Here is our new open thread on wildlife news topics. You can access the previous open thread here. Please post those comments and stories about wildlife you find interesting.

Sage grouse tracks, Jarbidge Desert © Ken Cole

Sage grouse tracks, Jarbidge Desert © 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.

630 Responses to Have you come across any interesting wildlife news? April 14, 2012

  1. Salle says:

    Food for thought:

    Study: Autism Linked to Industrial Food, Environment
    Report cites prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup in US diet as possible contributor to alarming epidemic


    Autism and Disappearing Bees: A Common Denominator?

  2. Louise Kane says:


    Some of the the most serious threats to human health and environmental health are directly related to how agricuture and animal husbandry practices are conducted and how the resulting foods are treated and processed.

    Re: high fructose corn syrup
    This product has also been linked to mercury. “In making HFCS — that “natural” sweetener, as the Corn Refiners Associaton likes to call it — caustic soda is one ingredient used to separate corn starch from the corn kernel. Apparently most caustic soda for years has been produced in industrial chlorine (chlor-alkali) plants, where it can be contaminated with mercury that it passes on to the HFCS, and then to consumers.”

    If you really want to scare yourself look at GMO foods. The EPA does not require labeling and the USDA approved new GMO foods by pesticide manufacturing giant Monsanto with other companies also looking to patent foods. In a bizarre twisted corruption of justice, organic farmers and non gmo farmers can be sued when cross pollination occurs between gmo crops and non gmo crops. How f’d up is that? The USDA approves the foods and the FDA looks the other way when consumers want those foods labeled.
    Its the ultimate irony that Michelle Obama planted a highly touted organic garden on the White House lawn while her husband’s administration greenlighted Monsanto’s GMO crops.

    And then there are the issues of livestock practices and the amount of meat and milk we are pushed to eat and the effect on our health and ecosystem disruption related to raising, protecting and slaughtering livestock. There are numerous studies and links between animal proteins and cancer, automimmune disorders like MS, and coronary heart disease. Not to mention the disasterous effects on wildlife and public lands that is coincidental to livestock production.

    Its expensive and or challenging to eat organic, to eliminate as much meat as possible, to raise or buy locally grown foods but its much more expensive in the long run not to.

    Thanks for the info on autism and high fructose syrup, Salle

    • Louise Kane says:

      corection epa and FDA look the other way. All three agencies play a role in regulating and or approving GMO foods.

      EPA, FDA, USDA that is

      • Salle says:


        I agree. I eat as little of the processed by others foodstuffs as possible. I rarely eat out and then usually only at places where I know the food source, forage for whatever I can and buy mostly organics… kind of hard to do where I’m located but a small greenhouse can produce a lot of food if managed properly. As a result, what ailments I do experience are minimal with the exception of injuries, like crashing on my bike like I did recently. Dealt with all that using preparations I make myself, feeling fine just a couple days later, pulled muscles, cuts, bruises and all. Fortunately, I also have a long working knowledge of natural remedies that I (or my mentor) prepare.

        I became skeptical about processed foods back in the 1970s and by the mid 1990s had been focused on a diet of little to no processed foods. I was a long-haul driver for a long time and learned about food abuse because that’s the commodity type I was carrying for most of my carer. I also spent some time in the petroleum transport business too, that really made me clearly aware of what scary things we are unwittingly exposed to everywhere beyond the foods we are encouraged to eat.

        The only answer I can see to this set of issues is to promote (and overwhelm agribusiness with) a sound locavore movement. I heard about a report published recently which indicated that people who eat a significant amount of fast food become addicted to it and will refuse healthy food in lieu of fast food. Kind of makes one wonder what is in that stuff that causes such a voluntary response to healthy foods. I have been in agreement with that hypothesis for a very long time. The same can be said of red meat, it takes a while to detox from that crap. An old saying that has guided my food selections for a long time: Preparing the food one eats is a sacred act; eating one’s food is also a sacred act; both should be regarded as such in order to nurture one’s body and lifestyle.

        I don’t drink soda unless it’s watered down by whiskey or some kind of spirits… and since I don’t drink alcohol anymore, I have no use for that nasty stuff as a mixer. I try to avoid most meat and foods from unknown sources. I don’t go to doctors except the dentist. I have been much healthier since I stopped engaging in that overly expensive practice, and I’m not scared of dying via cancer etc. I’m gonna die someday anyway… no matter how much I might have spent on insurance.

      • Salle says:

        Just think ALEC, they’ve been around for about 30+ years… and look who’s suddenly dropping their affiliation, mostly businesses who make the crap that we should be avoiding. Why is eating that stuff a sin (according to some)? Because it is detrimental to one’s body and all life in general.

      • Nancy says:

        “Its expensive and or challenging to eat organic, to eliminate as much meat as possible, to raise or buy locally grown foods but its much more expensive in the long run not to”

        Totally agree Louise especially when you think about how meats, produce etc. are processed now by only a handful of huge corporations in this country, who’ve pretty much taken over what use to be locally grown, locally owned.

        Not sure if records are available anywhere but I’d be interested to know if the rate of illness, due to contaminated foods like e coli, salmonella, listeria, are more prevalent today, then years past.

        There seems to be an “okay….so we lost a few?” mentality over the past couple of decades when it comes to these huge corporations, and then, everything goes back to normal – wrongful death lawsuits are filed, disputed, paid, “oops sorry!” …… because they’ve got SOOO MANY other thing$$ on the shelves to offer, that haven’t or have yet, to be recalled 🙂

  3. Salle says:

    Good heavens!!

    Look at how big these eaglets are after just two weeks…

    • Harley says:

      I know! What a group of little fatties, as my daughter would say! The sure keep that next pretty cleaned up.

      • Harley says:

        The other eagle cam, most times when I check it, it’s littered with carcasses.

        These guys are huge but I think they were hatched a full week before the Decorah eaglets. Nest is pretty clean today!

        • Salle says:

          Those emerged, as you said, about a week prior to those in Decorah. I’m watching both as the weather will soon be ugly for both, looks like the Alcoa nest is in the line of some pretty bad stuff where the Decorah nest might be in an area less affected.

      • Salle says:

        I see there are severe weather warnings, as in deadly tornadoes predicted overnight, from MN to TX! Gosh I hope they don’t get hit or suffer detrimental damages. 80′ up is pretty high and quite vulnerable to wind. They got blasted earlier this morning but I wasn’t watching to see how they handled it. I might be compelled to check periodically tonight, in between watching for a likely aurora borealis event.

        For everyone out in the Mississippi watershed, I hope it isn’t as bad as they think it might be and I hope everyone gets through the night safe and sound.

        • Harley says:

          We’re thinking alike today. I was a bit concerned and find myself checking in on them more than I usually do. Our area is supposed to get it tomorrow.

          • Salle says:

            Things aren’t looking too promising in Iowa right about now…


            Look at the stuff on the “severe” tab at the top of the map.

            The parents seem to know something’s coming, the babies just ate a fish and the female (I think) was just bolstering the edge of the “bowl”.

            • Harley says:


              Here’s a little bit of a better site if you want to interact with other Decorah Eagle fans. The people who man the camera post here. Apparently the eagles had to contend with the storms and an attacking owl. They have video footage of it and you can see it here:

            • Salle says:

              Wow. It was still raining when I started to nod off. The Davenport nest had some nasty weather to contend with, seems the nest is right next to some structure which may have sheltered it from a lot of the wind. Toggling between the two I noticed both sets of adults were doing exactly the same thing. The Decorah nest got soaked early on, with a little small hail, but the weather seemed to break before getting to that area. The Davenport nest was in line for three waves of the worst stuff Iowa saw last night. though it appeared that those eaglets were drier than the others.

              I totally missed the owl, must have been way early this morning after the rain had passed. I did see that the two fish that were on the Decorah nest are now gone.

              Thanks for that screen capture, never witnessed that kind of interaction between the two species. I know what owls can do. I once had a beautiful cat, born wild so she was an indoor/outdoor cat (and because I had a rather safe yard she could “patrol” at the time) but she was attacked by the same owl twice in a year, the first time she got beat up but escaped with puncture wounds and a state of shock. A few years later, after moving to another state, she was taken by an owl, I think.

              A few years ago I found the fresh remains of an adult Bald Eagle who had been killed/devoured by an owl. (You can tell by the way they clip off things like tail feathers, wings… most of the feather quills appear to be “cut”. I found lots of small bird remains, wings and tails, in the yard where my cat was attacked-a Great Horned Owl pair nested in the Blue Spruce next to the cabin-it liked to eat in the trees outside my front door.)

              Looks like the eagles are in for a bit more nasty weather today.

            • Harley says:

              I guess this isn’t the first time they’ve been harassed by an owl. I found other video footage from previous years and even found where they had to chase a raccoon out of the nest in the fall! On that other site I gave, there are some pictures of exactly how the web cam is set in the tree and where it is on the property in relation to the shed from which they have the equipment to watch ’em.

  4. Nancy says:

    Sage grouse tracks, Jarbidge Desert

    Ken – just wanted to say that’s a wonderful snapshot! So use to seeing tracks in the snow, mud, sand or dirt.

  5. Louise Kane says:

    Fisheries news…
    to read the whole article

    “A recent government survey found that Gulf of Maine cod, considered a top earner for fishermen in the region, are in far lower numbers than what experts had thought.
    Just three years earlier, the government had projected the area was well on its way to recovery after decades of overfishing. Since then, federal regulators have raised cod catch rates to nearly five times the sustainable level based on what are now reported as overly optimistic and incomplete estimates.
    The new data now suggests the stocks are so depleted that even if the fishing industry were to shut down, codfish would still not recover by 2014 to the levels mandated by federal law. Beginning in May, that will trigger a legal requirement that fishermen bring in around 22% less cod than they caught last year. But next year is the big one — Gulf of Maine cod fishing could face more than an 80% reduction from prior years’ catches.”

    Sound familiar?

    if you read on in the article it points out that the commercial fisheries industry and legislators are lobbying hard to have the stock assessement redone by NOAA to prevent the shut down or reduced takings. There are some sad and terrible parallels to other natural rescource issues, especially for wolves. The driving force behind the misuse of natural resources are the extractors and their lobbyists, legislators who are persuaded by politics and ignore public sentiment, and agencies that look the other way or bend policy.

    In fisheries the scientists have been tied to a sustainable yield model that management, scientists and fishermen can never agree on. Sustainable yield is tied to fishing effort and related to catch reports that are generated by fishermen. (In other words they can’t actually count fish, they use catch to determine yield and to project population numbers based on trends and catch. The issue of bycatch further complicates population estimates.Much like wolf numbers being predicated on harvests and predicted births of pups etc)

    The fishermen are on the regional fishery management councils (talk about conflict of interest ..much like commissions being comprised of realtors, hunters etc). When do we realize that conflict of interest restrictions should apply in resource management as it does in law and other professions? Anyhow in fisheries, the agency is prone to give more weight to the impact on the economic consequences for fisherman then the effects that implemeting stricter regs will have for positive biological consequences. Just as the wolf recovery strategy under the ESA gave more weight to the economic consequences for livestock losses then it did to following the mandates of the ESA.

    To date, shutting down or restricting catch effort has been debated for years with fishermen pushing for and getting reprieves from doing the responsible thing.
    A shut down might have been prevented years ago by restricting indiscriminate and destructive practices like trawling (akin to taking a bulldozer and running it over a garden while plants are still present and expecting a good healthy harvest of vegetables), restricted fishing effort, providing for closure areas etc but the lobbyists and industry successfully fought against even the most common sense and reasonable measures.

    The fishermen had examples of what short term closures and restricted catch could do to improve fisheries and maintain a healthy fishery though the striped bass fishery where a closure and complementary limit on size produced a tremndous increase in the fishery and allowed the fish to rebound quickly. They are also reminded that ignoring those measures will bring them right back to another set of restrictions.

    The federal government no whas examples of the benefits of healthy wolf populations. Now they should be reminded of why wolves needed federal protection and still do
    The USFWS and the states like to argue that wolves were solely extirpated because poison was used. I have heard this many times in my discussions with commissioners and USFWS staff. That is to say that such highly intensive management strategies under the current plans that allow and consider, trapping, bounties, hunting with dogs and lights, baiting, snares, extensive harvest seasons will not yield the same results that they did in the past.

    Where wolves are concerned, there are a good many similarities in management issues as there are in fisheries. The livestock and hunting industries have successfully pushed to eliminate protections for wolves. Likewise they have put excessive pressure on the states to kill and “harvest ” irresponsible numbers of wolves using any and all methods. The states use questionable data obtained by professional guestimates to allow for overintensive harvest measures that have been shown to eradicate wolves in the past. These euphamistic population estimates allow for increasingly heavier “harvests” whose goals are not to manage wolves but to placate industry. The commissions are heavily stacked with industry personnel with conflicts of interest. And, the agencies responsible for management act as handmaidens to special interest groups and politicians. The result is catastrophic for wolves, like it was for groundfish, and ignores the obligation to protect and conserve a natural resource that belongs to the public not to the special interest groups.

    In this case its even more tragic as wolves are just recently removed from the ESA, the assault is unprecedented on a recently removed species and in contravention of the conservation goals and mandate under the ESA. In the case of fisheries one could argue that an industry was seriously threatened by fishery closures, in the case of wolves no such serious threat exists.

    The bottom line is that we don’t have the right to hunt and fish species to extinction whether it be groundfish or wolves, whether it be commerical or biological extinction. By allowing the excessive hunting that the states are doing, the states are ensuring only a token presence of wolves not a healthy and robust or scientifically defensible population.

    To NOAA’s credit they did not back down this time and are sticking with the more credible and realistic data they obtained that indicated ground fish numbers are much lower than they thought. They are standing by this data regardless of the economic consequences for the fishermen and or the political fallout.

    This is what needs to happen with wolves they need a voice in the federal government that stands strong against industry (ranchers and farmers) and their lobbyists.

    for those of you who think I don’t understand the impact of a shut down, or could not comprehend the loss of a calf or cow, my son is a commerical fisherman and will lose the job he loves and has practiced for years. For ranchers and farmers, there have been protections in place for depredations and these industries have been heavily subsidized already. Despite the loss of my son’s and my friends’ jobs, we need the fishery closures desperately. The fishery closure will not be the result of an overly intrusive government rather the lack of self restraint by an industry unwilling to self police themselves and an unrealistic set of expectations for the ability of a species to take such intensive harvesting. The same is true of wolves and ranchers and hunters, ESA protections were provided for wolves because the states and their special interests abused the right to manage them. These states do not have the right to manage wolves to protect the livestock industry or support a trophy hunting industry and call it wolf management. The federal government needs to step back in and the states have no justification to blame anyone but themselves.

    • Salle says:


      But it’s all about the almighty dollar… if there’s a buck to be made, anything is available for a price… anything. Human trafficking, wholesale destruction of all sensitive environments/ecosystems, he list is as long as all the other species and land/seascapes on the planet. All these holy-rollers adhere to their self appointed position as stewards because it allows them to pay homage to the new god, the almighty$$. And when they are finished with the destruction of the biosphere here, they think god will give them another planet to ruin. (I have no sympathy for our species at all anymore.)

      It’s the biosphere…

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      Louise –
      A thoughtful essay, but rationally flawed on several points. First, you are correct that fisheries models (historically commercial fisheries have typically been managed under maximum sustained yield models founded on Ricker stock-recruitment relationships) have failed due to social conflicts – i.e. disagreement between regulators, direct users (fishermen) and secondary users (consumers). Here is a legitimate example of failure to guide management decisions by available science has lead to the collapse of fisheries stocks and loss of valued public resources. Note that Alaska marine fisheries managment is widely recognized to be a success in managing long term sustainable harvest of valuable marine stocks.
      Wolf management,whether in the NRMR or GL region, in no way resembles the history or failures of marine fisheries management around the world. Sticking with the NRMR as the example, the SY/MSY metaphor would apply ONLY if hunting, trapping and administrative harvest,killing/taking were a threat/risk to the long term sustainability of viable and ….. robust….. wolf populations. (NOTE: the biological term robust, as used in your ESA language quote – means resilience of a population to persist over time within the expected range of environmental stresses and challenges to the population. i.e. climate, prey abundance, disease outbreaks, competition for resources, hunting, trapping, administrative removal, etc.) Is there legitimate, rationale evidence or reason to suspect/predict that the states will drive wolf numbers below those criteria established to ensure a robust and sustainable NRMR wolf population? NOPE
      The wolf recovery saga in the NRMR and GL regionas are both success stories for the ESA. In both examples the ESA accomplished what it was written to do – restore/secure long term, sustainable populations of wolves. The remaining public resource management responsbilities now reside with the respective states. That is where your concerns, objections, arguments belong. Restoration of permanent wolf populations in the NRMR and GL regions has succeeded, resoundingly. HOW wolves, as a public resource, are to be managed hence forth is the responsibility of the states – unless, as Ken notes in another current thread – “they screw up…..unlikely to happen”.

      • JEFF E says:

        “Is there legitimate, rationale evidence or reason to suspect/predict that the states will drive wolf numbers below those criteria established to ensure a robust and sustainable NRMR wolf population? NOPE”

        Really Mark??
        Do we have to pull out the quotes of your boss, Clem here….or any number of the legislature??

        Are you really that naive?

      • DB says:

        Mark Gamblin:

        I usualy defer to the judgement of fish and game biologists. But in the case of reducing wolves in Idaho to the minimum to avoid relisting as endangered (fish and game commission and IDFG policy), department biologists are caving to political pressure. The pressure comes from a governor who fancies himself a cowboy, an ag-dominated legislature, a few outfitters and public land ranchers, and people in communities like Elk City.

        Little is heard from the vast majority of citizens who feel that wolves have a place in Idaho. Ignored is sound biological opinion that big game populations are vastly more affected by habitat loss than predation. And overlooked is evidence in Michigan, Minnesota and Yellowstone NP that wolf populations will stabilize (without being hunted) at no significant effect to their prey base and to some improvement in habitat.

        Idahoans made a bargain here. But it is a fool’s bargain and ironic that trapper Josh Bransord’s action forces us to recognize our own foolishness.

        • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          JEFF E – I’m not aware of a quote or quotes from the Governor describing a policy or intent by the state to anything less than I described above.

          • JEFF E says:

            Here are ~1,000,000 links to Clem’s stance on wolves. Including the “I want all but 100 wolves killed” quote of recent notoriety.

            Then lets not forget, which you conviently sidestepped, our stellar legislature and the (in)famous remove all at any cost by whatever means necessary continuous rants.

            Mark, the only unknown here is how long after the mandatory 5 year oversight period by the fed will it take Idaho to completely remove wolves from the landscape except for the odd disperser from Canada like was present be fore the re-introduction.

            • JEFF E says:

              but more to the point if this is still true, why not just come out and say it?

              “In 2009, the agency set a wolf population goal of from 518 to 732 — and Moore said the new number probably would be similar.”

              Read more here:

            • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

              JEFF E –
              We are referring to my comment: “Is there legitimate, rationale evidence or reason to suspect/predict that the states will drive wolf numbers below those criteria established to ensure a robust and sustainable NRMR wolf population? NOPE”

              You suggest that amply documented statements by Idaho elected leaders, including our Governor, explaining their perspectives and preferences with respect to wolves and wolf management in Idaho – are evidence of intent by Idaho government to ignore laws, our legal system. You also ignore the amply documented statements by the same elected leaders, including our Governor, that we are a nation of laws and that Idaho wolf management policy and management programs will respect the requirements of the ESA and agreements between the affected parties. I respecfully suggest that is a naive supposition.
              I am serious by saying that Idaho will manage for sustainable, ROBUST wolf numbers that are well within the criteria set by the ESA. A reminder, the policy of the state is to manage for wolf numbers sufficiently above the 150/15BP de-listing criteria to ensure that stochastic environmental events (disease, climate changes, etc.) do not depress wolf numbers to or below the 150/15BP criteria.

            • Immer Treue says:


              You have had the patience of a Saint dealing with everyone here, and I’m sure those elsewhere. Sustainable is a word used that might peg planned Idaho wolf numbers.

              Sufficiently above 150/15BP? I’m with everyone else. I don’t look at that as Robust.


            • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

              I understand and respect your point. I’m persistent about the term (robust)because it has biological importance for these discussions and – multiple conotations for this audience. The most appropriate, to our discussions, is as I’ve described. That has nothing to do with a level of comfort, confidence or reassurance that individuals have for the size of the population. It has everything to do with the ability of the population to persist despite the full variety of environmental threats and stresses that challenge the population over time. If the Idaho wolf population (e.g.) is sustained under Idaho wolf management programs, over time, it is now and will remain – “ROBUST” – because it will have persisted, sustainably, over time, despite all forseen and unforseen stresses and mortality sources, including hunting, trapping and lethal administrative actions.

        • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

          DB –
          Several important assertions in your comments.

          “….in the case of reducing wolves in Idaho to the minimum to avoid relisting as endangered (fish and game commission and IDFG policy), department biologists are caving to political pressure.”
          Public wildlife biologists, managers and administrators are not invested with the responsibility or authority to determine for society WHAT beneficial uses the public trust wildlife resources should be managed for. That responsibility and authority belongs solely to elected leaders and appointed bodies by those elected leaders. Biologists in Idaho and other states are doing precisely what we are charged with – monitoring the status of wildlife trust resources, developing management plans and strategies, making recommendations for those plans and strategies to the Fish and Game Commission (appointed body) for approval on behalf of the Idaho public. If state wildlife biologists and managers have developed management strategies and plans that accomplish the conservation and beneficial use needs and desires of society, they are carrying out their professional and social responsibilities fully.

          “Little is heard from the vast majority of citizens who feel that wolves have a place in Idaho.”
          Not sure which portion of the American public you refer to. If you mean Idaho residents, you are incorrect. Idaho residents (citizens) routinely comment on, object to, and recommend wolf management priorities and plans. The recent Fish and Game Commission meeting the Ken reported on (and I attended) is one example of many. In the absence of current polling data for Idaho resident opinions and preferences for Idaho wolf management policy and objectives I can only offer that there is no evidence I’m aware of that the Idaho public is disaffected with or opposed to current Idaho wolf management policy and objectives. Certainly there are vocal segments of Idaho society opposed to current policy – on both ends of the spectrum. That is not evidence that current wolf management policy and programs are not meeting the needs, desires and expectations of the broad Idaho public. If you mean to suggest that non-resident citizens are not heard, that is not true either. I assure you that IDFG staff, Fish and Game Commissioners, Legistlators and the Governors Office hears often and loudly from the same polarized segments of our national citizenry. More relevent is the fact that Idaho elected and appointed leaders, and Idaho wildlife managers are first responsible to the needs, desires and expectations of Idaho residents, with respect to the management of Idaho wildlife, including wolves.

          “Ignored is sound biological opinion that big game populations are vastly more affected by habitat loss than predation. And overlooked is evidence in Michigan, Minnesota and Yellowstone NP that wolf populations will stabilize (without being hunted) at no significant effect to their prey base and to some improvement in habitat.”
          It is not news nor is there disagreement that habitat is the most important factor determining the productivity of wildlife populations, elk included. Speaking to Idaho wolf/elk management challenges, it is wholly inaccurate to say that wolf predation is not substantially restricting the productivity and strength of elk populations in broad geographical sections of the state. Evidence in increasing in Idaho that wolf predation has and continues to reduce elk production and recruitment, forcing subsequent reductions in elk hunting opportunity – a highly valued beneficial use of that public trust resource.
          That speaks to you concluding point – that if wolves are left to naturally equilibrate with prey and other resources, managers and society will enjoy a satisfactory happy medium. Of course, some dynamic equiliburium will play out, though not the fantasy expectation of a “balance of nature”. Experience in Alaska, Canada and now Idaho amply demonstrates that wolves do exact a “cost” to society in reduced, sometimes lost, beneficial use opportunities (cow elk hunting in the Lolo Zone and other portions of Idaho e.g.) for Idaho residents. The debate should not be focused on IF wolves profoundly affect their prey base, but how does society desire to manage/control that effect, while ensureing a sustainable and ….robust….public wolf resource?

          • Salle says:

            “In the absence of current polling data for Idaho resident opinions and preferences for Idaho wolf management policy and objectives I can only offer that there is no evidence I’m aware of that the Idaho public is disaffected with or opposed to current Idaho wolf management policy and objectives.”

            So how about conducting one or two? Using unbiased polling organizations of course… but that might be asking too much of the ID governing clique.

          • DB says:

            Mark Gamblin:

            Thanks for your response. I have no doubt that you are correct about wolves effect on elk populations in some places (still doubt about “broad geographical sections of the state”) but I must say that many Idahoans don’t care. The state is managing for as large a population of huntable animals as possible regardless of what the vast majority, in my opinion, want. You don’t hear from any of them, although public testimony at the last commission meeting was about 39-2 against continuing the north Idaho wolf hunt/trapping season.

            I’m just saying that with a different governor (who might appoint commissinors with a more holistic approach to wildlife management) and a less ag-dominated legislature, the department’s managers would be less inclined to slant their biological recommendations to those of the hunting community.

            I also think the department should heed the reaction of the public to the Josh Bransford incident. They are not a polarized/vocal segment of Idahoans. They may be a vast majority, though up till now silent, who opposse trapping of all wildlife, including wolves.

            Again, thanks for your reply.

            • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

              DB –
              Thanks for this thoughtful dialog. I wouldn’t disagree that many Idahoans don’t care that wolves are limiting elk benefits in significant portions of the state. Likewise, many do, which leaves state elected leaders, the Fish and Game Commission and IDFG professionals with important management challenges. How should Idaho wolf management policy and management strategies be formulated to best meet the needs and desires of Idaho residents? The Idaho wolf management plan, it’s strategies and action plans are designed to accomplish that objective. If you believe this plan and it’s management strategies, on the whole, is opposed by a majority of Idahoans, I will respectfully disagree. A different governor, different legislature, different electorate might result in a different state government – or not. Here….today….what we have for Idaho citizenry, elected representatives and state government is reality, relevence.

            • Salle says:

              IDF$G Mark,

              You seem to be skirting the fact that, even though they may exist within the political boundaries of the State of Idaho, much of the wildlife within those boundaries are also on PUBLIC LANDS which belong to every citizen of the nation as well as the citizens of the state. That being the reality of the situation, the state is required to acknowledge all citizens as stakeholders for wildlife that exist on these lands and these lands in themselves, not just those citizens of Idaho.

              I know it’s hard to see it that way with Idaho’s sense of exceptionalism and entitlement via proximity and all but there is a whole big world of stakeholders out there that by caveat of the ideology of exceptionalism Idaho’s State governing folks insist they have the right to ignore. There’s a great big problem with that mindset and I hope that I’m right in guessing that it may well come back to bite y’all in the behind. I’m just sayin’…

            • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

              Salle –
              The state does consider the desires of non-resident American citizens. Public testimony is heard and considered. At the public hearing before the last Commission meeting in Boise, Chairman McDermott recognized that one person providing testimony was a non-resident and traveled a considerable distance from out of state. He personally thanked her for her testimony and personal investiment in providing that testimony. The Commission routinely, especially for wolf managment issues, receives hundreds of emails, phone calls and letters from non-residents. That public input is not ignored. It is balance against the testimony and input received by the primary stakeholders of Idaho wildlife trust resources – the Idaho resident public.
              If I understand you correctly, you assert that on federal public lands, Idaho wildlife, by virtue of it’s habitat being controlled by the federal government – conveys equal beneficiary status to all American citizens, regardless of state residency. If that is the case – you are mistaken. This is not a novel legal theory that Idaho elected leaders have constructed to deny you or other non-residents an equal stake, with Idaho residents, in the Idaho wildlife management policy and programs. It is the inherent system of American/USA wildlife management, that springs from the Public Trust Doctrine, upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

  6. Valerie Bittner says:

    Mr. Gamblin,

    Please identify the EXPERTS (specifically those individuals with doctorate and post-doctorate credentials) in wolf genetics, behavioral dynamics, evolutionary biology, and deep ecology, to whom you defer when coming up with your exceedingly early conclusion that “restoration of permanent wolf populations in the NRMR has succeeded, resoundingly” .

    Secondly, with regard to your statement that ” …those criteria established to ensure a robust and sustainable NRMR wolf population …” what is your opinion with respect to the recent evaluation by the originator himself, Ed E. Bangs, that “those criteria” are too low?

    • Salle says:


      Good luck trying to get a straight answer out of beetlejuice, he has to check on what the party line is on the tough questions before he comes back to not answer your question in a million words or so. (See responses above) He’s a hired schill so all you’ll get is what the legislative clique tells him to say. Accountability isn’t a consideration for them.

    • Mark Gamblin (IDFG) says:

      Ms. Bittner –
      In case you missed this post on a parallel thread:

      Ms. Bittner –
      The USFWS and IDFG both are served by professional biologists with the academic credentials you describe. The USFWS and IDFG are the principle authorities to determine the status of wolves in Idaho and for ESA, the adequacy of meeting agreed upon listing/de-listing criteria under the ESA. Of course the consensus of wolf experts across the nation is that wolves have been successfully recovered across the NRMR. That is not to say that there are critics who disagree, apparently yourself included. But certainly, those criticisms are not supported by the abundance of evidence of wolf numbers, distribution, production and …. genetic vigor and health.
      BTW…”deep ecology”?? OH MY.

      I have not read Ed Bangs recent evaluation, so can’t comment on it.

  7. Salle says:

    Wolves to the Slaughter

  8. Frank Renn says:


    My brother lives outside Decorah so I have been to the fish hatchery eagle nest. The organization Raptor Resource is responsible for the cams. They do a lot of great work with raptors. They had a program on the P.B.S. series Nature where they put cameras on flying raptors. Their greatest success has been to reintroduce Peregrine falcons to former range along the Mississippi river in Wisconsin,Iowa and Minnesota. I got to tag along a few years ago when they banded young Peregrines

    • Salle says:

      Frank Renn,

      An enviable situation without a doubt!

      I watch eagles quite a bit out here along the continental divide, I know where several nests are and favorite places that many frequent as perching and fishing places. At times, I suspect they are following me as they fly near me and circle around, perch and watch, sometimes they “speak”… looking right at me. I get the sense that if they didn’t want me in those places while they are present they would do something like cut a slice on me or dive on me but that isn’t the case. I try to respect their space and only go about things like harvest mushrooms and whatever else is edible or medicinally useful, enjoy the peace of the place and leave quietly. I like to think that they appreciate my demeanor while in their place… a mutual respect of sorts? I know several biologists who have tagged and studied eagles but I have never had such an opportunity to be involved in that.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      Speaking of raptors, I had an interesting interaction with one this afternoon. I left the house with an enthusiastic Labrador retriever about 11 a.m. and showshoed uphill to about 1,500-1,700 feet to a particular area broken up by avalanche chutes where the mountainside was really roaring with hooters (blue grouse, or now more properly called dusky grouse). We homed to, spotted and picked off four out of tall Sitka spruce in about 3 hours of searching at that elevation, and just before heading down we closed in on a 5th, which would be the bag limit. It was very close in a small tree and I took a careful neck shot from close range. However, instead of toppling down with a thud it recovered before hitting the ground and flew low over the snow out of sight downslope. I tramped down after it and Wiley put his nose to the ground and zigzagged back and forth to pick up the trail wherever it came down. At some point I heard a high pitched call ahead that didn’t sound quite right for a hooter. There was just not much sign, so we continued down the mountainside another 100 yards when suddenly I spotted where it appeared to have come down on the snow and left a substantial smear of blood, but nothing more. We continued on another 40 yards and saw another smear and then looking ahead, I could see a considerably more extensive blood trail disappearing in the well in the snow at the base of a hemlock. I was so confident the bird would be there that, when Wiley arrived at the base of the tree I yelled “bring it!” But there was nothing there!

      After searching widely from that point, we continued down on deep snow through the open forest, but saw no more sign — no feathers, no blood. I guessed the bird had somehow continued to fly further, but it just seemed highly improbable from my past experience, especially after seeing all that blood loss. We picked our way homeward down the mountain another mile or so to where the land levels out at the margin of a muskeg.

      Suddenly, right in front of us I saw a goshawk on the ground with a hooter. The goshawk flew up and perched in a nearby tree where I got some pretty good photos and inspected the grouse from which it had pretty well eaten the legs and was starting on the breast meat — about what would be expected in the elapsed time. After taking a quick photo, I considered recovering what was left, but decided to leave it for the bird — and yes, I even considered the possibility of lead poisoning but that was not an issue as the bullet was fully metal jacketed and had passed through the neck, apparently without hitting bone (I have never been able to find completely lead-free .22 ammunition here, so fully jacketed is the best that can be done for small game). Anyway, it was one of those mysteries that I thought would remain such but was solved within an hour against great odds over such distance. What was the chance wandering through the forest that we would take a path over a mile directly to the spot where the goshawk had landed with the bird? I suppose it may have streaked in and nailed the grouse in flight shortly after it left my field of view. Goshawks are gray ghosts that flit through the canopy with amazing speed and agility, but I’ve also commonly seen one (as well as an occasional bald eagle) cruising and circling the same tree I’m searching for a calling hooter. Hooters are pretty hefty birds, a meal for two with leftovers, and I didn’t even think a goshawk could lift off with one!

  9. aves says:

    10,000 Birds Die as “Everglades of West” Dries, Spreads Disease:

    Water cutoff contributes to Klamath Basin bird deaths, highlights challenge facing crucial wildlife refuges:

  10. Mike says:

    dog sticks by its dead friend in the middle of traffic:

    We don’t know everything we think we do, folks.

  11. Salle says:

    Political notebook: GOP gubernatorial candidates sound off on wolf management

    • JEFF E says:

      the Keystone cops with “chiken little” bringing up the rear

      • Salle says:

        I see where they are coming from… responding positively to the lobowatch crowd.

        “Lobo Watch, a group of sportsmen who aim to “take charge of predator problems,” sent the email to a number of media outlets.

        Candidate and former Congressman Rick Hill announced last month a plan for how he’d manage wolves.

        “Right now we are at a tipping point with wolves, the point where we won’t be able to manage the population any more because there are too many of them. The number of wolves in Montana continues to grow and the population is spreading,” he said.

        As long as ignorance rules the day…

        • JEFF E says:

          ….so now that the fed has caved to Wyoming, the new “management” plans will be to restrict wolves to one small Alcatraz section of the state while at the same time claim that we have a “robust” population. After about 4.5 more years of being confined to the slum,with plenty of propaganda “press releases” and puffery to fulfill federal law, the remaining splinters of population will be summarily executed. Then because the “state” will be providing the official “numbers” no one will be able to prove the pogrom has happened.
          Look for Idaho to quickly fall in step with the party line.

          • Salle says:

            Seems like that was the Plan all along at the state level. And they now claim they should have control over the federally administered Public Lands because they “can handle them better”? From what they have exhibited in the recent past several years, I think not.

  12. Ryan says:

    California pushes to ban horses in the back country

    • Salle says:

      I have to ask this question…

      At what point should the vacationing public be expected to understand (and act accordingly) that there is a limit to the human stresses a wilderness can tolerate before it crashes and whether they are willing to forgo titillations of enjoyment for the sake of relieving such stresses as their for profit presence?

  13. Salle says:

    Why Trees Matter

    <em"TREES are on the front lines of our changing climate. And when the oldest trees in the world suddenly start dying, it’s time to pay attention."

    I find it interesting how most species respond to our unfettered destructive practices in much the same way…

  14. Salle says:

    Looks like the BushCheney goon squad has been busy in Canada…

    Cuts at Environment Canada mean fewer left to clean up oil-spill mess

  15. Salle says:

    Texas Toxic Dump Site May Benefit from Owner’s Political Largesse
    Nation’s radioactive waste may soon be traveling at rapid pace to Texas disposal site


    This is well worth watching even though there is a (very informative) lead in of about 9 minutes on this very topic…

  16. jon says:


    Ken Millers wants to list wolves as predators all across Montana.

  17. Mike says:


    Wilderness areas under attack by new sportsmen’s bill, would allow mining and ATV’s in wilderness areas. TROPHY HUNTERS attacking marine mammal protection act (polar bears), would open every national park in U.S. to hunting, would ban regulation of poisonous lead bullets. Help stop this extremist bill.

    the vote is tomorrow. Please contact your rep:

    • Paul says:

      If this even makes it to a Senate vote, and then to Obama’s desk we will see what he is really all about. I really can’t see him signing a bill like this in an election season. He has alienated his base enough and this would be disastrous for him. This looks like the kind of bill that was written by the same people that wrote Wisconsin’s wolf kill bill. It panders to rich trophy hunters and is a power grab of epic proportions. Just look at the sponsors of this bill and you will have your answer who is behind it.

      • Salle says:

        Another abomination from ALEC…? perhaps?

        • Paul says:

          I would bet. Just look at the co-sponsors. When you see Don Young’s name on anything you know that there is an ulterior motive. This is a bad bill for both sides of the hunting debate. Anyone know what kind of support this thing has?

      • Louise Kane says:

        I think we have seen what he is really about relating to environmental policy, inconsistent at best. It broke my heart to see KS appointed, how long did it take for them to delist wolves with that seazy rider? I hope you are right Paul.

  18. Barb Rupers says:

    I recently took a trip to California and while staying in a motel in the San Francisco area saw an add for tourism in Wyoming – the beautiful areas of the state, how natural the state is, and the big point – visit Wyoming and “roam free” with a bison as the symbol for this adventure.

    Upon my return home my husband remarked on the same add that wolves do not roam free. Wyoming is not in my area for a vacation in the future.

    • TC says:

      I assume you waved to the sea otters off the coast of California being killed by Toxoplasmosis (from cat feces) and thought fondly of California’s attitude towards the one wolf that dispersed there briefly.

      No place in the US is safe from anti-wildlife (particularly anti-predator) actions and attitudes across the spectrum of the population.

      Wyoming won’t miss you if this is your myopic outlook. Sorry, I’m sick of my state being slammed based on generalizations over some of our legislators and political leaders.

      • Salle says:

        Regardless of how well deserved?

      • Mike says:

        TC –

        Wyoming needs and attitude adjustment. Living in cultural isolation has created some real douchebags, IMHO. Yeah there are some great people there, but also a lot of “haters” (gays, wolves, etc).

        This year my father and I had planned a tour into Yellowstone and Grand Teton (after several days in the Gallatin NF). Because of their horrible wolf plan, we’ll be keeping the trip entirely inside Montana, enjoying the Gallatin National Forest, the Lolo National Forest, the Bison Range, Flathead Lake, and Glacier National Park.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        I do not know what organization put out the add for vacationing in Wyoming but thought it showed their ignorance of the situation for native bison which hardly roam free.

      • Louise Kane says:

        take your legislators to task…one step at a time, write to them, call put up a site like Paul’s that outline’s what the state plans to do to wolves….just some thoughts if you are angry abouy how people perceive your state and its intentions toward wildlife

        • Louise Kane says:

          that was to TC

          • TC says:

            Actually, bison do roam fairly free here in the GYA. There is no regular state or federally mandated haze, control, or kill policy in WY. There is a tightly-controlled hunting season. The YNP and GTNP/elk refuge bison generally seem to find the GYA east and south of the parks a fairly non-inviting place to live (it’s not bison country until they get over some pretty impressive mountains, for example south of the Upper Green or east into the Bighorn Basin). I suppose they could follow the pronghorn migration (they could stop in for a beer in Pinedale) or run free in Jackson Hole year round, given their gentle, tolerant and understanding natures and appreciation for fences, automobiles, touristy shops, and people. You’re confusing Wyoming with Montana, which is difficult to understand given the attention the bison debacle in MT receives on this site.

            As to “taking our legislators to task”. You really haven’t spent much time here, have you? This isn’t the local city council – this is a large diverse state where people working on wildlife actually sorta need to keep their jobs to do any good in the long run and where some (not all) of the best change comes from within. I could point you towards a couple of state employees that took the legislators and their supervisors to task over wildlife issues and management plans, that now are unemployed and having no positive effect whatsoever, and I have no desire to join them (yet) (the time will come I imagine). There are hundreds of WY residents, both professionals and citizens alike, that work every day to promote and protect habitat and ecosystems and the wildlife found there. They don’t spend time blogging here or elsewhere on the internet, and they work to educate legislators and produce good science that eventually even legislators have to listen to, if not always believe – “taking them to task” being left to others (some of them effective, thank goodness), often at the cost of alienation and getting up their Irish, to lose them to any reasonable intercourse beneficial to wildlife (predators especially). They’re out in the field, at meetings, in classrooms, and at public gatherings doing work behind (and occasionally) in front of the scenes. In many cases fighting frustrating and uphill battles, and in a few cases even winning those battles. I could rattle off many names, but I suspect those people would shun the attention and be embarrassed by the recognition and without their permission I won’t mention them here. Read journals (JWM, JWD, Conservation Biology, Ecology Letters, PLOS, Science, etc.) and newspapers and you’ll know who they are quickly. How the Wyoming Tourism Board wishes to sell the state I care not – that there are people here working to preserve what we have in the state I care about a lot. And love it or hate it – we have more open spaces with less people, more remaining wild places, and more wildlife extant than any other state in the lower 48 I can name, all the while being raped and pillaged for the energy you all use daily to fire up your computers and IPads. So ignore it or deride it if you wish, but know that’s ignorance in the long run. Wyoming is the last stronghold of many iconic and even more less charismatic Rocky Mountain, sagebrush steppe, and high plains species, both animal and plant, and if Wyoming is lost, eventually so are many of these species, including quite a few you discuss (and many you ignore) here on this site. Perhaps not wolves, but the wildlife world does not revolve around wolves solely, and we’re working on attitudes there (slowly, damned slowly).

            • Louise Kane says:

              your points noted

            • Leslie says:

              I would also add to that this point: WY makes it’s money on oil/gas and has a lot of $$ in its coffers. It is a very short-sighted plan given the long range future of energy, as well as how those industries dominate and dictate range policy.

              But WY also has an incredible array of wildlife and scenery, and tourists come here for Yellowstone and its surrounding environs. Over time wildlife and tourism will dominate WY’s economy. I hear about the local hotels talking about how people come here to wolf-watch in the winter, not snowmobile.

              Here in the Bighorn Basin, we’ve been having a fight for a year over the 20 year BLM plan that could be subject to more drilling. That in an area where tourists come in masse every summer. It doesn’t seem to be understood yet that tourists are not coming to view a ‘Saudi Arabia-like’ landscape.

              Not coming to WY will not help wildlife and their situation. It will only encourage the oil/gas industry. We need to show this state what its true riches are and where its real wealth lies, which is demonstrated by people from all over the world coming here to see wolves, bison, bears, and all the wildlife here. So please, do protest by NOT coming here this summer. Instead, use your protest voice to comment on issues like the Shoshone National Forest 20 year plan that is in process now, or the plans to drill in the Wyoming Range outside of jackson, or commenting on creating more Wilderness or getting cattle off our public lands.

            • Leslie says:

              Meant to type…please do NOT protest by Not coming here this summer.

  19. JEFF E says:

    Then there is the ever popular label,”whitefish” which means only tnat the flesh is ,for the most part, white.
    Carp any one? Utah chub?

    • Salle says:

      Yet another reason to be a locavore and to avoid food that you don’t prepare yourself or at least know the source and preparer(s).

  20. Salle says:

    Idaho roadblock remains after judge intervenes

  21. Paul says:

    If the Secret Service isn’t too busy getting “serviced” they may want to pay attention to the ramblings of everyone’s favorite poacher, gun nut, draft dodging, whack job “Uncle Ted.”

    “If Barack Obama becomes the President in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

    • Salle says:

      The Secret Service Says They Are Investigating Ted Nugent’s Threatening Remarks Toward Obama

      It’s about time. He’s been ranting on that bs line for a long time now. Would be a good thing to see him doing some form of the “perp-walk”. What a flaming a$$hole, of course, that’s nothing new for him.

      Gotta wonder if some of these GSA/SS jokers are those entrenched Bush holdovers that can’t be fired until they get caught doing something illegal. At a Congressional hearing yesterday those who lost their jobs over the GSA party in Vegas were whining about losing their jobs! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. At least they are being forced to pay all the $800K + back. They should lose a hell of a lot more than just their jobs and some cash… I suspect they were in those positions for the express purpose of sabotaging the current admin. More diabolical things have happened when a temper-tantrum Congress and other disgruntled right-wingers go off the rails.

  22. Salle says:

    Koch-Funded ALEC Behind State Attempts To ‘Reclaim’ Your Public Lands [among other anti-democracy actions]:

  23. Paul says:

    A few days ago I was sent a link to a horrifying video that shows a coyote being blown up by explosives along with many more being slaughtered. These punks make this video out to come across like a music video and act like they are “stars”. Are these the actions of “ethical” hunters?

    “This video is a trailer to our episodes soon to be posted on youtube! Watch as we blow up coyotes with tannerite, shotgun down coyotes, and get lucky with a few running shots.”

    Warning this is very graphic video.

    The last time I posted a video here I got attacked. Anyone want to try and call this video and the activities in it “ethical?” Is the use of these explosives even legal?

    • Mike says:

      Horrible. I hope those people are on some kind of psychological watch list, for the safety of this country.

      • Paul says:

        That video makes the Bransford photo look like a Disney movie. I sat on this a couple of days before I put it up here because I didn’t want to be accused again of trying to get traffic to my site, but this is far and away the most brutal and sadistic thing I have seen thus far against wildlife. Of course whenever I say that something worse comes along.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Paul can you please save this video as a quicktime file or other in case it gets taken down.I can’t look at it honestly but I have voulnteers that are working to input data, photos and images to document wildlife and abuses. These horrifying images are key to getting a sponsor interested in a national predator protection act. The poor coyotes get treated worse then wolves. These sobs should be in jail. Its sickening and heartbreaking.

          • Paul says:

            The video was also sent by another wildlife advocate to law enforcement in Oregon. They are waiting for an answer from them about the legality of using explosives on wildlife. Why this is even a question, I don’t know. I have seen some horrifying things happen to wildlife, but this exceeds all of that by far. The punks really view themselves to be “rock stars” or something similar. Even worse is the number of people cheering them on in the comments following the video on YouTube. I am not naive enough to think that this isn’t happening all over the country.

            • Louise Kane says:

              so Paul,
              do you have a file that can be sent to me , not the link but a file?
              Do you have the names of the people who did this?
              It sounds like it was taken in Oregon, if so where? i want to do something immediately.

              Thanks you can e mail me if you like.


            • Paul says:


              I sent it to you

    • Harley says:

      I have a question for you Paul.

      Why are you even posing the question “Are these the actions of “ethical” hunters?” Was there something in this video that said hey, here is a fine example of ‘ethical’ hunting? Do you think hunters will think this is an example of ‘ethical’ hunting? Do you think that Savesbears or Elk would think this was ok??

      And I for one do not plan on watching this video. Your description was enough for me, thanks. I don’t want that image in my mind.

      • Paul says:

        Well, the last video that I posted which exploited a wounded wolf being tracked and had a couple of buffoons leering over the dead body was roundly called “ethical” by the hunters on this site. One way or another someone here always tries to justify actions like in this video. Punks like these and Bransford are what the non-hunting population sees and like it or not they link it to all hunters. People need to see that this is what is happening to predators, and other wildlife all over this country and rightly be outraged. Apparently this is considered “ethical” behavior in the hunting community because it appears to be legal and no moves are being made to stop this type of sadism by those groups.

        • Harley says:

          Paul, NO ONE thinks its ethical to ‘blow up’ any animal. At least, no one on this blog does, even the ones you may not agree with. Just because you don’t see anyone trying to stop it doesn’t mean that it’s silently approved of.

          • Paul says:

            This behavior is apparently condoned all over this country, because most of it is legal. I would hope that both sides can come together to put an end to it. Hunters should be pissed at what punks like these do, but far too many fall into the NRA mindset that if any hunting is restricted, all hunting will be restricted or ended. I have heard that countless times, and I am sure you have too. To me inaction is often a silent approval. If something is wrong, speak out. Is this how hunters want to be seen? Like it or not, this is what we see just like how they see only the radical environmentalists.

            • Harley says:

              It is interesting how both sides only see the extreme in each other, isn’t it? And it’s sad too.

        • JB says:

          “Well, the last video that I posted which exploited a wounded wolf being tracked and had a couple of buffoons leering over the dead body was roundly called “ethical” by the hunters on this site.”

          “Roundly called ‘ethical'”? I don’t recall endorsing any behavior; however, I do remember pointing out that what is considered “ethical” is a matter of opinion. I also recall that others commented that much of your interpretation of the prior video was based upon your assumption that the animal was purposefully gut-shot, when there was little evidence to suggest this. Whatever the case, I suspect that very few people will endorse blowing up wildlife with explosives. So what was the point of your illustration?

          • Paul says:

            Just because you didn’t call it ethical doesn’t mean that others here didn’t. The point is showing what abuses are happening to predators all over this country. I can’t believe that people are jumping on me rather than the behavior in the video. The point of my illustration is that apparently this behavior is legal from what I have heard. If it is legal then there is something very, very wrong with this country.

            • Harley says:


              Again I’ll say, safely I think, that there is no one here that would approve of that video. But to equate that with ethical hunting is really wrong, in my opinion.

            • JB says:

              Paul, I’m not “jumping on you” for believing this behavior is sick. I happen to agree with you on that point. I do, however, question your assertion that the behavior in the prior video was roundly endorsed as ethical. You are (conveniently) leaving out the fact that much of the behavior in the prior video was ambiguous.

              I’m beginning to think you post these things just to stir up the hornet’s nest.

            • Paul says:

              JB, you are more than welcome to go back and read the comments to me where at least three other commenters called the behavior in that video ethical. The person I received that video link from believed the wolf had been shot in the abdominal area. I was inclined to believe that because I didn’t see a blood trail, did you? My biggest issue with that video is the fact that they had to videotape it which I believed led to prolonged suffering for the wolf.

              With what is happening to these predators all over this country the “hornets nest” needs to be stirred up. The type of glorification of killing that these videos illustrate need to be seen by the public who can then decide whether they want it to continue or not. Fish and game departments all over this country promote almost unlimited coyote killing, and that basically condones what we see in the most recent video.

            • Elk275 says:

              Paul, I saw the video and there was no unethical hunter behavior. The hunters wounded the wolf and tracked it down and kill it. My perspective is that the bullet stuck mid body damaging the liver, a liver shot is fatal but not immediate, death comes from hemorrhage. The target area on a wolf is approximately 6 inches and a five mile an hour wind would move a bullet at 325 yards several inches either way. I have wounded my share of game and with a few exceptions been able to track the animal down.

              In archery, an arrow kills by hemorrhage and after the shot, the hunter will sit for 30 minutes before attempting to find the animal. Most archery killed animals only go several hundred yards before they die. A bullet kills by hydrostatic shock reversing the flow of body fluids.

              In this case the wolf did not die immediately and was tracked down and dispatched. That is hunting nothing unethical.

            • Paul says:

              And you don’t think that the fact they were putting on a show for the video camera didn’t have anything to do with what transpired?

            • Elk275 says:

              I do not think so. I do think that it is stupid to shoot hunting videos and post them on youtube. But everyone wants there 5 minutes of fame. I quit going to the Banff Mountain Flim Festival because of stupid people doing stupid things or unethical things.

            • JB says:


              Let me put it to you this way…if you’d like to start a petition for federal legislation banning the use of explosives for killing wildlife, I’ll happily sign on. But please stop trying to equate such behavior with ethical hunting.

            • Paul says:

              I didn’t equate it to “ethical” hunting. I just asked if anyone here wanted to call it ethical. You cannot deny that some people hare try to justify behavior that many of us find distasteful. And I do not view any type of sport hunting to be ethical. That is my opinion and you obviously do not have to agree with it.

            • Louise Kane says:

              To Paul who said…”The point is showing what abuses are happening to predators all over this country. I can’t believe that people are jumping on me rather than the behavior in the video. The point of my illustration is that apparently this behavior is legal from what I have heard. If it is legal then there is something very, very wrong with this country.”

              Paul something is very wrong, and I thank you for posting this incident.
              This kind of behavior is antisocial, sadistic and unacceptable.

              I called the Oregon Fish and Game Department and was directed to the division of wildlife enforcement at the state police. The telephone # is 503-378-3720 for enforcement. I did not reach anyone but left a message with a request for a callback. I will follow up tommorrow and ask
              1) Does Oregon have prevention of cruelty statutes that the actions of these individuals would violate
              2) who will investigate and how can I get follow up
              3) do these individuals have prior records

              I also made sure that Jason at the Dept of F&G had the link and requested him to send it to his supervisor. I will follow up with written correpsondence and will be contacting the Oregonian Daily in the AM along with the local NPR station.

              I contacted the NPR station in Wisconsin before the vote on the wolf hunting bill and they did a story. I hope those of you who are as appalled as Paul will contact the enforcement division and ask them to investigate and prosecute the coyote abuser. How twisted and sick can a person be.

            • JB says:

              Paul asked: “Are these the actions of “ethical” hunters?”

              Seems pretty clear that you are trying to equate these actions with ethical hunting.

              “You cannot deny that some people hare try to justify behavior that many of us find distasteful.”

              I’ve never tried to deny it, nor do would I attempt to dissuade you from your opinion. I object to your posting such nonsense as an alleged example of ethical hunting. And I object to your biased interpretation of prior events to try and further you points (see Elk275’s comments).

              As I said, you start the petition, and I’ll sign on. But posting the most egregious example of unethical behavior you can find and then asking if it’s ethical hunting (that’s not hunting at all) is simply a dishonest attempt to bash hunters, and you damn well know it. If you’re going to do it, I’m going to call you out on it.

            • Paul says:


              These thugs have other videos on YouTube, but I haven’t brought myself to look at them yet. I did see one other where they are shooting ground squirrels for fun. I really hope that these are isolated happenings, but none of us are that naive. Judging from the comments on YouTube after the video this type of behavior is far more comment than any of us know.

            • Paul says:

              I was being sarcastic when I asked that question, because of the response that I got from the last video. And you damn right I have a “biased interpretation” of what I see. Your interpretation of my comments sure seem to have your own bias. There sure seem to be quite a few of these behaviors showing up on video or in photographs all over the internet lately. If you want to defend trophy hunters like in that video,then have at it, but don’t expect me to. That wolf suffered and it’s death was exploited for a video. I am sick and tired of people exploiting the death of an animal for their own amusement on video and then posting it for the world to see. They shouldn’t post it if they don’t want the criticism. All over news articles and the internet there are people from the hunting and trapping community trying to defend the actions of Bransford as “ethical.” If that can be described as “ethical” by many hunters and trappers, what else will be okay? My questions were sarcasm and you damn right it was meant to bash “hunters” just as I get “bashed” or called names by them all the time for my views.

            • JB says:


              You condemn yourself with your own words:

              “If you want to defend trophy hunters like in that video,then have at it…”

              First, and most importantly, blowing up wildlife with explosives is not “trophy hunting”; nor would anyone I know even call it hunting of any kind. Secondly, while I defend HUNTING, I specifically CONDEMNED the actions of the individuals shown in that video. Yet, here again, you not only try to equate these actions with hunting, you’ve now moved on to accusing me of defending them–when my condemnation is right there in black and white for everyone to see.

              I don’t have a problem with your advocacy, Paul–I have a problem with the way in which you go about it. It’s decidedly dishonest.

            • Paul says:

              I was not referring to the video of the thugs with the explosives, I was talking about the video of the wounded wolf. I saw that you obviously did not approve of that the explosives punks did. What is dishonest? I call out people for behaviors that I find to be barbaric and sadistic. I find trophy hunting and video taping it to be just that. I asked a sarcastic question that you took to be literal. I asked if anyone wanted to defend the behavior in the second video as ethical. Do you really think that anyone would try to defend that? You must really think that I am naive.

            • Mike says:

              Paul –

              Get ready for the Kill Club to come down on you.

              I think the comments are telling, how going after the coyotes is “a thrill”.

            • Harley says:


              JB wasn’t the first one to take it ‘literally’. That was me. I took your comment to mean that you were comparing a vile video to people who claim to be ethical hunters.

            • Paul says:


              People NEED to see videos like these on both sides. This type of activity is condoned and often encouraged by many fish and game departments. I don’t know about the explosives, but the wholesale killing of coyotes and other “varmints” are certainly encouraged. Just walk into a Gander Mountain or similar store. It is all about killing and I never see anything about “ethics.” I stopped at our local grocery store and glanced at the magazine rack. I must have seen a dozen plus magazines that were all about KILLING and I didn’t see the word “ethics” once. That is why I don’t think the actions of these punks are an anomaly. Killing has been glamorized by these retail stores and magazines. Not all hunters are this way, but there sure are enough of them to make me take notice. ahey should take notice as well because it makes them look bad.

            • Paul says:


              I have been posting on this blog long enough that people should know how sarcastic I can be. Did I take a jab at some people here? Sure I did, but it was for their defense of the previous video I posted. Anyone who viewed this video should be furious and I was sarcastically daring those who defended the last one to defend it obviously knowing they wouldn’t. I guess I will have to note when I am being a smartass or sarcastic.

            • Harley says:

              Actually Paul, noting that isn’t a bad idea. Too many things can be mis-interpreted online. Sarcasm isn’t as much fun in text as it is in person. It’s all about the tone! Facial expressions help too. 😉

              Anyway, some here are quick to jump to a defensive stance because they are kinda tired of all hunters being lumped into one very unattractive pile.

            • Dan says:

              You ask many things but here is the definition of ethical and what hunters are taught from the IDFG.

              ethical – “conforming to accepted standards of conduct”

              Today’s Hunter in Idaho – Idaho’s Hunter Education book

              Respect Natural Resources
              -Leave the land better than you found it
              -Adhere to fair chase rules
              -Know your capabilities and limitations as a marksman, and stay within your effective range
              -Strive for a quick, clean kill
              -Ensure the meat and usable parts are not wasted
              -Treat both game and non-game animals ethically
              -Abide by game laws and regulations
              -Cooperate with conservation officiers
              -Report game violations

              Respect Non-hunters
              -Transport animals discreetly-don’t display them
              -Keep firearms out of sight
              -Refrain from taking graphic photographs of the kill and from vividly describing the kill while within earshot of non-hunters
              -Maintain a presentable appearance while on the street – no bloody or dirty clothing

              To concisely sum things up;
              -no, hunters are not taught to behave the ways you are extracting from the internet
              -these behaviors are not ethical
              -these behaviors are not condoned by ethical hunters
              -yes, some of these behaviors are likely illegal – I’m guessing the exploding video is.

              and this quote by JB is spot on –

              “As I said, you start the petition, and I’ll sign on. But posting the most egregious example of unethical behavior you can find and then asking if it’s ethical hunting (that’s not hunting at all) is simply a dishonest attempt to bash hunters, and you damn well know it. If you’re going to do it, I’m going to call you out on it.”

              And I applaud JB for calling you on it.

            • Paul says:


              I already explained that my question about “ethics” in this instance was sarcasm. If you are going to get all touchy about it then please don’t read what I have to say. And it is not just the internet where I have come across people like these. There have been numerous “thrill killing” incidents recently all around where I live and I have often transported the injured animals from them. I have been around thugs like these all of my life. I think that people are pissed because these videos are getting attention and they would rather they didn’t whether they agree with the content or not. They put a bad light on hunting whether justified or not, just like an eco-nut blowing up a development or an SUV puts a bad light on my side. I have made it very clear that I do not accept sport hunting or the whole culture that comes with it, so why is it such a shock that I would sarcastically ask a question like that? As I said before those videos need to be seen as they illustrate what predators in this country are facing. Damn, everything is so literal with you guys. And judging by the way IDFG handled the Bransford case I wouldn’t use them as a resource for ethics. That would be like using Mein Kampf as a guidebook for diversity training.

              **The last couple of lines were SARCASM**

            • Wolf Moderate says:

              These constant posts of people doing unethical acts are taking away from the real issues. There are many more pressing issues to focus on. There are plenty of sites to rail against animal cruelty and promote animal rights. The reason that I was originally attracted to this site (over 3 years ago), was because of the thoughtful dialog between incredibly knowledgeable people with diverse backgrounds, yet differing opinions; such as JB, WM, SEAK, Ralph, SB, etc…

              Wouldn’t it be better to get these individuals to speak on issues like the loss of winter range, fragmentation, upcoming litigation, RIDERS, fracking, water, logging, “global warming”, endangered species, invasive weeds and…?

              These ISOLATED cases of morons doing idiotic acts takes away from the REAL threats to the lands and animals that we all enjoy and want to see protected.

              To be honest, I could care less about a coyote, a wolf, an elk, a tree or any other singular thing. Perhaps focusing on the big picture is what is most important. Then again, I’ve been wrong before.

            • Paul says:

              And not too long ago you came on this blog and advocated for bounties on wolves. There are plenty of other sites for that as well. If you really believe that these are “isolated” incidents then people on your side of the fence shouldn’t get so worked up when someone shows them. Just chalk it up to another tree hugger trying to make a point. These incidents cause anger and rightfully so, but it is not tree huggers like myself that are making the videos. These individual incidents are noteworthy because it is rare that people videotape their own crimes or sadistic acts. Considering the venom being directed at wolves and other predators all over this country do you really think that these are “isolated” incidents? I just finished reading an article about a Montana candidate for governor basically advocating wiping out all of the wolves in the state. If politicians for high office are advocating wholesale slaughter to the public what do you think is happening in the woods when no one is watching? And yes one of the threats to wildlife is the cruelty that people like this perpetrate. I can’t even count the number of “thrill killing” incidents my state has had the last couple of years. And those are just the ones who get caught. Those “isolated” incidents sure add up to a lot of damage when they are finally caught. Over a couple of days in December a couple of punks killed over 100 deer. Those were just the ones they knew about. So yes sadistic thugs like these are threats to wildlife and people need to be made aware of it rather than just blowing it off as “isolated incidents.”

            • Wolf Moderate says:


              I have advocated for bounties, suggesting that it would be a more cost effective way to reduce wolf numbers where predation has caused problems (Why pay Govt trappers/WS, when bounties are cheaper).

              If individuals do things that are illegal, such as poach/kill 100 deer, then there are laws and nationwide sportsmen/women FUNDED programs to take care of that. “Turn in Poachers (TIP) being one of them.

              Anyway, I’m done with this thread. Just wanted to get that off my chest.

              Good night.

            • JB says:


              I re-read your post and see that you were, in fact, referring to the last video you posted. My apologies for misreading; perhaps I need one of those reading comprehension courses WM is always recommending? 🙂

              What I find dishonest about your advocacy is that you are attempting to associate the most egregious behavior with ethical hunting. You even suggested that fish and game agencies condone such activities.

              I don’t know of any sportsmen group nor any fish and game agency that condones such behavior; most have explicit statements about hunting ethics that would forbid such activities (see Dan’s comments).

              It seems you’re really just interested in bashing hunters and hunting?

            • JEFF E says:


              “It seems you’re really just interested in bashing hunters and hunting?”

              TA DA!!

              That has been glaringly apparent for quite a while.
              $3 and moonbeam come on this blog and have a grand old time calling hunters and gun owners everything but a milk cow, attempt repeatedly to associate the sickest most unethical practices to the hunting community as a whole and demand that the hunting community as a whole apologize for the (often illegal) acts of a few, troll youtube for the some sort of sensationalism and truly believe that no-one will be able to see what is going on here.

              Then when there is any kind of pushback they start to cry like a little b**** pup that has been reprimanded.

              Getting sad that this blog is sinking to their level.

            • Paul says:

              And what level is it sinking to? Any lower than your childish antics of coming on here and calling those who disagree with you homosexual slurs or other childish names? I love how apologists like you try to brush off all brutal acts as “sensationalism.” Silence speaks far louder than words and the hunting community’s silence speaks volumes. I guess we all have to step in line and speak the “Jeff E” party line or be subjected to homosexual slurs and other childish names. And by the way, when did I ever say anything about gun owners? I didn’t, so get your facts straight before coming on here and attacking.

            • Mike says:

              I think something needs to be explained to the pro-kill crowd here, as it seems they seem to keep running into trouble with other posters here in what can only be describe as a fanatical defense of hunting.

              This blog/website was always a pro-wildlife website. As such, it attracted a huge visitor base of wildlife watchers. There were frequent photos of wolves, awesome wolf reports, and big time support for these animals (and others). Over time, a few hunters started showing up. That’s cool, because this site promotes open communication and there are indeed a few good hunters out there.

              But to hose who are constantly defending hunting and getting into it with people who cherish wildlife…please stop. This is not “Johnny Coyote Kill” (which is all over the internet. This is not “Shoot N’ Run” or “Spray N’ Pray” or “Carnivore Safari”. This is the Wildlife News. And before that, it was called “For the Wolves”.

              Instead of tearing into and bullying pro-wildlife folks, who make up the bulk of this website (and always have), I would suggest acknowledging what this site is before you post.

            • Paul says:


              Don’t even bother. These bullies will keep coming here and bashing us with their childish names and homosexual slurs every time we even hint that we are questioning their “sport.” They also constantly insult the intelligence of those of us who disagree with their pro-hunting views. Remember according to many of them you have to kill wildlife to care about it, or otherwise you are just too “emotional” or “uninformed.” Let them have their little killing clique. I have already made it clear how I feel about the whole sport hunting culture and these people are so shocked when I post something that shines a bad light on it. Name calling is something that grade schoolers do, yet it is on display here every day by certain individuals. And they call us ignorant?

            • JB says:

              “Instead of tearing into and bullying pro-wildlife folks, who make up the bulk of this website (and always have), I would suggest acknowledging what this site is before you post.”

              Good grief, Mike. Everyone who posts here regularly is “pro-wildlife”. Some of us hunt, some of us don’t–but we are all concerned about the conservation of wildlife resources. What you can’t seem to grasp is that constant attempts to associate hunters with deplorable activities is caustic to the very sense of community and atmosphere that you claim to support.

              Tell me, how do you think one might be received if s/he went to a forum about foreign policy and only posted pictures of Arab suicide bombers with derogatory comments?

              Bigot: A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.

              Hmm…sound like anyone we know???

            • Paul says:


              “Bigot: A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.”

              “Hmm…sound like anyone we know???”

              Maybe the guy who keeps coming on here and hurling homosexual slurs and calling childish names at other posters? Or the poster who always has to make backhanded comments toward Native Americans?

              You keep making this comparison to ethnicity when talking about hunters. Hunters CHOOSE to partake in those activities. We don’t choose our ethnicity.

              Not too long ago a poster was talking about how he would run over coyotes with a snowmobile in the past and acted like it was nothing. Another was advocating for bounties on wolves, and thought it was okay to shoot “whistle pigs” just because they can. Others try to justify hounding. That may seem “pro-wildlife” to you, but it doesn’t to me. Have you been reading all of the justifications for Bransford’s actions that have been coming out of the hunting and trapping groups? Here is just an example:

              “Bransford’s mistake was not posing with his trophy, Carney said. It was posting it online, the sort of thing instructors in the trapping class discouraged.”

              “He said that such displays are a way for trappers to celebrate their success in overcoming a skilled adversary.”

              “The trapper is not showing disrespect for its prey; he’s showing respect,” Linkhart said.

              “I don’t see any difference between this and a hunter or angler showing off their trophy.”

              And you wonder why we think this is the norm?

            • Mike says:

              JB –

              I’m not going to get into insults.

              All I’m saying is look at the context here. Look at the history of this site, and make note of this before posting.

            • JB says:

              I made the comparison to ethnicity because I thought it would make the bigotry apparent in your posts glaringly obvious. [Apparently not] Regardless, bigotry clearly isn’t limited to ethnicity; the definition applies equally well whether the person has a choice in goup membership or not (what would your response be to people hurling insults at women lined up at an abortion clinic)?

              Here’s another recent quote from a hunter regarding the wolf trapping incident:

              “Meridian archer Debbie Shurte bristles at Linkhart’s comparison with hunters. She grew up hunting and has had her share of trophy pictures with deer.

              ‘I never did it with the animal alive,’ she said. ‘That shows disrespect for the animal because it stresses the animal’, she said.”

              I also recall that several hunters here posted their disapproval. Where are their quotes? Oh, that’s right, they don’t support your “hunters are all bad” ideology so they fall conveniently by the wayside. You and Mike could teach Fox News a think or two about spin!

            • Paul says:

              And what was the first thing that showed up here on this site from posters about Bransford? It was chastising Bransford for being stupid for posting the pictures online, not the act itself. I am not going to get into a pissing match with you because you are going to defend the hunting community, and I am going to criticize it. If that makes me a “bigot” then so be it. Many people here do not like my side, and I do not like theirs. Let’s hear the same criticism for them. You made the comparison of Arabs and I pointed out that has nothing to do with hunting because hunting is a voluntary activity, and ethnicity is not. There is indeed a big difference between bigotry toward ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. These are not voluntary choices. Hunting and even abortion is. If the big tough guys with guns and cammo cannot handle some criticism without crying about bigotry then they shouldn’t be a part of that culture. I take heat for my position, and that is just part of being an advocate. You want me to start throwing around the bigot term every time someone here talks about PETA nuts or eco-terrorists? I don’t because those whackos make the rest of us look bad and I acknowledge that. But that doesn’t change the perception that people in the hunting community have toward us no matter how much I speak out against it. I get lumped in with them all of the time. Are you telling me that the big bad hunters and trappers can’t take the same criticism in the same manner that an emotional tree hugger like me can?

            • Paul says:


              Another point. I worked in the law enforcement field for almost 14 years before Scott Walker cut local funding and my dispatch center was closed. Although not a sworn officer, I took constant criticism from people who hate cops. That is just part of the job. I was also the first one to speak out against police corruption and brutality even in my own department. Even that stance didn’t make me immune from taking heat because of the actions of others in my field. That criticism should be expected just for being part of that profession. I wasn’t immune from criticism for the acts of other in my field and hunters should not be either. Like it or not the actions of a few can demonize the many especially when something horrific or brutal occurs.

            • Mike says:

              ++And what was the first thing that showed up here on this site from posters about Bransford? It was chastising Bransford for being stupid for posting the pictures online, not the act itself. ++

              Yes, that was Elk275. A very telling post.

            • Harley says:

              *Holy crap this thread is long!*

              Mike, Paul,

              Is it possible to be a hunter and a lover of wildlife?

              Mike, you may have missed it on another thread, or maybe I missed your response, how long have you lived in/near Chicago?

            • Paul says:


              Yes, if you are a sustenance hunter. I cannot say the same for a sport or trophy hunter. Killing for entertainment and claiming that you “love” wildlife sounds quite disingenuous to me. And yes the thread is very long. I made my point and others have made theirs. That should be the end of it.

            • Harley says:

              Ooo Naperville? Now there’s a high falutin town! Pricey real estate that way!

            • JEFF E says:

              I know I should not objurgate
              the underarmed but sometimes it just cannot be helped. I could not have come up with a better analogy of this thread, and the recent dust devil often referred to in this thread, staring the usual suspects, than the following.

              “A man wished to report that he had been spanked by the assistant cook of the vessel on which he was employed. The captain, when told, laughed at the man, who returned to work only to be spanked a second time. Officers advised the man to contact either AST or USCG, as the incident occurred outside of local jurisdiction.”

              Read more here:

              Wanna bet the sailor’s nickname is Moonbeam

            • Paul says:

              Is that all that you can do is hurl insults and steal childish names from others? Come up with something original rather than stealing from others. I have been called far worse by far better who don’t have to resort to homosexual slurs or names a third grader would come up with. If shills like you want to justify this behavior then have it. Spanked? You sure have a smug opinion of your abilities. It is very telling that you attack the person who posts it rather than what is in the video. That tells me all that I need to know about you and your ilk.

            • JEFF E says:

              The simple fact that I am and will continue to go after you is that you are trolling videos such as the last two and trying to make them out as representing something they do not. The first one is two people simply engaged in hunting a wolf. That was what was going to happen from the very start of the re-introduction. After all of the lawsuits, and back and forth between the states and the feds and on and on, at some point there would/will be a kill season on wolves. You and your ilk can stomp your feet and hold your breath all you want, it will not change that fact regardless if you, I, or anyone else does not like it.

              The unfortunate aspect is that the states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana are not and will not invest in managing wolves as a valued big game species and will only, as they have proven, attempt to reduce the numbers to the absolute minimum that they can get away with for the next 4 ½ years that are left of federal oversight, while in the meantime the livestock industry and by extension there lackey state legislatures will do everything possible to change the ESA so that wolves can not be considered for listing. The argument that will be tried is that there are wolves “somewhere” so they are not in danger. If that attempt is successful it will be “Katy bar the door” because any remaining wolves will be exterminated post haste.

              You, and your ilk in your collective myopic view that all problems come from hunters need to make some attempt to educate yourselves in all aspects of the questions at hand in the hope that something useful will come from the exercise and this blog won’t have to be exposed too more of your utter nonsense.

              As for the second video attempt to libel the hunting community what can be said. That has to be one of the most disgusting misrepresentations your ilk has yet tried and makes you no better than, in fact exactly the same as, the scum that made the film. Why? Because you are spreading it which is exactly what they want and you are not intelligent enough to understand that. That is why that video and I assume 100’s or unfortunately even 1000’s more ARE on YouTube. Duh!
              Last, moonbeam, something I do is give people nicknames, sometimes I use them, most of the time not. I have one for every regular poster on here. That represents my opinion. You don’t like it, tough shit. What is clear is that you will try to libel me in the same way you try to do so with the videos’ and hunters. As I said earlier the term $3 (three dollar) is in reference to the American idiom “phony as a three dollar bill” which originated soon after the civil war.



              One other thing, moonbeam, you spent 14 years as a wannabe cop. I have a question, and actually I have some money riding on the answer; three dollars to be exact.
              Anyway the reason you could not take the next step up is you could not get past the psychological screening, correct?

            • Wolf Moderate says:

              Jeff E,

              What was the name you gave me? I can’t remember, but remember thinking it was funny.

          • Mike says:

            ++Mike, you may have missed it on another thread, or maybe I missed your response, how long have you lived in/near Chicago?++

            On and off for my entire life. I’ve lived in upstate NY, FL, NJ, AZ, and CO as well.

            • Harley says:

              I was just curious because you named a few familiar neighborhoods in another post! I’ve lived here all my life, 46 years of it. I sometimes dream of moving to someplace less congested, maybe when I retire some day.

            • WM says:


              ++..I’ve lived in upstate NY, FL, NJ, AZ, and CO as well.++

              Indeed this is your first representation of connection with other states than IL and specifically Chicago (and was it Naperville too?).

              What about MI, where you recently represented you were also a hunter at one time, before your great epiphany, and mended your once evil ways?

              Where in Colorado, doing what and when?

            • Mike says:

              What about MI, where you recently represented you were also a hunter at one time, before your great epiphany, and mended your once evil ways?++

              I grew up in the summer there at two vacation properties. One in Vilas County WI, the other in Baraga County MI.

              ++Where in Colorado, doing what and when?++

              Two places. Boulder and Pagosa Springs.

              Why does it matter?

              I also spend two months every year traveling the country and visiting the top parks and forests.

      • Louise Kane says:

        I think what Paul is getting at is that allowing, promoting, excusing hunting for trophies and sport opens up the door to severe abuses, especially where people have been taught to hate. When hunters argue that there is a strict code of ethics, maybe that applies to people like savebears, doryfun, and others but there are a hell of a lot of sick bastards out there that don’t fit the description of ethical hunter. This is one of the reasons why many of us object to trophy hunting as sport.

        • Harley says:

          I too do not approve of hunting just for a trophy. However, some hunt for the antlers and head and donate the meat. I don’t have a problem with that. At least someone benefits from the hunt.
          But seriously, how can anyone equate blowing up an animal with ethics and hunting? That’s sick in a lot of circles, not just here.

        • JB says:


          Every day people steal from one another, murder each other, lie on their taxes, speed, etc., despite the fact that ALL of these acts are illegal. Do you really expect that ending sport hunting will put a stop to sick people killing wildlife–especially people who have been ‘taught to hate’? Why would you punish the innocent for the behavior of the guilty?

          • Louise Kane says:

            The differnce being JB, we have laws against murder, tax evasion, speeding etc. We need laws to protect wildlife from abuse. That’s the difference. Enacting laws to protect rights are not punitive they provide protection and thats what wildlife and especially predators need.

            • JB says:


              You’re changing your argument. You said, “…allowing, promoting, excusing hunting for trophies and sport opens up the door to severe abuses.” So your position is that hunting for trophies or sport should not be allowed, promoted, or excused, right?

              I disagreed, and pointed out that even if one were to pass laws that forbade all hunting, that is unlikely to stop the most egregious examples of animal/wildlife abuse. Moreover, you would pull honest, ethical hunters out of the field, and these folks are often the ones who tip off law enforcement to illegal behavior. Most importantly, banning sport hunting punishes ethical sportsmen for the actions of unethical people–that’s what I object to.

            • WM says:

              ++…[Louise]… you would pull honest, ethical hunters out of the field, and these folks are often the ones who tip off law enforcement to illegal behavior.++

              I strongly suspect no matter what one does, a certain percentage of young men will do dumb things that hurt others, whether they be animals or people. There is plenty of evidence of that every day. If you have the recipe for the proper deterrents I bet there are law enforcement types, judges, and victims of these activities, and their families – human or animal- that would be grateful for the solution.

              About two years ago, near Everett, WA (north of Seattle) some 17 year old kid went after a bunch of calves with a baseball bat. He was caught. Another highly publiciised incident a few years earlier involved a burro that was abused, tortured and killed, which resulted in formatino of a non-profit sanctuary for abused animals called Pasado’s Safe Haven. This stuff happens all the time, but we don’t hear about it. Ease of recording this material due to changes in technology, the internet, forums like Youtube for posting, and important cultural changes that seem to beg for people to “share” their experiences all contribute to more visibility of this bad behavior. Maybe it even increases the amount of it. Seems to me one would want more eyes and ears around to detect and report bad behavior.

              Louise, I sense you are just one more animal rights advocate who just hasn’t thought things through. Not unsual, because quite a few don’t.

            • Louise Kane says:

              JB I did not change the argument I responded to your statement which said…
              “Every day people steal from one another, murder each other, lie on their taxes, speed, etc., despite the fact that ALL of these acts are illegal. Do you really expect that ending sport hunting will put a stop to sick people killing wildlife–especially people who have been ‘taught to hate’? ”

              I said “The difference being JB, we have laws against murder, tax evasion, speeding etc. We need laws to protect wildlife from abuse. That’s the difference. Enacting laws to protect rights are not punitive they provide protection and thats what wildlife and especially predators need.”

              My argument is that there are inadequate, and in some instances, no laws to protect wildlife from abuse. Its not against the law to kill, maim, or mass kill animals if they do not have a protected game status. So predators are moving targets for any kind of abuse. While laws obviously do not stop all illegal activities they are deterrents and provide the basis to prosecute, fine and imprison. I’m betting that if one of these perps got caught, given a stiff fine and his pals saw him imprisoned they would think twice about committing the same offense. Laws might not prevent hate but coupled with a strong education and no tolerance policies they could make a difference. Sticking with the satus quo certainly hasn’t.

              You made incorrect presumptions about my statement which said “allowing, promoting, excusing hunting for trophies and sport opens up the door to severe abuses, especially where people have been taught to hate”. I meant exactly what I said here. i did not say shut down trophy hunting, I said that it opens the door for abuses. There is a difference between the two statements.

              I do beleive that in the instance of wolves, allowing trophy hunting opened a floodgate. Now we are seeing the results spread across the web. Instead of proceeding with caution and taking a sound and defensible policy to “manage ” wolves as the states said they would, the states have laws that allow people like Branson the right to lay 75 to 100 traps and snares, pose with a suffering animal, and its all legal. No laws allow a bunch of gnarly wolf haters to kill without any fear of recrimination, sanctions or censure.

              of course I don’t have any grand studies to back up the number of abuses but I am working on collecting data to prove it.

              JB and Wm are sticklers for detail, as you both point out. You used my words to twist the argument. The words I wrote had a specific meaning and I stand by them.

            • JB says:

              Okay Louise, let’s flesh this out a bit. You said:

              “…allowing, promoting, excusing hunting for trophies and sport opens up the door to severe abuses, especially where people have been taught to hate…This is one of the reasons why many of us object to trophy hunting as sport.”

              Now you say: “…i did not say shut down trophy hunting, I said that it opens the door for abuses. There is a difference between the two statements.”

              So let’s be clear about this shall we? You are saying that you believe that allowing sport hunting “opens the door to severe abuse” of wildlife; and so you “object to trophy hunting as a sport”; however, while you object to it, you don’t want to “shut down” trophy hunting?

              Do I have that straight? Are you honestly saying that you would not support nor advocate for a ban on trophy hunting? I just want to be clear about what it is you are advocating for, as I find these series of quotes confusing?


              By the way, you seem to have missed my original point entirely. I said:

              “Every day people steal from one another, murder each other, lie on their taxes, speed, etc., despite the fact that ALL of these acts are illegal. Do you really expect that ending sport hunting will put a stop to sick people killing wildlife…

              You responded: “The differnce being JB, we have laws against murder, tax evasion, speeding etc.”

              My point was, of course, that many laws are ineffective at eliminating the offending behavior. This could be especially problematic where wildlife laws are concerned, as ethical sportsmen are often the people who inform enforcement (thus, removing them from the field may exacerbate undesirable behaviors).

              I DO think that we agree (?) that laws that provide some protection against cruelty for nuisance/vermin species are much-needed. I simply object to your assertion that such behavior is promoted by trophy hunting. Fair?

          • Louise Kane says:

            WM every time someone disagrees with you, you argue they have not thought things out or they are wrong. So it must be so.

            • WM says:


              That is not universally true. Only in the case of individuals like you, who don’t. But, you really want me to give you more examples where animal rights, or some wolf advocates don’t think things through? I do it a fair amount, to defend against irrational arguments such as yours, above. Also see JB’s last two comments re your posts. Obviously, others can and do disagree with me. Must make them right, huh?.

              For you, I would recommend classes on behavioral psychology, and statistical distribution of certain types of behavior in human populations. Might also describe for you, in part, why there are so many people in prisons acrosss this country (throughout the world for that matter) for violent/deviant crimes. Some people just engage in the kind of behavior that is outside sociatal norms that should put them behind bars or in an executioner’s chair. Got a way to reduce the number, or stop it? As in my earlier post, the folks that have to deal with it or its consequences would be interested in your thoughts.

              And, if there was a way of stopping these misguided young little creeps that blow up coyotes, or kill calves with a baseball bat, or shoot a burro with an arrow just for the fun of it, I would support it in a heartbeat.

            • Louise Kane says:

              JB you said “I DO think that we agree (?) that laws that provide some protection against cruelty for nuisance/vermin species are much-needed. I simply object to your assertion that such behavior is promoted by trophy hunting. Fair?”

              Yes of course I agree that laws that provide protection against cruelty are needed. That’s certainly fair.

              I did not, however, say that trophy hunting promotes abuse. I said “allowing, promoting, excusing hunting for trophies and sport opens up the door to severe abuses, especially where people have been taught to hate… ” I stand by my thoughts as they pertain to wolf management in the west. Trophy hunting has opened up the door to abuses. I do not mean it promotes, but that it allows some people who hate wolves to use trophy hunting as a shield for abuse of wolves. Now that killing wolves is allowed for sport under law, i think we are seeing abuses that are protected by law. That is not to say all trophy hunters are abusive, but now wolf haters have full permission to kill as they like. And no you would not be incorrect to say that I would support a ban on trophy hunting but we were discussing what my statement actually said not what I would support.

            • Elk275 says:


              ++I do not mean it promotes, but that it allows some people who hate wolves to use trophy hunting as a shield for abuse of wolves. Now that killing wolves is allowed for sport under law, i think we are seeing abuses that are protected by law. ++

              I have read that statement 3 times and it does not make much sense. I think you have very little knowledge of hunting. A question: What is your definition of trophy hunting?

            • JB says:

              “Trophy hunting has opened up the door to abuses. I do not mean it promotes, but that it allows some people who hate wolves to use trophy hunting as a shield for abuse of wolves.”

              Thanks for the clarification, Louise. That helps me understand your thoughts. My response: We allow people to drive cars, which inadvertently allows some people to drive drunk (and kill other people). We allow people to own guns, knives and other implements that get used by sick individuals to kill people (and wildlife). We send our children to schools despite the fact that occasionally sick teachers molest them. We allow people to use fireworks, despite the fact that every year numerous people are injured and someone starts a forest fire. (I could go on of course). The point is, that our society allows/condones numerous activities that occasionally have negative consequences. We allow them to provide society with benefits. There will always be people who abuse these privileges. But, generally speaking, we try to punish the people guilty of abuses rather than punish everyone for the ethical transgressions of a few.

              We agree on this last point, I think. But we disagree that ending sport/trophy hunting will put an end to the abuses. In fact, I think there is good reason to suspect just the opposite.

            • WM says:


              ++Trophy hunting has opened up the door to abuses. I do not mean it promotes, but that it allows some people who hate wolves to use trophy hunting as a shield for abuse of wolves.++

              I took your statement to mean something maybe even different fromw the way JB or Elk took it. I thought you were suggesting that by making wolves a game animal which could be legally taken during a season – as a trophy animal – that certain hunters would shoot or trap one just to be rid of it through a legal act.

              We have, on this forum before you arrived, discussed that aspect of hunting, generally concluding (if I recall correctly) it is very difficult to get into the head/mind of an individual hunter, and as long as the method of take was legal that was all that mattered on the hunter side of the equation. On the other side of the equation is the intent of the state to manage a particular species for specific objectives, and in the case of wolves in ID, MT and WY they want to reduce the numbers.

              So, unless there is particular abuse directed to a wolf or wolves by particular hunter(s) that is legal under that state’s law, there is little that can be done, other than attempt to exert social pressure to encourage ethical conduct. That being said, consistent with earlier dialog on this thread, there are always going to be jerks and people that do disgusting things, while legal, that still amount to abuse.

              As for blowing up dead coyote carcasses (not live ones I hope), that is just bad taste.

              I recall many years ago (1970’s?), seeing a video of the OR Hiway Department using explosives to rid a public beach of a huge and very stinky whale carcass. They even showed it on the news, from a camera vantage point in a parking lot above the location of the whale some distance. A two hundred pound chunk of flesh came down on a car some 1/4 mile way crushing the passenger compartment . This event has since been used as an example of liability as an unintended consequence of an intended act.

              I will place it on the Frozen cattle thread because these video links seem to make for longer loading times on longer threads. And, in advance my apologies for those who might find this video offensive (a dead whale being blown up).

            • Savebears says:


              When I was growing up, my grandmother had a pie shop in Seaside, OR, I remember on more than one occasion that they blew up beached whales, always made for a pretty big mess, that was quickly consumed by the local scavengers.

            • Elk275 says:


              Seaside, OR is where Lewis and Clark found a dead whale. By the time they got there the Indians had taken most of the whale meat. Lewis tired to purchase some whale oil but the natives were reluctant to sell any oil.

            • Mike says:

              It’s sad to see the usual suspects (WM, JB, JEFF ganging up and bullying a pro-wildlife poster again. They seem to have a real habit of doing that, and they bring the insults, still. Amazing.

              Even more shocking is they fail to understand the context of this very blog, how it began, and what it is. It’s not a Kill Club blog, that’s for sure. The internet already has plenty of those.

            • Savebears says:


              I don’t see anyone trying to make it the “Kill Blog” I do see others that understand at this time, hunting is a part of wildlife management. As far as name calling, you, I, as well as others have done more than our share of it over the years. I have been on this blog for a very long time and have seen it since the beginning. None of us given the right set up circumstances is beyond dishing it out.

        • Mike says:

          ++I think what Paul is getting at is that allowing, promoting, excusing hunting for trophies and sport opens up the door to severe abuses, especially where people have been taught to hate. ++

          Good point. This seems to be quite common, too.

          • Louise Kane says:

            To elk


            trophy hunter with bear head….what is your definition. To me its simple, the animal needs its body parts for survival the human does not.

            • Wolf Moderate says:

              Do you realize what these “hunters” pay to kill a Kodiak bear? Well, it’s around $15,000 (not counting air and hotel). There is a density of bears on Kodiak of roughy one per square mile. It is great (IMO) that wealthy individuals pay this sum to kill a bear. It really helps the local economy. Have you been to Kodiak? It’s beautiful with no shortage of bears, deer, or fish.

              Also, ask Ken if he has ever taken a picture of a fish that he has caught. What’s the difference between a fish and an animal? I still have a picture of my first buck I ever killed and it makes me smile every time. Wow, I was so skinny lol.

            • Savebears says:


              How do you know the bear was not eaten? I know allot of people that eat bear, if you know how to prepare it, it is quite tasty.

            • Elk275 says:

              Louise I have always wondered about that picture, seen it many times. Something is different.

            • Jerry Black says:

              Wasn’t it Ed Abbey that said” I have more respect for the dead animal than I do for the smiling idiot posing with it”???

    • Louise Kane says:

      Paul where is the video taken, do you know who did it. I’d like to get in touch with the officials in fish and game where this took place as well as media or anyone else I can get riled up.

      • Paul says:


        It is from Oregon. Another wildlife advocate has also contacted their fish and game law enforcement and is waiting to hear back. I honestly did not think it could be much worse than the Bransford picture, but I was wrong. These punks are sick.

    • Louise Kane says:

      thank you for sending it.

      • Louise Kane says:

        WM there is a way to stop punks like those its through advocacy and enacting laws. It might not be easy and will take a huge amount of work but its worth working toward. As for the rest of your post, its pedantic and condescending as they sometimes are.

        • WM says:


          Laws are always a start. Then the real work begins – reporting, catching, prosecuting and convicting. Good luck with those last parts.

          • Nancy says:

            Personally WM, I think its all about parenting (or lack of)

            Do you not think there are warning signs? Kids acting out, abusive behavior towards siblings, other children and animals, that are largely ignored by clueless parents, who just hope their kid will “grow” out of it?

            • WM says:


              I agree with you completely.

              Parenting for many families is a huge failure. Some of it comes from the fact the parents themselves are challenged by their own upbringing, abuse, economic hardships, and the fact that some don’t take interest in what their kids are doing.

              It is even easier today to let your kids watch cable/network TV where they are desensitized to violence (shows like Criminal Minds, all the CSI and NCIS investigative crap), play on their computer (doing who knows what) or avoid human interaction by listening to their iPods.

              The lines are blurring between the fantasy world created by Hollywood, computer gaming, and other ways of escape, from the responsibilities and challenges ofthe REAL world. Add another layer of fantasy enhancement with mind altering drugs/alcohol and one has then necessary ingredients or even recipe for creating adolescents without values. They, of course, then become the next generation with problem children of their own.

              Laws only go so far in prevention for some bad conduct. The real challenge is changing human behavior in a meaningful and POSITIVE way.

            • Louise Kane says:

              WM” Laws only go so far in prevention for some bad conduct. The real challenge is changing human behavior in a meaningful and POSITIVE way.”

              I agree with this but as some argue its going to be impossible to change laws how do you change human behavior in a meaningful and positive way? Dont’ you think that we need to do both but that at least there is a defined process to enact laws and that might be an easier process?

          • Louise Kane says:

            agreed but what is wrong with pushing for new laws. Nothing will change without them.

  24. Barb Rupers says:

    The following are some of the speakers invited to speak at the symposium for Oregon gray wolf conservation and management hosted by the Oregon Animal Damage Management Council. I couldn’t find much information on this group but thought the list of speakers said a lot about their probable “agenda”:

    Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science; David Allen, President, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Toby Bridges, Lobo Watch; Steve Mealy, past Director Idaho Fish & Game; Curtis Martin, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association President.

    The Symposium Moderator is George Houston, Oregon Chapter, Foundation For North American Wild Sheep.

    For more information:

    • Louise Kane says:

      unbelieveable, Toby Bridges is an invited speaker anywhere?

      • Savebears says:

        Not agreeing with someone and trying to stifle them are two entirely different things Louise, you don’t have to agree, like or even want to listen to Toby or anyone else, but he as well as others has the same right to speak as you do. Which since you found this blog you do quite a bit. You speak with an emotional tone as does Toby. Now when any of us don’t have emotion in our statements or arguments, we are chastised as well.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Hmm Savebears
          I was not suggesting that anyone try and stifle poor Mr Bridges only finding it bizarre that anyone one want him to speak. I find his rhetoric of hate and killing to be highly offensive. I doubt you will ever hear me preach about killing, breaking the law, inciting violence or any of the other questionable tactics Toby Bridges uses to get his points across. The following post was from a 2010 discussion on Mr Bridges, your own post speaks more about censuring Mr Bridges actions then mine ever did.

          Save bears says:
          December 29, 2010 at 1:23 am

          I have been filing complaints with his new web host daily since he was shut down on homestead due to the promotion of illegal activities, I have received mails back from them that their compliance dept is investigating..

          so who is advocating for censure?

          Its sounds like we both think dear Toby is a bit of a loose and dangerous canon.

          • Louise Kane says:

            I forgot the quotations that started your post Savebears

            Save bears says:
            December 29, 2010 at 1:23 am

            I have been filing complaints with his new web host daily since he was shut down on homestead due to the promotion of illegal activities, I have received mails back from them that their compliance dept is investigating..

            • Savebears says:


              I have already made the argument, do you wish to pursue it farther? I am game if you are.

          • Savebears says:


            I have filed against what he was saying that violated the terms of service of his website provider, now if he were to own his own server where he is actually paying the bills to publish his position, I would not file any complaints. I may no agree or may agree with what someone says, but it is at the discretion of those who own the service, if you own the service..

            I have also filed complaints against those who promote illegal activities.

            I did not want to censure him, but I don’t think he has the right to advocate his position on someplace that someone else owns, just as I don’t believe Ralph has to allow those posts that advocate illegal, immoral or unethical activities. Guess what, I feel the same way, when someone posts on a newspaper blog and claims censorship when their message is removed. There is no censorship when you are playing in someones yard.

            There have been people on this blog that think I should not be allowed to post, but that is at the will of the owner, not your nor I.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Savebears….I was just making a point. The implication in your statement being somewhat condesending…. “Not agreeing with someone and trying to stifle them are two entirely different things Louise, you don’t have to agree, like or even want to listen to Toby or anyone else, but he as well as others has the same right to speak as you do.” I just pointed out that while I was just making a statement about Mr Bridges you had actaully taken action to stop posts that he made. I think this has been beaten to death, the point being something about living in glass houses and rocks?

            • Louise Kane says:

              Savebears this is not an argument you want to make,

              “now if he were to own his own server where he is actually paying the bills to publish his position, I would not file any complaints.”

              Just something to think about.

            • Savebears says:

              This BS about being condescending, is really getting old, you and your kind are the ones that have posted that this is a war, there are no friends in love and war, there is no game being played by the rules on this one.

              It is getting damn tiring listening to you and others with this BS always directed at hunters, you are talking to a hunter that will go to the mat to turn in an illegal act, I have condemned many things on this website, you seem to be able to find statements I made about Toby, but seem to not be able to find the statements I have made many times condemning many acts that “hunters do”

        • Louise Kane says:

          I guess its a crime to speak with emotion in your mind. I hope I never get to a place where I don’t feel emotion when I see people posting and enjoying wildlife abuse. Don’t mistake emotion as ignorance or incompetence. How do you think advertising and marketing works?

          • Savebears says:


            I don’t think it is a crime to post information with out an emotional overtone. I have never said you were ignorant, never have implied it. I know very well how advertising and marketing work, it is such a shame intelligent people allow themselves to be manipulated in such a manner.

            • Savebears says:

              While in the service, I did a stint as a recruiter, guess what, it takes a great deal of marketing and advertising to convince people to go to war and get killed!

    • SAP says:

      Wow! Steve “Moonbeam” Mealy? What’s he up to these days?

      • Barb Rupers says:

        A few more at the symposium: Joe Ricker and Fred Craig, Oregon Hunters Association; Casey Anderson, OX Ranch, Bear, Idaho who gave a presentation to some ranchers in eastern Oregon, saying that his cattle had tested positive for the tape worm, Echinococcus granulosus, in their intestines which is impossible since ungulates are intermediate hosts and may have hydatid cysts in body organs; only primary hosts, carnivores, have the intestinal tapeworms.

        • Immer Treue says:

          +++Casey Anderson, OX Ranch, Bear, Idaho who gave a presentation to some ranchers in eastern Oregon, saying that his cattle had tested positive for the tape worm, Echinococcus granulosus, in their intestines..+++

          Fabricate your point enough, and sooner or later you get believers.

      • JEFF E says:

        ha ha, “”moonbeam””. I have been trying to come up with a nickname for one who posts here.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          Steve was the supervisor of my own Shoshone Forest here in northwest Wyoming three decades ago. Of all the supers who have come and gone at the Shoshone NF in my life, he was the best , back in the days before the FS became computer desk jocks and ” paralysis by analysis” bureaucrats. Mealey actually spent a great deal of time in the backcountry and wilderness on horseback, and was capable of thinking and acting outside the box. Compared to others since then , and maybe even himself since then , he was progressive. Back in the good old days of the late 70’s and early 80’s.

          • SAP says:

            Coyote – I googled Mealey for old time’s sake. See this one:


            “Steve Mealey as USFS boss? – Former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson is a pretty shrewd guy, but his suggestion that Steve Mealey be appointed chief of the U.S. Forest Service reveals a lack of judgment.
            Unfortunately, Simpson’s suggestion to Vice President-elect Dick Cheney could carry some weight. Cheney and Simpson served together in Wyoming’s congressional delegation for a decade, so the two men enjoy a strong working relationship.
            Which brings us to the matter of Steve Mealey and his suitability to lead the U.S. Forest Service.
            Mealey, you’ll recall, was the erstwhile director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. A 20-year Forest Service veteran, he’s also a former supervisor of the Boise National Forest. So far, so good.
            But Mealey’s greatest legacy as Fish and Game director was dropping his trousers to “moon” a statue on the shore of Lake Pend Oreille…. That wasn’t the end of Mealey’s antics. He undermined morale within Fish and Game, and quarreled with critics outside the department. After a little more than two years on the job, it was time for him to go.
            Mealey was fired by the Idaho Fish and Game Commission. He responded with a lawsuit. On the whole, Mealey’s tenure at Fish and Game was a disappointment.
            Following his dismissal in Idaho, Mealey migrated to Missoula, Mont., where he is now executive director of the Boone & Crockett Club. It’s a cozy position with a private-sector organization dedicated to trophy game animals.
            That’s a good place for a guy like Mealey, who clearly isn’t suited to life in the public eye. … ”
            Idaho Falls Post-Register Editorial

  25. Savebears says:

    What I find very interesting, at the most, there are about 30-40 of us that consistently post messages on this blog, do you really think we are making that much of a difference or are we just preaching to the choir. The sad thing is, the majority of America, really don’t give a Sh!t about what we are talking about. They care about Jobs, they care about keeping their homes, they care about their children’s education and in some parts of the country, the only care about where their next meal comes from!

    Wolves, Elk and coyotes don’t even cross their minds!

    • Elk275 says:

      Goggle the people of Wal Mart: they could care less about wildlife, wilderness, national parks or BLM land. The only thing they care about is their daily infusion of corn syrup products.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      I can only hope that since I personally don’t have those concerns that I can have some impact on issues that are important to me. I try to be factual about the information I provide to informs others.

      On my own property I engage in restoration of native plants, animals, and watershed enhancemant. I am not against hunting but have not felt the need since purchasing this property in 1978 to hunt. I favor our native banana slugs and snip with scissors those of foreign varieties. During the summer I wage war against invasive weeds – Himalyian blackberries, wild carrot, ox-eyed-daisy, thistle, . . .

      I really enjoyed the NF Flathead River the couple of times I was there in the 1950’s. SB, you live in a beatiful area.

      You are probably correct that we will have little impact on the direction of civilization, but we will both continue on our attempts to make a difference.

    • SAP says:

      Wow! Almost as big as some of them dang MacKenzie wolves over your way, Nancy! 😉

      • Nancy says:

        I know! I was thinking the same thing SAP.

        Spring is finally making an appearence here (in between numerous snow squalls)

        Yesterday was a real treat. Didn’t have to be anywhere so I spend a good part of the early morning with the binoculars, checking out the wildlife, slowly making their way back into the valley.

        Lost count of the elk, there were so many of them spread out in different groups. 200 or more, would be a fair estimate.

        Proghorns have been moving by in little groups for the past couple of weeks.

        Counted 5 moose hanging out together in the willows and one moose looked almost blond in color, compared to the other 4.

        I LOVE springtime!!

        • SAP says:

          Yep, it’s spring! Curlews are back. We saw pronghorn up by Big Hole Battlefield on Monday — about three weeks ahead of last year, easily.

  26. Catbestland says:

    Here’s an interesting tid-bit about how well ranchers manage their public lands grazed cattle. Who will pay this bill?

  27. Mike Post says:

    You will be discouraged by your fellow man….

    • sleepy says:

      Unfortunately, the economy being what it is most folks are just more immediately concerned about trying to scratch by rather than longer term things like clean air and clean water.

      I think it’s not by accident.

  28. CodyCoyote says:

    The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has announced it is donating $ 51,000 to Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, and WILDLIFE SERVICES ( !?!?!) ostensibly to purchase radio collars for wolves.

    I’m surprised that RMEF didn’t also send over a couple crates of long range rifle ammo…

    • Mike says:

      Wow. A zoo population at best.

      This will end with a trip back on the ESA. Mark my words.

  29. bret says:

    Bear traps set to catch yearling killer(s) on Blackfeet Reservation

    • Mike says:

      Let the bears live. The cattle and the ranchers deserve it when they snip the fences and let their cattle into Many Glacier Valley.

      • SAP says:

        From the article:

        The ranch, which currently is running about 1,000 head of yearlings, is located on the Milk River, 25 miles east of St. Mary and 55 miles northwest of Cut Bank.

        Despite the livestock losses, Michael said he is a wildlife advocate. Grizzlies, he said, are “the king of North America.”

        “It’s hard for me to be hatin’ on the bears for killing our livestock,” he said. “They are a protected animal, and they need to survive, too.”

        Hmmm. So, Mike, you know for a fact that this guy — who seems to really like grizzlies, and is actually 25 miles from the park boundary — is cutting fences so his cattle can trespass into Many Glacier Valley?

        • Mike says:

          Obviously you haven’t spent much time on the east side of Glacier. The park is infested with cattle from the Canadian boundary to East Glacier. Yes, inside the park.

          And nothing pisses off the rangers more. They are a serious safety hazard on the roads and an ecological hazard within the park boundaries.

          I have nothing but respect for the Blackfeet Nation. But not when it comes to this.

          • SAP says:

            This is par for the course with you, Mike.

            My question was, do you know that THIS PARTICULAR RANCHER lets his cattle trespass, and therefore “deserves” conflicts?

            This rancher is 25 miles from the park boundary.

            Yes, Mike, I have been on the Blackfeet Nation. I have friends (non-Indian) who run cattle up there. A lot of the cattle there are not owned by tribal members, so it’s a little off for you to blame the tribe as a whole.

            Yes, Mike, cattle trespass into GNP.

            Do you see how that fact is really not related to the incident in this story?

            Do you really think it contributes to anyone’s understanding of grizzly conservation to take a story about conflicts 25 MILES FROM THE PARK BOUNDARY and turn it into complaints about cattle trespassing into GNP?

            Unlike JB, I won’t drag this out. You detract from the quality of discussion on this site. The cure for that is to simply not engage with you.

            • Mike says:


              Your tone is very aggressive, including the use of caps. You’ve also started the insults here, which I will not sink to.

              When you calm down I’ll respond to you. The kind of discourse you are offering is not good for this site.

          • Mike says:

            I’ll also add that the frequent trespass (and by that I mean daily) of cattle into GNP allows the bears to get cozy with them, and this could impart bad habits for any bears that wander out of the park. So yes, it all applies.

  30. Louise Kane says:

    To those who may be interested. I followed up with the Oregon department of wildlife resources enforcement today about the coyote killing video. According to the party I spoke to, there is no law to protect the animals from this abuse. The officer agreed that the post and killings were twisted and sick. He can not do anything by law but directed me back to the dept of fish and game and suggested that I make a formal complaint and request that the link and video be sent to the legislature. I will do this tommorrow. The enforcement office felt that he thought members of the legislature would be appalled and that this sort of incident might provide some impetus to create some protective legislation. I’ll find out more tommorrow. He expressed sincere regret that he could not find any laws that were being broken. I think he was disgusted.

    • Paul says:


      We also got the same answer. To think that in the year 2012 it is perfectly legal to blow up animals for recreation. I wonder how many other states allow this? Why would any civilian not engaged in construction work be allowed to use explosives, especially on wildlife? Thanks for checking.

      • Dan says:

        The only thing I can piece together is that because the components are inert until mixed they do not qualify as explosives. After watching a few youtube videos of “blowing up” lawnmowers and such, I myself am in amazement and wonder how something so “explosive” is legal, but it is.

    • JB says:

      Best of luck, Louise. Please let me know if there’s any information I can provide that may help in your efforts.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Thank you JB I do appreciate that very much. I’ll keep it in mind.

        Awhile back I asked if you would be interested in seeing the results of the Idaho comment cataloging process and if you were interested in making reccomendations on how to improve it. I’ve been held up with a computer crash and problems migrating data back onto my computer, even with an internet back up, so we are behind but when I get going again I really would appreciate your review. Despite the bickering back and forth, I know you and others have a vast and varied amount of experience.

  31. Elk275 says:

    Someone was telling me the other day you could shoot into a “Cold Pak” and it would explore. At Sportsman’s Surplus they were selling a small explosive device that when shot would explode. The device was not large and there were specific instructions on it use. I did not pay any attention.

  32. Spring is finally arriving here in Valley County near Donnelly, Idaho. I heard Snipes making their mating flights this evening, Cliff Swallows showed up in large numbers at the S bridge this morning and the last of the Tundra Swans left for the Arctic today. Sandhill Cranes have been calling each morning and Wood Ducks have been looking at the four nest boxes I maintain along the shore of Cascade Reservoir. I live about 100 yards from the lake. I saw several Ospreys today also.
    The Ospreys have to compete with Canada Geese for space on their nests. The geese have already started nesting and when the eggs hatch, the goslings jump to the ground and then the Ospreys can take over and raise their young on the same nest platforms. I have seen some geese on very high Osprey nests on large power poles. I always wonder if the goslings get killed from jumping off of such high nests.I have never been there to watch them bounce.

    • Dan says:

      I think we’re getting close in Avery (St. Joe National Forest) but not quite. The blue birds abound. The evening grosbeaks are moving, but no waxwing sightings. I have seen several flocks of swans on the lower river moving through. I saw a pair of loons on the lower river too. Four days ago was particularly special on the lower river as I saw 8 pairs of shovelers, numerous wigeon, a few ringnecks, a few golden eyes, a small flock of green wing and a very special sighting of a pair of ruddy ducks. The wood ducks and Canadian geese are starting to nest. Have not seen any osprey yet but they have to be close. The pair of bald eagles we had nest in the valley are back again. What always signifies spring for me is seeing Audubon’s warbler and I have not seen one yet. The flycatchers, catbirds and yellow warblers will be showing up in big numbers before to long. I always look forward to the western tanagers showing up at the end of May. My true favorite rite of spring is counting harlequin ducks. This weekend I will make my first hike into a special creek to see if any harlequins have made their journey from the coast.

      • Nancy says:

        Dan Larry – all the birds around here are early this year – Blubirds, Sandhills, Canadians, Mallards, Herons, Curlews, Snipes, Redtails.

        Saw a Meadowlark almost a month ago (he landed on the pole fence the other morning – hard to miss that bright yellow chest!) very early for them.

    • JB says:

      I sorely miss springtime the the West–especially the bluebirds!

      • Dan says:

        I was at the IDFG Lewiston regional office today and they had bluebird boxes for sale. After seeing your comment this morning I had to buy one. My girls and I will be putting it up this weekend. We’ll keep you posted if it sees any residents this spring.

  33. Peter Kiermeir says:
    “…… wolves were shot by a Tofino tour operator who makes a living transporting tourists to view bears and wolves.”

  34. Salle says:

    Gulf Seafood Deformities Raise Questions Among Scientists And Fisherman (VIDEO)

  35. Salle says:

    House Passes Transportation Extension Bill Including Keystone XL Pipeline Provision

  36. Salle says:

    Mexico volcano spouts large column of ash and steam

  37. Immer Treue says:

    I finally watched the coyote video Paul sited a few days ago. A lot of thoughts, but some that come to mind are: Leopold’s comment about youthful trigger itch; in the celebration of yeilding death, little to no respect for life; the internet and youtube giving 15 minutes of fame; why the military recruits youth; and I could go on.

    Sad that when I was watching the PBS presentation of Frank Church River of no Return Wilderness last night, I kept expecting animals to drop from being shot.

    Not meant as anti-hunting, just overload from the previous youtube presentation and disregard for life.

  38. Mike says:

    Nugent to meet with secret service:

    Nugent and his belief in canned hunts and developing roadless areas has done real damage to hunters, IMHO.

  39. Salle says:

    Obama Echoes Bush, Sets Plan for Polar Bear Extinction
    “President Obama’s proposal for these magnificent and imperiled animals is a gift to Big Oil”

  40. Salle says:

    Front Door Stripped off Mobile Home As Forced Evictions Reach New Low in Bakken Oil Patch

    • Louise Kane says:

      I wonder what Jim and Jamie Duetcher wof Living with Wolves would have to say?

  41. Louise Kane says:

    a further follow up on the coyote issue
    I spoke with Erik Hareis today at Governor Kitzhaber’s office. He was not aware of the link to the coyote killing spree, so I will be sending the link as well as some additional information about coyotes that I intend to lift from Jon Way’s site. Mr Hareis said he would be sure to find the correct person to direct the information to. I will also be sending the the enforcement officer that i spoke to yesterday the same information. Anyone wanting to provide particular thoughts or pertinent documents in support of providing protection from abuse for coyotes and other predators please send to me and I’ll include it. Finally the Dept of Fish and Game left a message today that i was unable to return due to time constraints.

  42. Nancy says:

    “How do you know the bear was not eaten? I know allot of people that eat bear, if you know how to prepare it, it is quite tasty”

    Sure the same thing has probably been said about eating our own kind SB, but how many of us really want to go there unless you’re stranded on a mountaintop, starving and there are no other options available?

    • Elk275 says:

      Nancy, bear is good. The first bear I shot, in 1975, was at Alexander Lake Lodge across the Cook Inlet from Anchorage, while I was working for an exploration company. The lodge owner and founder Ken Clark had come to Alaska in the 30’s. In 15 minutes the bear was skinned. Several days later we had bear bacon for breakfast and bear bacon was on the menu for the next several days. That week’s dinners were bear chops, bear hams, moose and salmon. If I only could go back in time and have Ken’s bear bacon for breakfast again.

  43. Savebears says:


    There is bear meat in my freezer right now, how in the heck do you equate eating bear to being a cannibal? I would guess that over 80% of the bear hunters I know, eat their animal, in fact FWP requires that all edible parts are recovered, it is against the law to leave a bear carcass and only take the hide and head. Parts of the bear considered suitable for food as defined by law are :All four quarter above the hock including loin and backstrap.

    • Wolf Moderate says:

      At this moment I am sitting around a fire and spring bear hunting. I do computer work for an hour and then hike for an hour. In Idaho, the meat of bear is not required to be taken, but I always take it anyway. If I don’t eat the meat, then it isn’t killed. Bear meat isn’t that bad actually. Summer sausage is really quite good actually. If I ever kill a wolf, I’m going to eat the meat, but not really looking forward to it…Gotta kill any legal wolf though, due to the fact that the general season archery season in N Idaho doesn’t allow the “harvest” of cow elk this year though. What’s up with that? Even Oregon allows general season archery “any elk” tags. Grrrrrr! Wolf sign is all over the place.

    • skyrim says:

      So, it’s “savebears for my freezer” ay?

  44. Funny wildlife video of Grizzly 610 and her cubs

    Da Bears ~ Grizzly 610 and cubs

  45. I hope all of you consumers of bear meat cook the meat well. Bears often carry trichina round worms that cause trichinosis is humans.

    • Savebears says:


      FWP offers free testing of the meat, you also have to take the animal to FWP to be branded within a certain amount of time, anyone that hunts bears knows about trichina and have their meat tested before consuming.

  46. Harley says:

    I guess I was taken by surprise, I didn’t know there were Mexican Grey wolves.

    • Maska says:

      Indeed there are, Harley. If you want to have a chance to see some of the reintroduced lobos (not very likely, unless you spend a lot of time in the recovery area), there are currently approximately 58 known Mexican gray wolves distributed between the Gila National Forest in New Mexico and the Apache National Forest and Ft. Apache Indian Reservation in Arizona. Check out lots more info at

  47. Mike says:

    H.R. 1505 and the GOP plan to destroy the national parks:

  48. Peter Kiermeir says:

    House Votes to Open Much of National Park System to Hunting and Hamper Efforts to Protect Our Heritage

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      There’ll be less wood chuck poop to worry about at Gettysburg, at the possible inconvenience of dodging high velocity rounds fired by long-range varmint shooters. Should be fine as long as you don’t look like a ground hog — the NPS ranger will hand out mandatory hunter orange at the entrance and give you a brief chat about bringing back gunfire to enhance the historic experience . . . . . and of course will point out there are plenty of tombstones to hide behind. Pretty similar to the current chat about enjoying but being cautious with wildlife in Yellowstone.

  49. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Tigers migrate to China…in pieces

  50. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Hunters warned to watch for grizzlies near Red Lodge
    “Fish, Wildlife and Parks spokesman Robert Gibson said Thursday that the agency biologist for the Red Lodge area has seen more grizzlies this spring than any other time in the past 30 years.”

  51. Jeff says:

    The USFWS trapped and killed the white wolf that was frequenting South Park in Jackson Hole.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Jeff why did they kill the wolf?

      • Mike says:

        Because a few people in the neighborhood freaked out.

        • Jeff says:

          …and they tore up a couple of dogs as well as frequented some residential areas I guess too often. I believe this was the Pinnacle Pack—the local paper said they killed the white wolf (an old female).

  52. Frank Renn says:

    Ted Nugent,convicted poacher and board member of N.R.A. Sounds normal. Remember not long ago former Senator Larry Craig was a board member. He always made sure livestock got preference over wildlife.

    • Nice signs . . they are concise and easy to read. Maybe it will help keep bear fatalities down. (Yes, I care about humans too, but natural selection doesn’t seem to be working for humans.)

  53. Salle says:

    Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research Firm

    • Jeff says:

      Perhaps the worst news of all. I really dislike Monsanto.

      • mikarooni says:

        You’d really be shocked at how widespread this sort of thing has become. There are a number of human medical conditions that are currently controlled through the use of extremely expensive and often unhealthy or downright risky pharmaceuticals. I know of several cases and was involved in one where a new approach to using an advanced technological solution was developed and even prototyped, only to have the patents for key elements of the enabling technologies purchased by either holding companies for the pharmaceutical industry or by industry players themselves and then shelved. In the 1970s, the FTC was investigating the relationship between free “sample” drugs and low cost junkets for training in their use being provided to physicians and the obvious tendency of those physicians to prescribe those drugs and establish a pattern of use in the patient. The FTC was scheduled to testify on their findings when, surprise, surprise, GOP members of Congress who were recipients of pharma lobbying and contributions suddenly inserted a rider barring the FTC from investigating the AMA or pharma on this topic …hearings cancelled, no testimony, no legislative action. Monsanto (I believe that’s a Sicilian term for devil worship.) is just using the old tricks.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          Well, if the corporations can’t control the science, cloud the science, discredit the science, or junk it up , they can always just BUY the science they need to monkeywrench the discourse.

          I learned that from Exxon, back when the climate change-fossil fuel debate was first getting going…13 years before Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth ” book and movie came out.

          Monsanto is evil . Watch the excellent documentary ” Food, Inc.”

    • Mike says:

      I’m sure the EPA will get right on it….

  54. Jeff says:

    Food Inc and An Omnivores Dilemma are both good reads.

  55. Wolfy says:

    The “Nuge” is at it again. He’s been banned from hunting in several states and now its Alaska’s turn to give the Motor City Madman the boot. Ted Nugent and his lower-than-scum buddies have a long record of violations here in Michigan ranging from wildlife codes to criminal trespass. The problem is that so many conservatives and in the hunting community lookup to this “rebel” for sticking it to the gov’t. And so many young hunters look up to this guy. I see too many pick-ups with “Ted Nugent Outdoors” stickers on them. I told one hunter a couple years ago that I should give him a ticket just for having the “Nuge’s” sticker on his truck. The hunter inquired why and after a brief explanation of the exploits of Teddy and his buddies, decided to tear the sticker off his truck.
    Read all about Uncle Ted’s latest adventures and plea bargained deal in Alaska:

  56. Mike says:

    Nugent enters plea deal for poaching bear:

    Very, very common amongst hunters. And super sad.

  57. David says:

    Here’s an article about birth defects in elephant seals. A reminder that problems can persist for a species even after their numbers recover.

  58. louise kane says:

    This came to my attention, if anyone is interested in commenting.

    Representatives John Campbell (R-CA) and Peter DeFazio, (D-OR) have introduced H.R. 4214 – the Compound 1080 and M-44 Elimination Act – a federal bill that bans the use of two deadly poisons- sodium fluoroacetate, (Compound 1080) and sodium cyanide- presently used nationwide for lethal predator control.

    Each year thousands of coyotes and foxes are intentionally killed with these two poisons by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services (WS) program at the behest of agribusiness and private ranchers – at taxpayer expense! Non-target animals, including pets, birds, and threatened and endangered species fall victim to these poisons. People have also been severely harmed by both Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide.

    These poisons also pose a national security risk. The FBI has declared both as “highly toxic pesticides judged most likely to be used by terrorists or for malicious intent.”

    “Compound 1080 and M-44 sodium cyanide capsules are lethal, dangerous and unnecessary poisons,” said Rep. DeFazio. “They pose a very serious threat to our nation’s citizens, wildlife and domesticated animals. I am pleased to support this legislation, which would halt the use of these needlessly dangerous poisons permanently.”

    Please write to your Congressional Representative; urge support for and co-sponsorship of H.R. 4214- the Compound 1080 and M-44 Elimination Act:

    Submit comments here:

    For bill information and to see if your Representative is already a co-sponsor visit:

    Points to convey in your letters:

    Strongly urge your Rep. to support and co-sponsor H.R. 4214- the Compound 1080 and M-44 Elimination Act.
    This bill will protect wildlife from cruel and dangerous poisons that are ethically and ecologically unjustifiable and pose a threat to homeland security and to non-target animals including pets and protected species.
    Spending limited tax-dollars on wasteful predator poisoning programs is fiscally irresponsible and unjustifiable at a time when Congress is trying to reduce the deficit and cut ineffective and wasteful programs.
    Compound 1080 is one of the deadliest poisons on earth and has no antidote.
    Death from Compound 1080 is inevitable, but this ingestion causes intense pain and suffering for an extended time; animals suffer convulsions and muscle spasms for hours before dying.
    Compound 1080 is a potential terrorist threat to our water and food supplies.
    People have been seriously harmed by M-44s and Compound 1080; at least 16 people have died from exposure to Compound 1080.
    Killing coyotes and other wildlife with poisons is not the answer to real or perceived conflicts with livestock.
    Rather than killing predators, ranchers should employ better animal husbandry practices such as guard animals, electronic sound and light devices, night penning, lambing sheds, prompt carcass removal and appropriate fencing.
    Thank you for taking action to keep apex predators alive and poisons out of our environment.


    Matthew Koehler
    Big Wildlife

  59. louise kane says:

    MN wolves….

    * WATCH OUR TV AD ~~ As of April 9, 2012, Wolf hunting and trapping in HF 2171 passed the MN House floor. The MN State Senate may vote as soon as April 16, 2012 on SF 1943 the Senate Omnibus Game and Fish bill with wolf hunting and trapping. An amendment will be proposed on the floor to SF 1943 proposing the re-instatement of the MN Wolf Management Plan …… Our current efforts focus on the Minnesota Gray wolf. Minnesota is the only lower 48 state that has its original wolf population. In January 2012, after 40 years on the Endangered Species List, the Minnesota wolf was de-listed. Now an immediate wolf trapping and hunting season is set to start if the 2012 legislature passes the current wolf hunting and trapping bills into law. It is our mission to educate and motivate the public to speak up and even howl for the Minnesota gray wolf….
    Howling For Wolves PSA
    TV spot aimed at spreading awareness of the upcoming wolf hunt in Minnesota. Please tell your friend…

  60. louise kane says:
    good writing from WildEarth Guardians
    some issues already past but still nice writing

    • JEFF E says:

      louise kane
      with all due respect, just a suggestion, you would be much more effective if you reduced the blizzard of posts and the sheer amount of verbiage. Starting to sound like traffic noise.

    • skyrim says:

      Earth First Journal…….
      I forgot how much I missed this publication. Thanks Louise,
      I miss the early days of activism. Back before “moderate” was even a word.

  61. Nancy says:

    Was there a full moon last night? (:)

  62. louise kane says:

    Jeff E with all due respect, just a suggestion you might try not being so caustic and might be more effective if you reduced the amount of insults. Starting to sound like a name calling bully. I’m not rude while you can be extremely and consistently rude

  63. WM says:

    Not quite wildlife news, but very much related to our cheap “consumption” culture, which is at the very heart of loss of wildlife habitt. One in five Wal-Mart stores is in Mexico, and apparently many (all?)l got built as the result of bribery by Wal-Mart officials, who then covered it up to protect stock price. I hope anyone involved goes to jail for a very long time. New York Time:

    • Daniel Berg says:

      I’ve always had a suspicion that we barely see the tip of the iceberg in terms of how much corporate bribery of one form or another goes on in most countries globally.

      Wildlife and habitat considerations are some of the first to go by the wayside when it comes to corruption.

  64. CodyCoyote says:

    The full Wyoming Game Fish Commission is meeting this week, April 25-26 in Casper , to among other things finalize the state Wolf Management Plan and approve the hunts.

    ” Finalize” meaning you should be able to hear the sound of the rubber stamps all the way over in Pocatello and Helena.

  65. ma'iingan says:

    Feral cats in the news again –

    • Daniel Berg says:

      My fiance runs a small cat rescue.

      I can tell you from personal experience that some of those groups are run and supported by people who operate purely on emotion when it comes to animals.

      They would be willing to see indigenous species wiped out or the creation of a health hazard because of a complete inability to come to grips with a difficult and emotional decision.

      As an example, my fiance consistently has to deal with folks within her organization who would bankrupt the entire cat rescue trying to save one cat, even if it is old, unadoptable, would require several thousand dollars or more to keep alive, and would have a couple of more years, at best. It stems from an inability to process strong emotions.

      • Mike says:

        ++my fiance consistently has to deal with folks within her organization who would bankrupt the entire cat rescue trying to save one cat, even if it is old, unadoptable, would require several thousand dollars or more to keep alive, and would have a couple of more years, at best. It stems from an inability to process strong emotions.++

        …and these are the kind of people you want nearby if you’re trapped in a fire, the kind that would endanger themselves trying to save one person, even if he/she was old, un-adoptable, and would require several thousand dollars or more to keep alive, and would have a couple of more years, at best. It stems from an ability to process empathy.

        • aves says:

          The empathy of the cat advocates in the article is very selective. Their methods increase the mortality of native wildlife and the risk of disease exposure to humans.

  66. Salle says:

    2012 Senate Farm Bill Does More Harm Than Good

  67. Nancy says:

    “The proposed legislation doubles down on unlimited subsidies to buy and deliver farm insurance – at a cost of $90 billion over the next ten years. Modest reforms to these heavily subsidized insurance programs, such as means-testing and capping premium subsidies, would save enough money to spare conservation and anti-hunger programs from the proposed cuts. Crop insurance has not only become an expensive new subsidy for large farm businesses, it has also become an entitlement program for insurance agents and insurers, including companies based in tax havens such as Bermuda and Switzerland”

    How do they sleep at night?

    • Salle says:

      It would seem that they have some innate ability to sleep with their heads in sand whilst keeping their backsides poised to receive a constant flow of income… usually unearned.

  68. Peter Kiermeir says:

    We here in Germany also shoot wolves “accidentally”:

    • sleepy says:

      Yes, Peter, but here in the US as you know from reading this blog, 2 states have legalized wolf hunts. Nothing “accidental” about those.

      Of course you are correct–“accidental” wolf kills abound in the US, in addition to the legal kills.

  69. Chuck says:

    A grizzly bear being killed for being a bear. Sure wished this bear would have high tailed it to the mountains.

    • Harley says:

      I saw that the other day! Way cool! I wonder, does a white Orca ever have to worry about sunburn?

  70. louise kane says:

    Upcoming May 10th Montana meeting to consider trapping of wolves

    Anyone interested in the upcoming meeting in Montana that concerns the new wolf hunting regs should plan to write or attend if you want to voice your concerns about trapping. It appears that Montana is now considering trapping. When I spoke to Bob Reams before the wolf hunts started in 2011 he said the dept. had no intention of using traps for wolves. Obviously the anti wolf pressure is mounting and trapping is now on the table.

    I received the following information from an activist in Montana. he is asking for help via letters and or attendance.


    Below is the schedule of Commission meetings. No agenda has been set for the May 10th meeting. They begin at 8:30. Trapping WILL be on the agenda.

    They usually release the actual agenda 7 to 10 days before the meeting. People can write ahead of time to request NO trapping of any kind. I suggest writing to the Commissioners in general at …””
    I also suggest writing to the Director, Joe Maurier @
    And cc to Schweitzer @
    Two commissioners that should be focused on additionally are Ron Moody and Bob Ream
    Ron Moody’s email, “”
    Bob Ream’s is “”
    These 2 are the most progressive and ethical commissioners.

    E-mail Commissioners:
    District 1
    Bob Ream, Chairman
    521 Clarke Street
    Helena, MT 59601
    (406) 461-3202
    District 2
    Dan Vermillion, Vice-Chairman
    PO Box 668
    Livingston, MT 59047
    (406) 222-0624
    District 3
    Ron Moody, Commissioner
    109 Bach Avenue
    Lewistown, MT 59457
    (406) 538-2698
    District 4
    A.T. Stafne, Commissioner
    8079 US Highway 2
    Wolf Point, MT 59201
    (406) 653-2881
    District 5
    Shane Colton, Commissioner
    335 Clark
    Billings, MT 59101
    (406) 259-9986

    • sleepy says:

      In anticipation of eventual delisting, have their been any sort of state management proposals?

      • Mike says:

        Any hunting season on grizzly bears would be unacceptable and unethical.

        • Wolf Moderate says:

          Why? What if there was a lottery system where only the number of bears are killed each year to keep the population at a predetermined number. The funds that would certainly be raised by a lottery could be utilized for conservation easements, bear studies, and many other things.

          Funds are scarce in this current and probably perpetual economic downturn in the US. I think that getting funds for easements, restoration, and other conservation programs by any means necessary is invaluable.

          • Peter Kiermeir says:

            Great, somebody asks for management proposals and what comes in return is just another “hunting” and “killing” proposal! Once more proving the stereotype that “management” is just a synonym for “killing”. However, that lottery idea would fit perfectly into Mark Gamblin´s arsenal of groundbreaking conservation measures, the rest of the world should benchmark.

            • Wolf Moderate says:

              It’s clear that funding from non-consumptive users/wildlife watchers is spent on litigation and not habitat enhancements. Do you have any data on how much these people have spent on restoration projects? I only know of hunting organizations such as RMEF, Ducks unlimited etc…Please post some non-hunting orgs that aren’t just sue happy. Not saying they aren’t out there, I’ve just not heard of any.


          • Mike says:

            Why do you have to shoot everything?

            • Wolf Moderate says:

              Sorry, I view wildlife as a renewable resource, not teddy bears and bambi. Why can’t you see that by killing wildlife, you are helping them 😉

              As long as the departments manage wildlife sustainably, there is no reason to worry. Though I do respect your and other wildlife advocates viewpoints on killing animals, I respectfully disagree completely with it. Nature is a bitch and we as humans are a part of it.

            • Mike says:

              Why do you feel that an animal that numbers around 1200 in the lower 48 needs to be shot?

            • Maska says:

              WM—check out Sky Island Alliance and WildEarth Guardians, both of which do restoration work of various kinds. Just plug the names into a search engine.

        • sleepy says:

          I am not for hunting grizzlies either, but do you think the public will accept grizzlies on the plains areas of Montana?

          I have read recently of evidence of grizzlies east of Great Falls, MT, near the Fort Benton area.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Wildlife Officials, Conservation Groups Battle Over Yellowstone Grizzlies
      Yes, don´t stop gnawing on the bears protection! It worked with the wolves, so why shoudn´t it work with the grizzly next?

    • SAP says:

      WOW! I clicked that HuffPost link and it opened on the comment section (to keep on the sunny side, I do my best to ignore comment sections). I didn’t think they could come up with any new angles on the SuperBigBadWolves fantasy, but here it is:

      “Having been moved below the 49th parallel, the estrus cycles have shortened resulting in many more litters than if the wolves were in their normal habitat, CANADA.”

      Whoa! Has anyone else heard this one? Is it longer photoperiod, less magnetic pull, warmer temperatures?

      Maybe I shouldn’t be too hasty in rejecting this. After all, warmer summers at upper elevations have allowed mountain pine beetle to squeeze another reproductive cycle into the year. Hmmm . . .

      The correspondent also contends: “We have ingenious [sic; surely meant ‘indigenous’] wolves here around Gilmore summit by Leadore. They hardly compare to the opportunistic Canadian grays that have become more aggressive since being brought south.”

      So, being south of 49 not only allows them to have more litters, but also makes them more aggressive? Or are they more aggressive because they’re not in polite, civil Canada anymore?

      • Immer Treue says:


        I don’t remember where, but I also saw that comment pop up about multiple litters during the year. WWWWHHHHOOOOOSH!

      • sleepy says:

        Odd comment indeed.

        Much of southern interior British Columbia which has plenty of wolves,has far warmer weather than Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

        Beyond that of course is the fact that those big, bad, giant Canadian wolves were never reintroduced into the Glacier area. They just walked there. Are folks claiming that those wolves are somehow not native to the area.

        BTW–I live in northern Iowa, and in the northeastern corner of the state, there have been credible yet unconfirmed sightings of wolves on occasion. Not surprising since the nearest known packs in Wisconsin are only about 50 miles away.

        Knowing Iowa, they will be killed on sight, legally, as bears are.

        The 3000 Minnesota wolves aren’t bad and aggressive either because like Canada, and unlike the mountain west, Minnesota too is a “polite, civil” area. They are the most polite, well-mannered wolves ever. 🙂

  71. Salle says:

    Too cute to die? Experts say we’re too selective about species we choose to protect

  72. sleepy says:

    An interesting documentary on wildlife, including many wolf packs, moose, bison, etc., reinhabiting the “dead zone” around the Chernobyl nuclear site, a formerly densely populated and agricultural region that has returned to nature.

    Apparently the radiation has not affected the wildlife.

  73. aves says:

    Another whooping crane has been shot and killed, the 11th in the last 2 years:

  74. Frank Renn says:

    If you enjoyed the Great-horned owl attacking the Bald eagle nest you might want to check out Cornell Univ. webcam Horned owl attacks Great blue heron on nest.

  75. aves says:

    “Bureau of Land Management Determines Bird Deaths From PVC Mining Claim Marker Pipes Widespread: Cooperative Effort Under Way to Address the Threat”:

  76. Salle says:

    Salazar: Utah just playing politics in land fight

    Government » Move defies “common sense,” but Bishop says feds are robbing state’s students.

    AZ revives legislation demanding control of US lands

  77. Salle says:

    Snake River dams should go, says judge now off the case

    The Snake River dams, the subject of litigation between salmon advocates and hydropower supporters, ought to be removed, says the federal judge who until recently presided over the case.

    • louise kane says:

      “Many ranchers and hunters in Wyoming believe the state’s wolf population has grown unacceptably high since wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone in the mid-1990s. The state has fought for years to try to get state control of the animals, repeatedly and unsuccessfully suing the federal government.’

      aren’t the numbers at 348 or close to that. This is unacceptably high in state where millions of people come to watch wolves. This is the time to start calling Salazar’s office and flood your congress members with calls against the plan and the attempts to exempt the plan from legal challenges. A new trend in getting by the traditions and laws that undermine democracy, take the courts of of the equation and let politics and special interest money rule.

      • Salle says:

        And then you have this mindset: “Why can’t you see that by killing wildlife, you are helping them

        Geeze, maybe we could apply that to the human population, then there would be more habitat and food for the wildlife. 😉

  78. Salle says:

    FWP working on long-term bison plan, holding meetings

    Bison meetings

    All sessions will be held from 6 to 9 p.m., with the first hour dedicated to informal discussions and the remainder of the evening set for recording scoping comments.

    May 14, Missoula, Holiday Inn Downtown at 200 S. Pattee St.

    May 15, Kalispell, Red Lion Hotel at 20 N. Main

    May 16, Glasgow, Cottonwood Inn at 45 First Ave. NE

    May 17, Helena, Montana Wild Center at 2668 Broadwater Ave.

    May 21, Billings, Holiday Inn Convention Center at 5500 Midland Road

    May 22, Miles City, BLM conference room at 111 Garryowen Road

    May 23, Great Falls, Townhouse Inn at 1411 10th Ave. S

    May 24, Bozeman, Holiday Inn on Baxter at 5 Baxter Lane

  79. Salle says:

    Discovery of Indian artifacts complicates Genesis solar project,0,1894725.story

  80. CodyCoyote says:

    Well, we know what Mark Twain said about lies and statistics….

    “Grizzly counts under review” – Jackson Hole News & Guide
    New counting methods guaranteed to increase Grizzly population estimates

    • Immer Treue says:

      A common comment mantra

      ” Right up until those illegally imported c.l.occidentalis wolves, carrying Hydatid Cyst disease, moved into the area…”

      Doesn’t matter if the wolves came down from Canada on their own (same federal protection, if enforced) or if the wolves had been brought in… The same tired old comments would be thrown out there.

      Folks, it’s going to take a long, long time.

      • Nancy says:

        “Folks, it’s going to take a long, long time”

        And the big question (atleast in my mind Immer) is why should it take a long, long time given the fact that only 10% of this country’s population hunts and less than 6% of livestock raised in the US, takes place here in the western states.

        States that brag about having vast (or robust 🙂 depending on how you look at it) wilderness areas dedicated to wildlife and their habitat.

        • Immer Treue says:


          I believe it’s because they have the money, the lobbying power, and the political representation. And now, during a time of national struggle, when most are concerned with what does tomorrow hold, wolves will play second fiddle to the above power group and the dribble as per the comment I included.

          • Nancy says:

            “I believe it’s because they have the money, the lobbying power, and the political representation”

            Yep, that’s always been a part of the landscape/politics out here in the west Immer, since it was “settled”

            Same ole, same ole way of doing things wouldn’t you agree? Regardless of the impacts.

            • Immer Treue says:


              I agree, ergo, it’s going to take a long time. Hang in there Brother Wolf!

  81. Harley says:

    This is kinda interesting. Wonder why it’s drying up.

    • Salle says:

      But it’s been drying up for a really long time. I lived out there in the 1980’s and it was a stinky mudhole then. And the beach was just kazillions of fish bones, no sand except up where the waterline used to be at some unknown point in the past. The marina was mostly above water and what was left hanging over the water was falling into it… brown, stinky, nasty wouldn’t take kids or pets anywhere near it for fear of pathogens of unknown origin. I had no desire to touch the so called water back then.

      • Harley says:

        Huh… Wonder why it’s making news now if it’s been going on for so long. Thanks for that bit.

        And have you been peeking in on the eagles? Holy Toledo they are getting HUGE!

        • Nancy says:

          Harley – the raptors, as in Redtails & Osprey, have just recently arrived in my area of Montana for the season.

          Saw 2 pairs of Osprey sitting on fencepost this morning, probably because their annual nesting sites (manmade, to keep them away from nesting on utility poles) were covered in recent snow showers.

          No way to install webcams for these summer visitors but I do enjoy seeing them and their fledglings, at some point (in my travels back and forth) hanging around the edges of the nest.

        • Salle says:

          Harley, Nancy, Frank;

          Yest I have been looking in on the eaglets, not as much as usual… having a bad week. I did see them walking around quite confidently yesterday but the camera went down a few minutes later. they are really huge compared to just last week.

          I have seen three pair of Osprey on traditional nests yesterday when I went for a drive to clear my head. I saw four Turkey Vultures along the roadside too. Don’t see much of those around my neck of the woods. There were some significant rain/hail storms along the divide that pushed all those invisible elk (that have allegedly been eaten by wolves as though they were potato chips 😉 ) down from the high country. I saw a couple hundred in about a square mile of sage steppe along the Madison. Today it’s snowing off and on. It was more like mid June last week. Watching for the early orchids already.

          • Nancy says:

            “I saw four Turkey Vultures along the roadside too. Don’t see much of those around my neck of the woods”

            Salle – never saw Turkey Vultures in my neck of the woods til about 4 years ago.

            A pair that year, turned into 4 the following year and the year after that but only saw 2 last year and I’m wondering if any will show up this year.

          • Harley says:

            Heh, if it’s a bad week, watching the antics of the eaglets will certainly bring a smile to your face! I’m fascinated by these web cams, they have one of a goose in a flower pot, some owls, more eagles. It’s been very interesting when I do make my way online.

        • Salle says:


          I think it makes the news about once a decade. I must confess, I just read the article and it appears that a study was conducted, therefore, a news article to announce it.
          It has been shrinking for a while, and since it’s replenishment is reliant on ag runoff… not good quality water considering it’s at the end of the line for the Colorado River with extra added nastiness of ag chemicals in the runoff… The river used to drain into the Sea of Cortez but it’s been a long time since any water made it that far since the Imperial Valley claims whatever gets there. (Could isostatic rebound be partially responsible for the earthquakes?)

          No wonder the fish are dead. I thought it was a dead puddle of crappy muck back when I saw it last, 1990. The smell alone is enough to deter any fishing or camping within miles, unless you don’t mind water that smells worse than a clam flat at low tide… And that same year I attended an infomercial sort of thing with a friend (that was a condo sales pitch presentation) where part of the video they showed had people blasting around the Salton Sea in speedboats as though it was Lake Meade or Mission Bay. My friend and I started laughing because we had just been there days prior… they almost kicked us out for telling them what a joke that segment of the presentation was.

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      The Salton Sea is drying up because its creation was due to a human accident in the early 20th Century that sent the near entire flow of the Colorado River into this natural depression — the Salton Sink.

      Prehistorically, the Salton Sink did hold lakes from time to time, depending on the course of the Colorado River.

      When the accidental breach in the Colorado was fixed, even though it was a century ago now,the new body of water created was doomed because the small rivers running into the sink and agricultural runoff (which was of poor quality) simply was not enough to offset evaporation in this very hot place.

      I’m amazed “the sea” has lasted as long as it has, and even more that some fools think they can yet create resort communities on its edge.

      Keeping the Salton Sea in existence as anything of value will require an expensive diversion of good quality water, maybe seawater, into the depression. The political will to do this probably does not exist.

      The slow death of the “sea” will be a human and wildlife tragedy, however.

  82. louise kane says:

    a group working on overturning Citizens V United
    not exactly wildlife news but certainly related to it

    From for those of you interested

    “Some have said it can’t be done, but we’re doing it.

    City by city, state by state, we’re building the groundswell of support we need to introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

    This past week we had a major state victory and hit a big campaign milestone on Capitol Hill.

    There’s more news about that below, but first, have you heard about Resolutions Week?

    Resolutions Week is an initiative led by Public Citizen in partnership with other organizations to help activists nationwide pass more than 100 local resolutions the week of June 11.

    The initiative is off to a great start: more than 100 towns held meetings this month to organize around passing city council and town meeting resolutions. Overall, 5,500 people nationwide have signed up to be a part of Resolutions Week. More than 150 cities and towns nationwide have already passed resolutions or ballot initiatives calling for an amendment.

    Sign up now to host a meeting or a press event on May 9 that will advance a resolution in your town. (Even if you haven’t started your effort yet, you can host a planning meeting and we will help you make it successful).

    Vermont Victory!

    Last Thursday, Vermont became the third state to officially call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s disastrous Citizens United ruling. The Vermont House followed the Senate and passed resolution J.R.S. 11 by a vote of 92-40. With that, Vermont sent a strong message about the need to take democracy off the auction block.

    In March, 65 towns in Vermont also passed town ballot initiatives calling for the state legislature and Congress to pass an amendment. The town meeting mandate fueled the state resolution victory and generated tri-partisan support in the legislature, including a majority of Vermont’s Republican state senators.

    Public Citizen coordinated the Vermont effort with key partner groups and hundreds of Democracy Is For People activists.

    Congressional Summit on Overturning Citizens United

    Last Wednesday on Capitol Hill, in front of a packed audience, a dozen members of Congress asked their colleagues to join them in signing a Declaration for Democracy calling for an amendment to overturn Citizens United.

    Watch a video of Public Citizen President Robert Weissman speaking at the summit.

    U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and U.S. Reps. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Donna Edwards (D-Md.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) — all sponsors of proposed amendments — convened the summit to showcase the leadership of activists, advocates and lawmakers across the country and to show support for their efforts, including through initiatives like Resolutions Week.

    Featured activists included New Mexico State Rep. Mimi Stewart, Portland City Councilor David Marshall, Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin and Vermont activist Georgina Forbes. All shared stories about how they were able to launch and win resolution efforts in their towns and states over the past year.

    There are now nearly 100 members of Congress who have gone on record supporting our call for an amendment.

    We’re on our way. But we still need more people like you to join.

    Sign up now to host an organizing meeting or press event on May 9.

    On May 9, people all over the country will hold press events and organizing meetings to introduce their local resolutions and publicly launch their efforts. It is OK to plan an organizing meeting even if you haven’t participated in this effort yet. We will provide you with resources and support to make it happen.

    With these victories, one thing is clear: As each community stands up for democracy, more communities come on board. You can help make sure your community is part of the action.

    Sign up now to participate in Resolutions Week by hosting a press event or meeting on May 9.


    Mark, Aquene and Jonah
    Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People Campaign Team

    P.S. Do one more easy thing before you move to the next message in your inbox. Forward this email to five friends, family members, neighbors or colleagues. They’ll appreciate knowing what matters to you. And your voice will be amplified by every person who joins you in taking action.”

  83. Salle says:

    In New US “Bioeconomy”, Industry Trumps Environment
    Petrochemical industry looks to profit from unregulated biotechnology market

  84. It looks like humans have been killing off large predators for the past two million years:

  85. CodyCoyote says:

    By chance I happened to catch a documentary on American Bison on Wyoming PBS last night , ” Facing the Storm : Story of the American Bison ” , the currently featured film for the excellent Independent Lens program.

    The entire episode can be watched at the website for free till May 3: It’s quite current on the whole sordid affair of the war between migrating Yellowstone Bison and the Montana cattlemen , for starters…

    – filmmaker Doug Hawes-Davis co-founded High Plains Films , and has produced over 20 films

  86. Daniel Berg says:

    First wolverine spotted south of Stevens Pass in 20 years:

  87. CodyCoyote says:

    Three local Wyoming men fined a total of $ 17,000 and lose all hunting/fishing privileges for six years for poaching seven mule deer along the Chief Joseph Scenic Highway near Cody.

    The downside is the poaching occurred three years ago , and the case just now concluded.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Cody Coyote,

      Thanks for the sort of good news, but do you have any idea why the court was so slow? Is this a general problem in Wyoming, or was it this case?

      • CodyCoyote says:

        Ralph- I have not heard ( yet ) why this poaching case was strung out over three years. I do know it took the Game Warden a year to investigate and gather evidence to the point where he could confront the suspects directly, which he did in 2010 from a late 2009 incident. That it took nearly two years to reach a Copurt sentence is something I will have to look into. I know the prosecutors and will ask , but that seems like long drawn out justice. Other poaching cases in the same district have been slam-dunkers and handled quickly , so I’m presuming these guys lawyered up and tried to weasel out of it. I’ll look into it.
        Generally speaking, there have been a lot more poaching prosecutions in the Cody area in recent years , which is good. Stronger laws with heftier penalties, coupled with changing public attitudes that are much less tolerant of wildlife transgressions all seem to be going in the same direction. But who can say what percentage of poaching is detected ?

        The Cody office of US FWS has a new investigator who came down here from Alaska after working years there. he is also a pilot. I know he is working several possible Wolf poaching cases but won’t comment on them , naturally. I have reason to be encouraged that illegal wildlife incidents are getting more investigation and prosecution these days, but then again I know of some grizzly bear mortalities that went nowhere. It’s a fair question to ask if Wyoming Game & Fish is ” assertive” about working any illegal wolf kills past or present with Fish & Wildlife , or what Department policy will be on the ground when the State takes over full wolf management in the near future. On that latter point, I’m not encouraged…yet. We’ll see soon enough.

  88. Elk275 says:

    A caribou in Montana, from the Missoulian


  89. JEFF E says:

    Thanks for this and the other links, Jeff E. You must figure they speak for themselves because you didn’t add anything. What I’d say about this one though is that the story says more about the emotional state of the people on the ski trail than anything about wolves they saw.

    • JEFF E says:

      If I just post a link it means I have no particular opinion about it, especially if it a media source and I have not had a chance to corroborate it one way or the other.

      Just an FYI thing for the participants of this blog.

  90. WM says:

    Scientists closer to understanding how birds navigate with magnetic fields, and maybe why London cab drivers have larger hippocampus parts of their brain

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Did you read the story about Salazar saying these 3 GOP governors were dreaming? There was also a story on the delegates to the Utah Republican caucuses that showed that grabbing the public lands was not an issue that interested the average Republican. This idea comes from the small elite of rural ideologues who get far too much attention.

      • JEFF E says:

        I wonder what Salazar would be saying if it was not an election year.
        In any case these three together creates an intellectual black hole which will produce nothing good.

    • mikarooni says:

      So, where was AZ’s Jan Brewer? She’s cut from the same trashy mold (and I do mean mold) as these three. Personally, I want them to go for it. I want Paul Ryan to keep coming up with budget proposals; I want Eric (Cantor Fitzgerald) Cantor to strut up and sneeringly mouth some more arrogant “let them eat cake” comments; I want Johnny Boner to mumble some more of his crap; and we need a whole lot more GOP vaginal probe proposals too. If letting the GOP dredge up and try to reanimate the whole damned Third Reich is what it takes for the voters to see who they really are, then let ’em go for it.

  91. louise kane says:

    This came today from Big Game Forever. There have been so many recent disputes about sportsmen and their role in delisting and or their position related killing of wolves and carnivores. Would love to hear the sportsmen take on this e mail.

    I love the closing line your friend in conservation. Hypocrite


    Lately, there has been some back and forth regarding which members of Congress, and to a lesser extent, which organizations deserve the most credit for wolf delisting legislation that passed last year. While the policy details underlying these bills remain important for the future of conservation in America, the battle for credit is not. The truth is there are many, many people who deserve our thanks. We have been honored to work directly with many of these individuals and elected officials. As US Senator Orrin Hatch indicated in this recent interview, when it came to delisting of wolves, “I have to say, our sportsmen won that battle.”

    Here is the video of the interview with Senator Hatch:
    I couldn’t agree more with Senator Hatch, sportsmen across America stepped up and that made all the difference. In fact, members of Big Game Forever have now sent 69,994 messages to key elected officials. This remains the goal of Big Game Forever, to make it easy for sportsmen to join the important fights for the future of hunting in America.

    Here is why this topic is so important. US Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated there will be more announcements regarding wolves by the end of September, 2012. There is a lot more work to finish the fight. We need to continue to make sure that the coming decisions regarding wolves will protect America’s wildlife. Make no mistake, there are those who want unmanaged wolves across America. Wolves are now present, or knocking on the door of the 11 states that hold 97% of all elk in America, 100% of all Shiras Moose and the bulk of America’s Mule Deer. These 11 states need management authority to protect key Western wildlife populations.

    There are people whose energies are directed at working with our elected officials to protect our rights as sportsmen. There are other people who instead attempt to exploit hunters for the purposes of politics or for other agendas. Big Game Forever is committed to remain a part of the solution when it comes to unmanaged wolves. I hope all of us can avoid efforts to divide sportsmen by those with hidden agendas. Instead, let’s stay focused on our common goals of: (1) protecting the future of abundant wildlife in America; and (2) protecting the right of every American to hunt and fish.

    As sportsmen, our willingness to communicate with elected officials is a game changer. When members of Congress need our help, I hope we will be ready to answer the call. Please continue to spread the word to your friends and other conservation minded-sportsmen to join the fight by signing the petition at

    Thanks for your support on this important effort.

    Your friend in conservation,

    Ryan Benson

    • Frank Renn says:

      I hunt, but if being a “sportsman” means I have to adopt the philosophy of groups like big game forever then I will pass on that name.

      • louise kane says:

        unfortunately many of the “sportsmen” groups do have similar philosophies and they spend a great deal of time and money successfully pushing for predator killing policies and legislation. After working hard toward the delisting of GL wolves, Ryan Benson (who is the hired gun, lawyer for this group) imediatley set up meetings with legislative members from MN, WS, and MI to push hunting of them. Big Game Forever were one of the groups that pushed to eliminate the 5 year waiting period in MN. Among the many injustices of the delisting and its consequences, the MN hunt really saddens me. This was a state with a stable population of wolves and ungulates and might have been a good case study to determine how well both species could do with minimal management of animals. There will be no states now with significant populations of unhunted wolves to tell us how their populations fluctuate naturally, how ungulates fare in the presence of wolves, of how ecosystems are impacted with a healthy apex predator population, and of how targeting livestock killing wolves only affects continued predation. The anti-wolf, right to hunt and kill wolves furor was riled up by groups like this and directly led to the elimination of the 5 yr waiting period on hunting. It would have been wonderful to see this state push for progressive ideas about coexistence with wolves. Instead they were pushed hard to start killing wolves despite the evidence that wolves and ungulates were thriving without the need to be aggressive about killing wolves. Its refreshing to hear your comment. The policies of groups like these are anything but sportsmen like and they certainly do not represent a true conservation ethic that these groups want to hide behind to defend their lust for killing predators.

        • ma'iingan says:

          “This was a state with a stable population of wolves and ungulates and might have been a good case study to determine how well both species could do with minimal management of animals.”

          There have been any number of studies on predation in Minnesota – it’s where the bulk of Mech and Nelson’s work has been done, and the DelGiudice study is the longest-running deer mortality study ever –

          “There will be no states now with significant populations of unhunted wolves to tell us how their populations fluctuate naturally, how ungulates fare in the presence of wolves, of how ecosystems are impacted with a healthy apex predator population, and of how targeting livestock killing wolves only affects continued predation.”

          Minnesota has always had wolves, and their population has been fairly stable for the last ten years – and they’ve been killing depredating wolves to the tune of about 200 animals per year.

          There has been a wealth of research conducted on wolf ecology in Minnesota, and plenty of data regarding depredation control treatments. Are you really advocating for more research? Or using it as an excuse to advocate against hunting?

          The conservative harvest of 400 animals out of an estimated 3000 is not going to impact Minnesota wolves’ in terms of persistence or diversity, in fact the mortality will be partly compensatory – and it will certainly yield important new data about science-based wolf management.

          • Mike says:

            ++The conservative harvest of 400 animals out of an estimated 3000 is not going to impact Minnesota wolves’++

            Mammals that breathe, think, and feel are not corn or carrots or apples. You cannot “harvest” them. What you do is kill them.

            Let’s be honest here.

          • louise kane says:

            and just why do they need to hunt wolves when the state was already effectively controlling the population with takes for depredation? And as far as eliminating the 5 yr waiting period that was specifically targeted by groups like Big Game Forever and pushed as an agenda. It has nothing to do with needing to control wolves. So get real about that WM

            • ma'iingan says:

              “and just why do they need to hunt wolves when the state was already effectively controlling the population with takes for depredation?”

              Because there are no more funds earmarked for Wildlife Services wolf depredation treatments in Minnesota.

              You want more wolf research? Going forward, wolf hunters will be funding it. Make sure you thank them for their contributions.

        • WM says:

          ++ Among the many injustices of the delisting and its consequences, the MN hunt really saddens me. ++

          It was always part of the contemplated management plan, Louise. The five year waiting period for MN to which you refer has already passed…..because HSUS and the other plaintiffs in the WGL technical delisting suits delayed it. Get real.

          • louise kane says:

            The delisting did not occur until this year, thus the 5 yr waiting period had not already passed despite how you want to rationalize it

            • WM says:


              Not surprisingly I differ with your conclusion. I am rationalizing nothing, just restating what I understand the facts to be. The WGL states believed their wolves would have been delisted in about 2005 or 2006. The delay due to litigation was indeed MN’s reason for deciding not to wait five years after adoption of its 2001 wolf management plan.

              MN, which has a very responsible wolf management program, has been trying to get its wolves delisted for the past 10 years, and it has nothing to do with pressure from a specific hunting group.

              Again, the reason they chose not to wait the five years after delisting before beginning a modest hunting season, was that they believed the desired period had been met because of the litigation delays. Your efforts to rewrite or reinterpret a topic which you know little about constantly amaze me. But, then that is not unusual for animal rights activists – reinterpreting and not thinking things through.

              Maybe ma’iingan can offer details as he knows this developed in the adjacent state of WI, which joined in the MN petition.

            • louise kane says:

              WM – “MN, which has a very responsible wolf management program, has been trying to get its wolves delisted for the past 10 years, and it has nothing to do with pressure from a specific hunting group.”
              The delisting had everything to do with pressure from hunting groups and the livestock industry.
              As for MN, why do you think the 5 yr waiting period was lifted? The legislature responded to extreme pressure from groups like Big Game Forever. Write to Big Game Forever and ask them what their role was? They will be proud to tell you about their meetings and dinners with specific legislators. check out Lobo Watch… National Deer Hunters Association….NRA etc and then tell me that these and other very specifically focused efforts were not the driving forces behind the legislature deciding to remove the waiting period. These groups and those like them pushed and pushed hard to spread anti wolf hysteria and the need for wolf management programs that have nothing to do with targeting “problem” wolves and everything to do with laying the ground work for overly aggressive state plans to kill wolves under the guise of protecting and conserving wildlife. Big Game Forever sent out a letter the minute the GL wolves were delisted asking for more aggressive approaches to wolf management and specifically to get the legislature to lift the waiting period. They are never satisfied and there is never enough killing. WM you write, “Your efforts to rewrite or reinterpret a topic which you know little about constantly amaze me. But, then that is not unusual for animal rights activists – reinterpreting and not thinking things through.” WM your efforts to ignore the amount of influence that special interests exert in wildlife management amazes me, and the way you defend the status quo and wolf management plans is hard to fathom.

            • WM says:


              I don’t know how you think government works in a democracy, other than interest group pressure. First you say it was one hunting group, then when challenged increase it to several and add the livestock interests. Well, yeaah (duh), that is how it works, surprise, surpise. It took both legislative and executive branch concurrence to change the MN five year waiting period, and again and for the last time it had a whole lot to do with the very long delay in delisting, including the legal challenges by those who NEVER wanted wolves delisted, and that would be HSUS. Quite frankly, I don’t know how a more compelling case to allow immediate hunting could be made. A modest 400 wolf quota against a population of over 3,000 wolves is nominal, and a good safety valve from having this tension fume and boil for another 5 years.

            • WM says:


              Just because someone says they were instrumental in creating change doesn’t mean they were. Afterall, Al Gore said he invented the internet.

              This MN decision to allow a nominal hunt immediately after delisting also appealed to common sense, with reference to their minimum management goal of about 1,600 wolves, which they will never likely approach. I think you are trying to give credit for change to a hunting group where it is likely not due., but again maybe someone who actually knows what happened and why, can offer some enlightened thoughts.

            • Jeff N. says:


              No. Your point was clearly you attributing and perpetuating a falsehood that Al Gore said he “invented the Internet”, which he never did.

              Your point was not that “people repeated something that was not true”, in regard to Al Gore.

              Your point was that some people take credit for shit they weren’t responsible for, but you purposely misquoted Al Gore for your desired effect.

              Spin away old sport.

          • louise kane says:

            This is from Big Game Forever just one of the orgs dedicated to using terms like “uncontrolled wolf expansion” and that spend hundreds of thousands for delisting efforts but these good hearted conservationists with no room for predators have no influence on delisting, wolf management or in anti wolf posturing. WM what do you think he means in his opening line, Don Peay was instrumental in federal wolf delisting?

            “Our founder Don Peay was instrumental in federal wolf delisting. Meeting directly with President Bush and working with the Obama administration Mr. Peay worked tirelessly to allow state wolf management. For the last three years we have spent hundreds of thousands in federal court to maintain states’ ability to manage wolves. However, anti-management litigation continues to impede effective wolf management measures.

            …Mr. Benson has implemented strategies to effectuate the passage of over 45 pieces of legislation. An avid hunter, Mr. Benson is now working full-time to lead the charge in our national wolf delisting effort.

            We Need Your Help
            Immediate Congressional action is needed to restore balance between wolves and the ecosystem. We cannot do it alone. Working together, we can restore abundant wildlife for generations to come. By joining our effort at Big Game Forever, you can ensure that uncontrolled wolf expansion does not erase decades of effort and billions invested in healthy wildlife populations. Your involvement supports high level political and legal changes needed to protect healthy big game herds now and in the future. Click here to help!

            ©2012 Big Game Forever, LLC | 314 West Broadway #200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101

            • Ralph Maughan says:

              I find the name “Big Game Forever” very deceitful. They are using farms and the backcountry to produce a few kinds of big game in very large numbers while the rest of our wildlife can wither and die off. In fact, “big game” is not really even wildlife, since they support shooting farms. These games are simply alternative livestock. Their vision of animals is very limited and boring, IMO.

            • Jeff N. says:


              Al Gore never said he “invented the Internet”. Fact check it old sport. Clearly you are speaking outside of your area of expertise.

            • WM says:

              Jeff N.,

              ++Al Gore never said he “invented the Internet”. ++

              You missed the point of my post, which was that people repeated something that was not true (in this case attributed to the individual himself who allegedly made the statement), which was exactly why I said it tongue in cheek.

              And, for the record, what VP Al Gore said to Wolff Blitzer on CNN, March 3, 1999, was, “…I initated the creation of the internet.” That statement is open to several interpretations, and quite frankly I don’t know what he did in regard to commercializing the internet as a Senator from TN, or as VP. Do you?

            • louise kane says:

              the name is very deceitful as most of these pseudo conservation groups yet they are also very effective in their campaigns against the majority of wildlife. For this reason they can not be easily dismissed.

              • Ralph Maughan says:

                Louise Kane,

                I agree that they can’t be dismissed. One reason they are effective is that they use such simple arguments, mostly one-step explanations of things. Most of the beneficial effects of predators are indirect effects. It hardly takes a genius to understand 2 and 3-step arguments, but to an person with an attitude and not much curiosity how things work, an indirect argument, such as the idea that coyotes have many secondary benefits will not win over the argument that they kill some deer that maybe I could have shot.

          • louise kane says:

            “Because there are no more funds earmarked for Wildlife Services wolf depredation treatments in Minnesota.”

            be interesting to see whether people would rather pay for some relatively few depredations instead of seeing those 400 dead wolves. And just why do the public have to pay for losses before ranchers are required to use more progressive methods to deter predations?

            I wish someone would pay me for my business losses.

        • Mike says:

          In many cases it is indeed lust, Louise.

          It’s disturbing.

  92. SEAK Mossback says:

    How Much Lox Is a Grizzly Bear Worth? Using Grizzly Bears to Assess Harvest-Ecosystem Tradeoffs in Salmon Fisheries
    Interesting that they come up with win-win going from the lower escapement goal bound to the point goal — best estimate of escapement at MSY (maximum sustained yield). Not too surprising — I’m coming up with the same conclusion in increasing pink escapement from the lower bound to the to the mid-point goal in the beneficial effect on the coho salmon population (and passively on the mixed stock ocean commercial troll and sport catch) from a creek I’ve worked on for 30 years (the benefits to the coho population appears to max out at about the escapement where pink salmon produce MSY for the local seine fishery). The increase in value of the coho catch is just thick frosting on the cake (about 1/3rd of the net increase in catch value for the two species combined going from the lower bound to the mid-point) — and there are likely also benefits to steelhead, trout and bears, although they are very difficult to place economic value on in a wilderness area where almost nobody visits to realize them. It does argue for being a bit more conservative in setting escapement goals, but a problem they don’t address in figuring the $ and cents is that there are definite limits to precision in fishery management and if you just raise and narrow the target, you will increase the frequency of misses on the high side (which have usually been much more frequent than on the low side with pink as well as coho in this region), and that will reduce value from the fishery catch (and in the particular stream I’m referring to, which is oxygen sensitive, will increase the frequency of mass die-offs due to too many breathing salmon if there is a period 3 or more days without rain).

    As far as benefits to brown/grizzly bears, there were so many salmon in some streams up in Lynn Canal last fall (about 5 times the previous pink salmon record since statehood) that I wondered if it was even healthy for the bears. Not to say that bears can suffer quite the same way from an obesity epidemic like humans, but I spent a few minutes very close to a huge male brown bear last October that kind of grossed me out. I stuck around a bit too close, endeavoring to photograph, out of the same morbid fascination that draws people to a freak show — a fur-bearing hippopotamus standing with his butt toward me in the creek, with hundreds of pounds of fat rolling from side-to-side with his slightest movement. I have to wonder if he was able to squeeze into his customary den, at least without considerable effort at remodeling.

  93. Doryfun says:


    Curious here.Have a question. In your statement: “… and that will reduce value from the fishery catch (and in the particular stream I’m referring to, which is oxygen sensitive, will increase the frequency of mass die-offs due to too many breathing salmon if there is a period 3 or more days without rain).”

    Are you saying too many fish cause enough O2 depletion to be their own demise?” I have heard some commercial fishermen argue that too many sockeye can die off in lakes for the same reason. I have a hard time buying that. If so, what is the proof, and and how valid is the it? Isn’t that like saying too many people will deplete the oxygen supply and die off on planet earth? (not like that would necessarily be a bad thing).

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      Doryfun —
      The creek I’m referring to comes out of a shallow lake with an attached pond that have a lot of aquatic vegetation and decomposition going on, so oxygen demand is high anyway. When the outlet creek fills up with an above average number of fish (mostly pink salmon) and it doesn’t rain for a few days, there can be spectacular die-offs. Oddly, they usually happen at about daybreak (even though temperature drops a bit overnight), probably because oxygen production goes negative in aquatic vegetation during at night. It’s reminiscent of a theater fire, involving a desperate rush for the exit. Things will appear normal one minute and then there is a desperate rush of fish from far downstream and then they start rolling over. Pinks seem to be more adapted to it, and it may only kill off up to 30-40% of them, but it kills every single other large salmon — chums, cohos, sockeyes. After one event, we counted 816 big bright cohos laying on the bottom dead between the lake and saltwater — no survivors. In surveying downstream in the aftermath, the crew has at times noted dead juvenile fish, but it doesn’t seem to show up as much of a problem in coho smolt production, possibly because mortality in juveniles may be limited, more fish may be able to move down to occupy the habitat, and of course the carcasses are also beneficial in producing food for rearing juveniles.

      It definitely happens in many other systems in this region whenever there is a combination of high pink abundance and a dry August-September, particularly in logged watersheds. Its part of nature, but another reason to be concerned about changing climate and protecting watersheds.

      There was also a spectacular example a few years ago when the Alagnak (Branch) River in Bristol Bay, that is normally a minor contributor with 200-300 thousand spawners, inexplicably received an escapement of about 5 million. Sockeyes in the creeks were rolling over dead en mass and lake shores were covered in windrows of eggs. I suspect it is rare with sockeye, but when you get a large mass of fish in a small stream, with other limiting factors like warmer water and low flow, they can use one heck of a lot of oxygen — more than is available.

  94. Salle says:

    Stop the Holocaust of Migrating Birds

  95. Salle says:

    Land managers, ranchers working to avert Big Open’s sage grouse from listing

    Sage grouse is becoming Utah’s spotted owl
    Endangered grouse, endangered economy? » Like the spotted owl in the ’80s, sage grouse are losing numbers and habitat. So Utah and the West are rushing to preserve them before federal rules shut down industry and more.

    • Frank Renn says:

      I spent a few days in April doing some volunteer Sage grouse lek counts for the forest service on the Curlew grasslands. It is sad to see all the historic lek sites now silent, and to have only a handful with a viable number of birds.

  96. Salle says:

    Murkowski votes down Obama’s nominee for assistant secretary of the Interior Department

    Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

    • JEFF E says:

      Just an observation on the standard Repugnant mindset. Unfortunately this type of mental deficiency is exacerbated in the Inter mountain states especially where the wildlife/livestock interface occurs.

      • Salle says:

        But wait, there’s so much more…

        Wall Street Banks Coordinate to Fight May Day Protests, Compare Themselves to Elk Hunted by Wolves

        • JEFF E says:

          One of the best of the best in the comment section.
          “It takes a very twisted sense of reality to view peaceful protesters as wolves and hedge fund managers as victims.”

        • Daniel Berg says:


          You have to look at whiny wall street bankers in the context of how good they had it during the mid-2000’s. Lots of people demonize banks, but most don’t realize just HOW good they had it. It’s tough to go from huge commissions on complex derivative instruments and jeroboams of Dom Perignon at Michelin two star restaurants every other friday to the current state of affairs without being bitter.

    • Nancy says:

      Good article Jeff E.

      • JEFF E says:

        thanks Nancy

        I very very rarely debate politics but info like this is nice to have in the tool bag when necessary to beat back an exceptionally ignorant conversation.
        For the record I don’t believe there is much different between political parties nowadays. Personally, my take is Govt.’s sole purpose is to justify itself and the “parties” are simply “tribes” which serve to divide and conquer “the people”.
        I do however think the Detestable tribe is less sleazy than the Repugnant tribe especially in Idaho.

        • Nancy says:

          “For the record I don’t believe there is much different between political parties nowadays”

          Yeah, totally agree with that comment Jeff E. See it more and more when it comes to political parties here in Montana.

          Republicrats, a new breed of politicians, who’s sole aim is to collect a nice, padded income while keeping voters totally confused and/ or angry, all the way to election day 🙂

          • JEFF E says:

            Don’t forget the for life 100% paid for complete medical/dental/vision care for the whole family in the case of the fed.(not sure about states. probably varies but rest assured they have voted themselves as much as can be had)
            then we have the for life pension and if one does both state and fed time, well that DP of the taxpayer is just just dues, right?

  97. Salle says:

    Warm ocean water is melting huge Antarctic ice shelves from below: study

    Why is Antarctica is losing 23 feet of ice per year?

  98. CodyCoyote says:

    Sometimes you have to read a newspaper or online article from the next state over to see the headlines that should be running in your own state, but are not.

    • JEFF E says:

      “….back-door congressional rider….”
      Which is exactly what the livestock industry and their minions are.
      (Simpson. Clem, Tester, ____________(fill in the blank))

    • louise kane says:

      RE the article Cody Coyote posted….”The Fish and Wildlife Service has reopened a two-week comment period, during which feedback is sought from the public before the agency finalizes the delisting rule.”

      sounds like the comment period has been extended by two weeks time to start calling and writing

  99. louise kane says:

    WildEarth Guardian sues wildlife services!
    you can go to their site to sign a letter in support

  100. Salle says:

    Biologists still searching for possible wolves in Wasatch Mountains

    “…the canine feces they collected and sent to a California laboratory for genetic testing turned out to be a dud: It came from coyotes.”

  101. Salle says:

    Fish and Wildlife plans additional comment period on Wyoming wolves

    “CHEYENNE — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced Monday that it will open an additional two-week public comment period on a proposal to remove Wyoming wolves from the endangered species list.”

  102. Daniel Berg says:

    More wind turbines for Washington State. This time in the Palouse:

  103. Harley says:

    It’s not wildlife but it’s still kinda cool.,,20591682,00.html

    • aves says:

      A heartwarming story, thank you for posting it amidst all the doom and gloom.

  104. CodyCoyote says:

    I was surprised to learn just now– via a research program centered on the NASA MODIS infrared imaging satellite sensor system that works conjunctively on several Earth monitoring satellites—that fully 36 percent of all global ” Slash and Burn ” agricultural fires are done in Russia.

    Guess what ? Russia officially prohibits agricultural burning . Guess what else ?? Slash and burn fires become out of control wildlfires pretty easily…

    And I thought it was bad in central Mexico when I almost choked to death driving mountain highways in Michoacan in the late winter burn season . Or in northern Thailand when on a motorcycle I was imperiled by out of control fires continually up near the Golden Triangle-Chinese border, early Spring , ditto on killer smoke and that 50-foot flame thing .

    The contribution of CO2 and soot and particulates to the atmosphere from slash and burn worldwide must be astounding.

    The NASA MODIS program and daily satellite views of anywhere on Earth is amazing.

    -here’s my oft-visited link for viewing the entire Rocky Mountain Front in a single scene, twice a day , in the late morning from the TERRA satellite and the early afternoon from the AQUA satellite, both of which do MODIS infrared hyper-imaging:

    You might Bookmark this link. I fear we are heading into a record Drought of a summer here in the GYE- Northern Rockies , and this year’s wildlfire season could be monstrous. I hope I am wrong about that , but the long range outlook looks grim. Snowpack in Wyoming is presently at an alarmingly low 45 percent of the 30 year norm . Last year at this time it was up near 200 percent.

  105. louise kane says:

    Here is a link for any of you wanting to comment about the proposed trapping of wolves in Montana. In a conversation I had with Bob Reams last year he said there was no plan, nor did he envision one, that would ever include trapping wolves. I guess the mounting anti wolf hysteria has changed that.

    Lots of you comment against trapping. I hope you can take a few minutes to write in, post to facebook and friends and let Montana hear your thoughts. The deadline is May 10th.

  106. Salle says:

    ALEC’s Top Five Anti-Environment ‘Model’ Laws

  107. aves says:

    Last month I posted about a dangerous proposal by the state of North Carolina to allow the night hunting of coyotes in the red wolf’s recovery area. Well, sadly the state wildlife commission has voted to go ahead with it despite the fact that it will cause even more wolves to be shot by “accident” than already are. It still has to go through a rules committee so the fight isn’t over yet.

    “NC Wildlife Commission moves toward allow night-hunting of coyotes”: