The Pahsimeroi Mountains of east central Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan

Here is our new open thread (begun on August 1) on wildlife news topics. You can access the previous “Interesting Wildlife News” here. Please post new stories and make comments about wildlife you find interesting.
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.

471 Responses to Have you come across any interesting wildlife news? August 1, 2012

  1. Barb Rupers says:

    From Oregon Wild
    We received some great news today. The Snake River pack – one of the state’s newest – has at least three pups!
    The news was made even sweeter when ODFW released video of one of the pups howling to its pack and getting a rousing response! 7-25-2012

    The confirmation of Snake River wolf pups comes along with news of at least six pups in the Imnaha Pack and pups for the Umatilla River wolves. Add that to the Wenaha pack, and the elusive Eagle Cap pack, and it appears wolf recovery is getting back on track.

  2. aves says:

    NC rushing ahead with allowing the night hunting of coyotes in the red wolf’s range:

    • louise kane says:

      aves I have been following this also
      proves that east coast policies can be just as archaic, short sighted and bad as west coast. In general wildlife management, state and federal, needs an overhaul
      Am sad to see this coming to fruition.

  3. Mark L says:

    Now would be a good time for a ‘flanking move’ by the Red Wolf Coalition…never fight guns with bodies.

  4. Mark L says:

    Oh, and the major source of coyote complaints to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission was the killing of …ahem!…..cats. No, not livestock. Cats. (wow)

  5. timz says:

    “Officials also caution that intentionally approaching or disturbing animals is dangerous and a violation of park regulations. Park rules require visitors to stay at least 100 yards away from bears and wolves at all times, and at least 25 yards away from all other animals including elk and bison.”

    Whatever. I saw little kids feeding a coyote hot dogs out of the back of a camper in a parking lot in Yellowstone and when a brought it to a rangers attention she chuckled and said, “yea that one likes hot dogs.” And as soon as it bite someone they would have shot it.

  6. Elk275 says:

    Here is a copy of a letter to the editor in today’s Bozeman Daily Chronicle by noted wildlife photographer Bryon Denver in response to local writer Todd Wilkinson letter last month. I know or have met several of these outfitters’s. Regardless of what the statewide elk population is wolves have effected both outfitters and hunters. One must remember that outfitters are not able to just get up and move camp because wolf actively.

    Note: Ralph I hope that I did not did not violate any forum rules by coping this letter

    Local writer Todd Wilkinson claimed last month that outfitters were “fibbing” about the effects of high wolf populations simply because he could find numerous outfitter web sites that claimed high hunting success. Here are a few comments from dozens that I received from outfitters on this issue:

    From Lee Hart of Gallatin Gateway: “We used to guide 50-80 elk hunters every year up in the Gallatin Canyon with good success. However, last year we had one hunter and so far none are booked for 2012.”

    From Dave Hettinger of Dillon: “I was an outfitter in Idaho for 19 years and ended up walking away from the business a few years ago due to the serious decline of the Lolo elk herd.”

    From guide Rick Hafenfeld (a certified wildlife biologist) of Big Timber: “In our hunting area, our business is down 60-80 percent with the high wolf population.”

    From Michael Story: “I outfit in Paradise Valley. Before wolf introduction there were 16 outfitters in this region and now there are just seven still hanging on.”

    From Joe Cantrell of St. Regis: “Because high wolf numbers have significantly depleted the elk herd in the West Bitterroot, all of my businesses (outfitting, restaurant, bar and lodging) are way down.”

    From Liz Jackson of Cooke City: “We are permitted by the Gallatin NF to take 18 hunters each fall. We used to be ‘fully booked’ every season but have only guided a few hunters over the past three years. There’s a good chance we won’t be offering elk hunts in the near future.”

    I could relay similar comments from many other outfitters on this topic. Suffice it to say, with well over 1,000 outfitters in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the livelihoods of many have been and are still being seriously impacted by high wolf populations.

    Denver Bryan

    • JB says:

      Three points, Elk:

      (1) You can’t have historically high populations forever. It’s called regression toward the mean, and it was probably overdue. That doesn’t mean wolves aren’t having some effect, but outfitters continue to overstate it.

      (2) If “economy” = “bad”, then “expensivehunt” = “no”. Run.

      (3) (My opinion) Many of the resources that feed and sustain Idaho’s elk belong to the American people. It’s very cool that some people can make a living by tapping these resources in a sustainable manner; however, our policy should not be bent to the will of those who wish to make a living by using public resources.

      • WM says:

        ++ It’s very cool that some people can make a living by tapping these resources in a sustainable manner; however, our policy should not be bent to the will of those who wish to make a living by using public resources.++

        The West, however, was founded on that principle. From the water that is generated on snowpack from the public lands, to the way under-market public cattle grazing, to the ability to stake and patent mining claims basically for nothing, and the list goes on.

        That outfitters could, apparently until recently, make a living in these rural areas is/was seen as a boon to the local economies. Those who are affected do not want to see their livelihood taken away, by Wall St. brokers that screwed up the economy or wolves introduced by others not living in the West, but wanting to make it something different than what it has been.

        Were it not for these uses of public lands there would not be, I believe, a Boise, Pocatello, Denver, Salt Lake and the hundreds of smaller communities throughout the interior of the 17 Western states (the coastal communities/ports like Seattle, Portland, Lewiston (inland on the Snake/Columbia rivers system) to some extent depended on some of the resources extracted from public lands as well as ports for export of these goods, and accepting the imports of goods necessary for the folks of the interior to live, to be distributed by rail or roadway to the interior. Also, can’t forget all those skiers on NF lands, where snakey paths through timber, or entire hillsides have been bared, and the valleys choked with condos, McMansions, golf courses, tennis courts, bars and restaurants, all dependent on public lands in some fashion.

        Query is it time for change or do we continue this vision of the West for another 50-100 years as it continues to grow making greater demands of those public lands resources?

        • JB says:

          You make a fair point considering the history of the development of the West. Nevertheless, we’ve long since passed the time when private uses of public lands can expect lands to be managed solely for their benefit. A dizzying array of users groups has become increasingly demanding about the “rights” and privileges they expect to be provided at public expense. With increasing uses and users, along with residential development in important areas, it is clear that we cannot continue to “bend” ecosystems to meet the desired ends of everyone. If allowed, ranchers would rid the land of all predators and competitors to maximize their utility; likewise, some hunters and outfitters would do the same, except they would be “ranching” elk instead of sheep and cows; or we might manage national forests simply for timber production (as we used to). We codified the multiple-use philosophy in federal law in part to avoid the damage done by those who would bend ecosystems to their will and exclusive benefit.

          • louise kane says:

            JB you wrote
            “Nevertheless, we’ve long since passed the time when private uses of public lands can expect lands to be managed solely for their benefit. A dizzying array of users groups has become increasingly demanding about the “rights” and privileges they expect to be provided at public expense.”

            This is exactly what Garrett Hardin argued against in the late 60s when he wrote about the tragedy of the commons. We are long past the time to cater to special interests when it comes to responsibly managing wildlife and public resources.

            Tragedy of Commons from Wikipedia
            The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen.

            • JB says:

              You bet. And Hardin argued that there are two approaches for averting these tragedies: “mutual-coercion, mutually agreed upon” (i.e., regulation), and privatization. The fundamental problem in the West lies with whose opinion matters when it comes to the mutual-coercion. One resource is federally-owned (land) and so demands consultation of everyone (i.e., the mutually-agreed upon piece), while the other resource (wildlife) is held in trust by states, whose only obligation is to their own citizens. Yet, by tradition, states set the policies and regulations for wildlife on all but a few types of federal lands. The result is perpetual conflict.

  7. DLB says:

    You’ve consistently criticized outfitters on this site in the past. Are you sad for those folks?

    • Elk275 says:

      I have criticized outfitters in the past and will continue to criticize unethical and poor outfitters who do not deliver what they advertise. I have worked in the past for very poor and unethical outfitters quitting several weeks later. I HAVE EMPLOYED outfitters who after checking references and doing due diligent appeared to be five star. Once money changed hands in camp things came apart in less than 30 minutes. There is nothing like paying a thousand dollars a day and the guide or outfitter does not have the proper equipment, training or experience to conduct the hunt; the outfitter is at main camp drunk and could careless.

      There are good and honest outfitters who are organized and deliver the advertised service: I have employed them and memories of the trip years later are fresh and satisfying.

      • Cody Coyote says:

        I have to agree with Elk here. If my local outfitters are men of great skill, much mountain experience , and especially of good character and driven by strong ethics, I support them. The time-honored western profession of outfitting hunters is a heritage worth preserving.

        Unfortunately , I have seen more Wolverines in the backcountry than ethical outfitters in the past twenty years. Not only have individual outfitters become privateers and scoundrels, collectively thru their own organization and affiliation with groups like Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife they have perverted the very industry they participate into something I no longer recognize as being worthy. The ethics simply are not there.

        We have about 70 licensed elk outfitters in my area of northwest Wyoming…from the Absaroka-BEartooths in the north down to the country above Dubois WY and west to the Idaho line including the headwaters of the Yellowstone River outside the National Park. Regrettably , I can only recommend maybe five of those outfitters.

        I actually lived long enough to see the good old days of quality big game outfitting based in Cody Wyoming , once upon a time a mecca of sportsmen of ethical character.

        • HAL 9000 says:

          When a certain type of business exists in essentially a false bubble, and that bubble bursts, some examples of that business are bound to fail.

          The question then becomes, is it the concern or duty of the rest of the public and diverse interests to maintain that bubble, simply to protect said businesses?

          To take the issue on in purely utilitarian terms, the “bubble” — that being, much of the GYE managed as little more than a glorified elk ranch, and at a great cost to the greater ecology — was burst when wolves came back on the scene.

  8. JB says:

    Jared Diamond not happy about Mitt’s oversimplification of his thesis.

    • Derek Farr says:

      It reminds me of elk hunting outfitters blaming the decline in their industry solely on wolves. They oversimplify an issue until the least common denominator makes a bumper-sticker, false platitude about it.
      Then they become indignant when we criticize their intellect.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      Fur seals normally stay at sea in offshore waters for several months during their southern migration. We were surprised a few winters ago to to come upon a young one in a tide pool while walking home at night. It stood right up to the dog, and I thought at first it might be a young Steller sea lion, but it had the long ears of a fur seal.

  9. mikepost says:

    I think it is important to note that outfitters outside of wolf country are suffering declines in business due to the economy. One fellow I know in Craig, Colorado (where they have more elk than most other places and no wolves) has seen his business decline by 60%. So the big unknown is how much business decline would the Montana outfitters have seen regardless of wolf impact.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Excellent editorial as to who the psychopaths truly are. The video about the trapped raccoon only reinforces that the cckskrs who do this to animals don’t have an empathetic bone in their bodies. Fat ass! A pox on recreational trapping.

    • Salle says:

      There needs to be a point where people realize that just because they decided to go live in a desert with no water does not mean that someone else has to give them most of theirs, especially when it isn’t even close by.

      Psychopaths indeed.

      Here comes the next wave of water wars…

      • WM says:

        The water wars of the West have never stopped; there are only pauses between battles and skirmishes, while new tactics are employed, and allies for campaigns are courted and solicited, and the demand for H20 increases.

        • Salle says:

          Never said they were ever over with, only that the next wave is nigh.

          • Salle says:

            …and here’s yet another reason why

            Report Exposes Startling Trend of Legislative Attacks on National Parks and Forests


            They can’t come up with any legislation that they are supposed to be working on but the go into overtime at our expense for #h*t like this. Why are be paying these treasonous bastards…? And I mean paying them one single dime. Any one of us would be fired and crucified if we pulled the crap they’re getting away with.

  10. Barb Rupers says:

    Beautiful photograph, Ralph; very dramatic sky!

  11. louise kane says:

    For those of you who may want to post this on facebook, spread the word other ways or attend, this notice came to my e mail box today. I hope they get a big crowd and some media attention.

    Rally For Wolves In Coeur d’Alene, Idaho On August 30th

    “To let all of you know Friends of the Clearwater is working with Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance and Predator Defense to hold a wolf rally in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho on Thursday August 30th, 330 – 730pm. The 2012-2013 Idaho wolf hunt begins that day—on public lands. We just secured a permit for Fort Sherman/CDA City Park. We hope to get local/regional news coverage on TV and in the papers.

    The goal is to draw national attention to the slaughter taking place. We are currently working on covering costs, recruiting guest speakers, attracting musicians, and finding props, etc. We are in the process of getting some snares/traps to use at the event. We have also invited the Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Footloose Montana, Idahoans Against Trapping, and TrapFree Oregon to the event.

    I am reaching out to this group to share the information and recruit support. Spread the word!”

  12. Salle says:

    Midwest Heat Wave 2012: Thousands Of Fish Die In Hot Weather

  13. aves says:

    Gibson guitar company settles with feds over violations of Lacey Act:

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Interesting article, Aves. I recently had been reading about the Lacey act and the situation in the US when it was passed in 1900.

  14. Jerry Black says:

    Jane Velez-Mitchell Speaks in Support of Wolves

    • JB says:

      Just what we need, another loud mouth sensationalist.

      • Immer Treue says:


        But every counter to Rockholm, Bridges, etc, the better. Wyoming continues to be the hedgerow that has held up proper wolf management. If not for Wyoming, Idaho may not have been so enboldened with how they have dealt with their “robust” wolf population. If not for Wyoming stonewalling for this very type of Policy through the years, we might actually have had logical, scientific, proper season length… Wolf management in the NRM states.

        • WM says:

          I think Jane Valez ought to go on a date with Rockhead. They seem to have alot in common.

          • CodyCoyote says:

            WM- you do know that matter and anti-matter annihilate each other when they come into contact ?

    • amanda says:

      I think it is great this news is making it into the media. People should be outraged.

    • HAL 9000 says:

      Typical yayhoo anti-wolf quips in the comments section below the story. I find such sentiments, tiresome, reprehensible and antithetical to every value I was raised by. And for the record, I’m a fourth-generation Western native and avid hunter.

      • Mike says:

        That’s the hunting community posting those comments.

        Not surprised.

        • elk275 says:

          The dead wolves and eagles were found last May in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. How would have one put poison out in May, the snow would be to deep and soft to ski in or hike or ride horses. I will bet you that one used an airplane dumping the poison bait from the air. If done with an airplane was this the only poison bait or was it the only poison bait found. It will be interesting to read more details.

          If an airplane was used and mouths are kept shut no one will ever be caught.

          • Nancy says:

            “How would have one put poison out in May, the snow would be to deep and soft to ski in or hike or ride horses”

            Elk – I think it depends on what area of the “Bob” this might of taken place in.

            Spend close to a decade (2000- 2009) going into the “Bob” in May, above the Gibson Reservoir, outside of Augusta with friends and we could ride for miles AND miles without seeing any leftover winter snow, banks, drifts etc. anywhere, except on some high peaks.

            Certainly had our share of late spring snow storms while there and both the north and south forks of the Sun were running high, but there was no snow on the ground, period, by the middle of May in that vast area.

            • elk275 says:

              We are talking up the South Fork of the Flathead River on the west side of the divide which will have more snow. You have been there in May and I have not so maybe you are right.

              A friend of mind just spent 9 days, late June, early July, in the Bob and and was not able to get over several passes because of snow. There were no horse outfitters either due to the snow.

            • Salle says:

              “How would have one put poison out in May, the snow would be to deep and soft to ski in or hike or ride horses”

              Actually, in May, most of the snow is pretty stout and often crusted… after numerous melt/freeze events in a short time, this is what you get. It becomes granular and is easy to walk on, snowshoe and ski. This year there may have been snow but there probably would not have been soft. And there’s all those snowmobiles, just because it’s wilderness doesn’t mean someone who aims to do something illegal, like set out poison, is going to be deterred from violating the rules for machine use in a designated wilderness unless actually caught in the act.

          • Ralph Maughan says:


            I imagine someone put out some poison bait during the fall, knowing it would kill animals all winter long. They didn’t try to hike in over snowy passes in May.

            • Nancy says:

              I seem to recall some chatter 5-6 years ago? That grizzlies in some parts of the Bob, were becoming a “problem” because they’d learned to associate the sounds of gunfire with gutpiles, bones, flesh etc. which are always left behind by hunters/outfitters.

              Wasn’t a guy killed by a grizzly a few years back up in the Bob, while attempting to dress out his elk?


              In a series of experiments, Pavlov then tried to figure out how these phenomena were linked. For example, he struck a bell when the dogs were fed. If the bell was sounded in close association with their meal, the dogs learnt to associate the sound of the bell with food. After a while, at the mere sound of the bell, they responded by drooling.

            • Savebears says:


              The guy killed while dressing his elk was in the Clearwater area on the Clearwater wildlife management area.

            • Immer Treue says:


              I would not be surprised if ravens were not part of the bell system.

  15. HAL 9000 says:

    Mike, it’s a segment of the hunting community posting such drivel. Granted, I’m keenly aware, too many hunters have a rotten perspective on predators in general and wolves in particular.

    • jon says:

      Hunters and their hatred of predators is one of the biggest reasons why a lot of people hate hunters.

      • HAL 9000 says:

        Jon, indeed.

        It’s doubly frustrating to be seeing that phenomena from within the hunting community, as I do.

        However — and not to pass the buck — but media coverage has also been somewhat poor in that regard, and fed into a negative view of hunters as a monolithic, predator-hating group. For instance, when this issue reaches milestones and garners wide coverage, reporters will gravitate toward the most polarized outlets, such as Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife for some quotes “from the hunters’ perspective” — apparently unaware that SFW and similar groups do not by any means speak for numerous hunters.

        In short, I think many outside of the hunting community, might be surprised how many hunters have a far more balanced, even favorable, view of wolves.

        • Mike says:

          ++However — and not to pass the buck — but media coverage has also been somewhat poor in that regard, and fed into a negative view of hunters as a monolithic, predator-hating group.++

          Predator hate comes from ranchers and hunters. It does not come from anywhere else. So the view is reasonably accurate.

          If hunters truly want to shed that reputation, they need to form groups that separate themselves from the goons. They don’t. Instead, they cling to the rusty anchor of trapping and predator-slaughter/varmint shooting and drag themselves down. Rug-sweeping is the priority.

          • HAL 9000 says:

            Mike, I don’t disagree with you the general accuracy of your assertion. However, you’re still painting with a broad brush, glossing things over, and your assertions here are starting to remind me of the “Muslims don’t do enough to stop terrorism” argument.

            To my knowledge, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers — though a new, small group — has indeed come out in favor of wolves.

            Also, numerous individual hunters have made written or spoken statements in favor of wolves. Douglas Smith, the head of wolf restoration in Yellowstone National Park, and himself a hunter, has been neither shy about identifying himself as a hunter, or coming out in support of wolves.

            I’m urging you to look deeper, and perhaps try broadening the spectrum of people you interact with, or pay attention to.

            • Mike says:

              Hal –

              Citing a few (and yes, “few” is an accurate word in this scenario) examples does nothing to refute the *fact* that all the anti-predator hate comes from hunters and ranchers, period.

              I urge you to think a bit deeper, Hal, and perhaps question why you feel you need to kill animals.

            • Mike says:

              ++I’m urging you to look deeper, and perhaps try broadening the spectrum of people you interact with, or pay attention to.++

              Hal –

              I spent part of the day visiting an Irish catastrophic stroke victim and playing Wii golf with her. In that room, I had a conversation with an African American, a Puerto rican, an Indian, and an Asian.

              But hey, I need to broaden the spectrum of people I interact with. So I’ll take your advice and be sure to spend more time with older white guys who each have slightly different views on hunting…..

          • jon says:

            I am going to have to agree with Mike. He nailed it. Hunters and ranchers seem to be the only ones that are hostile towards wolves and other natural predators. I don’t believe that every single hunter in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc hates wolves or other predators, but there is no question that there are alot of them that do. As someone who visits hunting forums from time to time to see what they are saying about wolves, 99% of the comments I see from hunters on hunting websites are very hostile towards wolves. I don’t believe this is just a few hunters that hate wolves. If you check out websites like billings gazette and helenair and other websites like this, you will see that most of the comments made by obvious hunters are anti-wolf. I am afraid that these anti-wolf views that hunters have are going to backfire on them. The public will turn against them.

            • Mike says:


              Every year, hunters lose thousands of their ranks. One of the reasons for this is their “all in” philosophy.

              Poachers? One bad apples. Sweep under the rug. Lead poisoning? No biggie. Sweep under the rug. NRA nad hunting groups are anti-wilderness? Ignore. Rampant predator hatred? Sweep under rug? The antiquated and unethical trapping? Well, if we get rid of that deer hunting will be next. Sweep under the rug. Disgusting varmint tournaments like the “red mist society”? Well, can’t get rid of that.

              It’s this “all in” style that is sinking the entire “sport”. I say good. The community mostly consists of man-children who at the age of 35, have the same mental makeup of when they were 14.

              The good news is that today, kids get it. They are smart enough, and comfortable enough in their own sexuality to know that you don’t have to kill animals to enjoy nature. You don’t need to be “macho”.

            • Salle says:

              The public will turn against them.”

              Actually, only an informed and reasonable public would turn against them…

        • Rita K. Sharpe says:

          But “one bad apple spoils the bunch”.

        • jon says:

          I will say that even though I truly believe that a significant amount of hunters in Montana/Idaho do hate wolves, I understand that they don’t speak for all of the hunters in the state. You rarely see hunters coming out in support of wolves.As someone who visits a lot of hunting websites just to see what hunters are saying about wolves, 99% of the comments I see are very negative and hostile. I rarely see hunters on hunting forums in support of wolves. More times than not, you will see hunters coming out in opposing having wolves in their state. Since this happens a lot more, the public may be led to believe that all hunters are anti-wolf. I think someone posted a link to a survey done in Wisconsin and the people living there were asked about their views of wolves. The results were that hunters were the most hostile towards wolves.

          • rork says:

            Hunters with ecological chops are not prone to commenting on “hunting websites”. I’m more likely to speak up when things get in the regular news, and I write my state’s game managers often – I think they are influenced when they see that there are even just a few hunters that get the complexities. They often respond at length.

            Mike’s mental makeup generalizations: unfalsifiable, mean. Hunters need more education. Name-calling doesn’t make them better listeners.

            My group of 6 deer hunters are all pro-wolf, but I admit that with regards to hunting buddies, I am the most fortunate person to ever live.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “Every year, hunters lose thousands of their ranks.”

            Bad news for Mike.


            • JB says:

              Not at all! Data that conflicts with Mike’s ideology is wrong…or hadn’t you heard? LOL!

    • louise kane says:

      Thank you for sharing this! I had not seen this. I am working with someone and we are collecting petitions and catalouging them in a database much like the comments provided to the states.

  16. elk275 says:

    I just returned from inspecting some property for US Bank several miles south of Gallatin Gateway. I saw a black and white wolf running on the edge of the timber. I knew they were wolves the way they ran but they disappeared in the timber before I could get my binocular out. The homeowner said that 5 or 6 wolves were in the area with a white wolf in the pack.

  17. DLB says:

    WDFW removes wolf from NE Washington pack
    in response to repeated attacks on livestock

    The Wedge has been ground zero for wolf depredation in Washington State.

    • DLB says:

      This is the first lethal wolf removal by WDFW in Washington State since they have been re-colonizing the state, I believe.

    • Mike says:

      “ground zero”?

      A little dramatic, don’t you think?

    • amanda says:

      And they plan to kill another wolf if possible. I don’t understand how an electric fence is not successful in keeping out the wolves? Seems like that would be a better use of time/money than killing which will not necessarily stop the wolves.

  18. CodyCoyote says:

    California Game Commission President dethroned after flaunting Idaho cougar kill.

  19. louise kane says:

    For your information: Today, the National Wolfwatcher Coalition, along with seven other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin’s DNR and NRB re: its recently approved rules for a wolf hunting season related to the use of dogs for hunting. Please share because need to bring national attention to Wisconsin for allowing and even facilitating cruelty to animals and animal fighting which is in direct conflict with the state’s animal cruelty laws.

    Press Release –

  20. HAL 9000 says:

    Mike, once again, I’m not questioning the general principle that too much hostility comes from hunters in general. I still feel compelled to correct and caution you in the broadness of your statements.

    In my experience, generalized hostility toward wolves is proportional to the proximity to wolf territory. In other words, in Cody, Jackson, Pinedale or West Yellowstone, you are probably bound to find more hostility toward wolves than in Missoula, Seattle or Cleveland. The reasons for this are complex, and can be nuanced.

    Furthermore, I could do without your sarcasm. I was merely trying to point out, views — even among hunters — are far more complex than you’re trying to make them out to be. Very few simply want all wolves killed. And even those who do, realize, that’s not a realistic aspiration — wolves are here to stay.

    I’m merely suggesting, perhaps try visiting with more hunters on this subject, rather than making assumptions based, for instance, on examples of online chest-pounding bravado.

  21. Ralph Maughan says:

    We could have some real fire making weather moving into Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Montana.

    Temperatures are near 100 F. Thunderstorms that circulate around the edge of high pressure areas are moving into parts of these states.

    I just picked this up from the Elko (northern Nevada) weather summary today: “thunderstorms developed early today across portions of northern and central Nevada. In thirty minutes…between 1 PM and 130 PM today over three hundred lightning strikes were detected from northern Elko County through central northern Nye County. Additional thunderstorms are expected late this afternoon and into the evening. New fire starts possible…”

    These clouds are moving over central Idaho and drifting eastward in a continuing flow up from the south as the high pressure area that they circulate about drifts eastward.

  22. PNW says:

    this one is actually from last month, but still available. I wonder if this could be responsible for recent poisonings in nw montana. just wondering.

    Pot Growers May Be Killing Rare Creatures With Poison, Researchers Say

    • WM says:

      To the extent that pot growers are indeed responsible for wildlife deaths, it is likely to get worse and more widely spread. The trend is for smallerbut more pot grow operations, which avoid detection from the air, which means larger geographic distribution. There are also fewer law enforcement dollars going into detecting and destroying the operations.

      • WM says:

        A recent news article on reduced eradication of illegal mj grow operations:

        • HAL 9000 says:

          Yet another reason to decriminalize pot?

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          I hate the recession, but I had hoped it would defund the dysfunctional war on weed.

          Legalizing marijuana would obviously protect our public lands and remote private lands. It would serve to partially defund the Mexican cartels, reduce illegal immigration problems, reduce our massive prison population (more per capita in prison than any other country. Is that the land of the free?. It would reduce official corruption which is obviously taking place at the low level and higher too.

          • HAL 9000 says:

            Not to mention, there’s probably truth in the argument that the reasons marijuana was criminalized in the first place were couched in racism. Alcohol being primarily the white man’s drug — while pot, at least at the time of its criminalization — was used primarily by blacks and Hispanics.

            Personally, I have no use for the recreational consumption of alcohol, marijuana, or any other drug, and am more or less ambiguous about others using them in that fashion.

            However, the point relevant to this site still stands. The decriminalization of pot would help curb the ecological abuse of public and remote private lands.

          • Salle says:

            It’s already a major excuse for the use of domestic drones.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Just a question. Are the pharmaceutical conglomerate and paper/pulp industries big players as towards why pot is still illegal.

            Think about something like aspirin, with all the uses it has. If it were invented today, would you need a prescription for it’s use, with the corresponding boost in price?

          • Cody Coyote says:

            A large step in the right direction to at least set the stage for decriminalizing MJ would be to remove the ridiculous ban on raising its cousin Hemp for a commercial and industrial crop. I’m wearing a hemp shirt right now…much softer and more breathable” than cotton. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution , and the early paper currency of the nation are all inked on hemp paper. Hemp can be used to produce a staggering array of truely useful products. It is easy to grow and harvest and is a very hardy plant tillable in many climate zones. It would rapidly become a billion dollar industry for everything from textiles, chemicals, oils, fuel , paper, rope and so much more. A real job maker and economy expander. Back to the Future.

            Yet the same boneheads who banned MJ for political and ethnic reasons also included Hemp. I hope Harry J. Anslinger is burning in the hottest pits of Hades ( Google him ).

            I have a working theory that once Hemp is allowed to become a cash crop again , then MJ / Cannabis cannot be far behind.

            It cannot happen soon enough. Obama could really score some points here by pushing hemp cultivation , if for no reason than drought relief. Hemp tolerates drought very very well. It would be almost impossible for even the most ossified War on Drugs conservative to argue against. And sets that stage…

  23. red says:

    Dissappointing news from City of Carson in California to maintain trapping of coyotes.

    • Salle says:

      HA! Carson is also one of the major oil refinery and distribution terminal towns in the LA basin. Interesting that the are so uptight about coyotes and not the nasty evaporates and scary crap you find on your windshield every morning. Coyotes must be pretty desperate to be hanging out there. Mobile home parks usually have fences around them to keep out the riffraff humans so how is it that they can’t build those around their precious tin can colonies with electronically operated gates? Sure would be cheaper and more “humane” and cost effective.

      • aves says:

        The most effective thing for them to do would be to keep their cats indoors and their garbage more secure. The coyotes seem to be the smartest species in that neighborhood.

        • Salle says:

          That is a great suggestion but asking people to change their bad behavior is, apparently, too much to ask. But then, so is anticipating that they might actually think for themselves.

    • amanda says:

      Thanks for posting.

      Call the White House and USFWS Southwest Regional Director Ben Tuggle now and tell them to keep the Fox Mountain alpha female in the wild with her pups!

      White House number: 202-456-1111
      US Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Regional Office number: 505-248-6911

      If you live in any of these swing states, please call the local Obama campaign office:
      Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia, or Wisconsin. You can find the nearest Obama campaign office here.

    • louise kane says:

      Jerry et al

      Feds rescind order to shoot a Mexican gray wolf believed to have killed cows in New Mexico

      good news the wolf is not going to be killed terrible news the wolf will be without pack and confined for the rest of its life

  24. jon says:

    Cat Urbigkit: Interview about her Humanities Forum presentation “Public Attitudes about Wolves.”

    • jon says:

      cat Urbigkit is claiming in this video that Wyoming locals feared for the safety of the “native” wolves? Unbelievable. Ranchers like Cat Urbigkit were the ones that were probably shooting these “native” wolves on sight left and right and she has the nerve to claim that her and other ranchers cared about the “native” wolves? Ranchers had a big part in extirpating the “native” wolves from Wyoming.

      • HAL 9000 says:

        She was sounding halfway credible, until she fell back on the perpetual popular legend of the “non-native Canadian” wolf.

        There’s no “Canada Sooper Woof” sub-species, running out the “native” wolves. They are all/were gray wolves.

        That falsehood has been so soundly demolished by reputable biologists and researchers, I’m baffled why she would even bring it up, as it likewise threatens to cripple any attempt she’s trying to make at establishing credibility for herself.

        • jon says:

          Hal, have you read Cat’s book on wolves? If so, what did you think of it?

          • HAL 9000 says:

            jon, I have not. I’ve read some of her articles and used to visit her “Wolf Watch” web site on a regular basis.

            From a journalistic perspective, I found her claims of objective and balanced coverage tenuous, at best.

            And again, if she’s still trying to fall back on the “Canada Sooper Woof” narrative, that shows a serious lack of research into and reliance on credible sources.

        • Salle says:

          I think she’s reliant upon the short attention-span and short-memory mentality.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Perhaps the best critique of the Ubrigkit mindset comes from pages 119-120, of the said book by Rene Askins
        Of the Teton wolf, Askins proclaimed:
        ” One wolf, a dead wolf, is a far cry from
        recovery… Some opponents are indeed delighted with the dead wolf and not just because it’s dead. The dead wolf, they assert, demonstrates that a process of natural decolonization is under way and all this reintroduction nonsense can stop.”

        “With a wonky they say to each other, Natural decolonization has worked great for 50 years! Meaning they can shoot, shovel and shut up faster than Canis lupus can disperse to Yellowstone.”

        From the forward by Ronald M. Nowak page xvii.
        ” she has not necessarily demonstrated that those occurrences represent the continuous presence of an original breeding population. Had such a population existed, why did it not become more obvious?”

        He goes on to assert that wolves are rapid breeders, citing the introduced Yellowstone wolves.

        He concludes on page xx, While we may question her evidence and conclusions, she has demonstrated the complexity and anguish of wolf conservation and provided a unique Perspective on a fascinating story.”

        • jon says:

          The person asking Cat questions thinks that the reintroduced wolves are a non native species. I ask myself, you have these people who are anti-wolf coming out and claiming they wish the “native” wolves were around still, but where were these people back when the natives were being shot by ranchers and anyone else who viewed wolves as vermin? They didn’t care about wolves then and they surely don’t care about now that they are back.

          • Harley says:

            My guess to that Jon is that those people who wish the ‘native’ species was there probably weren’t alive ‘back then’. Just a guess.

            • jon says:

              Harley, but the claims I heard is that “native” wolves were still living in Idaho/Wyoming in the 1980’s and the 1990’s and then the big bad canadian super wolves were reintroduced and they killed all of the “native” wolves. this is the claim still being made by some who are anti-wolf to this very day.

          • louise kane says:

            Cody there was a very good article in Nat Geographic some months back about the evolution of dogs and their genetic makeup and relationship to wolves. I’ll try and find it.

        • jon says:

          I recall someone saying that in Cat’s book, Ron Nowak says that the reintroduced wolves are a non native species. I have no read Cat’s book at all, but does Ron Nowak say anything about the reintroduced wolves being a non native species immer? thanks

          • HAL 9000 says:

            Jon, I’m not familiar with who Ron Nowak is, or his qualifications.

            I do know, any biologist I’ve spoken with, or heard speak, who has expertise relating to wolves and/or the reintroduction program, has clearly and flatly stated, a wolf is a wolf, and the “non-native” assertion has no merit or basis in fact.

            Again, I admit going only by my experience thus far. And I do think, if one looks hard enough (as Cat apparently did), one can find an “expert” to go on record, saying the reintroduced wolves are “non-native.”

            However, my distinct impression is that those still clinging to the “non-native” claim (which I jokingly call the “Canada Sooper Woof” theory) hold about the same status of credibility among their peers and other experts as evolution or climate change deniers hold in their relevant fields of scientific study.

            • jon says:

              Ron Nowak was a wolf taxonomist/zoologist that worked for the USFWS once upon a time. Someone made claims that he said that the reintroduced wolves are a non native species in Cat Urbigkit’s book on wolves. I have no idea if this is true.

            • jon says:

              “I do know, any biologist I’ve spoken with, or heard speak, who has expertise relating to wolves and/or the reintroduction program, has clearly and flatly stated, a wolf is a wolf, and the “non-native” assertion has no merit or basis in fact.”

              I heard this as well. I don’t know of many on here that read Cat’s book. I believe immer is the only that has Cat’s book or atleast read it. I am curious if there is any truth to the claim being made that Mr. Nowak said the reintroduced wolves are a non native species in Cat Urbigkit’s book on wolves. I am hoping immer can answer this as he appears to have read her book.

            • CodyCoyote says:

              Taxonomists looking at Wolves around the globe–Genus Canis species lupus— agree that there are 37 subspecies of wolves.

              ONE of those bona fide suspecies is Canis lupus familiaris, also known as the Domestic Dog. Yup…every breed, type, kind, color, size, shape, confromation of your pet dogs , be they Newfoundland Mastif or Chihuahua , is but one subspecie of Wolf.

              All the subspecies including our Fidos and Spots can interbreed with all the other wolves…Mexican Gray Wolves with Siberian Huskies; Carolina Red Wolves with Dachschunds ; Arctic ( Tundra) wolves with Chesapeake Bay retrievers ; Yellowstone wolves ( actually irremotus, columbianus, or nubilus) can have pups with an Australian Shephard. And so it goes.

              Therefore, it should be obvious to the likes of ” Cat” Urbigkit that it isn’t genetics that determine wolves, it is behavior.

              A wolf not part of a pack and not playing its part in a social order is not a wolf as we know it. Or no more wolf than a feral ranch dog.

              Years ago out between Cody and Powell Wyoming there was a pack of farm dogs that formed up. They came together and ran as a pack and did all manner of wanton things as a group—killing chickens especially but also other livestock . Some of these dogs went back home to their owners and keeprs. Others stayed ” in the wild” but were eventually taken down by agents who followed the parttimers and caught the dog pack red-pawed.

              I myself had a very harrowing experience camping alone in Mexico near Patzcuaro Michoacan with a pack of wild dogs.

              Perhaps Cat Urbigkit and the other anti-wolfers who claim ” decolonization ” or the infusion of ” Super Wolves ” into GYE need to take off the blinders and remove their earplugs.

              Canis lupus irregardlus.

    • amanda says:

      That article is horrible. Not only does author Dave Workman twist the truth by insinuating a wolf fatally attacked an Idaho bow hunter but he also believes wild animal herds belong more to hunters than the rest of the public? How does one reason with that sort of logic?

      • WM says:


        We all might do better by just reading the WDFW release on the killing of this problem wolf, and the reasons for it. The story which you reference above suggests a second one was killed as well. You should know the WA wolf management plan adopted in Dec. 2011 is probably the most progessive and complicated of any state plan, and is highly wolf tolerant. The state believed it was in the best interest of management long term to eliminate problem wolves, quickly. Whether the ranching community is doing its job by improved proactive wolf prevention practices will always be a question because it costs them money.

        • amanda says:

          Thanks WM. I had already read the WDFW release. I was more specifically responding to the tone of that Examiner article rather than the lethal measures.

    • Harley says:

      Wonder if it was beer with honey in it? lol! Actually, I really wonder what brand it was.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Perhaps it was Hamms. For those who either might remember or just have a knack for trivia.
        Check out this video on YouTube:

        • Harley says:

          Ha! I remember that! Hamms lol wow, a blast from the past!

          • Harley says:

            That reminds me of when I was very young, we used to vacation up on the border of Wisconsin and the UP. We had relatives who owned property on State Line Lake. Good times…

            • CodyCoyote says:

              I’m so lucky that back when I was coming of age in the late 60’s and learning about beer that my liver was saved from lifelong damage when the Great Falls Select brewery in Great Falls MT went under. A boutique beer it was not. Tasted like the steel can it came in. I’m sure the TV commercials shown on Montana stations must’ve also been truely awful …no dancing bears there. Probably had polka music.

        • Salle says:

          Everyone around these parts who knows anything about bears claims that bears like beer.

          They also seem to be about as curious as cats are said to be:

          • Salle says:

            Heat Wave: Bear Encounters On The Rise As High Temperatures Leave Animals Hungry


            Unfortunately, a lot of bears are being “managed” (killed) because they are looking for food.

            In Idaho and Montana, there seems to be a lot of huckleberries (and several other kinds of berries) that are in abundance but that also means that humans are out picking a lot of them too which could lead to bad encounters. Also, I heard, on the radio today, that some folks are cutting the huckleberry bushes down to get at the berries more easily, which kills them. Good thing about that is that there’s a big, fat fine for cutting down huckleberry bushes, if they’re caught.

            • Cobra says:

              We’re loaded with hucks this year in North Idaho, at least on the mountain we’re picking behind the house. I sat in one area no bigger than a normal size garage and picked over 3 gallons and they’re all about the size of marbles and very sweet this year.
              Some are paying up to $45.00 a gallon for them so a lot of people are out picking trying to make a few bucks. I’ve seen places where some people cut down or pull the bushes out and just throw them in the back of their truck to pick them at home, what a waste. Doesn’t help the berry patches much and sure pisses me off.

            • Salle says:

              Too bad that convenience over-rules smarts or consideration for what damage they do, for some at least. I think it was either %500 or maybe %5K for pulling up or cutting huckleberry bushes. It was early this morning that I heard the new report on the Rexburg NPR station. I hope those folks get the message.

              Like an apple tree, if you cut it down or uproot it, there won’t be any apples from it next year… duh. (especially since the seeds are in the berries, which won’t be germinating since they went into someone’s food.) Of course, if the bears or other wildlife were eating them, there might be new plants coming up thereafter.

  25. aves says:

    2 good columns from an Indiana outdoors writer on the continued poaching of whooping cranes and the insufficient punishment received (a $1 fine):

    “Endangered crane senselessly slaughtered in our own backyard”:

    “U.S. attorney commited to whooping crane case”:

    • aves says:

      When the author writes that “today there are just slight more than 100” he is refering to the eastern flock (those that migrate from WI to FL, and the few that live year round in FL and LA). There are ~245 in the western migratory flock that migrates from Canada’s Wood Buffalo NP to southeastern TX.

  26. DLB says:

    “Environmental groups sue to block logging in southwest Washington”

    “The Sierra Club filed suit last month to block the logging of 12,000 acres of forest land in southwest Washington state that it says is critical habitat for the marbled murrelet, a seabird that nests in coastal forests.”

  27. jon says:

    “During debate on creating the season, questions were raised about allowing the use of dogs to track wolves. However, Suder says it was included in the law because it’s part of Wisconsin’s hunting tradition. He says using dogs to hunt wolves is no different than using the animals to hunt bears, which is currently allowed.”

    wow Using dogs to hunt wolves is no different than using dogs to hunt bears huh Mr. Suder.

  28. louise kane says:

    The killer of the black wolf Romeo that was killed in Alaska having sentence revisited. The coward and liar

    • Harley says:

      Question for the animal behavior people out there. The story of Romeo the wolf in Alaska that was shot. Why did he behave the way he did?

      • Nancy says:

        No degrees in animal behavior Harley but my best guess would be Romeo went on a “walk about” and latched on to the first beings he ran into that didn’t threaten his ability to exist.

        Heard in his earlier days when he met these beings, he snatched someone’s pug (dog) but after much screaming, dropped it. A learning curve? We are talking about canines here.

        Having lived out here for a few years in Montana, its pretty much a no no to get too “familiar” with any kind of wildlife that might take up residence (or feel too comfortable) around you.

        Believe the word is habituate? Just a couple words below habitat in the dictionary, which wildlife once called home before we habituated them?

    • Mike says:

      Very good news indeed.

    • aves says:

      Another lobo is being removed from the wild so this is still very bad news. She’ll essentially be dead to the recovery program and while she may still live it won’t be much of a life for a wild wolf. If she survives the trapping and tranquilization she gets to spend the rest of her life behind bars where people can gawk at her. Plus she’s being separated from her mate and their 4 pups.

      • Mark L says:

        It’s not all bad news, really. She’s actually still part of the breeding population, she just can’t modify their behavior (and she may have more pups too). I’m curious if the wild pups survive without her, and effectively how many have they really killed by this intervention if some of them die. Sometimes you get what you can in life…but this is probably not the end of her story.

  29. Immer Treue says:

    Another lawsuit to stop Wiscomsim wolf hunt

    More about using dogs. you have to like Al Lobner, of the bear hunting associations comment that wolves have run from his dogs…

    Guess Wisconsin can stop reimbursing bear hounders now that old Al says the wolves run from his dogs.

    • jon says:

      Does he really think anyone is going to believe that bs? Wolves run from dogs? Wolves aren’t like bears or cougars. Suder and his houndsmen buddies in WI might have put the nail in Wisconsin’s upcoming wolf hunting season.

      • Paul says:

        Al Lobner lives in his own little hounder fantasy world. I posted the testimony, including Lobner’s, from the Natural Resources Board hearing here:

        and here:

        This guy gives this gushing garbage about how he “trains” his dogs and then goes on to say that the dogs do not “engage” as the wolves will just keep running. As Ida said if this is the case then why do hounders keep getting those nice fat $2500 checks for hound dogs allegedly killed by wolves?

        I read recently where someone called hounders the “meth heads” of the hunting community. I could not imagine a more fitting description of these sadists.

        As for the $10,000 claims. That is what is being pushed by the lead hounder in the state, Corky Meyer. Meyer is the brother of the head of the deceptively named hunting group the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, George Meyer. Both are strong proponents of wolf killing and the most brutal and extreme hunting methods available. George Meyer and the bear hounders have pretty much become the “voice” of the hunting community in Wisconsin and are the ones responsible for the insane wolf killing bill.

    • Ida says:

      I was just going to add that WI hunters usually submit the bill for reimbursment to the state for their injured hunting dogs. I remember one case of a man getting $10,000? And they have blamed wolves for it, even in bear hunts.

      • ma'iingan says:

        “I remember one case of a man getting $10,000?”

        You may remember a houndsman asking for $10,000, but the reimbursement limit for depredated dogs in Wisconsin is $2500.

  30. CodyCoyote says:

    That controversial East Fork of the Bitterroot MT elk herd appears to be rebounding. No wolves to blame, just Cougars. The good news is the elk calf-cow ratio is 56 per 100. The bad news is the researchers got a bum bag of RFD ear tags and are getting no worthwhile data. Best news is the word ” wolf ” barely apepars in the preliminary report.

    From the Ravalli Republic via Billings Gazette:

  31. jon says:

    A cowgirl from WA that has her own shoot, shovel, and shutup shirts.

    • Nancy says:

      Looks like she’s into a lot more than just T-shirts Jon 🙂

      “The American Gelbvieh Association is actively engaged in research for the betterment of the Gelbvieh and Balancer® genetics. The American Gelbvieh Foundation is vital in helping to fund research projects. For information on the American Gelbvieh Foundation and how to give to the Foundation”

  32. WM says:

    Colville tribe to sue Canadian company Teck Resources for dumping millions of pounds (article says millions of tons) of pollutants into the Columbia River, including mercury ,and other heavy metals- CD, PB, ZN. And, yes, mercury will float on water in microfine particles, notwithstanding the fact that it is over 13 times more dense/heavier per unit volume.

  33. Salle says:

    Secretary of interior: Grizzlies doing fine
    While his department hustles to meet a court order, Salazar says bear populations are stable

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I’d be very wary of taking bears off the endangered list. If what happened to wolves is any indication, hunting will begin mercilessly. I remember that American bears were/are being poached for their gall bladders for Chinese folk medicines. I shudder to think what would happen if they are taken off the ESA.

      • Savebears says:

        That is not the way the ESA works

      • elk275 says:


        ++I’d be very wary of taking bears off the endangered list.++

        Only grizzly bears are on the endangered list, black bears are not. Montana allows one black bear a year and Idaho allows two black bears a year and Alaska allows up to three black bears a year. There is no reason to shutter because they are not endangered and they are doing find.

    • Mike says:

      Salazar will find a way to get the bear off the list. He is a corporate rancher, after all.

  34. Salle says:

    Interest in wolf trapping continues to grow

    <em"More than 1,200 have signed the roster that Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials are using to gauge interest in the mandatory wolf trapping certification classes to be held this fall."

    Okay, so what was the quota for Montana again?

    • Nancy says:

      “There are a lot of things that need to be accomplished over the next couple of weeks,” he said. “It’s just a logistical load.”

      I’m sure its akin to “Black Friday” at the local Walmart store after Thanksgiving, Salle.

      The “bargins” are guaranteed to be there courtesy of, because of the outraged, frustrated (and oh a market somewhere for the pelts, etc.) if you decide to wait in line 🙂

  35. DLB says:

    “Hydropower legislation ramps up debate over dams”

    “Legislation introduced by Rep. Doc Hastings would strip federal funding from environmental groups that have challenged hydropower facilities in court and block federal money from being used for dam removals, unless Congress has authorized the action.”

    Doc Hastings has proven many times over what an anti-environmental extremist he is.

  36. DLB says:

    “Wildfire is growing east of Cle Elum, more evacuations ordered”

    This Washington State wildfire has already burned 60 homes.

    • bret says:

      Wow that fire went up fast from 800 ac. to 26,000 overnight and little to no containment at this point.

  37. amanda says:

    A unsettling number of Florida panther deaths this year has conservationists concerned.

    • HAL 9000 says:

      Reporters still calling Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife to get the “hunter’s perspective,” I see.

    • jon says:

      I brought this up before, what if a wolf pack with newborn pups happen to find their way in an area in Wy where there are classified as predators? The wolves including the newborn pups could be shot and killed. This is acceptable in our day in age? There is so many things wrong with Wyoming’s wolf plan.

      • HAL 9000 says:

        I expect few wolves will evade detection, especially once the shooting starts. Wolves will continue to disperse outward, though they will probably not establish a significant population in the so-called “free-fire” zone.

        Also, much of the “90 percent of Wyoming” that news reports constantly love to cite, isn’t really suitable wolf habitat to begin with — in terms of prey base, or the potential for conflict with humans.

        It must be emphasized, vast expanses of Wyoming don’t resemble the vistas of the Tetons, or the country east of Yellowstone.

        Much of Wyoming looks more like the country around Little America.

        • HAL 9000 says:

          Whoops, meant to say, “more than a few wolves will evade detection” in the so-called “free-fire” zone.

          • Salle says:

            I doubt that wolves will be safe anywhere after they start using the drones. Trust me it’s coming to a wilderness or public land area near you, soon.

            Aside from that I think that there is plenty of habitat and prey throughout a large portion of Wyoming that is suitable habitat, they don’t just make a living in mountainous areas. Wherever you can find deer and/or elk, you can probably find wolves, they eat bunnies and other stuff too. Of course, there may not be much habitat for much of anything by the time the western states are done burning down… something to watch for as well.

            And on that note, I’m just biding my time until the wolf-hating gang start blaming the wildfires on the wolves as though they were out there with matches and Bic lighters starting all those blazes to flush out the things they like to eat and trump the rights of hunters. And, of course, it will still be their fault that there won’t much to hunt for humans because the wolves will have eaten everything that didn’t get dispersed or killed in the wildfires. It’s just a matter of time before that noise starts up.

            • CodyCoyote says:

              All the more reason to take off the radio collars t level the field for wolves.

              Unfortunately , wolves have been charged and found guilty and forced to wear radio collars without really having done anything wrong. It’s a twisted form of the Napoleonic Code of Justice ( such as practiced in Mexico ) that works exactly opposite of our own : Under the Naopleonic code, if arrested for an alleged crime you are presumed guilty by the state and must establish innocence by burden of proof. In our system, you are presumed innocent till proven guilty and that burden lies with the state.

              Wolves just can’t get a fair deal , ever.

      • Salle says:

        Well, jon, I’ve heard talk that would really upset you, like the penchant for killing pups in dens… it’s like a badge of some worthy note to some. It sucks that people think like that but that’s one of the elements out there trying to eradicate them once again. Over here, west of YNP, the Idaho radio folks said that there was a “wolf reduction program” to be enacted, which is their alleged justification for the hunt, I guess. They are claiming that there won’t be much effectiveness to the hunt, not like the USFWS operations for dealing with livestock predation takes, because those guys get to use helicopters and collar frequencies to “get” them. The kid making the announcement sounded like it was a civic duty to participate in the hunt. “Lovely” folks with some questionable values, in my view. I’m getting kind of burned out on all the lust for killing anything that moves that is rampant in the romanticized “western culture”. As in, “it only has value if I can shoot it” mindset.

  38. Salle says:

    Here’s a thought provoking essay from Terry Tempest-Williams. I haven’t seen or heard much from her since we last spoke nearly ten years ago… I’m glad she’s still participating in the debate.

    A Generational Stance on Behalf of the Arctic Ocean

    • elk275 says:

      She is speaking tomorrow night at the Country Bookstore in Bozeman.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        TTW has been a longtime contributor to the excellent environmental publication ” Orion Magazine ” based in Massachusetts , which I highly recommend.
        $ 20 / yr.

        • Salle says:

          Thanks to you too, Cody. I’ll look into that.

          By the way, I was only joking about the smoke plume covering your area, I see that it has drifted into your neck of the woods, so to speak. It’s awful, I hope that most of the ash has dropped out by the time it gets to you. It isn’t showing that we have much smoke over here on the satellite views but it is still a smelly, orange sunrise just the same as the last few days.

      • Salle says:

        Thanks Elk,

        Wish I had some gas money, I’d be going to that. Maybe I can scrounge up some change to do that, it’s a two hour drive from my neck of the woods but probably the closest place to go hear her speak.

  39. CodyCoyote says:

    Wyoming gophers overruning Colorado

    Rarely seen a century ago in Colorado, the “pink nosed torpedo ” rodent that emigrated from Wyoming is now becoming a perceived pest in much of Colorado, displacing that state’s much more cute chipmunk. A rancher quipped there are so many now that when you kill one, 30 come to the funeral.

    Me, I say it’s payback. Wyoming’s gift to Colorado for flooding us with that vastly overrated Coor beer and trying to steal our Green River water for your Front Range golf courses…

  40. CodyCoyote says:

    The latest acts in the Bison Circus being performed in a courtroom in Bozeman.

  41. Salle says:

    Interesting opinion that should apply in more cases than focused upon here:

    Deer on Antelope

    Hunting rules a legislative overreach

  42. Salle says:

    Wilderness blaze exempted from suppression order
    Butte Creek Fire to burn despite ‘suppress all’ order from Forest Service.

    Looks like the fire suppression issue has run way over budget already, which is what they were trying to avoid by suppressing all fires asap. I’m thinking that it just doesn’t really matter anymore, it’s all bound to burn eventually regardless of how much money and man/womanpower is put into suppression efforts.

  43. Nancy says:

    Okay, certainly not funny (especially for this poor hunter) but hey…. “what goes around, comes around” I’m sure the squirrels will be happy though, that this guy is out of commission for awhile 🙂

    • HAL 9000 says:

      Funny story.

      However, firearms don’t “accidentally go off.”

      They might discharge unexpectedly, because somebody wasn’t paying attention, or following basic safety rules.

      As it is, this fellow is fortunate, that the bullet didn’t strike him — or somebody else — in a vital area, and instead, he ended up taking one in the…

    • Mike says:


  44. Salle says:

    Jaguars among species ‘virtually extinct’ in Brazil’s Atlantic forest

    Species are being lost faster than previously believed owing to the destruction of once dense canopy, research shows

  45. Rancher Bob says:

    2011 survey on hunting and fishing trends


  46. Salle says:

    West Nile virus outbreak causes Dallas to declare emergency

    And today…

    Dallas will spray pesticides to quash West Nile outbreak

    • Mike says:

      Yes, nothing like tons of pesticides sprayed into the air. I’m sure that’s much better for you than west nile. Or maybe we won’t find out until thirty years from now…..

      • Salle says:

        One problem is that it will kill more than just mosquitoes, things like pollinators for one.

        • Harley says:

          We certainly can’t lose any more bees.

          What would be an alternative to this? A jump of 9 deaths to 16 in a weeks time is a tad bit frightening.

          • Salle says:

            Well, the real solution is apparently too much to ask so there won’t be any actual realistic resolve to this other than to promote more use of more industrial chemicals. It was a problem produced, in this country, by industrial activity in the first place. West Nile virus, when initially discovered in the nation was found to have come from the recycled tire trade that is a world-wide shipping endeavor. Water that rests in tires that were sitting around, on other continents as well as this one, became breeding grounds for the mosquitoes that carry the virus which then came here in dirty old tires that came back here for recycling. Or that was the result of a study conducted shortly after discovery of the virus was made. It’s like dengue fever, it comes from mosquitoes that breed in stagnant water. In Central America, when dengue was found to be making a major come-back through the vector of all those plastic jugs people kept around their homes that collected rain water and the mosquitoes would breed in that. Somewhere along the line dengue came into the picture,and began a major spread after a season of torrential rains and a couple hurricanes that ravaged the landscape. Can’t remember if it was Guatemala or not but that’s one of the countries that were ripped up by hurricane activity a year or so before dengue was discovered to be a problem in the region.

            What it boils down to is the need for change in human behavior, but like curbing sexual activity to reduce population growth, fat chance that will happen without a series of major catastrophic events that kill off a large number of people. As long as corporations continue to convince everybody that they always have the answer by selling more of their nasty products, there will be no other alleged solutions besides using their products which they alone will profit from… Remember malathion spraying in California? The “authorities” would alert residents that it was perfectly safe to do this but they also told everybody to keep their pets indoors and to cover their cars or put them in a garage to protect the paint.

            • Salle says:

              How Environmental Destruction Causes Illnesses and Diseases


            • Harley says:

              ok, back the train up just a few feet. I remember the stories of how it got here. There is unfortunately no going back, though hopefully we can prevent other things. It’s here. It’s killing people. Beyond making sure you don’t have standing water around your house (Boy did they crack down on that in our suburb.) What else can you do on a wide scale to curb this?

            • Salle says:

              I don’t think backing up trains or any other option exists. You will either be poisoned by the pesticides or die from the diseases brought by the insects or the pesticides. This is how the beginning of the depopulation events of our time occur. It’s bound to happen as we continue to over populate, which is why birth control of all forms are a good thing… and if you don’t like abortions, don’t get one, they are a a practice that has been in use since humans figured out where babies come from. We don’t need more babies but since there are a certain faction of humans who think that they are entitled to engage in the activities that produce them regardless of consent of those who end up carrying them, this will be our fate. Women are now rapidly losing what few options of choice they were ever able to gain. I think these insect borne diseases are nature’s way of telling us we are messing up and not paying attention to what we’ve created in our lust for “bigger-more-better-super improved”. Weee.

            • Harley says:

              I guess I should have just looked into this on my own but I figured from how you were talking, that you know of some alternative other than birth/population control and limiting/regulating/doing away with entirely industrial activity.

              Found an interesting site, just have to do a little more research on natural remedies.

              Also, in my humble opinion, I think too often many people look to government/municipalities to bail them out of any kind of situation. From reading about the alternatives to pest control from this site, a lot of these things people could do on their own to protect themselves.

              My belief felt validated after watching the Japanese people rebound from the tsunami and comparing that to the people trying to rebound from Katrina.

              Again, just my opinion. 🙂

            • Harley says:

              Ha! And here is the link to the site! Getting forgetful in my old age…


            • Salle says:


              That’s a great site, thanks for link.I’ll be looking into a bunch of the solutions offered there.

              It does go back to my actual point though. It will take each individual to decide to change their behavior and manner of rationalization as to how their activities and how they perceive industrialized conveniences affect the rest of the environment… outside their small circle of attention. A new value set, if you will.

              I would not purchase/use anything unnatural, including computers and phones and cars if my survival wasn’t dependent upon these things in order to be a part of the physical community that I exist in, and it makes me cringe to realize that I have to have and use these things to some degree. When it’s time for my physical body to be separated, I’m good with it, but until then, I have a responsibility to myself and those around me to stay as healthy as I can with as little destruction to what I use and leave behind as is possible. I don’t see the need to rely on convenience as the rationale for all things. My opinion. 🙂

    • WM says:

      There is the right way to do things, and then there is the is the “Texas way,” which is a little like the cowboy plan for saving sage grouse. My prejudice against Texans shows, but I guess there is no protected class status which makes it illegal or not politically correct, except maybe in Texas, and they would just laugh it off anyway.

      My tainted view comes from once living in CO, and experiencing obnoxious and loud Texans assaulting the ski slopes (or hiking trails in the summer season) in great numbers, in their dayglow green, or white Bogner snowsuits with gaudy gold trim. I can’t imagine anything worse than riding a lift chair to the top of a ski mountain to seek solitude, and having to listen to some yahoo from Dallas, asking “Do ya all have… (whatever),” repeatedly at high voice volume.

      Anyway, my prejudices aside, this West Nile virus thing could be serious, if not nipped in the bud. Here is a pretty good Q&A from Texas A&M University Extension office of the risks to wildlife, and bees, and otherwise what to expect from insecticide spraying on a wide scale (to the extent this sort of thing can be predicted). In the future, we may see some of this sort of thing elsewhere in the US:

  47. louise kane says:

    Michigan has wolf hunting bill in committee

    hope some of you can time to comment

    • Salle says:

      Thanks for the “heads up”, Louise.

    • JB says:

      Actually, this seems great to me. For one there isn’t a bunch of nonsense about imminent threats to livestock and humans. Second, it doesn’t set season limits legislatively, which is a bad idea because it would take legislation to change them. Third, it doesn’t provide for all sorts of unreasonable measures of take (e.g., night hunting), like Wisconsin. And finally, it sets the fees at $100/$400 for residents and non-residents, respectively. With license costs that high, few will hunt wolves, and we already know that wolf hunters have extremely low success rates.

      There really isn’t anything here to be upset about–unless, of course, you believe that wolves should not be hunted at all.

      • louise kane says:

        Yes, JB
        don’t think wolves should be hunted, no surprise here. The states had/have the ability to hunt wolves that kill livestock, why should people hunt them? For the thrill, for a pelt. Sorry I don’t want wolves hunted and I make no apologies. I do not agree with killing wild animals for fun, sport whatever you want to call it.

  48. jon says:

    California is 2 steps away from banning hound hunting of bear and bobcat. Congrats.

  49. CodyCoyote says:

    We are so focussed on the Fossil Fuel issue that we sometimes forget about the Fossil WATER issue, too. Lots of news stories recently about aquifers being drawn down much faster than they can ever be replenished, especially since we have this Once-A-Century scale drought happening.

    Here’s a take on the Wedstern water aquifer issue, as it concerns plundering water for development and especially fracking. Idaho Mountain Express story :

  50. Barb Rupers says:

    Critical habitat for jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico.

  51. Salle says:

    Here’s an article that I highly recommend to everyone who is interested in how to transform our society to think about what’s wrong with our current path to prosperity and sustainability…

    The Triumph Of Fantasy Over Science
    Two competing camps attract people from all over the world. One is Science Camp, and the other is Fantasy Camp.

  52. louise kane says:

    USFWS 2011 Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

    at first glance wildlife watchers outspent hunters and fisher people

    • ma'iingan says:

      “at first glance wildlife watchers outspent hunters and fisher people”

      You understand that the categories are not mutually exclusive, don’t you? Many people spend lots of money on all three pursuits.

  53. louise kane says:

    a post from wildearth guardians asking people to call to keep the Mexican wolf mother with her pups and in the wild.
    less then 60 of these animals in the wild and the agency wants to take a female with pups and put her in captivity. Its mind boggling. telephone contacts provide by Wildearth Guardian below.

    Thousands of people lit up the lines last Friday to the White House, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and New Mexico’s Congressional delegation to save the Fox Mountain Mexican mother wolf from execution. But her new fate is now arguably worse: she will be captured and taken from the wild and away from her mate and her pups and she will be incarcerated – all because of purported livestock conflicts, even when the livestock owner was compensated for his losses.

    Please call the White House, New Mexico Senators Udall and Bingaman, and New Mexico Congressional Representatives Luján and Heinrich now to keep the Fox Mountain mother wolf in the wild, and demand that cattle be restricted from the pack’s den area.

    White House (202) 456-1111

    Senator Tom Udall (202) 224-6621, (505) 988-6511 or (505) 346-6791

    Senator Jeff Bingaman (202) 224-5521 or 1-800-443-8658

    Congressman Ben Ray Luján (505) 984-8950 or (202) 225-6190

    Congressman Martin Heinrich (505) 346-6781 or (202) 225-6316

    Please politely tell them:

    The Fox Mountain pups need their mother and to be left unmolested in the wild of the Apache National Forest. Like any youngster who loses their mother, those pups will suffer, and the mother will suffer in captivity. Removing members from a pack causes trauma for all the pack’s members, and can even cause packs to disband, studies show.
    Fewer than 60 Mexican wolves roam the wild, and the Fox Mountain pack contains one of only six breeding pairs identified. Removing this wolf is biologically harmful and a huge waste of taxpayer money.
    The livestock owner has been compensated for his losses.
    Livestock owners within the territory of the Fox Mountain pack should immediately either temporarily remove all livestock from the vicinity of the pups’ den, or use electric fencing or herders to manage cattle by day, and barns and corrals to secure the animals at night.
    Thank you so much for your calls and emails to decision makers. Your voices made a big difference. But now it’s time to make one more call! Thank you for standing up for Mexican wolves.

    For the Lobo,

    • Immer Treue says:

      Can’t be the Eurasian variety as there are black wolves among them. Don’t have black wolves in “Eurasia” save a small population in Italy…

      A bit of their own medicine…

      Incredible as I wonder how many who sign even know where/what Eurasia is. Generalization though it may be, I’d question the ‘intelligence’ anyone who would sign this.

      • Salle says:

        A good way to find that out is to ask them to point the place out on a map of the world and see how long it takes them, or if they throw the map back at you and stubbornly claim that it doesn’t matter.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        Every domestic Dog out there…the poodle in your aunt Minnie’s lap or you macho neighbor’s Rottweiller—is a subspecie of Grey Wolf. There are 37 ( or 39 ) subspecies of wolves, say the taxonomists. One of them is Canis lupus familiaris. That’s Fido.

        Guess they would all have to go, too, if we start deporting the Eurasians…

    • Mike says:

      lol! A petition for something that doesn’t exist. Only hunters and ranchers could pull that one off.

    • timz says:

      And all this time I thought they were Canadian gray wolves.

    • JB says:


      Did you just cite the Bad Bear Blog as a source of information? Seriously?!

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Yes, these people are making a big conspiracy thing about the Idaho Wildlife Summit this coming weekend. They say extremist groups like the Sierra Club are behind it.

      For the reality-minded, I don’t see much interest in the Summit from conservation groups.

      The Idaho Conservation League does have a page on their web site:

      I probably should do a post.

      • JB says:

        My understanding is that they have already filled the main room and are moving participants into an overflow area. So sign up if you want to go!

  54. louise kane says:

    Reposted from We Vow Wisconsin Wildlife Ethic

    having spent a nice long time traveling through Ecuador and hearing about the destruction that Shell wreaked on the Amazon basin through my nephew who lives there and is married to an Ecuadorian, this caught my attention. Looks like news laws were passed that provide rights for wildlife. The tribes living in the Napo River system have had their areas decimated by oil and they have hunted much of the basin. But they are an open minded people. It will be interesting to see how their newly written laws play out. If anyone sees or knows more about the laws referenced in the oped I’d love to know.

  55. Salle says:

    FWP Biologist Craig Jourdonnais Discusses Recent Bitterroot Valley Elk Count

  56. CodyCoyote says:

    This explains That .
    Not just Climate Change, but pretty much all science in the public eye. Like barstool biology explains wolves….

  57. WM says:

    Eastern WA is now getting its late summer forest fires.

    This one, between Cle Elum and Ellensgurg and not far from I-90, is only at 36,000 acres, but forest ecologists fear it is a harbinger of things to come from years of suppression, bug and disease outbreaks. Very scary stuff.

  58. Salle says:

    Nation’s First Tar Sands Mine Stirs Water, Environmental Fears Out West
    A Canadian company opens a test pit in Utah and could be running a sizeable mine by early 2014. But is there enough water to support the industry?

    I think the answer is no, No, NO! This is a desert with a growing population of humans… so where are they going to get more water since it’s already been proven that there isn’t even enough for that and plans have been made to take water from other locations where there’s barely enough? Oh, yeah, profit trumps everything else which gives those with ownership of governing entities license to take whatever they want to make that profit.

  59. louise kane says:

    More wolves in Washington to be killed for killing cattle!!! The bad news never ends when it comes to wolves

    ENDANGERED SPECIES — Washington Fish and Wildlife officials say they plan to kill more wolves in northern Stevens County to curb a spree of attacks on cattle.

    After confirming that wolves killed one calf this week and injured another, the agency intends to kill up to three members of the Wedge Pack, Madonna Luers, department spokeswoman said Friday.

    “Our officers will try to trap and put a radio collar on at least one more wolf in the pack for monitoring,” she said. “Then the intent is to lethally remove up to three more wolves to disrupt the pack and reduce its need to feed so many mouths.”

    The Wedge Pack roams the Colville National Forest area the Diamond M Ranch leases for grazing between the Columbia and Kettle rivers. Wolf attacks have been confirmed on at least five of the ranch’s animals in the past four weeks, including two calves killed.

    A female non-breeding wolf in the pack was killed by department officers on Aug. 7 after wolves had killed a calf and injured two others. The kill was the first by the agency under its wolf management plan adopted in 2011. Although gray wolves in Eastern Washington are protected by state endangered species laws, the plan allows lethal removal in some cases.

    Remote camera images indicate the Wedge Pack includes at least a breeding pair, a few sub-adults and a few pups, but the exact number of wolves isn’t known, Luers said.

    • bret says:

      Louise, I think the process of lethal removal will continue as wolf populations and range increase in the NE corner of the state, as they spread south and west human population densities increase and so probably will conflicts.

      Much the same scenario will be played out in the SE portion of the state where no packs have been documented but it is unrealistic to think that the suspected Touchet pack is the only pack in the Blues.

      • louise kane says:

        I hate to think so but you are probably correct Bret, however Washington has not been so anti predator so perhaps there is some hope of reversing killing as the first line of defense and instead asking ranchers to adopt predator avoidance tactics. We can hope

        • WM says:


          I have been watching the WA wolf planning process pretty closely. The smart money is on the idea that acceptance of wolf presence is predicated on dealing with depredation incidents swiftly. Otherwise,long-term wolf acceptance will be more difficult and this plan likely will be changed by the Commission as it is played out. They didn’t box themsleves in as their neighbor to the south, OR, did.

          • louise kane says:

            WM I agree with your analysis. Its just disappointing to see that the retribution for killing cattle is so swift and severe and still relies on killing. I was hoping that Washington would rely more on imposing higher standards on the livestock industry to avoid predator cattle conflicts. Its too bad we don’t have such swift and certain punishments for poaching. Obviously not death penalties.

  60. CodyCoyote says:

    An interesting bit of Forest Service chicanery . Back in late May the Deputy national Director of the FS in Washington issued a secret memo directing the service to fight all forest fires, and get on ’em early. Jim Hubbard’s reason for this was financial …costs less to fight small fires before they grow into monsters. At the time, Colorado’s Front Range was stokin’ and smokin’ and it looked like the summer fire season was going to be hellfire nearly everywhere out West.

    Not quite true as it turned out, but Hubbard’s decision DID NOT come to light till last week when the Butte Fire between Cody and jackson WY was exempted from this revised policy. It was for all practical purposes a Secret Memo that changed Forest Service firefighting policy by 180 degrees, at least for this summer.

    No mo Let Burn .

    COMMENT: It’s as if a century of fire ecology got thrown out with the bureaucratic bathwater.

    Dunno about you’alls, but MY Shoshone National Forest needs to burn. It’s past time for that , due to bad fire suppression policy for most of the last century. Now after a brief period of enlightenment and progression , we go backwards.

    I personally think this reversal and the secretiveness of it is being GREATLY underreported.

    • WM says:


      I wouldn’t pretend to know what the right “policy” decision is for this day and age. When fires burn over large acreages, it affects merchantable wood that won’t ever be cut, increases water and sometimes wind erosion, temporarily adversely affects recreation, fish and wildlife, and forage among the most obvious things. Blackened landscapes absorb heat, as well. Combustion, as we know, produces a by-product, carbon dioxide, like we need more of that. A few weeks of massive forest fires can produce more CO2 than a year of auto combustion.

      FS or state wildfire budgets get hit very hard with major project fires. And, no legislative bodies want to be spending more on fire-fighting (though it might create a few local jobs for a short while). Add to that the loss of property in the form of homes (often built where they shouldn’t be) and the amounts insurance companies pay out, and loss of forest related recreational revenues.

      When is it ever a good time to just let things burn, and will the resulting landscape be better for it? We can certainly hope “letting it burn” works for the better, but with humans and their material trappings, and desires for the status quo on the landscape they inhabit, it is complicated.

      I dunno, whether a “let ‘er burn” policy ever goes over very well, but being selective about where might be helpful.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        WM: you ask: “When is it ever a good time to just let things burn, and will the resulting landscape be better for it? ”

        Most of the northern half of the Shoshone National Forest in NW Wyoming would be my immediate answer, since it is in my back yard and I know it well. It is overgrown , unhealthally so from a century of unnecessary unwise fire suppression, and badly afflicted by pine beetles and in greatneed of a “refresh” to correct generations of bad management. It is not a logging forest nor much of a grazing forest. It’s an extension of Yellowstone National Park , mostly.

        It needs to burn . Not all at once , of course . 110,000 acres went up in one fire in 2008 , about 1/10th of the area needing rejuvenation . So maybe across a 40 years span , roughly speaking . Unlike the rest of Wyoing or elsewhere in the West , fire activity on the Shoshone has been next to nothing this year , thanks to the Forest Circus’s covert ” Fight All Fires” policy . They extinguished all two of them. Yet it is the forest that needs some fire ecology the most.

    • Nancy says:

      A big thanks to the organization who did the undercover work and exposed the cruelty.

      Too bad the mighty cattle industry (with their huge membership and powerful lobbyists) aren’t doing more to prevent this abuse but hey, “out of sight, out of mind”

  61. amanda says:

    NYT article (from a hunter) with a negative tone around wolf hunting.

    • jon says:

      I will never understand why some people enjoy killing living things either for sport or for trophies. It just isn’t normal human behavior to kill something for sport and claim it’s fun.

      • Savebears says:


        For something that you say is not normal, it has been going on for thousands of years, all through history, you can find examples of humans killing animals and displaying them as trophies, even the cave dwelling humans did it.

      • JB says:


        It isn’t “killing…for sport”, it is hunting for sport and there is a difference. The fun parts of hunting all occur prior to pulling the trigger, or loosing an arrow–that is the experience that sport hunters generally seek. You can understand that people think geocaching is fun, right? The process of hunting is much the same. And before the feigned outrage begins at my comparison, yes I realize that the end result is different (an animal dies). Nonetheless, you consistently and fundamentally misunderstand (and misrepresent) the experience that hunters seek. (If it were simply about killing, then why waste time hunting? You could simply raise livestock and kill animals at your leisure.)

        • timz says:

          You can’t call something a sport when only one side knows they’re playing.

          • JB says:

            1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.


            Apparently, you can call it a sport. 🙂

            • jon says:

              Shooting an animal with a high powered rifle dressed in camo is classified as a “sport”? Boy, what is this world coming to when people start calling killing wildlife a “sport”.

              “You can’t call something a sport when only one side knows they’re playing.”

              I agree 100% with you.

            • JB says:

              Now your just being disingenuous–and you’re failing to address my point. No one would call euthanizing a pet sport, no one would call wringing the neck of a chicken for dinner sport, no one would call the slaughter of cows sport–that is killing. What makes hunting a sport is the HUNTING part of the equation, not the killing part. Is that really so hard to understand, or is it that you just don’t want to deal with information that conflicts with your view?

            • jon says:


              Show Jumping, an equestrian sport
              The precise definition of what separates a sport from other leisure activities varies between sources, with no universally agreed definition. The closest to an international agreement on a definition is provided by SportAccord, which is the association for all the largest international sports federations (including association football, athletics, cycling, tennis, equestrian sports and more), and is therefore the de facto representative of international sport.
              SportAccord uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should:[1]
              have an element of competition
              be in no way harmful to any living creature
              not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football)
              not rely on any ‘luck’ element specifically designed in to the sport
              They also recognise that sport can be primarily physical (such as rugby or athletics), primarily mind (such as chess or go), predominantly motorised (such as Formula 1 or powerboating), primarily co-ordination (such as billiard sports) or primarily animal supported (such as equestrian sport).[1]
              There has been an increase in the application of the term ‘sport’ to a wider set of non-physical challenges such as electronic sports, especially due to the large scale of participation and organised competition, but these are not widely recognised by mainstream sports organisations.

            • jon says:

              jb, you have to find something in order to kill it. That doesn’t change the fact that an animal is being killed and the purpose of that “hunt” was to specifically kill an animal. In this case with Randy Newberg, it was the wolf.

            • timz says:

              So if it’s a sport to kill an animal why do people get all wound up when a bear kills a human, and immediately seek out and destroy the animal. To me the bear is just participating in your sport and should be rewarded not destroyed.

            • JB says:


              Forty years of research on the psychology of recreation indicates that people pursue recreational activities for the experience and the benefits they provide. In hunting 99.99% of the experience is the pursuit of the animal–the time it takes to fire the shot is a fraction of a second.

              The benefits of the hunt are multiple and derived from a various aspects of the activity (e.g., socializing with one’s family and friends, walking/hiking/backpacking, the psychological utility of accomplishment, food for oneself and family, etc.).

              Thus, many hunters and anglers reap benefits associated with their sport, even if they don’t kill/catch anything. Indeed, hunter surveys often show high levels of satisfaction with the hunt despite the fact that no animal was taken.

              Hunting needn’t and often doesn’t end in killing–my “hunts” with my camera never do–but when it does, the acquisition of food/fur/trophy is but one more benefit.

              P.S. Citing a definition that appears designed specifically to exclude hunting doesn’t change the fact that hunting is undertaken (IN PART) for “sport”.

            • elk275 says:


              ++be in no way harmful to any living creature++

              One of my friends played football at JB’s school for Woody in the early 70’s. Before he took his life at a remote Montana cabin he could barely walk after several knee surgery’s and a total knee replacement which did not work.

              So is football a sport, not according to your definition.

            • jon says:

              “So if it’s a sport to kill an animal why do people get all wound up when a bear kills a human, and immediately seek out and destroy the animal. To me the bear is just participating in your sport and should be rewarded not destroyed.”

              The bear was hunting for “sport” Timz. lol

          • Mike says:

            Very good point, Timz.

            And fair chase ended a long time ago. There are too many roads now, too much technology, too many advantages.

          • Salle says:

            You know, Timz, that’s what I was trying to elaborate on but some commenters would have nothing of it. See the banter below.

        • Salle says:

          But killing a cow just standing around chewing cud wouldn’t be any fun for those who think that it makes them more manly to go out in the woods, or wherever, and pretend that they are at any kind of disadvantage-other than their lack of knowledge about wild places and an ability to avoid hurting themselves with their own weapons. For some, as long as they got to kill something in a pretty place they think they have participated in a sport. Chasing down an animal that will ultimately lose the “competition” isn’t a sport per se… it’s more like a patsy being pushed into an ambush. I could see it if there were some reason that animal protein is not available otherwise but that’s just not the case for most who “hunt” with their long range scopes and guns and high tech compound bows etc. Now if you had to catch and kill the animal with your bare hands and maybe a conveniently located rock or stick, then it might qualify as a sport… and the animal would have a fair chance at avoiding its demise by the hand of man or woman, aka “fair chase”. All those “tools” are what make it unfair and not worthy of accolades, including a full freezer at the end of the activity and especially a head on the wall or a fur mat for the floor.

          • JB says:


            Your post illustrates the fundamental problem with fair chase–namely, different people have different visions of what is “fair”. When I hear non-hunters talking about fair chase I usually get the impression that the concept is simply being used as a tool to promote an anti-hunting agenda. If hunters were made to hunt with nothing but a spear, then you’d simply switch the argument and talk about how barbaric they were and call them barbarians full of bloodlust. It’s all very disingenuous.

            • Salle says:


              Not really. If it were actually fair, for all intent and purpose, it would be either the human has use of only what his body has to offer or the animal is given some high-tech form of weaponry that would give them a fair advantage to fight against the human… something specifically designed for the body-type of the animal… I see no element of fairness in concepts borne of species-centrism that is conceived via some expectation of exceptionalism. That line of thinking is what makes it okay, in the minds of some, to dispose of wild animals who physically harm humans or inconvenience them in some way, large or small when all they were doing is trying to survive. We seem to, as a culture, make it more difficult for them to survive every day because, why? Because they have become inconvenient to us by way of existing, or because we see them as a form of food for the taking without a whole lot of effort out into their ability to survive, unless, of course, we see then as a money-making “resource” that we can make a buck off of… usually by killing them. The easier it is to kill them the better. Besides, we might be able to cut down their forest or dredge up their range and make some $$ that way too. I think the actual concept of fairness has been bastardized enough already. Hunting isn’t fair by any stretch, you can tell by how many hunters don’t get hurt by the animals’ trying to fight back and sometimes winning.

            • louise kane says:

              well put Salle
              Hunting is not fair by any stretch of the imagination.

            • JB says:


              There is a difference between “fair” and “fair chase”. Nothing in life is “fair”–for us or any other organism. (When I used to complain about fairness, my dad would retort: Get over it. There ain’t no fair fairy!)

              Fair chase means only that the animal has some reasonable chance of escape. The concept of “fairness” here is embodied in the term “reasonable”, which is what we were disagreeing on, before you launched into the whole species-centric argument.

            • Salle says:


              In my reckoning, if you use the word “fair”, even if you add something to it like the word “chase”, it still implies that there is an element of fairness that reasonably translates to some concept of un-tilted sense of evenness for both parties in the activity. With your definition I conclude that the term “fair chase” is merely a shibboleth to imply something is there that really isn’t, but the terminology is used to imply that there is some kind of fairness in the act. I don’t buy it, still has no element of fairness in that the animals have no real chance at actually fighting back and getting the hunter rather than it being destroyed or wounded thus resulting in a prolonged death scenario. Hunting doesn’t allow for the animal getting the hunter in much the same manner. Since when do elk, for instance, get all decked out in camo gear and hunt down humans for freezer fill? Can’t convince me that there is anything fair about “fair chase”… rings pretty hollow. Meant what I said earlier because it is what it is no matter who likes it or what excuses for use of the terminology to justify the activity are promoted. “Game animals” are “managed” for overpopulation to accommodate the hunting crowd and for little other purpose, regardless of the “reasons” offered by the hunt-friendly groups. Face it, hunting is promoted killing of wildlife and the “conservation” argument really is only there to give credence to the promotion of wildlife killing. (I’m making this argument because I see implications of a one-sided set of claims that are placed in the dialogue to silence those who oppose hunting for the thing that it is and that’s all I’m saying. It’s an argument of semantics and logic that get quite tangled in curious ways to obscure the truth of the activity for the sake of individual justification to adherence to one side of the argument no matter which side you’re on.) Obviously “fair chase” does not equal “fairness” so the term needs to be discarded and something more honest used to replace it.

            • WM says:


              I think the concept is much more simple than you suggest. It has been some time since I diagramed the grammar of a sentence, but the operative word here is “chase” the modifier to describe what kind of chase is “fair.”

              Predators chase prey, with the end objective we all know. Human hunters are a type of predator. To imply that a chase is fair, is to give opportunity for the prey to flee with some sort of human defined governing rules that define method of take, including those which are prohibited.

              There is no symmetry here in the term “fair chase,” or value set which you seem to suggest is missing, as in giving the prey some sort of reciprocal advantage to take out/injure/kill the human predator.

            • JB says:

              “…it, still has no element of fairness in that the animals have no real chance at actually fighting back and getting the hunter…”

              WM has the right of it. What you’re describing might be called a “fair fight“, which is different from a fair chase. Again, what makes for a “fair” chase is that the animal has a reasonable chance of escaping. A useful analogue is the game of tag. If a fit teenager were to play the game with a bunch of preschoolers, then the outcome of the game is preordained–they have no reasonable chance of winning (escaping), which means the game isn’t all that challenging (or fun) for the teenager. Likewise, hunting becomes fair chase (and exciting) when animals have a reasonable chance of escaping–or not being found at all.

            • JB says:

              ““Game animals” are “managed” for overpopulation to accommodate the hunting crowd and for little other purpose, regardless of the “reasons” offered by the hunt-friendly groups. Face it, hunting is promoted killing of wildlife and the “conservation” argument really is only there to give credence to the promotion of wildlife killing.”

              Salle: This view simply isn’t consistent with my experience of wildlife management. Throughout the Midwest wildlife managers have been attempting to use hunting to reduce overabundant deer populations, often with little success. In fact, in at least two areas here in Ohio well-meaning animal rights activists effectively blocked deer hunting in urban parks, which resulted in a tremendous loss of biodiversity, an increase in local deer-vehicle collisions, and starving deer (see citation below). In an area approximately one mile square deer numbered more than 300, over 10 times the estimated carrying capacity. These conditions were not cause by hunters or wildlife managers who tried to intervene–they were caused by the very people who purported to speak on behalf of wildlife.

              Peck, L. J., and J. E. Stahl. 1997. Deer management techniques employed by the Columbus and Franklin County Park District, Ohio. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:440-442.

            • Salle says:

              I think both JB and WM missed my point as they became instantly offended at what my perception of the actual issue is. All I can say is… wow, you guys. Like I said, the semantics and logic become entangled in a mess that is, apparently, beyond your grasp to recognize as you continue to defend the activity with it’s disingenuous terminology and offer excuses, including citations, that obscure what I was getting at. The belief in the status quo is insufficient and wasteful at this point in the game of life so…

              And WM, I thought you had decided to permanently ignore me…

              Nevertheless, I am pretty burned out on the topic as it is useless to try and continue to define my statement to any of you who take offense to my comment. There are more important things to debate so I’ll move on to some of those.

            • JB says:


              I apologize for missing your point. A note: You seem to be making several points in your posts, and I tend to comment on those I disagree with. Perhaps you might consider restating the main point(s) you believe we disagree on?

              Here are mine:

              (1) If you return to the beginning of this thread, my point was merely that framing hunting as “killing for sport” is disingenuous, as 99.99% of the activity (and all of the fun stuff) involves HUNTING not killing, or what comes after the kill, which is a lot of work. People who don’t like hunting (or hunters) frame it is killing because it works in their favor, despite the fact that anyone who just wanted to kill things would find it easier to raise livestock, shoot feral cats, or burn ants with a microscope.

              (2) I could (frankly) care less if you want to call hunting a sport or not. As I tried to point out, people differ in what they believe is sporting because we have different perceptions about what constitutes “fair” chase. This point is supported by subsequent comments and, to be frank, seems self-evident? I doubt we will ever agree here.

              (3)Your other assertion–that game are managed purposefully for overabundance to satisfy hunters–is true for certain species in certain instances. We stock pheasants for the sole purpose of hunting (for example), just as we stock fish simply so people who enjoying fishing can fish for them (“put & take fisheries). However, bold assertions like “‘Game animals’ are ‘managed’ for overpopulation to accommodate the hunting crowd and for little other purpose…” simply ring hollow–that isn’t true! I have sat in too many meetings where many other purposes are considered–including, I might add, reducing their impact on agriculture, which you yourself have pointed out many times before! I have also seen several examples (the article I posted being one) of species NOT hunted specifically because non-hunters objected to it. And in some instances–like the one I cited–this has resulted in negative consequences for both the species that would (should?) have been hunted, as well as numerous others.

            • Salle says:


              I wasn’t looking for an apology as I see this as a spirited debate and not meant to be a heated or hateful argument intended to hurt feelings. But I’ll accept it because I don’t think you were being mean spirit, maybe frustrated because you may have thought I didn’t get what you were saying. Also, ” I tend to comment on those I disagree with” ~ so do I. And in the spirit of disclosure, I did come into the middle of the debate, but there was response so I went with it. Also, I have no beliefs, I prefer to think about things and try to understand them… but I do have “feelings” about these things.

              (1) I agree that some find the locating and stalking portion of the hunting activity as fun or enjoyable. However, there appear, from looking at what I have seen/encountered in my travels all over the country, to be many who find pleasure in the killing part of the activity more than the locating and stalking part. I understand that the locating and stalking part can tend to make/help some appreciate the wild country they need to traverse in order to carry out the activity. That is not the case for all who go “hunting”… there are those individuals whom I find to be an abomination of the enjoyment of the “hunt” as you define it and are mostly following some sense of blood-lust. I find that a problem that is a cultural issue that begs reparation and should probably work in a slaughter-house, though I find those places to be absolutely reprehensible and a source of fomentation for cruelty.

              (2) Indeed, perceptions are varied and I was trying to point out that the concepts and terminology use for activities regarding “hunting” don’t jive. I find the words employed to describe certain aspects of this activity as disingenuous and also in need of reparation due to the revision of definitions required to make the terms apply to the actual activity. They just don’t agree with the terms used to describe or justify what the activity is verses the implications by use of those terms… as in “fair chase” attempting to indicate that there was a guarantee of some element of fairness in the act of hunting… I don’t see that there is and that is what I was stating. Doesn’t matter if we agree, I had a different perception on that and so I wanted to point that out.

              (3) My point on this part is that I don’t agree with your argument because these wildlife species were not a problem for each other until we humans took their habitat from them and now find that when they inconvenience us, our agriculture (business – $$), they get into our yards or garbage bags at the end of the driveway or that we crash into them with our cars because we can’t be bothered to pay attention while driving or travel at a safe speed that allows for seeing them is a the problem. WE HUMANS and our behaviors are the problem not the other way around. I don’t agree that wild animals need to be hunted for their own good or for ours either. We take this position and act on it at our own peril, which is where my claims of species-centrism comes into play. I don’t agree that we have some divinely decreed status of “species exceptionale” as in above all other species… we can’t exist long without the others. So why aren’t they respected rather than placed in some sub-category that automatically makes them expendable for our convenience? I have a lot of problems getting my head around that part because I was taught to see other species as family that we share the biosphere with rather than objects or some problem that needs to be maintained and managed for the sake of human convenience, entertainment and profit.

              That was my set of points that actually come around to one point about what some call “sport” and “hunting for sport” or whatever. I think that the current terminology used to describe what we humans do to wildlife (flora and fauna)is reinterpreted to make it all okay so that we feel no guilt or cause to revisit what humans do to them, as a culture, and that as long as humans come out on top in the end everything’s good. It doesn’t work for me and I think my take on that is as valid as that of anyone else, in some cases perhaps, more so.

          • Mike says:

            ++There is a difference between “fair” and “fair chase”. Nothing in life is “fair”–for us or any other organism.
            (When I used to complain about fairness, my dad would retort: Get over it. There ain’t no fair fairy!)++

            Sure there is. It’s called the human mind. We recognize fairness and can create standards.

            That’s what makes us a superior species, and that’s why the argument of “predators chase prey” in regards to human hunters is meaningless.

      • HAL 9000 says:

        I can’t speak for others, but for me, hunting is more an undertaking than a “sport.” True, there are perhaps sports-like aspect to it. For instance, one of the primary reasons I work out regularly is to stay in shape for hunting. When it’s done they way I think it should be done, it’s a rigorous physical undertaking.
        Past that, people always seem to get hung upon on the killing and “high powered rifle” aspect of things. True, my favorite hunting rifle is an old sporterized military rifle that dates back to pre-World War II, but it’s high powered enough to make clean kills as far as I’m comfortable shooting.
        Be all that as it may, what comes into play is exercising the skill and patience to get to a spot, and wait for a moment in which the shot will be a slam-dunk. I don’t hunt to test my shooting skill. That’s what the shooting range is for. I practice my marksmanship and made myself familiar with my rifle, not so I can brag about shots, but so I can ensure, when the time comes, the kill will be as quick as possible.
        Are there hunters who “thrill kill,” or try to make it all about the shooting, and approach it as a competitive sport — just so they can brag? Absolutely. The evidence is all over YouTube.

        • Nancy says:

          A good read:

          “It is true that among human omnivores, those who choose to eat meat, there are those who hunt their own food, while others pay to have their food killed. The fact is that in the end, an animal dies for the human appetite. And many hunters will cite factory farming as an unpalatable alternative to their humane vision of hunting. It’s a point frequently used and a seemingly viable one when you consider often incomprehensible industrial practices that bring meat to the table.

          Slaughter in some form is the norm when a living entity is deemed a culinary commodity — a quandary delineated and never fully resolved throughout philosophical history, and in modern times like The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Bay Area writer Michael Pollan.

          • Nancy says:

            “modern tomes” like The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Bay Area writer Michael Pollan.

        • louise kane says:

          whats the difference between a thrill kill and what you are describing. If its not for food and you are practicing marksmanship then what is the fun part of this, the kill?
          Many of us stay in shape, hike and enjoy the outdoors without stalking and killing something for sport or as a trophy.
          Whether one brags or not the outcome is still the same. An animal is killed for “recreation”. The woods/wilderness is not safe for anything.

          • louise kane says:

            and you are not practicing marksmanship

            • HAL 9000 says:

              I didn’t say everybody has to hunt, now did I?

              I eat what I kill, and help to feed my family — both direct and extended with it, so it does serve a purpose.

              The woods and wilderness are not safe places, period. Most wild animals don’t live to an advanced age. And those that do, probably wish they hadn’t.

          • Mark L says:

            For one, since no predator other than coyotes (not really an apex predator)occur where I am (Alabama), we need hunters just to keep the deer population down, and allow saplings to grow. Yes, it would be nice to have hunters leave the 8 points and higher alone for a year or 2 and only take spikes, but it is what it is (I hunt and fish also). I like to know what kind of cut I’m getting and where it’s from, as others have said. That being said, bow hunting is much more rewarding than the point and shoot world most hunters live in. It’s MY energy that pulls the bow back, and to me that makes all the difference. What I have a problem with is hunters complaining about seeing less prey when they have better technology to use against it (and hunters that can’t handle competition). The act of hunting itself makes the prey more alert, which is actually making the prey ‘better’ adapted to you in the long run. It’s SUPPOSED to be hard.

          • JB says:


            I think you missed this:

            “…what comes into play is exercising the skill and patience to get to a spot…”

            Again, your fixation on the killing part of hunting is preventing you from recognize that the challenge is in the HUNTING part of hunting (that’s all of the stuff that comes before the trigger is pulled).

            • louise kane says:

              I hear and comprehend the idea of using skill and patience to achieve a goal. Its just incredible to me that the goal of any fun outing is to kill wildlife as trophies. Aren’t there any number of sports, hiking, rock and mountain climbing, mountain biking, tracking wildlife for watching or photography that use the same skills. They just don’t result in the death of some amazing animal. What a thrill to come on wildlife after a long exhilarating hike. I’ve spent a lot of time tracking wildlife and fish populations all over the world for documentary and photography projects for NOAA and for commercial advertising. I’m usually carrying some ungodly amount of camera gear, motion picture and still, for my husband or another photographer. As a producer I am on location for every shoot. To me its a bizarre and twisted unthinkable thought to want to kill for enjoyment, especially when wildlife already face such harsh lives and their habitat is so greatly diminished. I think the fixation to kill is preventing those who do from valuing the resources they squander as trophies. In our diminished, shrinking natural world its time to rethink “trophy” hunting for sport.

            • JB says:

              “…to kill for enjoyment…”

              And again, to HUNT for enjoyment.


              P.S. I hear you on lugging camera equipment on long hikes.

            • Savebears says:

              There is a hell of allot more to a hunt than the kill, I enjoy the hunt, and I enjoy the goal, when I have an all natural meal sitting on my table, which I give thanks for.


              You have a very skewed view of hunting, what do you define as trophy hunting? As and archer, every single animal I kill is considered a trophy, a good majority don’t even have antlers!

    • Mike says:

      Very, very disturbing article.

      Here’s how the hunting mindset is formed:

      Dad took kid hunting. Kid gets it “in his blood”. Kid goes out and hunts, then takes his kid hunting.

      What rarely happens in-between is a critical analysis of “why”?

      Most hunters are people who just haven’t figured out that you can enjoy the great outdoors without macho elements. It takes a considerable amount of self-awareness and ego-release to put that rifle down and just enjoy the hike for the hike.

      • Savebears says:

        I enjoyed the hike, that was when I could do it, I also enjoy the meat on the table and I am not going to apologize for that, I enjoy the wild meat, far more than the commercial meat available for purchase.

      • HAL 9000 says:

        It also takes a great level of self-awareness to not make ignorant, cliche suppositions about the minds and motives of others.

      • WM says:

        I became a hunter because my mother took me (my father was too busy working at the time) and she thought it would be a great opportunity to spend time with her 14 year old son.

        Then, she also enjoyed going on combined hunting/fishing adventures with my father, sometimes involving rides in single engine planes in British Columbia, or horseback rides in the Cascades or Rockies. She was a bit of a tomboy, but I certainly would not call her macho. What brought her “joy” was the time we all spent together over the years (she hunted well into her 70’s, the idea of being out in cool weather, walking in places most people don’t (off of trails and in out of the way places). And, yeah, she would call hunting a “sport.” At the time they had a sporting goods store that sold tennis rackets, ball gloves, and yes, hunting rifles and shotguns. She also hunted upland birds with dogs she raised and trained. She took friends hunting, and it was usually more about the outing, watching the dog work, than shooting birds.

        The wife of one of my elk hunting partners, the police detective I have mentioned here before, hunts deer with her sister (both in their early 30’s) when we are off on our annual fall trip. She has a stressful public relations job, and I would put her closer to a Vogue model than a macho man. Their parents did not hunt, by the way.

        Mike, you are out of your pay grade once again, sport.

        • timz says:

          WM, so are you saying your a mamas boy.

        • louise kane says:

          “She has a stressful public relations job, and I would put her closer to a Vogue model than a macho man.”

          in her quest to relieve stress as a PR person the Vogue-like model turns to killing deer. a great stress reliever I am told.

          • WM says:

            No louise,

            Although she has shot deer, I think she takes greater joy (there is that word again) from most of the other parts of the experience, including spending time with her sister, in the fall air, watching the colors change, and feeling she is working toward a goal. And, if successful, it helps fill the freezer. These are not evil people as some seem to want to make them out to be.

            • Mike says:

              ++Although she has shot deer, I think she takes greater joy (there is that word again) from most of the other parts of the experience, including spending time with her sister, in the fall air, watching the colors change, and feeling she is working toward a goal.++

              All of that is possible without blowing an animal’s brains out.

              Again, it takes enormous self-awareness and ego-release to put down the rifle and “let it be”.

            • Mike says:

              This is perhaps one of my favorite musical moments. A line from the song encapsulates the feelings eloquently:


              Let all that run through the fields through the quiet,
              Go on with their own, on with their own hidden ways

              There are too many roads. Too many motors. Too much development and technology pushing in on wildlife. There’s no such thing as fair chase anymore. Truly wild habitat has shrunk while giant box stores like Cabelas and Bass Pro Shops have swollen.

              It’s just fish in a barrel now, folks. Anyone who’s ever spent time traveling the country, see how cut up it is with roads and motors understands this.

              It’s time to let them be.

        • Mike says:

          WM –

          Fortunately, many kids today are figuring out that you don’t need to blow an animal’s brains out to enjoy camaraderie in the outdoors.

          Hunting was a valuable tool when we needed to carve a place for ourselves in the wild. It is no longer needed.

          Calling it “tradition”(or basing your passion for it on such measures) is incorrect. It’s cultural stagnation.

          • HAL 9000 says:

            Mike, Head shots aren’t recommended.

            Why is it, the people most critical of hunting, seem to know the least about it?

            • Mike says:

              Hal –

              Check your shoes. You’ve stepped in a pile of semantics.

              While head shots aren’t recommended (obviously for many reasons)they can and do happen. So do bullets to the spine, which can paralyze the animals. Also, many animals run off and are never found, only to die slow, horrible deaths. And that’s not even getting into the pure laziness of using lead bullets, which poison, maim, and kill 20 million birds and animals a year.

            • Savebears says:


              Even accidental head shots are so rare, that they don’t even register on the charts, you guys bitch about trophy hunting, then bring up head shots! Please site your source for many animals running off, I do know it happens, but with modern technology, it is not as common as you think.

              You are really pulling the stops out now Mike, you sound like a very uniformed person.

            • Salle says:


              Sounds to me like the “wounded running off” idea might come from hearing about the wild-west-shoot-’em-up-athons that go on just about every year in some parts of our beloved state. You know, where the guys stand on the road and shoot into a herd and go pick up the ones that fell down and don’t follow the wounded which run off and die a slow, nasty (usually) death? (That’s what I thought of when I read his comment on that.) Happens often enough to call it a custom by now… and I’m guessing that there are quite a few wounded animals that get far enough out of sight that the good ol’ boys can’t be bothered to go find out what happens to those after they get the goods off the ground in front of them.

            • Mike says:

              ++Even accidental head shots are so rare, that they don’t even register on the charts, you guys bitch about trophy hunting, then bring up head shots! Please site your source for many animals running off, I do know it happens, but with modern technology, it is not as common as you think.

              This post is really off the charts, Savebears.

              To imply that animals running off or suffering is “uncommon” is absurd. It happens all the time.

              Savebears post is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier concerning the “ego-release” and how difficult it is for many hunters to just let that go. Most hunters think of themselves as “experts”, who “never miss a shot”. The truth is, it happens all the time. It takes a certain amount of self-awareness to realize this. And usually once a person gains this level of understanding, they put the bow and rifle down, too.

              Here’s an example of a buck on youtube that is shot numerous times with arrows before it dies:


              THAT is hunting in America, dude. Live it, love it, learn it.

            • Mike says:

              Oh, and notice the hunters laughing as the buck flops about paralyzed.

              Let all that run through the fields through the quiet,
              Go on with their own, on with their own hidden ways

              There are too many roads. Too many motors. Too much development and technology pushing in on wildlife. There’s no such thing as fair chase anymore. Truly wild habitat has shrunk while giant box stores like Cabelas and Bass Pro Shops have swollen.

            • timz says:

              “Due to the very nature and aerodynamics of bow and arrow hunting, placing an exact shot that guarantees an instant kill is usually not possible for even the most experienced hunters. A study conducted by the Oklahoma Fish and Wildlife Agencies found that approximately 50% of deer that were shot were never recovered. Some deer survived for up to 5-7 days before succumbing to their wounds.”

            • JB says:

              It’s humorous to watch the uninformed cite a lack of fair chase out of one side of their mouth, and then complain about all of the misses out the other. Sorry folks, you can’t have it both ways! It can’t be too hard and too easy at the same time. LOL!

            • Mike says:

              JB –

              So you admit this sort of thing happens all the time?

            • Mike says:

              ++“Due to the very nature and aerodynamics of bow and arrow hunting, placing an exact shot that guarantees an instant kill is usually not possible for even the most experienced hunters. A study conducted by the Oklahoma Fish and Wildlife Agencies found that approximately 50% of deer that were shot were never recovered. Some deer survived for up to 5-7 days before succumbing to their wounds.”

              A study Timz? A study? 😉 Didn’t you know that studies mean nothing when you have “on the grounders” and “stakeholders” seeking “common sense solutions”?

              Plus, we got all these dudes holding weapons, and talking about “woods magic”. They’ll tell you the truth, as long as you’re buying….

            • JB says:

              Sorry Mike, I am not taking the bait. So which is it: is hunting too hard or too easy?

            • ma'iingan says:

              JB: “It’s humorous to watch the uninformed cite a lack of fair chase out of one side of their mouth, and then complain about all of the misses out the other.”

              Mike: “So you admit this sort of thing happens all the time?”

              Sure does, Mike. Just about every time you post.

            • JB says:

              So now Mike is outraged at how many deer are missed…but what did he say before…wait…where is it..oh, here we go:

              “There’s no such thing as fair chase anymore.” -Mike

              That’s right, Mike. There’s no such thing as fair chase anymore. In fact, it’s soooo easy now that the lone study you cite (wait, I don’t see a citation) finds half of the animals that were hit got away. Hmm..and how many Idaho wolf hunters were successful…was it less than 1%? You’re right, Mike. Hunting sounds really easy.

            • RobertR says:

              Hal I agree!
              To start with animals shot with a gun of any kind that is not a leathal hit will have a higher percentage of survival or will die slower that a non lethal hit from a broadhead.
              If an animal is hit in the lungs or heart with a broadhead I can tell you from experience they will be dead within thirty seconds or less.
              I do agree that a head or spine shots are not recommended with archery equipment but with a gun it is instant death.

  62. Salle says:

    Hill Says Wolves a Priority of His FWP Plans
    Republican candidate for governor wants more done to reduce the number of wolves in the state

    “Hill said he believes that FWP needs to go further, such as by making the hunting season possibly run all year long and by automatically including wolf tags with the standard combination license. Hill also said problem grizzly bears need to be more quickly removed from the wild.”

    Right, just what we need, more wildlife haters in office.

  63. Salle says:

    Oil Company Polar Bear Rules Affirmed By Appeals Court

  64. Salle says:

    Arctic cap on course for record melt: scientists

  65. CodyCoyote says:

    For what it’s worth , last night about 10 pm a Cougar went traipsing up the paved hill street between the Mormon Church and the public Rec Center in the heart of downtown Cody WY , according to this morning’s police department rolling log.

    Yesterday was Primary Election day in Wyoming. I figured the cat came to town to vote against somebody.

    As it turns out, a politically green but very activist big game outfitter just got elected to our Park County Commission in an 8-person race , his first foray into politics. He will take his seat alongside another outiftter activist who happens to be the current or just past President of the very activist Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife chapter here in the Big Horn Basin.

    One Tea Party guy almost upset a very conservative GOP 20-year sitting State Senator here in Cody ( 51 pepcent to 48 percent) . The Senator —from an Old Oil aristocratic family whose grandfather wrote the insurance policy on the hull of the Titanic — has run unopposed since 1989 till this election.

    The other very vocal Tea Party types around the Big Horn Basin who ran for state office pretty much tanked, and tanked hard.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      “I figured the cat came to town to vote against somebody.”

      Ha! I love it. Glad that he was able to get his pawprint in. 🙂

    • Salle says:

      Geeze, hope there’s a sign of a trend in the defeat of the TPs.

    • HAL 9000 says:

      Typical uniformed hype.

    • Mike says:

      Great article, Amanda. And keeping a minimum of 150 wolves in a state that can support far more is definitely on the extreme side of things.

  66. louise kane says:

    Increase Wolves’ Genetic Pool by Releasing More to Wild

    By Michael Robinson / Conservation Advocate Center for Biological Diversity on Wed, Aug 22, 2012

    They can’t sniff out the meaning of “control” orders or know that thousands of humans are urging their survival, but the 3-year-old alpha male and female and their five pups in the Fox Mountain pack at the northern edge of the Gila National Forest are at the center of a furor – and very much at risk – over the future of their kind.
    This family of Mexican gray wolves killed four cattle on private land between March and July. They primarily eat elk.
    The last depredation occurred after a range rider who was successfully hazing the wolves away from livestock suffered a medical emergency and was not replaced. The previous three depredations occurred before range riders were hired.
    Conservation groups compensated the stock owners for their losses and paid for the range riders. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has ordered the removal of the alpha female of the Fox Mountain pack, citing not just the depredations but also her close genetic relationship to her mate, who is her first cousin.
    Yet, the government’s solution to the problem of inbreeding actually helped cause the problem in the first place.
    Wolves don’t naturally pair up with their cousins. A 2007 genetics study of northern Rocky Mountains gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park found that they “avoid inbreeding through a wide variety of behavioral mechanisms including absolute avoidance of breeding with related pack members male-biased dispersal to packs where they breed with nonrelatives. … Inbreeding avoidance is nearly absolute despite the high probability of within-pack inbreeding opportunities and extensive inter-pack kinship ties between adjacent packs.”
    That’s in a population that transcended Yellowstone, spanning parts of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, and numbered more than 1,500 wolves, including 100-plus breeding pairs. But the sole wild population of Mexican gray wolves, reintroduced to the Southwest in 1998 just three years after the Yellowstone reintroduction, at last count this year comprised just 58 wolves, including only six breeding pairs.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service has not released a single new wolf from the captive-breeding pool since November 2008. The last wolf released that had previously been captured from the wild was freed in January 2011.
    Since Mexican wolf reintroduction began, the government has shot 12 wolves, inadvertently killed 18 through capture, and kept 32 other once-wild wolves in long-term captivity; at least nine of those have died from age-related ailments.
    One of the wolves shot in 2004 was killed months after his last of four depredations in a one-year period, after he had been seen feeding on an elk in the interim, and even after a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist emailed her supervisors that he was genetically irreplaceable.
    All the Mexican wolves in the wild and in captivity stem from just seven animals that had narrowly escaped trapping and poisoning by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the United States and in Mexico in the decades before passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Live-capture and breeding of these seven wolves saved their kind from extinction.
    A 2007 study of wild Mexican wolves showed that inbreeding was causing lower litter sizes and pup survival rates. But the Fox Mountain cousins have kept a pup alive from last year and four still alive from this spring’s litter.
    Fish and Wildlife Service conjectures that once the alpha female is removed her mate will find a less-related female. But they are together because in the absence of recently released wolves they could not find mates they’re not related to.
    The Service was right to reverse its initial decision to shoot her. But trapping is not the answer. Hiring a new range rider and resuming the release of captive-reared wolves are essential.
    That way, today’s Fox Mountain pack pups can find suitable mates in years to come, and thereby save their pups from possible infertility. If so, I hope their grandma will still be in the wild, helping to teach them to prey on elk.

    Please keep calling and emailing the White House, federal legislators and the Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque and D.C. to keep the Fox Mountain alpha female in the wild. Contact information for officials, and the latest updates are at


    Michael J. Robinson

    Center for Biological Diversity

    P.O. Box 1727

    Silver City, NM 88062

    (575) 534-0360

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Thank you Michael J. Robinson,

      We don’t post as many stories about Mexican wolves as I would like. I’ll plead lack of resources.

  67. Salle says:

    I think both JB and WM missed my point as they became instantly offended at what my perception of the actual issue is. All I can say is… wow, you guys. Like I said, the semantics and logic become entangled in a mess that is, apparently, beyond your grasp to recognize as you continue to defend the activity with it’s disingenuous terminology and offer excuses, including citations, that obscure what I was getting at. The belief in the status quo is insufficient and wasteful at this point in the game of life so…

    And WM, I thought you had decided to permanently ignore me…

    Nevertheless, I am pretty burned out on the topic as it is useless to try and continue to define my statement to any of you who take offense to my comment. There are more important things to debate so I’ll move on to some of those.

    • louise kane says:

      Thank you Salle – this is a point that many seem to miss. We are now managing wildlife and their ecosystems to death

      “(3) My point on this part is that I don’t agree with your argument because these wildlife species were not a problem for each other until we humans took their habitat from them and now find that when they inconvenience us, our agriculture (business – $$), they get into our yards or garbage bags at the end of the driveway or that we crash into them with our cars because we can’t be bothered to pay attention while driving or travel at a safe speed that allows for seeing them is a the problem. WE HUMANS and our behaviors are the problem not the other way around. I don’t agree that wild animals need to be hunted for their own good or for ours either. We take this position and act on it at our own peril, which is where my claims of species-centrism comes into play. I don’t agree that we have some divinely decreed status of “species exceptionale” as in above all other species… we can’t exist long without the others. So why aren’t they respected rather than placed in some sub-category that automatically makes them expendable for our convenience? I have a lot of problems getting my head around that part because I was taught to see other species as family that we share the biosphere with rather than objects or some problem that needs to be maintained and managed for the sake of human convenience, entertainment and profit.

      That was my set of points that actually come around to one point about what some call “sport” and “hunting for sport” or whatever. I think that the current terminology used to describe what we humans do to wildlife (flora and fauna)is reinterpreted to make it all okay so that we feel no guilt or cause to revisit what humans do to them, as a culture, and that as long as humans come out on top in the end everything’s good. It doesn’t work for me and I think my take on that is as valid as that of anyone else, in some cases perhaps, more so.”

      • JB says:


        I fundamentally disagree. If anything, the current climate crisis will call for a tremendous increase in the intensiveness of ecosystem management. Already there is serious talk in the scientific community about “assisted migrations”–essentially, moving whole populations large distances to help stave off species extinction. And remember, the revenue generated via the sale of hunting licenses and related equipment is still paying the lion’s share of the bills for non-game management.

        Our (humans’) presence and activities on the landscape generally act as a homogenizing force on ecosystems. Here in Ohio, for example, the pattern of parcelization of lands in the eastern part of the state has led to reforestation, while the west is dominated by agriculture. The result is that we have loss most of our grasslands and early successional habitat. This impacts numerous species–game and otherwise, and requires more intensive efforts lest grassland-dependent species wink out of existence.

        I think your visceral reaction to hunting/hunters is preventing you from seeing the many benefits that wildlife management provides, and the absolute necessity of increasing the intensity of management in the future. This is why Idaho’s wildlife summit is so important. We need to put petty differences aside and figure out a way to manage wildlife and the ecosystems on which they depend with the knowledge that the coming ‘storm’ of extinctions is likely only to get worse.

        In short, we need ‘management’ now more than ever.

        • Mark L says:

          Yep, we’re gonna need ‘management’ now more than ever (unfortunately). And that’s the problem, because who is managing is becoming the biggest problem for most wildlife issues. Politics is a worse disease than West Nile by far…and like I’ve said in several other threads, the common enemy to the hunter, rancher, and nature lover is a parking lot (no nature).

        • Salle says:

          Here’s what I think…

          “In short, we need ‘management’ now more than ever.

          But I think that the management needs to be focused on humans and their destructive behaviors being managed such that they stop destroying habitat – land, forests, air and water. Your take implies an accepted attitude of exceptionalism and species-centrism and that is what I see as the big picture part of the problem. Parsing out micro-management focal points is not helping the issues at hand. It’s a social/cultural faux pas that most Americans willfully turn a blind eye to, at their own peril. Unfortunately, it is also affecting the rest of us who think otherwise as well. We’re the ones who, because we point out these blind sheeple endeavors, get death threats and run off the road and vandalized homes by a far greater number than the bully-faction who promote the ill advised species-centrist exceptionalisms.

          If you think things are getting bad now, please understand that the wildlife will go first… when the corporate food producers decide that they can’t feed us all and there is nothing left to hunt for meat other than other humans (or fifi or fido), and the extended drought makes it impossible to farm vegetables and potable water is so scarce that it will be prohibitively expensive that watering a garden will be against the law, what do you think all those finely manicured lifestyles will look like then? And a lot of this is based on being able to drive those fossil fuel burning cars, and continue to careen off the energy cliff, what then? It’s not so far off in the near future that we can afford to continue distracting ourselves with TV and the newest gadget before we find ourselves collectively freefalling to our own demise.

          • JB says:

            I agree that we need more management of human endeavors. However, recall that we’ve really only been at this for a generation or two (since the 1960s)–and things have improved dramatically in many places. Lake Erie, once considered nothing more than a cess pool, is now the most productive fishery in the Great Lakes; the Cuyahoga River, which once burned regularly due to pollution, now carries spawning populations of steelhead salmon; thanks to the Clean Air Act, the air around our cities is better than it was 40 years ago, despite huge increases in automobiles; the EPA has cleaned up most of the worst point-sources of pollution, and thanks to ever-increasing habitat protected by city, county, regional, state, and national parks (along with NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy) many populations of species that once were threatened are improving or stable.

            Are there challenges ahead? You bet! And they are substantial, especially in the face of decreased funding for conservation, global population increase, and climate change. However, our society has proven time and again that we are capable of overcoming these challenges–but it will take preservation-minded environmentalists working with conservation-minded hunters. The wedge that is being driven by those on the extremes does not serve our collective interest–it undermines it. The continued focus on sport hunting–which is NOT the cause of or solution to any meaningful environmental problem–serves only to dived us and make meaningful collaboration less likely.

            On species-centrism: You seem to be lamenting the dominant cultural paradigm…that’s fine, but what is the alternative? And frankly, I just don’t see species-centrism as the fundamental cause of our environmental problems. Every organism elevates its own existence over others’–we’re just particularly successful given the current conditions. The solution isn’t leveling the playing field, it is understanding that with that power comes responsibility.

        • louise kane says:

          JB am not ignoring you. I’ll get back to you with my thoughts on this.

    • WM says:


      ++I think both JB and WM missed my point as they became instantly offended at what my perception of the actual issue is. All I can say is… wow, you guys. Like I said, the semantics and logic become entangled in a mess that is, apparently, beyond your grasp ++

      I suppose there are alternative explanations, to the part where we “missed it.” Could it possibly have been that you failed to communicate it effectively, or it could be the way you frame a problem (and the semantics accompanying it in this specific instance) would not stand up to close scrutiny by scientific and legally trained minds? Yeah, I know you have an anthropology and envinromental policy background, but that doesn’t necessarily make for good critical thinking skills.

      You and I have gone around before on the “pretzel logic” circuit, which is why I don’t engage with you so much anymore. Example: I am still in shock over your belief that the rules of competition were not broken when the mythical Gordian knot puzzle was “solved,” or Captain Kirk reprogrammed the simulator to beat the Kobiashi Maru scenario. Clearly others besides myself (including scholars on the topics) have opined that they were broken, but you cannot accept it. You refuse to acknowledge/accept their well forumlated arguments, concluding only your view must be true – by taking the siderail off the problem definition. LOL

      And, to be clear, I don’t mind that we disagree; it is usually healthy and stimulating discussion. What is more troubling to me (and perhaps JB, but he should speak for himself) is the thinking process, including defining a problem and staying within the side boards describing it. You, and particularly Mike, seem not to understand those concepts, then get indignant when you are caught. Pretzel logic indeed.

      • Salle says:

        You, on the other hand can’t seem to accept it when someone does not finally accept your way of seeing things and then become snarky. JB and I were engaged in a spirited debate, I have not experienced that with you. and so I say to you and your insistence that I must be wrong for whatever justifications you have to offer… and since it wouldn’t matter what my views are as long as they aren’t the same as yours because…? I’m sure you’ll find this offensive but I’ll offer it up for you as food for thought…

        Why “Mansplaining” Is Still a Problem

        • WM says:

          I see you missed the part of about side boards on a discussion, in favor of a gender jab. Typical. You have done it before to others.

          • Salle says:

            Your false piety is demeaning only to yourself, and has little to no value to anyone else… including many of the conversations offered here, WM. You should just go back to ignoring me since you can’t accept the fact that what anything anyone else thinks is not required to be the same as your opinions. You offer a demeanor that says “I’m right and you should believe what I say and believe or else. Get over yourself, you might find that you could actually enjoy life.

            • WM says:


              Not so sure I’m the one with “issues,” way out there opinions, or inability to support them with facts or formal logic when trying to explain them.

              I will admit to playing devil’s advocate, and the flaws and weakness that sometimes accompanies that role.

            • Immer Treue says:

              You two should go back to the star trek metaphors. Much more cerebral and entertaining. Actually took some thought trying to figure out what you were saying.

              In WM’s defense many of us wolf “advocates” need to hear what we don’t necessarily want to hear. Better from a “friend” than someone who might be the polar opposite of you.

              Mr. Sulu, warp 5 please.

  68. aves says:

    Romney’s energy plan “would make states the custodian of energy production on federal lands within their borders and allow them to implement their own federally-approved leasing practices.”

  69. Salle says:

    FWP mulling new protocol for removing wolves after livestock depredation

    They want to remove the need for APHIS WS to get a request from MTFW&P to kill wolves. With this new proposed feature, they can just go out and kill them on a rancher’s request. No public comment allowed on this one.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      “No public comment allowed on this one.”

      Ah, don’t you just love Democracy. 🙁

      I’m reading all these comments defending hunting, and I’m seeing a common thread. Sure there are good hunters, bad hunters and ugly hunters. But all of them seem to see an animal as an object and not a living thing. I see a lot of comments about “stress relief” of killing, “fulfilling a goal” and using “your energy” to pull a bow. We forget that these animals are living things with the same right to the earth as we have, they are not here to satisfy our needs, except possibly for food, as would be the same rule of the wild they live by.

      • HAL 9000 says:

        And I would have to counter, that’s probably perhaps the most stale strawman commonly leveled against hunters.

        I identify very strongly with animals, and hardly see them as “objects.” Nor do I think that perspective is uncommon among hunters.

        Are there “hunters” who completely objectify animals? Of course. Again, I cite the abundance of “shoot and brag” videos on YouTube as evidence of that.

        However, witness also how practically intuitive many who hunt are with their dogs, cats, horses or other animals.

        There’s a reason for that.

        The predator-prey dance is woven deeply into the fabric of nature.

        Perhaps consider that, and the difference between actively participating in the working of nature, rather than simply being a casual observer, or admiring it from a distance.

        Sentiments against hunting seem, to me, to often be couched in a perspective that would treat nature as a movie to watch. Hunting, when done properly, can make nature a live, unscripted play one is actually taking part in.

        Contrary to your biased projections, often, hunters identify with and understand animals better than many non or anti-hunters do.

        • Mike says:

          HAl, off you go again on an altruistic defense of the hunting mothership. Try to address the “no public comment” in the original post.

      • Mark L says:

        “and using “your energy” to pull a bow.” Hey, guilty as charged. I’d remind you that all living things must die (by definition), and any living thing that doesn’t struggle to survive is not really living until it does. That doesn’t objectify an animal, it actually raises it to your level, another humble animal.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          “The predator-prey dance is woven deeply into the fabric of nature.”

          Yes, I agree with you, on all your thoughts. I wasn’t singling out your comment per se – in fact, I wish more outdoorsmen felt this way. There’s too many of the other kind. The kind that make the outdoors and wildlife thrive are the kind we need. People who get their meat from the grocery store are too far removed from the realities of what happens.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Sorry, I meant Hal and Mark.

          • HAL 9000 says:


            And I apologize if I came across as too strident or preachy. I also agree, too many who hunt do see the animals as an object, or a prize to be had.

            And — I don’t mean to slam outfitters, because I know some good ones who do respect animals and nature — but the outfitting industry by its very nature carries with it the possible pitfall of regarding animals as little more than a cash crop.

            My own late father helped a family friend, an outfitter in Canada, as a guide for a time. He said some guided hunters were very genuine and sincere in their pursuit, and respected the animals, regardless of whether they actually got a shot.

            While other clients saw the creatures as nothing more than a thrill they had paid to get, so, by golly, they had better well get to shoot one.

            • Ida Lupine says:


              Not to worry – I know I may sound rather preachy and strident at times – but I think it’s just that we care about these issues so much. 🙂

  70. Salle says:

    Tom Power Commentary: “Exaggerating the National Benefits of Coal Exports”

  71. Salle says:

    I love this one…

    It appears that the GOP convention is threatened by Mother Nature! How much more appropriate can that be?

    Tropical Storm Isaac Threatens Republican National Convention


  72. Salle says:

    The Drought Is So Severe, You Can See Its Toll on the Mississippi From Space

  73. Salle says:

    Soaring Number of West Nile Virus Cases Set to Increase with Climate Change

    “The U.S. is on track to suffer its worst West Nile Virus epidemic in years, the Center for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) stated Wednesday. And with climate change, we can expect an increasing number of this and other mosquito-borne diseases like yellow fever, malaria and dengue fever.”

    And this morning, MTPR reported that West Nile has been found in four counties in Montana to date.

  74. DLB says:

    “Judge dismisses most claims in fatal-goat-attack suit”

  75. louise kane says:

    wow a lot of cattle pooing and emitting methane, competing with wildlife, and trampling riverine and other habitats. More reason to leave beef out of one’s diet

    • Salle says:

      Thanks for posting that, Louise. It’s chart that is of interest to a lot of us who are paying attention. The good news is that there’s been close to a 2% decrease in overall population of cows in the US. Most of that is probably due to the current drought cycle more than any other reason.

      So, I agree with your suggestion about dropping it from your diet. I have always had issues with meat. I usually start thinking about the animal being alive and then how it was killed and butchered, all the visual details carry a lot of juju and make the eating part rather unpleasant.

      • louise kane says:

        yes there is that too Salle. Factory farm animals get all the attention for abuse but its so easy to not think about what eating beef represents until you actually do really think about it. As an animal lover, the reality of so many animals being raised specifically to be slaughtered is fairly horrific. If meat were crucial to a diet it would be a more complex dilemma, but with the increasing evidence of health issues that accompany a meat heavy diet it should be much easier to justify either eliminating meat or at least to cut way down. The sheer number of cattle being raised makes me as frightened as the never ending tide of rapidly reproducing humans that are squeezing the life out of the planet. Cutting meat or at least drastically reducing meat from diets would do a great deal toward eliminating many environmental woes. Curbing our populations would be equally helpful.

        • JB says:

          National Geographic (this month) claims that 92% of humanity’s water use goes to agriculture. Production of sheep, goats and beef takes many times the amount of water as vegetables and grains. I’ve almost completely eliminated beef from my diet for these and health reasons.

        • Mark L says:

          I haven’t really cut the amount of meat as much as the kind, have taken a seasonal approach on which animal, and don’t eat mystery meats any more. It’s still hard to beat a good ribeye (and I love elk and bison), but the hamburgers and hotdogs are mostly history for me…just don’t know what’s in them.

        • Salle says:

          Indeed, Louise.

          For those who missed this…

          The Hidden Costs of Hamburgers

          And while I was acquiring the link to that I found this article by the same author (warning: graphic photo)

          In Iowa, Traditional Farmers Suffer as Factory Farms Proliferate

        • louise kane says:

          a quarter million people a day added to the earths population. Mind boggling. terrifying really. and there are people still working to prevent access to birth control! what other species can compete with us for even a tiny foothold?

          Los Angeles Times: ‘Overpopulation Is Everyone’s Problem’

          The Los Angeles Times just wrapped up a series of stories on human population, consumption and the future of our planet. The series, “Beyond 7 Billion,” examined a sweeping range of conflicts connected with unsustainable population growth, including the staggering depletion of land, water and other natural resources — and raises significant questions about what it will take for us to cope with a population of 9 billion by 2050.

          The paper followed the series with an editorial called “Overpopulation Is Everyone’s Problem” highlighting the importance of family-planning assistance around the globe, one of the key points in the Center’s 7 Billion and Counting campaign. “How big one’s family should be is a highly personal choice that should not be subject to any form of coercion,” the editorial reads. “As it happens, though, many women would choose to have fewer children. According to the Worldwatch Institute, 1 in 5 births results from an unwanted pregnancy. If just those pregnancies were prevented, the birthrate would fall below replacement level.”

          Another Day, Another Quarter-million People

          It can be hard to get your head around the human population crisis. Last year’s 7 billion threshold helped, but the number of us can still seem so big that it’s basically abstract. That’s why it’s healthy to get information in smaller, more digestible bites. The Population Reference Bureau just put out its “2012 World Population Data Sheet,” a great resource for parsing population growth.

    • HAL 9000 says:

      This is how the world ends. Not with a bang, but with a cow fart. 😉

      • Salle says:

        It’s starting to look like that may be it after all! Unless, of course it’s actually all that hot air billowing out of the DC area. Maybe it’s a bit of both. 😉

  76. louise kane says:

    Wolf rally
    reposted from an e mail received from the western conservation carnivore list
    Hoping this gets a lot of support

    August 23, 2012

    Contacts: Dr. Catherine Feher-Elston, Predator Defense (760) 617-7699
    Brett Haverstick, Friends of the Clearwater (208) 882-9755
    Ann Sydow, Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance (509) 671-0448

    Wolves Belong: Stop the Slaughter rally set for August 30 in
    Coeur d’Alene’s Fort Sherman/City Park

    COEUR D’ALENE, ID. — A rally honoring the 379 wolves killed in Idaho, during the 2011-2012 wolf hunt, is set for Thursday August 30, 3:30 – 7:30pm at Fort Sherman/Coeur d’Alene City Park. The rally will feature live music, guest speakers, refreshments, and a trap-release workshop by Footloose Montana aimed at educating citizens how to identify traps/snares, and if necessary, how to release a pet that is in harm’s way. Over 500 wolves have been killed in Idaho/Montana by hunting/trapping methods since the species was delisted via legislative rider from the endangered species list in 2011. This figure does not reflect the total number of wolves killed additionally by aerial gunning methods or livestock depredation removal. The 2012-2013 wolf hunt on public lands in Idaho begins the same day of the rally. Hunting on private lands in certain areas of the Panhandle region of Idaho has been occurring since July 1, making it legal to kill wolves 12-months a year.

    “It’s time to end fairy tale fantasies. Science clearly shows that healthy populations of wolves and other predator species are critical for a healthy environment,” said Brooks Fahy, Executive Director of Predator Defense. “The shooting, trapping, snaring and torture of wolves must stop. The slaughter of wolves in Idaho is being driven by a fanatical blood lust that has no place in modern wildlife management.”

    Many conservationists in the Northern Rockies feel that the Obama administration has failed in their duties to protect the iconic species.

    “Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar has utterly failed in his duties to keep federally endangered species like wolves from the blood-thirsty hands of our state fish and game agencies. What is happening in Idaho and Montana is about to happen in Wyoming. A lack of federal leadership and foresight is leading to a killing floor for wolves,” said Brett Haverstick, Education & Outreach Director for Friends of the Clearwater.

    According to the 2011 Idaho Wolf Monitoring Progress Report issued by Idaho Fish & Game and the Nez Perce Tribe, there were 746 wolves in the state of Idaho.

    “Of the 379 wolves killed in last year’s hunt, 40 were puppies, 56 suffered in leg-hold traps before being killed, and another 67 choked to death in snares,” said Ann Sydow with the Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance. “Special interest groups refuse to share their hunting grounds and their grazing allotments, even on publicly owned National Forests.”

    Predator Defense, Friends of the Clearwater, Northern Idaho Wolf Alliance, Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Footloose Montana and Center for Biological
    Diversity are co-sponsoring the event.

    Brooks Fahy
    Executive Director

    PO Box 5446
    Eugene, OR 97405
    541-937-4261 Office
    541-520-6003 Cell

    Facebook: Predator Defense

  77. Salle says:

    This was posted today under “Latest News”. I guess it’s also there for a reminder for the event that Louise posted a letter for above.

    Idaho Fish and Game Report Says Trapped Black Wolf Not Shot, “Just Nicked”

    (So I guess it was okay, then?)

    Trappergate Update: Conservation Activists Encouraged. “Our Moment is Coming,” They Say…

    • louise kane says:

      From the article JOn posted,
      does this sound right? The relatively small population of NM wolves are driving ranchers out of business and that they would have killed 25 of one rancher’s cattle in one year? seems odd, to anyone else?

      “I moved all my cows in trailers with two pickups,” Hulsey said.
      And because he moved the animals to his own land, quickly overgrazed, he had to buy hay to feed them.
      “I fed them $8,500 worth of hay,” he said. “It took $800 in fuel just to move them back and forth.”
      “Last year we lost 25 out of 200 calves,” Hulsey said. “You could attribute maybe two or three of those to other predators.”
      Three days after Hulsey took his herd back to the leased land earlier this month, the wolves took another cow.
      He said there are three range riders up there now, but the wolves attack mostly at night, and the riders can’t be taking their horses across the land at night.
      Hulsey himself has been spending nights near the herd, getting up every hour and a half to walk through the area and watch for wolves.
      He doesn’t feel the removal of the alpha female will stop the depredation.
      “The whole pack is involved,” he said. “It’s discouraging to me.”
      After an overall estimated monetary loss of $16,000, of which about $3,500 has been compensated, Hulsey doesn’t know if he can keep the business alive.

      • Maska says:

        Compensation in the Southwest is now handled by an Interdiction Council which includes local livestock interests, agency folks, and, I believe, one conservation representative. If the livestock owner is not getting compensated, it is likely because he has failed to file claims for the uncompensated losses.

        The figure of 25 lost animals is nonsensical. There has always been a HUGE gulf between the number of wolf kills of livestock confirmed by Wildlife Services and the number claimed by some livestock owners. Note that it is Wildlife Services that investigates and makes the call, not some bunny huggers.

      • Nancy says:

        “From the article JOn posted,
        does this sound right? The relatively small population of NM wolves are driving ranchers out of business and that they would have killed 25 of one rancher’s cattle in one year? seems odd, to anyone else?”

        Louise – yes, seems very odd given the fact that drought, combined with over grazing, might be an even bigger factor here.

        Predators, big and small, just exist and have a way of taking advantage of stupid human behaviors, because “they” live in the moment.

        “Just cuz Grandpa & Grandma made a living off the land, doesn’t mean, in this ever changing world, things are gonna remain the same”

        • Salle says:

          Sounds like the past is somehow an assumed guarantee for some. And then again, was it really the way they remember it or just a good story to get the attention they feel they’ve been duped out of?

  78. Immer Treue says:

    Record Wisconsin DNR depredation pay out for first half of 2012.


    Would this now seem to lend support the Mech and I believe Fritts study that mild Winters, as the entire Midwest had, make for fitter does, healthier fawns less prone to predation, leading to more livestock depredation? I guess we can also add a greater number of wolves to the equation.

    • ma'iingan says:

      Immer –

      It’s certainly supportive, but…“I guess we can also add a greater number of wolves to the equation.” – therein lies the rub; we also have a record amount of wolves. I’d feel a lot better about the winter weather/ spring depredation link if it were overlaid upon a stable wolf population.

      Incidentally, there are typically two annual depredation “peaks” in Wisconsin – the first in early summer when fawns are big enough to be capable of escape, and the second in late summer when wolf pups are at peak growth and are constantly ravenous.

      • Salle says:

        I am left wondering if the fact that wolves also die is taken into account here. All these reports and claims seem to leave out the fact that wolves die, don’t reproduce every year – due mostly to number of prey within their established range, and that wolves also get injured and killed by their wild prey. I haven’t seen or heard mention of these factors for a few years now.

        • Immer Treue says:


          Wolves are doing well in the GL states. There will always be SSS, and it appears that auto collisions with wolves are on the increase. I saw one around Solon Springs WI last year.

          The deer supply is “robust”! Some locals say there are too many wolves and they are eating everything in site, but much to their chagrine, the wolves could not find the moose cow, probably in the late stages of brain worm, that the DNR had to shoot up here a couple weeks ago.

          Moose with brainworm are one of many signs of a healthy prey base in the form of deer, for wolves. Not so favorable for moose.

        • ma'iingan says:

          Annual adult wolf mortality in Wisconsin is on the order of 20%, and pup mortality can vary from 50-70%. But what’s that got to do with depredation claims?

  79. jon says:

    Ralph or anyone else that lives in Idaho. do you know anything about this George Doval guy? Some hunters in Idaho are boycotting the wildlife summit. I believe it has to do with them not being the only ones who have a say in “wildlife management”.

    • jon says:

      “Hunters have resisted seeking funding from the wider and more diverse group of wildlife enthusiasts because they fear losing control of decision-making. Supporters of wolves, other predators and non-game species feel left out of state wildlife decisions.”

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Doval is part of the extreme anti-wolf crowd. He has a blog, the Outdoorsman. Almost every article is an anti-wolf one. He promotes a group called Idaho for Wildlife. It consists of old line anti-wolf hands. They seem to have no interest in wildlife except a few game species.

      He clearly doesn’t care about anything that isn’t hunted — old fashioned with little curiosity about the outdoors, IMO.

    • Salle says:

      Sounds like some overzealous whining from someone who’s pissed of that wolves exist having made the claim to begin with. If there’s no evidence that wolves are to blame…

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      An example of a guy who would say hunters do all the monetary support and heavy lifting in conservation, but they certainly don’t anyone new into their little kingdom.

      That is why the oppose the Idaho Wildlife Summit. It is a threat of new money and new thinking, though probably not much of one.

  80. Salle says:

    Gulf seafood deformities alarm scientists
    Eyeless shrimp and fish with lesions are becoming common, with BP oil pollution believed to be the likely cause.

  81. Ralph Maughan says:

    I’ve been participating in the Idaho Wildlife Summit on-line. It works well and is quite interesting discussion.

    • Nancy says:

      So how is it going Ralph? Tried to check in on it but my “budget” DSL package doesn’t offer much in the way of decent downloads 🙂

  82. jon says:

    Only 16 hunters representing Scott Rockholm’s save western wildlife protested against the summit. The way this guy has been talking, you’d think he would have thousands and thousands of sportsmen out there protesting against the wildlife summit, but no, he only has a measly 16 hunters opposing the wildlife summit in Idaho.

    • DLB says:

      I think a lot of folks are creeped out by obsessive egomaniacs who champion causes like this.

      My guess is that there are a lot of anti-wolf people who are comfortable offering vocal support to the Gillets or Rockholms, as long as it’s from a distance.

  83. CodyCoyote says:

    First fatal mauling of a Park visitor by a grizzly bear since Denali NP was created in 1917.,0,2906513.story

    One in 95 years is not a bad stretch…

    • WM says:

      From the article:

      ++ A camera found near the backpack showed that the hiker had photographed the bear for more than eight minutes and appeared to have come within 50 yards of the animal before he was attacked, Anderson said.

      The photographs do not show the attack, Anderson said. “They show the bear grazing in the willows and not acting aggressive in any form or manner during that period of time,” he said.

      Park rules require people to stay a quarter-mile away from bears and to immediately back away at a slow pace if they find themselves to be closer.++

      So the grizzly dies because some dumb $hit hiker can’t follow the rules, and the hiker loses his own life as well. Mike, are you monitoring this?

      • Rita K. Sharpe says:

        You can have warning signs all over the place stating the dangers of certain actions and/or being instructed on precautons that should be taken if having an encounter with wild animals,but there is going to be someoneone that thinks that the rules do not pretain to them.

    • Not many trees in a lot of Denali, so it was always exciting to see a grizzly headed in your direction even from a distance in the days before pepper spray (also before firearms were allowed in parks). A big heavy set friend saw a grizzly running in his direction from some distance, and described a wonderful feeling of floating across the tundra on “happy feet”, feet that felt light as a feather, carrying him along at speed without effort.

      Will be interested to learn if this hiker deployed any pepper spray.

  84. CodyCoyote says:

    LA Times publishes a brief article with two major points:
    1. Wyoming’s wolf plan threatens recovered wolf population
    2. Neither Montana’s nor Idaho’s ” management” plans are any better….,0,6344398.story

    Oddly , there is no author attributed to this story . But nevertheless it is good to hear it from a non-Wolf state ; that they can see the obvious from afar.

  85. Salle says:

    Commercial Beef Cattle in America’s National Parks: Are You Serious?

    • louise kane says:

      Jon thanks for posting this. Seems like it deserves the full text. By Connie Poten, Missoula

      Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation: Trapping shows hate for wildlife

      AUGUST 17, 2012 9:00 AM
      For those Rocky Mountain Elk officials who declare that opposition to trapping is unscientific, uneducated and simply emotional, let’s consider Charles Darwin. We can all agree he was one heck of a scientist.
      Darwin might even have more science credentials than RMEF’s CEO, former NASCAR promoter David Allen, and RMEF spokesman Mark Holyoak, former local TV anchor.
      Here’s what Darwin wrote in his 1863 essay, “Trapping Agony:”
      It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the suffering thus endured from fear, from acute pain, maddened by thirst, and by vain attempts to escape. Bull baiting and cock fighting have rightly been put down by law….Some who reflect upon this subject for the first time will wonder how such cruelty can have been permitted to continue in these days of civilization; and no doubt if men of education saw with their own eyes what takes place under their sanction, the system would have been put an end to long ago. We shall be told that setting steel traps is the only way to preserve game, but we cannot believe that Englishmen when their attention is once drawn to the case, will let even this motive weigh against so fearful an amount of cruelty.
      England is one of 88 countries that have banned steel leg-hold traps because of their inherent cruelty.
      In Montana those who oppose trapping are accused of hate speech. But the sport of trapping shows a hatred and contempt for wildlife – regal animals that live by their wits and courage. When was the last time a trapper chewed through flesh, bone, sinew and muscle just to live his life? One out of four animals caught in a trap chews its leg off to escape the pain. Trapping manifests an indifference to suffering–a lack of moral values and humaneness essential for any civil society.
      Connie Poten, Missoula

  86. Salle says:

    Record-Drought Gets Cattle Hoofin’ It
    The great expansion of America took ranchers west. The drought is pushing them back east.

  87. Salle says:

    The Dark Side of the “Green Economy”
    Why some indigenous groups and environmentalists are saying no to the “green economy.”

    “… for social movements, land-based communities, and indigenous peoples, the question is, who really pays? For what are they paying? And, most poignantly, since when has nature, the source of all life, been reduced to a service-provider?

    One concern is that this new green economy is a form of “disaster capitalism”—a global effort to put the “services” of nature into the same hands that caused the global financial meltdown. And that seems like a very, very bad idea.

    Increasingly, the evidence on the ground bears this out.”

  88. Ralph Maughan says:

    Folks might want to vote in this Bozeman Chronicle newspaper poll.

    Should Montana’s wolf hunting season be extended to year-round, as suggested by Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill?  Yes or no? Visit to cast your vote.

    • louise kane says:

      Thanks for sending Ralph
      what a question to be posed and have to answer. you would think we as a species would learn something occasionally and apply common sense in our approach to “managing” resources. Never mind act humanely, decently, and respectfully toward other species.

    • louise kane says:

      81% no to year round hunt
      not surprising, even in Montana and Idaho there are many who do not want wolves to be the sacrificial lamb for political expediency. Its the loudest, most obnoxious, and least tolerant that seem to be driving policy, not the majority. Its about time the legislators and commissioners start looking at what the majority hsve to say. The comments that come in to the states also reflect a much greater tolerance and appreciation for wolves than do the actual extreme and barbaric regulations that are implemented.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        Louise Kane,

        +81% no to year round hunt, not surprising, even in Montana and Idaho there are many who do not want wolves to be the sacrificial lamb for political expediency. Its the loudest, most obnoxious, and least tolerant that seem to be driving policy, not the majority . . .+

        I think in general America is in a bad way regarding this kind of thing. We see the most obnoxious, intolerant and repellant people trying set policy in all kinds of areas, and they are having success in that they are getting close to implementation of policies we know are grossly unpopular, but people are slow to wake up. When they do, I think there will be a correction.

        • louise kane says:

          Ralph I agree, its astounding to see these unpopular polices being implemented regardless of what the majority of Americans want. I hope the correction comes soon. I’d have more faith in a general shift, were it not for Citizens United which I fear is changing the underlying presumptions and mechanisms of democracy and allowing special interest groups to buy anything they want.

          • timz says:

            Yea, like Obummer care which about 70% of the population opposes.

            • Jeff N. says:


            • timz says:

              ok 70% was an exageration. recent polls I’ve see run between 54-67% oppose it. Point is louise is right, we get crap we don’t want

            • timz says:

              and the broader point to make it’s not always the right-wing nuts who are trying to impose their will as is usually implied here, the left wing nuts are just as guilty.

            • louise kane says:

              Nancy great post, two quotes that ring particularly true and frightening

              “Modern life requires a level of cognitive ability and reason that is in dangerously short supply.”

              “There have always been reality-challenged people at the fringes of society. What is so terrifying is that they have been normalized. We elect them. Politicians who do know better pander to them. Pundits take them seriously, or at least act as if they do….
              I worry that we aren’t very far from the day when the inmates control the asylum.”

            • Immer Treue says:


              Thanks, it was a good, brief to the point read. Some of the comments hit the nail hard, in particular

  89. louise kane says:

    Nice to see an editorial with a simple line that defines what so many of us are so angry about.

    “The purpose of spending millions of dollars to bring endangered species back to their natural roles in the wild should not be to forever keep them teetering on the edge of decline.”

    full text below

    “LA TIMES Editorial Aug. 26, 2012

    Yellowstone National Park- Gray Wolf
    “Wyoming’s wolf plan a threat to the species’ population”
    There are an estimated 230 Wyoming wolves outside of the two parks, and the state’s intention is to significantly reduce that population by the end of the year.
    There’s a lot more to restoring an endangered species than simply getting enough animals to breed in the wild. They return to a changed area, narrower and more hostile, where humans occupy more space. Sometimes this works out fine; the bald eagle has been a stunning success story. The return of the gray wolf to the northern Rockies looked as though it would be similarly inspiring, with the wolf’s numbers rising from an original 66 to about 1,700. It still could be, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been too willing to see the multimillion-dollar wolf program set back by agreements with states that allow widespread hunting. Now it’s about to happen again, this time in Wyoming.
    Once an animal is removed from the endangered list, its future depends on state agreements to manage and maintain the species. None of the plans for gray wolves has been ideal. Since they were originally delisted in Montana and Idaho, hundreds of them have been shot and killed. But Wyoming’s plan is the worst — so bad in its original incarnation that the government would not allow the animal to be delisted there.
    The new agreement, which the federal government is expected to approve, is only somewhat better. Wyoming would be responsible for maintaining no fewer than 10 breeding pairs of the wolves, and no more than 100 wolves total, in a small area of the state outside of Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks. Hunting of the wolves would be allowed in that area, but only during a limited season. Outside of that northwest corner of the state, which represents about a fifth of its land, the wolf would be considered a predator, subject to wanton hunting. There are an estimated 230 Wyoming wolves outside of the two parks, and the state’s intention is to significantly reduce that population by the end of the year.
    There’s natural concern, in a ranching state, over the prospect of wolves feasting on cattle, and hunters who seek elk consider the wolves competition. But killing wolves that attack herds has always been allowed, and the problem has been far less common than Wyoming ranchers had expected. Wolves also can play an important role in helping to keep coyote populations in check.
    A tighter plan than this is needed, as well as a revisiting of all state plans over time to ensure that the wolf population remains healthy. The purpose of spending millions of dollars to bring endangered species back to their natural roles in the wild should not be to forever keep them teetering on the edge of decline.”,0,6344398.story

    • HaL 9000 says:

      The editorial raises some good points, but, similar to anti-wolf sentiments, it falls back on over-simplification, exaggeration and sweeping generalizations.

      The truth on the ground level is far more complicated, and harder to corner.

      • louise kane says:

        Hal I don’t believe its that complicated. Wyoming’s plan is terrible, it has not changed significantly since it was rejected initially and it should be rejected now. People are not stupid and trying to cloud the issue by saying its complicated isn’t working well here.

        • HaL 9000 says:

          How do we know Wyoming’s plan is “terrible”? It has not even been implemented yet.

          Likewise, I would contend, we won’t get the full scope of the effects of the Idaho and Montana plans for at least a few more years.

          Wolves have thrived in other areas where they are heavily hunted. And I suspect, the Montana/Idaho/Wyoming wolves — like other hunted wolves — will quickly become savvy enough to evade most hunters.

          I find the notion that any of the state’s plans will essentially wipe them out to be hyperbolic and over-simplification.

          Also, the continual description of wolves as an “endangered species” isn’t accurate. Wolves are not an endangered species.

          This specific population of wolves (in the Greater Yellowstone region) was given temporary ESA protection, so that it could recover.

          By any measure of those actually in charge of the program, this particular population of wolves had reached recovery numbers years ago.

          ESA protection for this wolf population was never, ever intended to be permanent.

          And yet, apparently ignorant editorial boards in places such as Los Angeles continue to describe the wolves as an “endangered species.” That alone calls their perspective into question.

          • Ralph Maughan says:

            This is quite a difficult thing to tell, but I have not heard anyone yet give any evidence that wolves have become more “savvy” since they have become hunted. Seems reasonable that they would, but what actually happens rather than what seems logical, is the true test.

            • ma'iingan says:

              “This is quite a difficult thing to tell, but I have not heard anyone yet give any evidence that wolves have become more “savvy” since they have become hunted.”

              This will indeed be a very difficult, if not impossible metric. Hunters and trappers will become more “savvy” right along with the wolves they pursue.

              I can offer that our success rates at trapping wolves for research in Wisconsin have seemed to stay relatively flat throughout the years that I’ve been involved.

          • JB says:


            Of course, the plan is only “terrible” relative to one’s goal(s). If your goal is to minimize wolf populations and prevent any and all kinds of depredations, then arguably, it is a hell of a plan. However, if your goal is a healthy, sustainable population, then “terrible” seems an apt description for management designed to reduce a population to at or near the point of viability. 500 wolves will not have a significantly greater impact then 150, but 150 certainly puts the population at greater risk.

            Personally, I think Wyoming’s plan was designed to give the proverbial middle finger to the federal government. They are daring the feds to keep wolves listed, knowing that with wolves listed, the feds are flipping the bill. If the feds delist then they can raise a ruckus and boast about how the lil’ ol’ state of Wyoming pulled a fast one on the US of A; if not, then they get wolf management for free and they can rail about the unfairness of it all. Either way, the political elites win.

            • Salle says:

              On the mormon NPR station in Rexberg, ID – (I call it that because listeners are subjected to hours of church and biased national, regional and local news during the “local” reports which also cover Wyoming. It’s based out of the Brigham Young U which is owned by the church)… when the local/regional reports on the Wyo wolf hunting were told, they called it the “wolf reduction hunt” and lamented that the fed had a better set of options because they have helicopters and telemetry.

      • Mike says:

        Platitudes mixed with false equivalency.

        You managed to say absolutely noting with 34 words.

        That’s pretty special.

    • WM says:


      ++… I don’t believe its that complicated. Wyoming’s plan is terrible, it has not changed significantly since it was rejected initially and it should be rejected now…++

      Federal trial court Judge Johnson disagrees with your statement, when looking at the ESA and WY’s apparent obligation to meet the requirement as set forth by FWS.

      Though the plan stinks because of its spatial peculiarities (keeping the WY wolf obligation in the 15-20% northwest corner of the state, it is apparently the numbers that count, and they can under law manage for the miniumum.

      What I don’t see in the LA Times editorial is a similiar request that CA get their own wolves. That would, in my mind, be a better messure of “species population” protection which seems to be the underpinning of their argument. Don’t see any advocacy for that here.

      Yes, its complicated, and I am always amazed how urbanites can focus on and totally ignore competing arguments when they aren’t impacted by policy that affects folks in rural areas (and, yeah I am aware of the “its our federal lands, too” issue that is the obvious reply).

      Maybe lobby CA for getting their own wolves. There is a cause I could stand behind. Could the LA Times editorial staff (or the Huffington Post which has taken exceptional interest in the wolf topic) do the same?

      • louise kane says:

        I a little less of an urbanite then you think

        • WM says:

          Actually, louise, I was mostly referring to the LA Times editorial staff, and the majority of its putative readership base.

      • Mark L says:

        “Maybe lobby CA for getting their own wolves. There is a cause I could stand behind. Could the LA Times editorial staff (or the Huffington Post which has taken exceptional interest in the wolf topic) do the same?”
        Careful what you ask for…migration works both ways. Interesting thought though.

      • louise kane says:

        WM…many of the uncomprehending urbanites you refer to have enough brains and common sense to recognize bad policy and smoke screens when they see them. Furthermore, all of us, urbanites or not, ultimately are impacted by irresponsible and inhumane wildlife policy. Where WY is concerned, I think you’ll be surprised just how many “urbanites” (that pour a lot of money into the local economies) are going to be screaming bloody murder when they realize that the wolves they come to see are being shot, trapped and snared. I believe and hope that if Wyoming’s plan is implemented, that it will do more to publicize the plight of wolves then anything else. And all the smokescreens that are thrown at the issue will not detract from the anger and calls to action to protect wolves that follow. The issues may be complicated, but even the most blissfully ignorant, berkenstock wearing, granola chomping, urbanites who write for papers like the LA Times can figure them out when they start digging.

        • HaL 9000 says:

          Yellowstone in general, and the gateways on the Montana side in particular, continue to have banner years, in terms of tourist traffic, and it probably isn’t going to let up any time soon.

          I’m not too worried about wolf hunting angering urbanites, in that regard.

          • Savebears says:


            There have been calls for boycotts since the day that wolves were released and the numbers and money intake keeps going up.

        • WM says:


          If these LA Times folks are so bright, they should be asking why CA doesn’t have wolves of its own, on federal land and excellent wolf habitat within the state, instead of weighing in on how WY manages its wolves, poor plan or not. There would likely be a willing donor to send some to federal land in CA. Then Journey, the erstwhile disperser from OR, might have some friends and a mate.

          The way to ensure the population of wolves doesn’t fall below some Times editorial staff’s arbitrary threshold (that is afterall the title and core argument of their piece) is to have them in more places, and managed closely.

          Afterall, aren’t CA ecosystems equally out of balance as WY’s without large predator,including wolves, in the mix (if in fact that assertion has been proven conclusively)? If Californians really want wolves they should get some!

  90. jdubya says:

    For those of you in Zion (or wanting to visit)…

  91. Salle says:

    Gingery bill speeds bison cull

  92. Salle says:

    National parks scramble to address spike in human-caused wildlife deaths… (in Canada)

  93. Salle says:

    “Ooops!” file report…

    Guess this hoax attempt didn’t work out so well…

    Randy Lee Tenley Killed While Trying To Create Bigfoot Sighting

    • jdubya says:

      that is a sad story…but pretty damn funny as well. Would anyone do something like that if they hadn’t been drinking?

  94. Salle says:

    Crews keep fire near Darby at 4 acres; Idaho complex burns into Montana

    • Salle says:

      Poor baby! I hope it survives, but then what will happen to it? Looks like a cub of the year so I can imagine it will be be “kept” for the rest of its life.


August 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