Reader generated wildlife news beginning on July 25, 2019

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

Here is the link to to the “old” wildlife news page that began on April 9, 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.

151 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? July 25, 2019

  1. TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2019

    APHIS USDA Administrator Announces Several Senior Leadership Changes As Trump Prepares Apparently To Fire 100’s of Scientists That Don’t Agree With Him, what about mad cow type disease tse prion?

  2. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    Another frightening,disgusting,and angering Trump slap against our health, our country, and our environment.

  3. avatar Nancy says:

    Lest we forget, the madman in the White House has an agenda……..

    “Although Hitler is dead, the theories that he espoused remain alive. With the modern tools being developed by biologists and other scientists, it is important for young people to be made aware that knowledge can be manipulated and turned into tools of destruction.

    In every generation, educating the young is an awesome task. Today, with new scientific advances, the rapid spread of knowledge through computer networks, and the ability to alter the material being transmitted, it is more important than ever that students learn to think for themselves. Part of that learning process should include the devastating effects of prejudice. A true understanding of the history of the Holocaust would make that lesson clear”

  4. avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

    New survey methods will help produce the first estimate of total wolf numbers since 2015

    In recent months, Fish and Game staff have deployed over 800 game cameras in a high-density grid throughout the state, which will take millions of pictures. When Fish and Game staff collect the cameras at the end of September, researchers will download and analyze the photos and apply statistical modeling to estimate the population. 

    Sifting through millions of photos will be labor intensive, but Fish and Game Wildlife Research Manager Mark Hurley is aiming to early next year have the most robust and accurate count of wolves ever in Idaho, and the first scientific population estimate since 2015. 

    • avatar WM says:

      Very expensive effort, and they still won’t be able to get sufficient geographic coverage even with so many cameras to get an accurate count. And, who is going to make the identifications to identify unique individuals – will they use FBI facial recognition software? Won’t this be a hoot to watch unfold?

      • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

        learn some basic wolf ecology in the first place

        • avatar WM says:

          Mareks, I have been watching wolf population monitoring in ID since the reintroduction. Even had communications with the then IDFG wolf coordinator Steve Nadeau back in the 1990’s. He told me, with their collaring program at the time, there were no wolves in areas where I had seen them. No wolves were relfected in their annual reports to USFWS at the time. The following year, they acknowleged the re wolves where they thought there were none before. Scat, tracks and kill sites confirmed my assertion, since we had taken pictures and gave them coordinates. Don’t lecture me on wolf ecology, sport.

          • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:


            don’t spread the same old ‘argument’ of yours as the only proof of your knowledge of wolf ecology

            it’s obvious that you cannot apply even the basic wolf ecology to evaluate the given wolf monitoring / survey methodology

            get a grip

      • avatar Hiker says:

        And yet if they didn’t try to count wolves other people might complain about any management planning they attempt.

  5. avatar Nancy says:

    A look back……and yeah, definitely some wildlife news in this “recap”

  6. avatar idaursine says:

    Here we go again. Not the most opportune time:

    “Officials at Theodore Roosevelt National Park say the 17-year-old girl from Colorado was on a trail Saturday and walked between two bull bison that had been fighting.”

  7. avatar Bruce Bowen says:

    The above link goes to a scientific report by the LSU veterinary team, (led by Dr. Frank Bastian), that is working on discovering the cause of transmissable spongiform encephalopathy (TSE).

    Much of the literature to date assumes that TSE’s are caused specifically by rogue prions. This may not be the case. The LSU team discovered a “Spiroplasma spp.” of organism. These are tiny filterable, wall-less bacteria which the LSU team consistently found to be associated with TSE. This bacteria is even smaller than some viruses and is very difficult to detect. It is quite possible that this bacteria damages normal prion tissue to form abnormal prion protein in this complicated disease process.

    Chronic Wasting Disease continues to spread, and as it spreads, the probability of this disease infecting other species of animals and humans increases. It is a very dangerous decision on Trumps part to weaken the USDA and other scientific departments.

    It is bad enough to see our beautiful native animals suffer and die but there is still the growing possibility that the livestock industry will be devastated and that more humans will succumb to this stealthy killer.

    Our president who acts like a cross between P.T. Barnum and Adolf Hitler and his myopic, die hard cheer leaders in the republican congress, have got to go if we are to survive much longer.

    • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

      Does the US have a pet tiger problem?

      There may be more captive tigers in the US than wild ones in the rest of the world. But in states like Texas that bristle at government interference, no-one really knows how many are being kept as pets.

      … Taj is one of as many as 7 000 tigers living in the US either in zoos or privately owned, according to some estimates. That’s nearly double the estimated 3 890 tigers still prowling in the wild around the world.

      • avatar idaursine says:

        I wish this could be stopped – no one has the ‘right’ to keep an animal like a tiger as a pet, it’s abuse. Only a first-rate accredited zoo (and I have mixed feelings about that). 🙁

        The best is their natural habitat.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      This is something to be proud of. I just read about one being beaten to death in a rural area, but still – I’m glad to see the population overall is growing and protected, and important for the world to know about:

  8. avatar Nancy says:

    FYI – FWP ENCOURAGING people to sign up and take advantage of killing wolves in the state of Montana.

    “In addition to license and permit requirements, a person must attend and complete a wolf trapping certification class before setting any trap for a wolf in Montana.

    Completion of either the Idaho or Montana wolf trapping certification class will be recognized as meeting this requirement. A certificate will be awarded to those completing the Montana trapping certification class”

    • avatar Hiker says:

      Over 1 billion people in India. It’s smaller than the U.S.A. I am surprised they have any wildlife at all. And yet 1 person may have died from wounds inflicted by a wolf.

    • avatar Hiker says:

      Tigers kill more people per year in India. why do you focus on what wolves do?

      • avatar WM says:

        Because there are those who strongly deny that wolves will attack humans. Doesn’t happen often, probably in many areas where humans interact with wolves. But it does happen and has likely happened throughout human history. Then there are all those events including testing would be prey, and almost attacks that are never reported and won’t show up in any recorded history. My cousin, a truthful guy from what I know, talked about getting an elk last year during archery season and being stalked by a pack of 5-7 wolves for a four mile trip out of the woods with an elk quarter on his back. Go figure.

        PS. I know nothing about tigers, and have no skin in the game, so to speak. On the other hand, wolves are in my back yard, and where I hunt. I have no fear of personally being attacked by one or more wolves, by the way. I think the risk is extremely low, and I think common sense and historic data support that conclusion that many others hold.

        • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

          from WA Wolf plan

          p. 114

          Predicted Levels of Wolf Predation on Ungulates in Washington

          “Total populations of 50 and 100 wolves are expected to have minor overall impacts on Washington’s ungulate populations. Fifty wolves may kill about 425-630 elk and 700-1,050 deer per year, with annual take doubling for 100 wolves (see Table 13 for an explanation of these estimates). These
          levels of predation could result in noticeable effects on elk and deer abundance in some localized areas occupied by wolf packs, but should not have broad-scale impacts. These levels of loss potentially represent 1-2% of the state’s elk population and less than 1% of the combined deer population. With larger populations of wolves, greater numbers of ungulates would be removed annually, with perhaps 1,700-3,800 elk and 2,800-6,300 deer taken if 200-300 wolves became re-established (Table 13).

          Populations of 50 to 100 wolves should have few negative effects on big game hunting in Washington, as demonstrated by the relatively small estimated take of ungulates described above (by comparison, Washington hunters kill about 7,900 elk and 38,600 deer annually). As noted elsewhere
          (Creel and Winnie 2005, Mao et al. 2005, Proffitt et al. 2009), wolves may also cause some redistribution of game, which could make these species somewhat less vulnerable to hunter harvest.
          However, these impacts together would be restricted to the relatively few areas occupied by packs during the early to middle stages of recovery and would probably not reduce statewide harvests of elk and deer by more than 1-3%.

          • avatar WM says:

            And yet the WA wolf population in 2019, Mareks, is well over the 50-100 used in the WA wolf plan, to show relative impact.

            So, how many elk, deer, and of course cows, sheep, dogs, etc. do you suppose the wolf population in WA will take when it closes in on 250-300 in just a couple more years? Officially the 2018 population, according to WDFW is a MINIMUM of 126 individual wolves, 27 packs, and 15 successful breeding pairs. Add another 10-15 percent, plus wolves in Indian Country and we are closer to reality.

            • avatar Hiker says:

              “Relative impact” What a joke WM. There are so many impacts on elk, deer, and cattle that far surpass wolves. Hunting, weather, disease, accidents, all cause way more cattle and deer, elk deaths then wolves. Give it a rest.

            • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

              2016 – 115 wolves
              2017 – 122 wolves
              2018 – 126 wolves

              and WA survey does include 10%-15% lone wolves:
              “The annual survey includes lone wolves. WDFW multiplies the minimum
              documented count by 12.5% to account for unknown wolves on the landscape.”

              “WDFW investigators confirmed 11 cattle and one sheep as being killed by wolves during the year.”

              Bottom line:do not shit through your mouth, lawyer

              • avatar WM says:

                WA estimates just like OR and everywhere else are MINIMUMS.

                Wolf population year 2 = wolf pop year 1 + births – deaths +/- net migration.

                How many wolves were killed by WDFW or their contractors in any given year for getting in trouble?

                How many wolves died by poachers in WA?

                How many wolves are in Indian Country and not counted by WA in thier counts?

                How many wolves were killed in Indian Country, reported and unreported?

                You forgot the injured but not killed livestock and domestic animals Mareks.

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  How many wolves is enough? Enough to not be inbred. Enough to survive. Enough…How many cows are enough? Enough with all the cows on our land!!

                • avatar WM says:

                  The alleged inbred argument was long ago dismissed, Hiker, by many geneticists early on in the wolf reintroduction. IN fact those geneticists were so pissed at wolf advocates who erroneously raised the argument in the early Montana litigation before Federal Judge Malloy they felt compelled to call bullslhit on it:

                  Connectivity of WA wolves to Canada, ID and OR ensure that. Transplantation in WA is also a part of the wolf management plan, though not done to date.

                  Cows, well that is a continuing area of conflict with producers exercising their legal right to private property, and public lands, while experiencing increased operating costs absent for many decades.

                • avatar idaursine says:

                  How much is it gonna cost the taxpayers?

                • avatar idaursine says:

                  ^^the (now-yearly) wolf removals, I mean? At one time it was 10K?

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  WM, fair enough about inbreeding, but not enough. All this drama about WA wolves. Mostly it’s about cattle grazing on OUR land. Legal rights? If it’s a RIGHT to graze on OUR land, that RIGHT can be and should be changed.

                • avatar WM says:

                  Ida, that is an excellent question, because the possibility of having too many wolves in too many places was not addressed, to my knowledge, in the NRM reintroduction EIS. Of course, the feds were paying for the planning, management and control mostly with grants, employees and cost-shares, and now the costs have shifted in large part to the states, and will likely shift even more if a national delisting is complete (except the Mexican wolf in AZ and NM).

                  The pressure to eliminate grazing on public lands as wolf populations increased and greater conflict was perceived with livestock operators was also not part of a full EIS on wolf reintroduction, either. And yet, it is front and center in the hot issues presented today. And, this is why, long ago Ralph postulated that wolf reintroduction is about much more than the survival of the species at levels to meet Endangered Species Act legal objectives.

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  WM, Ralph posted that because there’s a conflict of interest on OUR public lands. Forest Service lands are supposed to be multiuse, but emphasize grazing and logging way more than ecology. They seem to be operating like it’s the previous century (and maybe even the one before that). Wake up! We are losing numerous species every year. Every endangered species is about more than that one animal, it’s about how that one animal effects the whole. With wolves their effects are obvious to us, but we’re losing bugs that are every bit as crucial.

                • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

                  Wolves on tribal lands ARE included in annual survey – you do not know what you are talking about and have been caught with your pants down again and again and again, lol

                  “Each year’s population total reflects population losses as well as population gains. WDFW documented 12 mortalities during 2018, including four removed by the department in response to wolf-caused livestock deaths; six legally killed by tribal hunters; and two other human-caused deaths that remained under investigation when this report was prepared.”

                  “Wolves that inhabit tribal lands in the Eastern Washington recovery area are managed by those specific tribal entities.”

                • avatar Nancy says:

                  And you forget the dying & dead livestock (from many other causes; weather, respiratory disease, boneyards, calving complications and even injuries from trucking to remote locations) that more often than not, lead to wolf depredation, WM.

                  Montana has somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 wolves and Livestock losses, from wolves, is about the same as its been for years – minute, given how many cows are on the landscape – and most of the depredation seems to occur over and over on the same ranches or public land grazing allotments. Why do you suppose that is?

                • avatar WM says:

                  The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 applies to all eligible federal lands. And then there is FLPMA for BLM. Don’t forget the Forest Service is in the Department of Agriculture – notwithstanding multiple use, they are largely in the business of tree farming, and to some extent livestock interests. BLM, of course, is in Interior, but they too have a resource use loyalty that is part of the persona of the West.

                  Years ago, when this forum had a broader interest spectrum and drew more learned commentors, we had some pretty good discussions of some of these topics. The dialog community, unfortunately, is smaller now, and maybe not even as experienced or well-educated. I find that sad.

                  I see some advocacy groups, lead by some outfit out of Maryland(?) just filed suit in Seattle (King County) over the new wolf kill order in NE WA by WDFW under the Commission’s wolf management plan. Haven’t seen the complaint yet. Interesting choice to sue in King rather than Thurston County, the county where the state capitol is and the decisions are made by WDFW administrators. Maybe this is really all about delay, as the state will likely want to move the case to Olympia.

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  WM, now we’re uneducated? Is that what we do here, insult each other? Yes the FS is tree farming and grazing. Is that really what Americans want? I think if people really knew what these agencies do in their name things would be different. That’s why I post here, many people who don’t post read our words and take heart. Endlessly obsessing about what you perceive as problems with wolves only serves those with economic agendas toward OUR public lands. Is that your goal? Is that your loyalty? Do you really take the side of welfare ranchers who continue to abuse OUR public land?

        • avatar Hiker says:

          Hey, you brought up the wolves in India, not me. If you’re going to bring something up here expect others to think critically about it. Your focus on the problems wolves cause makes me wonder why you feel that way. I too have encountered wolves in the wild and they always fled from me quickly. Granted I wasn’t hauling a bloody carcass like your cousin but you’ve told that story here before and like before I must say HE WAS NOT ATTACKED. Yes, attacks happen, but Moose and Bison attacks are way more common. In other countries it’s Hippos or Tigers. Wolf attacks are WAY down on the list of dangerous animals. At the top of that list are: Humans, dogs, Moose, Elk, Bison, Lions, Tigers, and Bears (oh my). My suggestion to you is that if you are that afraid of Wolves avoid where they live. I do the same when I visit L.A.

          • avatar WM says:

            Hiker, you must have missed my statement above. I’ll say it again: “I have no fear of personally being attacked by one or more wolves, by the way.”

            And, I agree with Elk375’s post as well. I made no statement about risk relative to other danger risks which are statistically way more likely to produce bad results for some human.

            • avatar Hiker says:

              I read what you wrote but your constant negativity about wolves stems from something, I suggest unrecognized fear.

              Wolves do more good for any ecosystem they’re in then all hunters in the same area. Our conquest of Nature continues to cause widespread, unintended problems. Wildlife, better neighbors than many people.

              • avatar Yvette says:

                ++ Hiker.

                One thing I haven’t seen in this thread between you and WM is any mention of Diamond M Ranch or the powerful McIrvine family. The McIrvines have intentionally set out salt blocks wolf dens to get to increase the likelihood of a wolf/cattle incidence. They know they that the wolves will be killed if they lose a cow.

                Wasn’t there a WSU professor who studied wolves who lost his TENURED position over that a few years ago?

                The law is on the side of agriculture and the culture of open range cattle. The federal laws work for the ag industry. We can amend laws even though it is near impossible. We need to try. There are too many serious stressors hitting wildlife and habitat. Soon there won’t be much of anything left but humans, cows and cockroaches.

                And I have nothing against poor cows.

                • avatar Yvette says:

                  The McIrvines have intentionally set out salt blocks nearwolf dens to get to increase the likelihood of a wolf/cattle incidence.

                  ^^ hopefully corrected typos

                • avatar Hiker says:

                  Thanks Yvette. Yes, as was reported here by someone else, there is a professor whose work was shutdown because of his position on wolves. Those are the real heroes, risking career and safety to speak the truth.

                • avatar WM says:

                  Yvette, is it a true fact Diamand M put salt blocks down to attract cattle to denning wolves?

                  This article seems to suggest otherwise, with WDFW refuting the assertion, and yes Dr. Weilgus is mentioned in it.


                • avatar WM says:

                  Oh heck, Yvette, let’s just go to a direct quote from WDFW on the location of the salt blocks and other deterrent efforts PLEASE READ FOR CONTENT:

                  -The producer calves outside of occupied wolf areas and cow-calf pairs are trucked to the grazing site. Calving outside occupied wolf areas protects calves when they are first born and most vulnerable to depredation;

                  -The turnout date for grazing on the U.S. Forest Service allotment is June 1; the producer delayed turnout of the livestock until June 15

                  -As part of this producer’s business model, cattle are bred early, so calves are generally around 200 lbs. at turnout. Delayed turnout and early calving are considered proactive conflict mitigation measures because the calves are larger and less vulnerable.

                  -Additionally, deer fawns, elk calves, and moose calves become available as prey in mid-June;

                  -Removal of sick and/or injured cattle when discovered;

                  -Since turnout, the cattle have been in three main groups—two around salting sites and one around a watering site. The salting sites are predetermined by the U.S. Forest Service and have been used historically, so even if the salt was removed, the cattle have a strong fidelity to the site and familiarity with the location from salt in the ground.

                  – Accordingly, WDFW wildlife conflict specialists deployed Fox lights to deter wolves from these areas on June 23;
                  Between June 17 and July 6, regular patrols of the area were coordinated among the producer (at least four days), the Ferry-Stevens County Wildlife Specialist (four days), and department staff (five days); and

                  -The department has a contracted range rider who monitors the producer’s cattle. The range rider had been deployed to a different (but adjacent) allotment in the OPT territory. Since the depredation confirmed on July 6, the department redirected the range rider to the grazing area where the depredation took place.

                  -Although not considered a deterrence measure, the grazing rotation on the allotment this season diverts cattle away from wolf rendezvous sites identified in previous years (per the U.S. Forest Service).

                  For more information go here – Source:

          • avatar Hiker says:

            WM, according to your sources cattle with calves were “turned out”, ie. grazing 4 to 5 miles from know wolf den sites. Cattle were grazing 2 weeks later than usual. Other things were done to try to keep wolves away. Yet none of that worked and a few (a very few) cattle were killed(maybe by wolves). The sentence for the wolves was death… Why were calves anywhere near a known wolf den site in an area where wolves had supposedly killed cattle before? It seems like the rancher grazed there despite the wolves. Maybe he had no choice. Did the wolves have a choice? Do the American people have a choice? Maybe the answer is to NOT have cattle grazing there at all! Why is that not an option? Are we so desperate for beef raised at taxpayer expense that we are willing to compromise with an endangered species and all that species represents?

            • avatar WM says:

              Hiker, that is what the duly adopted WA wolf management plan is all about. It may not be what YOU or some other folks want, but it is how it works, unless a judge says otherwise, or the plan is changed. By the way those aren’t my sources. That comes straight from WDFW. It is pretty clear they believe the producer has done quite a bit. He has a right to run his business. And controlling wolves with lethal means was always part of the plan.

              • avatar Nancy says:

                Not to interrupt your conversation with Hiker, WM but I wanted to say at this point, thank goodness for the powers to be (judges) that do take the time to evaluate the facts and aren’t k(c)ow towed in to believing that those that have taken advantage of the land and government subsidies for decades, have any interest in its wildlife or its future health.

              • avatar Hiker says:

                WM, those sources may be from WDFW but you posted them to defend your agreement. Besides, when did anyone here trust what the government says? Question it always.
                I’m glad you agree that the plan CAN be changed. It seems broken to me so should be changed.

        • avatar Elk375 says:

          I was reading an interest article on India and dog bites. There are approximately 59,000 human deaths a year in India from dogs infected with rabies. I would be more frighten of dogs than wolves. Plus another 20,000 deaths from snake bite.

  9. avatar Nancy says:

    “WASHINGTON (AP) — A conservative lawyer and writer who argues for selling off the nation’s public lands is now in charge of a nearly quarter-billion acres in federally held rangeland and other wilderness”

  10. avatar Yvette says:

    A bit of good news for both grizzly bears and Native sovereignty.

    “So, in striving to protect our culture, our religious and spiritual freedoms, our sovereignty and our treaty rights – all of which are encapsulated in the grizzly issue – we are ‘destroying’ Cheney’s idea of the ‘Western way of life’?” questioned Rodgers. “I would remind the Congresswoman that at the time of the Lewis and Clark Expedition an estimated 10,000 grizzly bears roamed from the Missouri River to the Pacific Coast. That was all Indian Country. Now there are fewer than 2,000 grizzly bears and our people live in Third World conditions on meager reservations in the poorest counties in the US. Does she really want to talk about ‘destroying’ a ‘way of life’?” asked Rodgers.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      Do they have a cattle drive through Grand Teton every year? I hope it isn’t another Malheur ‘statement’.

      And Wyoming’s grizzly hunt:

      “Wyoming lawmakers, frustrated with the ruling, authorized the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to shirk the rule of law, and allow the hunting of grizzlies even though they are federally classified as threatened. The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission considered taking that step but decided against it, not wanting to make felons out of its licensed hunters.”

      • avatar Hiker says:

        Yes Ida, they drive cattle thru the park every year. One of the best places to see bison in the park during the summer is where cattle are grazing, I think it’s called elk flats.

  11. avatar idaursine says:

    There was a time when shooting the packs happened once every other year in WA (and we were promised that such drastic measures would not happen again by the then F&W Director), but now it seems to have escalated to every year, so something doesn’t seem to be working:

  12. avatar idaursine says:

    Here’s the background info from the first shooting of a wolf pack, the Wedge Pack, back in 2012 – SRDY (Same Ranch, Differen Year):

    • avatar idaursine says:

      It really does reflect poorly on the state – otherwise, it is a truly beautiful place.

      Just keep trying with changing the laws.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      I don’t know what kind of F&W outfit WY has either – going along with defying the ESA about a grizzly hunt? I’m bracing myself for some sort of retaliation and show of force, I hadn’t heard about a cattle drive through Grand Teton. I’m sure guns will be proper attire and required. 🙁

      And the state should not be normalizing psychopathy and wanton cruelty.

      Wyoming reminds me of a disappointing restaurant review – you know how they say aside from the food, the service and the price, it was great? Wyoming does have a great atmosphere though. 😉

  13. avatar idaursine says:

    I don’t live in WA, but their wolf plan isn’t that great IMHO. The reason this rancher gets away with all he does on the public lands, and isn’t booted out, is because the public either isn’t aware and/or doesn’t care about wolves getting shot to accommodate this rancher, despite polls and what they say.

    I don’t know if other ranchers are as troublesome as this one is, but every year it’s the same – if people truly do want natural wildlife on the landscape, as they say the do.

    It appears to me that people are not aware of the cost to themselves as taxpayers, and that WDFW and their collaborators and appeasers just cater to him. Is eating beef really worth it? It isn’t to me.

    I thought I might give the new ‘impossible burger’ a try just to support it, but I truly would be happy with the old veggie alternative.

    • avatar Hiker says:

      Ida, I tried the new ‘impossible burger’ and I am not a fan. The list of ingredients is long. If you want to avoid meat try Hillary’s Burgers, great taste, not too expensive.

      • avatar idaursine says:

        Thanks, I’m just as happy with the original veggie burgers, or things like falafel too.

        I want to add that does anyone think that after 8 years, nearly ten years, that anything is going to change for this rancher’s behavior?

        The state(s) want to make it acceptable to kill wolves as part of their ‘toolbox’ and other appalling figurative speech that make living creatures sound like inanimate cogs in a business plan, stakeholders, etc. I don’t ever want to see the wasting of wildlife normalized. This guy is on the public lands, and I wish that more public lands ‘stakeholders’ would care.

        Historically this rancher has been very uncooperative, so I’m not sure what it is he is doing differently now, and the current articles don’t say. There’s probably old articles for any history, and I think here on this site too.

  14. avatar Hiker says:

    If you look carefully at the beginning of the video, it looks like there may be one or two other bears (cubs?) on the hill behind the main bear.

  15. avatar Kyle G says:

    Hello, did anyone see Liz Cheney’s recent comments on the decision to return the Yellowstone grizzly to the ESA?

    Remarkable, unsurprising, pathetic!

    • avatar Hiker says:

      Yes, amazing she admitted her true feelings. In a way she is right. Those in the Old West habitually trampled over Natives and wiped out wildlife, pushing ecosystems to the brink. It’s too bad there are still supporters of her who wish to place money over health.

  16. avatar Hiker says:
    Everyone you can see in this video broke the law. 25 yards!! I don’t miss working the boardwalks in Yellowstone!

  17. avatar Louise Kane says:,20390?fbclid=IwAR3sql0XzodRPutF93BJAd3TlO9mmWuUcF49zn8RbN-c4MO6qE9hs9poVL8

    surprising from Barrasso and the natural resources committee…could we hope for a pendelum swing? One way to reduce conflicts is to stop killing predators and disrupting their pack structures.

    I am always amazed at the extremely low risk that predators pose to humans, compared to dogs, cars even airplane fatalities. Yet the focus on preventing predator conflicts is so out of proportion.

    Here on Cape Cod there have been 2 shark attacks in the Truro area. That is in the last hundred years or so….

    similar to wolves

    Now my beautiful bay beach in Eastham , and many others, host huge shark beware signs. Sharks in the swimming area of the bay…Ive seen three some thirty years ago and they were not great whites. I walk this beach almost every day, I am swimming almost every day and I’ve fished the waters for years (in the past). Never seen a great white in the close to shore bay.

    The hysteria is crazy and ugly

  18. avatar idaursine says:

    I was very dismayed to read about countries issuing travel advisories for travel to the US, but I suppose it is true:

  19. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Interesting 17-18 minute discussion on bird color

    The term melanosomes Is brought up. A melanosome is an organelle found in animal cells and is the site for synthesis, storage and transport of melanin, the most common light-absorbing pigment found in the animal kingdom. Melanosomes are responsible for color and photoprotection in animal cells and tissues.

    Interestingly enough, some dinosaur fossils, in particular feathered specimens, some the melanosomes are preserved, thus giving paleontologists a window into dinosaur color.

  20. avatar Nancy says:

    Anybody on line? @ 7:48) Look to the right in the pines, black bear? Its a static webcam so can review the slide show for the past hour.

  21. avatar idaursine says:

    I’m so thrilled – I’ve got at least two Monarch caterpillars hanging upside down, having bent the stem of a milkweed leaf – so I think they are ready for the cocoon stage! I’ve never seen the entire process from egg to butterfly.

    I’ve been running around like a madwoman while aerial spraying is going on, putting up tarps over the milkweed overnight. They don’t seem to mind it. I hope the next challenge of migration they will win also.

    They are so gorgeous – you know they are something special when you look at them. It made me think of how many I used to see as a kid in the garden.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      I remember walking home From school in early autumn as a child through an open field, memory is not as strong in regard to presence of milkweed but I believe it was abundant. Must have been pathway for migration at the time as there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of Monarchs perched on every available plant.

      • avatar idaursine says:

        I seem to as well; our back garden was full of them! It could be that there was more milkweed then, IDK.

        It’s a beautiful plant anyway, with a wonderful scent. I just had some common milkweed come up by itself (yay!), and it’s been the best thing.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      or chrysalis stage, sorry! 🙂

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      Interesting as the Daffodils will read this and say the first half is BS, and the second half, see, we told you. If the online rancor is any barometer of the wolf “controversy” ebbing a bit, that’s a good sign. However, over the past couple years many to most online rags have deleted their comment sections.

      • avatar JEFF E. says:

        or the conversation will be we need to kill more cougars by any means necessary in additional kill more wolves because it’s not helping. but,but,but, someone keeps saying that the wolves are killing all the cougars….

    • avatar idaursine says:

      Great info!

    • avatar WM says:

      Does this mean more in total, because there are more cougars than wolves? Is it a per capita calculaion? And what happened to the hypothesis that black bears (and where present grizzlies) kill more young of the year elk?

      Seems there are many more questions to be answered, unless this study in fact addressed them.

      • avatar Nancy says:

        Here is an article from just a few months ago, in the same online paper regarding mountain lions:

        It would appear if you Google mountain lions in Idaho, there is no clear picture as to how many live in the state but one fact that does stand out:

        “Without a large number of older, mature mountain lions present in East Idaho, younger cougars are able to live and reproduce more freely”

        • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

          Elk and Predation in Idaho: Does One Size Fit All?


          • avatar Mareks Vilkins says:


            The role of predation in ungulate-population dynamics is unclear, largely because these interactions are complex and difficult to study. Among the wildlife biologists, the traditional view is that most predation is compensatory

            On the other hand, some recent research suggests that growth rates of prey populations, especially those at low densities, may be limited by predation.

            Determining the effect of predators on ungulate populations is difficult
            because it is a moving target. Predator-prey interactions occur within a matrix of prey species, and several species of predator are distributed across a diverse landscape with changing habitats. Furthermore, the biology of each species is unique and segments (e.g., neonates, juveniles) of populations respond uniquely to the biological setting (Coulson et al. 1997, 1999). In addition, each segment of a population plays a different role in shaping the dynamics of a particular
            population (Gaillard et al. 1998, 2000).
            Evaluating the vital rates (e.g., birth rate, survival rates) of ungulate populations is the best way to assess the effect of predation on an ungulate population. Populations are most sensitive to changes in adult-female survival, followed by reproductive rates of prime-aged adults, age at first reproduction and
            juvenile survival (Gaillard et al. 1998, Eberhardt 2002)

      • avatar JEFF E. says:

        probably can be found on the IFG site…
        or a phone call

      • avatar JB says:


        It means that: (i) wolves and cougars are both obligate carnivores; (ii) cougars, being, on average, being larger than wolves have greater energetic requirements; (iii) there is an order of magnitude more cougars in the West than wolves; and (iv) they prey upon the same animals.

        It doesn’t take a logician (nor mathematician) to understand that the collective effects of cougar are much greater than wolves. Shoot, we didn’t really need additional science to show this…but here we are.

        In the end it doesn’t matter. The people who want to kill wolves have all the power, so the bounties, trapping and hunting will continue–and it’ll continue to have little effect beyond lining the pockets of the Don Peay’s of the world.


        • avatar Nancy says:

          “In the end it doesn’t matter. The people who want to kill wolves have all the power, so the bounties, trapping and hunting will continue–and it’ll continue to have little effect beyond lining the pockets of the Don Peay’s of the world”

          Well said, JB.

        • avatar idaursine says:

          Yes, very well said!

        • avatar JB says:

          Shoot, I forgot: one of the ancillary effects is that the RMEFs and SFWs of the world are teaching the majority of Americans who don’t hunt and think wolves are cool to distrust hunters.

  22. avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

    Shadowlands: Fear and Freedom at the Oregon Standoff

    Los Angeles Times Bestseller

    “An insider account of the Malheur occupation. From the lead-up to the occupation, through the trials and the aftermath, this will be the defining chronicle of a cultural and political moment we could all do better to understand.” – Source Weekly

    Hardcover: 448 pages
    Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing (July 2, 2019)

    • avatar idaursine says:

      This is why agencies cannot (over)manage wildlife populations, and keeping them under the thumb like we do certain species. You just never know what kind of unpredictable events will occur.

  23. avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

    State Kills Four Wolves Within Hours of Court Granting Preliminary Injunction

    State has now killed 25 wolves in the Colville National Forest on behalf of Diamond M Ranch

    Only a single wolf of a pack that had nine members at the beginning of July survives. Among the wolves killed were four pups.

    Complaints from Len and Bill McIrvin and other members of that family operating the Diamond M Ranch have triggered 87 percent of the state’s wolf killing. The family has declined government payments to compensate them for lost cattle, and refuses to take commonsense measures to protect its cattle from predators. Instead, it has publicly demanded the eradication of wolves from the area.

    Robert Wielgus, a former Washington State University wildlife biologist who has studied wolves and other predators in eastern Washington, has pointed out that livestock losses to wolves were one-third of one percent (0.003) in wolf-occupied areas of Washington, except when it comes to the ranching operations of Len McIrvin, who has suffered 14 times the losses of other ranchers in wolf-occupied territory. The state has admitted that McIrvin and his Diamond M Ranch have never used quality range riding services, and in recent weeks they refused to allow the state to send a team of range riders in to protect their cattle. They have made clear that their intent is to kill wolves, not save cattle.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      Vile. Still, I’m sure it sticks in their craw greatly to have them court ordered to stop due to non-lethal steps not having been taken. Good!

      So the courts agree that non-lethal measures were not taken, or to the extent they could have been.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      It really does seem like the WDFW is under the employ of the Diamond M ranch, and not its responsibilities under the law.

      Still, I’m glad the courts have recognized it. It will all happen again next year too.

    • avatar idaursine says:

      “Complaints from Len and Bill McIrvin and other members of that family operating the Diamond M Ranch have triggered 87 percent of the state’s wolf killing. The family has declined government payments to compensate them for lost cattle, and refuses to take commonsense measures to protect its cattle from predators. Instead, it has publicly demanded the eradication of wolves from the area.”

      But since they are using state and taxpayer money to fund wolf ‘removals’ every year, it amounts to government payments! Tens of thousands of dollars.

      Let them come up with the money themselves (the inevitable) next year. I’d love to know their yearly financial information, just how hard put upon they have been. My guess is not very.

      Well, I’m glad of the court’s decision anyway – it’s the principle of it.

    • avatar WM says:

      Ah yes, the piece is authored, as self-reported and published “news” on EIN NEWS by shamed alleged sexual harasser and former Executive Director of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, who resigned in February.

      So, now he’s linked with some moneyed hedge fund manager in a new gig.

      Maybe his authorship of this self-published article is accurate, and maybe not. Might be good to wait until the general media picks up the topic, or the Judge hears the facts and applies the law. Judge McHale is a newbie in Settle based King County Superior Court. Let’s see what he does.

      And, by the way, didn’t WDFW in its last field report give some credit to the Diamond M ranchers for doing some things right, including using range riders and later turn out dates for cows?

      • avatar Hiker says:

        So? Are you saying this report is lies? Or are you just trying to cast doubt by referring to the author in a negative way? Is that how we deal with people we disagree with? Is that how you wish to be treated here?
        Maybe you could just present your disagreement with some facts about the case and stop with the dispersions.

        • avatar WM says:

          Wayne Pacelle has kept WGL wolves on the ESA for much longer than MN, WI and MI wanted, because HSUS never wanted them delisted regardless of how many there were and whether there was a scientifically defensible position to delist. I think he’s a scum bag, and he proved it with the many sexual harassment complaints.

          As for factual accuracy, let’s see how that plays out in court.

  24. avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

    Cattle depredation risk by gray wolves on grazing allotments in Washington

    October 2018

  25. avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

    The Persuasive Power of the Wolf Lady

    To bridge the divide between wolf-lovers and ranchers, the conservationist Karin Vardaman had to change many minds—including her own.

  26. avatar Immer Treue says:

    Tied to us and wildlife in ways we are just beginning to understand. Another slippery slope, in which the slope steepens.

  27. avatar Nancy says:

    So the countdown begins, again, as to when another pack will fill in the territory left by these wolves and a welfare rancher that can’t get his sh*t together…..

    • avatar idaursine says:

      I thought there was one left that the court blocked WDFW from shooting? Did they defy the court?

      But the tiniest bit of progress has been made; the courts and the media have acknowledged that this single ranch refuses to cooperate with the state wildlife plan, as feeble as it may be, and are responsible for the major amount of wolf killings and taxpayer funding of it.

      I feel like waving, ‘see you next year (in court)!’

      • avatar WM says:

        If I understand correctly, WDFW did not confirm this wolf was a member of the eradicated pack. Sorry, I can’t remember where I read it, but it seemed to come from an official WDFW source. It may or may not been a Togo pack member.

        • avatar Hiker says:

          WM, What difference if this sole wolf was part of that pack? Wolves are being slaughtered to “protect” this welfare ranchers cattle. We as taxpayers are footing the bill. This ranchers seems to be openly hostile to wolves. I say enough is enough. What do you say WM? Has this rancher crossed a line or no? Last time I asked if you supported him or not you avoided the question. Comment all you like but tell us where you really stand.

          • avatar WM says:

            As I understand it this lone wolf might still be subject to a kill order if he is part of the pack, and the Court agrees with WDFW on removal efforts. So, it could make a difference whether this wolf survives or not, yes?

            And, if you think about the long game in WA, it is all about the total numbers, range and connectivity. There is a new WA wolf statute that kind of reinforces that, with the high concentration in the NE part of the state and the need to get better distribution at lower concentrations. Protocols or not, there will still be wolf kills. You can count on it. That is the part some advocates just don’t get- it is about the numbers and always will be. They will continue to be killed in ever larger numbers as range expands and greater tolls are taken on elk, deer, moose prey, domestic livestock and domestic animals. Be careful what you wish for, because it means more dead wolves. It is the logical conclusion, and I doubt, there is little to change that. It is a harsh reality of wolf reintroduction or repopulation.

  28. avatar idaursine says:

    Well, here’s the same report from the Houston Chronicle. WDFW claims that Diamond M had taken steps to deter wolves (non-lethal), but yet the court found that they had not done ‘due-diligence’ (non-lethal):

    • avatar Hiker says:

      Thanks Ida!

      • avatar idaursine says:

        You’re welcome! But where it stands now, I don’t know. The 2nd restraining order was temporary:

        “A lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court Aug. 1 by two Seattle residents, with support from the Center for a Humane Economy, sought a temporary restraining order on the lethal removal order. The judge denied that restraining order but then ruled Friday that the state and cattle producers in the area of the wolf pack didn’t perform “due diligence on non-lethal methods.”

        Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman Staci Lehman said the agency makes every effort to make a responsible decision after considering available evidence and that they will work with the court.”

        I don’t know what working with the court means, or if the restraining order was lifted.

  29. avatar idaursine says:

    Here’s actually more detail:

    “On Friday, the judge ruled that the question — whether the rancher deployed adequate non-lethal deterrents — could proceed to trial and temporarily blocked any ongoing lethal action.”

Leave a Reply

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


July 2019
« Jun   Aug »


‎"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: