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

Hayden Valley wolf pups at their Yellowstone River den area. Copyright Mark Miller

About The Author

Ralph Maughan

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

450 Responses to Have you come across any interesting wildlife news? June 27, 2012

  1. Immer Treue says:


    Nice picture. One can sense that even at this age of puppydom, the efficiency of the hunters they will become is evident.

    • Larry Keeney says:

      Yes, nice picture but what we need is a top rated- blockbuster, “March of the Wolves” narrated by Morgan Freeman. Such a film needs to come out of the top layers of Hollywood and be every bit the quality of “March of the Penguins”. My timing suggestion would be about December 2012 just after the elections so if we are painted red by republicans it can help mitigate the environmental damage and if blue by Democrats if will bolster and encourage. All kids will want a stuffed wolf for Christmas. Like this will happen. . . .

  2. Immer Treue says:

    As an afterthought, Are these the pups of the female the “hiker” bear sprayed prior to him jumping in the Yellowstone River?

  3. Ralph Maughan says:

    Immer Treue,

    I think Mark Miller’s photo is several years old. I know it is. That is because I remember the year when the Hayden Valley Pack had its den very near the Yellowstone River.

    I had wondered though if maybe the pepper sprayed wolf headed for the river after the man left. Maybe that’s why he ran — he saw her running for water and he thought she was after him.

  4. Nancy says:

    Another country’s interesting perspective on predators:

  5. Salle says:

    As Exxon CEO Calls Global Warming’s Impacts ‘Manageable’, Colorado Wildfires Shutter Climate Lab

    • CodyCoyote says:

      The utter hypocrisy of the Exxon Mobil CEO calling climate change ” manageable” is that it was precisely Exxon who delayed, denied, obstructed, and obfuscated the anthropogenic smoking gun of Global Climate Change beginning in 1989/ yes, 1989/ Exxon knew even back then —13 years before Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth book/movie came out —- that the Hydrocarbon Hegemony was heading for a collision with science and public opinion. Exxon preemptively bought and paid for a lot of junk science. They raised the Doubt Index about global climate change to a wildly inflated level. They propagandized, big time. They plotted well.

      Exxon effectively delayed any meaningful debate for a full decade and quietly sent in the lobbyists to divert the rising tide of public opinion . A very critical decade as future historians will rightly point out.

      All for money.

  6. Salle says:

    Why Some of Our Last Remaining Old-Growth Forests May Be Privatized for a Political Favor

  7. Derek Farr says:

    Here’s a new bill introduced by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) titled “Self Sufficient Community Lands Act of 2012” that is the newest attempt to transition the management of our federal lands to right-wing political, industrial and grazing interests. The bill creates 200,000-acre “Community Forest Demonstration Areas” that would be managed by a four-person, governor-appointed board of trustees consisting of a local politician, a timber representative, a grazing representative and a recreational user representative (ATV and motorized I assume) that would be responsible for managing the demonstration area under state law.
    Notice the board does not include resource specialists, scientists or ecological advocates — why am I not surprised?
    Here’s the text of the bill:

    • Nancy says:

      “Private” breeder in Montana?

      • Salle says:

        Yeah, I saw that too. Don’t know who that would be… Wonder if they are breeding wolves for zoos and the like; and where does one get a license for that?

        • Louise Kane says:

          What a bizarre thing to do, with the state allowing so many wolves to be killed seems like there would probably be lots of homeless pups. Who breeds wild wolves, other than for recovery? Is it legal?

          • Immer Treue says:


            I believe there are quite a few places that breed captive wolves for reasons other than reintroduction purposes.


            This facility is in Indiana, and was founded, I believe by Eric Klinghammer. Wolf pup period of socialization Is in the first three weeks of their lives. The pups are taken from The mother when they are about ten days old and spend 24 hours a day with people.

            Even a facility such as the IWC here in MN does
            not raise their own wolves. The pups they get are very young and spend all their time with people until they are slowly introduced to the facility “pack”. Does not make them tame or domestic, but does make them easier to work with.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Most of what I read, even from wolf sanctuaries, argue against breeding wolves as pets or for captivity. I understand the socialization aspect but why is it legal to raise a wild animal that most often will end up in a sanctuary(or destroyed) because its wild and not a suitable “pet”? Most people I know are not even capable dog owners. Dogs are discarded for the least offense. Rather then spend time with them, training or love them, dogs are expected to do, act and behave 100% at all times and even then at the first sign of a chewed article of clothing, new child, divorce, any health issues the dog is gone or crated. I happen to love German Shepherd’s and they are a good, loyal, smart, and amazing breed yet there are hundreds of purebreds on petfinder daily and a lot of them get destroyed. I know there are good dog owners too but my point is that how many people could handle a wolf’s needs, including other wolves and space?
              I’ll read your link maybe there is more info here.

            • Immer Treue says:


              A place like Wolf Park predates wolves in the US, other than the vestigial MN population. Many sanctuaries were just that. And, yes, wolves are not pet material. I also am of fan of German Shepherds. Each type of dog has their own merits, in particular in the eyes of the owner. Other than shedding, in “my” book, if you have a good, well socialized GS, you can’t find a much better dog.

            • Immer Treue says:

              And to add, got work done around the cabin, at least for today, now is time for a hike around Dry Lake with my GS.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Immer, Am laughing about the shedding. i can not imagine where all the fur comes from! Mine is on his third shed this spring/early summer. But they (GSD) are amazing animals.

    • timz says:

      here is a nice video of his intro to his new friends

  8. WM says:

    Wonder why store bought tomatoes taste bland and smell nasty? New genetic research, by accident, reveals why.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Thanks for that article. Its yet another confirmation about the destructiveness of genetically tinkering with food. I try and grow as many heirloom varieties as I can. Its almost impossible to eat any supermarket food anymore without fear of ingesting terrible chemicals or eating gmo foods.

    • Salle says:

      And the “take home message” would be: We seem to “select for” appearances rather than nutritional value ~ or what’s really good for us. We’d rather have “pretty” and “convenient” regardless… it’s what sells.

    • Nancy says:

      “The idea is to get the vegetable-seed industry interested,” Powell said”

      If,and only if, they can somehow manage to get past the BS (lawsuits, lobbyists etc.) these days when it comes to huge companies like Monsanto, who’ve pretty much taken over many aspects of agriculture with their genetically “enhanced” seeds, fertilizers and pestisides.

      • Salle says:

        This is a big problem for a lot of folks who would grow much of their produce. There are a few places to acquire gmo-free seeds and some even help you learn how to collect and breed your own hybrids or develop and select for certain traits. It dies take time and in some cases, a bit of space.

        As for the mega-ag-corps, I’m sure they have even patented natural strains of many edibles… Nature isn’t good enough for these folks, mostly because anyone could benefit by it without having to compensate someone else for its use… they need to “improve upon” every naturally occurring thing in order to own it or make a buck off it… a certain definition of “improvement” that proves to be an oxymoron.

  9. Salle says:

    Report: Global Beef Demand Leading to Deforestation, Global Warming

    • bret says:

      WDFW confirms new wolf pack, attack on sheep in NE Washington

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        There is a new wolf pack in Oregon’s Eagle Cap Wilderness too. My wife was a fire tower lookout in that Wilderness for 3 summers. What a beautiful place!

      • Nancy says:

        “WDFW officials are working with the livestock producer on compensation for the sheep.

        Washington’s new wolf management plan, adopted last December, includes provisions to compensate ranchers

        “But the plan also provides for compensation when landowners lose livestock to wolf depredation.”

        The sooner we can investigate the situation, the better our chances are of determining why the animal died, if a wolf was the predator and if compensation is warranted,”

        Pozzanghera urges ranchers who believe they have lost livestock to predation by any kind of wild animal to contact WDFW immediately at 1-877-933-9847”

        “Compensation” seems to be the new catch phrase these days (according to this article) for livestock depredations. Were these ranchers also “compensated” in the past for predators other than wolves?

  10. alex f. says:

    I receive the daily e-newsletter “Coyotes, Wolves, Cougars Forever” by Rick Meril (which is fantastic). Today’s episode was particularly phenomenal. It illuminates the research being done into albino animals, and how these creatures get by day-to-day (as well as in the grander scheme). It was not only enthralling, but singularly informative. The piece was penned by Meghan Oliver of of Northern Woodlands Magazine. She succinctly nails down many points without becoming loquacious in the process. Certainly one of the best reads CWCF has provided to date. I highly recommend giving it a read. I know I’d love to learn more about the unique situation that is albino animals. There is a definite fascination in them scientifically–but also in an allegorical way. Keep up the great work on here! The Wildlife News makes those long afternoons at the office much more bearable (intention animal pun).

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Related to albinos, there was an article yesterday on another web site tell how the fad in breeding white tigers is not an ecologically sound idea. White tigers are a recessive mutation that is weeded out in the wild because in addition to white fir white tigers usually have a number of anatomical defects like cleft palette. In the wild they can’t bring down enough prey because they are more visible.

      Note. White tigers are not albinos

      • Dan says:

        “breeding white tigers is not an ecologically sound idea. White tigers are a recessive mutation that is weeded out in the wild because in addition to white fir white tigers usually have a number of anatomical defects like cleft palette.”

        Last time I checked, mutations can lead to evolution by natural selection….Are we think’n we’re god on this one?

        • Ralph Maughan says:


          If you want to put it that way, I guess we are playing god here. Evolution by natural selection makes white tigers in the wild very rare. When born they rarely survive long enough to reproduce. This mutation is not beneficial in free roaming life,and is weeded out by natural selection. Humans, however, can make it abundant as long as the tigers are held captive

          • Dan says:

            I’m not saying white is good or bad, maybe white with the right traits is good…who knows. Point is your tone made it appear that mutations are bad, when they can be the basis for evolution and a mechanism to better cope in the environment.

  11. Immer Treue says:

    “Some” might attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill but nothing really new in terms of the “type” of wolf reintroduced.

    For the most part, the comments that I read were well informed and intelligently written. Much ado about nothing, but some will claim… Well you know.:-)

  12. CodyCoyote says:

    The contentious Yellowstone Winter Use plan is in the backstretch on its 6th or 8th lap around the track. The latest iteration —maybe the final— been released in draft form and could be ruled in later this year for the next winter season. Among other things, Sylvan Pass at the East Entrance would be allowed to remain open , with the usual avalanche and weather mitigations.

    Ruffin Prevost at Yellowst Gate has a very thorough article , including a downloadable bibliography of PDF’s of the history of winter travel in Yellowstone, the prior planning efforts, and analyses of key issue components.

    OPINION: We here in Cody always been astounded at the Yellowstone administrations ‘s bottomless sack of excuses and skewed rationales when they bring out a new working concept , usually groping to find some criteria for closing Sylvan Pass to the public while making personal snowmobiles unpalatable parkwide in favor of snowcoaches and XC skiers. The latest curveball low and inside was called a ” Sound Event” in last uyear’s scopings. Basically , the Park was going to try to limit or ration motorized access to Yellowstone in winter based on a very arbitrary and capricious quantification of the noise the vehicles made. They admitted they couldn’t even really measure those levels accurately ( doing decibels is not a science ) but still had some made up numbers to paint the goalposts with anyway . The snowmobilers jumped down the throat of Yellowstone about this, stating among other things a very strong objection that Yellowstone was limiting access based on noise for a couple hundred machines in winter time, but doing absolutely NOTHING about the hundreds of thousands of Harley Davidson’s and hundreds of diesel tourbuses et al in the summer season.

    What was called a ” Sound Event ” in the planning last winter is now called a ” Transportation Event” . It’s exactly the same thing , just with a different bureaucratic nomenclature , to soft-peddle the arbitrary and capricious noise argument. We’ve been groped.

    They might as well keep going with that bureaucratese by issuing a slogan : “Yellowstone — It’s a Zoo , not a Park ! “

    • Nancy says:

      “The snowmobilers jumped down the throat of Yellowstone about this, stating among other things a very strong objection that Yellowstone was limiting access based on noise for a couple hundred machines in winter time, but doing absolutely NOTHING about the hundreds of thousands of Harley Davidson’s and hundreds of diesel tourbuses et al in the summer season”

      Last week, close to 600 people made their way past my place as part of the annual Ratpod event:

      Even though I was out working around the yard a good part of the day, I seldom heard them passing by unless they were in small groups, conversing with each other.

      Yesterday, 30 people (plus) passed by on what appeared to be mostly Harley’s (another “event?”) and the sound was loud, obnoxious (could hear them coming from miles away and going for miles away once they’d passed) It shattered an otherwise peaceful day.

      Can only imagine how wildlife, in a park that’s been set aside for them, must react to this sort of terrorism (loud and obnoxious) on a daily basis.

      • Salle says:

        Some thoughts on that…

        I asked a park ranger about the noise concern in the summer and the reply was that don’t to enforce any noise control rules because there aren’t enough personnel; they would have to check the noise level of all vehicles out of fairness (treat all visitors the same). At least that’s what was said.

        What I don;t get is why someone would bring a purposely loud vehicle to tour a wildlife park. If you want to see the animals and you are in/on a loud vehicle, you’ll be needing high powered optics for that – unless, of course, a frightened animal crosses the road in front of you hoping to get away from you. And then, some see the noise as a symbol of power of some sort. A sorry way to get attention…

      • Mike says:

        I’d love to see Harleys banned from the national parks. I’ve seen bison bolt away startled from the things. Bears don’t like them, either. A real disturbance if there ever was one. Trucks with diesel engines and Harleys are the worst for disturbing/scaring away wildlife. You can be all happy watching a grizz family and here comes Diesel Spewey, engine knocking and the stinking up the air and there goes grizz family back into the trees. I’m still shocked that Yellowstone charges the same entrance fee for a Toyota Prius as it does a diesel RV. Nice example you’re setting.

        I applaud the guys riding Goldwings in Yellowstone/Glacier.And trust me, many of them went to that style of bike just for national parks.

        South Park id a hilarious episode about Harleys. The opening scene is a perfect example of what you are talking about (Harleys destroying a peaceful scene) You can watch the entire episode here for free:

        • skyrim says:

          I’ve seen that episode a thousand times and it remains priceless.
          Sitting up on Dunraven Pass, 6:00 AM, mid August, 2005. Observing Grizzlies down in the Antelope drainage having a healthy talk about issues with a stranger and a dozen cruise by on the way to Sturgis.
          Ruined that moment forever.

          • Mike says:

            Yep. I’ve had that happen too. And up on Durnaven.

            A park menace to be sure.

            • elk275 says:

              Everyone agrees about something, sometime. Mike. In August BONE DADDY’S Harley Dealership in Red Lodge has a Harley rodeo before and after Sturis. There gets to be so many Harley’s that my friend leaves town that week. If one goes hiking on the Beartooth Pass in late summer the roar of the Harley can be heard 3 or 4 miles across the alpine tundra.

        • Harley says:

          HA! I was in a rush and started to read what you wrote but read it incorrectly. What?!? Ban Harley from the National Parks?!??


          Harleys are very loud and obnoxious but that is not why I picked this name lol.

          • jon says:

            How’s the weather over there in Chi-town Harley? Gets pretty hot over there in Chicago during the summertime.

            • Harley says:

              Oooo very hot here Jon. I am glad I do not have a job outside. I can’t remember such a long stretch of 90 degree weather so early in the summer but than again, our spring was very warm too. Not too sure if I believe in global warming but I think there is definitely something to this climate change theory. It’s very dry here, another concern. We are all on wells in my neighborhood. Ours is deep but if there isn’t enough rain, even a deep well can run dry.
              You’re in New York, right? Or close there abouts? How has your summer been?

    • Nancy says:

      “Not knowing how many wolves are in Montana makes the FWP proposal to maintain the same wolf hunting quota in 2012 as in 2011 and to recommend trapping a risky FWP policy for wolves — not science-based policy, as it was repeatedly stated to be in the recent Kalispell public meeting, and not consistent with FWP’s charter to be a steward of Montana wildlife”

      Kind of like Wolverines:

      • Nancy says:

        Harley – the coyote in the Oregon pic looks terribly underweight and it looks nothing like the coyotes I see around here.

        • Harley says:

          Thin or not thin (I’m sure not every coyote attack can be blamed on a thin starving coyote) I’d be pretty darned pissed off if one took a chunk outa me in my neighborhood. I may expect it if I enter their domain but walking down MY street? Oh heck no.

          • Mike says:

            I like to take walks at 2 a.m. on occasion. Some of you may not realize what it’s like living in a huge population center. The noise never goes away until the witching hours, and even then the ceaseless hum of street lamps and far off traffic is apparent. You can still hear the chaos in your ears in the first night of real country (the Gallatin National Forest, for example).

            I run into coyotes on these walks. The most recent “meeting” was at about I was on the dark sidewalk, upwind, and the coyote was strutting his stuff down the street, checking the yards for rabbits and cats. He got to about a hundred feet and I whistled. He stopped under a streetlamp, twitched his head, then bolted between to houses towards the river corridor. Very cool animal!

            I have two cats and this is why they do not go out unsupervised. My neighbors think differently, and their two outdoor cats have not only decimated the rabbit population the last few years, but they are prime targets for these coyotes.

            You take your chances. The problem is most folks don’t take the time to look up from their daily path of shower-breakfast-work-lunch-work-strip malls-home-TV. They pay more attention to nonsensical fluff like Jesus and Buddha, all the while REAL things you can touch, feel, and see are out there, things with beating hearts like you and me. I live in what you may call a “wealthy” neighborhood. But that’s only in terms of financials. True wealth is knowledge of the world and protecting/spending your time on what’s important. Unfortunately most people are not like this. And so animals like coyotes get tortured or made out to be monsters.

            A few weeks back two coyotes were on the corner here at sunset. They shouldn’t of been. They had their heads arched and were sniffing the air, and it was then I caught the scent of heavy barbeque from one of the backyards across the street. Two cars were stopped at the intersection, watching them. I saw the driver of one car pull out his cell phone. His girlfriend had her hand cupped to her mouth and her eyes were all wide. I pulled up and asked him what was wrong. He said he was calling the police. I told him coyotes have been living in the Midwest for longer than there have been police and they had a better chance of winning the lottery than being attacked. He thanked me and drove on, and the other car followed. When they left., I parked, then sprinted at the coyotes, shouting at the top of my lungs. They bolted back into the meadow and I never saw them again.

            Coyotes are good animals. Smart. Most are good-natured and playful. I’ve had coyotes in Glacier want to come up and play with me. Same for a red fox.

            • skyrim says:

              I appreciate your thoughts here Mike. In my circle these people are referred to as “surface dwellers”.

            • Harley says:

              “I told him coyotes have been living in the Midwest for longer than there have been police and they had a better chance of winning the lottery than being attacked.”

              Well darnit Mike, someone should have told all those people who, in recent days/months, about those chances! Maybe they would have gone down to the corner store, as they moved through their ‘nonsensical fluff’ lives to buy a ticket!

              Please, spare me. I appreciate coyotes, wolves, eagles, deer, mice and chipmunks. Just not in my house and not biting my neighbors. Or me for that matter. If people choose to live in a rural area, they have no cause to complain really. They have CHOSEN to live there along with the animals that call those spaces home. But most people in an urban setting or even a densely populate suburban area do not choose to live with wildlife, which is why they are living in a city. When an animal bites, it crosses a line, sorry, that’s just my opinion. The street is not their domain, they didn’t build it, nor do they maintain it.

            • Mike says:

              ++The street is not their domain, they didn’t build it, nor do they maintain it.++

              Life is what happens to you while making other plans. The only thing that “owns” a street is the universe. And it always gets its way.

            • bigbrowntrout says:

              somw maybe, ive also had others go after my dog

          • Mike says:


            Your street is their domain. Learn to coexist.

          • Nancy says:

            Honestly Harley? I’d be far more concerned about these statistics if I lived where you do (although the numbers seem to be down abit from past years)


            The title of the article got it right – Rare Attacks by Coyotes. Could of been numerous reasons why these coyotes suddenly got aggressive – pups close by (witnessed both my dogs getting divebombed by a Bluebird and his mate – both weighing ounces) when my dogs got to close to their chicks that had just come out of the nest.

            Habitat, most cities are old and established (urban) but what happens to wildlife when they are continuely displaced or their habitat is destroyed, time and time again, because of urban sprawl – the never ending, outbound growth – around those old, established cities where it would appear, Wiley Coyote is now making a stand?

            • Harley says:

              Chicago’s rising crime statistics is one of the reasons I choose not to live in the city. One of many actually, come to think of it. I do live in a town that is borderline suburban/urban. If I encounter a coyote, I would treat it with caution and awe. But I am not this hyper vigilant person when I take a walk. Sometimes I wear headphones. Sometimes my mind is a million miles away and because I’m in what is considered a suburban neighborhood, if a coyote nipped me from behind, I’d be a little upset and probably need a change of pants after the encounter.

    • Salle says:

      Think it might have something to do with all that prolonged extreme heat? Wild birds and other animals have been acting oddly in many parts of the country recently, I wonder if it has something to do with the heat, or…

      In my neck of the woods, nobody has seen any hummingbirds this year, many birds got here early, sandhill cranes haven’t all paired up and some have been seen in large groups in a single field. Around here, also, the birds are up singing at 3am. Lots of bears getting into trouble on the east coast and probably numerous other oddities are taking place in many locations, this coyote thing could be related to the heat or whatever it is that has made the flowers bloom early and the birds singing too early in the morning.

      • Mike says:

        My ex-gf had a bird fly into her dryer exhaust pipe the other day. I wish I had known at the time it was a bird. We thought it was a squirrel (which can be a tremendous pain in the ass) and we had no long gloves so we waited for animal control. Turns out it was a bird, and it suffocated. I feel horrible about it. Had I known it was a bird I would of immediately taken off the exhaust foil tube.

        Really sucks. But I had just gotten out of open surgery (she was watching me while I healed). So I wasn’t up to dealing with a squirrel.

        I’m guessing it flew into the attic, then into the vertical dryer exhaust tube trying to escape the heat. Sucks.

        • Harley says:

          despite our different approaches to life, I hope you are mending. Surgery sucks period. Good luck.

      • Nancy says:

        Salle – A neighbor ssid they had a lot of Hummingbirds til that second snowstorm hit the middle of June. I’ve seen two Hummingbirds so far. The early morning temps have been very cold (low 30’s) until this past week.

        The plants in my flower garden are half the size they usually are by this time of year and the wild Columbines have just started to bloom (a Hummingbird favorite) They are almost a month late, same with the Lupine. Had maybe a 10 minute rain last evening, first real moisture (other than my sprinklers 🙂 since that snowstorm.

        • Salle says:


          Around here we have had many wildflowers that normally show in July show in May and early June. We are now seeing August flowers. All are smaller than usual. I think we had some of that same snow storm situation about two or three and a half weeks ago. It’s an unusual mix of blooming flora that don’t normally bloom together. Columbines and Lupines are just getting started here but there are few of them. Your account on the hummingbirds makes sense.

          With the heat situation we’re having now – I realize it’s far cooler here than most of the US but it’s still rather hot for here at 7K+ft. – I shudder to think what August through early October will look like… I’m guessing it might be pretty hot and smokey.

          • steve says:

            Yep, I’ve got asters blooming in my garden–a September bloomer here in northern Iowa–at the same time as lupine which normally blooms in June.

            On the plus side, since I’ve been watering like crazy in this drought, the warm spring and summer heat have produced the best looking tomato, watermelon, and pepper plants I’ve ever had. That and the 18 bagfulls of leaves I tilled into the garden last fall.


            • Nancy says:

              Okay Steve – my mouth is watering at your mention of best looking tomato plants. I’ve tried to grow them for years with no luck, they unfortunately, are very sensitive to the climate in my neck of the woods.

              Translation – 90 today but could be snowing by tomorrow 🙂

              Babying 4 plants in my greenhouse right now, they were doing quite well til they out grew the gallon glass jars covering them and I have 8 more little tomato plants (from seed) in my livingroom, waiting to go outside.

              The 7 corn plants (from seed) are still hanging in there though.

      • Harley says:

        Now that extreme heat has me worried Salle. I’ve heard that with extreme heat and drought, the cases of rabies tends to rise. This heat is not easy on our wildlife at all.

    • Nancy says:

      Totally agree Jon. What worries me though is what all those “sport” hunters will now do with all that down time/blood lust so ingrained in their psyche.

    • Mike says:

      Incredible news. Once again CA leads the way.

    • louise kane says:

      Thanks for posting good news!

    • rork says:

      Does California permit raccoon hunting with dogs? Why?
      I’m not a fan of letting people use dogs, but wondered.
      How do folks feel about allowing it for wild pigs?
      How do you feel about dogs against rabbits?
      How about dogs vs. grouse?
      I’m not trying to pick a fight, I really haven’t heard about it enough. I really want those pigs gone, but that was an example where the dogs really do get harmed (my data is from France, but I expect it is similar in the U.S.). The terrorizing of rabbits I’m less sure about.

      I did find the linked-to article to be rather biased. No shock.

      • mike post says:

        Folks, all that happened here in CA is that the bill passed out of one committee. It is not law, not even close, it has other committees to pass thru before going to the main legis. USHS is not the best source for accurate wildlife info (nor for your stray pet to get any help either).

        I am sympathetic to arguments on both sides of this issue. It is more a matter of ensuring ethical conduct than assuming it to be bad practive in my view. I have been on a dog hunt for bear and it was the most physically demanding hunt I have ever been on, lasted 3 days, and left me unable to walk downhill for days due to arthritic inflamation. Now I have no expectations of any sympathy in this forum, I just want to point out that there seems to be a misconception that hunting bear with dogs is a easy slob-hunter practice. It is not. Banning this type of hunt for other philosphical reasons can be defended but not because it is the equivalent of road hunting or sitting over bait. I have hunted deer, elk, and wild pigs under fair chase circumstances and the bear hunt was much more physically challenging.

        • Nancy says:

          “Now I have no expectations of any sympathy in this forum, I just want to point out that there seems to be a misconception that hunting bear with dogs is a easy slob-hunter practice”

          And you won’t get any sympathy from me Mike Post.

          I guess the equivalent would be – how would you like to be hanging out in your neighborhood or your own backyard, minding your own business when suddenly, a pack of loud, vicious dogs, descend on you. They chase you for miles and then they tree you (if you’re lucky enough to have trees around) jumping, snapping, growling and howling, that special howl, to indicate they’ve got you right where they want you, til their handlers get close enough to shoot you.

          Some, a very few, hunters do this purely for “entertainment” and call their dogs off, allowing you to live another day so you can find your way back home to perhaps family waiting for you.

          Others are in it for the prize….. the head, the hide, the bragging rights, depending on your size, at the local watering hole.

          If your fortunate enough to be killed with the first shot, you won’t have to deal with the dogs waiting below, as you tumble out of the tree but….. if you’re just badly wounded and tumble out of the tree well, the dogs will rough you up a lot (their prize in all this because you’re still alive and fighting for your life) before the handlers tire of game/training and finish you off.

          Let me know if I missed anything in the description of hound hunting 101. Doesn’t get any worse when it comes to abusing wildlife unless of course, your a fricken trapper 🙂

          • rork says:

            That’s allot of description Nancy. Some of it could apply to rabbit, bird, or pig hunting. Where’s the line and why?

            • louise kane says:

              Nancy excellent description. what a disgusting “sport”. Rork, too bad you don’t get it.

              To Mike Post
              “I have been on a dog hunt for bear and it was the most physically demanding hunt I have ever been on, lasted 3 days, and left me unable to walk downhill for days due to arthritic inflamation.”

              What about the bear, what do you think it did for the bear? You were not being chased by the dogs. If you want physically demanding excercise do something valuable other then terrorize wild animals. It’s not about how hard it is on the hunter, its a disgraceful, inhumane activity to be engaged in. period.

            • rork says:

              “Rork, too bad you don’t get it. ”
              Thanks for explaining it all louise. [/sarc]

          • Dan says:

            “I guess the equivalent would be – how would you like to be hanging out in your neighborhood or your own backyard, minding your own business when suddenly, a pack of loud, vicious dogs, descend on you. They chase you for miles”

            Isn’t this what wolves do to deer and elk?

            • skyrim says:

              There’s a difference Dumb Ass.
              Sorry Moderators. Ban me if you choose.
              I’ll get over it.

            • Dan says:

              Would that difference be physiological in the animals or psychological in your head?

          • Dan says:

            A predator is a predator – human, wolf, cougar etc. It’s all overtaking an animal in typically a bloody vicious way….why paint it as a bad thing when a human makes a kill and laud it when a wolf, bear or cougar makes a kill?

            • Nancy says:

              My guess would be, you probably spend a fair amount of time (or other members of your family do) shopping thru the isles of the local food mart to get you daily fix of food intake, correct Dan?

              As Skyrim said it well ” there is a difference Dumb Ass” When it comes to actually having to secure a meal or starve, in order to exist (wildlife) vs mankind’s too often pampered lifestyle of having everything, anymore, available within a walking or driving distance.

              Pizza anyone 🙂

            • Dan says:

              What’s the grocery store have to do with anything physiological or psychology in the animal pursued? You’re trying to pull at human emotion that the critter being killed is affected in one or both ways. My point is that from both a physiological and psychological standpoint a predator is a predator. In fact, the kill by humans is often much quicker and efficient which could be less stressful for a herd of elk or deer.
              The berating of me with term “dumb ass” is an attempt to take this discussion away from a scientific view and into the realm of “us vs. them.” A common group tactic to wage an ideological war.

            • Savebears says:

              No Pizza for me Nancy, I will stick to my tender venison and elk steaks..

              • Dan says:

                “No Pizza for me Nancy, I will stick to my tender venison and elk steaks..”


            • WM says:


              ++Pizza anyone ++

              Lard ass anyone? How is that for a cholesterol problem? Won’t we see in a subsequent post of yours, about how bad mystery meat is, or how inhumanely the meat components are prepared, or mutant genetically processed grain for the crust, or growth hormones in the (wretch) processed cheese? Did I leave anything out that you might adversely comment on otherwise?

          • JB says:

            Nancy, Louise:

            Dan, Rork and Mike Post make valid points. The bear or cougar that is treed and killed by a human hunter arguably suffers less than the elk or deer that is chased and killed by a wolf, coyote or cougar. Why glorify the act of killing in one instance (i.e., when it is a wild animal doing the killing) and condemn it in the next? Why are only human-killed animals entitled to your empathy?

            P.S. I know why the two scenarios differ for me, but people who politely pose valid questions deserve honest answers, not insults–else you’ve just given them all the reason they need to dismiss your opinion as emotional drivel.

            • Harley says:


              Why do the two scenarios differ for you? I’m curious!

            • Dan says:


              “I know why the two scenarios differ for me”

              Would you mind sharing?

            • Moose says:

              Predation (direct or indirect) is a moral decision for humans…predation is instinct for wolves, bears, etc…the decision to kill is quite a different process in the two.

              • Dan says:

                The perception is that the process for the two is different but someone has to do the killing for humans. It may not be every individual but some of us has to do it. Do you think the chicken, beef, pork, salmon, tuna etc in the grocery got there without someone doing the killing? We just evolved to designate a group of killers but most of us are predators because we mostly all use products derived from the killing. Sure, you can throw the vegan argument at me, but at this point in human history it is a very small minority in the world and mostly in developed nations.
                Look at bears, they developed the gut and means to consume a variety of things – berries, seeds, meat, grass etc. it’s not instinct, it’s using the means a critter has available to seize opportunity. If wolves developed a gut for bark, they would eat bark. Humans are not any different – we seize opportunity. For most of us, it’s a trip to the store for some meat some other human killed. For me and many others it’s tender venison we personally killed.

            • JB says:

              Dan, Harley:

              From my perspective…

              (a) My pets are like family. My cats never go outside, my dog only goes outside under supervision. I would never knowingly put a member of my family in harms way.

              (b) I have no need (nor desire) for cougar or bear meat, nor any other part of these animals. I don’t believe it is ethical to go out of your way to kill an animal that is doing you no harm and that you do not intend to use in any way.

              That’s a personal, moral choice on my part. I do not insist that others live by my rules.

              The reasoning above help explains why the two scenarios differ–people, of course, are capable of moral reasoning, animals are not.

            • rork says:

              I was just questioning.
              I personally don’t want to kill cats, bears, canines. Dog use does bother me some there, a bit cause it doesn’t seem fair (but I’m pretty ignorant, which always helps, and not brought up in the tradition). Folks near me use dogs against raccoons, and sorry, but it seems like it’s often just for fun. Not sure why they would not be included in various bans if it were really about fair chase. So I need that explained. I think there is a tradition of killing them as pests, so perhaps we apply less ideas of fairness. I’m not sure ideas about fairness are logical – we all just think the methods we can stomach are fair, but anything less isn’t. Actually using bait for fishing is an example from another field.
              Against pigs I can stand it, just cause near me they are an environmental disaster, and I don’t want to discourage anyone from reducing their population. I don’t hunt birds (yet), but it doesn’t bother me, perhaps cause I am familiar with that tradition. My thoughts are not well formed. It’s why I was asking questions (often profitable here).

              Using dogs against bears is legal in Michigan. But it’s a hot issue. Bobcat too. No cougar hunting here. Oh, I have an extra bias: using dogs on these animals is something guides do for wealthy clients. Nice that it generates money, but I’m more for the little guy.

            • Harley says:

              Thanks for the reply JB. Makes sense when put that way but the best thing I like about what you said is that you stressed that is YOUR way. It doesn’t have to be everyone’s way. Perhaps more in the spirit of that whole coexist idea? 🙂

        • Mike says:

          hunting with dogs is unethical and outmoded. Yes. it had it’s place when we were settling the country and taking down an animal meant eating or starving.

          That’s not the case anymore.

          • Dan says:

            Just gonna throw that out there or is there a basis to your statement? IYO What makes it unethical? and why obsolete?

            • jon says:

              What makes it unethical? Do you really need to ask that? Would you care to explain why states like Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, etc banned hound hunting of either bear or bobcat? It has to do with fair chase. Is letting your dog chase wildlife up a tree considered fair chase to you Dan?

            • Dan says:


              I let my lab chase pheasants, huns, grouse and quail out of grass and brush for me, so why would I mind if hounds chased a cougar up a tree?

            • Tim says:

              Hunting with hounds is fair chase. I’ve never met a houndsman who catches everything. Montana has never allowed hunting bears with dogs(I believe because of the grizzly population), but they do allow cougar and bobcat hunting with dogs. Wyoming also allows bobcat and cougar hunting with dogs. Washington allows a lot of bears to be killed every year with hounds for the timber companies and we Washington residents get to pay to over see it. Oregon allows bobcat hunting with dogs and their problem bears (hundreds every year) are SNARED then killed. Ever seen a three legged bear? I have, its way more humane than hunting with dogs(Sarcasm). I also know of a gentleman who lives in Colorado and hunts problem bears there. He gets to train his dogs whenever he wants. They also have cougar and bobcat hunting with dogs. You may not like it but it is something that I believe to be necessary. It helps teach animals to have a healthy respect for man and dogs which helps keeps us and the animals safe. It also allows for good wildlife management as you can target specific animals and avoid killing females with young.

            • jon says:

              Hunting with hounds is not fair chase. If it was, it wouldn’t be banned in a lot of states. There are even hunters out there who believe that hound hunting isn’t fair chase. If it was truly necessary, states wouldn’t be banning it now would they?

            • Savebears says:


              You do understand that other peoples opinions are just as valid as your opinion………Right?

            • elk275 says:


              Many years ago Montana banned hunting black bears with dogs and bear baiting because of grizzlies. That is way it is and it is ok with me. I see nothing wrong with hunting mountain lions and bobcats with dogs.

            • JB says:


              Fair chase simply means the animal has a reasonable chance of escape. There are lots of reasons why different methods of “take” (killing) are prohibited. Fair chase is but one. Here in Ohio, for instance, you cannot hunt deer with a rifle. You might think this has to do with fair chase (rifles being more accurate and providing better range than a shotgun). However, the real justification is public safety–too many people hunting in proximity to one another.

            • jon says:

              “Fair chase simply means the animal has a reasonable chance of escape.”

              Exactly. This is why many don’t see hound hunting as “fair chase”.

            • JB says:

              “Exactly. This is why many don’t see hound hunting as “fair chase”.”

              And (to Save Bear’s point) the fact that hunting with dogs is hard work and hunters are often unsuccessful is why many others believe it is fair chase. I suggest accompanying a hunter on a hunt sometime; then you can make a more informed choice.

            • jon says:

              jb, if it was considered fair chase, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Washington, etc wouldn’t have banned it. These states I mentioned have banned either hound hunting of bear or bobcat. I emailed Montana fish and wild parks and asked them why they banned hound hunting of bear. They said it violates fair chase principles.

            • JB says:


              As I mentioned (above) take practices are prohibited for lots of reasons–fair chase being but one.

              Fair chase hunting is “..the ethical, sportsmanlike, lawful pursuit, and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.”

              What constitutes an “improper” advantage is not clear; what is clear is that there is disagreement among hunters as to whether or not hound/dog hunting is “fair chase” (my original point).

            • Immer Treue says:

              9 Yr. Old Girl Takes Record Book Brown Bear – BEAR …

              JB and all. Not to make any light of the girl, but I always thought there was something obscenely unfair about this, considering if it really did occur.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Sorry, but it is archived at 1/14/07.

              More sites have this story and perhaps it was discussed here during the past.

  13. Salle says:

    Guess the land issues in states like ID and OR are getting another infusion of energy…

    Idaho lawmakers seek to extend grazing permits

    Barker: Labrador’s forest proposal has roots in the 1980s

  14. JB says:

    Canada seeks to “streamline” the regulatory process to make it easier for polluters:

  15. DLB says:

    “Guns blamed for starting wildfires in parched West”

    It seems that steel-jacketed bullets are partially responsible for the wildfires that are being started, as well as some type of popular target. I’m sure the NRA will immediately come out to defend our rights to start forest fires with firearms whenever we damn well please.

    • WM says:

      I tend to think there is some overlap in causes and those responsible. Unattended campfires, fireworks, cigarettes and guns firing metal jacket projectiles in high fire danger seasons, maybe even an ATV or motorcycle without proper spark arrestors. What do you want to bet some of those responsible are engaged in multiple high risk behaviors at the same time (maybe even some young uns, and the 20 somethings). Throw in a couple of beers or a bottle and the ignition source becomes even more obvious. And, don’t be surprised if passing laws, adding administrative restrictions, or whatever, don’t slow the behavior too much (try as they might officials are in a bind on this one). Who is out there to enforce them with the budget cutbacks?

      What is that redneck saying? “You can’t fix stupid.” I am afraid this is going to be a long fire season (but I hope I am wrong on this).

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      As discussed in our story about wildfires, this has been a terrific problem in Utah where 20-22 wildfires have been started by target shooting in the dry grass.

      The Utah governor and other officials are trying to do something, but with Utah’s super militant gun lobby restrictions on the use of firearms, even to prevent wildfires, are hard to sustain. There have been quite a few articles locally and national about Utah.

  16. DLB says:

    “‘Aggressive’ goats force Mount Ellinor trail closure.”

  17. jon says:

    Check out some of the comments.

    SSS Shoot Shovel and Shut up! I am so glad to know that there are other people around who don’t want these things here! Anybody that is anybody know that these wolves are going to DESTROY our habitat!

    So what’s the fair market value if one of my grandkids gets killed?

    My God people, don’t you watch the news and do some research about what these animals have done to the herds of elk and deer in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado? You left wing idiots forget that WE are at the top of the food chain. I hope every person that sees one of these serial killers here in washington shoots to kill. I know I plan on it.

    Scott Frenger is right, but don’t forget Idaho too! Jen Gaines… you need to think twice. A wolf will kill your stupid shepherds for the thrill. We don’t need wolves to maintain wildlife populations, that’s what Fish and Game does. I’m from Idaho and I can tell you that the wolves have decimated the wildlife populations. When they were introduced to Yellowstone, they were supposed to have their populations limited. The limitations came from managing the number of active wolf dens within set areas. The problem lies with the definition of a wolf den. The den was defined as two wolves procreating in one location…this didn’t include multiple mating partners. They thought that yellowstone could handle a handful of active dens, but the number of dens counted and maintained has always been a much smaller representation of the wolf population. As a result, the worlds largest Elk heard has been nearly eradicated.

    Washington should get rid of them before they spread. FYI, this years wolf season in Idaho is unlimited. Each hunter can get 5 tags each but in the past the season has closed when a set number of tags have been filled….not this year.

    • jon says:

      calling wolves serial killers? hmmm

      • jon says:

        Here is the best comment of all.

        Obviously, so do I. I still don’t think these animals should be on the face of the earth. There is a reason why the Tazmanian devil no longer exists. It was an animal killing serial killer like the grey wolf. I don’t mind bears, cougars, or any other predator. Wolves and Wild dogs are another thing.

        I didn’t know that tasmanian devils were extinct. So, according to this commenter, wolves and tasmanian devils which he claims are extinct when they are not are animal killing serial killers. Lol

        • louise kane says:

          Not much to laugh about here, its ignorance that is driving policy and that policy is being implemented against wolves and other wildlife

          • Salle says:

            Well, once the wildlife are gone, there will be nothing for the environmentalists to argue about and then they will go away and we can dig up, cut down and cause all the smog and filthy non-potable water we want… goes the mindset. Then it will also be okay to have elk farms for our elites since that’s where the only elk will be, well besides the ones in zoos that you can’t kill so that we can have a “robust population” after all.

        • SAP says:

          Huh. I would guess he meant the “Tasmanian tiger,” or thylacine.

          Or, maybe (this hypothesis has more merit), since so many of those folks confuse cartoons with reality, he is referring to the Warner Brothers animated character, who sadly seems to be out of production right now.

    • Dave says:

      I wonder what news jon is watching and what research he’s doing to be so alarmed about what the wolves have done to the herds of elk and deer in Colorado. As we all know, Colorado is just swarming with those lobos, eh?
      BTW, according to the state game and fish departments, wolves haven’t done much at all to the total populations of elk an deer in Wyoming and Montana. Look at the numbers. As a matter of fact, they’ve done exactly what it was hoped they’d do to the Yellowstone elk population, i.e. bring it back in line withe the food supply. Those browe lines were awfully embarassing, ya gotta admit.

      • Dave says:

        Oops, sorry, I seem to have gotten jon confused with the authors he’s commenting on. Sorry jon, I should have been more careful.

    • bigbrowntrout says:

      please…….decimated? get outta your truck. i find elk here in montana just fine

  18. jon says:

    “State Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, helped write the hunt legislation. He said he’s not happy about the low quota or the possibility of the tribes reducing it even further for non-tribal hunters, but DNR officials have told him they want to avoid lawsuits from animal rights groups.

    “Am I disappointed in the 201 kill quota number? Yes,” Suder said. “We’re going to push the DNR to raise the number in future seasons. Right now, we just want to get a successful first harvest season under our belt.”

    • jon says:

      I think this is as good as it’s going to get next to a lawsuit stopping wolf hunting in WI for pro-wolf advocates.

      • Paul says:

        Suder is a bear hounder shill and the one who said that allowing dog packs to go against wolves was “non-negotiable” and that hounding was a “tradition” in Wisconsin. He is the lap dog for ALEC in Wisconsin as well. He was also the supposed “author” of the wolf hunting bill in Wisconsin and he didn’t even know what was in it when testifying before the Assembly committee. In the Senate committee hearing the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association admitted that they wrote the bill with their seven lawyers. Suder won’t be satisfied until Wisconsin adopts Idaho’s “kill ’em all” attitude. This is just the beginning. Suder is just as dangerous as Scott Walker but he just flies under the radar. He is one of the most anti-wildlife politicians in the United States.

        • jon says:

          Suder seems heartbroken that only 201 wolves will be killed. Numerous states including some pro-hunting ones have banned that tradition that they call hounding. No chance of getting a ballot initiative going in WI to get hound hunting banned? Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Washington, etc have all banned hound hunting of bears.

          • Paul says:

            We have to have all ballot initiatives approved by the legislature so I doubt there is much of a chance. The Republicans and Republican-lite Dems pander to every extreme hunting interest in the state so I doubt it would make the ballot. I don’t think most people in the country have any idea how brutal and extreme Wisconsin is when it comes to what they allow for hunting and trapping. The even allow packs of dogs to be used against turkeys. Turkeys!!??? While states like California are very close to banning bear hounding Wisconsin has expanded it. Even Idaho and Montana do not allow packs of dogs to go against wolves. Wisconsin apparently thinks this is perfectly acceptable. It hasn’t happened yet, but I would not be surprised if they eventually let hounders go after deer. you know they are thinking about it. Since Walker became governor the extreme groups like the deceptively named hunting group, the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, have pushed to allow more and more extreme activities. Hounders here can now run their dogs through the majority of the year through the woods under the guise of “training.” If they are not training they can pit their dogs against raccoons, bobcats, coyotes, bears, turkeys,and now wolves. If one of their dogs gets killed by a wolf during these activities they get reimbursed around $2500. They claim that they will not get reimbursed if actively hunting wolves and a dog gets killed but all a hounder has to do is claim that they were hunting coyotes and the gravy train will continue. This is the only state that allows these reimbursements for hounders. There are also major issues with hounders trespassing and threatening property owners in the north. I expect this to become far more of an issue when the hounders go after wolves.

  19. Virginia says:

    Wow – jon – I think you are the wrong website.

  20. louise kane says:

    Minnesota survey about wolf hunting, 80% opposed
    comments not sorted to understand what percentage are from in state

  21. jon says:

    That doesn’t sit well in Indian country. “There is considerable concern about taking wolves for sport,” Mortensen wrote to DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr. “Many tribal members feel that wolves are their brothers and they should be respected as such.”

    Even native americans in WI and MN are against a wolf hunt.

  22. Nancy says:

    A followup to an earlier post:

    “Residents on Colorado Ave spotted the bear in their neighborhood. Said they first thought it was a dog, but the smell and droppings convinced them otherwise”

    What is it these days with wildlife sightings around what use to be their habitat? Seems first they get caught “hanging around” Then its another matter entirely when they are attracted to your garbage, at the curb, outside the home, too often in poorly constructed containers and then…. they get shot while investigating those interesting smells.

    • WM says:


      They get shot (or if lucky relocated) because they loose their fear of people and sometimes become aggressive when using a new food source, or cause damage in the process. Better housekeeping/groundskeeping by humans might prevent some of that, but some are lazy or want the cute bears around so tend to feed them intentionally or not (fruit trees in the coming two months are an example), or just provide opportunity of some sort. In the end the bears loose because of a perceived public safety and damage problem. Is your comment an observation or a value statement?

      While you ponder that, some recent news from Aspen/Snowmass. These litttle ones learned from mama, apparently very early in life. Don’t know their fate, but can speculate. Check out the slide show. This, in the past, has also been a pretty common site in Yellowstone – in fact, I have seen it at Fishing Bridge in years gone by.

  23. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Corbett Park officials turn tigress into jackal
    “On May 24, Corbett staff found the innards of an animal in the core area of the tiger reserve. Wildlife activists claimed it was a tiger’s. But the director of Corbett’s tiger reserve, insisted the parts were those of a porcupine or jackal”.
    At least, the story gives some indication, that Corbett Park still hosts Tigers.

  24. WM says:

    Another use for, ever more common to the public, bear spray – will felony charges be filed?

  25. Salle says:

    Tragedy of the Commons redux:

  26. Harley says:

    Some things I wrestle with

    1. Wolves have always been in Minnesota and I haven’t heard of any major clashes between them and the people who live there. Wolves get re-introduced into the Rocky Mountain States and in a very short time things are in an uproar. Why? What are the GL’s people doing different that is working, or seems to be working better than those out west? There are a heck of a lot more wolves on less land and for a longer period of time in the GL region than there are out west.

    2. Wolves are abundant in the GL region. Why do some people feel they should still be protected when they have become quite prolific.

    3.Why is there this big push to have a hunting season on wolves in the GL region? They have not been a problem in the past, why now? Is it because things are heating up out west? Does it have to do with the populations of the animals they hunt? (I’m under the impression that there are A LOT of deer in the GL region, is my impression wrong?)

    4. Why do so many feel that a rancher/farmer does not have the right to protect his livestock from wolf predation? If a wolf kills livestock, why can’t that rancher track down that wolf and kill it?

    Please, I do not want the same old diatribe against the evils of hunters and how there shouldn’t be ranchers in the first place.

    • Immer Treue says:


      RM uproar. Wolves not “allowed” to come in on own. Some, Cat Urbigkit in particular, pushed that a remnant population of natural wolves still existed…
      My contention that wolves that may have migrated from Canada met SSS quickly. Can’t get in trouble for killing something that does not exist.

      Whereas wolves in GL States migrated from a natural population in N MN, the wolves in the NRM states were “introduced”. Much more ranching in wide open spaces in the West. Naturally ranchers did not want wolves. Then you have the folks who hunt elk who believe that wolves were brought in to reduce elk numbers so that pressure could be levied to stop hunting…

      Have wolves put a hurt on elk in some locales? Yes. Would management of wolves be in the wolves best interest? You betcha. However, what seems to be occurring is more like persecution.

      MN, depending on who you are, coin toss on hunting. 3,000 +- wolves over last ten years. Some have gotten into trouble, and~ 200 or so a year have been removed. Ranching nowhere near the scale of RM states. Wisconsin, more livestock and dog (bear blunders) depredation.

      I think you’ll find trapping held in low esteem by most GL folks.

      Depending on area of GL states, wolves have put pressure on deer, yet in Wisconsin deer in some locales are looked upon as pests. Wolves cAn be looked upon as good or bad. Perhaps less farm damage by deer, fewer auto collisions, removal of portion of deer population with CWD is all good. But then certain hunters think it unfair that wolves get to hunt year round, while humans only have a few weeks.

      Ranchers and farmers have every right to protect their livestock. They also have to better stewards of their stock.

      Unique times as folks are either being forced to or learning to coexist with wolves. Probably something not witnessed since the days of hunter gathering.

      Best I can do on a handheld. I’m sure others will be much more comprehensive in answering your questions.

      • Harley says:

        Wow! Pretty impressive on a handheld!
        Thanks for the response though, appreciate the thought that went into it.

      • Nancy says:

        “I’m sure others will be much more comprehensive in answering your questions”

        I don’t think so Immer, you covered it well 🙂

        Coexist – a fine word – yet seldom practiced anymore by our species because of the “advantages” we now have over most other species.

        • Harley says:


          1. To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.
          2. To live in peace with another or others despite differences, especially as a matter of policy

          Nancy, could you coexist with someone who was a hunter? Someone who ranched for a living? I’m thinking you probably could, as long as they did things the way you believed things should be done…

          Or did you mean coexist as it pertains to humans and animals? I’m thinking from your last few words on your post that you meant humans and animals. If that’s the case, than animals shouldn’t want to harm or kill humans or any other species for that matter in order for coexist to work. But…they are just doing what they do to survive because it’s in their nature. (Sorry, working this one through as I’m writing. Yeah, not sure where I wanted to go with that…)

          • Nancy says:

            “Nancy, could you coexist with someone who was a hunter? Someone who ranched for a living?

            Harley – I’ve been “coexisting” with ranchers and hunters for 20 years. They are my neighbors and I’d do anything for them (and have) as they would do for me if needed but I don’t go out of my way to socialize with most of them. Witnessed too much destruction of wildlife & habitat, especially when it comes to ranching, to keep my mouth shut at a social event 🙂

            “I’m thinking you probably could, as long as they did things the way you believed things should be done”

            Afraid its the other way around Harley. Come out and see for yourself sometime.

            • Harley says:

              My apologies than for making an assumption. I let my knee jerk reaction take over the keyboard! 🙂

    • rork says:

      In Michigan.
      It’s mostly about deer in the upper peninsula (U.P., where I think Lovejoy said we breed idiots, and fire). Hunters there have been whining allot that there are less deer, and that the wolves are decimating them, and need control. The number of people who think there were just way too many deer for too long and that our ecosystems are all screwed up (like no young white cedar) is probably something like 5%. Too nuanced.
      Folks in the U.P. (and norther lower) tend to dislike any control of their behavior by the state, since that is the man (city people in the lower peninsula, lopers, trolls) removing their freedoms. We don’t have their wolf problem so why should we have anything to say on the matter. They think our DNR and state in general are horrible stewards of the land up there, and conspire to underestimate predator numbers, and over-estimate deer. The state makes laws to limit shooting of things, and they persecute people who are breaking the laws – the gummit is pure evil I’m sure you will agree.
      Hunters in the lower peninsula are worried the decimation of deer will include their areas, as wolves come there. The hunters are all read up on conservation issues, up until about 1880. It is therefore obvious that less wolves is better. Less coyotes is also good. Oh, the wolves knock down the coyotes? Doh, who cares, kill ’em all. Cougars too.
      The anti-wolf crowd have infinite recall of anti-wolf semi-facts (vicious killers, do it for fun), and total amnesia for any benefits wolves bring.
      Some of these guys want to hunt wolves. Or poach them. You get deer over-population, and a new target. It’s win-win, you see.

      PS: I’m still hoping my DNR is going to move glacially, with a big fat dose of wait and see. It will infuriate many.

      • Immer Treue says:


        MN a bit more progressive even though we jumped
        At the chance for an immediate season with a 400 quota. Me thinks it will
        Be reached fast. Begins November and ends ~ january 3.

        I think if season kept at moderate numbers, people will
        Both tolerate wolves,and a wolf hunting season.

  27. elk275 says:

    Here is an new and interesting article in the Bozeman paper about grizzlies

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      elk 275,

      I having been thinking about writing on this. What they say is true, but it is a very short trend. In other words, it could be just chance.

  28. Tim says:

    Cougar attack in California. This happened a month ago but I never saw it on here. Apologies if it was already posted.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      “Fish and Game counts this as the 15th confirmed mountain lion attack in California since 1890.” Probably more confirmed attacks than by wolves in all of North American — but its still not a very impressive source of human injury for a large state with large populations of both mountain lions and (particularly) humans.

  29. bret says:

    interesting story on black bears

    • Nancy says:

      “While he can’t change the past, he said, he can direct the future. Ruth has turned his experience into a public-awareness campaign and is working to help residents of Clark safely coexist with the area’s grizzlies by installing one bear-proof trash bin at a time”

      This kind of story warms the heart Elk. What a neat guy to be able to recover from a tragic incident like that and then go on to do what he can to help resolve human/bear conflicts.


      • CodyCoyote says:

        I’m calling ” Major Guilt Trip on this one. While Ruth now advocates that people take common sense measures if they live in the Grizzly interface zone, I see nothing that says he would use bear spray the next time her surprises a sow Griz with cubs at spitting distance. Ruth is an ex-Baltimore cop who worked tough streets. He used a ” shoot first” blaster methodology on the Clark bear incident , which I attribute to his conditioning back east and lack of knowledge of western wildlife. Now he’s the local spokesman for bearproof trash cans. BFD.

        I wanna hear the guy cop to the charge of using a gun to make a wildlife encounter worse, not better, resulting in the loss of the valuable female breeding grizzly. The trash thing is a no brainer. The gun thing ? — still waiting for some atonement there. And a butcher’s scale to weigh brains.

  30. Larry Keeney says:

    Here’s an interesting article re wildlife law enforcement. One of the small notations in the body of the article states that studies in B.C. show the illegal take compares nearly 1:1 with the legal take. This article did not elaborate so don’t know the source but there was a discussion on this site a time back re illegal take of the Mexican wolf in New Mexico. I thought the estimated illegal take of 50 was high, maybe not.

    When listing illegal take, you have to include everything. Not limited to the most obvious such as closed season, but everything that makes the kill illegal such as husband killing two deer, one for himself and one for his wife’s tag. Then there is failure to tag, kill with illegal caliber and the list goes on and on. Some would say technical violations as did the unsuccessful candidate for Idaho Governor. Anyway you slice it, it’s about the hunter not being able to control greed when he thinks he’s alone with the candy jar.

  31. CodyCoyote says:

    An examination of Western welfare ranching ( mainly low grazing fees ) at The Atlantic today , keying in on Wyoming.

  32. DLB says:

    “Colville tribal members seek recall of leaders; settlement at issue”

    Some tribal members upset that more of the funding from a $193 million dollar federal settlement isn’t being distributed to members, as opposed to being used to restore rangelands, tribal forests, and natural resources.

    • WM says:

      Peeling back the layers of this onion means addressing the tensions of whether to give individual tribal members a one time immediate taxable distribution (a larger one means higher percentage is taxable), and watch some piss the money away on a new truck and big screen TV. Alternatively, they can give a smaller distribution now and in future years, and invest in the future of a sovereign nation, which values its natural resources. Maybe smart and conservative investment and distribution would produce a sustainable income stream in future years (and even some jobs). A vote of tribal members will tell. Any guesses on how it turns out?

      • DLB says:

        Well, there are 7,500 members, with over 2,000 of them already signing a petition. If that’s true about the negotiators skipping meetings, it’s not a good sign for those siding with responsibility. If I were to make a pure guess, I would say that somewhere over 20% and less than 50% gets distributed quickly.

        That’s a lot of chickamum on the table and it’s definitely burning holes through some pockets.

      • DLB says:


        Off-topic question:

        Have any suggestions for campgrounds in or around ONP that are close to scenic areas, yet slightly less travelled? I’m looking to go somewhere new over there for a couple of days. My fiance has not seen much of the interior old/growth rain forest on the peninsula, and backpacking is temporarily not an option.

        • WM says:


          A few ideas: As you know, this is high use season, so expect people. For the more common improved campgrounds you will have to look at the ONP/vendor website for availability and reservations, I think. Forget the the two campgrounds on the Elwha as the river is silty and the road is blocked at Altaire, and apparently no access for dam deconstruction viewing.

          If you have the time, you might consider one of the undeveloped campgrounds a ways inland on the West Coast side. Maybe go all the way out to the Quinault. There are several FS CG’s on either side of the lake, and then there is Graves Creek at the end of a 17 mile gravel road, or the Queets (Make sure you have a recent Park map, because the road no longer follows the river to get access. AT the primative CG you can ford the river for a day hike there, but take walking sticks as the river can be deceitfully swift as the glacial runoff increases from warm weather, and you don’t want a mistake). I don’t even remember how improved the remote campgrounds are, for example clean piped water (Just use filter pump or just bring 5 gallons). They have pit toilets.

          For a taste of the rain forest, you can drive up the Hoh to the little visitor center. There is a nice campground there, with access to the Hoh trails, moss and big trees. Could be crowded though.

          My first choices: On the north side there are a couple of very nice Clallam County campgrounds, one north of Sequim at Dungeness, and one west of Port Angles at Salt Creek. Both have views of the Strait. Their reservation system is kind of clunky, but if you get on the website, you can tell for yourself and maybe make a phone call to the number listed . In the Olympic Park there is Fairholm on Lake Crescent. I think you need a reservation. Further west is Klayhowya FS campground, on the Sol Duc. It is nice and in the bigger trees, and maybe not so crowded. Mora, just west of Forks is neat, and you might see some seals at the mouth of the nearby Quillayute, and of course you have access to walk the coastal strip.

          You may know this, but if you plan on accessing the north side and Port Angeles, the ferry wait at Edmunds – Kingston (or return) can be long on week-ends (very early morning going west is best; early afternoon going east). Or, just drive the Tacoma – Bremerton route.

  33. CodyCoyote says:

    The scientific community in Canada has had enough of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a conservative who makes Dubya Bush seem liberal. Harper has systematically monkeywrenched government support for science , and tried to derail science-based facts from being inserted into policy discourse. The scientists have united and are beginning to protest . Real protests. Angry dissenters marching in white lab coats through Ottawa.

    We can only hope that it catches on in the US, too.

  34. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Nebraska: Government-funded tool (aircraft) available for killing coyotes

  35. jon says:

    I could not find the article about this, but saw it here, Good news. Wolves are back on the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

  36. Salle says:

    News about Ad for extractive industry perched on public lands…

    Report highlights economic value of Utah’s federal lands

  37. Salle says:

    Interesting compilation of WS’s activities and the impact by county in NW states…

    Oregon ranks No. 4 in ‘deadliest state’ list for killing predators: report

    • JB says:

      So the Rs complain that lawyers (sometimes) are able to get paid when environmental groups successfully suit to enforce the law. I say, if they don’t like paying lawyers at env. organizations they should try fully-funding the FWS to actually list species instead of directing them to avoid listing at all costs.

  38. CodyCoyote says:

    The provincial government of Alberta is addressing the issue of frequent pipeline ruptures and spills by conveniently going into denial about the recurring problem. They won;t permit an independent commission to assess the problem or deal with it themselves. So instead the environmentalists and private landowners have stepped up and formed a watchdog group with a Hot Line to report new spills , led by the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.

    It is getting very difficult to find ANY positive news about the environment from Canada.

    • skyrim says:

      This just pisses me off…………

    • JB says:

      This is a great example of why laws like NEPA are valuable (yes, I know this wasn’t in the US). Had the excavators been required to go through environmental review and consult with relevant agences, they would never have been allowed to conduct this operation while the turtles were present.

  39. aves says:

    The number of whooping cranes in the Wood Buffalo to Aransas population has declined to an estimated 245 birds from a previous high of 279:

    USFWS has changed the survey methods to a much less accurate counting method and have also repeatedly touted overly optimistic accounts of the whooping crane’s population:

  40. Nancy says:

    Also 180(degrees) South. Very good documentary (if you haven’t seen it yet) regarding the ongoing destruction of rivers in Patagonia.

    Oh and WM, when you have a moment, please add that to my “file” of concerns.

    “about how bad mystery meat is, or how inhumanely the meat components are prepared, or mutant genetically processed grain for the crust, or growth hormones in the (wretch) processed cheese?”

    And, in future “subsequent posts” I’ll try and be more vigilant about pointing out sarcasm.

    Oops! Gotta go! The timer just went off and my pizza’s ready 🙂

    • Salle says:


      Thanks for bringing that documentary up.

      I saw that a few months ago, can’t remember where I saw it but I was not surprised and I recall discussing it with someone.. like a neighbor. It’s quite telling and an obvious prelude to what is intended, by some, to take place here in the corporatized US of A. Definitely a documentary that everyone should see, for those interested in being informed.

  41. Nancy says:

    Fair Chase, best definition ever (according to this hunting site)

    “So why condemn something or tactic another uses? Could be a number of reasons , jealousy, greed, or just plain stubbornness because that’s not how I do it. And each time we attack another’s legal way of doing things, we in essence are driving a nail in our own coffin for future use by the anti’s”

    Anti’s? Hmmm….Just me or is there absolutely no compassion, what so ever, in this guy’s reasoning for “attacking” and “killing” another species….. simply because “we” can.

    • ma'iingan says:

      “Fair Chase, best definition ever (according to this hunting site)”

      There is no definition of fair chase in that article, so what’s your point? Other than more random bashing of hunting, that is.

      How about a little intellectual honesty here? Heres’ an actual definition from an organization that’s founded on the principles of fair chase.

      • Nancy says:

        What’s the difference between Fronek’s explanation/definition and Poswwitz’s Ma’llingan?

        • jon says:

          Thanks Nancy.

          FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.

          Hound hunting gives the hunter an improper advantage imho. Baiting should also be included in this.

        • JB says:

          The principles of fair chase, as articulated by two different groups (per the link Ma’ provided):

          Boone & Crockett Club

          -Obey all applicable laws and regulations.
          -Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.
          -Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.
          -Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.
          -Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.
          -Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter’s experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.

          The Pope & Young Club

          The term “Fair Chase” shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:

          -Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice.
          -From any power vehicle or power boat.
          -By “jacklighting” or shining at night.
          -By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons.
          -While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures.
          -By the use of any power vehicle or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.
          -By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached.
          -Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable.

          From Posewitz (and to my original point):

          “The ethical hunter must make many fair-chase choices. In some areas, chasing big game with dogs is an accepted custom. In other places, it is considered an unfair advantage for the hunter. Likewise, luring animals with bait or hunting in certain seasons sometimes is viewed as giving unfair advantage to the hunter” (emphasis mine).

      • skyrim says:

        With all due respect, and in the interest of a mountain of my own individual “intellectual honesty”, fair chase would be hunting with a spear, while wearing a loin cloth. That’s both fair and honest, while being true to an ancient heritage of the sport of hunting.

        • JB says:

          Or stampeding animals over a cliff using fire? Several of the hunting tactics used by native Americans would not be viewed as “fair chase” today. Even the spear you mentioned would have been flung from a atlatl, allowing for much greater velocity/lethality. But let’s be entirely honest. If we were to allow only primitive weapons then the animal rights activists would simply change tactics, arguing that these methods are cruel and inhumane because animals take much longer to die and injury rates are much higher.

          • skyrim says:

            I don’t claim to speak for animal rights activists JB, nor will I get into a pi$$ing match over the issue(s)of fair chase. There are a helluva lot of assumptions here anymore about who is/is not part of the crowd you refer to, as well as what they will/will not do. Also lot’s of “chatter” about honesty here on this thread. Please count me in as part of that school, but no other.

            • JB says:

              The problem with “honesty”–what is honest is intensely personal and needs not have any basis in fact. So I have no cause to question your honesty when you suggest that fair chase hunting means hunting with a spear; however, neither do I have cause to question the honesty of someone who suggests that fair chase means something entirely different.

              However, I’ll go out on a (extremely solid) limb and suggest that the more “fair” a hunt becomes (a) the more likely you are to have wounded animals and (b) the longer it will take for animals to die, which (c) will cause the animal rights activists to scream. It is a very two-faced argument to shout down hunts as “not fair” in one breath and then condemn hunters as cruel and inhumane in the next–which we see time and again by a few individuals who post here. So being intellectually honest (for me) means acknowledging that there is tension between the desire for animals to have a reasonable chance to escape and the desire for kills to be made as cleanly and humanely as possible. Fair enough?

              • Dan says:

                and d) as the success rate drops the rule breaking increases. If the road is long with lots of trials and tribulation, people generally seek a short cut. A couple examples, in Wyoming the antelope hunt is as easy as it gets. The success rate is virtually 100%. The terrain is essentially flat and the hardest part of the hunt is judging the distance and accounting for a cross wind. The average hunt is 3 days, although many hunters can fill their tags in a matter of hours. There’s no reason to seek a short-cut or break a rule. At the other end of the spectrum, in the St. Joe country of Idaho, the ground is steep. There are hundreds of square miles that are 70%+ in steepness. There’s a ton of brush, making the visual window often a yard or 5. I know many very good hunters that have gone a few years without any success for elk. As a consequence of these hardy variables, I believe(anecdotal of course) the rule breaking fluctuates as the success rates move up and down. The last few years as the success rates for elk have dropped, I have found more illegal bait sites(mostly salt), heard more shots after legal shooting hours (pushing the 30 minutes after sundown rule), and in general heard of more shady methods. Before you scream this is just the mentality of a hunter, think about it. As the time and commitment to anything increases people are more apt to seek a short cut. Look at diploma mills and financial mismanagement of funds – people are always trying to cut the curve…

        • rork says:

          Roald Amundsen (NW Passage) describes the natives scaring caribou into lakes, and lancing them from kayaks. If your need is less great, you find this repulsive. I take regulation to be a way to make a more level playing field among hunters. Maybe it’s nothing more. There is some idea of recreation being obtained, not just meat. I don’t find that to be horrifying, so far. It is a little strange though.

        • topher says:

          I would love to try atlatl hunting for big game but I’ll have to skip the loincloth,unfortunately it is illegal in Idaho.Atlatls can be very effective weapons if used properly.A good thrower can hit a deer sized target at a hundred yards,and I think the record for distance is around two hundred and eighty yards.I recently met some individuals who have taken or plan to take big game with atlatls,moose being the largest.Atlatls and woomeras have been around for thousands of years on most continents and far surpass bow and arrow in longevity of use .The span of time these weapons have continued to be used speaks to their effectiveness.If you’ve never tried to use one I highly recommend it even if you don’t hunt.The learning curve isn’t too steep and and once you figure it out it’s very rewarding.I have never hunted with one but really enjoy target throwing at about thirty five yards and hope to learn to throw further.

          • topher says:

            meant to reply to skyrim

          • CodyCoyote says:

            Second the notion that Atlatls are amazing. I have a friend who is into aboriginal arts and crafts, and he taught me the atlatl during a visit to a farm in Connecticut. We set up a tripod about 50 paces out and used 9-inch white paper plates for targets. At first I was lucky to throw the shafts within 15 feet of the plate. But by the end of the day I was hitting it pretty frequently ( I’ve always had a good throwing arm from my youth as a baseball pitcher). The shafts project a lot of force, too. The atlatl itself is like adding a third joint to your shoulder, elbow, wrist mechanics and uses the additional “leverage” to multiply the kinetic energy, dramatically so, since the atlatl head is weighted. It’s truely ingenious, a real testament to Paleo technology. Yes, the bow and arrow that came later has a peepsight for targetting, but the atlatl can heave a much larger heavier spear with a more massive stone point. Bows are like rifles…atlaltls are like small cannons.

            I would love to see some of the more strident NRA-worshipping’ Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife-Rocky Mountain Elkers – Safari Club ( ESPECIALLY them! ) try to hunt trophy Mule Deer with a wood and stone spearchucker instead of blackpowder and long rifle brass. Set aside the Winchester and pick up an atlatl and do some real mano-a-mano big game hunting.

            THAT would be an outdoor sporting video show worth watching …

  42. CodyCoyote says:

    The leader of the progressive wing of Canadian politics has called for the abandonment of the controversial Enbridge 600-mile Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to new west coast tanker terminals on the coast of B.C. . Oddly enough , he cited the US National Transportation Safety Board as proving the pipeline isn’t viable , citing an NTSB report on Enbridge’s botching of several pipeline ruptures in Michigan .

    Story in the Calgary Herald:

  43. DLB says:

    For anyone who is interested:

    A federal judge in Spokane just added three months of house arrest to the plea agreements for Tom, Bill, and Erin White; the family convicted in the killing of most of the Lookout Pack in Washington State. I believe in total, their fines amount to about $80,000.

    Not the outcome many were hoping for, but I believe this sends a message.

  44. John Glowa says:

    The gaspereau referred to are called alewives in the U.S.

    Apologies for the earlier error.

  45. Immer Treue says:

    MN survey results showed 80% oppose wolf hunt. So what does DNR do? Extends season from January 3 to January 31. Evidently the 20% who favored hunting and trapping are the new majority.

    Add to that, in Wisconsin, two more bear hounds appear to have been done in, and eaten by wolves.

    • JB says:

      Immer: Where are the survey results? All I saw was an online straw poll.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Does it really make that much of a difference, when one extrapolates
        That not even those in favor of a wolf hunt favored the changes, which means less than20%.

        The original survey/ straw poll/ whatever you want to call it. If I knew about it, and I’m in the middle of wolf country, surely the MN deer hunters assoc. had to know about it.

        Perhaps the nearly month long extension to the season, by the DNR, is more to appease rep David Dill who went into chambers last year with bill HF 2171, a bill authorizing a public season on wolves, free from public surveillance during last years government (MN) shutdown. Evidently he wanted a four month minimum season, and has been making noise as of late, in particularly tossing the fear for public safety factor out there as though it were parade candy.

        • JB says:


          My question was in good faith; I was only inquiring as to whether there actually was a random sample survey. I did some investigating and it seems the answer is “no”. Too bad. Straw polls are useful for lots of things, but not for estimating public opinion.

          Try not to let the blowhards get to you.


          • Immer Treue says:


            Not to worry. Gotta remember with electronic messaging there is no control of perceived affect. My reply was nothing more than a reply. If I remember correctly the MN DNR poll, though not as detailed as yours, was much more than yeah, or nay on wolf hunting.

            Heck, I may have even voted pro hunting, but I was profoundly anti trapping.

        • jon says:

          Immer, do you think hunters and trappers will reach the 400 quota on wolves in MN?

          • Immer Treue says:


            Tough to say. An awful lot of hunters and wolves concentrated in a small
            Area compared to the NRM. In my neck of the woods, most of the deer hunting is in free stands, so many wolves will be incidental kills.

            The terrain in the upper arrowhead is anything but flat. There is a saying about portages,”uphill both ways”. Lots of wind blown/dead fall trees. Travel is tough. However, with extending the season til January 31, the easiest means of travel becomes available when the lakes freeze over. Signs of wolves are all over the frozen lakes. To be honest, I think 400 wolves will be a reachable target, especially with the month extension to the season.

    • jon says:

      Immer, I cannot understand the logic behind letting houndsmen use their dogs to chase wolves. Wolves will kill hounds if given the chance. Will houndsmen in WI be reimbursed if their dogs are killed by wolves? That is sad that the Minnesota DNR catered to the minority, but I’m not surprised one bit. Idaho fish and game are the same exact way. Catering to the minority.

  46. Salle says:

    A Grand Threat: Outdated Environmental Studies Used to Bring Uranium Mining to Grand Canyon

    Which is why this article should be alarming to everyone…

    America the Beautiful: A Fire Sale for Foreign Corporations

    • Rita K. Sharpe says:

      I am.Little pieces of it,have been slipping away for years.Even the uniforms for the Team USA have been outsorced to China.

      • Rita K. Sharpe says:

        Sorry,for the spelling error,I meant to spell,”outsourced”,not outsorced.

        • Salle says:

          We can probably thank a certain 0.01%-er, who is currently running for emperor, for that… after all he did have his mitts solidly dipped in the Olympic games’ primordial soup since 2000 at least; what with his mastery of outsourcing and all…

  47. Salle says:

    Lawsuit Launched to Protect Rare Alaskan Wolf
    Obama Administration Delays Protection for Alexander Archipelago Wolf Threatened by Logging in Tongass National Forest

  48. Salle says:

    Alarming Decline in Sockeye Salmon

    • Dan says:

      Yeah, I know Ted is a blabbering idiot…but at one time he wrote a great song…

      See,the Indian and the buffalo,
      they existed hand in hand.
      The Indians,they needed some food,
      and some skins for a roof.
      They only took what they needed,baby.
      millions of buffalo were the proof,yeah.
      But then came the white dogs,
      with their thick and empty heads.
      They couldnt see past the billfold.
      they wanted all the buffalo dead.
      Everything was SO sad.
      When I looked above the canyon wall,
      some strong eyes did I see.
      I think its somebody comin’ around
      to save my a**,baby.
      I think…I think he’s comin’ around
      to save you and me.
      I said, above the canyon wall…
      strong eyes did glow.
      It was the leader of the land,baby.
      OH MY GOD,

  49. Salle says:

    Top Ten Reasons to Reject the House’s Farm Bill

  50. jon says:

    Philip Wollen says hunting is not a sport.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Not meant as an anti-hunting reply, but I always thought the term(s) sportsmen and sport hunting were rather oxymoronic. The only choice the hunted animal
      Has is to get away. It has little to no recourse for “offense” of it’s own. Unless of course the said animal is a grizzly bear mistaken for a black near such as the case of the two Nevada hunters last year. Then we call it mauling.

      “Sport” at least in my way of thinking, alludes to a level playing field. Call it what it is, hunting.

      • Savebears says:

        I am a hunter and have never considered participating in an act or activity that the ultimate goal is to kill as sport, It is serious business. It goes hand in hand with the fact, I don’t “Harvest” an animal, when I am successful, I kill an animal and make good use of it.

      • jon says:

        I never understood that either. If a hunter kills a bear, it’s a sport, but if a bear kills a hunter, it’s a mauling and usually depending on the reason why the bear attacked the hunter, the bear is hunted down and killed. I don’t think anyone would call a bear killing a hunter a “sport” but when hunters kill bears, it’s called a sport by some. Makes no sense.

        • Dan says:

          OK, Let’s call it what it is “Feeding my three little girls and my wife” Are we happy now?

          Sport, competition, challenge, harvest, kill….does it really matter?

          At the end of the day, I always hope to have meat hanging in the locker…that’s what it is..

          • Savebears says:

            Dan, I agree, we are hunters, we hunt for food, plain and simple. Some here just can’t get that..

            • Immer Treue says:


              To reinforce what I wrote, it was not a condemnation of hunting at all. I have never had a problem with hunting, for food. I rarely purchase any beef products, and though at this time I do not hunt, a friend who hunts my land always gives me some of his venison. It’s like meat icecream, with little to no fat. This is the type of meat we were “intended” to eat.

              I simply take issue with the whole “sportsmen idea” to which you more than adequately replied, “it is serious business”.

          • jon says:

            It does matter to a lot of people. A lot of people don’t like the idea of killing wolves, coyotes, cougars, bears, etc as being a “sport”.

        • Savebears says:


          When I hunt bears, which I don’t do any longer it was for the meat, period!

          • Barb Rupers says:

            The fat from bear makes excellent pie crusts.

            My sled dogs would not go near a dead bear but they would eat the cooked meat. The german shephard would have sampled raw bear but I prevented her from doing so.

            • Dan says:

              My grandmother and mother made the best bear lard pie crusts. Flaky greatness! And as long as you get a younger bear, the summer sausage is pretty darn good too!

            • Mike says:

              ++My grandmother and mother made the best bear lard pie crusts. Flaky greatness! And as long as you get a younger bear, the summer sausage is pretty darn good too!++

              Sounds absolutely disgusting.

            • Savebears says:

              Then don’t eat it Mike, I know for a fact, the oils from a bear make great pie crusts, throw some hucks in there and you have something that you will remember for the rest of you life. I am sure glad, I don’t live in your world.

            • Nancy says:

              “The fat from bear makes excellent pie crusts”

              Correct me if I’m wrong here, but in this day and age, there are a lot of ways to make “excellent pie crusts” without having to kill a bear to obtain that level of excellence.

              Read more than a few century old recipes for pie crusts and have yet to run across one that specifies bear fat as an important ingredient for a “flakey crust”

            • Savebears says:


              You are free to not eat pie crusts made with bear fat, I am free to eat them.

            • WM says:

              Actually Nancy, just offering verifiable information to shed light on whimsically formulated opinions grounded in poorly researched facts.

          • WM says:

            Gosh Nancy,

            ++Read more than a few century old recipes for pie crusts and have yet to run across one that specifies bear fat as an important ingredient for a “flakey crust”..++

            You need to get out more. I quickly Googled the words “bear fat + pie + crust,” which took me about 5 seconds, and a whole bunch of stuff came up, with lots of references to light, delicate bear fat pie crust and pastry doughs, possibly not achievable with products most use.

            I have eaten bear over the years (it makes great smoked ham too, by the way), but don’t personally feel compelled to take a bear for food purposes. I can understand, however, if someone else does. I even bet there are some pastry crust recipes and bear fat users in places like New Jersey with its fairly high take of bears annually.

            And, I don’t know if you ever watch public telivision, but I think the host and producer of America’s Test Kitchen, and National Public Radio contributor, Christopher Kimball has even made use of bear products in his own kitchen. He, of course, is an East Coast boy, with ties to Boston, NY (went to Columbia U), CT and Vermont (where he lives part of the year). He also hunts deer and especially likes venison. And he also has an interesting twist to his activities, calling it “local sourcing” for food. He also makes maple syrup.

            • Nancy says:

              Ahh, always a fountain of info WM when it comes to taking full advantage of other species:)

            • elk275 says:

              Some of the best meat I have ever eaten was bear bacon. In 1975, I shot a bear at Alexander Lake Lodge west of Anchorage, the owner Ken Clark was an old time Alaskan and within days he had bear bacon, bear hams and bear chops, some of the best eating. We even had fresh salmon berry pies maybe they were made with bear fat never thought to ask.

    • WM says:


      Do you purposely go out and find this divisive animal rights stuff (in this case some Australian animal rights guy making his sole argument on the semantics of the word “sport”)just to keep things stirred up?

      By the way, this guy is a former Citibank/Citicorp senior VP. If you really want to focus on predators and unsavory human predatory practices take a closer look at this asshole personally, and how he gained his personal wealth.

  51. john philip says:

    The mistake was made more than 100 years ago in the east and we’ve finally, sadly admitted that we can’t fix it:

    I’ll never understand the determination to repeat same mistake out west.

  52. jon says:

    perhaps good news for those who don’t want to see wolves in MN killed by hunters and trappers.

    • Mike says:

      Jon – I think we have a better shot if we stick to attacking the wolf trapping aspect. The public support for that is a whopping “none”. This is a trojan horse approach that if handled right, will trickle down to hunting wolves as well.

  53. WM says:

    Wolf gets sheep within 15 miles of Spokane metro area, where there are lots of hobby farmers with multiple animal species behind fences and in yards. These are the areas of risk potential that I have mentioned here before. It won’t be the big cattle or sheep operations that draw the attention as in the NRM. It will be these folks with the occasional horse, donkey, llama or yard dog that will have to take greater precautions. This is where the tolerance for wolves will be won or lost in WA.

    • bret says:

      the fact that some wildlife officials were surprised shows a bias or they have not paid much attention over the years.

      the growing and expanding wolf population in NE and SE corners of the state will put increasing pressure to modify the wolf plan despite the 75% positive rating that wolves enjoy in Washington.

      • Mike says:

        Washington is a green state. Wolves will be viewed positively there for a long, long time. This is due to a populace that has received better education.

        • WM says:


          WA is a NOT a homogenously green state. The Cascade Mountains divides the more populous Puget Sound region from the interior Columbia Basin to the East. Eastern WA, with few exceptions, is much like the NRM ecologically and politically (and somewhat how people feel about wolves). So far, wolves are on the East side, which incidentally is where most of the elk are. Then there is the Olympic Peninsula which is kind of mixture of green, and not so green where once again most of the elk are. The ones in the NE part of the state have a liking for deer, but that won’t dissuade them from elk, once they figure out they just might be as good or as easy to take.

          So far there are no wolves reported west of the Cascade Divide, and I suspect there won’t likely be many unless they get helicopter or truck ride, which is a part of the current plan(translocation) in its first year of implementation. Stay tuned. This will be interesting to say the least.

          • Mike says:

            It’s a green state, cleanly locked in the Obama/Dem column.

            One day, many of these people who hate wildlife because they hate themselves will grow up, and we won’t have much to talk about here except for the scenery.

            It’s going to take a bit though for people to undergo that ego release.

            • JB says:


              (1) Currently, WA polls show Obama leading Romney (52 – 41). However, as WM pointed out, the rural counties in the East traditionally vote strongly Republican. There is no green-not green dichotomy, just as there is no blue-red dichotomy. Check out

              (2) Voting for Obama does not make one “green” (assuming you mean an environmentalist), nor does being green make one vote for Obama. Some of the “greenest” people I know (in terms of their actual behavior, not their attitudes) are staunchly Republican or Independents.

              (3) Polls consistently show strong support for wildlife and wildlife conservation efforts (this is why it is so hard to amend the ESA). I know of some studies that indicate people are fearful of certain animals, but none that suggests any proportion of the population “hates” wildlife. How did you come to this conclusion?

              (4) They hate wildlife because they hate themselves? What! What evidence do you have for such a bold statement?

            • WM says:

              Anything you say, Mike. Reread my post above. Obama may be ok, but that is about it, and only because of the way the Electoral College vote works on presidential elections. The East side of the state is red. So, tell us sport, what party do you think Doc Hastings, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, belongs to? The 5th District House seat (Spokane) is held by a red neck R woman who is graded as extreme right. As for the Olympic Peninsula, the seat formerly held by Norm Dicks -D (a champion of national parks and an all round good guy who represented the area for nearly 30 years), is up for grabs on Dicks’retirement, and predictions seem to be leaning right. It is on the north Olympic Peninsula. The next governor may well be an R (the current Attorney General). Outside your pay grade, yet again, eh Mike?

      • DLB says:

        I don’t think there’s much habitat for wolves in the SE part of the state outside of the Umatilla NF.

        • WM says:


          Not quite sure what you see as SE WA, but the plains Hanford elk herd east of Yakima is likely on the menu if wolves can stand the summer heat and little cover. Then, as you mention, there is the Umatilla NF east of Walla Walla, which is ecologically continuous with the Blue Mountains in both WA and OR, and the Wallowa’s in OR (remember the Winaha Pack). I am thinking as wolf density increases in NE OR, and as WA wolves make it on their own or with translocation to SE WA, they will quickly figure out the fertile river valleys like the John Day, and the Tucannan, where hay is grown, and livestock graze, and where deer also come to feed in the early morning and evenings is pretty easy pickings. The challenge will be whether wolves stick to the deer or choose to go after something a little slower and succumb to the inevitable consequences of such behavior. I just don’t see those ranchers stringing alot fladry and electric fence to keep wolves out, buying and training guard dogs, and overall adding to their labor/capital costs over the long term. And, as green as Mike thinks WA is, I bet there will be some potential for 3S as these ranchers thumb their noses at the wolf plan drafters in Olympia. They are cut from the same bolt of cloth as the ranchers in Enterprise and Joseph.

          • DLB says:


            I was thinking in extreme SE Washington where wolves could recolonize in terms of natural migration corridors, not translocation. I guess it remains to be seen whether wolves will spend much time in the John Day or Tucannon; migration there may be a career limiting move.

            You aroused my curiosity, so I just did some surfing on Google Maps. I didn’t realize how close the borders of the Yakama Reservation and the Hanford site come to each other. I guess it may be possible for wolves to travel to the Hanford Site on their own?

            It’s very easy for folks outside of Washington State to assume that it’s a lock for democrats because of the influence coming out of the major metropolitan areas of the Puget Sound. McKenna could win in November if Inslee runs a mediocre of stagnant campaign. He annoyed me by appearing in Bellevue with Butch Otter and showering him with compliments over his economic policy in Idaho. He should know better than that.

    • WM says:

      Another WA wolf recovery milestone. Two days ago, Stevens county, north part of state, is reporting calves killed by wolves (3 calves and another killed by a lion). Rancher gets (first?) wolf kill permit, which entitles him to shoot protected wolves in the act of attacking his livestock. This ranch first lost cattle to wolves in 2007.

  54. Immer Treue says:

    Who and where was it that stated Great lakes wolves DNA was 6% dog, and where did they say this? I believe ma’iingan both addressed and refuted it.

  55. Salle says:

    Brazil: Dead Penguins Washed Up On Rio Grande Do Sul Beaches By The Hundreds

  56. Leslie says:

    Here is the weblink for Arthur Middleton’s final dissertation presentation entitled “The influence of large carnivore recovery and summer conditions on the migratory elk of Wyoming’s Absaroka Mountains,”

    It is worth watching the entire 50 minutes as his conclusions are very interesting and will have an affect on how biologists view wolf/elk interaction.

    • Immer Treue says:


      Thank you very much for providing Middleton’s final dissertation. Many questions were answered, but as with such studies, it leads to more questions. Sure the wolves have been proven to be a factor in elk numbers, but the study indicates drought and grizzly bear play equal, if not larger role. Many variables present.

    • CodyCoyote says:

      A couple of addendums to this fascinating ( but quite long! ) presentation for those of you not aware of the gravity of it.

      About six years ago the so-called hunting conservation clubs lead by Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation banded together to fund a scientific study to determine if it was Wolves that were causing the observable changes in elk numbers and elk behavior in northwest Wyoming…specifically the drainages of the Clarks Fork Rover and adjacent Absaroka Front.

      RMEF was the primary funder and mover , aided by the Safari Club ( two chapters) , Boone & Crockett and Pope & Young , our dear friends at Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife ( Wyoming Chapter), the Patchmayr Foundation established by a master gunsmith in L.A and closely affiliated with Safari Intl and other elitist hunting organizations, and a token role by the Cody Country Outfitters and Guides Association, in raising $ 650,000 to do this five year Absaroka Elk Ecology Study . Three years of field work by University of Wyoming PhD candidate Art Middleton and his sharp dedicated team , with generous logistical support on the ground and more importantly in the sky ( helicopters) from Wyoming Game & Fish , followed by two years ~ of number crunching and analyses. Done, for the most part. It should also be mentioned that this Absaroka Elk Ecology Study had as cooperators all the various federal agencies …Fish & Wildlife ( especially) , National Park Service , BLM , Forest Service, etc.

      [ I might add as an aside that one very cold day in April I came upon Middleton and his assistant having a pow-wow in the middle of the Sunlight Road with the local Wildlife Services agent with two rifles in his gun rack , talking shop. They were observing four wolves lying in the sun across the river. 800 elk down below; four Moose nearby ; Mule Deer scattered everywhere; flock of wild turkeys; and two ranches with cattle could all be seen from that vantage. We all talked for a while then I let it slip I was pro-Wolf and a parttime photojournalist. The Wildlife Services guy drove away , towards town. This was about 10 AM. When we drove back out over Chief Joseph road later that day , that same Wildlife Services agent was driving back in. Make of that what you will. Just sayin’ , but WS personnel in the field in sight of wolves always raise flags with me. Wildlife Services was not a party to the AEE study. Their calling is elsewhere, out of sight for the most part ]

      My two points to help you understand the Middleton thesis defense should you choose to watch it ( worth the time ) , in the larger context of the Absaroka Elk Ecology Study and its patrons.

      1. From its inception and gestation , this study was frontloaded to definitively blame wolves for loss of hunting opportunity. They were going to show with hardrock science that wolves were disrupting elk herds, altering cow-calf ratios and calf recruitment , and generally diminishing elk herd health and numbers, blah blah. This was going to be the equivalent of a hired Special Prosecutor building a criminal case against the Mob ( the wolves) for the Grand Jury ( the sportsmen clubs/funders) to hand down indictments and sentences on racketeering charges ( damaging ” their” elk ).

      More importantly but never publically stated to my knowledge was the desire of the Wyoming Game and Fish to use the AEES as a ” boilerplate” to apply statewide ” management” of wolves in Wyoming predicated on proven negative impacts to elk herds. The Wyo G&F needed an outside body of evidence to bolster their internal department belief that wolves need to be managed down to ridiculously low level . If they had their way—and they HAVE said this publically —Wyo G&F would like to see all wolves simply go away outside Yellowstone Park . To WyGF’s mind, wolves have no positive value. Again, that is on the record from them ( Bill Rudd, Cody meeting on draft wolf management hunting plan , June 12, 2008 ) QED.

      If the Game & Fish could show quantitatively with peer reviewed vigor that wolves were having unacceptable impacts on big game, Wyo G&F would have a blunt tool to bludgeon them with excessive ” management” statewide . This study was to be that tool.

      Unfortunately , the science went elsewhere. Nevermind the particular study area—Clarks Fork , Crandall, Sunlight, Absaroka Front produced finds that turned out to be somewhat anomalous and could not easily be projected beyond its own boundaries. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is ~30 percent of the migratory elk in that area test seropostive for brucellosis since they summer on Yellowstone Park’s central plateau with other migratory elk in that National Brucellosis Reserve.

      What Middleton and his team did find were very strong indications that it was one the one hand climate change altering seasonal vegetation cycle was affecting elk life cycle , and on the other hand Grizzly Bears were gorging on newborn elk calves in the Spring…Bears taking many more times the number of elk calves than the relatively low number of wolves thereabouts. Wolves were more opportunistically taking the elk that the grizzlies killed for them as often as not. Uh oh…

      Middleton’s study went where the elitist hunting clubs and comemrcial outfitters and Wyo G&F did not want to go. While it somewhat left wolves on the hook for impacting elk populations thereabout , it was only as misdmeanor miscreants in the big game picture, not as the wideranging psychopathic serial killers of elk they were trying to indict. Truth be told, the elk herds in that part of Wyoming are growing in numbers well beyond G&F population objectives. The elk herds and sub-herds are both actively and passively adapting to a changing landscape and seasonality quicker than the hunters and Wyo G&F are able to adapt to that adaptation . Old attitudes die hard. The Elk, the Grizzlies, and the Wolves are learning and adapting much the faster.

      Middleton’s study leaves more questions than it answers. But somehow I don’t think Sportsmen for Sportsmen , Safaris-R-Us , Rocky Mountain Elk Put and Take, and the commercial hunting cabal are going to be funding any followon study. ( IMHO ). The hunters are back to Square One now. Wolves aren’t indictable.

      Which brings me to Point 2. This study was funded by hunters for hunters to support hunting, and as such is narrow. It’s important to note who was NOT at the table or asked to participate in the funding and support of the Absaroka Elk Ecology Study . Where were the greens , the GENUINE wildlife conservationists , and the nonconsumptive users of wildlife ? Where was the Greater Yellowstone Coalition , the Wyoming Wildlife Federation , and ten other conservation NGO’s ? They were not invited. [ Can you say ” shunned ” ? I can ]

      The bottom line is the Abasaroka Elk Ecology Study asks more questions than it truely answered. Which begs the obvious: will THOSE questions get a followon study ?

      Probably not. We can all patently see how little the State of Wyoming cares for science or ecological management of all wildlife , and its condescension in treating wolves, grizzlies, and cougars as negative influences to their own agenda. There are two definitions for ” predator”. One is for the lawyers representing ranchers, hunters, and outfitters who consider them a negative force and see only the monetary economics ; the other for the scientists and enlightened range cons who realize predation is a necessary and mostly positive force of nature that cannot be easily expressed in dollars. Unfortunately , management of the landscape and the wildlife is adhering to the Old School notion that predators are nuisance animals that cost producers and hunting. Even the ballyhooed North American Wildlife Conservation Model that hunters hold up as gospel fails miserably at acknowledging predator’s vital role in the synergy of wildlife. ALL wildlife, not just huntable big game. Even Teddy Roosevelt came around to realizing the value of apex predators and what we would call a more ‘ holistic’ approach to game. In Teddy’s day , the term Ecology did not yet exist

      Here we are in the 21st century , still using 19th century big game management. Art Middleton is writing on the wall, though…

      • Immer Treue says:

        I remember about 1.5 years ago, when some of Middleton’s work was put into print (NewWest?) And the anti’s jumped all over it as biased and funded by pro-wolf groups. One even said it was probably funded by Ralph. All one had to do was scroll to Project Funding, and it was a shopping list of groups one would say were inclined to be anti-wolf. When this was brought to some of the usual suspects attention, and they realized their pants were down around their ankles, they only shifted their attack, well it’s only one study.

        Agreed that it begs for more questions to be answered, but if outdoorsman are the least bit progressive, one would postulate that enlightenment would be desirable.

      • WM says:

        ++Here we are in the 21st century , still using 19th century big game management. Art Middleton is writing on the wall,…++

        Twenty-first century or not, it would appear indicators point to WY Game making the case for localized grizzly bear reductions (translocations?) where calf take is so high due to loss of other bear food sources. It also presents a rather interesting dilemma for the ESA, where recovery might be inhibited by externalities like environmental change (loss of food source in pine nuts). The shift to elk calves, then affects human opportunity for elk. States have a role to play in ESA administration, so expect the obvious in the coming years.

        Also does not mean the pressure is off wolves in this area, or elsewhere. If grizzlies are not present to kill food for wolves (as suggested by Cody and maybe researchers), they will certainly kill their own if opportunities present. They have to eat, regardless, and the more wolves the fewer calves. A friend that has watched wolves work over calving areas in parts of WY, taking live ones.

  57. jon says:

    “Also, Treves said, the wolf season as proposed is likely to result in many more wolves being killed than anticipated, possibly driving the population low enough to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to return the animal to the endangered species list. He said such factors as the long season, new and untested hunting methods such as using bait and night hunting, and the statewide nature of the hunt are all likely to lead to the deaths of too many wolves.”

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      A 25% take of wolves as proposed by Wisconsin looks good compared to Idaho or Montana.

      • Mike says:

        I love Montana. Love it. But the attitudes are better in the Great Lakes overall. People are just more tolerant, and I think it has something to do with cultural isolation.

  58. jon says:

    Two Minnesota men indicted over illegal wolf kills. Glad they were caught.

  59. Salle says:

    Mexican gray wolves form 2 new packs in American Southwest,0,4189711.story

  60. Salle says:

    What’s Next for Grizzly Bears?
    State and federal agencies are working on a new management plan

    • WM says:

      From the article, following discussion of how many is enough or too many, and an eventual need to manage their numbers:

      ++….Or mortality could occur by changing the way conflict bears are managed. Currently grizzlies are relocated after an incident, like breaking into a chicken coop. Depending on the severity, bears are given a number of chances. Under a new scenario those rules could be tightened and bears could be euthanized after one or two incidents.++

      What will that tolerance level be in a climate changed world with commensurate alteration of food sources, and more people. Is the current 1,000 grizzlies enough or do we have the stomach for 1,400 or higher in the Northern Continental Divide region?

  61. Salle says:

    Wyoming black bear conflicts increase

    Messy campers and dry weather have combined to make this early summer bear season a little worse than normal.

    Bighorn National Forest officials implemented their first temporary food storage order in the Porcupine Creek area because of black bear issues. Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials have had to kill two black bears and relocate two others in Jackson Hole.

    “Forest users have a responsibility to be good stewards to the land and wildlife, and just like you don’t leave an unattended campfire, you don’t leave food unattended. That’s a death sentence for a bear.”

  62. Leslie says:

    One of the many things I found interesting about Middleton’s study was that not only 6 out of 10 elk calves are predated mostly by grizzlies (this was a known fact beforehand) but that many new studies are showing that this rise in predation is largely around herds where cutthroat trout have declined due to Lake trout i.e. Yellowstone Lake. Studies are showing that grizzlies are replacing that food source with elk calves.

    As far as the article on ‘What’s next for Grizzlies?’ it seems that grizzlies are running into a very difficult food source situation. Today I took a hike in an area around Sunlight that used to be big white bark pine areas for grizzlies. Sadly, it seems all the large trees are dead. There are young white barks, but it takes over 50 years for them to cone. Last year in the Wind River mountains, one of the last strongholds, I noticed a perceptible decline in white bark compared just to the year before.

    • Salle says:

      This is also true in the Gravelly Mountains along the border of Idaho and Montana (about 40 miles west of YNP). All the white bark pines have been dead for some time and there seem to be more human/bear interactions in that area, and more bear sightings along the Lower West Fork at the north base of the range. So many humans using the public access areas who seem to lack consideration or knowledge of these factors… and leave messes at the primitive camping spots. Some just don’t want to know or listen to reason as they have some kind of mindset that makes them feel that they are exempt from the rules because there’s no camp monitors and/or the rules just don’t apply to them. Perhaps if there was less action taken against the bears and folks understood that they were there at their own risk… meaning that if a bear attacks them the bear won’t be hunted down for them, it might make a difference in how they manage themselves, maybe.

      • Leslie says:

        yes, yes! Enter at your own risk, armed with knowledge and some common sense.

        • rork says:

          And no weapons.
          I think I’ve told this before, but I really liked that hikers weren’t allowed serious weapons on the Reservation (west) side of the Mission range (Montana). Knowing your limitations makes you more fastidious and aware. We don’t want a griz to be killed, and this helps. Makes it less attractive to folks from Montana too, who use the east side, 45’s on thigh, dogs loose. It’s probably safer on the west slope.

    • Nancy says:

      Thanks for post it Jon.

      Ralph, Ken, Brian? This might be worth a topic 🙂

  63. CodyCoyote says:

    Once in a great while, the gears mesh and the shaft turns, and Wyoming lurches forward one increment towards the Present. Serial big game poachers can now be prosecuted as criminal felons and all that goes with that.

    This kid was bad. He’d been convicted twice for poaching trophy buck deer, then went straight back to blasting FIVE bucks just a couple days after being sentenced to probation for the earlier charge. Now he’s doing hard time and has lost his hunting privileges for a lifetime in the 37 states who have a wildlife compact.

    19 years old. Wyoming. Serial poacher. People are not born with this kind of behavior in their DNA…it must be learned. I’d say some statewide soul searching might be in order in my home state of Wyoming.

    • WM says:


      ++People are not born with this kind of behavior in their DNA…it must be learned++

      I was under the impression that even after extensive research and case analysis, it has not been conclusively proven whether such behavior is genetic or the result of environmental influences, or even more likely a combination of both > bad genes + bad environment = serial (psychopathic) behavior.

      • Immer Treue says:


        I would hazard a guess that the Conservative Religious Right would disagree about “bad” genes.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        Respectfully disagree. My original point is based on my having known more game poachers the past 50+ years than I probably should admit publically. I would say that in the overwhelming number of cases known to me , the inclination to poach was a derivative of social and cultural motivation ( nurture) , and to a much lesser extent an inherited psychopathy of ” just wanting to kill something” ( nature) . I will concede that the genetics of such bad behavior are probably present at some level of latency , then triggered by those social/cultural motives learned from dad, grandad, uncle Louie, or some other patron of the Dark Arts. ( I’m excluding the subsistence poacher here ).

        Hard to say for sure since such a small number of poachers are ever prosecuted , unfortunately.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          Respectfull disagree with WM, not you Immer. The blog sorted my reply comment out of order.

          • WM says:


            I think I agree with you mostly in the larger context, except for this kid. Something else going on there, which jail time may not fix.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Opiates, meth, buggered by uncle Louie, jack Daniels, mom on Jack Daniels during pregnancy, beaten by father, bullied by others, uncle Louie, brother(s), jilted, doesn’t give a rats ass about life with no differentiation between right and wrong, sorry, but not the cause of genes. Something environmental/nurture ran amok with this individual.

  64. CodyCoyote says:

    Sixteen grizzlies have already died this summer. Ten from natural causes, which is at odds with the trend in more recent years when human-caused mortalities were the primary cause… just 37 eprcent this year vs. 65 percent by mid-summer.

    One thing I do know. Once Wyoming is up and running with its attrition Wolf Hunts , possibly this fall or coming winter , you can bet the Wyoming ranch that Wyoming’s attention from the Governor’s office and statehouse all the way down to the barber shop and gun shop will turn to attrition hunts of Grizzly bears to reduce their numbers . The push will be on to delist grizzlies and issue tags.

  65. rork says: “Wisconsin Natural Resources Board approves 2012 wolf hunt quota, zones and rules”.
    As expected, dogs OK, night hunting OK, trapping OK, quota of 201 wolves. I also notice electronic calls are permitted, which is against many people’s and organization’s rules of what is fair. That number didn’t seem too crazy to me though. Their goal of just 350 living wolves in the state seemed low.

  66. Salle says:

    Add your say to block management program

    Both resident and non-resident hunters, landowners and interested Montanans should take 10 minutes to provide answers to the Rural Landscape Institute’s survey. While this year’s block management guide will be available starting Aug. 15, the institute will accept comments through Aug. 31 and will post the results on its website in September.

    And let’s hope those results point the way to a thriving block management system for Montana.

    Take the survey:

    The Rural Landscape Institute’s block management survey, which takes about 10 minutes to complete, can be found on the organization’s website at The survey will close on Aug. 31. To request a paper survey, call the institute at (406) 522-7654 or send an email to info@rurallandscape

    • elk275 says:


      What are you going to say?

      Here is my take. Resident hunters are charged a two dollar access when they purchase there hunting licence. Two whole dollars. A cup of coffee in a 24 hour gas station is between $1.00 and $2.00, a pack of chips $2.00 and an after hunting beer is $3.00. I feel that the resident access fee should be the average state wide cost of ten gallons of gasoline from the previous year. My F-150 gets between 15 and 17 miles per gallon the approximate cost for this year’s access would $35.00. Seniors and youths should be given a break, maybe the cost of 5 gallons of gas. An average day of hunting I usually use between 15 and 20 gallons, $50 to $70 a day.

      Currently there are landowners willing to enroll in the Block Management program but are unable to because of funding shortfalls. Landowners are complaining about hunters not following the rules. Additional funding would also allow for additional law enforcement. It is a win-win situation for hunters, landowners and even non consumptive users. This would allow for millions of additional acres to be enrolled, proper law enforcement, and the hunter would be able to hunt closer to home saving on fuel.

      But the typical Montana hunter wants everything free yet has the money to drive a $40,000 truck with $6,000 4 wheelers on the truck bed pulling a travel trailer. The typical Montana hunter does not understand or recognize a win win situation.

      Now Mike wants ten dollar a gallon which would raise the access fee to $100, that is unrealistic and counter productive. .

      • JB says:


        Just to put things in perspective… This past weekend, my wife and I took my son (for the first time) to the Chicago Field Museum.

        Entrance fee for adults: $29
        Entrance fee for children: $20
        Parking: $22

        Total cost for 3 of us for 1 day: $100

        -I agree with you 100%

        • Harley says:

          Ouch JB…pricey. I remember when the kids were little, we’d pack a lunch but we had to be careful, some places don’t even let you do that. Saving money these days is a real challenge.

  67. DLB says:

    “Eatonville man pleads guilty to 17 counts of bear baiting.”

    “They had a chair that they kind of designated the bear hunting chair,” says Christensen. “It’s kind of a fair chase issue. It’s not very sporting to put that bait out.”

  68. amanda says:

    Sad news of a Mexican wolf death.

    • skyrim says:

      “new chief for species conservation”
      Geez, and I thought there would be a cartoon or a parody of some kind attached here. You must need one of these on board to qualify from some federal handout program……

  69. Salle says:

    Iceberg breaks off from Greenland’s Petermann Glacier

  70. aves says:

    More endangered aplomado falcons released in TX:

  71. CodyCoyote says:

    Here is an article about new U. of Wyoming research into forest wildfire ecology that definitely stirs the ashes…

    • Salle says:

      I am certain you’re right that it will stir some ashes and ruffle some feathers. After having a “spirited” discussion on this topic with a buddy who is well educated and having a lot of experience fighting wildfires, I am deliberating as to whether I should send this to them. I know it will invoke yet another “spirited” discussion. Not sure I’m clearly armed for it but it would be interesting to hear their views on the study.

      A good read at any rate. My take is that, if actually so, it would go far in backing my thoughts that we have made some incorrect assumptions about what was here before and that we just have some innate drive to control nature in ways that aren’t necessarily appropriate… regardless of what the “market” might indicate or desire. We appear to be unabated control freaks when it comes to what is a state of nature and what we presume to be the best management practices. “Management” being the operative – and problematic – term. We have to control everything as though the natural world somehow needs our input and “management” which ultimately doesn’t do us much good even though we’re certain that we know best.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Timz and all,

      I have put off writing about this because the time period is is short and the number of dead grizzlies so little different from last year that we can say that it is just as likely that this is just chance.

      More time and data must be had. These stories are premature in my opinion

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Another one on the Grizzly mortality subject:
      Biologists puzzled by grizzly bear deaths in northwest Wyoming
      Read more:
      Ah yes, the readership of the Gazette discusses this of course. Some suspect a conspiracy! Now, that delisting (and of course “management”) of the Grizzly is on the horizon, biologists come up with mortality numbers to spoil the fun! That’s the Billings Gazette that I love! Whereas, on the contrary, in another recent comment to a similar article, the author turned this into a pro-delisting argument! It shows (to him at least) that the available habitat is now saturated and – you guess – “management” is necessary.

  72. Salle says:

    Some food for thought

    …only problem for the guy and those who would like to follow his lead is that there has to be a wild in order to do that.

  73. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Would-be wolf trappers quickly fill FWP’s inaugural class
    Read more:

  74. Salle says:

    2nd bear seen at Pa. mall where another got stuck

    Can anyone deny that habitat reduction is not an issue here?

    • Salle says:

      Oops, double negative… not what I meant to say. Help from moderators, please delete this one.

  75. Salle says:

    2nd bear seen at Pa. mall where another got stuck

    Can anyone claim that habitat reduction is not an issue here?

    • Salle says:

      Well you know, you can’t have protected wild animals out there enjoying habitat that you want to sell off to the highest bidder who wants to destroy the habitat for a quarterly profit after all. (Besides, you can’t have wild animals out there running around wild… somebody might have to engage in independent cognition to keep from getting hurt by those dirty wild animals who won’t be useful as serfs or consumers of their products… )

  76. WM says:

    Chinese seek oil and oil sands energy sources in Canada in big strategic move. What would be like to regulate THEM, and will US/Canadian concerns kill a deal?

  77. Hello all, I work at Wildlife Alliance and wanted to share our latest project with you.

    Cambodia offers a rich array of plant and animal species, many of which currently find themselves threatened. Wildlife Alliance, Trigger, Jeff Corwin Connect, and TRAFFIC partnered to create an educational app to aid the ongoing efforts to preserve this region’s lush wildlife. Wildlife Watch provides both educational information on various Southeast Asian species and tools to aid conservation efforts.

    Wildlife Watch

  78. Salle says:

    Seen any feral pigs in Idaho? Call the N.W. ‘swine line’

    Somehow I can imagine that some politicians may be reported as well… 😉

  79. Salle says:

    Wyoming Game and Fish crews capture, move grizzly bear

    Not much info beyond the headline but the usual admonition for people to be “bear aware” while camping is included. Heaven forbid humans should have to control their actions in the wild to avoid those unpleasant bear contact issues…

    • Harley says:

      I just love how they still don’t think cougars are breeding in Michigan. They have to be coming from Minnesota and Wisconsin after all! lol!

  80. CodyCoyote says:

    We Cro-Magnons seem have a nasty habit of wiping out species, even our close relatives…

    • louise kane says:

      In case you have not seen this, it was posted on the WCCL

      Argument arsenal: Base wolf plans on independent studies; trapping has no place in 21st century

      Guest column by APRIL LANE
      In response to Mark Holyoak’s (July 18) guest column, it is important to note that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks are not the only folks with access to science and biology.

      For every so-called scientific study that attempts to give credence to the extreme predator “management” policies and anti-wolf rhetoric currently being pushed by the likes of RMEF CEO and President David Allen, opposing studies can be found, legitimate in scholarship. There’s a reason the family of Olaus Murie (“the father of modern elk management”) has withdrawn support from RMEF, citing RMEF’s “unscientific and untenable anti-wolf policies” in their open letter this past week.

      As consumers of information, we can better serve ourselves by seeking out studies by independent wolf biologists, as opposed to studies by “experts” who are on the payrolls of special interest groups. The fact that individuals or organizations have an opinion does not preclude us or them from having experience or knowledge based on science and biology. Simply stated, just because we disagree with you does not make us wrong.

      Montana’s wolf management plan may have been devised a decade ago, but things have changed. Thankfully, we have evolved and continue to do so. As a society, we acknowledge that animals are sentient beings, capable of many of the same emotions as ourselves. The trapping component of said management plan has no place in our society – this is the 21st century.

      As a veterinary technician who has seen these injuries firsthand, I challenge anyone to tell me that animals do not suffer when they are caught in any of the types of traps that litter our public lands. Animals caught in traps can languish for days; starving, unable to defend themselves as they fall victim to predator attacks, waiting for their killers to finally check their traplines; waiting to be strangled, stomped on the chest, beaten, injected with household chemicals – just to preserve the hide for a few bucks. This is reality, not a “knee-jerk” emotional reaction. This is the fate of not just endangered and/or struggling species such as wolverines and fishers, but your dog or cat, or any other animal unfortunate enough to come across a trap. No matter how you feel about wolves, no creature deserves to die in this way.

      Let’s look at the numbers.

      • For every one target animal, there are at least two non-target animals trapped and discarded due to injury.

      • There are more than 800,000 reported trapping deaths since 1996 in Montana (many are never reported).

      • Trapping is practiced by less than 2 percent of Montanans.

      • Trapping brings to Montana revenue of less than $100,000 – wildlife viewing brings in millions of dollars.

      Also consider:

      • There is no trap check requirement in Montana; animals can be left in traps for days, suffering from pain, cold, hunger, thirst and vulnerable to predator attacks.

      • Hunting ethics would not tolerate the torture of an animal, or allow it to suffer for days.

      • Trapping is not fair chase.

      • Trapping is cruel and indiscriminate.

      • Trapping can’t guarantee a clean kill.

      • Trapping promotes the commercialization of publicly owned wildlife.

      • With thousands of traps set on public lands, and now another layer of larger and potentially lethal traps for wolves, no one really can know the sheer number of traps on our public lands, or the actual number of animals caught or killed.

      • Larger traps have the potential to become a public safety issue.

      Please, don’t make the argument that other states use trapping in their arsenal of management tools. Just because someone else does it, doesn’t make it right. Many individual ranchers, towns and cities are endorsing non-lethal alternatives to predator management, as they acknowledge the role of the predator in sustaining a healthy ecosystem.

      And to those who trap, please don’t tell me that trapping gives some kind of spiritual connection to the victim in your trap. And don’t tell this Montanan that I don’t have a spiritual connection to wildlife because I prefer to see them alive in their environment. Take it from a former trapper:

      “The days of trapping are over. It is now time to preserve Montana’s wildlife.” – Chuck Jonkel, wildlife biologist and former trapper.

      April Lane is a veterinary technician and supporter of Footloose Montana, a nonprofit organization that promotes trap-free public lands in Montana.

  81. Salle says:

    Livestock Liquidation: Extreme Drought Forces Ranchers to Sell Herds
    As prairies bake, so do Plains cows.

    “If you’ve been thinking about becoming a vegetarian, or at least cutting down on your meat consumption, now may be the time to act.

    The New York Times reports that, “As a relentless drought bakes prairie soil to dust and dries up streams across the country, ranchers struggling to feed their cattle are unloading them by the thousands, a wrenching decision likely to ripple from the Plains to supermarket shelves over the next year.”

    They go on to explain, “Heat, drought and high feed prices are leading many ranchers on the Plains to winnow their herds. Ranchers say they are reducing their herds and selling their cattle months ahead of schedule to avoid the mounting losses of a drought that now stretches across a record-breaking 1,016 American counties.”

    And it’s not just in the plains…

    More emergency grazing opened for drought-stricken cattle

  82. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Wolf hunting, trapping season dates set; archery begins Sept. 1
    “This year we sought, and the commission approved, additional management tools to help reach a social balance that better reflects biological realities and public tolerance and values”
    No, this is not Mark Gamblin preaching his usual sermon. It’s a guy from Montana FWP. They all go through the same rhetoric seminars.

    • WM says:

      MT wolf population at 653+ (likely 10 to 30 percent more than counted). Bow hunting season begins Sept. 1, followed by rifle hunting Sept. 15 and with a Feb. 28 closing (mostly a time for good pelts, and with a bow season at the start which would likely yield fewer kills). Would be trappers must be certified after training; 48 hour trap checks; restrictions on types of traps; trap set-backs at trailheads and elsewhere, mid-course corrections on quota if hunting/trapping produces larger harvest. Mostly protective buffer adjacent to YNP and Glacier NP. And admission by the agency it wants to trim back population to a previously stated objective (before wolf advocacy litigation allowed the population to grow well beyond what MT and USFWS, under the original delisting rule, agreed was an acceptable number, which is still be 4.5X their obligation of 100 wolves in 10 breeding pairs under the ESA or the Congressional rider which is the law of the land).

      Sounds very much to me like a sound and responsible state wildlife management plan, properly vetted and approved in conjunction with its other wildlife management objectives. The legal alternative, of course, is scorched earth policy killing by any means and anywhere, with only a hundred wolves with 10 breeding pairs maximum.

      And then, a little bueaucratic speak spin from a Department spokesperson.

      • Louise Kane says:

        WM I spoke in person with some of the commissioners in Montana at great length over the last two years, and the “sound management” plan you speak of was the result of a great deal of pressure that was exerted on this commission and largely against their wisdom. Montana never intended to include trapping. This method of hunting was foisted on them via a great deal of pressure to increase quota, include trapping, (and snaring which was eliminated before this season). Your defense of the current RM management plans is odd.

        • Louise Kane says:

          and WM the properly vetted and approved of portion of your defense is questionable after examining the comments that were written in response to the solicitation for comments. I’ve got a copy of them that was sent to me if you’d like to read them.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      The Montana archery wolf hunt quota of one wolf near Glacier National Park has already been met. That is the only quota they saw fit to impose in the state. Why they couldn’t protect the boundary of Yellowstone I will never know accept they think that a bad governor will otherwise be elected (Republican Rick Hill) who will fire the commission and appoint people who are not so friendly to wildlife. With friends like these . . .

  83. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Indian Supreme Court places temporary ban on tiger tourism (?)

    To be honest, despite having read this from different sources now, it´s not complete transparent to me, what the Supreme Court actually ruled. Because most Tiger reserves already have “core zones” where no human activity is allowed and “buffer zones”, where agriculture, even limited hunting (not tigers of course) and tourism activity is possible. Maybe the ban is only for those parks that do not already have identified such zones.
    On the other hand, if there would really be a ban, I´m sure poaching would skyrocket!
    I think only the tourists that come to see a tiger and spend money in the local communities at least somewhat guarantee the tigers safety. Leave the forests to the few remaining “rangers” and poachers just need to show a bundle of rupees (or better dollars) and the forest will be theirs.

  84. Paul says:

    It just keeps getting worse for wolves in Wisconsin. I received copies of these emails that were sent by the Wisconsin DNR. Hounders will be able to run their dogs against wolves for 12 months of the year under the guise of “training” on private land. then they will be able to shoot wolves “attacking” their dogs on private land without any restrictions.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Complete BS! I wonder if private land owners can shoot “trespassing”hounds? Whether rural legend or not, I’ve been made aware it is never good to allow one’s dogs to chase wildlife.

      Big fear here is if hounders find den and rendezvous sites. Otherwise, it would be pretty tough to keep up with their dogs. Did not see anything about numbers, but “hunting” wolves with hounds, if I remember correctly, one is limited to six dogs. Does sound a bit like hunting without a license.

      • Paul says:

        For “training” they do not need any license and can run their dogs against wolves on private land for the entire year. If the wolf turns to “attack” the dogs being “trained” the hounder can kill it without any repercussions. On DNR land they can do it for 8 1/2 to 10 months of the year. This runs right through the deer season. This is a recipe for disaster and some hunters are even questioning the wisdom of this insanity. It is Scott Suder and the bear hounders who are behind this so when things go to hell they are the ones who the furor needs to come down on.

        If they are “hunting” wolves they are limited to six dogs, but I don’t think that there is any limit if they are “training.” On private property there is pretty much zero regulation. The hounders have taken over all aspects of hunting in Wisconsin and now claim to be the “voice” of the state’s hunting community. It sure would be nice to see more hunter come out against the hounders and knock them off of the mantle that they hijacked. Things are far worse in this state than I ever imagined. The further I dig, the more disturbing it gets. Just take the “depredation payment” program that I wrote about where wolves automatically get blamed for ANY depredation over 2.3% as long as there is one confirmed wolf depredation, and “evidence” of wolves being near the property. This program resulted in the DNR paying $190,000 for “missing” calves for 2012 with ZERO evidence that wolves were involved because there were NO bodies. Last year there were 25 “missing” calves. This year there were 257? Something is very wrong here. We are also working on getting other figures from the DNR and more is about to come out.

        • jon says:

          Paul, the natives over there in WI are against hunting of wolves and a lot of others are as well. I hope there will be a lawsuit to stop the wolf hunt. Suder should have really thought things out carefully and talked to the wolf experts at the Wisconsin dnr before he decided to come out with this insane so called wolf management plan. To allow baiting and letting hunters use their dogs on wolves is disgusting. Hound hunting in WI needs to also be banned.

        • JB says:

          I would be interested to know how many people in Wisconsin hunt bears with dogs. The number may be so small as to be meaningless?

          Also relevant: how closely are dogs trailed in this type of hunting (these are coursing hounds, right)? I’m thinking Fido may be dead before any would-be wolf shooter can fire a shot? Ma’?

          • Paul says:

            Bear hounding is quite popular in the northern part of the state, and the bear hounders have huge political sway for some reason. In 2009 bear hounders killed 1,387 bears in Wisconsin, and almost 1,300 in 2010. so there are quite a few here. Those are just the ones that were able to kill a bear. There were likely many more out there who either didn’t kill bear or didn’t get a kill tag. These are the ones who wrote the wolf kill bill and they have been begging to go after wolves for years. Even if they don’t get a wolf kill tag, you can bet that many of them will be pursuing wolves to “train” their dogs. There are going to be many dogs and likely wolves killed in this fiasco. No matter what anyone thinks about hunting wolves in general there can be no reasonable justification to allow packs of dogs to go after them. Even Idaho and Montana don’t allow this and they seem to allow everything short of cluster bombs.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “Also relevant: how closely are dogs trailed in this type of hunting (these are coursing hounds, right)? I’m thinking Fido may be dead before any would-be wolf shooter can fire a shot? Ma’?”

            These will be scent hounds, the same dogs used on other species. The technique is to get the dogs moving the wolf and then try to intercept it in a place where one can make a reasonable shot, same as is done with coyotes.

            My intel is that this will involve a very small subset of hound hunters, in areas that have sufficient road density to allow the shooter to attempt to get ahead of the wolf.

            The dogs have radio collars, but for species that don’t tree the handlers need road access in order to have a decent chance to take a shot, and also to get the dogs back at the end of the chase. They don’t just return on their own, so it’s common to spend many hours rounding up the dogs.

            The great intangible is how the wolves will react – the dogs are mostly well ahead of the handlers, so they will be vulnerable, and a wolf can dispatch one of these hounds in a matter of seconds.

            Based on observations of wolves killing hounds that trespass on rendezvous sites, wolves have some sense of numbers – they are far more likely to kill dogs when they have a numbers advantage. And in terms of a simple chase, there is no trailing hound alive that will outlast a wolf in pure endurance.

            Whether coursing hounds will ever be used remains to be seen – a pack of coursing hounds would be far too expensive for an individual to buy and train, but it’s possible that an outfitter might undertake such an endeavor, and then book clients for hunts. Even so, I’ve read mixed reviews about their effectiveness against wolves on a wooded landscape.

            And BTW, pursuit with dogs only works when there’s snow on the ground or off a bait site – it’s up to the handler to find fresh tracks. You don’t just let the dogs go and hope that they find fresh wolf scent – they might take off after a bear, coyote, bobcat or whatever.

            • Immer Treue says:


              Well put, and therein lies the insanity. Hounders require roads. They can’t join the pursuit on foot. Wolves won’t tree, nor will they run, in particular with pups in the vicinity. Wisconsin has, in a sense, legalized dog fighting. Being reimbursed for loosing a dog while hunting wolves is pure insanity, and I would think that if individuals value their animals, they would not use them to hunt wolves. Joint ventures with a known rendezvous site might be the biggest danger for wolves. But would hounders working in teams be illegal, ie more than six dogs?

            • ma'iingan says:

              “But would hounders working in teams be illegal, ie more than six dogs?”

              It’s illegal to use more than six dogs in a single pack, regardless of the number of hunters or the dogs’ ownership.

              As far as the rendezvous site issue, most are abandoned by the time that the wolf season will begin on October 15th. And it would be extremely foolhardy to put dogs on a wolf trail near a known rendezvous site.

            • JB says:

              Thanks for your thoughts on this. I have zero experience around hounds (some around bird dogs), so this is all very new to me.

            • Immer Treue says:

              There was a YouTube video a year or two ago taken by deer hunters,a doctor or his son while in tree stands. They filmed 13 wolves. It appeared the pups were all playing, and the adults were all “standing guard.” this was supposedly filmed in Wisconsin. That many wolves in a
              Group would be rare, but…if hounds came across something like that…

            • ma'iingan says:

              “Being reimbursed for loosing a dog while hunting wolves is pure insanity…”

              There is no reimbursement for dogs killed by wolves while hunting wolves or training on wolves. This does not prevent a houndsman from claiming that he was hunting or training on other species, but it shouldn’t be difficult to verify since most hound hunting and training on wolves will be conducted with snow on the landscape.

            • Paul says:

              Act 169 says that hounders will not be reimbursed while “hunting” wolves but it says nothing about “training.” This is what I found:

              “The department shall administer a wolf depredation program under which payments may be made to persons who apply for reimbursement for death or injury caused by wolves to livestock, to hunting dogs other than those being actively used in the hunting of wolves, and to pets and for management and control activities conducted by the department for the purpose of reducing such damage caused by wolves.”

              Is training excluded from reimbursement? I don’t trust hounders one bit and I am not so sure most hunters do either. This whole plan is nothing but a disaster in the making.

            • jon says:

              Paul, what does that wolf expert Adrian something who works for the Wisconsin dnr think about houndsmen chasing wolves with their hounds?

            • Paul says:

              Jon, I believe you are talking about Adrian Wydeven. I haven’t personally talked to him in a few months, but he was never invited to the “hearings” before the legislature, so what does that say? I don’t think that he has an issue with a limited hunting season, but I know for a fact that there are many in the DNR who have serious concerns about the use of dogs against wolves.

            • jon says:

              That’s the guy Paul. I know Richard Thiel is against using dogs to pursue wolves. I haven’t heard anything from the other wolf experts at the Wisconsin dnr and their take on using hounds to chase wolves, but my own belief is that they have a lot of concerns. Wolves and dogs don’t mix well. Wolves will not run from dogs. They will stand their ground and kill the dogs. Since you live in WI, you would know better than most. Are you aware of any houndsmen in WI that want to chase wolves with their hounds? The people that you have talked to on this wolf issue, are they against or for using hounds to chase wolves?

            • ma'iingan says:

              “Is training excluded from reimbursement?”

              NR 12.65 Personal property. The department may not provide compensation for damage done by wolves to personal property other than livestock, hunting dogs that are not dogs used for or being trained for hunting or pursuing wolves, and pets.

            • Immer Treue says:


              Thanks for insights and clarifications.

          • Louise Kane says:

            I know you’ll object to this purely emotional response JB but is there any number so small that its meaningless in a heinous “sport” like this for the dogs or wolves? A truly offensive, horrifying practice.

      • jon says:

        Immer or Paul, maybe you can answer this question for me. I once heard a rumor that domestic dogs seen harassing or chasing wildlife can be shot on sight by wildlife officers. If this is true, why are they allowing hound hunting of wildlife? I don’t understand the logic from guys like Suder. Don’t they know that wolves WILL KILL dogs and yet they ok letting dogs chase wolves? Makes no sense, but I think Paul is right in saying that Suder is good buddies with the houndsmen on WI. Hopefully, a lawsuit will stop this hunt as there are legit reasons to wanting to stop this hunt. Letting dogs pursue wolves is going to be a bad outcome for the dogs. One thing that always irked me is how houndsmen get reimbursed for when one of their hounds is killed by wolves. They know wolves are out there and still allow their hounds to run around and chase wildlife.

        • Tim says:

          Hunting wolves with dogs seems to work pretty good in Scandinavia. I don’t see why it would work in the great lakes. You just have to know how to do it. First you wait for snow then go find a track. Make sure it is by itself and section off the area with fladry. Let the hounds loose and get to where you can see the area good. The point is to shoot the wolf while its running in front of the dogs. Just like deer hunting with dogs (which is allowed in several states in the south east US) you don’t want the dogs to actually catch the animal. Using the dogs helps flush the animals from the thick brush that they hide in. I wouldn’t worry to much about Idaho and Montana using dogs. Its well documented that the western grey wolf cannot be hunted consistently with dogs. Teddy Roosevelt describes this in his book “Outdoor Pastimes of the American Hunter”. The fact is that there probably wont be very many wolves killed with the use of dogs if any. The time period that they will use dogs is a very small window. You can’t hunt them on dry ground, the wolves are too fast for any hound to catch up to.

          • Paul says:

            Did you not see what was posted? They are allowed to go after wolves with hounds for 12 MONTHS on private land. How is that a “small window?” And if any wolf turns to attack they can kill it. No license, nothing needed. Do you have any idea how rabid and bloodthirsty the hounders are in this state? Do a YouTube search and watch how they allow their dogs to rip bears to shreds. All illegal of course, but the state DNR does nothing about it. I can’t believe that anyone would defend this practice.

            • Tim says:

              You didn’t read my post. Its a small window because you can’t do it on dry ground effectively. You can’t tell how many there are and your dogs will NEVER catch up to them! It’s pretty simple.

            • Louise Kane says:

              yes how can anyone defend this practice, pretty outrageous

          • jon says:

            Hunting wolves with dogs won’t work in states like Wisconsin. Wolves have killed dogs in Idaho. By letting dogs chase after wolves, you may just be giving your dogs a death sentence. There are so many things wrong with the Wisconsin wolf hunt, I would really be surprised if a lawsuit isn’t filed to stop it. Even retired Wisconsin wolf expert Richard Thiel has come out against some of the things hunters and houndsmen would be able to do to wolves in this upcoming wolf hunt in WI.

        • Paul says:


          The whole idea of allowing packs of hounds to go after any wildlife goes against any concept of “fair chase” in my opinion. It is illegal to use dogs to kill wildlife but hounders keep adding more and more species to the list that they are allowed to go after. Basically they have turned dogs into weapons and have legalized dog fighting (coyotes and wolves). In Wisconsin they are allowed to use dogs against bears, coyotes, bobcats, wolves, raccoons, and even turkeys. Turkeys??!!!! While states like California are looking at banning hounding, Wisconsin is adding more and more species and time for hounders to practice their sick “sport.” The idea that they can “train” their dogs to go after wolves for 12 months is even more disturbing than the hunting season. That along with the 4 1/2 month season of 24 hour a day hunting means that potentially wolves will be a target 24 hours a day for 365 days. A line has been crossed with what is being allowed here and if there was ever something that needed to be challenged in court, this is it. Suder is a shill for ALEC and the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, who wrote the bill with their seven lawyers.

          After starting the Wisconsin Wildlife Ethic site, I was absolutely horrified at what I have found out about how wildlife is “managed” in this state. It was far worse than I ever imagined. Many the DNR biologists that we have talked to (both active and retired) know that there is something vary wrong in this state, but they are too afraid to speak up because of the Walker Gestapo that runs the state. I posted the testimony from the Natural Resources Board hearing last week on the Wisconsin Wildlife Ethic site. It is absolutely stunning what Suder and the hounders said at the hearing. Suder is demanding that the DNR set the 350 number in stone and whined that the quota was “too low.” Then there were rants from hounders and trappers about the “antis.” It was disgusting what these people want to allow.

          • jon says:

            Hounding in WI definitely needs to be banned. I have no doubt that many more people in WI if shown what hound hunting is all about, they would oppose it and support a ban of it. Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania, etc have all banned hound hunting one form or another. Hopefully, CA will join this list. Hound hunting, baiting, using electronic calls, etc are not fair chase at all. I am really hoping that a lawsuit will stop this upcoming hunt in WI.

          • jon says:

            Wow, that is pretty sad Paul. It seems like your state may be worse than Idaho or Wyoming. Hounds should not be allowed to chase and harass wildlife.

            • Paul says:


              The ONLY good thing to come out of this is that it sheds light on the brutality that is condoned in Wisconsin wildlife “management.” Baiting, hounding, and all forms of trapping are perfectly acceptable in this state and actively encouraged by the DNR. Next they are gunning for sandhill cranes and even seagulls to appease the extremists in the Wisconsin Farm Bureau. Check out what handouts and unlimited killing this group wants:


    • Louise Kane says:

      Paul a lawsuit is challenging this provision….

  85. amanda says:

    At odds with science:

    “Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation offer valuable intel that could help more hunters enjoy the challenge and fill their wolf tag this fall”

    • Rita K. Sharpe says:

      What science? They all seem to proclaim that it is based on sound science.I don’t trust the government doing the right thing,much less these people. Just keep the people worked up and centered on something,and just pull the rug out under them and than just blame the other Party.

  86. aves says:

    Bear cubs rescued and reunited with mom:

    I’d swear I counted 4 cubs climbing out and only 3 walking away w/mom.

  87. aves says:

    A must read for anyone concerned about the whooping crane:

  88. DLB says:

    “California, federal officials reveal water-tunnel plan”

    “California Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled plans for a $14 billion tunnel system to divert abundant Northern California water to thirsty Southern California cities and farms that grow half of the nation’s fresh produce”

  89. jon says:

    “Using a University of Michigan study, the letter suggests if gray wolves were allowed to repopulate the area, there would be a potential loss of between 132 and 1,184 cows or calves per year.”

    Has anyone seen this “study”?

  90. Jerry Black says:

    “Nature Conservancy” issues death sentence for the only wild bison in Idaho

    • Salle says:

      Jerry, thanks for the info. I called and let my disgust be known and admonished the Nature Conservancy for being a disgrace to the name of their organization. If I had known that they were responsible for all that cattle out there, I would have made a point of complaining about it a long time ago.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Thanks Jerry, The Nature Conservancy’s Flat Creek Ranch is just that, a ranch, with a touch of streambank protection for Henry’s Lake Outlet stream. It could be a haven for pronghorn, deer, elk, and moose. They are present part of the year in small numbers, but most of the year it is just full of cows to appease (originally, at least) the Fremont County (Idaho) Commission. My photo on Google Earth tells it all. See photo of “Idaho wildlife 😉 on Henry’s Lake Flat.”

      • skyrim says:

        Ok so a mistake was made. Given the amount of good BFC does in this area, I’m gonna give em a pass on this one. Now……….
        I haven’t given money to TNC in years, but when I did, I sure didn’t do it so they could buy cattle grazing parcels and call it wildlife habitat.

        • WM says:


          I suppose it might be worthwhile to give some thought to the fact they might not have been able to buy it without a continuing revenue source (Ralph also said there might have been some political pressure applied by County Commissioners), or that it might be used to preserve some habitat that might otherwise become a subdivision if sold to someone else, or that it could serve as a model for less destructive ranching practices that other locals might eventually employ? Or, that in the long run it might all go to habitat as everyone hopes, while it is gradually being restored to a better state as a well run working ranch, with a way of funding improvements? All things to consider.

          As for BFC, I agree they are doing good things. On the other hand, when choosing to pull the trigger and defame a top notch conservation group that actually saves habitat acres, maybe some BFC fact checkers should have done a little research or even just called TNC to confirm what happened (duh).

          Otherwise it sends some of the passionate, who live to jump down somebody’s throat, to the phone or keyboard (Salle I hope you read this.). Maybe these kids that follow the buffalo learned a lesson. I certainly hope so. Then there is the part about what happens the next time a bison shows up and actually gets on somebody’s private land. Is there a plan in place on how to deal with it before it gets thumped? Could it be sent live back to where it came from or taken to somewhere until a permanant keeper is found? Oops looks like that already happened today, Saturday 7/26, to a second wandering bison as noted in Elizabeth Laden’s post below.

          Ken, I do hope you respond on this forum, on BFC’s bahalf as a Board Member of that organization, and tell us what is going on with both BFC and if any plans can be put together. Thanks in advance for a reply.

          • Nancy says:

            “On the other hand, when choosing to pull the trigger and defame a top notch conservation group that actually saves habitat acres”

            WM – correct me if I’m wrong here.. but hasn’t there been quite a bit of discussion going on here recently regarding RMEF and its past representation as a “top notch” conservation group?

            • WM says:


              There are a couple of different dimensions to your comment, and those two organizations have different missions. But one large one in common, in my view, is habitat protection for all wildlife. RMEF and TNC do excellent jobs in that area, even cooperating to acquire some habitat and give it over to states or the federal government. RMEF doesn’t keep most of the property it acquires (I think some guy in AZ or NM gave them a big ranch at one time, and it may have had strings attached to keep it). The other issue is at least for RMEF is the wolf thing, and there is some internal tension we have spoken of here. I don’t know if they have ever taken a position on bison, but doubt it.

              Can’t say I know much about TNC’s policy on bison, even if they have one. They probably don’t other than an ultimate desire to protect their investment in the Flat Ranch or other properties and whatever is on it. I would guess it is supported by science, whatever it is. By the way, TNC has figured out being in the middle ground makes it a whole lot more successful in its mission than purely pissing allies off, as some advocacy groups do, and never acquire an acre in the process. Maybe those groups make political alliances that sometimes work, and sometimes not. BFC has, I suspect, some fence to mend with TNC after this fiasco.

    • Bob says:

      “PATAGONIA, ARIZONA | November 30, 2012
      The Nature Conservancy is alerting hikers and outdoor enthusiasts that a mountain lion has been spotted several times in recent weeks at the Patagonia-Sonoita Creek Preserve in southern Arizona. Preserve staff are monitoring the situation and evaluating the lion’s activity to determine if it has become habituated to people. Over time, habituation can cause a safety risk to people. Once wildlife becomes habituated to people, removal of the animal is one of the only options that remain.”

      Just another group collecting donations to preserve nature by killing nature’s occupants. Just another group totally ignorant of science, but well versed in fund raising. FTA!

    • skyrim says:

      This stuff needs better press coverage. Well, I guess it’s getting a bit more by being here. Ok, nevermind. ^..^

  91. mikepost says:

    So now that Ralph has retracted the Bison story, where are the apologies to TNC?

    • WM says:


      I was hoping for the same thing, and think Ken Cole or someone on behalf of Buffalo Field Campaign (source of the poorly researched facts and defamatory remarks directed at TNC), ought to issue an apology (not just the the Wildlife News retraction) for the bad information. It appears the topic thread does not have a comment feature.

      And, to Ken, I renew my query. Do BFC, potentially affected property owners, the 2 states and USDA have a non-lethal strategy, or in place plan, if and when more bison show up as this one did, but on private land instead of a road right of way? Or is the only option a dead bison that will bring out the armchair critics once again, who pee on everybody in sight?

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      We have an entire story devoted to the retraction.

  92. Elizabeth Laden says:

    Idaho kills second bison.

    • Nancy says:

      Thanks for posting the article Elizabeth. Gotta wonder – what the hell is going on?

      Now that Idaho has their “game plan” in place for doing away with all those pesky wolves (over running the state 🙂 are bison next on their hit list of unwanted wildlife?

    • Rita K. Sharpe says:

      Bison,just won’t be tolerated in Idaho.That fear of brucellosis being spread to the game animals and cattle will be just to much.

      • Rita K. Sharpe says:

        Thank you,too,Elizabeth.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        Rita K. Sharpe,

        Sounds likely, but past events prove this not true. Idaho lost its brucellosis free status, not once, but twice in the last decade when cattle showed up with the disease. In the first instance it came from elk along the Wyoming border. I don’t believe the cause in the second loss of status was ever determined.

        Was there panic in Idaho about this. NO!! The media ran almost no stories on the matter. There seemed to be almost no interest in the matter. If there was, it all must have been behind closed doors. I wrote many stories on my old web site about this remarkable calm about the whole thing.

        I think that in Idaho, just like it has turned out to be in Montana, bison are not tolerated because the public lands livestock industry refuses to sacrifice a blade of grass more to any new wild grazing animal. Brucellosis was made into a demon in the Idaho legislature as cover for continued dominance of the public lands grazing elite.

        • Rita K. Sharpe says:

          Ralph Maughan
          Thank you.I regret not reading the past stories on your old website.It makes you wonder though,what if a whole herd showed up.Cows grazing will always be contentious issue for a long time.

  93. Nancy says:

    “Maybe those groups make political alliances that sometimes work, and sometimes not. BFC has, I suspect, some fence to mend with TNC after this fiasco”

    Wild bison – doing what wild bison often do when they wander afield – were gunned down in close proximity to a TNC ranch. Twice now, according to news reports.
    Not sure if BFC has any fences to mend here…. but other agencies, who responded obviously “in a flash” to those gentle giants being around (thinking they’d cause undue hardships on cattle and traffic) may want to perhaps explain their rush to judgement?

    From the info I’ve seen over the years, wild bison who breach the Parks’s limits, have been routinely rounded up, hazed back or shipped here and there for either slaughter or displacement.

    Why is that WM?

    • WM says:


      ++Not sure if BFC has any fences to mend here…++


      BFC committed defamation aginst TNC. It is probably not legally actionable, but nonetheless, it is not exacty the neighborly thing for one advocacy/conservation group to do to another, especially when they may have some common goals. Do I have to make that part any clearer?

      For at least the first bison, and maybe the second as well, Yellowstone NP and MT didn’t want it back. So, what to do?

      As for the state of ID and the county, they were apparently doing what they are obligated to do under state law, and edicts/practices of the ID Board of Agriculture. We can disagree and be indignant about what was done (I certainly do, but I am not an ID resident). At some level the responsible officials are doing what the electorate of ID has asked that they do when they elect a Governor, and he/she appoints folks to head departments; and the legislature which drafts and passes the laws the governor signs.

      I gather the first bull was slaughtered, and the meat, head and hide went to somebody through proper channels. I am not sure what the practice is in ID, but sometimes prisons get the meat. Presumably a similiar fate for the usable parts of the second one.

      Why do some of you (idiots) insist on making TNC the bad guy on this? I doubt they could legally take the bison even if they wanted, under ID law!

      • Nancy says:

        “Why do some of you (idiots) insist on making TNC the bad guy on this?”

        WHAT idiots are you referring to WM?

      • Savebears says:

        As a person, that has worked with BFC, Yes, they need to make amends, they were very premature on their call of this incident. What is unfortunate in this climate, Innuendo and rumor seem to rule the day!

      • skyrim says:

        I’m going to pretend that you didn’t write that WM. Otherwise I’d have a shit load of offerings on your legal analysis here.

    • Salle says:

      According to the wildlife management folks in Idaho, you just be having those wild animals out running wild… It’s been their motto for some time now. Unless someone can get a tag to kill it or it’s domestic sheep or cows… they’ll not tolerate them. Idaho, it’s not a place for wildlife.

      • Salle says:

        you just can’t</strong)be having those wild animals out running wild…

        …fingers aren't working real good today.

  94. Richie G says:

    Beautiful picture, reallly beautiful.

    • Nancy says:

      “The vital ecological functions of wildlife habitats surrounding protected areas create an imperative, wherever possible, to establish sizeable buffer zones around reserves, maintain substantial reserve connectivity to other forest areas and promote lower-impact land uses near reserves by engaging and benefiting local communities.

      A focus on managing both external and internal threats should also increase the resilience of biodiversity in reserves to potentially serious climatic change in the future”

      Good article, Salle, so many good articles out there but Who’s paying attention?

      The forests and wildlife habitats in South and Centeral America, have been trashed for the last few decades due to development/mostly having to do with greed, mostly having to do with the good ole US of A’s greed….. and the good ole US of A has been on its own “mission of destruction” for a century or more, under the guise of “progress” and the hell with other species who share the planet, who might get in the way.

  95. Richie G says:

    Just makes my point humane is not a word.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Richie G.

      It’s pretty hard for someone to comment on a rhetorical question.

      • Richie G says:

        I know I said my point before and JB answered, just makes me angry to hear all this killing for nothing. Same thing in the east the really powrful change things for their own benefit,not for the people. Bloomberg a week ago took tried to take the 220 law away from the plumbers and electricians. It is still in court,also he ran three terms, his power did this for him.

  96. Salle says:

    Man shoots another possible grizzly-polar bear hybrid

  97. Immer Treue says:

    Now that the recent wolf campaigns in Idaho and Montana (yes I know that some hunting is occurring on private lands in idaho) have concluded, has there been any data collected in terms of gender, age, and size statistics?

  98. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Wolf Hunting Tips, Observations from RMEF Members. The one I like best is:
    • Most wolf hunters want to shoot a big trophy male. But taking females is better for population control. The main thing is just don’t shoot a collared wolf. We need those collars to track the packs—and funding for collaring wolves is getting tighter.
    Read all at:

    • Richie G says:

      I can’t even read the entire article after seeing that picture, I almost wish Clinton and Babbit did not reintroduce this animal. I visited the introduction house to maybe see some wolves that they had captive,and nice shirts to buy and they knew were the packs were in Idaho, Ithink it was 2002.They moved the location of the site,I mean the introduction house. I knew this would lead to a hunt, Idaho…,I feel bad for the people who are pro wolf living in a state where you have to live side by side with these called hunters.

      • Mark L says:

        Richie G,
        I’m kind of with you and kind of not. If you could take a poll of the wolves, I’m sure they would ‘vote’ for existance (vs. not), even under harsh conditions…life is just not fair, but at least they get to struggle to begin with. I guess the good news is that some will eventually get to a state that will be more friendly. It’s inevitable, really.

  99. John Glowa says:

    There were at least four polar bears and one wolf shot and killed in Newfoundland this Spring. At second wolf has now been photographed-alive!!!

  100. Richie G. says:

    Thanks John at least that was a live one. Can’t take the smiles of those hunters holding something dead. Look I realize we are all different due to our backrounds and things, but this is just me and thanks to Ralph for letting us share. Mark L ,thank you for the comment and I hope your right and someday things will change. My cats bring in dead mice and I see the horror on the little creatures faces,that is life I guess, but I do not have to like it.

  101. Salle says:

    You know, for whatever grief, embarrassment or “discomfort” to the mainstream these so called radicals induce, there’s a valid reason and a definite need for them (well, for those of us who care and like to breathe and try to enjoy what’s left of life for however long):

    Greenpeace: Oil Companies, Not Us, Are ‘Dangerous’ and ‘Radical’
    Following declassified RCMP report, Greenpeace says it will not stop fighting against destructive industry practices


    Greenpeace Discovers Sensitive Coral at Shell’s Arctic Drill Site

  102. Cody Coyote says:

    Welcome to Yellowstone, the first National Park and the “pleasuring ground of the people “.
    The last Monday in July is ” day of visitor mayhem “.

  103. Mike says:

    NRA tries to stop lawsuit protecting eagles, condors, and other animals from horrific lead poisoning:

  104. Salle says:

    Gosh, somehow I can’t help thinking back to darth cheney’s bitching about disclosure of his secret meetings with fossil fuel industry execs…

    Maps: The Secrets Drillers Can Hide About the Fracking in Your Backyard

    The comments below the article are informative as well…

  105. Salle says:

    The Elwha Dams and the Future of Our Rivers: Hope Runs Free

    Includes video of the removal event(s).


June 2012


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

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: