The collar of “Grizzly #726” was recovered from a stream on USDA Sheep Experiment Stationproperty on September 12, 2012. He had been fitted with [...]]]> Bozeman, Mont.—Conservationists are offering a $6,500 reward for information leading to the arrestand conviction of the person(s) responsible for killing a grizzly bear in the Centennial Mountains ofsouthwest Montana last fall.

The collar of “Grizzly #726” was recovered from a stream on USDA Sheep Experiment Stationproperty on September 12, 2012. He had been fitted with the radio collar just 18 days before, and thecollar was cut off and hidden in a stream after the bear went missing. The healthy bear that was 3-4years old and weighed nearly 400 pounds, and its last live location put it in the same area as a flock ofgovernment-owned sheep. A spent rifle cartridge was recovered from the government sheepherder’scamp, but no one was ever charged with the crime.

The U.S. Sheep Experiment Station is run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and grazesapproximately 2,000 sheep on 16,000 acres of land high in Montana’s Centennial mountains.Biologists widely regard the Centennial Mountains as an important travel corridor for threatenedgrizzly bears and other wildlife because the range connects Yellowstone National Park to largewilderness areas in Idaho. Putting sheep in the middle of this corridor has created conflict with wildlifepassage. In the past, two entire packs of wolves have been removed by aerial gunning and legholdtraps in retribution for livestock losses on Sheep Station property. Eleven black bears were killed in asingle year on Sheep Station property because of these livestock conflicts.

On May 17, 2013, Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, Western Watersheds Project, GallatinWildlife Foundation, Native Ecosystems Council and Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation filed a lawsuitin federal district court in Idaho challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion, which states that “no known grizzly bear mortalities have occurred in or near the action area in therecent past.” However, meeting notes between the FWS and Sheep Station obtained through aFreedom of Information Act request state that within the past eight years, there have been severalgrizzly bear mortalities nearby the Sheep Station, and the determination was made before Grizzly #726was killed. Plaintiffs are asking the court to enjoin grazing in grizzly habitat until the Fish and WildlifeService has completed a new biological opinion that considers all the grizzly deaths in the area.

Anyone with information about the killing of Grizzly #726 should contact Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks at 1(800)Tip-Mont. Callers can remain anonymous and still collect the $6,500 reward upon the successful conviction of the killer.

More information about the litigation is available at https://www.westernwatersheds.org/2013/05/wwp-litigates-to-protect-grizzly-bear-populations-in-idaho-and-desert-ecosystems-in-the-sonoran-desert/

More information about Grizzly #726 is available at http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2013/04/08/grizzly-killing-at-us-sheep-experiment-station/

Last Location of Grizzly #726 (click for larger view)

As usual, New Mexico begins to burn and is burning earlier than the rest. There have been a number of fires in southern California where drought [...]]]> Black Forest Colorado fire destroys almost 400 homes-

The first day of summer is just about here, and wildfires are breaking out across much of the Western United States.

As usual, New Mexico begins to burn and is burning earlier than the rest. There have been a number of fires in southern California where drought has intensified the flammability of the mountain’s brushfields.  Reports of wildfires in this area have gained national attention almost every year. National news goes back a long time. There are even old news movies of the fires dating to the 1920s.

Like last year, fires next moved from New Mexico to Colorado’s Front Range where drought and a teeming population provide conditions for much property damage and the loss of 2 resident’s lives in the Black Forest Fire.  This fire, which burns well out of the mountains eastward, is NE of Colorado Springs. A Colorado record of 397 homes have burned so far in this fire.

While there will be talk about changing climate and drought, the Black Forest area seems to mostly be a good example how not live safely in a forest. Some call the Black Forest  ”the largest contiguous stretch of ponderosa pine in the United States.”  Ponderosa live by fire. Fires should be expected, and the big yellow pine (an alternate name for them) thrive when there are frequent ground fires. Their thick bark resists ground fire. These low and “cool” fires eliminate the ponderosa’s competition. The building of homes and fire suppression in such a forest, however, often spells catastrophe. Other trees grow up under the Ponderosa when ground fires are suppressed. This allows the flames to reach the tops of Ponderosa, killing the tree, and making for a much hotter fire.

Building large homes in the forest in meandering lanes with no logic except landscape aesthetics, roads that often dead end, make fire protection very hard. Fancy wooden shingles are  perhaps the single most important reason why one home burns and the next one, with a metal roof, survives.

Fires are expected to soon spread into Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, and later Montana (which had a lot of late spring rain, especially east of the Continental Divide).

Last weekend, I took an inspection trip to the country just south of Yellowstone Park  (Idaho-Wyoming border). Heavy fuels, e.g., logs and trees,  are very dry despite some beautiful but very temporary wildflower displays this year. There is a lot of “red” (dying) lodgepole pine. The red needles burn like gasoline.  If there is an ignition, this could be a place of a big fire. Idaho in general is set once again for large fires this year. Last summer and fall saw tremendous Idaho forest fires. They burned until mid-October. So far range fires have been much less than usual in Idaho, probably due to a dry, but extended cold spring.  All but the northern tip of Idaho is shown as in drought in the prestigious Drought Monitor.

Story on the Black Canyon Fire. Black Forest fire most destructive in Colorado history. Associated Press.

Until recently those who saw wildlife only as (1) pests or potential pests or (2) animals waiting to become [...]]]> Wildlife conservation needs big money to beat back militant ignorance-

Over the years those favoring wildlife conservation found a strategy that worked to build up both the number and diversity of wildlife in the United States.

Until recently those who saw wildlife only as (1) pests or potential pests or (2) animals waiting to become livestock, were relegated to the most obscure and benighted corners of rural America.

Wildlife conservationists were able to push back these people by means of the states’ fish and game, or wildlife, departments, backed up by federal law for those animals and places where 19th century attitudes persisted.

Changes in American political economy and culture, however, have allowed the militant ignorance of wildlife hater and/or unethical kinds of hunting escape from its confines.  This growing movement to kill off wildlife that agricultural interests don’t like and reduce the rest to targets on game farms or public lands increasingly managed for extractive interests has a number of roots.

One of the most important is probably the sudden decline in outdoors experience by the younger generations who now see wildlife only on television or the internet, rather than the apparently more difficult and less exciting non-virtual experience — an actual outdoors experience.

At the same time the American economy has gone into steep decline with a recovery limited solely to the upper middle class and those wealthier. More and more people have no time, energy, or money to hunt, fish, hike, camp, climb, boat, or study nature and enjoy it as an end in itself.

For the elite that is doing well, many are easily financially able and some want to procure trophy animals as an example of some quality they possess or would like others think they possess. On the other hand, the economically distressed in rural areas are often recruited into militant politics that blames their financial plight on outsiders such as environmentalists, city dwellers, and racial or ethnic minorities.

There is ample evidence that the very wealthy, some of the top 0.1% in the wealth category are financially supporting the development and spread of ancient ideas, discredited among the educated for 50 or more years, such as creationism, denial of many kinds of science,  reversal of women’s rights, and wildlife conservation.  We have generally categorized this the “tea party” movement, though the fit might not be perfect.

Because this movement is centered in rural areas, towns and small cities that reflect rural economy and concerns, states with relatively simple economies, and states with a Southern tradition, it has been able to use the new found money and existing networks of influence to mount a strong challenge to what have been regarded as long settled issues such as Social Security, Medicare, land and water conservation as national parks and other public lands, and the protection of wildlife as a public trust.

Many of the less populated states and especially the southern states have long had a tradition of one-partyism.  Small population states are also overrepresented in the U.S. Senate by the constitutional gerrymander of 2 senators per state regardless of population.

As a result, a strong reactionary challenge has been mounted and certainly shows its strength in the deinstitutionalization of Congress — the body has stopped working — and adoption of policy that keeps the working poor, poor, and moves the middle class downward. In environmental policy, denial of changing weather patterns and attacks on the public lands, on the endangered species act, and on pollution abatement move forward.

Conservation groups are going to have to develop entirely new strategies, and one might be to work closely with the very wealthy.  All billionaires are not by their nature like the Koch Brothers, the Mellons, Sheldon Adelson, Rupert Murdoch, and other right wing titans of wealth.

Demons in the right wing view of hell are Ted Turner, George Soros and Tom Steyer, though they have have considerably less wealth, but there are others. A recent article today in Bloomberg may give hope to embattled conservationists. Bison-Loving Billionaires Rile Ranchers With Land Grab in American West. By Seth Lubove – Bloomberg Pursuits Magazine.

Species are supposed to be delisted based on the “best available science”.  The recent controversy over the wolf’s delisting from the endangered species list is not just a flare up over competing values — wolves, love them or hate them.

An [...]]]> Or does anyone really believe the wolf was delisted on the “best available science?”

Species are supposed to be delisted based on the “best available science”.  The recent controversy over the wolf’s delisting from the endangered species list is not just a flare up over competing values — wolves, love them or hate them.

An excellent argument, including a legal argument, can be made that it was delisted after some obscure political dealing — no transparency.

We have heard that the relevant governors were consulted in private. They wanted delisting, at least the Red State governors and Montana. The following is not confirmed, but we have heard that two Blue State governors, the Democratic governors of Oregon and Washington did not agree to delisting.  To confirm this story, readers might want to point blank contact their office and see.

The delisting came after a couple weeks delay that briefly raised hopes of wolf conservationists. PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) is suing to find out what was going on.  The suit was filed right after delay began and before the announcement of the final delisting.

These matters are supposed to be transparent. We have come to odd condition in this country where the government feels free to audit all your electronic business, but the laws that let you see them have been allowed to grow opaque.

There are those who will cheer the delisting of the wolf regardless, but the question remains how were the consultations carried out, and why were hosts of relevant scientists ignored and their objections both, public and private, never answered? Recently, Dr. Jeremy Bruskotter provided The Wildlife News with a letter on this signed by a number of  his colleagues.

There rarely is complete scientific consensus, but scientists expect that their well put questions be answered. Secrecy has no place in scientific endeavor. It is the method of trying to hide something, for good or for ill, but it is not the scientific method. If an astronomer, for example, says he has discovered a new exo-planet,  he or she will not be believed if they refuse to provide data or answer questions.

A democracy cannot persist where the people are spied on if they are not told the reasons, even if it is for the best of reasons.  That coupled with secret decisions foretell dark days to come.

Here is a news release on the PEER lawsuit.

- – -

Here is another commentary and analysis.  Proposed ending of federal gray wolf protection: Another case of setting science aside? Climate Science Watch.

Please put  your news, links and comments below in comments.  Here is the link to the thread being retired (May 18, 2013).

The eastern Idaho valleys and lower mountains are filled with green grass, fresh foilage, wildflowers, [...]]]> Most recent years have had a big downside in July and August, so plan-

I spent yesterday in the mountains of Eastern Idaho. I didn’t go to the highest mountains where there is still snow and green-up is just beginning.

The eastern Idaho valleys and lower mountains are filled with green grass, fresh foilage, wildflowers, and river waters that are now losing their snowmelt turbidity.  Some places in Idaho, Wyoming and northern Utah are now well past their peak of Springtime beauty and wildlife.

Early June in the Soda Springs (ID) Hills. Copyright Ralph Maughan, June 4, 2013

The Northern Rockies had a cold spring which partially offset the winter snowfall, which was generally below normal (assuming that drought is not the new normal).  Montana just got a big splash of cold rain, especially east of the Continental Divide. Northern Idaho is not in drought. Southern Idaho, which is droughty, didn’t see tall growth of grass due to the low precipitation and the slower growth of a cold spring, though range fires will likely soon begin to break out, beginning in the lower, hotter area of SW Idaho.

May and June are usually the peak wildlfire season in Arizona and New Mexico. Wildfire danger there is already high to extreme. The last couple years have seen very large wildfires and conditions are again favorable to this.

Last summer the skies of Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Montana were filled with smoke from mid June to early October. Wildfire seasons in the forests have been ending in October in recent years. It used to be September.

This year, so far, the skies of these states are nearly smoke free except from the Powerhouse fire burning north of L.A.  You cannot expect this to last and people need to start thinking of June as the prime outdoor recreation month in the inland Northwest, plus Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming.

A million acres of central Idaho burned last summer and early autumn.  I plan to see the beginning of the recovery before it is (likely) on fire again.

Advances in satellite technology applied to the web now provide us with very interesting and useful maps of pollution and smoke. In particular see, U.S. Air Quality 

When the wolves were first reintroduced beginning in 1995, there was some genuine debate over whether it [...]]]> Wolf controversy is personal and cultural, not over biology-

Except for the few people “on the fence” — those who have not chosen sides — the controversy over wolf restoration in the West is not really about wolves.

When the wolves were first reintroduced beginning in 1995, there was some genuine debate over whether it was the best way to restore them, whether the population would grow or wither and die, whether they would greatly reduce, or maybe even increase prey populations, and the effect of wolves on other animals and the ecosystems.

Much knowledge has been gained. There are scores of scientific studies about the reintroduced wolves: their behavior, effects, prospects, etc.

While there were those dead set against wolves or completely for them regardless right from the start, many were genuinely open to information. The militant anti-wolf narrative didn’t develop and spread until about 8 – 10 years had passed. At first, extreme anti-wolf rhetoric was led by a few prominent politicians like Republican Senator from Montana Conrad Burns (the wolves will kill a little girl before the first year is over) and later, Democratic Governor of Wyoming Dave Freudenthal who argued that the 30 or 40 wolves in the state were literally destroying the economy there.

The real drive against the wolves that was effective seemed to be related to, or at least paralleled, the rise of tea party and similar thinking. At the time, pro-wolf groups were taken to task by some of their friends for making mistakes both tactical and strategic, but there is a good argument that the current situation of a slowly declining wolf population due to human mortality along with very unpleasant controversy would have happened regardless of any moves the pro-wolf groups made.

The wolf issue fit very well into the quiver of anti-government arguments at large at the time and wolves served too well as a scapegoat to take folks’ minds off the terrible economic disruptions of the Great Recession.  While the pro-wolf argument was and remains about the beauty of wolves, the need of ecosystem for wolves, and their general lack of negative impacts; the anti-wolf position tends toward apocalypse. The wolves are claimed to be the very worst thing that has ever happened to big game, the elk and other herds are said to be in great decline, the ranching economy has been delivered a blow to the gut.  Worse still the entire wolf  project is a giant conspiracy to bring a huge non-native beast to Idaho, Montana, Wyoming from the far away country of Canada instead of restoring the timid, little seen, and small native wolf of the Rocky Mountains, canis lupus irremotus. The purpose of the great conspiracy is to end hunting, bring more federal control (or perhaps United Nations control) for its own sake, destroy gun rights, and the like. All these things are supposedly based on malice.

Arguments over the issue are quickly personal and based on stereotypes of what one side thinks the other is like. Here is a good example from a recent letter to the editor that argues that most of the time the State of Montana claims wolves have greatly hurt the elk population, but quickly turns to the opposite argument (too many elk) when that argument is convenient. The comments about the letter are abrasive, and they don’t deal with the writer’s argument. In other words, we see cultural conflict rather than any true argument over wolves themselves.

Wolf advocates traditionally relied on the federal government to offset what they saw as the backward policies of the Northern Rockies states. Unfortunately for them, after friendly President Bill Clinton, there came two Presidents who were of no help or aided their opponents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Neither President was personally involved with wolf policy, but their appointments and nominations to key Department of Interior positions were unfriendly to wolves.

Despite setbacks to those who want more than a bare minimum recovery of wolves, the wolf population is spreading to Washington, Oregon, and perhaps California, which are more friendly states. They are also “blue” states.

While this is very speculative, perhaps twenty years from now we might see wildlife distributed not as much by geography and habitat as by politics. Red states might have big populations of a few large animals, designated as “game,” plus varying numbers of other animals, viewed as varmints. The game would be managed much like livestock, e.g., cows are “slow elk.” Elk are quick cows, good for targets.

Blue states might have a much larger variety of kinds of animals. They would be treated as wildlife as well as game.  The category of varmint would be abolished.