Here is the new open comments thread (starting on October 27, 2012) on wildlife news topics you think are interesting. You can access the previous “Interesting Wildlife News” here.

Please post your new stories and make comments about wildlife topics in the comments section below.

Yellowstone Park big bull. Oct. 2012. Copyright TimZ. Thanks Tim!

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.

408 Responses to Have you come across any interesting wildlife news? October 27, 2012

  1. Ralph Maughan says:

    I have thought we should investigate how bears and other scavengers can eat carrion so full of bacteria without getting sick. This might be a way of getting information how to protect against certain infectious diseases.

    • Nancy says:

      An interesting site 🙂

      a few comments:

      “Heart gives out” is not precise enough. You could consider cardiopulmonary arrest to be the final common pathway for everything because it means you stopped breathing and your heart stops beating but at least in Illinois the death certificate specifically says not to do that. You can use congestive heart failure, cardiac ischemia, cardiac arrhythmia or any other disease, but it has to be a real disease on the form”

      “There are still grab bag diagnoses like “failure to thrive” which are legit, but most people have an actual disease that you can say is (probably) the one that they ultimately died of”

      And, “failure to thrive” certainly pertains to many forms of wildlife, especially this time of year.

  2. Salle says:

    I have a gripe about all this research to find out what makes us live longer and what causes the diseases we have in present times.

    I feel that if we weren’t eating the crap that comes out of cardboard and cellophane and not so laden with chemicals we would be a much healthier species. All this garbage food and the things we waste our time doing all lead to some disease or another and we do it all for some kind of monetary gain, well, most do. Many of the health problems we have are resulting from habit, bad diet and selected for traits that make us different from other species. We are pretty close to being omnivores but we have pampered ourselves with synthetic dietary substances for several generations such that we have now become intolerant of many items that could be considered food, and now we have Frankenfud to add to the health problems we have. (The reason so many are glucose intolerant is that most glutens have been genetically modified for so many decades that most of what’s available is a manufactured “super gluten” that many have no adaptation abilities for. Same with many meats and dairy, mass produced, chemically injected animals that we see in the stores.)

    Milk, for instance, that we buy at the store (not counting all the chemicals added) is a substance that is for baby cows who start walking right after birth-muscle/bone development being the primary concern in the first several months and thereafter). Humans, on the other hand, spend most of the first year developing their brains and then bodies-muscle/bone which means that we require a different set of enzymes and all the other nutrients that human milk provides, but that isn’t so fashionable so many rely on cows and “formulas” for their infants. Just an example but it illustrates what my point is, we eat a lot of things that facilitate the diseases we experience but the corporate food producers who make this stuff for profit also convince us that it’s better for us and we should drink the kool-aid so we can be more productive and more reliable worker bees so they can make a profit and call it a convenience for us.

  3. Salle says:

    This could affect some wildlife among other life forms and things…

    7.7-magnitude quake off Canada’s coast triggers tsunami warning

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      This is great news, Nancy.

      I hadn’t been to the Trapper’s Point area for about 2 1/2 years. I had no idea all this beneficial action (construction) had taken place.

      • Nancy says:

        Its worth noting that it takes a community:

        “The event marks a new era of reduced risk of wildlife/vehicular collisions in the area, and the culmination of years of cooperation among conservationists, government officials, land and transportation planners, and others”

  4. aves says:

    Causes and solutions to bird strikes in Toronto (and everywhere else):

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Sad. Just wait until the massive wind farms come in, and the lifting of Endangered Species protection to accomodate the wind farms.

  5. aves says:

    Commentary on the great Rachel Carson:

    “From calm leadership, lasting change”

    • skyrim says:

      “But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself.”
      ―Rachel Carson

  6. Louise Kane says:

    Minnesota tribes set aside their lands as sanctuary for wolves

  7. Mark L says:

    Second red wolf found dead (shot)
    …on phone and can’t link it for some reason

  8. Louise Kane says:
    more on no wolf hunting on tribal lands, what a different world it would be if this kind of ethos prevailed in wildlife management …. “The Tribal Councils determined that hunting wolves for sport is inconsistent with a tradition of subsistence hunting and that for some members hunting wolves presented conflicts with cultural practices.” Some common sense, humanity and morals

    Full short story below

    “The Tribal Councils of the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa and the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa have decided that their Reservations at Nett Lake, Lake Vermilion and Grand Portage will not be open to wolf hunting during the State season which begins November 3.

    In addition, the 1854 Treaty Authority, an inter-tribal organization that regulates hunting by Bois Forte and Grand Portage members within a 5-million acre territory in northeast Minnesota, has also decided that it will not allow the hunting of wolves.

    The three reservations are depicted in Zone A on the map in the MnDNR Wolf Regulations. Tribal officials advise that going on Indian lands to take game, including wolves, is a federal crime under Title 18 of the United States Code and that they would seek the prosecution of violators.

    The Tribal Councils determined that hunting wolves for sport is inconsistent with a tradition of subsistence hunting and that for some members hunting wolves presented conflicts with cultural practices.

    • WM says:

      With these MN tribes creating sanctuaries for wolves, it would be interesting to know how much total land area is involved, as a part of the total huntable area in the state. The reservations are not contiguous though regionally proximate, involving maybe 500-800 sq. miles (excluding bodies of water). Will more wolves move into these areas after awhile, recognizing they are seasonally safer, and will it increase density on those areas then resulting wolf self-regulation of their numbers? Will tribes revisit their decision, if perceived negative impacts increase there, and have their own seasons – labeled as subsistence hunts? Lots to think about with such a decision.

      The wolf issue is good for Indian nation/tribal publicity, as well.

      • WM says:

        Here is a link to a map showing the reservations involved, from there each listed reservation shows land area:

        • Mark L says:

          Be sure and notice the unemployment rates for each also…pretty tragic. The tribes have already said they were not convinced by the state’s argument that there were ‘too many’ wolves in area. They said they wanted to do their own observations and act when appropriate, not when the state says “jump” . Good for them.

        • Carl says:

          Red Lake Reservation which is the largest is not part of this agreement. Within several of these reservations very little land actually belongs to the native American. The land owned on Leech Lake and White Earth Reservations potentially could support one pack but it is not contiguous. Only Nett Lake and Red Lake Reservations could potentially serve as sanctuaries for wolves.
          Deer populations on these reservations tend to be much lower than outside the reservations. The tribes allow legal hunting for deer to start the beginning of July. In addition to the long legal seasons, poaching is a big problem. The lack of prey on these lands result in wolves needing larger territories. These areas do not provide the sanctuaries people may believe.


          • WM says:


            This (undated) press release suggests the Red Lake Reservation is participating in some kind of “wolf sanctuary” program, regardless of whether they are part of the recently announced inter-tribal agreement.


            As for your assertion about lower deer densities on reservations, that would not be an unreasonable conclusion for the reasons you give. Is there pressure from individual tribal members (notwithstanding official tribal council positions for sanctuary)to reduce wolf population for the purpose of increasing deer density for subsistence hunting (whether legal or poached), and as a consequence is it likely there is some 3S going on even on some reservations?

            • Carl says:

              WM, Your correct that Red Lake has it’s own program. One of the options they have discussed is harvesting up to eight wolves. Any harvesting that occurs on the reservation would be in addition to the state harvest. For three years I did deer surveys on the Leech Lake Reservation. On some of the routes I did closer to the villages I would get no deer at all. There was also very few snowshoe hares close to the village. I know people who have had similar results at Nett Lake and White Earth Resrvations. I am unaware of any real push on any of the reservations to harvest wolves in order to increase deer numbers. There are individuals who feel it should be done.

  9. Salle says:

    Beetle invasion threatens forests from coast to coast

    Beetles are flying a new northern route across Canada toward the eastern U.S.

  10. Nancy says:

    Love the elk shot TimZ. Thanks for sharing!

  11. Jerry Black says:

    “We Didn’t Have to Kill the Wedge Wolf Pack”….Op-Ed (Seattle Times)

  12. Salle says:

    Hmmm, the link didn’t come out “live” so I’m hoping this will fix it…

    “We Didn’t Have to Kill the Wedge Wolf Pack”

    (Seattle Times OpEd.)

    • Salle says:

      Good opinion piece, some good comments and a couple snarky ones but even the highlighted snark wasn’t the worst idea I’ve heard… maybe we should require that ranches be “walled off” 😉

      • Louise Kane says:

        yes thank you. These are some strategies that need to be applied elsewhere as well, killing as first line of defense is indefensible, but now with the all out war we will be lucky to see any reprieve for wolves unless they can be relisted, as they should be. There is nothing learned, nothing fair, or right in the states management of wolves midwest or RM

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Jerry and Salle,

      Thanks. This opinion piece pretty much sums it up for me on the Wedge Pack.

  13. CodyCoyote says:

    Wyoming Wolf Box Score: as of Monday , Oct 29 at 2 PM, 27 wolves had been reported taken in Wyoming’s 12 trophy hunt areas , one more than the midpoint of the statewide quota of 52. Ten additional wolves have been taken in the predator zone = rest of state , for a total of 37 . Three trophy areas are closed due to quota being met; two areas are within one wolf of closing.

    Many more foothill General Elk hunt areas open Thursday November 1 as the high country wilderness big game areas close for the most part , which puts more hunters afield.

    • Leslie says:

      28 in the trophy zone, 10 in the predator, 4 additional ones killed by ??? (WG&F?) in the trophy zone. Will WY be able to stay within the quota to avoid delisting with this predator and flex zone?

    • WM says:


      Maybe you know more. Just who or what is “Howling for Wolves?” There is not easiliy discernible information disclosing who, or where they are (really, though it appears to be in MN), what their mission is and what they would do with the money someone is willing to and dumb enough to donate on line.

      Is this an alter-ego for HSUS or some lone person advocating people join their cause and/or line their pocket?

      And some on this forum constantly whine about anonymous posters. Where is the symmetry in the outrage, especially where $$$ is being requested anonymously as on this website?

      One has to wonder if this website is even operating as a legally formed entity under state and federal (tax) law?

      I see they have done their best to pee on Dr. Mech and MN DNR, taking statements out of context.

      • JB says:

        WM: (from their site)

        “Maureen Hackett, M.D., the founder of Howling for Wolves, is a physician and triple board certified forensic psychiatrist. Hackett is a former United State Air Force officer with rank of Major and ran for Congress in the third congressional district in 2010. In 2003, Hackett was instrumental in the passage of Minnesota law providing for tobacco-free state hospital grounds.”


        I know several folks at the DNR, and I don’t think anyone is clamoring for a wolf hunt. Minnesota has been extremely even-handed in this process and should be commended for their approach (if only other states would emulate). It’s too bad that groups like “Howling for Wolves” feel the need to drag people through the mud in order to make a legitimate point. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask “why now, should wolves be hunted?” They don’t need to accuse good people of lying to do it.

        • Louise Kane says:

          JB if they are so even handed why did they over step their own rule making process, why the rush to hunt wolves even as the majority opposed it. Do you really think that the trophy hunting and livestock industries have not provided the impetus to start hunting wolves immediately. And why exactly does MN need a wolf hunt with a stable population of wolves and minimal livestock damage. The DNR was perfectly capable of dispatching depredating wolves, and did indeed take these actions. I have spoken to members of the DNR and was told, this morning in fact, when I asked the question about why the rush for the hunt, that because it was necessary to protect livestock and humans.
          If thats not lying….
          What is even handed about hunting wolves for sport? Allowing the public to hunt for wolves opens the door to violations, perpetuates the myth that public hunts control and manage wolves appropriately, and seems to fuel even further hate and allow some really frightening people access to killing wolves in most heinous ways. Perhaps most destructive is that wolves are one of the most socially complex animals and hunting wolves randomly does not ever take into account their relationships to one another and the impact that random hunting has on the survivability of the pack or the population as a whole.
          No one is dragging anyone through the mud, they are asking for accountability and for a change in the predictable outcome for wildlife, death sentences arbitrarily handed out at the bequest of special interests.

          • Immer Treue says:


            “…I have spoken to members of the DNR and was told, this morning in fact, when I asked the question about why the rush for the hunt, that because it was necessary to protect livestock and humans.
            If that’s not lying…”

            Part of it is not lying. Just talking with some folks in town today, and wolves have taken dogs right out of their yards. A friend has a game camera, and he has two pictures of a three legged wolf. I brought this up at the Vets, and was told this particular wolf is a frequent visitor in town.

            OK, now that that is out of the way, I agree with just about everything else you have to say, and this is a question I have brought up to those in town who think wolves should be hunted, if we need to protect livestock and pets from wolves, then why are they allowed to be hunted deep in the BWCAW? Silence follows as there are no answers.

            Full moon. Going out for a walk with my old shepherd. I don’t live in town. If I’m lucky, perhaps I can here the local pack howl again prior to the lead flying this coming weekend.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Upon return, just as I got back to the cabin, a lone familiar howl, with a high beginning trailing off into a lower pitch called in the distance. This went on for a few minutes, stopped, and resumed, when two perhaps three others joined in. Wonder if they’ll make it through the season?

            • Louise Kane says:

              I wonder how anyone can sleep living in an area with hunts knowing these animals will be killed as they will with every horror directed at them. Its too sad really. I hope your wolves make it Immer.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Shepherds must be made for full moon walks I do that all the time with mine, my favorite person in the world. a shepherd person!

            • Harley says:

              Would it be more acceptable to allow hunting in areas where there are problem wolves and to allow ranchers to hunt in a certain radius around their own property? Would that even be possible to enforce? I’m not sure, just throwing out things that come to mind. In this way, populated areas where pets would be more protected as would ranchers that have experiences wolf attacks on live stock?

            • Harley says:

              I love Shepherds too! Started reading a book about Rin Tin Tin. Immer, thought you had a Golden though?

            • Immer Treue says:


              Been a shepherd person as long as I can remember. Grew up with Rin-Tin-Tin and Roy Rogers’s Bullet. I read the Rin-Tin-Tin book at the Summer’s beginning. Some interesting stuff in there. So as not to spoil it for you, perhaps we can compare notes once you complete your reading.

              Farmers up here have always wanted the chance to take out wolves due to depredation. Now that they are able you hear a bit of,”do you expect us to stay up all night”, same folks who said, “I can shoot a dog pestering my stock, but I can’t shoot a wolf.”

              I understand their dilemma. Yeah, I think hunting/ management should be concentrated in the areas of continual depredation. As some of the antis have said in the past, why pay someone to do it(federal and state agents) when there are those out there who will pay to do it.

              That said, my question is why is the MN season of greatest duration in the 100 series zones 117,118,126,127 (far northeastern MN)? Not a whole lot of people or wolf depredation going on there. As always, know where your dog is.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Back to Shepherds, as soon as I was out on my own, I have had a shepherd.

            • Harley says:

              yes, that just makes no sense at all. Unless of course you believe that decline in some deer/moose populations is all due to the wolves.

              My son wanted to become an MP and be a part of the K9 unit in the Navy. It didn’t happen, but he still wants to own a Shepherd. Sometimes he thinks a little too much like his mother… lol! I am currently pet-less as where I am living does not allow them and it just sucks. There’s no other way to put it.

            • Immer Treue says:

              “That said, my question is why is the MN season of greatest duration in the 100 series zones 117,118,126,127 (far northeastern MN)? ”

              Not questioning all 100 series zones, just these in particular.

            • Immer Treue says:


              Dogs are wonderful boat anchors. I know, sort of an oxymoron. You get a pup and wonder why you did this to yourself, and when they become older, and you can predict their every move, you wonder how can you ever be without one.

              I get turned around in the woods every once in a while. Not lost, just don’t quite know where I am. Look down at the dog and say let’s go home, and as the crow flies, back to trail we go. They are amazing.

            • Immer Treue says:


              Wolves are always going to have impact on deer and moose. If conditions are tough like the MN Winters of 95/96 and 96/97 (remember that battle) its goin to be easier on wolves and tougher on deer. There are historically more deer than ever(not necessarily good for moose), tough to think that folks look at wolves any other way than fellow competitors with whom to share Nature’s bounty.

            • Harley says:

              That was my original argument waaaay back when I first posted on the BBB. What if there were other reasons besides wolves that were bringing the elk numbers down? And… you can predict how that went. I have honestly learned a lot from the other blog. Some ideas I’ve held onto, some I’ve adjusted. I still think that if any animal is causing trouble, it should be dealt with. However, I also believe that if they aren’t bothering anyone directly, they should be left alone. Still waffle back and forth on the whole method of ‘taken care of’. Relocate? Shot? Not sure which is best? Relocating a problem animal only relocates the problem. I dunno.

            • Louise Kane says:

              a toast while making dinner to all dog lovers and Shepherd lovers in particular! I’ve had them over the years my current friend is a German Shepherd Akita mix that was being abused as a bait dog. He looks exactly like a bi color GSD but has a broader face and smaller ears that are very wolf like. He is just as smart as the full breds I’ve had and just as handsome. Like yours he knows all the ways home and I just follow him if I get mixed up on trail. he never leaves my side and really is my best friend.

            • Immer Treue says:


              As an enormous moon rises over a ridge to the East, here’s hoping for improved weather for you and a bitter howling for me on this later evenings stroll. With this type of moon, in particular with snow cover, it is remarkable how light it becomes.

            • Harley says:

              Ha! After Lassie, the next dog I fell in love with was a friends collie shepherd mix. That dog was beautiful and she walked so daintily! The coloring was gorgeous, an excellent blending of collie and shepherd.

          • JB says:


            You’ve asked a number of questions, and I’m not sure I can answer all of them…

            “JB if they are so even handed why did they over step their own rule making process, why the rush to hunt wolves even as the majority opposed it.”

            Louise: From my limited understanding, the particular rule they have been accused of violating was never actually really used/enforced. I’m not trying to excuse the behavior (not following the rule) rather, simply noting that their actions with respect to wolves cant be differentiated from any other species. (Again, this is my understanding based upon a few conversations with folks there). Also, remember that the professionals who work within an agency often (usually, in my experience) differ from those elected and appointed officials who actually make decisions.

            “Do you really think that the trophy hunting and livestock industries have not provided the impetus to start hunting wolves immediately.”

            I don’t see where I wrote anything about the impetus to start hunting wolves? Actually, I don’t really see it as relevant? Either the justification for the hunt is legal and well-reasoned or it isn’t. Where that justification comes from doesn’t matter to me (and it shouldn’t matter to others).

            “And why exactly does MN need a wolf hunt with a stable population of wolves and minimal livestock damage. The DNR was perfectly capable of dispatching depredating wolves, and did indeed take these actions.”

            Minnesota does not “need” a wolf hunt. You are correct in asserting that they are perfectly capable of managing “problem” wolves on their own. On the other hand, that costs a fair bit of money. If they can make some of the management money back via a harvest that is sustainable, why shouldn’t they have a hunt?

            “I have spoken to members of the DNR and was told, this morning in fact, when I asked the question about why the rush for the hunt, that because it was necessary to protect livestock and humans.
            If thats not lying….”

            See Immer’s response. I don’t think that it is “lying”; I do think it’s a bit hyperbolas.

            “What is even handed about hunting wolves for sport? Allowing the public to hunt for wolves opens the door to violations, perpetuates the myth that public hunts control and manage wolves appropriately, and seems to fuel even further hate and allow some really frightening people access to killing wolves in most heinous ways.”

            Minnesota, more than any other state, has attempted to treat wolves like any other furbearer. You may think the hunting of wolves is wrong-headed, but that’s a different objection (one on principle, not process). The rest of this paragraph is a lot of accusation without really much support. To be clear, I’m not accusing you of lying, but I do detect a fair bit of hyperbole. 🙂

            • Immer Treue says:


              Thanks for the citing, but in fairness to Louise, the remainder of my response does support her.

              That said, it is so refreshing to engage in discussion without hearing some of the hyperbole, bombast, references to nazis… This is truly a wonderful blog.

            • JB says:


              Thanks. Not trying to misconstrue your response, just citing your description of why it what the DNR said isn’t lying.

              Forgot to mention that I’m also a lover of the GSD. I have a white GSD who is now 9 (going on 2).

            • Immer Treue says:


              Not to worry. Louise gets “beat-up” at times. Wolves coming into town and causing alarm is more troublesome than the occasional depredation, and I think that needs to be understood.

              Yet, in terms of wolf hunting in MN, I am in accord with much that Louise has written. I think MN and for that matter WI, whether they had a wolf season or not, rushed toward the precipice, and inertia has carried them over the edge with plans that could have been better thought.

              Ah, German shedders. 10 and a half and still plays the copraphage. Something about certain deer poop…

        • Louise Kane says:

          OH and thank you for the info about Maureen Hackett I had seen posts written by her but did not know she was the founder. She spoke at the last rally. She has an impressive background.

      • Louise Kane says:


        am laughing a bit thinking that posting here sometimes feels a bit like playing chess. Only instead of thinking about advancing a pawn or taking out a knight I have to think about what post will set off WM?
        To tell you the truth I don’t have or know all that much about the organization. I haven’t read all of the principal’s CVs, not looked at the organization’s start up docs, not ferreted out whether their individual qualifications or years of experience or whether they sat on the original wolf recovery team. I don’t know if they are affiliated with the HSUS or any other groups other than they have affiliated themselves with several other NGOS to bring suit against MN to stop the hunt. In digging further, I found the following about the howling for wolves org written on the NRDCA switchboard
        I would comment that I like this group, I like the way they think and that they are acting and not just threatening. I bet they are not lining their pockets. I bet that like a lot of others they work their asses off to try and not be the lazy moderate that some have described here. I admit it, you have me I have not spent hundreds of hours researching these people… yet their advocacy works for me. They are committed, they are working to represent 80% of the respondents in MN who did not want a wolf hunt, they are working to make the state follow its own rulemaking process, and they are working to prevent needless killing of wolves. Sometimes you just know something is right in your heart, it may be in line with your ethics or your moral sense of responsibility. It might just follow common sense. This campaign fits all of the above for me. You are obviously a very bright man so when you dig up some dirt please let us all know. Until then, I support these people and their mission. Wolves have enough enemies, its nice to see friends.

        David Mech’s comments about the need to hunt wolves to provide a safety valve to prevent hate toward wolves are proving to be way off. There is no taking those comments out of context. Its just a bad philosophy that is not proving to be accurate, but has done irreparable harm to wolves, as its quoted endlessly by the states and other anti predator groups. Mech, is just a human not a god.

        • Mark L says:

          I think that even Mech now realizes that his quotes and his observations are being used in a ‘perverse’ way to justify some people’s agendas. Whether intentional or not, he’s somewhat implicated through his opinions. It is what it is. He is a wolf expert, not a psychologist or a politician. Disappointing.
          As far as the shooting itself, there’s an obvious ‘heritage of hate’ in some that won’t go quietly into the night….so be it. We are now feeding it. The error was letting them get into the legislature’s agenda and people only have themselves to blame. Damn, who elected these people again? Before wolves it was :people: being oppressed, after it will be something else (or OTHER people again).
          There’s gotta be a boogey man to oppose, or we will turn on each other, right? The wolf is just a lamb. A ‘sacrifice’.

        • WM says:


          ++David Mech’s comments about the need to hunt wolves to provide a safety valve to prevent hate toward wolves are proving to be way off.++

          Well, I am not sure of your statement. You are right to this extent. Dr. Mech is not a god, he is a scientist, with the longest record of studying wolves in the US (maybe among the longest in the world). He has been asked his opinion about the recovery/reintroduction/repopulation plans under the ESA and he has rightfully confined his comments to the science mostly, including criticisms of scientists who pick up the mantle of advocacy or go beyond the bounds of the known science and rational policy to advocate for wolves.

          Importantly, he understands the big picture of recovery, with an insight most here do not want to acknowledge. You and I have disagreed on this before, but his work on the International Wolf Center (where Dr. Rolf Peterson of the Isle Royale wolf studies serves on the Board of Directors and Dr. Luigi Boitani, another stellar international wolf scientist
          , and other in-the-know researchers, administrators and business folks serve on the IWC BOD or Advisory Board.

          He, and apparently other wolf scientists of his caliber, are not among those who seem to think wolves are god, just animals that need certain requirements for recovery under the ESA (big distinction there, Louise).

          If there were not hunting scheduled to go on in 5 of the 6 states (MI is contemplating hunting in 2013) with delisted wolves, I expect there would be a push for more drastic catagorical exclusion of wolves from the ESA as states struggle with increasing numbers and range. There would be alot more 3S everywhere wolves are in the US. And, yeah I know about the rather static MN population, but that would not stop the hunt advocates or legislature from making it happen, and if you recall DNR had been pushing for delisting for the last 10 years, an entire decade, in light of suit after suit from HSUS and other animal rights/advocacy groups who never want them delisted EVER.

          That is precisely why MN DNR did not wait the five years after delisting before their first hunt -impatiently, they already waited ten, which served as their basis for a petition to FWS two years ago to be excluded from the WGL DPS and request delisting while WI and MI wolves would remain listed. This history, of course, is conveniently skirted by your new friend, Maureen Hackett and her Howling For Wolves, when she attacks the MN hunt, DNR and Dr. Mech.

          As for the HFW organization itself, the signals suggest Hackett IS the organization, based on the reference JB found on the website (I found it, too, in one one news release, but was hoping for a more formal disclosure under the website outline tabs that might include a board of directors or other principals).

          • Immer Treue says:

            It’s going to be interesting next Spring/Summer if funds exist for studies of hunt impact on depredation rate increase/decrease, other variables aside.

            I’ve said often enough, I do not understand wolf hunting/trapping in the BWCAW where there is no conflict between wolves and people/livestock…yeah,yeah,yeah watch your dogs.

            But if this were to have been done scientifically in MN, and WI, and the big complaint is depredation of livestock, why not have zones of hunting, and zones of no hunting? See what happens the following year. The population densities of these two states is greater than the NRM states, Alberta, etc… The rush(I understand the lag time since wolves hit “official” recovery numbers) to shoot and trap, has missed an opportunity to study the true dynamics/cause/effect relationship between culling the population and depredation. Will the possible removal of breeding wolves and young capable of hunting interfere with success rates, and lead to more depredation. This could have been monitored. Now?

            One more thing, this supposed intelligence of wolves. Hunting them supposedly makes them more weary of people? Perhaps it only makes them more rare. The Wedge pack for example. They certainly did not “learn”. Now the speculation is a new pack will move in. Deer, elk, cattle?

            In the whole “sanctifying” of wolf thing, perhaps we miss the point. All seem to give the wolf mystical properties of intelligence. We don’t see them because they are more active at night. Are they intelligent? Yep, more intelligent than their prey. They have to be, or they cease to exist. Their natural curiosity will never vanish, and as the curious meet their demise, others will take their place.

            Has the wolf been sanctified? Perhaps. Has the wolf been given “powers” of intelligence that surpass its natural abilities, and continue to be falsely vilified? Me thinks, yes.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Immer I agree with much of what you write and some of your comments mirror my strenuous objections to the MN hunt, to all the hunts. If the objective is to reduce predation why target the entire population, and the states were already killing wolves. There is still too much hate and negative bias against wolves to allow people to hunt them. But to me the real question is, why allow a public hunt for an animal as a trophy. I’ll never understand that or believe that its an ethical thing to do.

            • Louise Kane says:

              and there were many missed opportunities here by pushing this hunt

          • Louise Kane says:

            Wm we do disagree a great deal here. As for Mech, one might argue that Mech is a scientist who also is indirectly influencing policy through his comments. One might also argue that this is a type of advocacy, or at least the comments have been used that way. These policy influencing comments are the ones that disturb me the most. They seem very out of step with reality.

            I posted a couple of links the first is an article written by Mech that illustrates my argument ( I’m not sure what Mech is referring to when he states “It is heartening to be able to review a history that culminates in the wolf’s present status as a regular member of the wilderness fauna, with no special listing as endangered and no special drive toward its extermination. ” This is a highly euphemistic and an incorrect stance. Wolves are just as controversial in the areas that matter, and are likewise just as persecuted, largely by the same players. What has changed is that a majority of the public is tolerant of wolves, wants them, and would like to see responsible and fair treatment for wolves and other predators. Despite this, management is not adapted to reflect social science, biology or the public’s opinions. The attitudes reflected by the anti-wolf groups as posted all over the internet, and of some of the major special interest players are essentially those from a hundred years ago. It might even be worse now that the gloves are off and basically anyone can trap, snare, chase down and kill any wolf they want, or a lot of them, with the state and federal governments turning a deaf ear to complaints and a blind eye to the extremists. Mech is way off here.

            Mech also says,
            “Regulated hunting of wolves will not endanger the species again. But habitat loss, especially the loss of large contiguous tracts of wild land, will. ” Of course anyone with common sense will agree habitat loss and fragmentation is a key issue for many species and their success. But that statement attempts to ignore the super aggressive management of wolves and the potential impact this will have on wolves. I don’t believe Mech has ever studied the post hunt situation to comment the widespread effects of the hunt.

            I’m sorry but the state management plans do not fairly regulate hunting of wolves based on science or public opinion. Unless of course you argue that plans like Wyoming’s (where all wolves can be killed in most of the state), and those in Idaho and Montana are fair. We have seen that the regulations will be as broad, inclusive, and extreme as extremists push the states for. These plans will be implemented regardless of public opinion or best available science and they will be cruel and reject any notion of fair chase. Mech again is way off here.

            Perhaps the biggest mystery to me is that after a lifetime of working with wolves he seems so eager to promote hunting, and to dismiss many wolf advocate’s concerns. Mech paints a picture that wolf advocates do not get the whole picture, that we do not understand that hunting is necessary and that we believe there should be no management at all. I don’t think that depicts the issue very fairly nor does it illustrate or acknowledge that wolf advocates want to see wolves treated fairly and that most of us understand that some wolves will inevitably end up in conflict and may have ot be removed. We ask some basic things, that non lethal strategies be required and employed, wolves not be hunted as trophies, and that wolves be managed (when essential) in numbers that are closer to those of other predators like bears or cougars, for example.

            I am also disturbed by Mech’s lack of initiative to discuss or emphasize the unusual social structure or wolves and their packs, as well as the potential impact that random hunting might have on the survival of the whole pack. I find that extremely curious. Whether you believe the wolf to be more or less intelligent than other species, there is much literature that recognizes the role that various members of the pack play in their social hierarchy, why is this not a consideration in management strategies?

            Perhaps most disturbing is the statement that I read once about Mech not even liking dogs. Is this opinion reflected in the comments about needing to hunt wolves? Why after all the years of studying wolves is Mech so clinically detached that he readily defends trapping wolves, or any other animal for that matter? Mech has been amazingly fortunate to study wolves as a life time work. He has watched them play as pups, form bonds with one another, hunt and interact as families. I find it remarkable that he would condone trapping and snaring of these animals as sound management. Most of the scientists I have known come to a deep appreciation and respect of their subjects. Despite the call to objectivity, these scientists often work to protect them through policy initiatives or other actions. It might not be framed as advocacy but it ends up being so. Scientists can and do maintain objectivity despite their feelings. Yet its impossible to argue that scientists or the judiciary or any other individual whose work requires objectivity does not carry a bias, or does not have to choke down their own subjective impressions or life experience as they work. If this were not the case we would not have to worry so much about the effect of the presidency on the SC. I don’t have a problem with Mech’s research on wolves as it relates to the biology of wolves. I do have a problem with the statements that blur the distinction between scientific observation and subjective conjecture based on the observation of wolves. Mech’s statements are used everywhere for broad and far reaching policy decisions that are having a real negative impact on wolves.

            Whether Mech’ statements reflect a desire for moderation in wolf policy is one thing, but those statements are having the opposite effect. Mech is a biologist that has studied wolves not the impacts of hunting on wolves nor is he a social scientist who has studied the public’s perceptions of wolves.

            I think of my Shepherd running with his pals, of his playful stance, the way he growls at his dog friends and how they all seems to know when to back off or re engage as they read each other’s primal language. I know if he were to die in a trap that populations of dogs would not decline precipitously, there would still be dogs, Yet there is a quality aboit him that is different and makes him individual from all other dogs I’ve had. In watching documenatries like Living with wolves or seeing the wolves in yellowstone they are unique and so god like. The thought of these wolves, like my dog, and their pain and suffering while stuck in a trap waiting to die, is truly a horrible thought. What does Mech think of when he thinks of these wolves waiting to die their horrible deaths in a trap or snare that was set by hunters who now legally do so partly because the states have heard him testify, that the wolves can withstand these hunts and that trapping is perfectly acceptable. Does he think of the pups he watched grow, or the adults together as a family? I find it hard to swallow that Mech, with his trapping background, has not allowed a subjective take on a controversial issue to color his comments. Equally hard to swallow the callowness.

            another comment for a poster reading the article.
            Attitudes toward wolves
            I have been very disappointed in David Mech’s conclusion that woll hunting is needed, and I’m not sure how he reached that conclusion. After spending decades studying wolf behavior and pack structure, shouldn’t he have approached issues of wolf conflict from an educational aspect?
            But, on the other hand, David Mech is a trapper, not an educator.
            The Minnesota wolf hunting and trapping season is based upon politics and money. Sport and trophy hunting is big business, and the DNR relies on money from hunting and trapping licenses to fill in the gaps in its budget, due to legislative budget cuts.
            We have taken the wolf off the endangered species list only to return us to the days of the wild west, when wolves were hunted nearly to extinction.
            While it’s true that there may be specific problems with wolves and wolf populations, one would think that human society is smart enough to figure out specific solutions, rather than unleash “pent-up” desires to kill for sport and fun. If hunting remains a part of our culture, it should be for food.
            Login or register to post comments

            • Louise Kane says:

              meant to write seem “gsd” like not god like! German Shepherd like ….

            • Ida Lupine says:

              That is a very alarming comment. I hope it was taken out of context. It is never a good idea to encourage letting off steam by killing. Also, history shows that it hasn’t worked in over 200 years. Wolf killers are just as rabid as ever, even after the 1800s.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              The only difference between now and then is there are less wolves.

            • WM says:


              First let me say notwithstanding our differences on several topics, I am indeed glad you are not in harm’s way from the hurricane moving through your area. And, do appreciate the detailed description of what has gone on on the Cape in your post to Salle. My wife grew up mostly in the Florida Keys and West Mystic, CT. I get reminded from time to time what real E Coast hurricanes/storms are like, whenever I complain about our sometimes extreme Northwest weather, which simply is not the same order of magnitude of stuff that makes it your way. I was in NY City when Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992, and in Hamilton, Bermuda in 1999 or 2000, both times on business, enduring some real nasty weather that cancelled flights, and in the Bermuda instance had me in a boarded up hotel room above beach level with no power, water or hot food, so get the feel of it).

              Back to Mech. I note the quote you cite from one Elanne Palchich (not sure who she is or her knowledge base, but it can’t be much) – “But, on the other hand, David Mech is a trapper, not an educator.”

              I am also not sure why you included the comment, but I hope she subsequently learned that Mech’s trapping is nearly all live trapping for the purposes of his research, and that he, in fact, is an educator on several levels – as a faculty member at U of MN and teacher of students and those who study or work under him, as a researcher and prolific author whose books, journal articles and lectures have lead to a vastly more detailed understanding of the scientific community and the lay public about wolf biology, and with his efforts to establish and oversee the International Wolf Center,the purpose of which is to educate about wolves. Duh? In fact, I don’t know who has been a greater contributor in that regard.

              Let me just, candidly, say this person doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.

              Also seems to me Dr. Mech has spoken and maybe written of pack structure impacts and effects of hunting, concluding, if I recall correctly, it wasn’t a big deal. At least that is what I am remembering from his recorded verbal testimony as an invited expert to comment on legislative hearings on hunting after WGL wolves were delisted. It would have been in MN, I think.

              And, in regard to the statement which leads off your comment sbove, “As for Mech, one might argue that Mech is a scientist who also is indirectly influencing policy through his comments,” I will take it one step further. I think his comments are DIRECTLY influencing policy. Why? Because he has been engaged in the research and specifically ASKED his opinion of the science by decision-makers whose job it is to make implementation decisions regarding the hunting/trapping of wolves. Is there a built in bias? As you suggest, probably so, IMHO. But, it strikes me he is very careful about what he says.

              One last question, Louise, is it the content of Mech’s position (and his experience, research and reasoning) that bothers you, or is it the fact that you simply do not agree with it?

              And, as for trapping for research purposes, if I recall correctly, JB opined that there are procedures and standards in the academic field for humane care of wild or domestic study animals, including a web link to the protocols. It would be unlikely IMHO Dr. Mech and other scientists in the field would not rigorously follow these procedures to avoid the uninformed criticism such as that from this person Elanna whom you quote above.

            • Louise Kane says:

              WM thanking you for your good wishes on the storm and also for your recollections. The Caribbean storms are indeed a sight to see, and some of the East Coast.

              I posted the comment you object to in haste and there are better examples for sure. But I see them all the time, from the general public as well as from other scientists. Many people wonder where Mech is coming from. i feel its a valid perspective considering the history of wolf management or eradication and the new era of wolf eradication that is echoing the last. Related to one of your comments
              “Also seems to me Dr. Mech has spoken and maybe written of pack structure impacts and effects of hunting, concluding, if I recall correctly, it wasn’t a big deal. At least that is what I am remembering from his recorded verbal testimony as an invited expert to comment on legislative hearings on hunting after WGL wolves were delisted. It would have been in MN, I think” Its not surprising that Mech is asked to testify so frequently when he gives the agencies and special interest groups pushing to hunt for wolves exactly what they are asking for. A rationale to hunt wolves. I’d like to see the actual research or peer reviewed data on this. I find it hard to believe that random killing of wolves is “no big deal” to the pack’s ability to survive. Mech’s stance of late does seem to be no big deal, hey hunt em, trap em, poach em they can take it. I know that a great many people take issue with it, some are reluctant to speak about it for fear of questioning someone who has had a long and esteemed history studying wolves. And as for the trapping issue, I thought Mech also recreationally trapped but I do not know for sure, but the trapping I am referring to and object to is that done by the trapping community. What I wonder is how does he reconcile his life experience watching and studying wolves with knowing how they will suffer and die in traps and snares as a result of his comments. As I stated in my last post, I have not had the opportunity to study wolves in the wild but I am quite sure if I had my respect for them would only increase and my desire to see them stay out of harm’s way would likewise increase. Because I recognize the traits in my own dog that make him wolf like and love his personality so much I can imagine just how terrible it would be for him to be tortured this way. Why would wolves suffer any less? Wolves and dogs share dna, play and express emotions the way dogs do. I can’t understand Mech’s indifference to these particularly barbaric methods of hunting wolves or his recent stances.

            • ma'iingan says:

              “But, on the other hand, David Mech is a trapper, not an educator.”

              Doug Smith, Rolf Pederson, and many less famous biologists (including me) who have studied under and worked with Dr. Mech would vehemently disagree with this comment.

            • Harley says:

              Just on some of my observations, I’ve noticed that when Mech supports wolves in the manner that the particular reader wants to hear, he’s ok. When he advocates anything that isn’t acceptable to another reader, well then he’s not very credible. This is something I see on both sides of the argument.

              Anyway, just my observation.

            • JB says:

              “I’m sorry but the state management plans do not fairly regulate hunting of wolves based on science or public opinion. Unless of course you argue that plans like Wyoming’s (where all wolves can be killed in most of the state), and those in Idaho and Montana are fair.”


              I have tried to make this point before, but somehow we always end up back in the same place. Despite the what is implied by the Endangered Species Act, the Wildlife Society and every Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks s/he can manage wildlife better than state agencies, POLICY CANNOT BE SET “BASED UPON SCIENCE” (apologies for ‘shouting’). Science can only determine “is” questions–not “should” questions (i.e., the one’s we argue about).

              I do, however, agree that Wyoming’s policy is foolhardy, and it was especially foolish of FWS to approve it. You can damn well bet that Idaho and Montana will eventually follow suit with their own “predator” (i.e., wolf free) zones. Dumb, dumb, dumb!

            • aves says:


              I too recall Mech being quoted as saying he did not like dogs. He explained that the reason was how poorly they compared to wolves, i.e. how far domestication had taken them from their wild ancestors.

  14. Louise Kane says:

    This e mail came to my inbox today and I am not sure from who. As I read it, it is astoundingly similar to the issues in the west and the livestock industry and its hatred of predators. This industry is doing its best worldwide to eliminate any competition for cattle and sheep. What will it take for science, compassion and common sense to prevail? Its all very discouraging.

    On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:42 AM, CACH wrote:

    On Thursday 25th October the Wildlife Forum met in Cape Town to consider a Protocol which is nothing short of a declaration of war on our wildlife.
    Small livestock farmers have complained that their livelihoods are threatened by stock losses caused by predators, mainly caracals and jackals. They say that their only defence is to launch a predator extermination program..
    Conservationist respond by pointing out:-
    1. That the farmers’ refusal to employ herders or to kraal their animals at night is the real cause of stock losses. Poor animal husbandry is to blame. Farmers throw their sheep out into the mouths of predators, leaving them unprotected day and night out in the veld.
    2. Extermination of wildlife will not solve the farmers’ problems. These methods have all been tried before and have failed. The report by Professor Bothma, commissioned by Cape Nature, examined the infamous “Oranjejag” where a similar predator elimination campaign was conducted in the Free State. That slaughter by hunt clubs over a period of years killed 87,000+ wild animals – of which more than 60,000 were harmless non-target species, such as Cape Foxes.
    3. Bothma points out that more jackals and caracals were killed in the last year of the Orangjejag than ever before. In other words, the mass slaughter certainly devastated wildlife populations – but did not eliminate the clever predators.

    Unfortunately, the Bothma Report was only completed after government had already decided to give in to the farmers’ demands. Citing food security as an overriding factor, government pressed Cape Nature to sign a Protocol with farmers’ representatives, permitting livestock farmers to form district-wide hunt clubs and to use gin traps, guns, poison and even helicopters to assault the province’s predators.
    One would expect that the Bothma Report would have knocked out the Protocol and saved our wildlife from persecution but politicians everywhere are more interested in votes that in science.
    If government does not care about the science, perhaps it will care about losing votes. South Africans who care about their wildlife heritage should talk to their MP’s.

    (There is indeed a threat to food security in S.A. but it is not caused by jackal and caracals. In my humble opinion it is caused instead by political ideology and populist demand – the national government’s Land Reform Programme.)

    Our wildlife heritage is under threat. Government intends to implement the Protocol notwithstanding the scientific evidence that this will impact biodiversity out of all proportion to any temporary respite for farmers.

    The message from Professor Bothma is that both sides must compromise if we are to reach practical solutions. The conservationists publish horror photos of the injuries caused to wild animals by gin traps. The farmers respond with horror photos of stock animals attacked by predators, including gruesome pictures of calves being eaten alive as they are being born.
    Gin traps.
    If we had been given the time to question the farmers’ representatives more closely, I would have put the following ideas to them:-
    1. We ban the manufacture, import, sale, possession and use of all leg-hold traps, soft and hard except where special permits have been issued by Cape Nature.
    2. Farmers whose particular conditions require the use of gin traps must apply for permits to Cape Nature, who will only issue permits AS A LAST RESORT for the use of approved traps and after imposing strict conditions on their use. Permit restrictions might require the use of cell phone alarm systems so that the farmer knows instantly when the trap has closed.

    1. Farmers undertake to kraal their sheep at night and/or employ herders wherever possible and employ other defensive non-lethal methods of reducing stock losses. Margins in farming have shrunk and more active management is now necessary. Throwing sheep out in to the veld to look after themselves is outmoded.
    2. If rigid labour laws are preventing farmers from employing herders then some special dispensation for herders is needed. Perhaps prison labour could be used, thereby reducing overcrowding in prisons and relieving the farmer from the burden of paying wages. In school holidays perhaps children could be allowed to earn a little money herding.
    Gin Trap Destruction Festivals?
    With good faith on both sides, this system could work. Farmers would avoid the damaging results of a confrontation with their own consumers and no doubt there are media and public relations opportunities in publicly destroying old gin traps. No doubt the big retailers would participate in enhancing the image of farming in SA.

    Chris Mercer and Bev Pervan
    Campaign Against Canned Hunting, Sec 21 NGO
    Co-authors of:
    Kalahari Dream
    For the love of Wildlife

    • elk275 says:

      The above article is rathing preplexing. In South Africa, Namibia, and parts of Zambia and Zimbabwe. The landowner owns all wildlife. The landowner is the one who decides what gets killed, by whom and how much one must pay for a particular animal. There is no North American Wildlife model. The landowner owns it all.

      • Louise Kane says:

        I’ll write to the party who sent it to me ans ask for an explanation, as I am not familiar with ownership rights over land or wildlife in these countries.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Elk this is the reponse I received a few moments ago


        Hi Louise
        The commentator is confusing game farms with livestock farming. My report below refers to sheep farming. Sheep farmers do not ‘own’ the wildlife on their land. There is a whole process involving erecting perimeter game fencing to certain specs for different species. Once the fencing has been inspected and approved for those species, then a Certificate of Adequate Enclosure is issued to the game farmer who then becomes the ‘owner’ of the species listed in the Certificate.
        Chris Mercer and Bev Pervan
        Campaign Against Canned Hunting, Sec 21 NGO
        Co-authors of:
        Kalahari Dream
        For the love of Wildlife

  15. Louise Kane says:

    Timz it sure is nice to see that elk alive instead of as a dead carcass in front of a grinning trophy hunter.

  16. Salle says:


    I hope you’ll be relatively unscathed from Sandy, the ugly-demon-nightmare-storm-from-hell… or would that be outer space? It’s made quite a mess all over the east coast. NYC is in rough shape and NJ coastline is even worse. I have a couple relatives around MA and NH, hope they’ll be okay since the storm has made that sharp left turn during the day, it could still surprise everybody again and make another sharp turn or just sit there for a week and flood everything in New England. I heard that NYC got a record setting 13ft surge during the night and the some of the subways are flooding… among numerous other problems.

    I hope the wildlife in the region will be okay. I saw ducks in one video, they were just floating along on a flooded street in Atlantic City, I think it was. I was also thinking about the red wolves out on the Carolina peninsula earlier… it was a swamp to begin with. It’s going to be some big clean-up situation!

    I just hope you are well, safe, dry and warm all at once.

  17. Louise Kane says:

    Salle, thank you for the thoughts. My friends in NJ and NY are dealing with a different situation. We got hit here on the Cape, but we generally come away relatively unscathed despite high winds. I attribute much of our good fortune to a serious and extensive network of marshes and wetlands that have remained fairly undisturbed, even through development. And we are also fortunate in that much of the lower Cape is National Seashore and development was halted here on the lower Cape entirely. You can still stand on the dunes and see as far as you can with an empty horizon with rare exception for the grandfathered in homes that are far and few between. I have not seen much evidence of wildlife damage either. My father used to take my sister and I to look for dovekies during and after storms because they can be blown off track and then need large bodies of water to take flight. He’d carry buckets collect them and take them to the ocean. I went around this morning but didn’t see any to rescue. My dog Rue and I went out yesterday when the winds were gusting 70+ in Chatham and looked at the cut through in the barrier beach, there was a lot of flooding and it did affect some of the homes behind the beach but even there unless you are directly behind the cut, there are huge marshes that soak up the surge. Rue and I saw something though that I had never seen before, we walked down to the bay beach behind our house and the water was dead flat calm, eerie but with a dark black ripple under. The wind was pushing the water out to sea and out on the horizon in the bay you could see big breakers (very unusual). But the oddest thing was that the combination of water being pushed off the beach and then being surged in with the tide created a mini tsunami like affect. The dead calm water would recede quickly and then come surging in to very high heights. It really was unsettling. Rue was looking at me like hey, lets get out of here. To top off the day we took a walk down to the ocean side and there you could see the whole fury of the storm. The ocean was insane. Churling, giant waves and frothing water. I had to keep Rue leashed, he is used to walking there and I was afraid he would try and get down the coastal bank. The day before we had hiked about 5 miles around a marsh from the backside to see where the ocean and Town Cove inlet met and to see what effect the oncoming storm was having. The change was dramatic. The day before the storm, we walked the whole area even with the marsh flooded, rolling up our pants and wading through passes to get out to the outer beach. During the storm there were breaker like waves even in the marsh. The beach was not passable unless you were crazy. I’ve a heavy mercedes station wagon thats a good fit for me and Rue and a lot of hiking junk. They are really heavy cars and it was rocking and rolling, at the cliffs looking down at the beach. It was pretty spectacular. But these nor east storms are nothing compared to those in the Caribbean. We used to live in St THomas at the top of the east end looking out over ST John and down island toward the BVI. I saw some storms come through there that scared the shit out of me. One had the power out for a year and it looked like the center of a nuclear explosion, the storms here seem like gentle noreasters compared.

    • Harley says:

      My son was stationed out at McGuire/Lakehurst/Dix a few months ago but was transferred to the west coast. Still keep tabs on some of his buddies who are still out that way.

    • Salle says:


      Glad you’re not in a dangerous situation.

      Thanks for the “tour” of the Cape you’re on. It sure brings back some long ago memories from my childhood. I spent my summers there through most of my childhood, south shore just up from Craigville Beach (Grandparent’s property was on Pine Street). I remember some nasty storms from back then and a couple times when hurricanes made it up to Maine, well one at least, never forget that one, whatever it’s name was… back in the early 1960s. We were way up in Bowdinham and it was pretty intense there.

      Anyway, glad you’re okay. Looks like it ain’t over yet so do take care!

      • Louise Kane says:

        Salle, thanks just back from an amazing walk along the Atlantic side. If you know the Cape then you know that the beach on that side on the lower Cape is usually soft and hard to walk on. The whole beach as hard packed, the tide had been up to the parking lot, and there were still big breakers but the seas had calmed down quite a bit. It was gorgeous out, and there were two water spouts right off shore. A lot of seals in the water despite the roughness. Maybe the sharks are off shore with the seas and the seals feel safer. Hopefully you’ll get back this way sometime and I can put you up and show you some of the lower Cape trails!

        • Salle says:

          Thanks. If I ever get out that way again, I’ll look you up. I haven’t been back there since my grandmother passed back in late 90s. I did manage to spend a couple hours at the beach when I was there, so many memories. (She and her sister were the last to be buried in the “ancient cemetery”.) Guess I’m way overdue for a trip out there…

          Seems like a lifetime ago now.

          I recall meeting a gentleman from the Cape some time ago, he was a founder of the Pagasus Foundation, said that part of their main mission was to see that development was limited there, I thanked him for doing that as I had noticed that Craigville looked very much like it did when I was much younger. Wonder what they’re doing these days…?

    • CodyCoyote says:

      Hmmm…says theyr eleased the grain-luvvin’ bear from Dubois into the Fishhawk Drainage west of Cody . Well, if they had to use a drop point where there was truck-trailer access, Fishhawk Creek is only a couple miles down from Kitty Creek where there are numerous cabins ( and where Erwin Evert was killed by a grizz last year ). It’s also the location of the Camp Buffalo Bill boy scout camp (several cabins and a lodge ) , and directly a cross the road from a dude ranch that has/had horses.

      I wonder about this ” Musical Bears” program that Wyo G&F employs. They have so few drop off points. Each gets used several times a season.

  18. Ida Lupine says:

    With no experience managing the wolf as a game species in Wisconsin, DNR wildlife managers were unsure what success rates hunters and trappers would achieve. The relatively high success has surprised many wildlife managers.

  19. Louise Kane says:

    does anyone know if this true? a friend sent it to me

    More Roads Than the Interstate

    As implausible as this may seem, the numbers do not lie. So far, the Forest Service has constructed 343,000 miles of road on our national forests. This alone is eight times the entire mileage of the United States Interstate Highway System. Think about that the next time you’re driving cross-country on I-80, or heading for Florida on I-95. .

    • Salle says:

      That sounds about right. I would refer you to have a look at the western states on Google Earth and see how much there really is, you will also see the impact of “user created” roads and much they impact the landscape along with logging roads. The Interstate system is probably the lesser in miles of federal road systems by a large number.

    • WM says:


      That mileage number would not suprise me in the least. It might even be more. To get some perspective one need only look at a Delorme brand atlas for a state in which the national forest (or BLM land) is color coded. The map scale is something 1/2″=1 mile. Mostly during the 1960-80 period, and even earlier, USFS let lots of timber contracts to log NF lands. The timbersale bidder typically was required to include in the net cost/revenue bid, the cost for construction of access roads for the sale in order to get the timber (USFS did the road location and most of the engineering on maximum grade, switchbacks, ballast, super, and surfacing. Often sales would leapfrog one after the other opening new areas of forest based on the road that was built the sale before. To my knowledge the USFS didn’t actually build many roads itself, but the loggers did.

      Many/some of these roads are now closed especially where clearcutting was done, awaiting reopening 80-100 years from now when the trees are again harvestable. However, the grade remains, along with culverts, steep cut banks and all accompaning soil erosion/geologic problems that comes with roadbuilding on steep slopes with shallow nutrient deficient forest soils. But it is also important to remember some of these road beds have been planted to grasses or other vegetation (including natural plant succession) which have provided thousands of acres of wildlife habitat, including the game trails that wolves and their prey travel daily, providing greater wildlife diversity than was in the mature forest before timber harvest.

      It is kind of a mixed nightmare or blessing, depending on one’s point of view.

      • WM says:

        Should also say a fair number of these roads, especially at lower elevations are the same base roads once built for logging, have been continually maintained or improved, and are the ones that give access to Wilderness and some National Park trailheads for access to the back country. They also provide hunter access, and are used by x-c skiers and snow mobiles and ATV’s.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Salle and Wm thanks
          thats a lot of road access. your point about some of the roads providing access, is indeed a blessing or curse depending on what way you see it. Walking access is completely different in my mind. I hate to think about snow mobiles and ATVs anywhere. loud, destructive soil and snow compacting devices. I detest them as much as jet skis

          • elk275 says:

            Lousie there is one thing that you and I agree upon.

            • Louise Kane says:

              maybe another thing we agree on, I have a particular dislike of interpretive signage and walkways and other human placed artifacts that are supposed to enhance or enable people better access. We had this amazing trail that I’ve walked my whole life and you could only access one side of the lake by crossing over a log or wading through a stream. Most people were too lazy to cross so just turned back. Some civic minded person decided it would make a good project so they got 50K to build a huge bridge over a small stream. It destroyed the natyral beauty of the place and now people are all over it in the summer. Just a personal beef but I feel the same way about seeing bridges, signs, and walkways or observation platforms in wild areas. I’d rather see it wild and if I can’t get through on my own tough.

        • elk275 says:

          Also, those roads that give access to various recreational areas destroy potential wilderness areas. Once a road is build there is a road. ATVer’s and snowmobilers want that and all roads open. I hate snowmobiles and ATVs.

  20. Louise Kane says:

    “Of the three states, Wyoming is the only one with “dual classification” for wolves. In most of Wyoming, wolves can be killed on sight, without a license, any time of year.”

    who is tracking the wolves killed in the areas where they may be killed without a license. Or is it just a given that they will be eliminated.

    Read more:

    • Leslie says:

      Louise, the predator zone is also tracked by WY G&F but I believe that instead of a 24 hour report like in the trophy zone, it is a 10 day report. Here is the link to the rules. They are not releasing locations of where these ‘predator’ wolves were taken, but I believe most have been in the Pinedale area (not a surprise because there are many sheep grazing allotments as well as great habitat like the Wind Rivers). I for one, feel like WY G&F should be releasing more information to the public as the USF&W did on their webpage. If you look at the ‘Trophy Game Harvest’ webpage, there are additional wolves killed not included in the quota in the trophy zone. No information is given as to why.

  21. SEAK Mossback says:
    I’ve been out of in the sticks for most of the past 2 weeks and do not see anything in the news shedding more light on the recent deadly Brown Bear attack on Chichagof, but this is a perspective that indicates how rare they’ve been in the state recently (none since 2005 until this year in the state and none since 2000 in SE Alaska). Some of us had considered the likelihood that the recent victim might have died of “other” causes (as us males in our mid-50s or older are prone to do) and been discovered by the bear, but one of my coworkers is a friend of his who confirms that he was in excellent shape with a stenuous outdoor job (tree thinning). She mainly worried about the water craft he traveled about in (which ironically may have been what contributed to him going ashore at that particular location).

  22. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Washington Considers Another Impact Of Wolves: Skinny Cows

    • WM says:

      Is there an actual proposed rule for this newly proposed compensation program, or is WDFW still at the concept stage, and if so where can it be found?

      On a related topic, I don’t know whether folks have seen the following policy statment adopted April 2012 by the WDFW Commission. I hadn’t. It is a good policy document which kind of sets the sideboards and tone on how the 2011 Wolf Management Plan will be administered in conjunction with the Department staff activities. It might be something for those who are critical of the lethal elimination of the Wedge Pack to review for policy/plan context:

      The approach is a good plan implementation road map – a written guidance document which apparently does not exist in other state wildlife agencies in the West or Midwest. The more curious part is how it came to be, including its gritty directional content, after adoption of the controversial Plan itself, which I still believe is like trying to fit a size 11 foot into a size 8 shoe.

    • Mark L says:

      You are what you eat! (personally I like my cows more skinny) . Put some horned varieties in there and give them compensation for avoiding wolf/cattle conflicts?

  23. CodyCoyote says:

    No doubt the Jon Tester- Denny Rehberg race for US Senate in Montana has national implications and certainly affects wildlife and conservation issues in the West . It is in a term, a big money dogfight to the death.

    Last night’s PBS “Frontline” investigative show was about the influence of Dark Money in political campaigns since the landmark Citizens United case that allowed unlimited campaign money to be utilized by shady nonprofits and their anonymous donors , including corporations , to manipulate elections. ” Big Sky- Big Money ” keyed in on Montana.

    It builds a very compelling case that the US Supreme Court erred mightily in not reconsidering Citizens United based on the Constitutional appeal of Montana’s own strong campaign finance laws, which that state’s own Supreme Court upheld in overriding Citizens United. SCOTUS let it stand instead. The floodgates remain open , and dark foul deluges of dirty money pour through , and we are forbidden to trace it back to the source. All you will find are two P.O. Boxes in UPS Stores. That’s it.

    View online ( 54 minutes) at :

    I just watched it. If I weren’t stunned, I’d be furious.

    Then read ProPublica’s little libretto on the same at :

    I’d have to say we have lost control of the democratic process altogether. Elections are now a commodity to be speculated, traded, and purchased.

    Having said that , I’m no big fan of Jon Tester, but the alternative of Denny Rehberg is wholly unpalatable. We have so many bad ,or worse, choices this year.

    • Salle says:

      Cody Coyote,

      Thanks for posting those links. I read about that a coulpe days ago, Monday..? and was thinking that the FrontLine piece and all the news flurry couldn’t have come out soon enough and may have been smothered by hurricane news.

      I agree about the choices this year. When I was working the census in 2010, I honestly hoped that we could get a second House Rep. but as the count started becoming clear, I ws disappointed to realize that Montana was overwhelmed by trophy homes and not actual residents thus making the possibility far off in the future. I used the prospect as a prompt for cooperation from reluctant citizens.

      I voted the day my ballot arrived so I’m just holding my breath now. Hope I can go back to breathing soon…

    • Leslie says:

      Another interesting Frontline piece from the 23rd on behind the scenes of the Climate Deniers. Very interesting.

  24. Salle says:

    On skinny cows worried about wolves and paying ranchers for it;

    The commission will also invite public comments on several changes proposed in state rules for compensating ranchers and other landowners who lose livestock to predatory carnivores. Those changes would:

    Give top priority for compensation to ranchers who sign cooperative agreements with WDFW committing them to use non-lethal measures to protect their livestock.

    Provide compensation for guard dogs and other animals used to guard livestock.

    Allow ranchers to receive compensation for weight loss in livestock and other effects of wildlife predation that are not directly tied to the death or injury of an animal.

    Establish a new way to determine the value of livestock lost to predation.

    Prior to discussing that issue, commissioners are scheduled to attend an annual meeting with Gov. Chris Gregoire in the Governor’s office. The Governor appoints commission members to six-year terms, subject to confirmation by the state Senate.

    • Salle says:

      That’s an interesting follow-up story, with pictures.

      Salle says:
      October 15, 2012 at 11:47 am

      Kind of sad.

      2 Wyoming moose die in fight over mate

      Apparently this does happen but not very often.

      • Nancy says:

        Salle, Elk – went to check on a friend’s place the other day and thought someone had “helped” themselves to her firewood. Upon closer inspection, I realized half the stacked woodpile had been pushed over to the back. Skid marks all over the parking area.

        A few yards away, I found one side of a big moose antler that not only had been broken off a few inches above the button, but was cracked in half.

        Must of been one hell of a fight!

        • Salle says:

          Wow! I guess. That would have been something to see, though not too closely.

          Those guys are really big and getting into a tussle is pretty intense and, apparently, they can make a mess. Thanks for sharing that, brings up all kinds of mental images.

          When I finish my coffee I’m going to go visit my bald eagle friends… seriously, there are several in the area that I go to and two particular youngsters follow me around the whole I time I’m out there. One even lands within 100ft of me and just sits there like a contented cat. There are moose out there and sometimes wolves so I hope to have a nice early part of the day watching wildlife in a not hunted zone. I need some good juju and they usually provide that.

  25. Louise Kane says:

    Repost from e mail from Howling for Wolves

    Howling For Wolves heads north this Saturday November 3rd, 2012 to mark the opening day of wolf hunting.

    At 11 am we will get started with an hour-long protest in Duluth at the Lake Superior Plaza West, at the corner of Superior Street and Lake Ave. Click here for a map.

    At noon we drive twenty minutes to the Fond Du Lac reservation. We will be there from 1-3 pm for a sacred ceremony by elder and medicine man Skip Sandman to honor the wolf. We will call this gathering; Honoring Ma’iingan. This will take place at the Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Brookston Community Center 8200 Belich St. Cloquet, MN 55720.

    Directions from Twin Cities to Fond Du Lac reservation community center: From I35 heading north, take Hwy 33 (one of the Cloquet exits) north (left). Turn left on Big Lake Rd. Turn right on Brookston Rd. turn right on Mahnomen Rd. Halfway down you will see the Center on the left. make the left turn there and drive straight to the Center’s parking lot. (NOTE: You can also use this map to plan your own route)

    Transportation option Duluth trip: We have a mini-coach reserved and the size selection will depend upon how many are willing to use this service for a minimum contribution of $15 per person. Please let us know as soon as possible so we can arrange this. Please email Lisa at or call 612-424-3613.

    Quick update on letter signers: We have decided that our names of letter signers need to be presented to Governor Dayton this Monday, November 5th. We urge you to please click here to sign our letter before midnight this Saturday, November 3rd. We have 10,770 unique signers who have pledged their support so far!

    Friday rally reminder: Don’t forget our rally from 10:30 am-12:30 pm this Friday, November 2nd at the DNR headquarters, 500 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul, MN 55115. We will be meeting on the east side of Lafayette between Willius Street and University Ave. Click here for a map.

    • Louise Kane says:

      This is a pretty amazing story. Do you know if the facts are accurate. The sheep losses that correspond to the breaks in communication or failure to adequately use the deterrents is very compelling. Thanks for posting. The part about the president of the Idaho wool growers association asking to spare the wolves lives was one of the most heartening things I’ve read in a long time.

      • SAP says:

        Louise – the only eyebrow-raiser for me is “90% lower than Idaho loss rates reported by the USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS)”

        I believe that this statement is true, but I DON’T put any faith in the NASS loss figures themselves. I think we’ve gone over this before on this site — NASS predation loss figures seem to have absolutely no grounding in reality. They tend to bear no resemblance to other losses reported by other agencies (such as the agencies that actually investigate predator losses, including Wildlife Services). If I remember correctly, NASS loss figures are self-reported by producers.

        Seems fair enough, though, that if USDA wants to put this nonsense out there and call it “statistics,” that Defenders can use it as a point of comparison.

        • Salle says:

          Just goes to show, if livestock producers were out there doing what they claim they do, ca-boyin’ they wouldn’t have to be so hateful toward the wildlife. After this part, the next thing is to get the cows out of the forests and away from the riparian areas to save our streams… especially since we are now in a serious drought phase that may not change in a positive way for a long time. Although, these two goals are not mutually exclusive and should both be target goals of equal importance.

    • WM says:

      Nice “fluff” article, yet again by Suzanna Stone. The concept is great – especially so if it yields the claimed results. Yet, there is not even one sentence in this article devoted to additional operator/producer costs for the methods tested. That would be the recurring material and labor costs for electric fences, alarms, fladry, dogs (acquisition/training/meds/feeding) and people to string the stuff, stay out all night every day sheep/cattle are tended.

      It is fine, if you want to use “volunteers and interns” to sleep with the stock every night. Does Defenders even cover the cost to feed these folks? Who pays for the equipment they use? How much compensable time would their days and nights be even at a minimum wage, looking out after livestock and keeping alert for wolves?

      Then, of course, Stone refers the reader to her published booklet, in which also does not address the operator costs for the materials and labor.

      Until Defenders addresses costs of these techniques for better ranch/ivestock management at the individual operator level they will continue to get strong resistance, and their “results” should be closely scrutinized.

      • Salle says:

        WM, (and I am saying this directly to you with a great deal of trepidation)…

        Then, of course, Stone refers the reader to her published booklet, in which also does not address the operator costs for the materials and labor.

        You continually bring up this whine-factor issue. When are you going to figure out that if you are going to run a business you have to have insurance of one kind or another, at a cost to the business operator? If you are going to engage in a false-profit venture, you can expect it to be costly regardless of what kind of business you are actually in. If you choose to run cattle out in the west where it is a falsely designed environment for such a business then you will have to suck it up and pay the price. The “goddamned gubbamint” created this false environment and then covers the cost of WS kill teams and provides cheap grazing fees on public land for the sake of the business-person’s profit at taxpayer expense… that’s a big public donation to a for-profit business right there. So how is it that the whining begins when some technique ~ developed with non-profit funds for the most part ~ is a cost that’s just too much to bear for these welfare queens? And did you notice that this cowboy work is done, in major proportion, by women? And have you considered the reality that prices for everything in this capitalist world changes like the weather?

        You appear to have some hate-on for anything that Suzanne Stone ever does, especially when it has a positive outcome, and it always swirls around the alleged cost to the welfare queen/rancher. You seem to imply that whatever she invests in to appease these guys is somehow more costly than is acceptable to everyone on the planet, and that’s just hogwash. So far, the majority of this project has been paid for by funds from nonprofit organizations.

        If ranchers were interested in doing something positive instead of spewing vitriol and hatred while holding their hands out for a handout for not doing their jobs, there would likely be funds available to assist in proactive endeavors that could arise from cooperative agreements with those from whom they demand welfare funds. (Welfare recipients are mandated to seek and hold jobs for their assistance, so it should also hold for the welfare ranching cabal… if they want assistance, it should come from a cooperative effort rather than a whine-fest of hatred and a “my way or the highway” mentality.)

        Your whining about cost to the rancher is getting so old that it appears to be all rind with no pulp in the middle left to gain anything from.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Salle its not a surprise to you or anyone here but I agree with you 100%. Whining about a cost of business annoys me greatly. Killing wildlife to protect cattle, annoys me even more. As she waits for the backlash…

        • elk275 says:


          Do you have any use for the free market system or the ownership of larger tracts of land?

        • WM says:

          “Whine” factor? It is a request for facts and numbers supporting what Defenders measures as “success” in their so called “model.” It also strikes me as an aspect of best science supporting wolf co-existence. Incidentally, how is your view of this issue workin’for ya so far, Salle?

          Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission seems to think the economics argument of non-lethal measures is worth a hearing in a couple weeks. Seems the least Defenders can do is report what seems to be on the minds of regulators in what appears to be one of the most moderate and tolerant states with wolves, AND what’s on the minds of ranchers, if asked/required to do it, probably where ever they are.

          I don’t think I have ever seen the words Defenders of Wildlife and economic benefit-cost analysis used in the same sentence. Could be part of the problem, that they don’t understand the concept.

          • Salle says:


            What? I can read and comprehend English rather well but what ever it was that you were trying to say didn’t make any sense. And I couldn’t find a portion of your response that was relevant to the comment I made about your whining about Suzanne’s pamphlet on livestock management techniques that didn’t include killing predators… it appeared to be more on the scale of emotional retort with little articulation or correlation to the previous comments. Or perhaps your intent was to facilitate the attitudes that I was exposing in my comment?

            Care to give it another try?

            • WM says:

              Not really. The message of my posts – both of them- was pretty clear.

              They were merely to point out that Defenders doesn’t want to address the economics of “non-lethal” techinques. It isn’t rocket science.

              This is a separate issue from “welfare ranching” which sent you off on a tangent.

              And, Suzanne Stone as the author of the blog post that began this discussion, author of the pamphlet that I find deficient, and an employee of, and face of, Defenders in the West, quoted in newspapers and interviews all the time, is the person who can address the ecomonics and won’t. Curiously she talks about the “model” using it as a demonstration project for her audience, hoping for implementation yet will not lay out the costs. On another topic regarding the “skinny cow” issue, her postion is there have been no studies done. An alternative view, for those seeking answers (unless they have another agenda, hint, hint) is to say maybe the effects of wolves on potential weight loss from fear of depredation needs to be studied, as it has been to some extent with elk. The, latter, of course, would contribute to the scientific knowledge base, while the former (Stone’s comment)is a propaganda technique that has no interest in increasing scientific knowledge important to producers.

              All that seems pretty lame given the State of WA DFW is focusing in on the issue (rancher participation, cost and reimbursement of non-lethal techniques, alleged weight loss from wolf presence) even as this comment is written.

              If you missed those points, unemotional as my comments are, may I suggest you re-evaluate your reading and comprehension skills.

  26. Louise Kane says:

    JB would it be acceptable to just use the best available science then and take into account all stakeholders, is that asking too much.

    • JB says:


      What do you mean by “use” (using) science?

      • Louise Kane says:

        take into account, incorporate, utilize, give a nod to, acknowledge, instead of ignore, override, tinker with, minimize and or side step.

        • Harley says:


          Who decides what is ‘the best available science’? What kind of criteria labels it the best?

          • Louise Kane says:

            You know Harley thats a difficult question. I like this quote from an article I once read when I was working with a team to define essential fish habitat at NOAA. “The results of a sound scientific process need not be infallible to be the best available. Scientific information and the conclusions it supports will always be subject to multiple interpretations, but
            greater transparency in the process will go far in addressing skepticism and averting controversy. High-quality science adheres to the well-established scientific process. The soundness of any science is enhanced if associated values, assumptions, and uncertainties are clearly explained.
            Science is a human endeavor. As such it is limited by human understanding of the systems we interact with and implicitly or explicitly is influenced by underlying human principles, values, and
            beliefs. Maintaining transparency and openness in the scientific process
            when communicating methods, assumptions, and findings may be difficult, but it should promote better science. Limits to human understanding are a primary source of uncertainty in scientific knowledge and of risks associated with management actions. Scientific debate is an important mechanism by which scientists can explore the consequences of uncertainty and risk for environmental
            decision making.

        • JB says:

          Thanks. And how are you sure that science isn’t being incorporated, utilized, or acknowledged in decision making?

          • ma'iingan says:

            Science tells us that wolves can withstand moderate levels of human harvest. It also tells us that trapping is an efficient management tool.

            • Nancy says:

              “Science tells us that wolves can withstand moderate levels of human harvest. It also tells us that trapping is an efficient management tool”

              Yep Ma’, thankfully humans will always be able to count on our perception of “science” (as a back up plan) when it comes to the world around us 🙂

            • Louise Kane says:

              what reports, papers, peer reviewed literature exists that specifically examines a discrete population of wolves and the impacts that hunting have on that population? Not just that an entire population can withstand a level of mortality but specifically impacts to their ability to survive, to their social structures, longevity as individuals and as a pack ect…. How can this have been studied recently as wolves were protected in the lower 48, are there studies in Alaska or Canada? and how the hell do we know how aggressive and widespread hunting may impact wolves over the long run? And the state plans that allow killing all but 100 or 150 wolves are not moderate in my mind, and I’ve read nothing yet that would convince me that is a defensible number? Its contrary to common sense, and defies logic.

          • Louise Kane says:

            JB do you really think that the best available science is being used in wolf management? That any information about their social dynamics plays into their management, that the way they are being managed is in line with other predators, that predator management in general is defensible? I’ve not read one plan that examines the effects of hunting on the pack. How would any of our families fare without a wage earner or key family member? I find it disgraceful to expect that these exceptionally social animals should be subjected to arbitrary killing of their members when we can not know the toll on individual members or the pack as a whole. If we were using the best available science then we would see at least a nod of consideration given to the social dynamics of wolves. If we were to use the best available science coyotes would not be hunted mercilessly,and wolves would not be hunted by morons looking for a trophy or because they hate and want to torture wolves. I’m fed up and disgusted by it all.

            • JB says:


              The short answer to your question is: Yes, I do! How, might you ask, is science being used? Each and every one of the state’s plans has been reviewed by no less than 5 of the nation’s top wolf ecologists. In each instance, at least 80% of these scientists agreed that the plans were adequate to sustain wolf populations. I can only assume that the very people most involved in producing the science about wolf populations “used” said science when reviewing state management plans.

              You asked (above): “what reports, papers, peer reviewed literature exists that specifically examines a discrete population of wolves and the impacts that hunting have on that population?”

              I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, but I can tell you that the courts have decided that the ESA does not require states to go out and collect science that does not exist; so if there isn’t science to answer a particular question, agencies must rely on the best science AVAILABLE.

              Regardless, we have years of scientific data from Alaska and Canada that shows that wolves can sustain moderate harvest (as Ma’) notes. Some disagree about the level of harvest that is sustainable over the long run, but using adaptive management states will be able to adjust harvest levels from year to year of wolf number dip precipitously or if new science emerges that suggests they have underestimated populations.

              Note: The viability of wolf populations was the subject of an analysis conducted by FWS before the reintroduction that ultimately became a paper by Steve Fritts and Lou Carbyn (which I have cited many times). This is the paper where the numbers states are using were derived. It makes a LOT of assumptions and essentially admits that no one knows what an MVP is for wolves. However, they did get the vast majority of scientists at the time to agree to the numbers they ultimately used for recovery.

  27. Jerry Black says:

    Are Cows and Sheep the Sea Urchins of the Cascadian Forests?

  28. Leslie says:

    46 wolves killed so far in WY–I am including the predator zone. Wow, everyday the predator zone jumps a few more. 13 in the predator zone as of today. 29 in the trophy zone. Unfortunately, my area quota of 8 (one of the highest) has today ticked up to 6. If the predator plus ‘other’ rate stayed unchanged, and the trophy zone filled, that would bring the total count to 72. I anticipate many more will be killed though. With only around 230 wolves outside WY, my question still is: Will WY be able to maintain 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs with these kinds of numbers happening already?

    • Louise Kane says:

      pretty horrible and outrageous. In less then a few weeks to have documented killing 42 of a population of 348 wolves. hey but they can take it according to the ever so moderate state plan. what a shitty deal the wolves are getting, I wonder how many somewhat habituated curious wolves will die because they have not learned to fear humans and their indoctrination is now in a full on war. It makes me sick and really angry.

      • Leslie says:

        Makes me sick too. Just last week I was hiking up an obscure and unused drainage when I came upon the alpha male (who knows he might be dead now). He considered me briefly and ran off. On my return I heard what probably were his pups howling. The alpha female was shot last month.

        what a treat that was! Those who cannot see that, who only see wolves as something to shoot or a trophy or a rug are missing something ancient and deep.

        • Immer Treue says:


          “Those who cannot see that, who only see wolves as something to shoot or a trophy or a rug are missing something ancient and deep.”

          Could not say it better, as the pack in my area who serenade on occasion, runs the gauntlet starting Saturday til the end of January.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Leslie, That time the male wolf took to consider you, could get him killed the next time. I almost hate to hear about them being seen anywhere. How lucky you were to see him, how terrible the female was killed and he now has to provide for the pups. I hope he makes it, although Wyoming seems intent on killing as many as they can. I’ve been known to practice civil disobedience in the past, I’d be prone to it in one form or another if I lived somewhere that it could make a difference for wolves.

          • jon says:

            Let’s hope that Wyoming wolves will be put back on the endangered species list. The way humans treat wolves is sickening and disgusting.

        • jon says:

          I agree Leslie. These people who shoot wolves, coyotes, etc hate wildlife. They see wildlife as nothing more than a shooting target. They lack compassion and empathy.

  29. Leslie says:

    I meant 230 wolves outside YNP in WY

    • Robert R says:

      Ten breeding pairs and it’s been documented that the alpha pair is not the only ones breeding. I just watched on nat geo a while back about the subordinates breeding and I do believe it’s been documented in Alaska. Makes one wonder how they populated so fast.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Documented, but uncommon to rare.

        • Savebears says:


          Not quite as rare as you might believe, many males become quite good at the sneak poke maneuver.

          • Immer Treue says:


            Yes, I am aware of this, and that’s why I said uncommon to rare. And even if multiple litters per pack occur, it’s more mouths to feed and less pup survival.

            As Mech writes,”There is not yet a good explanation as to why packs in some areas more frequently include two females that produce pups.(eg the East Fork pack in Denali National Park, Alaska. (Murie 1944; Haber 1977; Mech et al 1998) Two founding packs in Yellowstone National Park have produced litters in several consecutive years (D.W. Smith, unpublished data). Because these packs have a maximal food supply, this observation suggests that a surfiet of food fosters multiple breeding in a pack. Surplus food would certainly minimize competition and thus delay dispersal (Mech 1998), so perhaps the founding breeding female would become more tolerant of her daughters breeding.”

            • Mark L says:

              I’m curious why so many think that proving a tendency of wolves in a certain location establishes that wolves in other locations do the same thing (generically). Do people in Florida have the same food and breeding tendencies as people in Idaho and Alaska?

      • Louise Kane says:

        I find it bizarre to say “Makes one wonder how they populated so fast.” That population occurred over the last 17 years! Its not like they are rabbits. Thats a population of less than 400 wolves in a giant state.

        • Immer Treue says:


          One must remember the breeding potential of these Mackenzie Valley wolves. Legend has it the same females are breeding twice per year.

          • Louise Kane says:

            legend or fact? if they are breeding twice a year and tolerant of another female breeding because of a surplus of food or other unknown reason, still the number of wolves is 348 seventeen years after reintroduction. Not exactly over running Wyoming, even given the toll of wolves killed for depredations.

            • SAP says:

              Louise, I think Immer is pulling your leg.

            • Robert R says:

              Louise I’m no math whiz but between the three states as of now there has been about 150 wolves killed by hunting alone. We will never know how many the government trappers kill or people who say nothing and the ones that die naturally. Not sure what the hunting toll was last year but I think it was around 500 between Idaho and Montana.
              I guess if you actually new the number of packs you take that times the number of pups per year with survival loss for the pups.

            • Louise Kane says:

              I wondered but having posted the D Mech info on number of breeding females it was not clear, whether he was being facetious or not

            • Immer Treue says:


              Facetious? I was being sarcastic. Sorry it was your leg that got pulled. That was not intended.

  30. Jerry Black says:

    Wildlife Services trapper stirs outrage with animal abuse photos

  31. Larry Keeney says:

    Recently I read a little about the Elk-Brucellosis Working Group of Montana and the recommendations they are discussing. While I’m far from knowledgable about the subject it seems the gist of the objective is to minimize elk density and congregation. Seems during the time of year cattle are susceptible they (cattle) are in a somewhat controlled environment preparing for calving. My point is: Wouldn’t a no-cost system of dispersal and culling for elk that they say would be beneficial to ranchers be a God-send? Yet in the proposals they talk about increased reduction of wolf numbers. Okay, so a cow might be lunch once in awhile but the ability to protect cattle from predation seems to me to be at its easiest when they are tightly herded together. And have they measured the loss factor from predators (wolves only) against their fear of brucellosis (which from what I have read is pretty high). I would like to see some numbers comparing what wolves could do to lower the impact of brucellosis against the numbers that represent actual depredation on cattle. Like I said I am not an expert in this field and have never even had a pet cow but I do understand that if you smooth the corners on a square it will role easier.

  32. Mike says:

    Had an incredible time out west. Spent lots of time very near grizzly bears. Lots of photos, ranging from grizzers to bighorns. Busted a bunch of hunters, nailed animal feeders in Yellowstone, and partied in Missoula. Hell of a trip.

    The day I left Glacier they shut the entrance down 8 miles out, lol. Chased by a blizzard, tent flapping out the damn window.

  33. Derek Farr says:

    Here’s Miles Mason from the Post Scarcity Alliance attacking me on his website for something I posted on this website. He’s regurgitating the old line that “if we give away our public lands, we’ll live happily ever after,” without showing any credible data — or incredible data for that matter. Just be aware that people whose philosophy comes from the 1800s still have access to computers.

  34. Jeff says:

    My brother sent me this link, another wolf shot in Missouri

    • jon says:

      That’s sad that a hunter can’t tell the difference between a coyote and a wolf. I would not be shocked if this hunter knew it was a wolf, but shot it anyways and claimed he thought it was a coyote. Some people nowadays love to brag about killing a particular animal. Look at me, I killed a wolf.

  35. jon says:,0,833438.story

    Killing as many coyotes as you can to win a prize, what the heck is wrong with this world?

    • jon says:

      Contest hunting needs to be banned in the whole country. What kind of person participates in a contest where you kill as many wild animals as possible just so you can win a prize?

      • Mike says:

        Insecure sociopaths?

      • Jon Way says:

        I partly blame it on the state fish and game agencies as they don’t have the balls to stop this activities. That they allow important predators to be slaughtered speaks a lot about these agencies.

  36. Jerry Black says:

    Octopus Capture Off Alki Prompts Call For Preserve

  37. WM says:

    Interesting and somewhat disturbing article about a giant octopus legally killed by a 19 year old diver off Alki Point (this is in Elliott Bay on the shores of downtown Seattle). It is a popular scuba diving spot, and people come from all over the world to see these giant octopus, largest in the world.

    The sad event has stirred many in the dive community to call for creation of a Preserve – my wife used to dive here and has fond memories of playing with these smart and intriguing creatures.

    • CodyCoyote says:

      I know Alki well. This is sad. Octopi need to be given some protections a la Marine Mammals, IMO. Needs fixing.
      How do you feel about the popular sport of digging up all the ” Gooey Duck” clams at low tide ?

      • WM says:


        I think the goey duck harvest is not so much affected by individual recreational diggers who go for them at low tide. It requires alot of work – typically a 55 gallon drum sleeve with no bottom or top, worked into the sand to prevent the dig hole from caving in, and scooping lots of sand a couple feet down for just one animal (parts of it kind chewy).

        On the other hand, tribal fishers (legally under treaty rights) and illegal commercial operations just go for them in the open water, with a high pressure air hose in the hands of a diver. Some manage to strip entire beds clean, and most of the catch is sold to Japan, where it makes big money. Of course, the harvest method screws with all the widlife on the sea floor and raises huge clouds of sediments over the harvest area. The illegal trade has been growing in recent years because it is so profitable, and there are on-going investigations and sting operations to try to catch these a_ _holes.

        On the other hand, digging for razor clams in the surf (on the open Pacific side of the coast, with waves lapping at your feet at low tide is alot more fun, and rewarding.

  38. CodyCoyote says:

    Jury finds Gardiner MT big game outfitter negligent in Grizzly mauling case.

    The guide and the hunter were 500 yards apart when the bear mauling occurred, but the hunter had not been instructed by the outfitter in the use of pepper spray of general safety protocols in bear country . Lessons learned, the hard way.

    • Salle says:

      Ruh roh…

      Guess who’s probably going out of business paying for a lifetime of medical bills and restitution for this severely damaged client.

      One bad outfitter going down, hopefully.

      • Immer Treue says:

        But the business is not liable for the hunter’s $245,000 in medical bills because the negligence did not cause the injury.

        Read more:

        • Salle says:

          Too bad, it’s really a “teachable moment” for outfitters and those manly, manful men who don’t need no stinking bear spray.

          I bet this won’t be the end of it, that poor guy lost half his face and an eye. Had he been better informed, regardless of bear spray in his hand or on his belt, he might not have suffered such a horrible event and the resulting disfigurement.

          And I can’t help but recall back when I used to haul whitewater rafting outfitters’ clientele into the Middle Fork of the Salmon River years ago just how few of the outfitters actually talked to their clients about dangers that might arise during their float trips on the way to the river. It was close to a two hour drive, some made the most of that time and discussed hypothermia, and other situations that were important to know about if they fell out of the raft. And I know that many had their attention focused on the twenty or more cases of beer riding in the back of the bus under their dry bags.

          Some outfitters are worth their fees and others… not so much. The one in the mauling case, if the plaintiff’s claims are true, should have some serious consequence to suffer for that neglect… the plaintiff certainly has and will for the rest of his life. He shouldn’t have to do that alone when/if he was not appropriately informed of bear country hunting protocol.

  39. Ralph Maughan says:

    Jonathan Way, Ph.D, who is familiar to most folks here has a new and improved website for coywolves/Eastern coyotes.

    Take a look at:

  40. Rancher Bob says:

    Minnesota hunters at 8 wolves and climbing each time one checks the score.

    • jon says:

      Why are you keeping track on how many wolves are killed by hunters Bob?

      • Rancher Bob says:

        You can keep track and I can’t?
        Minnesota has a good sight for instant updates for one, second thing, is the high number killed going to numb people or really matter.
        Lastly this is news.

  41. elk275 says:

    There is a very good article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle about Scott Creels elk and wolf research:

    • CodyCoyote says:

      Must be a pretty good solid study , because it ends up asking more questions than it answers.

      I would like to see much more of the particulars or the full study, if for no other reason than to make some broad comparisons with Arthur Middleton’s study of the ecology of Absaroka Elk straight east of Yellowstone.

      Sidenote: so far in Wyoming’s trophy wolf hunt, no wolves have been taken in Area 2 , which is the Crandall Creek-Upper Clarks Fork River just south of Cooke City Montana straight east of the Lamar River drainages of Yellowstone. The quota there is 6 wolves. It’s an area where one particularly vociferous activist big game outfitter and SFW mouthpiece has complained mightily for years about wolves galore in his elk hunting domain; a continual presence according to him. Except when it comes time to thin ’em down a wee bit.

      ( Thanks for the link, elk. )

      • Leslie says:

        Cody, you are wrong about area 2. The quota is 8 and so far 6 have been killed. Area 1 with a quota of 4 has a kill of 1. Area one seems to be the drainages west of 120, while area 2 is the Sunlight area up to the Montana border. Area 2 would include, I suspect, the Hoodoo pack and the Beartooth Pack.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Leslie what area are you in, has it closed yet, has your lone wolf and the pups made it. I’m hoping so

          • Leslie says:

            I am in area 2. Not sure which wolves have been killed in the last 10 days when the numbers jumped from 3 to 6.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          Yeah, I did totally misread the daily Wolf box score on that . Have no idea how that happened. it is 6 of the 8 quota.
          Did you hear that the outfitter up in Timber Creek in Crandall got his leg badly broke in a horse wreck? He’s blaming it on a grizzly encounter but I’m not sure… he’s the same guy who boasted of seeing 29 wolves on a single ride down from his camp…

          By the way , I hate this new comment format.

  42. Rancher Bob says:

    Minnesota at 12 wolves.

  43. Rancher Bob says:

    Minnesota now at 23 wolves harvested.

  44. Ida Lupine says:

    Well, so much for all the local newspaper articles saying how “elusive” and difficult to find wolves are – at 23 and probably more, it sounds like one wolf was killed every hour today. More like shooting fish in a barrel. 🙁

    • Immer Treue says:

      32 as of a few minutes ago.

      • Leslie says:

        Those wolves in Minn. haven’t been hunted before. They’re sitting ducks.

        • Immer Treue says:

          You know what, I don’t buy this they haven’t been hunted before Bullshit! (Leslie, no aspersions toward you) The young of next year will not have been hunted before either. Nine months from now the survivors of this year, or those who move into vacated territories either will not have been hunted or won’t remember it either. There is no cause and effect “learning” with getting dropped by a high powered rifle. The wolf is just (insert your own adjective) dead. They will always be sitting ducks. They won’t become smarter, they’ll just become a bit more rare. And the trapping hasn’t even started yet.

        • Louise Kane says:

          yes Leslie that’s one of the aspects that bothers me and keeps me awake. These animals have learned to trust their environment, to understand a way of living that is now a thing of the past and that will now never be safe for them, ever. I thought about visiting the Galapagos and the amazement of seeing animals that did not fear humans. I had never seen anything like it. Thinking that wolves could roam in their natural habitats, especially in Minnesota where they seemed to be relatively accepted, made me feel that same kind of good that I felt when I saw galapagos penguins, blue footed boobies, tortoises, darwin finches or sea lions that completely ignored us. They were not afraid. This hunting season is a season to slaughter wolves. The poor animals had no way of preparing for it, no experience against it and now never a safe place to hide from the guns,m arrows, traps or snares and possibly dogs. Humans are cruel beyond words. They are amazing animals that have extremely complex social relationships. Harvest my ass. Their families are being senslessly ripped apart by these hunts. It was my sister’s birthday today, but Nov 3rd will now be the day I remember as the day that MN massacred a good number of wolves, for no reason and against public opinion.

          • Leslie says:

            “This one species [man] has contrived to make himself feared and hated by most other creatures.” Mary Beck.

            It is a puzzle to me why, living just 40 minutes from YNP, I can drive past that gate and see animals so easily–wolves, grizzly bears, esp predators. When outside the Park looks like it’s completely barren. You do see animals here and there, but not like the Park. And especially during hunting season, the wildlife along the road disappears.

            Wolves in the park pay people little mind. In my valley, it’s the yearlings and pups that come close and watch you from behind a tree curiously. Those seem to be the ones that are getting shot most. What manly men to have shot pups and yearling wolves…

            • Mike says:

              Leslie –

              I know what you are talking about. There’s so many people now, so much technology, that come hunting season, the lands next to the parks seem like deserts. I saw this quite often the last month and a half.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Leslie, I can’t imagine what it would be like to have no refuge, no where safe, and to have pups and watch them murdered or stuck in a trap. I’ve read that wolves will stay nearby a trapped wolf howling to one another. These most intelligent of dogs deserve this, to be harvested for fun? What kind of species does this for fun? It really does make me sick, depressed and angry. About the best thing one could hope for is that the quota is reached before the trapping or snaring starts. What a god awful way to die. And, the thought of an arrow in these animals makes me want to cry,

            • Leslie says:

              Louise, It is common to hear about, for instance, bears that have been shot, only to be discovered that they have old bullet wounds they’ve been living with for years. And every hunter knows about the elk or deer they shot, didn’t kill, but tracked and never found. There are wolves that will be ‘harvested’, but there will be others that will have been wounded, maybe to survive or not to survive, and those that don’t and aren’t found won’t be counted in the quota.

              What is the most sickening to me, I agree with you, is trapping. It is medieval and tortuous, and I think quite sick. During trapping season, I believe it is my duty to be part of the monkey wrench gang…that is all I’ll say about that.

              Personally, since this wolf hunt began, it has really affected me.

            • Louise Kane says:

              I’m not surprised its really affected you. There are thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people like you. I’m one of them. I’ve never been lucky enough to see a wolf in the wild, only in a zoo a pitiful sight when I lived in Washington DC. But ever since I was a small child and read about them in a national geographic story, I’ve been fascinated. It really did never occur to me people would want to kill them. Instead of posters of musicians or tv personalities, I had wolves on my walls. I’m sure my love of GSDs, Akitas and Huskies have a lot to do with their wolf like appearances and independent yet loyal natures. I’m sorry for you, that you have to bear the knowledge that your friends are being slaughtered. I remember the first time I read the monkey wrench gang and the enormous impression it made on me.

            • Mike says:


              I can feel it to. You can’t let it get you down. Eventually a certain segment will become comfortable in their own skin and will cast aside the machismo (at least the part of it that requires killing something). That is when we will see the relief for the world’s diminishing animals.

            • jon says:

              Leslie, I do feel for people like you. These people who are killing wolves are taking away wolf viewing opportunities from people like you.

      • jon says:

        The 400 wolf quota will be easily reached. You had people saying how hard it is to kill a wolf and I don’t buy this for one second. All you gotta do is find a wolf and get a clear shot. I’m sure next wolf hunting season, hunters will be begging the DNR for a much higher wolf quota.

        • Mark L says:

          Anybody see the irony in all this wolf hunting being the result of a rider in a budget? When money comes above principle and discretion, this is what we get.
          So, we got it.
          If we hold no principle above money’s grasp, then money is our God.

          • Salle says:

            In this country, money has been the god for the last four decades among the general population. This is the result of a long pogrom, it’s just that with all our toys and distractions which keep so many from seeing this, it will be some time before we can reverse the trajectory our society is careening along. Of course, Mother Nature may well force us to see it if we don’t get out heads out of the hypnosis that we have been carefully and methodically lured into. Look at how many folks just have to have the latest gadget with a screen… from the latest phone-thing, violent games, take a picture of everyone and everything, vapid non-news programming and whatever else we look at all day that has a screen. I think it’s all psychological engineering to facilitate social engineering to the point that those things that promote healthy survival have become passe and the natural world, which supports our lives, is of little consequence because our sources of entertainment are of utmost importance and killing living things is now just entertainment for many… with that taste of taboo, it’s very captivating. It all works like an addiction and America is totally addicted to more than just fossil fuels…

    • jon says:

      Humans are making it real hard for wild animals to survive. The leopard’s natural food source is being harder to find because of humans, so leopards will do whatever they have to do in order to survive. I don’t blame the leopard for going after an easier food source (humans).

  45. Louise Kane says:
    scientists sign declaration that animals have conscious awareness as do humans

    • Leslie says:

      “the scientific evidence is increasingly indicating that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness”

      Fantastic! This is going to make some religious fanatics quake in their boots. Well, aren’t the scientists just discovering, confirming, what might be the obvious and the intuitive. Nice when scientists say it though. Sounds more convincing.

  46. SAP says:

    4 Nov 12 Bozeman Daily Chronicle has an article on wolf predation on elk. I’m too cheap to pay for it — anybody know whose MSU study it is?

    • Salle says:


      I guess it was Dr. Scott Creel’s (I don’t have the funds to buy news)…

      Comments from yesterday about it:

      19 hours ago

      There is a very good article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle about Scott Creels elk and wolf research:

      18 hours ago

      Must be a pretty good solid study , because it ends up asking more questions than it answers.

      I would like to see much more of the particulars or the full study, if for no other reason than to make some broad comparisons with Arthur Middleton’s study of the ecology of Absaroka Elk straight east of Yellowstone.

      • SAP says:

        Thanks! For some reason, the Chronicle will let you look at the comments. Ugh. Subtract 10 IQ points and at least six months’ lifespan.

      • Leslie says:

        Haven’t read Creel’s whole study, but just reading the newspaper online article, his results are in direct conflict with Middleton’s. Middleton studied intensely two populations: one migratory with wolves, one non-migratory with little wolf pressure. He found no change in their vigilance behavior at all; he also stated that wolves have changed elk behavior very little and that at least this migratory herds problem with calf recruitment was due to green-up and nutritional deficiencies in the critical time of lactation and putting on fat for the winter.

        Seems like with these two studies contradicting each other, there’s a lot of science left to do. We’ve only really begun to study prey/predator behaviors since we tried just eliminating predators in the past. And few of these ecosystems are healthy and ‘natural’ as compared to what these animals evolved with.

        I don’t think the finished dissertation is on line yet but here is their preliminary link

        • WM says:


          I am not sure the terms “contradict each other” are scientifically appropriate in this instance and maybe not even correct.

          The takeaway thus far from studies such as these, especially comparing areas in or outside YNP, where grizzlies are or are not, or where black bear or cougar densities are or may become higher or lower, along with climatic factors influencing prey nutrition over the study period are complex to study, and to compare.

          I think Dr. Mech warned of some of this a few months back – especially making comparisons to findings inside or adjacent to YNP and other areas where wolves range.

          • JB says:


            Trust me, scholars are reading these studies as in conflict. And Middleton’s isn’t the only one. As with all things wolf, the story is likely more complex than can be captured in a 2-3 year study conducted in a single system

            • WM says:


              All things wolf are indeed complex.

              I have not found a good topic entre for reporting the results of my annual hunting trip in North Central ID from nearly a month ago, but will do so now. I have made similar reports here for the last few years.

              This is a summary of four experienced elk hunters, in an area we have hunted for 20-25 years. It is in a constant state of habitat renewal as there is some logging, and there have been fires, followed by plant succession and where grades are planted to grasses and forbs following logging. We scouted 3 days before opening day, and hunted 9. The first 5 days were during the continuing dry spell that hit most of this part of ID the last half of summer. The remaining days were rainy, making what was once inches of dust a muddy mess. The funny thing is, dust or mud leaves tracks wherever animals have been (harder to tell age of track in the dust, however).

              Wolves were in the area, and I heard them in two separate drainages near dusk on 5 nights (howling with as many as 4-10 voices, including pups). No way of telling whether they were from different packs or the same, but whatever wolf harvest has taken place to date has still left quite a few in the area.

              Our total would be 48 hunter days in the woods, and that would be looking for elk from before dawn to dusk each day, using a variety of tested tactics, hunting on steep slopes and in the brush as well as sitting concealed near meadows and open areas. We also listen for bugling elk, and heard none this year – very unusual, but may have been weather related. And, I should point out, nobody saw a wolf, though we were not seeking them.

              This area does not have migratory elk. They are local and seem to stick pretty close based on past years’ experiences. We saw an incredibly small total of 12 elk, two of which were bulls. I did not see any elk at all (never happened to me before), though jumped a few, including one that was known to be a bull from the sound of antlers scraping branches as he exited in haste. That is usually about a third to a quarter the number of elk we have seen in past years. Two of hunting partners took the two bulls we saw, the result of very hard hunting. They credit their success to luck more than skill this year. The number of elk seen has gone steadily down since wolves have come to the area in appreciable numbers about seven years ago, and we can only surmise the reasons are depredation risk avoidance (elk in the brush and on steeper slopes), and likely fewer elk from wolf presence (I have commented before on observed calf carcass remains likely from wolf or bear before. We saw none this year). And, by the way, for those say, well just hunt somewhere else, it isn’t that easy because we put up a wall tent, cut wood for our only source of heat – a small wood stove, and do alot of other time consuming stuff.

              If wolves keep coyote populations at a minimum, neither species knows that is the biological rule here; we saw more coyote crap than any year before, possibly by a factor of 2 (more small mammals for them to eat from an easy winter and thus higher reproduction?). We saw an inordinate number of forest grouse, and maybe more Blues than ever before. Lots of wolf sign, and the loggers in the area, who travel the same forest access roads the entire summer day after day, stated they saw plenty of wolf tracks/poop and even a few wolves. No reports of any wolves being shot by them, because it is doubtful they carry a rifle in their pick-ups on work days.

              So, from my anecdotal observations, I will stand by what appears to be the observations and hypotheses of Dr. Creel, and separately Dr. Hebblewhite, to date. Don’t know what to think of the Middleton dissertation work in the Absarokas, which seems to conflict. Hopefully someone of good science background and no obvious bias can sort out the distinguishing variable as between the study areas.

    • WM says:


      You might be interested in Creel’s comment from the article which Salle references:

      ++The likely explanation, he said, is that elk are more vigilant and feed less around predators. Diet and activity changes can cause females to have less energy to produce calves, a response that has been shown to occur in several animal species.

      “I think the cost of anti-predator behavior explains a significant proportion of those missing calves,” Creel said. “When we did the EIS, we didn’t deal with the possibility that elk will start doing things differently to avoid predation, but those things that they do may carry physiological consequences.”++

      Of course, the reference to the “EIS” above, is the one done on the NRM wolves reintroduction in 1995, where there is no discussion of indirect impacts of wolves, such as depredation risk.

      Based on the comments in the article, it strikes me the study results are not inconsistent with survey/study results he and others have already made to some degree, though it appears the analysis is going more to quantifying the impacts.

      Here is a link to a 2011 scientific article by Creel, et al., on the topic, in which he states predation risk (mostly wolves) has lots of negative effects on elk populations other than direct predation:

      It will be interesting to see what differences are observed this round. And, one should also be aware that where grizzly bears are not, they would not be a direct predator of elk, or even be a part of the predation risk scenario. I also wonder about indirect impacts of cougar, since they are an ambush predator (they prey don’t know it’s too late until it is). Wolves, on the other hand are more visually and odor present, and have their share of unsuccessful attacks running the animals around a bit, chewing on some enough to make them weaker the next round for themselves or another predator present in their range.

      • Nancy says:

        “Six of the management units — those in or near the park — contained established wolf packs; the other six didn’t. Not surprisingly, data from the elk management units show that wolves can reduce elk numbers; but Creel saw some other trends”

        These studies, when you think about them, are relatively new, given the incredibly long and documented history between wolves and elk before mankind not only started managing, but tweaking the numbers, to satisfy a few stakeholders.

        I’m still wondering if taking out the best of any species…. year, after year, after year – big, trophy bull elk and older cow elk – how that’s not gonna, at some point, impact that species, somewhere down the road and all we’re left with is people, who are paid (by various organizations) to shuffle papers around to impress 🙂

      • Salle says:

        Credit where credit’s due, all I did was copy/paste the comments from elk275 and Cody Coyote who had discussed the study and article about it the day before. Elk275 provided the link originally.

  47. SEAK Mossback says:

    A co-worker in Ketchikan went to considerable effort to recover a very fancy, expensive tag from a sea lion tagged by WDF&W at Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River.

  48. Louise Kane says:

    People shooting people and dogs that they “thought” were coyotes! A German Shepherd does not remotely look like a coyote. Allowing people to kill for fun sets a horrible example and a very low benchmark for human behaviour. If someone killed my GS there would be hell to pay. People need to speak up for coyotes as well. These poor animals are truly persecuted.

  49. Ida Lupine says:

    “The Wisconsin DNR’s land division administrator, Kurt Thiede, said some of the wolves that hunters and trappers kill might have died from something else.” Huh?

    • Salle says:

      It sounds like they are saying that something is going to cause their death one way or another… um, we’re all going to go at some point cause yet to be determined, perhaps they are just coming to that conclusion?.

      The article was poorly written. At any rate, both states are functioning on legislative mandates to kill off about half the populations in each state as an “experimental” action to see what happens…? Wow. That’s like having the football team of the local high school practice open-heart surgery on all the grade school kids to see if they make it. Makes about as much sense. Just goes to show why state legislators are the least qualified people to make wildlife management decisions… in any state. All they know is politics that make them wealthy and wholesale marketing of political ideology.

    • Salle says:

      Yikes, I would have run like hell too. That thing seems to have tripled in size at the point of “let’s get outta here!”

    • Nancy says:

      Immer – Google Bigfoot 10 million dollar prize reality show 🙂

      • Immer Treue says:


        I could use the money, but my search will have to be refined to waiting for a bigfoot to walk directly up to me, where we shake each others hand,extend greetings and in our own unique way tell each other to take care.

  50. Jerry Black says:

    Bringing back Gila Trout

    I hiked into the Middle Fork of the Gila end of August. The Middle Fork was dead. The bottom of the stream was completely covered with ash and mud. The aquatic life was non existent….. no fish, no nymphs, no crayfish…everything had suffocated. It will take a good “cleansing” with spring runoff to make this a liveable habitat. I’m sure they’re releasing them in other tributaries and it’s good to see they haven’t given up on this species.

  51. Leslie says:

    California Fish & Game Commission accepts Petition to list the Gray Wolf under the California Endangered Species Act

    • Nancy says:

      Well, anybody who’s been following this controversy Jerry knew this day was coming and judging from the many hunters who post here, its kind of a given – elk meat seems to be the “natural” choice over beef.

      • Mark L says:

        So people that pay licenses to hunt and fish are actually paying to support cattle (reducing both hunting and fishing opportunities) and the WFP’s scientists support this? Well, I guess if they’ve already been proven wrong on the bison-brucellosis connection and can’t get anybody else to believe wolf depredation stories, then why not go for the only species left to complain about? Makes sense to me.

      • Jerry Black says:

        Nancy……you’ve probably followed Judy Hoy’s (from Stevensville) research on elk and deer and how their meat retains pesticide residue which is harmful to both ungulates and humans. They feed in the valleys on farms and ranches that have been sprayed and retreat to the hills where they’re shot. Yet, I hear from my hunting “friends” how healthy this wild game is…….only if you take your deer or elk in the backcountry where they haven’t been grazing on poisons.

    • WM says:

      The Draft policy document which provides the foundation for this brucellosis opinion piece.

      Interestingly, one of the options linked with elk managment for brucellosis reduction/elimination involves thumping wolves in these critical areas (just a one liner, but nonetheless a tool serving livestock interests and apparently decreasing harassment and undesireable dispersal of elk where they are trying to locate them). See Table 1 column 3, subheading “Containment”

  52. Salle says:

    Bear Attack: Man Mauled To Death By Captive Grizzly In Montana

    • Wm Bova says:

      Sad story and one we’ll never know the answer how it happened. No defensive wounds. The owner tried to retrieve the body with bear spray, but could not move the bear away. He then had to shoot the bear to get the man’s body.

      This is one of those instances where a 500 lb captive raised bear reverted to it’s natural instincts. People that constantly work around these animals seem to believe that they are like domestic pets….they are not. The victim had been in that cage hundreds of times, but unpredictable is the operative word here.

      In looking at the pictures on the website, they have 2 brother grizzlies and a very large brown that are posing together. They said both of the grizzlies had fed on the body, but one had apparently staked his claim.

      Does bear spray work every time? Obviously not, depending on the bear, the situation, and whether he took a direct shot in the snout. So this will serve those who sneer at bear spray and enforce their theory that guns are the best protection. Of course, they do not want to hear the number of times that guns have failed to stop a death or mauling.

  53. Salle says:

    African painted dogs kill young boy at Pittsburgh Zoo

    Okay… so how does a 3 year-old child manage to fall from a 14′ high observation deck over an enclosure?

    • Immer Treue says:


      You beat me to it with these two posts. Sad and utterly unbelievably foolish.

  54. Louise Kane says:

    please if someone else has posted this my apologies.

    I started the day out terribly when someone sent me an image of a wolf that had been bound by its feet and mouth with a gag in it. Long story but it really made me feel terrible, more so than I have in a long time. Then this came in…

    Its pretty wonderful I hope you can take the time to watch and listen. what a treat.

    • Rita K. Sharpe says:

      It was.

    • Immer Treue says:

      The experiences I have had in the Winter on ice clad lakes at night in close proximity to wolves when they howled have probably been some of the most ethereal moments of my life.

      • Louise Kane says:

        you’ve been fortunate indeed. Ethereal is a great word for that sound. I watched the Oregon pup and then found and rewatched the Living with Wolves documentary. The Dutchers speak about the wolves howling after they loose the young female and how they howl back and forth to express all kinds of emotions. These animals are the ultimate dogs, intelligent, loyal, affectionate without being cloying, protective of one another, fiercely independent, and just so damn spectacular. Lucky you Immer T. Maybe the Oregon pup was telling everyone he could to stay away from the RM or midwest states!

        • Louise Kane says:

          Immer as another GSD lover, you may appreciate this. I played the Dutcher’s wolf documentary on my computer with my Shepherd cur;ed up next to me on the sofa. I noticed he watched for close to an hour….. following the wolves moving his eyes only. He was growling lightly, like muttering “holy shit those are some big dogs” when he saw the wolves up close or cocking his head from side to side. He never “watches” TV. I took some video of him watching to record his reaction. It was interesting.

          • Immer Treue says:


            Odd that neither of the last two GSD’s I have had demonstrated much interest in anything wolf on TV/DVD etc other than pup sounds. Howling provoked little to absolutely no response.

            In the back country, did not matter if Colorado or Minnesota, my last GSD’s only concern at night was to get in the tent. He was not a shy or retiring dog either. Wolf howls in MN, no appreciable affect.

            The male I have now is getting a bit long in the tooth, and I have increasingly less desire to camp in a nylon tent in Winter. He has shown a tad of interest in wolf pup noises, and little to none in howling, even though he is quite the “singer”. He was face to face~25 yards with a black wolf when he was younger, just another dog to him.

            Yet, when I was on Discovery Lake January of either 07 or 08, photographer Jim Brandenburg was filming a large pack of wolves. He did not know I was sitting in the inlet of the lake and he howled from his yurt up on a bluff and got the whole pack going. It was a giant WTF moment for my dog. No attempt to sing along, but a look of astonishment and, a bit of concern.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Immer how interesting that your dogs had no reaction to the howls or encounters. Perhaps the difference in the attention my dog gave to the wolves in the video, is the mix of Akita in him. I’ve never had a mix before, always purebreds, but this dog caught my eye and heart when I saw him on petfinder. He was in a GS rescue group/site. But he is not a purebred and acts and looks a little like both breeds. He looks like a bi color Shepherd but with a broader head and smaller ears. Mostly black, he really does look like a black wolf. As for his GSD traits he is loyal and smart and regal on the Akita side really independent and has a hard to contain prey drive. Maybe the difference is the Akita in his attention to all things wilder then he. Even though, he has never paid much attention to any programming. It was strange to see him scrutinizing the screen so closely and watching his eyes track the wolves. My son’s GSD Max used to react similarly, as did your dog did, by ignoring coyotes. We used to live near a marsh and the coyotes often came into the property. The dog and coyotes would come face to face and then start a game of romp. I’m sure Max’s size deterred any thoughts of attack, he was a 120 lb pure GSD. Gentle but intimidating. Sounds like your dog knows when he is outnumbered and did the smart thing by heading for the tent. The GSD breed is just so stellar. I’m always taken by their sensitivity, intelligence, loyalty and elegance. Thanks for your story, some nice images.

              • Larry Keeney says:

                I’m sure there are scientific studies about dogs reacting to wolf howling but here’s my unscientific abservation also. I have two goldens and only one pays attention to nature dvds. And if it is about wolves it’s like I can’t pull him away. He sits at attention, head cocked, if I stand in his way he acts annoyed and moves where he can see again. Meanwhile his brother has no interest at all and would rather chew on a wood scrap. Even during howling he seldom even looks up at the screen. I just find it facinating at the difference. BTW the one that ignores the video is dominant.

    • Harley says:

      That was pretty cool, thanks Louise for the post!

  55. Louise Kane says:

    From Nancy and Al Warren re Michigan wolf hunt

    Senate Bill 1350 was introduced by Tom Casperson is scheduled for a hearing this Thursday (details below). The bill will designate the wolf a game animal and authorize a wolf hunting season in Michigan. The House version is still in committee which may meet sometime in November.

    Please take a minute to submit comments –

    Nancy Warren

    Great Lakes Update

    The Wisconsin wolf hunting /trapping season opened 10/15, and by the afternoon of 11/4, 57 wolves had been killed, 64% through trapping. The quota was set at 201 wolves, but 85 were given to the tribes who chose not to use them, leaving a quota 116 wolves, within six zones, to be killed. As the quota for each zone is met, the zone will be closed but a person with a tag can hunt or trap in any open zone. To review the wolf hunting/trapping zones and follow the number of wolves killed go to ttp://

    In Minnesota, there are about 3000 wolves with a target harvest of 400 wolves divided among three zones. The wolf hunting season opened 11/3 and within two days, 58 wolves have been killed. Beginning 11/24 through 1/31 Minnesota’s wolves can be hunted or trapped (no trapping is permitted during the early season). You can follow the status of the hunt at

    Two weeks ago, Michigan State Senator Tom Casperson held an “informational testimony” regarding designating the wolf a game animal and authorizing a wolf hunting season. Here is the link to the testimony given that day.

    Later that day, he introduced SB1350. HR 5834, introduced by State Representative Matt Huuki, and SB 1350, by State Senator Tom Casperson, are nearly identical except the Casperson version sets the penalty for illegally killing a wolf at a fine of $200-$1000. Illegally killing an elk garners a fine of $500-$1000 and a moose at $1000-$5000.

    There will be a Senate Committee hearing Thursday, 11/8. See below for details. In Michigan, the legislature does not establish the hunting rules and regulations. This is done by the politically appointed Natural Resource Commission along with the Michigan DNR and MI DNR has publically announced support for this bill and a limited hunt (though that has not been defined).

    Action Needed:

    Send comments to with a copy to by Wednesday 11/7 Urge the Senate Natural Resources, Environment and Great Lakes Committee members to vote No on SB 1350.

    Talking Points

    1. There is no evidence to support the need for a recreational hunting season.

    2. A small vocal minority support the recreational hunting of wolves. A 2011 survey conducted in the 15 Upper Peninsula counties and 8 counties in the Northern Lower Peninsula showed strong support for wolves in Michigan. 65% of respondents support funding wolf management and monitoring through the sale of a license plate and 53% support expanding types of sporting goods taxed to fund wildlife restoration. Only hunters were asked if the wolf was designated a game species, would they purchase a hunting license, 59% responded no.

    3. As acknowledged by the Plan, the public harvest of wolves is biologically complex. The effects of a hunting season on a wolf population are determined by “a suite of factors, including population size, age and sex structure, immigration and emigration rates, birth rates, and natural and human-induced mortality rates.”

    4. Monies from a federal grant are available to assist landowners with non-lethal control of wolves.

    5. With the delisting of the wolf, the Michigan Wolf Management Plan can now be fully implemented including the issuance of landowner permits when non-lethal measures are ineffective.

    6. Legislation was enacted to allow livestock and pet owners to kill wolves in the act of attacking their livestock or dogs.

    7. Overall, wolf depredation in Michigan is low. Between 1996 & 2012, there have been less than 250 depredation events. Wolf-related conflicts are often caused by the behavior of a few individual wolves, and management at small scales can often address problems effectively.

    8. Livestock producers are compensated for verified losses caused by wolves.

    9. The Michigan DNR has a variety of tools available to manage wolf conflicts.

    10. Section 6.12.1, paragraph 2 of the plan states, “Some situations may warrant consideration of reducing wolf numbers in localized areas as a means to reduce the risk of negative interactions. Such consideration could be necessary if a high density of wolves in an area, rather than the behavior of individual wolves, was determined to be responsible for problems that could not otherwise be addressed through non-lethal or individually directed lethal methods. As of this writing, a situation of this type has not occurred in Michigan.

    11. You value wolves. The penalty for illegally killing a wolf should be elevated to that of an elk or moose.

    12. Non-residents of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula should have an equal voice in the management of wolves. Wolves live in our National Forests and public lands belonging to all of us.

    Bill discussion to allow wolf hunting season to be heard via videoconference
    LANSING, Mich.—The Senate Natural Resources, Environment and Great Lakes Committee will hear testimony on establishing a hunting season for wolves in Michigan.

    Senate Bill 1350 was introduced in early October by Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba. The measure would designate wolves as a game animal and authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a game season. A similar measure, House Bill 5834, has also been introduced by Rep. Matt Huuki, R-Atlantic Mine.

    “Wolves have made a dramatic recovery in Michigan with a current population around 700 animals, with almost all of that population residing in the Central and Western UP,” said Casperson. “Wolves need to be managed along with other species, and management strategies should include the option of a game season.”

    The hunt can legally be considered because wolves were removed from the endangered species list for the Great Lakes region at the beginning of the year. The move places wolf management under jurisdiction of the state of Michigan. Other states including Wisconsin and Minnesota have already established game seasons for wolves with their hunts occurring this Fall.

    “With wolf numbers far-exceeding population goals, I continue to hear of the impacts they are having on people’s lives and businesses,” Casperson said. “Residents across the Upper Peninsula have repeatedly asked for a game season to help control the wolf population, reduce livestock and pet depredation and enhance public safety.

    “The Department of Natural Resources now agrees that a game season is needed as part of the approach to manage wolves. As season parameters are developed, I will help ensure that UP residents-who actually live where the wolves are at are included and heard.”

    The Senate Natural Resources, Environment and Great Lakes Committee, chaired by Casperson, will convene on Thursday, Nov. 8 at 8:00 a.m. EST in Room 210 of the Farnum Building in Lansing, with simultaneous videoconferencing at Gogebic Community College, Room B21 of the Solin Business Center, E-4946 Jackson Road in Ironwood at 7 a.m. CST. The meeting also will be streamed live on Senate television and can be viewed at

  56. Salle says:

    I have a question…

    Does anyone recall that awesome video of the osprey that had many catch events including one where an osprey caught two fish at the same time? And do you know where to get the link? I have a different computer now and I thought I had the link saved but not anymore I guess. The link was posted on this blog earlier this year but I don’t know where to find it nor whom it was who posted it or on what day or month. I wanted to show it to someone and have discovered that it’s a daunting and possibly impossible task now that I have been trying to find it. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me with that.

    • Salle says:

      Thanks, Louise! The first one looks a lot like it but there’s a vid showing about 8 minutes somewhere.

      • Immer Treue says:


        I bet aves will have what you’re looking for.

        • Rita K. Sharpe says:

          Thank you,Salle,for bringing to my attenton about the video of the Osprey,and thank you,Louise for the added photos,and, thank you,aves,for the video.It was a nice treat to start my afternoon.

        • Salle says:

          Thanks, all! Louise had links to some great stills and aves had the link that I was thinking about… Thank you. A relative I haven’t seen in a decade was visiting, they asked me about Osprey and the best thing I could think of was that video. We looked at everything you all offered and it was all very helpful. Thank you.

      • Harley says:

        Have you been keeping tabs on the Decorah Eagles? They’ve been busy building another nest, wonder which one they will lay the eggs in? Hope it’s the one with the camera!

        • Salle says:

          I haven’t because they turned off the camera when the fledglings left the nest. I figured I’d have to wait until spring to see what was happening, and I got a different computer and lost the link, though that one I could probably find more easily than the osprey stuff I had in mind!

          I’ll have to look into that, thanks for the heads up.

          My relative and I went touring around the area and we saw a golden eagle today, normally I see bald eagles so that was a treat. Were looking for goats and bighorn sheep, got to see the rams over along Quake lake but that was all. Last spring I saw a couple hundred around there… all at once. Wasn’t a whole of wildlife out/visible the past couple days unless you were looking for waterfowl, saw plenty of those.

  57. Nancy says:

    Big, big night, tonight in the human world.

    Hope everyone took the time to cast their vote in things that matter to not only us but the rest of the planet, that have no choice when it comes to the issues at hand!

    • Salle says:

      Looks like Obama’s got it… 374 electoral votes with Ohio, Colorado, Florida and Nevada still too close to call. R$’s already having his first temper tantrum and it’s looking like he’s going to try and be a putz. Wonder if he’ll ever be able to force himself to agree to concede before January, or ever.

      • Salle says:

        Oops, that’s 274!! sorry.

      • timz says:

        He just made his concession speech aa few minutes ago. Who’s the “putz” now, perhaps look in the mirror for the answer.

        • Salle says:

          R$ has always been a putz, I think every word he says in public is basically disingenuous, I really don’t care if you’re not amused with what I think of him. If it were R$ who won, I’m sure you’d say to me… get over it.

        • jon says:

          A lot of these states that were once red are now turning blue. It doesn’t look good for the republicans. Their supporters tend to be white older men. I bet that in the near future, states like Texas and Arizona will become blue.

  58. Louise Kane says:

    Some long weeks of angst with an outcome I am relieved about. Elizabeth Warren in Scott Brown out, Obama still in. Now, I hope Obama administration takes some interest in preserving and conserving the environment. It sure was not a priority last term, but its a better outcome then the alternative. I’m astounded this election did not go to Romney and Ryan with all the money that was poured into it. I hope Obama follows through on his interest in an amendment to overturn Citizens United. I hated all the e mails coming in asking for just 3.00 more. It was never about issues, just holding ground to prevent damage from the never ending assault ads.

    • timz says:

      Yes, let’s up he’ll bring back all the wolves that were slaughtered during the past four years, sanctioned by his administration.

      • timz says:

        Oh and I forgot, the Democrats in the Senate that failed to stop it as well. Hope you all sleep better tonight thinking things are going to get better for the environment and wildlife, just as you thought four years ago.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Timz, I will sleep better knowing that at least under Obama, there is not a conscious willful determination to use, extract, sell or trade every last bit of public land for short term gain for special interests. Am I happy about Obama’s lack of interest or education about preserving natural resources or of creating better policies. From the moment it became clear that Salazar was going to lead the DOI, I was horrified. As for Tester and the wolves that are being slaughtered? I’ll spend the rest of my life regretting that democrats did such a sleazy thing. I’m too tired just now to be as coherent as I want to be. Lets just say, I know there is a better chance to turn things around in an Obama administration then under Romney. Purposeful, determined and targeted resource extraction vs general disinterest, is how I see it. At least in a disinterested context there may be time to educate and culture an interest.

    • Mark L says:

      The good thing about the money is that we still have a ‘one person one vote’ rule, no matter how much is spent on campaigning. So much money was spent in ‘battle ground states’ and so little in some other places, it’s kind of humorous in a way.

    • CodyCoyote says:

      Louise- I’m very happy about ELizabeth Warren winning in Massachusetts. She was the only candidate anywhere that I actually contributed money to ( and I’m in Wyoming). Having said that , Scott Brown would a decent Senator if he had from some other state, since he is a true moderate Republican and not utterly beholden in lockstep with his party.

      The real downside of this election was loss of the moderates …those few Senators and Represenatatives that actually were willing to work across the aisles of Congress instead of just give lip service to bipartisanship and the quaint notions of compromise and critical thinking. They’re pretty much gone now.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Cody I remember you wrote that you supported her, thank you. I spent a lot of time using those hub dialers. The first time ever but the election was so driven by money it seemed important to contribute even if it meant calling, which I generally do not support. As for Brown, he liked to represent himself as bipartisan but pretty much voted conservative republican with rare exception. Look at his congressional record. I’m glad he is gone

  59. Louise Kane says:

    Timz, aside from the issue of taxes, the lack of a defined economic plan (that made sense) an unwillingness to detail his policy, an intolerance for gays, a 1950s approach to women, a rejection of the scientific consensus that climate change is a real problem, and a willingness to exploit public lands, I could never vote for a man who is so disconnected that he would strap a family pet to the top of his vehicle for a 12 hour ride and then continue the ride after hosing that same sick animal down. That one act demonstrated ethics that were very incompatible with my own.

    • timz says:

      Yes, I realize Obama, the Chicago thug politician probably aced his ethics classes. Never said Romney would be any better, didn’t vote for him either, but Obama’s re-election is certainly nothing to celebrate. He was a complete failure in his first term. We as an electorate, again,were offered two pathetic choices.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        Sheesh, timz—who put the salted deer turd in your coffee this morning ?

        I wrote in Jill Stein of the Green Party America for President. My official ballot in remote Wyoming had five checkoff choices for President…GOP-DEM-Libertarian-Country Party-Constitution party, besdies the aforementioned ‘fill in the blank’.

        There are always choices.

      • JB says:

        “Obama’s re-election is certainly nothing to celebrate. He was a complete failure in his first term.”

        Horsepucky. (1) Obamacare will bring down health care costs and helps ensure that the vast majority of people will be covered (this will also help curb bankruptcy filings); (2) Most economists agree that the stimulus essentially saved us from another Depression (thank you, Mr. P.); and (3) Obama’s bail out of the auto industry has helped American car companies once again become competitive, while not completely breaking the backs of the Unions.

        And here’s something to celebrate: Romney will not replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a scenario that arguably would have led to the weakening of all of our environmental laws via a dramatically different interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

        • timz says:

          Blah,Blah Blah. On your points 1-3 for every economist that backs those positions I’ll find you 2 that don’t. Look at the numbers concerning income, jobs, etc. The economy is still in shambles.

          Cody Coyote, yes there are always other choices I too voted for one of those, but knew full well it was a meaningless vote. It’s a shame when you have to go to the booth and cast a vote against someone, instead of really voting for someone.

          • Salle says:


            Voting against someone is a personal choice that you made… and you still have the freedom to choose, which may have been lost given the alternative outcome to last night’s event. Many of us, even though we live in a state where we have no representation, voted for our choice knowing that it would be canceled and surpassed by our selection’s opponent… like in Montana if one happens to be a Democrat and voted for Obama… I can, at least, find minimum consolation that Rheromneyberg lost his Senate bid, even though Tester isn’t someone I wanted to be re-elected. I’m really not thrilled that the House is still a majority of obstructionist racists as well, thus no representation.

            It’s an election where it’s not a win/win for anyone but it’s also not a lose/lose for everyone. If a certain faction will extract their cranial element from their colonic element, something of value may actually take place with regard to doing the People’s business. Personally, I can at least continue to be hopeful rather than trying to determine the method by which I would be orchestrating my own self-inflicted demise based on my inability to survive under an oppressive regime of plutocratic oligarchy. It gives me hope that I can continue to argue for the things I value with a chance at winning the argument rather than be forced to watch it all be completely destroyed for the benefit of a few in short order.

            • Mark L says:

              Salle says,
              “It gives me hope that I can continue to argue for the things I value with a chance at winning the argument rather than be forced to watch it all be completely destroyed for the benefit of a few in short order.”
              I agree completely. There are times when a ‘win’ is making something better, and there are times when just keeping the status quo….breaking even….is the best you can do. Take the ‘tie’ and move on, it’s better than a loss.

          • JB says:

            “Blah,Blah Blah.”

            Exactly the kind of well-reasoned commentary I’ve come to expect from you, Tim. Here’s an actual quantitative study (as opposed to opinion) by two economists that purports to show that the stimulus saved us from a second depression (not that I expect science to have any effect on your ideology). 🙂


            And I see that you don’t address the question of how the court would change were Romney to replace Bader Ginsburg. (And no, I won’t except “blah, blah, blah” for an answer).

            • timz says:

              Yes, let’s fill the website up with links to studies,counter-studies, opinions, counter-opinions etc,etc.,
              Ralph would it be ok if I posted 20 or 30 links on here that counter JB? If that’s not enough I’m sure I could find 30 or 40 more.
              Romney would have to nominate someone who would get confirmed by a Senate controlled by Democrats, although we’ve seen how much courage they’ve shown, so who knows about the Supreme Court. Everyone said the same thing about Bush and I give you David Suter.

            • Ralph Maughan says:

              Whether either President could get a nominee for the Supreme Court though is going to be an important question, and a hard one to answer right now.

            • JB says:


              I made an empirical claim “most economists…” that I based upon a recent survey of economists I saw. You made an empirical claim (i.e. “for every economist that backs those positions I’ll find you 2 that don’t”) based upon what…?

              You seem to relish your role as the resident curmudgeon and eternal pessimist. Fine. Have at is. But when you make blanket statements like “He was a complete failure in his first term”–you should be prepared for someone to call “bullshit.” The fact that you continually respond with sweeping generalizations and platitudes that you can’t (or don’t care to) support ain’t my problem, it’s yours. 😉

            • timz says:

              JB we learn two things from your posts.
              1. Your a complete moron thinking you can post something you found on the web and proclaim you have proven your point.
              2. You know how to use Google.

            • WM says:


              ++ JB,….1. Your a complete moron thinking you can post something you found on the web and proclaim you have proven your point.++

              Ya know, timz, it is one thing to point to recognized sources to back one’s reasoning, especially if there are studies, often peer-reviewed, to support the view, as JB does. Looking to such sources (and I think JB screens stuff pretty well, sifting for quality research), gives people the opportunity to come to conclusions on their own, or maybe reach others. It is yet another to just pull an opinion out of your ass, as you do with a certain regularity.

              And, on the other hand, I do like the artistic qualities of your photo that starts this thread. Would you like me to analyze how I reached that conclusion? I could, you know.

            • JB says:


              My empirical assessment was based upon an article I encountered some months back that summarized a survey of leading economists. It took a bit of searching, but I found it again (here:


              “You [are] a complete moron thinking you can post something you found on the web and proclaim you have proven your point.”

              Actually, I think you’ve done a great job of making my point: You appear to be incapable of a response that doesn’t involve sweeping generalizations, platitudes or (and here’s a late addition) personal insults. Good day.

        • Immer Treue says:


          “Most economists agree that the stimulus essentially saved us from another Depression”

          In conversation with my brother, a math teacher, he said he had a chat with one of his former students who is now some sort of economic specialist(I can’t remember his exact title)but he confirms your statement, that without the bailout we would most likely have seen a world wide depression that may have surpassed the depression of the 30’s.

          We’re still not out of the swamp, and not to make excuses for Obama, but his plate is still full. Wildlife is small potatoes compared to the general needs of the country.

          Almost did not vote for Klobuchar in MN, because of her push to delist wolves, but what was the alternative? Think about ancillary issues like abortion. A conservative friend said that abortion was a swing issue that lead to Bush’s election over Gore. He said that one issue was indirectly responsible for our involvement in Iraq.

          • JB says:


            I always liked Klobuchar (we lived in MN for 3 years) and was dismayed when she came out calling for the delisting (and not because I oppose delisting in MN). I don’t know how she thought that position could help her campaign.

          • Louise Kane says:

            “Wildlife is small potatoes compared to the general needs of the country.”

            Immer, I understand what you are saying but on the other hand I think there is a huge constituency that would stand behind candidates with strong environmental, conservation and science based agendas. Where are they, and how do we get them elected though. Good questions.

            • Immer Treue says:


              As much as I like wolves in particular, and wildlife in general, for the masses, they provide no jobs/income, financial security, gasoline, warmth, emotional wellbeing…Even Mech has recently questioned himself in this regard.

              As has been brought up on this blog, most people in this country are scientifically illiterate, and the way things are going, are scrambling from one day to the next to make ends meet. Some feel all is lost already, and embrace hedonism while something is available to them.

              I believe you are correct in that there are a great number of people who would stand behind strong environmental candidates, but their numbers would be dwarfed by those who are unaware or just don’t care, through no real fault of their own.

      • Dan says:

        I celebrated late into the night.(My head is still spinning from the rum) Obama has been a great president for me and the state of Idaho! Besides saving the world economy to date and putting in place the beginnings of a real solution to healthcare he allowed the delisting of wolves! I now feel we might have a chance to save our elk herd in the St. Joe! Forward!!! Go Obama!!!

  60. Peter Kiermeier says:

    Good Morning America….and congratulations!
    Obama attempted a change, and that is, why he is still held in high regard elsewhere, if maybe not at home. His country denied him nearly every opportunity to change. Ok, we are glad, he is still alive. Honestly, we expected the worst! We, from the outside, see it this way. For us at least he´s still an icon. He still stands for dignity, integrity, brainpower, a modern America, and with his lovely wife even for a little glamour…..

    • Nancy says:


    • WM says:

      Yes, Thank you for your kind thoughts, Peter.

      An important matter to consider going forward, is that while President Obama gets another four years, our Country is far from united. It appears, based on the election results for each state, Romney took many of the Western states and Southern states, by a greater popular vote margin than Obama won elsewhere (ones with larger populations and more Electoral College votes). Geographically we are far from united, even within some states (WA for example). The D’s held on to the Senate (whew!), and the R’s still have the House, with a still viable Tea Party element that will keep things screwed up.

      So, what is going to change, now, as the Country tries to move forward with the same hamstrung political mix (Do we hold our breath for changes to Wall St., banking industry, military-industrial complex, Supreme Court-common sense, fixes for Social Security and health care, environmental quality improvement)?

      While I believe in the religious freedoms of our, the scary part for me was that someone with the Mormon belief system actually came so close to being the most powerful elected official in the free world. So some Mormon church elder (Prophet/Apostle, whatever) says “God spoke to me and says we should nuke the land of Islam.” Then what?

      • Mark L says:

        Y’all HAVE to start looking past the Repugnican/Dumbocrat duality and look at some other stuff like urban/non-urban, etc. I’m not so sure the Mormon did him in as much as not having a detailed plan for the economy (and suggesting that we sell public lands didn’t help). Twist the ticket around (Ryan/
        Romney) and I’m curious what would have happened.

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          The one real test of the popularity of grabbing the public lands showed that even in Arizona it was not a popular idea with the voters. There prop. 120 to take control of all the federal lands in the state failed badly.

          Still the Koch Bros. and ALEC will keep alive the top down (“top” meaning extractive industry big money) to somehow take the national forests, parks, etc.

          • Louise Kane says:

            I’ve been reading that in some states educational curriculum that includes trapping (wisconsin) and hunting is being pushed into the classrooms. I don;t think its possible to engender an appreciation and love for wild or natural resources when children are taught to think of them as expendable commodities. In contrast, I remember taking school trips down to the marshes, to the audubon trails and to areas with natural or historical resources. I scoffed at some of the trips sometimes. Being a fisherman’s daughter meant that I was not so impressed with minnows or a fall herring run when my Dad was fishing offshore and bringing back pictures of oceanic sunfish or basking sharks or stories of the grand banks sword fish schools. yet now when I walk those marshes and beaches I am struck by how those classes contributed so much to the appreciation I hold for both marine and terrestrial environments and the complex and fertile web of life they support. Schools need to be incorporating natural resource exploration, science and hiking classes to teach and culture a conservation ethic and appreciation for wildlife and natural places. This will help foster am appreciation for the national parks and forests and a new generation of people who want to protect them

        • WM says:

          Mark L.,

          It is to a large extent urban/non-urban, and what that connotes – and to some extent how and where people make a living (or don’t for that matter). There is a huge divide in that area. I have said before on this forum, the modern day Republican party is made up of the uber-rich and the dumb lower middle class from the South, who cling to their bibles. One day I should tell the story about an acquaintance who sold bibles and encyclopedias as a summer job in the South some years back, to illustrate.

          The point about Romney was not so much that being Mormon hindered (or aided) his campaign. It is the belief system behind it, including how Church doctrine is made. That, to me, is the scary part. I also had thoughts of how many of the faithful would be tapped for high level appointed service, advising a President. The Mormons have a very secretive and extremely powerful economic influence in America, and have gone to great lengths to avoid and deflect disclosure (M’s do businessing with M’s in the name of the Church, behind the scenes, and that sort of thing).

          And, Ralph is on point with his predictions about ALEC, and its juggernaut machine.

          • Louise Kane says:

            agreed WM well stated

            • TC says:

              Disagree and stated in a manner to denigrate a broad swath of our nation. Republicans are no one thing, and are not limited geographically – take a look at the red/blue election result demarcation by county again. There are many middle-class (nowhere near “uber rich”), moderately or highly educated, successful, and honorable people that register and vote as Republicans. I know, I live and work with them. I share many values with them and can no more categorize them than I can any other demographic block. Sometimes they are victims of the same broken two-party system and mass media (and often familial?) indoctrination as many Democrats. This endless us/them thing is the problem. Wake up and smell it, and stop disseminating it.

              We need to work within our system to free people to vote for candidates and their platforms/ideas and not their parties, and we need it yesterday. To accomplish this we need people to become more engaged in this process again, and become Thomas Jefferson’s “educated citizenry”. A tall order.

              As to the Mormon bashing, gee that gets old. Insert Jew, Sikh, Catholic, etc. and carry on with the slurs. You’ve now sunk to the level of Tea Partyers and the whole Reverend Jeremiah Wright fiasco. Rise above. Rise above.

            • WM says:


              I was referring to where the R’s derive their power, as well as some of their blind followers. The pundits are predicting a big blow up of the R Party after the far right took the concept of moderate out of the platform. As for sub-regions of states, I speak of my own state of WA as an example. Could give you a couple dozen others along those geographic lines, so agree with you there.

              Mormons bashing – OK, I have spent enough time in UT (almost went to grad school in Logan), to understand how things work. And the parts about prophets/apostles is from their doctrine. The parts about the economics of doing business are pretty well known.

              As for seeking a way out of this 2 party mess, I don’t see it happening soon because of the vested interest and control that they have over infrastucture and media. Independents with great ideas, including good candidates even within each of the 2 parties sometimes get squashed if they don’t follow the party template. There is no incentive for good decision-making and policy from the in power, intrenched party establishments.

              Things will really have to get broken, before a fix will come that dislodges the status quo of the two parties, and they will even work together behind the scenes to resist change.

            • JB says:


              I can agree with most of your statement, but I have trouble with this part:

              “We need to work within our system to free people to vote for candidates and their platforms/ideas and not their parties, and we need it yesterday.”

              That perspective works if candidates, once elected, are free enough from party influence to vote for/craft legislation based upon their own ideas, not the short term political goals of the party. These past 4 years we witnessed what *I believe* (trying to express some lack of certainty here) is an unprecedented influence of party affiliation–especially among Republicans. Example: The health care plan the Democrats introduced was very similar to that crafted by the Republicans in response to Hillary Clinton’s efforts in the 1990s. This represents a huge compromise on the part of Democrats and an effort (of Obama) to move to the center. And what did they get for their efforts? Outright Republican hostility. It seems that every time Democrats compromise, Republicans just move farther to the right.

              I’m happy to vote for Democrate, Republican or Independent based upon their OWN platform (I’m not registered with any party)–but we need candidates/elected official with the courage to put country before party, and not toe the party line in the hope it helps the Party’s (as separate from the People’s) cause in the next election.

      • Immer Treue says:

        McConnell on number one priority denying Obama a second term.

        What I would like to see, on a stage such as the State of the Union, is for Obama to address McConnell, in front of the world, and say, “Well Mitch, you failed at that.” Then hold out his hand and say, “Why don’t you change your priorities a bit and help me and the other folks of this country in reestablishing the greatness of the United States. Shake my hand and agree to commit yourself to help the people of this country.”

        • JB says:

          Great point, Immer. The President needs to use the pulpit to put pressure on the obstructionists in the Republican party who think they can stall until the midterm elections. He needs to SHOW average Americans that the reason for the gridlock is the House’s failure to compromise. And the Senate… For once I would like to see the Democrats actually force the Republicans to filibuster, as opposed to running away screaming every time they threaten to use it.

        • Salle says:

          And McConnell’s response may well be to just spit in his hand and walk away. There are a lot of back room temper tantrums going on this morning and some very nasty comments from that faction with sour grapes and probably conspiring to make life harder with regard to getting anything accomplished in the name of “We the People”. Obstructionism inspired by overt racism is about to reach a fevored pitch.

          That idiot, Trump the chump, was screaming for a revolution last night. These people need to be banned from speaking publicly on major TeeVee and large news outlets. Caribou Barbie is just beside herself in disbelief and FuxNews is still not convinced that Obama has won. It’s not going to be all that easy but considering that folks like Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown are in the Senate and Alan Grayson is back in the House are certainly good news. The bad news is that the wicked wench of the teabaggers, Bachman is still there to be a pain in everyone’s a$$.

          I hope that Kenny-boy will be replaced as he is an embarassment to the administration and the president should acquiesce to the obstructionists anymore, he should have learned by now that he needs to do a bunch of house-cleaning in the west wing.

          • Salle says:

            Correction (was typing too fast)

            “I hope that Kenny-boy will be replaced as he is an embarassment to the administration and the president should not acquiesce to the obstructionists anymore. Hhe should have learned by now that he needs to do a bunch of house-cleaning in the west wing.”

          • Immer Treue says:


            I’m sure the sour grapes are aplenty, and that is why I believe Obama must make a direct petition to McConnell and his fellow obstructionists, before a national audience, put the spotlight on them with the included McConnell clip, and challenge Mitch to work with him. Let the nation see.

            • Salle says:


              I do agree that it would be a wise move on the part of the president but I also remember when he did try to engage them in the beginning of his first term and they attempted to infiltrate his Cabinet in order to facilitate ruination at our expense… essentially spitting in his hand at that point. And don’t forget that schmuck from NH, Greg, and his attempt to do just that.

              I’d like to see some return to humanness on the part of the GOP. The psychopathic turn they took was really uncalled for and a direct endangerment to our nation in every way. I am glad that the size of that crow they’ll be feeding on for the next couple weeks is similar to that of an ostrich.

              They need to be exposed with no mercy or fig leaves for what they are. Maybe there could be some state level recalls after sunlight hits, or maybe they’ll just wither away like the vampires and blow away as dust in the wind.

              Personally, I won’t be satisfied until they can check their religion at the door and leave it out of public policy.

          • rork says:

            Try and look on the bright side – the wicked wench can do more damage to her cause than 10 opponents.
            Easy to say from a different state perhaps.

          • jon says:

            I am so sick of people like Trump, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. What needs to happen is these republicans in congress need to be voted out.

          • jon says:

            How on earth does Bachmann continue to get elected in MN?

  61. CodyCoyote says:

    It’s official now. Democrat John Tester has defeated Repub Denny Rehrberg for the US Senate in Montana:

    Now—who is going to take Tester to the woodshed to ” edjicate ” on the working definition of conservation and full value of wildlife. Just because he’s a Dem….

    • Savebears says:


      Here we go again, over 4 years now and nothing has changed, so we can continue with exactly what has been going on! 2 billion+ in ad’s, high unemployment, etc.

      I sure hope Obama will change his direction somewhat for the next 4 years, cause his record is not good, he is not doing a good job!

      • rork says:

        Yep, he failed to raise taxes on the rich, obliterate Gitmo, get single-payer health care, dynamite the Snake river dams, and I didn’t pull an elk tag any of the last 4 years. So I agree.

      • jon says:

        What makes you think his record isn’t good savebears? His record is a lot better than George W. Bush. It’s kinda hard to get things done when you have a bunch of republicans in congress that hate you and want to see you fail.

      • JB says:


        I’m curious what part of Obama’s direction you hope will change. It seems to me that his failures can largely be laid at the feet of the Mitch McConnells that opposed his every move at every turn. (Sort of hard to accomplish anything when the Rs threaten to veto any move you make.) Heck, the Rs wouldn’t support ANY tax increase despite the fact that the deficit can largely be attributed to the tax decreases (mostly to the rich) that they began passing during the Reagan era.

        It seems pretty disingenuous to pass huge tax cuts for the rich and then blame the resulting deficit on the Democrats–especially when the Republicans grew the government just as much. Pot meet kettle.

        • jon says:

          Hi jb, you live in Ohio I think you said. Have you been watching the Sherrod Brown and Josh Mendel race? I am very glad that Brown one.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      I see the race for governor in Montana is still undecided because of a breakdown in vote counting.

      The Republican (Hill) was (is?) behind.

      Democrats carrying the governor’s office and the Senate race rather than the radical conservatives will make a difference for wildlife.

    • Salle says:

      Now—who is going to take Tester to the woodshed to ” edjicate ” on the working definition of conservation and full value of wildlife. Just because he’s a Dem….

      Wish I could have chance at that…

  62. JEFF E says:

    I guess I missed it but what ever happened to “southside” Bob Fanning for Gov. in Mont.

    Did he finally realize the only vote he would get would be his own? and disappear back to irrelevance?

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Fanning was always such a joke . . . last place among the huge rooster of Republicans running for the gubernatorial nomination in Montana.

      • jon says:

        There was some talk about Fanning becoming a Montana fwp commissioner if Rick Hill won.

        Check out this video. Rick Hill, Toby Bridges, and Bob Fanning are in it.

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          Of course Hill didn’t win, but I doubt it anyway. I think Fanning is a far right self promoter, but not a very successful one. Does he have any successes at all?

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          What a bunch of ugly customers! Glad Rick Hill lost, and that faux rancher Rehberg.

      • JEFF E says:

        So Rove had crow for dinner and sour grapes for breakfast.
        What a POS

        • Salle says:

          Gosh, with any luck maybe he’ll just emigrate to the Caymans and be blown out to sea in the next hurricane… and take his candidate friend with him.

          • JEFF E says:

            and Rush Dimbulb and the stupefyingly inane Hannity.

            • Louise Kane says:


              For some truly frightening thinking see above link and quote below

              “Welcome to a truly white minority world,” wrote one commenter on Stormfront, the world’s largest white supremacist Web forum, which is run by a former Alabama Klan leader. “The future is now. There is no denying this. The sun has set on humanity’s greatest era: 1500-2000. … [T]he only way to survive this war of annihilation is separatism. … [W]e have to choose regions or states.”

              “We have truly fallen under God’s judgment,” wrote another. “You will never see another white man occupy the White House again.” Responded a third: “If you can immigrate to Europe you start making plans. …”

              how does someone get this mindset, I’m sure Europeans don’t want these people anymore then we do.

            • Salle says:

              Not only do the Europeans not want these people there, they wouldn’t be happy once they got there… guns are generally prohibited, not a lot of wide open country to go out and shoot their garbage and the ratio of “other” phenotypes is greater than it is here, a lot of Europe isn’t exactly pearly white like these culturally ill informed folks might imagine… And they speak something other than English in most countries. Yes, they can speak English but it’s not their first language in many places. These Amerkans ain’t gonna be able to run ’em off or kill ’em off like their ancestors did to the indigenous peoples on this continent. And they probably won’t like the food or the fact that hardly any Europeans are all that religious. The culture shock might just kill them, if they can get visas.

  63. Ralph Maughan says:

    Republicans defeated in Montana’s two biggest races.


    Bullock defeats Hill in Montana governor race
    Not quite final, but Democrat Bullock won by about 2%

    U.S. Senate race.

    Tester defeats Rehberg in hard-fought Senate battle

    Tester won by an unexpectedly large 4%

    • Salle says:

      Unfortunately, that’s about the only good news in the elections in the state. Some of the policy decisions were a good sign… like the “corporate personhood/anti citizens united” initiative. There are still too many (R)s in the legislature for any progressive policy proposals to survive/pass.

    • elk275 says:

      It was the libertarian vote that allow Tester and Bullock to win.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        Elk: by my calculation , 32 percent of registered voters in Montana did not vote at all . 463,500 ballots cast from a voter pool of 681,600.

        I think the Non-Voter also factors into the results as much as the extraneous 3rd party voter drawing off votes.

        I’m not willing to give the Libertarians all the reverse credit you are implying for tilting the Montana election. Turnout in both Montana and Wyoming was lower this year than back in 2008

    • jon says:

      Thanks for the news Ralph. Im glad Rick Hill was defeated.

    • Mike says:

      When I was in Missoula, I was blown away by the Tester ground game.

      Still don’t like the guy after he gutted the ESA, but still better than Denny.

  64. CodyCoyote says:

    It isn’t a Fiscal Cliff, but the Wyoming Game & Fish Department is facing a funding shortfall that is analagous to a Fiscal Scree Slope. For a variety of reasons that have accumulated for many years , the WyG&F urgently needs to come up with $ 8-10 million more in annual revenue – approximately 12 to 15 percent more than they are now budgeting, or else begin some draconian cuts to agency personnel and programs.

    Sounds like they’ve got their 3x-9x Leupold spotting scopes crosshaired on the Nonconsumptive Users of wildlife…folks who enjoy big game animals by shooting them with cameras, not rifles. For starters.

    It’s gonna be contentious.

    • Louise Kane says:

      If Wyoming F&G wants non consumptive users to pay for a deficit they should be prepared to adjust their wolf policy so there are some left to see. I’d be willing to bet wolf watchers coming from all over the world would not mind paying fees but would want to see wolves getting a fair shake in return. and what they are doing now is by no means fair.

  65. josh says:

    Hey Cody, spotting scopes dont have crosshairs, and dont come in 3-9 power. You are referring to a rifle scope! 🙂 Though Leupold does make both, so ya got something right.

    But you did fail to mention the HUGE increases for NR hunters. Which combined with the decrease in quality of the hunting in WY will not cover the gap. Just look at ID, they raised NR licenses a ton also and now they never sell em!

    Also I thought your side was always touting how much revenue wildlife watchers generate, why are you so worried to help foot some of the bill? Maybe if you kick something into the pot the “other” side may be more open to your ideas concerning wildlife management!

    • WM says:

      Not at all wildlife related (at least in the way we think of it here), but does touch one of the wackos mentioned earlier in all the political discussion. Some may have seen NBC’s Brian Williams mention Trump had gone off the deep end with some of his tweet rants, labeling the election a “total sham” and other such non-sense.

      Just saw this comment:

      Trump is crazier than a dog with a full bladder in a hubcap factory.

  66. Mark L says:

    Yeah, a little return on investment would be necessary to keep ’em coming back….kind of like getting a defeated Geronimo to make his appearances in the Wild West traveling shows 100 years ago. Ohhh’s and ahhh’s being necessary and all, right? It IS all about the money, isn’t it?

  67. Ralph Maughan says:


    Due to the high volume, I am going to replace this page with a newer one sometime today.

    This particular page is getting more and more popular. If anyone has suggestions about what to do, we would like it.


    • elk275 says:

      After about 300 posts things get a little top heavy and it can take several minutes to load. After 200 posts I am unable to use a mobile phone. This page gets about 30 posts a day so I would start a new page every week.

      • Mike says:

        I agree with Elk275.

        A new wildlife news thread every week would be more efficient.

    • Mark L says:

      I think ‘post-election’ you will see a drop in numbers of posts too.


October 2012


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

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: