Note that this replaces the 28th edition. That edition will now move slowly into the depths of the blog-

Harris Hawk about to land. Saguaro National Park, Arizona. Copyright Ralph Maughan

Tagged with:
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University. He was a Western Watersheds Project Board Member off and on for many years, and was also its President for several years. For a long time he produced Ralph Maughan's Wolf Report. He was a founder of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. He and Jackie Johnson Maughan wrote three editions of "Hiking Idaho." He also wrote "Beyond the Tetons" and "Backpacking Wyoming's Teton and Washakie Wilderness." He created and is the administrator of The Wildlife News.

552 Responses to Have you come across any interesting wildlife news? May 2, 2011

  1. Salle says:


    That’s an awesome picture. The red-tipped cactus beneath the bird is an Ocotillo cactus, my favorite.

  2. Rita K.Sharpe says:

    Ralph,Nice shot of the Harris Hawk.Thank you.

  3. Maska says:

    At first I thought this was a painting. What an amazing photograph!

    • wolf moderate says:

      Awesome picture for sure. It reminds me to “The Colbert Report’s” intro lol.

    • Thanks Maska, and Wolf Moderate, I think you are right!

      • Nancy says:

        I also though it was a painting Ralph. Beautiful! Is the hawk banded? Looks like some around its “ankles”

      • Cody Coyote says:

        Fabulous image, Ralph ! Painterly , even. It usually requires a trained falconry hunting raptor to get that kind of result-on-the-fly.

        Any wildlife photographer worth his inkjet cartridge budget will tell you it’s hard work to be so lucky…

      • Cody Coyote,

        It was a planned flight. The conservation center at the Park, flies Harris Hawks for the public a couple months each year. We were there on the last day for the year, and they flew just one hawk because of windy conditions.

        The hawk would come back to the gloved hand. I got this with a wide angle setting as it sailed about two feet over my head. I took about 50 photos. This was the only really good one.

        You have to use wide angle to get a shot like this, but wide angle makes a small image of hawk unless it is very close.

        It was kind of tricky for me when it was over my head because I had to whirl fast, and I thought I might lose my balance and fall on the nearby cholla or other spiked plants!

  4. Peter Kiermeir says:

    They fear for their lives down there in the Southwest. It´s the environmentalists, the government, and – of course – those wolves (not sure in what order)!

    • Nancy says:

      Its interesting when you think about the thousands of people who’ve roamed the backcountry of Yellowstone (for the past 15+ years) and not one single case of an attack by wolves. And I’d be willing to bet most of those “pets” snatched, are ranch dogs running loose and the owners could give a crap UNLESS they’re snatched!

  5. Salle says:

    Stranded Colorado Conservationist Seeks Donors For Bus Motor

    I am personally making a plea for donations for the MISSION:WOLF bus repair. These folks are trapped in Salt Lake City until they come up with the CASH to get them back on the road. MISSION:WOLF is an amazing, and very small, nonprofit org. who not only provides sanctuary for wolves but has an education program where people can see and touch a real live wolf or wolves (depending on how many can travel during the tours. This bus is reconfigured inside to accommodate the wolves with a small bunk area for the humans.

    Please help spread the word that donations are needed in order to help them get out of SLC at least! And please join me in donating, if you can.

    • Salle says:

      I forgot to mention that there is some anonymous person/group willing to match donations up to $10,000, so anything that can be donated will be doubled, up to $10,000… makes it all the more worthwhile. Thanks to all who do donate and/or get other to participate.

  6. Immer Treue says:

    Another case of poisoning

    Thing here, is they weren’t even wolves. This is the reason my hackles go up when blowhards like Bridges, et al spew their vile. All it takes is some dim wit to follow through. I am not saying that the individual(s) who did this was the product of one of these malcontents, but the more garbage that is thrown out there…

    • Salle says:

      An image is enough to prompt idiots to go forth and do stupid sh*t. Apparently they didn’t get the memo that they weren’t really wolves… f’ing idiots. And some folks just thrive on the negative aspects of life.

  7. Peter Kiermeir says:

    A few thoughts about the future of the grizzly bear. “So what foods are Yellowstone grizzly bears turning to as whitebark pine, formerly a major staple, dies off?”

  8. WM says:

    I always take what Louisa Wilcox of NRDC says with a great deal of skepticism. Here is why. As global warming continues, at least a strong contributing factor to the demise of whitebark pine, griz will turn to the alternative of ….meat. Wilcox goes through the scenarios and risks of more meat eating griz, including conflicts with hunters and livestock.

    Here is one statement that I only partly understand:

    ++Now, with wolves in the ecosystem, there are fewer winter-killed game in the northern part of Yellowstone, because the herd sizes are down (as a result of climate, weather and predators) so there is less meat available in spring for females.++

    This winter I submit is likely one with more winter kill because of the late and deep snows, so mody of the sccavanging critters should be sated for sometime into spring.
    And then there is this statement, which puts wolves in direct conflict with griz:

    ++This, combined with the fact that females are reluctant to put their cubs in harm’s way, means that females are at a disadvantage in the company of wolves—one that will likely worsen as whitebark pine drops out of the system. Confirming this observation, at last week’s meeting, Yellowstone Park’s wolf research leader Doug Smith mentioned that females with cubs very rarely took advantage of wolf-killed elk and buffalo in northern Yellowstone. ++

    One thing she misses – an obvious one – is that griz will likely turn to eating more live (instead of winterkill leftovers) elk, the young of the year, adding to the already stressed young of the year mortality that is allegedly attributed to the new population of wolves and more griz turning to alternative food sources (and, of course, black bear and cougar also get their share). And while the whitebark pine nuts will be less available come late summer and fall, how is this relevant to bear diet from spring to fall. I must have missed something here.

    To be fair, Wilcox appears to be speaking of the Yellowstone population as she starts her piece, whatever that is, then she ventures to speak of hunter/livestock conflicts and the griz mortality that includes areas outside Yellowstone, when it is convenient to AMPLIFY her argument. Indeed there will be more seasonal conflict with hunters/livestock in fall outside the Park and throughout an expanding NRM range because those pine nuts are not available for putting on winter fat for the hibernation.

    • Salle says:

      Perhaps she is taking the bears that inhabit areas inside AND outside the park, as has happened in past years when bear/hunter interface takes place and the bear(s) end(s) up dead ~ like that MTFW&P guy who killed a bear because he couldn’t be bothered to carry pepper spray. I think that there should be a rule for hunters where the hunter should relinquish a kill to wildlife should a predator appear and take possession of the kill. If you don’t put the tag on it, then it isn’t yours. Aside from that, I think that public education on wildlife interface is needed for those visiting from outside areas where these predators exist. But then, as many repugnicants insist, education is the bane of the corporatocracy so anything educational isn’t likely to gain favor with the “ruling class”.

  9. william huard says:

    The latest from New England’s version of the Idaho redneck. What would a bear bill be without the obligatory spring hunt legislation, proposed by wingnut conservatives who want to send a message to the bear population that the SH&*^baggers are in charge!
    Allowing bear cubs to starve to death is good for them- I can hear Rema-stooge and rattle boy now!!!!

      • Nancy says:

        On the MFWP site this morning – 4/29: FWP investigated and picked up a dead wolf with a radio collar in the Madison Valley. Circumstances are currently under investigation by the USFWS.

        In the same weekly report:
        4/28: Ben Jimenez (FWP tech on Bitterroot elk project) recovered a wolf collar on mortality in French Basin. The wolf was net-gunned and collared in February during the elk capture work. Ben found that the collar had been chewed off.

        Sad situation for that Madison Valley wolf and freedom at last, for that French Basin wolf.

        Anyone who wants to actually take the time to put it into perspective – Totals for wolf depredation in Montana since the first of 2011:
        And then we have these numbers at :
        “The report shows Montana’s minimum wolf population increased about 8 percent in 2010, compared to a 4 percent increase last year and an 18 percent increase in 2008. The minimun numbers indicate that wolves have increased to 108 verified packs and 35 breeding pairs”

        The numbers go round and round but the fact is, wolf depredations DON’T come anywhere close to the huge amount of losses due to weather, disease etc.

        A neighbor of mine recently lost 12 calves due to weather. (sale price down the road? $700 -$800 each) Another neighbor a few years ago lost 40 calves (due to weather) before he got a clue and built a calving shed.

        Yet “Wildlife Services” continues to fly at the expense of taxpayers, providing coverage, for an industry unwilling (or just too damn ignorant or arrogant) to protect their product……

    • WM says:

      It is these very kinds of law suits that carried the delisting issue over the top to a “legislative” solution. One has to wonder if, in the pursuit of saving a couple of inidividual wolves that have gotten in trouble, this tactic runs the risk of generating another wave of “solutions.”

      CBD is already under the spotlight for having filed too many suits, that has gotten the Equal Access to Justice Act sidelined for an audit (if memory serves correct). Small regional NGO’s like Cascadia Wild (you know the kind where you get together with a half dozen of your buds and set up a 501(c)3 is in on this one too, as a plaintiff. Gotta wonder if some of these groups really know when to fight, rather than take on some of these skirmishes that do nothing but piss off the other side, and generate “anti-wolf advocate” feelings.

      I think this is one of those times, with an exercise of bad judgment. This is an administrative action to remove two problem wolves (which are 10(j) experimental population wolves at that), that has little bearing on an endangered species that is little more than 60 days away from being officially delisted. Subjecting such an action to an environmental assessment under threat of suit is,….. well just stuipd.

      Seems to me a way to alienate a dwindling base of support for wolves in areas where they are beginning to be a growing source of conflict. Just sayin’.

      • Daniel Berg says:

        When wolves in eastern Oregon are delisted under the federal ESA, but still subject to the state ESA, what are the immediate implications?

        Has the Oregon legislature acted on the ODFW request to have wolves classified as a “special status mammal” that is subject to controlled take in situations of repeated depredation?

      • WM says:


        Good question. My recollection is that when wolves were last delisted (for the period before Judge Molloy’s August 2010 Order put them back on), OR Fish & Wildlife tried to lethally control one or more of their delisted wolves, but encountered another suit resisting this. I am a bit fuzzy on the facts, but think it had something to do with not following the State Plan before initiating the removal. That, in turn, prompted an “emergency meeting” with state legislative types and E. OR ranchers, as well as some sabre rattling to change the State plan to allow for greater flexibility. This stuff sort of fell off the radar after Molloy’s Order.

        Anybody know what happened with all that?

      • JB says:

        “Wolves have only begun to recover in Oregon with fewer than 25 wolves in two packs.”

        And now you see the downside to delisting wolves. The federal government was only concerned with establishing a viable population of wolves in the NRMs. However, sans ESA protections state law and the concerns of state residents take over (including having their own viable population). Two is a substantial portion of the states 25 wolves and, whether your agree with them or not, people are justified in asking if it is reasonable to kill ~10% of the population of a species on the state endangered species list.

        Of course, since wolf opponents have seemingly relished rubbing environmentalists’ collective nose in the delisting debacle, this sort of action isn’t really surprising. Tit-for-tat, as they say.

  10. Alan Gregory says:

    Monica and I saw virtually the same scene on our many visits to Saguaro NP while staying at a Tucson-area B&B. It was our last great wildlife-watching trip together. Thanks for posting this.

  11. WM says:

    An urban “wildlife” (rodent infestation) most people don’t want to talk about, but nontheless it is there and getting worse.

    Cincinatti rats coming up through the sewers in large numbers in the heavy rains:

  12. Immer Treue says:

    Quite some time ago, I remember my grandmother telling a similar story.

    As Indiana Jones said, with a slight change, “I hate spiders.” Not really, fascinating critters, but they do give me the creeps.

    • Salle says:

      Was bitten, while sleeping, by some kind of nasty spider a few years back ~ never saw what it was. I was lucky that the only permanent damage was some mild ~ but noticeable ~ discoloration and partial nerve damage at the localized sites of the bites and weird skin problems near the sites at times. Took three months to actually look like things were starting to heal. Since that happened I kill any spider that crosses my path while indoors or in my vehicle. I don’t care what kind it is… I don’t know what kind bit me so I don’t discriminate by type. Bugs and spiders are the only things I willfully kill… usually with a shoe covered foot.

      • Immer Treue says:

        I get some really big wolf spiders in my place (probably from Canada), and it’s taken a while, but now I’ll sweep them into a dust pan and pitch them outside. Too big of a mess to clean up afetr using the bottom of a shoe.

      • Salle says:

        I have since rediscovered a concoction of terribly toxic chemicals that is sold at hardware stores… it kils most spiders, termites, ants, many other nasty bugs (if they inhabit your domicile) and unborn children. I use it around the outside edges of my cabin and around the baseboards, doorways and windowsills, I rarely see any bugs afterward for nearly a year. I hate having to use these chems but the damage I suffer(ed) from that ne event, aside from the fact that spider really creep me out, I feel better knowing I probably won’t have to endure that again. The first several weeks after the biting event I was so terribly ill, lost weight, not good for me, and had little energy to do anything. I do realize the dangers of the chemicals and there lasting effects but my health and longevity require that I make that choice in order to survive for as long as I may. I’m sure I have been exposed to far worse concoctions in the past but then, no matter how well you or I may take care of ourselves, we are ultimately going to die eventually from something. I’ll wait for something big to hit me rather than slowly slink into a long, slow demise – I’m hoping for that sort of end at least.

      • Salle says:

        Wow, sorry for the typos, need more coffee! My fingers can’t read the keypad so well at this early hour.

  13. Elk275 says:

    I came across this film about tiger research in Bhutan and have only been able to view one 15 segment. It looks very interesting.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      I think Bhutan is quite promising for Tiger conservation. See the “Lost Tiger population discovered in Bhutan mountains”

    • Linda Hunter says:

      Pretty cool . . I did watch the whole thing. It was worth the time and well done. Very exciting and hopeful.

    • Phil says:

      Elk: There is a small series on NatGeo Wild. It is very fascinating, educational and promising with regards to the species. One major goal they are trying to do is connect all the smaller isolated areas of tigers together to make one large habitat that they believe will increase the chances of diversity in the gene pool through mating and rebuild the population.

  14. Peter Kiermeir says:

    FWP wants quota of 220 wolves this hunting season

  15. Cody Coyote says:

    Here’s a text article from Helena on Montana’s proposed 2011 Wolf “Hunt” plan , aiming for a quota 220 wolves. That is 30 percent higher than last year’s proposed quota —that season was cancelled by relisting—, and over 3 X higher than the 2009 take of 75 wolves. The Montana FWP commission has this on its agenda next week. It apparently does NOT include the extra special take of 18 wolves in the Lolo-Bitterroot area under an ‘ emergency’ 10j rule action.

    Offhand, 238 wolves seems w-a-a-a-a-a-y too high a quota to me for an initial year’s take. It’s a prejudicial attrition hunt , intended to dramatically lower wolf population numbers statewide down to the USFWS threshhold , as quickly as possible. 15-20 years to build a sustainable wolf population; only 15-20 weeks to hammer it flat to just above the number necessary to prevent re-listing, with spite..

  16. WM says:

    UN forecasts a population of 10.1 Billion by end of century. Huge growth, over tripling, to come from Africa. World population was just 6 billion before the new millenium.

    ZPG does not seem to be catching on in many parts of the world. Anybody for ressurecting the plot of Tom Clancy’s book, Rainbow 6?

    • Daniel Berg says:

      We’ll spend billions on feeding the children of third world countries when it would have been better spent on various methods of limiting population growth.

      I feel no guilt in supporting measures that would limit population growth when we’ve reached a point where the quality of life on average drops with each additional person added into the equation. It’s time to re-evaluate the sacred right to produce 4, 5, 6, 7, or more children.

      Of course we’ll never consider it until things have deteriorated much further……..Even now, heading towards 10 billion mouths to shelter and feed, to most people the idea of not being able to push out 8 kids if you want to is downright satanic.

      To all the “freedom” lovers out there: There is no freedom in a world with 10 billion people. At a certain point there is an inverse relationship between “freedom” and population growth. It can’t work any other way.

      • Salle says:

        I have to agree with the basis of your argument but I think I will have to look at the mortality rates of the children in those 3rd world countries before claiming that they are the majority of the problem, though. I think our (the US) view of childbearing rights is as much to blame as any other cultural view on reproduction.

      • jon says:

        I would have no problem with human population growth if it didn’t affect wildlife. As our population continues and continues to grow with no management in sight, wildlife will without question suffer. Tigers in India are a perfect example of this. They are on the brink of extinction and they are being driven to go after humans for prey because humans are the reason why their prey is becoming more scarce. It is not wildlife populations we should be concerned or worried about. It is out own population that is the problem. People seem to be more concerned about wildlife populations than their own. I think some don’t want to admit that human overpopulation is a very serious problem and a much more serious one than wildlife population #s.

      • WM says:


        ++…I will have to look at the mortality rates of the children in those 3rd world countries before claiming that they are the majority of the problem, though++

        The childbirth mortality rates are declining very dramatically, as well as infant survival, in many 3rd world countries. Groups like the Bill Gates Foundation and PATH (a very large global health non-profit located in Seattle check for yourself ) are instrumental in improving pre-natal care and birthing kits, that have dramatically increased survival rates in newborns, as well as general health conditions. Huge moral issues for sure. Who are we to judge?

        Again, Africa is contemplated to more than triple its population within this century. If things are not bad enough, with all the political unrest that has dominated much of Africa’s recent past (think the Rowanda massacres and what is going on so many north African countries right now) there is the huge looming projection that will heavily influence wildlife survival on that continent.

      • WM says:

        Sorry, should read:

        “The childbirth mortality rates are declining very dramatically, and infant/adult survival IS INCREASING THROUGH IMPROVED HEALTH CONDITIONS, in many 3rd world countries.++

      • Salle says:


        I would add that what is instrumental in pop increase in Africa is what we have achieved here, is it ant different when numerous American females go forth and multiply because like smoking cigarettes, it’s “the thing” to do? Or that they have a “right” to bear as many children as her body will produce without regard as to how that will impact the rest of us or the next generations? We have a welfare mentality that is such a mixture of ignorance and belief-system mumbo jumbo coupled with the denial of women’s right to chose NOT to reproduce… and those wanting children simply because our culture still makes them think that they are not complete unless they do have children seems to me to be the biggest problem, not that mortality rates are declining elsewhere. We, in the US are as much a problem with our massive consumption of the rest of the world’s natural resources that we seem to think we are “entitled” to take without proper compensation.

        I wouldn’t put the entire blame and responsibility of feeding all those “other” mouths on other nations/continents when we have so many starving/malnurished in our own country… just because the corporate media doesn’t tell us about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

        As with the wars abroad, we should take some time to clean up our own act before pointing fingers at others as we so often do. Americans have a serious problem with denial and this is one of the topics where they seem most adamant about it being the fault of others.

      • Salle says:

        I looked at the link you gave but find that this is an organization that has connections to WHO and the World Bank as well as many industrial development entities, which makes me skeptical of their mission and intent. It would appear that their intent is based on the prospects for industrialization of the health care systems in other countries… for the health care industries. this is not what is needed. what is truly needed, as Oscar Arias once told me, “…empowerment of women, period.” Until women are empowered in governing their bodies, lives, communities and their nations, there will be no change that we can believe in with regard to overpopulation and diminishing resources.

        Countries with highest pop:

        13-Ethiopia with <100mil.

        The rest of the African nations are way down the list so I think there needs to be some p[roper perspective on the actual problem of too many live births compared to the death rates. I haven't run an analysis on these questions for almost a decade but you can do your own since any findings I have done are long gone and out of date anyway.

        And you can do your own analysis using the tools at this web site:

      • WM says:


        I think you will find the the link below to charts and tables of population projections very useful for this discussion. The projection only goes to mid-century, but you will see Africa leaps forward as Asia (probably due to conscious birth control efforts and human density and resource constraints) has less impact. And do recall the US has 1/4 the population of India or China, even though we are third in rank.

        And, do note most of the US population growth, according to the recent Census, is in-migration of illegals and their offspring (1 in 6 people in the US is now of hispanic descent), and is the FASTEST growing segment, with propensities for larger families (think Catholic Church here), whose economic ability to have large families is nearly guaranteed by the safety net of our entitlement programs, with no incentive to not have children, while those in generally higher economic groups and without devout religious beliefs that translate to “multiply and subdue the earth.” People can criticize my comments as being racist. They are not; they are merely statements of fact.

      • Immer Treue says:

        I’ve said this before on this forum, but the only Sierra Club meeting I ever attended had a guest demographer from the government ~ 1991 and he said the US could realize ZPD, but illegal immigration would lead to exponential growth.

        Needless to say, as WM alludes, he was shouted down as racist.

    • WM says:

      Now you get a better idea why FS and states are inclined to clear campgounds when bears (black and more recently griz) with histories are in the area. And, also why there may be greater pressures to thump the bear before someone gets injured or killed.

      The government’s apparent legal duty “to inform of potentially dangerous conditions” in the wild is becoming a higher standard every day. Welcome to our increasingly gentrified and ever more crowded world.

    • JB says:

      Yes, two:

      (1) They should have closed the campground and killed the bear. It isn’t worth taking chances with bears that have become food-conditioned–especially given that this is a robust population.

      (2) Regardless, holding the government responsible for the actions of wild animals is a terrible idea. What happens when someone is killed in a car accident with an “over-abundant” suburban deer herd? Should their next-of-kin be able to sue the state wildlife management agency?

    • Immer Treue says:

      Sorry, but this was supposed to go here.

      I find it difficult to agree with the verdict. I am sorry that the boy died in the attack, but also find it difficult to agree that the government can be sued in something like this. I don’t know anything about American Fork Canyon, nor do I want to sound callous about the death of the boy, but what were the parents thinking? Anytime one travels/camps into remote areas with wildlife, anything is possible. The boy also brought food into the tent, a giant no no. This sort of ruling opens a gigantic can of worms for anyone who gets hurt or killed in the outdoors.

      Perhaps apples to oranges, but if someone is accidentally shot by someone else during the hunting season, could that person not sue the county, state, firearms manufacturer, land owner, and the individual responsible for the shooting. It seems a person would have more discretion than a hungry bear.

      • MAD says:

        While tragic, this incident and subsequent lawsuit is indicative of the American culture. Sadly, it will progress unabated until we clear out all “dangers” for some through the nanny state.

        People enjoy camping to escape their daily lives and to commune with nature. Some folks refuse to accept that they have serious, real and compulsory responsibilities when visiting areas that contain WILDlife. Americans feel the need to have everyone tell them of every potential danger, every potential accident or bad outcome in every situation, rather than educating themselves of the risk before engaging in an activity.

        Rather than closing a facility due to an attack or danger, my suggestion is this – any person(s) entering a gov’t facility, campground, park where there is wildlife would be required to get a copy of rules/reg/warnings and sign a consent form holding harmless the gov’t if they are attacked by wildlife because they are acknowledging that the gov’t does not control wild animals and that there is a substantial RISK in entering certain areas.

        Just like others mentioned about not sounding cold or callous, but I’m sorry, this kid violated one of the cardinal rules of camping by bringing food into a tent. That makes him and his family a heck of a lot more responsible than just 10%.

        And WM, I have to admit, for years I have railed against this fallacy of a “higher standard” for certain people/groups or entities. Who is exactly is held to this higher std? Who determines what the criteria is and who is “on the list” for the higher std? It’s all bullsh*t. There is a general standard of common sense that has been destroyed in this country due to litigation and irresponsible people who unwilling to accept responsibility for their own stupid, incorrect, or illegal actions, while at the same time blaming everyone else.

      • Salle says:

        Sounds like the real problem was with the parents, the boy was not old enough to be responsible – entirely – for his safety though the parents were entirely responsible. And wasn’t there a point made in the court reporting that they were intoxicated? Doesn’t that compel a judge and jury to consider the fact that they were impaired with regard to protecting him from harm? I would not have voted in favor of them given what facts I have heard over this long period of time. And I was thinking I read in one of the articles about this case that they were given notice by FS personnel and that there were also signs posted…? I may be wrong about that part but I don’t know why I would remember something I didn’t read.

        Parents are responsible for their children both in the home and anyplace else. Most laws regarding the illegal actions of children hold the parents responsible for their actions. Something seems amiss in this case.

      • WM says:

        Important feature. This was a trial to a federal judge, not a jury. He applied the law as it has developed largely in our urban society – trial was in Salt Lake City. Now, had it been a jury trial in state court, down in some rural town out in the boonies the outcome might have been different (or at least the amount of the monetary award and which defendants pay).

        Laws are the fabric of society. People tend to forget societies are the folks who make the laws (legislatures and the interest groups that influence them, judges and juries. The general trend seems to be to away from personal responsibility.

        I tend to think the folks who monitor and comment on this forum are not a representative cross section of society. What many of us see as common sense and a need to take responsibility for our acts, is seen by society in general as an opportunity to be subsidized by society for screwing up (my favorite is the motorcycle rider who puts himself at greater risk by making a personal decision not to wear a helmet. In an ensuing accident if liability is placed on the other driver, that driver and his/her insurance company pay for the whole thing, not just the amount that would have been incurred had the person been wearing a helmet. If the cyclist is at fault and does not have medical then society may pay his costs. We don’t just throw people out on the street for making bad personal decision, when maybe that is the more responsible choice.

      • WM says:

        A scholar at the Manhattan Institute think tank has given this stuff alot of thought.

        His name is Peter Huber, and he is a PhD engineer, lawyer and was a law clerk for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sandra Day O’Connor). He has been studying the evolution of liability law for the last twenty five years, including its effects on society and our international competitiveness. I think he started out a liberal but over time became more conservative in his views.

        He writes great books and articles on complex, otherwise boring, topics.

      • Salle says:

        Huber may have some interesting topics under consideration but most of his writings are from the mid 2000s to present. I browsed the Manhattan Institute web site and I see that it is full of right-wing-free market-anti union-anti women’s rights group.

        Not that Huber has some insight and valid points, I do fear he is of the same persuasion with his colleagues, which leaves me less than eager to read him up.

        I suspect that those who pushed to sway this society in the directions it has gone in the recent past are also blaming the paeans for following the leader to their ruin with no regard as to why they would have done so.

  17. jdubya says:

    Here is a great show on PBS Nature on the plight of the Northwest salmon. Looked hard at Columbia basin fish, concentrating on the Redfish lake sockeye.

  18. Big wolf day for Dept of Interior
    final Northern Rockies delisting tomorrow
    proposed delisting of Western Great Lakes DPS
    status review of gray wolves in Great Lakes, Southwest & Northern Rockies
    Proposal to reclassify eastern wolves as separate speciesMEDIA ADVISORY


    Date: May 4, 2011
    Kendra Barkoff (DOI) 202-208-6416

    Salazar to Discuss Next Steps in Protection, Recovery, and Management of
    Gray Wolves

    WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, May 4, 2011 Secretary of the Interior Ken
    Salazar, Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes and Acting Fish and Wildlife
    Service Director Rowan Gould will hold a conference call to discuss the
    next steps in the protection, recovery, and management of Gray Wolves.

    Participants can join the 11:45AM EST call by dialing 800-779-5381 and
    entering the passcode: WOLVES.

    Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior
    David J. Hayes, Deputy Secretary of the Interior
    Rowan Gould, Acting Fish and Wildlife Service Director

    Conference call on Gray Wolves

    Today, May 4, 2011 at 11:45AM EST.

    MEDIA: Participants may join the teleconference by calling 800-779-5381
    and entering the passcode: WOLVES

  19. Contacts:

    Kendra Barkoff, DOI, 202-208-6416
    Chris Tollefson, FWS, 703-358-2222

    Interior Announces Next Steps in Protection, Recovery, and Scientific
    Management of Wolves

    Washington, DC – The Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service announced today that it is proposing to delist biologically
    recovered gray wolf populations in the Western Great Lakes, and – in
    accordance with recently enacted legislation – reinstating the Service’s
    2009 decision to delist biologically recovered gray wolf populations in
    the Northern Rocky Mountains.

    “Like other iconic species such as the whooping crane, the brown pelican,
    and the bald eagle, the recovery of the gray wolf is another success story
    of the Endangered Species Act,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken
    Salazar. “The gray wolf’s biological recovery reflects years of work by
    scientists, wildlife managers, and our state, tribal, and stakeholder
    partners to bring wolf populations back to healthy levels.”

    Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional
    populations of subspecies in the lower 48 states and Mexico under the ESA
    and its predecessor statutes. In 1978, the Service reclassified the gray
    wolf as an endangered species across all of the lower 48 states and
    Mexico, except in Minnesota where the gray wolf was classified as

    Gray Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains
    As part of today’s actions, the Service is publishing a final rule – as
    directed by legislative language in the recently enacted Fiscal Year 2011
    appropriations bill – reinstating the terms of a 2009 rule removing gray
    wolves in a portion of the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population
    Segment (DPS) encompassing Idaho, Montana and parts of Oregon, Washington
    and Utah from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Gray
    wolves will remain listed under the ESA in Wyoming, although the Service
    is working closely with that state to develop a wolf management plan that
    would allow wolves in Wyoming to be removed from the list in the future.

    The Service and the states will monitor wolf populations in the Northern
    Rocky Mountain DPS and gather population data for at least five years
    under a post-delisting monitoring plan previously approved by the Service.

    “We are implementing the recent legislation that directs the delisting of
    the gray wolf in most of the Northern Rocky Mountains,” said Interior
    Deputy Secretary David J. Hayes. “As with other delisted species, we will
    be applying the Endangered Species Act’s post-delisting monitoring
    requirements to ensure that wolf populations remain robust, while under
    state wildlife management.”

    Gray Wolves in the Western Great Lakes
    The Service is also publishing a proposed rule to remove gray wolves in
    the Western Great Lakes area — which includes Minnesota, Michigan and
    Wisconsin, and portions of adjoining states — from the list of endangered
    and threatened species because wolves have recovered in this area and no
    longer require the protection of the ESA.

    “Gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes are recovered and no longer
    warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act,” said Acting Service
    Director Rowan Gould. “Under this proposed rule, which takes into account
    the latest taxonomic information about the species, we will return
    management of gray wolves in the Great Lakes to state wildlife
    professionals. We are confident that wolves will continue to thrive under
    the approved state management plans.”

    As part of the proposed rule, the Service would revise the range of the
    gray wolf (the species Canis lupus) by removing all or parts of 29 eastern
    states due to newer taxonomic information indicating that the gray wolf
    did not historically occur in those states. The Service is also initiating
    status reviews of gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest and Southwest to
    determine the appropriate entity and listing status of that entity in
    those areas, as well as seeking information on a newly-recognized species,
    the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon), throughout its range in the United States
    and Canada. The Service is seeking public comment as part of this process.

    The proposed rule to remove wolves in the Western Great Lakes from the
    ESA, as well as the final rule reinstating the 2009 final delisting rule
    for the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS as directed by the 2011 Full-Year
    Appropriations Act will publish in the Federal Register on May 5, 2011.
    The final rule for wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS will be
    effective immediately upon publication.

    Written comments on the proposed rule for wolves in the Western Great
    Lakes may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Follow the
    instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. [FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029].
    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
    Docket No. [FWS-R3-ES-2011-0029]; Division of Policy and Directives
    Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
    2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

    Comments must be received within 60 days, on or before July 5, 2011. The
    Service will post all comments on This
    generally means the agency will post any personal information provided
    through the process. The Service is not able to accept email or faxes.

    Public hearings for the proposed removal of wolves in the Western Great
    Lakes and proposed removal of eastern states from the gray wolf listing
    will be held May 18 in Ashland, Wisconsin, and on June 8 in Augusta,
    Maine. More information on the hearings will be available at or by calling 612-713-5350.

    Following the close of the comment period, the Service will consider all
    new information and other data and make a final decision on the proposal
    to remove the Western Great Lakes DPS of wolves from the ESA and revise
    the range of the gray wolf in the eastern U.S. In the meantime, gray
    wolves in the Western Great Lakes area will remain classified as
    endangered, except in Minnesota where they will remain threatened. Gray
    wolves will also remain classified as endangered in the western U.S.,
    except where delisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains DPS in accordance
    with Congressional action and where found in experimental populations,
    until status reviews and rulemaking processes are completed.

    The ESA provides a critical safety net for America’s native fish, wildlife
    and plants. The Service working to actively engage conservation partners
    and the public in the search for improved and innovative ways to conserve
    and recover imperiled species. To learn more about the Endangered Species
    Program, visit

    The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others
    to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats
    for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is both a
    leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for
    our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources,
    dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. The U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service works cooperatively with the American public to
    continue the conservation legacy of America’s great outdoors. For more
    information on the Service’s work and the people who make it happen, visit

  20. Immer Treue says:

    I find it difficult to agree with the verdict. I am sorry that the boy died in the attack, but also find it difficult to agree that the government can be sued in something like this. I don’t know anything about American Fork Canyon, nor do I want to sound callous about the death of the boy, but what were the parents thinking? Anytime one travels/camps into remote areas with wildlife, anything is possible. The boy also brought food into the tent, a giant no no. This sort of ruling opens a gigantic can of worms for anyone who gets hurt or killed in the outdoors.

    Perhaps apples to oranges, but if someone is accidentally shot by someone else during the hunting season, could that person not sue the county, state, firearms manufacturer, land owner, and the individual responsible for the shooting. It seems a person would have more discretion than a hungry bear.

    • jon says:

      This family should have not been rewarded with money. People who go camping in UT should know that UT is bear country and if something happens to you, it should be your responsibility to make sure you are safe, not the feds or anyone else. What’s next, a family goes for a boat ride and they go swimming in the ocean, one of them is attacked and killed by a great white and the family members are going to sue because the feds didn’t protect their family member from getting killed by the shark? What if the bear that killed the kid was a bear that caused no problems before? than what would have been said? the boy’s mon was apparently drunk out of her money and the kid has food in his tent. Not a smart move while camping in bear country. As as I’m concerned, the parents and their stupidity killed their kid. One should always expect that camping in bear country, there is a good chance you might come into contact with bears.

      • jon says:

        as one commenter remarked about this story, the mom of the kid is laughing all the way to the liquor store.

      • WM says:


        The distinguishing facts in this case apparently were that an FS enforcment officer (the kind that patrols campgrounds) had specific knowledge that a particular bear was in the area AND had exhibited dangerous behavior that very day, including the attack of another camper. There was a federal regulation that covered what the officer was supposed to do with that knowledge. She did not inform campers as she was required to.

        So, you have the elements of a tort of negligence. Duty to warn (the regulation). Breach of the duty (officer did not warn) which proximately caused damages (death of the kid).
        The judge accounted for how much responsiblity was attributable to the feds, the state and the kid’s family.

        Another way to view it is that you urban type people in a non-urban area, expecting urban type safety as reflected in urban type federal regulations (its usually the urban bureaucrats that make the federal rules, many of which are not easily enforceable as some field personnel will tell you), and interpreted by a bright urban type judge (Judge Kimball is a city boy according to his federal court bio) by urban standards.

        Mountains with handrails, anyone?

      • Salle says:

        I wonder what the outcome would have been if the state was the only government entity that was being sued instead of a federal agency.

  21. And in Idaho, aerial gunning of wolves during denning season with pups might begin tomorrow for 50 adults in the Lolo according to IDFG’s Virgil Moore.

  22. jon says:

    Otter on wolves: ‘We didn’t want them here at all’

    Virgin Moore referred to wolves as “things”.

    • Salle says:

      And so this attitude problem in Idaho isn’t cause for reexamination of all those revised management plans with regard to legality and the rules of the ESA?

  23. salazar and Dept of Interior withdraw Bush-era opinion on what constitutes a species’ range (at the infamous wolf press conference). It is known as the “M” memo that limited a species’ range only to occupied habitat.

    This Catch-22 from the Bush Administration would make it pretty hard to ever recover a species since it blew off historic range, which in most cases is necessary for conservation AND recovery of an imperiled species.

  24. jon says:

    I’m sure most of you remember this story. Wildlife services were responsible for this. How shocking.

  25. ProWolf in WY says:

    As part of the proposed rule, the Service would revise the range of the
    gray wolf (the species Canis lupus) by removing all or parts of 29 eastern
    states due to newer taxonomic information indicating that the gray wolf
    did not historically occur in those states.

    Did I miss something? An animal’s range can be changed arbitrarily like that?

    • Salle says:

      Only in the minds of idiots and wildlife-haters.

    • ProWolf:

      This has almost been the rule instead of the exception for the FWS under at least the last two administrations – they totally buy into what my major professor, Dr. Behnke, used to refer to as “The Illusion of Technique”; in this case, molecular genetics as used on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species. If the technique declares it, then no one can argue, even those in the know, with contradictory evidence.

      Of course, the technique keeps evolving, in fact at lightning speed, and what was great science using allozymes and electrophoresis to distinguish between species, subspecies, and populations is now ancient history. Ichthyologists, herpetologists, mammalogists, ornithologists and others are now using satellite DNA and mitochondrial DNA for their evidence for redoing the artificial organization of organisms into genera, species, subspecies, and Distinct Population Segments, in what we call systematics and taxonomy.

      And the FWS buys totally into what they consider the taxonomic experts in the respective fields. So if ichthyologists are currently clumping or grouping taxonomic units into fewer subspecies and species, then ranges get larger – as the case with the Yellowstone cutthroat trout and Snake River fine-spotted cutthroat trout, which now the FWS considers one subspecies instead of two because of some molecular genetics work. And voila, the number of miles or acres of Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat has increased amazingly (even though the fish don’t know it and are still threatened by stressors like overgrazing and climate change) as have the population numbers. Of course, it makes it almost impossible to list either subspecies under ESA, since on paper they are increasing – kind of crazy, no?

      In the opposite trend, herpetologists that are dabbling in systematics and taxonomy using molecular genetics techniques have been splitting populations into sympatric species and subspecies into true species. As long as it is published in peer-review journals (including online), then FWS accepts.

      FWS exercises no control over the molecular systematics and taxonomy folks for each biotic specialty. So in this case, recent molecular genetics work shows gray wolves, Eastern timber wolves, and the Southeast’s red wolves as what someone has called separate “species” in their artificial classifications based on part of the genome of wolf populations in North America.

      Immediately, FWS bows to the peer-reviewed taxonomy on wolves and declares by fiat that 29 Eastern states never had gray wolves, only Eastern timber wolves. Voila, and therefore, the FWS cannot be forced to reintroduce and recover gray wolves back East. and voila, there don’t seem to be any Eastern timber wolves left in the East, therefore they are extinct and don’t qualify for ESA listing or recovery. There are, however, supposedly Eastern timber wolves in Canada that occasionally wander into New England, but they don’t count since they don’t make up a viable population.

      What a Catch-22! Wolf Bio-Politics 101.

      Of course, those involved in genomics, such as the Human Genome Project and its branches, think that using satellite DNA and m-DNA is archaic and unreliable – only a part of the picture. Until those molecular genetics techniques trickle down to fish and wildlife management, the reclassifications will be behind the curve.

  26. Ann Sydow says:
    Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the Wid Rockies, and WildEarth Guardians are joining forces to challenge the wolf delisting rider on the grounds that it is unconstitutional 😀

    • Salle says:

      Good. It would be seriously wrong for this to go unchallenged.

  27. Peter Kiermeir says:

    First Grizzly relocation of the year. Bear discovered a cow carcass dump.

  28. Yellowstone NP considering new winter motorized use plan with draft EIS:

    Seems like they are managing people and their concessions, not wildlife and solitude. Quite a dramatic change since the 1960s.

    Too bad, Wyoming won’t agree to an equal number of wolves for their entire state.

  29. Mike says:

    Lawsuit filed challenging the constitutionality of the anti-wolf rider. This is from the Center for Biological Diversity. Outstanding news!

    They’re approaching this as a violation of separation of powers:

  30. jon says:

    According to this, Idaho plans to allow 220 wolves to be killed by hunters, same as Montana.

    “Rhonda Stockton, bookkeeper for Rae Brothers in Grangeville, said the outdoor sports retailer expects a rush on wolf tags.

    “We’re going to be selling quite a few; most people want wolves out of here,” she said.”

  31. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Italy’s Brown Bears on the Brink–Just Like Ours (Yours!)

    • Salle says:

      Yikes, from reading the comments, it appears that any mention of wolves from a pro-wolf/pro-wildlife perspective is an open invitation by the sh*t-for-brains faction to crawl out of the woodwork and show their lack of knowledge ~about anything ~ and their mastery of foul language and bad attitude. Time for the Darwin Awards to recommence.

      Interestingly, I rarely (if ever) see that sort of thing coming from the pro-wolf/wildlife side of the argument.

  32. dsrtdady says:

    The White Mountain Apache Wolf Team Offers New Wildlife/Cultural-themed Wilderness Tours — Be a Part of the Story!

    The first two public tours are June 5-10 and June 19-24. As you might imagine, wolf recovery — even for the Tribe — is controversial. It is essential that conservationists demonstrate to the Tribe that there is substantial interest and support for this type of program.

    This unique non-consumptive cultural/wildlife tour program is important to the the Tribe, and it is essential to the success of Mexican wolf recovery (1.6 million acres of tribal lands serve as the primary corridor to suitable habitat further west).

    Choose your link, and thank you for sharing the word with good folks. (The first link includes a short-but-sweet video overview of the tours, graciously produced by Green Fire Productions). (this one includes brief radio news piece with tribal wolf biologist)

  33. jon says:

    Toby Bridges doesn’t seem to be a big fan of Montana gov. brian schweitzer

    • Daniel Berg says:

      Do you remember the tale of Chicken Little?

    • If I recall correctly, Toby is just a recent resident of Montana.

      • Cody Coyote says:

        Toby the Magnificent was from the Cape Girardeau Missouri area, more or less. His balls-to-the wall advocacy of gun rights and hunting issue polarity there got him into some trouble. He lost corporate sponsorship of his web sites. So he moves from Missouri to Missoula…some might say he got run off… where he sets up shop anew and declares war on wolves , like some kind of missionary.

        Having seen the man in action ( Cody WY anti-wolf rally May 22, 2010) I’d have to opine that Toby has learned nothing. Same Toby ; different state. While he definitely appeals to the baser instincts of the anti-wolf bigots and the limbic brains of of the NRA 2nd Amendment rabble , he is by and large a huge vortex of negative energy. He will implode, eventually. His is only a cesspool where the dark effluent eventually coalesces.

        That Toby has any weight or credence on wolves at all is more a function of the universal egalitarianism of the internet — wherein a 13 year old whizkid can have just as much presence with a website as a major corportation in Dot Comworld- Dot Orgville—- than any constructive contribution from the man. He’s a legend in his own mind, and it’s a dark one.

        Unfortunately, Toby is not unique in having more stature in the NRM Grey Wolf issue ecology than he rightly deserves or has earned thru discourse. The powerful potions of the World Wild Web and its universal access do not discriminate between learned scholars and megalomaniacal malcontents, but it can by incredibly assymetric. For every George Wuerthner and Ralph Maughan there seems to be a ragtag militia led by T. Bridges, Rockholm, Fanning, Remington ( Black Bear Blog), ad absurdum.

        We suffer the lot.

      • Salle says:

        Cape Girardeau, MO… Rush Limpbutt’s hometown, no surprise there. Isn’t that one of communities being flooded by AC of E’s this past week?

  34. Daniel Berg says:

    “Removal of wolf protection affects part of Washington state”

    • Daniel Berg says:

      This was actually a headliner on the online site, which is good to see.

      • WM says:


        The problem with that article is that it does not clearly state that wolves in WA are still protected under state law. And, while it waltzes around the issue of no hunting of wolves in WA, it does not address what happens as wolf population grows and wolves get in trouble – as they surely will with higher human densities in WA, with all the little ranchettes and a half dozen horses, couple dozen cows and loose dogs wherever people are.

        With more wolves, WA contemplates translocation to keep them out of trouble, compensation of ranchers at higher than market rates for lost stock, especially the bigger operations where it might not be so easy to prove losses. All of this translates into administrative costs for the Div. of Wildlife, with money the legislature does not have and will not give them, for a few years, most likely. So, as the 25 wolves grow to the target in the draft Plan of 12 packs (100-150 wolves, and let’s not forget genetic diversity/connectivity), that is going to mean a fair number of wolves will die/translocated when they get in trouble, and then what happens when the plan objective is achieved? Unless they get sterilized, there will be pressure/need to control their numbers and distribution, especially if they start working excessively on the Yakima elk herd, the St. Helens and Yakama tribal elk, the Wenatchee and the Hanford herds, just to name a few.

        From a regional perspective the continuing frictions of wolves in new places in larger number is just beginning. Anyone who believes this has peaked with a prospect of delisting is doing a pipe dream.

      • bret says:

        I believe the number is 15 BP for three years before delisting.

        one peer review participate said in effect, the 15 BP number is a political/social comprise, wolf population should be in the 350-680 range.

        As quick as the lawsuits were filed in the last week over wolves, regardless of what plan WDFW adopts we can look forward to a long contentious battle.

  35. Immer Treue says:

    I know E. granulosus is being bandied about again, so just to refresh what an expert( very selectively used by some) has to say, with attached sites.

  36. jon says:
    not wildlife related, but a disturbing story.

    • Salle says:

      Date: May 6, 2011
      That’s a cool vid but the majority of the comments are disturbing.
      wolf tags go on sale

      Idaho Fish and Game has started selling wolf tags – $11.50 for resident hunters and $186 for nonresidents, vendor fees included.

      Tags are available at license vendors and Fish and Game offices. A valid 2011 Idaho hunting license is required to buy a tag.

      The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Thursday, May 5, published the rule that removed wolves in Idaho from the endangered species list. The rule took effect upon publishing.

      Gray wolves are now under state management and considered a big game animal.

      The Idaho Fish and Game Commission will set seasons, rules and limits later in the summer.

      To buy a hunting license or tags online go to:

      • jon says:

        Salle, I hope they don’t extend the season another 3 months like last time. Allowing wolves to be shot during denning season.

      • jon says:

        is both sickening and disgusting.

      • Salle says:

        They will.

      • wolf moderate says:

        They will extend the season until the quota is met I would guess…

      • william huard says:

        Those comments are indicative of the current mentality of the modern day hunter. Big ego, little brain, really big sense of entitlement

  37. Cody Coyote says:

    Ray Ring has a very insightful article at High Country news on the regression of Montana from an environmental leader in the 70’s to a state fractured and dysfunctional on wildlife and environmental issues these days .

    And he’s right. Montana has regressed. A lot.

    • william huard says:

      I remember talking to the Montana “Trapping Expert” last year. I was puzzled how Montana still had a quota of 6 wolverines when they really had no idea how many wolverines there were in Montana. When I asked him to explain the States’ logic to still have a quota of six his response was “Well that quota of six fills really fast” I guess that about says it all.

    • Elk275 says:

      It is called money, money and more money. Last Sunday afternoon, I was in the Pony Bar in Pony, Montana having a beer after a short hiking trip in the Tobacco Root Mountains. The boys bellyed at the bar were talking about there coming week’s work and one young man said “I was in Coalstrip last week and there are no houses for sale, everyone makes $40 an hour and there is a new diesel truck, fifth wheel and boat in every driveway”. I said “that is the difference between production and speculation”. He did not understand what I said, so I explained. Note: Coalstrip, Montana is located in Eastern, Montana and has 4 large coal generating plants owned by PPL. He did not understand. Then a short triad about environment restrictions, environmentalist and how they are restricting mining and industry in the state. It cost me a round of $1.25 beers and a change of subject before leaving.

      What the boys wanted were high paying jobs, trucks, motor powered outdoor toys and the hell with and environmental considerations. The difference between 1972 when they rewrote the state constitution and present is money and material possessions. Those without money want it; they want what it will by.

      • Salle says:

        And those who can’t really have it go into what one of my professors used to call, “pick-up truck debt”. Can’t put shoes on the kids’ feet but they got ’em a nice, shiny, new truck out there in the yard.

  38. Return of bison give two Montana tribes hope

    make sure to read the comments – overwhelming in favor of bison over cattle

  39. Nancy says:


    Litigation: Wolves in the NRM DPS, except in Wyoming, were delisted on May 5, 2011- The recent federal legislation required that the 2009 NRM wolf delisting rule be re-published in the Federal Register. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2009 science-based delisting rule was available for public review and comment for nearly 5 months. Nearly 520,000 public comments were received and analyzed before it was finalized. It was also reviewed by 8 of the top wolf experts in North America who determined it was scientifically sound. The 2009 delisting rule was re-published in the Federal Register and became effective on May 5, 2011. The NRM wolf population is biologically recovered and will remain so under state and tribal management in Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north central Utah. Wolves in Wyoming remain listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). You can refresh your memory of that rule at Sound science was appropriately used. Now that wolves are delisted, they will be managed under state and tribal laws in a manner similar to mountain lions, black bears, elk and deer and other types of resident wildlife. The states and tribes where wolves were delisted will do a great job for both wolf conservation and to meet the needs of people.
    The Service has been asked what this means to other federal, state, and tribal cooperators. Answer is very simple. Wolves are now protected by state and tribal laws instead of the ESA throughout the NRM DPS except in Wyoming where wolves remain
    federally protected. After the Service can approve a wolf management plan in Wyoming and after the normal regulatory process is completed, then wolves there could be delisted. Wolves were delisted under this exact same rule from May 2009 until August 2010, so state and tribal partners have had over a year of experience managing issues, coordinating wolf management and research throughout the NRM DPS, the best way to fine-tune management, and other on-the-ground issues, so some patience, understanding, and cooperation by the public will still be needed. The Service will be working with partners at each step along the way as this transition unfolds. Wolf restoration has been an amazing biological success story and delisting represents the culmination the efforts of a host of partners.
    Fall hunting: The MFWP Commission will consider tentative fall wolf hunting season regulations at the May 12 meeting.

    The Service?

  40. jon says:

    This is hilarious. Rockhead claims 5,000 people in Idaho are infected with e.granulosis.

    Rockhead also claims that e. granulosis was NEVER in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, etc.

    • Immer Treue says:

      I wonder if Mr. Rockholm knows anything about the true history of elk in Yellowstone, rather than what has transpired during the past 15 years.

      • jon says:

        This interview is hilarious. These nuts pull bs out of their butts! Rockhead claims that there are only 2200 elk left in yellowstone and that he counted all of them. Does he expect anyone to believe that he counted all of the elk in ys?

      • jon says:

        My favorite out by far is the reintroduced wolves killed off the population of resident wolves. No rockhead, it was the federal govt. that killed off your resident wolves, but I don’t expect someone of your calibur to grasp this fact.

      • Immer Treue says:


        problem is, if he keeps putting that information out there, people not willing to dig for themselves, will believe what he says.

      • jon says:

        sad, but true. there are many out there who will believe this guy’s propaganda. I’m sure you can guess who these people are.

      • wolf moderate says:

        To be fair it happens on both “sides”. Some of my professors sound like a broken record. Sometimes I think college is just an indoctrination camp lol.

      • jon says:

        Yeah, it does happen on both sides.

      • jon says:

        You should really listen to this. You’ll get a few good laughs. Rockhead thinks there are 2500-3000 wolves in Montana. A couple months ago, Toby Bridges claimed there were 4000. What these extremists do is basically make up #s and expect others to believe what they say.

      • mikarooni says:

        “Others” do believe what he says.

      • wolf moderate says:

        I believe that there are well over a thousand wolves in Idaho. Mr Racheal (sp?) even says that there are close to 1000. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there were close to 1,500 in Idaho. It doesn’t really matter how many there are though, they will set the quota’s on the lower numbers anyways.

      • mikarooni says:

        See? What did I tell you?

  41. Immer Treue says:

    I believe this site has been posted a number of times, but it does state that E. granulosus has been in N. MN for over 30 years, and surveys show no evidence of infection of humans or livestock.

    Friends, the density of wolves is much higher in MN than Idaho.

    • jon says:

      I did some digging myself and it appears that they did find e.granulosis in Idaho pre-wolf reintroduction. Some extremists out there will try like hell to blame the wolf for everything. Where there is elk and wolves, you will likely find e.granulosis.

    • The wolves from Canada were all given several deworming treatments with a variety of agents. E. granulosus was not detected in them before or after deworming.

      Those people have handled wolves are aware of this issue and none of them have been infected.

      • jon says:

        Ralph, as you know and others, the people most likely to get a wolf tapeworm are the people that handle them directly and those are the biologists who work for the fish and game agencies. As Mech has said, no biologist that has handled wolves has ever gotten e. granulosis. The benefits of wolves by far outweighs the negatives. This e.granulosis is nothing more than a ploy to get wolves removed from Idaho. I’m pretty certain it will fail. Experts have come out saying e.granulosis is a very small threat. No surprise that the wolf haters will try to act like it’s a much bigger problem than it really is.

  42. Barry says:

    Perhaps you should listen again….his exact quote was “maybe 5, maybe 10, maybe 50, maybe 500 people in Idaho and Montana, no one really knows” He then went on to clarify the known numbers at 3 and possibly four at this point.

    Your slander falls far short of any truth.

    And BTW, no EG has ever been found in any wild animals in Idaho pre-wolf. 1 cage of penned sheep do not an infestation make.

  43. william huard says:

    Peter K-
    Today’s NYT
    This is the type of stuff that drives me nuts. The corrupt politicians on the take from the Vampires at APP. If you call the Indonesian Embassy at 1 202 775 5200 and ask them about the corruption they scatter like cockroaches. But they really really want to save Tigers pay no attention to the corruption

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      I heard they have some pics of a tigress with cubs. The WWF is active in the area but, honestly, I think that Indonesia is lost to palm oil production. There is already a lot of tiger/human conflict due to severe habitat loss. A nightmare! By the way, we are going to India in autumn for a few weeks, in hope to see a wild Tiger!

      • william huard says:

        If you go on NYT and click on todays paper you can save the email link which has a video of the tigers. Good luck in India- Don’t become dinner

      • jon says:

        There used to be thousands and thousands of tigers years ago and it’s sickening to see there are only under 2000 wild tigers left in India, Poaching, human overpopulation, habitat loss, tigers losing their prey are all doing the tiger in. I hope they will be able to save the tigers. The amazing thing about India is they have tigers, leopards, asiatic lions, and cheetahs were recently brought to India.

  44. FWS changing ESA listings and designation of critical habitats


    Kendra Barkoff, DOI, 202-208-6416
    Vanessa Kauffman, FWS, 703-358-2138

    Fish and Wildlife Service Announces Work Plan to Restore Biological
    and Certainty to Endangered Species Listing Process

    Washington, DC – The Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service today unveiled a work plan that will allow the agency to focus its
    resources on the species most in need of protection under the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA).

    The Service is filing the work plan today in a consolidated case in the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as part of a proposed
    agreement with one of the agency’s most frequent plaintiffs. The work
    plan, if approved by the Court, will enable the agency to systematically,
    over a period of six years, review and address the needs of more than 250
    species now on the list of candidates for protection under the ESA to
    determine if they should be added to the Federal Lists of Endangered and
    Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

    “In the more than 35 years since its passage, the Endangered Species Act
    has proved to be a critical safety net for America’s imperiled fish,
    wildlife, and plants,” said Deputy Secretary of the Interior David J.
    Hayes. “For the first time in years, this work plan will give the wildlife
    professionals of the Fish and Wildlife Service the opportunity to put the
    needs of species first and extend that safety net to those truly in need
    of protection, rather than having our workload driven by the courts. It
    will also give states, stakeholders, and the public much-needed

    Under the work plan announced today, the Service has laid out a schedule
    for making listing determinations for species that have been identified as
    candidates for listing, as well as for a number of species that have been
    petitioned for protection under the ESA. If agreed to by the Court, this
    plan will enable the Service to again prioritize its workload based on the
    needs of candidate species, while also providing state wildlife agencies,
    stakeholders, and other partners clarity and certainty about when listing
    determinations will be made.

    “This work plan will serve as a catalyst to move past the gridlock and
    acrimony of the past several years, enabling us to be more efficient and
    effective in both getting species on the list and working with our
    partners to recover those species and get them off the list as soon as
    possible,” said Acting Service Director Rowan Gould. “This is just the
    first step in our efforts to actively engage conservation partners and the
    public in the search for improved and innovative ways to conserve and
    recover imperiled species.”

    The Service’s highest priority is to make implementation of the ESA less
    complex, less contentious, and more effective. Gould noted that at the
    direction of Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, the Service has begun
    a review of its implementation of the ESA designed to identify ways to
    eliminate unnecessary procedural requirements; improve the clarity and
    consistency of regulations; engage the states, tribes, conservation
    organizations, and private landowners as more effective conservation
    partners; encourage greater creativity in the implementation of the Act;
    and reduce the frequency and intensity of conflicts as much as possible.

    A candidate species is one for which the agency has determined that a
    proposal to list is warranted. The Service maintains a Candidate List that
    is reviewed annually.

    The Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973 to protect plants and
    animal species facing extinction. The ESA currently protects more than
    1,300 species in the U.S. and about 570 species abroad. The law allows
    citizens, groups, and government agencies to petition for species to be
    protected under the ESA, and sets specific statutory timelines for
    responding to those petitions. Unlike many other federal laws, the ESA
    contains a broad “citizen suit” provision enabling groups and individuals
    to sue to enforce these deadlines established under the ESA.

    The Candidate List was originally envisioned as an administrative tool
    that would identify species for which the Service would shortly make
    listing determinations. But as the Listing Program became inundated with
    petitions and lawsuits, species began to accumulate on the list. The sheer
    volume and mandatory nature of court orders, settlement-agreement
    obligations, and statutory deadlines related to petition findings and
    other listing-related litigation has threatened to consume most of the
    Service’s available funding and staff. In the last four years, the Service
    has been petitioned to list more than 1,230 species, nearly as many
    species as have been listed during the previous 30 years of administering
    the ESA. After numerous lawsuits were filed with respect to these
    petitions, the Service initiated the consolidation and transfer of pending
    lawsuits from a number of different district courts to the U.S. District
    Court for the District of Columbia. This consolidation allowed us to have
    a single forum in which to resolve comprehensively and efficiently the
    conflicting demands on the listing program.

    The Service’s ability to address the backlog of more than 250 candidate
    species and ensure the orderly and timely listing of species under the
    Endangered Species Act is in direct proportion to the agency’s ability to
    balance that workload with other Listing Program duties. The agreement,
    reached with WildEarth Guardians, would enable the Service to restore that
    balance if approved by the court.

    If the Service determines that listing is warranted for a species, the
    agency will propose that species for listing and allow the public to
    review and comment on the proposal before making a final determination. A
    list of these candidate species is available at

    Ensuring that threatened and endangered species continue to be protected
    and recovered requires effective implementation of the ESA that is
    responsive to both the needs of imperiled resources and the concerns of
    citizens. The Service has developed a variety of tools and programs to
    help landowners fashion a conservation strategy for listed and candidate
    species that is consistent with their land-management objectives and
    needs. These tools include Habitat Conservation Plans and Candidate
    Conservation Agreements that provide regulatory assurance, technical
    assistance, and a grants program that funds conservation projects by
    private landowners, states, and territories.

    America’s fish, wildlife and plant resources belong to all of us, and
    ensuring the health of imperiled species is a shared responsibility. To
    learn more about the Service’s Endangered Species program and tools
    available to landowners, go to

    The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others
    to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their
    habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a
    leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for
    our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources,
    dedicated professionals, and commitment to public service. For more
    information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit Connect with our Facebook page at,
    follow our tweets at, watch our YouTube Channel at and download photos from our Flickr page at

  45. jon says:

    “That’s still the policy,” Barrett said. “But I don’t know if the Legislature has the cojones to do it.”
    Idahoans are split fairly evenly on wolves, according to public opinion polls conducted by Boise State University and others. There is a constituency of people who like wolves and would like opportunities to see them.
    Moore said wildlife viewing is a high priority for his department, and he believes hunting won’t stop people from viewing wolves — or at least hearing them.
    “There is no reason you can’t howl up a wolf anytime,” he said.”

    I notice how the anti-wolf extremists will try to have you believe that all of Idahoians (sp?) and the people of Montana are against wolves, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m sure there are a lot of people in Idaho that want wolves. It’s a shame that the people in Idaho that actually love and value wildlife aren’t listened to by the likes of Monty Pearce Lenore Hardy Barrett. We’ve already won the battle if you really think about it. Wolf reintroduction was a huge success and it will go down as one of the greatest wildlife success stories after, but we need to make sure wolves stay in Montana, Idaho, and WY. These extremists would love nothing more than to wipe out the wolf all over again.

    • timz says:

      MYTH: Idahoans don’t want wolves in the state.
      REALITY: According to a statewide poll conducted by Boise State University in 2003, slightly more Idahoans support having wolves in the backcountry than are opposed to them.
      DETAILS: 42% of Idaho residents said that we should have wolves in the wilderness and roadless areas in the state while 39% disagreed.


      Even if the initiative got on the ballot (remove all wolves from Idaho), John Freemuth, a senior fellow at
      Boise State University’s Andrus Center for Public Policy, doubts it would pass.

      A series of BSU polls since the early 1990s showed that while support for wolves has dropped, supporters of wolves continued to outnumber opponents.
      “If there was a vote, wolves would consistently win the election,” Freemuth said.

      • jon says:

        Thanks for posting that timz. I was trying to find that poll.

      • Cobra says:

        It depends on where and who you poll as to what the outcome will be.

      • jon says:

        cobra, may I ask what part of Idaho are you from and what do your neighbors think about wolves? How are the elk #s in the units you hunt? Do you see a lot of wolves?

  46. jon says:

    One good reason why we need wolves in WI. The deer are out of control and are causing a lot of problems to people. The more deer taken by the wolves, the less deer accidents with vehicles caused. It’s a no brainer.

    • Phil says:

      That is the scientific argument, but the selfish people will say otherwise. I have been using that argument for sometime now to convince certain people, but who knows if it feel on death ears or not. It is the same problem here in Michigan.

  47. Salle says:

    How many wolves are just right in Idaho?
    Idaho will set the number, but to hold up it will have to appease the politicians and the biologists.

    “We need to put as much pressure as we can on those wolves, pin them down and drive them back into the wilderness,” said Republican Sen. Monty Pearce, chairman of the Senate Resources and Environment Committee. “I think we need to thin them down rapidly.”

    Read more:

  48. Salle says:

    Our View: Now is the time for reason on wolves — not rhetoric

    Idaho wolves are no longer federally protected under the Endangered Species Act. That is now a matter of public policy.

    How it happened is still troubling — Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson inserted language to “delist” the wolves into a 2010-11 federal budget compromise. This nonsequitur had nothing at all to do with settling a budget dispute, and circumvented an unpopular court ruling that returned wolves to federal protection.

    • Doryfun says:

      Lawmakers in Washington made feduciary obligational promises to the Indians of the early frontier they had no intentions on keeping. The repeated congressional making of last-minute additions and deletions to complex conditions, along with faulty interpretations, became the rule of Treaty making. Sound familiar? Riders on Bills is pretty much the same old way of doing business, when it comes to fisheries and wildlife.

      I have no problem with state mgt of wolves, (for now) but wish the Statesman would have spent a little more effort on pointing a finger at methods. It still seems to me we should get a bandwagon together to eliminate “riders.” Is it any wonder why the white culture gained the reputation of speaking with a forked tongue? Only straight talk helps win any kind of trust.

      According to Wallace Stegner: “ Behind the pragmatic, manifest-destinarian purpose of pushing western settlement was another motive: the hard determination to dominate nature that historian Lynn White, in the essay ‘Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’ identified as part of our Judeo-Christian heritage …God and Manifest Destiny spoke with one voice urging us to ‘conquer’ or ‘win’ the West; and there was no voice of comparable authority to remind us of Mary Austin’s quiet but profound truth, that the manner of the country makes the usage of life there, and that the land will not be lived in except in its own fashion.”

      History chases its own tail.

      • Salle says:

        That’s basically what I have been thinking/saying for a very long time but usually suffer the “silencing” methods of authority because I said something unfavorable about the christians. Kind of like saying anything negative about that little spit of a country surrounding Palestine, the ADL comes down on you like stink on fecal matter and does everything imaginably possible to destroy your life, and spare no expense in doing so. god forbid you should have a different, and more egalitarian perspective…

        … to god, we don’t mean any disrespect but there is something we wish to talk to you about. It’s about these christians… They say they do things in your name but the things they do…” J. Trudell

  49. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Study of Black Bears Finds It’s Not the Mamas That Should Be Feared the Most
    I was not aware of that Steve Colbert, they are referring and linking to. What a nice guy!

    • Thanks Peter,

      Herrero’s information about black bears that treat you as prey has been out there for a decade or more, but it doesn’t seem to be widespread yet.

    • Salle says:

      Steven Colbert is a comedian and an offshoot of “The Daily Show”, both comic versions and parodies of the news on TV. Most of what Colbert says, as in this case, is true sarcasm. You have to see the body language with a lot of his parody. He does o some great stuff, though, like funding/along with his viewers the US Olympic speed skating team when they lost their major funder ~ some bank that fell in the ’08 banking debacle.

  50. Doryfun says:

    Notice: I thought some of you folks on this blog (whom may not live far away) might be interested in an upcoming event on the Salmon River near Riggins on Saturday, May 21: our Tenth Annual Sacred Salmon Ceremony and Freindship Feast.

    A small group of us local fish advocates started this after the “ground zero dam breaching public meetings in Lewiston, in 2000. Basically, this ceremony is an aesthetic and spiritual appreciation of the annual return of the Salmon Nation to the Salmon River. The ceremony is conducted each year by Horace Axtell, a traditional Nez Perce spiritual leader.

    It is a bi-cultural event to celebrate the fish coming back to their ancestral waters. Included is a riverside native salmon ceremony, sacred boat circle with drummers and singers, an inclusive salmon “talk circle,” and potluck feast immediately afterward.

    The precession is very colorful and moving. It is an event that is family oriented, so kids are most welcome, since they are the next torch carriers of our respect for the natural world.

    When and Where: 2pm: Springbar – upriver of Riggins about 12 miles, on the banks of the Salmon River.

    More information is available.

    • Salle says:


      Thanks for letting us/me know that the ceremony is soon, and with some prior notice! I have been wanting to go to that for a long time, especially after meeting Horace Axtell ~ he led a prayer before a presentation I did at Spalding some time ago. I haven’t seen him in years and friends tell me his aging is going rapidly now. I have been hoping to make it before he stops participating. I’ll have to get with my contacts over there. It’s a long drive but I think I might be able to foot the gas bill for something like that. I do miss my Nez Perce friends and would love to see them during a time of celebration.


      • Doryfun says:


        Yes, Horace is getting up there in “many snows” but last I spoke with him, he has some new hips and replacement parts, and was feeling pretty good. Just a heads up, in case you decide to attend, a time or two Horace had to back out at the last minute, due to unexpected funerals to officate (more important). But, we still hold the ceremony, all the same. It is usually just a small group of people (15-20 ish); but very rewarding.
        Hope you can make it.

      • Salle says:

        I certainly plan on looking into the prospects today. When is the big ceremony that is reported on in papers, that is at White Bird? That looks like a big deal. I’ll get in touch with some friends up at Lapwai, I guess. There are several folks I’d like to see in that neck of the woods. I haven’t been to Spring bar in nearly twenty years. Once had dreams of settling down around there once-upon-a-time ago.

        It’s good to hear that Horace is doing better than I suspected. When we met, I thanked him appropriately in advance of the prayers, and he was happy to see I understood the tradition. He sat next to me up until the ceremony started and right in front, nodding in agreement, while I made my presentation. (I was told earlier that he needed to do the prayers and the organizer of the event asked if I minded. I was thrilled, not only to have an opportunity to meet him but to have him do a blessing for my talk was over the top for me.) From my experiences with other Idaho tribal groups, I learned many traditional ways to interact and was rewarded by having this important person think well of me. (I did have some interestingly unusual “events” take place just prior to and shortly thereafter that indicated my honorable place in the interaction in positive ways.)

        I hope I can make it too.

      • Doryfun says:


        Are you thinking of the White Bird Battle Memorial? My guess is June 16th (Saturday), as the battle was on June 17th. I have been twice, but often river circumstances change my plans. Very interesting memorial, though.

        I certainly can relate to the “unusal events” you spoke about. Like a radio station, just change the channel if you want to listen to something else. Like, the unusual ways nature speaks.

        BTY – we don’t normally advertise this salmon ceremony much, so it is normally not in the newspapers. More of a word of mouth sort of thing. No politics, commercialism, or alcohol. More about the fish and its gift to the people.

      • Doryfun says:

        Oh, and the event is free. There is more info about it on the Riggins Chamber of Commerce site, as a list of events in our area.
        (and how you can contact me for more details, if need be).

  51. Cliff says:

    “Obama administration announce reviews for 250 imperiled species” (but not the wolverine) for final decisions by September 2016 (after the next presidential term ends).

  52. Salle says:

    More on the affects of the BP gulf oil fiasco… the diseased and dying marine life…

  53. wolf moderate says:

    Oregon allows ranchers to kill wolves out of Imnaha.

  54. jon says:

    Glad they decided to relocate the animal instead of killing it.

      • WM says:

        Sad ending to that story. I have shopped in that Safeway. It sits high on a hill in a new development area just off Nez Perce Drive at the east fringe of town, about a mile south of the Snake River. There are not ANY trees around there, which makes you wonder where he came from? There is a small creek drainage to the east aways. If the cat was hanging around town for 3 weeks or longer, as the reporting says, it is likely he has been working on the neighborhood domestic wildlife.

        Unfortunate, but probably the right decision for the right reasons, if a zoo wouldn’t take him. Washington State U. to the north of there about 30 miles has a cougar for a mascot, but I bet they have more than they need, and what is life in a cage for a wild animal, anyway? Guess we could debate that concept for awhile.

      • WM says:

        And the town is Lewiston, ID, for those who have not viewed the video.

  55. Nancy says:

    +Kathie Lynch on Yellowstone wolves: Cold April in Yellowstone+

    Thanks Kathie for keeping us up on the packs in Yellowstone!!

  56. Salle says:

    Vision: Nature Needs Rights — Why Our Human-Centric Model Will Doom Us and the Rest of the Planet…
    We have built our economic and development policies based on a human-centric model and assumed that nature would never fail to provide or that technology would save us.

    • Doryfun says:

      Thanks Salle,

      That sounds like an interesting read. The human centric model is what I just finished referring to (without knowing this phrase or that a book was even out about it) on the Quagga Mussel issue, before reading your post.

      We humans are pretty proud of being humans and top dog dominionist.

  57. jon says:

    Here we go again, some woman from Michigan trying to get all wolves in the usa delisted even the mexican gray wolves which are highly endangered. Let’s hope we can stop this. Say not to hr 1519!!!

  58. Daniel Berg says:

    “Thai airport smuggler busted with virtual zoo”

    Anything for a buck, right?

    • Cody Coyote says:

      Until you’ve been to Bangkok and gone to the Jatujak open air wild animal market , you have no idea how widespread the wild animal trade is wordwide. I was beyond appalled. And that was the ” public” market devoted mostly to birds , small reptiles and snakes, etc. which is rarely busted. The bigger more lucrative stuff is at a black market I was not willing to search for since it was dangerous to go there unless you had ” business”. Bangkok is rough.

      Elsewhere in Thailand, every time I came across kids selling live birds in the tiny tetrahedral wooden cages, I would buy them ( 50 baht was the going rate, about $ 1. 50 US ) and immediately release the birds and scold the kids. I didn’t buy too many cobras with the intent of releasing them, though. ( Thailand has 150 species of venomous snakes, some very beautiful ). Everything was for sale. And they claim to be compassionate Bhuddists….

      In Indonesia, it was the Tarsiers , which resemble lemurs and prosimians. Not unlike the so-called Bush Babies of southern Africa and Madagascar. It was heartbreaking to see them cowering in cages in the daylight, since they are nocturnal and very shy and secretive. I wanted to strangle some people… I still do.

  59. aerial gunning of ID wolves has started with already 5 dead

    • Nancy says:

      Such a shame………..A young man gets banned from his prom because of an innocent prank and within a couple of days his story goes global. 179,000 hits (and growing) on a site dedicated to his plight. Anybody tech savy enough here to get a movement going on the plight of wolves?

  60. vickif says:

    This is not exactly wildlife news, but I was just learning that Dermatologists are saying skin cancer is on the rise, (big rise) in the USA. Which is suprising since an alarming number of American’s are vitamin D deficient (you get this largely from exposure to sunlight).
    It is widely believed that Vitamin D deficiency is Americanized because of our stagnent indoor existence. Vit D deficiency contributes to cancer risk, heart disease, bone degeneration…and on and on.

    Here is what I think is profound, nobody is saying the obvious! Perhaps skin cancer is on the rise due to global warming! Am I the only person who can see the link?

    • Immer Treue says:


      Skin cancer may be on the rise because the folks who spent too much time in the sun, “Boomers”, are all of a sudden going, OOPS! So statistically, the numbers are large. Enough said.

      • vickif says:

        I am sure this is a factor, but the increase covers younger demographics. Maybe a combo.

      • Salle says:

        There is the “behavioral” element to the ris ein skin cancer but then there is the fact that the ozone layer is not protecting the planet’s surface as much anymore, and then there’s all those nutrient deficiencies we all have, but not well informed about to protect the industries involved, thanks to GM foods and the recurring loss of nutrients our bodies need not to mention the crap they replace nutrients with… that make for the perfect decline in our ability to stave off that which harms our bodies and increase diseases. I already have skin cancer and I’m not a likely candidate for things like melanoma, which I don’t have but it doesn’t really matter in the long run, you get it or you don’t. Seems like more folks are getting one form or another.

      • vickif says:

        I hope you are in remission, or it was localized.
        I agree, so much goes in, and out of our food. Sickening really.
        Farm to table practices would likely help. Harvest it, eat it fresh. Get outside, get off your bum, get informed. More folks need to try it! I am glad you are one of those who are already aware.

  61. NotafanofWW2 says:

    Hope you’re happy, Rockholm, Chandie and Bruce. : (

    • wolf moderate says:

      The stupid thing about this is that it probably cost $15-20K for this “operation”. Why don’t they just put a $300-$500 bounty on them and use the savings to enance habitat, which would help the elk much more than killing a few wolves via aerial gunning…

  62. JEFF E says:

    spent about 45 min this evening watching a coyote in a pasture full of cows and calves, some of the calves only a week or two old. The coyote was mousing and completely ignoring the cows. the cows were grazing and completely ignoring the coyote. They were about 30 yd apart at the the closest. Eventually the coyote headed back up the hill at dusk.

    • JB says:

      One of my favorite wildlife interactions involved watching a coyote play “tag” with a couple of grizzly cubs, while mom looked on (this was Lake Clark NP, in Alaska). Went on for 10 minutes or so before the coyote got bored and trotted off.

  63. Daniel Berg says:

    And in the spirit of the times we are currently in………

    “Hailed last year for collaborating, Colville Forest factions have gotten nowhere”,-Colville-Forest-factions-have-gotten-nowhere/

    • Doryfun says:

      Thanks DB,

      Interesting story. Another example of how complicated natural resource management has become and how difficult it is to reach collaborative agreements when the human population gets so big. Kind of like heading towards a waterfall in a row boat, and everyone arguing about who is going to row towards the shore, but none ever do, because they keep fighting over the oars.

      • Daniel Berg says:

        It’s amazing how many different factors are involved in trying to reach these types of agreements. In this case it appears that a combination of a slight decrease in access for ORV’s and a state politician’s disdain for the Wilderness designation is holding this up. It surprises me that even with the support of the local timber companies the agreement can’t get traction.

  64. jon says:

    “According to the hikers, they were on the trail when an elk ran by them being chased by a young grizzly bear and a sow.”

    Hope these bears aren’t put down.

  65. jon says:

    Fishermen call them wolves of the river and says they will kill somebody sooner or later

  66. Daniel Berg says:

    “BPA may limit wind power during snowmelt”

    Another reason why corporate wind power is a bad idea in Washington State: The peaks for hydro and wind energy production often occur during the same time of year resulting in waste.

  67. Cody Coyote says:

    Here is an interesting , if somewhat aloof, story in the Sunday New York Times online about travelling America to view various endangered species animals while still alive and approachable in their remaining habitat , mostly National Parks and other federal reserves.

  68. Cody Coyote says:

    This is a must-read exposé article profiling the political appointees of the Obama Administration who run the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, et al, starting with Ken Salazar. Then it gets worse; much much worse. If you thought James Watt and Gale Norton were awful , anti-nausea pills may be required to finish this monstrous piece of investigative profiling.

    ” How Green Became The Color Of Money ” , May 13, a 13-part opus from Jeffrey St. Clair at COUNTERPUNCH.

    [ You may need to navigate to the article indirectly. The hot link didn’t work for me . You’ll find it under the May 13 story listings in the lefthand column …find by author and title ].

    St. Clair pulls no punches. His essay describes in agonizing detail the character and political leanings and outright insider trading with industry that are the keynotes of the men running the public lands and environment for the Obama admin.

    St. Clair has done his homework and attributions.The situation is far, far worse than we thought. Obama has sold out. We had no hope for change, as it turns out.

    May 13 articles
    Jeffrey St. Clair
    “How Green Became The Color Of Money : Obama and the Man in the Hat ” , 13 pages

    print it for future reference

    • william huard says:

      What a chilling article. Didn’t Hamilton die last year? His policies in FLA hav been a complete success- 23 fatalities of the panther mostly by car and a few killed by poachers. I remember thinking when Obama was elected how at least things concerning the Environment would improve!!! How naive we can be.
      I could never understand how Julie MacDonald was never charged with any crime. If I remember correctly she shared DOI documents with the Pacific Legal Fund, an anti-environment law firm to help to kill ESA listings among other transgressions

    • Doryfun says:

      Wow. This article is so critical about everyone in government, that it makes me dubious and skeptical about some of his accusations. Having known Jack Thomas and Gail Kimbell on a personal level (guided both of them separately on the Snake & Salmon Rivers years ago) and Jack professionally, (back when I did wildlife work for the USFS –Starkey area) I certainly have a different opinion than the author does. I found myself wondering if they were the same people.

      In fact, I was elated when Jack became the first wildlife biologist to head up the USFS in DC. He represented the knight on a white horse for most environmental causes I believed in fighting for. If anyone would be going to bat for fish and wildlife, I had great confidence, it would be him. But later on, when I solicited him for some support on river management issue, he told me it how unbelievable the ferociousness of politics really is, and eventually I think it became too much for him.

      That song line about the road to hell is paved with good intentions come to mind here. Many good people can only butt heads against the wall for so long, before something has to give. Usually, the human brain, not the wall.

      I also met Mark Rey at some RAC roadless meetings in DC a few years back, but was not as impressed by him.

      I get it about the color green and all, but it seems this author is so radical that he can’t find a potential green solution that he can’t turn brown. He degrades collaboration and compromise and implies only fools believe those terms and methods. Yet, I didn’t see any alternative answers he championed or suggested. He must have a pretty padded armchair and thick reality filter to observe the environmental battleground from.

      While I too, sometimes would rather just draw lines in the sand, and defend my side more rigorously, it often comes with a greater loss than the results of collaboration and compromising. The world does not revolve around me. Sure, each time we compromise, another inch is given up, and piece by piece human exploitation hunger, seems inexhaustible. Thus, I have gravitated to believing our inabilities to rein back insatiable extraction appetites, will eventually be our own self-regulating downfall. Nature rules. In the meantime, social inter-action of collaboration seems a better choice than the warclub.

  69. Salle says:

    After browsing this info, it looks like the environmental version of The Shock Doctrine We should all be concerned, very concerned. Not that anyone can do much about it other than refusing to be party to this series of serious biospheric crimes. But I also have some advice: Need less and learn to live without money… stop feeding the beasts of industry.

    • skyrim says:

      So very true Salle.
      “Progress is finding a good place to stop”
      G.K. Chesterton

    • william huard says:

      Boy, he showed that grizzly who’s boss, trying to protect her cubs! What was she thinking!

      • jon says:

        Seems to me the bear thought the hunter was a threat to her cubs and charged the hunter. It’s sad shame the bear was killed. More cubs orphaned by hunters.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Not a hunter, but an antler hunter. A bit more common sense would seem to be used at this time of the year with bears coming out of hibernation. What a waste.

      • jon says:

        I agree immer. This could have been prevented. I wonder if the hunter had bear spray on him. My guess is he didn’t. I guess we’ll have to wait until more info comes out. Atleast the orphaned cubs will be taken care of. That is the only good thing that came out of this.

      • Elk275 says:

        A little more indepth article in the Missoulian.

        Jon, use the word antler hunter not hunter.

      • jon says:

        elk, did your dad ever end up getting his antelope?

      • PointsWest says:

        Yes…that damn “antler hunter” should have bought pepper spray for that one-day event and when he noticed the grizzly charging him, he should have patiently waited for the beast to be within pepper spray range (20 feet) and administered a moderate sized cloud of the chemical to be sure it did not injure the bear. It is what I would have done if it had been me. I would not care for my own life but would have taken great care to not injur this animial who would probably try and kill me. I am a hero to not have killed a grizzly.

      • Elk275 says:

        Jon, you have a very good memory. My 86 year old father shot his mule buck at sunrise in mid November and less than an hour later shot his antelope. Both animals were shot at 250 to 300 yards away, one shot thought the heart/lungs. I was not with him. My nephew his grandson was with him on their ranch where the Bighorn River meets the Yellowstone.

        It is my sincerest wish that all of us at 86 years old are able to pursue our outdoors dreams the way we chose. We are putting in for our licenses this year as the deadline is June 1, now he wants an elk.

      • jon says:

        Yeah, that would be something. It is amazing to see an 86 year old getting outside to do what he loves. Most people I see nowadays in their 80s are disabled and are in wheel chairs. It’s amazing to see some 80s year olds in good shape and walking around with no problems and driving still.

      • Savebears says:

        With the winds in Western Montana this last few days, bear spray would probably not have been effective, I would have still carried it, but I would also been armed with a large caliber pistol or a shotgun with slugs. Bear spray is good when the conditions are right, but with winds your not going to have much luck with spray. This was a justified shooting in the protection of life and limb, which even with the Endangered status is allowed.

        Hunting antlers can be very lucrative and has been going on for many years in the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, it is what funds the Boy Scouts in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. This is unfortunate, but sometimes it does happen.

    • PointsWest says:

      The person was an “antler hunter” jon. An antler hunter is someone who walks around searching the ground for antlers that have fallen off deer or elk. …something like a “treasure hunter” or an “arrowhead hunter.” It has almost nothing to do with hunting game. Nearly all hunting is closed this time of year.

      But don’t let any facts stop you from blaming something onto game hunters. It adds so much to your credibility. …kind of like when you said grey wolves have been in North America for 500,000 years.

      • jon says:

        It’s actually 700,000 years pointswest. Do you have anything that says otherwise? I’m more than willing to look at what you find.

      • PointsWest says:

        Grey wolves did not arrive in North American (south of the Laurentide ice sheet) until the McKenzie Ice Free Corridor opened up about 13,000 BP. There was no way for them to cross the vast ice sheet prior to the ice free corridor.

        They were not even in Beringia until 18,000 – 20,000 BP since Beringia had not formed until this time. Beringia is NOT North American, by the way. It is an area that included parts of Alaska, Siberia and dewatered portions of the Bering Sea.

        There were Dire wolves in North Americal prior to Beringia and prior to the McKenzie corridor. Dire wolves went extinct about 10,000 BP, however, and were in North and South America since at least 1.8 million BP. They are not closely related to the Grey wolf that evolved separately in Eurasia for millions of years.

        Man entered North American prior to the Grey wolf about 18,000 BP since man came via a coastal route only passable by boat. Gray wolves came with the opening of the McKenzie Corridor along with several other animals that evolved in Eurasia (deer, moose, elk, fox, etc) and probably contributed to the extinction of the Dire Wolf and other native species.

        So please take all this under consideration Dr. Jon.

        Where did you come up with the “fact” that grey wolves have been here for 500,000 years?

      • PointsWest says:

        There you go posting your junk science found on some obscure webpage jon. Let me tell you something. You can find anything on the internet that agrees with your agenda. For example, I can post articles that assert that global warming is a hoax and the Obama was not born in the US.

        The velvet claw article you posted does not even address when grey wolved migrated to North America. Why did you even post it?

        The natural world’s article is wrong and they use wiggle words like “probably.” The grey wolf we have today is so closely related to gray wolves in Eurasia, they are considered to be the same species. In fact, the reason some wolves are odd colored such as white or black is because of the interbreeding with domesticated dogs which became domesticated some 50,000 BP in Eurasia.

        If grey wolves were in North American 700,000 ago and were isolated from Eurasia for hundreds of thousand of years, why are they so closely related to Eurasian wolves today and why do we see these odd colors that have been attributed to domesticated dog genes. Further, what happened when the McKenzie Ice Free Corridor opened and all the other animals migrated into North American. Did the Eurasian grey wolf stay behind?

        Just because something agrees with your agenda, does not mean it is good science jon. It may be total crap which there is an abundance of on the internet. You, more than anyone I know, illustrate how much crap can be found on the internet.

        The grey wolf of North America is nearly identicle with the grey wolf of Eurasion and they came by way of Beringia and the McKenzie corridor 13,000 years ago with some domesticated dog genes making some wolves either black or white.

        If they had come 700,000 years ago, they would almost certainly be a separate species from Eurasian Grey wolves and they would not have the odd color genes.

      • PointsWest says:

        To give you some idea of how cheesy the Natural Worlds article is, they state the grey wolf, “probably took up residence in North American some 700,000 years ago, after having crossed the Pleistocene land bridge that connected the continents at that time.” The author is obviously confused or misinformed. There is really no such thing as a “Pleistocene land bridge.” The Pleistocene is a geological epoch dating between 2.5 million BP to 12,000 BP. The land bridge during the Pleistocene is Beringia (google it) and it may occurred at least twice with the most recent being about 20,000 BP. It is conjectured that Beringia also formed in the high glaciation period around 35,000 BC. I will challenge anyone anywhere to point to any scientific evidence that there was a “Pleistocene land bridge” 700,000 BP! That is junk in the same vein as pro-biotics curing aids.

        Further, Beringia was north of the Laurintide Ice Sheet. Species migrating into Beringia does not mean they migrated into North America. We have proof Eurasian animals were in Beringia some 22,000 years ago but they did not make it south of the Laurintide Ice Sheet until the McKenzie corridor opened 13,000 years BP.

        The Natural Worlds article is pure junk. It just does not make sense for the reason above and for the reason I pointed out in my earlier post.

      • Immer Treue says:

        PW and jon,

        I’ve heard of the possible black gene in wolves coming from dogs a while ago, and here is an article that somewhat supports it. It to has a lot of “possibly” and “may” in it. Quite a lot of supposition in something that may or may not have happened 10-12 thousand years ago. Also, one must be very careful in any suggestion that humans did any real “selecting” in terms of breeding that long ago. Most of these color variations in our dogs most probably had their origins in reduced adrenalin production that effected biochemical pathways including pigmentation. Can’t really deduce that this was a change in a gene. Nonetheless, it is interesting.

        A small number of wolves I’ve seen in MN have been black, needless to say a forested area.

      • PointsWest says:

        Science has known for decades that several species migrated from Eurasia to North American via a land bridge but they did not know exactly when. In the past 10 or so years they have pinpointed the date of the McKenzie corridor opening up to about 13,000 BP using climate modeling software and supported by the fossil record, especially microfossils. I think anyone writing any migration older than this is using out-dated or far-fetched junk science and several who write on the internet use out-dated or far-fetched junk science to support some notion or agenda they might have.

      • PointsWest says:

        The dog gene article posted by Immer states. “It may have been easier for dogs to interact with wolves in North America than in Europe,” said Anderson. “There was probably a higher concentration of wolves, and the dogs, like the humans, were more migratory.”

        I would say that the further you go back in time, the more wolf-like dogs would have been and the more likely interbreeding would have been between wolves and their domesticated cousins. I would say more interbreeding would have taken place 40,000 years ago when most dogs looked more tame wolves. There have been studies on domestication of foxes in Russia and one of the first things to change was color. Other things that first changed were the ears. They get floppy in domesticated foxes. The tail also changes. It becomes curled. The reason is that human selected for wolf (or fox) pups that remained cute and cuddly and submissive to caregivers well into adulthood. They selected wolves that retained juvenile behavior characteristics into breeding age. They selected wolves which had a genetic syndrome that prevented them from maturing into adults and left them with floppy ears, curly tails, and dark solid colors often with a chest patch. Wolf pups also have different colors, floppy ears, a curled tail, and are submissive to caregivers. Dogs are an animal that remains puppy like for its entire life. That is what we first selected…behavior. Some of the physical changes came as genetic baggage. But we probably did select for color early on as well. Everyone would want the black pup or the white pup…grey is boring.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Way back then, people did not do the “selecting”, but the wolves themselves did the selecting, more or less feeding off the refuse and scraps left by man. Some very interesting debate on how dogs actually became domesticated. You cited the Russian study with foxes. What they did was fast forward that whole scenario in a very short period of time. The man/dog connection ###probably### took thousands of years.

        I’ve got to run now, but perhaps we can pick up on this later.

      • jon says:

        pw, you have humans and gray wolves confused and mixed up. it was humans who came to North American 13,000 years ago crossing the bering strait land bridge.

        “During the Late Pleistocene (300,000 years ago) the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) crossed into North America on the Bering Strait land bridge and competed with the Dire Wolf. Starting about 16,000 years ago, coinciding with the end of the last glacial period and the arrival of humans in North America, most of the large mammals upon which the Dire Wolf depended for prey began to die out (possibly as a result of climate and/or human-induced changes as suggested in a 2008 National Geographic Channel documentary[13]). Slower than the other wolf species on the continent at the time, primarily the Grey Wolf and Red Wolf, it could not hunt the swifter species that remained and was forced to subsist on scavenging. By 10,000 years ago, the large mammals and the Dire Wolf were extinct.”

        “Research of Robert Wayne at the University of California suggests that a number of wolf-like canids diverged from a common ancestor about two to three million years ago. The first grey wolf, Canis lupus, probably appeared in Eurasia sometime in the early Pleistocene period about a million years ago. Around 750,000 years ago, it is thought to have migrated to North America. The dire wolf, Canis dirus, larger and heavier than the grey wolf, evolved earlier and the two co-existed in North America for about 400,000 years. As its prey became extinct around 16,000 years ago due to a climatic change, the dire wolf gradually fell off the evolution ladder and became extinct themselves.”

        Robert Wayne is a Professor in the Department of Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology at UCLA.

        Deny it all you want.

      • Immer Treue says:

        I’ve heard Coppinger speak, and I am decidedly in his camp in terms of dog domestication.

        “So were dogs’ ancestors selected for tameability or trainability? Dr. Ray Coppinger, a dog behavior expert at Hampshire College, believes that neither is the case. Wolves domesticated themselves, Dr. Coppinger argues in a recent book, “Dogs,” written with his wife, Lorna Coppinger. Wolves, which are scavengers as well as hunters, would have hung around the campsite for scraps, and those that learned to be less afraid of people survived and flourished, in his view.

        “It was natural selection – the dogs did it, not people,” Dr. Coppinger said. “The trouble with the theory that people domesticated dogs is that it requires thousands of dogs, just as Belyaev used thousands of foxes.”

      • jon says:

        hi immer, you may have brought this up already, but you see many black wolves in your neck of the woods?

      • PointsWest says:

        No jon…I do not have wolves confused with humans. Thank you. I did some searching and you are right, however, that there are wolf fossils that predate the McKenzie corridor that many taxonomists call “Grey wolf”. There are actually several smaller wolf fossils that predate the McKenzie corridor that have been labled as either a small subspecies of Dire wolf or Grey wolf. But it sounds as if the degree of uncertany is high when labling pre-McKenzie wolf fossisl. I read lots of conflicting theories on what the smaller wolves were.

        I am correct, however, that the Eurasion Gray wolf migrated into North America along with several other species when the McKenzie corridor opened up in 13,000 BP. I am also correct that the wolf that is in North America today is decended from this 13,000 BP migration and not from an earlier migration and is why North American wolves so closely resemble Eurasian wolves. So there may have been wolves here that were not Dire wolves but whatever their origin, they were displaced when the Eurasion Grey wolf migrated in 13,000BP. I believe nearly all scientists agree on this point. This same 13,000 BP migration is also why American Grizzlies so closely resemble Eurasian Brown bears and why American Elk so closely resemble Eurasian Elk, etc, etc. I think there is little doubt there was a large migration of species when the McKenzie corriodor opend around 13,000 BP and science agrees on this.

        There are indications there were earlier migrations but it sounds to me these are pure conjecture by taxonomist trying to piece a patchy fossil record together. But while taxonomists believe there were a species of Grey wolf in America 100,000 years BP, I believe most agree that they are not the ancestor of today’s Grey wolf in America. The Grey wolf we have today, like I said, migrated when the McKenzie corridor opened up in 13,000 BP.

        So I have to conced that you were correct that there was a species of Grey wolf here prior to the McKenzie corriodor migration, however, these pre-McKenzie wolves are not the ancestors of today’s Grey wolves.

        The first humans, BTW, came earlier, in about 17,000 BP on a coastal route.

      • PointsWest says:

        Immer writes, “Way back then, people did not do the “selecting”, but the wolves themselves did the selecting, more or less feeding off the refuse and scraps left by man.”

        I understand this point. Dogs evolved around nomadic people who lived in camps. Wolves that would not flee from humans could survive by living off food scraps about human camps. So wolves self selected a set of genes not prone to flight from humans. That is how it started for wolves and probably for other domesticated animals. The first genetic characteristic to evolve was the ability to not flee from humans and to establish a symbiotic relationship with them. These camp-follower wolves may have help humans by keeping their camps clean and by acting as guards against larger more dangerous preditors.

        However, for a period, 50,000 years ago, you would have had a species of wolf that were basically camp followers. These camp followers would have had pups and the pups would have had to follow the camps along with the adults. Humans would soon be keeping the pups as pets and humans would then be in the selection process because those pups most interesting to the humans would have a much higher survival rate. Also, the pups which were slow to mature would have a higher survival rate. This began the process of floppy ears and curly tails as humans selected wolves that behavied like puppies into breeding age.

      • Immer Treue says:


        most of the wolves I have seen are gray. I’ve seen a black wolf in a pack of eight, and another couple of loners that were black. Actually got pretty close to these. Even in there “summer” coats, they were truly beautiful animals with those golden eyes.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Can probably also look at the dogs, as soon as safe handling could be included in their resume` would be put to work, and in times of need, I’m sure many of the dogs were themselves eaten by people. The term pet, really doesn’t enter the picture until the late 1800’s. Most dogs up til then were working dogs, the result of selective breeding to perform specified jobs, or dogs that were just not well cared for.

        In terms of the genetic race, the dogs that have been well cared for by an individual or family have struck the genetic gold mine.

      • jon says:

        immer, it must be an amazing feeling to live in a state with the highest amount of wolves next to Alaska in the lower 48. I’m hoping wolves will repopulate Maine someday. Have you ever run into wolves while taking your dog for a walk? You might have mentioned this already from before.

      • PointsWest says:

        Immer, even today there are nomadic people and their children take small immature animals as pets. I watched a program a couple of months ago about some Siberian nomads and the kids had a pet kit fox. I’m sure when the fox matured, it was not good pet and probably ran away and likely perished. But humans have taken pups and other immature animals as pets for eons. They are good pets until they mature and might then bite their owners.

        Also, dogs, cats, and other animals have been kept as pets as far back as history can record. Egyptians and Mesopotamians had pet dogs and pet cats. It was often a luxury to have pet dogs since dogs consume food and you had to be able to afford food for a dog. But, in many cases, pets were a necessity. Cats, for example, protected stores of grain from exploding rodent populations.

        Although I have never read or seen anything about it, I have to believe that early on in the domestication process (i. e. 50k years ago) when wolves were just camp-followers, they must have helped the nomads in other ways than just keeping camps free of food scraps. The relationship became truly symbiotic; it cannot be just that wolves were scavengers that humans tolerated. It had to be a two-way street where both species benefited. Nomads were hunters. The camp-follower wolves were probably a single pack that would generally remain within site of the nomad’s camp. When the men launched hunting parties, the camp-follower wolf pack would follow the men to get the scraps of meat after the hunting party made their kill or kills. Men were as intelligent 50k years ago as today. If they did not like the wolves, they could have trapped or poisoned them. But they didn’t. The symbiotic relationship grew ever stronger over time. I think it is likely that the wolves began helping the humans hunt in some way at least sometimes. For example, the wolves might follow a human hunting party from camp but then spot some animal like a sloth and tree it. Once a prey was treed, wolves would never be able to make the kill. They would be forced to abandon it. Humans, however, could see that the camp-follower wolves had treed the sloth and could easily kill it with arrows or spears from the ground. Both humans and wolves would benefit from this hunting partnership. The humans would take the meat and leave the guts, hide, and bones for the camp-follower wolves. Both humans and wolves would learn to use the other’s special skills in hunting success.

        There had to be some benefit to humans to have the wolves around. It was not just that wolves survived as scavenger-followers. The humans could have trapped, poisoned, or killed them outright if they had wanted too. I can think of many reason to not want camp-follower wolves around. Camp-follower wolves might also snatch food when humans did not want them to and might also snatch a child once in a while. The humans, however, not only tolerated camp follower wolves, they pursued the relationship with them. The wolves had to have done something for the humans besides follow their camp and eat their food scraps.

        Again, I have never heard or read anything about this. This is just my idle musings.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Yes. I have seen wolves while with my dog(s). One must use caution in these situations. Wolves are very territorial, and look upon dogs as intruders. A dog that goes chasing after a wolf is not long for this world. Once on a Winter camping trip, and were approached by an entire pack.

        Bottom line is, as rare as a sighting is made by us upon them, how often do they see us, and we haven’t got a clue that the wolves are there? I think this is pretty much proof in the pudding that wolves are of little threat to people.

      • Immer Treue says:


        We can go round and round with this. We can probably agree that dogs were “domesticated thousands of years ago. Dogs have a critical period of socialization that lasts until they are 56-16 weeks old. Wolves CPS is only about 3 weeks. That’s one reason at most sanctuaries, wolf pups are taken from their mothers by about ten days and are hand raised 24 hours a day by people, so they learn to socialize “better” with people.

        Prehistoric people did not have that luxury. Yep, most pups ran away upon adulthood, or became extremely dangerous. This process did not occur overnight. One of the reasons I think Ray Coppinger is correct.

      • Immer Treue says:

        While on the topic of dogs, allow me a guilty pleasure. If you have not seen this already, it will make you smile.–talking-dog-video-a-youtube-hit

        you may have to scroll down.

      • JB says:


        Ronald Nowak’s chapter in Mech’s 2003 book discusses the origin of wolves in detail. If memory serves, the Eurasian wolf actually originated in North America before migrated to Eurasia and back again.

        Taxonomy is not an “exact” science–the distinctions made between species and subspecies, especially when living specimens are no longer available, are largely based upon differences in the skeletal structure. Some future taxonomist looking at today’s dog breeds would surely conclude that they represent several species despite the fact that today’s taxonomists classify dogs as a single subspecies of the wolf.

        Arguing about taxonomic designations is akin to arguing the existence of god–it’s a great topic for those who like to argue. 😉

      • Immer Treue says:

        oops! Dog critical period of socialization is ~15-16 weeks of age.

      • jon says:

        immer, good to know there are still responsible pet owners out there like you. I have 2 daschunds and I take them for numerous walks throughout the week and coyotes are known to show up in my neighborhood often enough. Being a responsible pet owner and watching over your dogs very carefully to avoid conflicts with wildlife is not hard to do at all. Some dog owners are just lazy and careless.

      • PointsWest says:

        Here is a photo gallery of the first five years of the American Dog Derby held in Ashton, Idaho from 1917 to 1922. By 1923, this event was as popular at the Kentucy Derby and attracted crowds of 15,000 people.

        This is the flash version of the gallery.

        If you do not have Adobe Flash installed, you view this HTML version.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Neat pictures. As I was going through them,the one with the coyote required a double take.

      • PointsWest says:

        JB writes: “Nowak [wrote] Eurasian wolf actually originated in North America before migrated to Eurasia and back again.”

        Yeah…I did quite a bit of reading last night and came across this theory. Other theories are that Grey wolves began differentiation in Eurasia 300k years ago and there was one or several migration into North America an back beginning about 150,000 BP. Jon is correct that some theories claim an even older speciation in North America. I have no trouble believing any of the theories of the origins of the Grey wolf. I believe a land bridge could have formed several times in the past million years.

        It sounds to me that fossil record is very patchy and that no one really knows. We do not know exactly where grey wolves originated or if those in North America 100k years ago are even Grey wolves or are just similar to Grey wolves. There are at least some fossils that were once believed to be Grey wolf that were later classified as a small Dire wolf.

        I do believe, however, there is a scientific consesus that the wolves today are decended from the imigrants from Eurasia that came via the McKenzie corridor 13,000 PB. Alaskan wolves are too similar to Siberian wolves for any other explaintion. If there were still remnants of an older population in North America that were isolated from Eurasian wolves for more than about 100,000 years, and these remnants survived to this day, there would be genetic signs.

        Geese…dogs are only 50k years seperate from Grey wolves and look at how different they are.

  70. NotafanofWW2 says:

    Ashley Judd on wolves. Contains interesting information in the comments section, as well.

    • william huard says:

      The comment section is classic! Do you think that address is a trailer park?

      • NotafanofWW2 says:

        Lol. Probably. Maybe I’ll bring some to-go food from that restaurant in Cabela’s. We wouldn’t want him setting his trailer on fire trying to get the charcoal briquettes started under the broiler of his toaster-oven.

      • NotafanofWW2 says:

        It sort of looks like a hog farm on the aerial shot. Maybe he makes his own hot dogs. ; )

      • NotafanofWW2 says:

        I’m thinking of starting a new Indy-Rock band. I thought we could use this image for our cd cover…and call ourselves:

        Shandy Bartell and the Hydatid Cysts


    • jon says:

      Feel bad for the person who takes that job. They”ll have to deal with the anti-predator nutjobs screaming in their ear of how bad these canadian wolves are.

  71. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Russia creates a new National Park “Land of Leopards”.
    I think, the article makes some interesting reading how things are done there in Russia.

  72. Salle says:

    Pronghorn study observes threats to historic migration

    CODY, Wyo. — Over the past six years, biologists studying a herd of pronghorn known for its arduous fall migration have tracked the herd’s population and where the animals are spending their winter.

    What they’re finding has ecologists concerned that the world-famous “Path of the Pronghorn” may be in jeopardy, a result of habitat fragmentation and a growing number of obstacles interfering with their journey.

  73. Salle says:

    Yellowstone area visitors warned of hungry bears

  74. SEAK Mossback says:

    This article provides interesting contrast between public land ranchers and public ocean fishermen in their expections and perceived rights versus their competition (predators) while making a living in the public domain. Losing $40-50 blackcod one after another to sperm whales while retrieving their longlines probably adds up to a far greater individual economic hit in a year than the occasional cow, calf or sheep taken by predators. Yet there is no welfare-entitlement expection of compensation and immediate expensive, lethal intervention by the government. However, government reseachers are working with fishermen on finding ways to minimize/avoid these losses.

    • Daniel Berg says:

      Interesting article.

      A little off topic, but I love some of the names they come up with for fish. When you picture a “Sablefish”, you picture something a little different than the reality. My old college roomate is a controller at a company that runs a fishing fleet and does processing in Grays Harbor and recently he explained to me how the names of fish are sometimes changed to sound more appealing to consumers. His favorite example was Hake; in order to appeal to more american consumers, they started marketing Hake as “Pacific Whiting”. He also claimed that most people have no idea what some of the fish they eat even looks like intact.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        Sablefish (black cod) is excellent, but very fat — and is sometimes lightly smoked before cooking. There are vast numbers near here but unfortunately the best fishing is depths are 600 feet or more, not easy to reach with either sport gear or a subsistence groundline. I’m amazed the price our local fishermen are getting these days for both sablefish and halibut. Part of it is that the competition in the rest of the world has been over-fishing for years and inevitably falling out of the market. Atlantic halibut were wiped out so long ago almost nobody can remember them in commercial abundance. Sablefish compete directly on the market with Patagonian toothfish as well as Antarctic toothfish, also very deep, long-lived delicious fat fish. There was somewhat of a multi-national gold rush for them in the Southern Ocean that put a hurt on our sablefish market for several years, but the toothfish stocks are getting down to the dregs now, approaching commercial extinction in many places. If you can avoid going down that path and remain the last one standing with strict conservation, you can have both abundant fish and a terrific price. Halibut fishermen in Southeast just took another 47% quota reduction this year that Halibut Commission scientists recommended and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council passed to get well ahead of the curve, on top of about 5 sequential years of catch quota decreases since the last peak. There are lots of smaller fish but their growth and recruitment rate into the fishery has slowed. Lots of people are hurting, especially those who took loans to buy quota-share recently, but I haven’t heard anyone argue it shouldn’t be done — in the long-term that culture is exactly what makes those quota shares a great investment.

      • Elk275 says:


        Is the halibut daily limit 1 or 2 fish in your area? Do you know what the limit is in Homer or Seward. I love halibut and was thinking of going to Alaska in the end of August halibut fishing.

        There are boats in Homer that fish at night so one can catch a daily limit before midnight and then catch a second limit after midnight. I would like to fish two different nights and be able to catch eight halibut, hopefully over two hundred pounds worth, enough for one year.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        Elk 275 —
        Guided sport fishing in Southeast for halibut is very restrictive this year — one fish under 37″ — in order to keep the charter fishery (which has expanded in size as quotas have decreased) from continuing to expand into the commercial share.

        There has also been a reduction in quota in Area 3A which includes Homer and Seward, but not as much as here. From what I can tell it looks like the daily limit there for guided sport fishing there is still 2 halibut any size, but it would pay to call a charter operator before actually making travel arrangements.

        Good luck! I love halibut — cooked up some last night using a popular recipe that probably negates some of the benefits of eating fish. The halibut is baked after laying it on a bed of sliced onions and covering with mayonaise, sour cream, marinated artichoke hearts, dill weed and parmesan cheese.

      • Elk275 says:


        I was in Costco several hours ago and halibut is $17.99 a pound; I love halibut. I just got off of the phone to Homer and talked with a charter company that does double limit all night trips, they said the limit was 2 fish per day. I said, “what about this one fish under 37 inches”, He said “I forgot about that” but he did not know what is going on and directed me to the Alaskan Fisheries web site. Isn’t that great, the charter boat company does not know WTF the rules are.

        I have fished halibut since the 70’s out of Homer and the rules for everything are getting tighter year by year. No more shrimp from the docks and no crab pots off of the spit during low tides. This is what 7 billion people are doing to the world, I am glad that in 30 years, I’ll be gone. By then one will have to enter a lottery for there one halibut per year. After that they will have to accumulate annual bonus points to draw their permit.

      • Daniel Berg says:

        I appreciate the recipes people post on this site from time to time. Many of them are saved in Word for future use. I recently had salmon that was cooked using a combination of mayonaise, onions, and other spices; it was delicious. Halibut is always a go to fish for me when working long hours. For halibut, I make a large batch of herb butter using parsely, chervil, chives, garlic, lemon, salt, pepper, and cayenne. I then freeze it for multiple meals. Herb butters are great because you can mix and match ingredients. I’ve also tried thyme, sage, cilantro, and chili flakes with success. Ha! I never thought I would enjoy cooking until I was older.

      • Daniel Berg says:

        I did some reading on the Atlantic Halibut out of curiosity. So many stories of fish populations collapsing in this way. I wonder how many of the remaining population perish as by-catch. In almost every case there is extreme resistance by fisherman against limiting take from obviously declining fisheries. Out of desperation, over-bloated fishing fleets can’t help but to cut their own throats over the long-term.

        I’ve read that worldwide, fishing fleets are on average around 20% larger than the fisheries they frequent can sustain.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        Over-capitalization has been a big problem in fishing. Alaskan fisheries, whether state or federally managed, have tended to be some of the most successfully managed in the world. A big reason they went in that direction was the practical bloodless revolution in pushing through statehood in the late 1950s that completely cleared the decks of the big corporate owned and controlled salmon industry, that naturally fought hard against statehood and was long-hated by the local indentured serfs. It was replaced with an owner-operated small boat fishery and new conservation-focused managers at a time when stocks were very low. Ironically, it’s the “long civilized” eastern U.S. that has clung to wild-west unlimited open-access-by-all fisheries, and the New England Fishery Management Council has catered to that. Only the lobster fishery, amazingly, has stood up to it — limited to some extent through social strife, including cutting trap buoy lines and occasionally gunfire.

        About 20 years ago, the halibut fishery here went from a brief, dangerous derby-style, open-to-all affair that landed all the product in a very short period — to transferable quota shares. The brief annual wide-open fishery was inefficient and halibut was only available fresh to consumers for a few days, unlike around 11 months now. Quality and price have gone way up and fishing accidents down because fishermen can chose when to fish based on market and sea conditions. However, when it became limited, participants wanted to make sure it remained a small boat fishery that many small participants could continue doing in combination with other fisheries, mainly salmon, rather than everything eventually being consolidated among a few well-off professional halibut long-liners. So the annual quota shares were mostly issued in blocks of different sizes that cannot be consolidated with other blocks. One fisherman can only own up to two blocks and nobody can hold more than 1% if the total quota share in any management area. Shares were also issued with different vessel length restrictions including some shares that can’t be fished from a vessel over 35’ in length. Finally, not just anybody can legally buy halibut quota share — you have to be a real fisherman, able to document at least 150 days harvesting fish. That keeps the deep outside pockets and hobbyists out and the price of quota share down enough that someone buying it can on average earn a good annual rate of return on the investment, generally superior after fishing costs to most financial investments.

        Most of our fisheries are oriented toward smaller owner-fishers, with the permit holder required to be on the vessel and some fisheries limited by vessel length — for example purse seiner 58 feet, Bristol Bay gillnetter 32 feet. In British Columbia, fishing companies and wealthy investors with an interest in fisheries can own multiple permits and vessels, with the effect being very high market prices for permits. When they went to buy out much of their salmon fleet around 1999, the Canadian government had to pay very high prices of for example $300-400 thousand for a salmon seine permit when they were going for only $58 thousand in Southeast Alaska with higher earning potential here.

      • DoryFun says:

        SEAK, Daniel Berg,

        Thanks for those halibut recipes. I saved it in my potential menu ideas folder, after first reading SEAKS, then discovered Daneil had mentioned the same. Both sound great.

        Also, SEAK, are you a commercial fisherman or fisheries biologist? You are quite knowledgable in this area, interesting comments, enjoyed. Just curious.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        DoryFun –
        I’ve beem fisheries biologist for just over 30 years. Work with salmon, but am interested in everything marine and freshwater. I do know a lot of fishermen and my son works summers as a deck hand on a salmon gillnetter. Both are excellent careers in this area.

  75. Daniel Berg says:

    Not sure if someone posted this already:

    “Grizzly Severely Mauls Alaska Bear Hunter”

    It’s amazing that they can take some who is in critical condition and fly them from Nome to Seattle.

    • timz says:

      Bear apparently didn’t like being chased by a snowmobile.

      • william huard says:

        Gee whizz, and it looks like they got their bear- how sporting! The old self defense by snowmobile

  76. wolfsong says:

    So, do we need wolves in Colorado or is this a good way to control the Elk population in Rocky Mountain NP? They’ve found that just like in Yellowstone sharp shooting isn’t working, the Elk are decimating everything in sight.

  77. jon says:

    Just found out Carter has won 2 book awards for his book wolfer. Way to go Carter. Here is another review of Carter’s book.

    Might have been posted already on here.

  78. jon says:

    Minnesota ranchers are no different than ranchers in ID, MT, WY, etc. The anti-predator attitude is very much real in places like Minnesota.

  79. JB says:

    Red Alert! Wolves invade Akron, Ohio!

    I got a kick out of this:

  80. Salle says:

    Sounding the alarm for America’s rivers: The most endangered for 2011

    • PointsWest says:

      The Teton River was on the list last year because of a study to potentially rebuild the Teton Dam. However, as the study has progressed, my Teton Lake idea, an off-stream reservior, is the most favored alternative and a rebuild of the Teton Dam is way down on the list of alternatives. So the Teton River is not on the list this year.

      Maybe I saved the Teton River. We’ll see.

      • Daniel Berg says:

        I watched the demo you put together. I was amazed that there were so few landowners affected by that alternative (as described by you in prior posts).

        What do you put the chances at that Teton Lake proposal will become a reality?

      • PointsWest says:

        I’m almost certain what I call ‘Teton Lake’ will be built in some form. It is only a matter of when. Here is a link to the latest news story on the Henry’s Fork Special Study where the reporter writes a rebuild of the Teton Dam is unlikely and that the my Teton Lake(s) concept is I am almost certain what I call Teton Lake will be built. It is only a matter of when. Here is a link to the latest news story on the Henry’s Fork Special Study where the reporter states a rebuild of the Teton Dam is very unlikely and that the alternative at the top of the list is my Teton Lake(s) concept…

        The Teton Lake concept is not really similar to Lane Lake as the reporter states. Teton Lake would include the same basin as Lane Lake plus another larger basin and the two would be connected into one large reservoir…almost three times the volumn as Lane Lake.

        I think Idaho needs the water but I am hearing many are worrying about money. Idaho may not have the money to push a project like this through. My concept would produce a lot of hydropower, however, and may nearly pay for itself. There is also the option to build a pumped storage facility that would also provide revenue. I think it would be a money maker and not really “cost” anything.

        Here is a PowerPoint presentation is did years ago. Much of will not make sense without my narration but the area’s geology is Huckleberry Ridge Tuff which would be very economical to tunnel in. With tunnels, you could have low impact diversions and a nice pumped storage facility and other things that may not be economical in other geology.

        There are several renderings on what I proposed for diversions and for alternates in this ppt file…

        But I think something like a Teton Lake will eventually be built. The Henry’s Fork basin is under-stored. They have been trying to build reservoirs on Fall River and on the Teton since 1912 and have never been able to pull it off. I think we are likely to get a flood in Rexburg soon…maybe even this year. Rexburg has really been growing with many developments in the Teton’s flood plain. This Teton Lake could be used for flood control since it might divert water from Bitch Creek (major tributary to Teton), from the main Teton, and the pumped storage facility could pump floodwater to the upper reservoir in a flooding event. The lower reservoir could contain some floodwater also. So Eastern Idaho could finally have its cake and eat it too.

      • PointsWest says:

        If there are any Yellowstone geology buffs reading this, you might be interested to know that the reason Hog Hollow is such a good site to store water is because it the fourth-in-line Yellowstone caldera that predates the Yellowstone, the Island Park, and Henry’s Fork calderas. I have several Google images of it in the ppt linked above if you’d like to see. Also, I discovered a previously unknown large crater or vent inside of Hog Hollow Caldera. I registered the name as Hog Hollow Crater with the USGS and informed geologists at BYU-Idaho and at the USGS of it. They confirmed it is a volcanic vent.

        Hog Hollow Crater is a vent to a resurgent shield volcano, and the reason there are so many good like sites at Hog Hollow is because there are the depressions there resulting from the caldera’s collapse 8 million years ago.

        It is interesting since, of all of Yellowstone’s world record calderas, only the Henry’s Fork and this one are plainly visible. This Hog Hollow caldera was theorized to be a caldera by Dr. Glenn Embree in the 80’s but then he changed his mind that it was a slide. However, he did not know about the crater that I discovered and did not know the full extent of the depression and how nearly circular it is. I discovered this when I spotted and mapped out the lake site. The crater is a shield volcano vent from resurgent volcanism subsequent to the caldera forming eruption and is strong evidence that Hog Hollow is a caldera. Embree still thinks it’s a slide but I think the consensus has grown against him. It is just a matter of time. It is a long story. I went round and round with this for a year or so and have some very good geologists on my side but Embree is very senior and no one is going to openly refute him.

        Take my word for it. Hog Hollow is a caldera. It will eventually come out in the scientific journals.

  81. Salle says:

    Canyon could be closed ‘long time’

  82. Peter Kiermeir says:

    There is no better place for a power plant.,0,1829382.story

  83. NotafanofWW2 says:

    Happy Mt. St. Helens Day everyone!

  84. Yellowstone bison under discussion in Bozeman today and tomorrow

  85. Salle says:

    Fish and Game authorizes deputies to kill wolves

  86. Salle says:

    Proposal to plow highway to Cooke City to get Friday discussion

  87. Salle says:

    Megaload trial Day Two: Imperial says delays affecting work

  88. Salle says:

    Shooting Vs. Birth Control to Keep Elk in Check at Rocky Mountain National Park
    “The voracious ungulates have taken a huge toll on their habitat inside the park, and no wonder: The optimum population is between 600 and 800. Between 1997 and 2001, there were 2,800 and 3,500 elk within the boundaries. What to do?”

    Get wolves.

  89. Peter Kiermeir says:

    One of the most worn out scenarios used by the notorious wolf hating league all over the globe has finally come true in Clinton, Md. You know which one I mean? It´s the one playing at the bus stop, deep in New Mexico, oh, no, it actually was a bus stop in remote eastern Germany. But , oooops, no wolf but a dog! (Don´t misunderstand me, of course I feel sorry for the kids, but every time I read “bus stop” something is triggered)

  90. Evan says:

    Large grizzly bear killed by vehicle near Lake Louise. Looks like excessive speed of vehicle contributed.

  91. DoryFun says:

    Attention: anyone who may have wished to travel to the Riggins area for the Salmon Ceremony this Saturday: May 21st, a last minute snafu has changed that date to May 28th. Sorry for any inconvenience to anyone.

  92. SEAK Mossback says:

    We’re experiencing very large hooligan migrations in this area this spring:

  93. NotafanofWW2 says:

    Wolves are very intelligent people!

  94. wolf moderate says:

    I read “wolves at our door” due to the many recommendations by many on this site. As I began reading it, my stomach started to turn as they named the wolves. This is on par with radio collars in my book. Jim then goes on to explain that they never used the names while the actual wolves were present. Damn, can’t hate him for that!

    Then they started talking about how they wanted to view wolvves in there natural environment, though he throws them into a 25 acre pin. Well, he goes on to explain his reasoning for this and it made sense to me. Damn can’t hate him for this either!

    Then, the book goes into detail about how he met his 3rd wife and I truly enjoyed that aspect of the book. Damn, can’t hate them for that either.

    Basically, it was a great book, which was surprising. I wish they wouldn’t have gotten so intimate with the wolves but who am I to judge?

    I snowshoed into Bear Valley last weekend and read the book during the evening time. I checked the book out from the public library because I did not want to support “wolf lovers” monetarily…But since Jim was burned by WERC and seemed to slam them a bit, I’m going to buy the book anyhow. He also seems very open minded and not a complete loon in regards to hunting and wolf management. Didn’t see any wolves or elk at Bruce Meadows, but then again there was still 3 feet of snow! Dang global warming 🙂

    • DoryFun says:

      wolf moderate,

      I haven’t read the book, but was curious, how was Jim burned by WERC? What was the slam?

      • wolf moderate says:

        Hey Doryfun,

        Jim was the founder of the non-profit WERC. Jim was basically voted off the island. He wanted to keep the wolves at his Sawtooth location until the Nez Perce location was built to his specifications. Well, WERC decided to sue (Go figure…) Jim for custody of the wolves, even though WERC didn’t have an adequate area for the wolf pack! Also, Jim’s vision was for WERC to not become involved politically, but they quickly became politcal anyway.

        Anyhow, the “bashing” is quite subtle…Just read the book and you will pick up on it. He also bashes some of the volunteers. One of the volunteers was a punk and slandered Jim and his project, saying that Jim was going to euthanize the entire pack. Well, that’s not what Jim was trying to get across, but the punk ran with it anyhow.

        Basically, I am a Wolf Moderate and the book pretty much summed up why I do not particularly like “wolf lovers”. Jim is a moderate, or at least that is how he came off. Also, I learned much about how a pack is actually a close family. Hunting could possibly affect the pack in a negative way, which I hadn’t thought about. My suggestion is to take out entire packs instead of hunting. Taking out one of the wolf pack’s family members is akin to killing your brother or sister…Maybe hunting wolves is not the best method of controlling the population. I am thinking that taking out entire packs is the more compassionate way to go about managing wolves…Not unlike buffalo Bob’s thought processes.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      ……I did not want to support “wolf lovers” monetarily…….That´s funny, really!
      I do not shy away from buying wolf hater books from some US authors. Ok, you can´t borrow then in public libraries here in Europe anyway but, why not read about their opinion and point of view (the view of the enemy – Ha!!)? I sometimes even visit wolf hater areas in the US and spend my tourist money there. Been to the wolf hater hotspots Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico already and accept that maybe I fed a wolf hater occasionally.

      • wolf moderate says:

        I am glad you liked the “wolf lovers” and support comment 🙂

        I watch Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnel, and Rachael Madcow at least a few days a week, because I like to get an idea of what the “otherside” is up to. Usually I feel dirty and violated afterwards and at the same time I absolutely hate watching MSNBC, knowing that I am contributing to there ratings. Perhaps I am nuts but I do not like “monetarily” supporting things that I do not agree with. While watching the liberal propoganda, I always change the channel during commercials, because I do not want to support the network….Though I understand that it doesn’t really matter.

        Before you write me off as a right winger, know that I support gay marriage and I am Pro Choice. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

      • IDhiker says:

        Wolf Moderate,

        Your comments are contradictory. First you bash liberals (“liberal propaganda, hate MSNBC”) then you state you are “socially liberal.” Clearly, MSNBC is the most liberal news channel supporting your socially liberal ideas, but that you feel “dirty and violated” and “hate” watching MSNBC at the same time.

        You do say you are “fiscally conservative,” and because you hate the liberal channel, you obviously value the importance of fiscal issues (money) over social issues (freedom of choice, gay marriage). Perhaps that is why you hate liberals?

        Personally, in my opinion, you are a “right-winger,” a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

      • wolf moderate says:

        That’s a good point hiker. I DO put fiscal issues over social issues.

        The military budget needs to be slashed by 50% or more, we need to pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya-And S Korea, Germany, Guam etc…We can’t afford all of this spending and so long as we continue these operatons overseas coupled with the incredible expense from “entitlement spending” we are doomed to failure.

        People on unemployment for 2 YEARS! What the hell. Get these lazy people to work. If they want there unemployment checks, they should have to work 4 hours a day/5 days a week cleaning up our cities (the other 4 hours can be spent looking for work). This country is beginning to look like a 3rd world country. You want welfare? Fine, take a drug test! If you have a felony there is no welfare. Also you don’t get paid more if you have kids. Have the kids adopted if you can’t afford them. It would be better off for the parent and the child.

        Sorry, these are my views and they do not align at all w/ MSNBC. Also, I hate Hannity and Levin. I like Limbaugh just because he’s funny, though I do not agree with many of his positions.

      • IDhiker says:

        Wolf Mod,

        I’ll have to say that I personally agree with much of what you just said, such as bringing our troops home from around the world, military spending, and unemployment – welfare loafers. I also hate Hannity, and will listen to Limbaugh (if I’m driving someplace) and have nothing else to do. He is entertaining, but, like you, I disagree with him much (most) of the time.

    • Nancy says:

      Haven’t read the book Wolf Mod but I do have the video Wolves At Our Door. Enjoyed it. The wolves may have been “captive” so to speak but the documentary I believe was being filmed about the time Yellowstone was preparing for their first wolves to arrive and a better understanding of wolves, their habits etc. was needed.

      I seem to recall they visited the wolves at their new location after a year or two and were immediately accepted again like long lost pack members.

  95. Salle says:

    Vision: Nature Needs Rights — Why Our Human-Centric
    What I’ve been saying for years but have been continuously ignored…
    Model Will Doom Us and the Rest of the Planet
    We have built our economic and development policies based on a human-centric model and assumed that nature would never fail to provide or that technology would save us.–_why_our_human-centric_model_will_doom_us_and_the_rest_of_the_planet/

  96. Mtn Mama says:

    What to do about the missing wolves in Rocky Mountain National Park

  97. jon says:

    Was sent a link to this interesting video

    Safari club international conservation fraud

  98. JB says:

    Starting on Earth Day, the USFWS began publishing a series of stories about how climate change is impacting wildlife in each of the 50 states. I thought some here might be interested:

  99. wolf moderate says:

    What in the hell! What is wrong with requiring an ID for Wisconsin voters? LoL! This country is going to hell in a hurry….Luckily I have no kids and I am near the mountains.

    Good luck bunny huggers!

    • Phil says:

      And, there you go again attacking all that are different then you wolf moderate. I have tried to respect you as much as I can, but you continue to show a true character of one sided and bias. I agree that ID should be required for voting, but to attack environmentalists, animal rights advocates, etc by using the term “bunny huggers” shot out by anti-environmentalists as an insult does not generate any credentials to anything you say for your causes.

      • wolf moderate says:

        Phil, you are so sensitive. “bunny hugger” is on par with “bible thumper”. It’s just a funny way of illustrating a point.. Good luck in your endeavors my friend!

      • william huard says:

        At a time when gas is 4.00 a gallon Cantor is making speeches at an oil derivative company meeting thanking them for this speculation induced 100.00 a barrel oil price.

    • william huard says:

      Wolf Moderate=
      You are right about one thing. “This country is going to hell in a hurry”. You know that Wisconsin has pursued the voter ID law to suppress the votes of people that will probably not vote for Republicans- and cost taxpayers 7 million dollars to do it. The most dangerous thing about this sweeping Republican overreach of 2011 is how a party can put their narrow ideology over the governimg of all the people. Republicans are alienating everyone but their right wing base and will pay the price at the polls in 2012! They have no clue how to govern

      • wolf moderate says:

        I understand that the Republicans are doing this to reduce the Democratic voter pool, but it still makes sense. Why don’t these supposed poor have ID’s? Maybe because they are illegal aliens or felons? We will never know if voters are allowed to cast ballots without proper identification.

        Also, I agree with Michael Savage when he says “if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t vote”. The reasoning is that 50%+ of the US doesn’t pay tax. Once a large enough segment of society represents a large enough voting block, they will be able to vote themselves benefits. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. If you don’t pay pay tax, you don’t vote! Not sure what to do about upstanding senior citizens who are retired though. Maybe allowing them to vote will be Ok. I’ll have to run this by my campaign manager first. :*)

      • william huard says:

        Watch the news documentary “Stealing America Vote by Vote”. The Republicans probably stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections but don’t take my word for it, watch the documentary and make up your own mind. I was stunned the first time I saw it.

    • Phil says:

      wolf moderate: Coming from a hunter I would not call that being sensitive.

  100. Phil says:

    I would say that if this country goes to hell, it would be for other reasons then the animal rights advocates because of their (our) belief system. This country would go to hell by individuals who kill for fun (whether it be animals or humans) well before just about anything animal rights advocates do.

    • Salle says:

      Besides, according to some of the christians, the world is going to end tomorrow sometime so why worry?

  101. Immer Treue says:

    New West

    Wolf Hunting: Popular Misconceptions and Responses

  102. NotafanofWW2 says:

    Blame it on the “Wolves”, I guess. They blame everything else on the poor critters.

  103. NotafanofWW2 says:

    This is so cool. This is what my grandmother on the coast used to tell us (my siblings and me) when we were little. We always loved going to “Potlatch” and Salmon Bake, and the canoe races in Skokomish. Makes me proud of my native heritage.

  104. NotafanofWW2 says:

    Wolves are my ancestor’s creators! This must be why I love them so much.

  105. jon says:–wildlife-trapping_3815459

    Let’s hope this becomes a reality. Ban wildlife trapping on public lands!!!

  106. NotafanofWW2 says:

    This is really horrible. Guess who else enjoyed watching animals die? Ted Bundy.

    • william huard says:

      Ted Bundy at least was articulate- Remington- not so much. Nice pretty white hat though. Speaking as a guitar player he can’t play worth shit either

      • NotafanofWW2 says:

        He reminds me of that shemale in Silence of the Lambs. I bet he farts rainbows and rides a unicorn, too.

      • william huard says:

        You shouldn’t disrespect shemales like that

  107. Salle says:

    Wolf Hunting–Popular Misconceptions and Response

    By George Wuerthner, 5-20-11

  108. jon says:

    Idaho hunters want year-round wolf season

    LEWISTON, Idaho — “Angry hunters pressed the Idaho Fish and Game Commission Wednesday to act boldly and swiftly to reduce the state’s wolf population to the minimum allowed by law.

    They called for year-round wolf hunting seasons, trapping, allowing the use of electronic calls and the classification of wolves as predators. Some scolded the commission and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game for not doing enough to kill wolves in the brief time they have been under state management.”

    Brett Haverstick, also of Friends of the Clearwater, chastised those who say they live in fear of wolves and suggested they should move to urban areas like Boise or Salt Lake City. He also urged the commission to not bend to pressure from a “lunatic fringe minority.

    Does this shock anyone?

  109. jon says:

    New York State Museum Scientist, Dr. Roland Kays, Co-Authors Study on Wolves, Coyotes

  110. Salle says:

    Not exactly wildlife but…

    Horse herpes outbreak in West grows to 33 cases

  111. Cody Coyote says:

    Here, I believe, is a classic case of ” Rancher Math ” at work in accounting for livestock lost to Wolves.

    First , the reference article entitled “Wolves killing fewer cattle in Wyoming than in Montana, Idaho “, in today’s Billings Gazette but also on the wires elsewhere:

    As usual, I will only address the Wyoming component. This article cites USDA as claiming 74 adult cows and a whopping 511 calves were killed in Wyoming by wolves last year . HOWEVER—the US Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 Wolf Recovery Annual Report for 2010 has wildly lower verified depredation numbers, Page 12, where they tabulate only 7 adult cows and 19 calves in all of Wyoming lost to wolves last year.

    The USDA numbers are 10.5 X and 26.8 X higher, respectively. That cannot be due to a statistical error. Them’s several orders of magnitude… 1050 percent and 2600 percent different ?

    I immediately thought of some passages I’d seen quoted from Carter Niemeyer’s ” Wolfer” book about his expxeriences as government wolf trapper and wolf wrangler/investigator. Niemeyer cited many cases where he was called to a cattle kill and was expected to pronounce it as a wolf kill and sign off on it, except it wasn’t done by wolves at all. Of course the rancher and the Stockgrower’s Association , et al, would not take no for an answer. Niemeyer said he was under extreme pressure to certify losses as being wolf-caused, even when they weren’t. The livestock hegemony demanded a body count.

    Maybe both the USFWS tally is low and the USDA tally cited in this article is high. I’m still gonna believe that Fish and Wildlife’s numbers are probably closer to the ground truth, given what we all know about Rancher Math.

    The disparity is so severe that some serious investigative reporting is now in order.

    Discussion ?

    • JB says:

      I believe these are based upon USDA surveys of livestock producers? If so, they reflect what livestock producers think are being taken by wolves.

  112. Cody,

    You are absolutely right. There needs to be an investigation. If you look at their figures for other states, you will find a similar wild discrepancy between the USFWS count and the USDA count. No explanation is given, but the USDA count is the one the livestock organizations use. No description of how USDA gets its number is ever given.

    • william huard says:

      Remember the sniveling ranchers whined and whined that the USFWS wasn’t addressing their needs when the USFWS oversaw the livestock industry. I’m sure the depredation issue was one of the primary reasons the USDA handles this now. I would love to find out who in the USDA rubberstamps these bogus and false reports about wolves. Just another reason reason to hate the modern day rancher

    • Nancy says:

      Cody, Ralph, Maybe the USDA is taking into account livestock losses from those ranchers that have been run out of business by those pesky wolves 🙂

      I posted that article because there is a HUGE difference between the losses on the MFWP site for 2010 compared to the USDA figures. And this past winter was especially light given the wolf packs around.
      An investigation is needed but who’s qualified to do without appearing too biased in one direction or the other? Every depredation out there anymore seems to be a possible wolf kill…….

  113. william huard says:

    Two books that I read, Slaughter the Animals, Poison the Earth, and Incident at Eagle Ranch, both written in the 70’s, both explored the almost psychotic, paranoia of the rancher. One part o