Note that this replaces the 24th edition. That edition will now move slowly into the depths of the blog.

Tundra Swans and greater white-fronted geese.  Near Burns, Oregon © Ken Cole

Tundra Swans and greater white-fronted geese. Near Burns, Oregon © 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.

383 Responses to Have you come across any interesting Wildlife News? March 7, 2011

  1. Immer Treue says:

    Robert Hayes “Wolves of the Yukon” must just about be ready for release.

    • Phil says:

      Immer: If you could sum up Robert Hayes’s stance on wolves, would you put him in the same category as Geist and Kays or Bangs, Niemeyer and Smith?

      • jon says:

        Phil. Hayes is a fighter for wolves and much more knowledgable about them then both Geist and Kays combined. Hayes from what I understand actually has worked with wolves hands on throughout the years before he retired.

      • Phil says:

        Thanks jon. I see it that anyone who has worked decades with a certain species or multiple species should have a say in issues like the curren wolf one. Maybe Hayes would not be the best person to go to regarding the NRM wolves, but others similar to him who have years of work with wolves should be.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Like Niemeyer. Someone who did his job, and got to the WTF moment and decided there was something slightly askew. To be honest, I don’t know that much about him, save a couple interviews and some documents. Most of his work was done in Alaska, and he has killed quite a few wolves in his time, and what he found out was, unless you clear them out, they keep repopulating in s very short period of time.

        I guess this could also be some rationale against the indigenous wolves that supposedly existed in the NRM prior to wolf reintro. Wolves are pretty resilient. If wolves were there all along, upon being put on the ESL in 73, why did they not repopulate in the 20+ years prior to the release of wolves in 95?

  2. JEFF E says:

    what ranchers have done for………………ever
    control the water, control the land. the hell with everyone,else.
    and from dillion…what a suprise

  3. Phil says:

    I cannot find this online, but I read a National Geographic article today which talked about a plan to domesticate foxes. I don’t know how exactly this would work, but they are doing research on DNA to deterine what makes animals (certain ones) aggressive to humans. I also don’t know what types of conclusions they will come with, but they will try to use these conclusions in a plan to domesticate foxes. I would believe this may take a toll on their wild populations in the short-term, but not in the long-term.

    • Immer Treue says:


      This has been done and has been publicized in a few places. A PBS Noval on dogs has this ~4 minute segment on foxes that were “tamed” in Russia. Pretty interesting stuff

      • Immer Treue says:

        oops! Forgot to include the link.

      • Phil says:

        Immer: Thank you. I was not aware of the Russia “tamed” fox project. The one on Nat Geo is a current project that would occur in this country I believe. I will reread the article again to see exactly where the project will be conducted.

    • mikey says:

      I believe this is the article you’re thinking of. However I’m unaware of any plan to replicate the experiment.

      With the many owners of “tamed” high content / high % wolf dog hybrids and captive wolves, I would say that the Russian fox experiment is interesting but it is old news to those who have pet “wolves”.

  4. Salle says:

    Gas drilling near Yellowstone: danger of another blowout?

  5. Salle says:

    Watch: Attack of the Kochtopus! [Cartoon]

  6. Immer Treue says:

    On a lighter note, perhaps everyone has seen these, because they’re about a year old (in terms of award), but the best(arbitrarily) 40 nature photographs of all time.
    Four of the shots included belong to Jim Brandenburg of Ely, MN. White Wolf, Brother Wolf, Bison, and Oryx.

    Had the pleasure to meet Jim twice, and once with a small group and a bit too much Bushmills, it was truly awesome to listen to and share stories with this talented man.

    • timz says:

      I like Brandenburgs stuff too but the truth is most of his wolf photos are captives.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Not true. His place is in the middle of the woods, just off a lake on the very edge of the Boundary Waters. He will position a yurt at times on another lake. A man of patience.

        Also, nothing staged about the wolves on Ellsmere.

      • timz says:

        I didn’t say all his wolf photos were captives. The three I bought in his gallery that are hanging in my house are however.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Which three?

  7. JimT says:

    Arguments in court for delisting or not delisting Grzzies in Yellowstone..

    • Phil says:

      “Allen Brabender, a U.S. Justice Department attorney, argued Monday that the bear’s population has been growing from between 4 percent and 7 percent a year, and the bears will find a way to adapt without the whitebark pine seeds.” Although I do believe that the grizzly bears will adapt in finding something to eat to replace the whitepark pine seeds, what will happen to the population by the time this occurs? How many may starve to death? How many will not have enough nutrients to fertilize the zygote? etc.

  8. timz says:

    “The woman in her 20s was attacked when she tried to pet it.”

    • Daniel Berg says:

      I don’t believe any sober Alaskan would try and pet a moose. As mentioned in the comments, she must have either been totally shitcanned or from out of state.

    • Phil says:

      I have watched episodes of Alaska State Troopers, and some of the things that are aired by drunk people there are amazing. Yes, we have drunks everywhere, but to go up to a moose and try to pet it? Why not get drunk and travel to Africa and try to tackle an elephant?

  9. JimT says:

    From the story on the grizzly bears…

    Montana wildlife officials argued in a brief filed to the appellate court that the rules that protect the species on a state level would match those provided by the Endangered Species Act, and that no single rule can ensure the bears will live.

    “There are vast factual differences between decisions to list a species that is in jeopardy and declining … and decisions to delist recovered species such as the grizzly bears in (Yellowstone),” the state of Montana wrote in an appellant brief.

    1, Rules have to be enforced; no signs that Montana officials would do so if bears are off the list.
    2. Sounds to me from the last statement the state is already spinning its way to “hey, don’t blame us”..

  10. Daniel Berg says:

    Washington State:

    “Senate passes extension of cougar hunting program”

    • jon says:

      They will use whatever lame excuse they can to be allowed to use dogs to hunt cougars. Using dogs is very cowardly. Whatever happened to a fair chase hunt? Once the cougar gets treed, it has no chance. They only want to use dogs because it is easier for them to get their cougar.

      • Doryfun says:


        As long as people are allowed to hunt cougars, which is better, a guy using dogs shooting at a cat up close and personal, or a guy shooting at a cat from across the canyon, unable to adequately assess sex/age as Bret suggested? The dead cougar doesn’t care. But it does make a difference to the total population dynamics in the end run.

        I don’t consider it sporting to shoot a cat sitting in a tree, or a bear on bait. But, I try not to judge others. Some higher power, if there is such thing, can judge that.

        Furthermore, by what assumptions do you use to arrive at the belief that all cat hunters only want to use dogs just to get their cougar? I hunt with dogs, for chukars, but I often just take pictures of my dogs on point, and over half the hunt for me is just working with my dogs. Though, I like eating birds too. The same is also true for a few hound hunters. It isn’t always just about getting the critter. It also isn’t always as easy as you might think. Ever chased a pack of dogs, up and down, over rough, ugly country, in snow, and cold, and on an on? You might be surprised.

      • Phil says:

        Some of these hunters do not believe in a fair chase. I don’t see much of a difference from a illegal canned hunt and using a dog to hunt a cougar, etc. Yes, the dogs in a hunt chase the animal to a trapped area, while a canned situatiion is to physically wear down the animal, but the dog in both situations is doing most of the work.

      • jon says:

        Phil, dogs that harass wildlife are usually put down.

      • jon says:

        Killing females is bad and killing big males is also bad. Hunters tend to go for the biggest cougars. There have also been instances where female cougars have been killed and their cubs orphaned. There have also been instances where female cougars were killed by hunters thinking they were male. People know what is going on. Hunters want to use dogs because they know that hunting without them is much harder. You let the dog go and run loose and it finds a cougar and chases it up a tree and the cougar is shot.

    • william huard says:

      It takes quite alot of skill to aim up into a tree and shoot a terrified animal as dogs are going crazy down below! Maybe we can get WTT Billie Joe BoB Beck to give us a lesson on how ethical cougar huntin is!

  11. bret says:

    Good , wildlife management by initiative is a poor model. too many young female cougars are being taken, hunting in select areas with hounds allows sex/size selection and better population management.

  12. David says:

    Here’s an interesting article on the rarity of the Great White Shark:

    And one about the extension of the range of the tailed frog (known for it’s sex organ!):

  13. Salle says:

    Democrats roll out climate change big guns, Republicans remain immune

    Climate hearing appears to fail to sway Republicans before Thursday’s vote on curbing Obama’s green ambitions

  14. Salle says:

    House GOP budget bill aims to slash environmental regulation
    The plan to cut $60 billion from the federal budget targets environmental programs so widely it appears to be as much an ideological gambit as a budgetary one. ‘The sheer scope of it is overwhelming,’ a UCLA environmental law expert says.,0,6685930.story

  15. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Scrap the Mexican Wolf recovery because it failed:

    • william huard says:

      I thought Pearce had ordered a toupee with brains in it- we should track the shipment- it might be on backorder- if anyone needs one it’s Pearce

      • william huard says:

        If you call Mr pearce’s office his staff are now claiming that wolves are killing horses in New Mexico. I asked her if Pearce had campaigned on trying to exterminate wolves- the response was she didn’t know- the man is a complete idiot. These people are the real environmental criminals

      • jon says:

        He’s in bed with the ranchers. ranchers are one of the worst threats facing wildlife William. Stewards of the land they claim my butt!

      • william huard says:

        Call Pearce’s office in Wash, and listen to the lameass excuses he uses. Remember how he made his speech a few years ago when he said that nothing was more appealing to wolves than to hear the sound of a baby crying! These people are dangerous to our democracy

    • Phil says:

      If you ask some hunters they will tell you that the population is near 700 right now.

  16. Cody Coyote says:

    Here’s the latest hash of the ongoing Absaroka Elk Ecology Study being done in that part of northwest Wyoming immediately east of Yellowstone Park. The premise was to determine why elk calf recruitment etc was declining in recent years. This $ 650,000 study was paid for by a coalition of sportsmen’s groups, mainly Rocky Mountain Elk but also generously supported by Safari Club , Sportsmen for Sportsmen , Boone and Crockett et al. While not explicitly stated, it was implicitly funded to show that it was wolves decimating elk numbers. Wyo Game & Fish was assumed to want to boilerplate that finding to apply to the entire state of Wyoming where significant numbers of wolves coexist in elk range. Unfortunately , the science is leading elsewhere. The major culprit in calf recruitment and low cow pregnancy rates is appearing more and more to be Climate Change and its marked effect on vernal vegetation: colder springs and hotter summers decreasing forage at critical phases of elk annual grazing . Elk calves lost to predators are being more soundly attributed to grizzlies, with wolves trailing and acting more casually rather than overtly in preying on elk.

    • jon says:

      It does not matter what the study says because hunters will still blame wolves for it, guaranteed. Hunters use wolves as the scapegoat for everything.

      • Cody Coyote says:

        Agreed, Jon. But this time the hunting lobby has to eat their own words. They paid for the study…

      • Daniel Berg says:

        It will be uncomfortable for some groups to try and back away somewhat from the strong anti-wolf message they have been putting out, even with studies like this. I’ve read that a more militant anti-predator stance has been a membership booster for some.

        I’m glad this study is being performed. I hope some good comes out of it.

    • Phil says:

      Excellent article find Cody. As jon mentioned, hunters will see it as wolves causing the problem no matter how many findings say they are not. Fish and Game found similar results in wolves not being the “main” culprits to elk (not just calf) decimations in certain areas in an article released last July.

  17. Virginia says:


    Obama admin attacks national forests, wildlife+*

    by Gallatin

    • Daniel Berg says:

      You mean the “snap their necks” comment, or the one about a “wolf parka”?

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      Unimak Island is one of the most awesome places you’ve never heard of on the planet. The highest concentration of active volcanoes in Alaska, the richest salmon cape fishery in the world, and I have it on authority from someone who counted salmon for 40 years from one end of the peninsula and Aleutians to the other plus some on Kodiak, Unimak has an anonymous stream with the most awesome concentration of brown bears anywhere. Undiscovered yet by the commercial eco-tour bear viewing crowd (when the specific name is googled, there’s still nothing but a few references to commercial salmon fishing). Any visiting WWP folks would be advised to take your meds ahead of time — lest on approach over that lush valley you suffer a dangerous blood pressure spike from the sight of all those shorthorns standing in the creek and trampling banks and delicate riparian vegetation (which on closer inspection they enhance with all the “fertilizer” they haul from the stream).

      Fortunately, Unimak was kept out of NPS mitts in ANILCA and avoided becoming a green spot on a map — was left in a wildlife refuge and given wilderness overlay.

    • Phil says:

      Fluctuation of populations is a reality, but not to those who benefit economically via the hunting industry. I am shocked at a department that is suppose to be so intelligent on wildlife issues (Fish and Game) not to grasp how populations can change and not be exact all the time. Near 0 population in the 50s to more then 1,200 in the early 90s to around 300 currently? Volunteering with research projects on predators like wolves I have seen packs kill less and eat almost all of the flesh on prey when prey numbers are small, and kill more and eat at the fattest areas of flesh when prey are abundant. That is a behavior that wolves have, kill less and consume all when populations of food are low, and the reverse when they are high. No, I have not worked with ALL wolf packs, but this is what we gathered on the ones we worked with.

  18. jon says:

    Interview with Bob Fanning. Claims wolves are being used a bioweapon against rural communities and also claims that wolves are smarter than some of the people that he knows.

    • Phil says:

      The program targeted one of his best friend’s and his business? WOW! So, the reintroduction of the program was DIRECTLY to eliminate his buddies business, or any other business related to hunting? The northern herd is essentially extinct, as is moose, sheep, etc? I love how morons like this try to portray that you can only be american if you hunt, own a hunting business, etc. Way to exclude the millions and millions of other citizens who have done WELL more then just hunt as not being american. Are teachers not american? What about law officials? What about military personals? The man sounds ridiculous!

    • Phil says:

      Wolves are probably smarter then this man. He sees the wolf issue as a typical anti-wolf hunter who is using many forms of excuse to get his point across, like the one where he states the northern herd is pretty much extinct. Loss of population is going to happen in almost every species in every part of the planet, but it does not mean it is permenant. Why didn’t the elk population everywhere else go extinct throughout time with the presence of wolves? Examples like this clearly show the lack of knowledge people like this man have on predator/prey, especially the wolf issue.

    • Phil says:

      Brad: Thank you for posting this. I sent an email to Mr. McGuinty, and hopefully many others have as well.

  19. jon says:

    Deer and elk meet objectives in most areas

    • Phil says:

      jon: Realistically they meet the objectives, but in the eyes of some ranchers, hunters and government officials in the states they will never meet them, and even if they begin to believe that they are met, their next excuse is that it is MOST areas and not ALL areas.

  20. jon says:

    “Author Tracy Ross seems to think that bear baiting is “exciting.” Clearly, she doesn’t have much experience killing critters. For this hunter, the words, sickening, offensive and pathetic would be more accurate. Bear-baiting and shooting wolves from aircraft is not hunting, which is premised upon fair chase. It is blood sport, pure and simple.

    Until wildlife managers and hunters give up on the idea that wildlife populations should remain static at a level that offers maximum hunter opportunity, there will always be a struggle between “good wildlife” and “bad wildlife.”

  21. JimT says:

    Gov. of Montana wants a hunt in Yellowstone to cull bison herd.

    How about we cull the cows outside the Park instead?

  22. Salle says:

    In Redondo Beach, dead fish, perhaps millions of them, collect in King Harbor
    Redondo Beach’s King Harbor is inundated with dead fish. Experts believe the sardines sought safe harbor from a storm, but consumed the oxygen in their small refuge.

  23. Salle says:

    Naomi Klein on Anti-Union Bills, Climate Justice, and the ‘Shock Doctrine’ Done American-Style

    • Salle says:

      Naomi Klein, author of “The Shock Doctrine” interviewed on Rachel Maddow

      • Doryfun says:

        Hey Salle,
        Thanks for these links. I haven’t watched them yet, but copied down some of the comments, etc. Also, ordered her book a few days ago, thanks to your recommendations over and over, and some other good testimonials from elsewhere. Not sure I look forward to the reading it though, for the twisted gut it will probably render me.

      • Doryfun says:

        Check this out:
        Bill Moyers

        Keynote Speech to the Society of Environmental Journalists Convention
        Published on Friday, October 7, 2005 by
        A Question for Journalists: How Do We Cover Penguins and the Politics of Denial?

        Example: “Alas, it was only a reverie. The reality is otherwise. Rather than leading the world in finding solutions to the global environmental crises, the United States is a recalcitrant naysayer and backslider. Our government and corporate elites have turned against America’s environmental visionaries – from Teddy Roosevelt to John Muir, from Rachel Carson to David Brower, from Gaylord Nelson to Laurence Rockefeller. They have set out to eviscerate just about every significant gain of the past generation, and while they are at it they have managed to blame the environmental movement itself for the failure of the Green Revolution. If environmentalism isn’t dead, they say, it should be. And they will gladly lead the cortege to the grave. “

  24. jon says:

    Idaho Co. Sheriff’s wolf raffle gets lots of takers

    • Phil says:

      Off course this guy is going to defend this fundraiser by saying the SSS is not to encourage or defines illegal killings of wolves. If he was telling the truth, then why would the prize be a rifle and a shovel, along with the rifle case? And, why would he call it the “Wolf raffle”? Does he really believe americans are that stupid? Also, how ironique is it that a TWO year old won this prize? What are they going to do, teach a two year old how to shoot wolves with their SSS (you can take it for whatever it means…) plan? I truly find it disturbing that they would chose a child in her “terrible twos” age as the winner of a rifle and shovel. I know that it will probably be given to her parents, but still disturbing. Not nollifying this to all citizens of the state, but ones like these sure have a screw or two loose.

      • Elk275 says:


        Yesterday you criticized WM grammar. Today I am going to criticize your reading comprehension.

        ++Also, how ironique is it that a TWO year old won this prize? What are they going to do, teach a two year old how to shoot wolves with their SSS (you can take it for whatever it means…) plan? I truly find it disturbing that they would chose a child in her “terrible twos” age as the winner of a rifle and shovel.++ By the way you misspelled ironic.

        ++Two-year-old Emmy Roberts, daughter of Deputy Gideon Roberts, pulled Norm Sonnen, of Cottonwood, out of the basket as the grand prize winner of a custom made metal gun rack, a Winchester .308 model rifle, a gun case and a shovel.++

        Two year old Emmy Roberts drew the winning ticket out of the bucket. Norm Sonnen of Cottonwood, Idaho won the rifle. I do not see where Norm Sonnen is two years old.

        You are a teacher. I am giving you a “F” for the day and it is going on your permanent record.

      • Phil says:

        Elk: Then, let’s go ahead and criticize your english punctuatonal skills. Don’t you mean “You are a teacher(?) and not a (.). Shouldn’t there be a (,) after “day”? It doesn’t matter if a two year old drew the winning ticket, it still correlates a two year old with a rifle and such. But, again Elk, I wouldn’t expect anything from you being a hunter to side with an issue like this one that relates to the SSS strategy. I give you an “f” in relation to being a moral human being. Very weak insult, Elk. Keep trying.

  25. Salle says:

    Benjamin Grumbles, Former Bush EPA Official: ‘Fracking’ Exemption Went Too Far

    • william huard says:

      You mean everyone isn’t suppose to ignite their water faucet on fire?

      • Salle says:

        There will be a law inserted as a rider somewhere that makes proving that you’re being poisoned by big business illegal…

      • william huard says:

        These idiot Republican Governors like walker and Snyder have gone way to far. I hope this is what will finally wake up the Democratic party to the assault on our “freedom” that is going on. isn’t it funny how people have such a different view of what constitutes “freedom”
        That douchebag Karl Rove thinks that TV ads from rich hedge fund guys will drown out this revolt.

  26. Salle says:

    Yellowstone Elk Study Points to Lasting Effects of a Hotter, Longer Summer
    Green-up period, when wildlife packs on fat from young plants, decreased by as much as 40 percent in the last two decades, affecting pregnancy and survival rates among the Clark’s Fork herd.

    • jon says:

      Too bad it was closed down. Everytime idiots like Fanning, Bridges, Coe, reality22, bigsky, show up, the page gets closed down because of their comments.

      • Salle says:

        I guess it was momentary, I didn’t have any trouble with the story but maybe comments are closed now.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Can’t get on it any more either. Odd but one puts up one fact after another, one source after another, and the response is hogwash, lies, and then it gets loud. One, on either side of the issue(wolves) can learn from the other, but it seems as there are too many cul de sacs involved.

        Points/facts are continually twisted to fit an argument, and non of “them” are willing to point out glaring mistakes, or much massaged numbers by their own faction. One of the reasons I like this blog site, is one can get corrected, and not get their shorts in a bunch about it. Folks, it’s going to take generations. I hope the wolves last that long.

      • jon says:

        Immer, as I’m sure you know, you can tell these people fact after fact and they will deny everything if it doesn’t suit their anti-wolf agenda. Don’t waste your time trying to talk facts with these people. They won’t listen to you and they will deny everything that they don’t agree with. They want to demonize wolves and make them look as bad as possible. They will blame wolves for everything.

      • Doryfun says:

        Wow. Most of those comments were quite entertaining. I’m wondering if some of those folks share the same gene pool with part of Wallowa County. It would appear to me there are a lot of people who need to go back to school and sit in on an actual science class. Evidence from comments suggest it so.

  27. jon says:

    Preparing for anti-wolf rally

    Oregon ranchers don’t want wolves in Oregon.

    • Doryfun says:

      Ya, they didn’t want to let Chief Joseph back to his homeland either. Wonder if these Oregon Ranchers come from the same gene pool of those early horse stealers of the 1800’s in the Wallowa country, now County.

  28. jon says:

    “Well, Bill, your members already are getting lots of help from us taxpayers, who are subsidizing cattle grazing on public land in what has been correctly called welfare ranching. As noted in a previous post:

    Many ranchers in Oregon graze their cattle on public lands. According to the “Welfare Ranching” book, federal permittees pay only $1.35 per month to graze a cow-calf pair while the average monthly cost of grazing a cow-calf pair on private lands is $11.10. So us taxpayers should have a lot to say about what happens on public ranchland, since we’re the ones subsidizing the ranchers.”

  29. Immer Treue says:

    Bob Hayes “Wolves of the Yukon”

    I’ve been looking all over the place for this and I finally found one. If you are interested.

  30. jon says:

    Largest wolf pack ever spotted in Wisconsin

    • Phil says:

      It is kind of funny yet weird that a veterinarian whose job it is to save animals is out there hunting to kill some. If there are hunters I respect it is ones like this man. Can anyone not see a major difference between this man and others like Bruce, Rockholm, etc?

      • jon says:

        I find it a little strange myself. this guy was probably hunting that bear for a bear rug or for a trophy to show off to his hunting buddies. Some doctors pay big bucks to go to Africa to hunt exotic animals for sport and for trophies. Rex Rammell was a vet too and look at him. He wants to eradicate all wolves. A normal nature lover would see that and be amazed and excited by it. Others would see those wolves and say, there goes the deer and elk. The white man is greedy and selfish. They think the environment is theirs for the taking and that the animals that inhabit the environment are there only for the hunters to shoot.

      • Phil says:

        jon: Although I do not agree with this vet hunting bears, it did seem like he was amazed and respected at the large pack with pups at play. I did not know Rammell was a vet before he became this anti-wolf symbol. Yes, I do believe that many hunters see nature as belonging to them and them alone, and as they can do whatever they want to it. I am strong against these rich hunters traveling to Africa and hunting on lions, gazelle, etc. Again: Just another way to show-off to their hunting buddies. I know of a group of people who travel to Africa yearly (one being a photographeer) who work in conservation efforts in many different forms of Botswana’s, Zimbabwe’s, Zambia’s, Tanzania’s and Kenya’s wildlife. These are the countries they have been working with the most, but at times they will volunteer with wildlife in other places in Africa.

    • Immer Treue says:


      I saw this last Fall. You can probably still find it on Youtube. If I remember correctly, the entire video is over 10 minutes long, and is set to music, all with wolf themes. Begind with Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs Little Red Riding Hood. Really something to watch those pups play!

      • jon says:

        reality22 must have been fuming when he saw this video. I thought a lot of people wanted the deer population in WI culled and when it is, there isa big stink about it from hunters because the ones that are doing the culling on the deer is the wolves, their natural predator. Man always wants to control everything.

      • jon says:

        Check out the comments. One person calls the wolves deer killers. lol

      • Savebears says:


        In reality, Wolves are deer killers…that is a fact of life..

      • jon says:

        No shit sb.

      • Savebears says:

        hey you were the one that posted that comment as if you were surprised that wolves are deer killers…

        So, no Shit Jon!

      • Phil says:

        jon: I have read many comments by this individual “reality22”. I wonder how he came up with his screen name?

      • Immer Treue says:


        The individual you mentioned is an enigma. A couple aspects of his personal life he shared with me would make me think he’s a pretty decent guy. But, he also seems to have developed this pathological hatred for wolves I find difficult to understand. He gets his deer and I think his elk every year.I get the feeling he is one of the hunters who look at wild ungulates as theirs.

        He accuses folks who are pro-wolf of having a Disnified idea about wolves. Some of his arguments are well founded, but then again he is prone to rants that become undecipherable. He is a disciple of Graves and Gheist, and recently has picked up on the illegally introduced Canadian wolf thing. He is omnipresent on sites throughout the country under more than one name.

        Yeah, I’m sure the video, which I’m sure he saw last Fall is like a burr under his saddle.

      • jon says:

        He’s a disciple of Graves and Geist you said immer. What wolf hater isn’t? According to some, the canadians and the russians are the real wolf experts and the american ones just make up lies about wolves and use junk science.

      • jon says:

        immer, I would hope that most pro wolf advocates understand that wolves are not these harmless little puppies. Some pro wolf advocates do indeed have a disnified view of wolves. Wolves are wild unpredictable animals. I notice that a lot of real young people like teenagers specifically real young girls who are big fans of wolves. If you go on youtube, you will find a lot of real young teenagers who have backgrounds of wolves and profess their love for wolves and what not. I think these young people truly believe that wolves are harmless dogs that would never hurt anyone.

  31. Phil says:

    jon: I don’t see what SB is talking about that it seemed like you seemed surprised that wolves kill deer? Comments like that are nothing more then to start an argument because you have an oppositional view.

    • Savebears says:


      I am just shaking my head…

    • jon says:

      Phil, no one is surprised. The point I was trying to make was that idiot who commented on the video of the WI wolves was faulting the wolves and making them out to be the bad guy because they kill deer. In that guy’s mind, the wolves are bad and are doing something wrong according to him by killing the deer. Again, just goes to show you how some hunters hate predators because they kill elk and deer.

      • Savebears says:


        That is a fact of life, no matter what gets said, some people hate wolves, I don’t understand why people have to continue to harp on this, some hate them, some love them, that is a given…at this point in time, it is up in the air, which side is going to win…

      • Phil says:

        The problem is it is not about winning, it is about what is best for the ecosystem, the species, heterospecifics, etc. It is not a game, but something very important on the table. To me the best solution is letting nature take control and stabilizing populations. If the wolf population is large, which I do not believe it is, then it will eventually be contolled. If the elk population is large or small, then nature will regain control of it and bring it back to stability.

      • Savebears says:


        As a biologist, I understand that it is about what is best for the ecosystem, unfortunately the majority don’t see it that way, they see it as a win or loose situation…

      • Elk275 says:

        That is your opinion. That is not the way it is going to happen in the west, they will be wolves but wolves are never going to control the ecosystem. They will have there place but there will never be a balanced ecosystem. Dream all you want but it is only a dream.

        Whether you like it or not, the hunters, livestock producers and others have a vested interest. They control the votes and the one with the most votes wins. I do not agree with livestock producer, miners or logger most of the time.

    • jon says:

      Phil, the point I was trying to make was that that the person who made the comment that wolves are deer killers is trying to portray wolves as bad just because they eat elk. This is emotion talking for you. A normal person would understand that wolves eat deer and them eating deer doesn’t make them bad. According to some, when wolves eat deer and elk, that makes them bad wolves.

      • jon says:

        just because they eat deer

      • Phil says:

        Elk: If wolves are never going to control the ecosystem, doesn’t that make it your opinion in which you basically criticized me of doing? Look at coyotes, elk, deer, etc that have been controlled up to this point by wolves. What is your opinion in the more then 24 beaver colonies that have emerged since the wolf reintroduction compared to the one the park had? How about cutting the coyote population nearly in half which has helped the fox and ariel predator population? Your statement is a typical one from a hunter who is against wolves, atleast in my opinion.

  32. Phil says:

    Elk: Not a opinion, it has been proven time and time again. Yes, hunters and ranchers have a invested interest, but it is in interest of no one else but themselves. It doesn’t matter what hunters and ranchers want, it matters in what is best, and being anti of something to build your personal criteria is not in the best interest of the of anyone else but yourself.

    • Elk275 says:


      Best for who? There is a political and a cultural reality that you are dealing with. Several days ago Nabeki said it best “it will be 2050 before altitudes change” I wonder if the United States will survive the next 40 years as a continuous republic. Maybe the states will fragment and the United States will become like Europe, a collection of small countries.

      • Savebears says:

        Blasphemy Elk, Pure Blasphemy!


      • Phil says:

        Best interest for all and not just the hunters and ranchers. “altitudes”? From what I get from government officials and certain people in the NRM region, they want the United States to become a bunch of smaller countries. A rancher by the name of David (I will leave off his last name, but it starts with a M) stated it best, “The question is no longer how to get rid of wolves, but how to coexist with them. We have to realize that general U.S. population wants wolves. That population is also our customers for beef. It’s not a good idea to tell your customers they don’t know what they’re doing…” Ranchers are their own worst enemies, and they are not seeing the issue as what is best for ecosystems, they are only seeing what is best for them.

  33. Phil says:

    jon: I see what you are saying in young females being fans of wolves. Dogs are very popular, especially with teenage girls, and wolves are the closest relative to dogs spars interest of them. There are many teen girls at the school I work at that love wolves, but when they ask me anythig related to owning a wolf I always tell them that it could not only be harmful to the wolf, but also themselves, but, unlike some others, I don’t portray wolves as evilish and killing machines. One teacher at the school has posters of “Wolf Awareness Week” on the outside walls of her room. These are beautiful posters showing pups and adults at play, drinking water, etc. I get very disturbed at shows like “Ainimal Attractions” on Animal Planet. I respect these people’s love of exotic animals, but do not agree with the tactics they go about showin it.

    • jon says:

      The people who portray wolves as killing machines in an attempt to try and demonize them make no sense to me. Wolves kill other animals in order to survive. Just what is wrong with that? All other predators do the same exact thing, so if the wolf haters want to claim wolves are vicious killing machines, they better be doing the same thing for great white sharks, lions, crocodiles etc because all of these animals are killing machines as well.

      • Savebears says:

        Every single one of the animals you have mentioned Jon, have been profiled in the media as killing machines, in fact some of the biggest grossing films ever made have included those exact species…

      • jon says:

        Does killing machines make them bad?

      • Savebears says:

        In many human minds, yes it does Jon. any animal that has or could kill a human is going to be demonized, that is a fact of life..

      • Savebears says:

        Even humans are demonized for being killing machines…I kill Deer and Elk and have been called a killing machine..

      • jon says:

        so why do humans fault animals for being killing machines when they are the worst killing machine of them all sb? We are hypocrites. The things we accuse animals of being, we are 100 times worse.

      • Savebears says:


        When you realize that most people don’t equate animals at the same level as humans, then perhaps you will understand.

      • jon says:

        sb, you are not answering my question. Why are humans such hypocrites? We refer to wild animals as killing machines, but what about us? It has nothing to do with equating. The fact is we humans are killing machines and hypocrites. Wild animals are not bad, not wrong or right. They are wild animals that act on natural instinct.

      • jon says:

        When you realize that we are hypocrites, than you will understand.

      • jon says:

        It’s ok for humans to be killing machines, but when animals are, we label them bad right.

      • Savebears says:


        I never said humans are not hypocrites, in virtually ever single phase of life and since the beginning of time humans have been hypocrites…that is human nature… far as answering your question, that is the best answer I have..your not going to change human nature anytime soon, we have it in all walks and levels of life..

      • Immer Treue says:


        not everybody.

      • Savebears says:


        I was labeled as killing machine when I was in the service and I have been labeled as a killing machine because I am a hunter and have been told I am bad! by a certain segment of society, why should it be any different with animals that kill?

      • jon says:

        I will be the first one to admit that wild animals be can dangerous. Some animals have killed many people and I still don’t fault them or demonize them as we kill many more of them than they do us.

      • jon says:

        You had to do what you had to do. It was either you or them.

      • jon says:

        because animals don’t know any better. they don’t know right from wrong. they act on instinct.

      • Savebears says:

        Jon Said:

        “You had to do what you had to do. It was either you or them.”

        And Jon, that is exactly how some people with with animals…

    • Immer Treue says:


      Those Wolf Awareness posters are a great deal. The Timber Wolf Alliance in Wisconsin puts them out. Ten for twenty bucks, and they have an ample supply of many years past. I have them in my classroom, and every once in a while use one as a “carrot” for that extra effort a student gives.

      • Phil says:

        Immer: Yes they are. I was not aware of Wolf Awareness Week until I saw the posters. It is always in October. I can see why you try to relate the posters to efforts of students.

  34. Immer Treue says:

    Another thing that does not necessarily work in the wolves favor in the West is that the static equilibrium provided by wolves so many would hope for will not happen. The cycle is very dynamic with species lag periods. Picture sine waves and their inverse.

    If elk populations are on the upswing, everyone will be happy. Currently, where wolves are, they are driving down elk populations. This is to be expected. So (some) hunters are upset.

    Wolf numbers are diminishing in some areas and I would expect elk to recover. I would hope for patience on all parts and hope that this happens. Wolves will then move back in and suppress elk numbers. Can man stabilize this without turning the West into a giant game farm/feed lot? Who knows.

    Add in other factors such as climate change, and fire suppression to name a few, along with man continuing to alter the landscape… Is there enough time for people with enough patience and earned knowledge to make this work the way that is best?

    • Phil says:

      Immer: Yes. It is a way of natural cycle. Predator populations go up, prey go down. When prey go down, predators go down and this increases prey populations. I believe within some there is time, but for others there is and never will be time. These are the ones that see themselves as owning wildlife.

      • Elk275 says:

        In Montana 150,000 people like to hunt elk every year. In Idaho and Wyoming 100,000 like to hunt elk every year. In Colorado several hundred thousand people like to hunt elk every year. There hundreds of thousand of hunters who would like to hunt elk every year but can not afford it or can not get a tag.

      • Phil says:

        So, Elk, what does that have to do with wolves? If Montana really wants to assure elk survival, why don’t the local hunters campaign against the large amounts of non-residential hunters that come and hunt in the state?

      • Immer Treue says:


        Those numbers make it tough, and as times get tougher, I fear folks will play their hands more with both poaching and SSS.

  35. Phil says:

    There is a difference between killing for survival and just flat out killing. As jon mentioned, killing is an instinctive behavior imbedded in the mind of an animal as a way of survival. When pups are young and at the stage that their brains are vulnerable and taking in everything, they take in what they are observing as a way of life. They see it as natural and normal. When humans are young, they take in the same type of information for survival. The problem is the adult behaviors that implant things into the child’s mind. How many hunters let their 8, 9… year old son and/or daughters hunt with them giving them experience at such a young age pulling the trigger of a rifle?

    Wolf adults “instinctively” know they must train their pups to hunt to give them the best chances at survival when they are adults. Cheetah’s bring a live calf to their cubs and let their cubs practice on killing the calf. It is sad to watch, but it is a natural behavior of the species. How else are the cubs going to be able to hunt on their own?

    • Elk275 says:

      The problem is the adult behaviors that implant things into the child’s mind. How many hunters let their 8, 9… year old son and/or daughters hunt with them giving them experience at such a young age pulling the trigger of a rifle?

      What is wrong with that! Some of the best memories of life is a young boy walking behind my father carrying a pheasant or duck. Then after we were done hunting he would hold the shotgun and I would pull the trigger. Oh! wait, I am morally bankrupt.

      I am going to have a beer, a good dark one.

      • Phil says:

        What is wrong with that? As you stated, you are implementing “killing” in the mind of a child. As I mentioned, a child’s mind is vulnerable in taking in all types of information. If a child has the experience of killing at a young age and is calm about it, what’s to say that as the child grows and gets more experience under his/her belt of killing something living that they wouldn’t eventually second guess themselves on pulling that trigger on a human?

  36. Phil says:

    Because, in reality humans do not HAVE to kill for survival. We do not live in prehistoric times where hunting was mandaded with the abundant technology that we have. Some are going to see, especially when you hunt after leaving the service, as killing machines. You go from one criteria of the service which has a job of killing to another in hunting which also kills. What would you see it as looking at it from an outsider’s view?

  37. Phil says:

    “And Jon, that is exactly how some people with with animals…” Then, why are animals killed for acting in he same manner towards humans as humans act towards animals? If a bear kills a human, he/she is doing what they have to do to aintain survival, right? Then, why kill the bear?

    • Savebears says:

      Not all bears are killed when they kill or attack, more and more often we are seeing bears moved instead of killed when a confrontation happens, last year was exceptional with the two that were killed, but there were actually several others that were not killed….

      • jon says:

        sb, I often what happens in situations like this. What if a bear kills a bear hunter out there trying to kill a bear? If the bear kills a human hunter that tries to kill it, do they track down the bear and kill it because it attacked a human? It seems as if humans are allowed to kill bears, but bears can’t kill them unless I’m wrong on this. I’m talking about hunting situations here.

      • Phil says:

        Then, why even kill predators? If humans kill for a reason, then why kill wolves, cougars, etc because they do what they have to? Aren’t these same humans killing these predators to ensure their own criteria hypercritical?

      • jon says:

        sb, has there been any cases in MT when bears have killed humans and their lives spared?

      • Savebears says:

        Yes, Jon,

        Several over the last 20 years..then there have been bears killed that have never shown any aggression to a human..

      • Savebears says:


        In the lower 48 it is black bears that are hunted, there have been very few cases of black bears killing hunters, there have been cases in Russia, and Alaska that Grizzlies have killed hunters and they have not been tracked down and killed, lets look at Mt. Lions in California, they have killed a few people over the last 20 years, and If I remember right, there has only been a couple that have been tracked down and killed because of that.

        It is a fact, not all animals that attack or kill humans are tracked down and killed..

      • Savebears says:


        I have already said, humans are hypocritical…

    • jon says:

      Phil, a human can eat a bear, but when a bear eats a human, they kill it.

      • Phil says:

        Exactly. It’s a one way street and no exceptions to these people. The bears who kill and eat humans are usually (from what I have seen) the ones that are unable to act in a more natural way in killing wild prey, so they go after easier targets. These can be due to factors like old age, disease, etc. Let’s go back to the Timothy situation. Investigation found that the bear that killed him was an older bear who was unable anymore to hunt on his own, so he went after a sleeping Timothy and his girlfriend.

      • jon says:

        Unfortunately, this is a human run world Phil and animals unfortunately will die if they cause us humans any major problems. I don’t like it one bit, but it’s the way the world is. In India, they capture maneaters and place them in a zoo or sanctuary instead of killing them. That is the least they can do since us humans are the reason why they turned maneater. Humans are taking their food source and their home, so they go after a much easier food source, us. I don’t blame the tigers one bit. It is getting very hard for them to survive in a country overpopulated with over a billion people.

      • Savebears says:

        Fortunate or unfortunate, you are exactly right Jon, it is a human world..

  38. Phil says:

    jon: And, what about the predators that kill livestock? Aren’t they doing what they have to do even though it is a small percentage? Everyone has to do what they have to, but it seems like certain people have a selfish notion that all that counts is themseves and anyone who is similar to them.

    • jon says:

      I don’t agree with wild animals being killed for killing livestock. Wild animals don’t know any better and they are only trying to survive.

      • Phil says:

        I do not either. I see it as a way of life for the predators. There are many situations where catching wild prey will not occur, so they have adapted to other ways of catching food. It is up to the ranchers to smarten up and find better solutions in protecting their livestock, because their livestock are also living creatures.

  39. Phil says:

    Yes, it is a fact that not all animals that kill humans have been tracked down and killed themselves, but that is not due to effort, it is due to the animals not being specified as to who killed the human. It is extremely difficult to locate a cougar let alone one that killed the human. A couple years ago when I worked a volunteer assignment, we were to spot one female cougar (any female) for a small sample of a research project related to size of a liter. I was only there for 3 weeks and we could not find any cougar. The research team stayed for 4 more months and finally by the second week of the 3rd month they spotted one. They are very intelligent in not being visual to competition, especially humans.

  40. Phil says:

    jon: The eastern hemisphere still has that attribute on animals that they are here for our entertainments. When I did my first internship at the local zoo, we had a number of families who came in as visitors from countries like Sweden, Germany, Russia, etc that asked us if we can make the animals do tricks? The animals in zoos currently are mainly taught tricks not for human entertainment, but to check on health issues. For example; the seals were taught using a whistle and a stick that looked like a cue-tip for noise and tapping purposes for the seal to turn in many different angles to check if there are any wounds on them. It attracts visitors, but it is not for a entertainment purpose as it use to be.

    • william huard says:

      Nice beanie on one of the three protesters! Sounds like a consensus- kill all the wolves because one ranching family doesn’t want em

      • william huard says:

        And I thought those rancher hats looked ridiculous. Remember the one Cheney wears- as big as his whole head

    • Daniel Berg says:

      Do you think they found them some wolf-lovin hippies to yell at?

      • jon says:

        I gotta tell ya, I am no big fan of ranchers. They are not stewards of the land like some of them claim. Who in the hell are they to want to get rid of wolves? Wolves deserve a place in this world. You also have others who claim that the 30 wolves currently in OR are going to wipe out the game herds. Never mentioned is the over 5000 cougars that inhabit Oregon.

    • Ken Cole says:

      It looks like Idaho’s population is down. 705 minimum estimate down from 870 last year.

      • Cody Coyote says:

        Wyoming’s wolf population is up, nearly 10 percent overall, including Yellowstone. But livestock predations are down…significantly. I still cannot fathom how wolves taking a whopping 28 cattle ( mostly new calves) and 30 sheep threatens either industry. Wyoming runs 1.4 million cattle and many hundreds of thousands of sheep , so…..?

        Wyoming’s Elk numbers are still rising, even in areas of known wolf pack activity. The annual winter aerial census of elk is being completed as we speak, so those preliminary numbers are due in coming weeks.

      • jon says:

        Ken, suzanne Stone believes there are 1000 wolves in Idaho.

      • jon says:

        And Toby Bridges thinks there’s 3000 wolves in Montana alone.

      • Phil says:

        ken: That is a large decline in a years span. What percentage would you say have been killed illegally?

      • WM says:


        If you were the student/scholar you claim to be you could find out yourself (as I did in about two minutes). Just look in the ID report at page 12. Tell us what you find. And the reading exercise would probably do you good. Don’t stop there. Explore the document, especially the distribution maps, and understand that the numbers reported are MINIMUMS based on their estimation techniques, which have become harder since they are not collaring as many. (Dr. Mech of course, has previously cautioned the estimates would be even more conservative and under counted as range expanded and fewer were collared).

        Here, I’ll even give you the direct link to the ID report so you and jon don’t get lost.

      • JB says:

        “Dr. Mech of course, has previously cautioned the estimates would be even more conservative and under counted as range expanded and fewer were collared.”

        This statement is interesting. I’m not sure how one would arrive at this conclusion (same amount of effort over a larger area?). At any rate, given the amount of error inherent in these estimates, I see a stable population across the past 4 years or so (in Idaho). This is not surprising given how many control actions occur on packs outside of federal lands, and it suggests that the federal lands in Idaho are generally occupied. I’m interested to hear how others interpret these data???

      • WM says:


        Start here, Dr. Mech’s sworn Declaration Under Oath in the first delisting suit. There is alot of very good information in this document that people here should read carefully:

        See page 7, paragrah 15, in which Mech also estimated 2,108 wolves in the NRM as being more representative of the actual number of wolves present in 2008, and took rather strong exception to Dr. Robert Wayne’s statements (and the VonHoldt work which was subsequently revisited in another broader study by some of the same authors who concluded in favor of Dr. Mech’s very astute observations, but you and I have beaten that issue to death before, and in deference to your admonitions I will not raise it again).

        While Dr. Mech addressed the undercounting here, there is another reference to the problem being compounded over time as range increases (and telemetry effort not increasing), the undercounting is amplified and apparently widens the gap between actual/estimate count and number of wolves present on the landscape. It has been a very long while since I read this declaration. It might be in here or another sworn statement of Dr. Mech. Unfortunately I don’t have time to look for it, but the underlying logic makes perfect sense.

      • JB says:

        “Starting with a base population of 1,545 wolves in late 2007 (Final Rule) and adding the average 24% annual increase shown from 1995 through 2006 yields 1,916 wolves expected to be present in fall 2008. (Here I should note that the estimate of 1,545 wolves is a minimum estimate, i.e. there were supposedly a minimum of 1,545 wolves. As wolf populations increase, it becomes increasingly harder to count them accurately and the minimal counts become increasingly lower than actual. Thus a better estimate of the actual population could be about 1,700, and thus the 2008 estimate would be 2,108.)”

        WM: Sorry, but that is hardly enlightening. I find it interesting that you have consistently demonstrated a willingness to criticize peer-reviewed scientific research with which you do not agree–sometimes even going so far as to accuse scientists of misrepresenting the facts–and yet you are willing to accept this sort of “blanket” statement as fact. It seems to me that you apply your critical thinking skills inconsistently?

      • JB says:

        To clarify my prior comments: The latest annual report gives a minimum fall population of 1513 wolves in 2007; however, Mech suggests this could be up to 20% higher. Taking Mech’s 20% at face value, 1513 x 1.20 = 1816; meaning there were between 1513 (minimum) and 1816 (1513 + 20%) wolves in 2007. Using the same logic (and arithmetic) today we would get 1614 – 1937 animals. Thus, there is significant overlap between the estimates 2007 – 2010, which suggests that the population has been relatively stable. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • JB says:

        And what annoys me is that we get these estimates without any measure of error–then we hear (and I’m paraphrasing) “well they’re probably around 20% higher”. Okay, great–then why not provide a confidence interval at 90% and/or 95%? That would go a long way toward helping people understand IF the population is growing/shrinking or if year to year variation can best be explained by the error inherent in the estimate.

      • WM says:


        I do agree with you and think the population is “relatively stable,” with some evidence of temporarily plateauing, in light of all the variables to be accounted for especially human caused wolf mortality. From the 2010 FWS annual report:

        “MT had the highest documented rate of human-caused mortality on wolves and Wyoming the lowest. In 2010 all documented human-caused mortality (agency authorized control, hunting, and other human-caused) removed 179 wolves in MT, 142 in ID, and 56 in WY. This meant 24% of the estimated minimum wolf population in MT, 17% in ID, and 13% in WY was known to be killed by people in 2010. In addition, past research on radio-collared NRM DPS wolves from 1984-2004 (Murray et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2010) indicated roughly 26% of adult-sized wolves died annually (80% of all morality was caused by humans) and the population still grew >20% annually. On average about 10 of them were killed by agency control, 10 by illegal killing, 3 were killed accidentally by people (mainly vehicle collisions) and 3 by natural causes (mainly wolf-to-wolf conflict and disease/parasites, which, because of fewer prey, caused the natural decline of wolves in YNP in 2008).” (pp. 7-8)

        1. “Inconsistent critical thinking” and Mech Declaration.

        Going back to the Mech assertions (in which you believe I have inconsistently applied critical thinking), his Declaration was designed to be very simple communication for purposes of the litigation. It was, by design as a legal document, a quick snapshot for the judge to grasp the current and near future population, and respond to wild and clearly unsupported assertions of the plaintiffs in the Complaint. There is a similar Declaration by Doug Smith which is also interesting in the same regard.

        And do recall Mech takes some pretty good shots at the Wayne/vonHoldt work, (specifically Wayne’s Declaration) and plaintiffs’ extrapolation of the YNP lack of connectivity issue (where there was arguably carrying capacity saturation), wrongly applying the deficiency to the greater NRM. Smith also takes issue with Wayne/vonHoldt. And, by the way, they all work and have co-authored stuff together over the years. So one presumes it is a professional and hopefully amicable dispute.

        Also, please recall this connectivity/genetic diversity issue was one of the few instances – and you must admit my criticisms have been directed to a very few individual researchers I will not name again in this post- I have brought up. Mech was spot on with his analysis and the authors made the correction for ”misrepresenting the facts” themselves when they went back and analyzed the data outside YNP for the very same time peroid. We have discussed that study, released in October, I think.

        As for my being lax in consistent “critical thinking” this instance – Yeah, probably. In the absence of anything better offered by two of the best wolf scientists on the NRM (Smith – the chief wolf scientist for YNP, and Mech – the chief FWS wolf scientist also intimately involved in the reintroduction and whose grad students have been doing continuous research in the NRM and elsewhere in the world for decades), what is one supposed to do? By the way don’t forget Ed Bangs and if I look hard enough might be able to find his Declaration as well, along with one for Steve Nadeau the ID wolf coordinator at the time, supporting the issues of genetic connectivity and large and growing populations, counted conservatively.

        From the FWS annual report 2010, there is an acknowledgement that “estimating the NRM wolf population has become less precise as it grew larger and the monitoring effort remained constant (p. 6).

        So the important thing here is “totality of circumstances,” rather than trying to parse out with a high level of precision exactly how many wolves does the NRM have, with subtle adjustments of estimation formulas (See item 4 below). There are still LOTS of them, even under assault from humans, is the FWS conclusion. I tend to think lots of folks agree.

        2. Are the numbers reliable going forward in time?

        We are certainly getting into increasing complexity with the numbers analysis which is obviously complicated by the WS control activities and legal state sanctioned harvests in ID and MT, as well as the in and out migration among the 3 key states (some of which may not be documented), and the Canada connection for panhandle ID and MT. Then there is out-migration from the reintroduced NRM wolves to OR and WA (and its in-migration from CAN), and just maybe UT. Telemetry has obviously been a huge aid, and is the cornerstone of the estimation effort. But there is alot of uncertainty, which has consistently been represented as estimating MINIMUM numbers of wolves, and what appears to be a higher actual number.

        Now tack on to this the uncertainty created by the possibly of the 3S on uncollared wolves, especially dispersers.

        In the end, even with the plateau, I believe Mech is still right as stated in his Declaration. Sometimes you have to go with your gut. Again, there are lots of wolves in the NRM which are conservatively undercounted.

        3. Need for Error measurement and Confidence Intervals?

        You bet! I think the idea of a confidence interval on the population numbers is a great one, and I would bet you a beer it is already on somebody’s computer at FWS and each of the states, as are population projections forward in time under various control/harvest scenarios. Why they won’t release this stuff, if it is available is mystifying.

        In comparison in the Great Lakes wolf DPS, the Wisconsin DNR is more forthcoming in their methodology and analyses.

        If I recall correctly, they even have a publication for purchase that gives considerably more detail than on their website. Just for fun, here is an article from nearly a year ago, showing their unexpected wolf population increase which is generating stakeholder pressure for a hunt and harvest in WI.

        4. Observations ID report:

        Anybody pick up on the fact that the ID 2010 annual report was formally authored by the Nez Perce tribal wolf management staff, with lead author, Jim Holyan? No IDFG staff is acknowledged as participating as an author, although there were likely many closet consultations.

        Appendix A sets forth the population estimation technique used the last two years. The biggest factor in reducing the population number is a change in pack size from 7.8 (2009 report Appendix A) down to 7.1 (2010 report Appendix A) for documented packs (other than actual counts of wolves).

      • JB says:


        Funny how an offhand comment can “grow legs” on this blog.

        (1) Inconsistent application of critical thinking
        I suspect your legal and scientific training are at odds. As you know, scientific inquiry stems from the consistent, systematic application of a set of rules in order to answer a factual question. Lawyers, on the other hand, start by answering the question and then working backwards to uncover the information needed to support their conclusion. It must be hard negotiating both worlds. 😉

        (2-4) The important stuff
        I have noted that Wisconsin tends to present its wolf population estimates as a range, which I greatly appreciate. The problems with only providing MINIMUM population estimates are (1) they imply that there is no measurement error to those unfamiliar with such estimates; (2) the provide no upper bound for those who ARE familiar with such estimates–which helps explain some of the crazy claims we have heard regarding wolf populations in the West. Fundamentally, I think we agree that (a) these population estimates should be accompanied by some estimate of error, and (b) given researchers’ claims that the population is probably ~20% larger than these estimates, we can assume at least that much error, which means the estimates provided over the past 4 years overlap substantially–i.e., the bulk of the evidence suggests population stability.

      • WM says:


        ++Lawyers, on the other hand, start by answering the question and then working backwards to uncover the information needed to support their conclusion.++

        I tend to think that some science is not that different from how you describe the lawyer finding the answer first and then crafting the data to meet the desired result. It happens more often than not, I am afraid.

        Drug manufacturers design studies not to focus on the side-effects they know are present, but masked in ways they get through drug trials for approval. Poll surveys are great at it. Design the questions with language that yields the result you want. Some scientists craft a hypothesis in such a way as to not address plurality of causes, which forces researchers who come behind to distinguish the differences between cause and effect, that may have been either suspected or known from the start, but for reasons known only to the scientist (and their funding sponsor) not accounted for.

        But, of course, in the “adversary process” it is known from the beginning that different sides may seek different results (the wolf litigation before Judge Molloy for example, in which both sides bring their best game). In bias in science it is much more subtle, for those who abuse the process of scientific method (smiley face with wink).

      • WM says:

        Sorry, last sentence should read ” ….THE bias in science is much more subtle,…”

      • Jeremy Bruskotter, PhD says:

        New study on carnivore conservation and management.

        My colleagues and I are preparing a nationwide survey to collect data on people’s preferences regarding large carnivore management and model wildlife conservation behavior. If you are interested, we could really use your help! I believe Ralph is planning to make this a post, but I wanted to provide folks the URL in case you know others who are interested in carnivore (especially wolf) management issues. Please feel free to pass this along.

        You can take the survey here:
        (More information is provided if you follow the link)

        Thanks to Ralph, Brian and Ken for allowing me to post this information.

      • JB says:

        Sorry, I did not mean to reply to this “sub” thread. You can also access the link, with some more information at my blog:

  41. Savebears says:

    Here is the Meeting Minutes from the Latest Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Meeting:

    Small mentions of the two fatalities in it, and some things they are proposing to help in the future, as well as food source issues, mortality issues, etc.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      A lot of interesting information and observations packed in there. Thanks!

  42. JEFF E says:

    Russian wolf science.
    watch the first one and then the second
    the haters will say the first is proven science

    • jon says:

      Greggy and coe are bad mouthing you and immer Jeff over at bbb blog.

      • jon says:

        I would also love to see this russian science they always talk about.

      • Cody Coyote says:

        FYI—These very FAKE wolf videos were done for a Russian vodka company’s television ad. I’ve seen some of the green screen outtakes. Some of the other clips in this ad series are very professionally staged to look ” real” , with tame wolves going up and down stairs and prowling streets, and nicely lit actors.

        It’s all the proof the rabid anti-wolfers seem to need, though. 100 proof. Grain alcohol.

        Na zda-ró-vye!

      • JEFF E says:

        I know that. rockchuck wouldn’t have a clue

      • JEFF E says:

        bbb is actually an ancient code/anagram that has been proven to originate in the origins of an obscure cult and which has been co-opted by an offshoot of what used to be known as the religious right. to decode this code simply turn bbb 180 degrees and get ppp, which clearly stands for perverts, poachers, and piss-ants.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Rather “interesting stuff” over there. However, I think it’s a trip i will seldom take, as there are far better things to do. To summarize BBB, and based upon the trolling they appear to do, I’m sure this will pop up over there, but form the great man Abraham Lincoln,

        “What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself.”

  43. Phil says:

    jon: They always use that phrase “russian-science”, but never back it up with a name(s).

  44. Phil says:

    wm: If you truly read deep into my question (you scholarly intelligent persoa you), you would see that I asked Ken how many he believes were illegally killed and not how many actually were. Sure takes a lot of intelligence, especially someone like yourself with all these degrees, to understand that, doesn’t it Mr. Intelligence? Keep your attack comments comming wm, because it is further showing your dictator mentality in assaulting anyone who does not share your garbage.

    • WM says:


      I know exactly the question you asked Ken. Did you actually look at the report and how the topic was addressed? While you await Ken’s answer, and his authority for it (and maybe he has some because he has talked to some folks), maybe some of this will sink in –or not.

      • Phil says:

        wm: I have gotten to page 17 of the report, but my question was not based on all the info from the report. 144 mortalities, 131 deaths caused by man, 11 unknown, 2 (only 2) from natural causes. This equals to the 144 they mentioned. The previous year there were an estimated 870. If you do the math, wm which your many degrees should prove you can do, that is a reduction of of 165 from 09 to 10, but they only found 144 deaths. How many of them have been part of the SSS from hunters? Sure there are other factors that could have decreased the population, like migratingout of the state and such, but how many wolves from neighboring states migrated into Idaho? You can continue to defend your hunting buddies wm, which is why you posted a response with insults to mine, but you continue to show your true agenda of attacking others with differnt views.

  45. Phil says:

    wm: Mech’s estimations are based on the average percentage (24%) increase dating from 1995-2006. As a biologist that you claim you are, you should know that numbers are not exact each and every year. The article from Mech was in 2008.

    • WM says:


      Get a clue. This is no “article.” It is a Sworn Statement Under Oath, under penalty of perjury, given to the Court in the first delisting suit before Judge Molloy. Now, bear in mind this is the professional judgment of arguably one of the most knowledgeable wolf scientists in the world, who started the International Wolf Center, and who is the FWS chief wolf scientist. You got a problem with his scientific conclusions raise them with him, not me.

      You might try looking at the big picture. Can’t see the forest for the trees, Phil? This statement was also made before the 2009-10 MT and ID wolf hunt harvest, which you might also consider.

      • Phil says:

        It does not matter if it was a swron statement under oath. The fact is that Mech took percentages based on a period of 11 years from 95-06. He did not count the wolves or was on a research project to determine population. He pulled off these numbers by adding two and two together and came up with his own numbers. I have a lot of respect for Mech, but in this case your point is not valid, because you are not taking numbers based on physical count, you are taking other forms of numbers and giving an estimation. What if the population was at 1,200 in 2009 and for the previous 10 years prior to 2007 (two years before the 09 population count) it had been decreasing by about 5%? Do you really think an accurate population count could be given based on this information? More then likely not, because you are basing percentages from the past on a current count. That sounds pretty ridiculous.

      • WM says:

        Again, just for you Phil – you can’t see the forest for the trees. The official estimates, by nearly every professional involved in this analysis is that the estimates are conservative. Some speculate they will be undercounted by even greater percentage and number over time.

        You are certainly free to disagree with those scientists, but what is YOUR rationale and scientific basis for doing so? Do you spend any time in the field, Phil, counting wolves, estimating pack size, or studying the assembled genetic data, or even have a clue about how estimates are done over tens of thousands of square miles, some of which has dense vegetative cover and little opportunity for human access except by aircraft (there is even a suit over that in the Frank Church Wilderness)?

        This is one hell of alot more sophisticated count than is done for the Great Lakes wolves, which Dr. Mech and the state of MN has been doing for several decades.

        This is not done in a lab. It is not precise, and accounting for a few dead wolves in a mortality calculation of this type is acknowledged in the ID report, has uncertainy, because not all wolves are collared. I guess we will all just have to wait for Ken’s answer to your question about how many uncollared wolves may have been 3S’ed.

        And Phil, just to be clear, your disagreement on the data and conclusions on wolf numbers is with Dr. Mech, and other scientists writing the ID reports, and testifying in litigation. Not me.

      • Immer Treue says:


        I can’t speak for Mech, for I don’t know what is actually going through his mind, but I would believe with a high degree of certainty, that because wolves are very resilient creatures, he feels wolves can withstand a great degree of “harvesting”.

        He has seen quite a bit in his life, and would most likely want to see an end to so much of this foolish debate about wolves, whether one loves them or hates them. The time has come for proper management of wolves. If nothing else, it will shut the anti-wolfers up, take the wind out of their hateful sails, and wolves will be safe, as a continuing population.

      • jon says:

        Immer, as I’m sure you know, Idaho recently has said they want only 150 wolves in their state. You have 1000 plus wolves in Idaho. How are you going to tell others that wolves are going to be safe when Idaho wants to kill off over 900 wolves? And you will have wildlife services still killing off packs for eating livestock. People are not out of their minds when they are concerned for wolves. The states have shown they don’t want wolves. Look at Wyoming with their shoot on sight stance and than you have Idaho. A state that has said they want only 150. What is going to happen to the rest of the wolf population?

      • Cobra says:

        Hunting alone will not drop wolf numbers down by that much. We could not even make quota with an extended season. The best way to go all the way around is like it used to be.
        Let ranchers protect their own livestock and open a season on wolves with a quota.

  46. Phil says:

    Immer: There is no doubt that the estimates by Mech and others are not accurate and they could be higher or lower. No one will know exact measures of count of wolves due to their behaviors of being scarce, similar to cougars. I never stated the counts were exact. It is wm who portrayed this and his measures of relying on past measures to establish population counts are typical of his way of seeing wildlife, and that is through methods used from prehistoric procedures.

    wm: “You can’t see the forest through the trees…”, but what I can see is not to use old data on ESTIMATING conclusions. I do not need to rely on information or stats collected years ago to determine a research on a current issue. I will not rely on just observation biologists used in the 1930s nd 1940s to determine a hypothesis without marking them. You have a prehistoric mindset in coming to conclusions, and that is not how a biologist should work. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any scientists, wm. Scientists do not use measures as old as a decade to determine outcomes of present day projects. A true biologist cannot count ALL wolves, wm as you indicated with your “conservative” method. Have I counted wolves? Yes, on two different stints. One was in Ontario, Canada, with the other being in the UP wolf population. But, we did not use “average” increase or decrease percentages from the past 10 years to come to conclusions in the population count. Have I estimated pack sizes? Yes, but not from a small sample. We did so from a collection of 26 packs and their sizes throughout the UP. It was not a average pack size from 2001, 2002, 2003…, it was for that given year. Your estimates are from not current counts from data collection, you want to estimate a current population from the average (not even exact percentage) of past years counts. That is not concluding on a research assignment.

    wm: I did not ask Ken how many uncollared wolves were deae, I asked him how many he THINKS were illegally killed. You were the one that brought up the rough ESTIMATION Mech gave from sources he used in percentages of increase from 1995-2006. You cannot take numbers from years ago and use them for a current count. If this is the case, then what would be the need for anyone to go out in the field and do a population count? Why not just sit in the office and estimate how many wolves there are based on what the population had the previous year and either subtract or add it from the average percentages for the past decade or two? Is that the biology you believe in wm?

    wm: No. My disagreement is with you for posting this as your backup resource. Doctor Mech has not researched populations of wolves in Idaho. He merely used the average percentage increase that ended two years prior to the report to establish a estimated wolf population. I would rather rely on scientists and biologists who are actually in the field researching the population of wolves.

    wm: Here is how I would see the question asked and answered by Mech.

    Q. “How would you see the wolf population currently in Idaho?”
    A.” Well, due to the percentage of increase of 24% from 1995-2006 and basing it on the 1,5.. wolves from the previous year, I would say you would multiply the 1,5.. wolves by .24 and add that number with the “base” of 1,5.. and you will come up with _____” No, the Q and A was not exact to that, but I am willing to bet it went something similar to it.

  47. Phil says:

    Immer: Proper management is the key. The current wolf issue from the anti’s does not have any plans for proper management. Yes, I want the anti-wolfers to shut up, to, but not at the expense of wolf’s life from the current population of 1,700 or so.

  48. Phil says:

    jon: Exactly! That is not proper management, that is a genocidal slaughter on others you (they) hate.

    • jon says:

      Ofcourse not. Wyoming wants to shoot wolves on sight in most of the state and Idaho wants to kill off all but 150 of their wolves. This is far from proper management. It will not change how people feel about wolves. Do you think they are going to waste $11.95 or however much it is to kill a wolf when they can do it for free and poach and not get caught? Idaho won’t do anything to those who kill wolves without a tag. Slaps on the wrist means nothing.

      • Phil says:

        I was listening to a video from one of the wolf coalition groups who interviewed Otter, and he stated that the state will not go after anyone who kills a wolf. These were his own words. The link (which I cannot find anymore) was on here connected to the “Lords of Nature” forum.

      • Salle says:

        Is this the video you’re talking about?

      • Phil says:

        Salle: Yes it is. Thank you for posting it. I saw it on Thursday, but couldn’t find it again. I like Otter’s puzzled face when he was asked the first question regarding wolves. Did anyone else notice one of the wolves tapping at the shoulder of the older gentleman who was talking to Otter at around 3:30? Was he/she trying to persuade the man to let it out so it can go after Otte? What were those wolves doing there? Were they brought in by the NIWA?

      • Salle says:

        Those are “ambassador wolves” and I think they were brought in for the occasion, though I could be mistaken about that part. I think I gathered that tidbit from the text at the website for Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance, there’s a link to their web site on the sidebar to the right on this web site. The video and info about it is about halfway down the page on the NIWA site, and a link to the video.

      • mikarooni says:

        Going back to jon’s original point above…

        “Wyoming wants to shoot wolves on sight in most of the state and Idaho wants to kill off all but 150 of their wolves… Do you think (anti-wolf rednecks (my very accurate terminology)) are going to waste $11.95 or however much it is to kill a wolf when they can do it for free and poach and not get caught? Idaho won’t do anything to those who kill wolves without a tag. Slaps on the wrist means nothing.”

        This actually sums the problem up quite well. Personally, I am comfortable with wolves eventually being hunted and I believe that there are already enough wolves to safely support a sustainable hunt in a couple of these states. The problem is not in a reasonable regulated wolf hunt; the problem is that these states are neither reasonable nor are they really mature enough to be trusted to regulate a reasonable hunt. The problem is not with the wolves or with the concept of hunting them to balance their numbers in areas where their population spikes; the problem is with the redneck trash in the NRM.

      • mikarooni says:

        Oh and furthermore, neither Newt Gingrich nor Butch Otter are or ever were really Catholic. They’re just using religion to play a cynical political game.

  49. Immer Treue says:

    Yes, the operative word is proper, not slaughter. Time is of the essence for wolves, short and long term, while the anti wolfers have the patience of pampered three year olds and can’t see beyond the moment. The trouble is their obnoxious tantrums have got their elected parents attention.

    • jon says:

      Immer, you must be aware of what is going on in Idaho. They want to kill off most of their wolf population. They have said they want only 150 wolves now and there are 1000 plus wolves in idaho, but no one knows for certain how many. Is killing off all but 150 wolves proper management or a slaughter?

      • Immer Treue says:


        You know how I feel about wolves, so asking me a question like this is counter-productive to our communications. I believe that “slaughter” of wolves would lead to public outrage.

        What I hope for is with all the hyperbole aside, that state management of wolves would be just that, and it would be in fair hunt and sustainable numbers. Ask for the world, settle for reality, on both sides of the issue.

  50. Phil says:

    Immer: True, and now those elected “parents” attention has caught the eye (negatively) of the rest of us.

  51. Phil says:

    wm: I would expect that coming from someone who has been proven wrong. You can rely on stats and data from past years, while I will use modern ways of research observation and experiments to gather a conclusion on a project. Great come back.

    • Phil says:

      Wow. Something like that can only leave you speechless. Why would anyone put two territorial species like a tiger and lion in enclosures next to one another?

  52. Phil says:

    Talk about a football player.!5490337

  53. Phil says:

    jon: I did not either, but what a great message to put out there in attempting to help this species that went from 100,000 in population in the mid 70s to a current estimation of around 32,000. I would never stress a animal, especially a male lion, in captivity. As much room the lion had, it is still not a typical normal size for them. It did seem like he wanted to put the helmet on, didn’t it? He would be a big help for our team.

    • jon says:

      Phil, I believe there are around 20,000 but who can say for sure. That male lion could be a linebacker. lol

      • Phil says:

        And, linebacker is a big positional need for the lions team. I took a video of a male lion I worked with, and the roar is absolutely amazing. The sound vibrations that come from lions is so powerful that you can feel the ground shaking.

  54. Phil says:

    Cobra: No it may not, but the draft of plan suggested currently will (possibly) drop down wolf populations siginicantly, especially judging from the hostility the government, hunters and ranchers have on wolves.

  55. Phil says:

    JB: I would recommend that you conduct a project in determining populations of wolves. It seems like you would be able to do a much better job at it then some say others are doing.

  56. WM says:

    Looks like MT is trolling for another wolf hunt based on its latest annual report, and questioning the ESA status.

    • Phil says:

      How can you have an 8% increase of the wolf population in 2010 from the year 2010? How can a percentage increase in a year (2010) from the total amount before it was even counted from that year (2010)? The article does not seem realistic. Do they mean from 2009 and not 2010? “”I’m certain we could have successfully reduced the wolf population in 2010 if we could have proceeded with our planned, science-based hunting season,” Maurier said…”, based on what Science? The one conducted by the Fish and Game? I thought Montana wanted to manage wolf numbers, but it mentioned that it would increase their quota in the next wolf hunt to decrease their populations. “Montana had planned a more aggressive wolf hunt for 2010, increasing its statewide quota from 75 to 186. The higher quota was sought to lower the wolf population in the state.”

      “Federal biologists echoed that the numbers show the wolf has recovered.” Off course they do, they are basing the recovery from the planned numbers issued in the late 80s by the Fish and Wildlife Services. Why not go back to the 1920’s and 1930’swhen there was no plan and they wanted 0 wolves in the region? The plan is old and needs to be revised. If that is the best argument that the anti-wolf people have and continue to dwell on, then they need to look at reaistic facts that times and ecosystems change.

    • Notice how the Chronicle did not say “total population dropped.” They only spoke of Montana

  57. jon says:

    Utah wolf critic: Predators are ‘cool’ but threaten hunting

    “Robinson accused Utah wildlife managers of having a strong prejudice against predators. He said wolf critics such as Peay argue that the big predators are decimating wildlife populations in places such as Wyoming. But in 2009, he said, the population of elk in parts of that state was 108,000, when the stated management objective was for 83,000 elk.

    “Don [Peay] paints pictures of wolves as villains and is doing everything he can to keep them out of Utah, but he doesn’t use good science,” said Robinson. “What he does has nothing to do with science.”

  58. Immer Treue says:

    I know it’s old, but it is decent, and the comments provide entertainment when some of our favorite anti’s get taken to the shed.

    I’ve just finished watching the magnificent series Deadwood, and one of Seth Bullock’s lines run so true, ” Every bully I’ve ever met, can’t shut his f@#$%ng mouth, except when he’s afraid.”

    • WM says:

      Very interesting article writtent in 2010, but factually incorrect in at least one part. Heading: The Biggest Losers (second paragraph):

      ++There was one beaver colony in the park at the time wolves were reintroduced. Today, 12 colonies are busy storing water, evening out seasonal water flows, recharging springs, and creating habitat. ++

      I have also seen in another article a quote attributed to Doug Smith that there was only one beaver colony before wolves.

      Here is an article co-authored by Smith which indicates 23 colonies and visual presence including dams in 1999 on the Yellowstone River system alone, utilizing a motorize aerial survey technique (that’s right folks a Supercub aircraft as low as 100 feet above the trees zooming along at 60 mph, Smith recording data in Yellowstone NP).

      Here is the first aerial beaver survey by Smith in 1998, with a supercub at 500 feet.

      Note comparisons of data from 1996 to 1998 at Table 1.

      CONCLUSION: Chad Ward is incorrect on his statement of 1 beaver colony in YNP. It is likely trophic cascade is increasing in the presence of wolves, because of the changed elk behavior, and fewer elk in total, are allowing aspen/willow stands to recover. But even this, according to Scott Creel and several USGS scientists the extent of tropic cascade is still not determined conclusively because of recently milder winters, lower snowpack and several other factors. So, unless someone has more recent data, the jury is still out on that.

      Footnote: wolves eat beaver when available.

      • Immer Treue says:


        William Skinner, the chief Naturalist in Yellowstone estimated that the beaver population in Yellowstone was 10,000 in the 1920’s. By the 1950’s beaver were scarce in Yellowstone.

        I had a copy of Robert Jonas Masters thesis for a while, and he was pretty thorough in his study of why the beaver disappeared, and it was not wolves, but elk in particular, and bison to a limited degree. But, perhaps, this is old news.

      • Immer Treue says:

        For those who are interested in nature’s engineer in Yellowstone

      • Phil says:

        Immer: Thank you for posting the site.

  59. Salle says:

    Bridging the Gap in D.C., a Pop-In by a Straight-Talking Tester and Final Thoughts
    In this third installment chronicling a trip by concerned sportsmen to our nation’s capital, Montana’s junior Senator shows up during hors d’œuvres before contemplation begins about the impact constituents can make on energy development in the West.


  60. Immer Treue says:

    And people complain about wolves? Snowmobile chasing moose.

    One can’t get more inane than this.

    • jon says:

      Immer, everything we accuse the wolf of doing, we do the samething and we do it much more. We are hypocrites. Look at hunters for example. They complain when wolves kill other animals. What exactly do hunters do? They kill animals and they complain when the wolves kill animals.

  61. Nancy says:

    A Sunday morning treat!

  62. Immer Treue says:

    Well known that wolves eat beaver, in particular in upper midwest and Canada.

  63. Salle says:

    Idaho Rancher Turns Out to be Boston Mobster

    Any surprises here?

    • skyrim says:

      Oh gee. Call me red in the face. I thought all Idaho Ranchers were mobsters…………

      • Salle says:

        My favorite part of this story…
        His lack of knowledge about cattle did not give him away to his Idaho neighbors…
        Looks like the easiest way to hide in plain sight as a poseur is to go to Idaho and pretend to be a rancher… they never lie and are the most finest upstanding folks. So what if you don’t know a thing about ranching, the way the rest of the ranching community functions, who’d know? All you have to do is pretend to do your job and then when things go sour, blame the wolves and the environmental conservationists.

        Somebody must have ratted him out, it sure took forever for the feds to find him… they must have had help.

      • mikarooni says:

        You’d be shocked at how many ranchers don’t know anything about cattle.

      • Salle says:

        Actually, I’m not surprised at all.

    • Phil says:

      Wow. Then, what was the Forest Service doing before the judge ordered them to protect the forest?

    • Doryfun says:

      The problem with most people, specially Americans, is that most never will do anything about the environment until the fire is on their own porch. Often too late, but major catastrophy is the only cataclysm that ever moves enough masses of people to make a significant difference.

      • Salle says:

        I’m thinking that you meant catalyst…?

        Have to agree. And should anyone have the malice of forethought about anything that might be or become catastrophic, they are marginalized as conspiracy theorists and fear-mongers. Been there done that.

        At least many in this country are heeding the lesson of nuclear power, especially near fault lines. Same thing could happen on our west coast.

        Like the earthquake(s) this past weekend, can’t say I predicted it but I was sure something was about to take place and i am quite certain that it’s not over yet in Japan and there will likely be some serious issues happening over the next week that are probably not all that identifyably related to that event… in the next week. I wasn’t able to sleep the night of the earthquake, got up and saw the news so I was up the rest of the night and day watching the news clips. Haven’t been able to sleep well last night either… Could be a long week for me.

      • Doryfun says:


        At first I put down catalyst, but changed it to cataclysm. Both seemed to make sense to me, but maybe not? You got the gist, all the same.

        After reading GarretHardin’s opinion about nuclear power, (dead against it) I pretty much subscribed to his take on it. Then a friend gave me an article about some new technology about 4th generation nuclear that sounded much safer and a potential good trade off. I posted a question about this to others, earlier, but got zero feedback. So, I am still being open minded abut that potential.
        Naturally, anything nuclear normally arouses a response by people similar to what peeing on an electric fence would produce. Radioactive stuff is scary. But, we need to convert to alternative energy, (yesterday) and is just wind and solar enough? Seems nuclear potential should at least be on the table.

      • This, of course, is an indictment of nuclear power.

        They will argue who would have expected a 9.0 quake! “We designed it for a very strong quake, but 9.0!” That is just the point. If a total nuclear meltdown(s) is intolerable (which hopefully may yet be avoided), one has to think beyond the box and 98 % probabilities.

        This is also an indictment of centralized generation more generically. If Japan had more distributed generation, some power in the devastated area would still be present.

        The same thing could happen to the United States for the same, or different reasons, with the relentless drive for centrally generated and corporate control of energy.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        I don’t know what the future of nuclear power is. At least there hasn’t been a hard swing back toward it yet from alternative energy like there was between the Carter and Reagan administrations. In 1987-1988, I researched micro-hydro systems to make plans for a powering our new home — which before the internet meant a lot of calling and writing. I found a couple of references to one key all-encompassing bible on the subject that had been written just a few years before by two DOE employees, but I could not get my hands on a copy anywhere and the US Government Printing Office said it was out of print. Finally, we drove to Idaho Falls to the building where the authors had worked. There were guys walking around the lobby with machine guns and we were told in no uncertain terms we were in the wrong place. Finally, they made a call up to one of the guys and he came down with the master copy and zeroxed it for us. He was said it was the best work he’d ever done and happily made us a copy (joking that he could have been shot because he’d forgotten to get clearance) it but it was a sad situation that the DOE had been so thoroughly Reaganized that we had to go to those lengths to get our hands on a key document that many people would find useful. After the stop there we drove west past what seemed like 100 buses of nuclear workers returning to Idaho Falls at the end of their shift . . .

        I think one thing that is different this time is that there have since been tremendous advances in alternative energy even without much government support that make it a lot more economic and practical than the first crude efforts during the Carter administration that resulted in a lot of junk being sold by unqualified installers going after the tax credit money.

  64. Nancy says:

    Save Bears – you mentioned in a previous post you met your wife in Japan. I hope if she has family there, they are safe.

  65. Immer Treue says:

    Earth rotational an axial changes due to earthquake.

    Not a whole lot, but Mother Nature takes over.

    • Doryfun says:

      I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that scientists can make such micro measurements on something so huge and of grand scale. I always wonder how accurate those kinds of things are. Ah, the beauty of mystery.

      • Savebears says:

        You would be amazed at how accurate the military GPS systems are, they make the consumer versions look like a Hasbro playtoy!

    • JEFF E says:

      I wonder if this additive to what the Chile earthquake did

      • Salle says:

        I think the one off the coast of Thailand (Indian Ocean) seven years ago was said to do that so I imagine it’s additive.

  66. timz says:

    Some uninteresting Oregon wolf news but I’ll put the link up anyway.

  67. Nancy says:

    Doryfun – tried to locate the article I’d posted awhile back about the problems with 4th generation nuclear but couldn’t locate it. You’re on your own…. but I totally agree with Ralph:
    “there is a relentless drive for centrally generated and corporate control of energy” regardless of what the source is even though many communities and homes realistically could go off those “bloodsucking” grids if the businesses involved with manufacturing solar and wind power capabilities had some sort of encouragement from our government.

    Think I mentioned in a previous post I pay $25 bucks a month JUST for the priviledge of being connected to the local electric company. (My average, monthly usage doesn’t amount to $25 bucks a month) To top that off, my electric company is a co-op, they deal in capitol credits
    but….. I don’t qualify for those credits each year because – as a spokesman for the electric company so politely informed me when I questioned what exactly my membership in the co-op ment – I don’t use (or waste depending on how you look at it) enough electricity to warrant a refund as a member of this co-op.

    • Doryfun says:

      Nancy, thanks for the info.

      I don’t recall seeing your info about nuclear earlier. What I copied down from past discussions on energy didn’t have such in it, but perhaps I missed it??
      The capital credit co-op thing sounds good, and eliminates giant central corporatism that you and Ralph don’t like (I’m in the boat with you guys on that – and even more reinforced now that I have been reading “The Shock Doctrine, ” that Salle keeps referring to. (thanks again Salle).
      Still, in googling here and there on 4th genertaion nuclear, it still seems like at least like a worthy option to consider. Is there anything that ever is 100% safe, in natures world? In a perfect world, there would be no coal plants, dams, or reactors. No mines to dig the ores for materials that go into things like these computers we are comunicating on, and everytone seems to think they need and have. And, even wind and solar have impacts to the environment. There is no free lunch.
      I’m just trying to keep an open mind to consider all our options, even though I don’t like nuclear either and have a low trust level in such. Thus my reason for asking about more info from folks on this blog, because it seems to be a good bunch of concerned information digging activists.
      But, we all have time constraints, so appreciate that aspect for al of us out here who want to save the world.
      (from ourselves). Nature rules. We just don’t follow very well or appreciate the potential to practice ways of living to be a bit more kind to the planet, other creatures, and human kind.

      • Nancy says:

        Doryfun – long and a bit dated but a good article on nuclear energy (good comments at the end)

        Thorium is brought up as a source but it has its critics:

      • Doryfun says:

        Be careful what you ask for ( I remind myself). You were right, Nancy, that was a long winded article. but good. I didn’t realize that Uranium was that scarce in te long run. Nor that thoreum was a potential sustitute and Idaho has one of the biggest supplies. Great, I hate mining in general, and rapage scars in particular.

        I still haven’t found out too much about 4th generation, other than one article a friend gave me that made it sound like a good potential option. But, I remain skeptical, and have a low trust level both with mining and redioactive elements.

        I already have enough unprotected exposure to the sun to up my half life level of radioactivity. So why add to that…

  68. Phil says:

    In my Vertebrate Zoology class we are on the section that deals with birds. My professor found this video. Tell me this is not one of the colest things you have ever seen!

  69. Salle says:

    Nez Perce Tribe working to bolster Clearwater coho

  70. Salle says:

    Masses Of Fish Surge Near Surface On Acapulco, Mexico Coast (PHOTOS)

    • Phil says:

      What a lousy move on the Federal Government’s part. It’s like giving in to immoral views on an issue.

      • WM says:

        Actually, Phil, it has to do with FWS meeting what it believes are legal standards, based on two trial court rulings, one in Judge Johnson’s court regarding the WY wolf management plan and a negotiated solution to presenting such a plan acceptable to FWS, AND, Judge Molloy’s ruling that you cannot break up a DPS. If WY comes up with an acceptable management plan, following public review and approval, there would then be three management plans in place and Judge Molloy could eliminate that issue from the suit before him.

        Than the question would revolve around the acceptability of the science regarding recovery. That is where this case should have been all along.

        No doubt this will likely mean another round or two (or a dozen he said sarcastically) in court.

        This would be independent of any legislative options on the table.

      • Phil says:

        I know it comes from the Fish and Wildlife Service. It does not look like Wyoming will come up with an acceptable plan that is Science based, as I believe Montana and Idaho have not either.

  71. Immer Treue says:

    When you see the site, it does NOT reflect my views on ethical hunters, but the one day stat in paragraph 3 About 29 cars … is pretty enlightneing

    • Immer Treue says:

      sorry, paragraph 2

    • Phil says:

      Maybe some will open their eyes and put the blame on the proper individuals and not on predators. I like the title “Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting”. This is just a start, and now they need to proceed to abolish all hunting unless it is used for sole means of survival. I do include trapping as useless hunting.

      • Elk275 says:

        Lighten up Phil, you are not going to get anywhere with your ideas.

      • Doryfun says:

        Hey Phil,

        I hope you don’t use anything made of leather.

      • Phil says:

        Really elk? Because, it was you that couldn’t put a smile on your face the other day when I stated something in a joking manner. Sorry that I do not believe in hunting.

        Doryfun: I do not use a leather. I have learned all the procedures that I can do on my own that will help in the life of any animal. For examplel; I am a vegetarian, do not carry around a leather wallet or anything that has leather in it, recycle, etc. I am not signifying this on you Doryfun, but maybe it’s just me, but I do care about others lives instead of just mine.

      • TC says:

        I think the moderator should put a limit on the number of posts per day for individuals, especially posts like this aimed at nothing more than raising the bile of many wildlife enthusiasts that also happen to hunt.

        I lurk here mostly, looking for good posts that are factual and that link to credible sources (and there are many), but when did this become the Frick and Frack show (Jon and Phil)?

      • Ken Cole says:

        You might have a point TC. Maybe a little hint will do?

  72. Jay says:

    Turns out there are kids being attacked at bus stops by wild animals, but it isn’t wolves:

    • Phil says:

      Jay: I was watching a show on Nat Geo last night who were investigating certain wildlife issues. One issue was an elderly woman who was found cut up in the woods in I believe Norway. Investigation found that no predators (wolves or bears) killed this women, and later found that it was done by a moose (which they call an elk in their country) during mating season. Elk are usually not confrontational, but even these examples can prove otherwise in certain instances.

      • Jay says:

        you think the anti-predator, pro- “shootable” wildlife folks will be screaming bloody murder about the vicious ungulates attacking their children in their own neighborhoods? Funny, but you never hear the anti-wolfers talking about the threat to human life by unguates…

      • Immer Treue says:

        ungulate – car confrontations don’t matter either.

      • Phil says:

        Jay: Probably not, because they are the ones that want to take down that … point elk, deer, etc

    • Everyone should know that moose are far more dangerous than wolves. Most of my too close wildlife encounters have been with moose, and that was in grizzly bear country!

    • william huard says:

      Shame on them Jon. These people are evil Please run Sara Please!!!

    • Phil says:

      This is absolutely ridiculous. There is the Fish and Game once again trying to make their money by putting another species in a unique and sickening method of killing them. I really can’t stand this department. I have no idea how they are the policy makers as to management of species? I have been posting my resume on websites for employers to find it, such as the Employers have also posted job position openings on these kinds of sites, and have found a few from the Fish and Game. I have applied for a few positions, but none from this department. I find this deparment nothing more then a friend and partnership to hunters and anyone who wants to benefit off of the life of an animal.

      • Doryfun says:

        Are you still in college? Not sure what it is like these days, but it was tough getting a job in the natural resource field back in my day (can’t remember how far back, now). But, do remember I was pretty idealistic just coming out of school. You know, wanting to help all the critters and save the world. Then the real world hit me for a new image adjustment and the real education began.

        I hope you aren’t shooting your options in the foot with narrowing your viewscape of fish and wildlife agencies, state or federal, due to your dislike of hunting. Maybe they need someone like you on board. But, it might take some revision of your resume a bit??? Doesnt mean abandoning your prinsiples, but maybe ride a horse that doesn’t buck too much, might help land a job? Then work at changing things from the inside out. Just a thought. Maybe jobs are easier to get today??

      • Phil says:

        Doryfun: I am graduating this coming up summer. I have posted my resume and cover letter on my school’s careerlink site, site and now on site. I have found many departments and organizations hiring for a position (similar to wildlife biologist) but just feel uncomfortable applying to work with them (not saying I would automatically be accepted anyways). The ones I have applied for are Fish and Wildlife Services (Idaho) and Canine Field Specialist. I hope the Canine Field Specialist works out for me because they work conservation efforts in a variety of places using dogs, but I also know how competitive the market is and that many do not currently have a job, so I should not be picky. Having said that, I don’t know how I would feel working with a company/organization that goes against my beliefs. It’s not so much a dislike of hunting as it is having morals and ethics. The Fish and Game has not been an agency that I have found that is for animals as they are for others who to alter the life of an animal.

        I have emailed inividuals in the NRDC and National Wildlife Federation in gathering up as much information as possible, but I am always willing to take in as much as possible. One of the students I currently work with’s mom works for the NRDC in Michigan. She has helped a bit.

      • Daniel Berg says:

        I nominate WM to help Phil with those resume revisions 😉

      • Doryfun says:

        As you search for work, don’t forget that old cliché: “divide and conquer”. Often hunters and anti-hunters want similar things in nature, but just go about it in different ways for different reasons. Which is more important, winning the small battles of personal interests, or winning the war on integrity of the environment?
        There is a good reason Ralph and crew made some ground rules to help eliminate wasted battles, and better aim at the big picture.
        Thought you might also be interested in an interesting study I found in the latest issue of Conservation Ecology:

        Assumptions about nature are embedded in people’s preferences for environmental policy and management. The people we interviewed justified preservationist policies using four assumptions about nature knowing best: nature is balanced, evolution is progressive, technology is suspect, and the Creation is perfect. They justified interventionist policies using three assumptions about nature: it is dynamic, inefficient, and robust. Unstated assumptions about temporal, spatial, and organizational scales further confuse discussions about nature. These findings confirm and extend findings from previous research. Data for our study were derived from interviews with people actively involved in negotiating the fate of forest ecosystems in southwest Virginia: landowners, forest advisors, scientists, state and federal foresters, loggers, and leaders in non-governmental environmental organizations. We argue that differing assumptions about nature constrain people’s vision of what environmental conditions can and should exist, thereby constraining the future that can be negotiated. We recommend promoting ecological literacy and a biocultural approach to ecological science.

    • Elk275 says:

      I agree with you Jon, it is absulely disgusting.

      Alaska needs to allow non resident hunters the right to hunt grizzlies without a registered guide. The grizzly population is not going to be hurt from sport hunting. A guided grizzly bear hunt cost between $7,000 to $12,000.

      • Phil says:

        Elk: Grizzly bear hunting in Alaska should not occur, but it has been going on for a while now and, really it has not, to the best of my knowledge, done anything to stabilize their populations. Why? Because man is interfering with the ability of nature to better stabilize the species population. The article does not talk about hunting on grizzly bears, it talks about trapping them. To me the Grizzly bear population is right around what it should be. No I have not studies the species in Alaska, but look at the human population, land size, food source and compare it to the Grizzly bear species population.

      • Elk275 says:

        Phil have you ever been to Alaska? Spent any time in it wilderness outside of a national park? You are more hat than horse or I am older than you which is a negative to the number of my remaining years. The article talked about trapping grizzlies is because they are killing moose calves in the spring. Th idea behind trapping grizzlies are to reduce there population.

        The State of Alaska has a guide law in effect that says a non-resident cannot hunt grizzlies without a guide. I was a resident of Alaska for four years and was able to hunt grizzles without a guide now that I am a resident of my home state of Montana, I am longer able to hunt them without a guide. If the state really want to reduce grizzlies which they do then they should relax the guide law and allow non resident hunter to hunt without a guide. It is all about money to the Alaskan Professional Guides and there association. If non residents were allowed to hunt without a guide grizzly snaring would not be needed.

        Whether you like hunting or not does not matter, as you do not have any say in how things are done in Alaska or any western state, that is something you have to get use to. During the pipeline years there was an Alaskan saying “we do not give a damn how it is done on the outside”. The do not give a damn what you say.

        It is very obvious that hunting of grizzlies in Alaska is not hurting there numbers. So there is no good reason not to hunt grizzlies in Alaska. It would not hurt the grizzly population of Montana to have a early spring grizzly hunt targeting big males.

        About moose: Moose are always dangerous and cows with calves are very dangerous anytime of the year. Moose have killed and injured students on the University of Alaska campus in Anchorage. When I was growing up our family had a cabin south of Red Lodge, almost at the base of the Beartooth Highway; I fished every day and was afraid of moose everyday. In 1998, while I was hunting moose in British Columbia a bull moose after the rut killed a man a half of mile from our cabin. It was the first moose to killed a person in Montana in many, many years.

        While you are enjoying your veggies tonight, I have a slow cooked corn beef simmering. At least we could enjoy a good dark stout. Cheers

      • Phil says:

        Daniel: I would rather recieve help from experts on resume build-up, as I already have with help from the careerinfo department at my school.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Always positive, never negative. Get yourself in a position where you can make a difference. It doesn’t matter if it’s tomorrow, or thirty years from now, make a difference.

      • Phil says:

        Elk: I have been to Alaska before, but did not work/volunteer in research of Grizzly bears or moose.
        “Predation has limited recovery of the moose population, which declined during a series of deep snow winters in the 1990s.”, which means that Grizzly bears, according to these scientists, have not been a factor in DECREASING moose calf populations, they have just been a road-block in increasing the calf to adulthood population. There is a big difference between the two. Basically, you are trapping what is not a cause of the decline but what is altering it from increasing.

        “If the state really want to reduce grizzlies which they do then they should relax the guide law and allow non resident hunter to hunt without a guide.” Then that would let just about any drunk go out with a license and kill a Grizzly possibly severly reducing their populations. At least with the guide there are some stipulations. Yes, just like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the state of Alaska is submissively acting on the demands of hunters. “We want less predators so that the calf to adulthood population can increase…” That’s all it comes down to. You have to remember that grizzly bears are not even full carnivores, so I can’t imagine how the issue with the species would be towards hunters eyes if they were full carnivores, probably similar to the wolf issue.

        And, there we go again with another hunter trying to symbolize I have no say in wildlife in a state I do not reside in. But, much of the money that comes into states like Alaska, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming come from individuals like myself who like to travel and enjoy the scenery, so technically I have as much of a say in regards to wildlife in these states as anyone who resides in them. AGAIN: The wildlife residing in your states do not belong to you. Do you belong to your government? Can they make ANY decisions regarding your life that you approve or disapprove of without voicing your opinions? People like you should really stop using the “You do not live here so you have no say it such and such…” factor when the issue does not directly relate to you or your family.

        No, hunting Grizzly bears in Alaska has not harmed their numbers, but it has not limited it either. And, yes it is doing some form of damage, because, as I mentioned before, you are taking away nature’s niche in sustaining a stable species population count. If you let non-residential hunters hunt without a guide, and trap Grizzly bears, as you say sould occur, you don’t think that may alter their populations significantly when combining them with the regular basis of hunting on them? You have just added two more criterias in hunting the species now.

        I would like to know what the moose population in Alaska is from you ek?

      • jon says:

        If you were to look at the comments posted in regards to that article, you would see most of the people are against Alaska killing grizzlies. To snare a bear just because it eats moose is deplorable. Where is the respect for these animals if we allow snaring on them? The moose is their food source and they are being killed for doing nothing wrong.

    • Phil says:

      Jon: Apparently to some people, Grizzly bears, and other species, should understand our vocabulary and do as we do and believe and not what comes naturally for their own survival.

      • Elk275 says:

        ++Then that would let just about any drunk go out with a license and kill a Grizzly possibly severely reducing their populations++ No one is going to get drunk and go grizzly bear hunting. In order to hunt grizzly one is going to have to charter a plane, build camp, and hunt, there is no time for drinking or weight allowance on the plane for beer or spirits. After one kills a bear it has to be seal by the fish and game, if the quota has been meet then the season can be shut down emergency order. There may be a little drunken bear hunting at the GAB company after the hunt in Anchorage.

        I am very much against the trapping of any bear, lets not refer to them together. I DO NOT APPROVE OF ANY BEAR TRAPPING.

        Both of us only have our opinions which we are allowed to voice at wildlife meetings which are noted and forwarded to the game commission, Where the locals have a say is in the legislative process and the locals can be elected to the state house of senate. The locals live hear and can attend public hearings. Last week a hearing on a fish and game bill was held and hundreds of people showed up to testify against it. The bill, H 301 would have affected the stream access law. This is a law scared to Montanan’s and a law that other states are not able to enact. The courts in Utah opened up streams access which the legislators restricted and now the fisherman are back in court. The Montana Republicans now want to limit the fish and game from purchasing anymore land. Rep Debbie Barrett from Dillon wants the state department of livestock to control the elk population under the disguise of Brucellois. What she really wants is ownership of wildlife on her property, when that happens elk will no longer pose a threat to her livestock — simply amazing. It is and will be the hunters who stop this transfer of ownership.

        It is and will be the resident hunters and fisher who will protect their sport and pastime which, will allow non consumptive users of wildlife better recreational access and more wildlife maybe not a predator prey balance. It is the hunters that are opposing county road and public access closures to public lands fight against privatization of fish and wildlife and allow equal access for both the resident and non-resident.

        I have read that Alaska has approximately !00,000 moose – a convenient number. The yearly harvest is approximately 7,000 to 12,000. Grizzly bear hunting in Alaska has not and will not hurt the bear population; it could have some temporary negative affects that nature will mitigate quickly.

  73. Cindy says:

    Sorry if I’ve missed it somewhere, but do we know about damage to the ocean life/animals around Japan from the quake, the tsunami and/or the radiation leaking? I want to be cautious asking, while so so many people are suffering.

    • Phil says:

      Cindy: Personally I do not know, but I would imagine the radiaton leaking would be far more damaging considering the nucleur plants are next to the ocean.

    • Kropotkin Man says:

      My heart goes out to those that are suffering and/or those that lost loved ones. I also worry about the other animals (eg. dogs, etc).

      Just think of all the debris, both on land and in the marine environment. Where will they put all that garbage? The folks in Dade County burnt most of their trash after Andrew. Also, they will rebuild and that will take resources. Where are those “resources” going to come from?

      6.8 BILLION and still tick’n.

    • Nancy says:

      Cindy – Its obvious from the news reports that the human suffering, loss of human life and horrific destruction right now far out weigh any thoughts about wildlife and how they may have managed to survive this awful tragedy.

      I do feel that in the days and weeks to come (as with the tsunami in Indonesia) stories will come out about how wildlife may of been an indicator as to what was about to happen, and no one noticed.

      I’m still trying to understand why no one saw this one coming given the HUGE amount of quake activity in the area days before:

  74. Doryfun says:
    Tar Sands Heavy Haul: Into the Heart of Darkness
    BY WINONA LADUKE & RENEE HOLT, Ta’c Titooqan (March 2011), the Nez Perce Tribal newspaper.
    Interesting Exerpt:
    The darkness of industrial society has come to the Nimiipuu, and is now stuck on the road near Kamiah, Idaho near the Heart of the Monster. When one Nez Perce tribal member, Sara Moffet Sedwick had stopped to take a picture of the load with her young son, one truck driver asked “how long they would be there?” Mrs. Moffet Sedwick responded, “We will be here forever… this is where we come from, this is where my son and his grandchildren will always be.”

    • skyrim says:

      I cherish the reply: “forever”………………….. The loving simplicity of Native Americans.

  75. Immer Treue says:

    About a year old, I’ve just stumbled across it, but a PBS Now issue about wolves, and to a lesser degree grizzly and bison in the Yellowstone area and NRM states.

    • Phil says:

      Immer: The funny thing is that almost all of the comments that want wolves delisted and managed come from twisting the factual information around, emotions, fabrications and prehistoric beliefs and data. “Wolves are killing off the prey” “Send the wolves to the cities…” “Threat to our children”, really? So, send them to the cities so they can be a threat to children there, right? “Woves are non-native”, etc. It is exactly what people like Bruce and Rockholm say to defend their hunting hobby. There are emotions from both sides of the spectrum, but the ones from the delisting side seem pretty original. Read the comments that clearly say they are hunters. They are not talking about management, but eliminating the species as a whole. Another thing is when some of these people talk about killing wolves because of their “gruesome” way of killing prey. That shows their lack of knowledge on the topic.

      • Immer Treue says:


        As sb said a while back, there are probably fewer than 100 people who are popping up on these sites making all that noise. Some of them, as with the pro-wolf faction, use multiple names. The hunters I have spoken with seem to appreciate wolves, know they now have to compete with them, and look forward to seeing them in the wild.

        I like some of the Utah sites where the antis troll. Most comments on the Utah forums take the anti-wolf folks and their rhetoric to the wood shed.

  76. Phil says:

    Thanks immer.

  77. Doryfun says:

    Both s1015 and s1016 that were before the Senate Resources and Environment Committee on Monday, March 14th went down to defeat in the committee!

    This is good news for wildlife and people, of Idaho, and non-residents too, as it will still give IDF&G the ability to regulate ATV use as a tool for wildlife mgt, hunting restrictions, fair chase, etc. There were a lot of BHA members who sent in their comments on this and were a big wave of help in helping voice concern to politicians. So, those of you who earlier were wondering about what some of the values of membership in BHA is, here is a good example. Specially, if you are getting tired of hiking miles into nowhere, then be buzzed by some illegal ATV tearing up all the countryside, trying to gain access the easy way.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      Doryfun –
      The Senate Resources and Environment Committee held SB 1015, SB 1016, and SB 1159 in committee for referral to the Interim Natural Resources Committee for further review and consideration by the legislature.

      • Doryfun says:

        Thanks Mark,
        Ya, I learned after I posted this, that it might not be a done deal yet. But hey, its a good start.

  78. jon says:

    Amazing human being here.

    • Doryfun says:

      I’m a little surprised that those who don’t like hunting would find training and cavorting with wild carnivores so appealing. Amazing, to be sure. But, zoos / circuses, and the manipulative nature of man’ control over animals, seems to be just another dimension of man’s effrontery on nature?? Often animals who learn to trust man, and then get off the beaten path, get shot by other hunters. Why? Due to the animals trusting nature, thanks to the man who made it so. Man’s fantasy comes at a terrible cost to the wild animal. Animals are wild for a good reason. Just because man can’t learn to trust other men, he seems to think animals would be an easier subject to befriend/subdue. Great peril lies deep in the mix and awaits its own awakening.

      We don’t have to live family style with animals to recognize their true value of being wild and free.

      • Phil says:

        Doryfun: I think you have Kevin Richardson comletely wrong in your statement. He rescues wildlife and locates them in his sanctuary. It seems like in your comment that man is the almighty species on this land and that is final.

      • jon says:

        dory, all of Kevin’s animals were raised in captivity. They aren’t wild lions, but still dangerous none the less. Hunting and raising animals that were in captivity are too completely different things.

      • Doryfun says:

        I’m not sure how you interpreted my paragraph as concluding with man is the almighty species on this land and that is final.

        Hey, I never was that great in English class, but will try and clairify my point again. While I appreciate people who have theability to communicate with animals on a personal level and do what they can to reabilitate them, my point (after having first done a little research on his book at Amazon), is that of questioning the wisdom of befriending animals to that level and of the creation of semi-petting parks for wildlife.

        I do support things like the wolf education and research center (WERC – in Idaho) where they do have captive wovles, and we sometimes take our river guests to. But, they treat these wolves as wild animals, and try to keep the human intervention or anthropomorphism to a minimum.
        Have you ever heard of the “bambi complex” in any of your wildlife classes?
        Disney’s portral of nature is often skewed far off from the reality of nature, and gives kids/people a distorted perception of predator prey relationships. This can overlap into a detriment to wildlife. ie…people feed deer in the winter and try to befriend animals. Gain their trust, then the animal loses its fear of man, goes out and gets killed by some unsuspecting hunter.
        Jon, Sometimes animals escape from these kinds of rehab parks, zoos, etc. so hunting and raising animals in captivity may not be the same thiings, but they are relevant, because one can affect the other.
        Its ok to love animals. But, I guess I just subscribe to old school, tough love, approach to keeping the wild, in wild.
        Thats part of why I have dogs for petting and having those more intimate relationships with.

  79. Doryfun says:

    Salle, Ralph, or anyone who might have an idea,

    Since I just dove into the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, have been wondering how the Japanese tragedy will be ripe for the dark heart of disaster capitalism. Any predictions?

    The chapter on CIA interrogation techinues and their diabolical mode of operandi reminded me of some of my earlier readings yrs ago, in the Spirit of Crazy Horse (Peter Matthiessen) and the FBI’s war on AIM. An interesting observation from one of the AIM members when coming out of the a court building: as he came out and looked up at the sign above saying “Justice Department” he said, oh, now I get it: “Just Us, Dept.”

  80. Salle says:

    That’s a good question. the first thing is to ask what do they have that the WTO wants? They financial rescue is where they start by offering help from the World Bank.. but the strings attached are where the problems start. The Japanese culture might be strong enough to reject the compromises asked for in the quid pro quo but there will be something that will diminish the rights of the general population while their resources and social benefits are stripped away in order to (this will be the public excuse…) save the banks and the multinational corporations from harm.

    It has made me think that I can probably learn to live without money and all the bad juju that goes with it. If more folks were able to stop feeding the beast, the world could be a lot better place for a lot more people than it has been for quite some time.

    If you’ve only just started the book, I’ll tell you, it had the hair on my neck and arms standing up in alarm as a bunch of dots were connecting as she recants historical events that I recall… I can easily see the patterns. It’s happening here and now, just look at the legislative activities ~ state and national ~ of late.

    • Doryfun says:

      Salle, Ya, I will keep my fingers crossed for some good luck, in more ways than one, towards those unfortunate people in Japan. It is also unfortunate that as human pop is so much higher now, the natural disaster is the shadow that reflects the same.

      I may have to look for some bp pills by the time I get farther into the book.

  81. jon says:

    Science may show that killing wolves is a big mistake

    Read more:

  82. Phil says:

    TC: It’s ok. Apparently people, in your mind, cannot voice out their opinions. Keep that dictator mentality of your in-tact.

    • TC says:

      Phil – Not at all. Opinions are great. Perhaps not 30 of them a day, with more than a few based on emotion, hearsay, or a very new/green/introductory education in wildlife biology/conservation/management, that’s all I’m saying. There are people here with decades of experience working as wildlife professionals in a variety of disciplines, wildlife consultants, experienced and talented advocates, environmental policy experts, and quite a few individuals with decades of field experience and vast stores of field craft with elk, deer, moose, bears, raptors, mountain lions, wolves, pronghorn, sage-grouse, etc. and you will learn something from most of them if you do not dismiss them, the dreaded hunters included. Plato once said something to the effect of a wise man speaks when he has something to say, a fool speaks when he has to say something. I’m not calling you a fool, and I’m teetering on the fool line myself here. From what I gather in my lurking, you’re a college student bursting with enthusiasm and the world needs more of that. Just don’t assume you know everything, or have to be an instant expert on every topic or issue, or have to comment on every topic or issue. Never pass up a golden opportunity to remain silent (think about that one – my major professor sent me into the world with that line decades ago).

      And I’m guilty of not posting when I do know things, and lurking, and now critiquing, and these are faults of some middle-aged, semi-burned-out, over-committed, grumpy, and jaded wildlife professionals that have an inherent mistrust of the internet, blogs, and social networking. I’ll work on that list.

      • Doryfun says:

        Great observations, good points. I also love quotes, and copy such down when I find ones I like. Your Plato quote was superb. It also reminded me of anothe similar thought: when you are the one doing all the talking, you aren’t learning anything new. You already know whatever it is that will be coming out of your own mouth. That’s why I like to do a lot of listening, too. I love to learn new things.

        I too, was a lurker for a long time on this blog, and I learned quite a bit, and continue to strethc my mind here. But, one day, I finally decided to be a particpator, and offer my version of the world and help get even more answers by direction of my own questsions and thoughts. It is also a good place to practice writing. (I’m contemplating doing a little about some unusal experiences I have had in the wilds over the years??). But anyway, jump in more. Everyone has a story inside. What good are they to remain hidden from thw world? Why else would we have ears to hear and a mouth to throw voice?
        Like tossing your own stone into the water. You never know what effects the ripple will have as it advances, but it will have impact, all the same.

  83. Phil says:

    WOW. Ok ken. I will keep my posts to a minimal limit.

  84. Phil says:

    Thanks Doryfun.

  85. SEAK Mossback says:

    The feds are withdrawing their appeal of Judge Johnson’s ruling and holding out an olive branch again to ever-prickly Wyoming regarding their wolf management plan. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes state politicians to light that branch on fire . . . .

  86. jon says:

    ““It’s about the danger the wolf presents to the public and the diseases he carries. Wolves come right into the yards and leave scat. Dogs pick up the spores and carry them into the house and transmit them to people,” he said.

    Potter, who carries a business card that identifies him as “Wolf Removal Coordinator” and has extermination measures printed on the back, also said he thinks reintroduction of the wolf is part of an effort to remove people from rural areas.”

    Can you say propaganda?

  87. jon says:

    gotta love these extremist wolf hating politicians.

    “But a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks official said the bill could give Montana hunters a bad name by raising the prospect that wolf pups could be orphaned or killed.”

    “Dave Risley, FWP’s fish and wildlife administrator, opposed the bill, saying that FWP shies away from spring hunts because that is when big game animals are pregnant or nursing young.
    “We’re concerned about the backlash against hunters,” he said.”

    • william huard says:

      “But the measure was not included in the House Republican spending bill despite support from Reps of the majority of the country.” Too bad this idiot that wrote this article didn’t do a little research before writing this article

  88. jon says:

    Aledo man faces 21 counts for killing deer, other wildlife

    “An Aledo man faces 21 felony and misdemeanor counts after he was accused of poaching wildlife, including a protected great blue heron, and killing a deer by running it over multiple times with an ATV.
    James A. Gauley, 23, was charged Monday in Mercer County Circuit Court with five felony counts and 17 misdemeanors. He is accused of illegal possession of at least 12 deer and other protected animals at various times between December 2008 and January.”

  89. jon says:

    Rockhead’s biased documentary filled with propaganda
    “yellowstone is dead” is finally out.

    Looks like this guy is selling this biased film to help Bob Fanning out with his lawsuit.



March 2011


‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey