Note that this replaces the 20th edition. That edition will now move slowly into the depths of the blog.

Sunset on Mt Borah and Chilly Slough © Ken Cole

Sunset on Mt Borah and Chilly Slough © 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.

539 Responses to Have you come across any interesting Wildlife News? January 24, 2011

  1. Ron Kearns says:


    “Game and Fish large cat guy’s comments on scat match Brun’s attorney’s line

    Sunday’s Star ran a story about a legal brief filed by the attorney for jaguar whistleblower Janay Brun that asserted that her admitted use of jaguar scat on Feb. 4, 2009 likely played no role in luring him into the trap two weeks later.

    Read through what I’d like to informally call “The Jaguar Papers,” and you’ll come across one large cat expert’s opinion who matches Brun’s attorney Michael Piccarreta’s views to a T. Ron Thompson, a longtime cat biologist for the Arizona Game and Fish Department, was one of 16 Game and Fish staffers interviewed back in 2009 and early 2010 for a department internal investigation of the capture. The investigation isn’t done.”

    End Quote}

  2. BC says:

    Ralph that shot of Mt. Borah is gorgeous. Is there much to be had for campsites in those mountains. That range looks great from the highway but I assume it’s very dry.

    • BC,

      That is Ken Cole’s photo of Mt. Borah, just to make sure he gets the credit.

      The Lost River Mountains are not well watered because they are mostly made of limestone and in a rain shadow, but they are also the highest range in Idaho so they do have a number of creeks, springs and lakes.

      The classic route up Mt. Borah is waterless, but most of the canyons, even the steep ones on the difficult, dry-looking west-facing side have streams.

      The east-facing side of the mountains have long canyons with many small creeks, and a couple larger ones. The problem with the east side water is that is fouled by cattle in canyons that are grazed. Western Watersheds has made a large effort trying to bring grazing under control here.

      These are very scenic mountains, with magnificent large folds of rock and rugged peaks. They are among my favorites.

  3. jon says:

    Wolf Attack at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in Las Vegas

    • Cody Coyote says:

      That’s our old friend Toby Bridges’ reincarnated anti-wolf website. True to form.

      I believe that photo of the snarling wolf eating an elk partway down the page is a photoshopped fake.

      • The photo of the hurt moose standing in the middle of a road with a car showing behind it makes me think the moose may have been hit by a large truck.
        I counted thirteen moose carcasses along a 200 mile section of the Alaska Highway in British Columbia a few years ago while returning from Alaska. The large trucks up there had been fitted with large moose buster grills, so that the moose got killed and the trucks didn’t get damaged.

      • PointsWest says:

        I think his website makes wolves all the more interesting.

      • JEFF E says:

        toby bridges is photoshopped

      • Cody Coyote,

        Yes. I spend many hours a week using Photoshop (although the only “Photoshopping” in that sense I do, is maybe twinking a few older relative’s photos).

        It is a crudely down job of Photoshopping. He didn’t even bother to completely erase out the collar on the wolf, and the wolf has no body!

      • Erin Barca says:

        The snarling wolf photo isn’t fake. She is one of the captives at the International Wolf Center. The image was taken with the remote controlled “carcass cam”.

      • Erin Barca,

        While that might be the face of the wolf at the International Wolf Center, the photo of it snarling over some kind of carcass is heavily Photoshopped.

        1. The wolf’s head is much too small in relation to the carcass. It has been pasted in to appear to be next to the carcass.
        2. The wolf has only a head, no body.
        3. There is large blurry spot on the wolf’s head due to sloppy use of the “clone tool” or the “healing brush.”
        4. The purpose of the faked photo seems to me to be to create a scary photo. Wolves don’t seem so pretty when snarling. A lot of people don’t like to see dead, half eaten animals unless it is just a piece, cooked, and sitting on a plate with nice china and side dishes.

        If anyone doubts, just enlarge the photo.

      • Erin Barca says:

        Ralph Maughan,

        Joel Sartore is the photographer –

        I think the angle and lens give the illusion of a large head, floating head and the smudgy spot could be on the lens itself.

      • Erin Barca says:

        Oops. I got my words all mixed up (an then my comment placement! Appologies)

        I understand what Toby Bridges was going for with his choice of imagery and find it to be ridiculous. Wolves are as beautiful to me even when communicating these more intense messages. And food is food, how else should it look? Prepackaged and dyed in a nice bed of yellow foam and a plastic blanket?

    • Salle says:

      It would appear that these folks thrive on vitriol and violence, the gory imagery only feeds that adrenaline rush they get from their anger. For them ignorance is bliss. People like Cal Groen should be soundly chastised by the state and fed for spewing the bull he distributed at that conference. There needs to be a reckoning of those who would lie for the sake of a few hotheads with guns who thrive on their lack of intellect… at the expense of everyone else.

      This sort of ideology and misinformation spreading is precisely why there is so much litigation, to keep boneheads like them from gaining control over that which belongs to all of us. It’s not the biology, it’s the sociological nightmares that keep the states from management opportunities. They should not have control over wildlife and public lands that belong to all citizens, not just those who live close to the wildlife and have guns.

      I’m not against hunting for food, I do own guns but I don’t hunt. I don’t think predators are food and I don’t think that the number of guns one has in their possession makes anyone safer. I am concerned about people with guns, more than wild animals with big teeth and claws.

      One of the most frightening things about this society is the belief that guns solve problems.

      • jon says:

        Today hunting gets a very bad image. It used to be about putting food on your table, but nowadays, it’s more about killing animals for fun with your guns. it’s gone from survival purposes to a bloodsport. Today, there are many sport hunters who kill just to kill. Killing animals is not a sport. The animals don’t have a chance in hell at winning.

      • Elk275 says:


        ++It’s not the biology, it’s the sociological nightmares that keep the states from management opportunities. They should not have control over wildlife and public lands that belong to all citizens, not just those who live close to the wildlife and have guns.++

        From what I read and understand is that you think states should not have control over wildlife, right or wrong.

    • wolf moderate says:

      Wow, the wolf advocates really have there work cut out for them according to jon’s link ( The heads of IDFG, USFWS, and RMEF are all in agreement that the real reason for the wolf debacle is to end hunting (not going to happen for at least a another generation or two, if it does). These lawsuits are starting to really turn people off, including me. The old saying about “The boy who cried wolf” comes to mind. The vast majority of the US doesn’t care one way or the other about wolves, but when they read about these lawsuits against leaders of government agencies that are well respected, like the IDFG and the RMEF (not government, but well respected), they will turn on the wolf. Look at Washington, Oregon, and Colorado. All Blue states, but after all of the lawsuits, fighting, and vitriol, even they are not too happy about wolves migrating to there states.These are quite liberal (tiedie, bob marlee, berkenstock wearing) states even. Really shows you how quickly the tides are turning. Frankly I’m happy about it. The states will do an excellent job managing the wolves, just like bears, cougars, deer, elk etc…

      One more thing. When “typical” American heads to the mountains, they see healthy (in there view), beautiful and abundant fish, wildlife, and habitat. They are going to start wondering why the anti-hunting/wolf advocate crowd keeps suing. Once this happens, things will move quickly for state management IMO.

      • Kropotkin Man says:

        “tiedie, bob marlee, berkenstock wearing” (sic)

        Thanks for the laugh, you made my day!

      • wolf moderate says:

        I Like the way I spell them, especially TieDIE! Kropotkin 🙂

      • timz says:

        “against leaders of government agencies that are well respected, like the IDFG and the RMEF ”

        Bullshit, the “vast majority” as you put it could care less about these to groups as well. We live in a litigation happy society people could care less about who is suing who. Thankfully it will be a while before Western states get to “manage” wolves.

    • Erin Barca says:

      Oops. I got my words all mixed up.

      I understand what Toby Bridges was going for with his choice of imagery and find it to be ridiculous. Wolves are as beautiful to me even when communicating these more intense messages. And food is food, how else should it look? Prepackaged and dyed in a nice bed of yellow foam and a plastic blanket?

  4. Wildlife Fan says: – Sell of rabbits increasing in China with the arrival of the Rabbit Year.

    • JEFF E says:

      That is hilarious. budge is probably the most anti wolf of the whole bunch. that particular meating, Rocholm was being his usual dumbass self and should of been escorted out, for sheer stupidity if nothing else. when Rocholm says short clip or trailer, what you get is a highly edited, cheesy, nothing to do with the facts, fairy tale.
      don’t ya love when they eat their young

      • jon says:

      • Immer Treue says:

        The problem is, it’s the loud and profane(you can substitute another word of your choosing here) who get heard. Hopefully, it’s the photoshopping, extreme vitriol, and the absolutely crazy stuff they either make up, or fabricate that will contribute to their collapse.

        I also have guns, but I’ve said it before, and I’m in agreement with Salle, I have more fear of the folks with guns, than I do the critters with tooth and nail. Safer to walk along roads with your dog at night during deer hunting season. God forbid walking with one’s dog at anytime during a “wolf” season.

        As an aside, I’ve got no inhibitions about going into wolf, bear and cat country, but ever since I saw Jaws in the 70’s, I’m not really crazy about swimming in the ocean.

      • jon says:

        You’re right, the guy is a kook and he should have been tossed out. the guy likes to think of himself as some kind of expert. He is far from one. Even hunters are turning on Rockholm. Rockholm doesn’t like anyone who doesn’t agree with him. Time and time again, he has been asked for proof to back up his claims and he is never able to provide any.

    • jon,

      Thanks for this. It is truly amazing. Randy Budge is the commissioner (SE Idaho) from my area. I’m known him for years though not well at all.

      That these guys don’t think he is anti wolf enough shows how little contact they have with reality.

      It is also interesting how an outsider like, Rockholm who is from Washington State or California or someplace like that, can come in and threaten a truly Idaho family. I mean the Budges, who have gone into many endeavors in SE Idaho and northern Utah have been prominent folks (like them or not) for a century.

      • WM says:


        If I understand correctly, Scott Rockholm (Rockhead, as well as most of his fact challenged buddies) is from the Sandpoint, ID area. Someone please correct me if I am wrong on this.

      • JEFF E says:

        Soda springs

      • JEFF E says:

        Soda springs, grew up on a cattle ranch, serves on the commission at the pleasure of Clem.
        hmmmm, I wonder if he is anti-wolf

      • jon says:

        Word is Budge got confirmed. You can imagine how the wolf haters are feeling right about now.

    • PointsWest says:

      I am going to sound like a broken record but someone like Rockhead is not really out to correct wrongs in the IDF&G or in the wilds of Idaho. He is really drawing attention to himself. I noticed in his video that he was whinning that he had worked so hard on this wolf issue that he had been negleting his wife and kids. It is like he has an addiction. He does. He has some pain or trauma inside of him that will not go away. He has simply found some issue that, because of its symbolism, helps him express what is ailing him.

      He will cost the public millions of dollars, put thousands through hardship, and wreck the personal lives of any convenient targets to try and bring attention to his pain and trauma.

      Rockhead is a wacko. He really just wants attention. The best thing you can do for him is ingore him so that maybe he will be forced realize that he needs help.

      • Rockholm contacted me about using a photo of pronghorns mating that I have on my blog. He wanted to send the photo to Doug Smith, Ed Bangs and some others. I have no idea what he planned to say with my photo. I sent him an e-mail forbidding to use any of my photos.
        He replied by accusing me of being like Lynne Stone, and some other wolf advocates and that I was helping destroy wildlife. He did say he wouldn’t use my photos.

  5. JEFF E says:
    but climate change/global warming is false right. uh ha ya sure . Al gore has it all wrong. yup, right.
    to deny UNPRECEDENTED climate change is to publicly tattoo dumb-ass on your forehead

    • PointsWest says:

      Ha! This does not prove global warming. Certain conservative scientists know that there are undersea volcanoes beneath the Artic Ocean! …and I believe them over a dirty liberal like Al Gore because conservitive scientist are open minded about creationism and fear God and love Jesus! They have the abolute authoritiy (that weak people want to deny) and cannot be wrong.

    • JEFF E says:
      I was always partial to the idea that as the Greenland ice sheet melted it would form a “wall” of cold water that would then force the gulf stream south resulting in more extreme winter along the Eastern seaboard of the US.

  6. BobofWyoming says:


    • Bob of Wyoming,

      This is certainly good news! Now, if the actual development of the leases in the Noble Basin area can be stopped.

      • Cody Coyote says:

        Print story of same online at Jackson Hole News & Guide , Wed. 1-26

        Forest rejects oil, gas leases in Wyo. Range:
        Buchanan follows Hamilton’s draft, decides against development 35 miles south of Jackson.

      • I wish we could get more folks interested on the blog in conserving the wildlife of the “Wyoming Range” (actually this refers to the Wyoming Range, the Salt River Range and Commissary Ridge to the south where the two ranges merge).

        I wonder if some people think the word “Wyoming Range” is a generic word, referring to the rangeland in Wyoming?

        It’s not. It is a fairly high (to 11,000 feet), long, rugged, scenic, and wildlife rich range of mountains, many miles long in Western Wyoming, southeast of Jackson Hole and west of Pinedale and Big Piney.

        I think it might have the best wildflowers in the state.

      • PointsWest says:

        I think the Wyoming Range is a case of being in the midst of some very impressive mountain ranges…the Teton Range, the Wind River Range, and the Wasatch Range. So it gets ignored.

        I find this area interesting. There is a lot moutain man stories from this area because beaver and game were plentiful there. There were many bison in the valleys. It was one of the richest hunting grounds in the West. There were always many Indians in this area who would winter in the Cache Valley on the Utah/Idaho border or at the Fort Hall Bottoms. In fact, from my reading, I have the impression that the density of Indians in this area was higher than anywhere else in the region. You would need to go to the Dakotas or to northwestern Montana or to the Palouse to find more indians.

        The Lander Road ran over the Wyoming Range at Triple Divide Pass to Fort Hall. It was the first federal road built in the United States. It was built to shorten the California and Oregon trails. It had limmited success because of the 9,000 ft pass at Triple Divide. But there was plenty of green grass for grazing stock on this route and there was plenty of game.

        The Portnuef River and its headwaters in the Wyoming range were prime beaver streams. Lots and lots writen about trapping on the Pornuef and Salt Rivers and the interactions with the many Indians who frequented this area.

        Jackson Hole, by contrast, had few Inidans. It was far and remote from any wintering area and was hard to get into and not that much game compared to this areas further south.

      • PointsWest says:

        Correction…the name of the pass the Lander road crossed is Tri-Basin Divide.

      • PointsWest says:

        Ten Highest Peaks Wyoming Overthrust Belt Ranges

        Peak Name ft m Range

        1. Wyoming Peak 11,378 3468 Wyoming Range
        2. Mount Coffin 11,242 3427 Wyoming Range
        3. Triple Peak 11,127 3392 Wyoming Range
        4. Mount Fitzpatrick 10,907 3324 Salt River Range
        5. Hoback Peak 10,862 3311 Wyoming Range
        6. Mount McDougal 10,780 3286 Wyoming Range
        7. Rock Lake Peak 10,770 3283 Salt River Range
        8. Mount Wagner 10,709 3264 Salt River Range
        9. Clause Peak 10,612 3235 Wyoming Range
        10. Graham Peak 10,330 3149 Southern Wyoming Overthrust Belt

      • PointsWest says:

        According to Peak Bagger, the “Wyoming Range” is only those mountains on the eastern extreme of the Wyoming Overthrust Belt and is a very small area. The Wyoming Range adjoins the Salt River Range which is another small area.

        The Portnuef does not head in either of these ranges. It heads in several small ranges adjacent to the Overthrust Belt.

        I wished there was a name for this mountain and highland area along the Idaho-Wyoming border south of the Snake River. It pretty well has a common ecosystem and has a common history. I thought the Wyoming Range was a wide area that included all of the smaller ranges such as the Salt River Range, the Portnuef Range and the Bear River Mountains, but I guess not.

        I think this area should be preserved as a wildlife reserve or park with limmited private land and mining. As I’ve mentioned, I have the impression from my reading of western history that this area was rich hunting grounds and supported many Native Americans. It is generally high and only supports some agriculture in the lower valleys. It would not be much of a sacrafice to our economy to set much of it aside for wildlife.

      • PointsWest says:

        Greys River between the Salt River Range and the Wyoming Range

        Roaring Fork Lakes, Wyoming Range by Ralph Maughan.

      • PointsWest says:

        Whoops…try this one. It is a nice photo.

        Greys River between the Salt River Range and the Wyoming Range

      • Thanks PointsWest,

        I posted a long article about it this morning. Thanks for linking to the photos. Yes, I like the place. It really has a lot of elk! Terrific views with flowers. Not many people in the backcountry. A god awful number of domestic sheep. They can sure ruin a backpacking trip.

  7. smalltownID says:

    This is an example of a threat I would be concerned about in the great basin. I imagine you have discussed it on these boards before.

    • smalltownID,

      Yes, it has been discussed a lot.

      The one interesting new development is Madeline Picken’s purchase of two big eastern Nevada ranches as a “wild horse refuge.” The ranchers are big, but far too small for all the horses she wants to save. However the ranches have a half million acres!! of BLM grazing allotments attached. Unfortunately, that is probably still too small because the horses eat a lot and Nevada is not productive land.

      The BLM will have to change some of their regulations to accommodate her, and you can bet there is a lot of pressure not to (and pressure back, most recently from a prominent Republican member of Congress).

      • Save bears says:

        I posted a link the other day, that BLM has declined to approve her offer…

      • Save bears says:


        The BLM has turned down her proposal and did not approve.

      • wolf moderate says:

        I’m not sure if I have this correct. The goal is to remove cattle grazing from public lands, but then you want BLM to “change some of their regulations” to accomodate horses? This seems silly. One invasive species for another.

        At least the cattle have a purpose IMO.

      • Save Bears,

        Yes. Thanks for mentioning that. Pickens is not the kind of woman you just turn down, however. That issue will continue.

      • wolf moderate,

        I’d say remove the cattle and let real wildlife recover, not the horses. That would be true value for Nevada’s low production lands, but my view doesn’t seem to be in the discussion.

      • Here is a response from Congress to the BLMs decision to turn her down.

        Note I don’t have a position on this.


        (House of Representatives – January 24, 2011)
        By: US Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.

        The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.

        Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last week, at the request of a lady named Madeline Pickens, I met with Mr. Bob Abbey, who is the head of the Bureau of Land Management, to talk to him about dealing with the wild horses, the mustangs that roam out west in the western States. The Bureau of Land Management has somewhere between 35,000 and 40,000 of these mustangs in pens around the country; and the cost of this is estimated to be as much as $2,500 per horse per year. The Bureau of Land Management just last week started rounding up another 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 of them to take them to holding pens and move them to Oklahoma.

        Now, the thing that’s interesting about this is that when I talked to Mr. Abbey, he admitted that they want to move these horses from Nevada 1,000 miles to Oklahoma in order to put them in these pens. Now Ms. Pickens, she is very concerned about these mustangs because they’re part of America’s heritage, and she wants to protect them as much as possible. Toward that end, she bought two ranches, the Spruce Ranch, which has 14,000 acres in it, and the ranch next to it in Nevada, the Warm Creek Ranch, which has about another 4,000 acres; and then she got permits for another 550,000 acres so that they could put those horses on this land, protect them, and save the taxpayer money and make sure that these horses will not be put in pens and shipped all over the country.

        But the Bureau of Land Management is recalcitrant. They want to move these horses 1,000 miles into these pens, and they want to keep them there at a cost of as much as $2,500 per year per horse.

        Now, Ms. Pickens says that for $500 a year, she can keep them on her range and protect them, create a kind of museum for these horses so that people can come and see them in the wild. And she would have them injected so that they can’t reproduce; therefore, they wouldn’t have to worry about an expanding population of mustangs, but they would be protected. But the Bureau of Land Management wants to move them a thousand miles, where her ranch and her permits are within just a few miles of where the horses are right now.

        Now, when I talked to Mr. Abbey last week, he said that they couldn’t reach an agreement with Ms. Pickens, that there’d have to be some major changes made over at the Bureau of Land Management in order for them to facilitate what she wants to do.

        This is another bureaucratic nightmare that we in this Congress should not–and I don’t believe will–put up with. And I’m going to ask the Appropriations Committee to cut the budget of the Bureau of Land Management because they’re wasting the taxpayers’ money by millions and millions and maybe hundreds of millions of dollars.

        Last year, the government spent about $144 million managing private livestock on Federal public lands, and they only collect $21 million for grazing rights. So they lost at least $123 million per year. And some people estimate that they lose as much as $500 million a year, half a billion dollars, by keeping these grazing lands in private hands where people get them for almost nothing. $21 million was what the fee was that they got last year.

        So they’re losing as much as $500 million; they’re moving these horses up to a thousand miles, and they’re doing it for no good purpose other than the bureaucracy wants to keep control of them.

        Now, the reason Ms. Pickens started this organization to protect these mustangs was because, in 2008, the Bureau of Land Management said, well, they weren’t sure they could take care of all of these horses–they have almost 40,000 in these pens right now–so they were thinking about killing them, euthanasia, starting to kill these horses.

        Well, the people who love these mustangs and love the West the way it was don’t want this to happen. So they came up with this organization to deal with the problem in a realistic way so that the horses wouldn’t be killed. The organization they started when they heard they were going to euthanize them was called Saving America’s Mustangs, and they offered to enter into a contract with the Bureau of Land Management to relocate at least 9,000 of these horses into these lands that they just bought and got permits for so they wouldn’t have to be shipped to these pens a thousand miles away.

        Now, it makes absolutely no sense to me, at a time when we’re fighting fiscal problems in this country–we’ve got trillions of dollars in debt, and unless we start cutting spending, we’re going to see this country go into bankruptcy. Moody’s has already said they may have to reevaluate the bond rating for the country.

        Let me just end up, Mr. Speaker, by saying it seems to me that we ought to be frugal with the public’s money. We ought to cut the Bureau of Land Management’s budget so that we can save the money and save the mustangs. That’s what this is all about–a humane way of treating the mustangs in this country, which are a part of our heritage.

        Rep. Dan Burton
        2308 Rayburn House Office Building
        Washington, DC 20515

      • Ken Cole says:


      • WM says:

        I wonder if this Congressman would also be willing to give up the $500,000 million per year his home state of Indiana gets in the way of farm subsidies (ranking 12/50 in 2009)?

        Doesn’t make the loss of $23 million on grazing subsidies as distributed among the 12 Western states any more justifiable, but it sure puts things into perspective.


        This mustang problem and the way BLM is handling it, or not, is just plain stupid. Carting mustangs a thousand miles to OK? An annual cost of $2,500 per horse (x45,000 horses) defies logic. How many kids could we educate for that amount of $$$?

      • JB says:

        This is a great example of how Congress generally handles natural resources issues:

        (1) Pass a law with lots of mandates for federal agencies (conflicting mandates aren’t required, but are preferred);
        (1b) Make sure the law includes lots of vague language so that agencies have plenty of rope to hang themselves with;
        (2) Refuse to adequately fund said mandates;
        (3) Complain bitterly that the agency Congress put in charge is wasting tax-payer money when it does exactly what the law requires it to do.

        If you don’t like the BLM’s actions, you needn’t look any further than FLPMA and the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.

      • PointsWest says:

        Just remember that cutting farm subsidies may not put any more money in your pocket because the price of agricultural commodities will go up and you will be paying more for your food. In fact, it possible that in some instances, the increase in food prices will not be offset by the savings in farm subsidies. It is one of those really wierd economic conumdrum things that’s hard to explain…especially to people who don’t want to hear it. Also keep in mind that higher food prices might increase malnutrition and increase all of the health, pychological, and social problems that come along with it. Milk going to $10 per gallon might have real consequences down the road and be more harmful to our childrens future as big budget deficits. It will also mean more of our food production is moved overseas where people work for less than a dollar an hour. So be sure and have a good chat with God and make really sure He really, really is behind the Tea Party and super ultra low taxes.

      • Daniel Berg says:

        I wonder if the farm subsidy figure WM quoted includes the agricultural tax credits and subsidies that are associated with the massive failure that has been ethanol.
        (I’m aware that some of the tax money has gone to actual ethanol production, not the growing of corn.)

        But as long as five cents on the dollar actually goes to productive use, it justifies subsidizing agriculture, right?

  8. william huard says:

    Ah yes, the Wildlife Blackhole which is China. Everyone should ingest putrid infected bear bile or tiger bone wine. These people will not be satisfied until all Asiatic Bears, Sharks, Tigers, and Rhinos are gone. It is frustrating to see Governments have to spend millions of dollars to protect these animals when China could force their people to not use these products. The arrogance is stunning

  9. Jerry Black,

    If it had been wolves, every livestock association in Montana and beyond would be up in arms, saying the economy would not survive.

    • timz,

      More generally, there is a very negative situation developing in the Park due to the very deep snow of this winter. We could see yet another mass starvation, mass slaughter year arrive soon.

  10. jon says:

    9 pm tonight. they are going to discuss how dangerous it is to live with wolves. Should be pure comedy. If any of you have 2 hours to kill, tune in.

  11. jon says:

    Really makes you wonder how many poachers are truly out there.

    • wolf moderate says:


    • PointsWest says:

      Why worry about poachers…I’ve heard reports that there are over 20,000 Bigfoot in Washington State alone! People who know how to recognize them see dozens along the edge of the forest on foggy days…spooky!

  12. wolf moderate says:

    Who cares about anything. we only have 694 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 22 seconds….21 seconds 20 seconds.
    December 2012 is fast approaching!!!

  13. wolf moderate says:

    Fck, I quit my job, dumped my girlfriend and blew my life savings in Vegas thinking I could just “squat” in the mountains if I lost all my money for a year or so. Now I learn that doomsday isn’t until 2060?


    • PointsWest says:

      Are you too old to join the Army? …or do you do drugs? If all else fails, you can become an animal rights activist spending all your time on the internet deriding hunters. 🙂

  14. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Who´s the elks worst enemy?

    • Salle says:

      Well, it’s either the hunting gangs, the F&G charged with protecting wildlife or both. And the hunting crowd wonders why some would have them banned… Seems like the F&G guys aren’t all that interested in actually doing their jobs, like many government employees.

  15. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Don’t shoot the future while targeting wolves

  16. Peter Kiermeir says:

    A “new” wolf discovered: The Egyptian Jackal is actually ancient wolf

  17. Salle says:

    This is sad…

    Polar bear swam nine days straight in search of ice: Report

    The report said the bear was in the water for 232 consecutive hours in temperatures ranging from 2 C to 6 C.

    Read more:

  18. wolf moderate says:

    Looks like corn prices might come down some time in the the near future and cows might be of even more benefit than some have thought…

    Only time will tell.

    • wolf moderate,

      As you probably know, biofuels are not going to be able to compete economically (without a subsidy) unless a method to break down cellulose is found.

      Looking at the bacteria inside of ruminant animals is a logical place to search for a microbe that does this, but it doesn’t take a billion cattle to conduct such a search.

  19. wolf moderate says:

    Where in the world is the one and only Bob Jackson. You know the Buffalo Rancher from Iowa or whereever…

    Did you guys scare him off? He was awesome. Is this the guy?

    • PointsWest says:

      I would like to see the phisics theory and equations that explain that type of lighting.

  20. Mike says:

    What is wrong with hunters?

    read that article at your own risk. Sick, sick stuff.

    • wolf moderate says:

      That was posted a few months back on here. Very isolated incident.

      This is much worse IMO. Much greater chance of living when shot by arrow. Not sure where I saw this posted before…may have been on this site also.

      Again, these are very isolated incidents, but very sad that this has happened at all.

      • Nancy says:

        Wolf Moderate – I can recall atleast two incidents in my area over the past few years where this same kind of thing has happened. Hunters running up and down the roads, desperate for an elk to shoot at……….and then wham! there’s a herd of em right there in front of you, crossing the road or catching their breath (on private land) after jumping who knows how many fences because of the chase thats been going on for weeks?

        I like to call it “Butt Fevor” because that type of hunter has certainly gotten about as far away from their brains as they can possibly get, without leaving their bodies, while justifying that kind of behavior.

      • jon says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t they have classes that teach hunters the correct way to hunt? Do they tell you to shoot at a whole herd of elk? I would not be surprised if this happens more often than we think. I mean we have some people out there who sometimes have no idea what they are shooting at, but shoot anyways and then we have things like this.

      • wolf moderate says:

        There are some crazies out there. I haven’t seen anything too bad and I’ve hunted since the age of 12 (now 30). I do see lots of road hunters and ATV guys. I love to see them driving though, it just means less “hunters” in the actual woods competing w/ me.

        Jon, you are really annoying. Have you even been in the woods during hunting season?

      • Savebears says:

        Wolf Moderate,

        Based on Jon’s past postings, he has never been in the woods!

      • Mike says:

        Wolf moderate –

        How is this an isolated incident? These “hunters” are now dispersed across the countryiside using this same kind of judgement.

      • jon says:

        I don’t think it’s isolated at all Mike. I bet my bottom dollar it happens more often than we think. I guess some are getting desperate in order to bag their elk and could careless about all of the animals they wound in the process.

      • wolf moderate says:

        Mike this rarely happens. Don’t know what else to add to it. If it happened so much, then how come there is so much fish and wildlife? There is so many whitetails on the eastcoast that they are trying everything in there power to reduce the populations. The vast majority of hunters would not indiscriminately fire into a herd of animals.

        Jon, please go buy a gram of heroine and take a trip to Yellowstone 🙂

      • Savebears says:

        Wolf Moderate,

        Both Jon and Mike are extreme anti hunters and will say anything to try and place hunters in a bad light, they have been doing it every since they started posting on this blog.

      • PointsWest says:

        It is so ironic that the anti-hunters here have been pointing to all these poaching articles as if hunters are guilty by association. The irony is that it was hunters who petitioned the states to create game laws and to create the state game management agencies to enforce game laws. So, in effect, it is hunters who made poaching illegal and it is hunters who try to prevent it since game departments are funded by hunters buying licenses and tags.

        Reading all of jon’s, Mike’s, and other’s poaching stories should give you some idea of how convoluted thier thought process really is. They are not concerned about truth or logic or justice or ethics or even about changing the world; they just want to harrass and make trouble and, in reality, bring attention to themselves and the trouble and pain they feel inside.

        The best thing you can do for them is ignor them so maybe they will go away and find some help.

        The need to get help and leave us good people alone.

      • Salle says:

        Isolated? Re-read the article, especially this part near the end:

        Like lightning striking in the same place, this is the second year such a fiasco played out near the intersection of Trail Creek and Divide, though insiders are aware that the occurrences that evening are by no means confined to this unassuming crossroads.

        Knarr confirmed this, “On Sunday, there were ten spots, a dozen spots, like that in Region 3.” He said, “This wasn’t even the worst.”

        “Most hunters would have shot into those elk no matter what day of the season it was,” Sanctuary said. “The point is, there are lots of hunters willing to take a less than ideal shot to bag an elk. Point proved by the fact there were more elk injured than actually harvested once they crossed the road.”

        Now that’s isolated, I guess, for some who don’t really read.

      • Salle says:

        All of you who are name-calling at those who oppose hunting, for reasons described in this article, are guilty of sticking your heads in the sand, as well as doing that which you decry right here on this thread. There is nothing wrong with being an opponent of hunting and voicing your opinion about it. And those of you who claim that this article illuminates an isolated incident are not reading the entire article and have demonstrated some propensity to ignore the fact that things change over time, including ethical behavior of the hunting faction. Maybe you just can’t take an unbiased look at anything.

      • wolf moderate says:


      • wolf moderate says:

        I think I will still with the responsible “pro” hunters. Thank you very much.

        Some real nuts out there. According to Jon’s post; “they followed me to work, and stalked my house,” he writes. “I had a real concern and fear for the lives of my family and crew. I lost a close friendship with a good family over wolf control that remains a raw memory years later.”
        Yikes! I think I’m more afraid of the wolf advocates than rockholm, saveelk clan etc…At least they haven’t destroyed private property or hurt anyone yet.

    • william huard says:

      Don’t you know these people masquarade as “conservationists” or the “true environmentalists”. If they gave IQ tests to these people they would rate at DULL NORMAL. But he is handy with a rifle!

      • PointsWest says:

        William…what is your IQ?

      • william huard says:

        I work as a Nurse in a busy hospital. I worked for 5 years as an ER Nurse.
        I’m not really sure what my IQ is, but at least I have some common sense, which is more than I can say for people that consistently shoot weapons without any thought process whatsoever. If you question hunters motives you are anti-hunting. If you question the NRA you are anti-2nd amendment. If you question oil drilling regulations after the BP spill you are against the oil and gas industry. We live in a time that is completely illogical. It is unfortunate you can’t teach people to have common sense

      • PointsWest says:

        As a nurse, I assume you believe in science. What kind of science is it when you say things like, “I have some common sense, which is more than I can say for people that consistently shoot weapons without any thought process whatsoever.” Do you know any hunters? Most of the ones I knew were actually pretty succesful men…engineers, managers, CPA’s, and even doctors. Do you have any science that supports your claim that hunters have low IQ’s?

    • william huard says:

      I remember reading a story similar to this one in Washington State last year. There was a frenzy to corner elk near a road, and as onlookers drove by in horror, elk were injured left and right by “hunters”. I called the Fish and Game about the incident and they told me it was an unfortunate event and that the hunt should have been offered only to “Master Hunters”. It didn’t make sense to me- why would you let anyone shoot animals if they were not prepared to hunt ethically?

  21. Alan Gregory says:

    While a student at Idaho State U, I always dreamed of climbing Mt. Borah. Still do, I guess. Beautiful photo. Real wild country.

  22. jon says:

    Check out this bizarre story.

    Suicide by grizzly bear.

  23. Harley says:

    That is a spectacular photo. I really really miss my 35mm *sigh* Nicely done Ken Cole, nicely done.

  24. jon says:

    Wolf expert says wolf hunting is ineffective and costly to the taxpayer.

    This guy is right on the money

    • Salle says:

      Wow, good article. Have to agree with the author… reminds me of Carter Niemeyer… Says about the same thing. Unfortunately, as I know from some first hand, government employees are not allowed to write about their job experiences until they are retired. Might be the same in Canada, too bad since many have opinions and sage advice that could be used prior to their departure from agency work. Goes to show how politically controled all the F&G agencies are. Like Mark Gamblin said, they are there at the pleasure of the governor so whatever he says and thinks is what they have to play to.

      • jon says:

        Bob Hayes is one of the most respected wolf experts in the world Salle. It’s a shame you don’t hear his name more often. He does remind me of Carter.

      • jon says:

        Salle, it is a good article. Bob Hayes knows his stuff. Good night.

    • wolf moderate says:

      ““They burned tires on the Alaska Highway, chained themselves in the Yukon legislature, damaged our aircraft, followed me to work, and stalked my house,” he writes. “I had a real concern and fear for the lives of my family and crew. I lost a close friendship with a good family over wolf control that remains a raw memory years later.””.

      Yeah Jon, those wolf advocates are so much more professional and smart then the anti wolfers…I think the guy is scared for his life. Probably the real reason for his position on the issue lol.

      No chit the program didn’t work. They have a population of 4500 wolves and only killed 849 in 15 years. That is less than 60 per year!

      It’s obvious that Yukon-news is a biases source just by reading some of the other propoganda on the site.

      Give it up Jon.

      • Salle says:

        So, in your mind, that justifies the same type of terrorism aim at the other side? Give it up WM

        Somehow, you don’t sound very moderate in your postings..

      • wolf moderate says:

        Salle, you seem very moderate though!

        You are on par with Jon lately.

      • Salle says:

        Don’t dodge the question by trying to imply something about me.

        You are trying to discredit the questioner to avoid facing the question.

      • wolf moderate says:

        “So, in your mind, that justifies the same type of terrorism aim at the other side?”

        Not sure what you are trying to say. I said that there has been no violence on the anti-wolf side. The side that seems to cause the damage to private property is almost always the eco nuts. Some of you are delusional, thinking that you are somehow going to restore North America to pre-european conditions? Sometimes I honestly think that is what many think.

        “Somehow, you don’t sound very moderate in your postings..”

        Being a moderate means, not condoning those views. These never always, must etc… statements that people throw around is extremist rhetoric (jon, salle, spanglelakes, howl colorado) that I do not understand. They/you are as extreme as Rockholm and the other anti wolfers, just on the other side of the spectrum.

      • Salle says:

        You’re not really making any sense. I said that because by calling yourself “,em>wolf moderate” you are trying to make others think that you have a moderate perspective on the issues concerning wolves and it is obvious, from your rantings, that you are not. Pretty disingenuous.

        I use my name instead of trying to appear to be something I am not.

      • Salle says:

        And so, because you don’t understand what someone is saying, they are automatically deemed an extremist… that’s really rich.

      • wolf moderate says:


        I don’t understand what you are talking about nor do I care what you think of me or my screen name. I enjoy wolves in the Idaho mountains, but think they should be managed by the states and that hunting should be a method to control numbers. I’d say that is pretty moderate in comparison to the anti/pro wolf stances in general.

        I am now done talking about this topic because it is pointless. Neither one of us is going to be able to change the other’s views regarding wolf management. Well, actually anything for that matter…including religion, politics, wildlife management, etc… 🙂
        Good luck!

      • Salle says:

        Sounds like your 12pack has pretty much done its job, maybe it’s time for a nap.

      • wolf moderate says:

        I wish I drank.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      It is refreshing to read a practical, experienced assessment that’s not driven by either simplistic or moralistic thinking. Moose populations in much of the Yukon as in Alaska are stuck in a predator pit. Bears are really the factor that determines whether an area is in a predator pit or not. Wolf control has only a very temporary effect. In Alaska, there has been some recognition of that, and there has been some focus on bears. However, the public, even much of the hunting public, is not comfortable with some of the measures that have been enacted or proposed to control bears and some have recently been put on back burner. Residents here are not enough into bear hunting, given very limited road access, to have much effect under generally acceptable seasons and limits. The only potentially effective option to increase normal hunting effort would be to allow non-residents to hunt brown bears unguided, and that seems to be an unpopular option — especially with guides. Predator control is both more economic and justified if it is to recover a population to a state that can be sustained without ongoing intervention but if it just gives it a temporary boost and sends it from a relatively stable low level to into a short cycle, what is gained? It may be possible to more effectively manage both predator and prey for strong populations of both in the Rockies with a larger hunting population and high road access, but it remains to be seen. Or, in areas that don’t tend toward a predator pit it may be unnecessary to try.

    • PointsWest says:

      This is almost identicle to an article you posted a couple of years ago about coyotes by a researcher in Oregon.

      • Salle says:

        Gee, maybe it’s not an isolated set of conditions…

      • PointsWest says:

        The conditions may not change, but where other researchers draw other conclusion under the same conditions, the most important variable may be the bias in the researchers.

  25. jon says:

    Hopefully, they can get this banned in the near future.

    • jon says:

      Check it out and donate!

    • Elk275 says:


      That article was written one year ago and the group never got enough signatures to get Initiative 160 on the ballot. Even if it had got on the ballot it would never have passed.

      • Jerry Black says:

        Elk….they only missed by 1000 signatures. They receives 23,000 out of 24,000.
        Watch what happens in 2012…I know people throughout western Montana who were against it last year who now wish they had signed it. All the ugliness associated with poaching and the rhetoric of the rabid anti-wolf people has changed a lot of minds when it comes to wildlife management of any type.
        That group also took NO $$ from out of state interests as opposed to the trappers and their out of state support.

      • Elk275 says:

        Ok, they get on the ballot. It will never pass. The voters of Western Montana (the City of Missoula) are different than the rest of the state.

      • Jerry Black says:

        Elk….they did qualify in 34 legislative districts which obviously included areas outside Missoula including the southern Bitterroot. Helena and Bozeman areas were strong also.
        Attitudes are changing….demographics are changing.

      • Salle says:

        Interesting stereotyping… I don’t live anywhere near Missoula and I support such a ban.

      • Nancy says:

        +Ok, they get on the ballot. It will never pass. The voters of Western Montana (the City of Missoula) are different than the rest of the state+

        Too bad the rest of the country can’t weigh in on this Elk since we are talking about an issue dealing with public lands and a practice (trapping) that many would find inhuman if they saw how these animals are made to suffer for a coat or wall hanging.

      • jon says:

        If the rest if the country did weigh in, I’m confident in saying that trapping would be banned. There’s no ethical trapping movement.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        Jon –
        I find your confidence in the will of voters in other states to ban trapping in Montana interesting, given that your home state of Maine is the only place I’ve heard of south of Canada where public black bear trapping is allowed. I’m surprised we don’t hear you weigh in more on issues closer to home where you live and have experience.

      • jon says:

        Seak, many Maine residents are trying to outlaw bear trapping. I’m one of them. It’s only a matter of time before it’s no more.

    • PointsWest says:

      I grew up eating pheasants, sage hens, geese, ducks, deer and elk all shot with lead bullets. How come I’m not dead from lead poisoning? How come none of my family have lead poisoning? I can even remember biting down on lead shot from a pheasant or duck and pulling the bebe from my mouth.

      You just as well be posting stories about Elvis insulting hunters from a UFO jon.

      • Save bears says:

        Me two, and I am showing no signs of poisoning.

      • Salle says:

        Maybe that’s what’s the matter with you and your pretzel logic! “splains it all.

        Got a bug up your butt, dude? Why is it a case of “free speech for me but not for thee” when someone disputes what you have to say but your opinion is somehow superior and they should just shut up? Sounds like a double standard at best and makes you sound just like Toby Bridges, Rockholm and all other “specialer than everybody else wannabe know-it-all” clowns.

      • Jerry Black says:

        Even Montana’s game commission was ready to enact a ban on lead shot in certain critical waterfowl areas, UNTIL, prior to voting, they received 1000’s of emails, phone calls and faxes from NRA members admonishing them. Suddenly, their brains were frozen again and they caved.
        This reminds me of the climate change debate

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        I tend to agree that most of us who have done a normal amount of hunting with lead ammunition have probably not been affected too much. Still, if I had it to do over again I would have switched to unleaded bullets when my kids were born. Lead shot in particular is definitely not something to write off as a potential threat — this paper provides a good summary of information on the connection between lead shot use and lead levels in natives who eat a lot of birds in places like Greenland and the Y-K Delta. Granted, they are the worst case scenarios because of the tremendous number of lead shot killed birds they eat — probably like somebody eating Great Lakes trout 3 days a week. A fair number even have shot in their appendixes. Unfortunately, while banned, lead shot is still widely used for waterfowl on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Its still having a detrimental effect on some waterfowl species as well. There are outreach efforts to try to convince people the negative health effects outweigh the monetary and effectiveness advantages of lead. Its a tough sell for families living in a very high cost area on 4 figure incomes.

      • PointsWest says:

        I am in favor of the ban on lead shot in some locals. It can a problem to waterfoul becuase they graze the bottom of ponds and ingest lead shot. Unlike humans and most other animals, however, waterfoul have gizzards, an organ above the stomach that grinds food up. In the case of lead shot, the gizzard grindes the lead into a fine power increasing the surface area of a single bebe 100,000 times. In some ponds, there is enough lead shot that waterfoul regularly ingest a lead bebe. Lead will normally pass through the digestive system with little harm. But the regular ingestion of lead shot combined with the action of a gizzard increasing the surface area by 100,000 does create a problem where their is too much disolved lead in the brids diet.

        Birds or animals that do not have have gizzards or who do not regularly ingest lead shot have little to worry about. The problem is not widespread. It only ocurs in some ponds where there has been a lot of hunting and waterfoul graze the bottom. Eagles do have gizzards and some have been shown to have died from lead poisoning but it is very, very, very rare because they are seldom exposed to enough of it. I’m sure many, many more eagles die from other types of manmade poisions like automobil antifreeze or diesel oil. Should we ban diesel and antifreeze before we ban lead bullets. Why don’t we squawk about diesel and antifreeze?

      • PointsWest says:

        Seak M writes: “I tend to agree that most of us who have done a normal amount of hunting with lead ammunition have probably not been affected too much.”

        Lead paint was/is much more dangerous than lead bullets or lead shot. It all depends on the exposure. Lead paint is most dangerous when it is abraded and turned into dust by some action like sanding. Once lead paint is airborne dust, it is inhaled into the lungs and the lead in the paint can be disolved into the blood stream from the lungs and this can be leathal. I am very familiar with lead paint where I am in the construction industry and we regularly demolish old building with lead paint.

        In general, we have evolved to not be harmed by substances that ocur in nature like elemental lead. Lead only becomes dangerous when it is in some unnatural form such as a powder or in a manmade compound. Waterfoul ingesting a bebe is a bit of a fluke since they grind lead into a powder in their gizzard. One or two exposures is not a problem however. It is repeated exposures from the unnatural distribution of lead shot that is the problem.

      • Save bears says:

        I have not said I am in favor or against a ban on lead, I think a time will come that there will be no more lead shot or sinkers and I can’t say that is a bad thing…..but as of this time in my life, I am showing no signs of being infected with lead..

        I just got my blood work back last week, and it didn’t show up..

      • PointsWest says:

        Salle writes: “Got a bug up your butt, dude? Why is it a case of “free speech for me but not for thee” when someone disputes what you have to say but your opinion is somehow superior and they should just shut up? ”

        Salle, I have no problem with free speech. I, however, do not like people who repeat inuendo, antidotal evidence, half-truths, and out-and-out lies to smear people or a group of people as do some of the anti-hunters here on this blog. It is one thing to post some antidotal evidence but when it is repeated day after day week after week and month after month as if repeating it enough times will make it become true, it gets a little annoying! Certain anit-hunting posters are the top posters here and they post twice as much an the second place poster and it is nearly all inuendo, antidotal evidence, half-truths, and out-and-out lies to smear hunters.

        Fine, they can post, but I can make fun of them once in awhile too. What is wrong with me making fun of them or pointing out how illogical or how irrational they are?

        BTW, you stated I have “pretzel logic” but did not give any example of it.

      • mikarooni says:

        The core problem with lead in both shot and bullets is not that humans eat it, although that is also a more insidious problem than most would suspect, but that wildlife, particularly waterfowl and scavengers like condors, hawks, and eagles; eat it. Birds do not chew their food; they ingest small pebbles into their gizzards and use these pebbles to grind their food. If they ingest lead as a pebble or in a chunk of meat from a scavenged carcass, the grinding action in their gizzard breaks down the lead and makes it much more accessible to their systems. PointsWest and Save Beers, if you understand this basic part of wildlife biology, why are you still arguing the point? …seems like pretzel logic to me. What’s your agenda here?

      • cc says:

        The harmful effect of lead bullets on avian scavengers has been well proven. Any carcass of an animal that’s not retrieved or has it’s gut pile removed is potentially poisioning any raven, eagle, or vulture that is simply doing what it’s supposed to do: scavenge meat. The evidence of eagles and condors dying from ingesting lead fragments is well documented because their high profile leads to reports of carcasses and investigations into their deaths. It’s not an anti-hunting plot nor something to be ignored by anyone who considers themselves a conservationist. Lead shot was banned for waterfowl hunting in 1991, but lead sinkers and lead bullets for other hunting is inexplicably still used. For more info, check this link, especially the video at the bottom of the page:

      • Save bears says:


        I am not arguing anything..but as has been shown in the past, if I post a note that says, HI! I am arguing..

      • mikarooni says:

        No, you’re weaseling.

      • Save bears says:


        You know who you sound like?

        President GW Bush, when he made his famous or infamous are either with us, or you are our enemy….how well did that work out for him..?

      • PointsWest says:

        cc writes: “The harmful effect of lead bullets on avian scavengers has been well proven.”

        cc…the harmful effects of lead paint on humans has been proven too. There are thousands of documented illnesses and deaths attributed to lead paint. But how serious of a problem is it. If your house was built prior to about 1975, you almost certainly have lead paint. Are you going to die? Should you pay some abatement contractor $20,000 to come in and remove all the deadly lead paint from your home? No. Not really, becuase it is only dangerous with certain types and quantities of exposure.

        I did not know lead shot was banned nation wide. I thought is was only in some areas of high frequency hunting. I agree with the ban but I think it is a stretch that lead shot or lead bullets pose any real threat to animals or terrestrial birds since their exposure risk to a leathal exposure is very small. I think other man-made poisons are a much greater threat and I suspect that many who scream about lead bullets or lead shot are anti-gun nuts.

      • jon says:

        I don’t think the millions of animals that have died from lead poisoning here in the united states would agree.

      • jon says:

        And one must never forget that low levels of lead is dangerous to both animals and people.

      • jon says:

        “In August, a coalition of groups formally petitioned the EPA to ban lead in bullets and shot for hunting and in fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The petition referenced nearly 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers illustrating the widespread dangers of lead poisoning to scavengers that eat lead ammunition fragments in carcasses, and to waterfowl that ingest spent lead shot or lost lead fishing sinkers. The groups filing the lawsuit today are the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Project Gutpile, a hunters’ organization. Since the original petition was filed, more than 70 organizations in 27 states have voiced support for the lead ban, including those representing veterinarians, birders, hunters, zoologists, scientists, American Indian groups, physicians and public employees.

        “Having hunted in California for 20 years I have seen firsthand lead poisoning impacts to wildlife from toxicity through lead ammunition,” said Anthony Prieto, a hunter and cofounder of Project Gutpile, a hunters’ group that provides educational resources for lead-free hunters and anglers. “Although many more sportsmen are now getting the lead out, the EPA must take action to ensure we have a truly lead-free environment. It’s time to make a change to non-lead for ourselves and for future generations to enjoy hunting and fishing with a conscience.”

        “Over the past several decades Americans chose to get toxic lead out of our gasoline, paint, water pipes and other sources that were poisoning people. Now it’s time to remove unnecessary lead from hunting and fishing sports that is needlessly poisoning our fish and wildlife,” said Karen Schambach of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “Today’s action is a step to safeguard wildlife and reduce human health risks posed by lead.”

      • PointsWest says:

        jon…are you certain it is not billions of ducks or even trillions of ducks?

      • PointsWest says:

        jon writes: “Over the past several decades Americans chose to get toxic lead out of our gasoline, paint, water pipes and other sources that were poisoning people.”

        That’s not true jon. Most of the people reading this are probably sitting in a room that contains lead paint. If your house or appartment was built prior to 1975, it almost certainly contains lead paint.

        And we know there are extreme groups who want to ban lead shot and bullets. You do not need to post 500 links to them. It will not proove that lead shot or bullets are as dangerous as you say there are even if you post 5000 links.

      • PointsWest says:

        jon writes: “I don’t think the millions of animals that have died from lead poisoning here in the united states would agree.”

        Are you sure jon that is not trillions of animals that are killed. C’mon, ya got to go for the brass ring when you spew misinformation.

      • jon says:

        Millions, billions, it does not matter. It’s still A LOT of animals and it’s a very real threat. You can deny all you want. The fact is that many animals have died from lead poisoning.

        You said,

        “I think it is a stretch that lead shot or lead bullets pose any real threat to animals or terrestrial birds since their exposure risk to a leathal exposure is very small.”

        If their exposure to lead is very small, how do you explain the deaths of millions of animals due to lead poisoning?

        Yeah, it’s clearly obvious that you are the one posting misinformation.

      • PointsWest says:

        Did I miss something? Where was the scientific evidence that lead shot and bullets poisoned millions of animals? Is this in the entire world? …or just in the USA last year?

      • jon says:

        Are you telling me that that no animals have died from lead poisoning. You have a computer. You can find that our for yourself.

      • jon says:

        PW, last question. Why did 60 organizations and institutions nationwide (including some hunting groups), ask the epa to ban lead ammunition that causes massive poisoning of wildlife?

      • PointsWest says:

        jon…if you are talking about the lawsuit story, it is not scientific evidence, it is a claim made in a lawsuit. Like someone might sue you someday because you were in a traffic accident and they CLAIM you gave them whiplash and a permanent disability and you should compensate them millions of dollars.

        There is a very big difference between scientific evidence and a claim made in a lawsuit. You can claim anything in a lawsuit. It means nothing.

        Also, the lawsuit was refering to all birds and animials so it included waterfowl. I agree with the ban on lead shot with waterfowl. We were talking about coyoties and I said “terestrial” birds and animals.

        So spew some more and present some scientific evidence that billions and billions and billions of terestrial birds and animals are being poisoned by lead shot and bullets.

        Actually, even the evidence that lead shot is poisoning waterfowl is disputed. I am still in favor of the ban on waterfowl, however, since it would be an error on the side of caution.

        Terestrial birds and animals is a long, long stretch. I’d like to see some science from reputable researchers. I think the claims are from anti-gun nuts.

      • jon says:

        pw, this is pointless. I do not care if you believe that animals aren’t dying from lead poisoning. The truth is out there and speaks for itself. Eagles, birds, etc have all died from lead poisoning. How do they know? THEY RUN TESTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • jon says:

        You did not answer my question about why the 60 organizations asked the epa to ban lead ammunition. Some of the groups included were hunting organizations. Are they anti-gun nuts too pw? Not everything is a conspiracy theory. This is about wildlife dying from lead poisoning, not being anti-gun.

      • cc says:

        For those of us actually working in the wildlife conservation field the lead issue is about conserving avian scavengers, it is NOT about lead paint, prairie dog protection, or anti-hunting. An eagle or condor only needs to scavenge on one deer or coyote killed with lead bullets to get a lethal dose. This has been well documented by biologists and scientists. The exact numbers are unknown because only a dead eagle or condor is really going to get people’s attention and lead to the carcass retrieval and investigation. The biggest obstacle is the cost of greener bullets. The second biggest obstacle is the willful ignorance and distortion of the issue by those who want to argue about separate issues rather than facilitate honest discussion and real world solutions.

        Here is The Wildlife Society’s position on the issue:

    • william huard says:

      I’m sure Jon is not proud of this but Maine is the only state to allow bear hounding, baiting, and trapping all for sport. If it isn’t the only state to allow all three there are only a handful at best. Percival Baxter is rolling around in his grave

    • Save bears says:

      Screw you Miki

    • Elk275 says:

      This original thread started out on shooting coyotes with lead bullets, if all coyotes hunters used the below bullets made by Barnes and Nosler would this silent you. No. If I shoot coyotes on the weekend, which I don’t, I would want to use the bullets below because of the lack of pelt damage. Exit holes cause pelt damage and can ruin the hide or reduce it value. Typical weekend coyotes hunters at the end of there day take the dead coyotes to a fur buyers who skins, fleshes and stretches the hide and deducts 5 or 10 dollars from the market rate purchase. The carcasses typically would be deposed in the local land fill.

      Nosler Bullets:

      ++The Ballistic Tip Lead-Free™ (BTLF) is everything that varmint and predator hunters expect from a Ballistic Tip®, in a lead-free design. The flat-based, leadless bullet features Nosler’s exclusive Fragmenting Copper Core Technology™ (patent pending) which exhibits immediate and rapid expansion, initiated by its metallic-colored polymer tip, at practical varmint shooting velocities of 1600 fps and above. ++

      Barnes Bullets:

      ++Introduced in 2007, the Varmint Grenade has rapidly become one of the most popular varmint bullets around. Based on a design Barnes developed for military applications, the hollow-cavity, flat-base bullet features a copper-tin composite core surrounded by a guilding-metal jacket. This extremely accurate bullet enjoys consistently high demand.
      The bullet remains intact at ultra-high velocities, while its highly frangible core fragments explosively on impact. Produces instant fragmentation, virtually vaporizing ground squirrels and prairie dogs, even at long range. Expending its energy early, the Varmint Grenade seldom exits large predators like bobcats and coyotes, leaving valuable pelts virtually undamaged.++

      I do not think that most really care about lead bullets but have total contempt for varmint hunters. The poor varmint hunter can do nothing right. Vaporizing ground squirrels and prairie dogs just disgust some, get use to it as things are not going to change in the next twenty years.

    • PointsWest says:

      It sounds like a nice idea but I hope you don’t get invlolved because you will turn everyone against it.

      • wolf moderate says:


      • Salle says:

        Maybe only to those hiding under the same rock you’re under…

      • PointsWest says:

        …and maybe not those hiding under the same rock you are hiding under. Let me tell you something, I was a bit of a smart aleck when in Jr. High! I had a rep!

      • mikarooni says:

        Again, PointsWest, if you think jon’s point sounds like a nice idea, what’s your beef? Why are you on this website if the views of conservationists annoy you so much? Why are you and characters like Save Beers always on here trying to deflate, deflect, undermine, threaten, and depress the conservation discussion?

      • Save bears says:

        Geeze, ehre we go again..

        You know, here a while back, Ralph asked both Jon and I to stop posting so much, I have headed his request, even though the Bullshit at times gets real fucking deep….but, as if on cue, here comes Mikirooni to the rescues…

      • PointsWest says:

        Mikarooni…I have no beef with conservation or with a group that wants to protect wolverines. In fact, I am 100% behind both. My beef is with anti-hunters who spew misinformation.

        It should be pointed out that “anti-hunters” and “conservationists” are not synonyms. I applaud anyone’s conservation efforts but depore anti-hunting efforts. I also believe most hunters are conservationists. In fact, hunters are better conservationists than the general public.

        I do not believe anti-hunters are good conservationist. They seldom make any sacrafices for their cause but only want others to make sacrafices. I believe the care little about conservation but only want to stir up trouble and draw attention to themselves.

      • Salle says:

        That explanation is rather small minded in claiming that non-hunting or anti-hunting activists don’t make any sacrifices… How would you know? Show me some evidence on that would you?

        I’m not going to let that one slide by…

      • PointsWest says:

        Well Salle, in fact we were just talking about how Pheasants Forever just purchased for preservation a 2500 acre ranch next to the Camas National WM area and how Duck Unlimited was restoring Sand Hole Lake there.

        I happen to know that Trout Unlimted is working to preserve the Teton Canyon from a rebuild of the Teton Dam. These people work at it and spend money and make sacrafices.

        PETA just pretty much whines when it comes to wildlife don’t they? I do not know if they have ever done anything like improve habitat or buy land for preservation. If you know of anything PETA has done for wildlife conservation, please post.

      • I think this is mostly a pointless discussion.

        Some hunters are conservationists. Some anti-hunters are conservationists. Many conservation groups just try to straddle the issue.

        Lots of different kinds of people participate in buying land and improving wildlife habitat.

        Personally, I don’t think PETA is a conservation organization in any way. Conservation dwells on conserving populations, not individuals.

      • jon says:

        I was never a fan of peta and never donated anything to them. It’s sad because a lot of people donate to peta thinking they are helping animals. I know peta kills a lot of animals they take in and that is one of the reasons why I never will support them. Some will say, well what do you expect them to do with all of the animals they rescue? I think once people heard that story of thepeta employees dumping dead animals into a trashcan, peta lost a lot of support from some and their donations. I will say peta are no worse than Don Peay’s sportsmen for killing fish and wildlife.

      • PointsWest says:

        In my mind, wildlife preservation is all about habitat preservation and improvement. The critical ingredient to preserving wildlife will always be the habitat. Wildlife will expand to fill the available habitat. It is all about the habitat. Any organization who does not work or spend monies to preserve or improve habitat is of little consequence in the long term and is of no real importance to wildlife issues.

  26. PointsWest says:

    Animal rights advocates would not be appeased if killing overpopulated small animals were banned. The would move on. Next it would be fish. They would all start complaining about fishermen and how cruel they are to fish. Then when they got fishing banned, the would move on to insects. Killing cockroaches would be wrong. Cockroaches need love too and just want to live on earth along with all the other creatures. And I will tell you that even if killing cockroaches were banned, it would not be enough. Animal Rights Activistis would still be whining, complaining, casting insults, and making trouble.

    Banning any type of hunting or killing of animals will not appease them. They will be just as miserable as they were before.

    • wolf moderate says:

      It’s been happening for quite some time. PETA has been trying to ban fishing for years.

      They (PETA) say fish feel pain. Well, when deer, elk, and moose are eaten alive, I’m sure they feel a bit of pain too.

      • Ovis says:

        wolf moderate,

        I think this shows the huge difference between environmentalists and animals rights activists. Environmentalists are concerned about the fish as a species. They understand the place of the fish in natural world and how they affect other fish, such as the smaller fish they eat and they things that eat them.

        Animals rights activists, on the extreme like PETA, worry about the individual fish. I think that is a hopeless way of thinking because every fish has something bigger to eat it except those right at the top of the food chain. Should humans step in and prevent sharks from causing pain to the fish they eat? What would the sharks eat?

        Or is it only human inflicted pain that counts?

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        Fish are incapable of feeling pain or fear in the sense that humans and other higher vertebrates experience and understand. The neurophysiolical “wiring” of fish is incapable of processing those sensations and emotions that we refer to as pain, fear, anxiety.

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        Yes Jon, I’m aware of these creative interpretations of behavioral observations. They do not provide a new understanding of the neurophysiological capability of fish to experience the feelings and emotions the higher vertebrates – humans are one example of many – experience: pain, fear, anxiety. Our understanding of the neural development in higher vertebrates and the adaptive responses (in this discussion pain, fear, anxiety as examples) that wiring is accomodates clearly links those parts we (higher vertebrates) possess and lower vertebrates (fish) do not. Fish do response to stimuli – piercing, chemicals, etc. We, as higher vertebrates cannot understand what exactly fish experience. We do know with certainty that fish cannot experience what understand as pain, fear, anxiety. The linkage of those sensations and emotions that we understand – to the premise that fish experience the same, is a convenient agrument against a variety of value based resource management prefrences, but those arguments are not based on credible science. They are in fact discredited by sound, fundamental physiologcial science.

      • mikarooni says:

        So, ScienceDaily doesn’t publish credible science? Purdue University is just a bunch of crackpots, eh, Mark? Is that the position of the IDGF or just its mouthpiece? This website is just damned overrun by you characters.

      • jon says:

        “They are in fact discredited by sound, fundamental physiologcial science.”

        Mark, I would be interested in seeing this.

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        Mikarooni –
        I’m sure sciencedaily reports credible science on a regular basis. The sciencedaily stories Jon posted were based on observations of fish behavioral responses to a variety of stimuli. The experiments that produced the observations may have well designed scientific experiments. For this discussion the observations are not important. It is the authors conclusions that are flawed. Interpretation of experimental finding is an important part of the scientific process (flawed in this case), but not all of it. The key point here is that the conclusion(s) that because fish perceive stimuli, noxious stimuli in this case (being hooked, experiencing stinging chemicals, etc.), and avoided those experiences in the present and in the future – they must experience pain. That conclusion is not credible because the premise of fish experiencing pain, fear, anxiety depends on our own understanding of those higher vertebrate neurophysiological phenomenae. Those perceptive concepts are, by definition, what we experience; what we understand and “feel”. That is the basis for the objections of some humans that fish are caught and released or caught at all – that fish therefor suffer the same discomfort that we would if experiencing the same stimuli. We know that is not possible because fish and other lower vertebrates with similar neurophysiological developement do not possess the brain structures that are responsible for those sensations and emotions in higher vertebrates. To state or infer that fish experience pain as we do is amply discredited by science.

        Jon –

      • jon says:

        Mark, thanks for those links. Dr. Rose is a fisherman. What is he going to say? that fish feel pain? I can find other studies conducted by scientists saying that fish do feel pain. Who should I believe? I doubt someone who fishes is going to claim that fish feel pain. my own opinion is fish do feel some kind of pain. We will never truly know because we aren’t fish. Dr. Rose says fish don’t feel pain, but other experts say they do? So, who do I believe?

      • jon says:

        I don’t think they feel pain like people do, but I’m pretty sure they feel pain none the less Mark.

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        Jon –
        Being an angler or being a PETA member has no bearing on the scientific reality of this question – “do fish feel pain?”. The facts are that fish are not physically, neurally capable of experiencing what we know as pain, fear or anxiety. Certainly fish perceive stimuli, react to stimuli and experience sensations that we cannot yet understand.
        The facts that fish do not experience pain and other human “feelings” is important because there are those who advocate that catch and release fishing, even all fishing, be made illegal – based on an argument that fish feel pain, therefor fishing imposes pain and fear on fish in cruel manner. If public policy should be based on facts, including sound science, then a public policy of making catch and release fishing (or all fishing) illegal – based on cruelty concerns – would not be supported by sound science.

      • WM says:


        You ever do any experiments with planeria (flatworms), earthworms or frogs in high school or college? Stimuli and response stuff?

    • JB says:

      You might be interested to know that there is a religion that espouses the philosophy that ALL human killing is wrong–it’s called Jainism. Jains have been known to where a mask to prevent the inhalation of insects, and often carry a broom to ensure they don’t step on (and kill) insects.

      – – – – –

      You might also be interested to know that at least a couple of European countries have already made it illegal to release caught fish (i.e., catch-and-release). The logic is that fish feel pain and catching them only to release them is akin to torturing the animal for no reason other than one’s own enjoyment.

      • Ovis says:


        Yes I know there are religions that say all human killing is wrong, but there are religions that seem to thinking killing of people is great (especially of non-believers). I doubt these care about any animal pain. I don’t necessary believe in any of them.

        About animal pain, I guess it is up to the individual and the culture he lives in. Most Americans think catch and release sport fishing shows sensitivity and concern about fish survival. Most Americans think dog fighting contests are disgusting, mean, and so on.

        I am a catch and release angler. I don’t know how much pain the fish are in, but most of them survive. Those that survive get smarter. If they reproduce, it is possible over time that those fish as a whole will become smarter as they evolve due to selection. They might also get more resistant to being caught.

        I’ve had accidents. Some hurt a lot. They made me smarter.

      • JB says:


        I was actually posting in response to pointswest, though I appreciate your perspective. I practice catch-and-release with some species and keep others, though I don’t get to fish nearly as often as I’d like. I just thought a couple of overseas analogies might add a different perspective.

        – – –

        Mark: I pretty much agree with you, but I would argue that you could use that same logic to dismiss pain/emotion arguments with our closest relatives. The nervous system response is automatic, it is how the brain interprets and reacts to the stimulus that defines human pain and emotion.

      • PointsWest says:

        JB writes: “You might be interested to know that there is a religion that espouses the philosophy that ALL human killing is wrong–it’s called Jainism.”

        In the early years of Christianity, there arose many Christian ascetic traditions that also developed extreme beliefs. Many early Christian ascetics became hermits, many were celebate, there developed classes of ascetic such as stylites that would live on the top of a pole or a column. Some were famous. There developed a tradition of graziers who believed in eating as little food as possible and in eating grass like a goat or cow. There were Christian ascetics that were vegetarian and there were those that refused to kill even insects similar to the Jains. Some of these tradition might have developed into cults as they did in the east had not the Emperor Constantine formed the Catholic Church and Neo-Flavian Dynasty (Constantine’s descendants) made Catholicism the State Religion and conduct a brutal campaign to purge the empire of non-Catholics.

      • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

        JB –
        Not to belabor what I hope is the obvious, but: the point of fish not being capable of experiencing pain, fear, anxiety, as we do, cannot be rationally/factually applied to mammals and other higher vertebrates. It isn’t just that we can’t know what or how another species experiences for emotion (pain is both a stimuli perception and emotion). Mammals possess a more developed cerebral cortex, with a neocortex – the neural stucture that processes emotion – that allows us to experience pain, fear, anxiety, joy, etc.. Fish do not. That is the specific explanation for why fish are incapable of experiencing pain and related emotions.

      • JB says:

        Mark: I understood your argument, it was the logic that underlies the argument that I was commenting on. Essentially, the logic is that because fish possess a less developed (different) central nervous system they are incapable of feeling human “pain.” I agree. But again, we are sufficiently different from all species such that they are incapable of experience pain and emotions as we know them. Human emotions are “bundled” with cognition (i.e., experienced simultaneously) such that few of us could tell where one begins and the other ends; thus, I would argue that no other species experiences emotion they same way we do.

        However, I don’t think this argument is especially persuasive when confronting people who would ban fishing for welfare reasons.

    • Salle says:

      Wow. But you aren’t stereotyping or anything, right?

    • PointsWest says:

      There are religions that say you should send me all your money. I created such a religion. Ask Ralph for my email and you can credit my PayPal account.

      ———- ———-

      If fish are in so much pain when I hook them, why don’t they stop fighting and stop breaking my line.

      • Doryfun says:

        I take people fishing for a living and most everyone who is a fish keeper, as opposed to catch and releaser, always wants to “put a fish out of its misery” by club or whatever to quickly bring death to the fish. I wonder why humans do that? There was also a great study presented in a previous issue of Conservation Magazine (by the Society for Conservation Biology) that concluded spiders feel pain. I don’t know how much lower on the biological totem pole a spider is than a fish, when it comes to apparatus for feeling pain,but…..until we humans can figure out how to actually communicate with the fish and wildlife we kill, we can only guess at what level their feelings actually are.

  27. JEFF E says:
    An interesting quote here. This is the first time I can remember this being said in relation too these two incidents.

    “Wildlife Services says they do not consider this a human safety risk as attacks on people are very rare. Grimm said in the past ten years, only two people have been killed by wolves in North America. In those cases, Grimm says the wolves were starving, which doesn’t appear to be the case here.”

    • jon says:

      Clearly the rancher wasn’t keeping a close eye on his cattle if it was attacked and killed by a wolf. The ranchers are their own worst enemys.

    • jon says:

      That is disgusting. That scumbag should have gotten a couple of years in prison and fined much more than he did. What a lowlife. Karma will get him

  28. jon says:

    Game and Fish Department temporarily feeding elk in western Wyoming

    • william huard says:

      All in all a well balanced article. I remember an encounter that I had with a trapper on my own property. I was walking one of my dogs at the time when I came across this rusty old steel leghold trap. Instead of calling the authorities I was quite upset how any person thought they could trap on my private property, so I took the trap and put it in my garage and left a sign stating- “No trapping private property” with my phone number on the bottom of the sign. About two weeks later I get a phone call from this person- He says I’m calling to get my trap back. I was stunned there was no discussion about his blatant disregard for private property. I asked him if he thought it was cool to trap on someone else’s property- not to mention wait two weeks before checking the trap! Long story short I told him if he wanted his trap to jump in the lake that’s where he would find his trap! Remember these people have an illustrious past where they slaughtered millions of buffalo, leaving their rotting carcasses in the sun.

      • jon says:

        William, so a trapper placed a trap on your property. What in the hell was the guy thinking? I wonder what his excuse would have been if one of your beloved pets got caught in it. Trapping is a public safety hazard to our beloved pets. It’s needs to be abolished.

      • Savebears says:


        The trappers and the bison hunters were two entirely different breed of men with completely different motivations.

        I agree you have right to be angry, I would be very angry if anyone violated my private property with their trapping, hunting or whatever it may be. I totally agree with you on the trespassing issue.

      • william huard says:

        Save Bears
        I understand that “trappers” didn’t kill Buffalo, but the hunters that did sold the Buffalo pelts. I should have been more specific.

  29. Salle says:

    I saw that earlier this week at another news service’s web site. Brings two things to mind:
    1) Boy, this could rattle the forensic anthropology world into a serious re-evaluation of standardized norms and hypotheses!
    2) Could this be a case of mimicry where the animal see humans walking around like that… so perhaps it has come to recognize the activity as a norm? Maybe it thinks that if it walks upright, it can get out of the cage?

    I suspect that this species possesses a sense of reasoning to some degree that we might recognize, perhaps this is an example.

    • Save bears says:

      I find it extremely interesting, this one I am really going to follow, it may give us a whole different understanding and appreciation..

      • Immer Treue says:

        Save Bears,
        You don’t have to answer this if you don’t think it prudent, but one of the better post’s I’ve seen outside of this forum belonged to someone who might, and I stress might be familiar, with an eccentric character nicknamed Brown Dog. By chance are you familiar with him. Consider the question a compliment.

        By that gorilla’s appearance, it has been walking upright for a while.

      • Save bears says:


        I have heard the name, but no, I am not familiar, I will have to do some research..

        What I find so interesting as well as fascinating, what the physical differences required to be an upright walking ape, there has obviously been some evolving structures in this apes body to allow it to feel comfortable walking this way. This truly could be an evolution of a species that we have not seen before, it will be very interesting to watch this develop..

  30. Salle says:

    200 Dead Cows Mystery Solved In Wisconsin: Toxic Moldy Potatoes To Blame

  31. Nancy says:

    According to the reporter on the Today Show (NBC) where I first saw the story, this gorilla’s father and two of his sisters also walk upright.

    • Save bears says:


      That is very interesting, I am going to have to do some reading, that would indeed be a massive move forward!

      • Nancy says:

        SB – It was the zookeeper (of 16 years) that mentioned it was a family trait. Here’s the interview and the video:

      • WM says:

        Can’t say I know much about kinesiology (the science of movement in humans). One has to wonder if walking upright is much of a genetic advantage to a gorilla in the wild. Do you suppose thes upright ones can out run the others (if there is a need to, say flight to avoid a fight with another band or an individual) that spring off their back feet and land on their front only to spring off the back ones again. Do their arms atrophy from lack of use, and inhibit their abilities in other ways?

        I think I wouldn’t put money on the upright ones in a foot race. But then again, maybe there are other advantages to upright walking.

        Is this a genetic defect? I seem to recall having seen a family of humans who walk on all fours (the entire family of several generations). I think it was in a slavic country, but cannot remember, for sure. In their case it was a genetic disorder.

  32. jon says:

    A very good show to tape and watch, on later.

  33. IDhiker says:

    Mark Gamblin (IDFG),

    I see you are posting again. Perhaps you could answer this question for me: Why has not IDFG charged people that are inciting criminal actions (related to wolves) under Idaho statute?

    I first contacted Jim Lukens in the Salmon office. He would not give me an answer and then referred me to Jon Heggen. Heggen would not even reply to three emails I sent him. What gives with IDFG? I have encountered this in the past concerning another issue.

    In contrast, when I contacted Montana FWP, I got connected with their LE head who spoke to me on the phone for 45 minutes, was polite and friendly, and thoroughly explained their position on this issue.

    • Salle says:

      I think if you start the conversation off with: “I’m a rancher and a hunter…” They might actually call you back and want to hear what you have to say until you get to the part that they don’t like… that being that you are in favor of wolves on the landscape.

  34. Ron Kearns says:


    Researcher’s status questioned in jaguar case

    “A researcher who later pleaded guilty to a federal crime in the trapping of jaguar Macho B was working for Arizona Game and Fish at the time of the capture, a state biologist has testified.

    Transcripts show that Game and Fish Department biologist Kirby Bristow’s 2009 testimony differs markedly from statements made last year by department officials that researcher Emil McCain wasn’t working for their agency at the time of the Feb. 18, 2009 capture.”

    End Quote}


  35. Salle says:

    When Emotion Drives the Wolf Debate, Research Suffers
    The Rocky Mountain West is producing solid science in regard to wolves. Too bad what’s learned is buried under what’s opined.

  36. Ron Kearns says:


    “Testimony indicates he was working for state; game officials deny it

    Researcher’s status questioned in jaguar case

    A researcher who later pleaded guilty to a federal crime in the trapping of jaguar Macho B was working for Arizona Game and Fish at the time of the capture, a state biologist has testified.

    Transcripts show that Game and Fish Department biologist Kirby Bristow’s 2009 testimony differs markedly from statements made last year by department officials that researcher Emil McCain wasn’t working for their agency at the time of the Feb. 18, 2009 capture.”

    End Quote}

  37. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Wolf in Majella National Park in Italy rescued from a snare. This time, the radio collar saved his life.
    Watch the attached slide show. Italian text but easily translated by google translator.

    • PointsWest says:

      I wonder if Italian wolves communicate with their paws the way Italians communicate with their hands. 😉

  38. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Think they are talking about the Caspian Tiger here. Recent rumours indeed say there may be a few survivors.

  39. jon says:

    Blaine County Wants to Expand Idaho Wolf Project

  40. JEFF E says:
    Of course the deniers are saying “no no, Exxon is right. BP is right. they have our best interests at heart.”
    The dumbass forehead tattoo just went fluorescent, right Tom.

    • PointsWest says:

      Climotologists have always said global warming would mean more extreme weather. I can remember them saying this 15 years ago. Specifically, they said more wind, more floods, more rain in some areas, and even more snow in some areas, more drougts along with record high temperatures.

      I have been reading for at leat 8 years that the glaciers on Mr. Shasta are growing due to global warming. It is not colder on Mt. Shasta. It is simply getting more snow because the nearby Pacific Ocean is evaporating more moisture into the air that flows onshore in the vacinity of Mt. Shasta.

      Moncia Crowly, conservative talk radio hoste, declared last week that global warming has now been proven to be a hoax.

      • Although I don’t know about this Crowly specifically, it is people like her who are funded by the Koch Brothers.

      • JEFF E says:

        You’re right, I remember all that conversation also. Climate changes. it has just never changed so dramatically so quickly.
        Good or bad?
        ask em in australia.

      • JEFF E says:

        oh wait. that was a week and a half ago.
        ancient history. sorry

      • PointsWest says:

        From what I can gather, the Kochead Conspiracy works something like this:

        If you are a Kochead like Rush Limbaugh, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Glenn Beck, or Representative Michelle Bachman, you receive a secret talking points memo via encrypted email each morning with the conservative talking points of the day. This is a list of five or six talking points. A talking point might be that “recent snowstorms fly in the face of global warming theorists.” Each talking point will contain certain quotes or facts or data (whether real or fabricated) that tend to support the talking point. The object is to get these talking points on the airwaves from many speakers in many contexts all in the same day so it sounds as if conservatives are of one mind and with true insight into serious issues…that the issues are obvious to conservatives. People tend to believe things when they hear it from different types of sources in different contexts that are consistent and with a degree of certainty.

        I am not making this up. I watched a documentary about it a couple of years ago. The focus was Bush and the Iraq war at that time, however. They interviewed people that were on the recipient list of the secret email. I do not know if the Kochs were involved at this time. But it is clear to me that conservatives, politicians and media people, all speak on the same issues on the same day and cite the same facts and use the same terminology. There is little doubt that something like a talking points memo goes out everyday to a recipient list. Pay attention and you will notice this consistency too.

        So if a radio host hits the talking points and gets the message out, they are rewarded. They are paid to speak at Koch sponsored events. They are paid to appear on Fox News. Radio shows like Rush Limbaugh get advertising sponsorship from companies owned by Kocheads at favorable rates. They get book deals from publishers owned by Kocheads and the books are promoted by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation in radio, TV, and in print media. Politician who are successful at consistently hitting the talking points, get campaign contribution from Kocheads and from the political organization they sponsor. They get exposure on Fixed News or any other media outlet owned by Murdoch’s New Corporation.

        I make fun of most conspiracy theories but there is little doubt in my mind that something like the above is happening everyday now.

      • wolf moderate says:

        Oh man PW,

        You gotta get on Coast to Coast! That is great stuff.

      • PointsWest says:

        Paul Krugman’s New York Times article 10/03/1910

        Arguably, this shouldn’t be surprising. Modern American conservatism is, in large part, a movement shaped by billionaires and their bank accounts, and assured paychecks for the ideologically loyal are an important part of the system. Scientists willing to deny the existence of man-made climate change, economists willing to declare that tax cuts for the rich are essential to growth, strategic thinkers willing to provide rationales for wars of choice, lawyers willing to provide defenses of torture, all can count on support from a network of organizations that may seem independent on the surface but are largely financed by a handful of ultrawealthy families.

        And these organizations have long provided havens for conservative political figures not currently in office. Thus when Senator Rick Santorum was defeated in 2006, he got a new job as head of the America’s Enemies program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that has received funding from the usual sources: the Koch brothers, the Coors family, and so on.


      • PointsWest says:

        Paul Krugman’s New York Times article 10/03/2010

      • mikarooni says:

        Thanks for the Krugman quote, PointsWest. Rick Santorum is one of my favorites…,26174,1547493,00.html

    • jon says:

      Imagine that, the elk are not wiped out like some claim. The reason for the low hunter #s is because you have those listening to other hunters who are claiming all of the elk are gone, killed off by wolves. I hope Ralph or Ken posts this.

      • JEFF E says:

        when I went hunting this past season I traveled early in the season(early elk, late deer)(weather wise, summer type) mainly to scout. Ran into a couple of fellows that had been on horses for the better part of 10 days. “didn’t see a Damn thing,”they says,”not a track, nothing.””wolves got em all”
        I asked what drainage’s they hunted. Two weeks later I was in those same drainage after the weather changed and saw elk sign of all age classes everywhere. same story with other hunters I talked too. Sawtooth zone

      • wolf moderate says:

        I thought everyone says they saw nothin’ when strangers ask?

        Early September I hiked into the wilderness area/SNRA east of Grandjean. Didn’t see a track all day. No one else I saw did either. Then again, they could be lying…not wanting other hunters around.

        “elk are where they are”.

      • JEFF E says:

        early Sept. was pretty warm. elk were staying pretty much in the holes and high up. or both. were you able to get above 7000′

      • wolf moderate says:

        Yeah, finally found them above about 7700 ft. Only spent one day around Grandjean. Ended up out of Bruce Meadows/Bear Valley and Dagger Falls areas. Lots of fires, but didn’t affect the elk too much.

      • JEFF E says:

        okay wolf . you did not hike from Grandgene to Bruce meadows, that is two days(day and a half if you’er truckin) and only if that is what you want to do??

      • wolf moderate says:

        HUH? No. I hiked around east of GJ, didn’t see any fresh sign. So, we brainstormed and decided to DRIVE 🙂 to Bruce Meadows area and hunt that area lol. Yeah, hiking it would take quite some time.

        I see how you could get confused…I said “ended up”, as in hiked GJ and ended up in BM. My bad.

      • JEFF E says:

        OK wolf sounds more realistic. sorry for jumpin. any luck?

      • wolf moderate says:

        Yeah, buddy got spike and I missed a really big 6 pt. Rather not chat here. I post too much as is. Feel free to contact me anytime though. No bugling=tough bowhuntin’

      • JEFF E says:

        wish I was better at bow hunting. my opinion that is the future of effective hunting. ever check out

      • wolf moderate says:

        I read bowsite often. W/ the lack of rifle hunting opportunities in decent areas, it’s almost a requirement to bowhunt if you want to hunt every year in good country. Email me sometime and we can chat if ya want.

      • JEFF E says:

        appreciate the invite wolf. last time I was in this position I ended up being blindsided, and as I am not the most well liked person in the wolf recovery world I will ask Ralph to be a firewall.
        Reason is I have a 10 year old daughter that is more important than any thing else put together, at least to me, and I have at least one whack job stalker out there, so don’t take it negatively please. I would like to get with you and talk about the issues facing hunters.

      • wolf moderate says:

        Cool Gotta be safe in this day n’ age, especially if you have kids. I just made up that email I posted cuz I didn’t want whack jobs emailing me at my real email 🙂 Yeah, feel free to go through ralph or whatever.

        Good luck.

      • JEFF E says:

        headed up to the frozen north in a couple hours. might talk the family into a walrus tusk. we will see. get back with you later.

    • wolf moderate says:

      “U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson on Monday accepted without trial the states’ argument that the new law violates people’s rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.”

      YAY! Some good news finally.

      • skyrim says:

        Perhaps good news for some, but maybe not good news for all……..

      • jon says:

        This is probably the only issue I agree with conservatives on. I don’t believe people should be forced to buy something they don’t want or can’t afford. Health insurance can get very expensive depending on where you live. If you can’t afford it, you get fined. It makes no sense at all.

      • Elk275 says:


        If one does not have health insurance and gets sick or hurt, who pays the bill? The hospital has to write off the bill and raise the rates for those who are insured. The insurance companies then raise the premiums and those with insurance pay for those without. It is a vicious cycle. But this forum is about wildlife so we must move on.

      • jon says:

        You miss the whole point elk. People should not have to buy something they don’t want or can’t afford. Do you understand that?

      • Save bears says:

        Hmm, the government says we must have wolves and that is ok, I am not against them, but when the government says we must have healthcare…

        Heath care = Bad

        Wolves = Good

        Now take into account, it is the same exact government that is saying this..

        Now this could have some far ranging implications affecting many different issues in this country..

      • Elk275 says:

        Jon, I agree that people should not have to buy health care, but when they need medical attention and treatment, someone, some intitution has to pay. There is no free lunch.

      • jon says:

        That’s on them elk. If some don’t want to buy health insurance and they get sick, that’s on them and that is the price they will pay for not having it, but I don’t think forcing it on people when some cannot afford it is the right thing to do. I don’t know what your health insurance plan is like, but here in the northeast, it can get quite expensive for families that are already struggling.

      • wolf moderate says:

        You are correct Elk. This is a wolf blog, but since someone posted the hyperlink I weighed in w/ 5 or so words in praise.

        I really want to back the judges decision but I won’t on this blog: 1) Because this is a wildlife blog 2) Ralph is a political scientist and most likely in favor of Obamacare, thus can make counterpoints that could be complete bull, but that are over my/our heads and couldn’t counter them! 😉

      • jon says:

        I don’t know what Ralph political views are, but I don’t believe he’s a big fan of Obama.

      • william huard says:

        Yeah that’s real great news wolf moderate. Who are these government people trying to protect regular americans from discrimination from the VAMPIRES in the private health insurance market! The government is trying to fix the corrupt system where a profit based system that encourages denial of health care and abuses of patients all in the name of “free market principles”. The head of United Health Care made 102 million in 2009. How much is enough? We are talking about people’s lives here

    • mikarooni says:

      So, you guys are happy with a ruling from Judge Vinson are you? Some of you, those of you who like to think you’re enlightened or progressive, ought to learn a bit about Judge Vinson before you get too excited about hailing him as a hero.

      • timz says:

        “Hmm, the government says we must have wolves and that is ok, I am not against them, but when the government says we must have healthcare…
        Heath care = Bad
        Wolves = Good”
        One of the dumbest things I’ve ever read here and there’s been some doozies. Either that or I missed the law that says I have to buy a wolf.

      • Save bears says:


        Believe me, you and I have bought wolves…how do you think he program was paid for? It may be stupid to you, I am hearing a lot of others that don’t think the analogy is so stupid, there are a great many people that believe both programs are being shoved down their throat..

        I have a full health care the health care debate really does not affect me at all..

      • timz says:

        ” I am hearing a lot of others that don’t think the analogy is so stupid”
        Just proves those correct who say there are a lot of stupid people around. Still a dumb analogy.

      • jon says:

        lol @ Tim’s comment. I don’t think it’s fair to compare wolves and healthcare. Wolves were brought back because they were wiped out in some places.

      • wolf moderate says:

        Most of the time I think I’m crazy. But sometimes I wonder whether everyone else is crazy and I’m the sane one(?)! Wow dude, I gotta lay off the ganja.

        Same goes w/ people who think they are smart.

      • jon says:

        Wolf moderate, don’t you know weed is bad for you?

      • Save bears says:


        You really have a difficult time when people interpret
        things differently than you do, don’t you?

        Of course calling people stupid, is the best way to solve a situation…

      • Save bears says:

        When it comes down to it, it is people believing, wrong or right, the government is forcing stuff down their throats, and with the current feeling in the US, there seems to be a lot of people believing the government is forcing things down their throat…now if that is stupid, then so be it…

      • timz says:

        “You really have a difficult time when people interpret
        things differently than you do, don’t you?”

        No, I just have a difficult time with stupidity.

    • Save bears says:

      I have not run into one Montana hunter that was opposed to this, this concerns close areas around towns and populations of humans, you might want to do some research before you make a blanket claim..I know you won’t respond, but you will read it..

      • Elk275 says:


        It is already against the law to use sabots in muzzleloaders in weapon resticted areas. It may be time to modify some regulations regarding sabots in shotguns. Do some research first. Do you know what a sabot is?

  41. Mike says:

    EPA knowingly approved pesticide that wipes out bees:

    • jon says:

      There’s no problem wolves. It’s the ranchers who are the problem. They just leave their cattle out there in the open where any predator can get them. This is a rancher caused problem, not a wolf. The wolf is doing what it is supposed to do and that is kill and eat animals.

      • Bob says:

        So jon just how do my neighbors keep wolves from killing their cows.

      • mikarooni says:

        Raise longhorns and retain a high percentage of senior cows in the herd.

      • Bob says:

        In your logical world women are at fault for rape and pedophiles just need to be left free also.
        No need to remove any habitual problem makers they just do what their suppose to do. No need for police or Wildlife Services.

      • jon says:

        Wolves are not problem makers. Ranchers let their cattle roam in places where predators can easily get them, what do you expect? They are animals that eat for survival. Don’t compare wolves to humans. Humans know better and know what’s right and wrong. A pedophile knows his actions are wrong. Wolves act on instinct and they kill animals for a living.

      • jon says:

        Pedophiles and rapists are criminals who commit illegal crimes. Wolves eating cattle does not make them bad. They are doing nothing wrong. They are doing what they are supposed to do and that is eat other animals. A cow or goat or sheep is no different than a elk or deer. They are all viewed as prey.

      • jon says:

        And to answer your first question, there are non lethal ways, but I doubt your ranching neighbors would give them any thought. How many animals have your ranching buddies lost to wolves? The first solution and only solution by some ranchers is just kill.

      • PointsWest says:

        jon writes: “Ranchers let their cattle roam in places where predators can easily get them, what do you expect? They are animals that eat for survival.”

        jon…if extremists like you had their way, wolves would be in our suburbs and it would not be long before some killed and ate a kid. Then what are you going to say, “suburbanites let their kids roam in places where predators can easily get them, what do you expect? They are animals that eat for survival.”?

      • jon says:

        pw, you asked me that a while ago and I said wolves don’t belong in suburbs. Suburban settings is not good habitat for wolves.

      • jon says:

        Wolf attacks on people are very rare pw btw. Even a californian like yourself should know that.

      • wolf moderate says:

        Bustin’ out the “C” word! That is a low blow…

      • PointsWest says:

        On the planet jon, animals would have rights…superior rights. It would be illegal for a man to kill a cow, but it would be perfectly legal for a wolf to kill a cow. It would be illegal for a man to kill a kid, it would be perfectly legal for a wolf to kill a kid. It would be illegal for a man to kill a wolf. It would be perfectly legal for a wolf to kill a man.

        Some case would go before the supreme court that some men are like wolves in that they are natural born killers and, therefore, should have the legal right to kill cows, deer, birds and other men because it is just in their nature.

        The planet jon sounds like some kind of nightmare to me.

      • PointsWest says:

        Wolf attacks on humans are rare only because wolves are not allowed in the suburbs and are usually hazed or killed for frequenting suburbs. That would all change on the planet jon.

      • jon says:

        pw, the planet is already a nightmare and take a look at your state, it’s broke. The nightmare is already here. Has been here for a while.

      • PointsWest says:

        jon writes: “pw, you asked me that a while ago and I said wolves don’t belong in suburbs. Suburban settings is not good habitat for wolves.”

        jon…if we cannot “manage” them, and it is illegal to harm them, just how do you intend to keep them out of the suburbs? …trap and airlift them? Moving wolves somewhere where there is already a pack and prey is scarce is a death sentecne too. …and who is going to pay for all this?

      • PointsWest says:

        jon writes: “pw, the planet is already a nightmare and take a look at your state, it’s broke. The nightmare is already here. Has been here for a while.”

        Oh! I get it! We are all going to commit suicide together by wolf attack!

      • jon says:

        They will leave on their own. If not, they will be trapped and moved.

      • PointsWest says:

        Where will they go? …to Denny’s. Remember, with superior rights and protection, all the other available habitat is already full of wolves. Where will they go when they leave jon? Where will those trapped be relocated to? Do you think things through?

      • Bob says:

        Where I live we use every tool there is Fladery, range riders, collars, fences, night pens at times, and yet they still kill. Their not afraid of us just wary, can,t even throw rocks at them might hurt one, endanger you know. Live north of a line I can’t see. But in your eyes I’am a wolf hater but really I just hate people like you.

  42. Don Riley says:

    Bangs said the total population of Wyoming’s wolves has stayed relatively the same for the past five years. Numbers outside the park have crept up, but as agency officials are killing wolves that migrate to areas where conflicts occur, wolf populations are stabilizing.

  43. Salle says:

    Plans for bear hunt in Nevada press on, and so does debate

  44. Salle says:

    A Failed Push to Raise Fees Begs the Question: Is Public-Lands Grazing Helpful or Harmful?

  45. jon says:

    Outdoors Digest: Rabies found in two new Cave Junction area foxes

    Death of man bitten by copperhead raises questions

  46. Immer Treue says:

    Yellowstone Wolves: A Chronicle of the Animal, the People, and the Politics by Cat Urbigkit

    Sorry, but I don’t know where else to put this, but what take does anybody have on this book. I’d like to gather as many perspectives on the wolf issues as possible. An anti-wolf nemesis of mine keeps saying this is a book that needs to be read to get the whole picture, yet he was the same individual to vigorously recommend Wolves in Russia, quite possibly one of the most poorly written books I have ever read.

    • jon says:

      I’ve emailed her before. I never read her book, but she is another one of those people that think the wolf reintroduced is a non native oversized canadian wolf. Her book is probably better than Will Graves book “wolves in Russia”.

    • jon says:

      Seems like the only people who keep claiming this are the ones that aren’t happy that wolves were reintroduced. Both ranchers and hunters have been repeating this claim over and over again when biologists, you know the real experts have said it’s not true.

    • Immer Treue says:

      I’ve been on the Amazon site, and the few reviews, and the divide between them is obvious, as with Wolves in Russia. That’s why I came here for what might be some more objective view of her book. Insight into a topic, from either perspective, doesn’t hurt. On the other hand, this might the source of some of the dribble by Rockholm and Bridges.

      • Salle says:

        She also publishes a rinky-dink paper that is often used as the talking points in aniti-wolf arguments. I think she is a rancher over by Pinedale, WY area. Never was in favor of wolves and often helps to come up with some of their lame arguments. Because they are ranchers in a pro-rancher state, she has someone who will listen to her rhetoric. I can just imagine who helped ~ funded ~ her publish this drivel. She’s kind of in the same league as Ron Gillette but with a tiny bit more intelligence, a very tiny bit.

      • jon says:

        IT, rh and tb just came on the anti wolf hating scene a few years ago. Cat’s book came out way before that I believe. She is a rancher I believe so she will hate wolves just because of what they are, wild animals that kill other animals for survival and sometimes that includes livestock. She has a website called wolf watch.

      • Peter Kiermeir says:

        Maybe you want to checkout their website for the overall picture:

      • WM says:


        Cat Urbigkit has a pretty long history with wolves, and it is not particularly objective. She is out of Pinedale, WY if I recall correctly. If you Google her, some of this history will show, and a portion is not so complimentary.

        She and her husband are sheep ranchers. One might also consider she has in interest in making money off her writing – wolves are a new topic, raising sheep guard dogs, and keeping the pot stirred up for the gullible and the inquisitive using a variety of web based means, including a blog or two.

        It is all about the money and the ego. Won’t take you long to figure that out, if you are a critical thinker.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Thanks for the information. Perused her site for a while. The attempt at objectivity appears to be there, unlike a couple other of our favorites. Don’t know if I’ll read her book or not. I think the most compelling reason to read it is answered with an analogy. When either teaching or talking about evolution, many of my students say they just don’t believe in it. I’ll answer that doubt with, in the very least, you should know something about it and how it works, so that if you ever get into a discussion about it, you can at least “sound” knowledgeable enough about it to support your own arguments.

        Thanks again

      • jon says:

        I don’t think there is any harm in reading her book IT. I think you already know what a person like her is going to say. Once they bring up the non native canadian wolf argument, I think you know what you are going to be seeing in the book. A lot of myths and misinformation.

    • PointsWest says:

      I wonder what the total dollar figure is for litigaiton surrounding the Mexican wolf. I wonder how much money it would take to simply buyout the ranchers in the recovery area. How much is land and/or grazing rights worth?

      I’m sure I will sound very cynical, but have any pro-wolf groups looked at buying rancher’s out rather than just expecting ranchers to live with wolves. I can’t imagine ranchland in the Gila, say, being particularly valuable…nor the grazing rights. I’ve hunted this area. It just not that great of cattle country. The grass is pretty sparse until you get up to about 8,000 feet and not that much of it is that high.

  47. Jerry Black says:

    PW….”I’m sure I will sound very cynical, but have any pro-wolf groups looked at buying rancher’s out rather than just expecting ranchers to live with wolves.”

    Yup…….and it’s ongoing.

  48. Jerry Black says:

    WM…”Has there been much litigation over the Mexican wolf?”
    Yup….and that is also ongoing.

    • WM says:

      I am aware of a couple of suits but nothing on the order or magnitude of the issues presented by the GL and NRM wolves. Unfortunately, the resistance is stronger with the livestock industry and even counties as plaintiffs in groundless claims, which makes FWS efforts all the more difficult.

    • PointsWest says:

      The Mexican wolf issue is the most succinct of all the wildlife conservation issues in the USA. Here we have a large, unique, and interesting animal facing extinction. We have already spent millions in captive breeding and reintroduction. The vast majority of people support reintroduction and are interested in it. We have a vast wilderness in the Gila / Mogollon Rim country of New Mexico and Arizona perfect for the Mexican wolves. The reintroduction is a failure.

      There are other conservation failures that all have some or most of the same elements as that of the Mexican wolf. I used to scratch my head about why there are so many conservation failures when it seems nearly every American is interested in them. I used to believe is was a failure of government or that special private interests are winning their way over the vast majority of American’s wishes. After reading this blog for a couple of years, I can see that the problem is not government and it is not private interests winning the day
      This problem is discord among the conservation groups. All of them want different things. Overall, they have more money and more power than ranchers or gas companies or farmers. They could buy land and end or minimize grazing in certain critical areas if their money and politcal power was pooled. That’s not the problem. The problem is that we have several hundred conservation groups that all have different agendas. They want different things. The single largest divide is that between hunters and anti-hunters that is so obvious on the blog. Anti-hunters simply refuse to cooperate with hunting organization such as the Rocky Mountain Elk foundation, for example. I think compromises could be worked out on the Gila / Mogollon Rim for the Mexican Wolves. Hunting could be minimal with mostly bow-hunting and muzzle loader hunting and be managed so there is plenty of deer and elk for wolves. Roads, fences, most grazing, and other impacts could be removed. The money and the political power is there if the conservation forces joined.

      It will never happen, however. I believe that many of the anti-hunters do not really care about wildlife conservation. This is an emotional issue that is really all about them and their feelings being in the forefront. They are really all about their feelings and care little about the Gilla / Mogollon Rim. I am not blaming the failure entirely on the anti-hunters but they are certainly a big part of it. As is often repeated, hunters are a large group and have the money to effect change. Refusal to work with hunters, I believe, is the largest cause of conservation failures. It is so obvious to me now. I think most American would love to see some compromise to help the Mexican wolf live in the wild. But conservation groups, particularly the animal-rights anti-hunters will never budge and would rather see Mexican wolves extinct than to cooperate with hunters.

      • jon says:

        Environmentalists care more about wildlife than any other group out there. We fight tooth and nail to PROTECT it when other groups out there just wanna kill it for their own thrills. You have no idea what you are talking about. Environmentalists played a big part in bringing wolves back. Hunters did not want to bring wolves back. I can’t tell you how many times I heard, “we didn’t want the god dam things to be brought back”. A good portion of them anyways. We try very hard to protect wildlife from those who only wanna kill it. Environmentalists are the true conservationists.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Here we go….
      Livestock Growers, Counties Withdraw Lawsuit to Eradicate Gray Wolves From New Mexico

      • jon says:

        So much for livestock growers being the “stewards of the land”. These people are such f’n hypocrites. They claim they are stewards of the land, but wanna wipe out species like wolves. What gives them the right to want to eradicate a species?

  49. jon says:

    Does Denny have a good shot at winning? It seems like to me Montana is not a big fan of Denny.

    • william huard says:

      He’s got a fancy lookin rancher hat though. The problem is it’s probably a few sizes to small and might be cuttin off circulation to his pea brain.

      • Save bears says:

        Actually Denny has a pretty good following in Montana, it will be interesting to see how it turns out come election day, I know quite a few that are very unhappy with Tester…

  50. Woody says:

    This article is about a recent court ruling to prohibit grazing on some national forest lands in Grant County, Oregon in order to protect habitat for steelhead.

  51. John d. says:

    ‘Scientific’ Grazing in a national park.

    First The Dept. of Sustainability and Environment explanation:

    Then comes the scientific community’s response:

    Wonder if the stock owners will be prudent enough to spray paint “Research” in big white capital letters on their cattle?

  52. Cody Coyote says:

    My eyebrow went up when I saw the report at AOL News that 200 cows had mysteriously died in Wisconsin. That is three times the number of cattle killed by wolves in all of Wyoming last year.

    What killed 2oo cattle in the Cheese and Beer State? Would you believe it was eating rotten sweet potatoes? Yams. Damn yams got ’em.

  53. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Finland thinks about opening the spring hunt for bears again. This was banned nearly two decades ago. Who´s behind that plan? Of course the mighty reindeer owners lobby. They have problems with wolves and wolverine also, not to forget the lynx of course……

  54. wolf moderate says:

    Is it possible that moosallo are in our future?

    • Nancy says:

      That could be the reason why there’s a shortage of moose around the Yellowstone area 🙂

  55. jon says:

    Get ranchers off welfare by Jon Marvel

    Myths contribute to wolf hatred

  56. jon says:

    David Allen from RMEF letter to Tim Aldrich of Montana wildlife federation

    • wolf moderate says:


      Most hunters (that I know) do not believe that wolves are endangered (Including me). I only know one person that is “anti wolf”, everyone else is for state “management” of wolves and appreciates them when out in the mountains…in reasonable numbers.

      RMEF letter MWF was spot-on IMO.

      • wolf moderate says:

        RMEF letter TO the MWF was spot-on IMO. Left out a couple words…

      • JB says:

        “…yet populations remain unmanaged and damaging elk herds, livestock and rural economies.”

        Spot on? Really?

        First of all, populations are being HEAVILY managed–especially for a population of this size. Since wolves were reintroduced they have been collared, moved, and killed specifically to keep them from damaging livestock and rural economies.

        Here are a few facts about the wolf management that has occurred in the past decade (2000-2009). During that time, 1,196 wolves have been purposefully killed to benefit livestock producers. Note: those deaths account for 45% of all known wolf mortalities in the NRMs during the past decade. Moreover, if you add in the harvest that occurred in 2009, the number jumps to 1,402 (or ~53% of all wolf mortalities) and if you add in other sources of human mortality the number jumps to 1763, or 67% of all known wolf mortalities. On average, human beings have killed 15% of the wolf population per year since 2001. Moreover, this number has expanded dramatically in recent years–we removed 31% of the population in 2009, and 21% in 2008.

        Perhaps you and I have a different definition of what constitutes “management”?

        Second, the word “damage” denotes harm. Presumably, in the eyes of RMEF, any elk herd that is under objective is being “damaged”; however, just because a herd has been reduced in size does not mean it is “damaged”. More importantly, the last time I checked, the vast majority of all elk management units were AT or OVER objective, and even where units are under objective the cause is not solely attributable to wolves.

        Third, I know of absolutely no reputable source for the idea that wolves are having any negative impact on “rural economies”. Quite the opposite, the only peer-reviewed publication on the issue that I have seen found greater than 30 million in tourists dollars added to the economies of Yellowstone-area communities that were DIRECTLY attributable to wolf-related tourism (see citation below).

        Finally, just because the wolf population meets the requirements specified for recovery in the recovery plan does not mean that the population in the NRMs does not face threats to its continued existence–the very definition of an endangered species.

        The rhetoric of RMEF is disingenuous at best, and they deserve to be called out for it.

        Duffield, J. W., C. J. Neher, and D. A. Patterson. 2008. Wolf Recovery in Yellowstone: Park Visitor Attitudes, Expenditures, and Economic Impacts. George Wright Forum 25:13-19.

      • JB says:

        More “fun” facts:

        Since 2000, wolves have killed an average of about 400 domestic animals (260 of which are sheep) per year in the NRMs. In 1999 alone, coyotes killed more than 165,000 sheep, while dogs are estimated to have killed more than 40,000 nationwide. If you adjust these numbers proportionately (3 states/50 = .06), coyotes still kill more than 30 times the number of sheep (9900/year) that wolves do, and dogs kill nearly 10 times (2400/year) as many).

        I wonder, where is the outrage regarding dogs’ disastrous effects on rural economies?


      • SAP says:

        I was also surprised by RMEF’s David Allen’s assertion that “a federal judge recently upheld Wyoming’s plan as an adequate science-based plan.”

        Is that really what Judge Johnson decided back in November?

        Seems he ruled that USFWS cannot just tell WY “your plan that we approved in 2007 is no longer an adequate plan” without providing a reasoned explanation for changing their minds. That is way different from the judge saying that he thinks WY’s plan is “adequate science-based plan.”

      • PointsWest says:

        jon…ranchers shoot thier neigbor’s dogs all the time. I stood right next to a friend of my father’s when he shot his neighbor’s dog and I helped him throw the dead dog into the back of his truck. I have seen other ranchers kill dogs and shoot at dogs. I would guess that, nationwide, there are thousands of dogs killed for killing or chasing livestock.

      • JB says:

        “Seems he ruled that USFWS cannot just tell WY “your plan that we approved in 2007 is no longer an adequate plan” without providing a reasoned explanation for changing their minds.”

        Exactly; and I don’t think he will accept, “The administration changed, and the political pressure to delist wolves was reduced.”

      • IDhiker says:

        I will say up front that RMEF has done great work for habitat over the years. My concern is that when David Allen took over the organization, he has begun moving it to being a “right-wing” political organization. In my opinion, Allen is turning RMEF into the NRA of conservation groups (I’ve been a member of the NRA for 30 years). He is aligning himself with groups and individuals that generally aren’t supportive of wildlife issues by jumping on the anti-wolf bandwagon and by taking a no compromise position. I don’t see Allen as a reasonable man.

      • Save bears says:

        I was a longtime member of RMEF and canceled my membership when I started noticing a move to the right on the wolf issues that are happening in the Rocky Mountain Region..they were always a nice organization to belong to, when their focus was habitat acquisition and improvement and they have done a lot to improve conditions..but I can say, I am not thrilled with the new guy on the block, he seems to be very extreme in his viewpoints as well as his methods and I don’t believe he is leading the organization in the right direction.

      • wolf moderate says:


        That’s a deafetist attitude. Get in their and run for “office”! 😉

        I agree that they are becoming too extreme. They will lose more and more influence.

  57. Cody Coyote says:

    COYOTE DERBY : some activist hunter types appear to have organized an Ad Hoc coyote derby for the area north of Spokane Washington. Maybe this has been posted already ( there’s only 390 posts here ). It’s from the Seattle klatch of the blog-o-rama.

    The author, Dave Workman, claims this coyote attrition schützenfest has the blessing of Washington state wildlife officials who see the Whitetail deer herd falling prey to (fill in the blank). Then Workman goes on to make sure the “Queen Anne Hill (Seattle) animal rights activists” get the message. Then he drifts off into the swamp with a long schpiel about a New Jersey Senator’s latest anti-gun proposal without missing a stride. Over at the left in a sdebar is a story about UFO’s over Jerusalem , if that helps bracket the context of the universe.

    The event is billed as the “Balance for Wildlife Coyote Derby,” and runs the entire month of February, with a prize of a .223 caliber varmint rifle.

    I’ve noticed that the phenom gives a lot of semi-credibile ( or not ) authors some prominent space in local and regional news blogs when no other online news service will go where they go . is set up in quite a few cities. I don’t know of anyone in the real world of journalism who takes it seriously. I’m skeptical , usually.

    In this Coyote snuffout case, it’s not journalism …it’s a promotional piece with an activist slant IMHO.

    See for yourself.

    • william huard says:

      Workman is Editor of the illustrious GUN WEEK. Who are we to question his integrity.

      • jon says:

        I’m sure these sadistic wildlife killers will tell you these “coyote derbies” where they kill them for prizes and money and are based on science.

    • jon says:

      Cody, I posted this, but thank you for posting it again. Balance for wildlife is not accurate. Coyote derbies are for the sport hunters who view predators as vermin and varmints. Killing wildlife for money and prizes takes a sadistic group of people with no respect for the animals in the woods and forests that they kill. Let’s protect the deer from the coyotes by killing coyotes for money and prizes and sport and then killing the deer for ourselves.

      • william huard says:

        What was that ad a few years back that said basically what you just said but talking about Alaska? I think it was Gord Habers group that financed him

    • PointsWest says:

      jon writes: “Coyote derbies are for the sport hunters who view predators as vermin and varmints.”

      I have known hudreds of hunters and I have never known one to go to a “coyote derbie.” I have not been to one or even seen one. I really do not know what types go to coyote derbies. For most hunters, hunting is something you do with a few close friends or family. Something like a coyote derbie is very different. It is a big gathering of people and I honestly have never even kown anybody to go to one. It simply would not be something any hunters I know would enjoy. I would guess most who go to these events ranchers who have an interest in reducing coyote numbers and others are people who want to show off their guns. I, personally, cannot envision most hunters participating in any such thing…not especially because of morals or ethics but because most hunters only hunt with close friends and family. They are not interested in big events. May look funny in hunting clothes for one thing. They change them as soon as the return from hunting.

      Your assertion that most at these derbies are “sport hunters” is absurd in my view. I doubt but one in 500 hunters has ever participated in a coyote derby.


      Last year, there was a coyote derbie in SE Idaho. It has heatedly discussed on a number of blogs. It was sponsored by Idaho Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife. I know one of the guys who participated in it. As far as I can tell, he was a normal person, though it was an activity I would not approve of. Having said that, I think I’d better delete some stuff you wrote plus followups. Ralph Maughan

  58. PointsWest says:

    If you were talking about “hunters,” I was talking about “anti-hunters”!

  59. Nancy says:

    PW? You doing okay?

    • SAP says:

      PW, many of your contributions on this blog are very worthwhile. Please don’t get yourself banned!

      The armchair philosopher in me wants to say that there a big moral equivalency gap between the stuff you’re citing and the wanton and thoughtless killing of coyotes. But the practical side of me doesn’t want to get anywhere near defending this garbage. It’s still garbage.

      That said: your point is not lost on me about painting with too broad of a brush, guilt by association, and clueless blanket condemnations. You have made your point in shocking and vivid fashion. Now can we stop with the dog porn?

    • SAP says:

      OK, sorry, I can’t not read that story; this from the police report is priceless:

      “The dog then appeared to lose interest and walked out of view of the camera . . . “

    • PointsWest says:

      I think zoophilia is a ligitimate topic as it relates to animal rights advocates. I asked my wife tonight about this woman up in West Hollywood and she said Carrol was very popular and everyone like her. Now, understand that this was in West Hollywood and for those of you not familiar with LA, West Hollywood is a large gay community, one of the largest in the world. Nearly everyone in this appartement complex was gay and were probably animal rights advocates. West Hollywood has the highest density of aanimal rights activists in the world. They certainly have the most animal rights oriented municiple code in the world and many animal rights protests and demostrations ocure in West Hollwood. Google it. So these people being so accepting and even supportive of Carrol and her zoophilia is certainly a connection between zoophilia and animal rights.

      Not all forms of zoophilia involve genital contact with animals. Some are simply close emotional bonds that, if carefully analyzed, are of a sexual nature. I have no doubt that some people reading this blog do have a form of zoophilia and some have had genital contact with animals.

      If we can post 10 times a day on how hunters are sadistic and deranged killers, I can see no reason why we cannot, in an adult fashion, explore zoophilia and its connection to people supportive of animal rights.

      • PointsWest,

        I have suggested the jon and others against hunting tone it down. Torturing animals is a clear mark of sadism, but hunting them is not.

        Bestiality is a rare sexual perversion. I don’t think anyone knows its demographics, and it does probably vary somewhat; but I am sure the number of these people as a percentage is small in every group.

        To call people this is extremely offensive. So I hope jon and others will restrain themselves to a less shrill discussion of the ethics of hunting, and that no one will bring up this topic again.

        Calling people dog- – – -ers is sure to raise a lot of anger.

  60. wolf moderate says:

    “I have no doubt that some people reading this blog do have a form of zoophilia and some have had genital contact with animals. ”

    Could you elaborate on just who has this disorder on this site? And which ones have actually done the deed please.

    • wolf moderate says:

      “I have no doubt that some people reading this blog do have a form of zoophilia and some have had genital contact with animals. ”

      Could you elaborate on just who has this disorder on this site? And which ones have actually done the deed please.

      Delete please. Didn’t see your post Ralph.

  61. jon says:

    Wolf advocates support solutions

    • wolf moderate says:

      “This makes more funding available to ranchers than Defenders was able to provide in the past, and it also allows Defenders to focus its time and resources on expanding our Wolf Coexistence Partnerships beyond the Wood River Valley. ”

      DoW speak for more money for lawsuits!

      • mikarooni says:

        Such a wolf immoderate comment…

      • wolf moderate says:

        Moderate dude. Not for lawsuits soaking up tax dollars and conservation dollars. Suzanne is a nice person but completely emotionally attached to wolves and can’t see what harm she will/can do in the long run. Not sure, but I think she got ran out of Stanley.

        “Our successes in the Wood River Valley and the use of non-lethal deterrents elsewhere have helped reduce wolf depredation ”

        Well, There are lots of “environmentalists” w/ rich parents around Hailey that will help w/ deterrents for nothing (money I mean). Are these same people going to move to Challis, Elk City, Po Dunk no where? I just don’t get it at all. Oh well. Get yer litigation on…

      • timz says:

        “Not sure, but I think she got ran out of Stanley”

        Your thinking of Lynne Stone who left Stanley after being assaulted by Ron Gilette. You know, one of those anti-wolf folks us wolf lovers are suppose to “cooperate with”

      • wolf moderate says:

        Yeah that’s the one. Thanks. He wasn’t charged was he? You’d have though he’d have been charged w/ a felony if the allegations were true. Then she could stay in Stanley.

        I can’t believe Gillette hasn’t been beat up yet.

      • timz says:

        Yes he was charged and went to trial, hung jury if I remember correctly. Finding 12 people in Custer County to render a guilty vedict in a case like this would likely be impossible.

      • Save bears says:

        I am surprised that Gillette is still walking around, he is an asshole of the earthquake mentality.

      • timz says:

        you are correct SB, but I think (and hope) his influence has greatly diminished, you her little from him or about him anymore.
        Lynne Stone deserves the admiration and respect from all of us for her endless work on the ground to protect the wolves of the Stanley/Sun Valley area.

      • Save bears says:


        His ass should have been in jail for assault, and she could have sued him in civil court, in a different district, the guy is a freaking nut case….I have only met him once and that was once to many times!

      • Salle says:

        HA! Gillette is his own wost enemy and he’s deathly afraid to take a look in the cosmic mirror. I have had a few run-ins with this individual and won every argument he started with me. The best was when he tried to intimidate me in front of a crowd of my clients (who gave me a hefty tip after the event). I won the argument and was hoping the defeat would cause him to collapse in a fit of apoplexy but, unfortunately he didn’t. He’s a hot-head with little to no sense… who relies on brute force and a wealth of ignorance to get by. I’m surprised he hasn’t been “offed” by locals or run out of the basin or even choked on his own fits of rage yet. I think he takes the focus off the allies in his fight at times so they make use of him that way.

  62. jon says:

    Outdoor roundup: N.H. deer and bear hunting season results

  63. jon says:

    I guess in some places they don’t listen to the majority and give into special interest groups who are in the minority.

  64. jon says:

    Outdoors report: News of infected deer upsets some hunters

  65. wolf moderate says:

    Why is the address, but the name of the blog is “wildlife news?” Just a little trivia action.

    • PointsWest says:

      This is from PETA’s website. PETA is proud of who they are. No insults intended. Just want to be clear about who PETA is and what kind of organization it is.

      • Salle says:

        You know, this comment set is pretty much a broad-brush stereotyping attempt. Gay people are everywhere and of every political stripe, whether their political groups accept and acknowledge them is another issue altogether. Just because some gay folks support PETA doesn’t mean that all PETA supporters are gay or that the agenda of the organization is gay. There is a large number of gay Republicans… so that must mean that Republicans and their organizations are gay… hey that means that Orrin Hatch, John McCain, G.W. Bush, Dink Cheney and Sarah Palin are gay, right? Wow, I’m going to have to start writing LTEs about that and submit them to every rag in the country. what an idea!

        Gee, thanks, PointsWest.

      • PointsWest says:

        Salle…this article was written by a PETA supporter! It is on PETA’s website. PETA is proud of its gays. Gays have always been a big, big, part of PETA. That was the point of the article. They can’t hardly deny it.

        So now you vilainize me for posting a pro-gay, pro-PETA article?

        I am never going to win. This blog isn’t about wildlife in the GYE. It is about aniamal rights and most of the participants are pretty far out there. Anyone wants to point out the truth behind PETA or animal rights activists are attached and censored. On the other hand, hunters are attacked, defamed, maligned, and vilainized. Let me tell you. My father, my brother, nearly all my uncles, and many people I loved were/are hunters. And they are better people than most of the blogers here…by a long shot. They were family men and put their families and others before themselves. They are/were compassionate to other people and supported thier communities.

        Many of the animal rights people here are selfish, immature, unethical, vicious, and live in a dream world. …and I am becoming ashamed for even participating in this blog.

      • SAP says:

        PW – many of the regular contributors here hunt.

        I hunt, although I am losing my taste for it as ethical behavior declines and whiny crybaby fingerpointing (“I didn’t get my elk because of:” fill in the blank with wolves, outfitters, rich out-of-staters who should let me on their $30m ranch to roar around on my ATV, zombies, Obama . . .).

        Also, I grew up in a family of cattlemen and farmers. I have gotten “magpied” myself on here for admitting that I eat beef and sometimes actually do ranch work.

        I think it’s quite a stretch to say that most of the people on this blog are animal-rights types. There are a few; I think you’re focusing on one or two who comment all the time. I am sure you can learn to ignore them.

        Myself, I made a 2011 resolution to stop arguing with people whose goal is to keep the disagreement going, rather than to mutually learn and understand each other. It feels good to just walk away from that kind of pointless engagement.

      • wolf moderate says:

        “Myself, I made a 2011 resolution to stop arguing with people whose goal is to keep the disagreement going, rather than to mutually learn and understand each other. It feels good to just walk away from that kind of pointless engagement.”

        That’s a lofty goal SAP. I will come w/ you man…But w/ one suggestion, can we have 3 blowups a week? The blog would get boring w/o a bit of conflict

        I Will! 🙂

      • SAP says:

        Nice! Love that movie!

        I especially like when he asks Jan to be his girlfriend.

        Three blow-ups per week? I bet we can manage that for you.

      • JB says:

        “This blog isn’t about wildlife in the GYE. It is about aniamal rights and most of the participants are pretty far out there.”

        There are two or three people who post here regularly that have an animal rights perspective. I don’t agree with this perspective–and I especially don’t like the attacks on hunters; but to claim that this “blog is about animal rights and most participants are pretty far out there” is just wrong. Moreover, it undervalues the contribution of the many people that post here that hunt and/or fish (and who probably outnumber the animal rights folks 10 to 1).

        Again, the near constant anti AND pro hunting rhetoric is getting in the way of the broader discussion about wildlife conservation that we should be having.

  66. PointsWest says:

    California Tax Dollars at Work Defending Against Animal Rights Lawsuit Against UCLA Police

  67. PointsWest says:

    People in Gulf of St. Lawrence filed a police complaint this week, alleging animal rights activists have made online threats to kill them and their families.

  68. wolf moderate says:

    “Hunters can watch Fish and Game meetings on big game rules online” Idaho Statesman

    Could be beneficial to some nonhunters on this site too.

  69. wolf moderate says:!/notes/idaho-fish-and-game-idfg/should-motorized-hunting-be-regulated/10150095077111192

    Yes Mr Gamblin, please regulate ATV’s.(only during hunting seasons or at minimum as a hunting aid). This coming from someone that owns a Yamaha grizzly 660 and loves it.

    I didn’t realize you were a regional supervisor. I put in for depradation hunts prior to the deadline. Please get me an elk tag 🙂 j/k

  70. Virginia says:

    I just logged on to this thread and am wondering why someone feels it is necessary to post a comment on a wildlife advocacy blog about zoophilia (?).

    • PointsWest says:

      …no reason. No reason at all. Please ignor and return to your regular progaming of photos of dead coyotes on fence posts, coyote derbies, hunters being cruel and sadistic, and of hunters being the cause of the decline in deer and elk numbers.


    Nebraska allows KS Audubon to capture and re-establish prairie dogs on private wildlife sanctuary in NE

  72. jon says:

    Wildlife officials crack down on game meat sales

    Read more:

  73. Nancy says:

    +They were family men and put their families and others before themselves. They are/were compassionate to other people and supported thier communities. Many of the animal rights people here are selfish, immature, unethical, vicious, and live in a dream world. …and I am becoming ashamed for even participating in this blog+

    Been along day in my world PW, and a long week, and I’m just grateful I had jobs, given the economy, but that comment above?………How simple minded, not to mention macho, can you get?

    • wolf moderate says:

      “”All one has to do is look at the continued games being played with ESA rules by folks like Defenders of Wildlife, because that will make our case for us as to why delisting by Congress is warranted,” he added.”

      I think most people w/ a vested interest feel this way. *Just opinion*JB

      “RMEF reports that new data show the northern Yellowstone elk herd has declined from some 18,000 animals in the mid-1990s to just 4,400 today, marking a 75% decrease. Biologists estimate the herd has plummeted 24% this year alone.”

      24% in one year? I find that hard to believe. I want to know who the biologists work for, but there is no citation.

      • jon says:

        What part of Idaho are you from wolf?

      • Bob says:

        Numbers come from park service count biologist Doug Smith.

      • wolf moderate says:

        From Bend, Oregon. Been living in boise for 3 years. Best place on earth IMO and I’ve been to alot of places.

      • jon says:

        Does Boise have a lot of wolves? What animals have you hunted since moving to Idaho? just curious.

      • jon says:

        I don’t. Animals die all the time. Sometimes in big #s and sometimes small. Yes, wolves do kill elk and they are one of thedifferent reasons why the elk population in yellowstone is down. There was never supposed to be a certain amount of elk in yellowstone. Doug Smith recently did an interview saying that there is no elk management objective in Yellowstone.

      • wolf moderate says:

        Yikes. I’ll have to look into this…


      • wolf moderate says:

        Do not like chatting on here. Email me and I’ll talk.

        Just figure ppl aren’t interested in side talk 😉

      • jon says:

        OK, I’ll shoot ya an email.

  74. jon says:

    Yellowstone bison initiative down to 1 animal

  75. Here’s another bison story – way to go WWP and their Montana attorney, Summer Nelson

  76. wolf moderate says:

    “a Republican lawmaker is preparing to introduce legislation to make it harder for companies to get mega-load permits.”
    “Rep. Tom Trail, R-Moscow, said he will introduce legislation next week calling for the permit process to include public hearings.”

    “Rep. JoAn Wood, R-Rigby, a member of the House Transportation and Defense Committee, said she thinks the legislation won’t find traction.Wood said the oil companies are putting up a lot of money, including building big turnouts along Highway 12. Sightseers forever more will be able to pull off and take in the wild scenery, or have a snooze, she said.”

    • As the story says, JoAn Wood is from Rigby, Idaho. That is in SE Idaho, a very long way from where the megaloads are.

      Knowing Wood, I doubt she has ever driven Highway 12. At any rate, she always takes the side of industry.

  77. jon says:

    Wyoming rancher says night penning of sheep reduces carnivore conflicts

  78. PointsWest says:

    Wow! Very disturbing. Nobel Prize winner and President of the British Royal Society of Science, Sir Paul Nurse wrote and hosted this documentary about the serious problems facing science and society today. The main story is about Global Warming denialists and about how news media and bloggers are displacing academics and peer reviewed science with misinformation called science. He points out that you can search the web today and find misinformation published by bloggers and political groups with an agenda side by side with peer reviewed science. He also pointed out how politicized print publications are putting their own interpretation on science and how one newspaper can can draw a completely different conclusion from another with the same science. He goes on to show that, with all the misinformation on the internet, people and society no longer trust science and do not know the difference between sales literature and real peer reviewed science. He presented a man with AIDS who, from reading the internet, believes he could save his life by eating pro-biotic yogurt.

    I am very disturbed by watching this documentary and will be thinking about it for awhile.

    Science needs to do something so people, society, and governments know the difference between real peer reviewed science and misinformation spewed on the internet. This is a new problem. Before the internet, science was largely disseminated by academics and scientific journals. Not anymore. Anyone can write something and call it science. I think we see a lot of it here (i. e. lead poisoning of raptors by vermin shot with lead bullets) I think from now on, I will not believe any “science” posted here or elsewhere on the internet unless the poster can show that it is old fashioned peer reviewed science from academia.

    If you have a bit torrent or utorrent, you can download from

    • Immer Treue says:

      This has something to do with the press giving “equal time” to either side of an argument. The argument is largely politicized. In terms of climate change/global warming, even though the vast majority of the worlds scientists believe it is going on, the minority, largely funded by the fossil fuel industry/ and the far right, plus the bloggers, must be given equal time. Therefore close to 50% of what one hears is garbage. Those incapable of making informed conclusions based on what is being presented, then often grab onto the garbage.

      Opposing views must be given equal time in the main stream media in order to be fair and impartial. Guess where the roots of this began?

      • PointsWest says:

        No…it is only in politics that opposing views must be given equal time and that is only in certain nations. Worldwide, science is breaking down and we are seeing junk science displace real science. Science not like politics. We have “scientific meathod” with principles such as peer review. The internet has come along and stirred things up. There have been problems in the past too. We had great conflicts between Darwin and religion, for example.

        My guess is, science will adjust to the internet. It is a new frontier. I think we will see officially sactioned science on the internet. Documents that have been been reviewed by one or several established scientific organization and documents that have not. People will readily be able to distiguish real science from the volumes of junk science that floats around the internet today.

        There have always been people with an agenda who wish to subvert science. That is not new. What is new is the internet making it much easier for people with an agenda to subvert science.

        You really should watch the documentary. It is very good. The guy is president of the Royal Society…probably the most distiguished scientific organization there is. Science has it roots in Geat Brittain and I believe the British are still the best scientists.

      • PointsWest says:

        The most disturbing thing was the man dying of AIDS who was foregoing medical treatment and instead eating pro-biotic yogurt. All the wonder-cures of pro-biotic yogurt are only claims made in sales liturature published by the dairy industry. The poor dying man does not know the difference between sales liturature published by the dairy industry and science developed by an organizaton such as the American Mediacl Association. He does not know who to believe. He will probably die.

        The was a court ruling in the US recently, by the way, that has stopped the dairy industry from making all these health claims about pro-biotic yogurt. Many commercials making claims about pro-biotic yogurt have been pulled in just the past couple of months. I saw something in the news about it and have notice many commericals about products such as Activia Yogurt have disapeared.

      • Immer Treue says:


        I think you will find that it extends far beyond politics. I’ll do some digging, but in terms of smoking, climate change, DDT, and other stuff, if the news is gonna put something up, its fair and impartial with opposing views.

      • PointsWest says:

        I’m not sure but I think it is law the US that media give equal time to political candidates. Then there is a journalism ethic to show opposing viewpoints. However, science is not politics and it is not a viewpoint. Science is science. That is the point Sir Paul Nuse is trying to make. If you treat science like a viewpoint, it is no longer science.

  79. Salle says:

    Mass tree deaths prompt fears of Amazon ‘climate tipping point’

    Scientists fear billions of tree deaths caused by 2010 drought could see vast forest turn from carbon sink to carbon source

    • Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say
    • Rate of tree deaths in western US rising due to climate change, study warns

  80. Salle says:

    Monsanto Nation: Exposing Monsanto’s Minions

  81. Virginia says:

    Walter Brasch’s article on the idiot who killed 100 sled dogs. Brasch always is right on target with his articles.

    • william huard says:

      The quote from the Vancouver Humane Society–“In every case where people use animals to make money and when there are financial difficulties the animals lives are put at risk”. Canada must be so proud

    • jon says:

      Gotta love the excuses a sicko comes up with when he does a dirty deed like this. I did it because I have post traumatic stress or some other lame reason. The guy could have said no, I’m not going to kill these sled dogs, but he did. As I said before, he should be thrown in jail for his heinous deeds and fined.

      • jon says:

        From the article.

        “Robert Fawcett may actually be experiencing PTSD as a result of the torture and murder of 100 huskies. He may need long-term physical and mental care. But, by he also cruelly and brutally killed animals, for whatever reason he thought he had to do so. For that alone, there can, and should be, no defense.”

        Could not agree more!!!!!!

  82. Jerry Black says:


  83. JB says:

    There was a post a while back that posed the question: who takes more game legal hunters or poachers? I attended a presentation today where wildlife researchers used radio telemetry to study mortality in wild turkey. They found that over a 5 year period, illegal harvest (i.e., poaching) was 15 times higher than legal harvest. Many of us in the room were floored by this statistic. Fortunately, managers had been very conservative with harvest and thus the population was still able to grow.

  84. JB says:

    Predator issues not confined to the US:

    “Upcoming parliamentary discussions on a safe level for the wolf and bear populations in Norway look set to create more fractious debate, with opposition parties demanding a full review of all policies regarding predators.”

  85. Nancy says:

    Maybe my computer? Or is anyone else waiting awhile for this post (Have you come across anything interesting…….) to download?

    • Salle says:

      I’ve noticed that too, for all pages at this site. Must be someone intervening? Discussion of reality is soon to be quashed by those who oppose the truth…

      • Nancy says:

        I’m just having the problem with this post, takes a couple of minutes to come up. Maybe because there’s 488 comments? Time to retire it Ralph?

  86. Salle says:

    Interestingly, this story can’t be read without a paid subscription… as well as some other articles I’d like to read:

    Groups fail to stop USDA wolf kills

    Environmental groups have failed to convince a federal judge to prohibit the USDA’s Wildlife Services Division from killing wolves in Idaho. The Wolf Recovery Foundation and the Western Watersheds Project filed a lawsuit in 2009, claiming Wildlife Services agents had unlawfully shot several wolve …

    Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:00 AM

    I guess the trade secrets of the western AG industry are just too precious for we, the taxpayers who subsidize them, to know what they do to sustain their welfare benefits.

  87. Jerry Black says:

    Legislator’s Bill Would Create Paramilitary Group in Montana

    • IDhiker says:

      RE: Paramilitary groups in Montana

      Interesting quote from Gary Marbut at the end of the article. Gary is one of the most rabid anti-wolf people in the Missoula area. He does a lot of fear-mongering and promotes hysteria.

      I know the local sheriff personally, and I can tell you that he is not excited about these armed “citizen militias.” If he needs help, there are agreements with neighboring counties, highway patrol, etc.

      Gary Marbut is a right-wing extremist that hates the federal government, thus he hates wolves because the “Feds” forced them on the states. His extremism is no help to gun-owners or sportsman in general.

      • Salle says:

        …and if the National Guard wasn’t fighting in wars overseas, they’d probably be available to help too.

      • Immer Treue says:

        +++Warburton said slow response and poor organization during major emergencies in the past prompted her to sponsor the bill.
        “Really the bill is just about local volunteers being prepared in case of emergency to support the National Guard, support the sheriff, support the governor as needed,” Warburton said.+++

        Then why do they have to be armed?

        ++ Its language also would allow them to form into “infantry companies.”++


        ++Both provisions were items Greer found troubling because they left room for abuse.++

        Ya think?

        ++”The question here is where that slider is located on that range between anarchy and tyranny,” Marbut said. “We’d like to nudge it back a little toward anarchy.”++

        Says it all.

        The comments on the article put this into some sort of perspective, but who makes the most noise.

      • Save bears says:

        With the law in Montana, why would they not be armed..

  88. Salle says:

    Will Religious Conflicts Threaten the President’s New Science Initiatives?

    Good question…

    • Immer Treue says:

      From Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth

      2008 Gallup Poll:
      36% of Americans believed humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.

      14% of Americans believed humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process.

      44% of Americans believed God created human beings pretty much in their given form at one time within the last 100 years.

      Pew 2008
      Life on Earth existed in its present form since the beginning of time 42% of Americans believed this.

      • Salle says:

        Man, that’s enough to scare me away from religion! I once knew a man who was going to be a priest but decided against it just before taking his vows. Apparently the decision was made when he went to some kind of event where he was cured from polio, instantly… it was kind of metaphysical thing and too long a story to tell here but he made a claim ever afterward about how people were being terrorized into salvation by their religious leaders. He was in his eighties when I met him, he had no wrinkles in his face at all… He never said anything to me that wasn’t true which is what I admired most about him. (He showed me “before” and “after” pictures to show how messed up his body was before that event, it was amazing, really.)

        I personally think religion plays too big a role in social life and government and is primarily a tool for those who would rule the masses to keep them in check by denying scientific research credibility based on fear, guilt and ignorance… but that’s my opinion. I couldn’t care less about whether the president goes to church or believes in any religion, I do care about whether that individual can engage in critical thinking and acknowledge the role and importance of scientific inquiry in decision-making.

        Too bad most Americans and their political representatives don’t get it.

      • Immer Treue says:


        That’s pretty much been my take on religion since I was a young kid. We’ve got to play by the rules while we’re alive, whether they be natural, social, or some form of government.

        Religion is that little/big bonus that comes in and as you said, terrorizes us into salvation.

      • wolf moderate says:

        Funny you say that Immer. Often times it seems that many on this blog do the same thing (Often “daddy” issues are the culprit). My way or the highway kinda thing (hatred towards opposite sex usually). Oh well, that’s why they never win any wars, just the battles. Too bad too, cuz once in a while they have a good idea 🙂

        Keep goose stepping into the gates of hell!

      • Immer Treue says:

        wolf mod

        Your, “keep on goose-stepping into the gates of hell”, more or less supports both Salle and my last line.

        I’m very tolerant of religion, but since the age of seven, became aware of it’s inconsistencies. If this is a wildlife blog, I’d like to keep it that way rather than get into an anti religious discussion. I treat others as I would hope to be treated, and don’t require a religion to provide the guidelines for me. As per your other generalizations, well I guess that’s all they are.

        I was supporting Salle’s statement, and I still do. In the classroom, unless one affiliated with a particular religion, religious beliefs do not belong. Nor does creationism, intelligent design, or any other of those offshoots, especially in a science class.

        Biology is taught from the perspective of evolution. Not understanding the basics of biology and ecology (not in man years) is one of the reasons we are having so much of the discussion about wolves and other wildlife in this country. When religion and religious beliefs interfere with that process, it promotes more animosity.

        My apology to you and anyone else on this blog if I have offended anyone for your beliefs. It was not my intention. I have my own form of spirituality, and you have every right to yours.

      • wolf moderate says:


        For some, religion is a very important part of their lives. They go to church, volunteer in the community, adopt little kids from Africa, Asia, or wherever there is a need. I too feel that they are “sheeple”, never questioning there beliefs or looking into others, such as evolution. It is just wrong when people hold resentments towards others for the beliefs they hold. If someone wants to believe in God or whatever let them. If someone wants to “believe” in evolution, let them.

        I’m agnostic and feel that there is overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Goose stepping into hell was a joke.

        I agree, this is a wildlife blog. Just reading some of the posts in regards to religion was annoying.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Wolf Mod,

        And to support part of what I said in terms of religion/science, one of the individuals I spar with outside of this forum used as a debate point that wouldn’t I agree that “the man upstairs” would much rather a hunter quickly dispatch an animal rather than the way a wolf does it?

        I don’t resent anyone for there religious beliefs, but more often than not I have run into people who do not accept evolution, and get the “goose stepping into hell analogy” from them.

        The far right and their agenda, quite often supported by their religious beliefs, have had great impact on science in this country, and they are not all good.

        So, I’ll say again, that I have no resentment to anyone’s religious beliefs, but when those religious beliefs extend into science, biology in general, and evolutionary pathways in particular, with the result of not understanding natural pathways, and standing in the way of research, then I do have a problem.

        Thus reaffirming my reply and support to Salle’s post.

      • Salle says:

        IT, exactly. Thank you.

      • wolf moderate says:

        The Pope believes in evolution. It’s not only “bible thumpers” who push there views on society BTW.

      • jon says:

        I’m part of the 14%. I don’t believe there is a god. I believe people wanna believe there is a god in hopes that there is something better after you die.

      • jon says:

        Too many people buy into the bible and the nonsense that is written in there. Some believe that the bible was written by god himself. The bible is just another book that was written by your fellow human beings. The same people who believe in what the bible says are the same ones that believe that jesus rose from his grave. It’s a bunch of bologna not based on reality. Jesus didn’t rise from his grave. Once he died, he’s dead forever. No book or belief is going to change that.

    • Immer Treue says:

      I don’t believe it’s rural legend, but I have heard it is fairly well accepted that dogs “running” deer are quite often shot. If your dog can’t stay close, keep it on a lead.

      Opens up a whole can of worms. Suppose you’re one of those guys/gals who won’t go into the woods unless you’re packing iron. Someone’s bear or cat dog comes running toward you, just doing what they have been trained to do. You just happen to be between the dog and whatever the dog is after.

      This isn’t so far fetched. I had a dog carrying a large red pack, and he was just about 50 feet ahead of me on a trail in Colorado, going around a bend. Some guy who was backpacking had a gun in a shoulder holster and he started buttoning the strap back up when he saw me.

      Perhaps I was in the wrong because the dog wasn’t close enough (we were about a mile from the car, after seven days in the back country), but this guy was just looking for an excuse to shoot something. But if a guy contemplated shooting a dog that was carrying a pack, what would prevent someone from shooting a bear or cat dog?

      • jon says:

        There are plenty of those kind of people in places like Montana and that is why it would be wise to keep your dogs on a leesh at all times. Some will just shoot any animal they see if it isn’t on a leesh and roaming by itself.

      • Cobra says:

        Have you ever been to Montana? How do you know there are plenty of these kind of people in Montana? It isn’t the people you need the leash for it would probably be the wolves getting the dog. Try just for a while to quit blowing smoke up everyones backside.

      • Salle says:

        And what if he’s right? Can you handle that?

        If you have dogs in wolf territory, a leash isn’t going to help. If you’re out in the woods in Montana during hunting season, doesn’t matter if you’re a dog or human, there are people with guns who will shoot anythings that moves regardless of color, shape or size, and ask questions later… perhaps to satisfy some macho/rambo assimilation. Seen it happen here, in Montana, too many times and know of people who think that way. According to them, the rules only apply when someone is watching.

  89. jon says:

    Could the world’s most iconic animal be headed for extinction?

  90. wolf moderate says:

    “Linwood Laughy, one of those who battled unsuccessfully to stop the loads, was warned by Idaho State Troopers Thursday morning not to disrupt the shipment.

    Idaho State Police Capt. Lonnie Richardson said Laughy “attempted to delay the movement of the load” by stopping as traffic was being directed around the load.”

  91. Virginia says:

    A very important article about the FWS’ intent to delist the grizzly bear and the lack of scientific integrity of the FWS and the Obama administration.

    • Ron Kearns says:


      Thank you for that must-read article by Ms. Willcox.

      • Virginia says:

        You are welcome. I read CounterPunch every day as well as this blog. It provides very well researched and pretty radical articles on many issues. I believe most, if not all of the writers are pretty liberal and that is why I read it every day. It will make you think!

  92. Save bears says:

    This is not going to be a popular action:

    Oregon Considers Shooting Barred Owls…

  93. PointsWest says:

    Great Superbowl game.

    Ralph, I think this “Have you come across any interesting Wildlife News? January 24, 2011” webpage is broke. It takes forever to load and I have the same probelm on both of my computers. I assume is is slow loading for others too.

    It seems to get hung while trying to serve the images. (???)