Note that this replaces the 7th edition. That edition can be found slowly moving down into the depths of the blog.

Vultures in Scott Valley, east of Cascade, Idaho © Ken Cole

Vultures in Scott Valley, east of Cascade, Idaho © Ken Cole

Please don’t post entire articles here, just the link, title and your comments about the article. Most of these violate copyright law. They also take up too much space.

About The Author

Ken Cole

Ken Cole is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is the interim Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project. We do not accept unsolicited “guest” authors or advertising.

304 Responses to Have you seen any interesting wildife news? May 2 – May 11

  1. Chris Harbin says:

    I ran across this website the other day. It is not an environmental or wildlife page. Rather, it would probably help anyone who wants to deal with the substance of their debating points and clarify those arguments that are full of fallacies:

    If this is not appropriate for this blog, I would certainly understand if it was not allowed by the site moderator.

  2. Jon Way says:

    Cool vulture pic!

  3. Barb Rupers says:

    I have never seen that many at one place warming their bodies. Prize winning photo perhaps?

  4. Chris Harbin says:

    hopefully these vultures are looking to make a meal of pasty-white Senators – especially one of mine – Mitch McConnell.

  5. cc says:

    Rare bird sighting in ID:

  6. Virginia says:

    An amateur photographer captured a picture of a lynx in Yellowstone National Park recently:

    • WM says:

      What an increadibly beautiful animal. First, let me say I am not in favor of trapping. However, I came by a lynx pelt that my parents obtained in British Columbia many years ago. It was, no doubt, purchased from a trapper in a remote area where my folks hunted moose forty years ago. Trapping then, and maybe even now, in the back country of Canada is no cultural big deal.

      I doubt many people have actually touched a lynx fur, in winter phase, or ever will. At the risk of offending some, to whom I now apologize, I will describe the pelt. It was, indeed, a Canadian “tufted” lynx, with little black tufts of hair at the tips of each ear. It looks very much like the Yellowstone animal we are viewing in the photos. The animal was “case skinned,” which means there is no exposed underside of the pelt, anywhere, except the very back end, where the first incision was made. It looks just like the animal walked right out of its skin. The purpose would have been for mounting the specimen. The legs are very long, and the body actually quite narrow, which is deceiving because of the length of the hair, which in some spots, is nearly three inches, makes it appear heavier. The pelt is composed of very fine, extremely puffy, lofting hair (probably several layers of different density), which is most incredibly soft to the touch. I do not believe I have ever touched any softer fur, of any type -ever. This air-trapping insulation obviously helps it withstand the cold, even while slowly stalking prey in subzero temperatures; the mottled coloration is absolutely stunning, and gives excellent camoflauge, even in snow. It seems to blend with everything, even snow.

      The paws are very large, and furry, with heavy hair covering most of the the pads, again extremely soft, which gives it stealth capability on bare forest floor. Like a wolf’s huge paws they are designed to support their weight on top of the snow. Its claws are 5 to 7 X larger in length and diameter of an average domestic cat, very thick, but taped and elongated, highly polished and extremely sharp (a manicurist would envy the condition), which would explain how a lynx can swat a game bird out of mid-air and hold on to it. I doubt many of its prey, within grasp, escape.

    • jburnham says:

      WM, thanks for sharing that great description! I’d love to see one in the wild, but it would be interesting to examine a pelt like that too.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Lynxes clawing back a bit of German wilderness
      It is an English language report about the successful lynx reintroduction in the Harz mountains.

    • Jeff says:

      Bobcat pelts are extremely plush to touch. I know a old timer who still traps in Western Wyoming and they are incredibly soft.

  7. Save bears says:


    I can sure say, that Lynx is getting a hell of a lot of press time! I have seen this reported on over 100 websites so far…LOL

    • jon says:

      God, what is wrong with people today. Anytime someone sees a wild animal, they are scared and they panic. Either that or they get their gun and kill it when it poses no risk at all to anyone.

    • Save bears says:


      In reading the small article, it says they let it alone and didn’t do anything to it, I don’t see where anyone was overly alarmed in that article…it sure didn’t seem like anyone panicked in this particular instance..

      That said, it is always prudent when a cat shows up to act on the side of caution, they are one of two animals that will actively hunt humans as a food source in N. America, the other being the polar bear..

    • JEFF E says:

      I agree with you SB. the story behind the story is that F&G offered the residents one of three options (and this blows me away) 1. tranquilize and a zoo 2. tranquilize and death, or behind door #3, back off and let the cat just decide it was where it did not want to be and go find mom(which it did)

    • JEFF E says:

      Having said that my opinion of a cougars thought process is I hungry, and 2. are you food, and 3. are you a threat.

    • JEFF E says:

      Maybe Mark can address option #2

    • Save bears says:

      I am glad they chose to just let it alone and head on its way, it does not seem like this was one of those situations that required lethal measures…

    • jon says:

      Yes, I know that sb, but usually in situations like this, it usually ends up with the animal being killed because people are scared and worried. A couple of months ago or maybe a few years, cops shot a 20 lb mountain lion cub. I consider myself different than most, but if I saw a mountain lion in a tree, I would be amazed, not scared or worried. Jeff E, why would they given choices? There shouldn’t have been any choices to be asked. The mt. lion should have been left alone period without offering any choices to people.

    • Save bears says:


      Really it is not unusual for game dept personal to ask the people most affected how they would like it handled, FWP also does it in Montana, when it concerns a cat in town.. I know they have also done it in Washington State when it concerns cats in town, now in OR, normally I have seen them destroy the cat, and California can be a crap shoot, they have done both, ask and destroy..

    • JB says:

      The problem is, wildlife belongs to all of the state’s citizens, not just the people who are most affected. Even determining who the latter are can be problematic. Should the neighbors be polled to determine if this cougar should be killed? What if they disagree? Seems to me one of the options should be aversive conditioning.

    • Save bears says:


      Yes, the wildlife belongs to all of the states citizens, but often times, those not affected don’t care, when a management situation comes up, should they poll the whole state? I don’t think that would be prudent or even feasable, in this situation, I feel they acted correctly by letting the cat figure out its own path..

    • Save bears says:

      speculating on what could have happened, really has no bearing on what did happen in this particular case and that is a cat is now back in the wild, and hopefully it has decided that town is not a place it ever wants to visit again…

    • JB says:


      I agree regarding the outcome (in this case), and was not suggesting that the whole state be polled; rather, I was suggesting that it is inappropriate to make wildlife management decisions that potentially impact numerous citizens based upon the desires of guy standing closest to you.

    • WM says:


      ++The problem is, wildlife belongs to all of the state’s citizens++

      If that is the case, should not the citizens bear the reimbursement cost associated with any property losses which accrue to someone who loses property at the hands of the “citizens’ wildlfe?” For example a dog or cat which is killed by a cougar, or the child or hiker who is mauled (somewhat rare, but it happens)? It becomes even more problematic if the animal could have been relocated or lethally dispatched. Or, is it a case in which those who live where the “problem wildlife” is likely to come just assume the risk?

    • JB says:

      “If that is the case, should not the citizens bear the reimbursement cost associated with any property losses which accrue to someone…”

      In some cases, they do! Many states have programs that reimburse landowners for wildlife-related damages, though usually they are restricted to livestock/agricultural damages. If states want to reimburse their citizens for wildlife-related damages, then they need only pass a law that does so. If not, existing case law indicates that states are not liable for damages caused by wildlife.

      If a golden eagle nests in a tree I was planning to harvest, should the government write me a check because I can not harvest the tree? If deer eat my ornamental plants should I get to determine whether they live or die?

      These are state resources that belong to everyone.

    • WM says:


      ++If not, existing case law indicates that states are not liable for damages caused by wildlife.++

      Exactly. And that is why, in the absence of clearly defined and adequately funded compensation programs – and none of which I am aware, cover medical costsfor humans and animals, or replacment cost of pets- the state or local authority will ask the most immediately affected homeowner for their input. At least, this is true for some predators like cougar, and even bears. As for deer or elk in the garden, that is a different matter since there is less likely a chance for injury to humans or pets (althogh it can happen), and is more generally based on consensus of a larger group.

      I think for the most part the system in place works fairly well. There are exceptions, and in those instances it seems appropriate for individuals to take matters into their own hands. For example, very rural areas, as we saw last fall with the cougar that was treed in eastern MT.

      I am also aware of instances the FS does not like to talk about, when bears in the back country go after a trail crew or forestry camps and destroy the camps and employees personal property looking for food. The usual practice is exactly one of employing 3S, typically after the obligatory inquiry to the state wildlife agency. Their response is, “I just don’t want to know about it, and do not give me a reason to inquire.”

    • JB says:

      Again, I ask: How do you determine who is most “affected” by a cougar? If deer eat my ornamental plants should I get to determine whether they live or die?

      –You say the existing policy works pretty well, and I ask, for whom does it work? From my perspective, a single landowner should not get to serve as judge and jury for members of species as rare as cougar, bear and wolves.

    • Elk275 says:

      First of all, mountain lions, wolves and bears are not rare and there are hunting seasons on all of those animals. Should every decision be made by a popular vote. We have a legislator and congress to make laws and some laws are carried out by administrators.

      In this case the representatives of the State of Idaho, the biologist and/or game wardens made the decision and that is there job. Every fall Bozeman has a number of black bears in town and it is the fish and game warden and/or biologists who make the decision on what to do. If the decision was to shoot one, well, I am not going be upset. If a grizzly would wander into town, and it is trapped and transplanted, do we have a citizen council to decide which mountain range it will be transplanted to.

      Every year both Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks have to deal with both problem black and grizzly bears. Most are transplanted or relocated and others are destroyed. Do all of the citizens of the USA, get to make a decision on whether not to transplant or destroy that animal. No, it is the park rangers job on if we interfered we would be arrested and charged with interference of a law enforcement officer. Let’s get real and live in the real world, let the people of Idaho and their representatives decide what to do.

      I just can not wait for the first black bear hunter to accidentally shoot a grizzly during this spring’s black bear season. I will bet you there will be over 100 posts on this forum.

    • Save bears says:


      Cougars are certainly not rare, their numbers are very strong and they are an ever increasing species in the west, where did you come up with the idea they are rare?

    • WM says:


      I recall several large acreages, or reservations of various types, on which unmanaged populations of deer, and predators lived in increasing numbers. A couple that come to mind are the US Air Force Academy complex in Colorado Springs; another is a sprawling aerospace manufacturing facility in TN; and yet another is a private marsh land adjacent to a rather busy airport. And, I just remembered a fourth – Cape Kennedy. There are many more, that I cannot take the time to describe. Each with its own wildlife problems, and stakeholders.

      We should be extremely careful in allowing populist views to control how these situations are managed. In fact, I would be dead set against it. Again, I am comfortable with designated wildlife agencies, being delegated these functions under law to act on behalf of the public interest, weighing individual interests along the line, doing what they know best to do.

      It is good that we look over their shoulder, and give constructive criticism. Occasionally they don’t get it right, but I still think they have the high ground.

    • Jeremy B. says:

      –adjective, rar·er, rar·est.
      1. coming or occurring far apart in time; unusual; uncommon: a rare disease; His visits are rare occasions.
      2. thinly distributed over an area; few and widely separated: Lighthouses are rare on that part of the coast.

      (A) I don’t care who you are. Bears, cougars and wolves are “thinly distributed” over the U.S. Notice, I purposefully did not use the words “threatened, endangered,” or “imperiled”. I used the word “rare”. Meaning they are not densely distributed. Just because you can hunt ’em does not mean that they are not rare. Good grief.

      (B) Elk: Can you show me where I said we need to conduct a statewide poll or popular vote to determine a management action? I don’t recall stating that. I do recall saying that I don’t think management decisions should be made based upon the views of one so-called “affected” landowner. Decisions made by management agencies acting in the best interest of ALL of the state’s citizens are fine by me.

      (C) I thought I was posting on Ralph Maughan’s Wildlife News, not the Black Bear Blog! I can only surmise that you all believe that private landowners should be able to make decisions regarding the fate of wildlife that occur on their property? Perhaps that view will fly out West, but many states only have wildlife because it is protected from the actions of private landowners.

      (D) Good luck finding a place to hunt.

    • JEFF E says:

      however had it snacked on someones Chihuahua, option 1 and 3 would not have been an option.

    • jon says:

      I don’t even see why killing is ever a option. Tranq the animal and release it back into the wild if you are so paranoid about seeing it and assuming it is going to attack you. Mt. lions have attacked people in the past and there were reasons why these attacks happened, but more often than not, you see a mt. lion, you should just leave it alone instead of freaking out and assuming that it poses a danger to you. Humans kill enough mt. lions as it is. A couple of months ago, some Iowa hunter shot a mt. lion that was just sitting in a tree bothering no one and he killed it for no reason.

      Old story, but it is laughable. A cop gets scared of a daschund growling, so he shoots it dead.

    • Angela says:

      I’d much rather live around large carnivores than naked apes. What bugs me are the folks who move out to “the country” and then complain about the wildlife. I’ve even heard people complain about chorus frogs singing in a pond in the spring. Yeesh.

  8. Nancy says:

    Good grief WM, your description of a lynx fur was almost sensual and it would be my guess why so many feel the need to trap or shoot wildlife (besides the eating part)

    And yes it was offensive, simply because I’d much catch a glimpse of that beautiful animal, in the fur you described, alive and well, in the wilds, instead of dead and hanging on some wall.

    • bob jackson says:


      Soft fur? Yes, there is so much soft fur out there. All kinds of different species with very soft, silky, waiting to be touched by human hands.

      A dead lynx hide shot long ago to touch, to stroke to caress carries no ethical problem with it to me. Nor with those otters of long ago. I have to yukon Jack full length bear skin coats I bought at a famr auction many years ago. My brother and I wear these to the ala maters football games when the weather is cold and nasty. very warm, I must say so.

      To continue to do so, to kill for that “feel” is what is wrong. We know better now….I hope.

      There are all kinds of alternatives. A couple guys (former viet nam dudes who smoked weed going down the trail) from Yellowstone’s trail crew always had a rabbit fur in their saddle bags. Those you could get real cheap at any Yellowstone Hamilton’s rubber tomahawk tourist store.

      These dudes would invite camp followers along on their ten day shifts in the back country. I’d say the rabbit fur made for as much favorable response as any lynx or otter fur. I know it worked” for the back country rangers. We had a rabbit fur in every backcountry cabin in the district I patrolled.

      The jest of the story? There are alternatives that yield the same psychological affect as very rare species. Now how about beaver fur?

    • WM says:

      Bob Jackson,

      Indeed, there was a time when skins were the only garment materials available, especially for Native Americans, until the mid 19th Century. Early explorers learned the superiority of skins, with and without hair attached, as these items were often better suited to, and more functional in, a frontier environment than what could be store-bought.

      And then, there was the white mans’ wool, the renewable, sustainable, natural product that had durability, insulation capablity even when wet, and could be made into fashionable as well as functional items. A wool blanket, lighter and more compact than a buffalo robe, for the warmer winter nights, and you could even use it for a horse blanket directly under your butt or a saddle.

      My description of the lynx was intended to be more clinical than sensual (though it appears I failed), focusing on its adaptation for the environment in which it lives. In this instance, form follows function, and I suspect the softness of the fur has every bit to do with its ability to hold air in the interstices between the hairs, thus increasing its insulation capabilities.

      However, the sensual tactile and aesthetic aspects, as well as relative rarity (read as you got to be wealthy to have this status symbol), of certain animal pelts is what fueled the fur trade for many years. The ermine (winter weasel), mink or fox stole, or coat was a status symbol, as was the beaver hat to our friends in the East. Fortunately, that phase has passed.

      An old acquaintance of mine, who had a flare for the dramatic, had a full length raccoon skin coat he wore when it was really cold, including football games. You could almost envision him on his way, in a earlier time to a 1930’s Ivy League football game in this garb, which included a flashy muffler-scarf and a tweed wool flatcap hat, and a pocket flask on the inside right pocket of the racoon coat- rah, rah, sis boom!
      ….as opposed to, “Give me a V! …. Give me an I! (Will you get me another beer while your up?) of my era.

  9. SEAK Mossback says:

    If you’ve ever felt sea otter fur you can kind of understand why that’s the first thing Europeans went after when they discovered Alaska – nearly drove them to extinction – did in SE Alaska where they were reintroduced in early 1970’s. They’re doing pretty well here now but not so much in the Aleutians where killer whales have apparently acquired a taste for them.

  10. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Maybe you also enjoy reading the spring bear news from my friends of the stunningslovakia bear project. Wish I could be there…..

    • Chris Harbin says:

      Thanks Peter, nice to see what the rest of the world was offering. I have been fortunate to attend some wolf conferences where there were presentations about the Southern Carpathians.
      It would be interesting to know just how the European population view their wildlife. I’d like to think it might be an improvement from what we have in the U.S.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Chris, unfortunately in Europe it´s much like elsewhere. Some regions over here exactly mirror the society of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming or New Mexico. People polarize over carnivores. In some regions more, less in others, with people virtually freaking out in a few. Where carnivores slowly return, their presence inevitably collides with the interest groups, such as sheep growers associations. There are however regions (mainly in eastern European) where the local people quietly coexist with wildlife, especially predators, for aeons. Their attitude is often surprisingly relaxed. They view their local wildlife with respect but if it´s necessary to shoot a wolf or bear they will not shy away from doing so. Nevertheless that is a sound attitude for both, people and animals. And, people there are slowly discovering that wildlife nowadays also means wildlife tourism and wildlife tourism means income. Slowly they value their beautiful scenery and begin to be proud of. I think one needs not worry about let´s say Slovakia or Croatia. The true trouble spots are elsewhere, more westerly, in that “civilized” countries.

  11. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To SB;
    I am reading what you sent me on germ warefare,it just seems the army always has an excuse. No they did not do it etc,etc,remember they were desperate, if the turned the tide, they would have lost ground,and would have had to leave the post and the new world.

  12. JB says:

    Several Republican and a few Democratic senators are proposing to amend the tax code to provide incentives for private landowners engaging in endangered species conservation. I haven’t had a chance to look over the text of the bill yet, but here it is:

    Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2010:

    • RLMiller says:

      That one looks like the Enrichment of Poor Ted Turner bill. I’m for conservation, but this bill doesn’t sound like the right way to do it.

  13. Nancy says:

    So Elk275, how do you explain away the Oldman Lake bear? A bear that slobbered over knapsacks and caused no real problems other than being curious about the humans being her “designated” part of the neighborhood.

    A bear that unfortunately brought her babies into an area she’d been very familiar with for close to 17 years and got shot for doing so, so all those campers ($$$) could suddenly “feel safe” again spending a night in the wild.

    How do you justify her death (and both her cubs – one died and the other might as well be dead, consigned to a zoo for life) in a wilderness area?

    You said “Every year both Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks have to deal with both problem black and grizzly bears. Most are transplanted or relocated and others are destroyed. Do all of the citizens of the USA, get to make a decision on whether not to transplant or destroy that animal”

    Damn right we do. These are parks, set aside for wildlife to exist in and we are just guests in whats left of THEiR habitat.

    I’ve lived on both coasts and in between and there is so little left most can really call wilderness areas and yet humans continue to shove the land up and build on it and call it “progress” while ignoring the other species that were here long before we were.

  14. Elk275 says:

    “Damn right we do. These are parks, set aside for wildlife to exist in and we are just guests in whats left of THEiR habitat. ”

    How would you or I individual citizens of the USA be able to make a decision on whether to destroy the Oldman Lake bear. That is up to the park service.

  15. Nancy says:

    And did they make the right decision when it was left up to them Elk? When it comes down to either kill them or haul them off somewhere so they won’t be a “problem” anymore? Accommadating humans is the real problem when it comes to this kind of situation in what is suppose to be wildlife’s neighborhood.

    • Elk275 says:

      What is there to say! I was born here and will die here. You came out here to find the wilderness and wildlife. Somewhere, someone had “to shove the land up and build on it and call it “progress” while ignoring the other species that were here long before we were” so you could have a home in the Rocky Mountains regardless of how grand or humble. Maybe all newcomers should just stay where they are born and forget the Rocky Mountains, there would be less trama for the wildlife if there were fewer people here.

  16. RLMiller says:

    Bear rescued from tree in heavily populated beach community (completely flat and strawberry capital of the known universe) near Los Angeles. I love my county!

  17. Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

    Catching up with the dialog generated by the Boise cougar story. Not a lot to add regarding IDFG decisions and response to the situation. An assessment was made by the Region 3 wildlife management staff that this young lion was not a threat to public safety – in this specific circumstance – and that monitoring the situation without taking action to remove the lion was appropriate. The manager’s judgement and decision has been affirmed by the outcome.
    Wildlife managers are trustees for the state citizens on whose behalf those resources are held in trust by the state. In that capacity, we have many responsibilities. In the case of this mountain lion, the highest priority was to protect public safety. In some cases the most responsible decision will be to capture and euthanize (kill) the lion. That is always our course of last resort, if the lion (or bear or other potentially dangerous species) cannot be reasonably relocated or placed in a zoo or other appropriate alternative location.

  18. RLMiller says:

    MT state senator Debby Barrett wants st Department of Livestock (!!!) to have bigger role in managing wildlife, ostensibly because she’s worried about brucellosis
    (hat tip to YellowstoneMatt, who I follow on Twitter)

    • Save bears says:


      We had a whole thread devoted to this one, if I remember correctly and quite a few of us have been writing letters and making phone calls in strong opposition to this blatant power grab by the Dept of Livestock..

    • JB says:

      “All of the burden, all of the onus, all of the cost has been placed on the livestock producer,” she said. “Ranchers have no more control over elk in Montana than they do the weather.”

      So is she asserting that MT DoL should be given management authority over the weather as well? 😉

  19. Cody Coyote says:

    Just saw a Wolf article I’ve been waiting for in today’s Jackson Hole News & Guide ( first of a 2-parter):

    “Wolf recovery target has changed, feds acknowledge”
    Moving the goalposts is necessary to keep pace with science, they say.

    USF&WS wolf coordinator Ed Bangs expounds on Yellowstone wolf recovery numbers these past 15 years. Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife director Bob Wharff has harsh opinions about enviros with some made up numbers, and everybody’s favorite outspoken anti-wolf outfitter B J Hill gets his 1.5 cents in edgewise edgewise. Suzanne Stone of Defenders of Wildlife chimes in with some rational thoughts.

    – by Cory Hatch

  20. Chris Harbin says:

    Floyd Dominy is probably turning over in his grave with envy

  21. what is is this about them letting Sarah Paylin hosting a show on Alaska Wildlife. She is the one who offered a huge reward for every wolf’s front leg brought in. Also the one who overturned Alaska’s quit arrial shooting and uped the price of each wolf killed, and is now aiming at the polor bears. lets not let her get her TV show

  22. Kristin, Northern CA says:

    Federal government may require trees striped from California levees-

    So, in 2012 the Army Corps might be making CA spend $6.5 billion to remove trees from 1,600 miles of levees and, “virtually the only remaining riverside wildlife habitat” in the state could be wiped out. There isn’t even proof that the trees are a safety hazard or whatever. This would suck.

    • They are requiring trees be stripped from the Portneuf River in Pocatello, Idaho, where I live. The equipment has been working on the levee behind our house.

      The Army Corps is even claiming they don’t have to obey the clean water act. All this for a very unlikely flood that wouldn’t do nearly the damage they are doing with their heavy machinery turning the river into a filthy ditch.

  23. Kropotkin Man says:

    This in the Tucson paper today.

    Technician admitted baiting trap in which Macho B was caught: Jaguar whistle-blower faces charges

  24. Ryan says:

    Cougar attack in CA..

    Ralph please note that my email address has changed.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      It seems very early for salmon berries to be ripe. They ripen mostly in July – August in western Oregon.

  25. Cody Coyote says:

    The principal researcher for the Absaroka Elk Ecology Study which is researching low pregnancy and calf recruitment rates in Cow elk in the unique Sunlight Basin elk herd NW of Cody east of Yellowstone Park, gave his preliminary results at a lecture yesterday in Cody. The 3 year field study and 2-year analysis is funded mainly by hunting advocacy groups.

    The Billings Gazette has a story today.

    If that link doesn’t work, navigate to the Gazette’s website and search Wyoming news for ” Study focuses on plight of migratory elk ” by Ruffin Prevost.

    Arthur Middleton , a University of Wyoming doctoral candidate is heading the research work done in full partnership with Wyoming Game and Fish in association with other state and federal agencies and private ranches. Wildlife groups and environmental groups were apparently NOT invited to participate or help fund the $ 650,000 study. The primary funder is Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation , with generous support from Safari Club , Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, and other hunting advocacy organizations.

    I attended the lecture . The interesting finding to me was the low calf recruitment and cow elk pregnancy rates are directly related to what appears to be climate change…the onset of a severe drought and vegetation loss in Sunlight Basin beginning two years before the presence of active wolf packs. Wolves and especially grizzlies have exacerbated the poor calf recruitment since the early 1990’s, but only in the migratory Sunlight herd. The nearby nonmigratory herd on the Absaroka front range is doing much better , even though it has companion wolf packs.

    All in all, I thought the preliminary Absaroka Elk Ecology study results were so much Swiss Cheese…lots of holes. I came away with many more questions than I entered with.

    • This is pretty interesting, and given who funded the study, should be more credible. This is not what the funders wanted to learn.

    • Moose says:

      Science has become so politicized today that I doubt that even if this study was replicated ten times over it wouldn’t make a difference in the discussion. Everybody has their “expert” that will tow their party line.

      An oldtimer I know always comes back with – “I can’t control the weather, and I have little meaningful say about habitat…so, the DNR can either reduce hunting licenses or we can kill more predators….in an area with 20%+ unemployment that is dependent on the revenue they receive each yr. during deer hunting season….which do you think the ‘science’ will recommend?”

  26. Jon says:

    In order to maintain abundant game herds in the west, wolves are going to have to be managed at the levels agreed upon by all parties 150 in each state. Not the 500 to 1,000 in each state.

    -Don Peay

  27. Cody Coyote says:

    Dear Mr. Peay—

    It’s not a worthwhile goal to manage wildlife such as wolves strictly according to the numbers. If you truely believe that , your knowledge of ecology is dramatically lacking.

    Perhaps as the founder of, and principal in, the politcal lobby group Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife you should initiate a measure to change the name of your organization to better reflect is nature. I suggest you begin calling yourselves Sportsmen for Fish and Game.

    Managing animals as game, and managing them as wildlife, are two completely separate processes. Wolves are first and foremost wildlife, and should be managed ecologically as such. They are carnivores, not necessarily predators, and the term predator means different things to different folk. In a legal context the term predator is more akin to nuisance animal or varmint. In the biological context , predators are essential carnivores who require complementary prey for their survival.

    Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife should get wholly behind wolf recovery , proactively. If you truely support wildlife, that is. We all want wolves delisted, but not to manage down ( read: kill ) to your artificial and unjustifiable number quota .

    That is lousy wildlife management. It’s not good game management practice, either.

    • william Huard says:

      Mr Peay wants science based management of game herds, and arbitrary number based management for predators. They should change their name to Sportsmen for Sportsmen. Jeff Foxworthy should stick to comedy, although he’s not very good at that either.

    • Jeremy B. says:


      I’m afraid you’re wasting your breath. Don Peay made up his mind years ago.

    • Jon says:

      Mr. Peay cares nothing for science. All him and his kind care about are elk hunting opportunities. They have them now, but they are too lazy to put in the hard work to get an elk, so they make excuses up, the wolves are killing all of the elk. They use that wolf excuse because they are failures at hunting elk. Even Carter Niemeyer said this. If nuts like Peay got his way, you would see hundreds and hundreds of wolves losing their lives just so this nimrod can have more opportunities to hunt elk. I also believe that people like him try to act like they care about elk, but no, they actually only care about killing them. Mr. Peay is anti-wildlife.

    • Cody Coyote says:

      Wildlife management comes down to this: Ecologic management of wildlife is Qualitative. Management of game animals (=huntable species) for assured population numbers is Quantitative.

      When Don Peay , the alpha male of Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife , pulls a number out of his…uh , that…that each state in the NRM should be capped at 150 resident wolves, that is neither wildlife nor game management. It’s what we would call ‘ arbitrary and capricious’. Doesn’t plug in well to either sound ecological management of wildlife or sustainable yields for game management.

      Where Peay and his Elk hunting ilk fail miserably is not acknowledging wolves as being fully Wildlife, with all those goes with that , including the right as well as the “duty” to coexist with and prey upon their complementary ungulate herds 24/7/365. The problem with sport hunting is it goes compeletely against the grain of another purely Qualitative notion , that being Natural Law.

      To my mind , the relatively rich wildlife resources of the West and especially the northern Rockies, when fine tuned to the dynamics of a large and growing human population placing various pressures on those native wildlife and all that goes with that ( subdivisions, hobby ranching, ATV’s, the gamut…) , it truely becomes MORE incumbent, not less , to begin broader ecological management of wildlife if preservation of species is in fact the goal ( it is).

      Allowing commercial hunting interests and purely sport hunting ( such as SFW’s agenda) to set the game board and heavily influence management quotas and steer wildlife fieldwork towards artificial numbers under a pink umbrella of ” sustainability” is no longer top drawer. It’s not sound.

      Peay , his SFW, and far too many other sport hunting groups and diehard bull elk hunters iconoclastically railing against ” enviros” et al for allegedly denying them hunting opportunity by using the Wolf as a proxy have got it bass-ackwards. They also do not know the fundamentals of ecologic cycles., among other shortsights.

      For one thing, Elk populations must occasionally crash . A hard drop of 80 percent of resident elk in a short period of time needs to occur once in a while, in order for the habitat to rebuild and the ecologic engine to readjust . Those populations will rebound ( but only in the absence of overt human meddling, which is a wild card) along with the habitat. If we have the wisdom to allow it.

      Unfortunately , when state GAME agencies manage for ” sustainable harvests” of Elk and other ungulates , primarily for the supreme benefit of hunters and their own bottom lines ( license tag revenue), they are departing from the wisdom and the ecological path. But that is exactly what is happening in over-hunted herd imbalanced northwest Wyoming, which is all I can really speak to. We humans have been self-righteously hammering the elk herds and the gene pool for too long, by insisting that Wyo G & F summarily provide Sportsmen for Fish and GAME an artificially large and unrealistic yield of big bull elk year after year after year. That is s-o-o-o-o-o Counter-ecologic as to nearly be a crime against nature . For what ?

      Money and pride. That’s what Peay and SFW are all about. Aristocratic elitist trophy hunting thru adn thru , with everything and everyone else getting in line behind that . Try to get them to admit it, though .

      Frankly , the commercial trophy hunters of my domain and range of northwest Wyoming should be well back in the hierarchy of hunting entitlement. The subsistence hunter who wants an elk to feed himself and his family should come first . And that includes firstly the Wolf and other carnivores. Then the human analogue. Any genuine wildlife management scheme based on ecologic principle will in fact encourage substantive hunting of elk and ungulates for food, first . That means Cow elk and spikes, not that mature 6-point bull. In measure with the carrying capacity of the hunting area and the extemporaneous vector of the herd population , on the fly .

      To summarize. Wolves first , subsistence hnters next, then sport hunters, then and only then the commercial outfitted ego hunts.

      Sportsmen for Fish and Wildife are not the Great Wildlife Conservtionists of our time. That is utter bilge and myth. We need to dissolve that notion once and for all. The reintroduction of the Wolf was a big step towards exactly that. The Grey Wolf is the true wildlife conservator, and he doesn’t do it for the money or the glory. It’s his livelihood.

      Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and THEIR proxies, the state game agencies themselves , need to realize that. The wolf is working as much for them as it is the rest of us , in restoring the herd balance and adjusting the populations to better fit the habitat. The predator-prey dynamic is self- regulating, reciprocal. The numbers will take care f themselves. t’s that ” qualitative” thing.

      I cannot say that humans have been nearly so successful at achieving the same dynamic. Not at all.

      If you concur, please consider coming to Cody WY on May 22 to give the so-called Wolf Impact Rally partisans an alternative viewpoint .

    • WM says:

      Cody Coyote,

      ++For one thing, Elk populations must occasionally crash . A hard drop of 80 percent of resident elk in a short period of time needs to occur once in a while, in order for the habitat to rebuild and the ecologic engine to readjust .++

      You have just enough command of the topic to be a danger to yourself and others.

      ++Wolves first++


      Notwithinstanding my disagreement with you on these first two points, you give to much credence to Peay and his followers by bothering with a response. I agree with JB, it is wasted energy.

    • Layton says:

      “To summarize. Wolves first , subsistence hnters next, then sport hunters, then and only then the commercial outfitted ego hunts.”

      And therein lies the problem. The real live bottom line. The HUMAN hunters – you know, the ones that foot the bills, do the volunteer work, obtain the habitat, etc., etc., now and have done for generations of those elk that you folks want to feed to wolves – should be second (or later if you had a choice) in line to the sacred wolf.

      BS!! This argument of wolves vs. elk will NEVER get anywhere near a compromise with that attitude.

      Somewhere, somehow, there has to be a middle ground. I just don’t know where you will find it with the rabid anti-hunting contingent in the mix. If there were a VALID attempt and any sort of an agreement I have to think that even the more rabid hunting groups like SFW would be forced by some of their more moderate members (yes they ARE there, lots of them) to settle some of the differences.

    • Elk275 says:

      Cody Coyote

      You pushing to hard. I respect you essay and feelings, and parts of it I agree with, but that is not the feelings for the majority of the residents of the northern rocky mountain states. I will also say that I respect Ralph for allowing different opinions to be posted on his forum, By allowing this, maybe a compromise and a management plan could be worked out that would allow wolves as an part of the ecological landscape but not in the way you vision. Cody Coyote your essay is not a realistic in today’s world.

      It is important for you and everyone to look at the political situation. In August of 2005 an attachment to Senate Bill 339 allowed state to by-pass the interstate commerce clause in the US constitution. I present this because there is a quick method for change. Here is a brief synopsis of the bill”

      109th CONGRESS

      1st Session

      S. 339

      To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.


      February 9, 2005
      Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

      History behind the legislation:

      Congress was given the power to regulate interstate commerce by Article I of the Constitution. This power to regulate has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to also give Congress the power to regulate activities which negatively impact interstate commerce, commonly referred to as the “negative” or “dormant Commerce Clause.”

      The Court has cited the dormant Commerce Clause when denying the states the power to unjustifiably discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce. If a state regulation has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, then the subject matter of the state regulation, which could be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause, becomes subject to the dormant Commerce Clause.

      Congress does have the power to specifically exempt a state regulated activity from the dormant Commerce Clause. In 1890, when the Supreme Court decided that the regulation of alcoholic beverages lay beyond the reach of the states, Congress promptly overrode that decision with the Webb-Kenyon Act. Thereafter, the Court upheld Congress’ authority to commit the regulation of liquor imports to state authority.

      Motivation for legislation:

      The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that a state recreational hunting regulation substantially affects interstate commerce such that the dormant Commerce Clause applies and ruled that state laws that distinguish between state residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

      Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non-resident hunters.

      The Ninth Circuit ruling has spawned litigation in other states, and several pending lawsuits threaten each state’s wildlife regulatory authority.

      What the Bill Would Do:

      The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause in order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by a renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:

      Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.

      Protecting the public interest of individual states’ conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.

      Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state’s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife.

      Recently, an amendment was attached to a heath care bill that allowed individuals to carry loaded firearms in National Parks. I am a good supporter of the Second Amendment, but does anyone really need to open or conceal carry a handgun on the boardwalk watching Old Faithful — NO. This new law has its some supporters and many non-supporters. The law was supported and pushed through congress by the NRA. and a very reluctant president signed the law.

      Last month Washington D.C. tried to get a voting representative in congress, the NRA and pro gun people put a amendment on the bill that would require Washington D.C. to rescind all local gun laws. Washington D.C. requested the bill be killed because they did not want to void their local gun laws. What does this have to do with WOLVES?

      There will come a time in the not so distance future, that the US Western Senators are going to be pressured very hard by hunters, ranchers and local residents to do something about the wolves. Both Reid and Baucus in the power hierarchy of the US Senate are No. 1 and 3. Both of these senators have lost popularity and both represent western ideas, not the ideas of the New West migrants. Both of these senators pushed through the amendment to Senate Bill 339, Harry Reid is fighting for his political future and in four years if Baucas runs again is going to face the most difficult political campaign in his years in congress. The conservative US Utah senator Bob Bennett is facing real competition for ultra right wing conservatives in his own state. The wolf people are go to push beyond the political boundaries of what western residents want and laws can and will be changed.


      In the last 15 years I have given over $5000 to local non profit environmental groups and just today got a letter asking for a donation for help purchasing some computer equipment and my check will be in the mail next week. My interest is wilderness and preservation of road-less lands. The other day I ask a lady friend of mind who has worked for several non profit environment organizations in the last 10 years about wolves. She said that donations are starting to be affected by wolves and donors are asking hard questions about organizational policy on wolves. Just my 2 pennies.

    • Cody Coyote says:

      May 10

      HELP I’m trapped in Comment Hell.

      How do you turn off the automatic email replies ?

  28. Cris Waller says:

    Pro-grazing twaddle aimed at impressionable schoolkids. Great emetic.

  29. Mal Adapted says:

    Elk275: “I was born here and will die here. You came out here to find the wilderness and wildlife. ”

    Ah, the “nativist” argument. I wonder what our Indian friends would say to that? And even their ancestors have “only” been here a few thousand years — carpet-baggers 8^)!

    You may have been born “here,” but your parents (or their parents, etc) came to the place you were born because they wanted to. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there’s nothing right with it either. It earns you, in particular, no special ownership of any resources that are legally owned by all Americans. Sorry, but you don’t have any more rights than the rest of us, just because of an accident of history.

    • Angela says:

      An archery season for wolves? That isn’t management; it’s pandering to special interests. Why not poisoning carcasses and denning? oh wait, is that unsportsmanlike?

      Hunting ungulates and hunting predators is not equivalent. One is done (traditionally at least) for obtaining meat, and the other is, in the 21st Century, purely recreational. Why should the state leave predator *control* up to people who enjoy killing for fun? If the goal is truly to reduce wolf numbers, use sharpshooters or have helicopters drop poisoned carcasses to eliminate entire packs and clean up afterward. It disgusts me to see state fish and game agencies promoting the recreational killing of intelligent social animals by any means, whether humane or not.

      If the pleasure of the hunt lies only in the kill and not the chase, something is seriously wrong with this picture. The hunters I know do not attempt to use every method available to make things easier, even when they are hunting for meat, and they do come home empty-handed at times. I guess they aren’t in it for the bragging rights of destroying a life. None of them would ever consider sending an arrow through a dog to be “good sport.”

  30. Jon says:

    Hunters must be whining that some of them were unable to bag a wolf. This is not hunting at all. Traps, bait, calling devices, etc are for the whiners who want their hunts to be easier rather than harder.

  31. Elk275 says:


    Do you think it is wrong to call moose with your mouth, or a birch bark call or the way I do it with a 2 pound coffee can and a wet shoe lace — that is to hard to explain after a couple of beers. It works. Is it wrong for a bow hunter to bugle elk in the rut — I have never done it — don’t bow hunt. Is it wrong to call ducks with a wood call over decoys — I have never done it either. I always jump shot them in ditches and farm ponds but since I do not like to pick ducks anymore, I have not shoot any in 35 years. These are time honored methods that have been used for hundreds of years and are considered very traditional methods and no one has ever questioned the ethics of the above actions, until maybe now.

    The use of electronic calls is a new and different.

    • Jon says:

      Whatever makes a hunt more successful for the hunter eh? Our ancient ancestors would be laughing at today’s hunters if they saw them.

    • Save bears says:

      Actually Jon,

      I think the ancient hunters would be fascinated with the hunters of today, there has never been a time in the history of humans on earth that the hunters didn’t strive for an easier way to take animals

    • WM says:

      Yes, actually Jon,

      You don’t even have to go back that far in our history to make that observation. When Lewis and Clark worked their way through the Lolo on their way west, the Indians were in awe of their black powder rifles (and even an air rifle that Lewis had) in their ability to successfully obtain game beyond the range of a bow, and with greater efficiency. L&C supplied the very hungry Shoshone tribe with deer and small game at a critical time, when they were starving. The advantage of these mechanical aids to kill large game (and if course also use agains their enemies) were of such magnitude several tribes considered killing members of the L&C expedition just for their rifles. Yeah, Jon, they were laughing. Hunger is a huge motivator.

    • Jon says:

      Ancient hunters actually had to hunt for food in order to survive and showed that they could hunt with limited technology if you will. Hunters today wearing camouflage, using bait, using trapping, using hounds, using high powered weapons with scopes and shooting animals from a safe distance are a joke compared to our ancient ancestors. Shooting an animal with a high powered weapon with a scope isn’t impressive at all.

    • WM says:


      You remind me of that arcade game “whack-a-mole,” in which a mole keeps popping up thu one of multiple holes on a board, after being smacked with a soft rubber mallet. In your case, after being “smacked” on one of your comments, you just redefine the issue to your pleasure and pop up again, or better yet, just state the same thing again, even if factually wrong.

      In most states, modern rifle hunters must wear +/- 400 square inches of flourescent orange (ID may be the only exception), so camo is used mostly for bow hunting, or to feed egos because you cannot find some of the same garments in solid colors anymore; they cannot legally bait any game (except bear in a couple of states – I think I even listed these awhile back), they cannot use hounds (except bear and cougar in a couple states); and trapping is not hunting (do please remember this one Jon). Now the ancients did use hounds if they had them available (I think we already discussed that with the Greeks and Romans) and earlier civilizations on other continents, like Africa.

      I think we hit on all the stuff you are saying (incorrectly for the most part) about a month ago. Short memory, Jon?

      And, yes, a cartridge rifle with a high powered scope is not as difficult as being up close and personal. Again, from the polls I am aware most deer and elk are taken by rifle at a distance of less that 100 yards, which can be accomplished without a scope, but does result in the possibility of more wounded game that go unfound. But, of course, they do not go to waste because, as we know the sick or injured are the first to be taken by predators. So there is no waste, but there is likely prolonged pain for the animal – but isn’t that the way of nature, being eaten while still alive, in some cases? Now, those ancients never ever lost a wounded animal they hit with a spear in the wrong spot, an atl-atl, or one of those dinky, spindley arrows from a long bow, now did they?

    • Layton says:


      Please read the comment I just entered at the end of this thread. Sometimes I get the “reply” in the wrong place with the newer format.

    • Jon says:

      WM, I never said trapping was hunting, but you “sportsmen” use it and call yourselves hunters. The hunters today in my opinion are much inferior to our ancient ancestors. Hunting today is more of a sport than it is to actually kill something because you ACTUALLY need it.

    • WM says:


      Actually you did say trapping was hunting (check your post of 5/8 at 4:03PM), but I am glad you recognized it is not. Completely different mind set, objective and mostly different species of animal.

    • Jon says:

      WM, I never said trapping was hunting. I said some hunters think it’s hunting. The fact is some hunters who use bait and trapping truly believe they are hunters. Your definition of a hunter may be different than others. Hunting to me is killing an animal for food and food only, but we all know there are animals out there that are not killed for food.

    • Jon says:

      WM, you should expect that some people are going to have different views and opinions on hunting than you. I’m not a hunter and I definitely don’t consider myself an expert on hunting, but all of the things I spoke of about it has some truth to it. All of the things I say hunting have some truth to it. You clearly hunt and you will defend it to great lengths and I expect that from someone like you, but as I said, there are people who have much different views about hunting than you.

  32. Virginia says:

    In our local newspapers: “Cody Country Outfitters & Guides Assoc. invites you to attend the Wyoming Wolf Impact Rally – guest speakers include Colin Simpson and Ron Micheli (candicates for governor). Saturday May 22 – “join us for a day of education on how the wolves are impacting Wyoming’s wildlife and economy.” Sponsored by the Big Horn Basin chapter of the esteemed Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife. Should be a fun-filled day!

  33. WM says:

    Pythons invading the Everglades, going after anything they can eat.

  34. Layton says:


    I’m not quite sure what has your knickers in a knot over hunting — seems like ALL hunters are bad, ALL the time. Hunters are lazy, unethical and unscrupulous in both their methods and their motivations and they CERTAINLY don’t need the meat to eat.

    Got a flash for you Jon, not much about hunting is either new or very scientific. Hunters have lain in wait on trails that animals are utilizing to go back and forth from water or a food source for millennia — isn’t that baiting??

    Camo?? Wow, there’s a new one!! Until the last ten years no one that thought of dressing up in animal skins, painting any skin that was visible or hiding behind bushes — right??

    Hounds aren’t exactly new, I think they are mentioned in the bible. You forgot to mention birds of prey, I think they came about somewhere in that time frame too.

    Snares, traps, spears, bows and arrows?? These were all “leading edge” scientific at one time or another. Looks to me like the only thing that you mentioned in your latest tirade that is really different is the modern telescope sight. As WM mentioned, black powder and rifles aren’t exactly cutting edge witchery anymore.

    C’mon, get a life. If you don’t want to (or don’t have the ability) go out and get your own food, I promise not to make fun of you. Let your local butcher do it. BUT, don’t be so hypocritical about me going and getting mine.

    By the way, I use a brand new scientific marvel called a bow and arrow to harvest my elk steaks. Haven’t used a rifle in the last 30 years for that purpose.

    • Jon says:

      Layton, I doubt they were using hounds thousands and thousands of years ago. The bible was written over 2000 years ago. I am talking about hunters from thousands and thousands of years ago. I have nothing against hunting for food, but I do against predators.

    • Layton says:


      Here’s just one reference about hounds, seems like it’s a bit older that you refer to.

      Historically, these sighthounds were used primarily for hunting in the open where their keen eyesight is valuable. It is believed that they (or at least similarly-named dogs) were introduced to the area now known as the United Kingdom in the 5th and 6th century BC from Celtic mainland Europe although the Picts and other hunter gatherer tribes of the Northern area (now known as Scotland) were believed to have had large hounds similar to that of the Deerhound before the 6th century BC.[

  35. Jon says:

    WM, it amazes me what lengths you will go to defend your “sport”. Hunters sometimes use dogs to hunt mt. lions. Hunters do sometimes use bait to lure in bears and than shoot them. As I said, hunters today are inferior to those that lived thousands and thousands of years ago. A hunt is supposed to be HARD. Why are all of these hunters whining because they can’t get an elk? Their excuse is blame the wolves for my failure to get an elk. The fact is hunters today have it A LOT EASIER.

    • Layton says:


      Do you hunt?? Have you ever hunted?? Do you have the slightest idea what hunting is REALLY all about?? Or do you just like to agitate those that do??

    • Jon says:

      Layton, may I ask if you think hunting is a sport? Do you think people hunting foxes with hounds is a sport? Would this be considered hunting to you?

    • Layton says:


      I guess I’ll answer your questions — even tho’ you seem to choose not to answer mine.

      Do I consider hunting a “sport”?

      Not in the sense that you keep score. I see hunting as a tradition, a tradition passed on for many, many years and a tradition that is “traditionally” used to feed a family.

      Do I see fox hunting as a sport??

      Don’t know anything about it — wouldn’t presume to tell anyone how to do it or if they should do it.

      Now, would you care to answer my question(s)?

  36. Cobra says:

    Maybe you should go along for an elk hunt out west. Before you dis on all of us low life hunters that want everything easy you should spend a week out hiking with a real hunter. Then, if he or she is successful you can help pack out. Backpacks only, no horses, atvs or anything else that would make it too easy. I would be surprised if you might not change your tune about how easy elk hunting is.

  37. Jon says:

    No, I never hunted nor do I care to. You clearly hunt, good for you.

    • Layton says:

      So then I guess the when you are talking about the “ancient” hunters being so much more capable and dedicated than modern hunters — you really don’t have the slightest idea about what you are talking about.

      Hmmmmm, I’ll just make a small wager that you are NOT a vegan and that you depend on others to do your killing and butchering for you.

      I’d also bet that this knowledge that you claim to have about the relative merits of modern vs. ancient hunters came from some book that said that, of course, with no actual knowledge of what you are lecturing about you DID read another book or two so that you could build a valid opinion —- right??? Naaaa, who needs actual, feet on the ground type knowledge.

    • Jon says:

      I believe ancient hunters had it MUCH HARDER than hunters today. Today hunters have calling devices, baiting, weapons with scopes on them, etc. I believe today some hunters care more about the easy hunt and getting the animal than putting in the extra hard work getting that animal. I also believe that hunting today has become more recreational than actually hunting for food. That is my opinion.

  38. Jon says:

    Layton, may I ask if you think hunting is an actual sport?

  39. Save bears says:


    You might want to read over Ralph’s link at the top of the page:

    • Jon says:

      SB, I read that. These kind of discussions are going to happen sooner or later.

    • Save bears says:


      Not my statement, that was wrote by the owner of this system, and yes, these types of discussions are going to happen, especially when you have done your best to provoke anyone that is a hunter the last few days.

    • Jon says:

      It works both ways sb.

    • Save bears says:


      I have not seen any of the hunters on this system continue to post negative things about anti-hunters, or search out as many articles as they can find that you think put hunters in bad have been doing everything in your power to actually start an argument

  40. WM says:

    (Sorry, everyone, I don’t know exactly where to put this comment in this last string).


    ++WM, it amazes me what lengths you will go to defend your “sport”. ++

    I was actually using a preventive “whack-a-mole” tactic by expanding a thought in conversation with you, but it appears it didn’t work. It further amazes me that you simply have no clue, nor desire to learn, about why some people hunt today. It also seems patently clear you have no views of tolerance for anyone whose values or expectations are different from your own, which ,regarding wolf management you have made clear are uncompromising, and will likely continue the polarizing debate.

    I guess I would rather talk about issues that are at the heart of wildlife-human conflicts, than the act of hunting, itself, because I know not everyone likes it.

    Many people hunt, including those who have widely different views about why they do it. Others do not, but accept it; and yet others do not accept it, and are vocal in their view. That is ok, and I accept that. But, Jon, you are the one bringing it up, over and over and over again, on this forum, negative ways, from ever so many angles. So, if I seem disposed to offer commentary it is only to parry your often fact-challenged attacks. Let me emphasize again FACT CHALLENGED. I think we have covered that pretty thoroughly above.

    For some, hunting is a bit more philosophical than critics portray – it has to do with being connected to the web of life; some rely on the bounty for economic reasons, and yet others view it as a form of recreation – but I don’t expect you would understand any of this.

    And, I really doubt you have any understanding whatsoever, how hard certain types of late fall hunting is most of the time. Some folks here just like to generalize about some stereotypical hunter driving around in a truck or on an ATV, and never spending time out in the woods. It doesn’t really happen that way, at least for most who are successful in harvesting an animal.

    Do take care not to compare hunting in the West with the Great Lakes. It is a bit different, but I won’t go into that.

    Hunting, from my experience, for elk or mule deer, is about walking long distances in an area you have already spent time scouting for prospects, reading terrain, anticipating where animals might be, and being quiet, using all your senses -heightened for this particular purpose, much as the ancients did. Yes, Jon, some of the same skills are required to pursue animals that are likely in less abundance and differently distributed on the land than thousands of years ago.

    And, believe it or not, there are common risks and dangers of being out in the cold, and getting wet and hungry, always with the possibility of getting lost, or maybe even falling down and getting hurt on steep terrain where you might not be easily found. Depending on how you do it, camping in the fall has its own challenges – like staying warm and dry and cooking. You can’t just go to the microwave, turn on the TV or go down the road out to dinner. Try waking up and seeing that all your water is frozen to ice, so you can’t even make coffee, or things in the cooler you thought would be thawed for a dinner meal you cook yourself.

    Then there is the shear physical effort involved in completing the harvest if you are lucky enough to get something, such as field dressing, skinning (sometimes deboning) and packing out the reward of your effort, and preparing for the freezer on your own, or having a butcher complete the work. This part is especially important for those who rely on this protein source for economic reasons.

    Sometimes people hunt with close friends and family, which makes it all that much more special. And, as Layton mentioned, for some it is a tradition that has been passed among generations; in my case we have had four generations in camp, at times. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people across the West, Midwest and the South hunt for all of these reasons and more.

    • Jon says:

      WM, do not treat as someone who has no clue what he is talking about. Just because I never hunted does not mean I have no clue what I am talking about. You are not going to tell me what I know and don’t know. I know very well why some people hunt today. I also know that some hunters do infact kill animals for all of the wrong reasons and that is why people like me get a bit touchy on the subject, afterall, I care about animals. It is clear and obvious people like me and you will never agree on anything. All of the things I have said about hunting are truthful and very much going on today. This will be my last comment to you in this particular thread.

    • Save bears says:

      You know what your talking about? I, based on your numerous post over the last couple of weeks that are derogatory, think maybe you think you know, but really have no think you are speaking the truth, in fact you are speaking based on your opinion and have been countered by many on several different negative statements you have said..This as Ralph has said many times, is not a pro or anti hunting blog, but at times it seems like you do your damnedest to keep it on the anti side.

    • Elk275 says:

      How things have changed in the minutes it took me to write the below.


      Try to look at things from other people’s view point. There of us that like to hunt for various reasons, and yes it is a sport for most, but everyone has a different interest. Hunting is a tradition for thousands of years. If you don’t like hunting that is find, as I do not like round ball sports. No one is forcing you to partake, but then do not try to force people “not” to partake. Modern hunting is done with strictly enforced laws and ethics are an individual moral compass in relation to what he/she is doing, not every hunter has the same hunting ethics and that is find.

      This country is turning to the ultra right very fast. In an earlier post today, I talked about how a law could be changed through an amendment such as the endangered species act and how several senators were in political trouble. Today it happen: (Reuters) – Senator Bob Bennett, a conservative Utah Republican, failed in his bid for re-election in a state convention as a groundswell of discontent with politics in Washington claimed its latest victim Saturday.

      Is he going to be replaced by someone who wants the federal government to sell off public lands or for the total development of public lands and resource? There are more people sitting on the fence that can be push over to the far right. People that supported a small number of wolves, wilderness areas and stream protection, but the thinking that you and Cody Coyote and et al have is starting to make those fence sitters get off and go right. There are more that are going right than left.

      Everyone on this forum has a interest in wildlife and wild lands. We need to respect each others feeling and respect the local traditions.

  41. Nancy says:

    Bad feeling between hunters and those don’t like hunting is probably the single biggest reason why there is not a widespread political movement to protect and enhance wildlife and wildlife habitat in the United States.

    What a fricken shame that is…………..

    • Save bears says:

      I agree Nancy,

      Even where there are things that both sides can agree upon, it seems as if someone will continue to saying things that slant the conversation, which is really why there is not going to be a solution to many of these issues for a long time to come..

  42. Jon says:

    Wolf-hunt harvest may be as high as 216

    I wonder how high Idaho’s wolf hunting season will be. My guess is much more than the 220 last hunting season on wolves.

    • Elk275 says:


      ++Wolf-hunt harvest may be as high as 216++

      They are killing them anyway, everyday. It should be brough out in the open.

      Ten years ago I was on a Ranch in Pardise Valley (south of Livingston, Montana) and a rancher was telling me how he was gut shooting them with a .223 solid point. That was 10 years ago.

      I was talking with a retire fish and wildlife biologist several months ago and I ask him if there was any known illegal wolf killing going on. I got a vary nebulus answer, he did say that if Molloy rules for the wolves there could be an open season.

      Will the fish and wildlife look the other way? No, if it obivious, but I do not think much investigation would occur. The federal goverment does not have the man power. Most enforcement will have to come from the states and county sheriff.

    • Jon says:

      There will always be illegal wolf killing going on. It is inevitable. The opinions of some haven’t changed much from those that were responsible for wiping the wolves out in the 30s.

    • Save bears says:

      Actually Jon,

      Those responsible for eradicating them to begin with, was the Federal Government, it was a sanctioned action, by virtually everyone…

      Unfortunately, I do fear if Molloy relists, it is going to be a free for all on wolves and very little investigation is going to happen. Which of course as big and remote some of these areas are, it will be virtually impossible to catch anyone that does not brag in the local bar..

    • Jon says:

      Actually sb, farmers, hunting, and the federal govt. all had a helping hand in eradicating wolves in the 30s. Nowadays, the same people (not all) still dislike wolves, but now the federal govt. helps wolves (we like to think so anyways) for the most part instead of participating in their eradication all those years ago.

    • Save bears says:


      Of course they did, it was because the Federal Government and the State Governments were paying bounties on any wolf killed and turned in..if I remember correctly, there was something like 50,000 bounties paid in Montana alone..

      What I find ironic, is even if wolves are relisted, it is not going to stop the killing, in fact it will increase it, I am sure Wildlife service will be working overtime and there will be people out there just shooting them because they see them..

    • Elk275 says:


      In 1937, The Montana Cattlemen’s Association offered a $2,500 reward for the killing of Snowdrift and his mate. Snowdrift had reportedly killed 200 cattle in the Judith Basin area. A “wolfer” killed his mate and then he was able to kill him with an iron sighted rifle. Today he is mounted and displayed in Denton, Montana at the hotel.

      Think about it. In 1937, the country started into a second depression and money was tight and scare. Ranches and farms had been lost to the banks and the county for nor payment of taxes, wages were $1.00 a day. If Snowdrift was worth a $2500 reward in those days, then Snowdrift had caused a large financial loss to the ranching community. They were no elk and deer left in that country and the only thing Snowdrift had to eat were cattle. Whether you or others like it or not that is history and that was the way things were done then and history repeats it’s self. (I hope this present financial crisis does not replicate the in 1930’s, but time will tell)

  43. JEFF E says:

    My My what a thread.
    the fact is that hunters use whatever can be used, now and historically, in order to get the kill. that would be the latest newest technology and /or methods for what ever eon, century or age one wants to bring up. The methods of the past are only primitive to us now. That would include running animals over cliffs by the score, running them into bogs or marshes, building fires to “smoke em out”, using “beaters to run them into ambushes, digging pits ,with or without the sharpened stakes, using deadfalls, on and on, and then we get into the age of gunpowder and many ways become obsolete and many more become the standard. I would bet that 100% of the ancient hunters would have given up all of the above methods for the modern ones with traditional bowhunting maybe the one exception.
    Now why a particular individual participates in hunting is probably as varied and subtle as the number of people that do it, much as any other activity. To try to claim knowledge of the why is as much of a fools around as it is to try to explain the why to one who dosen’t.

  44. JEFF E says:

    sorry, around should have been errand

  45. Si'vet says:

    Jon. I try really hard to ignore your posts, but your continued outlandish claims make it way to easy to refute. “In America”.
    The original baiting for predators, native Americans.
    The progression of killing methods, rocks, spears, arrows, native Americans.
    Trapping, native Americans
    The original Calling of predators native Americans.
    Using dogs in persuit of game, native Americans.
    And where we are today whether it’s hunting or driving to work is called evolution.
    We may not do it because we have too, but because we want/ and have the right too. And as hunters/conservationists who live in America we will fight to preserve those rights. What you don’t understand in erroding away those rights will eventually come back to haunt you. To bad you can’t sit down and talk with a person of jewish decent that is 80/90 years old. They gave up one right at a time. The cost in lives???
    And BTW native Americans were fighting scabies (called mange in dogs) for century’s… So it wasn’t some secret introduction by a Montana vet.

    • Save bears says:

      I would also add, that native Americans came up with one of the most gruesome ways to kill coyotes and wolves, I watched show the other day, on TV about a guy who had his colon perforated by a piece of whale baleen, yes it was a drama, but after doing some research found out that some of the native American tribes used the same thing, they would tie a piece of baleen up or a piece of whale bone up and then put it out with meat for the predators to eat, after a small amount of time in the digestive system the sinew used to tie it up would dissolve and the bone would spring open to tear the intestine up.

      It was called by Native Americans, the “Wolf Killer”

    • Elk275 says:

      Save Bears, I went hunting and gathering at the store tonight and was about to cook my kill, but then you wrote the above, I have been thinking about what you wrote and was going to write about it, but did not want to take the time. But here it goes.

      In January of 1975, I was 23 and working on a seismic crew in arctic Alaska. The main camp was a Cape Beaufort and we worked south towards Cape Sabine on the Chukchi Sea between Point Hope and Point lay. It was a – 40 below plus that day and my helper was a young man named Robbie form Barrow, Alaska. Robbie’s mother was Inuit and his father French Canadian and he had spend his entire life in Barrow. I was driving a Rollagon, a arctic tundra vehicle with huge low pressure tires, down the beach. Sometime during the day, Robbie asked me to stop and he got out and looked at a bunch of tracks. The tracks were wolves, I had never seen wolf tracks before and reluctantly got out and studied the tracks. It was cold and I wanted back in the Rollagon.

      Robbie said, ” I wish I could go home for a minute, then we would kill those wolves. My mother would take some very thin strips of baleen and sharpen both ends and then boil the baleen to soften it up. The soften baleen would be coiled like a spring then frozen. Several of the baleen springs would be put in a small ball of whale bubbler or seal meat”. The idea was that the wolves would eat the meat and it would take several hours before the animal was immobilized or dead after eating. Off we went in a hurry, why, ask white men.

      Years later, I wished that I had taken to time to talk with the native people in the evenings as they drank Coke and ate potato chips and dipped whale meat into seal oil while craving there ivory and soapstone. The things that we miss and I missed. It is memories now.

    • JEFF E says:

      while scabies were around for centuries there was an concerted effort to use it as an agent for extermination of predators in several areas of the country. Texas and Montana notably.
      Hope you and your new buddies get along well.
      another opportunity for middle ground fading away.

  46. pointswest says:

    Any one watch the “oil in the ocean is natural” story on the Fixed News Channel this weekend. According to FNC (Fox News Channel), hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil seep into the oceans anyway from underwater oil seeps. They undergo an oil cycle where oil is finally consumed by bacteria. In fact, of all the oil in the ocean, on 1% comes from offshore drilling.

    I feel so informed now. I am no longer worried about the oil in the Gulf. It is natural and is a beautiful cycle of nature.

  47. Save bears says:

    Not that I am condoning what is currently going on with the blow out, and it will affect many people as well as the environment for quite a long time.

    It is a fact that around the world, millions of gallons of oil seep into the oceans every year, due to natural circumstances..I think people would be floored how much natural seepage happens everywhere each year..

    • pointswest says:

      There is plenty of naturally ocuring carbon monoxide in the world too, but this does not mean that I want to see my family locked in the garage with the car running.

    • Save bears says:

      Firgured you would come up with a response like that, things are getting to predictable around here..

    • Save bears says:

      Why is it, when someone points out a fact, those who are against so many things, like to be smart asses? I will never understand it, there are facts and then there is BS, I don’t watch Fox so I really don’t have any opinion on what they said and as I said, I don’t condone and fully understand the ramifications of such a large blow out…but it is amazing, that one thing gets said, then so many try to bend it to fit their ideal of what life should be..

    • pointswest says:

      I wasn’t trying to be smartassed, I just tried to come up with an analogy that is easy to understand.

      Fox News dishes out so much disinformation, I personally believe we should turn back the clock on broadcasting to the pre-Regan era and re-regulate the way “The News” is funded. It is absurd that big business and the Republican Party can fund a disinformation system as pervasive and as slanted as is Fox News.

      This story that oil in the oceans is “natural” and is nothing to worry about has gone way over the line.

      What has developed is the “golden rule” of information: those who have the gold rule what we get as information.

      It is dangerous and it is wrong.

  48. SEAK Mossback says:

    Elk375 –
    There are also some interesting references on aborignial predator control in the report done by the National Science Foundation in 1997, although they seem to apply more to the interior Athabaskans.
    Your mention of coke and potato chips brought back a memory of watching stacks of cases of pop being offloaded from twin engine scheduled flight from Deadhorse to Kaktovik. The pilot commented “It’s funny, I never see them unloading cases of toothbrushes.” They’re paying a pretty high health cost for becoming addicted to some of the worst parts of our diet – there are frequent public radio announcements aimed at encouraging native Alaskans to eat more traditional foods and less junk. Overall, though, I found some very admirable things about Kaktovik (popn about 300). You can leave your gear, even firearms, laying in an open pickup bed overnight right next to the main road through town. I asked if it was safe, and was assured nobody can remember anything in town ever having been stolen.

  49. Elk275 says:


    I read the first several pages of that web site. From the time the First Nations crossed the Bering land bridge there has never been a complete eco-system. If everyone read it and posted, how many new post would that 28 page article have? The First Nations had little use for predators in pre white man days in Alaska.

  50. Nancy says:

    Elk275 said: The First Nations had little use for predators in pre white man days in Alaska.

    And I’ve got to counter that Elk by saying “what other species out there might of had little use for “mankind” in THEIR day to day existance, if actually been given a choice?

    Land and forests are continuely being ripped up for roads, homes, buildings, agriculture and playtime, in the name of progress (or what some would view as unchecked human growth)

    I’m guessing some here on this site are still fortunate enough to be able to gaze out on, or go close by and see wilderness and wildlife.
    Would it be such a terrible thing to ask humans to call a halt to slapping up more and more buildings (as we suck in more and more land to do so) and ask that existing stuctures (as in homes, abandoned store fronts, etc.) be utilized?

  51. Save bears says:


    It is quite obvious, you have attained a level that very few have..

  52. WM says:


    Well you may be right about all the human development that is doing bad things. Ask yourself, how do we stop it or slow it down. I know I tread on thin ice with some folks here, but we have added another 10 to 20 million people in the US alone by default in just the last ten to fifteen years, from illegal immigration. That means we have dramatically speeded up the population growth of our own country by a significant percentage.

    I served on several committees addressing environmental issues and land use development for popular, three time Democrat Governor Richard Lamm. He, too, was concerned about environmental degradation and took a rather interesting view, even attempting to get major environmental action groups to acknowledge the weight of his argument. It was delivered as a speech four years ago. I reprint it here, because I am not sure where to find a link for it. In the other version he directly addresses the environmental impact which results from adding on another 10-20 million in so short a time. This essay is timely given what is going on in Arizona.

    Gov. Richard Lamm, The Examiner
    Apr 20, 2006
    WASHINGTON – I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white-bread, too self-satisfied, too rich … then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do.

    History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” So here is my plan:
    1. We must first make America a bilingual/bicultural country. History shows … that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. …
    Scholar Seymour Martin Lipset put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy.”

    2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal … there are no cultural differences that are important … and the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

    3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: “… the apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethno-centrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.”

    4. I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor … I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. …

    5. I would then get the big foundations and Big Business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. … I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

    6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” … It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other … when they are not killing each other.
    A diverse peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia. … Dorf’s World History tells us the [ancient] Greeks believed they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature and worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games in honor of Zeus and venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions … .

    7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits and make them taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist,” and “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws.
    I would develop a mantra: because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.

    • JB says:

      The social psychological literature on stereotyping, social identity prejudice suggests to me that social classes based upon real or perceived differences between “us” and “them” are inevitable–especially in times of strife. People can always find ways of distinguishing others to distrust, hate, and persecute. Mr. Lamm’s analysis ignores the fact that when our American melting pot was set to its highest setting, blacks, Native Americans and women (not to mention just about every other minority) were overtly discriminated against. Extending freedoms to these historically oppressed groups in the name of tolerance has not hurt our society in the least. However, it hasn’t extinguished prejudice either. Rather, people’s prejudicial attitudes have simply gone underground (i.e. become implicit instead of explicit), to resurface in times of tension (e.g. 9/11, LA riot) or whenever Lou Dobbs spouts his nonsense.

      Regardless, cultural homogeneity is impossible without authoritarian policies to promote conformity. I don’t know if Mr. Lamm is xenophobic or a racist, but I do recognize bullshit when I smell it.

    • WM says:


      Lamm is no racist, or xenophobe. He is a futurist, an environmentalist and a law professor, long concerned about the direction this country is taking. He was a widely liked governor, who championed environmental causes, along with civil rights. You have no factual basis to throw out generalizations, as you do.

      I have known him for nearly thirty years. He is blunt in his style, but he is a good communicator, in command of facts and issues, and unafraid of speaking about the tough subjects. Since you live and work in an area apparently unaffected by an onslaught of new illegal US residents I doubt you have any idea of the impacts being felt by states where large numbers of those who are here illegally.

      JB, America’s melting pot has alot to feel guilty about, but that history cannot be changed. Safeguards are in place so that part of our history has no chance to be repeated, and we should all be grateful for it. Cloaking your comment about current illegal immigrants in racism and prejudice is disingeuous. It is an easy way to dismiss a complex problem, and just not deal with it. Mexico and other Latin American countries need help. That is for sure. The people who can make the necessary changes, are coming here because it is easy. We have made it easy for alot of reasons, most of which are short term gains. The problems in their respective countries will not go away until change begins from within. Remittances (money sent from the US back to home country) to Mexico is at about $27B per year, and about another $23B to other countries. It is Mexico’s second largest source of revenue, behind state owned petroleum.

      You need a sabbatical, to get away from your books and out of a culturally insulated college town. Live, and experience life as other people in the real world. See what is going on. The huge influx of illegals has not hit the heartland as much as the Southwest and parts of the West – but it will.

    • JB says:

      “You have no factual basis to throw out generalizations…”

      I have no factual basis to throw out generalizations?! That whole essay was a bunch of unsupported generalizations!

      Look, I could care less about Mr. Lamm’s credentials, I’m addressing the quality of his argument. It rests upon a flawed reading of history, and a lack of recognition that biases against social groups are inherent, they are part of the human condition (he comes close when he notes that, “…all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … local patriotism and geographical conditions”.

      Predicting that a society will fail is easy (all societies will eventually fail), it is Lamm’s attribution of the cause of failure that I have a problem with. On what science does it rest? Jared Diamond’s academic analysis lists 8 factors that contribute to the collapse of societies:

      1. Deforestation and habitat destruction
      2. Soil problems (e.g. erosion)
      3. Water management issues
      4. Overhunting
      5. Overfishing
      6. Introduction of exotic species
      7. Overpopulation
      8. Increasing per-capita impact of people

      Note, you won’t see the celebration of diversity on the list. Rather, what you see are a series of environmental problems, many of which people on this blog are familiar with, that render the environment incapable of supporting the people who depend upon it. Cultural division, strife, and societal unrest surely ensue as societies collapse, and I would be willing to bet that such unrest involves clashes among groups that perceive themselves as holding divergent views, ideologies, racial backgrounds, etc. However, I would view such clashes as the inevitable EFFECT of an environment that cannot sustain the pressures people put upon it.

      Moreover, there is good evidence to suggest that our tolerance for cultural hegemony is a function of economic strength and stability (see the work by Ronald Inglehart and colleagues). Inglehart’s work indicates that increases in education and income in societies promote changes in cultural values that are more accepting of diversity (among other thins). His work suggests (to me, anyway) that increased tolerance for cultures is something to be celebrated, as it indicates general societal stability, rather than feared.

      Regardless, none of this has anything to do with ILLEGAL ALIENS–that is another issue entirely. Having tolerance for people from different cultural backgrounds does not mean one has to accept the illegal actions of individuals.

      – – – –

      BTW: Please don’t presume tell me I’m not affected by illegal immigration. In 2002 an illegal drug smuggler shot and killed a good friend of mine (who was on on-duty NP ranger). I get really sick of the “you don’t live here so you don’t understand” attitude that pervades this blog.

    • WM says:


      Unfortunately I don’t have the time this morning to take apart the logical construct of your argument. Clearly you attempt to discredit Lamm, himself, first. Then you go after the tenor of his argument, not the actual substance of each of the points he raises. Please do recall, this was a speech, delivered to a broad based audience. It was not a “peer reviewed” empirical study, or a history lesson on the collapse of ancient civilizations, areas in which I know you find greater comfort.

      This is a contemporary piece – take it for what it is- an essay that puts forth several issues that put America at risk of becoming a third world country as it attempts to assimilate a huge numbers of unskilled, uneducated and poor who come here in violation of federal law (and now apparently state law, in AZ), and who choose not to assimilate, as evidenced by many factors. And, more importantly, in my view, the atmosphere of “politically correct” dialog and taboos that prevent honest discussion of substantive underlying issues.

      I would urge you to go back to each of his seven issues, beginning with the first, which points to examples in history regarding problems with a bi-lingual state. Tell me, just why the hell, in my own country, I should I have to, “Press 1 for English?”

      I’ll give you odds, Lamm would agree with Jared Diamond’s observations; in fact, I know he would. Lamm is offering perspective as applied to a particular situation in the US today, and maybe a shorter time-frame for things to go down hill. And, do recall from the outset, again. This is a speech, laced with sarcasm. I should have included the title which is: “Gov. Richard Lamm: My plan to destroy America.” Maybe that gives it better perspective.

      And, I am sorry for the loss of your friend. The drug trade and all that surrounds it, is yet another problem begging for a solution that works.

    • JB says:


      If you re-read what I’ve written, you’ll see that I do not attack Lamm at all, my arguments are very specifically directed at what he has written/said. Specifically, I noted:

      “Mr. Lamm’s ANALYSIS ignores the fact….”

      I even added that…

      “I DON’T KNOW if Mr. Lamm is xenophobic or a racist, but I do recognize bullshit (as in the argument)…”


      “That whole ESSAY was bunch of unsupported generalizations!”

      and finally…

      “I could care less about Mr. Lamm’s credentials, I’m addressing the quality of his ARGUMENT.”

      – – – – –

      I have read and re-read this speech multiple times. It reads as xenophobic every time around. Mr. Lamm asserts “History shows … that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures.” I would ask, how long does a culture need to be around to be considered to have “survived”? Then I might point out that all of Europe is now essentially bilingual, China has several languages and cultures, as do numerous other nations. Apparently they are doomed. Someone should tell Canada. Hopefully they still have time beat conformity into the residents of Quebec.

      Look, I’m not saying there are valid points within this essay. His second point–at least the part about the dropout rate only being due to prejudice and discrimination–has some validity (though few, if any would be willing to adopt his “only” qualification). I also found the part about making immigration laws impossible to enforce to be very compelling, though its effect was ruined by the comments preceding it.

      You’ve made the point that the piece was meant to be sarcastic and was delivered orally; perhaps I’m misjudging it out of context? Or perhaps being in academia I don’t feel constrained by the “taboos” he mentions? We often had frank discussions in my psychology classes in graduate school about the role of nature (genetics) versus nurture (experience). Regardless, this essay seems to me to be written as justification for cultural intolerance.

      – – – – – –

      Thanks. We can certainly agree about the drug trade, though our culture’s use of illegal drugs (demand) seems to me to be as much the cause as the open borders used to smuggle them.

    • WM says:

      JB & Nancy,

      I too, hope Ralph allows the dialog to continue. It has everything to do with US population, environmental impact and ultimately wildlife in an ever more crowded landscape.

      I think Lamm’s warning is one of cultural overload, increased permanant population the US does not need, and the huge risks accociated with a dominant new culture failing to assimilate. His reference to “Hispanic Quebec” was to a second referendum in 1995, when Quebec voted to cecede from the rest of Canada. There is a lingering political chasm between Canada of the east (French) and Canada of the west (British).

      Proceeding on the assumption that we can have a frank dialog and not be accused of racism (with this group that is a risk), allow me to offer that Hispanics are the single largest minority in the US, at something like 15% of total US population, and demographers will say they this ethnic group is growing at the fastest rate due to young age and religious affiliation (Read this as more children per family. And, there is a reason the Catholic Church in the US, and specifically, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, want amnesty for however many millions of the faithful are in the US – to regain political and economic power it once had). This group will be the driving force of US population increase over the coming years.

      Again, my comments are directed to the environmental impacts in the US from accepting an additional 10-20 million people from external sources and which we have no legal obligation to take. Governor Lamm and two other notable candidates ran (and lost) on this platform for Sierra Club Board positions.

  53. Nancy says:

    because of what influence Save bears?

    • Save bears says:


      What you outlined, is a goal that not many in this day and age share…very few of us are willing to give up our nice comfortable life style with all of the convenience to gaze across a meadow and watch the wildlife graze.

  54. SEAK Mossback says:

    Here’s one of interest.

    The Fish & Wildlife Service is updating their management plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and asking for comments. Overall, I’m afraid the opposing political forces will, as usual, make it very difficult to get wilderness designation through congress. At a minimum, however, commenting in favor of wilderness designation will help build a strong public record making it harder to pry open the refuge the next time it seems like the GOP has locked in a 1,000 year Reich.

    The effort to open the coastal plain came very close not long ago, with President Bush eagerly awaiting the bill on his desk. I remember that summer, flying north over the plain with my eyes glued down at that verdant carpet rolling by. The legislation hadn’t even passed yet and here the d—ed oil companies had been posting big white survey stakes all over the place!!! It put me in a foul mood after a great trip, and I must have said something loud and off-color because I noticed the pilot looking over at me with wide eyes. As we were forced ever lower by that ubiquitous Beaufort Sea fog, I began to notice the stakes were laid out somewhat haphazardly, and all seemed to be driven into little hummocks and high points. Finally, I noticed some had eyes and beaks painted on them. Whew! Snowy owls. What a relief, but I haven’t entirely forgotten that feeling . . . .

    • Chris Harbin says:

      Survey stakes?!? Time to break out the old “Ecodefense” Manual and a copy of ‘The Monkey Wrench Gang”.

      Thanks for bringing this up. I will get my comments in and hopefully encourage a few others to do so as well.

    • Virginia says:

      SEAK – do you have the email address for us to send our comments about ANWAR? Thanks.

  55. Nancy says:

    SB – Shortly, I’m gonna go hunker down for the night on my 20 year old mattress, in my 50 year old cabin and give your comment:
    “very few of us are willing to give up our nice comfortable life style with all of the convenience” some serious thought.

    But first, I’m gonna spend a minute or two and gaze out over the valley in front of me. Last night there were over 300 elk hanging out. Pockets of antelope here and there and a handful of Mulies watched me, watching them, in the yard next to the cabin.
    It’s all about priorities don’t you think?

  56. Save bears says:


    I agree with you 100%, in a while, I will be turning the generator off, and going silent for the night, and watch the deer in the yard, after what I have done for the last few years, I fully understand what you are saying, unfortunately, I don’t think as many as we would like to believe do..

    We did have a great day, went to town and had a Mothers Day Brunch, it was a nice change..

    But I can say, I would not trade with anyone, when things are down, I simply have to walk out the door and be right there, I spent over an hour watching a grizz dig in the yard the other day, and it was thrilling, he didn’t pay attention to me, and I didn’t worry about him, it was indeed a special day..

  57. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Tracking Tigers in Korea´s DMZ:
    Highly interesting! Video attached from a not so well known area of this globe.

    • Peter Kiermeir,

      That is a very interesting clip.

      I believe the incredible wildlife of the Kamchatka Peninsula was similarly very well protected until the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

  58. Nancy says:

    WM – that was an incredible speech.

    Years ago while visting San Diego, some friends took me down to Mexico. What stood out in my mind while driving around was the stark difference between the rich and the poor. We went from proverty ridden sections where people slept out in the open on mattress or crowed into hovels on hillsides, to avenues lined with mansions, walled in and roped with razor wire.

    This was back when illegal immigration was a trickle coming over the borders. Now its a flood and I would guess the standard of living has changed little since then. Our nation jumps right into wars, thousands of miles away in the name of “democracy” but has done little to help the nation of Mexico (our neighbor)

    But there may be reasons for that, check out this video when you have time:

  59. WM says:

    This cannot be good for bears or people. The regulations are going forward. What’s next, shootouts in campgrounds? Add a little alcohol and who knows what will happen.

    New law pits guns vs. grizzlies in National Parks

    • Jon says:

      Any gun nut can walk into the park and lie and claim that a bear was threatening him when the bear wasn’t and shoot the bear dead and have that excuse ready. Guns should be outlawed in national parks. You go to parks to enjoy, not to shoot animals dead.

    • Ryan says:

      This is old news.


      For hating the right so much, you seem to have corner on tinfoil hat theories.

      First off every bear incident that involved bear mortality is fully investigated and if it is found that someone shot one for fun with the excuse, you’ll most likely get prosecuted.

    • jon says:

      Guns shouldn’t be allowed in national parks Ryan. You go to a park to have fun, not shoot animals. If you are scared of maybe potentially being attacked by an animal and that is why you are carrying a gun, don’t go into the park plain and simple.

    • Layton says:

      What about the two legged kind of animals?? They seem to inhabit most of the planet – why should one NOT worry about them in Nat’l Parks??

      Just asking Jon — do you reckon that you and I could agree on ANYTHING??

      I think today is Monday, I’d almost be that you are in a time zone where it’s Tuesday!!

    • Layton says:

      BET!! BET!!!

    • Save bears says:

      Not that I carry in the parks, but I can, and it is not for the 4 legged animals, but I still put my faith in the Bear Spray..


      I would give up trying to reason with Jon, as I am sure you will never agree on anything..!

    • jon says:

      Studies show that in most cases, putting a cloud of bear spray in a grizzly’s face works better than trying to stop a moving 400-pound animal with a perfectly placed bullet.
      “You’ve got to be a really good shot with a gun,” said Yellowstone bear biologist Kerry Gunther. “That’s the beauty of bear spray. You don’t really have to aim it. All you have to do is pull it and pull the trigger.”
      Bear spray, of course, also happens to be better for bears.
      Park visitors used to have to keep their guns unloaded and well out of reach, such as in the trunk. The new law allows visitors to take loaded guns anywhere they’re not prohibited by state or federal law.
      Bear biologist Tom Smith said he’s “absolutely concerned” about grizzlies dying unnecessarily.
      An assistant professor at Brigham Young University, Smith used to work at Alaska’s Katmai National Park and Preserve, a place famous for drawing large numbers of grizzlies that feed on spawning salmon.
      Smith said tourists at Katmai often would tell him they’d been charged — but that after reviewing video footage they provided as evidence, he never saw a grizzly charging, just bears walking about and minding their own business.
      “The point is, people can’t read these animals at all,” Smith said.
      Smith has evaluated the efficacy of bear spray in reported aggressive and nonagressive encounters in Alaska between 1985 and 2006. He found that bear spray stopped grizzlies in 46 of 50 cases, or 92 percent of the time.
      Bear spray stopped charging grizzlies 12 out of 14 times, a success rate of 85 percent. The other two times a grizzly charged, one person was deeply scratched and the other was spared when the grizzly moved off after stopping just a few feet away.

    • JB says:

      Oh God, not the dreaded bear spray argument again. Quick Ralph, shut down comments before it’s too late!!! 😉

    • Ryan says:

      “If you are scared of maybe potentially being attacked by an animal and that is why you are carrying a gun, don’t go into the park plain and simple.”

      If you go into a national park where large, people conditoned predators live with no worries of the possibility of attack then your an idiot. That doesn’t mean you need to tote a gun or bearspray, but some caution will go along way.

    • Alan says:

      As a ranger in the park explained it to me: yes, you may now carry (based on state laws) a loaded gun in national parks. BUT, he said, and this is a big but: it is still a violation of federal law to FIRE a gun in a national park. Should be an interesting case when it happens and comes to court. Even Teddy Roosevelt was prohibited from firing a gun in Yellowstone when he visited, even though he was legally (at the time) carrying.
      Meantime, I see in todays Livingston Enterprise that serious hazing of bison is set to begin at the west gate. The first step, the article says, is to drive bison that are already in the park deeper into the park to make room for those outside of the park. ATV’s, helicopters and men on horseback will be used. All bison must be back in the park prior to May 15.

    • Jon says:

      If it is still a violation of federal law to FIRE a gun in a national park, what exactly is the point of bringing a loaded gun into a park? I believe this whole thing is about the gun nuts wanting to be allowed to carry their guns whenever.

    • Layton says:

      Atta boy Jon,

      You’re getting it going again!! I’ll bite, I’m kind of bored this AM. 8)

      “Something else being considered is allowing hunters to use traps and electronic calls in some regions in order to bait the wolves.

      “All those are methods that we currently use on black bears,” said Unsworth. “So those might be considered in some areas. We have a few areas where we have chronic livestock depredation and a few areas where we have some problems with too much predation on our elk herds.”

      Stone said these methods are effective, too effective. She said that history has shown that all wolves could be eradicated this way.

      “That’s how wolves were eliminated from the West,” Stone said. “People were trapping them. They were poisoning these animals.””

      Stone has NO basis for what she said. In the first place electronic calls weren’t even available when the wolf population was so heavily affected in the 20’s and 30’s. Poisoning was the ONLY way that people were able to get rid of the amount of wolves they did. That and some other things, like denning. There is NO mention of any of these methods in the current discussions.

      Secondly, she (pretty cleverly as a matter of fact) manages to mix poisoning into the argument about current populations — where does this method of eliminating wolves get mentioned?

      Same old crap. I guess she’s worth the money they (Defenders?) pays her, but she’s certainly not very truthful or forthright.

      Normally the saying is “money talks and BS walks” in this case it would seem that BS is, in fact, doing the talking.

  60. Evan says:

    Here’s some good news for supporters of land conservation and anti-gas/oil development folks. Not sure if this has been posted anywhere on here yet…

    Hopefully the leases around Glacier get used responsibly and beneficially (from the land/wildlife conservation perspective) now that they’re out of ConocoPhillips’ hands. I admittedly don’t know anything at all regarding the situation beyond this article. Has anyone onsite been to these areas? Are they largely undeveloped? If so, any possibility that some or all could be incorporated into Glacier perhaps?

  61. Save bears says:

    I seriously doubt any of this would be incorporated, although not heavily developed there are quite a few
    private land holdings in this area, as well as State and Federal holdings also..

    It would take an act in Congress to increase the park size, and that would require a presidential signature to complete. With the commitment to stop mining to the North in Canada, as well as the Flathead river which is declared wild and scenic in many areas, the area is pretty well protected right now.

  62. Barb Rupers says:

    Helena newspaper article from May 8 about the possible Montana wolf hunting quotas, subunits, and methods for 2010.

  63. Cody Coyote says:

    Not that I don’t love you all, but does anyone know how to STOP recieving e-mails for every comment every time a new one i s posted ? I’m way past my threshhold with this out-of-control thread and want them to go away….

    • Ryan says:

      Just unclick the notify me of follow up comments at the bottom of the comment area

    • Elk275 says:

      It is going to flood one of the best 2 track trails in the Bzoeman area. That little meadow is a treat to see after 45 minute ride ( for some a 20 minute ride). After the winter with very little exercise maybe it will take a several tries to get up there.

  64. Nancy says:

    JB – WM,

    You’re both making valid points, especially to those of us who don’t always have the time to research everything that’s going on in this country, let alone the rest of the world.

    I have read that the “natives” of some countries in Europe are outraged at the influx of new immigrants (and the “bending over” going on by their own governments to accommdate) when it comes to the flood of Muslims and their religious views. (Sorry Ken used the R word again!)

    If you want some truth via sarcasm about that subject, check out Pat Condell on YouTube.

    Ralph is probably getting ready to pull the plug here because this has nothing to do with wildlife news but, indirectly it does. When the human species starts to back away from concerns and compassion when it comes to our own species, we end up having even less concern or compassion for all the other species out there.

  65. Nancy says:

    Save bears, Are you completely off the grid with your generator? Going “silent for the night” had a nice ring to it.

    • WM says:

      And, SB, I would sure like to know a bit more about the grizz digging in your yard that you watched for an hour yesterday. Can you be a bit more specific on how you are able to have this arrangement without having other bear related issues? What can say about this particular bear – sex, age, size, temperment, how often it shows up, any perceived unacceptable or developing risks with you or your family (pets?), etc.?

    • Save bears says:

      Hi Nancy,

      Yes, we are completely off the grid, I have a generator and we have a small bank of solar panels, that keep us powered up when needed, the only outside utility we have is a phone. We do have a TV, but only use it to watch DVD movies, we have no TV reception where we are currently located, and the internet is a crappy dial up connection!


      what I consider my “yard” is an approximately 10 acre meadow, The cabin I current live in sits on the edge of the meadow, backed up against a hillside As far as bear related issues, we have no pets, and we keep anything that could be an attractant in the house until such time as we go to town.

      It is only my wife and I. Our kids are grown, married and live in OR and WA, and continually let us know we are crazy!

      This bear has been hanging around for about 3 weeks now, he comes out of the brush and uses the meadow to hunt ground squirrels, and grazes on grass. I would guess, it is about 3-5 years old and 300-400 pounds, seems to have a pretty calm temperament, has shown no obvious signs of aggression.

      I suspect by time next winter gets here we will probably move back to Montana, where we own property. We are currently looking at a parcel in WA state, I am currently talking with Washington Fish and Game about a job..

      But currently, I am loving it and my wife is putting up with it! LOL.. The bear has really presented no problems for us, but it is exciting and you have to pay attention at all times. One of these days, I am hoping to put my experience living here on paper and publish a book, but that will be a time in the future.

    • Save bears says:

      I forgot to mention, one of the most surprising things I have seen is a Lama! I don’t know where he/she comes from and I don’t know where it lives, but it comes out about once a day and grazes in the meadow, which is odd, because we are several miles from other humans, so I don’t know if it escaped, or what! But it has been a surprise to say the least!

    • WM says:


      Thanks. Sounds like a nice bear to have in the yard. Are you still thinking about the Wind River – Trout Creek Area?

      I guess they are taking out the old CCC dam on what used to be Hemlock Lake at the Work Center/Arboretum. The area has an incredible history. Last summer they found much of the structure of an old furn of the century logging splash dam when they worked their way down through all the accumulated sediment. There is also a fish ladder built by the CCC in about 1935 which uses a basalt wall as one wall of the ladder all the way to the top, except at one turn. The ladder, first of its kind, will likely remain as monument of some sort. The whole effort of dam removal is to try to get what remains of native steelhead to use the full run of the stream. After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an attraction flow structure at the dam to get the fish to use the ladder (it didn’t work), they finally figured out the best thing to do was take it all out. Another free flowing tributary to the Columbia. Imagine that.

  66. SEAK Mossback says:

    Chris Harbin –
    I may have been a little too subtle, so just to be clear: I believe the “survey stakes” were 100% snowy owls. They morphed into survey stakes in the mind of a paranoid environmentalist fairly new to the area – LOL. The political threat to the refuge that summer was real, though.

    Virginia – Here’s the link with information about the refuge plan review and where to send comments:

    In general, the refuge seems incredibly well run, but most of the credit goes to the people who use it. I think there’s very little patroling or vistitation by FWS of any kind (certainly not like NPS), even along a main river like the Kongakut that has quite a few visitors from eco-tours to private groups to a hunting outfitter who takes in up to 10 clients/year. Every user seems to treat the area and other users with the utmost respect and you will be hard pressed to find any sign left behind, even of a campfire, at least on the Kongakut and Aichilik.

    Obviously, oil development would be a very different situation. It would occur on the plain, which besides its ecological importance, is only 40-50 miles across at that point where the Brooks Range jogs north. Over Barter Island on a clear day, I could see an amazing amount of detail on Herschel Island 115 miles east. Oil development would be a real eye sore from the mountains in the refuge, not to mention rafting across the plain itself. They have plenty of oil deposits to the west with potential access to something like 95% of the total north slope plain, without the refuge. I’d say go ahead and lock it up now – ain’t worth it for an estimated 6 month supply for the U.S.

  67. Nancy says:

    Sounds like an ideal location SB. Did you install the solar panels? I’ve been giving some serious thought to solar. Just to be hooked up to my local electric co. runs $25 a month (does not include usage) and can relate to the crappy dial up! Just switched over to the cheap DSL package last year.

    • Linda Hunter says:

      Save Bears I loved the story about the bear you watch. . when we lived at at a lodge in Alaska for the summers we had so many bears ambling through the lodge grounds you had to open doors slowly. They were no problem to us at any time, though, even if they were the teenage curious ones. I always wonder after that experience why it is so hard for people to live with bears. It just takes a little knowledge, a little respect and some thought about leaving things laying around. The sacrifices in the cleanliness of cleaning fish, for instance, was far outweighed by the enjoyment of having bears around. There doesn’t seem to be a way to communicate to the public a proper role for humans around bears. . either they hear that bears are harmless and you can go up and pet them or that bears are going to run outta the woods and rip your face off. Many people freak out completely at the sight of a bear and think they are going to be eaten if they so much as see one. Then there are the people who would love bears to death. I guess we need to have a company who can sell common sense pills to go with the pepper spray.

  68. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Sb;
    Sb this time I must disagree, ancient people had a great deal of pride,maybe some would have seen it better with easier tools for killing game, while others would stay with traditional tools for hunting. What I am stating and what you are stating is just here say, we both can’t read minds.

  69. Save bears says:

    Just this time Richie? You disagree almost every time!

    Of course you read books, and I personally talk to Native American people almost on a daily basis..go figure


  70. jdubya says:

    good to see this change. that office should have been gutted in his first 100 days.

  71. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    O.K. ,not all the time sb, the indians of today are not the same as their for father’s, but you do have one up on me.But as for reading books, I do not believe I said anything about that in my last comment.

    • Save bears says:

      Ok Richie, you did not say anything about books, but I am curious, where does all of your knowledge about Native Americans Come from? I do remember you saying you took a class or something. Could you elaborate?

    • Ryan says:


      You mention books in most of your posts that we should all read.

  72. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Jon;
    Jon it is all about the gun nuts in our national parks,they should not be allowed to carry a loaded weapon.

  73. Si'vet says:

    Richie I don’t think it’s the gun nuts are who you need to worry about, even though they own alot of guns, most are secured legally and illegal action would get them removed. I believe the criminals with 1 or 2 guns are a bigger threat to us all. Here is an interesting read.
    The Gun is Civilization

    by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

  74. Layton says:

    How many guns must one have to be considered a “gun nut”??

    • Save bears says:

      I have 18, so I guess, I am considered a gun nut!


    • Elk275 says:

      I have 22 and I want (not need) a new 35 Whelen, plus my father will be giving me an old ball and cap pistol that we have traced to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. There is an old note in the barrel that said it was picked up on the battle field and the historians at the battle field have every reason to believe it is real — who knows. I am not a gun nut I just need one for every different situations as I have and do not need a fly rod for every different ripple in the stream.

  75. Nancy says:

    “The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats”
    in the hands of young children, guns can start them down the path of animal abuse:

    • Save bears says:

      Well for one, it is quite easy in this day and age to spoof just about anything, for two, it is illegal to own a BMG unless you have a special certificate from the ATF, I love seeing the sensationalism that runs rampant on both sides of this issue, I can go to Wal Mart and pick up a toy gun, do a video and convince you that I am a terrorist, it does not take much to do that..and looking at the size of the kid, it would be a physical impossibility for him to even hold it, let alone shoot it, I carried a BMG several times during my service in the Military and they are not that easy to shoot!

    • Save bears says:

      I can tell you right now, that is not a .50 and that is not a BMG…talk about pulling your leg!

    • jon says:

      The wolf haters are passing on their wolf hatred to their children.

    • Elk275 says:

      Save Bears, I do not think one needs to have a permit for a 50 BMG and if one does then the 338 Lauppa is more accurate and shoots just as far.

    • WM says:


      Nabeki, who runs the “howlingforjustice” site, where you found that youtube junk footage, is every bit as dangerous to the wolf reintroduction issue as the “spoof” wolf hunter kid in the video. She actively made a pitch to post personal information about hunters who harvested wolves, if I recall correctly, along with some nitwit wolf activist from somewhere else in MT, I think.

      That generated a very hot and disgusting debate here, and consequently Ralph considered shutting down this site. Passion for one’s cause is one thing, but the way she approaches the issue is real close to fanaticism, and every bit as much of a danger to finding middle ground as Rockhead, er, I mean …. Rockholm.



      Isn’t the .50 caliber in that video a Barrett model 99A1? No reason in the world why a civilian should have one of those things. That will put an armor piercing round through an engine block. It is not a hunting rifle, and there is only one application for it, which has nothing to do with any application in the natural world. Exception: Makah Indian going after gray whale (if you know where to shoot it).

    • Elk275 says:


      It is against the law in Idaho to use a rifle in excess of 17 pounds and that rifle appears to be in excess of the legal weight.

      ++in the hands of young children, guns can start them down the path of animal abuse++

      Exactly how does a gun in the hands of young children start them down the path of animal abuse. If Idaho issues wolf licenses and they are licensed are they abusing animals? No is a young licensed elk hunter abusing a deer or elk during hunting season?

      FYI: I went to the Bozeman Cosco for lunch today and in a large vacant field behind Cosco that is infested with gophers, I saw a weasel kill a gopher — it was interesting.

    • Most kinds of animal abuse among children I hear of involves torturing animals for a thrill.

      A child who wants to shoot a deer, elk or wolf most likely wants to do it to impress his or her friends, siblings and/or parents. In this case it is an obvious setup by his father to irritate people and show his power to indoctrinate.

    • Ryan says:


      I disagree, I’ve shot a couple of 50 BMG’s and the grin factor is pretty high. (one custom and one barrett) 50’s are relatively harmless in the world of guns as the ammo is too expensive and hard to get for the average criminal as well as the weapons aren’t exactly friendly for a hold up.


      I just got a 338 snipetac built and I should have glass on it by end of summer, it should ring steel at 1500+ consistently. I rang some steel with another one at 1327 last month.. Very fun.

    • Save bears says:

      You know, it is amazing, what is now being defined as a BMG, there are many .50 cals on the market, including handguns, but the person that posted this on their blog was way out there, a BMG is a fully automatic weapon that was specifically designed for warfare…I have a converted fully automatic ruger 10/22 that rings in at about 650 rounds per minute, it is a very dangerous weapon and I can do far more damage with it, than I could with a BMG, the true BMG is not an easy gun to shoot, the recovery time after you take a shot, is not short, where is with the .22 I have, I can put the 650 rounds on target with no ill after effects.

      I really don’t understand why people let this crap get to you, it is so remote that someone would hunt wolves with this type of gun, that the statistics are amazing..

      Face it folks, you got snookered..

  76. Nancy says:

    The gun didn’t bother me near as much as the attitude did, SB.

  77. Si'vet says:

    SB, Remember the Pat Mcmanus story where he stored a Benelli 10 ga. in the same case as his Ithica 20 ga. feather light and that spring when he opened the case he had a brand new baby winchester 101. It can happen. lol
    Nancy isn’t that how youtube works or sells or what ever it does in most cases.

  78. Nancy says:

    You are right on there Si”vet. Probably got the idea for that little short from Rockholm66.

  79. Nancy says:

    If Idaho issues wolf licenses and they are licensed are they abusing animals?

    Elk275, I have a “license” to drive, does that mean if I have a few too many on they way home from work and take out a few innocent people, I’m excused from being a responsible driver simply because I have one?
    People get marriage “licenses” all the time but does that automatically qualify them to be parents? I personally didn’t see anyone that resembled good parenting in that video.

    George Wuerthner kind of summed it up in my mind recently:

    Predators may challenge some hunter’s self image as “manly men.”

    He went on to say: I certainly know exceptions to the above statement about hunters. They spend lots of time studying wildlife. They are willing and able to walk all day, day after day for an opportunity to engage with elk and other prey. These hunters are willing to share the land with wolves and other predators. If you asked them, they would say that the presence of wolves enhances their entire outdoor experience whether they actually kill an elk or not. For many it is more exciting to cross a wolf track than a track of an elk. They put ecosystem integrity and the integrity of the wildlife first and foremost. Unfortunately I fear they are in the minority of self identified hunter/conservationists.

    I know some of the minority and have a great deal of respect for those that hunt to supplement, but I live in an area where taking a week off elsewhere in the country, to come shoot something (as in wildlife) here and then brag about it, has become the norm.

    Might of been a staged video, but again, its the attitude that bothers me.

    • Elk275 says:


      I have know George since we were undergraduates at the U of M since the early 70’s, I truely like him and have done business with him, drank beer with him in Alaska and the last time I saw him was at a funeral. I hear that he has moved back to Livingston and one day soon I want to look him up.

  80. Save bears says:

    The latest rendition of the BMG, weighs in at about 83 pounds, it requires a tripod, and it is still a monster to shoot, it has over 143 foot pounds of felt recoil, this is not a gun, your going to see a child this size holding, let alone shooting. It is a belt feed gun, not a single shot…I have got to the point that most things one yutube is nothing but propaganda and produced for a specific reaction, it is unfortunate, that all to often, these doofs, get the reaction they are looking for…

    • WM says:


      Not to beat this topic to death, but the weapon in the video is a Barrett brand single shot .50 cal. As I mentioned above in an earlier post, I think it is a model 99A1. It has a weight of about 28 pounds, and the advertised recoil of a 12 ga. shotgun due to the ported barrel, which dissipates 70% of recoil. It fires the .50 BMG round. Both weapon and ammunition are available to civilian purchasers without special licensing. Barrett also makes a 12 round semi-auto in nearly the same configuration, the US military version is designated the M821A, and is in sniper service in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The US Coast Guard also uses it for drug interdiction activities, including taking out boat engines.

      Unfortunately there are no restrictions on who can purchase or use this weapon, including the semi-auto version. It is certainly not suitable for anyhing involving wildlife and is illegal to use for sport hunting in most states, as Elk suggests, because it exceeds a maximum weight for shoulder firearms (Idaho max is 17 lbs.).

    • Save bears says:


      Well see, we are talking about different firearms, which is the major problem, people see these videos and they don’t know what they are talking about..and those viewing really don’t know what they are talking about..

      But is still gets the shit going, unfortunately..

    • Save bears says:

      And really, caliber, does not matter, dead is dead, and I am not condoning, but when you kill something it does not matter, what you killed it I said, this video was made for a specific reason and judging by the reactions here today, it accomplished its goal!

    • jon says:

      SB is right on this. Does not matter the gun when it comes to killing because it will still end in the same result.

    • Save bears says:

      This nothing more than the local Macho guy bragging in the local bar, when this happens, to many fall into the trap, you all give them the ammunition they need to say, your nuts! Don’t play their game….These are NOT the people you have to worry about…

  81. Save bears says:

    Nancy, have you had kids, if so , what was your 12 year old’s attitude?

  82. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Ryan and Layton;
    Jon is passion in her opinion’s just like you or I do,so respond like sb would,with a down to earth answer. Hey guys just my opinion.

  83. Nancy says:

    No kids SB, but I’ve been around enough childern to realize they have a deep rooted desire to emulate their parents.

  84. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    I said on the subjects of books Chief Joseph I will fight no more forever, was a book on the nez perce indians and yellow wolf the nez perce warrior was another, and a course in social eco, on a subject about the orgin of the first germ warfare. Does this help you where I was comming from sb?

    • Save bears says:


      You are indeed a confusing person, I have read all of the books you mention, and these are the basis for you understanding of Native Americans?

  85. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;

    Oh I hope I am not overheating your dial up connection?

    • Save bears says:

      Don’t worry about, telephone lines are little effected by the amount of data crossing over them, digital signals normally don’t cause excess heat in this type of situation..

  86. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Ryan;
    You all probably have gone over these books a thousand times,and even a east coast person like me,has been to some of these Nez Perce sites! I found The white bird site interesting, I spent some time in seven devils’s canyon, and Riggins inn. A person I knew, was the wife of the person who owned Riggins inn. The owner’s car fell down was of those cliff’s and broke his neck and died, tragic accident, they had everything to live for.Well this is a small part of my interest about the west. I have been out west more than I been down south on the east coast.

  87. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vet;
    This is why many people take Marshall art’s, the people who really study it on a consistance basis, do not need guns. I agree in part to what you are saying, but I still think taking guns out of the general public’s hands is a great idea. A statistic I heard of,guns in a house cause more harm than good. Many things have happened in our schools because of guns. On april 20th we had a big killing in ours schools,because kids got their hands on guns.These kids were celerbrating Hilter’s birthday, they believed in Hilter’s ways of taking force.

    • jon says:

      I think you meant martial arts.

    • jon says:

      Learning martial arts is good, but how is that going to protect you from someone who has a gun? Martial arts would be useless if someone shoots you from some feet away from you. Taking guns out of the public’s hands? How are people supposed to protect themselves against those that are illegally carrying guns then?

    • Save bears says:

      Richie Said:

      “I still think taking guns out of the general public’s hands is a great idea”

      Well fortunately, the Founding Fathers had a different view and put that nasty little passage in the constitution….

  88. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Nancy;
    It’s a shame sb, si’vet,Ryan, Layton can’t see the other side of people with guns, hunting is one thing, but it’s guns in our kids hands that have caused teachers and students to get killed in our schools. It has happened on the east coast over and over, and I think out west coast too! Our government allows assult weapons to be sold,that is just plan crazy! So their are both sides to this sb, don’t be so cavalier, this is not a joke.

    • Save bears says:


      What in the hell are you talking about? I was not being cavalier, I have extensive training on weapons systems, remember I spent 26 years in the Military, my specialty was urban combat training, that is what I retired as, I served in several theater of operation, my combat units each had 12 designated .50 specialists..

      There is a big difference between what the media says is a assault weapon and what it is in reality…looks does not make an assault weapon.

      And you know, I could really give a shit what you think about me, most of the time, nobody can ever understand what your typing, and your going to put others down.

      Where in the hell did I ever say it was a joke?? Please point that out and if I did, I will be sure to apologize, other than that, you know what you can do with it..

  89. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To all;
    Raplh also wanted people to use their real names if possible, not to hide their comments behind stage names. I have no problem with my real name and where I am from. My job does not influence who I am, and what I believe in, never did and never will,the day that happens, my real freedom is taken away from me.

    • Save bears says:

      And Ralph also said, he understood, why some did not or could not Richie.

    • Elk275 says:

      Richard Giallanzo

      You live in a very large urban area with millions and millions of people and no one knows who you are from another one of the millions. We live in a three state area with less than 3 million people and a lot of us are known.

  90. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Ralph;
    What you say is true, our serial killers all tortured animals first. But a kid who starts by impressing his friends or family,could also start to kill wildlife for the sake of fun, and this is not a good reason in my opinion, with all due respect

  91. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb and all;
    You did not address Nancy’s concerns, it was the attitude, not so much if the film was real or not!

    • Save bears says:


      Can you read, or is it just your comprehension? Yes, it was addressed, the film was a shame..period.

    • Save bears says:

      And if you can “Read” attitude, you are sure a better person than I, Are you drinking tonight? Because your making less sense than you normally do!

    • Elk275 says:

      The last that I knew people were allowed to have any attitude they wanted. If a young man wants to go and pretend to shot wolves, which have a legal hunting season, that is fine. My attitude has not been all that good for the las t few days but I am not going to hurt anyone or do anything illegal, it is more business related.

      On of my favorite things to do this time of year is to shoot gophers — so what. Any farmer or rancher welcomes honest gopher control. Where gophers can not be shot is in the city subdivisions and then they call the gopher control man who uses propane into their holes.

    • Save bears says:


      After the many conversations, that have transpired on this blog over the year(s) it seems like the attitude comes from people like Richie..and another I will not mention…

  92. Si'vet says:

    Richie, we talked about serial killers and their backgrounds awhile back, example: Bundy,Dahmer, etc. non of whom came from hunting background. I think if you research it a bit, you’ll find very few incidences like Columbine, were carried out by kids who spent time with their parents, in outdoor activities like hunting, and supervised sport shooting. Rich, when I was younger, I praticed and competed in marshall arts, I can tell you, only on TV can you dodge or deflect a bullet. As with all lethal things, poison, sharp objects, gas and guns, the owner usually the parent etc. is responsible for there safe keeping, and education.

  93. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    I know you have something to say, it would not be you if you did not, and do not judge native Americans by today’s culture, they are not native anymore.

    • Ryan says:

      I dare you to say that to any american indian.

      Were you ever on Jersey Shore?

  94. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Jon;
    Yes Jon,thank you for helping me out, thanks again!

  95. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Jon;
    Yes thank you Jon

  96. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    O.K. gereral do you want me to liast all book! In my opinion, the only wars,that were necessary was WW1 and WW2 all the rest were political wars, and were not world threatening. THe countries in these wars did not attack us,I am getting off the subject of firearms and wolves, I am sorry Ralph.

    • Ryan says:

      What about the civil war and revolutionary war? Were they not necessary?

  97. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Jon;
    The arts protect at close range,in a bar etc, I do agree no guns should be in our parks of course. But the arts is a substitute fo teaching people to use guns as protection in everyday life.

    • jon says:

      Martial arts depending on which one you take up takes some years to master and truly perfect. Learning how to shoot a gun takes much less time to learn. Martial arts is only good as you said if it’s at close range. What arr you going to do if someone is standing 20 or 30 feet away from you with a gun? You can’t rely on martial arts to save your life. Guns will even take out the most skilled martial artist there is.

    • Ryan says:

      Duh Jon, use a throwing star!

    • WM says:

      I like Ryan’s answer. But, a more practical approach in most instances is to walk away if you can, and leave your watch and billfold, if requested. Maybe you will live to address the cause another day. Taking a line from pilots and applying it here: “There old victims and there are bold victims; there are no old, bold victims.” Something to think about.

  98. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    On guns, that is why their are amendments after the constitution!!!!

    • Save bears says:


      It would be difficult if not impossible to overturn one of the First Ten Amendments..

  99. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To ELK 275;
    Again you do not know how and where I live, I live in a place called Shark River,New Jersey! I live on a hill, on a very small block, almost no traffic,no street lights.When I take my dogs out,for a walk in the morning I need a searchlight. It is not as big as you think,Brooklyn on the other hand is big now.When I was small,Brooklyn had big lots,pototo farms. We painted bases on the street to play ball, it was a small place.

  100. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    The film, intent not the guns.

    • Save bears says:


      I am fully aware of the intent of the video, and it accomplished its goal, to inflame a community of pro wolf people, they did using a big gun and stupid comments…once it hit the blogesphere, it created a backlash against gun owners, so again, I would say, they were successful on many different fronts..

  101. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    I do not have to defend myself of your accusations of me!
    I am honest and give explanations of where I am comming from,I am for the underdog. Intent on the film is the subject, and if you do not like what I say about the Nez Perce don’t write back!

    • Save bears says:

      See Richie,

      That is the problem, I didn’t say anything about what you said about the Nez Perce and I didn’t say you had to defend anything, I simply said I disagree with you. As long as you continue to address me, I will continue to address you, there are three on this blog that have the authority to tell a poster not to write back, and you are not one of them..

      I would suggest, if you don’t like what I have to say, then follow your own advise, don’t address me and my position on the issues.

  102. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Elk 275:
    Don’t you thing propane in inhumane?

  103. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vet;
    I agree it is all about the parents,like in the so called film, it is the parent who is saying, ‘Good BOY’ with the gun. It is the parent that encourages the children. The kids who were the “trench coat mafia” got the guns from the father’s gun case left open. So it starts with the up bringing !

  104. Si'vet says:

    OOPS,woke up in the middle of the night and realized I spelled martial/marshall. Richie I agree up bringing/huge both ways. But with my spelling and grammar you’d never guess my folks were school teachers.. lol

  105. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    All you said was “is that the extent of your knowledge on native american culture; THAT WAS YOUR COMMENT,correct I will not answer you anymore , you are correct !

    • Save bears says:


      You may not answer me, but I know you will read this, what is wrong with the question? it was and still is an legitimate question!

      You may not answer me anymore, but I will continue to address you with you make posts that I take issue with..

    • WM says:

      You guys are starting to sound like Oscar and Felix.

    • Save bears says:

      Sorry WM, sometimes the flow of things go uphill!


  106. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Jon;
    You are correct a gun can be learned overnight,but most arguments startat close range,so the arts is an alternative to guns. BUT you correct,guns are easier,I wish this was not true,because they are so destructive. This is just my opinion Jon.

    • jon says:

      In this day in age, what is the point of learning martial arts? To defend yourself in a bar fight or someone trying to rob you with a knife? Guns get things done quicker and easier. Learning martial arts takes real skill and many years to master, but learning to fire a gun is quite easy for the most part.

  107. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Ryan;
    You and the general think alot alot, I did not go back to the civil war or the revolutionary war,these were wars fought against each other by the newcommers and the British against the newcommers. I said WW1 and two, after that we had political wars,that’s all,again my opinion.Now what about the Jersey Shore, do you mean me,I dare you to say that to an American Indian? Say what Ryan? If this was not meant for me, my apologies, if it was, what the hell are you talking about?

    • Save bears says:

      Sorry to disappoint you Richie, I never made it to the rank of General, I was only a lowly Colonel O-6, I should have made at least my first star, but getting shot in action, put that on a bit of a hold, going non-active training officer changes the game plan on promotions…

    • Save bears says:

      One this I will say, Richie, when you have to resort to name calling and sarcastic statements, you do nothing to bolster your position, in fact you diminish it greatly, I have never called anything, but your posted name, unfortunately, you can’t say that…

  108. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To wm;
    Sometimes the flow of things goes downhill ! BIGTIME

  109. firebug1 says:

    Oh man, the vultures are great too. What in the dickens are they doing? Bill Williams fire lookout I worked on in Arizona had a large resident flock of Turkey Vultures because, in part, of a reservoir nearby. I watched them for hours and they spent a lot of time playing: flying in circles in an apparent race around the 60′ high lookout, chilling out on their favorite roosting boulder(s). They all competed for the best spot and would nudge one another around in order to get it. There was one favored boulder which must have had 50 years of vulture guano on it.

  110. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’Vet AND ELK;
    Hey GUYS EASY, IF HUNTING TAKES days even weeks in the cold, hot, and other inclimate weather,then why are you guys angry at wolves driving the prey into other area’s. This makes it harder to find game,I understand that, would it be the benifit of a hunter to sharpen his skills, in the presence of wolves. As for indians,they hunted with predators,not to kill all predators to make their life easier. Sorry I had to jump in,you guys are ganging up on Jon.

    • Save bears says:

      And as long as Jon, posts biased information, I suspect, he/she will continue to get people who understand the situation far better ganging up on him/her..

    • Jon says:

      sb, I’m sorry, but just because you hunt does not mean that those who don’t hunt have no clue about what hunting is or what it entails. I have seen videos of 10 year olds hunting with their dads, so please, do not try to tell me that non-hunters have no clue about what hunting is or what it entails.

    • Save bears says:

      Sorry Jon,

      You and I will continue to disagree on this..whether you like it or not and if your basing you knowledge of hunting on videos, then you are as far from what really goes on that you can be…

      It is amazing, I have watched your transformation over the last few months, used to be, you asked redundant questions about the same subject, and now, you post redundant links and opinions with authority, I sure wish I could have got my degree that quick! The wonders of the internet will never cease to amaze me..

    • Save bears says:

      And Jon,

      Just in case I am missing something, please in your own words, let us all know what your overview of hunting is, then we can compare to our experience and come to a conclusion on how accurate you are..please sight which hunting videos you have watched, that will give a good start on what you are actually thinking..

    • Jon says:

      I have watched literally thousands of hunting videos. I guess you must be doing something different than those in the videos I have seen. Hunting to me is not one of those things you need to experience yourself to understand it. I understand hunting and understand why some do it and I have no problem with that if its done for food purposes, but what I have a problem with is hunters telling non-hunters that they have no clue about hunting. Hunting is not rocket science. In the end, you will have your own opinions and thoughts as will I. I don’t think we ever agreed on anything, but sometimes, that is just the way things are.

    • Save bears says:


      I am sure, we will never agree on anything, but I will continue to post my view when you post your view.

      You can watch all the videos and TV you want, but just realize, that is the sensationalism in hunting, that is why it is on TV or recorded to video, that is the 1-2% of hunters, we are talking about videos produced to sell products, not to actually portray hunting…look at the amount of gear ad’s that are presented in every single show!

      On average, in the US, a hunting video will have 17 minutes of hunting and 13 minutes of ad’s, that’s what they make them for, to get you to purchase their products.

      I have done so many sportsman shows over the last 20 years and it is one big hunting, fishing, etc Video, they want you to purchase their products and they use the most sensational scenes to get you excited to buy, hunting videos rarely teach about hunting, they are 30 minute paid programming with 13 minutes of ad’s thrown in for good measure..

      If the various videos out there is what you base your hunting knowledge on, then you are so far off base, that you will never be able to have an intelligent conversation that anyone will believe!

      And, yes, I am sorry, I am talking down to you, despite my desire not to, but you have opened it up and made it very easy to do so..

    • Jon says:

      You can talk down to me all you want savebears. I said it once and I will say it again one more time, hunting is not rocket science and it isn’t hard to understand it at all.

    • Save bears says:

      Just keep seeing things that way Jon, and more and more of us that are actually working to solve these issue will continue to disregard your posts…

      Sorry but that is the way it is..

      Now, I am done with you, we have all discredited your opinions so much, it is becoming redundant..

    • Save bears says:

      By the way Jon, if hunting in not rocket science, why didn’t you take Si’vet up on his offer, it would have been a perfect opportunity to get out in the field and learn something that might be different than what your videos show you? He was sincere in his offer, I would love the opportunity, and I would only carry my camera as could you, but you didn’t even answer him? How come?

    • Jon says:

      Discredit my opinions because you simply don’t like how I feel huh savebears? Not everyone thinks the same as you. Different people have different opinions. You have not discredited anything I said because all I said is my opinion. If you don’t like my opinion, not my fault.

    • Save bears says:

      That’s right Jon,

      It is simply your opinion, and we know what opinions are like, and everyone has one..

      I am sorry, you don’t like what I have to say, but go out and actually learn something and gain some credibility, then perhaps, people won’t discard your opinions so easily..

      Again, why have you not answered Si’Vet on his offer?

    • Save bears says:

      And no, I don’t like how you feel, because you don’t know what the hell your talking about, you quote articles, you only post things that are in agreement with how you feel and you rant and rave about anything that disagrees with what you feel, you have no objectivity in you, your not willing to read or listen to anything that differs from what you think, if we are going to solve these issues, then we need to listen to BOTH sides, you are one of the biggest offenders of calling names….start looking at what both sides have to say, and start listening to others, you never know, you might actually start to understand what is going on! and finally start to learn something…

    • Elk275 says:


      Take it easy. Both the hunter and the non-hunter wildlife watcher have the same thing in common; they both like and love wildlife. There are those in this country that neither like wildlife or dislike wildlife, in another word they do not want wildlife to get in there way or lower their standard of living and if habitat destruction and the loss of wildlife will prevent a change in their standard of living so be it.

      I use to work on the North Slope of Alaska and there were many, many workers that could have careless about the birds, caribou, wolves, bears etc. There were there for a pay bigger pay check than could be earned at home and the environment/wildlife be damned. One worker said I care about my car first, children second and wife third and the only reason I am here is for the money. It is all of us that care.

      The non-hunter may not like hunting, but the hunter is not going to kill off what he/she loves. Yes, I know that it is hard with bears, mountain lions and wolves, but they are not going to be hunted to extinction. Get use to it.

      Is hunting rocket science? It takes an attitude and experience to be a successful hunter. One must like and love what they are doing to be successful.

    • Jon says:

      sb, Everyone has a right to their own opinion and just because you don’t like an opinion that is different from yours, does not give you the right to accuse that person of not knowing what the hell they are talking about. You must accept that not everyone is going to feel the same as you or have the same opinion as you. This will be my last comment to you in this post. Just because you don’t like someone’s opinion, does not give you the right to discredit their opinion simply because their opinion is an opinion you don’t like or agree with.

    • Jon says:

      Elk, I have gotten used to the fact that predators are going to be killed by sport hunters. Nothing I can do about that and that has been going on for a while, so I am certainly used to that. I am hoping things will change in regards to that in the future. One can only hope.

  111. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Which tribes sb? Most tribes took the names of predators,because of their cunning and skill.

    • Save bears says:


      What the hell are you talking about?

    • Save bears says:

      Beings it has been a couple of days, since you and I corresponded, I am completely at a loss to what you are referring to!!!!!!!!

  112. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Hey guys;
    Why is it always the right who try and make good of anything that happens !

    • Save bears says:


      Again, what the hell are you talking about? Id on’t think anyone here has actually said they are right or left….or am I off track here?

  113. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Hey guys ;
    You think this gulf thing is good,this will be affecting the gulf states for years to come and the people who make their living from the seafood, how cold you guys downplay this. In my opinion BP and Haliburton and transocean shuld pay for everything. But knowing our government the tax payers will pick up the tab in the future. That is a royal f’ing ! Why are these companies based in other countries to pay 16 % in taxes, come on guys get it together !!


May 2010


‎"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