Note that this replaces the 9th edition. That edition can be found slowly moving down into the depths of the blog.

Lewis' woodpecker © Ken Cole

Lewis' woodpecker © 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.

566 Responses to Have you seen any interesting wildife news? May 23

  1. Barb Rupers says:

    Yet another report from the Capitol Press of perhaps a forth calf kill near Joseph, OR. Wildlife services seems to be quicker at coming to conclusions than the ODFW.

  2. jon says:

    who’s afraid of the big bad wolf?

    • Salle says:

      Like my one and only bumper sticker reads


    • WM says:

      A marine biologist in Hawaii opining on wolves – fairytale indeed. She needs to be matched up with the folks in the OR Wallawas, ID, MT or WY for a couple of weeks. These kinds of articles are just as bad as the Lobo Watch types for their failure to depict reality.

    • JB says:


      I wonder what, in particular, you found objectionable. The author’s two main points seemed to be (1) the ecological effects associated with wolves are more complex than the debate (and I agree here), and (2) there should be some room for finding a “middle ground” solution (I am less optimistic here, but this seems to be one of your main messages). Why so hostile?

    • WM says:


      Without doing a compete critique of the article, for a start just let me say the lead section sets up the rest of the story pretty well – the Little Red Riding Hood and other fairy-tale lore. Then the remaining headings point the reader to more of the same. There really is no discussion of why wolves were extirpated in the first place, other than laying out the historical context. Then there is that famous “decimation of elk” argument that seems to raise everybody’s hackles.

      By the way, the term – “decimate or decimating” – definition. It has a very interesting historical origin which I will not go into, but the short preferred definition seems to be, “to take a tenth of” (or kill every tenth man in military terms) (Websters’ Dictionary, sorry I don’t have which edition at hand).

      So, I guess, it would technically be accurate to say wolves are “decimating” the current crop of elk calves in the Lolo, by killing 1 of 10 or more of 6 month old (collared) calves. Of course, as one reads through the dictionary definitions, near the last of the numbered usages is “to kill or destroy a large part of.” But even the order of common usage of the term is inconsistent as among different dictionary sources. Webster’s is different from American Heritage, for example. The lack of precision in the English language does create ambiguity in certain situations, and in this case inflames passions of both sides of the issue.

      That said, I like the publication in which this article resides. Great opportunity for undergraduate students to get published. The problem with on-line articles is that it seems to give everyone the same weight of authority, and one needs to look more closely at content. This was peer reviewed, whatever that means in this context- peer reviewed by whom? Other undergraduate students who also do not have background in the topic area?

      Balance and tone were my complaints, JB. So that was the basis for the perceived “hostile” response.

  3. JB says:

    No, but I did read an interesting paper; one that looks at the effects of hunting on wolf pack social structure. Here is the abstract and citation for those interested:

    abstract: Legal and illegal killing of animals near park borders can significantly increase the threat of extirpation
    for populations living within ecological reserves, especially for wide-ranging large carnivores that regularly
    travel into unprotected areas. While the consequences of human-caused mortality near protected
    areas generally focus on numerical responses, little attention has been given to impacts on social dynamics.
    For wolves, pack structure typically constitutes an unrelated breeding pair, their offspring, and close
    relatives, but intense harvest may increase adoption of unrelated individuals into packs. Concerns that
    high human-caused mortality outside Algonquin Park, Canada threatened the persistence of eastern
    wolves, led to implementation of a harvest ban in surrounding townships. We combined ecological
    and genetic data to show that reducing anthropogenic causes of mortality can restore the natural social
    structure of kin-based groups despite the absence of a marked change in density. Since implementation
    of the harvest ban, human-caused mortality has decreased (P = 0.000006) but been largely offset by natural
    mortality, such that wolf density has remained relatively constant at approximately three wolves/
    100 km2. However, the number of wolf packs with unrelated adopted animals has decreased from 80%
    to 6% (P = 0.00003). Despite the high kinship within packs, incestuous matings were rare. Our results indicate
    that even in a relatively large protected area, human harvesting outside park boundaries can affect
    evolutionarily important social patterns within protected areas. This research demonstrates the need for
    conservation policy to consider effects of harvesting beyond influences on population size.

    Rutledge et al. (2009). Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biological Conservation, 143(2): 332-339.

  4. Mtn Mama says:

    Colorado Bighorn Sheep population decline

    • Ryan says:

      Op ed pieces, seriously?

    • JimT says:

      State Fish and Game Agencies? Big Game Guiding? Are YOU serious?

    • cobra says:

      I don’t know how much fun their having when they kill, but they do kill more than they can consume in certain instances. Just like any animal they will take advantage of a good thing when they can. One example, deep snow.

    • JimT says:

      What is there about opportunistic predation that is so hard for folks to understand and accept? Why are there “evil intentions” connected with wolf kills of more than one animal? For hundreds of years, humans have killed more than they could eat, and salted it, or dried it for later. Wolf biologists are pretty much in agreement that IF a kill site is left alone, the wolves will come back and feed until the kill is consumed. In the meantime, it provides food for smaller scavengers, a key part of the ecosystem puzzle. But ranchers remove the carcasses, and then attribute human motivations to the wolves, and seek to slaughter them. Not exactly reasonable behaviors supported by science.

      You are right…wolves will kill when they can, not knowing when their next meal with be. What they don’t do is go back to the den, and have some little victory dance…Humans do that; humans kill for fun. Humans kill more than they can eat at a time, freezing it for later. So, except for the ability to use methods of preservation, how is the wolf so different from the human?

    • Ryan says:

      Dead serious, I find it interesting that people post OP ED pieces and call them science or credible, but when the same OP ED pieces don’t agree with their position, then they are bullshit.

      Jim T,

      I dont really understand your comment, care to elaborate?

    • jon says:

      JimT, wolf haters blame wolves for not being like humans. Wolves aren’t able to go to the market and get their food. It amazes me when some fault wolves for supposedly wasting elk, but do you think it even compares to how much food we humans waste? As you said, if wolves don’t come back and this usually happens when humans get involved, the animal is food for scavengers. The elk doesn’t go to waste. Wolf haters leave that little point out.

    • jon says:

      Ryan, I never called that article science or credible, but it is an article about wildlife. The author is indeed right though for what it’s worth. Wolves don’t kill for fun, they kill to survive.

  5. jon says:

    Good audio interview with Michael Soule, the father of conservation biology.

    They have more of a right to hunt on the land than we do because we don’t have to, they have to to live. They have no choice.-Michael Soule, father of conservation biology talking about wolves

    • Angela says:

      Thanks for posting this link; I would certainly have missed it otherwise.

  6. Chris Harbin says:

    From the “Business as Usual File”:

    • JimT says:

      Bully for the Bull…disgusting practice. Should be banned, along with cock fighting, dog fighting, dog and horse racing.

    • jon says:

      Add canned and trophy hunting to that.

  7. Nathan Hobbs says:

    Idaho Film Crew gets the OK to fly in the Frank Church Area

  8. Angela says:

    A person I know went down to the Gulf to do on-the-ground monitoring for the American Birding Association. It’s nice to get a perspective that isn’t coming through layers of media control and bureaucracy, no matter how limited.

  9. Jeremy B. says:

    I was sorry to see a rather interesting conversation on the ethics of predator hunting (on the May 11th thread) get “buried” by a rather silly exchange. Perhaps this will revive it…

    While what one considers to be “ethical” is indeed a personal judgment (as Save Bears asserted in the prior thread), I think it would greatly oversimplify matters to just leave off there. When there is consensus (or near consensus) in a social group as to what constitutes an ethical practice, that group can and does impose its will (in the form of social norms, and changes to rules/regulations/laws) on non-conforming members. But the relationship works both ways; sometimes governments change laws and, over time, actually change what people consider to be “ethical.” For example, not too long ago no one questioned whether it was ethical to smoke at work or in an indoor public place. Similarly, the fair chase ethic in hunting is relatively new phenomena in the U.S., and we still seem to be working out the details.

    Personally, I have no desire to hunt large carnivores, but I don’t consider the practice (generally speaking) to be unethical. However, the use of baiting and hounds to hunt predators does tend to “trip” my ethics alarm. Regardless of my personal views, what is really relevant here is the extent to which hunters’ judgments regarding ethical practices are similar to the rest of our society’s.

    • We closed that thread, JB; and I am deleting some of the silly exchange.

      Please don’t start it up on this thread, Richard and Save Bears.

    • Jeremy B. says:


      Just to clarify, it was not my intent to revive any of the silliness. Rather, I was hoping others would share their thoughts on how people’s ethical beliefs about hunting practices are formed and changed…if this is Kosher?

    • JEFF E says:

      It seems there are some who disagree/don’t like hunting and some who agree with/like hunting and never the twain shall meat (pun intended)

  10. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    O.K. Ralph I do apologize.

    • Chris Harbin says:

      I guess that 13 year old kid that bagged Everest last week did not read the article! I applaud the kid for efforts and desire but if I were the kids parent…….well I guess it’s a good thing that I’m not.

  11. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To JB;
    Trophy hunting will go on forever,but it is the personality of the individual that comes into play on this one. Some people have ethics and some have very little ethics,if a person with little ethics finds an easy way to get his or her trophy,they will do that. Now what I am trying to say, in the big picture is, whether it is profit or hunting,some people will try to take advantage no matter what the cost is to others or to animals. I found the material on that ethics course,if anybody is interested I can scan in and post. The pinto one has diagrams and codes, it was prepared by IEEE,ASME,NSPE, AND other groups. The topics on the ford pinto and the Challenger are interesting. I think this pertains to where we are as a society.Look what people are trying to prove now,the wolf introduction was illegal. P.S. Never liked english, liked mathn and physics better, so please guys bare withe me on this one.

  12. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To all;
    First I want to say like others have said hunting for food is ok by me, it’s the trophy thing that gets to me. If people hunt for a trophy the hard way, I have very little problem with that, to each his own, like the way elk hunts,that is the hard way wow. Now that, is out of the way, maybe these calf killings are repercussions of the wolf hunt in general. The wolves are scattered now and to use simple english are all over the place, and maybe their breeding has picked up due to the hunt. The hunt could have set the balance off, just a little.

    • jdubya says:

      And in Utah, there is a specific exclusion of wanton destruction of wildlife that allows the hunter to leave the bear carcass in the field. You can kill the animal, and harvest the head, the coat, whatever (or nothing) and just walk away. Can’t even do that with whitefish (not that I would want to).

  13. cc says:

    USFWS plan for managing cougars and bighorn sheep at AZ’s Kofa NWR:

    • Ryan says:

      Thats good news, there are lots of lions, but not to many desert bighorns left.

    • We discussed this about 6 months ago.

      The conclusion I came to was that the predation of cougar on the rare bighorn sheep was the indirect result of building additional water sources for the bighorn sheep.

      These new water sources were shunned by the bighorn, but they were used by deer, causing the deer population to grow, and so the area attracted cougars because they could make a living on the deer and the occasional bighorn.

    • Ryan says:

      Its not a good deal no matter what, but I’m glad that the desert sheep will get a reprieve.

      BTW, I have seen sheep using guzzlers in NV.

  14. cc says:

    USFWS concerns over Alaska predator control on NWR land:

    • Jeremy B. says:

      I was not aware that Unimak Island was designated as Wilderness. I think this is an example of what many people fear will happen in Idaho. It will be interesting to see what comes out in ADF&G’s environmental assessment.

      “The proposed predator management by the State of Alaska, or its agents, on Unimak Island requires a special use permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is considered a significant action since aerial predator control has not been conducted on National Wildlife Refuge lands in Alaska in recent history. Conducting any such activity without a special use permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be a violation of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, and considered as a trespass on the Refuge; and would be immediately referred to the United States Attorney. “

  15. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    lastest on the gulf story;

    • There was a huge oil gusher into the Gulf of Mexico caused by the Mexican national oil company back in 1979. It was only under 150 feet of water, but the volume of oil that came out was similar to this.

      I’d like to see more followup on the aftermath of that blowout.

  16. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    to jon;
    I wish the cat was never discovered, for science or anything, now some opportunistic people will try and capture this beautiful cat, too bad it is not shy of people.

  17. Virginia says:

    Thank you all for these great articles that are not about hunting. It is getting very tiresome to me to read this blog and the hunting stories go on and on and on.

    • JEFF E says:

      I agree Virginia,
      as was mentioned elsewhere this thread is about “interesting wildlife stories”, not “my personal belief system”
      I think stories from all sides should be posted here without any personal comment so that the “consumer” will be exposed to the range of ” thinking” within the overarching subject of WILDLIFE

    • JEFF E says:

      …and will then be able to ((((((research)))))) an form valid conclusions…

    • JEFF E says:

      OK Ralph
      maybe I have just had a brain fart, or just too much
      ” Lemon Hart”
      (I am working graves)
      what would you think about a thread that presented any or all sides of the wildlife issues (irrespective of the species). with no comment, and it would be on the “consumer” to expand their knowledge..

    • Ryan says:


      We probably agree for a different reason, its getting rather tiresome the constant anti-hunting diatribe/let me tell you my dumbshit opinion about hunting that seems to be going on as of late. I’m a hunter, but there are far greater issues to be discussed and made aware of than someones dumbass opinion about it or justification why its okay or not okay depending on the situation.

  18. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To all including Ralph ;
    If corporations are treated as people now pointed out by the supreme court, why can’t we arrest BP officials and hold them for murder? Thirteen people died on that rig, some were young and and had families, with wives and children.This did happen on our coast line, so it happened on our soil, so why not hold the ceo’s on trial with all the rest of them. Corporations are people now, am I missing something ?

  19. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Ok Ralph

    Mexican National Oil Company blew up and leaked for a full
    year. … – Similar Pages

  20. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    This is another two

    may,24, 2010 … “The Ixtoc 1 leak spilled between 126 million and 210 million gallons … The
    Ixtoc spill wiped out fishing along the Mexican coast for nearly … One company
    managed to close the well casing, but the oil broke through …… – Similar Pages
    1979 oil spill worse than current spill in Gulf region
    Apr 29, 2010 … 1979 oil spill worse than current spill in Gulf region … operated by the
    Mexican National Oil Company blew up and leaked for a full year. … – 21k – Cached – Similar Pages

  21. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    I hate to agree with you on this,but BP seems to be bigger than out government officilals Ralph. But if corporations are people now, manslaughter should be considered at this juncture. It was not premeditated, but happen as an accident, like a fight and a person falls on a rock and dies, or drunken driving,if a person gets killed,the driver could be held on manslaughter charges.

  22. Taz Alago says:

    IMNAHA pack goes under the gun today! These ten Oregon wolves, more than half of the state’s confirmed total of 14, are coming under the gun starting today. Ranchers in Wallowa County have been issued kill permits for public and private land, despite the fact only 2 cases of livestock depredation have been confirmed, and that no collared wolves were recorded in the vicinity of either loss. These attacks took place in the territory of the Imnaha pack, of which B300, an Idaho wolf, is the alpha female. She has pups now. She has never been blamed for killing stock, yet because she is collared, she is most likely to be killed.

    There’s been contention between the ODFW and Wildlife Services on confirmations of depredations, with the ODFW saying WS is too uncritical in its investigations. Neither the ODFW or WS staff in Wallowa County has training or experience in wolf kills. Unburied bone piles have been photographed in the vicinity of ranches reporting wolf attacks.

    • jon says:

      Anyone know how many wolves are in Oregon? Do farmers just sit on their asses all day or do they actually take measures to prevent predators from killing their livestock without resorting to reaching for the gun or complain to Oregon Fish and game and wildlife services?

    • Taz Alago,

      I don’t see that Wildlife Services is gunning for the wolves (only that the ranchers have been given kill permits by the State of Oregon).

      That makes a big difference in my mind. It depends on what is written in the permit of course, but I think that ranchers are more likely to kill an offending wolf. Wildlife Services just kills.

    • Taz Alago says:

      Right, these are permits for ranchers to shoot wolves in the act. However, there are personalities involved, some of whom have a virulent hatred of wolves for a variety of reasons. I suppose this may always be a given, but it nevertheless means that some of the permittees fall into this category, and some of those officials who will vet any wolves killed, do also. So an aura of permissiveness is clearly visible.

      There are a total of 14 confirmed wolves in Oregon, all in Wallowa County. Ten are in the Imnaha pack, four in the Wenaha pack in the north county. Four of the Imnaha pack are collared. Of course there are others unconfirmed, but probably no other packs.

      Photographs have been taken of unburied carcasses and bone piles smack dab in the area where wolves have been among cattle. They are still lying there. Anecdotal accounts mention bone piles adjacent to properties where attacks have taken place. Clearly a lot of these ranchers were not taking any preventive measures. They were relying on getting these kill permits.

      Ralph, you are dead-on about some people not liking animals that aren’t afraid of them, and this is true in spades about many of the individuals involved in the kill permits.

    • william huard says:

      I just spoke to ODFW. They told me that they have not issued any permits on public land, and they are in the process of issuing very specific kill permits to 2 ranchers- who can only kill wolves if they are caught in the act of taking livestock. They also told me that the wolves that were involved in the depredations were uncollared wolves as other people on this blog have mentioned, and they would prefer to keep Wildlife Services out of this. This gentleman Rick told me they have been focused on education which helps to prevent the anti-wolf hysteria like we have seen in Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. They haven’t updated the news stories section on their website as of yet.

    • Taz Alago says:

      One of the problems is that the ODFW has not been effective in educating ranchers or the public about wolves. I’ve read a lot of press without coming across any ODFW press releases or statements during all this controversy about the Imnaha pack that could be described as educational.

      On the morning of the 25th Michelle Dennehy at ODFW confirmed that there were 5 permits issued. Earlier I was told there were 8. There’s obviously confusion within ODFW on the subject. Maybe some of the permits have been withdrawn?

  23. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Jeff;
    You bring up many good points on wolves and hunting, but wolves are always the bad guy,or the bad dog, maybe people see thm too close to their own dogs,who disobey them from time to time. I just don’t get it !

    • jon says:

      Wolves are the scapegoat for everything.

      Low elk #s blame it on the wolves

      Low deer #s blame it on the wolves

      Livestock attacked and killed, without even thinking about it, blame it on the wolves

    • I think both those who love wolves and those who hate them anthropomorphize them far to much.

      I’m not saying animals don’t have some similar emotional traits as humans, but generalization of our behavior to animals is very shaky except perhaps in the case of the great apes.

      I do think there are people who don’t like any animal that is not afraid of them, or, on the other hand, appears to be obviously subservient like one’s dog.

    • JEFF E says:

      or elephants, or dolphins, or …..

    • Mal Adapted says:

      “generalization of our behavior to animals is very shaky…”

      OTOH, generalization of animal behavior to ourselves may be valid. We are animals, after all. We shouldn’t give too much credence to claims that specific human behaviors are homologous with those of some animal or another (with the possible exception of the great apes). Nevertheless, there is surely a common evolutionary origin for elements of human and animal behavior, just as for anatomy.

    • howlcolorado says:

      There is some benefit to anthropomorphic projection on animals. It allows for empathy for the plight of animals in a lot of different situations.

      There are problems if it is taken too far.

      When the dog (my behavioural specialty) eats your shoes, it is too easy to figure the dog was pissed off at you and exacting some revenge. The truth is that for some reason, at that point in time, the leather/smell/access to the shoes was there and too attractive to ignore. The problem is that applying human emotions to the dog means you are ignoring the actual problem. Bored dog being the most likely.

      People apply the same values of good and evil to animals that they do to other humans – which leads to this demonization of wolves. It’s particularly interesting that wolves are almost unique in the level of demonization they receive. I gave a lecture on this particular issue at the University of Colorado.

      Dealing with wolves requires a detailed understanding of “pack theory” and dominance. Wolves bite and nip to enforce the rules. But an onlooker would consider it cruel to watch a human bite a wolf pups nose if it’s misbehaving. I love dealing with wolves up close – I enjoy allowing them to gauge me by my actions and determine my rank in their world.

      I encourage empathy. It’s important for our cause. I also encourage understanding that animals are animals and that respect is necessary and sometimes we have to find our own animal roots to find a place to communicate with these other animals.

  24. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    So they might treat them like their own dog, and punish them like their own dog, or put them to sleep like their own dog. In Oregon I don’t think they were ready for this,I am not taking the side of the farmer Jon, but they leave their livestock out, like so many out west do. Another comment if you have multiple,dogs you will see they all have their own individual personalities, like people do, we do have something in common, similiar but not the exact same thing.

  25. Elk275 says:

    Here is a good article about Bar Tail Godwit’s migration from Alaska to New Zealand, a non stop 7100 mile 9 day journey. I do not know how to post a web site from The New York Times, but the name of the article is “Migrating Thousands of Miles With Nary a Stop” and is in today’s edition.

  26. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Help Stop Oil Spill Disaster – Double Your Gift Today

    Here you go Ralph; Well said MMS took money and Salazar is putting distancing himself from these agencies! His should be let go yesterday !

    The Center for Biological Diversity’s research, legal, and media teams have been working 24/7 since the BP explosion, filing lawsuits, generating media stories about oil-industry corruption, and working with congressional supporters to keep the pressure on.

    One of our board members, outraged by the gushing oil in the Gulf and the corruption in the regulatory agencies, has pledged to match $75,000 for the Center’s Gulf Disaster Fund — if we can raise that much from our supporters.

    Please help us meet the challenge to raise $75,000 right now for the Gulf Disaster Fund to stop the worst oil drilling, prevent large swaths of our coast from being opened to new oil drilling, and save sea turtles, dolphins, pelicans, and whales from being sacrificed to corrupt bureaucrats and greedy offshore oil operators.

  27. Si'vet says:

    Jon, thanks for the reply, sometimes schedules don’t always work out. Maybe some other time. I read all your links, whether we agree or not, a person needs the info.

  28. jon says:

    Great news

    Scientists Study Possible Signs Of Wolves In State

    • jon says:

      This is a comment by a wolf hater in the comment section of this article. Such a shame we have this kind of hatred for an animal just trying to survive.

      By Red Dog posted 51 minutes and 55 seconds ago
      This canadian wolf is non indiginious to the state of colorado period.If this apex predetor is foud in co it should be relocated back to canada or anywhere but co.Canadian wolves were illegely introduced into the eco system through a system of fraudulent manuvers and the misuse of taxpayers money.These animals are diease ridden;the will infect our sheep, cattle,elk,deer,humans and everything they come in contact with, not to mention they will slaughter everything in there path.I do not believe the people of CO,will stand by and let 80 years of wildlife management be slaughterd by an illegley introduced apex predetor.WE ARE ABOUT PROPER GAME MANAGMENT IN CO. NOT ABOUT COURT MANAGED GAME!WYOMING,IDAHO and MONTANA put your foot down now!!!!! BEFOR THERE IS AN ALL OUT WOLF WAR.

    • cobra says:

      There were still wolves in Colorado about 25 years ago. We watched two chasing some muley does when we were younger and out calling coyotes. We told the local warden about seeing them and he just kind of shrugged it off. Just like the Grizzly that was killed up here last year for killing one of the locals elk. I found out recently that he called fish and game 4 times about the bear trying to get into the elk pen and the f&g just kind of laughed about it telling him it had to be a black bear and if it came back and got in the pen to shoot it. He did and then he called them back and asked them what he was supposed to do with the dead grizzly. Maybe sometimes f&g officers should actually listen to someone about what their seeing out there.

    • howlcolorado says:

      How embarrassing for my state.

      The Colorado wolf management plan is one of the most progressive and wise, learning a lot from the lessons of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. A wolf in Colorado is immediately protected under the full power of the ESA. And already the rhetoric is present in force in Colorado.

      There are hunting groups here who have already vowed to practice a policy of SSS and take the matters in to their own hands. These groups don’t realize I can track all visitors to our site and I get to track back and read everything they posted.

    • Cord says:


      I hadn’t heard of the griz incident. In CO? Where did it happen? Around the San Juans?

    • Cord says:


      Which hunting groups have “vowed to practice the policy of SSS” ?

    • Save bears says:

      I would be interested in the Grizz situation as well, I have done quite a bit of searching and have not been able to find any references to it?

    • Elk275 says:

      Jon the above article that you reference occurs in the panhandle of Idaho. The one that Save Bears is interested in is in The San Juan Mountains of Colorado. There are a long ways from each other.

    • jon says:

      I thought cobra lives in idaho elk?

    • Elk275 says:

      You are probably right after I reread his post. Sorry, age is slowing the quickness of the brain.

    • Save bears says:

      Beings Cobra had mentioned wolves in Colorado, I thought we were talking about Colorado an I had not seen any reports of Grizz being killed in CO in the last couple of years…I guess I am also loosing it in my old age!

    • howlcolorado says:


      If it were an officially stated policy, I would list the names of the organizations whose forums I have read and members I have seen write their intentions. As it is, no hunting group will make this their official stance because that would be illegal. They also don’t remove such posts. Not an endorsement, but not wise either.

      Therefore I will leave the statement as I said it, which is at this point for anyone reading it anecdotal based on forum posts on the various hunting web sites I have traced visitors to my site back to, received emails and personal conversations.

      If you ARE a hunter in colorado and you see such posts on the forums you frequent, please reinforce the fact that this is ILLEGAL and that such action will completely undermine any attempts to find some level of compromise.

      What is perhaps just as anecdotal, but not from my experience, from the LA Times:

      “The news had scarcely gotten out that a western Colorado rancher suspected he had wolves on his land when the phone started ringing at state wildlife offices.

      “Get rid of them, and do it quietly,” one caller said.”

      From one forum where SSS was mentioned as a solution, the following was also posted:

      “Read the Scoping Report, Co. Wolf Management Plan 2007. for additional perspectives on wolf management and or wolf reintroduction.

      Here is other information about various wolf issues and subjects to better inform, regardless of ones stance, pro, con, or neutral”

      There are sadly extreme reactions and groups out there, but there are also level-headed and reasonable people too. HOWLColorado exists because the extremes exist and we are preemptively looking to undermine the rhetoric so that posters like the last I quoted can get the upper hand.

      Let us also not forget the “internet tough guy” phenomonen. As much as these people might say things anonymously on a forum, there of course is good reason to think they wouldn’t have the nerve to do this when the opportunity offered itself.

    • jon says:

      Howlcolorado, I have seen quite a few of people advocate sss on different forums and messageboards, but imo, I believe most just talk about it on the internet and would not do it in real life because there is a chance they may get caught, but on the other hand, there are some who indeed would not care about being caught and would illegally kill some wolves.

    • Save bears says:

      The ones that advocate SSS on internet message systems are not the ones you have to worry about, the ones that you have to worry about are the ones who never say anything, and just go on with their life, they are the ones that figure killing wolves is just part of life, true SSS types will never brag in a bar or an internet chat system…

    • howlcolorado says:

      The only way to stop SSS is for hunters to stop it. Advocates like me won’t get them to do anything. This is why you want wise and consciencious hunters who don’t see us (advocates) as the enemy working with advocates who don’t see hunters as the enemy.

      Sadly, there are hunters who are the enemy much as there are extremists who hurt the cause. And hunters get branded by those bad apples, and the advocates get branded by those extremists. I just don’t know how to find the moderates. It’s just like political wedge issues. 60% of Americans are moderates. but no one listens to a moderate.

    • Cord says:

      I’m not trying to be argumentative – just curious. What do you mean by the following –
      “From one forum where SSS was mentioned as a solution, the following was also posted:
      “Read the Scoping Report, Co. Wolf Management Plan 2007. for additional perspectives on wolf management and or wolf reintroduction.
      Here is other information about various wolf issues and subjects to better inform, regardless of ones stance, pro, con, or neutral”

      What are you getting at here? What are you seeing in the quote that is threatening or implying SSS?

    • howlcolorado says:


      Re-read this line and apply the context.

      “From one forum where SSS was mentioned as a solution, the following was also posted”

      I referenced the quote to highlight that SSS is not the only response even on the forums containing such comments.

      I think, honestly, that anyone who has any dealing with wolf groups has received emails that simply say: “SSS” … I have received other emails as well which are neither as succinct or oddly as polite. They even went as far as to create free email accounts with names such as killwolves. They are angry angry people.

    • jon says:

      Nabeki who posts here from time to time has an amazing site on wolves howlcolorado. Check it out if you haven’t already. It’s

      She also gets disgusting comments from wolf haters, but she sends them to spam.

    • cobra says:

      Cord this happened last year in North Idaho not to far from where we live, about 5 miles. Many people saw and new about this grizzly before he got into trouble with the elk farmer. We’ve seen Grizzly sign in many different areas up here and I just wish that f&g would listen to people when their told about these things rather than shrugging it off. Just ecause f&g doesn’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
      Actually it was north of I-90 in Bently creek.

    • cord says:


      Thanks for the flesh-out on the griz story. Sorry, I got confused about where you were talking about. I couldn’t believe I missed a story about a grizzly in CO.

  29. jon says:

    About 150 show up for anti wolf rally in Wyoming

  30. jon says:

    Alaska wildlife troopers arrest two men for unlawfully killing a wolf and two black bears in the Juneau area.

  31. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Mal;
    Great read to you explain in more detail.

    • Mal Adapted says:


      Uhmm, are you asking me to explain something in more detail?

  32. william huard says:

    Tonight on MSNBC Olbermann did a piece on Vaughn who cares if i steal speeches from democratic presidents Ward, and the film showed Ward at an event- did anyone notice who the tall guy behind him was- none other than dirk kempthorne. I think it is safe to say that ward’s political future is doomed.

    • Vaughn Ward lost the primary election to a tea party candidate (Labrador). It was less the strength the of the tea party candidate than Ward’s self destruction.

      I think incumbent Walt Minnick (hardly my favorite politician) will probably hold the congressional seat in Idaho for the Democrats.

  33. Nathan Hobbs says:

    Accident at Trans Alaskan Pipeline several thousand barrels of oil spilled pipe has been shut down. The Trans Alaskan Pipeline is 47 percent owned by BP

  34. Cris Waller says:

    Ranchers obtain 5 permits to shoot wolves in Oregon:

  35. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Thank you for that comment howlcolorado, really great, I have a few doks,and one in particular,takes on the alfa role,it is interesting to watch .

  36. SEAK Mossback says:

    Here’s another article from today on the Juneau case involving killing of the black wolf and illegal bear baiting, etc.
    It does seem from this article very likely it was Romeo – the wolf that had been around the glacier area for about 6 years. His ardent fans were the ones who conducted an intensive investigation that brought these guys to justice (and seem 100% convinced of the identity, although not tested yet). Depending on the area, it’s possible (although very far from certain) the wolf was shot legally, but several other charges have been laid. I said in an earlier post that I thought he was most likely killed by wolves – that was judging mainly from the time of year – mid-September – which is kind of between the summer (alpine) and fall (woods) deer hunting periods when hunters would likely be out, and certainly well before the trapping season and when a wolf would have a winter pelt. I was also judging from the fact that Juneau is a very urban community, certainly by Rockies standards, without a significant history of wolf-prey-hunter issues like some towns in the southern part of the region – by far, most Juneauites are not programed to reflexively shoot a wolf when they see it. But there are a few. A real shame – its very rare for a wolf to be able to spend anywhere near that much time around people, domestic animals and a city of 30,000 people without getting progressively habituated into significant trouble.

  37. Si'vet says:

    Jeremy B, I think the 1980 data you posted is probably pretty accurate for the time. I’m pretty sure that I would have given a positive response in that regard back then. Today however the response would be much different as with many others.
    Also I know we’ve discussed over and over here and else where over the genetics of the current wolf population, I’m not going there, what I have thought about is why the wolves have done so well, besides having the food source available, and why the few wolves that were already here never really seemed to take hold. I don’t know exactly yet where in Canada the wolves were brought in from, but if the enviroment they came from was a lot more severe and we know that in nature it’s survival of the fittest, it stands to reason that the wolves introduced had evolved to survive in harsher enviroments, with a more difficult prey base. I wonder how a pack that had always lived in the FC would have faired if they were transported back into Canada.

    • Si’vet,

      The 1995 wolves came from near Hinton, Alberta. That’s near Jasper National Park. The climate there and prey are quite similar to many places in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming.

      The 1996 wolves came from further north, west of Ft. Saint John in British Columbia. You can examine the locale on Google Earth. I’d say the climate was more severe where the 1996 wolves came from.

      I copied the data from the capture forms and obtained the weight, sex, and Canadian wolf pack each wolf came from

    • Jeremy B. says:


      Your hypothesis regarding a change in attitudes is one I hope to evaluate sometime soon.

      Regarding wolves success: The wolves that were reintroduced were taken from locations very close (as the crow flies) to their eventual reintroduction sites. I’m no geneticist, but ALL of the experts I’ve spoken with indicate the morphology and behavior of the wolves that were reintroduced do not differ from the wolves that would’ve been in the NRs 100 years prior.

      I think a better hypothesis for why wolves have had it so easy is that they were reintroduced at a time when elk populations were extremely robust, naive to wolf predation, and skewed toward older age classes. In general, elk were abundant and vulnerable, and wolves simply did what wolves do best.

  38. Taz Alago says:

    “I copied the data from the capture forms and obtained the weight, sex, and Canadian wolf pack each wolf came from.”

    Ralph – Could you make that data available? That was very foresightful of you.

  39. Si'vet says:

    Ralph, thanks have a few questions will get back on this.
    Jeremy B, please post your findings on the attitude survey. Have few more questions but no time.

  40. Mike says:

    Oil spill hits animals hard:

    I really hope this pushes folks to start using more fuel effecient vehicles.

  41. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Mal;
    Their was a post you wrote I found very ineresting about wolf insticts I think , can’t find you post to go over it again but something you wrote I found very interesting.

  42. savage says:

    does anyone know if the Agate Pack in Yellowstone has denned?

    • Jon says:

      God, this article is filled with lies.

      “The issue of re-introducing wolves and the appearance of the Canadian gray wolf, which weighs upwards of 200 pounds, into our rural areas holds serious consequences for the properties and lives or our fellow citizens,” he said.

      This author has no idea what he is talking about. Also, I did not know Jim Beers is a wolf expert. Can anyone verify he is a wolf expert?

  43. Jon says:

    My mistake, that comment was from another guy, not the author.

  44. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    This secretary of interior must go, I will not even mention his name,Obama is looking worse by the day. I really thought he had a handle on things, but his lack of experience, shows he is relaying on others, who are giving him bad advice. At least I hope this is true!

  45. Nancy says:

    You know, as in victory!

  46. Save bears says:

    Yellowstone seeks comments on vaccinating Bison:

  47. Jon says:

    wolves under attack again in Wyoming, charges that wolves are largely responsible for declines in elk herds are just not based in fact.

    • WM says:


      I think the link you provided was just a quick non-controversial editorial piece, and of course, you turn it into a “just not based in fact” conclusion of your own. I am wondering if you consider Yellowstone a part of WY, and whether you have an explanation for the very rapid reductions of numbers of elk in the GYA, including WY and MT. and why, in fact, the number of wolves in Yellowstone has gone down while adjacent areas have seen dramatic net increases in the number of wolves seeking more prey. Furthrmore, it appears certain you have not been paying attention to the nutritional needs discussion of wolves, which you certainly were a part of, that occurred on this forum about two weeks ago.

      Jon, do you actually spend time in areas where wolves are, do have any background in biology, or are you just another city dweller whose knowledge is gathered only from what he/she selectively reads? Yes, the answer to these questions is complex, but do spare us your conclusions when linked to a six paragraph – well written editorial piece, that primarily dealt with a hunter having a rather positive experience viewing wolves while hunting.

    • jon says:

      Actually wm, I didn’t say it was not based in fact, the person in the article did. I just wrote what he said, not what I said.

  48. Alan says:

    An interesting story in yesterday’s Livingston (Mt.) Enterprise titled: “Cops say Resident was OK to chase off Census Worker”
    Says in part that “resident was within his rights to hold a census worker at gunpoint if he didn’t leave his property (because) a ‘governmentagent does not have the authority to violate trespass laws’ and the landowner had no trespassing signs posted!! Someone should tell the Montana DOL, no?
    Interestingly, in an article right next to this one, titled, “Stockgrowers suit over state’s bison management actions dismissed” it says, in part, that despite the loss in court the department of livestock said that there would be “little practicle effect on the way it has managed bison for the past couple of years.” Meaning, I presume, that government agents will continue to violate no trespass laws. I guess it’s OK for state government agents, just not those pesky feds!

  49. Si'vet says:

    WM, thanks, you articulate it much better.

    • Save bears says:

      I kind of feel like I am in the twilight zone, these are pretty much the same conversations I have had as well….

  50. jon says:

    Third calf killed by wolf in Wallowa County

  51. Mike says:

    Top kill has failed:

    And there goes two of my neighbors, driving Ford Expeditions by themselves to the store.


  52. JEFF E says:

    I wonder how many sheep are killed by coyotes, or other causes so far this year in this area?

    • jon says:

      It is a sad shame that wolves are given a death sentence for trying to survive.

    • Layton says:

      Maybe, just maybe, since they are so “natural” they should survive on natural prey — instead of those nasty, UNnatural sheep and cows.

    • Jon says:

      Maybe if farmers better protected their livestock without reaching for the gun and finding some better way to protect their cattle, maybe the wolves would. Can’t blame wolves for not passing on an easy meal.

    • Layton says:

      So, if I go on the logic of “can’t blame wolves for not passing on an easy meal” — I guess I shouldn’t blame ranchers, hikers, hunters or just general plinkers with guns in the woods if they don’t pass on an easy wolf??

      Get it straight Jon, ranchers PAY for grazing public land (I would agree that maybe the payment amount isn’t right, but that’s another discussion). Are you REALLY trying to tell me that they have no right to protect their animals??

      I’m sure that if they had to bring them in at night and keep them in a barn it would be alright with you. Right??

      I guess everyone should just get out of the way and let the almighty wolf rule the land where and when he wants to. Would that make you happy??


    • jon says:

      Layton, you let your hounds run loose in the wild, than you get whats coming to you. Your irresponsibility and lack of common sense will ultimately get your hunting dogs killed. Stop this blaming the predator crap. When you let your dogs run loose, you are in the wild, the home of the predators. What if you got attacked in the ocean by a great white, you would blame the shark too I bet for doing what it naturally does. huh? I see this often, people hate accepting responsibility for their own actions. If you hunters were so concerned about your hunting dogs safety, you wouldn’t let them run after wild predators who are capable of killing them in the first place. You take a great risk and all you can do is blame it on the predators when something goes wrong. Wanna you stop putting your dam dogs in danger in the first place.

  53. cc says:

    Breif NatGeo article on whooping cranes:

  54. Dewey says:

    Noted wildlife activist and the best known environmentalist in Jackson Hole , Franz Camenzind, filed for election as Mayor of Jackson late Friday afternoon.

    Now that’s one Wyoming politician worth supporting in this otherwise awful year of Candidates From Hell…

    • Jeff E,

      The heron is nothing but a killing machine. Yes, the horror!

    • Alan says:

      These look seriously Photoshopped to me. You cannot see the top bill clamping down on the rabbit and there are artifacts all around the rabbit. Not even a very good job IMO. Nevertheless, I have watched heron slaughtering fish left and right, often just for sport. This has already put many fishing outfitters and fly shops out of business, and has taken food off the table of many residents of the Northern Rockies who rely on fish as a staple of their diet.

    • Save bears says:

      With the current situation in the NWR I would expect it to get worse, before it ever gets better, even if the Judge re-lists next month and now with what I am seeing in OR, I don’t expect anything good for a while..

    • jon says:

      Wildlife services are the biggest threat to wolves. If things are to get better, wildlife services needs to go, so that they can stop the senseless killing of wolves for just trying to be wolves. Ranchers should not be catered to. Instead of calling the wildlife killers (know as wildlife services), ranchers should try finding ways to better protect their livestock that doesn’t involve the senseless killing of wolves.

    • Save bears says:

      See Jon,

      One of the biggest problems, is those killing wolves don’t see it as senseless and until such time as the pro wolf side understands that, there will continue to be this rift..

    • jon says:

      SB, we understand that wildlife services obviously don’t care about blasting wolves away, but those who do will continue to fight and bring awareness to all that wildlife services needs to be stopped. What they are doing is SENSELESS killing.

    • Save bears says:


      Get pissed at me all you want, the people, including wildlife services, do not think it is senseless and have not for the 100+ years they have been doing it….I didn’t make the rules, but I understand what is going on..until each side understands what the other side thinks, wolves, bison, coyotes, and numerous other animals are going to be don’t have to like something to understand it….and until you understand, there is a very vocal contingent in the west that want wolves gone again, we will continue to see this! The anti-wolf rhetoric is gaining ground despite others efforts..

    • Save bears says:

      And I will add, until you understand your enemy, you will never have a chance at beating them, it is unfortunate, I have been saying this for 20 years now and nobody listens, hence you are loosing….plain and simple…

    • jon says:

      savebears, whether ws thinks it is senseless killing or not does NOT make it alright nor will it ever, maybe to them and the wolf haters, but not to pro wolf supporters or people who have any decency in them. There is nothing to understand, most know why ws kill wolves and other animals and don’t like it one bit. savebears, I am sure pro wolf supporters understand why ws kills wolves and other animals and I am sure ws knows how pissed off that some are at them for the horrible things that they do, wildlife killing.

    • Save bears says:

      You will never understand Jon, typical..

      Very typical..

    • Save bears says:

      And I can tell you Ranchers and Wildlife services really don’t give a rip why you or anyone else is pissed off, they are doing what they are told to do by their bosses, which is the Federal Government, until you understand, you will never win, this is still a Government sanctioned situation..

      They go to work on Monday Morning, read the incident reports issued by their superiors, then they decide where they are going to target, and it is all with the Federal Government 100% behind it..until you understand where this is coming from, you will never change it..

      And Just to remind you, we are on the same side, we just happen to have a completely different understanding of what is going on!

    • jon says:

      Marks my words savebears, not now, but sometime down the line, something will eventually be done with wildlife services. They are responsible for the slaughter of many many animals and I believe some time down the line, they will get theirs. Whether people understand why they do what they do or don’t, it’s all senseless killing and sometime down the line, something will change. There is NO good excuse for killing and poisoning many many animals as wildlife services continues to do.

    • Save bears says:


      Sure I will mark you words and I hope your right, but after dealing with government agencies for over 35 years, I don’t have a lot of confidence.

      Now go out and do something to prove me wrong..I beg ya! Ms/Mr expert..

    • Save bears says:

      And now I will go watch the race, because as I said, arguing with you is an exercise in futility…

    • Angela says:

      jon, I’ve been wishing for the demise of Wildlife Services since I was in my mid-teens when they were the ADC. I’m now nearing 50 and the same old shit is going on. You just don’t see much about them outside of those in the know. Most Americans have no idea they even exist.

      Would things be any different if they just let the ranchers shoot wolves that were in the act? It seems like that might mollify the ranchers and might be a better deterrent for wolves attracted to livestock. Even gunshots may be a deterrent, but I guess it’s probably hard to catch them in the act. At least the taxpayers wouldn’t be funding the livestock industry and killing.

  55. Mike says:

    New national park gun rule has found its first victim?;f=852107219;t=9991137724;

    • Save bears says:

      Depending on the time of the year, there has always been weapons carried in Denali….people have carried in Denali for many years now…so I would not say, first victim…

    • Save bears says:

      You guys have to remember the National Parks in Alaska have always operated under a different set of rules…the superintendent has always had the authority to over rule in the yearly compendiums…

  56. Nancy says:

    Thanks Chris! One of my favorite actors, the trailer for the film is wonderful! Animation may be the only way to get across the point to kids theses days when it comes to the other species we share the world with.

    • Jon says:

      Yes, Dennis Hopper was a great actor. RIP

    • WM says:

      Oh brother, here we go again. Those cute little animated wolves, ever so cuddly and with great personalities, and a youngf she wolf with a provocative flowing mane and a purple flower in her hair – what a babe!

      All created by the folks at the big studio Lionsgate to make their hundreds of millions. Animated wolves conjuring up plans, riding in campers and hobo trains. Escapism at its finest. A Bambi movie fort the 21st Century.

      Is this a close cousin to anthropomorphism? I forget the term for giving human characteristics to an animated version of an animal? “Great, boys, looks like caribou for dinner!” But I guess they don’t show how it is really done in nature – too graphic for our intended young audience.

      This crap makes me sick!

    • Angela says:

      Geez WM, relax, it’s just a cartoon. Bambi was far, far superior to any of these new animated films with “wisecracking” animals drawn so they don’t even look like animals.

    • jon says:

      WM, did you know bambi is actually responsible for more deaths than the big bad wolf?

    • jon says:

      human deaths that is.

    • WM says:


      … and this would be relevant to anything because……?

  57. Nancy says:

    But when it comes to the human species
    WM – animated car jackings, gang bang activity and war videos somehow aren’t considered too graphic for “young” audiences out there?

    Oh, but then, 60 Minutes is right airing an episode about cloning, so when we humans start missing those species no longer around, because we didn’t give a sh-t about their right to exist, we can always bring them back for our own personal entertainment, in areas that closely resemble their natural habitats.

    • WM says:


      I am with you 100 percent on the animated violent video games and a whole lot of other truly disgusting stuff that makes in on network and cable TV, that is why our family doesn’t watch it.

  58. WM says:

    Yep, jon, Hopper was a drugged out, irratic, sometimes actor that studios and talented actors refused to work with. It seems one recent obituary article reported John Wayne chased him off a set with a loaded gun, and his contribution to Apocalypse Now had to be edited creatively because he was drugged out and drunk on the set most of the time and couldn’t get his lines right. It was also reported that Wayne, through obligations to in-laws, actually saved Hopper’s career after he was blackballed by Hollywood for seven years because of his insolent behavior.

    He was also an ok director (Easy Rider was a lucky fluke, and Colors seemed to actually showcase his talent, but with actors like Penn and Duvall how could he miss), but not exactly a role model with such a selfish and self-destructive personality that dominated his life.

    Jon, his movies and acting were pretty good, largely because of the timing and their content, but he was certainly no “great actor,” but I guess you have different standards than most.

    • Jon says:

      WM, Dennis Hopper is probably one of the best actors of all time. Call the guy what you will, but he is a far better actor than most actors you see today. For all I know, you probaly think Vin Diesel is a better actor than Dennis Hopper. Was the Hopper the best actor? No, but he is far better than most of the actors/actresses you see nowadays.

    • Jon says:

      Actually, I will take that first comment back, but I will say that Hopper had more talent than MOST actors/actresses you see in movies today. Ofcourse, having actual acting talent isn’t that important anymore, it’s all about how good you look nowadays. Such a shame, but very true. Most of the actors you see nowadays couldn’t act their way outta a paperbag.

    • Angela says:

      A lot of great artists and creative people are eccentric and extreme. Just sayin’.

    • WM says:


      Glad you saw fit to revise your assessment of Hopper.

      If you and anyone else is interested in some good acting, my wife and I just finished watching the story of painter Georgia O’Keeffe, played by Joan Allen, with an incredible performance by Jeremy Irons as her husband, the father of modern photography, Alfred Stieglitz. No -how good you look- actors here. This 2009 made for TV motion picture won Golden Globe awards for best actor, best actress and movie. Incredible acting, sad story and great review of O’Keeffe’s incredible work from the Taos, NM area.

    • Angela says:

      That does sound like a good movie WM–thanks for the tip!

  59. Nancy says:

    Jon, his movies and acting were pretty good, largely because of the timing and their content, but he was certainly no “great actor,” but I guess you have different standards than most.

    No offense WM, but I seldom believe what I read about so called “difficult” actors. There’s alot more going on in Hollywood when it comes to making movies and most of us will never be privy to it.

    • Save bears says:

      Well I have to say, the conversation is almost on “topic” it was well known that Hopper was wild!


    • Jon says:

      Oddly enough, his last movie involved wolves in Idaho nancy like you already posted about. lol

    • Save bears says:

      And we will never know, if he did it because he cared or if he did it for the pay check, as has been stated, many things happen in Hollyweird that none of us will ever be privy to..

  60. Si'vet says:

    Jon, you might be able to make some better informed posts, and have some actual wildlife experiences if you spent sometime away from the TV, and the computer. Maybe your better suited for a blog that is about actors/actresses, than one about wildlife.
    I don’t see a post I sent to you earlier in regards to guard dogs. I thought about what we discussed the other night, and there maybe some possibility of guard dogs during calving, but on summer range, just one rancher will have cattle scattered over ten’s of square miles, thousands and thousands of hilly, and moutainous terrain, somtimes taking the range rider on a horseback several days to cover, I don’t see guard dogs working in that type of condition, you would need dozens, and what would you do post some kind of food holding tank, and automated food distribution every couple of miles. Again I don’t see it.

  61. Mike says:

    New National Park Gunb law claims its first grizzly bear:–killed-in-Denali-National-Park?instance=home_news_window_left_top_1

    Some very sad news. Expect many more stories like this over the next couple of years. People + guns = dead things. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it will always work.

    • Mike says:

      BTW, this is the first such incident in decades for Denali.


    • Alan says:

      Very predictable. Only a matter of time before this happens in Yellowstone.

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      It’s only going to be a matter of time before this happens in Yellowstone or Glacier. This is such a ridiculous law. All because so many people think it’s not only a right to carry a gun but a duty.

  62. Alan says:

    No need to carry bear spray or common sense when you are packing heat.

  63. Mike says:

    This sad story has now made the national news:

  64. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Mike;
    You watch some innocent hiker will get shot,it will happen,great law.

  65. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    I asked this question before, but do not remember getting an answer. Every picture I’ve seen of a BLM or IFf&G OR WS killing a predator, wolf, bear or lion, but mostly wolves,has a smile on their face. If this is just a job, a necessity of the job,why the smile? Because they like it period, it’s fun for them, and that it what makes it wrong. P.S. Si’vert I am not a typical east coast person, hunters over here would agree with you trust me on this one.

    • WM says:


      Unless you now of some special authority allowing for BLM employees to kill predators, I do not think they can do that legally. As for the smile, most people have a tendency to do so when their picture is taken – unless it is a mug shot, or maybe a driver licence.

      I know it is insensitive, but being happy in your work, might be another explanation. Recall the objective is to dispatch the “offending” pest. They remove these animals at the request of a client or supervisor. Successfully achieving the objective leads to job satisfaction, and they have probably long ago been desensitized to the perceived morality of “pest” control, and it would be no different than taking out an offending skunk, rat or racoon, which is a job WS does throughout the entire country by the thousands on a daily basis. Do you suppose the guy at the local slaughter house gives much thought to pulling the trigger on the bolt gun when downing livestock?

      I think some of you folks put way too much thought into this.

  66. WM says:

    Since we don’t know all the facts yet, it might be a bit premature to draw conclusions. I recall last year there was a story about a local Soldotna, AK (Kenai Peninsula) resident who was hiking on a logging road not far from town, and was attacked by an old, undernourished, grizzly. He fortunately was carrying his large bore handgun and able to dispatch the bear. I doubt there was much other history in that area regarding attacks on humans, either.

    Alot more needs to be learned about this particular bear, the hikers and the details of the encounter. The standard against which their conduct will be measured will no doubt depend on all three factors – did they act reasonably under the circumstances, and was shooting the bear justified? Among my first questions of them would be, “Did you have bear bells on your packs?” “Did you have an alternative path to traveling in the heavy brush?” and, “Were you carrying bear spray?”

    A second issue: Since access to most parts of Denali is by bus, I was interested to learn that the Park’s vendor had no policy on transporting guns on buses, according to the Fairbanks newspaper article, which by the way is not a very well written. Parks has had an entire year to get ready to implement this new rule, stupid as it is, so one needs to ask why their vendors had no policy, if true. I do not know whether it would be possible for a vendor to prohibit transport notwithstanding the right to carry in a NP, and the author is not clear on where he was going with the query. Nor do we know whether these 2 backpackers used a bus to get to their location.

    Many questions to be answered regarding this incident and others yet to come.

  67. Alan says:

    “Fister confirmed Sunday that two backpackers came across signs of the bear while hiking along the edge of Tattler Creek. The lead hiker then drew a .45-caliber pistol and, when the bear emerged and charged the second hiker, a woman, fired roughly nine shots in its direction.”
    Sounds like a lot of time passed between seeing “signs” of the bear and shooting it. We always hear, “There wasn’t time for bear spray!” Here they saw signs of bear activity. Did they start making noise? Did they back out and find another path? Did they even have bear spray? Or were they relying on a gun, which the Park Service is telling people NOT to do, for bear defense?
    If they get away with this the flood gates will open. If they get slapped down maybe others will get the message.
    Reading that this is the first time a bear has been shot in this “old” part of the park is really telling. How old is this park?
    Why is it that thousands of people have safely travelled the backcountry of our parks without guns (or at least without using them…I know some people will always break the law), yet four months after this law passes we have a dead bear?
    “The lead hiker then drew a .45-caliber pistol”
    This should be evidence enough to convict. Why did he not draw bear spray?

    • WM says:


      All good questions. The mere existence of a rule that allows one to carry a firearm in a NP is problematic. Put yourself in the position of having a grizzly charge your girlfriend/wife, and wondering if it is just a bluff charge, or the real thing. Maybe you have bearspray with an effective range of 12-30 feet max, with no wind; maybe you don’t. You DO have a large bore handgun, with an effective range of maybe 90 -120 feet, if you are good enough to hit the target in a vital spot. You may have just a few seconds to make the right decision, and the consequences of making the wrong one are that COULD mean the bear kills or maimes your companion (I have only seen two articles on this incident and, contrary to what you state, neither go into detail about how long there was to assess the situation, but we will learn more, after the investigation.)

      And yes, who knows, maybe they have already been talking to some TV show or magazine about their frightening experience for money – those leaches act pretty quickly to lock up “exclusive story” rights.

      All are interesting topics to ponder.

    • mikarooni says:

      Look, I support efforts to analyze the details of a situation; but, I also tend to rely on information that is just laying there in the open. For example, let’s all be honest about it; “a .45-caliber pistol” capable of rapidly firing “roughly nine shots” in a split second is NOT the kind of firearm some benevolent country hiker is going to carry even into Denali. It’s a heavy large caliber weapon with much greater fire power than most normal people would consider necessary for personal protection, especially given the weight, on a backpacking trip. It IS the kind of weapon that some over-amped, trigger-happy, gun-nut stud would lug around to show his girlfriend that he was attractive as a sexual partner. Considered along with the additional fact that the gun scene is rampant with despicably and transparently self-serving propaganda whipping the trash up into a frenzy about how bear spray is not as effective as just whipping out a big bore and blowing grizzlies away (look at what has been happening in the northern rockies over the past couple of hunting seasons), I believe there are strong odds that this was an inappropriate bear shooting.

    • Save bears says:

      My two choices for personal protection are a S&W .40 and the Colt .45, with the new lightweight frames they are no more difficult to carry than many of the 9mm weapons on the market, many police agencies carry either the .40 or the .45 now a days as well..

      That said, I would not consider the .45 to be the right gun for a a Grizzly..

    • Save bears says:

      As far as your comments about gun nut studs, that is purely showing your bias against firearms…

      My preferred weapon for bears is bear spray…

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      The problem with a handgun like a .45 automatic is that it is really just another form of bear deterrent but both lethal (eventually) and less effective than either bear spray or large rifle. I know of many cases where people working in backcountry areas have failed to properly deploy their state issued safety equipment (typically bolt action .338) and come back with nothing worse than a good story and occasionally some laundry chores. One second a bear is snapping 3 feet off the end of their rifle and the next its gone . . . In most cases, even a highly agitated bear will not make contact. If it really is bent on it, you will have to be very good and lucky with a hand gun to make a central nervous system shot – otherwise count on getting royally ripped. If it is a more common bluff, putting some bullets in it may help speed its departure but probably no more so (and likely less so) than a face full of pepper spray . . . I think public education of those facts may be part of the solution. Having taken a couple of 100 lb. Sitka blacktails with a .44 magnum, I have no confidence in it to quickly stop a bear outside of a central nervous system shot – which basically means nose or mouth, a pretty small target. Even the eyes are set off to the side, not really in line with the brain.

    • Layton says:


      Didn’t you get into a big argument maybe a year ago because of your (apparently uninformed) opinion about firearms?? Seems like that one was about some godawful muzzle velocity weapon that you conjured up.

      Modern .45 caliber pistols are quite easy to pack these days, maybe you should read up on the subject a bit.

      If a person wants to “pack” and they have any sense at all they would carry a firearm that would do the job, not one for show.

      I’m going to assume that you think this guy should have been carrying a 9mm or a hammerless .38 or something like that. You are sadly (and wildly) mistaken.

    • Alan says:

      First of all let me say that I don’t like guns. They are designed for one thing and one thing only: to kill. I don’t like killing, not even to eat; which is why I try to limit my intake of meat. I do eat it, because I believe it is necessary for health, but not a lot. Having said that, I don’t think that everybody who owns a gun is a nut; not even most of them. I would have no problem pulling the trigger on some bozo climbing through the bedroom window at two in the morning.
      But the fact remains that tens of thousands of people have hiked, camped and backpacked in our National Parks from Alaska to Florida for a hundred years. The vast majority have been safe. In most cases when they have been attacked you can trace the cause directly back to them. They violated some basic rule of common sense, and in some cases the law. Not every single time, but most of the time. I know darn well that I would be much safer walking buck naked through Pelican Valley in the Spring than I would be fully clothed at 11 at night on the streets of just about any US city. Talk about violating common sense!
      There is an old saying in Yellowstone: As soon as you leave the pavement you are part of the food chain. The point being that if you are going to make a concious decision to go hiking, backpacking etc., you must be willing to accept the simple fact that there are inherent dangers: You might be struck by lightning, you might drown trying to cross a river, you might slip and fall off of a cliff, you might be kicked to death by an enraged elk or mauled by a bear. All of these are very rare, but they do happen. If you are unwilling to accept the minor risk, stay home. Statistically you are still far more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the park. So you take reasonable precautions: you wear your seat belt in the car, you learn how to identify slick rocks in the river, You wear lugged boots, you learn what to do in a lightning storm, and you carry bear spray and make noise on the trail. You also find another way around or at least make a ton of noise when you find recent signs of bear activity. These are reasonable precautions. Lugging heat isn’t, IMO.
      I have logged hundreds of miles safely in bear country. I know dozens of others who have done the same. Most of the posters on this blog probably have also. If there were dozens of attacks every year I would say carry guns, or better yet close down the parks to hiking to save the bears; but there are only a very few. It is just one of many hazards that we accept by going into the woods, knowing that our best and most effective weapon is common sense.

  68. Alan says:

    In my opinion we are at a very important crossroads. We must decide what we want our parks to be. Will they be no different from the surrounding National Forests where we rarely have the opportunity to view wildlife, or will they continue to be the special places that they are? Places where anyone: children, seniors, city dwellers, wildlife observers, researchers etc. can view wild animals going about their daily lives; and by observing, learning to care about and preserve places for them? It’s pretty hard to convince people that places need to be set aside for elk and bears when they go into the forest and never see an elk or a bear. Public support for habitat protection benefits hunters, photographers, wildlife watchers, fishermen, hikers etc. equally. People go home from National Parks and find themselves supporting setting aside that stretch of land on the edge of town for waterfowl for example, or they join an Environmental group, or even just put up a bird box. All because they sat at the edge of a meadow and watched a doe and a new fawn, or a black bear and its cubs in a National Park. It’s not a stretch. I know that is how I became interested in outdoors issues.

  69. Si'vet says:

    Richie, I don’t know about the smiling as far as WS, predator control pictures, maybe just a habit from when there mom used to drag them to Sears for there kid pictures and beat um till they smiled and now it’s habit. LOL
    As far as a successful hunter, your happy to have met the challenge and been successful, I don’t know, I’m not a big smiley guy, catch heat from my wife about it all the time. I know there are comments posted here that make me smile.

  70. Si'vet says:

    To ALL those who post or read here, if you have lost a loved one in the service of our country, myself and my family want you to know we truly appreciate and humbly respect, the greatest of sacrafices. Thank you

  71. vickif says:

    Thanks and my deepest appreciation goes out to the service members and their loved-ones, who so selflessly scarafice on behalf of our home and freedom.

  72. timz says:

    Who would of guessed this would happen allowing weaapons in national parks.

    • Save bears says:

      Old news Tim, been kicking around for a couple of days now,

      Of course the investigation is not complete and the articles in the various news sources have been pretty for the most part, not much information available yet..

    • Linda Hunter says:

      Working at a bear viewing lodge it was apparent to us that people are less than observant when they are scared. It was educational to ask people what they noticed after a bear encounter. Were the ears forward or back . . was the head high or lower than the shoulders. . was the bear walking or running
      … did the bear make a sound or not . . how big was the bear. None of the questions could usually be answered by people unless they had spent hours around a bear or bears until they had relaxed. When you are afraid your powers of observation turn inward and you are incapable (without training) of observing what is really happening around you. Carrying a gun without this kind of training is really dangerous . . mostly to everyone and everything around you. The results of people who shoot pepper spray early or when it is unwarranted is minor in comparison. Guns don’t make decisions but people who have them need to know what it is they are seeing. I haven’t enough information to make a judgment in this case even after reading several accounts, but this is the kind of incident that you read about frequently in hunting season with variations on the same theme. I expect hunters to have better powers of observation than the normal hiker, but the collective mindset of people about bears (mindless fear) causes people to be particularly unaware. It would be interesting to see if the shooter could answer whether the bear’s ears were forward or back or whether the head was below the shoulders or whether there were warning noises, or perhaps a cracking stick.

    • Save bears says:

      I agree Linda,

      All to often when something happens, people are far to quick to rush to judgement, I really wish, they would wait until the investigation is done, so we really know what happened..

    • mikarooni says:

      National Parks were, prior to the recent NRA-sponsored fiasco, one of the few places where the majority of Americans, people who do not wish to be around firearms, could use their public lands comfortably. Thanks to a redneck politician from Oklahoma and his cohorts, that has now changed. Guns do not belong in National Parks; it’s that simple and this and other tragic and silly events that will surely follow prove it.

    • Save bears says:


      All to often, people seem to forget, that those who own guns are part of that public, and now a days, it is a significant part of that public..that said, I don’t think the majority of gun owners will carry in the parks…despite their right to do so…

    • Mike says:

      I agree with Save Bears that guns dont kill things, stupid people kill things. Unfortunately there is such a severe lack of self-awarness in the population that this has almost become a meaningless phrase.

  73. Nancy says:

    Most of the meat in this country is already under the control of a few corporations running factory farms (where animals are being abused daily BEFORE they die, recalls are numerous on the FDA Food Safety site and sanitation practices around these farms, is a joke – and the EPA has just decided to “check” on them every 5 years) and now we have the Wall Street “money men” branching out and encouraging these same sorry practices in other parts of the world.

    Food Inc. rent the video if you can find it.

    • Cobra says:

      This is one of the biggest advantages of hunting. We know where our meat comes from. It’s comforting to know that from the shot to dreesing, butchering and wrapping to the freezer we know how it’s treated.

  74. jon says:

    Not wildlife related, health related I guess you could say

  75. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Just a side note Dennis Hopper was also on Rebel without a cause,I have all three films of his,plus a little piece was made about his life, great actor. So this is what he was thinking, great rebel.

    • Save bears says:

      Not only was he in it, he co-wrote it..

    • Save bears says:

      Hopper, despite his faults, was one of the more prolific actors of the 20th century, appearing in many of those movies that are now considered classics, one of my favorites is “Giant” followed by the “Son’s of Kadie Elder” and “True Grit” He did leave his mark on the world of movies..

  76. Si'vet says:

    Nancy the posts on factory raised animals, sure make me glad, I had mule deer sausage for breakfast, and tonight, we have family in and it’s elk roast/french dip, funeral potatoes, baking powder biscuits, just doesn’t get any better. How did that old lady on hee haw say it yum,yum..

    • Angela says:

      What are funeral potatoes? lol. Is that like the yummy cheesy potato casserole baked until it has a crispy top that I am suddenly craving?
      I wish I could eat only animals that have spent their lives in freedom, eating wild foods, and never anticipating that death was around the corner. My problem is that I am extremely sensitive to suffering and too empathetic to do the killing myself, whether domestic or wild animals are concerned. When I don’t have many hunting friends nearby, I try to buy only grass-fed organic beef, but it’s still not as humane or ethical as wild ungulates or birds killed by a skilled hunter. I detest factory farming and grazing on public lands. There seem to be more and more people producing pastured livestock on a smaller scale. Although people say that small ranchers can never produce enough meat to feed our huge population, and the meat is more expensive, shouldn’t Americans be eating less and more high-quality meat for health reasons alone? Might we have plenty of meat if all these fast food joints disappeared? That’s why I support hunting, but I still don’t approve of killing for fun or profit: “varmint” hunting, predator hunting, trophy hunting, or hunting of certain animals like geese or sandhill cranes. I do not understand how someone could get any enjoyment out of shooting a big dog. But then again, there are people who go to Africa specifically to kill elephants, zebra, giraffes, baboons and monkeys (very weird), and the smaller animals like dik-dik, genets, and servals. Talk about desensitization!

  77. Si'vet says:

    Linda the stick cracking sound, thats the bears teeth popping together correct?? Reason I ask on several occasions while hunting bear I hear them popping their teeth together when ther within 20 yds or so, the bear usually beats it after that, so I always thought it was done out of fear or recognition you were busted, so is it an aggressive sign as well?

    • Linda Hunter says:

      Si’vet the stick cracking I was talking about is when a bear intentionally cracks a stick. . which as near as I could observe is a sign that the bear wants you, or another bear, to recognize he is there and move. The teeth popping sound indicates nervousness from what I can tell and what researchers seem to think. I use stick cracking personally instead of bells and yelling because I observed that bears who were feeding in a noisy area full of all kinds of human noises learned to ignore those noise like we do . .but the subtle sound of a stick cracking somewhere got their full attention right away above all other noises. They often moved off, or I would hear a return crack and was able to go around.

  78. Mike says:

    Yikes! Anyone know what happened to the rest of this thread?

    • Save bears says:

      Click the older comments link Mike and it will take you back, then you will have to search for the particular section you were posting in..

  79. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To WM; Local slaughter house people do not smile while haveing picture taken, if at all. Slaughter is not the same thing WM, come on,you can do better than that. As for me being expert, never said I was,or maybe you need glasses.

    • WM says:


      My point on the slaughterhouse guy was more in reference to the fact of desensitization to job function. They probably don’t think much about what they do, after the first 100 beef they have dispatched. Again, carry that back to the smiling WS guy who has just taken out the “pesky predator” and a smile for the camera is not that big a jump.

  80. Nancy says:

    “Organic foods are made without the use of conventional pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics or hormones — which could potentially reap benefits for people’s health and the environment.

    The current review, Dangour and his colleagues point out, did not look for studies on the possible health benefits of reduced exposure to those substances. Nor did it address the environmental impact of organic food production”

    Good article Jon and the last two paragraphs sum it up in my mind. That’s why I’m hoping to get a greenhouse up this spring.

    • Angela says:

      Nancy, when I read that article, I couldn’t believe that last caveat. I mean, it seems to me that the biggest reason people buy organic food is to reduce their exposure to pesticides and to reduce their use on the planet.

  81. Jon says:

    This is what happens when you start allowing people to carry guns in national parks. The gun nut extremists must be happy.

    This story was posted already, but I am posting it again.

    • Jon says:

      I believe guns should be banned in national parks. I don’t care if the gun nut extremists cry or whatever, guns+bears=dead bears. If you are afraid of bears, stay out of the park plain and simple.

  82. Si'vet says:

    Jon, I’ll check with all the gun nuts I know and get back to you.

  83. Si'vet says:

    Yup, all the gun nuts I know are just giddy with excitement.

    • Save bears says:


      Just jumping for Joy I would say…



    • Jon says:

      . I am referring to those who want to be able to bring their guns wherever they want. I am sure one of these gun nuts would just love to kill themselves a bear and than claim self-defense. The bear was looking at me strange and I felt threatened, so I shot it to death. I can see this being the reason for killing bears or other animals for years to come if they continue to let these people bring their guns into our national parks. Yes, it is legal, but it is wrong. Letting a person carry a gun in a np should not be allowed. Some places guns should be kept out of. If you are afraid of bears, stay out of the park or carry bear spray with you.

    • Save bears says:

      Thanks for your opinion Jon, right now it is legal and I am sure that the incidents will be few and far between, you would be amazed at how many carried guns in the park, before it was legal….by the way, guns were never banned in the parks…

    • Jon says:

      Denali did not allow guns before sb. None of this will stop people anyways. People conceal their firearms.

      “I think it’s a recipe for trouble, a gun in somebody’s hand that, one, doesn’t understand guns very well but is wanting to carry one because they can. And, two, don’t understand bears very well, and you’re in a park with lots of bears. It’s a recipe for a disaster for somebody, especially the bears,” said John Rogers, owner of Katmai Coastal Bear Tours out of Homer.

    • Save bears says:

      Actually Jon,

      Only the original part of Denali had the same restrictions at the rest of the National Parks, the expanded parts of the parks, actually allowed guns and there has been legal hunting in those parts of the park.

    • WM says:


      I am pretty sure SB is right on the new parts of Denali. As for the general idea of guns in national parks, it is a recipe for disaster on so many levels – not just the wildlife. Just wait. It won’t be long before some deadly Saturday night violent Park campgound exchange involving noisy campers, alcohol and guns, even something like an AK or AR-15, or a high capacity hand gun- They will be calling it the “Shootout at Fishing Bridge Campground,” or something like that.

      This gun law is proof Congress is incapable of making good decisions on behalf of the American people.

  84. Mike says:

    Save Bears – “Few and far between” is still too many. This never would have happened without the new gun law. Strange that Denail has never had an incidient like this in some 93 years.

    • Save bears says:


      Your talking in generalities, because parts of Denali has allowed guns and has allowed hunting even before the new law. I am not advocating shooting bears, I carry bear spray and will continue to do so, but I am going to wait for the full investigation before such time and condemning this or any situation that does happen..

      I will take a cautious approach to what may happen, because I sure as hell not able to be on the ground in all places at all times and will have to trust the investigative teams on the ground…to actually find out what happened…

    • Elk275 says:

      Mike, many, many bears are shot every year in Alaska under the provisions of DPL (Defense of Life and Property Act). If one has to shot a grizzly or black bear then they must contact a state trooper and fill out a DPL form which is a confession and can be used against you in court if the trooper feels that the shooting was not justified. Alaska has no shortage of grizzlies and in some hunting units one can kill 2 bears a year.

      This incident occurred in a national park, the regulations are different and are federal. Let’s let the powers to be sort this incident out. The use of a 45 is not the best bear hand gun available.

      Have you ever been to Alaska and dealt with bears everyday? Remember that coastal brown bears are very different than interior grizzlies. A salmon fed bear is a happy bear. An Arctic Grizzly can be very nasty and I have dealt with them in the Brooks and Alaska Range several times. I once had a grizzly follow me a number of miles behind my horse and pack horse with a caribou on its back. I was not as afraid of the bear as I was of crossing the South Fork of the Kuskowim several times that day, having the horses on solid footing then a short swim and solid footing again. There is a lot that goes on out in those woods and I would never judge an incident until I knew all of the facts.

    • WM says:


      ++A salmon fed bear is a happy bear.++

      I agree with your assessment generally, but some of the most tense moments I had backpacking in AK was late summer when the salmon were in, and the grizzley were feeding. The trails I travelled were mostly along stream bottoms, with no way to avoid the bears. A feeding grizzly, regardless of what it is hates to be surprised, and that is easy to do when the sound of rushing water over rocks drowns out other sounds. Bells on the backpack and a sawed down 12 ga. Rem. 870 (alternating buckshot and slugs with the plug pulled out of the tube mag.) at the ready for several days. These are not the most restful of trips I have taken over the years.

      I didn’t have bearspray back then. I would prefer it today.

    • Mike says:

      Elk – What does that have to do with a national park? We are talking about a new rule which allows guns into this portion of Denali.

  85. Mike says:

    Hunter’s self defense claim in grizzly death fails:

    wooohooo! Nice to see!

  86. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To wm;
    In my opinion it is a big jump,the point is everybody,who takes a picture with a dead animal has a smile. Opps let me reframe, a hunter has a smile, not a scientist, who is researching and finds, lets say dead frogs, or sees something of a sign of hurting the environment. Yes slughter house workers have a hard job,to me at least,but as for animal people, I don’t think they really are.

    • jon says:

      I often wonder that myself. If I shot a wolf or mountain lion, the last thing that would be on my face is a smile. I guess there are some that just love killing.

  87. Nathan Hobbs says:

    NPS Proposing Yellowstone Bison Vaccination Via Air Rifle

    Yellowstone is planning to hold a series of open houses to provide the public an opportunity to learn more about the issue in order to provide comments which will be analyzed and used in preparation of the EIS:

    Bozeman, MT: June 14 from 6:00-8:30 p.m. at the Comfort Inn, 1370 North 7th Ave.
    Helena, MT: June 15 from 6:00-8:30 pm at the Howard Johnson, 2101 E. 11th Ave.
    Malta, MT: June 16 from 6:00-8:30 p.m. at the Great Northern Hotel, S. First St. East.

    • Save bears says:

      Thanks Nathan,

      I posted that the other day, but no one seemed to notice it, It is VERY important to make your voice heard on this issue.

    • Virginia says:

      Just submitted my comment – Save Bears is correct – we must let the park service know how we feel about this travesty. The DOL keeps trying to get more and more control over OUR bison!

    • Angela says:

      Thanks for the reminder.

  88. Taz Alago says:

    Wolves are causing social conflict in the West, but in Wales it’s badgers that are causing the friction.

  89. Si'vet says:

    Being a gun nut or a gun owner, I believe the guilty verdict, in YNZ, will make people react in some cases a little differently, and possibly stop and reconsider, it looks like a simple case of poaching to me, 40 yds. I’m not much of a park goer, but if I’m out hiking in a park, I’m going to be carrying 7 lbs. more food, or a few beers instead of a damned old heavey gun. Maybe like speeding in a work zone if you are caught poaching in the park the fine should be doubled at least. And post it at the trail heads.

  90. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Hey sb, Si’vert; Howb many hunting accidents,a guy is drung and shoots his brother-in-law, I can see this again,just in a national park on a hiking trip.

  91. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    wrote too fast accidents happen and a guy hunts and shoots and injures his brother-in-law.

    • Save bears says:


      I personally don’t know anyone that has been shot in this manner, but do know it does happen every year, just like car accidents, falls, dog bites and many other accidents in this country..when it comes to shooting one of your hunting partners, I don’t believe it is an accident, you HAVE to fully identify your target before you shoot and if there is a doubt, you don’t shoot, that is the first rule/law of hunting and handling guns…

      I can also say, I have never shot anyone with my bow…because I rarely hunt with a gun any longer…to many years in the military and to many times of shooting back and then when I got shot, it kind of turned me off, but I don’t begrudge anyone the ability to hunt with a gun as long as they do it with safety first and foremost in mind..

    • Ryan says:

      So what, some guy got drunk and ran over a bicyclist, Hunting accidents are pretty rare statictiacally in comparision to biking/Hiking accidents etc, contrary to what the media says.

      Just a simple request again, please try to write in cohearant sentances with complete thoughts.

    • jon says:

      Hunting accidents are more common than one would think.

    • jon says:

      Take a look at this one Richie. Father kills son in hunting accident after mistaking him for a turkey.,2933,351877,00.html

    • Ryan says:

      Your three time more likely to be killed in a car accident than the be in any type of hunting accident. (fatal or non fatal) Hunting has a roughly 5 per 100,000 accident rate where as automobiles have a 15 per 100,000 accident rate.

      The only reason they get so much hype is anti-gun/anti-hunting people like yourself creating the hype.

      Take a look at this one, a whole bunch people died in car wrecks..

      Another interesting site on accidents.

    • jon says:

      Yeah, I believe that to be true, but hunting accidents still do happen. Numerous little children were killed in hunting accidents and this is something that cannot be ignored whether it is rare or not compared to something else. It has nothing to do with hype Ryan. It is for the fact that people are dying in hunting accidents. Yes, a lot of people die in car wrecks, but all I am saying is that people die from hunting accidents as well.

    • Elk275 says:


      A number of years ago I paid attention to the hunting accidents in Montana and more people drowned duck hunting than were shot. More people drown fishing than are shot. The most dangerous outdoor activities is horse back riding, it is more dangerous than motorcycles.

      The other day two people were killed ice climbing in Yellowstone National Park and in December 2 people were killed ice climbing in Bozeman. I do not think any hunter died of a gun shot in Montana last year. Hunting is safer than ice climbling so let’s get on the band wagon and do away with ice climbing.

    • Ryan says:

      “It has nothing to do with hype”

      “Numerous little children were killed in hunting accidents”


      It has everything to do with Hype, which you are guilty of, being pushed by people with an agenda, same with the gun saftey being pushed in homes, in the enf its a minor amount of accidents and deaths. I guess misinformation is okay when its used to push your agenda, but not an agenda you disagree with.

      BTW how many little kids (under 9) get killed in hunting accidents. I’d guess less than 10 in the last 25 years. Feel free to prove me wrong.


      Here is the definition

      Hype, Noun

      talk or writing that is intended to make people excited about or interested in something or someone

    • Ryan says:

      But Elk, that doesn’t allow one to push their anti gun/ anti hunting agenda very well.

    • Elk275 says:

      Hiking is now too dangerous.

      A search is under way in Yellowstone National Park for an Oklahoma man missing since Monday.

      Peter Louis Kastner, 25, is from Oklahoma City.

      During a routine patrol early Monday morning, rangers found a 2010 Red Cadillac STS sedan with Oklahoma license plates parked at the Hellroaring Trailhead, 3.5 miles west of Tower Junction. The vehicle, which had been parked overnight, was not associated with an overnight backcountry permit. A check showed Kastner had rented the vehicle several days earlier. A few personal belongings were found in the car.

    • Jeremy B. says:

      “Your three time more likely to be killed in a car accident than the be in any type of hunting accident. (fatal or non fatal) Hunting has a roughly 5 per 100,000 accident rate where as automobiles have a 15 per 100,000 accident rate.”

      In all fairness, risk is a function of exposure. The average hunter spends less than 15 days / year hunting (and ?? practicing); how many days don’t you drive?

      Statistics can be spun many ways, but when it comes down to it, the risks associated with hunting are pretty modest. Mostly, this type of data gets used by groups such as the NRA to instill fear in its members. The NRA has become a master of the use of fear to manipulate audiences. A great example is their pre-election fear-mongering that a vote for Obama would spell doomsday for the second amendment. Reality check: the Supreme Court, which recently all but codified the 2nd amendment as an individual right, will likely move to the RIGHT under the Obama administration. So what has the NRA’s fear-mongering accomplished? Well, gun sales were at an all time high post election and the sales of guns and ammunition continue to be near record levels.

    • Ryan says:


      By that logic I should never go to the doctor seening as mediacal malpractice is twice as likely to kill you as firearms. I only go to the doctor once a year at best.

      The ” insert your favorite group here” has become a master of the use of fear to manipulate audiences.

      Lets see, DOW, PETA, and Greenpeace all also use the same logic, a spade is a spade no matter which way it leans.

    • Jeremy B. says:


      Medical malpractice doesn’t kill you, shitty doctors do. 😉

      In all seriousness, there are two flaws in that argument. First, most people only go to the doctor when they have cause–i.e. something is ailing them/they are already sick. Second, there is the issue of exposure to risk. If you’re sick enough to go to the doctor, then, exposure isn’t entirely under your control (nobody gets rushed to the field to hunt when they are sick).

      – – – – –

      Yes, many interest groups use fear tactics to further their cause. I don’t condone any of it, though I do understand it.

    • jon says:

      Oh yes Ryan, anyone that questions hunting is labeled an anti gun, anti-hunting person right? Do you understand that children have died from hunting accidents? That is all I am trying to say. This is not a contest of what kills the most people. Everything has some danger to it, but you said hunting accidents are rare compared to getting hit by a car. That is probably true, but don’t play it off like hunting accidents has never killed anyone when they have.

    • Angela says:

      Interesting little topic. Some deaths are just automatically more “sensational” because they are uncommon or dramatic. I hate it when people sensationalize the rare occasions when wolves appear threatening/injure/kill people, and I too have used the car accident comparison, but to be fair, I need to see when I react that way due to my own prejudices and predilections.

    • Jeremy B. says:

      By the way, here’s an article from the CDC on the rates of gun related deaths among children (<15 years). According to this article, which is a bit dated, there are roughly 1.66 gun-related deaths per 100,000 per year in the U.S. in children under 15 years. This is more than double the rate of any of the 26 industrialized comparison nations and 11.9 times the rate of these nations in aggregate.

    • Ryan says:


      Got some proof for the little kid comment? I did some searching and couldn’t find any recent records.

    • jon says:

      Ryan, I just posted some links yesterday.

      Man kills son thinking he was a turkey.,2933,351877,00.html

      Scroll thru the pages.

      As I said, this is not a contest of what kills more people. All I am saying everything has some danger to it.

  92. Si'vet says:

    Richie, I’m a victim of a shooting accident, on a sunday sloughing church, in a small town, the doctor, my dad, and my buddy’s dad all in the same church meeting. Just like with cars, guns, work enviroment, skiing, etc. There’s going to be accidents, that’s why starting with my kids and now my grandsons, you try and take all the mystery out of the gun, then teach, preach, and reward good behavior. And when it comes to bad behavior after teach and preach, “it’s hammer time”. As for adult drunken behavior with a gun, my friend calls it “chlorinating the gene pool.” If it invovles and innocent by stander it’s criminal. Just like cars, you can’t keep guns out of idiots hands, even if guns were outlawed.

  93. Si'vet says:

    I beleive the father was convicted of involuntary manslaughter as well, adding insult to injury, be a dad and try to live with that the rest of your life, he’s living his hell here on earth, and be in the national media headlights, how he get’s through each day I’ll never know.
    Ryan I agree on the hype, years back a guy backed out of his driveway over his son, again terribly sad, but he wasn’t drug through the national media headlights. He was allowed to morn in peace.

  94. Si'vet says:

    Jon, I understand why you couldn’t smile for a photograph after you killed a wolf or lion. After being thrown down and cuffed by the zoo security officer, then standing among all those tramatized and crying school children for 10 minutes waiting for the sherriff’s dept. even I can see how drumming up a smile for a mug shot may be a challenge.

    • Angela says:

      I bet that tiger smiled when he leaped out of his enclosure and killed the teenager that was teasing him in the San Francisco Zoo. Never tease large carnivores when you are drunk or high.

    • Jon says:

      Yeah, those 3 idiots got what was coming to them.

    • Jon says:

      Angela, I followed that story pretty closely. The tiger shot have got all 3 of thos dope smoking punks. They teased the tiger and threw rocks at it supposdly and the tiger responded and got pissed and jumped out of its enclosure and went after them. Such a sad shame this tiger had to pay with its life because of some 3 loser punks teasing the animal. Never in the history of that zoo, has an animal escape. No tiger ever got it before.

    • Jon says:

      I don’t kill animals for sport si’vet. If you kill animals for sport and than take a picture with the dead animal while smile, you have some psychological problems in my opinion.

  95. Si'vet says:

    Jeremy B, I believe a lot of the accidental shooting include stats from just gun accidents, so when crunching the numbers, I beleive you need to figure, many individuals live around guns closer than the garage. If your numbers are just about accidents in the field, then disregard. And just another FYI, my brother is IT director for a major, major, gun manufacturer, and even though he bleeds elephant when he gets cut, just the drift of a deomocrat pres make him giddy thinking about his up coming bonus.

    • Jeremy B. says:

      Hi Si’vet:

      Actually, your comment gets to the heart of what I was trying to express–and it is the reason that I wrote “…less than 15 days / year hunting (and ?? practicing).” Any time you see a probability you need to ask yourself, “what was the denominator”? In the case of gun owners, is risk a function of (a) gun presence, (b) # of times/days the gun was handled, or (c) intentionally firing a gun? How you ask the question greatly impacts the answer.

  96. Si'vet says:

    Ryan, Jon says, questioned hunting… or he’s spouted off the most ill informed rhetoric you or I or most hunters have ever heard. Priceless, in fact Jon has painted himself into such a corner with me all he can do is beat me to the ignore. Now that’s grown up. Jon I have dealt with people like you who ready shoot aim so many times all you have is a great big target on your back.

    • Jon says:

      Whatever you say si’vet. You said something about your kids and grandchildren not being able to hunt elk in the future. Don’t you worry, there will still be plenty of elk. You need to get your priorities in order, there are many more important things in life than hunting an elk si’vet. Worry about your kids and grand kid’s education.

  97. Si'vet says:

    Jon, maybe you need to go back an read where my kids are at, 1 premed, 1 teaching a college course /and works ER in Portland. A son who is a C-5 quad with his masters degree, and 1 son with a dergree in construction management who owns his own construction company, I think my kids education has been well managed, prioritized. So little man, your the one with issues, sit back, hide in your little apartment, while the real world goes on with out you.

  98. Si'vet says:

    Jeremy B thanks for reposting, I missed that the first time, exposure is a factor. It wouldn’t be possible but interesting to note, whether the accident happened in a home that hunts, or in homes in which there’s just guns. Would you have any info in that regard. The reason I ask that, is there are homes where guns are present for whatever reason and homes with guns used for hunting, and my take is that homes with guns for hunting may have a higher probability of having had sometime of safety talk, lesson etc. hope that makes sense.

  99. jon says:

    Plan to kill wolves inside refuge causes rift

  100. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    Thread on guns, now growing up I heard family members on my fathers side,talk about family out hunting. My father had one brother who was a hunter, I mean he loved hunting. I had rabbit, pheasant, and I never tasted deer at his house, but was not their often. So I heard them talk about, him and his brother, who had glasses,very blind guy, well he shot somebody in the ass. I heard other stories people drinking, and who got shot,etc. Now,as for your story; you sound like the deer hunter, at the end of the movie Robert DeNiro could not shoot the deer ,because of the Russian Roulette his friend died of. In fact his friend can’t think of name, but I think that was his greatest part,after that he played wackie parts, not bad, but crazy,almost like a calm, crazy Dennis Hopper. I got it , Christopher Walken !

  101. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert;
    About hunting camp get JB,at least I will have one wolf lover,on my side, o.k. to the rest !

  102. Si'vet says:

    jonny boy, it started to rain so mowing for tonight is out, just in case my wonderful wife reads this, might I add, for the last 15 yrs I have had the pleasure of raising 2 challenging step daughters, Kbug graduates from U of U not this xmas but next, and unless the wheels fall off, it will be high honors, then on to law school. Kinzer will be a high school senior next fall, May 1st was the first time colleges could contact juniors, Kinzer, recieved a letter from Conneticut, May 3rd, coach Margo inviting her out for volleyball camp/try out, because she was at a tourney in Reno and saw Kinze play, and found out Kinze is a 4.1 student. And again my speak is very easy for you to verify.
    Prowolf Wy. I have to be honest, since I was raised in an educational enviroment, I have no fear of the educational system, from K thru my wife and myself, did background checks, talked with admistration staff and tried to put our kids in the class rooms with the very best teachers.
    Jon, got anymore advice???
    I see instead of manning up you go into I’ll hide behind another post mode.

  103. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Jon;
    That is all I see of hunters,like a proud accomplishment, this is the way they feel, fine;,but it isn’t me. Like the kid who defended himself killing the lion, he had a smile. That picture made me think,then the BLM guy in a plane, with the dead wolf, like a feeling, he was in control, this levees a bad taste,in my mouth.

    • jon says:

      Killing an animal for sport is an accomplishment? Could have fooled me.

  104. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    o.k. Ryan opps

  105. Si'vet says:

    Richie last I heard JB is in, you know he’s a whitetail hunter, and those guys are a breed of there own. Richie, it’s about being out there, seeing for yourself, I know you and SB have had a rift or 2 but trust me, once were in the mountains, and the fires crackling, the trees are whispering, WM is cooking, and SB is doing the dishes lol. It just doesn’t get any better. The only thing I worry about is getting you to go home, again lol.

  106. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Jon;
    Did you notice the date, go back and link that date with other events, I know that date well, it is not a good date in history. The gulf for one happened on that date and other events too. Just a side note Jon, I thought you would find it interesting.

  107. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Ryan;
    Your statistic is flawed Ryan, more people drive cars than hunt Ryan. Probability is greater with driving a car Ryan, many more drivers and much more traffic, with many kids driving.In the last fifteen years, I have seen more flowers, wreaths on the side of the road than ever before.

    • Ryan says:

      Its based on per capita incidences, which have nothing to do with total users, only incidences per set intervals. Now granted the exposure rates may not be as high in comparision, but that being said, its an apples to apples comparision as far as how the numbers are being compared. I thought you were good at math and science, just not so good at writing.

  108. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Ryan;
    Also their are more sets and subsets with people driving, the elderly drive, never get behind a driver with a golf cap on, you will be sorry. Teen age people drive, moms with kids in vans are on the road,the list goes on.

    • Ryan says:

      Teenage people hunt, elderly people hunt, women hunt, men hunt, its all the same..

  109. Si'vet says:

    Richie, wildlife blog, accidents happen, usually I’m involved.
    September…. Idaho …… camping….stay on task here….. your in????

  110. Si'vet says:

    Jon, wolf got your tongue?? It’s easy, sorry
    si’vet, I made an uninformed slanderish remark.
    Jon I anxiously await to here about yours kids accomplishments, verifiable of course. Or just post a link..

  111. Elk275 says:

    Does anyone know when, where and how the first hunting accident happen in what is now the State of Montana? It is a very interesting footnote in history and yes a hunter shot a hunter.

    • jon says:

      I am trying to find out elk. Dam, that is a tough one. lol Got any clues you can say?

    • Elk275 says:

      August 11, 1806

      Lewis journel:

      I determined to land and kill some of them accordingly we put too and I went out with Cruzatte only. [2] we fired on the Elk I killed one and he wounded another, we reloaded our guns and took different routs through the thick willows in pursuit of the Elk; I was in the act of firing on the Elk a second time when a ball struck my left thye about an inch below my hip joint, missing the bone it passed through the left thye and cut the thickness of the bullet across the hinder part of the right thye; the stroke was very severe; I instantly supposed that Cruzatte had shot me in mistake for an Elk as I was dressed in brown leather and he cannot see very well; under this impression I called out to him damn you, you have shot me, and looked towards the place from whence the ball had come, seeing nothing I called Cruzatte several times as loud as I could but received no answer; I was now preswaded that it was an indian that had shot me as the report of the gun did not appear to be more than 40 paces from me and Cruzatte appeared to be out of hearing of me; in this situation not knowing how many indians there might be concealed in the bushes I thought best to make good my retreat to the perogue, calling out as I ran for the first hundred paces as loud as I could to Cruzatte to retreat that there were indians hoping to allarm him in time to make his escape also; I still retained the charge in my gun which I was about to discharge at the moment the ball struck me. when I arrived in sight of the perogue I called the men to their arms to which they flew in an instant, I told them that I was wounded but I hoped not mortally, by an indian I beleived and directed them to follow me that I would return & give them battle and releive Cruzatte if possible who I feared had fallen into their hands; the men followed me as they were bid and I returned about a hundred paces when my wounds became so painfull and my thye so stiff that I could scarcely get on; in short I was compelled to halt and ordered the men to proceed and if they found themselves overpowered by numbers to retreat in order keeping up a fire. I now got back to the perogue as well as I could and prepared my self with a pistol my rifle and air-gun being determined as a retreat was impracticable to sell my life as deerly as possible. in this state of anxiety and suspense remained about 20 minutes when the party returned with Cruzatte and reported that there were no indians nor the appearance of any; Cruzatte seemed much allarmed and declared if he had shot me it was not his intention, that he had shot an Elk in the willows after he left or seperated from me. I asked him whether he did not hear me when I called to him so frequently which he absolutely denied. I do not beleive that the fellow did it intentionally but after finding that he had shot me was anxious to conceal his knowledge of having done so. [3] the ball had lodged in my breeches which I knew to be the ball of the short rifles such as that he had, [4] and there being no person out with me but him and no indians that we could discover I have no doubt in my own mind of his having shot me. with the assistance of Sergt. Gass I took off my cloaths and dressed my wounds myself as well as I could, introducing tents of patent lint into the ball holes, [5] the wounds blead considerably but I was hapy to find that it had touched neither bone nor artery. I sent the men to dress the two Elk which Cruzatte and myself had killed which they did in a few minutes and brought the meat to the river. the small canoes came up shortly after with the flesh of one Elk. my wounds being so situated that I could not without infinite pain make an observation I determined to relinquish it and proceeded on. we came within eight miles of our encampment of the 15th of April 1805 and encamped on N. E. side. [6] as it was painfull to me to be removed I slept on board the perogue; the pain I experienced excited a high fever and I had a very uncomfortable night. at 4 P. M. we passed an encampment which had been evacuated this morning by Capt. Clark, here I found a note from Capt. C. informing me that he had left a letter for me at the entrance of the Yelow stone river, but that Sergt. Pryor who had passed that place since he left it had taken the letter; that Sergt. Pryor having been robed of all his horses had decended the Yelowstone river in skin canoes and had over taken him at this encampment. this I fear puts an end to our prospects of obtaining the Sioux Cheifs to accompany us as we have not now leasure to send and enjage Mr. Heney on this service, or at least he would not have time to engage them to go as early as it is absolutely necessary we should decend the river.

    • jon says:

      Elk, are you familiar with Tom Horn? I was watching an interesting program about him on a few days ago. Interesting fellow I must say. I personally don’t believe he killed that little kid, but we will never truly know. He could have gone to the gallows an innocent man.

    • WM says:

      Yes Elk,

      Clever. I had forgotten about that.

      The round went thru both cheeks of his butt and was imbedded in his leather pants. Cruzatte repeatedly denied having shot Lewis, but he was the only one around with a .54 cal rifle capable of the deed, and the round was evidence of this. Lewis subseqently became very stiff from his injury, as one might expect, and was laid up for a few days, as his entire Indian policy unravelled around him. His wounds were subsequently healed with the cotton wads that were inserted into the holes to allow for drainage and healing from the outside, and his short fever broken with Peruvian bark (whatever that was), which apparently had useful antibiotic properties (Ambrose, Undaunted Courage, pp. 395-398).

      It must have been a very depressing time for him; shot in the ass and the painful recovery, disappointment regarding his developing relationship with at least two tribes and an encounter with two private trappers who were subsequently to become the first of the fur traders heading to the West.

  112. Mike says:

    Odds of dying by a grizzly in Yellowstone: 1 in 3 million
    Odds of dying by a cougar attack in California: 1 in 32 million
    Odds of dying via attack by any animal not a dog or pet: 1 in 4,200,000
    Odds of dying by accidental firearm discharge: 1 in 5134
    Odds of dying by firearm assault: 1 in 324
    Odds of dying from heart disease: 1 in 5

    • jon says:

      Looks like disease and humans with guns are the greatest threat to other humans.

    • ProWolf in WY says:

      Thank-you for putting this into perspective.

    • WM says:


      I think this is a bit confusing using the “odds of” analysis. I am not quite sure what you mean

      Are you trying to say that, for example, 1 of 3 million deaths is caused by grizzly in Yellowstone, and 1 of every 324 recorded deaths is by firearm assault?

      Or are you saying 1 of every 3 million visitors to Yellowstone will die by grizzly? See the point.

      If you never go to Yellowstone your odds of dying by grizzly are 0.

      Notwithstanding the confusing stats, the point is well taken. Heart disease is an even greater risk for older, genetically prone, over weight, smoking, non-exercising persons who do not take statin drugs. Alot the stats don’t tell here.

    • Ryan says:


      Interesting facts,

      here are some more for you.

      Also from the CDC the firearm related death rate nationwide is 10.1 per 100,000 or 1 in 9900 roughly. If you going to post statictics, atleast make some attempt to make them correct.

      Also when factoring gun violence, 2/3’d of murder victims are already criminals just as an FYI.

  113. Si'vet says:

    Jon, I don’t know if you could hear the cheers from there, I’m 10$$ richer. the link… your money

  114. Si'vet says:

    Mike, since about 3 million people visit YNZ a year, the odds of 2,995,000 getting more than 50 yds from the car except at the old faithful parking lot is? so there are how many people actually venturing out into grizzly bear habitat, out of the 3 mil. I beleive that would give you a more reliable number, probably end up close to gun accident %. And buffalo fatalities would probably skew it the other way.

  115. jon says:


  116. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert;
    We wil talk I told you I love the west,long story but, when we meet you will understand, you know I spoke with JB?

  117. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Si’vert;
    No I do not mind Sb, I goy carried away, tried to stop,but his, cold answers got me nuts, but he is a nice person,I can se

  118. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Hit wrong button, must go now,sb is a nice person, I can see by his threads. His just acts so analytical, that’s his military, I actually like the guy. He will say,it’s not if you like me or not, but I know he is a kind person.

  119. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Yes I am in, didd you not say the fall,tell me reading each thread,as I go along might seem crazy, just was reading your,are you in thread!

  120. Dewey says:

    The Denver Post published a story Sunday May 30 about the decrease in population of Bighorn sheep in Colorado. Among other mortality issues, competition with introduced Rocky Mountain Goats was cited. The population has fallen in areas without goats as well, as it has in other states including Wyoming.

    Hard to blame to decline in mountain sheep on wolves.

    • Dewey,

      Neil Thagard from the Federation of North American Wild Sheep (FNAWS) showed up at the Cody anti-wolf rally and spoke.

      That really appalled me because he shared the stage with the Wyoming Woolgrowers and domestic sheep are the single most lethal force serving to kill wild sheep.

    • DB says:


      I don’t know what Neil had to say at the anti-wolf meeting. But yesterday at the bighorn sheep/domestic sheep meeting in Boise he rebutted Ron Sheets who claimed that wolves and cougars were the primary cause of bighorn declines. Neil stated that over 1000 bighorn lambs have died recently of pneumonia probably as a result of contacting infectd domestic sheep.

    • Dewey says:

      Ralph- I’m very thankful for one aspect of the Wild/Domestic Sheep situation in the Absaroka Range of my backyard in northwest Wyoming. Unlike Idaho, there is almost no interaction between domestic flocks and wild sheep herds around here. Only the Big Horn Mountains have considerable numbers of domestic sheep trailed in , and there are few wild sheep there ( none?) . Winter range for wild sheep is also not interspersed with domestics here . Elsewhere in Wyoming, yes. What a difference a continental divide and a state line make.

      FNAWS definitely needs to realign its thinking on domestic sheep , as you point out. FNAWS is headquartered in Cody and was leaned on pretty hard to stand and deliver at the AntiWolf Rally by the other sportsmen’s groups. Which I personally find out of sorts, because there is almost no known taking of Bighorn sheep by wolves anywhere in the GYE. I’m not aware of a single instance. Wolves pose little to no threat to wild sheep. If anyone has solid info to the contrary , chime in.

      Of course, FNAWS caters to the global safari sheep hunter cabal who would probably want to thin down the Snow Leopards in the Himalayas who prey on Marco Polos, Bharals, and Nyans, if they could get away with it …

  121. william huard says:

    My hope is that judge Malloy will rule in favor of relisting wolves. With Wyoming’s inability to come up with a reasonable management plan, Idaho’s general hysterical stance, and Montana’s triple the wolf hunt ideas, Malloy needs to send a message to get everyone to step back a little bit

    • jon says:

      Yeah, I hope so too, but if that did happen, I am sure the wolf haters will be out there trying to secretly kill wolves.

  122. Si'vet says:

    Richie, didn’t know you talk to JB, but good deal. Hope he talked you into it. It’ll be good times guranteed or my name isn’t, well it sure as hell ain’t si’vet. Your not one of those poser’s who secretly listens to country western music when no ones around. LOL, just kidding, old joke from when I was kid growing up.
    Richie, as you can tell if it’s on my mind it’s on lips or mispelled on the blog, I’m not smart enough to have some hidden agenda. Richie, it is what is, the trip will be what WE make it, and my plan is good times, good memeories. I was wondering about the last week in August, just before hunting season opens, so we can camp and hike, a little less remote and have it all to our selves. If there are elk, around I can probably get them to talk a little. May be a few huckleberries left.

  123. Mike says:

    Ryan –

    Those numbers are correct.

  124. Mike says:

    The reality is that one has a better chance of being injured/killed by their own gun than they do of being attacked by a wild animal.

  125. Mike says:

    Undertand that “better” in this scenario means “much, much, better”. 😉

  126. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Ryan;
    Situations are subsets of an event, an event where we are comparing “hunters” vs. “people driving”.These are situations ,in probability it’s called events, their are many more events in driving, than their are in hunting. What would help your case is target practice, but even their people get hurt, a gun is not maintained,an event like I said. Now their are subsets of events that is a part where your comparsion fails. I could go back to signals and noise,to define it better, but this should do. You want to put variables in this, people eating while driving,women putting on makeup while driving,CELL PHONES BIG one. Hunters with little experience in using guns,or drinking those are variables in an event. Cars are much more in modern America, now when cars first appeared,you had a good case, but now, I don’t think so. I could tell you a story of an engineer friend of mine with a gun,but I will save that one.

    • Save bears says:


      I would have to say in many areas of the west, people have quite a good handle on how to use a gun safely, also, you can’t hunt legally without passing a Hunters Education Course, which includes demonstrated ability with handling a firearm and most of the instructors I know are very strict on making sure that guns are handled properly and your proficient with them..I do however agree, there are more drivers than hunters. On the whole I would estimate that as a group hunters are better trained with guns than drivers are with cars..

  127. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To sb;
    I agree with you hunters are better trained with guns, and I would agree espically out west,that is the symbol,am I correct to assume. The west was won with a gun, I heard that before. Like Detroit is the home of the auto, hey I got my license, through drivers ED, seventeen,where eighteen was the real age. I actually was driving at sixteen in New Jersey, with my fathers car. I really loved to drive,and muscle cars were big in my neighborhood. Yes but where your from guns are king, and people teach their sons and daughters how to use them. I heard on a program, that for the majority of people, the most powerful thing they will use is a car. It was a program on guns and cars and accidents,hhmmmm,funny that just came to me.

  128. Mike says:

    My opinion is that for the most part, guns empower a “cowboy mentality”, and it is this cowboy mentality that tends to foster disrespect and stunted self-awareness when it come to other living things.

    While Save Bears is correct in asserting that many hunters are responsible, one canot shake the utlimate truth that the species problem is mostly caused by guns, and guns continue to be a main source of death for rare and “varmint”(whatever the hell that means) species.

    It seems that the most realistic use of a gun is to protect oneself from other people.

    The entire gun culture permeates death, diametric to fostering the growth and return of species. Don’t believe me? Go research how the wolf, bison and the grizzly were wiped out from the lower 48.

    It also seems that the gun issue is the number one thing separating hunters from conservationists, and the NRA uses this to great effect. Once gain we see the gun culture ruin another good thing.

  129. Ryan says:

    “one canot shake the utlimate truth that the species problem is mostly caused by guns, and guns continue to be a main source of death for rare and “varmint”(whatever the hell that means) species.”


    What about habitat loss, pollution, invasive species, global warming, or for historys sake, manifest destiny, massive posioning and trapping etc, to say that regulated hunting has had any similar results is bullshit.

    The number one thing that seperates conservationists from hunters is people like yourself and Jon that instead of giving a little bit and working for the greater good, are focused on being abrasive and confrontational.

    BTW, care to cite your source for the “correct numbers” posted above.

    “The entire gun culture permeates death, diametric to fostering the growth and return of species. Don’t believe me?”

    Nope, not for a second… Look at what FNAWS, REMF, Ducks unlimited, and the Wild turkey foundation have accomplished with saving species. Guess who is pushing the reintroduction of Bison in Utah and successfully helped with the reintroduction in the Henrys, give you a hint, not DOW or Earth Justice. Nope SFW did along with several successful sheep reintroductions.

    To compare what happened over a century ago to current day events and mindsets is a stretch at best.

  130. Si'vet says:

    The gun wiped out Wolves, come on Mike. With snowmachines, 4 wheelers, 4 wheel drives, thousands of people hunting, with guns and galss that shoot easily in some cases 500 yds. Only 187 were killed legally in Idaho, not even in the frutherest stretch off the imagination could guns have wiped out wolves 90 yrs ago. 1080 and to a small degree trapping, but by enlarge it was Strych, and 1080. Yes and there have been wolves killed illegally, but until we have a firm number it’s just spec on how many. I’ve studied and read about wolf control agents and their prowess with poisoning. There methods were almost fool proof, along with collatral damage.

  131. Mike says:

    Ryan and Si’vet –

    While its obvious that habitat loss has contributed to the reduction of many species, its always overharvesting or the targeting of predator species that is the final nail in the coffin.

    When people have guns, they kill things. They always have. You can rationalize that fact all you want until your face turns blue but it’s the truth. You can go on a tanget about how “so and so does this, and if we do x y and z”, but it doesn’t matter. Guns reduce the number of living creatures -with wolves and grizzly bears falling right into this.

    Guns are easy. They aren’t very messy and they don’t get the shooter scratched or bitten. They cheapen life and in turn cheapen death. They teach people to be lazy, to not learn proper life defending skills or bear country skills. This is why there is such a high amount of poaching. Two days ago I was on the phone witha Montana realtor who *bragged* to me about poaching wildlife inside Glacier National Park in the nohtfork country. This is no joke. I was asking about a home and this guy starts talking about “the enemies are all around us”, and how he hates the park service and gets back at them by taking game inside park boundaries. I had never met the man before. At the end of the conversation he asked me in a hushed tone if I wanted to buy some guns.

    There are some sick people out there. Guns make it easy. REAL easy. It is this culture of lazyness and death that devalue life in the eyes of millions of people.

    • WM says:


      ++…he asked me in a hushed tone if I wanted to buy some guns.++

      It would seem a very odd conversation transition, first talking about real estate, then to poaching on the N. Fork of the Flathead (I presume) in GNP, and then transitioning to purchase of firearms, as if it is an illicit activity.

      Amazing. Precisely what kind of guns was he offering to sell?

    • Elk275 says:


      I think that you might be hearing some tall tales or telling some tall tales. No body but no body would ever talk about illegally hunting in a national park. Besides wasn’t it you who said last fall that living close to the national parks and forest was wrong.

      Now you want to buy a place on the North Fork of the Flathead. We all like Polebridge. Good Luck.

    • Save bears says:


      My property in NW Montana is located in the North Fork, and I am going to have to say, I don’t believe a word your posting, in other words, I am calling you on your BS, I also know most of the people who work in the NF selling property and have never met one that would do what your describing…so, yes, I am calling BS, if your speaking the truth, then provide the agency name and I will make a few calls..

    • Mike says:

      Save Bears –

      Why would I lie about that? I have nothing to gain – nothing at all. That is 100% absolute truth. I’m a friendly, polite listener/talker and I have a way of getting people to talk in a more relaxed fashion for whatever reason. Paying attention to what they say and responding to words they highlight with vocal inflections is key to getting a little more than you bargained for in the average conversation. There are two things most people love:

      1. To talk about themselves
      2. To have someone sincerely listening to them talk about themselves

      There’s no way I’m giving that agent’s name out, but I can tell you that I have experienced this pro-poaching, anti-anything other than white hate-speech from several realtors across the northern Rockies since making inquiries the last month or so. I even had one Idaho realtor cut himself short halfway through “n%%er”.

      I can tell you one speciifc – this realtor had a major beef with a certain ranger, and claimed that “everyone up their did”, and they wanted to take the park back from big government for multiple use.

    • Elk275 says:


      That last post I could believe, but I think that a rant against wolves you might take as poaching. There are many people in Northwest Montana that rant against the government. But remember that you that you rant against the establish norm in that area.

  132. Ryan says:

    “Guns make it easy. REAL easy.”

    Really, If that was the case then every Wolf tag would have been filled this year, but instead there was less than a 1% success rate in Idaho. Every deer and elk should have been filled, yet the success rate is still ~25%.

    Poachers are criminals, and they will break the law whether or not guns are legal or not. People have always killed things before they had guns, and will after guns are gone. Don’t kid yourself, guns aren’t the problem, people are the problem espicially people with a lack of personal responsibility, to blame an inaminate object is asinine at best.

    BTW, are you ever going to Cite your sources listed above, or admit that their wrong?

    • jon says:

      Actually, Mike is right imo. Guns do infact make killing a lot easier. As savebears said, killing wolves is easy if you have a good shot on them. The problem with killing wolves and hunters not being able to meet the 220 quota last hunting season is that wolves move around a lot and that is why the quota was not met. The millions and millions of animals that have been killed throughout the generations with guns proves that guns do infact make it easy.

    • Save bears says:


      Guns make it easier, but millions of animals were killed before the advent of guns, or we would not be here, lets not get out of hand here!

    • jon says:

      Yes, but you cannot deny that guns make killing much easier. If you didn’t have guns for a wolf hunting season, do you think hunters would have been be able to kill many wolves at all? I hardly doubt it. It is my opinion that people had a much harder time killing animals before the invention of guns than after, especially predators.

    • Ryan says:

      Poison is a hell of a lot easier to kill with than guns, espically if you want to put up serious #’s.

    • Save bears says:


      I can kill at almost 100 yards with my bow, and I am not saying I advocate that, but it is not that hard to do, and the majority of shots with a gun are at less than 100 yards, so gun or bow, I could kill at these ranges…You hae to remember the Romans and the English conquered quite a bit of land, before guns were even invented…

      You really need to get out in the world and experience some of these things you talk about..

    • Save bears says:

      I agree Ryan,

      Poison is far more effective than guns, it is indiscriminate and you don’t have to really actively participate to kill with it..

    • WM says:

      Do you guys have any idea how silly this conversation about guns make things easy to kill is – its like a bunch of 1O year olds? Geez

      But, Mike, it really would be nice if you gave references for facts you state, and if you don’t mind an answer to the realtor questions (min and SB’s) above might help get to the bottom of a rotten apple barrel.

    • Save bears says:

      I could kill an entire city with poison, and I would be hard pressed to kill more than a few with a gun..

    • Save bears says:


      It may be a silly conversation, not based in reality, but never the less, the conversation was brought up, do we allow the misconception to go on, or do we refute it? If we allow it to proliferate, and someone who is actually looking for information stumbles upon it? Then what?

    • jon says:

      It is not hard to you because you have experience with the bow. To others who hunt and don’t use the bow, using the bow would be hard for them until they learn how to use it and get some experience from it. All I was saying is that guns make killing much easier. I don’t necessarily like or dislike guns, they are good if you want to protect yourself, but guns make it so easy for people to kill things. If the romans had guns, the body count they racked up would have been most likely higher.

  133. jon says:

    sb, that is true, but I was talking about animals. Someone is more likely to kill someone with a gun than use poison. Poison is definitely not a rare thing. If you were to add up all of the gun homicides there have been compared to the people poisoned, you would see guns are responsible for far more deaths than poison.

    • Save bears says:

      Really, please cite your source that states guns are responsible for far more deaths than poison?

      This I have to see, please post a link backing up your claim!

      If you read through history, just on the subject of wolves, there were far more killed by poison than guns…

    • jon says:

      sb, it is common sense. Do you see many people using poison to kill others? Yes, it happens I am sure, but come on man, guns are all over the place. You cannot deny that they kill many people. Also, there is nothing wrong with guns if you want to protect yourself, but you can’t deny that many people use guns for all of the wrong reasons. You know how many illegal guns are out there? You cannot tell me that guns don’t kill a lot of people. You can’t blame the guns themselves, but the irresponsible people, but in this day in age. the gun is the weapon of choice when it comes to killing imo. As Mike said, guns are make it easy. If you would do a little research savebears, can you give me the stats on how many people die from guns and how many people die from being poisoned? As I said, I have no problem with responsible gun ownership and those who want to own guns to protect themselves,

    • Save bears says:


      I don’t need to do any research, you made the claim, back it up with corroboration, that is all I am asking, go tot he CDC website and look up what the leading causes of death are, and you will find, in the last available report that guns rank in at 106, poison is far more prevalent than guns..Jon, your credibility is loosing ground pretty quickly around these parts..

      If you want to get back in the mainstream, prove your point with some data to back it up, can you do it?

    • Elk275 says:


      ++You know how many illegal guns are out there? ++

      What is an illegal gun? Good question, I want to know.

      A shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18″ or overall length less than 26″ and a rifle with a barrel less than 16″ and overall length less that 26″. A fully automatic rifle or shotgun. All of these weapons can be had legally if one gets the proper permits.

      There are not that many illegal weapons out there.

    • jon says:

      sb, are you going to tell me that more people use poison to kill others in this day in age than guns? lol it is funny savebears because everytime I turn the news on, I rarely ever hear about people being poisoned, but I do infact see on the news everyday someone getting shot from a gun. I guess the news must be lying then huh sb? The fact is more people are much more likely to reach for a gun than for poison if they want to kill someone. This is a fact and it is common sense in 2010 sb.

    • jon says:

      sb, would you be so kind to explain to me why everytime I watch the news or read the paper, why I am always hearing about someone getting shot and not being poisoned?

    • jon says:

      Wrong, they are elk. Criminals and gangsters and others like that have illegal weapons. You know what an illegal gun is elk. I doubt that criminals are even going to bother registering a gun. Most of them wouldn’t imo.

    • Save bears says:


      Simple question, can you cite a reputable source that supports your comments…



      Your biggest problem is you spend the day, watching the news, and searching for news, you don’t look at credible sources, gun deaths are always front page news, simple deaths of any other nature are not!

      I guess you can’t cite a source to back your opinion up can you?

      So we will continue with this bullshit..!

    • jon says:

      sb, may I ask you when you read your daily newspaper or watch the news, do you hear about people being poisoned or being shot to death? Anyone with some common sense knows guns kill far more people in this day in age. Now, that does not mean guns are bad. People kill people, I think most would agree on that, guns just make it a lot easier for those to kill others, that is all. Guns are easier to get than poison. Depending on where you live, you can get an illegal gun for a decent price or so I hear. I for one ever hear about someone being poisoned, but they do happen, no doubt about that. Shootings happen every single day all across the usa. I don’t think I can say the same for people being poisoned. You call it bs, I call it reality man.

    • jon says:

      sb, all I am trying to say is that guns kill more people than poison nowadays and people are much more likely to reach for a gun if they want to kill someone. Do you have a problem with that? I don’t see gangbangers using poison to kill fellow gangbangers or anyone else for that matter. I don’t see teenagers using poison to poison other teenagers, they use guns. I don’t see kids bringing poison to schools to poison other kids to death, they bring guns. That is all I am trying to say.

    • Save bears says:


      Can you cite a source that backs up your claims?

      Very simple question, can you, or not?

  134. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    who Ryan Mike or me ? I will tell you the book to read only first two chapters.

  135. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Si’vert Mike is just saying guns helped a great deal, they did a number on the Buffalo, that long gun, and not the one the Germans

  136. Si'vet says:

    Mike, there are a lot easier methods to kill wolves with than a gun.
    And just for your info, I wished you would have kicked the shit out of the realtor, he’s foe to both you and I. You certainly have more patience than me when it comes to that crap.
    Anyway here a bit of wolf poison history, read this in a journal.
    It’s called the star of death or the death wheel. Here’s how easy and effective it works. Used by bounty hunters and control people.
    Go back to late 1800’s to 1930’s, the person takes a fatty mix, with his own secret ingrediants and roll up litterly hundreds of poison balls. Then saddles his horse and pack string, rides into the mountains, in wolf country, shoots a deer,elk, moose, sheep, or in one instance a bear. He then cuts into the carcass and buries some poison (usually not the fatty balls). Now picture a wagon wheel laying on the ground and the carcass or bait is the center. The guy takes the poisoned fatty balls and starts stringing them out, similar to the spokes, he will place the balls under a leaf, or such about 3 ft apart. He runs the strings usually 8 or ten out about 75 yards in all directions, similar pattern to the spokes coming out of the wheel center or bait. As the carcass starts to smell it draws in the wolves, as they move towards the carcass they smell the fatty balls and start slurping them up long before they get to the carcass. So by the time they get to the bait they are done. The bounty hunter or whomever does this at several different locations in the wolves territory. Then just makes camp and waits, in a couple of days he just rides around checks his baits and pickups the body’s, or hides or cuts off and ear or foot, whatever is needed to get paid. Leaves all the calateral damage that isn’t worth anything and moves to the next spot. Easy,peasy, lemon squeezy. Much easier than trying to find them shoot one then chase’em for another week.

    • Elk275 says:

      In the old days try shooting a wolf with a 25 – 20, 25 – 35, 38 – 55, 44 – 40, all lever guns with iron sights. Effective range less than a 100 yards — Save Bears can shoot his bow that far.

      Would I ever love to have those calipers in in my collection, my 401 is now more importatant.

  137. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    hey ryan cite your source man, I do not remember you did?

  138. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    sb if he is not lying will you apologize? or visa versa

  139. Save bears says:


    I will be more than happy to admit I am wrong, if in fact he/she can cite the information that I can read, I have never had a problem admitting when I am wrong, it is one of the way I learn!

    • Save bears says:

      But I will ask, Richie, are we talking about Jon, or Mike, if it is Mike, I am going to need to have some names, if we are talking about Jon, then I am going to have to have a cited, respected source that I can sink my teeth into..

      As I said, my property in Montana is located in the area Mike is making claims about, and I know the majority that live, work and promote that area, and I think he is full of it..

  140. Si'vet says:

    Richie, I understand what Mike is trying to say, all I’m saying that in the case of wolves, the gun isn’t the (smoking gun) no pun intended. SB that’s gotta rank up there with some of your no puns.

    • Save bears says:

      Yes it does Si’vet, it is just getting so ridiculous, so many are talking out their ass and have no clue what they are talking about! I disagree with many on this blog, but we do it respectfully, but there are a few, that just have no idea of what the heck they are talking about!

  141. Mike says:

    I see that Ryan hasn resorted to the “but there’s worse things than guns” argument. I can tell you Ryan that’s flawed logic. There’s no argument that guns make it easier to kill wildlife,and they have played a huge role in disrespect of life and in the slaughter of endangered species. These are irrefutable facts.

    Earlier in the thread you claimed that you “refuted” things I said or that I didn’t cite sources. What are you referring to? There was no refution.

    • Save bears says:


      I am not Ryan, but I will pose the question again, can you corroborate or provide something to prove your outrageous claims about the North Fork?

    • jon says:

      Mike, do you think that poison kills far more people than guns in this day in age? Do you believe that someone is more likely to use poison to kill someone or a gun?

    • Save bears says:

      Nice try Jon….!

  142. Mike says:

    Ryan – Killing things with a gun is not hard. I’m sorry to shred apart the mythology. Everyone thinks what they do “is hard”. They do this as a sort of self justification to rationalize their behaviors. The difference is that slaving in a mine or factory for forty years is ahrd, but shooting an animal is easy as pie.

    • Save bears says:

      Mike I can tell you for a fact, that killing is not hard at all, and it does not matter what the weapon is, when I was in the military, I killed 3 people with a gun, I killed more with other means!

    • Elk275 says:

      Mike, I hand you my 270 sighted in at 200 yards with 130 grain bullet at 3100 feet per second. There is an antelope at 400 yard where are you going to aim? You would miss.

    • Save bears says:

      You want to have some fun Elk,

      Load up that .270 with some 110 grain hollow points, those are some nasty bullets, but I bet the majority of shooters would take a bit of time to get them dialed in!

    • Elk275 says:

      Well it is time to go to the wolf meeting.

  143. Mike says:

    Save Bears –

    I told you what I had to say. You can choose to believe it or not. I have nothing to gain from making up such a story.

    If you don’t think this sort of thing goes on, then you are incredible naive. I’ve met some great people around Columbia Falls and the Northfork, but man have I also run into some monsters. That’s just how it is everywhere. The difference in that area is the monsters live next to megafauna and cherished public land.

    • Save bears says:

      Well Mike I choose to not believe you and I am calling you a lier, I own land in the NF, I lived there full time, winter and summer and your full of it..

    • Save bears says:

      And Mike,

      I would suggest if someone is promoting illegal activity in the National Parks, you would be obligated to report it, have you done that to the proper authorities so they can investigate it?

      If not, Why not, if you don’t then your as bad as the one your claiming did it, to commit a crime, does not mean you have to be involved in the actions…just knowledge of the crime is a crime if you don’t report it..

    • Save bears says:

      I will be happy to provide the names and numbers of the proper authorities if you don’t have them, so you can report it…just let me know

    • WM says:


      ++I told you what I had to say. You can choose to believe it or not. I have nothing to gain from making up such a story. ++

      Sure you do, Mike. You have everything to gain, as it feeds your ego, and need to be an advocate. It is part of your essence. That is why you told us in the first place. The question before you is whether what you say is true.

      If it is true, it is serious enough stuff that somebody who can do something about this guy’s poaching and other activities should be notified. Most states have an anonymous poacher hotline, for those who feel uncomfortable being in the limelight.

      Again, in case there is some other illicit activity, what kind of guns was this realtor trying to peddle to you in a hushed tone? Anything you perceive to be illegal?

    • Save bears says:


      I would expect anyone who has knowledge of crimes committed to call as soon as they can..posting it on an internet blog is nothing but a claim…Mike, I would encourage you to call as soon as possible and turn the information over to those who investigate this type of situation…

      That is if what you are claiming is true..?

  144. Si'vet says:

    SB, that’s why my posts are so goddamn long, they embarass (sp) me. I’ve honestly try to share what this part of the country is all about, from what I consider a pretty right of center moderate point of view, and then we are cry babies, illiterate, half whits, f–ked up in our politics, murdering bastards and our children are no better, go back and look at the petty childish replys to some of my posts, or my favorite the high school ignore an the classic Jon. I don’t agree, with alot of what these folks have been told, it’s obvious it’s not experience talking, and I go on and on trying to show the other side of the coin in a civil matter to a point and…. SB, go to the Inmha post, I laid out the numbers on ranching in wolf country, about one response, nobody even refuted the numbers, which upon review several mistakes, but actually I called a rancher, who mirrors my example and asked him what his income is a year, 51,500. So even though I don’t have all the numbers perfect the bottom line is 51,500, not a lot of room for range riders. SB, it’s just name calling and smoke and mirrors by many folks who just wish they could be Id. Wy. Mt. residence.
    Oh Jon, got an e-mail from my daughter in law today, good news, my oldest grandson just turned 6 and finished kindergarten last Friday, his evaluation report this am said his reading skills, math, writing skills are mid level for the 2nd grade, so they will still let him attend all but 2hrs a day whith his peers, for those 2 hrs. each day he will attend an advanced program.
    Again easy, sorry Si’vet, I made a childish and slanderous comment with regards to your kids and grandkids. Or just hide and add another link. your money

    • Save bears says:


      Let me know when I have to start washing dishes and I will show up with bells on my toes and a smile on my face, I really need to get away from some of this for a while..a good campfire and a cup of coffee would go a long ways right now!

      I guess what we are up against here, is book knowledge as oppose to real knowledge! Sometimes fighting what the news and the books say is a steep uphill battle!

  145. Si'vet says:

    Richie, with all due respect, you need to step back and evaluate this. I just pointed out to Mike and Jon, the easiest way to kill alot of wolves quickly, and efficiently, much easier than shooting, is with posion, but they were so intent on selling the gun hatred issue, it blind sided them. So now it’s the ignore, or smoke and mirrors, or another link. Richie remember a while back when I told you there are people with another agenda, other than wolves, well here it is in black and white. Richie, you and your love for wolves is being exploited by others for another agenda. I think you are an honest up front guy, even though we don’t agree on everything.

  146. Si'vet says:

    We’re on SB, WM slinging hash and singing ocapelo old time rock and roll around the campfire, me, JB, Richie, passing the jug, waiting for WM’s dutch oven huckleberry cobbler. It just doesn’t get any better.. Maybe we should do a couple of preseason trips, starting, say next week for about 3 months…

  147. WM says:


    Just to be clear. Generally, there is no affirmative legal duty of a civilian to report a crime for the kind of stuff we usually talk about on this forum, unless there is a law in that state stating so (I have not researched it, but I know of no states that have such laws).

  148. Mike says:

    ++Well Mike I choose to not believe you and I am calling you a lier, I own land in the NF, I lived there full time, winter and summer and your full of it..++

    That’s some freaky logic there, Save Bears. What does owning land in the national forest have to do with not believing what someone from the area said? You are acting like a simpleton. Just because you have land in the area doesn’t mean everyone is absolved from saying and doing stupid things because they are somehow your neighbor and “good folk”.

    Perhaps the real point is that *you* feel you have something to gain by not believing the information, blindly rushing to the defense of a racist because you might own land within 100 square miles of him.

    If you are saying there are no racists, poachers or bad people around the North Fork, think again.

    • Save bears says:


      Have you reported the admitted violations of the individual you claimed you have talked to..

      As far as owning land within 100 miles, I can assure you my home in Montana is far closer than 100 miles.

      I am well aware of the racists and white supremacists that live in that part of Montana, I know a lot of them and, I am not defending anyone, I am saying, you are not telling the truth, because you have not indicated that you have reported suspected illegal activities. Poaching in a National Park, affects every single one of us, did you report it? You say your an advocate, but if you don’t report, then you are no better than the scum that perpetuates crimes like this..

      I will add, I don’t recall where you said he claimed to be a racist, did I miss said, he claimed to be a poacher operating in Glacier National Park and you claimed he offered with “Hushed Voice” to sell you guns, but you never said anything about racist…

      Again, the NF community is a pretty close knit community, and they are not all that welcoming to outsiders, so your talking from visits, I am talking from living there…


      No, he has no obligation to report anything, but has chosen to report it here, where none of us can do a damn thing and has not indicated he reported to the authorities who have the power to investigate alleged crimes that affect all of us..

    • Save bears says:

      And next time, you better come up with a better argument, if you want to equate me to racists…

  149. Mike says:

    Again, in case there is some other illicit activity, what kind of guns was this realtor trying to peddle to you in a hushed tone? Anything you perceive to be illegal?

    I told him I wasn’t into guns, and he paused, puzzled. He didn’t go into specifics.

    • Cobra says:

      Sb, Mike
      Actually guns by themselves are not the problem. It’s the people behind them that makes them a problem. Same as with the poison, it takes someone to put it out and that person and mindset are the problem. Guns do make it easier to kill, pull the trigger and your done, be it a man or a critter. They make the situation less personal.
      I hunt with guns, smokepoles and a bow. I can easily remember every animal I’ve taken with a bow because I think it’s more personal and intimate than with the guns. The ones I’ve taken with a gun I can remember, buy not as easily. Yea, guns might make it easier to kill, but it takes a person to pull the trigger and if that person wants to kill they will find a way even without a gun, it’s not hard to kill something if the mind is set on killing.

  150. Mike says:

    ++Richie, with all due respect, you need to step back and evaluate this. I just pointed out to Mike and Jon, the easiest way to kill alot of wolves quickly, and efficiently, much easier than shooting, is with posion, but they were so intent on selling the gun hatred issue, it blind sided them. ++

    This is faulty logic. Sure it’s easier to kill anything with poison, but how does this remove guns from the conversation of inflicting widespread death on wolves, grizzlies and other species? So because poison is easier guns now aren’t a problem?

    come on.

    • Save bears says:

      I don’t remember anyone saying guns are not a problem, just that there are much easier ways to kill en-mass

  151. Mike says:

    ++I will be happy to provide the names and numbers of the proper authorities if you don’t have them, so you can report it…just let me know++

    I have a notepad in my center console for every poaching hotline, weather hotline and major police/hospitals in the region. I’ve used it plenty of times before(especially the forest service numbers during droughts and fire bans).

    • Save bears says:

      Did you report this alleged violator?

    • WM says:


      If Mike didn’t or won’t report this realtor, one might atribute it to the fact that he can’t equate it to an ethical issue that affects all of us. It also may have something to do with being a little short in the personal courage department.

    • Save bears says:

      I would have to say, his morals and many others don’t seem to agree, he can spout off about the morals of hunting, guns in parks, etc. but he does not have the balls to actually report someone that is admitting they are committing a crime!

      It just amazes me, that so many on this blog are always harping on morals and what is right and wrong, but yet, when someone reports a blatant claim of crime, they won’t step up to the plate and let everybody know they reported it, heck I am always proud to report a crime, I am obligated, due to my morals to do so!

  152. Si'vet says:

    Mike faulty logic, please your starting to sound like Jon.
    Mike did you read the post on death star. And your still trying to sell the gun crap.
    Richie, sorry your caught in the middle, Mike I’ll provide you with the best gun money can by and put a Swarovski scope on it, guranteed to drive tacks at 100 yds. You take 20 bullets, I take just 20 1080 pellets, and at the end of a month lets see who’s the most successful, and spent the least amount of time and money. I can hear it know mike, I don’t kill nothing…OK, give the gun to the best hunter you know, in fact Jon knows some of the best hunters in the world check with him, and the bets still on 500 bucks, for whom ever has the most success with the least amount invested…Are you getting the logic now??

    • jon says:

      Why is it that you continue to bring me up in every single comment it seems like? If I have hurt your feelings or angered you in some way, I am truly sorry. There is no guarantee the wolves would eat the poison and other animals besides wolves might end up getting to the poison first and eating it. On the other hand, when you have a good shot at a wolf and take it and get off a good shot at the wolf, there is a very good chance that that wolf will end up dying.

    • Save bears says:


      You repeatedly post the same information over and over again, why should it irritate you that someone else may do the same thing?

    • jon says:

      sb, I forgot to tell you from before, the cdc is the only “source” you have huh? You are going by what the center of disease control has listed on their website huh? lol I go by news and the newspapers and you go by what the center of disease control has to say. lol

    • jon says:

      Oh, since you brought up the cdc as a “source”, here are a few things they said sb.

      America and Gun Violence

      Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
      The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
      American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

      Funny what you find on the net huh?

    • jon says:

      Children and Gun Violence

      America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children’s Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)
      In one year, more children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined. (Children’s Defense Fund)

    • Save bears says:

      Its funny, that you believe everything you read Jon, as long as it supports your point of view…out of all of the stuff you cite, I would say that the CDC would be an important one as they are charged with exactly what we are talking about, they have purpose to prevent and track disease and death, they have no agenda, it is probably one of the only agencies in the government that actually does what their mandate says they should do..

      And really I don’t care what goes on in other industrialized countries, I care about this country and what goes on here, I spent 26 years in other countries caring about their bullshit, now it is time for me to care about this country….Why in the hell are you this way?

  153. Si'vet says:

    Richie, heres food for thought, when was the last time, a gun in the hands of a soldier or anyone for that matter, was considered a “weapon of mass destruction” opposed to germ warfare, poisons etc. Mike can you see the logic now???

  154. jon says:

    After wolf bites dog, Thompson Falls residents concerned about catching disease

    “When you break it down, the hype is overstating the actual danger,” Laudon says. “Essentially it means you’ve come in contact with eggs in wolf scat. Most people wouldn’t handle wolf scat to begin with. I do all the time in my job, but I take regular precautions, wear gloves and wash my hands after. I’ve handled hundreds of wolves, both alive and dead, as well.

    • Mike says:

      ++After wolf bites dog, Thompson Falls residents concerned about catching disease++

      lol! Do they worry about witches there too?

    • Cobra says:

      There might be some legitimate concerns if the wolves frequent the area that much and there is a lot of crap around who knows what gets drug into the house from dogs, kids, etc.

  155. Si'vet says:

    Jon, you cannot stand on your own 2 feet. You throw out constant inuendos, with no real knowledge of your own, it’s just ready shoot aim. You think your so sly that no one notices the little immature things you do, and you know exactly what I’m talking about. to you it’s some little game, when to those of us who live here and enjoy our priveledges it’s no game. I’ve taken a pretty moderate stance with regards to wolves and western culture, compared to other hunters. “Your agenda is using the wolf to stop hunting”, why because you’ve never taken the time to understand what it’s all about, and the easy way out is post some poser as a hunter, who does some stupid shit and thats your example and thats who hunters are, instead of realizing, people who are involved in every aspect in life do stupid shit. One of my favorites, it’s ok if a hunter is hunting for food, yes there maybe still be a tiny fraction of hunters who hunt just for the food, but in 99.9% of all cases, driving to the store is one hell of a lot cheaper. So what your saying that it’s ok if hunting is reduces to 0.10 of what it currently is.. But it sounds good, kind of covers up the antihunter agenda to the unknowing or naive, all the rest of us see right thru it. I gave you a chance to see the LoLo and actually make a decision on your own, you had to be goaded into a response. Since you live here, and your constantly posting everyone knew the BS your pulling by not just hitting no thanks. High school. Really Jon “you hurt my feelings” no Jon I pity you, and why do I bring you up because I know your sitting there hunched over your computer, waiting to make a crappy little biased remark, or a link by someone else that you can use to get in the game. Have you ever thought about sharing an outdoor experience, of your own that proves pro or con to a topic. Christ I have wasted so much of my time sharing actual experiences that most here don’t even deserve, trying to shed light on who, what or why, or why I don’t agree. It would have been much easier to just post shoot’em all and let god sort’em out, but hell know I keeping thinking I’m dealing with reasonable people. And you don’t have to tell me there long winded but if I did’t care I would’nt share. Jon you appologize for the remark with regards to my wonderful children, and their education theres a chance for some type of reconciliation, but as you are antihunting, we’re at arms length.

    • Save bears says:


      It is absolutely no use…and I am just amazed that Ralph continues to let it go on!

  156. Si'vet says:

    SB, both Mike and Jon stepped right in the middle of it, and their real agenda exposed, oops should have never brought up the gun issue and wiping out the wolf. So now it’s smoke and mirrors, change the subject, new links coming up hot off the grill.

    • Mike says:

      Si’vet –

      I am not anti-gun. I’m just pointing out that at times it feels strange to be discussion species conservation when we are blowing them away. I’m def anti-trapping and anti-predator hunting. Of that there is no doubt.

  157. Mike says:

    ++I am well aware of the racists and white supremacists that live in that part of Montana, I know a lot of them and, I am not defending anyone, I am saying, you are not telling the truth, because you have not indicated that you have reported suspected illegal activities. Poaching in a National Park, affects every single one of us, did you report it? You say your an advocate, but if you don’t report, then you are no better than the scum that perpetuates crimes like this..++

    This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. You seem destined to turn everything into a personal attack. I discussed the poaching information given to me(the scant bit of it) with a professional who indicated there was nothing to go on.

    I will add, I don’t recall where you said he claimed to be a racist, did I miss said, he claimed to be a poacher operating in Glacier National Park and you claimed he offered with “Hushed Voice” to sell you guns, but you never said anything about racist…++

    Does the term “welfare monkey” count?

    ++Again, the NF community is a pretty close knit community, and they are not all that welcoming to outsiders, so your talking from visits, I am talking from living there…++

    I know people from the North Fork too. It’s not some special secret club, lol. There are good people and bad people just like everywhere else. The trouble is the bad people there live right next to a cherished piece of land known as GNP. And in the context of this wildlife forum, that bears repeating.

    • Save bears says:


      You are so full of bullshit, that I can even smell it coming out of the computer screen…

  158. Elk275 says:


    ++The trouble is the bad people there live right next to a cherished piece of land known as GNP. ++

    So you are saying that bad people should not be allowed to lived next to GNP. Who is to detirmine who is bad and who is good. I stopped believing in Santa when I was in the early primary grades.

    If I had it my why which I do not I would let no outsider move in, but that is not the way things are done.

    • Mike says:

      Could you guys please wear gloves if you are going to keep stuffing words in my mouth? Thanks.

      My point was that poachers live next to GNP, and they use guns. Period. End of story. Of course, a few people from Cult Gun freaked out and defended guns because they couldn’t possibly have anything to do with killing wildlife. And when that was refuted, people started talking about how there are “worse things”(as if that somehow dilutes the problems guns have caused with wildlife).

    • Elk275 says:

      Mike the biggest hunters in GNP are the Blackfeet Indians on the east side of the park. They used to hunt year around until they were told to only hunt after Labor Day. I knew a Blackfoot Indain who told me that he had spent many days hunting in the park.

  159. Mike says:

    People really need to chill out about guns. Maybe go pick up a book and read, find some other interests. It’s disturbing to think that guns have almost become little metal Jesus’s to many people. Really….is it that important? More important than oil spills and endangered species? More important than climate change?

    The amount of anger and quasi-religious fervor surrounding the defense of these material items is shocking.

  160. Save bears says:

    “People really need to chill out about guns”

    You got that right, especially those who are so blatantly against them!

    • mikarooni says:

      You know; I’m watching this barrage against Mike and Jon and it truly is inappropriate. Mike and Jon are just posting information that many of us appreciate knowing about and his point of view is actually closer to the kinds of people that the website seems to be intended to serve. If his actions are swaying the discussion away from the perspective that you, Sivet, Layton, and some of the others want to see dominate the discussion; then really that is just the way debates go. If it gets too bad for you, you might want to migrate to a website that more closely matches your point of view.

    • Save bears says:

      Thanks Miki for your always inspired and thoughtful suggestions, of course it is not up to you, to tell anyone to do anything, that is up to Ralph and his moderation team…

    • Cobra says:

      I don’t see that Layton has even been involved with this one.

  161. Elk275 says:


    ++disturbing to think that guns have almost become little metal Jesus’s to many people.++

    I just bought a Kimber 84M, 7mm – 08. The walnut stock is dense and with very good figure wood and checkering. It is mounted with a 2.5 – 8 Leupold and I have loaded up some 140 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips with 46 grains of Big Game. It has not left my couch since I purchased it in March. It is my little metal Jesus, now if it will only group under MOA.

    • Save bears says:

      Sounds like a nice one Elk, should be great for prairie goats..Kimber makes some great guns!

  162. Si'vet says:

    Miki, how did this start, well for me when Mike posted that go research, wolves, buffalo, grizzlies wiped out by guns. Well I’ve done a lot of research, and I can tell you, from what I’ve read and what we’re currently seeing, guns didn’t wipe out wolves. Then I took the time to post what I’d had found out, MiKi, do you know why there’s not alot written about the poisoning of wolves, and why what I’ve read isn’t published. Read my post about the death star, a rounder goes up in the hills, scatters litterly hundreds of poison baits around a carcass. Wolves either came or they didn’t, but there was always carnage, lots and lots of carnage, “the area was covered” chipmunks/squirrels, pine martin, coyotes, bears, there would sometimes litterly be dozens of birds including eagles, hawks,ravens, and the rounder would just look at it and go oh well no wolves and move on, and those carcasses would just keep killing. So as not to draw ire from others all that was ever talked about was the successes. I did read a book by a predator control person in the 30’s that used these similar methods on coyotes and wrote and was written about, but the much of the colateral damage was left out. So before I went off, I tried to show that wiping out wolves with a gun is just to difficult, even today with all the improvements. In fact I was at an open forum when a very well respected wolf advocate, came right out and said, hunting of wolves will not make them extinct, 2 yrs. before the quota in Idaho wasn’t met.

  163. Angela says:

    These tapeworm conspiracy theorists are nutcases. They definitely shouldn’t have pets or go outside if they are so freaked out by the idea of tapeworms. And they definitely should NEVER step foot in a hospital.

    Here’s a little story. Domestic rat owners over a large area of the Pacific NW all know each other to some extent and communicate on a forum. Last week, one long-time rat owner and ex-breeder had to go to the ER and straight into intensive care and nearly died because apparently she caught rat-bite fever (it’s hard to test for). Almost every domestic rat, and even lab rats, can carry it in their respiratory tract and nobody really understands why a very small number of people contract this disease despite rats being a common pet. Some of these people have kept many rats for twenty years or more, been bitten any number of times (usually by a recent rescue), and only one other person had heard of a rat breeder getting it. It is easily treated with penicillin, but if not recognized and treated within a few days, can be fatal. The woman (most rat people are women) needed to rehome about 30 rats in case she was sensitive to contracting it again and there were plenty of volunteers to take her (infected) animals. But even she decided to keep several despite possibly being more sensitive. Nobody freaked out about adopting her pets and after we had all done our research on the CDC site, we all decided it wasn’t really anything to get worked up over. We all contact feces when cage cleaning, rats sometimes insist on sticking their head in your mouth to see if you are eating something they might want, and the only time people wash their hands after handling them is to prevent any possible transfer of bacteria from rat to rat at shows.

    My question is: why don’t these people read the available information on the stupid tapeworm and come to reasonable conclusions? Are they all essentially wolf-haters that are using this as cover? I know some people are just way too gullible, but this is ridiculous. I’d be more afraid of petting a dog that had just been in poison oak. How do they fare when faced with ticks?

    • Jon says:

      The wolf haters only want to believe in the bad about wolves Angela. You can have every expert who knows a lot about the tapeworm tell them that it is not a threat to humans, but those wolf haters don’t want to hear that. They only want to hear and accept the bad about wolves. These are the same people who refer to wolves as terrorists and vermin. Wolf haters are definitely overreacting with this tapeworm issue. I cannot recall anyone being affected with it in WY, ID, OR MT, can you?

    • Angela,

      This is interesting and amazing information about those who own domestic rats!

      I think most of the tapeworm worriers are not nutcases, but merely people using the story to advance their political agenda. However, there are people who are very susceptible to worry about violation of their bodies by outside agents. Isn’t that a common theme in SciFi thrillers?

      I think the tapeworm propaganda is believable to these folks. These people would be really “creeped out” if they were told how their bodies are colonized by scores of kinds bacteria on every inch of their skin and most of their innards too. Add to that all the tiny mites that crawl all over everyone.

      This fear reaches its apex in delusional parasitosis, “a form of psychosis whose victims acquire a strong delusional belief that they are infested with parasites, whereas in reality no such parasites are present. Very often the imaginary parasites are reported as being “bugs” crawling on or under the skin; in these cases the experience of the sensation known as formication may provide the basis for this belief.” [This from Wikipedia]

    • JEFF E says:

      I have just recently read that some are claiming and fearful of “breathing trail dust”
      I think the dust that is being inhaled is not from any trail…

      that is a interesting post Angela, thank you.

  164. Mike says:

    ++Sounds like a nice one Elk, should be great for prairie goats..Kimber makes some great guns!++

    Prairie dog “hunting” certainly isn’t hunting. This dovetails very nicely with my previous points about gun culture cheapening life. Your comments about “prairie goats”(not even giving the animals their proper name, as if they are some simple cartoon to erase off a blackboard especially connotes your disdain for living creatures).

    There’s not many things that cheapen life like prairie dog hunts with scoped rifles.

    • Save bears says:


      In case you didn’t read the other responses, I was talking about Pronghorn Antelopes….

      You may want to do some investigation before condemning and claiming I have disdain for life, Pronghorn is a good quality meat if taken care of properly and not a species of concern. There populations are quite stable and in some areas increasing…

      You should know by now, that I don’t go around willy nilly shooting things just because I can…

      Now I would understand a bit more if I had posted “prairie pups” which I have heard prairie dogs called before, but I have never hunted, shot or killed any prairie dogs..

  165. SEAK Mossback says:

    Mike –
    He’s referring to pronghorns, for which Elk’s rifle should be well-suited.

    They’re very tastey. One year, we had elk, moose, mule deer and “prairie goat” in the freezer and the later is the one I could always pick out at dinner – just a hint of sagebrush.

  166. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To Jon; Could you give me an update link of Alaska wolves; to be aerial hunted in a national park?

  167. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Sb; Mike said he can,t give a name, think about it,he would be a rat.

    • WM says:


      ++Mike said he can,t give a name, think about it,he would be a rat.++

      Would you feel the same if this “poacher” were shooting wolves in GNP or elsewhere?

      I kind of think there is a moral civic duty to report poaching or suspected poachers, especially in a national park, where hunting of any type is specifically prohibited and everybody knows it.

      Based on the thin facts Mike has offered about his phone conversation with the guy (and any report he might have actually given to authorities) there probably isn’t enough on this guy to do anything about past poaching. But if the guy gets on a watch list, it may make things a little easier with future poaching case investigations and prosecutions. I guess a good rat, if we even need to use that term in this instance, is better than no rat. LOL.

      Mike has passed himself of as an expert on this forum before, and when he gets outside his pay grade he seems to find himself in trouble, by those who are not impressed. I’m still laughing about the most recent confusion of a “prairie goat” (colloquial term for antelope) and a priarie dog.

      The fact of making a mistake is not so big a deal, as we all do make mistakes. Forgiveness in this regard is a virtue.

      The issue is that Mike is an unrepentent “know-it-all.” His nature is unrestrained advocacy of his views, no acknowledgement of bad judgment decision, or acceptance of the views of others. Some here feel compelled to call him out.

      I’m still trying to get to the bottom of the “hushed tone, wanna buy some guns?” conversation with his realtor. He, indeed, had an agenda for saying it that way, but is unwilling to explain the details, when called out. This is a tactic seen many times before, and certainly calls into question his credibility, and the truth and veracity of his comments. I also asked for cites or sources on his ” odds of dying by a ..whatever”, not unreasonable considering the conclusions he wants you to believe, and still have not gotten an answer.

      What about it Mike?

    • Ryan says:

      Bullshit, a couple of months ago Mike was looking for everyway under the sun to find out about a story I told about a ranger issue I had happen in AK, with the hopes it seems of turning some people in. Its not about being a rat, its about being full of shit.

  168. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Hey guys now your acting like smart asses, you guys are better than that.

  169. Jon says:

    Public weighs in on wolf hunt quotas

    What I find a bit strange is that only 10 residents showed up to the meeting.

  170. Si'vet says:

    Jon, that’s about the normal turn out, we go round and round here and on other sites, and when it comes to actually leaving the comforts of home and voicing your opinion or listening to the agancy speak it’s too much trouble, it is weird. A couple of years ago a diverse panel, from pres. of cattlemans assoc./ F&G to Dr. Maughan in a very comfortable room at the local university, presentations and Q&A. great opportunity for info, I beleive about 30 people showed up, I just don’t get it either.
    Mossy- absolutely a well taken care of piece of dessert goat is the best. the trick is well taken care of.

  171. Si'vet says:

    Ralph I counted 148, including the folk standing out in the atrium.

  172. Si'vet says:

    148 at the Bozeman meeting

    • Elk275 says:

      I only guessed. Si’vet I was the one who asked the question about SSS and Kurt took the mic away quickly

    • jon says:

      What question did you ask about sss elk? Elk, where there any pro wolfers there asking questions?

    • Elk275 says:


      I stayed until 8:30. I did not see any pro wolf people ask questions. I ask what was known about poaching and SSS and was told the the game warden captain would be interested. Then it was the next question. I know the Kurt and something was wrong. It was kinda like asking mom and dad where babies came from and they said lets all go get ice cream — it is easier to change the subejct.

      The anti wolf people are going to have to accept wolves and the pro wolf people are going to have to accept only so many. There will be a hunting season and wolf control.

      Otherwise there will be legistation attached to a unrelated bill such as guns in the national parks changing the ESA. Remember both Baccus and Reid both western senators are the most powerful US senators.

    • jon says:

      Elk, did you attend the Jim Beers presentation in MT?

    • Elk275 says:


  173. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    focused on children, the CDC said that prescription and …… – 83k – Cached – Similar Pages To all please read

    • Save bears says:


      The link you provided is not working correctly…it seems to be incomplete?

  174. Ryan says:


    You posted

    “Odds of dying by accidental firearm discharge: 1 in 5134
    Odds of dying by firearm assault: 1 in 324”

    Yet the CDC reports a 1 9900 chance of getting killed in a fire are related incident.

    So once again, do you care to cite your source for the above comment or admit it is false.

  175. Si'vet says:

    Ralph, yes, you know me if it’s a wildlife meeting, no matter the subject, I’m usually there taking notes. And making my own judgements, not an easy to sway type person. Seems like I always walk away with more questions than answers.

    • Si’vet,

      Very good that you go. That’s dedication!

      I used to go. As you say, now I have a lot of free time. I could go. Unfortunately, I burned out on them after about 25 years.

  176. Cord says:


    I know this has been asked numerous times but here goes. If you have all the agency and poaching hotline numbers in your console, why did you not report an admitted poacher? If you believe someone was trying to sell you firearms illegally, why did you not report it? You keep cherry-picking through Si’vet, SB and WM’s posts for quotes to reply to but skip all the pertinent questions. If it looks like BS, sounds like BS, smells like BS…

  177. Si'vet says:

    to all who post here or just read, may I suggest, if you are approached by someone who is advocating poaching, or illegal gun trade> Tell them you are very interested, and just came into a large sum of money and would like to spend some. arrange a time to get back with them. Then either call your local state patrol, or F&G office, I’m pretty sure they would be more than happy to set up a sting, busting these folks benefits us all.

  178. Si'vet says:

    Richie, one last thought on this, a person who turns in a poacher is in most cases held in high regard, and not a rat, in fact the majorty of cases are hunters calling in poaching incidences, they’ve witnessed or heard of. The young man I told about with the cell phone, was guest of honor at the next mule deer banquet.

  179. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    To WM;
    Hey, you guys are always ready to jump the gun,hhmmm sounds like something I heard The thing about calling the proper authorities came up, after a few threads by sb. Of course I want him to report poaching, hands down,but he can’t tell sb who it was,that is rat. But his opinions are strong,he is against killing wildlife, and links how guns are used to kill. He has very strong convictions,about what he believes in, so what. So do we all on this site have strong feelings about what we believe in, correct?

    • Save bears says:


      when I asked him who it was, I really never expected him to disclose it on here, but it is a civic and moral responsibility to report to the proper authorities, I know for a fact that FWP keeps records of all names reported to them so they can follow up and observe. The wardens in the NF are very good at what they do and they take it very seriously due to the remote nature of this area. I don’t know how it is back east, but out west, you are a hero if you report poaching and the investigation eventually comes to fruition, in fact FWP does have reward dollars available in the most heinous cases..

      Now, as far as the alleged offer to sell guns…that could also be illegal, due to the residency status of Mike, he lives in a state with strong gun control laws, but if I were to call and he offered me guns, as long as they are not hot and he is not a felon, then it would not be illegal…I would say, he is not a felon, because you can’t get your real estate license if you are…

      I know all of the wardens in Region 1, NW Montana and none of them would brush it off and say we can’t do anything, they would take all pertinent information and follow up and investigate..

    • Save bears says:

      And YES, I have very strong feelings when it comes to poaching, and I know how the investigative force works in the agency I was an employee of…which is FWP and I know the LE Rangers in Glacier…

      I apologize I was a bit strong last night, but the allegations that Mike made, were very serious and would be taken very seriously if they were reported..

    • Elk275 says:

      The sale would be a private gun which is exempt from all laws. But the important consideration is if one of those was guns stolen and in the national data base.

  180. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    I’m not too great at getting links I just put in poision vs guns kills by cdc. Believe it or not their was a rise in poision being ahead of guns,but dates were 2006 and back.

  181. Richard Giallanzo,nj says:

    Consumer Reports on Safety: Poisoning overtakes firearms as second …
    Aug 11, 2009 … Most deaths from poison are unintentional. In a second report on poisoning that
    focused on children, the CDC said that prescription and …… – 83k – Cached – Similar Pages
    O.K. kid here is the best I can do !

  182. Si'vet says:

    Ralph, your talking about the round and round and round and round, and “by god back in the 30’s we used to”!!! Finally, and I mean finally, those 2 old birds are not physically able to attend much anymore, in fact, that’s part of the reason we were able to make the changes to the local mule deer seasons without a civil war, along with the MDI. I read some of my long drawn out posts here and then read one of HP’s letters to the editor, and I think, if I start using a fist full of Brilcream on my hair, I’m going to use one of my own guns and have my own accident.