA stops people from abusing habitat. The list of abuses is long, starting with grazing cattle on OUR public land, leading to overgrazing and killing predators to “protect” cattle. The ESA has been the best defense against these abuses. Are you saying that people who believe in protection shouldn’t exercise their rights to protect the commons from being abused for the profit of a few? Are you taking the side of overgrazing cattle barons against the people of the USA. More money is generated from tourism where Griz live then any other source! People come from all over the world just for the chance to see a bear, any bear. I guarantee that seeing a bear tops the list for the vast majority of tourists. Are you saying that their hopes and dreams are less valuable than those who demand that coyotes are killed to “protect” their cattle? If Europeans can coexist with Griz why can’t we? There are thousands of Griz in Romania alone. Yes Griz are dangerous, they deserve healthy respect. Living amongst them is risky and requires being alert and humble. Maybe that’s the problem.

              • avatar Ida Lupine says:

                This is beautifully written, Mat-ters, and I hope that people will be able to see wildlife like this in the future too.

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Some native cultures KILLED predators and bears as a right of passage to adulthood. The amount of government dollars spent on JUST grizzlies to keep them out of trouble is immoral. Those that think a government worker killing a grizzly after numerous trouble is the answer to the issues need to be held accountable for their burden on the taxpayer and should be shamed for setting them up for continuous and eventual failure of the population.

            • avatar Mat-ters says:

              In my neck of the woods its not deer we are worried about……dare turkeys….



  4. avatar Yvette says:

    Unfortunate and bad news: A Lamar pack favorite has been killed for someone’s ego.

  5. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    It sounds more like for id than ego.

  6. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    Grizzlies and other bears living close to more populated areas are managed – either by relocating them if they habitually come to close to human inhabited areas, or killed.

    I understand that this family lived in an extremely remote area, risky for more reasons than just encounters with wildlife.

    We can’t reasonably expect to kill off all wildlife anywhere humans go, can we? Even as small as the nearby village was (pop. 200), it has the usual problems with disposal of garbage, an attractant for wildlife too, according to the NYT. But this kind of tragedy is rare, they say.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      According to article, the only way into this area is by fixed wing aircraft or helicopter, so it is remote, and not the source/subject of generalization.

      Bear was not yet hibernating as another warm autumn…is global warming genuinely occurring?

      If bear still not hibernating at the time, most likely very high level of hyperphagia in this animal. No berries, so what’s left? Garbage and human refuse.

      I want to preface this statement with it’s not meant to attack the victims, but also another possible variable. Families refuse may have attracted bear. Were the marten and whatever else was trapped, cleaned/proecessed near the cabin? Bears should have been in hibernation by this time. These people were purported to be very adept Bush people. If so, was any sign of a grizzly apparent prior to this tragedy?

      Doubt we’ll hear for a while or possibly at all, but we’re mother and daughter consumed at all, as per an act of predation, or just killed, as per they could not avoid the bear or protect themselves from the bear that may have been protecting a source of food? Echoes of the guide killed by grizzly when attacked while butchering elk.

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:

        You’re right. I’m not trying to attack the victims either.

        That other guy left the carcass out until the next day, did they say?

    • avatar WM says:

      I think grizzly bear attacks or charges are MUCH more frequent than you believe Ida – we just don’t hear about it unless somebody dies or is seriously injured. My apologies if I have told this story on this forum before, a few years back.

      It strikes me there are few here who have truly had encounters with a grizzly bear, or even black bears. I had one in Yukon Territory, near Kluane Lake, years ago that still has me thinking it could have ended differently had I not chosen to act as I did. Traveling from Alaska in my little Toyota pick-up back to Washington state, I stopped to stretch my legs,and I started down an old logging grade into the woods. I could see a grizzly at a distance of about a quarter mile (about 450 yards). He came charging at me full speed. I was about 150-200 yards from my truck. I made the decision one typically does not want to make in this situation, but he was already heading my way fast – acting like prey- and ran back to the truck as fast as my relatively young legs would take me, keys in hand and made it just in time to close the door before the bear arrived. It circled the truck, pacing back and forth, and pressing its feet hard to the ground, hackles up on its back, for about 5 minutes. It was at a distance of about 40-50 feet. I could not determine its sex as it was always facing toward me and never stood up. It appeared to be a younger bear, maybe 400-500 pounds (male?).

      I took pictures thru the window with my little Olympus XA camera with a wide angle lens, as my larger Canon SLR with its many lenses was in the back of the truck. I still have the pictures, though with the wide angle the bear looked further from the truck thru the windshield than it actually was. I keep reminding myself of that when I look at the pics.

      The bed of the pick-up also had about 20 cases of home canned (in jars) salmon and smoked clams. I’m sure the bear could smell it, but its behavior around the truck did not seem consistent with finding a meal.

      I seriously doubt I would be writing this had I chosen to stay for a bluff charge, rather than run. I have had numerous encounters with black bears in WA, ID, CO, WY and AK, over many years, none as scary as this, except coming out of the Hoback in WY (SW of Teton NP) at night to avoid an early fall blizzard, while on a backpacking trip. We believed there was a grizzly feeding on an elk kill in a willow patch on our trail. Pretty scary stuff in the dark, when a bear can see and humans cannot.

      The irony of the Yukon grizzly experience, is that I had just spent several weeks backpacking on the Kenai Peninsula in AK, where I had been carrying a 12 ga shot gun, which adds about 8 pounds to one’s gear (including shells). I did not see a grizzly but saw where they had been along the banks of the river I my trail followed much of the way. And, yes, I had a big bell on my frame pack, that jingled as I walked up the trail, hoping the sound could be heard over the rush of the river. This was before the invention and use of bear spray.

  7. avatar Elk375 says:

    Here is a comment from the Alberta Hunting forum from a Yukon hunting guide about the grizzly attack.

    I spent years at Einarson Lake guiding for Shockey

    I know exactly where this happened

    I killed a grizzly there. We aired that show. I had no choice. I killed him at 11 feet. I thought it was 15 feet. The CO’s said 11. The day before I personally shot in front of that griz numerous times. I placed propane bottles on the shore and shot them as the bear approached. We used a boat horn. Nothing worked. My hunters used a ladder to climb on the roof of the cabin. I have raw footage of all of it. One scene has me throwing a rock at a griz, hitting it, and it still stayed.

    330 am I got between the bear and my hunter friend. The bear came at his cabin so fast I was only wearing my boxer briefs and a headlamp when I killed him.

    Those animals don’t eat daily. When they find something, they take it. And they fight for it

    There are a lot of grizzly there. And its as remote as you can get. Places no man has ever walked before. For sure.

    That man lost everything basically on my doorstep. I can see and fully understand Jim’s FB post. It’s true. Griz have more value than people. Even a child. So sad on so many levels.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      “That man lost everything basically on my doorstep. I can see and fully understand Jim’s FB post. It’s true. Griz have more value than people. Even a child. So sad on so many levels”

      No doubt at all this was a terribly tragic incident but, I take issue with Griz have more value than people. Even a child”

      Both these adults were more than aware of the remote location THEY had decided to spend months at (with their less than 1 year old child) trying to trap/kill and make a profit, off the lives of other species who I’m sure, would much prefer to be alive, keep their skin and go about their lives.

      And looking over some of the videos another guy has posted in the past (got a regular YouTube channel going) he cares nothing for the lives he dispatches, bragging about the kill, because there’s still a demand out there to rob wildlife of their lives and their hides, for profit.

      But I’d like to know if this trapper’s cabin, with his trap line kills, perhaps hanging here and there, drying out, might of attracted this late to hibernate bear, to that spot?

      • avatar Hiker says:

        I once had a bear break into my car to eat the sheepskin seat covers. I never bought those again. Attractants are discussed everyday during the summer in any National Park with bears. We may never know what brought that bear to that cabin, but if you live and work in bear country you must live with respect for something that could kill you. When I lived in L.A. there were many neighborhoods that I would not enter at night. It’s the same concept. If an area is dangerous be careful. And it’s not just bears, any large mammal is dangerous. Even a squirrel can bite you and give you rabies. I always carry hiking poles now because several animals have attacked people in my area because of rabies. A man was attacked by a rabid fox a few hundred yards from my house. Never assume you are safe.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        and for those that viewed the above video, this is no where even near an example of what hunters consider “far chase” but its still condoned.

        “When in the field, the initial question for every fair chase hunter is whether the animal has a reasonable opportunity to elude the hunter. If the animal does not, the hunt can never be “fair chase”.

        For example, a fair chase hunter does not shoot an animal hampered by deep snow or entangled in a barbed-wire fence”

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          Had a discussion with a friend a couple weeks back about his brother who goes for those super long range shots. Marksmanship has always been a part of hunting, but when does that ability, skills plus equipment, make fairchase a moot point. Certainly a feather in the cap, but to your living target you may have well been on the moon.

  8. avatar Nancy says:

    “The Billings Gazette reports coyotes have caused more than $550,000 in damages this year, killing almost 300 calves, three cattle, four goats, 92 sheep and almost 1,500 lambs”

    Sounds like business as usual (and blame) – as in the lack of providing better protections for young livestock (around calving & lambing seasons)

    An interesting read on the subject of livestock depredation:

    • avatar Hiker says:

      When coyotes are killed to “protect” cattle it tends to break up their pack structure so that more individuals are available for breeding. They just make more. Not only that but experience in hunting is lost so that easier prey, like cow calves, are more often taken. Add to that extreme adaptability and you end up with more coyotes. It is a never ending cycle of killing that solves nothing, all at taxpayer expense.

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        To add some redundancy, the oft used definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, and over again expecting different results. Why not attempt something novel, such as leaving coyotes alone, unless caught in the act for a five to ten year period of time. No M-44’s, no WS, no killing contests. Compare/contrast before and after, come up with new ideas as technological advances continue.

    • avatar Yvette says:

      A couple of different perspectives to add to the discussion:

      I was a skeptical that coyotes are a problem for cattle since they are too small to take down an adult. It’s the calves that are the victims. The next article is from ‘Farm Press’ so if they slant it will be to the ag industry. They seemed to write this article fairly, IMO. I liked that they noted:

      “McPeake warns that livestock producers shouldn’t rush to blame coyotes. “Coyotes are scavengers,” says McPeake. “The calf could have been dead before the coyote came along.”

      On another subject, this Farm Press article says that is a hunting season for coyotes in Arkansas. I did not know that.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        “McPeake warns that livestock producers shouldn’t rush to blame coyotes. “Coyotes are scavengers,” says McPeake. “The calf could have been dead before the coyote came along.”

        One only has to travel the back roads (and often the main roads) in my area to see dead cattle laying in fields. These are not cows that died from predation, these are cows that died of diseases, calving problems or weather, and are left to rot. Until ranchers are made accountable (the proper disposal of dead livestock) the war on predators, at taxpayer expense, will continue.

        • avatar Ida Lupine says:

          This is a question I have always wondered about. Which came first – the predator/scavenger or the cattle?

        • avatar Yvette says:

          Nancy, he also noted it’s impossible to discern whether it was a coyote or dogs. When poor dogs get dumped in the country they will form packs sometimes and have attacked livestock.

          It’s easier to point the finger at canines or any other predator than it is to blame oneself for failure to take care of business.

  9. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    More on 06’s daughter, from Wapo. Glad to see these kinds of things more in the mainstream media:

    Immer, I wanted to say another thing – I don’t know where you have the idea that JB and WM have ‘bent over backwards’ trying to help me – I have had very little interaction with either one of them over the years, and I would not expect to. With the exception of a rare few posts.

    Believe me, I fully realize my opinions mean absolute zero.

  10. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 04, 2018

    Montana Seven mule deer bucks were found to be suspect of chronic wasting disease in the last week

  11. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 04, 2018

    Ohio Changes in CWD Sample Submission for IHC Testing, Ohio is considered free of CWD?

  12. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2018

    Missouri Detects 11 New CWD TSE Prion Disease Cases So Far This Season Total 86 to date

  13. SUNDAY, DECEMBER 02, 2018


  14. avatar Yvette says:

    “This is sad and I hope Colorado WL managers get this figured out.
    Over the past few years, herds in the region have been slowly dying off, and wildlife officials are concerned about the iconic ungulate’s ability to survive in healthy numbers in the long term.

    The issue involves a mystery: About half of the elk calves born in Southwest Colorado die within six months. Of the survivors, another 15 percent perish before they turn a year old.

    And researchers don’t know why, The Durango Herald reports.

    The problem encompasses wildlife mismanagement: After record high elk populations in the 1990s, the Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife) ordered a mass hunt to cut back the animal’s numbers.

    These same elk herds are now struggling to recover.”

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      This is a good article, but drops the ball a bit in regard to the elk calves followed by some, for a change, fairly well presented comments post article.

      Hunting and predation have always been a part of the rut equation, but what are some of the other variables for extremely low calf survival? Some put forward: drought; hikers (like hunting and predation, pretty much has always been there; the newer variables include snowmobiles, ATV’s and a subject for much discussion on TWN, mountain biking. Can’t blame this one on Obama or wolves.

    • avatar Mat-ters says:

      More natural removal of predators working for all wildlife……

      • avatar Immer Treue says:

        You’re just like the person who you’ve recently given a smoke up the posterior enema. Read the entire article.

        “Caribou are threatened across Canada, with years of habitat loss and human-caused disruption as key reasons for their decline.”

        And once again from your Emma Marris
        “Conservationists in Alberta reluctantly supported the wolf kill programme when it began, says Carolyn Campbell, a conservation specialist at the Alberta Wilderness Association in Calgary. But her group later stopped its support for the programme because because drilling and logging continued, posing other threats to caribou. “It is a completely unethical approach to just declare a war on wolves when they are a symptom and not a root cause,” Campbell says.”

        Unless man is willing to remove all the variables in caribou demise, it’s just a fools errand, and killing wolves just to kill wolves.

        • avatar Mat-ters says:

          Give it up Immer….. we have learned so much from our experiences and study of wolves on slate and Michipichoten. The earth has been warming for 12000 years when we have 400 foot glaciers where I now live! Prime caribou habitat can only be achieved in colder climate as the animal naturally requires. It’s funny how you and buddy skippy said killing wolves wouldn’t save the caribou…and you were wrong. You can’t blame habitat loss on Michipichoten can you!

          • avatar Immer Treue says:

            Typical altered “reality”, but it doesn’t “matter”to you. An entire article from one of your fall to sources means nothing, followed by an outlier argument about a small island, and then you bring in someone else who has no dog in this discussion. You also bring into the “discussion” the whole global warming thing, about which I have said nothing.

      • avatar Hiker says:

        Matters (or doesn’t) why do you have such a major bias against predators? Did one attack you or someone you know? Did one threaten you? Predators have been a crucial part of this world since … single celled organisms. Your simple minded attacks against predators now condones using poison? How many other species have died from this poison? Don’t we have enough crap in the ecosystem?

        • avatar Mat-ters says:

          Ohh contraire, the only major bias is in those that pimp predators to no end. Leaving out man and the killing of predators & game are a major reason places like Yellowstone got out of wack in the first place. JUST on the other side of the Northern Yellowstone boarder is the Gallatin National forest game herds and predators are managed and guess what NONE of the problems we have seen in Yellowstone like bludgeoning game herds existed OUTSIDE the park….why BECAUSE man and the management of predators exists! NOW the game herds suffer because of the lack of predator management in the park….the place is a predator pit. MAN has been part of the ecosystem for thousands of years.

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            The once healthy 1200 moose population
            that roamed the northern range is GONE!

            • avatar Hiker says:

              The moose population dropped after the great fires of ’88, long before wolves were reintroduced.

              • avatar Mat-ters says:

                That is a blatant lie! You can do better. I’d stick with climate change! I’m going to be taking off for some travel this afternoon w / limited internet so I’ll be cutting my posting some. The counts on the Northern Range were part of the annual elk count…. now they admittedly go further out of the park to count elk AND use the excuse that “moose are not a priority” for the reason they don’t count or more likely don’t publish the numbers….their embarrassed. Those numbers speak for themselves!

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Once again accusations. Check your facts. The Yellowstone fires of ’88 burned much of the winter habitat for moose in the park. Prove me wrong instead of just saying I’m lying. If I’m lying then scientists lied as well.

                • avatar Immer Treue says:


                  For those who live in an alternate “reality”.

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Come on hiker! This is eerily similar to the lolo, yellowstone fire debacle we are all familiar with (if your not bias). “They are still laughing at the “wolf science” biologist that tried the “Yellowstone fires” theory with an educated crowd in Billings a few years ago.
                  You see Hiker, for years they were preaching YOUR Idaho “Lolo” elk range sportsman that the great Idaho fire of 1937 created excellent habitat for elk “for a period of 10 to 40 years after the fire” (1947 to 1977) From 1977 on they (wolf scientist) claimed that the elk population degraded the habitat and that and ONE bad winter was the cause of the elk herd plummeting from 19000 to 2000….once again discounting the fact that wolves had moved in. Then in that meeting I talked about above the poor wolf pimp biologist brought up that the fires of 1988 “degraded the habitat” as YOU said. …… Much to his dismay a middle aged man brought out is “literature” from Lolo and explained to everyone that according to that “literature” Yellowstone should be prime “for a period of 10 to 40 years after the fire” (1998 to 2038)……. HIKER, they gave the guy from the audience a standing ovation & 3/4 of the audience left!
                  Hiker, I have not seen the fires theory used lately until IMMER slipped it in on this blog. Either you can use it to explain Yellowstone’s collapse but then please explain Lolo……for future reference most of your ilk have stuck with the “fire theory’s” to explain Lolo for they can’t blame saturated grizzlies as the cause in Lolo. After all is said and done, you still have global warming you can blame. WOLF SCIENCE!” YES I did somewhat plagiarize here!

          • avatar Hiker says:

            Man still is part of the ecosystem. That has never been in doubt. Do you not realize that all wolves were killed in Yellowstone, elk herds were eating themselves out of house and home, government hunters were called in to thin the elk herds. Then, as if by magic, wolves are returned and things are more balanced. I think you need to research this more on your own, as I did when I worked there.

            Also, no answer to my question regarding your obvious anti-predator bias, just denial. How can you deny your bias in one sentence then label Yellowstone a “predator pit” in another. What does that even mean? Does that mean a place where predators are free to live as they have for literally millions of years. Does evolution mean nothing to you?

            • avatar Mat-ters says:

              “man is still part of the ecosystem” Haaaaa This is fought at every turn by the like of some here. Anyone could realize that the Elk in Yellowstone needed an apex predator …. like they had in the past! Yup, Elk culls were allowed IN YELLOWSTONE in the past. As are the bison culls TODAY man is still needed EVEN WITH predators!

              Where have I denied a bias as to proper predator management. The bobcat population in WI should be (some what) the model to proper management! ANYWHERE these animals are protected to the point of habituation are a sign of improper management. These liberal Judges embarrass themselves with their uniformed rulings.

              • avatar Mat-ters says:

                Reforming the ESA to stop the abuses should be a non-partisan goal!

                • avatar Mat-ters says:

                  Hiker, are you a predator pit denier? (look in mirror here) How is the Madison whole elk doing in Yellowstone? Why are they counting elk further and further out of the park each year? Why did they discontinue the moose annual count along with their elk count on the Northern range?

  15. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    If it isn’t one human activity that’ll get ya (negotiating lanes and lanes of nightmarish traffic and obstacle course), it’ll be another (wildfires):

  16. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    “It’s of particular interest that he chose to travel back through a fresh burn area rather than retreat through urbanized areas to escape the fire.””

    I find it sadly ironic that this poor cat would rather have walked through fire than risk heavily populated areas. Nobody can say this cat had not learned to fear humans. Can’t say I blame him. 🙁

  17. avatar Hiker says:

    Yes Matters (says who?), elk numbers in Yellowstone are down from the past. But are you saying they should be left high so that elk starve in the winter? That was what was happening in the forties and fifties that led to park management shooting elk. Maybe elk numbers are where they SHOULD be, low but not too low. Also, you leave out how wolf numbers in Yellowstone have dropped as well. There is fierce competition between packs (kinda like humans) that results in many wolf deaths. Do you really think humans need to go in and kill wolves in Yellowstone? As it is now if they wander outside the boundary they are at risk. If predators need management inside the park what do YOU suggest? Should they be shot (in front of tourists), trapped (imagine a hiker stepping in a trap), poisoned (poor pet dog who finds that)? What is your proposal for “managing” predators IN the park?

    • avatar Mat-ters says:

      “Left high” what a joke! Their is countless article written as to how “healthy” and balanced Yellowstone was when the population was at 9000 wintering elk NOW they admit to only 900 being the park as an equivalent. THEIR is your bias! YES, the drop in wolf numbers is an indication of the predator pit isn’t it! “At risk”! thank for more bias! ITS NATURAL for wolves to be thinned by man!

      • avatar Hiker says:

        Yes, “left high”, my statement based on your anti predator stance! They were high, without predation they would be left high. It’s quite simple if YOU use your head and think instead of just react. Honestly, every time you reply you just prove how uninformed you are. “NOW they admit to only 900” not sure where you found that number, maybe from some alternate facts website, sure isn’t official. “YES, the drop in wolf numbers is an indication of the predator pit isn’t it” no it is not, it is an indication of natural processes at work. Weird how that has to be spelled out to you. I suggest you quit reacting in your typical fashion and do some actual research. ” Their is countless article written as to how “healthy” and balanced Yellowstone was when the population was at 9000 wintering elk “. I’m sure those articles could be counted, but exaggerating is your signature move. Please post ONE article that states that 9,000 wintering elk inside Yellowstone is balanced. ““At risk”! thank for more bias!” if my bias is stating the obvious then I agree. How else do I describe the status of a wolf leaving the park? Did I once state that a wolf leaving the park should not be shot legally by a hunter? Like it or not this last wolf killed outside Yellowstone was taken legally. That was never something I was discussing. I am talking about “managing” wolves INSIDE the park. Strange that you offered no proposals for that given how you feel that they SHOULD be managed in the park.

          • avatar Hiker says:

            Excellent article Matters (maybe a little), However not exactly supporting your argument. Not once in the entire article do any of the scientists use the word balance. The only time it’s used is in the title
            “Hunting Habits of Wolves Change Ecological Balance in Yellowstone”. So the author of the article feels that way.

            Of course this leads to something else. If I’m not mistaken the article states that wolves are partly responsible for these changes. ONLY BECAUSE THEY CAUSED ELK NUMBERS TO DROP. That drop in numbers led to many changes that most scientists think benefit that ecosystem. Now it’s entirely possible that 9,000 elk is a balanced number for wintering elk in Yellowstone (the article says 11,000 and doesn’t mention the time of year). That’s not the point of the article you posted. The article stats that wolves are part of why this happened and there have been many benefits to this.

            So, thanks for the article that supports the activity of predators in Yellowstone. Is it possible that you posted this because you’ve had a change of heart and you no longer have such a problem with wolves? If so, welcome!

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Hiker – try and keep in mind, Mat-ters likes to cherry pick his information and I would imagine most of his info comes from hunting sites where hunters, many who pay big bucks $$ to come hunt western states, are disappointed and then find the need to blame predators for their lack of success.

      In my area, I heard the hunting success rate was rather low this year and I’ll venture a guess that it might have something to do with the fact that cattle ranchers have increased their herds, twofold, not because Americans are eating more beef but because their markets are now opening up around the globe (China comes to mind) for their product.

      Been staring at 200 head or more of cattle, across the way on a big ranch, for the past month, cattle that have never been a part of the landscape there after October.

      And, this ranch (can name a couple of others now) use to be a migratory path for herds of elk, leaving the valley in the fall, heading to the west to winter, hoping to take advantage of what forage was left.

      It started long ago, this “management” of prey animals for human predators. Not rocket science to understand its not so much about management as it is a manipulation of other species, for the benefit of a few humans.

      • avatar Hiker says:

        Thanks for your input Nancy, as always your posts are thoughtful. To be honest I get a strange pleasure in reading whatever crap Matters (I don’t think so) posts. I think it’s because I don’t like his bullshit, baldface, lies and I really enjoy calling him out with facts anyone can look up. His arrogant manner comes across as holier than thou while at the same time accusing others of something similar. His raging anti predator stance comes across so clearly that it’s funny when he tries to deny his bias. I wonder if he truly fails to see that most wildlife lovers don’t love individuals or even individual species. We are in love with the natural process and watching that play out. To us the numbers fluctuate as they always have and, hopefully, always will. We enjoy leaving the wild alone, as spectators, as much as possible. Sometimes we step in, but only when needed. Everything dies, including animals we know. One day the great bear 399 will die. But I find solace in knowing that she truly lived, I watched her and her cubs, I shared those moments with people who will remember her. She, and others we know, have become symbols of the wild. But it’s the WILD that we love.

        • avatar Mat-ters says:

          Hiker, looks like Nancy has more common sense then yourself….. She knows full well that I can back up what I post …but calls my numbers “cherry picking”.

          You , and your ” his bullshit, baldface, lies” comment only embarrasses you and makes me smile for I know I have won the argument when you pull out the mud and start tossing… trouble is, most of it lands on you!

          • avatar Hiker says:

            Nice one. The trouble is I like the mud, it reminds me that I am an animal just like the wolves, bears, moose, elk, etc. Just like you.

            What you call “back up what I post” is what I call lies. Pure and simple. The numbers you post are beyond ridiculous!

            By the way I think you are the one who first slung the mud calling me a liar at 4:53 a.m. this morning. I did not lie but only repeated what I learned from my training and research.

      • avatar Mat-ters says:

        This comment from the article pretty much says it all!

        “Increasing numbers have coincided with the trend of more elk migrating north from the park and into Montana. More than three-quarters of the herd was spotted north of Yellowstone this year, a percentage that’s been fairly consistent in each count since 2013. Prior to 2006, less than half the herd regularly migrated north”


        Nancy, put those percentages from your article on to the population numbers and they will tell you that Yellowstone is the predator pit real scientist like DR Kay had predicted! AGAIN “your article”

        Also, from what I hear some of your “wolf scientist” wont answer two basic questions….

        Has counting elk further and further out of the park in quadrants NEVER counted before compromised the integrity of there counts?
        How many elk were in these additional quadrants prior to adding and moving count locations?

        • avatar Hiker says:

          They are counting elk, period. These counts take place in the winter cause elk are easier to spot in the snow. The herd summers in Yellowstone and many winter outside. The same occurs in the south where many elk migrate from Yellowstone to The National Elk Refuge or elsewhere in Jackson Hole. The main point is that their numbers are going up, all while being preyed upon by the big bad wolf. The elk don’t know where the park boundary is, and many people thought that when Yellowstone was made it wasn’t big enough. They thought Yellowstone should include where the elk migrate to. Yellowstone is a cold place in the winter, with lots of snow. What the article doesn’t address is WHY elk are leaving in the winter in greater numbers. It’s also interesting that these elk are leaving in the winter after living with wolves for years. Why leave in larger numbers since 2013 if there are fewer wolves in the park?

          You said “Has counting elk further and further out of the park in quadrants NEVER counted before compromised the integrity of there counts?
          How many elk were in these additional quadrants prior to adding and moving count locations?” How would these elk counters know that more of this herd are wintering outside the park? Maybe because they’ve been counting there for years!

          You said “IN a nut shell THEIR COUNTING MONTANA elk NOT YELLOWSTONE ELK!” Typical conclusion from someone with blinders on. Take those blinders off, Matters (only to himself)! Join us in the real world where we can discuss these things without making idiotic statements about whose elk these are. I would think this would make you happy since it sounds like they will increase the number of elk hunted in that region.

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            Haahahahahahhhaaa This isn’t rocket science hiker. They admit in the article that the elk head “north from the park and into Montana”! This isn’t a new revelation. MOST of these winter ranges are (AND THEY ADMIT) ALREADY out of the park and the article admits that MORE THAN 3/4 of the herd heads north where wolves are managed! I/m disappointed that you don’t get that these elk have nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with Yellowstone! I’d recommend you study the HD313 surveys and what they represent in part where the elk are and where they go in the summer…..

            In context, when the population was at 19000 roughly “less than” half migrated North OR at least 9500 ended up summering in places the Lamar Valley & lower Slough Creek… NOW the say a population of 7500 (which they have admitted lows in the 3000’s “more than” 5675 HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH the Lamar Valley and lower Slough Creek or at most 1825 move back into Yellowstone. May I remind you that these are numbers from Nancy’s article! A special note needs to be made on the articles use of “less than” and “more than” for anyone can guess the true numbers that migrate. The elk are speaking to you hiker….they’re saying they like managed wolf populations better than the predator pit called Yellowstone.

            I suspect that someone like IMMER is secretly steaming at Nancy for posting an article that lays out what I have been talking about for some time now and not posting one of the numerous more generic articles boasting of the Increase and come back in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd!

            Also, please please please get me any a record of any or all ecologists and biologists that tell us that today’s moose wows on the northern range of Yellowstone are because of the 1988 fires…..I’m looking forward to it!

            • avatar Hiker says:

              Immer posted a link about moose in Yellowstone, you must have missed it.

              This is from the parks website which most likely has the support of a few scientists.

              You said ” …today’s moose wows on the northern range of Yellowstone are because of the 1988 fires…”
              not sure what you meant but I assume you disagree about how the fires of ’88 caused problems for moose in Yellowstone. Please read the link above.

              You said “these elk have nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with Yellowstone”. And then almost immediately contradict yourself by posting these numbers… “or at most 1825 move back into Yellowstone”. So which is it? Does this herd use Yellowstone or not? By the way the number 1825 that you posted appears NOWHERE in the article

              If your purpose was to confuse me then I admit it worked. You don’t seem to make much sense.

              I especially enjoyed it when you said “Haahahahahahhhaaa This isn’t rocket science hiker.” I just love when you speak in such a condescending manner, it warms my heart.

              • avatar Nancy says:

                “If your purpose was to confuse me then I admit it worked. You don’t seem to make much sense”


                “The timing and routes of Northern Yellowstone elk migration closely follow the areas of seasonal vegetation growth and changes in snow depth. After winters with high snowpack, elk delay migration. In years with lower snowpack and earlier vegetation green-up, elk migrate earlier”


              • avatar Mat-ters says:

                Hiker, I’m sorry that you took my Haahaa as a condescending comment. It’s more of Déjà vu moment of me recognizing what appears to be your attempt & now Nancies to not admit that these the majority of these elk have nothing to do with Yellowstone. You may not know that the total nuances of the range they live on in the Lamar and Yellowstone valley areas extends into Montana and the Gardiner area. The general theme is some one like Immer post how this once great herd is making a comeback even with wolves….when the reality is the majority of the herd is now expanding in the northern part of the range 15 to 20 miles NORTH of the boarder where management of wolves is now happening! Ack stupid if you want but the truth finds its way. Even some of your experts admit that they northern herd should be dissected for study …. I agree! It would open eyes!

  18. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Data Map of Minnesota Wolves

    The orange data results from a collar that transmits every 4 hours, the other colors from collars every 20 minutes, thus the discrepancy in densities. Sure wolves can move great distances, especially when dispersing, but are pretty much homebodies in regard to their territories.

  19. avatar Hiker says:

    Matters, interesting reference to fires in your post above. One problem however, I was talking about how the fires of ’88 destroyed WINTER MOOSE HABITAT leading to their drop in numbers. You see Matters (but not really), MOOSE in Yellowstone relied on old growth habitat for their WINTER forage. When that habitat burned so did their WINTER food. You are referencing fires in Idaho benefiting ELK for a number of years after. Kinda like comparing apples and oranges. Elk do benefit from fires, they like the grass that comes in after and even eat the bark off burned trees. It was well known when I worked in Yellowstone that if you wanted to see elk during the summer one of the best places to see them was where it had recently burned.

    “From 1977 on they (wolf scientist) claimed that the elk population degraded the habitat and that and ONE bad winter was the cause of the elk herd plummeting from 19000 to 2000….once again discounting the fact that wolves had moved in.” Are you saying wolves moved into Idaho in 1977 in sufficient numbers to decimate one elk herd killing 17000 elk in one winter? That must have been one legendary wolf pack. If a pack of wolves needs 5 elk a week they would’ve been set for at least 65 years. Or it may have been around 3,400 packs of wolves. You should proof read your nonsense before you post.

  20. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    I saw a huge (to me) herd of about 25 elk or so, mostly females and young with the male at the back of the herd if I recall, on the way to Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone. One of the most beautiful sights ever. This was in September near the park closing.

    Saw a moose and a black bear at a distance, bison, coyote, but no grizzlies or wolves or lions. 🙂

  21. avatar palouse says:

    Could we get back to “Wildlife news” instead of all of this personal bickering? Isn’t there a more appropriate forum for you to thrash this out? You are not doing this site any good. While there may be people involved whose insights I generally find worthwhile, I am inclined to block a few in order for this thread to have any value to me anymore. There are, I’m sure, NEWS items out there that would be of general interest. Thank you

  22. avatar palouse says:

    I should clarify that my previous comment had little/nothing to do with the vast majority of posters on this site. Just tired of a few clogging the bandwidth with irrelevant bickering. I appreciate and learn much from this site. Thanks Ralph

  23. avatar Hiker says:

    In case you missed this. This bear has used much of Grand Teton NP for many years. She has raised many cubs (I lost track of how many). She is adept at hunting elk calves and sniffing out gut piles from elk kills. Amazing she hasn’t charged a hunter and been shot. I would also add that she has become a celebrity and contributes to the tourism economy. I have see her and her cubs many times over the years along with at least thousands of other visitors. One of her daughters, 699 I think, has also become a minor celebrity and seemed to be following in her mothers footsteps. I haven’t heard about 699 in a while. Anyone know what she’s up to?

  24. avatar Hiker says:

    Reposting this link that Ida put up a few days ago. Amazing story of a true survivor who adapted to living amongst us. I grew up near here and have family in the area. This is a busy area lots of traffic yet this animal found a way!

    • avatar Hiker says:

      Until the fires appear to have boxed it in.

      • avatar Hiker says:

        Must have been severe injuries if they haven’t interviewed this guy yet. Yes, mountain lion attacks are rare but I sure wouldn’t want that to happen to me. Mountain lions usually attack from ambush so how prepared can one be?

        From the article:
        “here have been 14 recorded mountain lion attacks on humans in California dating back to 1986, according to Fish and Wildlife records. The most recent involved a 6-year-old boy, who survived a Sept. 2014 attack in Cupertino.”

        What isn’t generally known is that CA. stopped hunting of Mtn. lions and the population climbed. There are parts of southern CA. where I would NOT go jogging.

        I’ve seen three Mtn. lions in my time as a National Park Service Ranger, two in CA.

        • avatar Mat-ters says:

          And they have had to kill “THOUSANDS” to keep them out of trouble….animals that were set up for failure…. all on the taxpayers dime. Should have come out of the pockets of those that set them up for failure.

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            Hunting quotes were at around 50 when they passed the law…NOW, they kill hundreds per year by glorified “trophy hunters” Typical failed leftist wildlife management…. BUT what would we expect from CA!

            • avatar Hiker says:

              While I disagree with your numbers you are CORRECT that they kill many (about 100) Mtn. lions per year. I found this long article about it. It has numbers of depredation permits and takes, “about 45 percent of permits result in takes”. Like always there are many ramifications that may be unforeseen.


              I think part of the problem is people underestimate how resourceful Mtn. lions can be. They are very adaptable, found all over the U.S.

              • avatar Mat-ters says:

                I didn’t read your article yet…. but I will judge it’s bias by the numbers they admit to for people feed up with constant continued and reacurring issues where they have taken matters into their own hands. The numbers speak for themselves…you could have posted the numbers admitted to. Also, those most affected by issues know that CA fish and game officals are looking the other way & ignoring those that do …. manage lios!

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  I posted above that they kill about 100 lions/year. These are lions killed with a depredation permit. These permits must be issued if someone asks, the gov. has no choice. So… they are managing these lions, just in a different way. I’m sure you are right that many people take matters into their own hands. They must be careful, without a depredation permit they could get into trouble.

                  Read the article, so many things they mention, it will give you many things to consider. For instance they talk about WHY lions kill so many animals at once without eating them. Fascinating look at animal psychology based on physiology.

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  I gotta add that after reading this article I am more inclined to AGREE with you about allowing sport hunting of Mtn. lions in CA. Honestly didn’t feel that way before.

  25. avatar Ida Lupine says:

    More good grizzly reading:

    I didn’t know about the group Vital Ground, here’s their website if anyone is interested:

  26. avatar Hiker says:

    Any thoughts on this? One big mess. When I worked at the National Elk Refuge one of the rationales for feeding was to keep the elk away from hay stacks meant for cattle. Sure enough, if the refuge managers waited too long to feed the elk they would leave the refuge and many would find their way onto local ranches. Then, a few years after I worked there, the refuge spent a lot of money to increase irrigation to grow grass that they left standing for when the elk arrived for the winter. Last time I was there in the summer you could see the spray of water from the highway. But what would be a reasonable solution to the problem of CWD in the area?

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Treat wildlife like livestock, and problems arise.

      • avatar Hiker says:

        Yes, I agree, many problems. Any solutions? Stop feeding and there are ramifications. Continue and we may have a nightmare out of a horror movie on our hands.

        Also, the feeding started long ago basically because ranching removed winter elk habitat and blocked elk migration. Many elk were starving in the winter. Fast forward decades later and things are the same.

        • avatar Hiker says:

          Except elk aren’t starving there in the winter now.

        • avatar Immer Treue says:

          Part of the circular logic of maintaining a surplus number of elk for human harvest, Keeping that population in the sweet spot of the sigmoid growth curve. Feeding wildlife just isn’t a good idea, but it has also became big business. It’s also created a couple other cans of worms in regard to predation.

          • avatar Hiker says:

            All too true. It really is a circular…..trap. It has become big business. How many people come for the elk in one way or another? Tourism, hunting, viewing wildlife that feed off elk; there are many complications.

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Here’s an interesting,long read on the subject, Hiker. May have been posted before but worth another glance because it certainly sheds some light on the controversy, given the fact that CWD is now showing up in ungulate populations where predators are kept at bare minimums…….

  27. avatar Hiker says:

    Montana seems to want to prove they can manage their Griz.

    I wonder if this will pressure Wyoming to follow suit.

  28. avatar Yvette says:

    Not quite wildlife news but it certain will affect wildlife of all classes. Fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles, and mammals.

    The Trump administration is working to repeal and replace the Obama Clean Water Rule with one that will leave many waters without federal protection under the Clean Water Act. Please note:

    The agencies’ proposed rule would provide clarity, predictability and consistency so that the regulated community can easily understand where the Clean Water Act applies—and where it does not. Under the agencies’ proposal, traditional navigable waters, tributaries to those waters, certain ditches, certain lakes and ponds, impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters would be federally regulated.</b? It also details what are not “waters of the United States,” such as features that only contain water during or in response to rainfall (e.g., ephemeral features); groundwater;</b? many ditches, including most roadside or farm ditches; prior converted cropland; stormwater control features; and waste treatment systems.

    The definition of ‘waters of the United States’ or ‘navigable waters’ was muddied when Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in Rapanos v. United States that the Clean Water Act regulates anything with a ‘significant nexus’ to waters that “are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made’. That left regulators to try and determine what is ‘significant nexus’.

    The Obama WOTUS rule attempted to clarify and improve. The Obama WOTUS received so much backlash from the industry and agriculture that it was significantly watered down before becoming law. EPA reviewed more than 1,200 publications from peer-reviewed literature. The result of the intense literature review supports that streams, non-tidal wetlands and open waters do have an effect on on larger downstream water. Noting two of the points EPA found from this literature review: 1) “The scientific literature unequivocally demonstrates that streams, regardless of their size or frequency of flow, are connected to downstream waters and strongly influence their function. 2) Wetlands and open waters in riparian areas and floodplainsare physically, chemically, and biologically integrated with rivers via functions that improved downstream water quality.

    I suppose we need to start researching whether our land, water, and all wildlife habitats will recover or suffer irreparable damage from this illiterate moron of an alien posing as a man.

    • avatar Ida Lupine says:

      Just awful. It’s now the Environmental Destruction Agency, and the Endangering Species Act!

      It’s like a nightmare. I was reading in the NYT that even Presidents Bush had put protections in place and valued our wetlands. It’s something that should be non-partisan:

      “Environmentalists say the proposal represents a historic assault on wetlands regulation at a moment when Mr. Trump has repeatedly voiced a commitment to “crystal-clean water.” The proposed new rule would chip away at safeguards put in place a quarter century ago, during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, who implemented a policy designed to ensure that no wetlands lost federal protection.”

      • avatar Ida Lupine says:


        “The wetland protection policies put in place decades ago by the first President Bush, an avid fisherman, followed on his own campaign pledge to save wetlands, saying, “all wetlands, no matter how small, should be preserved,” and proposing a “no net loss” policy. That initial policy was later weakened by Mr. Bush’s own E.P.A., but environmentalists have credited him for elevating the issue.

        Fifteen years later, the second President Bush gave regulatory teeth to his father’s proposal, implementing an E.P.A. rule requiring stronger wetlands protection that his father had once envisioned.”

        What will the Trump cheerers do when their water is undrinkable, or dries up.

      • avatar Yvette says:

        In 1977, President Carter signed EO #11990 requiring Federal agencies to take steps to avoid impacts to wetlands when possible. But yes, it was Bush #41 who signed the policy of ‘no net loss of wetlands in 1989. That is the policy that set into motion the protections of wetlands we have remaining today. Essentially, no wetland or waters of the U.S. can be drained, dredged, or filled without a 404 permit (except for the exemptions) and if a permit is issued the wetland lost must be replaced. This is not always a 1:1 replacement since functions and values of the wetland must be considered. It’s still a fairly new science and wetland scientists are learning that simply building a wetland may not replace the functions, services and values of the wetland lost. And that equation is only considering the value to humans. Basically, the no net loss approach is to first, avoid, if you can’t avoid, then minimize the impact without loss, and mitigation is used if avoidance or minimization isn’t possible.

        Since the arrival of Europeans to what is now America, we’ve lost over 50% of conterminous wetlands. 220 million acres of wetlands have been lost and there is about 120 million acres of wetlands remaining. That is old data from a 1990 Thomas Dahl paper. The 120 million acres remaining is from 1985 data. It’s likely a higher loss now. And that is considering only loss of actual acreage leaving out functions and services.

        One of the important reasons to not allow Trump’s new water rule to go into full law is that wetlands and other waterbodies function differently based on hydrology, climate, and geology. There are prairie pothole wetlands over the Ogallala Aquifer that are dry part of the year and then fill. These are highly important nutrition sources for migrating birds. They are also important to other species. It’s a natural wet and dry cycle and many plants and animals depend on that cycle to function naturally.
        The arroyas in the desert SW run fast and furious only during part of the year. They are ephemeral streams and an extraordinary important water source for the region. From what I’ve read of Trump’s water rule both of these important water systems will lose protection under the CWA.

        • avatar Hiker says:

          To bring this wetlands talk back to specific wildlife issues: the loss of beaver during the trapping days led to the loss of much of the temperate wetlands across the continent. So many animals use wetlands for at least part of their lives, they are invaluable, especially in the arid west.

  29. avatar Yvette says:

    This is an enjoyable NG article on the Andes Puma. Lots of photos. It’s National Geographic! They look a bit different than the Mountain Lions here in the states.

  30. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Arctic Reindeer/caribou populations crash. Rather spare on infometion: warming? No mention of predation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


November 2018
« Oct   Dec »


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

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: