This replaces the 33rd edition.

Badger, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT © Ken Cole

Badger, Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, MT © Ken Cole

About The Author

Ken Cole

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

511 Responses to Have you come across any interesting wildlife news? September 26, 2011

  1. Guepardo Lento says:

    Oregon set to “remove” 2 wolves from the Imnaha pack due to livestock depredations.

    • I wish I had confidence that ODFW even knows how to tell the difference between feeding on and killing. Removing the alpha male seems like a very dangerous move to make. . that is like getting rid of a bad neighbor only to have them rent out their house to a group of people who are not in the least interested or invested in your neighborhood.

  2. Ken that is an incredible badger picture. . thanks!

  3. Immer Treue says:

    A truly amazing place if one wants to see/observe black bears in MN. Bottom line, a guy just got tired of killing bears for doing what bears do, looking for food and breaking into cabin in the process, so he created a sanctuary where bears are fed.

    The one time i was there, the 40 or so bears present on the site (yes you could see them all, with workers walking amongst and meting out food to all the bears) was the question if this made the bears more prone to baiting.

  4. Mike says:

    Yeah, great job on the badger photo.

  5. Scott MacButch says:

    Bob Hayes book “Wolves of The Yukon” is a very good read. I picked it up in Whitehorse last summer en-route to a float on the Tatshenshini-Alsek river. He was a wolf biologist for over 20 years in the Yukon. He kinda reminds me of Carter Niemeyer type. Lots of interesting insight on packs that only target Dall Sheep (Kluane area) and the tactics they employ, also cool that the packs that follow the caribou herds above Old Crow are not territorial at all, they actually tolerate other wolf packs in the area (course they are almost constantly on the move). In the end he believes aerial hunting of predators is a mistake, and that with some exceptions wolves in the Yukon at least, require little if any management.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      Scott —
      I just finished it and thought it was good too. I am always looking for an informed perspective on predator control that bears on similar issues in Alaska. In saying that wolf management is not required, he is certainly not saying wolves aren’t a huge effect on caribou and particularly moose populations — I would definitely not want to be a Yukon moose after reading this book. His opposition seems a mix of practicality (predator control is costly and effects on prey were completely gone in about 10 years in his studies) and philosophy about trying game ranch northern wilderness, which I largely share but find less useful in coming to an opinion that I can debate with people who tend to be more optimistic about humans in the role of tending nature’s garden in the agricultural sense, rather than just accepting what it provides. I tend to agree with him that where control makes most sense in the north it is right around communities like Fairbanks and Whitehorse where there is already a lot of potential hunting/trapping effort and where usefulness of having a greater moose density is higher — he points to exclusive trapping areas in Canada as being an impediment to limiting wolves near Whitehorse. As far as the rest of the interior, I am tending to agree more and more. I have a couple of friends in Whitehorse who always seem to get a moose canoeing near the road, using years of knowledge, and all of several people I know who have gone north from here to interior Alaska this fall (similar to last fall) have done well and reported plenty of moose. Some of those went to high density areas with fewer grizzly bears and heavy wolf trapping just north out of Fairbanks while others hunted much less populated areas in the east where moose are held to low densities by both wolves and bears without any effective predator control. The lower density areas have fewer moose but also fewer hunters. Most of these folks who traveled up from here to hunt were at a substantial disadvantage from not having a lot of local knowledge and contacts, and still did very well. There certainly are those who believe that more moose are needed to increase success enough to involve more people in moose hunting, and build an increasing constituency that (for one thing) will help counter some of the folks who post here. However, while I think it is good to have a few areas that can support intensive hunting, I agree with Bob Hayes that when quality is good as it appears to be in much of interior Alaska, why change the objective to quantity? Once you get more and more people hooked on quantity, relatively easy hunting, you are stuck trying to continually support it when the predator-prey cycle settles back to its natural low equilibrium state.

      I really enjoyed the section on ravens but was not too surprised how fast they can make meat disappear, having seen it many times, watching a big pile of deer fat I put on the beach evaporate in minutes. Certainly, where smaller wolf packs and adult moose are involved they are consuming more than the wolves.

      • Immer Treue says:

        I also thought his piece on ravens was interesting. I’ve seen moose and deer picked almost as clean by ravens in the Winter, as by beetles. Also, the need to kill almost as often by two wolves, as a large pack due to raven’s consuming so much of the carcass.

        • Scott MacButch says:

          I thought his comments on the evolution of wolves in the Yukon was amazing and he even doubted the out come, but it is pretty hard to argue with the DNA results.
          I guess the current thinking was, since the caribou (and moose, musk ox up north, etc) never became extinct at the end of the Pleistocene there was plenty of prey for wolves, and wolves survived the mega fauna die off (not talking about Dire Wolf here).

          Very recent DNA samples taken from a wolf that died at the end of the Pleistocene had no DNA in common with wolves now living in the Yukon or down south, though physically they were the same except having one more molar and tiny bit wider skull. The current thinking seems to be that the Yukon wolves were much more of a scavenger, almost like a wolverine, letting the American Lion & Scimitar cat due the heavy lifting, bringing down the big stuff (Wooly Mammoths, etc).

          What was really surprising was the fact that the Yukon wolves today have the same DNA as wolves currently living down south, which lead the researchers to believe when these scavenging wolves died off, wolves from down south quickly took their place and occupied their niche – kinda puts the hurt on Ron Gillette’s argument that Idaho wolves are “super” wolves, brought down from Canada.

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          There is a huge amount of offtake of food from a carcass by scavengers. Larger wolf packs or those that specialize most in deer, rather than elk, minimize this.

          One conclusion is that the large wolf packs of Yellowstone Park make more efficient use of their kills than the shotup, government controlled wolf packs of 3-5 animals state and USDA-Wildlife Service policies have created in much of Idaho and Montana.

  6. Mike says:

    Montana FWP relocates oprhaned grizz cub from Freezeout Lake:

    Gee, I wonder what happened to the mother. The grizz fed on carp. Nice pic in the article.

  7. CodyCoyote says:

    What an amazing story. A woman wrangler drives her 1-ton Percheron quarter horse in between a charging grizzly bear and a boy thrown from his horse on a trail ride…three times…to save the boy and the horse.
    The bear had been chasing a whitetail deer that bolted out of the brush and slammed into the horse. Then the bear came after the horse for dinner instead.

    The woman and the horse certainly have a steely resolve.

    • Harley says:

      Beautiful horse and HUGE!

    • I think it is interesting that everyone decided the bear charged the horse as an alternate dinner when there is no way to know that. . think of this from the bear’s point of view . . you are chasing dinner or maybe just running the same was a a deer from other threat . . again that was an assumption, and you run into a group of horses and people. This would be very very scary to a bear, even an adult male grizzly and his reaction would be to charge and charge again in self defense but it wouldn’t necessarily mean he wanted to eat a horse! That was an assumption. We are really bad at understanding things from animal points of view. The woman out charged the bear in self defense. . cool. Very cool story but I wish people wouldn’t put their motives on the situation when they really don’t know.

      I have lots of experience with pepper spray compared to most people. You could spray it from a horse if the horse could handle the hissing noise. You would have to hang on though as no matter what is going on when you spray pepper spray things change right afterwards. There is also a big difference in a fresh can and an old one. They should be replaced every year although I don’t do that. An old can has about half the stinging power to it as far as I can tell. The raccoon I sprayed this year has never been back and I used a two year old can. When you get pepper spray on you. . don’t wash it with water! Water reactivates the stuff . .let it dry and use vinegar to get it off. How do I know this? because I had a can blow up in my car on a 100 degree day and I had to call the manufacturer.

      • Mike says:

        Interesting comments about our ability to know what an animal is thinking. We really don’t know.

        And that sucks about the bear spray. I keep mine in a ziplock bag in the trunk, out of sunlight for the reason you described.

      • Last fall in the Tetons, a group of people had been out in the mud around a small reservoir making plaster casts of grizzly and wolf tracks. One of the group was showing me the casts while a couple was getting into the vehicle. The woman was fiddling with her bear spray and it shot into the car where her husband had just seated himself. He was totally overcome and in a great deal of pain. We laid him on his back and poured a couple of canteens of water on his face and eyes which seemed to really help him. He was eventually able to see and the group drove off.

  8. Mike says:

    Wait a second…why did the group not have bear spray? The article says they now “vow to have spray on their belts to protect their guests for breaks on the ground”.

    I like the story, great horse and brave woman. I hope that spray part was incorrect. This is a business that is in the woods everyday.

    • Elk275 says:


      What would happen if one sprayed a bear on horse back and the spray drifted into the nose and eyes of the horse? This is a good question. I am going to E-mail “Smoke” Elser in Missoula and ask him about bear spray and horses. I do not think that one should ever use bear spray when mounted on horse back. It is something to think about.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        I agree pepper spray can cut both ways. I have no experience other than carrying it, but a woman I work with has tried it twice. Once was on Chichagof when a brown bear was on the porch of the wall tent — she thought it was a great opportunity to test it out first hand and tried to deploy it in the dark through a cracked open door without a light to alert the bear. She was very impressed with the results, on herself at least as she loosed some in the tent in the dark. . . . the bear apparently got away unscathed. The other time she shot it in a “habituated” (correct term I think, although it was also “food conditioned” to easy fishing at a weir) black bear’s face from a few feet. She said the bear’s immediate reaction was not particularly impressive but it was later seen drinking copious amounts of water. When if first came out, there was research indicating it wasn’t as effective on blacks as browns, apparently because of a difference in their mucous. Anyway, hopefully a fresh, good-sized can of the modern stuff directed effectively would at least repel any bear enough to turn it away. Using it from a horse does sound like offsetting one serious danger with another.

      • Mike says:

        I was referring to situations when they are on the ground.

        • Elk275 says:

          Mike, the incident happened while they were mounted on horse back. The horses bolted and ran back down the trail. An 8 year old boy fell off of his horse landing in some bushes. A 8 year boy on vacation from some distance place is not going to know how to operate pepper spray during a bear encounter. It would be dangerous giving everybody on the trail ride pepper spray, worst than giving everyone a six shooter.

          Human nature the way it is, someone, somewhere, someplace is going to start playing with the bottle and have an accidential discharge. Then an entire string of horses is going ballistics, at least the “flight for life” crew will not be bored that day

          Once again the people were mounted on horse back not on the ground.

          • Nancy says:

            The only time I’ve ever seen pepper spray in action has been in training videos for police depts.
            200+ lb. men (mostly) down on the ground, IN ABSOLUTE AGONY, unable to react to anything going on around them for minutes, if not longer. Guessing its very similiar to a skunk, when it discharges (around that once and I couldn’t catch a breath and wanted to puke at the same time)

            Kenny Rogers said it best:
            You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em,
            Know when to walk away and know when to run.

          • Mike says:

            A bear has the ability to knock a human off a horse, Elk. It has the ability to startle a horse into thick woods, causing branches to knock a person off a horse.

            In this situation a hungry bear was chasing a deer, then decided the horse looked better. I’d rather have an option to defend myself and the group if I or one of them were on the ground. Or, the option to defend one of my horses.

            The moral to the story in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem: ALWAYS carry bear spray.

          • Savebears says:

            The key is, Bear Spray and Pepper spray is two entirely different products, bear spray is formulated completely different than pepper spray, one is regulated, and at anytime can be subject to review and testing, the other has no regulation, you can put black pepper in a can and call it pepper spray..

            The difference is like shooting blanks and shooting shotgun shells, every once in a while your going to hurt someone with a blank or perhaps kill someone, but don’t count on it.

            Linda, I have an extreme amount of experience with bear spray, if your using a EPA registerd bear spray, it is going to maintain strength as well as distance for at least 4 years, that is the current shelf date for all 4 manufactures of bear spray and has been tested and documented.

            Bear spray is NOT pepper spray, only one of the ingredients in bear spray is pepper, there are others.

        • SAP says:

          The active ingredient in bear pepper spray is oleoresin capsicum. If there is some other active ingredient, I am unaware of it. It is virtually the same stuff that law enforcement uses, just at higher concentration of oleoresin capsicum and in a burst pattern rather than a focused stream.

          I would not spray it from the saddle. Nope. We have no way of knowing how a how a horse would react. They could run into a tree, off a cliff, or flip over on you. They are not ATVs. They are going to do SOMETHING when you put that cloud out there, and that something could be worse than what the bear might do.

          I am not surprised that a guest ranch would not have bear spray around their horses. I do carry bear spray in the saddle, and have to constantly monitor where it is and what is going on with it.

          I do not like to have it on my chest while riding because of the potential for hanging it up on something when dismounting under less-than-ideal conditions (in the dark, on a steep trail); nor do I want it on my chest when we start unloading pack animals. I’m not a huge fan of having it on my hip, either.

          So, it’s typically in my right saddle bag, right behind my hip. It sticks out so I can grab it easily. It’s still hazardous there: we have a mule who likes to rub her head on my saddle horse during breaks. She could rub the safety off if I’m not careful.

          If I’m out of the saddle, it’s on my hip.

          • CodyCoyote says:

            Time to haul out my bear spray story and dust it off. I was in wilderness outfitted horse camp with an eclectic party , including an outdoorsy guy who held 400 patents from a long career with the likes of 3M, including inventing heart valves. This was 1987 and bear spray was still proto-innovation and not yet a proven technology. Frank brought along his own invention of a chili spray canister.

            The camp wrangler, an arrogant Texas doofus in any setting, decided he would try it. Do a ” demo” shot. Except he had it pointed towards hisself, not away , when he triggered it. He sprayed hisself and immediately went into extreme writhing mode, clawing his way out of the tent heading for the creek, which he fell into , not being able to see well or at all.

            The humor value cannot be understated. Frank’s bear spray device worked splendidly. Anything that reduces a loudmouth Texan to a flattened pile of wiggling protoplasm drowning itself in an ice cold creek all the while bellering, is a useful appliance.

            I was shooting product video on that trip. I should’ve made a training film on how NOT to dispense bear spray, but I could not get Texas Bill to do another setup and take. He was dumb, not totally stupid.

            P.S. Water really does not abate misapplied capsicum very much at all. Can make it worse, actually

    • I hope your “great” was irony. Nothing like putting in more roads and access to encourage border problems. If it is easy for law enforcement to get there . . guess what.

    • Nancy says:

      +That’s nonsensical and dangerous. At the end of the day, I never want to have to tell a Montana family that their loved one was killed by someone on drugs that got into our state because some federal bureaucrats couldn’t work together to control the border.”+

      You’ve got to be kidding me!!

      Drugs are alive and well in Montana and have been for years. Creating a police state in the middle of wilderness areas is not and never will be the answer to solving the problem of addiction.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        They are just mindlessly rattling the chains of fear they have used to bind use. The Canadian border, yes such a huge menace we ought build a wall!

        • SEAK Mossback says:

          They would have to build it across the middle of Lake of the Woods. Anybody can drive a boat from a vast shoreline with secluded road access on the Canadian side to a similar vast shoreline on the US side. Same is probably true of the Great Lakes. Yes, there is some trafficing — probably has been for many decades, mostly in things like cigarettes that are more heavily taxed in Canada.

    • wolf moderate says:

      One word-Drones. If they feel they need to monitor the border with that evil northern country above us, then use drones. Why do they need roads? What, they are going to pay some Federal Employee to drive back and forth? Gotta love Homeland INsecurity.

  9. SEAK Mossback says:

    Swede cuts drunken moose loose . . . .

  10. Paul says:

    Letter to editor about bear baiting and allowing children to kill baited bears. Disgusting.

    • jon says:

      I share your view. How some people think this is normal behavior is beyond me. You don’t have to kill nature to claim you are apart of it.

      • Paul says:

        That is the new push by the WI DNR. They want to get more and more children indoctrinated into the hunting “culture” at younger and younger ages. The state passed a bill a couple of years ago to lower the minimum age to 10. Even Montana defeated a bill that would have lowered the minimum age from 12 to 10. What is even more disturbing is that many in the state hunting community wanted it lowered to eight. Look at the ads on the right of this page about the “Special Seasons just for Kids to Enjoy.”

        I am sure that I will get flamed for this, but something is very wrong here.

        • Mike says:

          Yes, something is very wrong. They are desperate as more and more people turn away from hunting. The kids aren’t buying it. They know it isn’t cool to blow an animal away with a gun. They know better.

          • wolf moderate says:

            When people are insulated from actual events/procedures/etc, there are chances for abuses. Take for instance medical insurance. Because people are covered by medical insurance, they do not “shop around” for the best/lowest prices. Some doctors gouge there customers, same with the pharma industry. People do not realize that there premiums will go up due to there ignorance.

            The same can be said about the Styrofoam and shrink-wrap society. Having kids exposed to what really happens in order to consume meat is great. Many kids these days are insulated from what really takes place; therefore industry is able to get away with less than stellar business practices.

        • som sai says:

          Studies show that most people hunting now started before the age of 16 and half of them before 10. In my experience kids are very interested in hunting. My own kids 5 and 8 each helped gut and then winch an elk up to the truck last year. They held a leg apiece to keep the carcass from rolling as they tend to do. For kids there’s nothing more natural in the world than getting meat.

          My 10 year old certainly is skilled enough, and safe enough with a firearm, to be hunting now.

          • Nancy says:

            When it comes to kids, don’t you really think it depends on what part of the country they are being raised in som sai?

            Bringing home the “meat” so to speak, was a time honored tradition in years past but now, you can purchase meat (including an assortment of wild game) at many markets without doing the “dirty” as in the actual killing of an animal, gutting, dressing etc.

            I often wonder about how many of these kids really want to go out and shoot (kill) other living things if it were not for the pressure of pleasing the family you were raised in….

  11. WM says:

    MN/WI reaction to WS trapping program likely being discontinued, with budget cuts. There will be alot more “self-help” from ranchers/farmers there.

    Those of you who want WS out of the wolf trapping (and humane relocation in WI, at least, as well as lethal control) may be in for a rude awakening, when alternative control measures are contemplated by the GL states, where wolves are still ESA protected (for now).

    If there is no $$$ to continue WS trapping in the USDA core budget, there will be alot, let me say this again ALOT of 3S going on there, even before delisting is complete. I also bet federal law enforcement and DOJ will be reluctant to prosecute GL wolf kill cases, even if discovered.

    • Immer Treue says:


      I agree with what you have said except for,

      “I also bet federal law enforcement and DOJ will be reluctant to prosecute GL wolf kill cases, even if discovered.”

      • ma'iingan says:

        Minnesota DNR has a plan to implement a civilian trapping corps, where a group of volunteer trappers would be trained in wolf trapping. They would then have the responsibility to respond quickly to depredation complaints in their assigned region, much as Wildlife Services does now. This plan could not be implemented while wolves are listed as “threatened”, however – it would require full delisting.

  12. Evan says:

    Close call: Climbing a tree to evade a very curious grizzly. Was this bear stalking them?

  13. Evan says:

    Follow up to “Bear Chases Climbers Up a Tree” story. Bear destroyed for increasingly aggressive behavior.

  14. Mike says:

    It appears Hope, the world famous juvenille black bear, was in fact killed by a bait station slob.

    Sad news.
    You can see Lily (the mother) playing with Hope at the previous link, or this one:

    • Paul says:

      Each time I hear about this story, the sadder and more angry I become. The mere fact that the baiter did not express any remorse shows that he damn well knew what he was shooting at. I can only imagine the self control that Dr. Rogers must have shown when he spoke to this baiter. I refuse to use the word “hunter” when referring to them.

      • Mike says:

        At some point we’ll be beyond this sort of madness, Paul. The pull away from these antiquated and unethical activities is already happening.

        • wolf moderate says:


          The country is definately changing. A bunch of potheads in Oregon can now carry firearms on Campus again 🙂

          And Oregon is the 7th most Liberal state in the country. Weird.

          • In the 1960s, students with guns on campus would cause the governor to call out the national guard!

          • catbestland says:

            I read the article and I didn’t see where “potheads” were carrying guns. IMHO “potheads” will not be the ones carrying guns but rather the “good ole boy” beer drinkers and hunters. “Potheads” are more likely to be the ones to see the ridiculousness of such behavior.

          • SEAK Mossback says:

            Things have gone considerably the other way in many high schools though. When I was in high school in Gardiner, ranch and Jardine kids would park their pickups right outside the school building with a rifle in the rack by the rear window. You are in deep trouble if caught with a leatherman tool at the Juneau high school now, but a local police officer was reminiscing that when he attended some of the kids kept shotguns in their lockers so they were ready to duck hunt on the wetlands on their way home.

          • Jerry Black says:

            Wolf Moderate……please define a “pothead”.

          • wolf moderate says:

            I was just joking around because of the whole “medical” marijuana situation down there. Everytime I visit my Dad, there is always tons of patients with there prescriptions running around.

            In fact, my Dad got eye cancer and they had to pluck his eye out. He gets 4 OZ every two months because of his severe headaches. Many down in Southern Oregon use weed.

            Sorry, I just found it funny that Oregon, the 6th most liberal state in the country is turning redneck again. I guess the “spotted owl” fiasco is coming back to haunt them. I say 6th most liberal state because D.C. isn’t a state 🙂

          • wolf moderate says:

            Oregon is the 6th most Liberal state in the U.S. Washington D.C. isn’t a state…

      • william huard says:

        The hunters were “asked” not to kill these collared bears. What a waste. The hunter showed no remorse because it is legal to kill these bears. Empower these slob baiters and this is what you get. You notice the focus now is making sure the douche hunter’s name is not published…..Even though it may be legal it makes these hunters look pathetic.

      • Jerry Black says:

        I’m sure we’ll hear the same BS from the hunters…..”Most hunters are ethical, don’t bait bears, don’t shoot cats out of trees,hunt to feed the family, don’t litter, respect others property, pick up their beer cans, blah, blah, blah..
        Damn, that’s getting old.

        • Mike says:

          NO dobut about that. There’s little acceptance of responsiblity from the hunting community, just lots of excuses.

          • TC says:

            Replace “hunters” with Jews, blacks, Muslims, liberals, conservatives, Latinos, union members, entertainers, red-heads, Federal employees, members of the press, gays or any other appellation you like – you’ll sound just about as open-minded, credible, logical, knowledgeable, or likable. Keep digging holes fellas, keep digging. It’s very productive, very civil, very collegial, and very mature.

            All people that post anti-hunting opinions wear tie-dye shirts and Birkenstocks, make less than $20k/year, smoke pot and eat magic mushrooms, believe that nobody has the right to own animals, live in cities and have never camped or backpacked, name their children after flowers, have been abducted by aliens and probed anally, and believe that we should treat cancer only with herbs and positive energy.

            Because I wrote it, it must be true.

          • Paul says:

            Yes, the poor persecuted hunters. Just like Christians in this country, everyone is picking on them. Maybe if the hunting community would get better at policing their own and speak out against some of the disgusting practices, and slobs within their ranks, there would be less criticism. I am more than willing to call out the unethical eco-terrorist nut jobs on my side of the fence. Are you? I guess our criticism of hunters is just as “mature” as people taking grinning pictures over a freshly killed animal, or calling everyone that doesn’t approve of hunting a “tree hugger.” Take a look at pro-hunting sites and see how “civil” and “mature” those posters are towards “tree huggers.” It goes both ways.

  15. Immer Treue says:

    US Wolf-Trapping To End

    Not necessarily a good thing

    • Mike says:

      Good news.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Not necessarily.

        Supporters say the wolf-trapping program acted as not only pinpoint response but also as a safety valve to relieve social and political pressure among people who don’t like wolves and might otherwise take matters into their own hands, killing wolves indiscriminately with poison or guns.

        “We’re losing one of the best wolf conservation tools we’ve had. It was so effective at solving the problem without randomly harming wolves,” said Nancy Gibson, a board member of the Minnesota-based International Wolf Center. “And there was such an educational element. The trappers had so much expertise, I think they really helped the farmers avoid problems.”

        • william huard says:

          So that’s where we are? Either we kill or trap wolves to appease people that don’t like them anyway, or they will deliberately break the law to get their way……Does that sound right to you?
          So the bottom line is pander to the wolf haters and psycho trapping industry or else.

          • william huard says:

            And don’t forget the phrase- “we are not anti-hunting!!!!!!!It’s important to re-assure the hunters and trappers- we know how sensitive to criticism they are

          • JB says:


            That’s one way of looking at it. But let’s not forget, these are not the federal public lands of the West. We’re talking about wolves killing people’s pets and livestock on private lands.

            I’m curious. Is there any form of lethal wolf management that you would find acceptable?

          • WM says:


            Immer (and Ms. Gibson from the Intl. wolf Center) are correct in my view. Eliminate the safety valve and you escalate the opposition (wolf-haters is your word) and give them even more reasons to break the law, AND the education function with farmers/ranchers goes away as well. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Serious investigations on illegal wolf kills in the GL at least, will be fewer. Kind of goes with the new paradigm of less funding to do things for AND against wolf management.

          • JB says:


            As a follow up…what does it matter who is “appeased” if wolf populations are safe? What is “right” is a matter of perspective; however, no expert (that I know of) doubts that Minnesota’s population is “recovered” and the vast majority of people support allowing private citizens to take action when their domestic animals are in jeopardy…so who is being hurt when wolves are killed/controlled in the western Great Lakes?

        • JB says:


          I have it from a good source in Wisconsin that the state will pay to continue trapping out nuisance wolves.

          • WM says:


            From an earlier post, I think WI was actually training a group of volunteers to trap problem wolves, if WS stopped. Kind of a bad news good news paradox in my view.

          • ma'iingan says:

            William –

            Once again you’re opining strongly on a subject about which you know nothing. The Wolf Damage Abatement Program in the WGL states has enjoyed broad support from a wide spectrum of stakeholders – even wolf advocacy groups like Defenders of Wildlife and HSUS. Did you even bother to read the article, William? Or is this just your typical knee-jerk?

            The funding has paid for education in animal husbandry strategies, fladry, RAG devices, and LGA information and referrals, in addition to lethal control ONLY when non-lethal methods have not been effective. I don’t know where in that process you see anyone “pandering to wolf haters and the psycho trapping industry”.

            JB –

            You’re correct, Wisconsin DNR has managed to come up with some funding to continue contracts with Wildlife Service. Lethal control in Wisconsin is currently available only for wolves that have demonstrated threats to human health and safety. Depredation trapping allows only for relocation, but relocation is limited to five miles, which of course is of no consequence to wolves.

            WM –

            It’s Minnesota that is preparing to implement a civilian trapping corps, however this is dependent on full delisting. Current federal status allows limits lethal control to Wildlife Services or USFWS.

          • WM says:


            Boy, did I screw the facts up on that. Thanks for the correction. I had tried to find your earlier post with the correct info on MN (and not WI as you corrected). As for listed problem wolves, and if no WS funding assistance, the GL states will just do it directly without any delegation to helpers, or is that still a possibility?

        • Immer Treue says:

          Even though there exists a very small amount of SSS in MN, this program has kept the lid from blowing off. Even the pelts from wolves removed are used for educational purposes. I have one from ~ 10 years ago I used in my classes, from the IWC via MDNR.

          While the comment from Nancy Gibson may sound surprising to some, the IWC has avoided advocacy and has stressed education since it’s inception. This program in concert with the IWC has provided a platform for tolerance and acceptance of wolves in MN not found anywhere else where wolves are present in the US.

          • ma'iingan says:

            WM –

            The WGL states have always had the ability to kill wolves that are demonstrating a threat to human health and safety. No pre-approval from USFWS required, regardless of the status of the wolves (endangered or threatened). However the de facto SOP has been to notify USFWS and gain “buy-in”, and for reasons of expertise, employ Wildlife Services for the actual control action.

            Wisconsin, having set aside some money to maintain contracts with WS, will no doubt continue with this practice when habituated/ bold wolves are identified. I can’t speak for MN or MI, but all three WGL states have relied heavily on WS trapping expertise in the past – so providing appropriately trained resources may be an issue.

            Depredation control is a whole other ball game – in WI and MI, even “harrassing” depredating wolves is subject to USFWS approval, due to endangered status in these states. There is an application process with USFWS for lethal control of “endangered” depredating wolves, but in my experience such permits are seldom granted.

            I think MN will fare the worst – their civilian trapping corps cannot be deployed until wolves are fully delisted, and they apparently have no available funding that could be used to continue contracts with Wildlife Services. And under current law, the state cannot implement lethal control on its own – the proverbial rock and hard place.

  16. Salle says:

    Too many articles of interest so I’m just posting the portal’s URL:

    • Immer Treue says:

      Most of what I have observed/read/watched/researched, the killing process is by one or two wolves. More than that, they just get in each other’s way.

    • CodyCoyote says:

      I can’t say I agree with this or that it fits the anecdotal evidence of wolves outside Yellowstone in my Park County.

      That “moving average” evidence says wolfpacks of maybe <5 or less feed primarily on deer. Six or more pursue elk primarily , but not with as high a success rate as you might expect one kill in 5 attempts maybe. We have no wild bison to correlate to. Wolves hitting on livestock are ad hoc about it, regardless of numbers. Opportunistically.

      And again, all this is anecdotal going back 15 years but has risen to the level of dogma hereabouts.

  17. william huard says:

    Rehberg should really lose the hat. But anyway, anytime is appropriate for “bashin” the poor…..What a loser.

    • jon says:

      ” is worried that some families who receive federally-subsidized lunches may be gaming the system and therefore bilking you out of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars.”

      ranchers are doing the same exact thing, but oh wait, Denny himself is a rancher so it’s ok.

  18. Mike says:

    Forests across thw world dying off as climate change kicks in. Scientists say future habitability may be at stake.

  19. Mike says:

    Rick Perry is embroiled in new controversy. According to reports, he and his father leased a hunting camp with a very offensive word painted on a rock at the entrance:

    This doesn’t surprise me. Those who are anti-predator often are racists, as well. It’s a ack of expsorue to different cultures and experienes that breeds this ignorance, fear, and paranoia that we seen in the anti-predator crowd.

  20. WM says:

    Well, it appears there may be more wolves in OR than current official reports. And, also in the article an underscored point if your dog gets attacked by a wolf, you cannot defend your property by killing the wolf, under current OR law. Unlikely scenario, with the dog? Who knows, but that law needs to change.

    Almost as good, is WA’s law (paraphrasing here) if the wolf(ves) are only stalking you dog you cannot use lethal force. If the wolves are “attacking” you can. Let me see. The difference between the two behaviors is about the time it takes to snap your fingers. Ever try to dispatch something moving when attacking, and likely the damage is done to the dog within the first few seconds, especially if it is a “wolf pile.”


  21. Mike says:

    It’s best just not to have your dogs off a leash in wolf country. Be a responsible owner, and an animal owner who understands the things in the ecosystem beyond the animals in the hunting brochures.

    • WM says:

      You do, of course, realize dogs on leash have been attacked, too? Think I posted a TV interview video on an incident involving women joggers with short leashed dogs just outside Anchorage, AK not long ago. There have been others.

      • Nancy says:

        and with that – be sure and catch the farewell to Andy Rooney on CBS 60 Minutes tonight. Few came close to putting life into perspective like Andy did…..

        • Elk275 says:

          I remember when Andy Rooney started with 60 minutes; he was the same age as I am today. That was yesterday. Today he is 92 years old, I hope that all of us are as capable at 92 as he is.

  22. Barb Rupers says:

    Necropsy report for wolves from central Idaho area that were examined at Washington State University.

    The average weight for the 7 wolves was 70.43 pounds; the largest 80#. That’s about 30 pounds less than the average of those reintroduced to Idaho.

  23. jon says:

    Funny video by rockhead. claims he was a victim of a wolf attack.

    • Nancy says:

      Interesting how Rockhead claims IFG, MFWP & the federal government has destroyed all our wildlife but he had no problem finding elk & deer.

      I’m afraid he will lose all credibility with me if his video on January 2012 has a couple of “german policemen” on a dark stretch of highway, watching a pack of half breed dogs run by 🙂

    • Immer Treue says:

      Find a carcass and “assume” it was wolves that did it. He was attacked by a wolf? Odd that all the folks who go into the wild to see wolves never have a problem, but all these anti-wolf he-men are supposedly attacked. Too much Will Graves at night before bedtime.

      • Nancy says:

        Immer – you did catch the line “the wolves are running out of food” So my best guess? Its just a matter of time before “they” will be stalking anti-wolf he-men in the backcountry AND kids at bus stops 🙂

        • Immer Treue says:


          Thus the Will Graves “Wolves in Russia” comment.

          Again, why is it that those of us who enjoy wildlife, all forms of wildlife, most importantly those who study wolves, and those of us who activley search for wolves, never have these so-called negative experiences, but those pistole packing individuals like Mr. Rockholm get “attacked????”

          • Nancy says:

            Guess we’re all gonna have to wait for the premier of Rockhead’s Jan. 2012 video Immer.

            And FYI – I’m still waiting to see an official report on the Appleby/Pitman “wolf attack” last year.

          • Mike says:

            Why is it always fat white guys who see bigfoot?

    • Harley says:

      The scenic pictures were stunning. (not the dead animal ones) Those of you that live in those areas are so very lucky.

    • JEFF E says:

      I don’t think even a wolf would eat something that rancid.
      Sounds like another fairytale along the lines of his recent Little Red Riding Hood remake.
      Will not hold up to even cursory scrutiny, unless of course you are in the state legislature.

    • Mike says:

      lol. I couldn’t help but laugh throughout the entire substance-free clip. Here’s the most appropriate response I could muster:

    • catbestland says:

      Typical wing nut fear mongering. Looked like plenty of “wolf food” in the clip to me.

  24. WM says:

    Nearly wildlife news, since we have discussed the business practices and the politics of the Koch Brothers on this forum in the past. This is a very revealing story carried by Bloomberg news, with contributions from many of its reporters, so would seem very credible. Trace the history of these guys and their dealings, and then wonder why they are not doing time in a federal prison:

    • JEFF E says:

      so he has this photoshop taken with a bison in the backround. A spiesies that the DOL is intent on destroying. What a moron!

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      As I’ve said before, Robert Fanning is not a native Montanan. He’s some rich CEO from the Chicago area who came west to play a rancher. He probably figured what that took was to adopt all of their less endearing qualities, and none that are commendable.

      I think the Occupy Wall Street groups are protesting people like him and the pernicious influence they have had on our economy.

  25. Immer Treue says:

    He does like to lay it on thick, this, a comment from last November’s incident

    Rockholm66 on November 29 at 9:45 p.m.

    As entertaining as all of this is, most have forgotten the story here. A woman, someones wife, maybe a mother, or a very good friend, has had a near death experience with wolves. Never mind your lust, or hatred for wolves. A person was nearly killed by the scourge of Idaho.

    And a bit more..

    Most of the wolf cult cheer leading for the wolves come from out of state. The delusional lust for this beast borders mental. These people absolutely hate humans, and love wolves, plain and simple.They will savagely attack my friend Karen, try to destroy my credibility, and say nothing for the welfare of a human being faced with the terror of nearly being killed, and eaten by wolves. Witness for yourselves over the next few day’s the agenda of the Wolf Cult.

    His words, not mine

    Nearly killed and eaten??? Talk about assumptions!

  26. CodyCoyote says:

    Make of this short article what you will, from the scholars over at Skinny Moose outdoor empire , home of the Black Bear Blog et al up there in outdoorsy Maine.

    —An anecdotal story written by an ex-Wildlife Services ” biologist” trying to determine where all of Yellowstone’s elk have gone.

    P.S. I was in Yellowstone twice last week. We saw elk, moose, bison, pronghorn , deer —but no wolves or coyotes ; heard elk bugling, too.

    The writer mamkes many unattributed presumptions and fires his blunderbuss with the same old tired unattributed talking points about wolves.If this guy is a lettered biologist , our education system has truely failed us.

    I would say one thing to him when he brings up the old saw that those ” Canadian” wolves are not the same subspecie that existed in the Yellowstone area: Canis lupus irremotus = canis lupus irregardless.

  27. Daniel Berg says:

    Final public hearing on Washington wolf management plan in Olympia on Thursday, October 6th:

    • Daniel Berg says:

      Went to the hearing in Olympia and spoke on behalf of the wolf management plan. It’s not perfect by any means, but we have to start somewhere.

      There were over 100 people there and two thirds to three fourths were in favor of the plan.

      The most anti-wolf of the crowd was, I believe, an Okanogan County Commissioner. He appeared to be one of those fellows so full of anger and hate that he could barely keep himself together up at the mic. Even when he walked away from it he paced a bit in the back of the room before finally leaving.

      There were speakers from Field & Stream (Kittitas), Cattleman’s, Safari Club, Trapper’s Assoc, and a couple of other hunting related groups I can’t recall. Most of them asserted their realization that wolves are going to be a part of the landscape, but all pushed for stronger control measures for livestock depredations or sharp reductions in ungulates in specific areas.

      • jon says:

        Daniel, do you think this wolf plan of 15 breeding pairs for 3 years will pass? Hunters on a hunting forum were saying that they felt that numerous members of the game commission will reject this plan of 15 breeding pairs for 3 years. Have a look.,84720.0.html

        Good to know that there were members from wolf haven and conservation northwest there.

        • Daniel Berg says:

          It could definitely pass. As of right now, amending the 15 breeding pair standard isn’t even on the table. I THINK that a whole new wolf management plan would have to be drawn up to include a lower number of breeding pairs to delist to “sensitive”.

          The loss of revenue in Idaho from non-resident hunting tags was brought up multiple times in the meeting, and was also mentioned in the Hunting Washington thread you posted. When I went up to speak for my three minutes, I quoted the Idaho Reporter article that tied the drop in non-resident hunting revenue not only to wolves, but to the fee increase for both deer and elk, and the crash in the economy. The tag sales have really plummeted since 2008. I thought it was a mis-characterization to only mention wolves in that discussion.

          As mentioned in the HW thread, one of the tense moments in the meeting was over the number of ungulates required to sustain a wolf population with at least 15 breeding pairs (extremely relevant to hunters). Also included in that discussion was an exchange about additive vs. compensatory mortality and how it could be measured with any accuracy.

  28. CodyCoyote says:

    Wunnderful. The unrestrained unapologetic gunners will even poach Whales.

  29. Paul says:

    Cody, I just read that article before I visited this site. I hope that the bastard who did this feels real proud, as the poor whale probably starved to death over a month as a result of the gunshot.

    • catbestland says:

      And we don’t need stricter gun laws?????

      • Salle says:

        Something occurred to me last night; I was talking to a friend, a resident of Idaho, who was lamenting the wolf hunt and that, in her opinion, there seems to be killing without hunting tags allowed. I don’t know if that’s really going on with impunity but I wouldn’t be surprised. But then, I thought as we continued to discuss the ethics, or lack thereof, within the hunting community… Why do we have such a strong sentiment for hunting when it isn’t biologically necessary? Well, to my knowledge there has been an unbridled acceleration of the military industrial complex for over half a century now, indoctrinating all those military personnel with killing skills such that those who experience war have this brain-washed mindset. It doesn’t just dissipate when they return home, some still have the “drive” to kill ~ and we all know that killing humans at home isn’t acceptable so what will they be satiated with?? How about killing those bad wild animals before they get you? If you look at the slob-hunting faction, many use military scenarios, jargon and imaginings when they talk about their hunting experiences… and the ways they got around obeying the rules.

        I’m not placing the entirety of the blame on the military industrial complex but I’ll put a large chunk of it on them. Without that faction so powerfully placed in our midst, we wouldn’t have a lot of the violence in our society that we do have and killing wouldn’t be a sport nor would we have violence as entertainment (like those military recruiting video games and “shoot ’em up” action shows/movies).

        Just my ten cents’ worth… but I don’t think I’m too terribly far from the mark on this one. We DO need stricter gun laws.

  30. Jerry Black says:

    U.S. Supreme Court Ends Bush-Era Grazing Regulations

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Jerry Black and all,

      Due to quick litigation a number of years ago by Advocates for the West, the Western Watersheds Project and other conservation organizations, these awful regulations never went into effect. This appeal to the Supreme Court was a last gasp effort by the livestock interests to breath life into the stillborn George W. Bush BLM grazing regulations. Their little monstrosity is dead for good. The Clinton era grazing regulations are in force.

  31. CodyCoyote says:

    US Fish & Wildlife will publish the Wyoming Delisting Rules tomorrow ( 10-06-2011)

    Full text of the latest News Release from Wyoming Governor Matt Mead’s office, just now out:

    Wyoming moves Closer to Managing Wolves

    CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Matt Mead said he is encouraged that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is set to turn management of wolves over to Wyoming. The Service announced it will publish a proposed delisting rule for wolves tomorrow. This means that within a year, with wolves off of the Endangered Species List, the State would be responsible for managing wolves.

    “This is an important step for Wyoming,” Governor Mead said. “The Department of Interior is following through on its commitment to turn over wolf management to Wyoming, which is where it belongs. I am encouraged, but there are still several more steps to go. I do want to thank Secretary Salazar, Director Ashe and our Congressional Delegation for all of their work to get us to this point and I look forward to working with the Wyoming Legislature to keep us moving towards having control of a species that has such a significant impact on the state.”


    ( not really )

  32. Immer Treue says:

    Looks as thought the Minnesota wolf “abatement” program is back on through at least the end of the year.

    But I don’t understand a part of Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s statement “to keep MN livestock and ***residents*** safe.”

    I expect better

    • timz says:

      Yes, those damn Republicans again. Oh, wait she’s a Democrat, you know the party of the environment.

    • ma'iingan says:

      But I don’t understand a part of Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s statement “to keep MN livestock and ***residents*** safe.”

      I think Sen. Klobucher’s concern about resident safety is a bit overblown, however there are instances where human health and safety around wolves have to be considered, and preventative measures enacted.

      I can’t speak for Minnesota, but two packs had to be removed in Wisconsin last summer due to “demonstrable but not immediate threats to human health and safety”.

      One pack was basically loafing in a farmyard on a daily basis, and had depredated cattle on the farm as well. They had quickly habituated to fladry, cracker shells, and RAG boxes, and trapping and relocating them to the mandated 5-mile limit proved to be waste of time and money. They had begun approaching and growling at family members, and made repeated attempts to attack the family dog.

      The other pack denned and rendezvoused on a large cranberry facility, killed a couple of neighborhood dogs, and attacked and injured a bird dog within 30 feet of its owner. They also habituated to RAG boxes, and had begun approaching and growling at marsh workers – again exhibiting a pattern of escalating boldness towards humans.

      While these situations are rare and over-dramatized by politicians and the media, they must be dealt with aggressively – you can imagine the backlash that would occur if this behavior was allowed to the point where an actual attack on a human occurred.

      • Nancy says:

        +While these situations are rare and over-dramatized by politicians and the media, they must be dealt with aggressively – you can imagine the backlash that would occur if this behavior was allowed to the point where an actual attack on a human occurred+

        I find that statement disturbing ma’iingan given the fact that wildlife has spent years dealing with the backlash of human behavior…..

      • Immer Treue says:


        perhaps there exists a collective process of every pro-wolf individual holding their breath against the possible but unlikely scenario of a wild wolf attacking someone… the old attacking kids at a bus stop type of cliche.

        I think this plan works in Minnesota, and most everyone is in agreement. I’m sure ranchers/farmers (not to be confused with their Western counterparts) in the area would like a few more wolves removed, and pro-wolf folks, perhaps a few less wolves removed, but it’s a program that works.

        My problem with the Klobuchar statement is, in my opinion, once again a politician unnecessarily plays the human safety card. It’s an overblown statement that panders to fear rather than logic. It need not have been said.

        If a politician is so concerned about the safety of their constituents, perhaps they can be better served by spending more time removing the inebriates from their roadways.

    • timz says:

      Shame on this damn Republican administration. Oh, wait they are Democrats, the party of the environment.

      • wolf moderate says:

        I didn’t know they were. I thought they were the party of the Nanny State…

      • JB says:

        Public lands and wildlife management issues are not necessarily environmental issues. The league of conservation voters puts out a report card every legislative session based on all relevant votes (not rhetoric). I would direct your attention to p.6 of the 2010 report card, which shows the average scores of committee and party leadership. Democratic leadership had a perfect score (100), while the GOP leaders averaged 2.5. Similarly, the Democratic committee chairs averaged 74, while their Republican counterparts averaged 6.

        I suggest ignoring the rhetoric and looking at votes.


        • timz says:

          No, I’ll just ignore your nonsense about report cards and watch while wolves are being persecuted by a Democratic administration and a Democratic controlled Senate who do nothing to stop it.

          • JB says:

            Okay then. Glad to see you have a plan.

          • Jon Way says:

            Salazar sucks…It may cost Obama.

            But JB is right – Republicans overall are worse, which can be hard to believe after watching that guy in the cowboy hat for 3 years now..

      • Jon Way says:

        Salazar sucks…It may cost Obama.

  33. Salle says:

    Three more GOP candidates join race for governor


    “Bob Fanning is a retired Chicago businessman who moved to Montana and owns a horse ranch near Pray. He has long been an opponent to the reintroduction of wolves to the Northern Rockies and is the chairman and founder of the Friends of Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd Inc.,”

  34. Salle says:

    FWP kicks off public hearings on plan to relocate Yellowstone Park bison

  35. Barb Rupers says:

    Oregon Wild,Center for Biological Diversity, and Cascadia Wildlands are taking ODFW to court regarding the order to kill two members of the Imnaha pack.

  36. Paul says:

    Do these clowns really have a following in Montana? And I thought the yahoo we having running WI was bad. Do people from Montana really accept these “transplants” like Fanning and Turiano? Nullify federal laws, really? Pandering to Fed/wolf haters and bible thumpers what a choice the people of Montana have.

  37. Paul says:

    From the state that brought you Joe McCarthy, Ed Gein, and Jeffrey Dahmer. Article about trying to boost sagging hunter and trapper numbers.

    “The trend has even reached Wisconsin, where catching and shooting everything from muskies to turkeys is woven into the state’s identity.”

    Wow, maybe that should be the state’s new motto. I am so proud. I thought that “jobs” were the state’s number one priority according to the governor?

    • Immer Treue says:

      Don’t know if it will work because it’s warmer, safer, and cleaner if the kid can hunt via a video game. Perhaps they can get a license for that.

    • ma'iingan says:

      From the state that brought you Joe McCarthy, Ed Gein, and Jeffrey Dahmer.

      And John Muir. And Aldo Leopold. And Gaylord Nelson.

      • jon says:

        Muir was born in Scotland and Leopold was born in Iowa.

      • william huard says:

        Paul- be careful what you say- the hunting apologists will be right there to defend them no matter how depraved they are.

        • JB says:

          “…hunting apologists will be right there to defend them no matter how depraved they are.”

          William: If you mean to suggest that someone who knows a thing or two about hunters will speak up and point out that characterizing hunters (a group that includes all three moderators of this site, btw) as serial killers or labeling them “depraved” is simply untrue, then you are exactly correct. I see no example of moral depravity in the article Paul posted, though I do see an example of questionable ethical conduct in the comparisons he draws.

          You should follow your own advice and “be careful what you say”.

          • Harley says:

            Nicely put JB!

          • william huard says:

            Keep defending the status quo and the deterioration of the hunting heritage at your own peril. There are way more people that do not hunt and these people are sick and tired of these “fake conservationists” treating wildlife however they please

          • timz says:

            Time for me to stock up on garbage bags, so I can go into the woods behind my place and clean up after all the slob hunters leave, same as last couple years.

          • william huard says:

            Well Timz- these hunters are a diverse group. That’s the excuse this week. Next week the “minority” of ethical hunters will distance themselves from the thrill killin local inbreds. Gotta protect the “huntin heritage” at all costs. How would they spend the weekend if they aren’t killing stuff. Those camo outfits would look pretty silly in the mall.

          • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

            You again mischaracterize an important element of social trends and values with respect to the North American hunting tradition:

            “There are way more people that do not hunt and these people are sick and tired of these “fake conservationists” treating wildlife however they please”

            The social dempgraphic of hunting in North America has changed, will continue to change. Hunting participation continues to decline, as a percentage of our increasing population – in complex and for some (you e.g.) counter-intuitive ways. Your suggestion that those who choose not hunt at all, or every year, (for a wide variety of reasons) – as a group, therefor oppose hunting is not supported – is contradicted, by numerous surveys of American attitudes towards the hunting tradition. We’ve been through this before. JB and I previously provided multiple citations for solid, well credentialed surveys that clearly show a broad level of support and approval by Americans for traditional hunting. Your persistently expressed view of hunting as archaic, barbarous and indefensible, is not shared by a strong majority of Americans. By extension, it follows that the same majority of Americans do not share your personal objections to untilitarian beneficial use of our wildlife resources.

          • timz says:

            Hey Mark, can I submit to you receipts for my time and expenses cleaning up after all the slobs who hunt in my area? Your department seems a little lax in policing these fine,upstanding Americans, too busy making sure enough wolves are killed I suppose.

          • jon says:

            Your persistently expressed view of hunting as archaic, barbarous and indefensible, is not shared by a strong majority of Americans.

            who says so Mark? I would bet if a poll was taken on what americans thought of sport hunting, most americans would be sickened by it after they see the pictures of the hunters standing over the dead wolves and coyotes smiling.

          • jon says:

            Mark, JB also posted something before that shows that the support for hunting goes down when hunting for sport is concerned. There are may be a lot of support for hunting for food,but I suspect there isnt a lot of support for hunting wolves or other wildlife for sport.

          • william huard says:


            We have had this debate many times. There is support for “traditional hunting”. From there the support nosedives dramatically as you get into the types of practices that is in favor with today’s hunter. Trophy hunting, thrill killing for pleasure, Baiting, hound hunting, 72 hour trap check policies are NOT supported by the majority of americans.
            Our whole system of treating and managing wildlife is broken. Gee whizz Mark, only in America can a state like Idaho go to the FEDS to try and prove they hate wolves as much as Wyoming and get to call it conservation.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        ma’iingan —
        I’ll add Sigurd Olson to the list.

        • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          William, jon –
          Semantics and interpretive intent – are important to effectively communicate what we mean and understand what is intended. What do you intend – when you say “trophy hunting” or “sport hunting”. As much as these terms are used in these discussions, I doubt that they mean the same thing to you that they mean to me or others here.
          Is one a “trophy” hunter who will only shoot a 6 point or larger bull elk and highly values the meat as well? Is a hunter “ethical” only if he/she relies on that meat – i.e. does not have access to other food sources?
          Can a hunter who relishes the total experience of hunting – using personal skill to find, kill, and field dress an animal, butchers it and enjoys eating it and sharing it with family and friends?
          Who are “sport” hunters and how do you differentiate them from those hunters you deem ethical?

      • Paul says:

        Here is an article about the “saint” Aldo Leopold. I admit it comes from an admittedly anti-hunting group, but it does appear well researched and I have seen many of these stories before.

        You decide.

        • jon says:

          I see nothing wrong with people being against hunting, specifically sport hunting. Vegetarians are against all kinds of hunting it seems. How would anyone who actually cares about animals not be against sport hunting? Serial killers first victims are usually animals and then they move onto people. There are hunters out there who actually love killing animals. This is abnormal behavior to me. There are plenty of reasons why a lot of people are against hunting, mainly sport hunting.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “Serial killers first victims are usually animals and then they move onto people.”

            True. So are most serial killers hunters first? Do they buy licenses and gear and then progress to serial killing? Or are you a little confused here Jon? Most serial killers I know about start by torturing and killing animals as young children – I didn’t know hunting was much of a factor in their development.

            “There are hunters out there who actually love killing animals. This is abnormal behavior to me.”

            This is abnormal behavior to all of us, Jon. And you know what else is abnormal behavior? Spending every day surfing the Internet, tormenting oneself by finding egregious hunting violations and photos of hunters posing with their kills, and then using this information to bolster one’s twisted view of hunters as serial-killing, wildlife-torturing demons.

          • jon says:

            Don’t be angry because there are those who speak out against the atrocities being committed against wildlife. You can call them anti-hunters as often as you like.

          • Paul says:

            I am obviously biased on this topic, but I think it is good that people such as Jon do look for stories about misdeeds in the hunting community. This is a topic that in my opinion has long been ignored. Hunting advocates certainly do not hesitate to point out the lunacy of PETA or to demonize groups like the HSUS, or Defenders of Wildlife. For the record I am not a supporter of PETA. They are too far out there even for me. If people in the hunting community do not want backlash then stop posting grinning pictures over dead animals for the whole world to see. To me it comes across as taunting. That type of behavior does little to bolster their argument that hunting is about more than just the kill.

            And besides who are you to criticize how someone spends their time. If Jon chooses to spend his time looking for these types of stories, why should you care? If the stories are factual why does it bother you that he posts them? Jon is passionate about the topic just as you are. JB and I had a little back and forth earlier about some of my comments, and he was right to point out that I was out of line. The same should apply to you and your calling of Jon’s “behavior” as “abnormal.” You formed your opinion of hunters from your experiences, while Jon and others, (myself included) probably formed their opinions from theirs. Just my opinion.

          • william huard says:

            “This is abnormal behavior to all of us”
            I find it ironic when hunters are quick to distance themselves from other hunters. There are hundreds of thousands of hunters that shoot semi-tame hand fed animals that are bred specifically to take a hunters bullet- yet I have never had a hunter admit that they shoot animals at these “wildlife preserves”. You always hear hunters say- “I would never hunt at one of those places….yet they are quick to defend other hunters rights to shoot animals at canned facilities…..

          • Savebears says:


            The biggest problem with Jon is, he has NO experience at all on the subjects he talks about, he has not even visited the areas he preaches about, there are many here that have invited him to visit these areas. He presents himself as an expert on all subjects concerning wildlife and his experience level stops at the articles that he reads on the internet, he seeks out articles that follows his system of belief. He continues to do this.

            And I am not sorry to say, you sound allot like he does.

          • wolf moderate says:

            Why would hunters care? These canned hunt take place on private property and they are legal hunts. My Dad’s friend went on a canned hunt in Arkansas. I couldn’t believe what he paid!

            Also, myself and many others covet the depredation hunt tags. I also miss hunting the Maupin, Oregon area because the deer taste much better IMO, due to the alfalfa they eat. Why? Because they are “easy” hunts and the deer and elk are eating good on alfalfa. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Tasty and relatively easy to retrieve meat.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “If people in the hunting community do not want backlash then stop posting grinning pictures over dead animals for the whole world to see.”

            There’s the point – if they bother you so much, why spend so much time seeking them out, then posting a link, and making disparaging comments about the hunter? You have to SEARCH for the photos. Here’s a thought – if you don’t like them, don’t look for them.

            “To me it comes across as taunting. That type of behavior does little to bolster their argument that hunting is about more than just the kill.”

            Killing the animal I’m pursuing is the validation of MY PROCESS – choosing the equipment, picking an area where I have my best chance for success, learning the habits of my quarry. If I’m successful, I may want to document the outcome of MY PROCESS with a photo. Yeah, I’ll probably be smiling about my success – it has absolutely nothing to do with “taunting”. And again, if it bothers you so muuch, why not just stay off the hunting sites?

          • william huard says:

            So this is where you start bashing Jon because he cares about wildlife? I’ll take Jon’s position anyday over a heartless douchebag thrill killer, the same type of person that feels humans don’t deserve the right to health care….let alone animals having rights

          • william huard says:

            “Why would hunters care”
            Geez, I don’t know bounty boy. Because maybe it makes all hunters look pathetic? Ethics? Decency? Morality?

          • wolf moderate says:

            Now the government should buy you health care too? How about all the people in Darfur, Africa, and many other places around the world. Why don’t you sell all of your worldly possessions (including internet access), and computer and donate the proceeds to truly NEEDY people? It seems sooooo unfair that you get to have four walls, clean drinking water, internet, ELECTRICITY, heat etc…when so many others around the world do not!

            The “poor” in America are there because they do not mind it. It’s not so bad being poor in America. Take a look at the real poor around the world. Most of the poor in the nation are there for a reason. Babies out of wedlock, addictions, dropped out of High School, etc…Very few are truly needy. If indeed they are truly needy the government takes care of them and you know it, or at least you should know it.

            If you want free health care join the military or move to Canada…eh? 🙂

          • william huard says:

            All I can say is WOW. As Herman Cain said- “If you don’t have a job don’t blame wall st blame yourself” right?

          • william huard says:

            Wolf Moderate-
            Read carefully- I said right to health care, not free health care.

          • Paul says:

            Who said that I go to hunting sites? I do not actively search out pictures of people smiling over dead animals. Others may, but I do not. I see them all of the time in my community and in the mainstream media. Local newspapers and news station Web sites even have “brag boards” where people can post pictures of them with their kill. I even went to a doctor’s appointment last week and there was a picture posted on the wall outside of an exam room showing a young girl smiling over a dead bear. As I said if you make a public spectacle of it then don’t be surprised when there is a backlash.

          • Paul says:

            Savebears, I have been to these areas, and I have much experience in dealing with the hunting community, and the animals injured from reckless behavior in my state. You can say what you wish about my views but the same can be said that you and your fellow hunters sound awfully alike as well. Everything that I post here is my opinion and I try make that clear. Just because it does not jive with your view it doesn’t mean that it is any less valid. Maybe everyone on this blog who does not support hunting should post their resumes and a reference page. Would that satisfy you?

          • wolf moderate says:

            You got me William. I was just trying to get you to cancel your internet and get rid of the computer 🙂

            I dig Herman. He tells it like it is. There are lots of jobs, it’s just that most are in the service industry and way too many college “educated” individuals believe they are worth more than they really are.

            Anyway, Ralph said we can’t talk politics or the slow demise of this country. I just can’t stand the entitlement mentality that some show in this country so had to speak up, even though this will all be deleted lol.


          • Savebears says:


            I have no problem with your opinion, as far as resumes, I have posted my experiences, if you wish to post your history, it is fine by me, although I seriously doubt it would change my or others Opinions, we are all set in our makeup.. I never said you have not visited the areas you speak of in your opinions, I did say Jon has not, I did say you sound like him, but based on your posts, I have no reason to doubt you have experience in the wilds of America, based on Jon’s posts over the years, I don’t doubt I know he has no experience other than what he reads..

          • Savebears says:

            William, that would not be hard to have a rent payment that is 3-4 times the amount I pay for my mortgage as my mortgage is paid off, so a rent payment of 4 bucks a month is more than I pay for my mortgage. But I will say at this point in time, I would be thrilled to get paid $12.00 an hour, that would work out to quite a bit more than I am currently making.

          • Paul says:

            Savebears, fair enough. I do not know Jon so I cannot comment on his experience. You are also right that our opinions are already set. I guess we agree to disagee.

          • Savebears says:

            One thing I will concede to you William, everyone has a right to health care, it is a shame, that those types of rights often times cost a hell of allot of money. I am fortunate, because due to my military service and a damn hard fight over many years, I am again able to visit a Doctor without going broke.

        • Savebears says:

          About the only thing I agree with Herman on, William.. There are jobs to be had in this country, now Quality vs. Quantity is the question. The problem with many Americans is they believe they deserve a “Quality” Job, but often times the only thing available is a “Quantity” job..

          • william huard says:

            Save Bears-
            Tell a person making 60,000 with teenagers or kids in college that the job he or she lost because of the recession or (wall st greed)can easily be replaced with a 12.00 dollar an hour job……It’s a little more complicated. Don’t forget- rent in a major metro city is 3 or 4 times more a month than your mortgage payment is….

          • jon says:

            Herman Cain does not care for the middle class average working american aka the little guy. Whether someone has a lot of experience in the wilderness or not has nothing to do with them being allowed to speak up on the atrocities being committed by hunters against wildlife.

          • JB says:

            So you start out at the ethics of hunting and end up on health care and Herman Cain?

            “So this is where you start bashing Jon because he cares about wildlife?

            William: No one criticized Jon because he cares about wildlife. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that EVERYONE who posts here cares about wildlife. The problem is not even that you and Jon oppose hunting–that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Rather, the problem is logic like this:

            “I see nothing wrong with people being against hunting, specifically sport hunting. Vegetarians are against all kinds of hunting it seems…There are hunters out there who actually love killing animals.”

            I’m not going to tell you what’s wrong with the logic underlying this statement; I’ll let you figure it out for yourself. If you can’t, then I’ll stop commenting on your rants and write you off as hopeless.

    • JB says:

      Paul: What is the relevance of McCarthy, Gein, and Dahmer to hunting in Wisconsin? Guilt by association? If you don’t like hunting, I suggest NOT hunting. If you don’t like other people hunting, I suggest simply stating why. Comparing the residents of WI to serial killers does nothing to advance your argument, and makes you seem petty and foolish (no offense). Why not debate the issue on its merits instead of engaging in logical fallacies?

      – – – –

      Jon: Muir moved to Wisconsin when he was 11 and also attended UW. Leopold, of course, was a professor at UW and long time resident of Wisconsin.

      • Paul says:

        My comments about McCarthy, Gein, and Dahmer were in relation to the quote in the article “The trend has even reached Wisconsin, where catching and shooting everything from muskies to turkeys is woven into the state’s identity.” By making a comment like that it sure seems like this states “identity” sure seems to be about killing. I keep hearing that hunting is about “putting food on the table,” and “conservation,” not “shooting everything.” Gein and Dahmer comparisons are about killing. McCarthy comparisons are about paranoia. If you cannot see the satire that I tried to mix in to a serious topic then that is on you. For the record I do not see all hunters as serial killers, just the ones who get pleasure out of killing everything that moves.

        • william huard says:

          If you’re not defending the thrill killers somehow you are an enemy of the republic. Unamerican perhaps.

          • Paul says:

            William that is the problem I have with much of the hunting community. They constantly try to portray themselves as being this noble and ethical group, but when someone points out the bad behavior in their ranks or questions their true motives they go into attack mode. I always hear how those who are against sport hunting are reacting on emotion according to them. What are they doing? I make a joke (as uncouth as it may have been) about an article that portrays Wisconsinites as wanting to “catch and shoot everything” and I get attacked for it. If the hunting community wants to use a newspaper article to brag about how much they like to shoot things, don’t get upset when someone wonders why killing is so ingrained in the states “identity.” I thought it was all about “conservation” and not just killing and sport. The article I posted sure does not make it seem that way.

          • william huard says:

            Make no mistake about it, they are paranoid. Use Wayne from the NRA as an example- does he sound logical when he attacks people that want responsible gun law? Hunters are the same way- they know people are after their hunting heritage….It may not happen in my lifetime, certainly not from this spineless administration, but it is coming- they will cling on and defend the hunting preserves and other egregious practices at their own peril

        • JB says:

          “If you cannot see the satire that I tried to mix in to a serious topic then that is on you.”

          So you make a comment comparing hunters in Wisconsin to a serial killers and then criticize me for failing to recognize that you meant it as satire? I might be more willing to except that excuse if you didn’t regularly make such comments. Moreover, you go on to admit, “I do not see all hunters as serial killers, just the ones who get pleasure out of killing everything that moves.” So is this satire or do you really believe that there are hunters that enjoy “killing everything that moves”?

          Are you so blind that you cannot see how this rhetoric hurts your credibility and ultimately, your cause?

          • Paul says:

            Of course I believe that there are hunters that will attempt to kill everything that moves. I have been around those types of people, and seen their damage in person. Are you saying that those people do not exist? By pointing out that there are people who love to kill just to kill, I am hurting my argument? I am not attempting to make an argument; I am just saying that these people do exist.

            Yes the jokes about McCarthy, Gein, and Dahmer were satire. The comments about people who love to kill are my opinion. I transport injured birds to a wildlife rehabilitator in my area. I have seen firsthand how hunters have shot and injured birds that are not “game” birds such as songbirds. I also transported an orphaned baby duck a couple of years ago whose mother and siblings were ran over by a cammo clad guy who apparently swerved his truck and went out of his way to hit and kill these ducks while doing some type of “rebel yell.” So yes, I certainly do think many in the “sportsmen” community kill just to kill. Then there were the instances where I have transported injured raccoons that trappers left in traps to die. One was caught in a snare and the other was caught in a steel jaw trap. Both had legs that were hanging by tendons, and were infected over many days, perhaps weeks. They had to be taken to a wildlife vet to be euthanized. These are just a couple of stories about my dealings with the results of irresponsible people in the “sportsmen” community. It is very hard to see much good with the “sportsmen” community when I frequently have experiences like these that often result in needless death and suffering. So if I piss those types of people off, good. Because I get pissed every time I see firsthand suffering caused by their “sport.”

          • JB says:

            “Of course I believe that there are hunters that will attempt to kill everything that moves. I have been around those types of people…”

            How did you manage to escape with your life, or did you remain motionless? [Note: that was sarcasm]

            “I am not attempting to make an argument; I am just saying that these people do exist.”

            By using the word “hunters” to identify such people and only ever identifying examples of misbehavior you are implying that they not only exist, but that their behavior is the norm. Has it ever occurred to you that your volunteer work may bias your perception of hunters’ behavior? That is, if your work only ever exposes you to the misdeeds of hunters, I can see how you would acquire your ideas. However, you might consider that roughly 12 million people hunt every year. That should give you some pause when considering whether your anecdotes are representative of hunters as a whole.

            Look, I don’t have any problem with your position. It is a noble thing to want to end suffering. But it is not at all noble (nor ethical) to continually slander an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few.

          • timz says:

            How many are a few”?

          • wolf moderate says:

            Not sure why I bother trying to influence your thought process Paul, but here you go…

            A guy I used to work with was not a “hunter”. He even says so himself. Rather he says “I just like to go out and kill stuff”. He then goes onto say that he poaches “all the time” and just leaves them. Once, he went into the State Park at Wallowa Lake in NE Oregon and shot a big 5 point buck and left it lay (less the antlers). Another story was how he goes out and shoots “whistle pigs”, because he enjoys watching them “vaporize in a cloud of red”.

            Again, he is not a HUNTER. He is an inbred hillbilly that does not respect wildlife or wild places.

            A hunter:
            1) Buys a tag
            2) follows and obeys all laws and regualations.

            So, someone who does not obey rules and regulations in regards to shooting wildlife is not a hunter, rather they are poachers (CRIMINALS).

            Get a clue dude…

          • JB says:

            Good question. Unfortunately, there isn’t a really good way to answer it. Here’s information for a state that I’m familiar with, PA. Every year, PA sells roughly 900,000 hunting licenses; and each year about 1,000 people have their license revoked for some kind of illegal activity. That’s 0.1% of the hunting population. Now before you start shouting, I’m more than willing to concede that many poachers don’t get caught. How many? Who knows? But if you assume 10 poachers for every one whose caught, you’re only up to 1% of the hunting population. Even if you assume a 100 to 1 ratio, your only up to 1 in 10.

            PA license sales:

          • timz says:

            Anyone who uses the word “dude” like that is a complete moron. Probably where your ball cap backword and your pants halfway down your ass as well.

          • wolf moderate says:

            I liked it. It kind of goes together like two peas in a pod.

            Get a clue Dude…

            PS: If you live in Idaho City, I feel sorry for them.

          • timz says:

            Now you leave absolutely no doubt, you are a moron.

          • Paul says:

            Fair enough. How should I refer to these types of people? Many, if not most that carry out these acts, call themselves “hunters” or “sportsmen.” I can think of many other terms to refer to them, but I would probably get banned from this site. Of course my volunteer work has an impact on my perceptions, but that is not the only reason I have these views. I have been around “sportsmen” in WI for most of my 37 years. While I have come across some who do seem ethical, I certainly question the motives of many others. As I pointed out in a post a couple of weeks ago I recently listened while a police officer and a newly elected circuit court judge in Wisconsin stood around laughing and joking about “blowing the face” off of a duck and watching it run around in pain. I have also listened while another police officer and other prominent members of my community were bragging about knowing when and where the WI DNR releases farmed pheasants and planned to be waiting there with shotguns. The officer then bragged the next day about how many he “harvested.” Fair chase? These are just examples of actions from people in an official capacity that I am around. I could go on all day about what I have seen and heard from average citizens about their “hunting” practices. And for the record I do not consider myself an “animal rights” advocate. I consider myself an “animal welfare” advocate. We get slandered and painted with a broad brush as well and have been for a long time. Is it right for me to so aggressively push back? Probably not, but it goes both ways.

          • Paul says:

            The question I have for you “Dude” is do you report this poaching behavior, or do you turn a blind eye as many in the hunting community do?

          • wolf moderate says:

            It’s legal to vaporize whistle pigs and the poaching incident inside the park was 12+ years ago. If I caught him in the act I would certainly turn him in.

          • JB says:

            Thanks, Paul. I think the question you raise (i.e., what do we call these people) is right on the money. Wolf Moderate (and others here) have suggested you call them “criminals” or “poachers”, at least when they’ve broken the law. Other acts (those intended to inflict pain) seemingly fit the definition of “sadistic” quite well. At the very least, some people just seem to lack empathy where animals are concerned. While that isn’t illegal, I can certainly see why you (and others) would find it objectionable. At lease hunting forces people to confront the reality that something needs to die for them to live. Many people are too far removed from this reality, in my *opinion*.

        • JB says:

          “I keep hearing that hunting is about ‘putting food on the table,’ and ‘conservation,’ not ‘shooting everything.'”

          Yes, the author of the article seem to suggest hunting was about killing lots of things. But it seems like you might have missed the comments of David Clausen, chairman of the Natural Resources Board:

          “All of us outdoorsmen should be promoting our sport and doing it out of the goodness of our heart,” he said. “It definitely will not take a discount to motivate me.”

          I am not attacking you, Paul, I am attacking the ridiculous comments you made. What possible purpose does it serve to make patently false comments that you know will enrage legitimate hunters? If you want to engage in constructive dialogue, then you start by being respectful of people. If however, your goal is simply to piss people off, then I’ll make a note of it and ignore your comments in the future.

          • Mike says:

            Enough of the meta, JB. You’re boring everyone.

          • JB says:

            Thanks for the constructive feedback, Mike.

          • wolf moderate says:

            I enjoy your posts JB! Even if they are over my head most of the time :*)

          • Paul says:

            Mike, JB was right I was trying to be an a$$hole with my comments about the Wisconsin serial killers, and Joe McCarthy. While I think that many in the WI hunting community are revolting, I should not have compared them all to serial killers. I was trying to be a smartass and he rightfully called me on it. However, the Joe McCarthy paranoia comparison may have more validity.

          • JB says:

            Thanks, Wolf Moderate. I appreciate the fact that you are usually very specific as to when you’re relaying information and when you’re giving your opinions–even if I don’t always agree with you. 😉

            – – – –

            I appreciate that admonition, Paul. I also very much appreciate the animal welfare position. It might interest you to know that this position has been endorsed by the Wildlife Society:


    • william huard says:

      Gov Walker has attempted to suppress voting rights, take away union rights for political gain, give more tax breaks to businesses that support his admnistration- so now he will pander to hunters and trappers that represent those american values of 100 years ago……All because they are paranoid and know their “huntin heritage” is at stake.

      • Paul says:

        William, I agree with everything you said except for the suppressing voting rights part. I actually supported the Voter I.D. bill that the state passed. We have to show an I.D. for just about everything from getting on a plane to buying video games, cold meds, and booze. I think that voting should be no different. Especially since the state is giving people free photo there is no reason that someone should not have one. Maybe that view comes from my public safety background. Is it possible that there are other motives behind the legislation? Considering that Walker is behind this, probably. But I do agree with the basic idea behind the bill. Other than that Walker and his cronies make me sick and I will be first in line to sign the recall petition.

        • jon says:

          Paul,william, etc., read an article called “The Killing Game,” by Joy Williams. It came out in 1990. It exposes the real truth about hunters.

          • jon says:

            “It’s time to stop being conned and cowed by hunter, time to stop pampering and coddling them, time to get them off the government’s duck-and-deer dole, time to stop thinking of wild animals as “resources” and “game,” and start thinking of them as sentient beings that deserve our wonder and respect, time to stop allowing hunting to be creditable by calling it “sport” and “recreation.” Hunters make wildlife dead, dead, dead. It’s time to wake up to this indisputable fact. As for the hunters, it’s long past check-out time.”

          • JB says:

            “…time to stop thinking of wild animals as “resources” and “game,” and start thinking of them as sentient beings that deserve our wonder and respect…”

            Jon: I object to the premise of this statement, which would have us believe that one cannot think of wild animals as resources and game while at the same time believing that they deserve our respect and wonder. That is flat out wrong. To me, wildlife are resources (whether the are hunted or merely admired), they are pests (when they’re in the wrong place at the wrong time) and they are most certainly deserving of our admiration and respect.

          • Paul says:

            I cannot believe that was written in 1990. It could have been written yesterday. I never knew this article existed, yet it echoes many of my own personal views. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

          • jon says:

            that article written in 1990 was ahead of its time if you ask me Paul. I feel the article is dead on.

          • Savebears says:

            When I put a wild animal in my freezer and spend the winter living off that wild animal, which I do most winters, I consider it a very important resource and despite you anti hunters efforts, it will not end.

  38. Mtn Mamma says:

    Turns out this woman who claims “self-defense” is a poacher. I ask you, does the look the face of a woman who was scared?

    • Immer Treue says:

      Mtn Mamma,

      I’ve seen this story and a different picture in a couple different places. Not to say it did not happen as stated, but something about it just doesn’t sound right.

    • Paul says:

      Any bets that IDFG will not charge her with poaching? You are right she looks absolutely terrified. Disgusting.

      • jon says:

        Bet this woman saw the wolf and shot it and claimed it went after her when it didn’t. Smiling with an animal you just shot is disgusting. if this woman was in fear, why would she bother taking a picture with the wolf and smiling? oh, look how brave I am. I shot a big canadian wolf with my gun. I’m a badass for sure. This type of people are disgusting.

        • william huard says:

          What could be the value of showing a wolf killed with blood dripping down from it’s head?
          Does she want congrats- or just another happy meal?

          • David says:

            Is that a particularly large wolf? Is there some kind of weird camera angle thing happening? He looks huge! I’ve been to a wolf breeding center near here (NY) that breeds red wolves and mexican gray wolves for the reintroduction programs, but… none of them look anything like that size. (No, I’m not suggesting it’s one of those HUGE Canadian wolves, just amazed by the appearance in this photo.)

          • Immer Treue says:

            Laying down behind the animal, with the wolf’s head closer yet to the camera will help create an enlarged impression of the wolf. Also, can’t say how big the woman is, but if average woman is 5’4″ to 5’5″, then this would also promote an impression of a larger wolf.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Also, look at the legs, and feet in particular, extended toward the camera. This helps promote the image that the wolf is enormous.

          • jon says:


            Hunter claims he shoots a 187 pound alpha male. Are some hunters just making up #s and pulling them out their butt to impress others? That wolf is nowhear near 187 pounds.

          • jon says:

            It’s easy to make things look a lot bigger than what they actually are. Zoom in on an animal and it will look gigantic. This wolf looks to be a bit over 100 pounds, but hunters have been saying that this wolf is near 200 pounds. Overexaggerating weights of wild animals seems to be something hunters are known for.

          • william huard says:

            I wonder if these “ethical hunters” shot the wolves from the air……Talk about rhetoric…..those man eating wolves, eating everything in sight, those poor sportsmen won’t be able to feed their families in six months.

          • JB says:

            Yes, William, this website is filled with hyperbole and factual inaccuracies. However, you become a hypocrite when you condemn these actions in one breath, and then turn around and make equally hyperbolas claims with the next.

            I can show you equally egregious examples of hyperbole and outright lies made by some animal rights advocates, but I don’t believe they represent all nor even the majority of these advocates–so why bother? What purpose does it serve? As far as I can tell, the only purpose is to polarize the debate and make otherwise reasonable people paranoid?

          • Mike says:

            JB – You do a great disservice to these causes by focusing on the reactions rather than the actions.

          • JB says:


            What are the “actions” of the participants of this blog that would you have me focus on? When it comes to blogs, actions and reactions are amount to the same thing–talk. I firmly believe that my cause is best served when the dialogue is honest and based upon facts. If you think this is a “disservice” to the cause of conservation, so be it. We will have to agree to disagree.

        • Cobra says:

          None of us were there so we don’t really know what happened. Maybe she did shoot it at ten feet coming towards here, no one knows but her.
          With your vast outdoor experience what would you have done in this situation? You have a bow in one hand and a pistol on your hip and a wolf at ten feet not knowing if it will or will not attack.
          I watched two wolves just a couple of nights ago about a half mile from the house in a big field right off I-90 not 200 yards from the highway for about 15 minutes. They were neat to see and watch and actually only about a hundred yards from a house that was above them. There have been several sightings in this field over the last year and what gets me is they seem to have no fear of the highway or the people that live in the area.
          Wild animals are just that, wild animals and no one can say for sure how they may or may not react on any given day. I’ll bet 99 out of 100 times they’ll run, but there’s always that one time they may not and most people don’t want to take that one time for granted because it could be a deadly mistake.

  39. Daniel Berg says:

    Bad news for the family accused of poaching members of the Lookout Pack. They are also accused of other violations involving bears and mule deer.

    “Judge allows evidence in Whites’ state case”

    Throw the book at them.

  40. Cobra says:


  41. Ken Cole says:

    Blocked comment of the month (and it’s only the 7th) :

    I dont understand you people at all calling ranches welfare ranching because you people puting the envirment over peoples way of life you guys have no clue how hard it is to run a cattle ranch or any ranch for that matter I am also willing to bet that half or more of you dont even live in idaho and the half that do moved here in the past 10 years cattle ranching and farming is the way of life out here it has been for a long time and it will all ways be. Idaho doesnt want to kill every wolf in the state we just want a fair number. Just because you may not like the ideal of somthing doesn’t meen we need to outlaw it. If we all thought the same it would be a boring world. Wolves are not just killing cattle they are killing elk, deer, coyotes,and just about any other living thing in the hills. I my self am going hunting for wolves this weekend i have a legal tag and plan on making a quick kill no suffering for the wolf then i will sell the pelt and start hunting coyotes why you ask because the ranchers put food on my table and money in my wallet and they need all the help they can get. You all need to grow up I for one hate queers but i am not out starting a website to get rid of them they dont affect my day to day life wolfs do and they affect yours to in a negitve way I.E. higher taxs, high price of beef the list goes on and on these are not just dogs go ahead and call me a dumb redneck but i would much rather be me than you p.s. any of you want to go hunting with me and see one up close with your own two eyes email me may be we can use your dumb ass for bait

    oh my email is [deleted] oh and just rember one thing i hunt there for i have guns and i do protect my family and my grounds i will shoot you dead if you try any thing have a nice day and i am sure you will delete this because you guys only want one side yours

    • JEFF E says:

      You’re up early

    • Paul says:

      This has to be a joke, right? And here I thought politicians were responsible for the “higher taxs (sp).” I had no idea it was the “wolfs (sp).” Those “queers” and “wolfs” sure know how to ruin a person’s day.

      • Paul says:

        Why did I read that? I feel dumber for it. I may complain and argue with many on the pro-hunting side of this blog, but I will take a dialog with you guys any day over the drivel that was in that post.

        • william huard says:

          Would this illiterate rancher be considered a compassionate conservative? My favorite part was the “Gamblin like” 7 or 8 sentences without a comma…..

          • Nancy says:

            +I my self am going hunting for wolves this weekend i have a legal tag and plan on making a quick kill no suffering for the wolf then i will sell the pelt and start hunting coyotes why you ask because the ranchers put food on my table and money in my wallet and they need all the help they can get+

            I’m not sure he’s a rancher William, he either knows a few ranchers or works on a ranch.

          • Paul says:

            This is almost as bad as a 911 call that I took last week. The woman called 911 because she saw three deer at dusk near her house in town and she thought that they were going to attack her son who was riding his bike in the area. I asked her if they were doing anything aggressive and she said no, but they “were looking at her and her son.” Needless to say we jumped right on that call. The nerve of those viscous deer to be “looking” at her and her family.

            Then there was the time where a woman called and asked me why there was a raccoon in the tree in her backyard. I explained to her that is where they tend to be. She then asked me in a dumbfounded manner why was it in her tree because she thought that “coons” were not “allowed” in town. I told her that the raccoon must have missed the sign at the city limits that stated “No Raccoons Allowed,” and that we would issue him or her a citation right away. 🙂

            The first thought that I get is that these people must be playing a joke on me, but no they really think this way and are scared to death of any wildlife that they see in the city.

          • william huard says:


            Remember I think 2 years ago when the 75 year old woman in Ohio beat a doe to death with a shovel because it was in her garden……

          • Harley says:

            Paul, I don’t always agree with some of your comments, but that was pretty funny. City people are goofy sometimes, aren’t they?

          • Paul says:

            Harley, I have tons of stories even crazier than those. I could write a book. As frustrated as I can get dealing with the various forms of humanity on a daily basis, it is calls like those that both make me beat my head against the wall, and later laugh hysterically.

          • jon says:

            Paul, have you run into any Wisconsin hunters and asked them about wolves? I wonder what is the reason as to why they hate wolves. Is it just because wolves eat deer? I do noticed that some people in thr past and maybe recently have complained that the deer population in WI is too high, but when wolves kill deer, hunters complain and say that the wolves are killing off all of the deer. Even if this was true, wouldn’t this be a good thing as deer are known to cause a lot of damage and let’s not forget about the deer/vehicle collisions that happen from time to time resulting in the death of a person. Predators such as wolves are always the scapegoat for when a hunter has a hard time finding a deer or whatever to kill.

          • Harley says:


            Perhaps there are some hunters that use the wolf as the scape goat but again, painting them all with the same brush is like paining all those who stand up for animals with the brush as well. It’s just as easy for the other side to say all those who stand up for the environment are complete wackos and that statement is just as untrue as saying all hunters hate wolves and are unethical.

            I think a lot of what you might term fear in the midwest, particularly in the states that have no wolves stems from the fear of the unknown more than the competition. That is not to say some hunters find it easier to blame predators for their lack of skill.

            I know you and William are going to say what you say, but it would be refreshing to see you not dump all hunters in the same barrel. It may be semantics but that’s what gets things going, unless that’s your intention…

          • jon says:

            No, I think alot of the dislike hunters have for wolves is because of competition. Everyone on here has seen hunters complain about wolves wiping out all of the game which isn’t true, but they believe it is true. Hunters (not all of them) don’t like competing for game with natural predators such as wolves, bears, etc. I don’t know how many hunters out in the west hate predators such as wolves, but I have no doubt there are a good # of hunters in the west who dislike/hate predators such as wolves.

          • jon says:

            I and others know that not all hunters hate wolves and predators, but where are these hunters who don’t mind wolves? You never ever see this people speak up. Maybe because they don’t want to be ridiculed by their fellow wolf hating hunters or because in secret, they agree with the views of their fellow hunters who hate predators, but don’t want to admit it.

          • Paul says:

            Jon, I have brought up the topic of wolves many times with the hunters I work with and know. Surprisingly, the vast majority I spoke to have no problem with wolves and are actually glad to have them around. The same with bears. Of course I live and work in the south-central part of WI and the views seem to be far different the further north that you go. There is certainly a level of extreme hypocrisy among some in the WI hunting community when it comes to wolves and other predators. One side of their mouth they will say that the deer are overpopulated and the other side will say that wolves and bears are killing “all” of the deer. I think that the ones who are complaining are upset because they actually have to work to find the deer, the same as with elk in the west.

      • jon says:

        sadly it’s not.

    • jon says:

      I really wonder how many anti-wolf comments this blog gets on a monthly basis. Would be interesting to know.

    • That made me feel really sad. . outside of the implied violence just under the surface is it possible that self proclaimed “rednecks” can live close to nature and not see it because that would make their lives truly unbearable if you ask me. I live in a very rural area and what I see is too many people who live here who no longer work the land and work for others, come home, watch TV and then do it again . .get drunk on Friday or Saturday night an watch football or something and only hunt with a group where whiskey are cards are a big part of it. It is very very sad.

      • Nancy says:

        +what I see is too many people who live here who no longer work the land and work for others, come home, watch TV and then do it again . .get drunk on Friday or Saturday night an watch football or something and only hunt with a group where whiskey are cards are a big part of it. It is very very sad+

        Linda Jo – pretty sure I share the same type of “rural area” and, the same kind of neighbors…. Although my area is slowly being taken over by those that can afford to “go west and buy, because its subdivided AND yet still affordable” compared to the rest of the country.

  42. JB says:

    The full text of our article (Bruskotter, J. T., S. A. Enzler, and A. Treves. 2011. Rescuing Wolves from Politics: Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource. Science 333:1828-1829) is now available from Science. However, it looks like access has to come from the site I specified. Just click on the article link, found on this page:

    Thanks again to all for their interest.

  43. william huard says:

    Let’s look at the thought process here. There are around 50 Mexican wolves in the wild……so I’d better be sure what I am shooting at, considering the two animals look very similar….. and keeping in mind I’m an ignorant predator hater with an itchy trigger finger…..Gee what’s that– a radio signal collar….I wonder how many coyotes have those…..

  44. Salle says:

    State funding board joins lawsuit against Interior

    “The suit now has the backing of the State of Utah and Utah Association of Counties, as well as the board and Uintah County, which filed the original suit about a year ago.

    The panel, which receives millions of dollars each year from mineral royalties from mining on federal lands, gave unanimous support for the move after hearing more about the case from board member and Uintah County Commissioner Mike McKee during a closed meeting.

    “Adverse decisions that affect those [mining] revenues affect our funding,” said McKee following the board’s public vote.

    Recognize the name “McKee”?

  45. Salle says:

    Wyoming wolves are here to stay

    Our proposed delisting rule will be subject to public and peer review. We will not approve a final rule until the Wyoming Legislature approves Wyoming’s wolf management plan and we have reviewed and responded to public comments.

    We recognize that many Americans do not support the hunting of wolves. However, the job of the Endangered Species Act is not to provide permanent protections for individual animals, but to prevent extinction and support recovery of species. Its work here is done, and we need to have the courage and conviction to recognize that.

    The Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of hundreds of imperiled species across the nation and promoted the recovery of many others. It’s time we recognized the wolf as its latest success and devoted our efforts to other species that truly need our help. That’s the best deal for everyone.

    Dan Ashe is director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    • jon says:

      I really think it would be better for people to teach their kids on how to respect wildlife rather than teaching them how to kill it.

  46. Paul says:

    I am of the opinion that if the WI DNR wants to get more non or anti-hunters to accept hunting they need to ban practices like bear hounding and baiting. Even among the hunters in this state that I work with and know all but one think bear baiting and hounding are wrong and need to be stopped. Of course the one who doesn’t have a problem with it also likes to wait at DNR farmed pheasant release points with a shotgun in hand and brags about killing animals whenever he can. Whether these are effective “management” tools or not, this is the very type of activity that turns people against hunting. Just look at the story of Hope in MN and the backlash that her death caused.

    Even though I despise sport hunting and want nothing to do with the hunting “culture,” the hunting community can make inroads with people like me by ending the barbaric practices that make many of us hate hunting to begin with. That and calling out the slobs and thugs (SSS) within the hunting ranks could help too. Until that happens I highly doubt perceptions are going to change no matter how many fluffy articles are written. Of course that is my opinion and I do not speak for anyone else.

    • Savebears says:

      Of course it is your Opinion Paul…


      • ma'iingan says:

        The WDNR Learn To Hunt programs are not intended to sway the opinions of those who oppose hunting. They are designed to provide an opportunity to experience hunting to the broad majority of people who approve of hunting, but who’ve not had a chance to participate.

        • Paul says:

          I was actually partially referring to the paragraph in the article where it was quoted that the person running the program wants to change stereotypes of hunters. He even mentions the topic of bumper stickers which has been talked about here before. I should have clarified that most of my comment was based on another article in the same online magazine called “Let’s Talk Hunting.” It talks about the disconnect between hunters and many in the environmentalist community. The problem that I had with the article is that it tries to give a glossed over view of hunting being “sacred” and act like the problem is that hunters are not successfully communicating with non-hunters. As if we are unable to figure out our personal opinions of hunting on our own. Communication is indeed a problem, but not in the way the article portrays it. This is what the WI DNR reps says:

          “There is a disconnect between some environmentalists and some hunters and anglers, and how we bridge that divide depends on both sides putting differences aside, opening a dialogue and working together to solve it.”

          The question I have is are the views of non-consumptive “users” of wildlife even considered by the state of WI? In my experience they are not. Take for example the WI “Conservation Congress.” Would these people even consider giving non-hunting voices a legitimate place at the table? From people I know it does not seem that way, and non-hunters are often intimidated by the cammo clad “sportsmen” at these meetings. Is that their intent? I don’t know, but I am told that the atmosphere does not seem too friendly for many non-hunters. I know of many people who are either neutral or do not support hunting who are open helping fund “conservation” programs through taxes on “non-consuming” equipment. But they want a place at the table and have their views taken seriously. I just do not see this happening. This is an honest question: Would the hunting community welcome voices from their opposition or those skeptical of their motives? Please no fish and game mumbo jumbo. I am just asking for an honest opinion from the hunting community.

          Sorry about the length of this post, I actually have a rare night off and am probably putting too much thought into this topic.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “The question I have is are the views of non-consumptive “users” of wildlife even considered by the state of WI?”

            My answer would be “yes”, but maybe you can be more specific and provide some detail about how you feel non-consumptive users are being ignored? Are you addressing some sort of prohibition that non-consumptive users are faced with?

            Many state wildlife areas have modern visitor centers that serve as resources for those who merely want to view or photograph wildlife – and every state park and wildlife area has a “friends” group for citzens that want to get more involved in actual project work.

            Each state wildlife area is managed under a plan that is formulated with open input from a broad array of stakeholders, with public hearings leading up to the actual formulation of the management plan – normally adjusted with another series of public planning sessions every five years. In addition, many of the state wildlife areas offer a variety of educational workshops that cover a broad range of outdoor interests. For citizens with a desire to become more involved in actual wildlife management activities, WDNR sponsors volunteer monitoring programs for wolves, black bear, bobcat, and badger, among others.

            “Take for example the WI “Conservation Congress.” Would these people even consider giving non-hunting voices a legitimate place at the table? From people I know it does not seem that way, and non-hunters are often intimidated by the cammo clad “sportsmen” at these meetings. Is that their intent? I don’t know, but I am told that the atmosphere does not seem too friendly for many non-hunters.”

            The Wisconsin Conservation Congress holds a Spring Hearing in every county every year in April, where many resolutions affecting hunting, fishing, and trapping regulations are presented for an advisory vote. Since nearly 100% of the attendees are hunters, fishers, or trappers, I don’t doubt that a non-hunter would feel out of place. And definitely, anyone presenting an openly anti-hunting resolution would no doubt feel some hostility, if that’s what you’re getting at. As far as instances of actual intimidation, I seriously doubt it – the local conservation wardens are part of the staff at each meeting. You obviously have a pre-conceived attitude though – your quotation around “sportsmen” speaks volumes.

            “This is an honest question: Would the hunting community welcome voices from their opposition or those skeptical of their motives?”

            I find this question curious coming from you – who just a few days ago attempted to make some crude analogy between serial killers and hunters. And who found the following excerpts from an essay to be “spot on” –

            “But hunters are piggy. They just can’t seem to help it. They’re overequipped… insatiable, malevolent, and vain. They maim and mutilate and despoil.”

            “Hunters are persecutors of nature who should be prosecuted.”

            I don’t know why the hunting community should welcome such voices. Tell me why you think hunters should welcome that kind of rhetoric.

          • Paul says:

            If that damn comment about serial killers ruffled that many feathers, I will avoid humor like that in the future. I was an attempt to be humorous in the same manner of comments that I have read about how “bunny huggers” and “eviro-nuts” should have open seasons on them on other blogs or comment sections. I have traveled all over this country and when I say that I am from Wisconsin the first comment is “Oh, you are one of those “cheeseheads.” I am not by the way. The next comment is often “Isn’t that where Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer (actually from Ohio) are from?” So yes, there are many people out there who do associate WI with those nut jobs. I just laugh at it and make jokes in the same manner that I tried to do here. Obviously, it failed. I still stand behind the comment about the Joe McCarthy like paranoia of many in the hunting community (SSS) in WI.

            And yes, I did agree with much of that essay. However, I did not quote the parts that I agreed with. You took random quotes and assumed I agreed with them. Do you agree with everything that pro-hunters write? Or, do you find parts that you do agree with and others you do not? I said that it echoes MANY of my personal views. I did not say all. I have encountered people as described in the essay many, many times. Are you telling me that people like that do not exist in the hunting world? As I have stated many times in the past, I just do not see people on your side of the fence calling out the bad apples as they should. I also do not like how practices that should be shunned (baiting and hounding) are encouraged by states like WI. Yes I do have a problem with that.

            I used quotations because I do not like the term sportsmen. Just as I do not like other fluffy terms like “harvest,” “recruitment,” etc. These words try to put a friendly face on killing. It is the same reason I did not like terms such as “collateral damage,” or “casualties” in the military and I am an Army veteran. These industry terms try to gloss over what is really happening. Again, killing is what is happening, so just say it.

            I think it is good that attempt to have dialog with those on the opposite side. I always try to engage in conversations or debates with those that I disagree with politically, theologically, or in this case ecologically. Everyone has their own rhetoric that goes along with their views, including you. I certainly do not deny that I have used much anti- sport hunting rhetoric. I also get just as much rhetoric from the pro side in return. Does it change opinions? Probably not, but at least there is a dialog, unlike what we see on the national political level.

          • ma'iingan says:

            Paul –

            I took issue with your comments, you explained your position, but you didn’t address my response to your question –

            “The question I have is are the views of non-consumptive “users” of wildlife even considered by the state of WI?”

            I believe there are many opportunities, provided by Wisconsin DNR, for the enjoyment of wildlife by non-consumptive users. You apparently do not?

          • Paul says:

            Yes, I think that non-hunters are an afterthought when it comes to wildlife or enjoying nature in WI. Take for example the push to allow for trapping in state parks. The media made it sound like WI “voters” overwhelmingly approve of this. The problem is that the “voters” were the Conservation Congress and not the WI electorate. Why not put divisive issues like this up for a statewide referendum? Do you really think that the average citizen wants our state parks opened up for more trapping and hunting? I do not. In my opinion WI, just like the states in the west, seem to put little premium on the dollars that non-consumptive users bring in to a state’s economy. Just look at the media the WI DNR puts out. The vast majority of it is about hunting, hunting, and hunting. Very little seems to focus on the non-hunting outdoor activities that bring people from all over the country to WI. Of course I am sure it boils down to making the people who pay their salaries happy, and unfortunately the non-consumptive users do not pay. I also think that needs to change. I am all for taxing non-consumption equipment, as long as everyone, not just hunters and trappers, get a legitimate spot at the table. Under the current “Conservation Congress” model they do not. Here is an opinion piece about that very topic.


            I am not saying that there are no opportunities for non-consumptive users in WI to enjoy nature. What I am saying is that we seem to take far less priority when hunting or trapping interests are involved.

      • Paul says:

        Sorry, I guess that I feel obligated to put that disclaimer in there after the little back and forth yesterday. 🙂

        • ma'iingan says:

          I think you see what you want to see – that which reinforces your personal biases.

          By the way, this comment –

          “The next comment is often “Isn’t that where Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer (actually from Ohio) are from?”

          I don’t believe for a second.

          • Paul says:

            Thanks for calling me a liar. This has indeed happened to me several times especially during my travels in the south. If you are going to critique everything that I post here and have the nerve to accuse me of being untruthful, please just ignore my comments in the future. Tell me what is it like to go through life having all of the answers and no personal biases of your own? And you wonder why I have such disdain for you fish and game types.

          • william huard says:

            You should know these Fish and Game personnel are beyond question.
            Take Wildlife dis-services as an example. In 2009 they killed over 4 million animals….Of those victims included over 500 Otters, 84% died by accident….with”professionals” like this handling our wildlife who are we to question….One thing is obvious, they are good at killing not so good at keeping stuff alive.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “Do you really think that the average citizen wants our state parks opened up for more trapping and hunting?”

            Taken at face value, the answer would be “no”. But there are clearly defined and well-documented ecological benefits to allowing limited hunting and trapping in parks, especially in the absence of a resident keystone predator.

            Look at what elk did to the Yellowstone landscape with no hunting and no predation – the Park Service was forced to hold periodic mass killings in an attempt to minimize the damage.

            In Wisconsin, white-tailed deer have that same capacity to alter the landscape – and they’ve done a pretty good job of it in parks that have not allowed hunting. Many native plant communities have been nearly wiped out due to over-abundant deer – hunting provides a means to promote recovery and maintan a balance in park ecosystems.

            As far as trapping, it will help to limit mesopredators – that have also become overabundant in the absence of a keystone predator. Mesopredators tend to severely limit populations of ground-nesting birds and small rodents, leading to a cascade of environmental changes.

            There’s good science behind allowing limited hunting and trapping in many Wisconsin parks – it has nothing to do with “catering” to hunters and trappers.

          • Paul says:

            All the more reason why wolves should be welcomed into these ecosystems and not be persecuted as many in the hunting community want to do. Notice I said “many” and not all. The ecological benefits of having wolf packs in Yellowstone have been noted in the scientific community numerous times. They can and do also have the same positive impacts here in WI.

          • JB says:


            I know of no worse example than what happened in Sharon Woods, a 308 ha metro park here in Columbus. In that one park, a little over one mile square, there were an estimated 350 deer, which caused the disappearance of more than 150 species of plants, reductions in numerous small mammals, and a browse line so obvious that anyone who saw it questioned what the heck was going on. Sometimes hunting is the MORE HUMANE solution.

          • Paul says:

            William, you are certainly right. I don’t even know why I bother to attempt a dialog with some of these people, especially when I am called a liar when I tell of things that I have experienced in my life. I was born and raised in the State of Wisconsin, and I have experienced elements of its culture first hand. Making jokes about some of the more notorious residents of this state has long been a way to lessen the impact of the sick acts they committed, especially in my line of work.

            As I am sure you know when you work in a field where heinous acts happen frequently you often resort to black humor to lessen the impact of a troubling situation. If my comment was solely about comparing hunters to serial killers, I would not have included Joe McCarthy in my list of notorious residents. I didn’t realize how ultra-sensitive some people on this site are when anything they approve of is questioned or joked about. I am more than willing to defend my positions, but I am not going to accept being called a liar. Damn, some people need to get a sense of humor. I have no problem laughing at jokes made at my expense or against my beliefs. I work with many hunters and we have spirited back and forth debates almost daily and make jokes about each other’s positions. We know where each other stands but we do not take it personally. I don’t like sport hunting or trapping, and I do not hesitate to make my position known. There is nothing wrong with a spirited debate even with distasteful jokes.

          • Paul says:

            Anyway, enough about me being butt hurt. Here is an interesting article about “robo-deer” being used in some areas to catch poachers.


          • jon says:

            William, you are certainly right. I don’t even know why I bother to attempt a dialog with some of these people,

            Arguing with hunters is a waste of time. I’m sure you have been called every name in the book by hunters. You fight and speak up for wildlife and the hunters don’t like that as they feel it’s their right to kill wildlife as they want and please, so they call you names. You are doing something right if the hunters are resorting to name calling.

          • JB says:

            Jon says:

            “Paul,william, etc., read an article called “The Killing Game,” by Joy Williams. It came out in 1990. It exposes the real truth about hunters…’It’s time to stop being conned and cowed by hunter, time to stop pampering and coddling them, time to get them off the government’s duck-and-deer dole, time to stop thinking of wild animals as ‘resources’ and ‘game,’ and start thinking of them as sentient beings that deserve our wonder and respect, time to stop allowing hunting to be creditable by calling it ‘sport’ and ‘recreation.’ Hunters make wildlife dead, dead, dead. It’s time to wake up to this indisputable fact. As for the hunters, it’s long past check-out time.’

            And then:

            “I don’t even know why I bother to attempt a dialog with some of these people…”

            Jon: When you make comments like the one above, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get a hostile response.

          • JEFF E says:

            Good morning JB

          • jon says:

            JB, paul made those comments, but I will say I couldn’t agree with him more. Non-hunters and hunters will most likely never get along and see eye to eye on things. It’s just the way it is. I do expect hostile comments by hunters made to me when I speak up against the atrocities that are being committed against wildlife.

          • JB says:

            ‘morning, Jeff. (I was up early to play hockey).

            – – –

            Jon: Sorry, Jon. I see you were just agreeing with Paul’s sentiments. The point, however, is still valid. When you accuse people of all sorts of bad things, what do you expect?

            Here’s an exercise for you: Go back through this thread and replace the word “hunter” from your, William, or Paul’s posts with a racial or ethnic group (e.g., blacks, Hispanics, etc.). Maybe this will give you some idea how your rhetoric sounds to hunters.

          • Paul says:

            JB, the comment that I made about questioning why I even bother attempting a dialog with certain people here was about ma’iingan and his accusing me of being dishonest, among other things. He constantly complains about mine and others use of rhetoric, yet does not hesitate to do the same. A few weeks ago he tried to blame the actions of the SSS crowd on pro-wolf advocates. If that isn’t a form of disingenuous rhetoric, I don’t know what is. If someone wants to question my stance on an issue that is fine, but don’t call me a liar or belittle me for engaging in a similar form of rhetoric. I actually enjoy the back and forth with many on this site. What I don’t like is holier than thou fish and game types who act like they are above engaging in rhetoric and then do the very same thing that they bitch about.

          • Paul says:

            JB, I have to disagree with you about replacing the word hunter with an ethnicity. People choose to be hunters, just like they choose to be affiliated with a religion, political party, etc. We do not choose what our ethnicity or race is. There is a huge difference. If someone chooses to be a hunter they should expect that there will be people who criticize them. I chose to be an atheist, so I certainly expect criticism from religious people who are against my stance. Is it right, of course not, but it is human nature for many to criticize or ostracize what you don’t agree with or those who are different from you. What someone has no choice in is their race or ethnicity, and that should never be grounds for criticism.

          • wolf moderate says:

            We do choose who or what we hate, including ethnicities.

          • JB says:


            I can certainly agree that “choice” is one thing that differentiates hunters from ethnic or racial groups. However, this distinction is not at all meaningful from a communications perspective. The point is that when you apply a negative stereotype to an entire group of people you are likely to alienate ALL of its members–even those who don’t fit the stereotype, and those who might agree with your policy agenda (animal welfare). Again, this rhetoric is needlessly polarizing, nor is it useful (unless your agenda is to sow distrust).

            – – – –

            Yes, Harvey. Three mornings per week! Go Red Wings!

          • Harley says:

            Um… Red Wings. Ok, sorry, you have become a sworn enemy! That’s worse than wolf lover vs. non-wolf lover to a Blackhawk fan! 😉
            (and of course you do realize I am kidding. Sorry, have to interject some humor every so often)

          • jon says:

            Paul, as you know, people are born whatever ethnicity they are born with and they have no control over that. What people have control over are their choices and decisions. Deciding to kill wildlife for whatever reason is a CHOICE. Something that most people have control over where as people who are born certain ethnicities have no control over how they are going to look like and what ethnicity they are going to be. Hunters who make conscious decisions to kill wildlife should know there will be people out there who call them out on their actions.

          • jon says:

            Hating someone because they were born different and look different is absurd. Those people had no control over that. Hunters on the other hand are making a conscious decision/choice to go out and kill wildlife. They should understand and accept there are going to be people out there pissed off and disgusted by their actions. You cannot compare a person who has no control over the way they look and what ethnicity they are and someone who has made a choice/conscious decision to go out into wilderness areas to kill wildlife.

          • SEAK Mossback says:

            Perhaps a better analogy than race would be if people who disapprove of people who are gay publicly goaded them to take the lead ahead of the rest of society in condemning all the priests and others who have abused boys — in the name of “policing their ranks”.

          • JB says:

            Jon: Since you refuse to accept the race/ethnicity analogy, try exchanging any relevant social group that you join voluntarily. Might I suggest Muslims or Jews? How about hippies or environmentalists? The point is valid either way: you are taking behaviors exhibited by a few individuals and making blanket statements about an entire social group. Moreover, by only ever posting negative comments and information about hunters, you are purposefully painting an inaccurate picture. Of course, nobody in the news writes stories entitled “Local hunter fills doe tag”; you don’t here about the millions of hunters out there that hunt legally and ethically–only the bad apples make the news.

            I am all for a more balanced voice in wildlife management. But being disingenuous about hunting and hunters is not the way to get there. Your actions will only serve to convince ethical hunters that they should oppose giving you a seat at the table.

          • JB says:

            Just to complete the analogy (and not to put too fine a point on it), what you are doing is akin to going to a blog about religious freedom and posting negative comments about Muslims, replete with links showing all of the horrible actions of extremists groups to “prove” your point.

          • jon says:

            JB, I said before not all hunters hate/dislike predators, but there is no question you have a segment of the hunting population that hates predators. There is no denying this. There are always going to be bad apples in any group of people. When 9/11 happened, arabs all across the united states were being attacked just because of the actions of a few anti-american extremists. I know not all hunters are the same, but my problem is with those hunters that hate wolves and other predators. The people who are against hunting are usually against the hunters that kill specifically for sport/recreation/trophies, etc.

          • JB says:

            “…not all hunters hate/dislike predators, but there is no question you have a segment of the hunting population that hates predators. There is no denying this. There are always going to be bad apples in any group of people.”

            Jon: I don’t think anyone denies that some hunters hate wolves and other large carnivores. I certainly did not. If you recognize that not all hunters are “predator haters” why not frame your rhetoric to distinguish between the “bad apples” and the good ones?

            Let me ask you a pointed question: Is your agenda to eliminate undesirable behaviors of hunters (e.g., poaching), or is it to eliminate hunting altogether? If the former, why would you risk alienating ethical hunters by grouping them with those that commit deplorable acts?

          • JB says:


            Can I take your silence as thoughtful deliberation?

        • Harley says:

          HA! JB you play hockey? Awesome!

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      Paul –

      Based on a fairly recent experience, it occurred to me that those of you who want to end hunting with hounds on public land, etc. before eventually working down to all other forms of hunting are starting on the wrong continent. Since one of your main points is that it’s uncivilized, it would seem the best prospect for success in carrying your argument would be to start with the most civilized and cultured country in the world.

      Christmas before last, we visited our daughter who was on foreign exchange in the old part of Paris. After taking the frighteningly fast trains around the country for a couple of weeks, stopping a few days to ski at Chamonix, then the Mediterranean coast, Pyrenees and the Atlantic Basque Region, and finally wandering amidst the ridiculous historic opulence of Paris and Versailles — we were ready for a long walk in the woods. The largest patch of forest we could locate on Google Earth that was quickly reachable by train from Paris turned out to be Fontainebleu, where the Louis’ (starting with VII) built and improved a royal hunting lodge that now rivals Versailles in architected grandeur (hunting was apparently helping preserve habitat as long ago as 1169). It’s public and you’re free to wander the forest, where we encountered very few other people. Anyway, while in the forest and crossing abundant sign of wild boar, roe deer, etc. we came upon a hunting party that exceeded my imagination. All except the guy who tended the hounds were astride some of the most beautiful horses I’ve ever laid eyes on and were clothed in absolutely crisp 18th or 19th century military-type duds. They were gathered around, apparently planning while the 20 or so thin, light-colored hounds were all obediently and patiently packed together in a tight group. They greeted us and were very friendly (no doubt sensitive to occasional anti-hunting sentiment there as well). We took a few photos. I saw no game carcasses lying about and regret not asking (through my daughter who is fluent in French) what in particular they were after.

      That type of hunting is certainly not my cup of tea, but those are the people you need to “civilize” first.

  47. Cody Coyote says:

    Brain-attacking worm linked to decline in Wyoming moose population.

  48. JEFF E says:

    Obviously farmers in Florida don’t have the same “you owe me everthing” entitlement mindset that we see in the west.

    • Nancy says:

      ++“I feel happy. Proud. Fulfilled,” he wrote. “The two minutes and 10 seconds that elapsed between the time we spotted the deer and when I pulled the trigger (I kept my tape recorder running and timed it later) were among the most intense, primal, and profound moments I’ve ever spent in the outdoors. I can’t explain those feelings. But I can’t deny them, either.++

      An interesting statement – I get close to the same feeling when I shoot a moose, elk, deer… with my camera. And I’m thankful that they stood there long enough for that incredible shot that I then can share with family & friends.

      • JEFF E says:

        I also feel a sense of pride when I an action photo of a particualr aniamal(fill in the blank). I also understand that I live in where seeing wild aniamals is not that “profound”.
        However I get a deep lasting sense of accomplishment by providing food for my family, be that growing my yearly garden, working my job, or puting meat on the table. Should anyone not understand that; so be it.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      It’s a good solution for many, although it certainly can’t support all. Talking with friends from back east, I think a lot of opportunity has opened with whitetailed deer there compared with the 1960s-70s, because of the crossing of two trends — increase in deer populations and decrease in hunters, allowing more hunting time and liberal bag limits. License costs can be a factor in some states, however — an old Montana friend whose family has always used deer and elk as a main food source reports that license & tag fees are getting to the point where it is getting more marginal. Our fees are still very reasonable for the amount of opportunity — $25 for a hunting license ($48 including sport fishing) with no tag fees unless you want to hunt grizzly bear or muskox. When you are 60, you get a free life-long hunting and fishing license and at 65 (or disabled), you can have somebody hunt and fish for you on your license and limit, which I do for a couple of old-timers (and hope someone will do for me someday).

      I’m taking a brief break on this rainy Sunday from butchering a Sitka blacktail I got during a long day’s outing over much elevation and distance last week, picking up a blue grouse during the process. My wife also got out for a few hours looking for deer on that beautiful sunny Sunday. On the high tide, in an hour or so, I’ll take another break for a walk with the retriever to check out a creek mouth 1/4 mile south and a tide pool 250 yards north for mallards. On the way, I’ll spread the fat, scraps, head and bones on the beach and the eagles, ravens, crows and gulls will be all over it — and they will get no lead because it was taken with a pure copper bullet.

    • bret says:

      I agree, I will say that I have a cow tag this year and hope to fill it, for most of us it’s not about the antlers.

  49. Immer Treue says:

    On a lighter note… And let me preface this for the readers here and, elsewhere. Yes, I know the facts behind the story are debatable…and it is largely discounted as a work of fiction, but it is still fun to watch so I put on Never Cry Wolf tonight. I’ve heard tell that Disney cartoonists would slip subliminal items into the movies, never seen it, but heard they did.

    Soooooooo when Charles Martin Smith mentioned the name of the small town he flew out of Nootsaaq, Nootsack, Nutsack, or however it might be spelled, just wonder if anyone else has caught this. In the book, Mowatt stages his expedition in Churchill, so wondering if Disney writers took some “artistic” license, slipping one in, with the name of the town.

    • Nancy says:

      Immer –

      “The only plane in Nootsack belonged to a part-time bush pilot,
      gambler and real-estate tycoon named Rosie Little.
      While negotiating our deal, he introduced me to this drink that he’d invented.
      Known locally as Moose Juice,
      it consisted of equal parts Moose Brand beer and ethyl alcohol.
      Before I knew it, my old fear of flying evaporated,
      and I spent all the money I had left on 24 cases of beer.
      T oo much weight, Tyler,
      Hang on!
      Whoa,,, Nelly!

      Come on, Something else out of there now, The big, heavy ones, Tyler,
      I really had no way of knowing exactly what of the department’s gear
      we donated to the people of Nootsack.
      That big wooden box there, Get rid of it, Go on, You don’t need that,
      But by our third attempt at takeoff, it was a lot of what I might really need.
      I tried not to think about it. In fact, I tried not to think at all.
      This one is it, I can feel it,
      With my eyes still shut, I realized that I was still alive.
      But this was only the beginning.
      It’s funny how I keep thinking back to that going-away party”

      What a great movie that was!

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        That was quite a battered old Beaver the pilot was flying. A rich German who recently built a lodge on Admiralty flies an evil looking yellow Pilatus Porter on amphib floats that I think is identical to the “yellow wasp” the pilot switched to when he discovered wealth and greed.

        I loved the lake scene where he’s crunching tentatively along on the ice with his parka hood up, followed abruptly by the underwater scene of him struggling free of his big pack on the bottom of the lake.

        • Immer Treue says:


          Every once in a while someone goes through the ice in MN. About 15 years ago, early in the Winter when the ice was still thin, and older trapper was making his rounds and informed his wife he would be home on day X. He never showed up, so they sent the planes looking for him. What they found was a hole in the ice big enough for him and his dog team, and, I guess his last act before being dragged under was to put his hat on the ice where he went in with his dogs.

          • SEAK Mossback says:

            Sad. The first winter when my mother and I arrived in Nenana where she taught school for a couple of years, we were invited to go on a dog sled ride through the forest by Jerry Riley (a local native and one of the two top dog mushers in North America, with his rival being the well-heeled Dr. Lombard from New Hampshire). I rode in the sled driven by his young side-kick, Charles Ned, who tragically later disappeared through the ice on the Tanana River with his entire team and sled.

    • jon says:

      I really wonder if these creatures like yeti, bigfoot, etc really exist as it seems like there has been many sightings of them through the years, but why haven’t they been found yet? These creatures would stick out like a sore thumb if seen, but they can never find real evidence that any of these creatures exist.

      • Paul says:


        IF they exist I would imagine that they are smart enough to stay away from humans. I have always wondered if such a species exists why remains have not been found(except for fossils of Gigantopithecus) . It could be for the same reason that it is difficult to find the remains of wildlife that died naturally in remote areas but I doubt it. I think that humans like a good mystery and really do not want to know the answer. That is why these stories persist and have persisted for centuries. Kind of like UFOs, The Loch Ness Monster, etc. I know that most of these stories are probably a bunch of crap, but I still tune in to watch the documentaries about this stuff because it makes for good entertainment even if it is BS.

      • aves says:

        I saw one documentary that concluded what people were describing as a yeti was actually a sloth bear. Their very long claws and ability to stand upright was thought to lead to the mistaken identifications. I suspect all reports of bigfoot and friends are either people knowingly lying or people whose imaginations get the best of them following brief, unexpected glimpses of native wildlife.

  50. Mike says:

    Robotic deer decoy snags hundreds of hunters:

    I think this verifies the point some of us have been making all along. The hunting community is infected with poachers beyond repair.

    “Briggs said he’s seen it all, from bow hunters shooting multiple arrows at the inanimate robot deer, amazed that it’s not going down, to shooters with rifles repeatedly firing shots at the mechanical beast.”

    • JB says:

      “Beyond repair”? And what is your evidence for this bold assertion?

      You might also have chosen to post this quote, which I think sums up what legitimate hunters think about such activities:

      “If somebody gets caught shooting the deer from the road, it ruins their reputation as a hunter,” Bruce said. “Their name goes up on the wall of shame among local hunters.”

  51. Nancy says:

    +Perhaps a better analogy than race would be if people who disapprove of people who are gay publicly goaded them to take the lead ahead of the rest of society in condemning all the priests and others who have abused boys — in the name of “policing their ranks”.

    Seak – no reply “button” to your post so my question is all the way down here – where were you going with that post?

  52. Paul says:

    Article about “Wildlife Services” and the cost to taxpayers. Very encouraging parts in the story of how many communities are brushing off the Feds in favor of humane solutions to wildlife conflicts. There are also points brought up about how WS tries to portray killing as the only way for cities to deal with geese issues.

    • william huard says:

      The agency’s mission is to “resolve conflicts in a manner that allows people and wildlife to coexist peacefully”…..
      That’s a good one. Almost as good as SCI’s mission statement- “Promoting wildlife conservation worldwide”

      These ghouls actually think they are doing good work……

  53. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Wolves and Bears on my property!!! Wildlife becoming a nuisance!
    Quote: “She has been inundated with phone calls regarding wolf hunting on her land, but she´s not sure that is the best option”

  54. Peter Kiermeier says:

    2 Men Plead guilty To Shooting Mexican Grey Wolves
    Mistaken for coyotes. Hmmm, Here golden hunting rule No.347 applies: If in doubt, shoot first, think later!

    • Maska says:

      I’ve seen quite a few collared lobos in the wild, and I guarantee the collars are generally pretty conspicuous. Both the animals in these cases were wearing collars.

      Seems like some of our hunters and livestock owners need a visit to the optometrist. Not only that, one of these guys was actually told in advance that there was a wolf in the area, so he should have been on the alert to look for a collar.

  55. Peter Kiermeier says:

    Good harvest of remarkable press releases today! The statement by Director Dan Ashe about the Fish and Wildlife Service working so damn hard for the wolves is another superb one. Question, what are the merits of Fish and Wildlife in the reproduction process of wolves?????

  56. CodyCoyote says:

    A bow hunter near the brain trust of Gardiner Montana is severely electrocuted by touching a dead bear lying on a live power line.

    ( You can’t make this stuff up… )

  57. smalltownID says:

    Prepare for the onslaught. Have you guys got the email about the lady near Orofino who shot a charging wolf with her pistol?

    Let the hysteria in Idaho begin. Glad she was ok though.

  58. Immer Treue says:

    Wolves lose a friend

    There were some who did not particularly care for what Mr. Klinghammer did, but first and foremeost his cause was education.

    • Nancy says:

      Eventually, it all boils down to education Immer………. the bigger question is – will mankind at some point (in our every busy, hi tech, self absorbed world) be willing to address and recognize just what we are doing (and have done) to the rest of the planet and the other species we share this planet with, in our quest, to be the best?

  59. Immer Treue says:

    Mountain Biker hit by antelope.

    I don’t know how many times this has almost happened with deer, and once a bear.

  60. aves says:

    I just came across this interesting article from 2009 on how to get people to care enough to take action against the world’s many problems. It is centered on helping people in need but could easily apply to wildlife. Wildlife and environmental concerns often depress those who care. The constant stream of calamities makes them weary and they start to tune out. I’ve always thought more positive appeals coupled with achievable goals could make all the difference.

    “Nicholas Kristof’s Advice for Saving the World: What would happen if aid organizations and other philanthropists embraced the dark arts of marketing spin and psychological persuasion used on Madison Avenue? We’d save millions more lives.”

  61. timz says:

    Probably another one of those “hunter conservationists”

  62. Ralph Maughan says:

    Deer Kills Nebraska Farmer With Repeated Antler Blows.”

    Well folks, that is two buck deer attacks on humans (other person lived) in a matter of weeks. Guess we know which mammal is more dangerous than wolves. It took wolves a hundred years to kill two people…….

    • Savebears says:


      There are actually quite a few people gored by bucks every year in this country, it is not an uncommon event, in fact it is quite common, of course we are going to use it to further the cause of wolves are not dangerous. the whole issue is, all wildlife is dangerous.

      • Ralph Maughan says:


        You are right. I know. We even have a friend who was just about drowned in a pond by a buck. Lucky someone came by.

        Just wanted to make a point for the “I’m so scared of the wolves” dummies.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          A search for ” Human deaths from animals” is always enlightening and entertaining. Everything from deranged circus elephants down to spiders and bee stings. Wolves are w-a-a-a-a-a-y down any list , even across a decade’s time. But near the top of mainstream mammals killing people are horses and rodeo bucking bulls and of course the wolf’s city cousin, domestic dogs. Fido the Rottweiller is to be feared more than any Grey Wolf anywhere, apparently.

  63. Paul says:

    Good news about another bear poacher facing charges.

    • william huard says:

      Next! This type of story shows up almost daily. I wonder how many of these hunter turned poacher stories go undetected.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Seems there´s a video available showing this same wolf begging for food.

      • JEFF E says:

        Guten Tag, Herr Kiermeir

      • Nancy says:

        Don’t know about anyone else, but that wolf looked like he really wanted to play with that human! Tail up, wagging, frolicking around. Didn’t look like an attack to me…. I think you might have come upon Rockhead’s latest video Peter – due out in January.

        • jon says:

          If that wolf wanted to kill that idiot who was trying to feed him, the wolf would have. Sorta puts a hole in the argument that these “big canadian” wolves are so dangerous to humans. What I find sad is that situations like this always end up with the animal being killed and little to nothing happens to the idiot who caused the wolf to be killed in the first place. One less wolf to be viewed by wildlife viewers just because of the actions of one man who won’t be held accountable enough for having this wolf killed because of his irresponsible actions.

        • Peter Kiermeir says:

          I´m not sure what this video actually shows. If it is somebody arguing with a wolf or just walking his dog. I found it on the YNPnet Forum where it is related to the wolf concerned. I further traced it on youtube to see the attached description and comments. Seems it was taken in Sept near the east entrance. Unfortunately not much more is known.

          • Immer Treue says:

            The behavior of this wolf is interesting. I’m currently reading a book “Dog Sense” by John Bradshaw

            All genetics points to wolves as the ancestor of our domestic friends. Most wolves have nothing to do with people, but you get a case like this, where there did not appear to be any immediate threat, but the danger was implied, thus the wolf was removed.

            Now before someone jumps to a conclusion that I’m making an assumption, this is the type of “wolf” that according to Bradshaw’s book and other literature, including the fox experimentation in Russia, had to be the prototypical type of wolf(ves) that paved the way to domestication of our dogs.

            I dimly recall a time when a friend and I (we were 14-15 years old)went on a long training run of about 15 miles between the cross country and track seasons and as we left the forest preserves area we came upon the enclosure for the wolf exhibit of a well known zoo. No double fences, the enclosure just backed into the woods. There was a large wolf by the fence, and I grabbed a long branch on the forest floor and stuck it through the fence, and the wolf grabbed onto it, and I actually played a bit of tug -o-war with the wolf. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have done it, but there was absolutely no malicious intent. No one saw us, just one of those moments that lasted about 30 seconds, and we continued on our run. Just always been fascinated with these critters.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “…this is the type of “wolf” that according to Bradshaw’s book and other literature, including the fox experimentation in Russia, had to be the prototypical type of wolf(ves) that paved the way to domestication of our dogs.”

            Many wolves exhibit a natural curiousity toward humans and habituate quite quickly, if given the opportunity. Unfortunately, reversing this behavior is extremely difficult. I’ve tried paintballs, cracker shells, and RAG devices on habituated wolves with very little success.

            The SOP in my agency is to attempt to make any encounter with a wolf into a negative experience for the animal – aversive conditioning, in other words.

            We’ve been using the “alpha” technique when radio-collaring – when we catch a pup or a submissive yearling, we forego the use of sedative and instead muzzle the animal and bind its feet. The poor guys are terrified during the twenty minutes or so it takes to process them, but their learned fear will serve them well in future encounters with humans.

          • Immer Treue says:

            “Many wolves exhibit a natural curiousity toward humans”

            This is part of the behavior puzzle necessary for the domestication process to begin. Not to say that this wolf or habituated wolves are going to become domesticated.

            However, it is this curiosity wolves have toward us that, in my opinion, feeds the anti-wolf frenzy of “they were hunting me.” I guess in the times in which we live, and the short tether upon which the wolf is attached, habituation of the wolf in particular, and any wildlife should be discouraged.

            Red squirrels cause me a bigger headache than the occasional wolf passing by or bear taking down a bird feeder.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “However, it is this curiosity wolves have toward us that, in my opinion, feeds the anti-wolf frenzy of “they were hunting me.”

            Immer –

            I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had this conversation with a bowhunter –

            Bowhunter: “I was hunting by (location) and four wolves followed me out to my truck.”

            Me: “Did they make any aggressive moves toward you?”

            Bowhunter: “No, but I yelled at them a couple times and they just sat down and looked at me.”

            Me: “So it was dark or almost dark?”

            Bowhunter: “Yeah.”

            Me: “And you were in full camo, right?”

            Bowhunter: (Slight pause) “Yeah.”

            Me: “Were you using doe scent?”

            Bowhunter: (Longer pause) “Well, yeah.”

            Me: “So the wolves saw a small walking tree that made funny noises and smelled like a doe in heat. I don’t think you were in any danger, they were just curious. If you’re really concerned, get yourself a can of bear spray.”

            Bowhunter: “Huh.”

            A common variation is when the bowhunter is “pinned” in his treestand. In this case, the wolves follow a trail of estrous doe scent to the tree, and then puzzle over the odd tree-colored creature hanging off the side of the tree.

          • Immer Treue says:


            Thanks for that feedback. The wolf is just so sensuously attuned to “its” world that it will explore by nature of it’s own curiosity.

            I would hazard a pretty good guess that the elk hunting, buck calling Idaho granny, who skull shot the wolf that she supposed was going to eat her, was a whole lot of what you described above. I’d wager that wolf didn’t even have the time to say oops.

          • JB says:


            I would bet many coyotes have lost their lives for this same reason. I have an acquaintance (in Michigan) who was bow hunting, and after being followed to his tree stand three days in a row by (what appeared to be) the same coyote, he finally shot it.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “…after being followed to his tree stand three days in a row by (what appeared to be) the same coyote, he finally shot it.”

            JB –

            So I assume he was carrying a sidearm for protection? I see a lot of this – bowhunters who feel they need to carry a handgun.

            I try to talk them into bear spray if they really feel they need something – with limited success. Here in the WGL it’s not well-known, and then there’s the un-macho factor. Some of them just like carrying a handgun.

          • JB says:

            You got it. And the only real threat there is black bears–not that they’re much of a threat–so bear spray probably would be better (in most situations, anyway).

      • Mike says:

        It looks like he was concerned for the wolf and was trying to save its life.

      • jon says:

        Does anyone know if charges are going to be brought against the people feeding this wolf?

      • CodyCoyote says:

        The man’s behavior in this video is inexplicable, maybe irrational. Especially when he looks back towards the camera and says something like ” want another one ? ” as in a shot sequence , or what ?? His dress and mannerisms are also suspect.

        – the Wolf? It’s acting more like a playful domestic dog. No aggression whatsoever. Yet that guy seems to want to beat on it .

        The next time Rockhead puts out a video about vicious killer wolves, put this one up on the screen and ask him to opine on which animal in the video is the threat.

        • Nancy says:

          CC – this video brought to mind that video filmed in Russia for a vodka commerical a few months ago (that swept the internet) with that pack of mongrel dogs ( aka wolves) running down a dark highway.

  64. jon says:

    carter Niemeyer exposes the facts about wolves. A must watch video.

    Robert Fanning wants Niemeyer, Ed Bangs, and Doug Smith to be thrown in prison because of the crimes they committed supposedly. What are these crimes you ask, reintroducing wolves according to Fanning.

  65. smalltownID says:

    Here is that story I was warning about. Seems like the wolf thought she was a cow elk until it was too late. Contrary to the email, of course, that she was attacked. Let the debates begin.

    • Nancy says:

      To late for who SmalltownID?

      The first pic many of us saw when the story first came out of a grinning, didn’t have a wolf tag, Renee, or the wolf who’s now dead, and and center stage?

      • smalltownID says:

        Easy there Nancy, obviously the wolf.

      • Paul says:

        What a fluffy bunch of crap that article was. I remember stories a week or so ago saying that this woman didn’t have a “wolf tag.” I guess that tag just “magically” appeared since then. It is amazing how all you hear from these people is fear, fear, fear. As someone pointed out in the past about this story, does this woman look “scared?” Nice touch adding the pistol to the picture. Also, look at the fear mongering going on in the comments.

        “They” unlike most humans kill for sport.”

        “This is just one news story about the wolves stalking and attacking hunters. How many more are out there?”

        “Now the wolves are running out of game animals to hunt that means man becomes prey.”

        “I kept trying to point out to these “wolf lovers” that the wolves are slaughtering our elk and deer herds, they are killing our livestock, and tried pointing out to them that there was nothing stopping them from hunting humans as well!”


        And where does this crap about wolves eating “kids at the bus stop” come from? Are these people for real? It must really suck to live in so much “fear” all of the time.

        • wolf moderate says:

          Why would she need a wolf tag if she wasn’t wolf hunting? From the article it seems she was attacked, so she killed it in self defense. As for the smiling, she is probably proud that she was able to get the wolf before the wolf got her.

          • Paul says:

            Honestly, do you really believe that it went down the way the story portrayed it? All of the pieces seem a little too convenient to me. Of course I was not there and this may have happened the way it is being portrayed, but I somehow doubt it. I think that this is being used as more of an anti-wolf rah, rah story than anything. The great heroine hunter conquers the big bad wolf! I guess you could say that I am “slightly” skeptical.

        • william huard says:

          “Anderson knew how much danger she was in because a week earlier one of her friends lost 3 hunting dogs……
          Now theres an accurate comparison- wolves kill dogs so therefore they kill humans? What a logical conclusion…..
          What’s up with the wolf hunting tag….did she have one or didn’t she?
          Read the comments- these airheads keep bringing up the Alaska teacher…..

          • Paul says:

            William, as I have said before many in the hunting community think that there should be no risk involved with their “sport.” Those type of people think that hunting should be the same as going through the drive-thru at McDonald’s. If you put your dogs in that type of situation, you would be prepared for the potential consequences. And if you really loved your dogs you wouldn’t put them in that situation to begin with.

            *Disclaimer* I said MANY not ALL. And yes, I have personal experience with these type of people.

            Geez William, for a second I thought you were talking about the airhead former Alaska Governor. 🙂

          • william huard says:

            That’s one of the problems…….Hunters have become way too spoiled with all their hunting “tools”. People are always kissing their a&*, so with that comes a sense of entitlement.
            I have absolutely no sympathy for a hunter who loses their dogs…..These dogs just become victims like all the other wildlife destroyed by our conservationist friends.

  66. smalltownID says:

    I didn’t know it had been discussed but I am not sorry I brought it up Nancy. I was waiting for another perspective since the email portrayed it as an attack. I was skeptical as most ppl who are familiar with wolves so I was waiting for the article to see if it was true that she was even approached by a wolf.

    I am not saying this reveals “the truth” but surely it sheds some light on the issue. From her words, it sounds like she remained concealed and the wolf thought she was a cow elk. I am extrapolating here based on the fact she was blowing a cow call and it “poked its head up” rather than her saying “it charged” her.

    I see this as more of a vindication for a wolf defender than something to be afraid of. Are you sure about your convictions? You seem to be defensive.

    • Nancy says:

      Not defensive SmalltownID. It just seems odd to me that these life threatening encounters with wolves aways seem to happen to hunters, although hundreds of thousands of people are out hiking and exploring all the time in wilderness areas.

      • Immer Treue says:


        It’s no just hunters, but folks who seem to have some agenda that is either anti or borders upon anti-wolf.

        I’ve said this before, but of all the times I have observed wolves, how many times have they observed me, and I did not know they were there, and this has been on the middle of snow covered lakes, with a dog, and the only thing I carry that resembles a weapon in the least is a hand axe for kindling.

        She was acting (calling)like an elk, she brought in wolf. Perhaps she did a good job with her calling, perhaps a poor job and sounded like a sick cow. Attacked ? smells as bad as a pile of sh!&!

        • wolf moderate says:

          Yeah, that guy killed/harvested/tagged 2 wolves the first day of the Idaho wolf hunt out of McCall. He was using a call. I guess we should ban elk calls to prevent possible wolf attacks.

        • Nancy says:

          You’re right Immer.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        This is in fact the strongest argument against alleged wolf threats to people. In Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana I believe every threatened wolf attack reported has been by someone who didn’t like wolves to begin with. What is means is they misinterpreted the wolves’ behavior as threatening when it wasn’t, or they just made it up.

  67. Paul says:

    Article about lack of deer “recruitment” in Texas due to drought.

    “It’s probably going to happen and then if it continues dry through next spring … animal production quality is going to be down,”

    Why can’t fish and game robots speak in normal English? Animals are now not born, they are recruited and in production.

    • william huard says:

      Rick Perry needs to pray a little harder. That big all mighty canned hunter in the sky hasn’t been listening.

      • Salle says:

        Speaking of canned hunting, does anyone know anything about the canned hunt facility at the base of Two Top out along Meadow Creek Rd. in Island Park? I know there is one because I saw the fenced in area and a lot of ATV’s and hunters in cammo gear out there last week, and some pretty stout looking bull elk inside the fences.

        At first I thought it might Rammell’s place but someone told me that it wasn’t… just curious.

        • william huard says:

          You can’t even get hunters to talk about that subject….But the old-“I’ve never hunted at one of those places……

          • Paul says:

            I look at canned hunts much like I view (insert war) reenactors. Many of the participants if not most are “chicken hawks”(see: Nugent, Ted, Limbaugh, Rush, Hannity, Sean etc.) who never served in the military but try to play into that “hoorah” wanabee role. Except in the case of the reenactors, nothing (usually) dies. The same applies to canned “hunters.” They want to dress up like (I can’t believe that I am saying this) real hunters and act like they are in the wilds “stalking” their prey, all the while knowing that they will leave with a “kill.” Disgusting.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      Biological terms like “production” and “recuitment” describe the processes that determine how a wildlife population is maintained. Production is the number or percentage of a population that is added at birth. Recruitment is the number or percentage of a population that survives to maturity to reproduce – contribute to production. Understanding both are important to understand why a population is growing, stable or declining.

      • JB says:

        Moreover, these terms are not exclusive to wildlife management. They describe biological processes that are fundamental to understanding population ecology. These are “text book” terms for any population ecologist.

    • TC says:

      These are standard terms used in wildlife biology and conservation, often used as data inputs for population modeling, and in fact, have broader applications in ecology, epidemiology, and other fields. Knowing and properly using terms like these comes with a rudimentary education in these fields, and is essential to be able to converse with professionals in these disciplines. But, of course, you knew that.

      • Paul says:

        Yes, I know that all too well. Coming from six years in the Army, 14 years in Public Safety, and having an IT degree, (boy, I sound like a pompous ass),I know “industry lingo” all too well. It is just a pet peeve of mine when industry types use their lingo when communicating with the general public.

        The first thing that I was taught in a police report writing class in the nineties is that when writing or speaking to the public or media, to use plain language that the average person can understand. That has stuck with me since. That is why hearing industry lingo terms like “recruitment,” “in production,” and “harvest” drives me nuts. Do you really think that the average person or reader of a news story, or even many on this blog, know what those terms mean scientifically? I think most people think that animals are being compared to crops. Of course when speaking with those in that field or in professional reports you know what is being said, but the general public probably does not.

        At my job many of the cops speak in “cop talk” all of the time. They use police lingo and “10-codes” even when they are talking to the public or co-workers face to face or on the phone. Yes, that drives me crazy. We have one guy who we call “Robocop” who talks like this all of the time, even to his family. The guy has been a cop for nine years, yet he still has not gotten past this. About a year ago he walked into my office and said to me to my face (use a robot voice) “I will be 10-24 (assignment complete), 10-8 (Clear), 10-76 (enroute), to the restroom. I will be 10-6 because I have to take a dump.” He was not trying to be funny, that is really how the guy talks. I just do not understand the mindset of people who cannot flex their method of communication to match the audience that they are speaking to.

        Sorry for the rant. I was just trying to explain my dislike for industry lingo being used when communicating with the public.

        • william huard says:

          It’s like when they say-“The bear was euthanized”. Sounds better than “The bear was shot in the head”
          To the average person it sounds so compassionate.

          • Savebears says:


            Rarely do they “shoot” a bear in the head, if the choice has been made to kill a bear they trap it and chemically kill it, just you or I would do when putting a dog down.

        • Nancy says:

          A BIG AMEN to that Paul!!

  68. Evan says:

    While this does not qualify as wildlife news per se, I thought the readers and participants on this blog would find it very interesting. This article, from the August 15th edition of the New Yorker, explores the causes of the demise of the Neanderthals. The answer according to the article, in short, was humans. It seems perhaps, that mankind has a nasty habit of ultimately destroying everything it encounters.

    Now, there are plenty of opposing views and opinions to be found on this site, but we all seem to care about preventing this destruction, whatever our individual motivations.

    Thanks to Ralph and team for giving us this forum to maintain awareness and hopefully play a part in the preservation of the many living creatures we share the earth with.

    Here’s the article. It is a long read.


    • Paul says:

      Thank you for posting that. It was indeed a long but interesting read. We certainly are the ultimate invasive species. I don’t think that Neanderthals ever went extinct; they just relocated to certain parts of my state. 🙂

  69. Harley says:

    Not sure if any of you have seen this video, it’s already almost 2 years old, but when I saw that video of the guy with the wolf, I thought of this one.

    • Harley says:

      As an aside, Canadians make me chuckle! A rule unto themselves, heh!

    • Nancy says:

      Harley – I think I would of been alittle concerned if I’d come upon this coyote in the wild but when the guy swung around for a shot of his trailer, it seemed kind of obvious (to me anyway) that this guy had a comfortable relationship with his “dog”

      Had a friend who was out riding on her property one day (with her grandson & two cow dogs) and they were harassed by a pair of coyotes. It was in the spring and my guess would be they had pups close by or they were just protecting their territory from the dogs.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      A few years ago, I was skiffing toward town and passed a pod of killer whales heading in the opposite direction, out of the channel. When I got to the rocky island at the harbor entrance, I noticed a harbor seal backed into a space in the rock with its head just above water. I pulled up close and slowed down, thinking it must be seriously injured because they are quite shy animals and will quickly slip away in the water when you come anywhere near or show them any attention. It didn’t move even when I idled up feet away — just took a breath and pulled its head under water. I don’t think it was injured (it was gone later in the day), probably so terrorized by whatever it had just experienced that it couldn’t recognize me as a actionable threat.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      I find specialization in killer whales fascinating. One would think that an intelligent, wide-ranging super-predator would tend to be a generalist. It would seem in their best interest to focus on the best opportunity at hand at any time. Also, it would seem that over-specialization would work against genetic diversity, unless there is a strong mechanism by which potential breeders can move among pods of the same type, like dispersing wolves. It suggests that optimal hunting strategies are very different for different prey and that the whales are not flexible enough to switch. The “transients” that come through this area are apparently quiet while moving, so as not to alert potential marine mammal prey, whereas the “residents” that specialize in dim-witted fish are very vocal. They must not have gotten to the point where a leader could effectively convey the message “OK, we’re hunting seals now, shut up!”

      In the past few weeks, there’s been an unusual phenomenon of 3 killer whales migrating 30 miles up the Nushagak River in Bristol Bay. The two adults recently died up there while observers lost track of the juvenile that was last spotted heading down-river. A necropsy performed on one of the adults uncovered no particular problem that should have been fatal, although it contained a fully developed fetus. They are probably doing the necropsy on the other now.

      • JEFF E says:

        the hunting technique I have always found particularly fascinating used by orcas is the one along Argentina in South America where they surf up on to the beach to grab a seal.

        • SEAK Mossback says:

          We stopped by those beaches on Peninsula Valdes 3 years ago while visiting my daughter’s friends in Trelew (Welsh community a few miles inland). Lots of sea lions and elephant seas. No killer whales, but it was easy to see the attraction of all those young sea lions hanging out at the edge of the surf with a fairly steep drop-off.

          They seem to discover new prey and methods now and then. Sea lions in the Aleutians took a huge hit (something like a 90% decline) in the 1990s that is believed due to sea lion predation. They would be sitting ducks, but probably didn’t happen to attract enough attention from killer whales until recently to become a serious target. It’s interesting that the sea otters remained at former abundance in one location, Clam Lagoon, which has an entrance that is impassable to killer whales. They figured it would take only about 6 killer whales switching prey to account for the 10,000s of sea otters missing over the early to mid-1990s. A more controversial hypthesis attributes prey switching by killer whales after the last Soviet whaling in the the 1960s to sequential megafaunal declines in harbor sea, fur seal and sea lions in western Alaska.

          In any case, they are definitely keystone! Fortunately, while taking the occasional swimming bear or moose, they have not discovered “us” yet, despite many opportunities. When I first came to Southeast, I was in a skiff tending a couple of friends who were down in scuba gear picking up king crab when I saw a pod approach and pass close by. It was only then I realized there was no way to send down the message to GTFO! When they did surface, they mentioned seeing big furrows in the bottom that they couldn’t explain. I later saw a documentary on killer whales that showed them cruising along at speed and turning and rubbing their backs on the bottom — so wonder if that was it?

          • SEAK Mossback says:

            Oops, I meant to say the decline in the Aleutians apparently attibuted to killer whales was sea otters, not sea lions — sea lions have also declined but after many years of research the cause is still subject of much debate.

      • JEFF E says:

        wouldn’t it be something to display the skeleton of the pregnant whale skeleton and the fetus skeleton,biologically correct; along the lines of the skeleton in Cordova at the museum. I think that would be a catalyst for a generation or two of Marine biologists that are now third and fourth graders.

    • william huard says:


      I didn’t want to watch the video but I did. These scumbag SADISTS stood over an injured bear and allowed the dogs to rip at this bear. I don’t mind saying that I hate these people. What a bunch of losers…..

      • Paul says:


        I know. The more I try to understand their motivations, the more frustrated and disgusted that I get. I don’t even know why I bother. This type of activity is legal and the WI DNR supports it as “recreation.” And we get attacked for speaking out against this type of barbaric behavior? Conservation, my ass.

        • william huard says:

          This is the face of the modern American Hunter. What a joke. Stupid, idiotic, unethical thrill killers. These dirtbags are so stupid they film these “hunts” witout any clue as to the damage that it will do to the image of “hunters” Geez Paul- what type of person regards this as a constructive form of recreation?

          • Paul says:

            William, I really do not know, but there are thousands of people who get pleasure out of this type of barbarism. I have been making an effort not to group together all hunters, but when this is the kind of crap that we see frequently, that is difficult. This type of behavior is no different than dog fighting, yet it is legal, promoted, and glamorized by fish and game departments as “tradition,” “recreation,” and “conservation.”. To me this is none of that. It is flat out infliction of pain and getting pleasure out of it. I dare anyone to watch that video and try to justify that this is anything other than inflicting pain and suffering for fun. How is this garbage legal?

          • william huard says:

            It’s legal because these hunting assoc pay the local politicians to look the other way. I have said this a million times, the responsible ethical hunters have a responsibility to not allow these egregious practices to be viewed as “recreation” “ethical” or “acceptable”. I was amazed watching these people just stand around as the dogs are ripping at the bear…….Shocking.

          • Paul says:

            These types of videos are all over YouTube. I agree that the hunting community needs to step forward and stop justifying these types of practices and behaviors. The old “it’s just a few bad apples” does not cut it anymore. With the number of hunters dropping at the rate they are is this the type of image that they want portrayed to the non-hunting world? I would assume it is not, but this is what we see. It should piss them off as much as it pisses us off.

          • william huard says:

            I see MR Baldyhead Walker just signed changes to the bear hunting law. Funny- there were no changes to benefit bears, only changes to help hunters. These people don’t get it, but then again they aren’t too bright. The thousands of activities that people can pursue, including forms of ethical hunting, and this is the tradition they want to pass onto younger hunters? WOW

        • wolf moderate says:

          “Lily, a bear with a bounty” on Facebook.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Watched the video. Perhaps common among bear hunters who use dogs? This next comment is not supposed to be anti-hunting. But an individual made a comment about the inefficiency of wolves when they kill, and the suffering they bring to their prey. Humans, on the other hand, with the technology available to them, are the most efficient and in a sense kind when they kill.

      Guess this video would depict that there are some who don’t quite follow that philosophy. It’s not the dogs fault, because they are doing what they are “trained” to do. If there is such a thing as Karma, the dogs of this individual will stumble upon other “denizens” of the woods who have evolved to do what they do.

      • william huard says:

        “Humans, on the other hand, with the technology available to them, are the most efficient and in a sense kind when they kill”
        Really? Where are these people you speak so kindly of?

      • Paul says:

        I agree it is certainly not the dogs fault. To these people the dogs are just another tool in their sick “sport.” These people take part in their despicable acts, and then expect to be reimbursed when one of their dogs are killed by a wolf. What is wrong with that picture? As I said earlier: conservation, my ass.

        Actually it is good that these idiots taped this. It shows the world exactly what these hounders are all about.

  70. william huard says:

    And here is the other problem. Silence.
    People in Wisconsin and the other swing states have to come back to their senses and vote against the conservative agenda…..I think we have had enough anti-abortion legislation. I think we have had enough of this UNAMERICAN push to dismantle the Post Office, Amtrak, Soc Sec, Medicare, Environment Regulation etc.

    • wolf moderate says:

      Post Office? That is more out of date than the 8-track. People use UPS, Fedex, or EMAIL to send things, not the USPS. USPS should only deliver 3 days a week max. Who needs mail 6 days a week? If you do, use Fedex, UPS etc…

      • william huard says:

        Obviously you don’t have a clue once again. I own a small business on the side, and there is no way that using FEDEX or UPS is as cost efficient as the USPS. If it wasn’t for the ridiculous law that the Repubs past in 2006 to make the PO pay for 75 years worth of pension collection in a ten year window they would have turned a 2 billion dollar profit last year…What is more american than the Post Office?

        • wolf moderate says:

          So you are mad that the tax payers won’t subsidize your small business any longer? Wow. Typical… I had to laugh when you brought up Amtrak. They are less efficient then the USPS, if that is possible.

          Anywho, continue on about the bear that was killed. That is much more important than the dire fiscal situation this country faces.

          It’s sad that the hunter killed “Hope”, if he intentionally went out of his way to kill it. If, on the other hand it was incidental and he had no clue that it was some celebrity, then that is Ok IMO.

          • william huard says:

            Once again you show how little you know. The post office is NOT subsidized by tax dollars….The Tea Party is more American than the Post Office! Right Wolf Mod?

          • Alan says:

            “Anywho, continue on about the bear that was killed. That is much more important than the dire fiscal situation this country faces.”
            I would think that it is on this website.

          • wolf moderate says:

            Actually they are tied together. If your goal is to save wildlife, while at the same time to halt hunting, than the govt is going to need to fund these programs…not hunters. So yeah, the country’s fiscal situation is very relevant to this discussion.

          • william huard says:

            First of all, if we’re going to call these slob hound hunters hunters, and call what they do hunting, then we don’t need either.
            I have to laugh at your comment about our country’s fiscal situation, as the Republican party just passed another law that won’t go anywhere, a law designed by fat white guys to allow a woman to die on the ER floor after having a miscarriage because these people have this strange morbid facination with unborn fetuses.

  71. Paul says:

    I tried to post this yesterday but it wouldn’t let me. Anyway, I heard about this from my in-laws down south.

  72. Leslie says:

    Here is a very strange story. Man gets high voltage shock from poking dead bear lying on live wires…

    • wolf moderate says:

      Cody Coyote posted that. Yup, hunters are stupid and wildlife lovers are brilliant. We get it!

      • Immer Treue says:

        Nothing was said about hunters, the individual involved(did not see anything that stated he was a hunter) just poked it with his knife.

        You’re becoming very defensive.

  73. CodyCoyote says:

    Poaching by State-Issued Coupon: a Wyoming ranch family is caught converting their big game Landowner Coupons from Wyoming Game and Fish into illegal nonresident hunting clients. If the book gets thrown at them, the fines could total $ 2.75 million and jail time would be in excess of 50 years.

    Richard “R.C.” Carter, owner of Big Horn Adventure Outfitters, allegedly took more than a dozen hunters out on his family’s property from 2003 to 2009 to kill elk, deer and antelope.

    Richard Carter Sr. and Mark Carter — R.C.’s father and younger brother respectively — allegedly used their own tags on the animals shot and falsely claimed in affidavits that they killed them.

    ( Note: the Billings Gazette like most other papers in the Lee Newspapers chain has implemented a ” paywall” for accessing articles online. Only the first 15 in any month are still free to read online ).

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      You can get around most paywalls by Googling the story instead of reading it directly

    • Elk275 says:

      ++( Note: the Billings Gazette like most other papers in the Lee Newspapers chain has implemented a ” paywall” for accessing articles online. Only the first 15 in any month are still free to read online ++

      It is 20 articles and I have used alloted articles up in less than a week.

      • Savebears says:

        If your not going to comment, you can also, turn the javascript off in your browser options and read all of the articles you want to, I have to do it with the Gazette as well as the Missoulian.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        The Casper Star-Trib, a Lee newspaper that is the Gazette’s ” sister paper” set their paywall threshhold at 15 articles. I get more mileage by using different browsers on separate computers , and rebooting my DSL router to generate a new dynamic IP address. And clearing out those pesky permanent flash cookies. Opt-out of , since Lee owns the majority that hegemony , too. And if you don’t want to chime in to the soapbox derby, turn off your Javascript and read away…

        Lee’s paywall is also in effect at the Missoulian, and the Helena, Butte, and Hamilton papers ( the Ravalli Republic). Also the Burley and Twin Falls papers in Idaho. Plus papers in Elko, Bismarck, Rapid City , and a gentile paper in Provo. Lee owns 54 newspapers and is deep in debt from acquiring the entire Pulitzer newspaper chain in 2006 just as the newspaper industry was going to seed. Paywalls are inevitable, but until we develop an entire currency system based on cyber-dollars and secure micropayments transacted like point of sale pocket change, the paywalls will be grossly overpriced and clunky. No single ewspaper in the Lee chain is worth $ 10.00 month as a standalone digital edition when that price approaches the cost of a delivered hardcopy subscription, currently $ 140.00 / year for the Casper Star , delivered a day late by mail in my town of Cody.

        The CST used to be a statewide paper, but has since forsaken the entire northwest corner of the state for same day circulation. The Billings Gazette home delivery rate is $ 250.00 per year now, for a paper that’s half the size and weight of itself just a few years ago.

        Oh dear…I’m ranting again… ( I was a photojournalist for 40 years and deplore what has happened to my once stalwart public service industry since it went corporate For-Profit. )

  74. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Ravalli County wildlife plan calls for unlimited wolf, lion hunting

  75. Peter Kiermeir says:

    environmental issues and options
    Just a reminder for those not yet knowing this study from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

  76. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Yellowstone wolf watchers and researchers moan the killing of wolf 642F. The most prominent victim of the Montana wolf hunt north of the Park. Just my thoughts: Did the hunter kill this collard wolf to provoke the pro wolf folks?

  77. Peter Kiermeir says:

    It had to happen! A prominent victim with a name tag on it! Yellowstone wolf watchers and researchers moan the killing of wolf 642F. The most prominent victim of the Montana wolf hunt north of the Park. Just my thoughts: Did the hunter kill this collard wolf to provoke the pro wolf folks? He could have easily avoided it.
    Remark: Seems the software here does not accept the link to the wolf conservation center . I give it another try with a different link

  78. Jerry Black says:

    Ravalli County Wildlife Plan Calls For Unlimited Wolf/Lion Hunting

  79. Jeff says:

    I doubt many hunters shoot something to provoke others—most hunters are excited when a legal animal is within range. I wouldn’t shoot or not shoot an animal based on whether or not it is collared. A fair number of elk are collared and I have run into a few while hunting, though I have never shot one. It wasn’t because I didn’t want to mess up someone’s research or that I thought it would make someone mad, rather it just didn’t stand still long enough while in range.

    • Savebears says:

      There is no law in the state of Montana preventing a hunter legally shooting a game animal with a collar on, they do request you return the collar to the game dept if you take a collared animal. Despite the fact that this wolf was part of the Yellowstone park wolves, it was legally taken in the state of Montana during a legal hunt for a game animal.

      • william huard says:

        Hunters always use the “it was taken legally” excuse. That doesn’t make it right. Why is so much to ask for hunters not to kill collared animals? Or kill Bears like Hope in Minnesota? Face it SaveBears- Hunters are real good at taking-And they don’t like it when they are told they can’t kill something….so they whine, or kill animals illegally, like they have done with wolves for decades

        • Savebears says:


          You as many others around the country have over stated, the law is the law, your never going to convince hunters to stop taking legal animals. The hunting season in Montana is legal, it has rules and it is going on, this hunter did nothing illegal. Now we are a country of laws, laws are the rules and now you want to change things to not only follow the law, but follow what you think is right..

          Seems like a strong double standard is getting applied here, the law states during a certain period of time, you can legally take a game animal as long as you have met the requires of the law as far as to equipment, location and legal shooting hours.

          There is no mention of right or wrong in the law, it is simply the law, now you want to apply another set of rules above the law! As with many things in life, this is sounding like a dog chasing his tail!

          Hope was killed due to the fact that Dr. Rogers habituated her to humans, he is to blame.

          • Savebears says:


            You are applying morals, when it comes to morals, that is a subjective discussion, what is moral to you is not moral to another and vice/versa, you are an anti hunter and I can guarantee you no hunter is going to live by your standards..

          • william huard says:

            Yeah, That Rogers fella- trying to study bear behavior for forty years….to a hunter stuff like that is kinda pointless.

          • Savebears says:


            you will never change, as I will never change, we have our positions and we both believe we are right. You can hate hunters as much as you want, but hunting is still legal, hunting will continue to take place, it is a fact of life. This wolf was legally taken, it is not an excuse, it is a truth, the law says, the wolf was in legal territory, and despite what you think, the hunter did nothing wrong under the law.

            Now when you talk right or wrong, that is up to the person that is hunting or condemning, in your mind this hunter did something wrong. Which is fine, I have no problem with that, but the hunter was legal in his action. One nice thing about laws in the US, they can be changed..

          • Savebears says:

            If Rogers is studying bears, why has he not published for so many years?

          • william huard says:

            I really don’t know SaveBears. He’s at the North American Bear Center.
            He films bears giving birth, films bears being bears- you know- peaceful, playful, intelligent. Maybe some of his work will teach kids to value them more than just a commodity…..
            I’m sure his research license is shaky to begin with, because I’m sure the Minn Dept of Nat Resources doesn’t like the research…..after all they are in the business of killing bears.

          • Savebears says:


            I know exactly where Dr. Rogers is, I have visited his compound.

            I can tell you many of us that work in this field, have asked the question many times, Why is he not publishing, if his research was as important as many think it is and he thinks it is, he would publish. It has been a long time. Whether I agree with him or disagree with him, I would love to see his research.. I am sure you would as well?

        • Bob says:

          If you ask Montana fish wildlife and parks they have no problem with people shooting collared animals because of the number of non-working collars out there.

        • TC says:

          I think we’ve had this discussion on this site before. For some studies it may be important for hunters to kill collared animals, if they are killed legally and without specific regard to collar or no collar – many studies on population demographics, survivorship, causes of mortality, etc., have hunting built in as a cause of mortality, and to truly understand the impact of hunting mortality on population lambda, collared animals have to be treated (as much as possible) like all others. Quite a few hunters have told me they didn’t even notice the collar until the animal was in hand (that’s not a terribly comforting thought on several levels). Collared animals that are poached also can serve purposes better left unsaid. I’ve had studies go both ways – where I want hunters to treat the animals like all others, and when it really sucks (on a financial, scientific, and often emotional level) when a collared animal is killed before the conclusion of the study (or life of the collar), but I’ve never asked for (and would never receive) permission to have my collared (game species) animals put on a “no-kill” list. I can tell you mountain lions certainly don’t care about collars, although thankfully they generally leave them alone (coyotes like to mess with them, carry them about, and chew on them).

    • JB says:

      The problem is that the hunter doesn’t know the purpose of the study. What if the purpose of the study is to determine sources of mortality? If the hunter fails to shoot because of a collar, s/he has just biased the outcome of that study.

      IDF&G used this methodology to determine that wolves were a major source of mortality of elk in the Lolo. Now, if hunters didn’t kill these elk because of collars…

  80. jon says:

    Idaho bowhunter kills 220 pound wolf or so he says,85555.0.html

  81. Savebears says:

    Anybody that has been down the academic road, knows the phrase “Publish or Perish” it is in fact a true statement.

  82. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Court rejects stay on wolf hunts in Idaho, Montana
    Quite remarkable what the spokesman for Gouvernor Otter´s spokesman has to say about the successful and “responsible” “management” of big-game predators.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      What a pity that the software does not allow to modify a posting! Last sentence turned out to be a bit confusing :-))

    • JEFF E says:

      “…..Jon Hanian, spokesman for Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter, had said in an e-mail on Monday that Idaho had a well-established track record of successfully managing big-game predators like mountain lions.

      “Idaho’s plan for wolf management is just as responsible,” he said.”


      • william huard says:

        Idaho should order some of those Captain Marvel or Superman costumes for his wildlife personell. They could put “REWM” for (Really Excellent Wildlife Manager)on the front. If they can overcome the logistical problems of the costumes being in and out of the dry cleaners that would be awesome. Since Mark G is in a really important position they can order a cape for his costume

  83. CodyCoyote says:

    Un-friggin’-believable. 48 trophy wild animals from a private sanctuary are set free by their eccentric owner, before he commits suicide. African Lions, tigers, grizzlies, wolves are now roaming Columbus Ohio. The Sheriff and his Merry men ( SWAT team) have already killed 35 of them …

    Too weird for words. I’m not sure Wildlife Services would’ve been of any help here , but tranquilizer darts might’ve been more useful than 7.62 rounds.

    • Harley says:

      And they will all be killed.
      What a waste!!
      When I heard the story, they weren’t sure how the man died. Suicide is such a selfish act! I did read that he’d been cited numerous times for neglecting his animals.

    • JB says:

      I hope to have more detailed information on this incident tomorrow. If I get it, I will create a new post.

      • Harley says:

        That would be great JB. When I heard that on the news this morning, my heart just sank. First, the people of that community are highly inconvenienced and put into possible danger, second, all those animals had to be killed. It was very sad for me.
        Such a waste and for what?

        • CodyCoyote says:

          Apparently , all but three of the escaped animals have been killed already. How sad. Seems like such a waste . But I’m holding my opinion till more is known

        • JB says:

          Update: Looks like the first reports of animals running loose didn’t come in until 5:30PM. By the time deputies got out there and figured out what was going on, it was already getting dark. They had staff from the Columbus zoo (including Jack Hannah) come out to possibly dart animals, but they recommended against such action in the dark (remember, there are wolves, lions, tigers, and bears, all food-conditioned running around on a dark, stormy night). It also appears that some of the animals fed upon their prior owner. Given these conditions (i.e., dark, heavy rains, an unknown number of large, food-conditioned carnivores), I think they acted very responsibly.

          Again, will post more tomorrow if I learn something new.

    • catbestland says:

      I have been sickened by watching the developments in this story all morning. As of 11 am, only 3 animals left alive ~ a grizzly bear, a mountain lion and a wolf. The eventuallity for all privately owned wild animals is the same ~ an untimely, unneccessary and usually a cruel death.

    • Salle says:

      After hearing the news this morning I was pretty pissed off at the waste of life taking place. Like Ralph says below this comment, reminds me of Ligertown in Idaho some 20 years back… One reason such preserves should be outlawed, zoos are not where animals belong in the first place. Another is the toll on the animals who were put in this predicament by humans, once again. I guess we, as a social unit, can’t act responsibly when it comes to our role in the biosphere. It seems that we have to control everyone and everything around us, we aren’t able to accept anything other than superiority over all life on the planet. Makes me sick… of humans. As I have said before; I am ashamed of being an American, but I am also ashamed of my species. Too bad we can’t see that the bell tolls for us…

      • Harley says:

        I don’t think I would go so far as to say I’m ashamed of my species. Again, you are painting everyone in one lump color. There are those INDIVIDUALS out there that are by all definitions despicable. But to condemn the entire human race? Doesn’t really make sense. I try to take each individual as I come across them, but that’s just me and it is by no means an easy thing to do.
        And seriously, if you are so ashamed of being an American, no one is keeping you here…

      • Brian says:

        Salle, when you say “we, as a social unit” I’m assuming you are lumping yourself in with the man who owned this compound. I certainly do not consider myself anywhere close to the level of this man. The animals were put in this predicament by ‘a human’, not humans in general. If you are ashamed to be an american it would truly be in your best interest and everybody else’s if you would leave the country. Truly.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          A profound loss , understated so far . Depending on who you believe , there are maybe only 2000 Siberian Tigers left on the entire planet , total. This gun nut in Ohio had 18 of them . They are all dead now. That’s approaching 1 percent of the global population , not an insignificant loss.

          The “owner” had recently been released from prison , doing a year’s time for gun violations.

          I’m astounded that the circumstances leading to this horrible Ohio incident were not more widely known and scrutinized , publically and privately , beforehand. Too late for Zanesville, but perhaps other gamekeepers and wildlife hoarders need to be examined.

          Wyoming does not allow game farms , only a few upland fowl growers and the occasional fish farms. But no such thing as elk farms.

          • Mike says:

            Apparently Ohio has no regulations on the sale and ownership of exotic animals.

            It’s just another in a long line of anti-wildlife attitudes by ignorant states.

      • Nancy says:

        Brian & Harley, hey, I’m in total agreement with Salle’s comments.

        “Another is the toll on the animals who were put in this predicament by humans, once again. I guess we, as a social unit, can’t act responsibly when it comes to our role in the biosphere. It seems that we have to control everyone and everything around us, we aren’t able to accept anything other than superiority over all life on the planet”

    • ma'iingan says:

      “I’m not sure Wildlife Services would’ve been of any help here , but tranquilizer darts might’ve been more useful than 7.62 rounds.”

      Do you have some relevant experience that would leave you to believe an operation of such magnitude would have any chance of success?

      I have some experience in sedating wild canids and ursids, and I see some enormous logistical challenges even if the animals were socialized enough so that you could walk up and poke them with jab stick.

      Each family (canid, ursid, felid) requires a different “cocktail”. And I’m not sure, but it’s quite possible that lions may even require a different mix than tigers. Within those groupings, individual animals require different dosages, dependent upon size, mental state, timing of their last meal, and even their sex. I don’t know how you could equip field agents properly to handle the range of animals they might encounter in such a situation.

      Availability of the drugs and licensed applicators would be another huge hurdle. The drugs are so tightly controlled, it’s doubtful that anyone would be able to gather up enough of the proper drugs for 18 Siberian tigers in any kind of reasonable time frame. No entity, even a zoo, would be allowed to have that much on hand.

      And the reports I’ve read have suggested that many of the animals were either not socialized or were quite agitated, meaning they’d either fight or flee when approached – making the tranquilizer gun useless.

      I don’t want to appear callous – this was a terrible tragedy, but I don’t see how it could have ended any differently. And I certainly can’t fault the people who had to clean up the mess – it’s pretty clear where the blame should lie.