Reader generated wildlife news beginning on April 9, 2019

It is time to create a new page of “Reader Generated Wildlife News.” Do not post copyrighted material.

Here is the link to the “old” wildlife news page that began on Feb. 14, 2019 From there you can access links to the many older pages of wildlife news readers created.

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.

106 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? April 9, 2019 edition

  1. avatar Lance Olsen says:

    Natural variability isn’t the last word on climate science
    Lance Olsen

    Politicians visiting western Montana’s Lolo Peak 2017 fire tried to put the blame for the fire on lawsuits filed by environmentalists. Montana’s US Senator Steve Daines did mention the role of climate change, but quickly went on to say that the climate has always changed.

    Well, yes, for sure. Changes in Earth’s temperatures and resulting climate have often been driven by forces beyond human control, and many such changes occurred well before humans existed. These familiar natural forces have changed world temperatures from hot to cold and from cold to hot, all without a lick of help from man, woman or child.

    For example, it’s become plain that large volcanic eruptions can cast killing chills across the planet, crushing crops and making people miserable. For another example, El Niño—perhaps the most widely known expression of natural variability—periodically releases ocean heat that has a rippling effect across much of the planet.

    So Daines’ remark wasn’t entirely hot air. Natural forces are clearly capable of changing the set of conditions we summarize as climate.

    A recent attention-getting study turned up evidence that an earlier planetary hot spell was driven by volcanic magma under an extensive Siberian coalfield. Geologists put that initial study to the test and have twice confirmed that the hot magma scorched the coal above, thereby releasing lots of carbon into the atmosphere, which then increased atmospheric and oceanic temperatures. The resulting heat created extinctions long before there were humans to blame.

    It’s the real world out there, with more than one thing going on at a time, so it’s no shocker that the forms of natural variability don’t always act alone.

    One recent study cites evidence that natural variability in the form of a sulfur-loaded volcanic eruption may have had its cooling influence on North America complicated by the warming influence of another natural variation, El Niño
    All in all, and independent of any single line of evidence, the science on natural variability of climate is as good as it gets. Natural variation of climate is real, is influential, and isn’t going away.

    A 2007 analysis in Science succinctly summarized the situation: “Rising greenhouse gases are changing global climate, but … natural climate variations will have a say.”

    Natural climate variations will have a say, but they’re not the only voice in the climate choir, as Montana’s Senator Daines might have us believe.

    Modern interest in the influence of greenhouse gases had its start with a hunch explored by mathematician Joseph Fourier in the 1820s. Fourier wondered why Earth isn’t too cold to support life. After all, the planet spins on its axis, turning half the globe away from sunlight every night. Why doesn’t everything just freeze in the dark?

    Fourier wasn’t sure, but it was known by his day that our atmosphere is made up of several kinds of gases. That was enough to make him wonder if some of those gases might somehow hug enough heat to keep the planet from deep freeze.

    A contemporary journal published Fourier’s hypothesis, but it wasn’t until about 1860 that physicist John Tyndall put it to the test. With some simple experiments, Tyndall found that two atmospheric gases—water vapor and carbon dioxide—were especially good at holding heat.

    Thirty years later, in the 1890s, a new normal had been established. The burning of coal was commonplace, and there was reason to suspect that it was enabling additions of carbon dioxide above the atmosphere’s normal levels. Curious about the consequences, physical chemist Svante Arrhenius put together a simple little model to estimate where it might lead.

    With Arrhenius’ calculations, modern scientific climate prediction was off to an early start, even before the end of the 19th century. Although primitive compared to the climate calculations of today, Arrhenius’ model predicted a warmer world, with an eventual loss of ice and snow.
    We’re seeing his model tested in the real world today, as glaciers shrink, Arctic sea ice retreats and rainfall in mid-winter months signals a world too warm for snow.

    None of which contradicts the science on natural variability. Earth is and will remain susceptible to natural variability capable of forcing its climate into change, in one direction or another.

    Nor does natural variability contradict the science pioneered by Fourier 200 years ago. It’s still the real world out there, in all its complexity, and politicians shouldn’t be allowed the luxury of using natural variability as a smokescreen.

  2. As Wolf Depredation on Domestic Livestock escalates, in the U.S. and throughout the World with the Wolves successful re-introduction populations spread, the contentious anger between Livestock Producers and Conservationists does also spread. My published research Blog at http://WWW.FENCEFLAGWOLFTRAINING.COM is a tangible suggestion, with minimal cost, to mitigate the anger on both sides of the fence!
    Donald J. Kaleta

    • avatar Nancy says:

      Donald – tried to point out (and maybe others did to in previous posts) that your sales pitch/approach won’t work in many western states due to snowfall and the thousands of acres that would have to be encircled by your product… at a tremendous cost. Can see it on hobby farms and maybe around calving areas?

      Are you listening or do you cling to the hope as a salesman, that ranchers, who really ought to be policing their product (livestock) if they don’t want to suffer losses from predators, are going to try out your product due to the hysterics you’ve created on your website, regarding what native predators are capable of and who’ve been here long before the first rancher ever put up a fence line or stuck a shovel in the ground and called it home……

      • avatar Lance Olsen says:

        As populations of wolves and grizzly bears try to recover access to historic habitat, they’ll be more and more reliant on private lands. Accomodating the needs of wolves and grizzlies will inescapably require accomodating the needs of the people. Easier said than done, but there it is.

    • avatar Ed-L says:

      “”The director of the national park, Seger Emmanuel baron van Voorst tot Voorst, is against letting wolves populate the area. ‘We are working hard on a daily basis to maintain the unique ecological balance of the park,’ he told EenVandaag. ‘There will be big consequences if we let the wolves in.””

      Baron van Voorst tot Voorst needs to pay a visit to Yellowstone NP to see how wolves have improved the natural balance…They will do the same in Holland.

  3. avatar idaursine says:

    Yes, I wondered the same thing. It also says there is an overabundance of deer and wild boar, so I would think the wolves would be welcome to some degree. I think there is an EU law to protect them?

  4. avatar idaursine says:

    “The gray wolf population grew by 14 last year, which conservationists are happy about but not so happy they think the animal’s long-term prospects are secure.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported Monday that it counted 131 Mexican gray wolves for 2018 – 64 in Arizona and 67 in New Mexico – up from 117 the year before. The increase came despite the documented deaths of 21 wolves last year, the report said.”

    Up by 14? Whoop-de-do. But I suppose it is enough to send some into a frenzy. ;(

  5. avatar idaursine says:

    ^^No offense to JeffN’s post – but many times the headlines don’t tell it all.

  6. avatar idaursine says:

    ^^While there is so much antipathy towards wolves basically everywhere in the country, one can never feel that there’s cause to celebrate, just a guarded positivity.

    So, 21 killed and an increase of 14 – still down by 7 in my books. It doesn’t say the causes of death or that ranchers are to blame for (most of?) the deaths of Mexican wolves and they do not want them on the landscape.

    The one notorious example from last year was the rancher who deliberately trapped an endangered wolf, bashed it to death, and I don’t know if he received much more than a wagging finger and a warning not to do it again.

  7. avatar idaursine says:

    I’m sorry, I was wrong – and never more happy to be. This rancher who killed the endangered Mexican wolf had his grazing permit revoked, which would be a very big deal. He is appealing, so I don’t know the status of that:

  8. avatar Hiker says:

    Bear spray success story:

    The only thing I would say about this is that it seems to me that he should’ve had the spray more accessible.

    • avatar Elk375 says:

      What are you NOT ok with. The hunter had been applying of 30 years and was drawn for a moose tag. He hunted and shot a legal moose.

      You have a right to your opinion.

      BTW that is huge moose.

      • avatar Hiker says:

        I just felt sad the moment I saw the picture. Then I read that the hunter passed over other, smaller animals.
        Yes, he did nothing wrong, I just admire animals like that and feel somehow that beast was the fittest in the forest and should survive to pass on his fitness.
        Yes, I known some will view that as idealism. I admit it, I’m an idealist when it comes to Nature. I will never forget seeing Moose (not as big) while hiking and working in Grand Teton N.P. Beautiful creatures.

        • avatar idaursine says:

          I wouldn’t call it idealism at all, what you feel. Idealism is for something that can’t really ever become reality. What this man has done is the opposite of idealism and destructive to life.

          It’s a terrible waste, especially when moose populations are dwindling, to take such an incredible animal out of the population, simply for this man to win the ‘prize’ and get attention. It’s selfish of him to say the least.

          Basically, killed and never to breed for nothing. It’s way out of balance, and is not sustainable in the present world.

          I think it is wrong and unethical to continue as if it were 200 years ago, and it was wrong and unethical then.

          • avatar rork says:

            It is not simply to win a prize. You go hunting and sometimes get lucky.
            Never to breed – looks like a very mature and attractive male to me. In Germany they shoot the maximal males because they fear they have produced too many offspring already.
            The moose are doing OK in parts of Montana or they wouldn’t be hunting them. We don’t have that many in MI, where they are increasing. Nevertheless we don’t hunt them, cause there aren’t that many.

            • avatar Hiker says:

              Did you read the article? This hunter bypassed several smaller animals in hopes of a larger trophy. BTW this is NOT Germany. This animal was hunted in Washington.
              My main point is allowing smaller, less fit, males to survive and killing larger, more fit males may lead, in the long run, to weaker animals overall. This, it seems to me, runs counter to Nature’s ways. The more fit survive to pass on their genes.

            • avatar idaursine says:

              Please. It is the equivalent of a ‘prize’ – biggest, best, for bragging rights.

              Even if animals are not doing okay, hunting is still allowed, like the sage grouse, with a convenient rationale for it. I’d like to see just how well they are doing in Montana. I don’t think any animal is really doing well in today’s world.

            • avatar idaursine says:

              I should have written ‘never to breed again’. While I am sure this magnificent animal has passed his strong and healthy genetics on in the past, he will never do so in the future, and we really need to consider the future of our ever-stressed wildlife instead of immediate gratification for ourselves.

              The man doesn’t need or have to hunt for food. It is a choice, and I don’t think we can be so selfishly selective anymore in what we eat. He could have chosen the more prevalent deer and elk. Or any of the millions of cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens that are slaughtered daily to feed him.

              To save money, I’ve heard some say, but none of these people look like they are poor. Taking a life to save money, I don’t know about that.

              It just all comes off as greedy and self-indulgent.

  9. avatar idaursine says:

    “Yeah, but it was legal.”

    Legal does not mean moral or ethical, and most times really just means convenient for human interest IMO, and immoral and unethical.

    Just the fact that hunting has downgraded over time from a necessity for food and/or safety, to a ‘sport’ and ‘pastime’, really gives pause.

    Our biology hasn’t kept up with our technology and progress, because we still have the ancient killer instinct.

  10. avatar Nancy says:

    “But opponents fear the legislation will be used to justify the existence of bears and wolves outside of national parks and wilderness areas”

    • avatar Hiker says:

      So ignorance is better? Of course it is, if it threatens your viewpoint.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      I’m just shaking my head here. Some don’t want the oppressive control they have exercised for years threatened by the possible economic boon of tourism the study might show?

      But if it is for the legislature, it will affect policy decisions, no question. I just hope it is for the better and not (even) worse.

  11. avatar idaursine says:

    While I’d hardly call it a ‘mini baby boom’ as some reports are, it’s a relief and a welcome good sign in a population of less than 500 in the world, est. 430. There had been no new calves spotted in awhile, none last year:

  12. avatar rork says:

    There are a ton of articles about impossible burgers, which are made with heme produced by GMO yeast. Some of the things said and done by natural products people or Friends of Earth are hysterical. If the price of these products can come down, tremendous ecological good might be done, since raising animals for food on a small planet with too many people, unless it is tiny amounts of meat per person, is horrible for earth. What are the critics thinking?
    I get that people making money certain ways will have a biased view.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      There is a lot of whining in the media that is childish and silly. Some of those impossible burgers look great, just about real. But personally, I lost my taste for real burgers, and don’t need a replacement of any kind.

  13. avatar rork says: was pretty good and short.
    “It is ironic that an innovation that may be eco-friendly and sustainable must be readily dismissed by groups that claim to share those goals.”

    • avatar idaursine says:

      What a mess! The extent of plastic pollution is shocking, simply for convenience’s sake.

      I miss the days of glass, and picking up tumbled beach glass on the shore, instead of tons of plastic. I’m trying to rid the use of plastic and disposable stuff. Surely we can was out glass and take a few minutes to clean things and reuse them.

      I wish it could all be burned as a fuel source, but that all comes with its own set of problems too. Like dominoes.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      The precipice upon which we are perched is precarious. It doesn’t matter where you live, this stuff is in the air we breath. Air currents are global, so this stuff is global in distribution.its already been shown to be able to cross into cells. Just another nail in the coffin of wildlife, and perhaps our own.

  14. avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

    ODFW submits wolf management plan

    The old plan allowed for hunts after two confirmed wolf depredations of livestock in an area. The new plan would allow hunts only after two confirmed depredations within a nine-month period

    Last week, the agency reported that Oregon was home to a record number of wolves, 20 years after the species returned to the state.

    The number of known wolves in Oregon at the end of 2018 was 137

    Confirmed wolf attacks on domesticated animals increased 65 percent from the previous year, with 28 confirmed incidents, most of them on calves. But the attacks have not kept pace with the increase in wolf population over the past nine years.

    compare the trend in Oregon vs Germany

    Wolves from Poland appeared in Germany in 2000 and now there are 73 confirmed packs and 30 pairs / Road traffic is the biggest danger to the animals: 140 of the around 200 dead wolves since 2000 died in road accidents. From May 2016 to April 2017, five wolves were reported to have been killed illegally./ The number of wolf attacks on livestock in Germany is growing, with more than 1,667 sheep and other farm animals killed, injured or going missing in 2017.

    Germany’s federal documentation center, DBBW, said attacks on livestock by wolves increased by some 66 percent in 2017 compared with the year before, with 472 cases registered.

    Most of the farm animals killed were sheep

    • avatar WM says:

      Kind of looks like the old tales the Germans and Poles told about wolf depredation and why they should be killed whenever seen back in the 1700-1800’s was probably not so far fetched afterall. And, that the settlers to the New World carried those same prejudices was not unfounded, eh Mareks?

      The number of wolf attacks on livestock in Germany is growing, with more than 1,667 sheep and other farm animals killed, injured or going missing in 2017.66% increase in depredation on livestock in 2017. Hmmm.

      • avatar Mat-ters says:

        The 1700-1800 repercussions of a wolf attack on a family of that era was profound. THOSE that villainize the good people of those times,as the do with the settlers of the west, need the karma and the pleasure of a good thief in the night!

        • avatar Hiker says:

          Heartily agree with you, Matters. NO ONE should be villainized if they are attacked by any wildlife. I support ANY self-defense against ANY attack, wildlife or otherwise. That’s why I keep a loaded weapon in my house, along with many knives. Anyone messes with me or my family and friends will suffer.

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            Well thank you Hiker for sticking up for those affected. Villainizing the rancher is the state of the art for the no-limit PC. They have no other recourse to the affect of unmanaged predators other than to villainize those on the front line. “One Northern Michigan farmer named John Koski is probably the biggest “villain”. I was appalled at what the Michigan Liberal Media did to that elderly Gentleman.

            There is no doubt that Mr Koski is not going to win too many awards for his animal husbandry. One has to wonder if Mr Koski the 70 year old didn’t have the energy to put up new fences, to be moving his cattle in and out of different pastures daily or take care of three donkeys that were expected to scare wolves. NO Doubt he had poor animal husbandry techniques BUT, those putting wolves into his PRIVATE land pastures should hold some of that blame! I can’t think of one 70 year old that has the same energy they had at 30 or 40! Expecting him to put flaggies on the fences and electrify his fence, move cattle a couple times a day, feed their darn donkey’s all so fools like the HSUS can create controversy so “donate now” buttons get pressed. It’s common knowledge that John had had enough and gave up after years of torment from not knowing what the morning would bring on his herd! I don’t blame him for pretty much letting the wolves eat his cattle JUST to prove what the wolves can do! Keeping wolves at the number in the Michigan wolf management plan would have gone a long way at alleviating some of the pressure on John. BUT, the” no-limit PC’s “maximum wolves at maximum cost to taxpayers, livestock owners, pet owners and game herds almost assures us that John would have continuous issues every year for eternity.
            To this day, they never changed him with anything that I’m aware of in regards to wolves and livestock depredations. They brought charges against John regarding the mules he was expected to care for in order to scare wolves.

            John has since sold that acreage falling prey to the ” no-limit PC”. Running people off of private lands is what it is about isn’t it? They claim wolves don’t run private land owners off their property…….not true in MI state is it.

            • avatar Hiker says:

              Matters, I am in favor of people protecting themselves from attack. That means self-defense. If a rancher loses livestock they can get a depredation permit or rely on the government for help. While I am sympathetic to the individual you mention above, maybe if he can’t do the work or hire others to help (did you offer help?) he should retire. Like Ida says below ‘there’s a a lot more livestock around then before’.

              I am still in favor of wolves and don’t mind them for neighbors. When was the last time wolves attacked a person? It’s quite rare. Yet they are still demonized in our culture. Needlessly so. Our thoughtless cruelty is demon enough.

            • avatar rork says:

              Koski was worse than incompetent. He is a criminal. That some ranchers quit is a good thing and he is the perfect proof of that.

              And the cost to taxpayers, responsible livestock owners, and responsible pet owners has been miniscule.

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            Hiker, It looks like you support the 2nd Amendment! Thank you I don’t like to have “loaded” guns around…. mine are locked up. I have to many rug rats rat that visit…. we estimate 70 (all ages)of them for our Easter egg hunt this weekend.

            Thank you for making our society safer. Those that are venomous towards the 2nd amendment don’t realized that they benefit from the deterrent of home invasions. Comparing the 50/100,000 murders in gun control Mexico to the 5/100,000 in the 2nd amendment US shows the contrast. Digging into those numbers shows that the drug cartel MS13 members act differently to home invasions when here in the US vs back in Mexico…..

            • avatar Hiker says:

              While not a hunter, I grew up in L.A. with guns (loaded) in the house. I was taught by my father, at a young age, how to shoot. I still have an old 22 rifle from those days. I truly respect the rights of our citizens to protect themselves. The facts are clear, however, that I feel the need for protection mostly from my fellow humans. I don’t take a gun hiking, I’m not afraid of the wildlife. I do take my gun to L.A. When I was a National Park Ranger one of my ‘jokes’ during my bear talks was that a bear never pointed a gun at me, but people have.

      • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

        unfounded is only your spin, WM – business as usual

        before the settlers exterminated bisons, elks etc they exterminated indigenous people … probably with some legit justification in WM’s eyes

        • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

          as usual knee-jerk reactions from the rabid gnat

          in Germany there are 600-700 wolves and increase in sheep depredation is seen only for the last couple years

          and there will not be a wolf hunting season in the near future as ungulate costs to crops and forestry run in hundreds of millions euro every year (apart from ungulate-vehicle collusions which cost 500 million euro every year)

          depredated sheep are compensated in Germany and since 2021 the EU funds will fully compensate livestock depredations and protection measures in all EU member states

          bottom line: the poor US cannot tolerate even the loss of 20 cattle and will allow gunning down ‘the problem wolves’ whereas in Germany they are allowed to recolonize the whole Germany before wolf hunting will be considered

          • avatar idaursine says:

            Thank you, Mareks.

          • avatar Hiker says:

            Very interesting insight. Livestock losses viewed as acceptable to prevent other damage caused by too many deer! I wondered what the natural prey of wolves in Germany/Poland was. I didn’t know they had so many.

          • avatar Mat-ters says:

            “fully compensate” in your dreams!

          • avatar WM says:

            Those darned Europeans and their historic and current distaste for wolves. This time it is the Russians:


            • avatar WM says:

              And now it is the fear of cross-breeding of wolves with dogs in Italy. So why should farmers be concerned about this?


              And, Norway plans to kill half its wolf population:

              So, imagine many more wolves on the landscape in so many countries 150 years ago or earlier. Were the fears of farmers or rural dwellers irrational at the time? Was there justification for settlers to the new world to bring these prejudices with them as they also encountered wolves in the wilderness of the New World, and saw threats to livestock and maybe even humans in some circumstances back then?

            • avatar WM says:

              German Minister of Agriculture wants to loosen restrictions on wolf removal (guess things are not as rosy and conflict free as Mareks wants you to believe: https:


            • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

              you are desperate WM

              for starters, learn which countries are member states of the EU / how many wolves are in the EU / which countries make the core of wolf meta-population

              in Germany for years some right-wing populists try to apply the same anti-immigrant language to wolves – yawn

              try harder, one-dimensional gnat

              • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

                majority of the US colonists consisted of English and Scots who exterminated the wolf in EN & SCO long time before 1800

                do not want to pontificate about the differences between EN vs the US livestock operation in the 18th and 19th centuries? and how about habitat and prey species in Europe vs the US in the 18th and 19th centuries?

                bottom line: the EU countries have two times more wolves than the Lower48 and the gap will grow in near future (thanks to wolf population growth in GER, FRA, POL)

                How Many Wolves (Canis lupus) Fit into Germany?

                assuming an average pack home range size of 200 km2 and an average pack size of 4–5 wolves … Existing wolf habitat models predict suitable habitat for 400–441 wolf packs in Germany

              • avatar WM says:

                For all your blither, Mareks, you miss the point. Everywhere around the world where there are wolves increasing in number, density and range, there is increasing conflict. And, it is spilling over into political action to reduce the tension by reducing the number.

                • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

                  your reading comprehension is sorely missing, WM – when politicians cannot solve structural animal husbandry problems they scapegoat wolves.

                  At least in the EU it is restricted only to moaning in mass media but neither in Germany nor Spain or Italy or Poland there will be wolf hunting in near future

                • avatar WM says:

                  Oh, my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you, Mareks. It’s not solely “inability to solve animal husbandry problems.” It has to do with the entire prey base, and wolf impacts on them. Some problems are unique to certain geographic areas. in the US it is also impacts on wild game such as deer/elk/prong-horns, as well as domestic livesstock of all kinds, or even dogs. Did you know that in the 1990’s MN wolves ate domestic turkeys by the thousands if they could get to them?

                  It appears Poland is nearing a decision to allow wolf hunting after it was stopped in the mid-1990’s and now the population has doubled. The dampening factor thereseems to be wolf appetite for wild pigs which also tear up farmer fields, so there is that. Estonia (your native Latvia as well, as recently as 2014, but I don’t know about today) still hunts wolves as do several of the former Soviet bloc countries. They are hunted in Canada as well. At some point, I am relatively confident in saying in every Western state of the US and even EU countries, elsewhere in Europe or Asia, or wherever wolves are or will be found in larger biologically sustaining numbers, there will eventually be hunting for predator control, by agencies, designated hunters under contract or livestock owners, and possibly the public. As for sport, I am reluctant to say as that seems to be in flux – this from an internet source website which seems relatively current;

                  I do hope to see an article from Dr. Mech on the German wolves. You continually confuse my position on wolves, Mareks. I have said repeatedly on this forum that it will always be about the numbers, the range and the perceived impacts (real or imagined) that will affect wolf populations, wherever they are, and the politics that surround them. It is a part of the co-existence formula.

                  The problem with you, Mareks, is that you don’t like rational discussion of complex topics, and easily get lost in the briar patch (American idiom). And that is where the problem lies. Of course, you opine on mathematical concepts, “one-dimensional gnat,”(one dimension is a line, not a 3 dimensional object), or a diseased condition which is impossible for an insect to acquire,”rabid gnat,”for example. Exactly what are those, some sort of derogatory and demeaning terms you have to resort to because you can’t discuss a topic intelligently, eh sport?

                • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

                  This is another example that it is you who is unable of ‘rational discussion’ because you are lacking reading comprehension among many other factors.

                  In Europe there is abundance of ungulates who cause damage in billions euro every year (Germany, Austria, Sweden etc). You chose to ignore this fact of life to preach your usual garbage.

                  No, Poland will not start wolf hunting. There is African swine fever spreading across Europe not wolves eating too many wild boars.

                  If you think Scandinavian hunters are the mainstream on anything related to wolves you are off your rocker. They are involved in one court case after another.

                  Slovakia now hunts 4 times less wolves than back in 2013 – thanks to the pressure from Poland and Germany who were complaining that Slovak hunters kill dispersing wolves from Poland and therefore interferes with connenctivity on a population level. So much for the might of anti-wolf lobby in Germany, Poland and Slovakia.

                  Romania also stopped wolf hunting.

                  Sweden and Finland actually stopped wolf hunt last season, lol.

                  Then again you chose to ignore advice to learn which countries are the EU member states etc – so much for rational discussion.

                  Maybe read Washington State’s wolf conservation plan at last? Then you will learn a thing or two about wolf impact on local ungulate herds.

                  Should I refresh your memory about discussion of Idaho wolf density on TWN forum? You are not very good at maths and have a problem to apply even elementary arithmetic.

                  It’s amazing that you cannot remember that ‘one-dimensional’ was your favorite adjective /pejorative to describe TWN forum members who diagreed with your preaching. It seems you also lack a sense of proportion and irony.

    • avatar Mat-ters says:

      Example, John Kerry told us that 97& of climate scientist agree that catastrophic CC is imminent. That blatant lie only erodes the credibility of that side of the argument, especially when you find out that it’s not even close AND that almost all of those climate scientist have their hand in the cookie jar & their lively hood depends on funding for CC! Those “Facts” that the national media also feeds are examples of “WHY”.

      • avatar Hiker says:

        I going to throw oil on this fire, Matters. Have you heard that the other planets in our solar system are also heating up? I wonder if that’s true?

        • avatar Mat-ters says:

          Hiker, I have not heard that ….. BUT, I’m sure if we put the Farley Mowat wanbee’s on the case, they can whip up some science to …. blame wolf management for the heat. (wink)

      • avatar rork says:

        Let me review that logic:
        1) if one person overstated the magnitude of the problem it proves there is no problem.
        2) if I can come up with a conspiracy theory there is no problem.
        3) if the press reports on the problem, and is not Fox News, there is no problem.
        4) if I can ignore for the moment that the sea is rising and getting more acidic, there is no problem, for the moment.

  15. avatar idaursine says:

    IDK, what’s different today is that there is a (whole) lot more livestock and a whole lot less wolves, but still the old prejudice remains.

    European settlers brought that mindset with them, whether they were affected or not, a preemptive strike – on not just wolves, but the entire state of being of the continent. I don’t know if there are than many records of attacks on humans in the history of this nation – but a whole lot of records on what humans have done to each other and other living things.

    • avatar Hiker says:

      I agree Ida. Let’s promote less destructive mindsets.

    • avatar rork says:

      The good news is that in the US there are less sheep. Just 10% of what we once had. I still own allot of wool but other people seem fine with the newfangled stuff.

      (I buy used but perfect sweaters at resale. 5 or 6 dollars gets me a sweater worth over $100 regularly. Cashmere runs $7. A bit less guilt about supporting animal husbandry. There are a bunch of rich people in Ann Arbor, which helps. Popping tags is like finding hidden treasure – it’s fun.)

  16. avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

    ‘Decades of denial’: major report finds New Zealand’s environment is in serious trouble

    Almost two-thirds of New Zealand’s rare ecosystems are under threat of collapse, and over the last 15 years the extinction risk worsened for 86 species, compared with the conservation status of just 26 species improving in the past 10 years.

    A massive rise in the country’s dairy herd over the last 20 years has had a devastating impact on the country’s freshwater quality …. groundwater failed standards at 59% of wells owing to the presence of E coli, and at 13% of the wells owing to nitrates. Some 57% of monitored lakes registered poor water quality, and 76% of native freshwater fish are at risk of or threatened with extinction. A third of freshwater insects are also in danger of extinction.

    Forest and Bird said the main culprits for worsening freshwater quality were the intensive use of fertilisers, irrigation and cows.

  17. avatar Hiker says:

    Known wolf hater poached a wolf in GTNP, then claims it was an accident. This guy is a guide for hunters and claims he didn’t know where he was! This happened during the last government shutdown when there were fewer rangers on staff. Coincidence? I think not.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      I hadn’t heard the ‘known wolf hater’ braggart bragging part. Just the ‘I didn’t know, sorry, didn’t see the sign, etc.’ part. But I expected something like that and, tada!, was not surprised by the confirmation. I wish I would be surprised one day.

    • avatar Mat-ters says:

      It’s pretty hard not to know where you are now days with electronics. Even during the “flip phone” days there were still things that you could take to tell you where you are…. Hard to believe…. I’ve hunted Slough Creek north of the park….Gotta know where you are! Those signs are easy to miss in the more remote locations…..

      • avatar Hiker says:

        And yet, according to the article, they knew they passed a boundary sign. ““I looked at them,” he told Armitage at his Kelly home the morning of Jan. 9. “I actually pointed them out to [redacted]. I said, ‘There’s the park boundary.’””.

        I have been there many times, it’s not hard to know your way. Notice it say’s ‘at his Kelly home’… this guy actually lives a few miles from where the poaching took place. He knows that place well (as a resident, “third-generation Jackson Hole rancher”, and a hunting guide).

      • avatar idaursine says:

        Sounds like you’re having a crowd over for the holiday Matters – hope you enjoy!

  18. avatar Nancy says:

    Way too early in the spring for this:

    Could this be why:

    “It is estimated that we are losing about 5,000 acres per day across the west to weeds. Their seeds are spread by wild animals, domestic livestock, pets, people and vehicles”

    • avatar idaursine says:

      Awwwww, and her favorite photographer, I bet.

      Watch her closely, National Parks!

    • avatar Rich says:


      Actually she is more than a minor celebrity with a nationwide if not worldwide following. Tom Mangelsen and Todd Wilkenson published a book titled “Grizzlies of Pilgrim Creek” documenting her life and legacy. It is definitely worth a read if you haven’t already done so.

      • avatar Hiker says:

        As far as I know she hasn’t starred in any movies yet. Hence the ‘minor’ celebrity. But … if you are into bears then definitely NOT minor.

        BTW I’ve seen her and her cubs many times as well as 610, her daughter. From my experience NOTHING is more exciting for the average tourist than seeing a Griz in the wild.

  19. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Wisconsin DNR Investigating Dogs Killed By Poisoning

    Collateral Damage?

Leave a Reply

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


April 2019
« Mar    


‎"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: