Because of the growing number of comments, The Wildlife News is going to put up a new “Have you come across any interesting wildlife news” page more frequently than in the past.  Perhaps weekly. It will depend on the number of comments received.  Any suggestions for further changes are welcome.

Clouds of the first winter snowstorm of 2012 moving southward toward the uplands around Pocatello, Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan

So here is a new page beginning November 8, 2012. The Oct. 27 “interesting news” page now drops off the top and back to the day it was first posted.  Here is a direct link back to it.

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

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.

502 Responses to Have you come across any interesting wildlife news? Nov. 8, 2012

  1. Ralph Maughan says:

    I will put up the first comment.

    Toward the end of the Oct. 27 version of this page, JB, TimZ and others were discussing what is a superior source of I guess what would be called political information that is relatively free of bias.

    I was a political scientist (still am) for over 30 years. I strongly believe that objective information about politics and policy can be collected and analyzed, though political scientists in the past have made mistakes like other scientists have, and some drop their objectivity entirely to become partisans who happen to have academic degrees.

    Politicians and the media have not taken this scholarly discipline very seriously, and much of the blame can be laid on the fact that political science research is usually published in expensive journals read only by experts. The American Political Science Review is expensive, and then there are regional political science journals and specialty journals too, like The Public Opinion Quarterly. All of them are fairly expensive and obscure to the public, even to those interested in political affairs.

    Fortunately, some political scientists have now taken to the web, and there are a number of readable blogs for the intelligent non-political scientist. The Monkey Cage is one of the best. Today’s issue has a very good analysis of what was wrong, incorrect, or sloppy with the media’s coverage of the many election polls.

    The emergence of these political science, free, well-written and not especially technical web sites gives me hope.

  2. WM says:

    Often our discussion here gets focused on the tension which accompanies federal – state relations, especially when one or more states “go rogue” and want something different than federal law provides. Our prime example is whether and when to delist wolves, and how to manage them. Some advocates say the federal government (whether under statutory law, say the ESA, or the Constitution) is the final authority. Heck, our entire form of government is based on the “rule of law.” So, the feds have an obligation to enforce – arrest, prosecution, judicial decision (appeals if required to ensure the “law” was followed.)

    Well, let me use the same concept – states going rogue and defying federal law- on a different topic. Federal law, the Controlled Substances Act, classifies marijuana as a Class 1 narcotic, with penalties associated with use, sale and distribution.

    Two states just passed liberal marijuana laws which are in direct conflict with federal law – WA and CO. Residents of both states say federal law is not working for them. What is the federal government to do?

    And in this instance, there are impacts beyond our US borders, especially what happens in Mexico and even countries in South America (who do not want to legalize marijuana for various reasons). Rather substantial issues of foreign policy, these are.

    My point, as it relates to wildlife including ESA managed species: The United States is an association of states bound by one document, the Constitution and laws promulgated and interpreted thereunder.

    Where is the outrage of those who believe in the inviolate sanctity of a strong central government, which prohibits states from going rogue, on this marijuana issue which is a far greater affront to the rule of law, than some state deciding there are enough wolves and wanting to take back their right to manage an issue?

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      In partial answer to your last paragraph, I have always felt that use of the “states rights” argument is not really over a basic principle. People use it bolster a more basic political or policy position they hold.

      The same person (or group) who weeps over upholding the Constitution over sacred state rights on one issue, is suddenly for federal uniformity on another.

      • WM says:

        I don’t normally think of WA (or its residents) as a “states rights” stronghold on any issue. On the marijuana initiative that just passed, two or maybe even three former US attorneys, once sworn by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and federal laws and prosecution violations of them, came out in support of it in campaign ads.

        Clearly there is a legal conflict. The question is, will the federal government try to stop WA and CO outright, in implementing their laws, or will they just selectively enforce creating uncertainty for those who would take advantage of the law. Or, lastly do the WA and CO Congressional delegations seek a change in federal law, to attempt to resolve the conflict. This will get interesting – just like the wolf delisting, but without much of the emotion. Thinking facetiously, maybe a future Congressional rider will contain a provision saying marijuana is not a Class I listed narcotic in WA and CO. 🙂

        • elk275 says:

          In the last 40 years I have had 10 to 12 friends die from alcohol and no one dying from marijuana. Maybe alcohol should be outlawed but they tried that onceand it did not work.

          • CodyCoyote says:

            When I hear the hue and cry of “States Rights”, I recall that was ginned up in fairly recent times to prevent desegregation and Civil Rights. In other words, States Rights was born to provide cover to retain racist Jim Crow laws. It expanded out from there. Earlier invocations of the independence of states from the federal union , such as the Alien and Sedition Act and Nullification Act before the Civil War were obtuse. When the term States Rights rolled off the tongues of politicians like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace and their Dixiecrat ilk. The Tea Party ” movement” ( actually a lurch) adopted it as a slogan wholesale to jack up the 10th Amendment to claim state sovereignty. Except the participation of states in that federal union is not voluntary nor mutable.

            With respect to wildlife, the feds defer to states for nonthreatened ESA specific species management while retaining some umbrella authority over migratory creatures.

            With respect to Cannabis, we have a problem. And a conflict. The War on Drugs is far from over, no matter how ineffective, no matter how costly , no matter how plainly counterproductive it is. It’s a throwback to the Dark Ages and Puritanical autocracy. Cannabis is collateral damage; hardly worthy of the dubious Schedule 1 narcotic status it was bestowed in 1970.

            States Rights = red herring.

          • Louise Kane says:

            elk more things we agree on! While I can’t advocate outlawing alcohol, it does a hell of a lot more damage then pot and as WM points out a nice tax could help.

        • JB says:


          It seems a good time to seek to change the law. Legalizing marijuana with a big, fat tax, as opposed to continuously dumping money down the drain to try and enforce laws (as well as the money lost to incarcerating “criminals” who are not at all dangerous) could easily be sold as a cost saving mechanism in a time of fiscal hardship.

        • WM says:

          ….and its not just the tax on marijuana sales, could there be a future in WA and CO for “toke tourism?”

          So, if some excess MJ using CO skier (on federal land where most ski areas operate under long term special use permits) loses control and crashes into a lift line injuring several will that encourage federal enforcement actions?

    • sleepy says:

      I don’t think anyone from the central government side of the divide would make the argument that Washington or Colorado do not have the absolute right to legalize marijuana nor that Nevada has the absolute right to criminalize it.

      I also belive that few on either side would say that the federal government does not have the right to criminalize marijuana.

      Having said that, federal efforts against marijuana where state law allows it, however legal those federal efforts might be, is an abuse of federal power. You might have the legal right to do something, but discretion and common sense dictate otherwise.

    • JimT says:

      You can chalk Colorado up to the economy, and the benign experience of the last few years with medical pot use. Tax dollars are hard to come by these days for states, and the citizens are aware of it. So, if you can create another revenue stream that doesn’t involve taxing…it looks mighty attractive.

      Add that to the lack of problems with the medical pot issue. There were tons of dire predictions about Mexican cartels coming into the state and taking over, and kids experiencing Reefer Madness. Instead, this industry has been one of the most regulated and supervised industries in the history of the state. Indeed, there are distance requirements for stringent for pot shops than for fracking operations in terms of distance from schools!

      This is by no means a settled issue. The Gov here, also known as The Oil and Gas ToolMan, and the Pubmiester, is dead set against implementing it. The Feds are in a quandry, but I cannot imagine them sitting idly by while Colorado and Washington State reap the benefits of pot tourism. The issue of Federal supremacy is begging to be a lawsuit basis soon.

      As seems typical of late, the science of the drug seems to be missing. And then, there is the hypocrisy of the alcohol legality…is it a more destructive drug than pot? If so, why is it legal and not pot?

      Stay tuned…it should provide us a welcome diversion from the fiscal cliff…

  3. rork says:

    “Where is the outrage of those who believe in the inviolate sanctity of a strong central government” – you forgot to add “if any”, especially after the near-religious tone of “inviolate sanctity”. Tocqueville made much of the fact that US democracy is decentralized, and the advantages that brings (greater freedom). In particular the police powers are mostly local, and can ignore laws the local population don’t like. The local laws you speak of do not nullify the federal law, the feds can still try to enforce them, but they cannot force local powers to enforce them (but they often try to figure out ways to coerce such behavior, usually through purse-strings).

  4. JEFF E says:

    It is being said that Obama is going to do a near make over of his
    No word on who that might be for Interior.

    • WM says:

      Another Colorado guy with very exacting relevant credentials and a moderate D viewpoint would be Harris Sherman, the Undersecretary of Agriculture (has responsibility for USFS).

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      A rumor I heard is Governor Brian Schweitzer, who is out of a job, but certainly not out of ambition.

      I would suggest that Western Democrats could get more excited about him than the fairly non-partisan Ken Salazar (who party was the feudal ranching West).

    • JimT says:

      There was an article in politico on this issue. The names for Interior…David Hayes, Dave F., former Gov. and so on. Typical of this administration on Western issues. Where the hell is Grijalva’s name?

      • Salle says:

        I’m with JimT on this one, where’s Grihalva’s name on the list of candidates? (BTW, good to see you here JimT, it’s been a while.)

        I don’t have any faith in Schweitzer, it took him well beyond his first term to respond to the Yellowstone bison issue in a responsible manner and even that’s questionable… an issue he campaigned on for his first term’s election. He also praises the horrible raping and pillaging going on in NE Montana with oil and coal industry boom going on there, all he sees is money ~ that the state isn’t going to get in taxes from extractive industries ~ and it seems to drive his policies when it comes to environmental and wildlife issues. He doesn’t seem too concerned about the unbelievably high crime rate or lack of housing and infrastructure in that part of the state of late. And he didn’t say a word when Tester slimed that wolf rider into the budget Bill a couple years ago. Freudenthal isn’t a good choice either for obvious reasons.

        Obama would do well to correct his error in judgement in his first term by replacing Salazar with Grihalva.

      • skyrim says:

        Oh geeze, I was thinking the Dave F. was Foreman. I’ve got to get over my expectations…….

      • Jeff N. says:

        Jim T,

        Had the pleasure of meeting Grijalva at a restaurant in Phx a few weeks ago. I told him I’d like to see him as head of the Dept. of Interior. Seemed like a a decent unassuming man. He’s also a champion of lobo recovery down here in AZ. It amounted to a brief chat but I believe he’d be a great choice for the position, especially in regard to the ESA and public land issues.

  5. JEFF E says:

    a statement from Romney at his farewell breakfast

    ” At the breakfast, he blamed superstorm Sandy for a loss of momentum in the final days of his campaign,..”

    So he is claiming an act of God is responsible for the out come.

    Probably one of the few times he has told the truth

    • skyrim says:

      Funny too when you consider that he and others close to his faith, consider themselves much closer to God than the rest of us.

  6. CodyCoyote says:

    Here’ something you don’t see every day: a small plane crash filmed from inside the cockpit.

    The YouTube video is titled ” Plane Crash in the Frank Church Wilderness ” ( Idaho ) It happened last summer.

    I found this at the infamous Skinny Moose / Black Bear Blog. It was tagged by that webmaster ” I can’t think of a nicer wilderness to crash in.”

    Crash is at 2m 44 secs. All survived. The little plane was obviously VERY overloaded and trying to fly on a hot summer day. The laws of aerodynamics are not to be so cavalierly trifled with…

  7. JEFF E says:

    here comes the all out war on elk by the livestock industry.

    time to pop some popcorn

  8. Louise Kane says:

    coyote spin! read some of the comments
    at least the city is not launching an all out war on them

  9. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Saxonia in eastern Germany: Wolf attack on sheep gone awfully wrong.
    Somehow the wolf, trying to dig under an electric fence, became entangled in the net of this fence and suffered quite a few electric shocks. The sheep all fled into another perch and started grazing. The owner of the sheep found the somewhat dizzy wolf in the morning and freed him. Sorry, article in German language only.

    • Immer Treue says:


      Enschuldigen Sie mich bitte, ich bin ein Deutsch vederber, aber fur den Wolf Es war nicht ein netter Spaziergang.

    • WM says:

      ++….wolf, trying to dig under the electric fence…++

      So much for “turbo” part of non-lethal wolf control. Adapting to new technology? Query, did this wolf learn a lesson, and being a freed wolf not a dead one, is it sufficient not to repeat the effort, and will it pass the knowledge on to other wolves?

      Long ago I had a Siberian husky, who was a master escape artist from our yard. He knew when the perimeter electric fence (one strand of bare wire about 6 inches off the ground, right next to the 8′ high cedar slat fence that enclosed the yaard), was off or on. He knew the consequences of touching the wire, as he got zapped several times. It didn’t matter whether the fence was on, he just started the hole back a little further, and dug deeper.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        In Montana I had a couple litters of sled dog pups,(Samoyed-malemute-Siberian husky cross) penned in a 3 foot chicken wire fence with an electric wire at the top, it worked very well except for one female that learned that if she jumped over from the roof of the doghouse she would not receive a shock. As they grew larger the others learned the trick but she was the only one that would jump back into the pen to get a drink of water.

      • Peter Kiermeir says:

        Sorry for coming back so late to this post. I somehow lost track of it.
        People are working a lot with different types of fences in the there. These fences need to be set up properly and carefully. It´s not unusual for a wolf to try the digging. Usually they are not successful. Seems that in this case also everything was set up properly because the wolf did not achieve much. What gives me more concern is that there´s a pack now that has learned to jump over the fences (and without the support of a roof or terrain! That´s an unusual technique, they teach to their pubs. For the benefit of the whole population it could indeed be advisable to remove them!

  10. CodyCoyote says:

    Not ” Wildlife news” by strict definition , but news of allegedly domestic animal gone wild.

    A 1400 pound Red Angus (?) Bull bolted from the Worland Livestock Auction yard and sprinted into town. A homeowner was standing in his own driveway talking to a neighbor when the bull ran up the sidewalk, crashed through the front door, and went straight down to the basement. It took quite a bit of work by various agencies and volunteers to retrieve said bovine miscreant. Two hours later the bull had been coaxed back up the stairs to be tranquilized by a vet, but only after the animal pretty much wrecked the home interior.

    File this under ” Only In Wyoming”. ***

    ***Read quickly…web URL is not specific to story; will change. Of course this story will likely hit the regional wires and be relived ad infinitum ad absurdum .

  11. Salle says:

    Circuit court declares Northern Rockies wolf-hunting case moot

    This is why I had to hold my nose when I voted for Tester to keep his job.

  12. Salle says:

    FWP Commission gives initial approval for elk brucellosis plan

    I see this as the second-hand stench (similar to the second hand smoke cancer issues)of piss poor wildlife management policy.

    • Leslie says:

      sounds like a lot of fingers in the dyke…reduce wolves, longer hunting seasons, intensive hazing, public funding(!) for fencing cattle, elk-proof fencing (more public $$), less wolves more hunting. Just more human manipulation that will lead to more human manipulation et al.

      • Salle says:

        Indeed. Just think what it wold mean if they had the gumption to put that money into education or point source power generation or something useful… oh, right, that would be socialism… never mind.

        I find it ironic that these people want the taxpayer to foot the bill for their unwillingness to do their overly romanticized jobs but it’s not a factor in the hated big government scenario. But call on them to participate in anything relative to civic duty and they start screaming about socialism and whatever other demonizing epithets they can imagine while checking their mailbox for that government check. I say, if you want to do business in an environment that isn’t conducive to your business, then expect to pay the price of doing business in a harsh environment. Don’t ask for the rest of us to pay for your idealist expectations so you can make a profit by destroying what others value, and that belongs to all of us… public lands, wildlife, natural waterways, etc.. Manipulation of nature never turns out well for anyone.

  13. Immer Treue says:

    Perhaps, just perhaps, in Wiscosin and Minnesota’s decision to move in haste into hunting and trapping seasons due to legislative and special interest groups, largely bypassing those who did not favor a season on wolves, Michigan may have learned a lesson. Perhaps my longest run on sentence.

  14. Louise Kane says:
    61% against in one poll with a lot of comments against. granted its not a reliable poll, but I have seen similar results in the online comments to the states and in other polls. In general people are against sports hunting wolves

  15. aves says:

    Great news! A previously unknown population of black-footed ferrets has been found in South Dakota:

  16. CodyCoyote says:

    The private company that provides large animals for films and such —including grizzly bears—says it will defy a state ” request” to put down a grizzly suspected of mauling a trainer to death in Bozeman MT this week. It’s not clear the state has the legal authority to even ask that the bear be put down . No precedent; unclear legal language.

    • jon says:

      This bear did nothing wrong. He was being a bear. This bear should not be killed.

    • Nancy says:

      Appears to be similar to the incident that happened to Horn, of Siegfried & Roy. Probably never know why the bear mauled this guy and not sure what it would accomplish, destroying the other bear.

  17. Immer Treue says:

    Day 8: 91 and counting in MN.

    Tough to say as weather is horrible today, but with eight days to go in northeast zone (100 series), the northwest zone, largely (200 series) shutting down tomorrow, and the east central zone already closed, if the 200 target figure will be attained, unless of course the goal posts are moved. This for the early season. The late season, which includes trapping begins 11/24 and runs until 1/31, or until 200 more wolves are, hate to use the word, “harvested”.

    • Louise Kane says:

      A shitty and raw deal for wolves and the majority who don’t want this hunting season. the bastards

    • Rancher Bob says:

      Hey jon, Immer is posting the Minnesota wolf hunting results is that O.K. with you? 🙂

      • Immer Treue says:

        Rancher Bob,

        I continue to put the tally up for a number of different reasons.

        1. Why is there a wolf season(s)? Most folks in MN are against it. Before one jumps into the urban/rural fray, I am rural. A lawsuit by Gerald Tyler and Dale Lueck ( a farmer/rancher) pushed the USFWS to delist, as did the work of Senator Amy Klobuchar. What was the rational, depredation of livestock? An all too familiar tune. The small number of depredations in MN were met with the annual removal of over 200 wolves.

        2. If depredations are the main concern, then why are the hunting and trapping seasons not concentrated in areas of depredation?

        3. Why will hunting and trapping be allowed in the BWCAW? No depredations out there. One MN legislator had the indiscretion to advance the idea of hunting from airplanes. Ah, nothing like returning to the good old days.

        4. Will the hunting/ trapping tally be compensatory for the number of wolves illegally taken (poached)? I have reasons to believe not. 6,000 tags were purchased. Hundreds of thousands of deer hunters will be in the field, many of whom chant the mantra that wolves are killing all the deer, when the two largest factors in deer mortality are weather and the human take. Wolves will continue to be illegally taken.

        5. Trophy and revenue. Self explanatory.

        6. Will the goal posts be moved if quota numbers are not met, as per season extension or shifting of zone take numbers? If this occurs, will it be met with friction from those opposed to the hunt? Except for a one week break, both my dog and I will now be decked out in blaze orange upon entry into the woods(right outside my back door) and carrying extra tools for trap/snare indisrcimination until january 31. As a nonconsumptive user of wilderness, this is a major shift in precaution/ behavior. It ain’t the NRM states here.

        While not totally opposed to the MN wolf hunt, I question the absolute necessity of the hunt immediately post delisting, no areas of studying variables for possible rise/ decrease in livestock/ pet depredation, and the “need” for that “trophy”. Perhaps all things wolf will calm down after a few years, but in this age of polarization, this topic may also get a bit warmer.

        • Rancher Bob says:

          I have no problem with any of your post jon just raised a question why I post, I returned a question. As normal jon’s good at asking question not so good at the answers.
          AS to why is there a season, in Montana we were told when we meet the population level to delist wolves, they would be hunted and trapped.
          The rest of your points dead on, but as far as you and your dog that’s life everyone who lives near wolves have had to change the way they live. One has to go through the stages, disbelief, anger, the acceptance, your life will never be like the old life, nor mine.
          What I don’t get is Minnesota has tried to delist wolves for years so why do you think the hunt was to quick. You have tribal lands with no hunting to study effects. Give the hunt a couple years, in Montana one can already see some calming, and we know hunters are not going to kill a large percent of the population.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Rancher Bob,

            “The rest of your points dead on, but as far as you and your dog that’s life everyone who lives near wolves have had to change the way they live. One has to go through the stages, disbelief, anger, the acceptance, your life will never be like the old life, nor mine.”

            Only difference is here, the wolves have always been here. Never had a problem with wolves. Those trying to shoot/ trap the wolves are new. All my adjustments are to the two legged predator, not the four legged one. I have more concern about the two legged variety in terms of personal safety.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Rancher Bob,

              No rancor here, just one of those cyber communications better held over a beer or two, or with cold weather settling in sipping at something distilled. 🙂

            • Rancher Bob says:

              Didn’t think there was any rancor, I think I’ll back up to the stove and enjoy one myself.

        • jon says:

          If the wolf hunt was put up to a popular vote in places like MN and WI, wolf hunting would be banned. The majority do not support the sport killing of wolves. Indians in both of these states oppose the killing of wolves.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Immer your points are well made. I’m always interested to see posts where people are angered about the impact that traps and snares and trophy hunting have on their non-consumptive use. Imagine having a target on your back 24/7 for months at a time. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to see any arguments against hunting wolves being made. I just wish that we would get to a more enlightened place where society is just as concerned about the consequences of trophy hunting for wildlife as they are about the potential for injury and inconvenience to themselves and or their pets.

          • Immer Treue says:


            You and I are close in our philosophies. As a mostly non-consumptive user of wilderness, the issue of personal and dog safety is a brand new experience, probably much ado about nothing, yet, I do not intend to become that statistical outlier.

            Listening to wolves howl outside my cabin is indeed ethereal, a signature of a “wild” land in which people have chosen to live. Other than chronic areas of depredation, my mind becomes addled with the “need/desire for that trophy, in particular deep in the BWCAW, where the wolves cannot and do not cause any “problems”.

            Even the IWC had to take down their wolf telemetry data so that hunters/trappers could not use the data to locate wolves. This data had been used for twenty years or more for educational purposes. Many science classes across the country plotted the location of wolf packs in northern MN. Can’t do it any longer because someone needs that trophy. The Dale Luecks aside, MN had a pretty good handle on their wolves. Was it necessary to have a season on wolves in areas of depredation? I can’t argue with that. However, the need to hunt/trap wolves where they cause no problems is asinine, and this is the type of needless hunting that gives momentum to any anti-hunting/trapping movement.

            By-the-way, I just got my HIT cable cutters, and to preface any thoughts by anyone, no, I have no intentions to engage in any illegal actions. A catalog accompanied the cutters, and one can be overwhelmed at the depth of trapping supplies. In the movie Dances with Wolves when Graham Greene asks Kevin Costner how many “Whites” there are, Costner replies more than there are stars in the sky. Ridding this nation of trapping, at least in our lifetime, will be near impossible. Not to say we should not try, just saying what any movement would face.

            • Immer Treue says:

              One more thing. At thirty dollars per pop, and 6,000 licenses sold, $180,000 is generated. Trapping licenses are another thirty dollars each. I’ll be honest, in that I am not sure where this money goes in MN. Hopefully it does not go into the general DNR fund and become eternally self perpetuating. I believe in WI, ma’iingan would know, that at least part of the license proceeds go toward depredation of livestock/bear hounds.

            • Immer Treue says:

              As a follow-up to my above question about where the license $ goes in MN.


              And again, the depredation song is present, and all seem to agree that this is where hunting/trapping needs be concentrated. Then why is it allowed in the BWCAW and areas closely adjacent to said area where livestock depredation does not occur?

            • WM says:


              Have you inquired with MN DNR to see what the rationale is for a hunting season, or thinning wolves, in the BWCAW?

              Just uninformed opinion on my part, but is this area a source for in-migration from Canada, and would knocking the population back a few, here make temporary reduction, and would it also not provide hunters of wolves a “unique” opportunity (and by way I don’t agree with such a rationale if that is the case)? Maybe Dr. Mech has an idea, or even some of the folks at the IWC.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Immer, thanks for your thoughts. Have to admit to a certain amount of envy that you hear the wolves. I get to see coyotes which is always a wonderful experience but still no wolves in the wild. I’m quite sure if I heard wolves now most of what I would experience is sadness and fear for them. As you point out the only way there is any level of safety for wolves (or for most carnivores) is when people don’t know they are there. The part about the trapping supplies is true. I see the numerous catalouges, the ads and the internet buzz about killing wildlife with traps and snares and am overwhelmed by the number of ways to maim, mutilate and kill animals that are still legal. It will be a huge monumental task but once you see the enormity of the problem, of the injustice really, its near impossible to ignore. I can’t at least. Its a terrible irony that disabling or removing traps and snares is considered illegal, when doing these activities is in my mind immoral and defies all of the standards/laws we set for anti cruelty to domestic animals. They are such wantonly, cruel, destructive and barbaric devices; the thought of them still being legal, enrages me. I guess I love all the Edward Abbey, Carl Hiassen, Tim Cahill, and even John D MacDonald books so much because the heros live by a moral code that is out of step with the fd up laws that primarily get put into place by fd’ up special interest groups. In those made up worlds the heros sometimes win. I have to believe we will get to a better place for wildlife. The concept of civil disobedience is an interesting dilemma for me. I believe there is a place for willful practitioners of civil disobedience or as some would argue mild environmental terrorism, but yet I don’t condone vigilanteism. I do think if I lived in a place where I could hear wolves howling and knew they faced miserable deaths in traps or snares, I’d have a large selection of those cutters and a good knowledge of how to use them. I’d figure if they don’t spend much time on the poachers I might have a chance!

            • Louise Kane says:

              PS I like the image of you listening to the wolves with an appreciation for them, and your surroundings. All the material things in the world could never come close to the thrill I get each and every time I see any wild animal. There is something very comforting about knowing people like you are out there, people with a healthy respect for wild. This blog helps me because its proof there are good people who care about wildlife, still. A counterpoint…

            • Immer Treue says:


              I have not contacted MN DNR. I guess I was expecting to bump into a friend of a friend whom works for the DNR, and it has not yet occurred. On my to do list.

              Quetico Provincial/National Park adjoins the BWCAW, so I would expect quite a bit of interchange of wolves. The total for the northeast zone (100 series deer permit areas is 58 for the early season for which quota has not been reached, with a week to go, and 117 for both seasons. The northwest zone (200 deer permit areas are 133 early season, nowhere near that yet and 265 for both seasons. This area should be closed since yesterday. A small zone in east central has 9 and 18 numbers.

              I would anticipate the BWCAW area taking a bigger hit as the lakes will have frozen over, making travel easy. It’s been relatively warm here this far and there is no larger body of water with ice as of yet, nor does it look favorable for ice formation for over the next ten days.

            • ma'iingan says:

              “They are such wantonly, cruel, destructive and barbaric devices;”

              What specifically has led you to form this opinion? For the most part, trappers use the same equipment that we use to trap animals for research – designed to capture and hold the animal until we can process it and release it with a minimum of harm.

              There are international standards developed for traps by the International Standards Organization (ISO), and an international agreement to implement these standards –


              Using these standards and the ISO research on humane trapping methods, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA)has developed BMPs for trapping in the United States – specifying ISO-approved traps and methodology. Because wolf trapping is “new” in the U.S., work is underway on a wolf BMP – and it will be modeled on the footholds and cable restraints that we’ve used for years in research.

              Regardless of the trapping equipment or methodology, there is certainly no excuse for leaving animals in traps for 72 hours, as some states allow – or for posing for pictures with a live animal in a trap.

    • Mike says:

      Well, at least for a few days insecure men got to pretend they had large cocks.


      • Rancher Bob says:

        What would a psychologist say about your constant fascination and comments with the size of other males genitals. Seems a bit odd to the rest of us, maybe it’s a Chicago thing?

      • Salle says:

        Well, at least for a few days insecure men got to pretend they had large cocks.

        …and that perhaps somebody might give a rat’s a$$ that they did. A big time for weenie wavers. This does nothing to facilitate “acceptance” of the species. Honestly, what an oxymoronic philosophy to think that this sort of activity is an acceptance gain while allowing the alleged acceptance to be manifested/exercised in the form of killing that which is to be accepted… go figure. (Yeah, it’s okay as long as we can kill it.)

  18. Louise Kane says:

    just when you think you have seen the worst of humans someone sets the bar lower. Please post. I hope this goes viral as they say.

  19. CodyCoyote says:

    here’s an interesting take from an essayist at the High Country News on how Jon Tester was able to win reelection as US Senator from Montana. In a word : Sportsmen.

    Not sure I totally agree with gun rights and an anti-wolf stance being enough to carry the day. As elk275 has pointed out here, the Libertarian candidate siphoned off a lot of votes —6 percent of the turnout—that probably would have gone Republican . Tester beat Rheberg by 7 percent. I’m inclined to think the extensive biography and resumé of Denny Rehberg’s life and accomplishments prior to this election published by the Billings Gazette and other Montana newspapers were not helpful to Rehberg’s campaign…that whole unscrupulous real estate developer- sell the family ranch thing. And as I pointed out, a lot of eligible voters in Montana did not bother to vote at all. ( The Zen of it: to not cast a vote is also voting ).

    For us who favor Dems in the Senate at this point in time, having Tester back on board is a somewhat pyhrric victory. ( It’s that wolf thing )

    • Mark L says:

      Having any group claim to be responsible for getting someone elected is somewhat humorous….1 person is 1 vote. (period) Every action brings a reaction.
      Any group that claims they ‘got Tester in’ is in for a disappointment. People ran towards him to escape an even worse fate…nothing more.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        Agreed. Like so many other races, you hold your nose when voting and pick the lesser of two evil choices…

        Statesmen are suddenly an Endangered Species…

        • Salle says:

          Amen to that. Hold my nose is what I had to do as far as voting to avoid the Rmoney of the House… that being Rheberg. I hope the new gov., former AG, will be better on many issues but I’m not holding my breath. Basically all we did was dodge a bullet the size of a large mortar round.

  20. Salle says:

    Octopus Harvesting Ban: Washington State Mulls Measure After Diver, Dylan Mayer, Punches Animal

  21. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Wyomingites Split on Wolf Reintroduction
    “While opinion about wolf reintroduction is divided, there is strong consensus on hunting wolves.”

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I’m curious – now that hunting has been brought back to the wolf states, do we still have to reimburse ranchers for livestock? Surely hunting will take care of it? They shouldn’t have both hands in the government cookie jar.

    • Leslie says:

      This poll is the very reason why you can’t leave this decisions up to the people in the state. Hell will freeze over before Wyoming thinks wolves are a good idea.

      • A Western Moderate says:

        ++This poll is the very reason why you can’t leave this decisions up to the people in the state.++

        And your post shows the very reason so many of us westerners are so upset with the wolf situation. It’s not so much about the wolves as the people who don’t live here (or move here and keep their politics and self-righteous attitudes) trying to change things in our home. Wyoming law states ” …all wildlife in Wyoming is the property of the state…”

        I have found it most ironic to observe the events related to the legalities of wolves. Extremists on both sides laud the law as the ultimate gauge as long as it’s in their favor, then deride it when the same sort of technicalities benefit the other side.

  22. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Pandas face bamboo shortage threat
    “Their numbers already threatened by a slow breeding rate and rapid habitat loss, China’s endangered giant pandas now also risk losing their staple food, bamboo, to climate change”

  23. CodyCoyote says:

    At least six man-caused deaths of Grizzly Bears are being investigated currently in NW Wyoming. And that is about as much as the public is being told.


  24. JB says:

    Russian grandmother kills wolf with axe…guess they don’t have wildlife services. 😉

    • Mark L says:

      Wolf? I’ve seen coyotes bigger than that.

    • Nancy says:

      I wonder if this wolf was tested for rabies.

      “Most of Western Europe is now rabies-free, and several countries in Central and Eastern Europe are almost rabies-free, but rabies is still a problem in the Baltic countries, Ukraine, Russia and Independent States of former USSR”

    • WM says:

      I guess it is not just those lazy ranchers in the NE Washington, NRM, WGL who take a dim view of wolves killing their livestock. Suppose this Russian grandma had to report her wolf kill to the authorities? And, isn’t this the kind of anecdotal stuff from Russia, Will Graves was talking about in his book, with the forward by Dr. Valarius Geist? Since there was no fatality (of a human anyway), the incident won’t show up in some statistical chart.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Quick, it might not be too late to recant to avoid recannonization at B cubed. Come up with a Michael Robinson quote! 🙂

  25. Leslie says:

    Some suggestions flying around as to possible Salazar replacements if he leaves.

  26. Louise Kane says:

    it seems unlikely that we will ever agree on much, as far as what I said
    “They are such wantonly, cruel, destructive and barbaric devices;”
    I stand by it 100%
    I hate trapping and snaring. Its cruel, there is nothing about it that is defensible to me and you can quote all the science studies you want or wikipedia info. I know right from wrong and the look that an animal has in a trap is wrong. Its late, and I am trying to forget the image of a coyote that was beaten and stabbed to death after being caught in a trap. Not so inclined to be nice.

    • ma'iingan says:

      “…you can quote all the science studies you want…”

      Great answer, Louise. You’re all about science-based wildlife management. Except when you’re not.

      • Mark L says:

        I thought the ‘argue about trapping’ thread was next door, eh? (“no kill”, all that…)

  27. Mark L says:

    Now there’s kids tellin’ on their daddies about bear baiting too:

  28. JEFF E says:

    “Wyoming neighboring parts of Idaho and Utah”

    Utah?!? If only.
    (yes I gather it is probably a typo)

  29. Salle says:

    The anti-sagebrush rebellion is on!

    Outdoor retailers asking Obama for national monument

    The request to Obama revives memories of Bill Clinton’s 1996 controversial move.

  30. Salle says:

    Wolverine M56 goes solo in Colorado as feds mull endangered status

    Read more: Wolverine M56 goes solo in Colorado as feds mull endangered status

  31. Salle says:

    [Montana]Wolf Harvest On Pace with Last Year
    A total of 55 wolves have been harvested so far this year

  32. Immer Treue says:

    @Jon Way,

    Congrats for your piece in the winter issue of the International Wolf Center Magazine: Love Wolves and Hate Coyotes? A Conundrum for Canid Enthusiasts

    You bring up many good points, and your questioning is spot on in regard to why does this ” pathological persecution”(my words) continue?

  33. WM says:

    Environmental Groups sue over WY Wolves Delisting

    Defenders, NRDC, CBD and Sierra Club as primary plaintiffs:

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Mead worked with U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to come to agreement on delisting wolves in the state. Mead has emphasized that the state is committed to making sure that it maintains the wolf population and doesn’t risk having the federal government take over management again.

      I’m sure he is and doesn’t want the wolves relisted.

      “Rather than looking at Wyoming’s successful efforts, these groups are suing based on what they wanted,” Mead said. “Wyoming’s wolf management plan is working well.”

      What successful efforts? Their so-called management plan has only been in operation for two months. They only thing successful about it is the number of wolves they have killed off, and the fact that they somehow managed to have shooting on sight considered a scientific management plan.

      • WM says:


        Recall, the EIS for reintroduction only committed them to 100 plus buffer, and genetic connectivity with ID and MT in a meta-population for an excess of 300 (plus buffer). It will be interesting to see the actual complaint, including whether a judge decides whether they can limit them to a certain part of the state (10 percent).

        Maybe Ralph or Ken will make this a new topic thread.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Oh yes, I forgot about that. But “shoot on sight” just sounds rotten.

          • Leslie says:

            I was told by a lawyer working with Sierra Club in this suit that they had to word it as an objection to delisting in general, but what they are opposed to is the 85% predator and the flex zone with it.

            As of today in WY, 34 wolves killed by hunters only in the trophy zone, 4 killed by G&F in the trophy zones, and 16 killed in the predator zone. 54 wolves total killed as of today. If I assume that the magic 52 is reached by Dec. 31 by hunters in the trophy zone, add to that the increasing number of kills in the predator zone, add to that poaching, add to that WG&F control kills–subtract that from 232 wolves outside YNP and…can Mead still say “the state is committed to making sure that it maintains the wolf population and doesn’t risk having the federal government take over management again.” I’m no expert in their numbers but I am puzzled by how they are figuring this.

  34. Louise Kane says:

    This came to me from the wolfwatchers
    While its good to see hunters voicing opposition against hunting wolves with dogs it does not appear to be out of concern for the cruelty more of a fear of losing hunting opportunity and habitat disruption.

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 13, 2012
    Contact: Henry Koltz, Schmidt, Darling & Erwin, (414) 248-4300
    Mainstream Hunters to Enter Wolf Hunt Fray
    Wisconsin hunters voice opposition to use of dogs for Hunting Wolves
    MADISON—A group of mainstream Wisconsin hunters received permission today to file a legal brief with the Court voicing their opposition, as life-long hunters and land-owners, to the unrestricted use of dogs for training and hunting wolves. Their brief will lend support to a lawsuit currently underway against Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) and Natural Resources Board seeking to stop DNR from authorizing the use of dogs to hunt wolves without the regulations necessary to prevent deadly confrontations between dogs and wolves.
    Wisconsin remains the only state in the country that allows the use of dogs to hunt wolves.
    Although the use of dogs to hunt wolves has been barred on a temporary basis under a ruling by Dane County Circuit Court Judge Peter A. Anderson, defendants are seeking to vacate the Court’s earlier ruling and asking that dogs be allowed for wolf hunting and training purposes this season. In opposition, Plaintiffs, a federation of over 40 humane societies from across Wisconsin as well as private citizens and conservation organizations, will be asking the Judge to find that DNR’s rule violates Wisconsin law by failing to include restrictions to prevent deadly physical encounters between dogs and wolves and will be seeking a permanent injunction until such restrictions are implemented.
    Now other Wisconsin hunters and landowners are seeking a voice in this action.
    “Mainstream Wisconsin hunters are concerned that the lack of reasonable rules currently governing the use and training of dogs to hunt wolves will interfere with established deer, turkey, grouse and other hunts,” states Henry Koltz, who represents a group of Wisconsin hunters. “Any interference with Wisconsin’s established hunts has the possibility to negatively impact thousands of Wisconsin jobs and the reported $1 billion economic impact of hunting in Wisconsin. We strongly recommend that DNR approve reasonable restrictions on the use of dogs for wolf hunting in order to protect Wisconsin jobs and preserve Wisconsin landowners’ rights.”
    One such hunter is Ed Mathwig, who has hunted ruffed grouse with bird dogs every year in Wisconsin for over 50 years but will not be hunting this year as a result of the disputed DNR rule. “Never before now, have I had to worry about my bird dogs being placed in jeopardy while hunting.” Mathwig states, “However, this year, for the first time, I will not be taking my dog grouse hunting, because I will not put him at risk of injury or death posed by packs of dogs running loose in pursuit of wolves.”
    Other Wisconsin hunters, including a number who share ownership in a 700 acre hunting camp in Bayfield County, support restrictions on the use of dogs for wolf hunting, contending that unleashed dogs in pursuit of wolves will trespass upon their lands, disrupt habitat, and degrade their hunting experience. “Whether we are hunting, hiking or just enjoying the forest, we don’t want our space disrupted by packs of dogs,” states Bobbi Rongstad, who hunts deer with rifle and bow on private lands she owns in Bayfield and Iron Counties, states, “By allowing unrestricted, year-round training of dogs on wolves across much of the state—before, during and after the hunting season—DNR is not being fair to the majority of Wisconsin hunters.”

    “Dogs know no boundaries and are out of their owners control for much of the time,” states Jeff Baylis, a lifelong deer and small game hunter, “Besides leading to trespass situations and conflicts with landowners, DNR’s failure to set limits on running dogs on wolves will drive wildlife from the areas that I hunt and disrupt my hunting enjoyment.”

    Baylis adds, “While there is some logic to using dogs on animals that can be treed, wolves cannot be treed but instead will be cornered by a dog pack, which is likely to be a bloody, violent and cruel business.”

    The hearing on the parties’ cross-motions is scheduled for December 20, 2012.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      These sound like true hunters. Good sense prevail!

    • Immer Treue says:

      Good, but from most of the comments, seems like most are more concerned about how they are affected rather than the ethics of using dogs to hunt wolves.

  35. aves says:

    More on the new group of black-footed ferrets found in South Dakota. The contractors are really playing up the chances the ferrets are not from another reintroduction site. That seems extremely unlikely to me. Over a few generations it wouldn’t be that hard for the ferrets to hop-scotch across the prairie dog colonies in between the 2000 release site and the new spot.

    I’d be interested in Cody Coyote’s thoughts on the subject, given that he or she was involved in some of the initial recovery work.

    • SAP says:

      Well, I guess that petitioning to “leave peacefully” is a good sign — at least they understand that the Constitution makes no provisions for states seceding.

      The Constitution does allow for making a new state out of existing ones. Maybe we could make them a homeland, oh, I don’t know, somewhere on reclaimed strip-mine land in eastern Wyoming? Maybe something with a little coal left, so they can stay warm? But no interstates, no DOD sites. Definitely no ICBMs.

      Azholistan? Dumastuckyia?

  36. JB says:

    Not at all related to wildlife, but my wife and I welcomed our second (and final) child into the world today (and before I turned 40)–an 8lbs 7oz boy (Miles). So little good news these days, I couldn’t help but share some of my own. 🙂

  37. Rita K. Sharpe says:

    Congratulations,JB,and to your wife.

  38. JEFF E says:

    “The aspen is found in northern climes and higher elevations. Its white bark and gently vibrating leaves are attractive, but its root system is insidious, sending up dozens of suckers that relentlessly try to turn into new trees. Once established, it’s war. In fact, the largest living organism in the world is a Colorado aspen root system called Pando. It weighs 6,600 tons and is thought to be 80,000 years old. Try digging that out!”

    Read more:

  39. SAP says:

    Killing the Wedge Pack: $77,000

    Granted, the aerial gunning was substantially cheaper than the ground-hunting effort. The $77K does not appear to include radio collaring or other labor invested in this pack.

  40. Connie says:

    From the Wolfwatcher FB Page:
    “Breaking – For the last several days, we have heard news from Yellowstone that several wolves have been killed by hunters. Dr. Doug Smith from the Yellowstone Wolf Project reported to us, “With this many lost we probably can no longer maintain that we are an ‘unexploited’ wolf population as this is approaching 10% of our total population. It is also hampering our ability to do the research as 2 of the collars were GPS and 1 shot yesterday was the only radio collared wolf in the pack, so we can no longer track that pack.” (This wolf, 823F, was from the newly identified Junction Butte pack).”

    Note added: I also read elsewhere that 754M of the Lamar Canyon Pack is one of those killed.!/

    • Rita K. Sharpe says:

      It was just a matter of time.Where they in the park or on the boundries?

      • Connie says:

        Had to be outside of YNP, as I’ve been told all were legally taken.

        • Salle says:

          This is the reason that wolf advocates argued for a buffer zone around the park so that the park wolf packs would less affected or unaffected by the hunts, apparently another loss on a number of levels.

          That really pisses me off.

          And there is another consideration here, the loss of time, effort and research funds that went into these ongoing long-term studies, now lost due to fetishism that has little value compared to the value of the information the park wolf research provided. Just disgusting.

          • Connie says:

            I find it odd that all 7 of the recently killed Yellowstone wolves were collared.

            • Ralph Maughan says:


              It isn’t hard to buy the tracking gear, you have to be willing to stand out in the cold with your antenna trying different frequencies, I used to do this with Lynne Stone to find Idaho wolves.

              I learned from another person who tracks bears that by listening carefully to Park employees in their casual talk in parking lots, etc., frequencies and other information can be learned.

          • Immer Treue says:


            “fetishism that has little value”. Unique perspective of summarization that is very probably as close to describing the thought process behind the action as one can get.

            • Salle says:


              From what I learned in my anthropology classes, this activity of trophy hunting qualifies as just that. Took me half a second to come up with that term for the comment.

          • Jerry Black says:

            And trapping hasn’t even begun in Montana….that will be a real blood-bath.

            Everyone I know that submitted a comment mentioned a buffer zone around the Parks.
            Wasn’t even considered by the commission.

            • Ralph Maughan says:

              From what I hear about the Montana commission by reading the news, they make Idaho gang of good ‘ol boys look sophisticated and restrained.

              Lately they have been caving into the cattle lobby which wants to shoot a bunch of elk because of their old, and I thought completely discredited old red herring, brucellosis.

          • WM says:

            Has this news/information on Facebook and attributed to Doug Smith been confirmed as true?

            It certainly seemed a buffer zone around YNP was a necessary feature to protect the wolves there but whose range extended outside the the Park. The loss of the wolves, the instant cessation of research information on them. and the interruption of important studies in progress is a huge waste, and tragic loss on several levels.

            It would be interesting to know what kind of lobbying, for what seemed like an essential and obvious buffer zone along YNP boundaries, by the NPS by researchers like Doug Smith, McNulty, Stahler, and the other folks, as well as independent researchers like vonHoldt and Wayne and a host of others at institutions across the US; and even within FWS like Mech.

            I suppose it is possible there were legal issues associated with whether the federal government could dictate to the states what was done outside the official land boundaries of YNP, and whether states voluntarily doing so would open the door to other issues making any identified areas de facto federal reserves for other purposes without an Act of Congress, including private land. Not an excuse, of course, but it may have affected any type of a negotiated solution – one that might have been a gesture of good will toward responsible management by WY, MT and ID.

            Another interesting aspect is that the WY management plan RELIES on a certain number of wolves/breeding pairs in YNP as part of the overall number WY must meet.

            What a shame, IF TRUE.

            • Leslie says:

              Here is WY language for what counts and what does not. Population as of Dec. 31 of that year. Wolves INSIDE YNP do NOT count. Wolves inside Teton NP WILL count.

              “Breeding pairs and
              wolves with territories predominantly inside YNP and the WRR will not count toward
              Wyoming’s wolf population objective of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves but
              will be counted towards the GYA population. Wolves within GTNP and the NER will count
              towards Wyoming’s objective of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves outside YNP
              and the WRR because wolf packs that inhabit these jurisdictions are transboundary packs that
              spend some of the year outside these jurisdictions in the WTGMA and are not counted toward
              other population objectives”

            • WM says:


              It has been awhile since I have looked at the documents, but it was my understanding the WY 10 breeding pairs, etc., was predicated as the number if and only if certain population objectives were met within YNP. If the number in YNP goes down, it would seem logical the obligation of WY outside YNP goes up. Nonetheless, there is, I think, an obligation to look at the combined total.

              My apologies if I have this wrong, and maybe there is an explanation in the WY delisting rule (not just the WY Plan dated September 14, 2011). Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up right now.

            • Jerry Black says:

              WM…..”Lobbying by YNP and researchers”??
              None that I’m aware of, unless it was “behind the scenes”….I don’t recall anyone in that category testifying at the hearings that I attended.
              IMHO……just too much political pressure.

            • WM says:


              I would think advocacy for a YNP buffer “wolf hunter free safe zone” by federal scientists (lobbying in my earlier words) would not take place in a public hearing forum, but rather behind the scenes. That of the university researchers would seem appropriate for hearing testimony.

              The September 2012 federal delisting rule for WY has a great map about 6 pages in showing the overlap of some of these fringe packs that use YNP, and how obvious it seems a buffer zone would make sense.


            • Jerry Black says:

              WM….thanks. “That of the university researchers would seem appropriate for hearing testimony.”
              I don’t want to get into this issue again, but I’m dismayed at the lack of testimony from university researchers. When asked “off the record”; it’s because of their funding sources (usually state agencies) AND the agencies that issue them permits to trap, collar etc for their research.
              So very seldom , if ever, do they show up at hearings.
              Maybe JB can shed light on this.

            • JB says:


              Certainly there is pressure on university researchers not to upset funders. Regardless, numerous researchers have spoken out (often against state agencies’ wishes); Scott Creel, John Vucetich, Adrian Treves, for example, have all spoken out about wolves. A colleague of mine upset our state DNR last year when he told the press that Asian carp would not be a big deal in the Great Lakes. A reproductive biologist, he reasoned that there are too few rivers and streams that have the conditions necessary for their reproduction. (Needless to say, this didn’t go over well.) I know that other university researchers have had their jobs threatened (by legislators) when they speak out on issues (wolves included).

    • Leslie says:

      Connie, wondering if that wolf was taken in WY or Montana? The Lamar pack frequently travels in and out of the NE corner of the park by where I live. 7 wolves have already been killed in my area

      • Connie says:

        I read that he was killed in Wyoming. Not sure where. Guess he wandered out past the Northeast Entrance toward the Sunlight Basin or toward Cody? I don’t think the Lamar Canyon Pack has been seen in the last week.

  41. Leslie says:

    I did find this post:

    In late October wolf #824M a male Mollie wolf was killed,
    In early November #829F a Blacktail Plateau female wolf was killed
    Sunday November 10, #754M the Betamale of the Lamar Canyon pack was killed in WY
    Tuesday November 13, #823F the only collared wolf in the newly formed Junction Butte pack was killed in MT
    At an unknown time the Alpha Pair # 762 and 763 of the Madison Pack that have been in and out of YNP recently were killed — it is unknown what has happened to the rest of the pack.
    793 of the Snake River pack just south of YNP was killed in WY.

  42. Leslie says:

    Sunday November 10, #754M the Beta male of the Lamar Canyon pack was killed in WY

    Yes, that was killed in my area…

    Salle, you are exactly right about a buffer zone around the park. The NE area where I live is where the first pack outside the park formed. It is a source for genetic exchange and a buffer for disease inside the park.

    Unfortunately, WY’s delisting is all about hunting right around the park, and killing 365/days/yr. outside that zone. Quite unsustainable seems to me.

  43. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Tiger killer given strong punishment
    14 months disciplinary labour and a fine of US$ 18,500. I like the idea of “disciplinary labour” !

  44. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Legendary bear of the Adirondacks killed by hunter
    Her ear tags were absent at the time of her death, the Almanack reports, adding that she still had on her radio collar, which allowed for her identification.

  45. Peter Kiermeir says:

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services To Possibly Remove Sea Otter Ban
    You wouldn´t believe, there is a “no otter” management zone!

  46. Savebears says:

    I seriously doubt you are ever going to see a buffer zone around the park, it would take an act of Congress. In essence you are asking for the park to be enlarged. I don’t see any of the three states involved doing it voluntarily.

    • jon says:

      How are yellowstone wolves supposed to be protected? You think people are going to stand by and see their yellowstone wolves killed and not do anything about it? Wouldn’t fish and wildlife agencies have the power to create a buffer zone?

      • Savebears says:


        You have to remember these wolves also belong to those hunters, they are tax paying citizens of the United States of America, Yellowstone wolves do not belong just to people like you. Any attempt to put a buffer zone around Yellowstone is going to be taken by the states as a movement to enlarge the park. It will take an act of Congress.

        Yellowstone wolves are protected just as any other wildlife that lives in Yellowstone, Elk, Deer, Birds all migrate out of the park and are legal to hunt outside of the park, as long as they stay in the park, they are protected.

        I know wildlife does not recognize boundaries, but Humans do, that is the way things are set up, wolves don’t know if they are Yellowstone wolves, they don’t know if they are in Yellowstone, Wyoming or Montana..

        They are legal game animals outside of the park.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          But with a collar on, it can be seen that they are being followed for science. To interrupt that is mean-spirited and flauting the rules and law. And if they are tracking the collared wolves….I just don’t know what to say.

          Yes, they do belong to everyone – and killing them takes them away from everyone, forever. Hunters do not have the right to do that. They agreed to hunt outside the park. The rule needs to be changed about buffers, because human imposed-boundaries do not reflect the reality of the situation. It needs to take into account actual human nature, not what we would like ourselves to be.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Birds are protected outside the park by The Migratory Birds Act. There is already a ‘buffer zone’ (more of a gauntlet) written into Wyoming’s law.

            • jon says:

              Something is obviously going to have to change. Now this this has happened, just maybe the fish and game agencies will come to their senses and create a buffer around ynp to protect the wolves from the trigger happy hunters. It needs to be done or more yellowstone wolves are going to fall prey to the hunter’s gun.

        • Ralph Maughan says:


          The wolves do not belong to the hunters, nor do the elk. A hunter cannot take possession until it is killed.

          While living they belong to the state.

          The state can put a no wolf-hunting buffer zone around the Park. It requires no federal action. The fact that they didn’t speaks volumes. In the previous Montana wolf hunts they did allow hunting next to the Park, but there was a quota.

          Your comment to Jon is not accurate

          • Connie says:

            Thank you for setting the record straight. The “act of Congress” argument is one I hear everytime a buffer zone is discussed.

            • Savebears says:

              The act of Congress argument is brought up, because the states are not going to do it, if it happens, it will have to be a Federal movement.

          • WM says:


            Your common sense point for the buffer seems without controversey at first blush. I personally agree an think it should be done.

            However, I think there is a colorable argument that if the purpose is to avoid hunting federally protected wolves residing inside the Park (and it should be clear wildlife inside a protected federal reserve of whatever kind IS FEDERAL PROPERTY), those might be considered federal wolves, getting a free pass within a buffer zone. Equally as plausible are wolves that spend all their time on state wildlife lands, and never enter the Park, and which are present within the buffer zone, which also recieve the same protection.

            Carring the argument forward, if a state does it for wolves, then why not any other species that spend time outside the Park (also federal property while within it, think bison, elk, deer). It has the appearance of extending Park boundaries through the voluntary act of the state(s) including on private land. I doubt that goes over very well with the local voters, or the property owners. And, it has the appearance of NPS/Interior stepping on the toes of the states.

          • Savebears says:


            In talking to our state legislatures in Montana, they have stated that they believe it is akin to a movement to enlarge the park if the so called buffer zone idea was pushed, it will not come from the state game agencies, that I know for a fact.

            My comment about ownership was a generalization based on the many here that say the wolves belong to them.

            You are correct, they are the property of the state that they reside in, until such time as they are legally killed by a licensed hunter.

            But again, I can tell you for a fact, FWP is not going to even float the idea of a buffer zone around the park for any legal game animal.

            As far as the Migratory Bird Act, there are birds included in that act that are hunted.

            I am not a wolf hunter, and I am not defending or condemning those who have taken wolves outside the park, they are not doing anything illegal under State or Federal Law.

            • Savebears says:

              If I remember correctly, there is an area north of the park, that no wolf hunting is allowed, I have not looked at the wolf regulations for quite a while now, but if my memory is not playing tricks, they did close a small area north of the park.

  47. Salle says:

    Taking over public lands a tough, complex task
    Study » HB148 envisions state control of 30 million federal acres, but the economics remain murky.

    Ha! The economics are murky but what about their minds?

  48. Salle says:

    Fracking Database: New Weapon Against ‘Sinister Secrecy’ of Industry
    SkyTruth reveals new tool for research and analysis of fracking chemicals

  49. CodyCoyote says:

    I’m sitting here having a ” Hole-eee Shee–itt ” moment. A 9-minute audio story on NPR All Things Considered from reporter Elizabeth shogren on the dumping of toxic oil field production water onto the surface of the Wind River Indian Reservation here in Wyoming. Apparently , this has been overlooked by the EPA for three decades because it was on Reservation land, but the heavily chemical-laden water found it’s way into streams and groundwater and affected livestock wildlife and everything else…

    Here’s the link to the story. ( a shortened version of the transcript)
    It’s better if you listen to the full audio of the story.

  50. Salle says:

    Loophole Lets Toxic Oil Water Flow Over Indian Land

    This is taking place on the WRRI reservation in Wyoming. Not surprised at the audacity of these oil companies.

    • Salle says:

      Sorry, Wind River Indian reservation which would be WRI.

      Worth listening to.

    • PNW says:

      The oil companies are colluding with tribal ranchers “GASP!” and the EPA. This is really an issue of cattle being where they don’t belong and a sense of entitlement to the dirty water by these livestock owners because they inherited the ranching business. They have no concern for the environment or others on the reservation that do not own livestock.

  51. Salle says:

    This is a bunch of pictures of beautiful baby animals…

    What sucks about it is that they’re all born in zoos.

  52. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Burma: World’s Largest Tiger Reserve ‘Bereft of Cats’
    The massive environmental destruction inflicted on the area by large scale logging, gold mining and plantations has very likely killed off all the existing tigers in the area.

  53. Peter Kiermeir says:

    California: Central Valley farmers want to end protection for killer whales
    Protecting the whales costs farmers precious water!

  54. Richie G says:

    A little late but congradulations JB to you and all the family.

  55. Richie G says:

    opps did it again congratualtions to all your family JB and good luck and good health too!

  56. Salle says:

    Ennis ranch to host BLM wild horses

    Cool, I’ll be taking a drive over there to have a look if they’ll let me.

    • WM says:

      Of course, there is no mention of cost, and it is doubtful this ranch is boarding horses for free (since some land is leased from the state). So, how many federal dollars are going to transport, pen orient and board 800 BLM horses (as against a total of 48,000 unwanted BLM horses/burros?

      Would this be another form of “welfare ranching?”

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Based upon the assessment findings, wild horse managers have little reason to expect the conditions would deteriorate.

      The condition of the wetlands and riparian areas near the seven creeks that thread through the property may even improve.

      Hooray! I worry about overzealous gelding, tho?

      • elk275 says:

        If a horse is gelded is he/it a wild horse? I do not think so.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          No, I don’t think so either. I would prefer that if birth control must be used, that the hormonal birth control that is reversible for the mares.

    • elk275 says:


      I have noticed that you quote various newspaper articles frequently and I suspect that you do not subscribe to the e-mail addition. I run out of my free articles within four or five days. Do you know of a way around the number of free articles that one can view without paying.

      • Salle says:


        I never pay for them and I usually get my links from an outside source. I don’t subscribe to any of them nor do I offer comments on any of them. I just open the article link in a separate window/tab and keep it open until I’m done. I read it and then copy the URL and the titles and maybe a quote. I know that some have limits on free visits but I have never maxed those out so far. Not sure how to go around them.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        My simplest method for skirting the paywalls is to load up my iMac with several different browsers. I use Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Camino, and Opera. Sometimes two browsers open simultaneously. Macs also have multihoming…they can be logged into several networks at once. I have both DSl and Wi-Fi .

        Each browser will be treated as a new user by the payw ? — just switch to another browser and start over. My Chrome-Opera-Camino browsers are used for nothing but picky paywalls and one-off sites where I don’t care if they track me.

        This is the quick and easy way to dance around the loggers. There are other methods for getting around paywalls but those require some soft hacks and chicanery that I won’t publish here.

  57. Salle says:

    Hayfields restoration benefiting wildlife
    Sagebrush, native plant reseeding will attract sage grouse, park biologist says

  58. aves says:

    Good news! The federally threatened snowy plover is increasing in Oregon:

  59. aves says:

    There’s a lawsuit going on in Texas about whether or not the state’s water allocation is harming wintering whooping cranes. Testimony from a recently retired biologist who ran the winter whooper surveys pointed the blame for increased mortality towards the depleted water supply. The USFWS has since changed their survey methods and went out of their way to criticize the old methods. It seems awfully coincidental that they would do this in the middle of the lawsuit.

    Background on the issue:

  60. Louise Kane says:

    This came to me today
    a good many people have been working to get a proprietor of a gunshop to abandon a planned coyote killing contest, the owner has been refusing and is cashing in on the publicity. Finally something is being done to curtail the activity.

    as posted by
    Carole Altendorf posted in Massachusetts Coyote Conservation Alliance

    Carole Altendorf 6:38pm Nov 15
    JUST FOUND OUT THE FOREST SERVICE IS REQUIRING A PERMIT!! NO HUNTING IN THE FORESTS. The pledge drive worked! 1400 people contacted the Forest Service today, and the Forest Service has advised Gunhawk Firearms they are getting a letter requiring a permit. I spoke with the Los Lunas activist, Elisabeth DiCharry, and she said: The remaining things are:

    1. We need to get the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) on board with a permit and if you possibly can, could you please telephone them at 505-247-0234 or 505-247-0235 and tell them you’re calling about the Gunhawk Firearms Coyote Killing Contest and that the BLM has required a permit so they cannot hunt on public land, the US Forest Service has required a permit so they cannot hunt in the forests, and we ask that the MRGCD also require a permit to protect the Middle Rio Grande area as well. Sorry this is so last minute, but we have been discovering different agencies as we go along.

    2. We have asked the Environmental Health Department in Santa Fe and Valencia Co, to discover for public safety and health reasons where the contest will take place, where they intend to bring the bodies, where they intend to store the bodies, and where they will dispose of the bodies. Elisabeth is arranging with her health care people to contact them.

    3. Apparently no ranchers or cattlemen have come forward requesting these hunters kill coyotes on their private land.

    So, it is a big question…where are they going to hunt since we have put up these roadblocks.

    I will continue to keep you posted. Thank you all for all of the hard work you’ve been doing.

    View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

  61. Louise Kane says:

    anyone wanting to thank Ray Powell for taking a stand against these barbaric predator derbies….good to see finally

  62. WM says:

    SCOTUS Justice Alito speaks of the Citizens United decision and free speech at the Federalist Society. Quips over liberal view that “birth does not begin at incorporation.”

    Federalist Society = conservatives with $$$$ and power

    • CodyCoyote says:

      Last night on Montana public radio, a program sourced from the Bioneers ( had a lecturer who addressed the notion of ” corporate personhood”. He laid out the case clearly that this whole ‘ corporations are people’ thing is flawed. it was never decreed as such by the SCOTUS…that notion was inserted later by an administrative clerk writing up a summary of the Court’s deliberations following a case back in the early 1800’s. Yet somehow it stuck , even though it was not codified as such.

      Fast forwarding to today , the Bioneers have been advising entities like states and counties and even communities that they can legally disavow the whole ” corporate personhood” notion. South Dakota has done this at the state constitution level with an amendment by referndum.

      The main thrust of the lecture was the process whereby Pennsylvania threw out corporate personhood in the case of corporate hog farms, directing the onus back onto the corporate owners to clean up their hog waste. Prior to this, the corporate food producers were able to make their money and foist the consequences off on the locales. This was applied to the 4-5 corporations that control 80-90 percent of the beef and pork industry , but the Bioneer lawyer said there was nor eason why it could not be projected onto the entirety of the corporate structure.

      Corporations are, after all , were originally chartered by the States and those states had oversight. Somehow we got away from that on a working level , but the Bioneer lawyer says the corporate charter framework never really went away. The States merely need to reassert their authority over the chartering.

      Constitutional amendment seems to be the direct method. Recall that Montana’s law against un limited campaign funding was by constitutional amendment, but the SCOTUS did not rule against it, per se. It merely chose not to consider the appeal from a lwoer court that threw it out. In other words, it would not touch the Montana version of Citizen’s United with its 10-foot insulated pole in an election year.

      There is hope Citizen’s United can be thrown down, but it may have to be done by the states, one at a time. If I’m hearing this stuff correctly…

      • Salle says:

        That could have been Noam Chomsky, he’s been lecturing about that for a while now, and he makes all the appropriate points, though I’m sure there are several other proponents of the concept, like me. I just don’t get asked to speak about it in public. It’s really hard to argue against the need to change the thinking on that.

        I first heard of Dr. Chomsky in college when studying linguistics though he’s been an activist with regard to ethnic equality and other related topics. He’s been affiliated with MIT for decades.

        The law that allows this is a holder-over from the days of the Mining Act of 18–whenever it was and other gilded age mistakes in policy that need to be addressed right away if the world is going to meet the challenges of humanity that is the reality of today and for the future.

        Thanks for bringing that up.

      • Salle says:

        Montana reaffirmed that corporations are not people by referendum on Nov 6 as well.

        And then there’s this:

        Samuel Alito, Supreme Court Justice, Takes On Citizens United Critics

  63. TallTrent says:

    “In 2012 the state spent $376,000 on wolf management. Removing the Wedge Pack accounted to about 20% of that amount.”

    “The National Forest Service reports that Diamond pays $1,034 per year for that lease. That works out to about $1.35 per animal. Using those numbers, it would take the Diamond M 73 years of lease payments to equal the amount paid by taxpayers to remove the wolves.

    The cost to the public for an all access pass to National Forest land is $80. The Diamond M can raise 60 cows for the cost of a single pass.”

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Something is very wrong with the way we do things and what we value. 🙁

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Thanks Tall Trent,

      This is so typical — the disparity of cost and benefit of wolf control, even assuming wolves provide no benefits at all, which I don’t for a second believe.

      • jon says:

        Ralph, how much did it cost Idaho fish and game to kill those 14 wolves in the lolo by helicopter? It’s not acceptable to kill wolves just because they eat elk. This is what happened in the lolo when Idaho fish and game gunned down 14 wolves just because they are wolves and just because they eat elk.

    • SAP says:

      While I agree with the points being made, the $1.35 per animal is not for the year, that’s for a month. So the season-long lease (probably mid June to mid October) is probably four times that amount.

      Also, while I’m satisfied to see a price tag put on lethal control finally, there was an earlier article about this

      that indicated that the bulk of the $77K went into a ground-based kill effort: “ground-based effort, which consumed 39 days, cost $54,500, and resulted in only one wolf being caught and killed . . .”.

      It is likely that they’ll get substantially better at killing wolves, but still, the helicopter effort did cost $22K.

      Plus, the $22K does not account for the expense of radio collaring wolves, without which the helicopter would have been virtually useless. I’d be shocked if the radioing was much less than $10K in staff time, equipment, and mobilization; wouldn’t be shocked to learn it was more like $20K.

      And, as Ralph aptly points out, none of this puts a dollar amount on having those wolves alive.

  64. Jerry Black says:

    The Extraordinary Effort to Save the Sockeye Salmom

  65. WM says:

    Now here is an invasive species problem with a solution. Galapagos Islands and its invasive Norway and black rat problem. Rat density is phenomenal. Remedy is poison in little blue cubes. What happens to the rat flesh once they are dead?

  66. Chris Johnson says:

    Up in here in British Columbia we are reacting to news of the provincial governments draft wolf management plan. We’d love if you could help spread the word, and would appreciate peoples insights in order to help us effectively comment. Comments are due Dec. 5 at this link

    And here is an article about the plan

    Chris Johnson
    Vancouver Island Community Forest Action Network

  67. Louise Kane says:

    This came to me tonight from Anja Heister at Footloose Montana
    and was posted on WCCL

    I can’t watch the videos or look at the images yet. I heard about them this week after reading and speaking with a woman whose pet/ambassador coyote was let loose and then lured by a bait onto a foothold trap where it was beaten and stabbed before being shot.

    There is no question that wolves and other predators need protection. These actions are not isolated or even unusual. The thought of these bastards doing this legally makes me feel physically sick.

    Please take a moment to post and spread the word about this.
    This from Anja

    Subject: [WCCL] WI wolves trapped, shot. (videos)

    Below is the link to videos/photos showing a struggling wolf in a trap, clearly in pain and terrified… after dragging out the torture of the wolf for family entertainment, the wolf eventually gets shot through the eyes and the whole family is laughing! THIS is the attitude we’re going to see in MT as well once the wolf trapping season starts on Dec. 15… it’s already happening all over the place – wolf management at its best… appalling to say the least!

    Video/photos were uploaded by James/Jamie Vee and his brother (?) Jason. Two wolves. I think the unfortunate grey was killed by their father, Scott Vee on November 12th. The black was killed on October 23rd by Jamie. The second set of videos are of the same wolf… they really drew out the psychological torment so they could film and savor their vampirism. I will attach photographs as well.

    You can find the images I attached publicly viewable, here:

    • Connie says:

      I can’t bear to look either, but would like to share your post, if you don’t mind. People need to know this kind of torture is happening.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      You know, can’t these people be prosecuted? And I use the term loosely.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I wasn’t going to watch them, but I figured I should have some idea of what goes on. I haven’t seen all of the videos – but I did see two, and that’s enough. My take-away from it all is the contempt and disrespect for life I saw and the sense of entitlement. I thought my opinion of humanity couldn’t sink any lower, but I was wrong. Thank you US Gov’t for bringing back such a barbaric practice. I don’t think this is moving forward at all.

  68. WM says:


    From the article:

    ++…while hunting is a murderous act of desperation that should never have been taken lightly enough to have morphed into a sport. ++

    Stoking the fires of discontent, I see.

    And, exactly what is “…murderous act of desparation?” Where these shit for brains radicals come up with such terms is amazing.

  69. Louise Kane says:

    WM try reading his book and the reviews before you determine the writer is “shit for brains”. A very pedantic and overwrought response.

    • JB says:


      “…hunting is a murderous act of desperation…” is not an argument, it is an indictment–and one presented without evidence. There is no content of note in the article, just some guy with a keyboard and an opinion.

      BTW: If “hunting is a murderous act of desperation”, what is eating the flesh of an animal someone has killed for you…? A cowardly act of convenience perhaps?

      • Louise Kane says:

        “a cowardly act of convenience”, yes Id agree a cowardly act of convenience and part of the reason, I try and am generally successful at avoiding meat.

        People get very righteous and defensive when the right to kill is questioned.

        • JB says:


          Good for you! I too have cut meat mostly out of my diet (beef completely).

          You said that “people get very righteous and defensive when the right to kill is questioned.”

          Of course they do! Our very existence requires the death of other organisms. It might make you feel good to avoid meat, but your body still requires energy. So some farmer will plant (and defend) their food, which will destroy the habitat of wildlife. Destroyed habitat = dead animals. Hunting requires the hunter to directly deal with the fact that other organisms must die for them to live. There is an “honesty” of sorts to killing an animal yourself vs. letting someone else do it for you, It forces you to confront this ugly truth of biological existence.

          • JB says:

            [Hit reply too quickly]

            So it is natural that people defend the “right to kill” as you put it, as killing (either directly or indirectly) is a necessary part of living. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I think what you and others object to is the idea that some would take pleasure in killing?

            This is where hunting (i.e., the pursuit) needs to be separated from the end result (killing). Most hunters will tell you that everything that takes place after the weapon is fired is hard work–and importantly, not all that enjoyable. It is the pursuit/hunt that most find pleasurable.

            • rork says:

              JB: “not all that enjoyable” – I dissent. I actually like butchering quite a bit. It’s very interesting, social if you are lucky, educational, and I find sliding packages of delicious (to my teeth) meat into the freezer very satisfying. I feel the same way about salmon. Blueberries too. I really like cooking too, especially for hungry people.

              I completely agree with the sentence before though. Pleasure hunting is turned into the pleasure of killing by the antis. They are then certain we must enjoy exactly the death part. It’s BS, at least I’ve never suspected it of anyone I’ve actually met. I’ve seen allot of people having pleasure steelheading too, even though they are releasing them (is it the pleasure of torturing fish in such cases?). We get very excited about big wads of morels where I live, which we slaughter in spring. Shroom hunters can get very happy in the fall too.

            • JB says:


              There’s always one… I grew up fishing and occasionally hunting small game and always hated cleaning what I caught; but I had one friend who was fascinated by it. If memory serves, he even took a few courses on butchering (God knows where?) before going into law enforcement.

              Not having to deal with the inner-workings of organisms was aspect of ecology that I’ve always found particularly appealing. 🙂

            • A Western Moderate says:

              Spot on, JB. More people need to understand that.

          • Louise Kane says:

            JB our very existence does not require killing for fun. Nor does it require inflicting pain, misery, fear and terror on other creatures.

            You have just introduced a new person to the world (and a belated congragulation to you and your family), will you defend the type of sadism that is being posted regularly now, that I posted last night? I hope your child lives in a more humane world then we accept and allow now.

            • JB says:

              Thanks, Louise. I will never defend sadism; however, what you’re proposing is banning an activity based upon the abhorrent behavior of individuals (i.e., punishing all for the behavior of a few). Every single day people are killed by drivers acting irresponsibly; should we ban driving (and cars) because of their behavior? Don’t even get me started on alcohol…

              Why throw out the baby with the bath water? (Sorry just seemed appropriate) 😉

            • Rita K. Sharpe says:

              (on JB’s comment below) I must have had some bad teachers,when going thru school,for we were all punished if someone broke a school rule,classroom rule,or acted up in class.The offender got an ear full during recess or after school,not to mention our parents.

            • Ralph Maughan says:

              My view is that our very existence depends on the conservation of ecosystems — habitats in which organisms, including ourselves, live. This is much more fundamental than questions about the ethics of how energy flows in the ecosystems. Organisms eating other organisms is the major part of the energy flow.

              Now the view I just stated is not as easy to break down into simple words or phrases like arguing over individual rights of humans or of animals, killing commercially, for sustenance or for fun, or as part of a ritualistic process (as in the traditions of hunting or fishing).

              If we and our biological environments do not persist, neither will we exist unless a small number of us are able to create a totally artificial environment somewhere.

              This is why I get agitated over things like invasive species, feral animals, changing weather patterns, pollution, emergent diseases and the like.

            • Mark L says:

              I agree Rita,
              That’s why I’ve compared it to racism against blacks in the south and against native Americans in the West (actually everywhere). Until your peers condemn an action, there is an implication that it’s OK as long as you are not the one caught. Get caught, and all your ‘friends’ abandon ship on you…throwing you ‘to the wolves’ as it were (appropriate use of this I guess). I speak of torture, not just hunting here. If y’all are into that ‘shooter porn’ stuff, you are on your own, but some of it encourages the torture obviously.
              For the record, I’m with rork on the butchery though…I’m a biology/physiology geek also…got to study the innards and all. I hate to see thing wasted.

            • JB says:

              Rita: Your classroom must have had lots of duncecaps? I wonder what your teacher did when Johnny acted up and the whole class was sent to the office? 😉

            • Rita K. Sharpe says:

              JB,To answer your queston about the duncecaps.I don’t recall any but the icey glares from your fellow classmates was bad enough but I do remember the priciple making an appearances to our class,if it was called for.However,it would be a different story in the spring,when everyone wanted go out to the fields/woods.There wouldn’t have never been enough duncecaps to pass around. There was another world outside the classroom window.Our eyes had a hard enough time staying focused on the blackboard with all those endless places to explore and the smell of Spring was more than any kid could take.

        • WM says:

          ++…a cowardly act of convenience…++


          When I go my annual ID elk hunting trip, we stay out for a couple of weeks, living in a wall tent, with our only source of heat a small metal stove that must be stoked with wood we gather and split, every couple of hours. We work hard the entire time, getting up and being out of the tent well before light, and sometimes not coming back until an hour after dark, sometimes wet and hungry. It is an activity I thoroughly enjoy, far away from electricity, computers, hot water and microwaves.

          Despite the dedication and effort not everyone gets an elk each year, and it has become more dificult in the presence of wolves (We heard them 5 nights out of 13 where we were, and we just couldn’t pick up and move to another spot). I did not get an this year, and was somewhat frustrated by that. However, I helped clean, skin, quarter and haul to camp the elk we did get. I also had my picture taken with the elk and the successful hunters, a big grin on my face. Can’t say I have the exact same feelings as when I do get an elk, but they are close. There is a feeling of remorse and gratefulness for the animal, but also a great one of satisfaction and accomplishment, the rewards of honest effort.

          I have half an elk in the freezer now. And, also have the good fortune to be able to give a couple pieces to elderly next door neighbors who understand the effort involved, and who enjoy the low fat alternative to store bought beef of unknown origin. The thank you’s I receive are heart warming and sincere. There is not one shred of psychopathic serial killer behavior in any of my experiences.

          And that is why really irritates me when people like you (on this topic anyway) or those whose writings you endorse go off on some baseless crucade to indict ALL hunters, and accuse them of behavior outside the bounds of your arbitrarily defined standards.

          And, as for the unfortunate plight of the bison in North America during the time of serial killer Buffalo Bill, used by the author of the book you cite, one must remember there were commercial and government policy motivations and even support for his activities and those like him (And, by the way I don’t make excuses or endorse what was done). I would bet Jim Robertson doesn’t disclose any of that in his book. Even according to the reveiws you link to there is acknowledgement that he sets up the reader to fall in line with his “jeramaid.” Look up the word if you don’t know the meaning, and then look in the mirror.

          • WM says:

            And, if you want to know more accurate history about the plight of the buffalo and those responsible, may I suggest a scholarly work, “Heads, Hides & Horns,” by Larry Barsness(1985).

          • WM says:

            Not enough coffee this morning, as the correct spelling is “jeramiad.”

          • Mark L says:

            WM says,
            “one must remember there were commercial and government policy motivations and even support for his activities and those like him (And, by the way I don’t make excuses or endorse what was done)”
            Hmm…sounds familiar. What current activity could be viewed in the same light?

          • Ida Lupine says:

            This to me is a beautiful post.

            It’s the bully hunters who cannot take out their aggressions on people, so they go into the woods and torture animals and videotape it for fun that I have a problem with. How can anyone, not the least of which our highest government officials, allow it. It is not moving forward, it is moving backward. While hunting is legal, shouldn’t exceptional cruelty be prosecuted under laws against cruelty to animals? What is interesting is these people can’t seem to help themselves or control their need to brag and videotape themselves. Hopefully, if ya give ’em enough rope….

            I love reading different points of view other than my own and I hope you won’t change a thing. I don’t even mind Woodsman because he’s at the heart of it wanting to save wildlife. I am not as zealous an advocate against the feral cats as he is tho.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              I have one cat who I never let out, ever – and she doesn’t seem to mind. There are cats that I occasionally see roaming through my yard and garden, but they are so healthy and well-cared-for looking that I don’t think they are feral. I don’t think I have any feral colonies, but I can’t be sure. I do have a lot of predators roaming also.

            • Immer Treue says:

              One can’t outlaw stupid. In the clips provided by Louise (probably should not have watched them before bed last night)the guys did nothing illegal. If I remember what the guy said with the black wolf, “it’s the best thing I’ve ever seen,” and the collared grey wolf where they waited oh so long, and the shooter did not look very happy after the shot…

              The kind of stuff for the anti-wolf hunting coffers, plus the death throws of the two wolves. Unintentional attention to themselves, and their legal act. I don’t know, if you want to video something like that ok, but to put it out there for the world to see, pretty dumb.

            • elk275 says:


              I agree, one can not fix stupid. George Wuerthner got it right ” how dumb can hunters be”. Putting stuff like that on the YouTube it only going to kick you in the ass sooner than later.

            • jon says:

              immer, the anti-wolf are really stupid when they post videos like that. Laughing right after they killed a trapped animal. The hunter took his videos down probably because he knows there will be a public backlash against him much like what happened to Idaho trapper Josh Brandsford. These wolf hunters really are their own worst enemies. They love posting videos of their wolf kills just to rub it in the faces of those sane people who oppose recreational killing of wolves.

            • ma'iingan says:

              “One can’t outlaw stupid. In the clips provided by Louise (probably should not have watched them before bed last night)the guys did nothing illegal.”

              Videoing the wolf in the trap was borderline illegal, according to Wisconsin DNR Trapping Regulations – “All live furbearing animals taken during the open season for such species shall be released unharmed or killed immediately and made part of the daily bag.” (italics mine) I believe the videos were viewed by WDNR law enforcement prior to being taken down from YouTube. At this time, I haven’t heard any official comment from the Chief Warden’s office.

              The trappers also ignored at least two of the principles that were emphasized during their mandatory trapping education – firstly, do not pause to photograph a live animal in a trap – dispatch the animal immediately and humanely prior to any photographs. And secondly, that any resulting photographs should not be posted on social media sites.

              The Wisconsin Trappers Association and Wisconsin DNR are lobbying to make wolf trapping education a requirement, in addition to the mandatory trapper education training. For those who attended the voluntary wolf trapping sessions this year, the Josh Bransford issue was brought forward and discussed, and it was abundantly clear that most trappers were disgusted with this kind of exhibitionist behavior.

            • jon says:

              If you hear an official comment about the videos ma, please share it with us. I don’t know if the videos of this wolf hunter killing s trapped wolf and laughing about were taken down on youtube because of people reporting the videos, but as of now, the trapper’s videos are up on another website.

              • ma'iingan says:

                “If you hear an official comment about the videos ma, please share it with us.”

                One of the idiots in the video was fined and his wolf was confiscated – he had never taken the Trapper Education Training mandated by the Wisconsin DNR. As far as videoing the wolf in the trap, the Chief Warden did not determine that it was a clear violation so there were no charges levied.

            • jon says:


              MA, the videos are still up. In both videos, both wolves are still alive and then shot and killed.

          • Louise Kane says:

            WM you write of the difficulty and expertise it takes to stalk and kill an elk and that its harder now because of the presence of wolves. Thousands of hunters hunt hundreds of thousands of elk and kill thousands of elk. Hundreds of wolves hunt the same elk…where is the imbalance here?

            I’m feeling a lot more compassion for the wolves truthfully. I also remember reading a post awhile back about one of your trips and you complained of only seeing two elk but your group killed them both. Conservation at its finest

            But as relates to the issue of these morons posting their torture of the wolves…. you complain” And that is why really irritates me when people like you (on this topic anyway) or those whose writings you endorse go off on some baseless crucade to indict ALL hunters, and accuse them of behavior outside the bounds of your arbitrarily defined standards.”

            First off, it irritates me to no end that people like you ignore the trend of sadism that does unfortunately exist in some hunting circles. I understand that it does not apply to you WM or Elk or many of you that post here but you put your blinders on when you argue that its a baseless claim to indict some hunters for their disgusting, inhumane treatment of wildlife. Its not isolated fringe activity, sadly its quite common.

            and whilst we are talking about looking in the mirror think pedant.

    • elk275 says:


      I am not going to stop hunting whether it is for food or trophies or a couple of hundred gophers on a early summer day. Both the author, you and others should get over this anti hunting thinking. Hunting or fishing is not going to end in our lifetimes. Hunting is not hurting the animal popuations and is one of the reasons that currently there is abundant wildlife populations.

      You can talk and write all you want about hunting but it is like abortion if you do not like abortions do not get one. If you do not like hunting do not go. The less crowded the woods and fields will be. On 11/26/2012 Jon Testors Sportman’s act is going to pass in the senate with over 90% of the senators voting for it. Hunting will continue. I am a little nicer than WM as I would not say ” shit for brains”.

      Tomorrow the Montana State Lands Board will decide whether to allow the Fish, Wildlife and Parks to purchase 4,500 acres on the Milk River where it enters Montana from Canada. This land is being puchased with hunter’s money. This land combined with exsiting state and federal lands will create a 10,000 acre parcel with 10 miles of the Milk River frontage with over 200 elk, deer antelope, various birds and other small animals. Thank the hunter for this purchase and several others that are now under review.

      • WM says:


        My apologies to those who are offended with the coarse language. My recollection from some such comments from Ken Cole a few months back, was that sometimes you really have to use such language to get your point across…. sometimes. This was one of those times.

        • elk275 says:

          No apologies needed. One does have to get their point across and this was one of those times. It is like handling a mule if a few light taps do not work, tap harder and if that does not work. A good whack with a long buggy whip will do the trick. I referring to loading my mule in the trailer as an analogy.

      • Louise Kane says:

        And elk….how can you write this and expect that I would consider this a rational argument against a book entitled exposing the big game.

        “I am not going to stop hunting whether it is for food or trophies or a couple of hundred gophers on a early summer day.”

        I can’t think of a thing I’d rather do on an early summer day then to get out and kill a couple hundred of some living animal. jesus

      • elk275 says:

        Here is an article from the Billings Gazette about the purchase of the land on the Milk River. They could be paying to much for the property but it is an interest parcel.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Wow – this is amazing. 🙂

          • elk275 says:


            This purchase with existing BLM and state lands will create a 10,000 acre block of public land in an area where there is little reason to create a wilderness. I am going to make a trip up there next summer if this sale closes. This is sportsmans money and influence.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              It sounds like a good thing to me – not only is it prairie habitat that needs to be protected, but for historical reasons as well. Am I understanding correctly?

      • Jerry Black says:

        Elk 375…..”This land is being puchased with hunter’s money.”
        Really???? Why then, did the State apply for federal funding to cover 75% of the purchase?

        • elk275 says:

          The 75% is from the Robinson Pittman money which we all know is a tax on hunting and fishing gear. Here is addional information on the project:

          There are 6 or 7 land pruchases in the pipeline this currently is the largest.

          • elk275 says:

            The state land board approved purchasing the said property this morning. There are many more properties that we need to purchase.

          • JB says:


            You are correct about the 75% match coming from federal funding. However, your post deserves some further clarification. The Pittman-Robertson Act created a federal excise tax on firearms and other hunting-related equipment. The Dingell-Johnson Act created as excise tax on fishing/boating-related equipment.

            Also, some gun enthusiasts complain about PR because they are not involved in hunting or are purchasing weapons they use to hunt. I’m not aware of any analysis of how much of PR funds clearly come from hunters versus other gun enthusiasts, but it seemed important to note that it doesn’t all come from hunters.

            • elk275 says:

              You are right. The two acts are sesparate but the general idea is the same. I have never heard of shooting enthusiast who do not hunt complaining about the P R act, but there is always someone complaining

            • Savebears says:

              I know several dozens of shooting enthusiasts that don’t hunt, in the many years I have known them, none of them have ever complained about the PR. The stores around my area actually have signs on the counter explaining what it is, and what it costs. No complaints I know of over the years.

            • WM says:

              elk, JB,

              It shouldn’t comfort anyone, but it is my understanding P-R exise tax purchased through FFL gun dealers is charged on those AR-15 assault rifles and high capacity hand guns, and the ammunition for them, that get to the hands of drug cartel thugs (since the tax originates at point of manufacture rather than retail sale, and there is no differentiation between sporting arms [term of art] and those for which the design function is more aligned with assault on or defense of humans.

            • SEAK Mossback says:

              In our state, the Sport Fish Division which relies heavily on D-J funds has taken a huge hit since the recession. I had assumed the same had happened to the Wildlife Conservation Division, especially since resident hunting licenses haven’t gone up in quite some time and one would think that much more expensive non-resident hunting would be more economically sensitive than non-resident angling, plus we keep hearing that the percent of hunters in the population is declining. However, I found out that wildlife funding is actually doing pretty well, not because there is more hunting anywhere but because of the great increasing enthusiasm by Americans for firearms — and there is anticipation of a second “Obama Bounce” in revenue. It seems that firearms are increasingly a “must have”, not as tools for hunting but apparently for recreational shooting, defense, fashion, pure fascination and keeping up with the Jonses’s — and the whole thing is fueled by assurance of an imminent dark plot to prohibit us from buying more. Next, we will see (if not already) Barbie and Ken accessorized with his & hers heat. I know a guy who just paid $3,000 for a custom sniper rifle that weighs 16 pounds and has a 6-24 power scope — he somehow justified it for deer hunting, but I wonder how much he will lug that thing around the rainforest, entangling his bipod in devils club and blueberry. The rumor needs to be widely circulated that the administration and the UN are plotting behind closed doors to ban boron and graphite fly rods over 7 feet long, trolling downriggers and electronic fish finders.

            • JB says:

              “The rumor needs to be widely circulated that the administration and the UN are plotting behind closed doors to ban boron and graphite fly rods over 7 feet long, trolling downriggers and electronic fish finders.”

              LOL! Thanks for a hardy chuckle, Seak!

    • WM says:


      I read the intro from the author, on the link to his book, luring you to buy. That was enough. And, if you choose to believe what he states is the motivation for hunters and hunting, then go right ahead. Chances are there is a truth and credibility gap in his writing, but when has that ever stopped an advocate.

      I do know for many who historically found, or today find, hunting a rewarding recreational pursuit or food gathering necessity, it is not about the dark side this shit or “sawdust for brains” author wants you to believe. He wants you to buy his book.

      I have known over my life alot of people who enjoyed hunting, people who were successful in life, communitity leaders, academics, physicians, dentists, attornies, people who guard the wall and make it safe for us to sleep at night, men of the cloth, mothers and grandmothers, sons and daughters. Things like fringe examples or sad events from the early history of the West, which this guy apparently uses, to describe all hunters and what motivates them are disengenuous to the activity and outright lies about many who engage in it.

      If it makes this book makes it into the public libarary system, maybe I will take a look (but I don’t relish the thought of tax dollars buying it). Afterall, the reviewer you send us to says the book is “a powerful lot of fun to read.” So how is it on the one hand a book like this which equates the taking of wildlife to human serial killing, and exposes, so he thinks the dark side of human nature of those who hunt? Yes, “a powerful lot of fun to read.”

      Surely, this must say something about a voyeur reviewer relishing tales of supposedly abhorrent human behavior in the form of hunting.

      • Louise Kane says:

        WM, JB, Elk etc
        did any one of you take a look at the images that Anja sent of the wolves being tortured by these newly enfranchised wolf hunters?

        Wm you wrote….”Things like fringe examples or sad events from the early history of the West, which this guy apparently uses, to describe all hunters and what motivates them are disengenuous to the activity and outright lies about many who engage in it.”

        The post earlier tonight of the videos and images of the black and grey wolves being tortured are not examples from the early history of the west they are examples of the current mind set that still exists throughout the west and mid west when it comes to predators. This is unfortunately not fringe activity.

        You then argue, “it is not about the dark side this shit or “sawdust for brains” author wants you to believe. He wants you to buy his book.”
        That’s a ridiculous argument.

        I’ve stated before I’d never hunt but I can understand that some might hunt for food. Trophy hunting for predators is indefensible to me. And if you argue abuse of predators is a fringe activity then you are the one that is in denial.

        let me know what you think about these new series of images WM

        • WM says:


          You apparently missed the part about ALL hunters. So, you have links to a couple pictures of a very few happy wolf hunters. Not my cup of tea, but I guess these folks are entitled to brag a bit about what they believe was a successful hunt wherever they were. Not that many hunters for the total number of tags sold, apparently get wolves. And, I don’t know that it would be fair to conclude from a couple photos like this that these guys have psychopathic or serial killer tendencies. I would guess it would be just as likely they were happy they could tell their friends they eliminated an animal that makes it harder for them to maybe get an elk or deer.

          ++He wants you to buy his book…That’s a ridiculous argument.++

          Is it? Bet his publisher thinks it isn’t, and of course he wouldn’t if he wanted to tell his story and put a few bucks in his pocket. Geez.

        • Nancy says:

          Louise – just finishing read Decade of the Wolf Smith/Ferguson 2005, for the second time 🙂

          An indepth look at the wolves of Yellowstone from their reindroduction until the year 2005.

          There is a Special Note regarding Dough Smith. “Dr. Smith, who currently serves as head of the Yellowstone Wolf Recovery Project, co-authored this book entirely on his own time, and has received no financial compensation”

          Its a very good read, and its obvious, from an educational & emotional (NOT a financial) standpoint, Smith wrote this book so people could learn more about wolves, their history, their families and the impact they have on their surroundings.

          • Nancy says:

            Hit “submit comment” and then headed out the door!

            Ment to type “just finished reading”

        • JB says:


          I find it perfectly reasonable to condemn the actions of what constitutes a tiny fraction of the hunting population without condemning hunting and hunters in the process. I still don’t understand why this is so hard for you? You wouldn’t condemn all Southerners for the lynching of African Americans during the 1960s; you wouldn’t condemn all computer owners for posting of explicit sexual materials? I’m sure we could come up with countless other examples. I suggestion: is it possible that because your exposure to hunting comes primarily through the internet that you lack contact with counter examples? Here’s an idea: Sign up for a hunter-education course near you. See what’s taught. Ask questions. Make friends. After all, it never hurts to have more data!

          • JB says:

            Sorry, should read: “A suggestion…”

            • Louise Kane says:

              JB the laws may not stop all the worst offenses but good anti cruelty laws that carry swift and certain punishment will go a long way in acting as a deterrent, as you know. In relating to wolves and most predators for that matter, with no meaningful laws to protect wolves, the door is opened to even more abuse by those who already hate wolves and can now do pretty much anything they want to legally. Aren’t we seeing that now.

              as for the minority issue, let me rephrase, we are not talking about fringe activity which is what is being argued.

            • JB says:


              Actually, I agree with you about passing anti-cruelty laws. In fact, I think Ma’ noted that a few of these may have been broken in a prior video you posted? This is one of the reasons I oppose the nuisance/predator/unprotected status of wolves in Wyoming.

              However, you have also previously critiqued sport hunting, trophy hunting, trapping, bow hunting, etc. I absolutely do not support blanket bans on such activities, in part because they are impossible to enforce without banning all hunting; that is, only motivation separates so-called “sport” hunters from “subsistence” hunters. Moreover, the separation is not complete, many sport hunters (i.e., hunters who don’t absolutely “need” meat) also keep it for subsistence purposes.

              “…as for the minority issue, let me rephrase, we are not talking about fringe activity which is what is being argued.”

              Okay, but now you’ve just made a testable, empirical claim purposefully vague. We can test whether a minority or majority engage in such activities; but we might argue for the next week about what constitutes a “fringe”. And of course, this would also require an argument about which particular behaviors are abhorrent (which might require substantial debate).

          • Louise Kane says:

            JB I believe your argument that a tiny fraction of hunters behave unethically is flawed and incorrect. I think there is a lot of evidence that the “ethics” of hunting is not what you argue it is, anymore.

            You asked me is it possible that I lack experience with hunters, I don;t think so. I grew up with a father whose friends were commercial fishermen, who also hunted. After his death many of them are like second fathers.

            While most of the hunters I know have a lot more respect for wildlife then some homeowners who sanitize their properties by calling an exterminator the minute they see a wild animal anywhere near their property, there are too many hunters, too much poaching, too few laws to protect wildlife, no anti cruelty laws and too many hunters that refuse to condemn bad hunters or entertain new laws to protect abuses or provide any sanctuary for wildlife from hunting.

            I don’t condemn all hunting or hunters. I don’t like it but yet I recognize that there are some very good people who hunt by a code of ethics and they stick by that code. Aside from the fact that my code of ethics is quite different and involves seeing wildlife as having its own intrinsic value, and I selfishly prefer to see wildlife alive I acknowledge that there will be hunting. Yet, lie many others, I want it confined, I want my non-consumptive voice heard, protected areas that are off limits to hunting and I want hunting for sport done …no trapping, snaring and cruelty. Kill it and eat it or don’t and if you do kill then do it quickly and the most humane way possible… so that also leaves out arrows.

            But back to your other thoughts, you wrote” you wouldn’t condemn all Southerners for the lynching of African Americans during the 1960s; you wouldn’t condemn all computer owners for posting of explicit sexual materials?”
            Before lynching stopped, before blacks could vote, intermarry, hell not be sold as slaves… the country erupted in a civil war, went through reconstruction and then still into the 50s and 60s experienced riots and social upheaval as the prelude to the civil rights act.

            anytime there is a challenge to an injustice especially where there the injustice is codified and entrenched or claimed to be a cultural right or tradition, there is going to be denial and resistance and in some instances war. if you want to draw a parallel to wildlife laws and hunting practices, its not so hard. For centuries humans have killed wildlife by the millions, imprisoned them, abused, tortured and maimed and extirminated wildlife. Changing laws will be a slow course for sure… but some people don’t think the current laws that govern wildlife are right. Just because its always been that way doesn’t make it right.

            I’d like to see some laws changed and for the hunters to really open their eyes and take a look at how others are behaving out in the field. I ask you when is the last time you joined one of the less then savory huntng associations that lets say hate predators to see what they are up to.

            JB you are educated, young, well written and possessing a code of ethics and morals… its unlikely you associate with the likes of people who gut shoot, practice SSS, or get off on torturing animals. But they exist and they are not a minority group. With a hunting license in hand they can do it all legally and they do.

            So I challenge you too, scan the internet, belong to a grass roots advocacy group and learn first hand what they see and are up against. A university is a lofty place compared to the trenches.


            I also come from a long line of university educators (mother’s side) at universities so no disrespect intended about the lofty position

            • Louise Kane says:

              replace done with ended

            • Savebears says:


              You want bowhunting ended? Why? I have hunted with both a gun as well as a bow and my bow kills have always traveled less than my gun kills, rarely have I had a bow shot animal travel more than 25 yards, I have however had gun kills go hundreds of yards and this was with well placed shots.

              Understanding how each weapon kills is very important, it is obvious you don’t!

            • Louise Kane says:

              Savebears you are not the only one hunting with a bow, I’ll post some videos of hunters that teach their 4 year olds how to hunt with a bow and the animal was shot 3 times, or the people using them as target practice because they like to, or the animals that do run off and die slow lingering deaths with a dam arrow in them or the doe traveling with her fawn who took 5 weeks to die with an arrow through her face….yes I admit it I hate bow and arrow hunting. I can not imagine how painful a death this would be.

            • Savebears says:


              Once again, you are trying to group everyone in the same basket.

            • JB says:


              I appreciate your passion and respect your position, but you’ve made an empirical claim that I simply cannot reconcile with my own personal experiences, nor any data I’m aware of. You wrote:

              “…its unlikely you associate with the likes of people who gut shoot, practice SSS, or get off on torturing animals. But they exist and they are not a minority group ” (emphasis mine).

              I am aware that there are “pockets” of such people in certain areas. (I recently found evidence–several poached deer carcases–while out for a run in southwestern Michigan.) But there is simply no way that these people are in the majority like you claim. Again, nothing in my own experience nor in any study I’ve ever read would support such a claim.

              On a related note, I thought of you this morning as I was driving my older son to day care and NPR was caring a story about the legalization of canibus. One of the guests staunchly opposed its legalization, and stated that there was no way of preventing people from abusing marijuana were it legalized. I thought: What a silly comment, there’s no way of preventing people from abusing marijuana now; moreover, good people who may use it medicinally or in recreation are being punished because of its current legal status. Likewise, many of the laws you seek to establish will not stop sick-minded people from killing and torturing wildlife; however, they surely would prevent good people–people who obey the law and care about conservation–from engaging in a highly-valued activity.

              Something to consider.

          • Jerry Black says:

            JB…..If you had the opportunity to spend time in some of the areas of Montana that I frequented for 10 years (Ovando, Weise River, Wisdom, Phillipsburg, Superior, Hamilton, Darby etc), you’d understand that maybe its not the majority of “hunters” Louise is refering to as being unethical, but more of them than you seem to be aware of.
            There is a BIG problem with poaching, trespassing, road hunting, trashing campsites, tearing down gates, driving their ATV’s through streams….I could go on, but unless you see it, it’s difficult to believe.
            My son in law has a ranch along the Blackfoot and each hunting season has to deal with all these issues.
            Hunters seem to lose all sense of ethics as soon as they see “that elk” and having gone to hunter education classes makes not one bit of difference. Hell, they shoot at elk 500 yards away thinking that it’s no big deal if they wound it, they’ll get to shoot at another shortly. I’ve seen them in caravans of trucks following an elk herd around private property…they want to kill an elk regardless of the situation.
            Remember Bill Russell? He said a sports “fan” is short for “fanatics”….well, that’s what I saw within the hunting community, “fanatics”…they lose all sense of reality.

            • Jerry Black says:

              I might add…I used to hunt, both with a rifle and a long bow. A REAL hunter uses a long bow…Save Bears…not many of your type left.

            • Savebears says:


              I have spent a lot of time in those areas you mention, and yes abuse happens, but not by the majority, it is still a minority of people that do this. For every incident you saw, I can guarantee you, there were at least 10 others in that field doing it right.

              And as I said, I have hunted all of the areas you mention and have taken both deer and elk there.

            • Savebears says:

              Longbow, Wood Arrows and Hand Honed Steel Broad heads! I still have never had an animal run more than 25 yards and I have been doing it for over 15 years now.

            • Jerry Black says:

              Save Bears…..I realize it’s not the majority, but it is way too many and more than 10%.

            • Savebears says:


              what is really sad, is more that 10% of drivers, drive impaired and people get killed, lets look at everything we have put into place to prevent that, how well is it working out? It is not the majority, but it is a significant minority and it costs way to many lives every single year.

              I fully understand, we have a problem with those who break the law, and believe me, most of the hunters want it stopped!

    • Rancher Bob says:

      Look at it this way, NM has a small wolf population, so until they have a larger wolf population, those hunters are just doing what would happen in nature with wolves.
      Science proves one of the benefits of wolves is they kill coyotes indiscriminately.

      • Mark L says:

        Rancher Bob,
        the fact that you assume a human with a rifle getting pink mist on a coyote is doing the same work as a wolf that actually works to defend it’s land and may take a coyote says a lot about how aware you are of the ecosystem around your ‘ranch’. Dude, get a clue. It’s not the same…..never has been, never will.

        • Rancher Bob says:

          I find coyotes killed by wolves, your right running for miles before your torn to bits must be different than a quick death.
          You may be the one needing a clue= lay off the weed.

          • Mark L says:

            Rancher Bob says,
            “I find coyotes killed by wolves, your right running for miles before your torn to bits must be different than a quick death.”
            And? You don’t find the ones that got away and learned something, do you? You don’t find the ones that smelled wolf scat and stayed away either do you? Those are the coyotes that survived (at least until you shot them from long range with no warning they shouldn’t be in the area). Any coyotes watching the wolf encounter learn to stay away. What do coyotes learn from watching the victim of your gunshot? Nothing, other than a fear of humans, which they already have. There was no reason other than bad luck and wrong place at wrong time.
            And as far as ‘killing indiscriminately’, look over your research. I think you will find that’s not always the case….dude.

            • Rancher Bob says:

              Mark L
              Yes coyotes learn to fear wolves and live, coyotes also learn from being hunted by humans and learn why do they fear humans. Most coyote killing contest involve calling not wrong place at wrong time, coyotes circle down wind and avoid calls. If you do your research you’ll find coyotes survive hunting.
              As for the ecosystem around the ranch, on my hunt Sunday we crossed grizzly, black bear, lion, wolf, deer, elk tracks all on the ranch. When I got home I watched a coyote hunt mice for 20 minutes within 200 yard of the house, he caught 4. Yeah the ecosystem is real mess-up from hunting and those dam cows.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Rancher Bob,

        How can you seriously argue that a coyote killing contest remotely resembles anything that might happen “in nature”?

        Time for bed…so much denial tonight
        coyote killing contests, wildlife officials posting images of animals being attacked by dogs while in leghold traps, wolves being tortured…horrible horrible unnatural acts conducted by twisted men. how does one defend such things?

        • skyrim says:

          Keep fighting the good fight and know that support for your cause is much broader than that which may not be represented within this thread.

          • Jerry Black says:

            “Keep fighting the good fight and know that support for your cause is much broader than that which may not be represented within this thread.”
            SO VERY TRUE.

  70. Leslie says:

    Article in todays NYT about Wyoming as an example of red states feeling left behind. Comments are just as interesting as the article (article is predictable esp. if you live here in WY)\\

    • Nancy says:

      “The poisoned bait, developed by Bell Laboratories in the United States, is contained in light blue cubes that attract rats but are repulsive to other inhabitants of the islands. The one-centimeter-square cubes disintegrate in a week or so”

      Okay, so it disintegrates in a week or so but it is poison, right? And while not attractive to the local wildlife (in its light, blue cube form) what isn’t eaten, is left to disintegrate, seeping down into the ground or ground water.

      Maybe it would be easier (and more cost effective) to offer the many tourists, visiting the islands (another problem the islands also face)

      A discount or bonus if they left with a rat, or two or 10 in hand. If the vacation package was designed just right, I’m sure they could get a few gopher hunters from the west to visit 🙂

      • Louise Kane says:

        Nancy I visited the Galapagos not so long ago but long enough that cruise ships were not allowed. The govt was very proud and careful of protecting the islands. In every island I have ever been to, almost all of the Caribbean included, cruise ships are disasterous for the local cultures, economies and environment. I was astounded to learn that Ecuador was going to allow this mass tourism. My nephew married an Ecuadorian and they live between Quito and new Mexico, I’ll need to ask him why this happened.

  71. Immer Treue says:

    The early wolf season in MN is complete with 147 wolves taken, more than twice as many as expected. The breakdown was: 61 in the north east zone, an area of high wolf concentration and low depredation; 78 in the Northwest zone, high wolf concentration and high depredation; and 8 wolves in the east central zone, another area of high depredation. Included below are the depredation stats for MN, and I would direct you to the map on page six, and the zones and stats with map for the early season MN wolf hunt.

    Conclusions? Too early to tell. More wolves harvested than expected. Does this mean more wolves out there than one believes?
    The question I have, is that with the lottery system, there seemed to be a greater concentration of wolves taken in the NE zone, where there is little depredation. Will adjustments be made in the future? Or, will more hunting be allowed in the NW zone. The late hunting and trapping season begins November 24.

    OK, it’s known I am prowolf, and I could use this as a bully pulpit, but we will have to wait and see what happens after the late season. I can make a prediction what will happen, and this prediction would not support the major premise to address depredation, but for the purpose of trophy and revenue.

    Also, one of the rationales for the hunt was the take would be compensatory, as it is estimated 400 wolves were shot illegally during past seasons. Doing the math, with 3,000 tags among 160,000 deer hunters in wolf country, roughly 98% of hunters did not have a tag. One might think that the hunt would have small effect on illegal take.

    Tough to remain completely objective on this issue. Have to wait and see what happens after late season. It will be interesting to see what happens when all stats are in and if all stakeholders are allowed a place at the round table prior to next years season.

    • Mark L says:

      I’d say stop the trapping in the NE zone, for starters. Emptying the wolf population from the NE area encourages more wolves from Canada, eh? Like a vacancy sign on a motel.

    • rork says:

      Compensatory math: Maybe any killing of wolves will make some of the haters cool off, telling themselves something is being done.
      I am hoping that the killing of problem wolves will suffice, and let us argue better that no general wolf hunting is needed at all – I’m arguing just that in Michigan, and I hunt yummy abundant things myself. Since we are late in the game, maybe our general public will be loudmouths about it. I would be so proud if we could show that we are different – but I’m very pessimistic. I need charismatic hunters to stand up for eco-system considerations, and turn more thinking outdoor nuts to my side. Note my failure to get anywhere near beautiful, majestic, or noble arguments. I want integrity arguments (easy near me, where too many deer too many years have had a ghastly effect – though I can’t sell that to 90% of hunters yet, no matter how true). You should hear the shit I get when I question the need for coyote hate – not a nanogram of science I assure you.

      • Nancy says:

        Thanks Rock. Couldn’t agree more.

        “Big Game Hunting” season is about to wrap up here in a few days. A chance for wildlife, big and small, to regroup and get back to “their” lives -minus a few loved ones, depending on how you look at it….

      • Immer Treue says:


        Once the killing starts, it won’t stop as the revenue it generates is self perpetuating.

        Rationalizing with the haters won’t work as they continue to drone that the wolves are killing all the deer, yet, on average, it’s tough to find so
        Some up here who has not hit a deer with their car.

        Hopefully Michigan can get it right. Kudos for Michigan not jumping into things as did MN and WI.
        In MN almost 150 wolves killed in three weeks, and now a two month plus hunting and trapping season begins on the 24th.

    • jon says:

      immer, I was wondering if you could explain why MN is doing much better than Idaho at killing wolves? Idaho hunters can kill 5 wolves each this year and Minnesota hunters are only allowed one and so far, they have killed more wolves than Idaho hunters.

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      This seems like very good news.

      I wish we had someone who could write with authority about the details of this seemingly huge payment to restore wildlife to see if the terms truly are good.

  72. Louise Kane says:


    I tired to post several times today in response to your posts without any results losing the post each time. I’m on a friend’s computer. More later

    essentially, you prove a point. When men like you, that are much smarter then your average bear describe the activities of those “shit for brains” (to use your words) as just bragging about a successful hunt, there is a large disconnect between what I grew up seeing as torture and committing atrocities . Surley you are not categorizing these images as anything but atrocities and torture? The laws in place now perpetuate an ethos that is out of line with what you describe as ethical hunting. Defending these actions is something I really object to, almost as much as the activity itself.

    • IDhiker says:

      Louise Kane,

      There are many ways to define “smart.” Also, when one cannot strongly condemn horrific actions, just because the perpetrator is in one’s “tribe,” it takes away all one’s credibility. We have some on this site that are simply apologists, and they prefer to look the other way when something is inconvenient. Men that are “smart,” but lacking a thorough and solid moral compass. A fixation on what is legal, but not what is right.

  73. aves says:

    Endangered Mount Graham red squirrel numbers stable in Arizona:

    These squirrels numbered ~350 before receiving ESA protection. They made national news in 2010 when plans for 41 road crossings (essentially ropes across the canopy) costing a total of $600,000 were cancelled due to criticism from Senator McCain and others. The primary threat to their survival is the loss of habitat, especially from wildfire that is increasing in intensity in the area due to climate change and insect damage.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      The loss of 4 red wolves since the inception of the night time coyote hunt in NC should be unacceptable to policy makers. The powers that be should change the laws.

    • Louise Kane says:

      I knew about the 3rd, and have seen some writing but none that looks at whether or not there is a correlation to the deaths and allowing night hunting of coyotes. Do you know whats happening here Aves, any information

      • Mark L says:

        Oh, and aves, as long as yu are doing requests…if you have any pull with the ‘genetic testing crowd’, any chance you can have this item sampled?

        I’ve been trying to get somebody to pay attention to it for a while. No luck.

      • aves says:

        It sure smells to me like the two are connected but it might be hard to prove unless the poachers confess or are turned in by someone for the reward money. All 4 investigations are still on going so we might have to wait a good while for any developments to be made public.

        The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has always been difficult about red wolves but never this egregious. The Commission was supposed to hear an appeal of the night hunting rule last week but postponed it. I’m trying to be hopeful that all these killings will lead to substantial improvement in how the red wolf is treated. The alternative is just too depressing.

  74. ma'iingan says:

    This one’s for Mikey, who regularly insists that sport hunting led to the near-demise of wolves in the U.S. –

  75. Jerry Black says:

    Do Some People Simply Like to Kill Other Animals?….from Psychology Today

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Interesting to see Josh Bransford listed as Psychology Today’s poster child for aberrant behavior!

    • Nancy says:

      “I also don’t understand how some people can deny the suffering and death(s) for which they’re directly responsible. I find that when some people say something like “Oh, I know they suffer, but I love my steak” it nauseates me. And when they say they love other animals and then kill then I like to say I’m glad they don’t love me”

      Great article Jerry!

      • WM says:

        ++“Oh, I know they suffer, but I love my steak”++

        Beckoff sets you up, Nancy. He is very good at that. He assumes you won’t figure out that many deaths in nature involve more prolonged suffering than a hunter’s bullet which typically takes a few seconds, or an arrow, which takes a bit longer, but is a whole bunch more humane than starving, or death by carnivore (especially wolves), or maybe even death by magpie in the case of your recent starling incident.

        • Nancy says:

          Atleast in nature WM, wildlife more often than not, can identify the threat and usually has an opportunity to escape it by either bluffing or running away from it. Not so with bullets and bows, coming out of the blue, hundreds of yards away.

          • WM says:


            ++…wildlife can identify the threat and usually has the opportunity to escape…++

            So now we go from the suffering part of Beckoff’s argument, to yours, rationalizing the ability of a wild animal to escape predator or other cause of death verses the ability to avoid human caused death. My experience is that alot of animals are as able to escape humans as other predators. Some, however, make mistakes. Others do not. By the way, not much escape from winter hunger, and a lingering death that may result (unless an opportunist predator makes it quicker, which again can be pretty brutal for the time it lasts).

            And, I will submit ambush predators are pretty good at avoiding detection, so there is rarely escape in many instances. Someone sent me awhile back a series of incredible photos of a cougar creeping up on a couple big horn sheep on Lake Roosevelt (Columbia River). The big ram never knew what got him until it was over – guess that cougar came out of the blue (to use your words).

            PS. An bow hunter’s arrow rarely comes from a distance of greater than 40-60 yards, and never from even a hundred.

      • Jerry Black says:

        Nancy…..we know that those that do enjoy the killing will NEVER, NEVER admit it.

        • IDhiker says:

          How true, Jerry. I remember two stories I have been told by the people involved. The first was concerning a squirrel that got into the man’s house where he caught it in a live trap. Most of us would have taken it outside and released it. But not this person. He let his dog terrify the caged squirrel for a while, before then allowing the dog to kill it by opening the cage.

          The second was a similar story, of an instance when a skunk was hanging around a house. The owner trapped the skunk, again with a live trap, and then drove it up into the hills. But, instead of letting it go into the wild, where it now was, he released it and shot it with a shotgun.

          Clearly, these two men enjoyed killing, because it was not necessary at all in either instance.

  76. jon says:

    Coyote killing by hunters is what they call “fun”.

    “There will be cash prizes for most coyotes killed, as well as money for smallest and biggest coyotes. A light dinner will be provided to participants Nov. 25 after the killing is done.”

    This contests need to be banned.

    • jon says:

      Cash prizes for the smallest and biggest coyotes killed? What’s wrong with these people?

  77. Ida Lupine says:

    Deaths in nature are as nature designed them, and not in our jurisdiction unless it affects us directly. Death by carnivore, by starvation, or any other way. Carnivores kill for food, nothing else, and that is how nature designed them. I see this a lot, this placing of human moral judgements on nature’s way and the behavior of our non-human inhabitants, for example, which is worse: a coyote killed by a human or coyote who kills a lamb.

    Not directing this at anyone in particular, but I hear this kind of thing a lot, and I think it is arrogance for human beings to question that and to think one of their bullets is a better solution, a rationalizing away that it really was done for sport, perverse thrills, the result of misinformation and ignorance, convenience and greed, or in rare instances for food. We’ve got enough to worry about with the suffering and injustices we commit against our own kind. Personally, I’d rather take my chances as nature designed if I were a wild creature.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I should add that animals deaths by starvation or other reasons resulting from habitat monopoly by us or displacing or eradicating their prey, or anything else directly caused by us, then it is our responsibility to become involved and to alleviate suffering that we have caused in a humane way, not by a convenient bullet or poison.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      + …think one of their bullets is a better solution+ Maybe, but only if this bullet or arrow is properly placed which is not always the case, I hear!

    • TC says:

      Just a bit simplistic, I believe. Carnivores do not only kill for food. Heck, herbivores kill, and not for food. There are a wide variety of reasons (and in many times, reasons we have not the ability to decipher) why animals kill each other. Bison bulls kill calves, zebra stallions kill foals, elephants kill rhinos, rhinos kill Cape buffalo, mountain lions kill bobcats (and sometimes each other), crows seem to kill anything they can when the mood serves them, deer bucks will kill other bucks, dolphins will rape and sometimes kill adolescent females, ants wage war regularly, you name it, it’s happened, and it continues to happen every day. I agree that we should be very judicious in placing human values, ethics, morals, labels, or attributes on animals (although it happens here when convenient also – noble wolves trying to defend their “families” and live some virginal life – oh yeah, and brutally killing the “neighbors” like gangsta thugs), but you forget – we too are animals. We are not so evolved that we don’t share the same biological blueprints and behavioral/cognitive frameworks as most of our kindred species on the Earth.

      I’d argue there are times a bullet is a better solution. In some cases it’s no different than using barbiturate solution to take the life of a dog in the throes of terminal cancer. It can be euthanasia. Not when killing an apparently healthy animal during hunting season, but again, I’d argue it is more humane than starvation, death by wolf, death by HBC, death by disease, etc. Is it more “right”? Nope, but that’s a different argument – one that plays out here daily (hunters vs. anti-hunters). You over simplify complex issues and your arguments become lesser things.

      “Nature” is pretty brutal. People that spend a significant amount of time working in nature, with animals under observational studies find this out pretty quickly. I’m fairly confident you wouldn’t take your chances if you knew what those chances are for wild animals – there never is a good ending to the story; it’s always either bloody and violent or chronic, moribund, incapacitating and generally painful. I have no issues with either (although I similarly take no enjoyment in either) as “it is what it is”, but living in a Walt Disney film does nature and even casual naturalists a disservice – using human mores or scales, nature is nothing but one never-ending session of inflicted “suffering and injustice”. We didn’t invent either, we’ve just taken them to some pretty horrific levels on occasion.

      Finally – when did we cease to be a part of “nature”?

      • Savebears says:

        TC “when did we cease to be a part of “Nature””?

        I have been asking this same question for over 3 decades and have never received an answer!

        • IDhiker says:

          Possibly the people that feel man is not part of nature come to that conclusion because of the vast disparity in technology. For example, weapons, machinery, medicine, etc., between humans and the rest of the “natural world.” Man clearly can easily, and often does, totally override more “natural systems” with this ability to invent and build “tools” that are far beyond other creatures abilities. Of course, man is part of nature, and the planet will be better or worse due to man, depending on one’s outlook, of course.

          In addition, people themselves promote this separation from nature through religions and philosophy. Only people have souls, for example. Clothing, too. I have thought, sometimes, when wandering through a mall or down the street, that if everyone walking by had to do so without a stitch of clothing on, how animalistic we would appear, and it wouldn’t be a pretty sight with the rampant obesity of today. Our own technology promotes this separateness from the rest of nature, but, of course, we are not separate. Just a dominant species with the capacity to destroy more easily, but with the intellect to chose to abstain from that.

          • Savebears says:


            We also have the intellect to chose to participate. There are many animals in the natural world, that have developed skills and tools to kill their prey, that is where some are looking with a blind eye. We are not the only species to develop more efficient way to kill.

            • IDhiker says:


              True, but I would say we are the most efficient of all.

            • Savebears says:


              You will get no argument at all from me on that point, but I also know other species are evolving just as the humans species did.

            • IDhiker says:

              True, but unfortunately, probably too slowly to keep up with man.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            And there’s absolutely no proof of it, that humans have souls, or that they are the only ones with souls. To make such far-reaching decisions using religion as the basis is quite shocking to me. I do believe in God, but I don’t think organized relgion has anything to do with God.

            I too have been watching Ken Burns’ ‘The Dust Bowl’, and it was amazing to see that our native peoples have lived generally in harmony with nature and wildlife for tens of thousands of years, but that European settlers with the opening up of the West, from 1900 to 1950, only fifty years, virtually destroyed the Southern Plains and turned it into a barren, inhospitable desert.

            Thank goodness for the government soil conservation guys, I thought that was fascinating as well, WM.

      • JB says:

        “…when did we cease to be a part of ‘nature'”?

        A: At the moment that we invented a concept to separate ourselves and our works from everything else.

  78. Louise Kane says:

    Ida you wrote “death in nature as nature designed them”, I think more importantly the process of evolution and the success of species both as individuals and as a whole is intertwined and involves a complex set of parameters that never involved having thousands of people shooting, trapping, snaring, poaching and killing animals for fun. What long term effects does this hunting have on populations of animals? I know in some species of fish overfishing has lowered their collective age of fecundity and overall size, for carnivores and especially wolves and coyotes who live with unusual pack or family dynamics, what does random and excessive killing do in the long run? How can we know when there are no control populations of protected animals. a very ignorant way to “manage” wildlife.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Yes, it is much more complicated than what I wrote. I do think taking out the best animals over time is harmful to the species’ genetics and weakens them. This is (one reason)why I am so dismayed at hunting starting immediately after delisting.

  79. Louise Kane says:

    Savebears – get past the intro to the news story
    doe five months with arrow in neck with fawn

    another of an 8 year old 1st shot not disabling –

    There are 4 year olds I have seen also practicing on animals.

    sorry not quick not humane sick thing to teach a small child.

    • Savebears says:


      Most states require a bowhunter to have hunters education before they can legally hunt, if these people are teaching their children to hunt and allowing them to shoot/kill animals, then they are not hunters, they are criminals. Many states also have a minimum age requirement to obtain a hunting license. I don’t know of any state that allows 4 year and 8 year old’s to obtain hunting licenses.

      As both a bowhunting and hunting safety education instructor, I would not even allow children of that age to take my class, they don’t have the mental capabilities to retain what is being taught.

      So once again, you have sought out information on those committing a crime to group all of us in the same basket.

      Yet, when one of us groups all environmentalists into the same basket, you get pissed off.

      • elk275 says:

        Alaska does not have an age limit on young hunters nor did they have any hunter education requirments. It has been awhile since I have completely read the Alaskan hunting regulations things could have chnaged.

        • Savebears says:


          You will note, I said “Most States” when it comes to hunting, Alaska is a state onto its own and they have a completely different way of doing things.

          • Savebears says:


            Alaska, has a very different set of circumstances than we do in the lower 48, sustenance hunting is a requirement in most areas of the state. In Alaska, if you don’t hunt, the real possibility of not having food is there.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Savebears I did not seek out this information its like peeling an onion, the layers are all there once you cut open the onion. I was sent two of the videos I posted, did you look at them? There is very clear converstation between the Dad and his 8 year old and commentary about having to shoot the animal multiple times….pretty horrible in my opinion.

        again, not saying all bowhunters do this but its not rare. And just take a quick glance at some of the sites showing kids posing around dead animals. How can we expect new generations to respect wildlife when the first step is to teach them to kill. I’ve read Wisconsin had pushed hunting classes into their curriculum. You know, I don’t think children are evolved enough to understand hunting ethics, and certainly most teenagers are at a very conflicted time in their lives. Teaching to kill… I don’t know call me crazy but how about pushing earth science and biology at a high school level before teaching trapping,snaring and bow hunting.

        • Louise Kane says:

          and why is it that easily obtained examples of children hunting using guns, traps, bows and arrows, people abusing animals, smiling and posing with live animals before they kill or torture them , wildlife “officials” using their off time to kill and abuse wildlife is alway fringe or unusual behavior. Like I said, I’m sure you don’t behave that way but a hell of a lot of people do. Easy enough to find all day long

          • josh says:

            So in other words Louise you are against hunting! Teenagers cannot comprehend hunting? Really?

            • Louise Kane says:

              Josh don’t be so shocked its no surprise, I post here with enough frequency that it must be obvious by now. No, I don’t believe in sport hunting (killing for fun) or in trapping, snaring, hunting down predators with dogs, canned hunts, predator derbies, or bashing in animals heads or stepping on their necks in traps to preserve their pelts or killing an animal in any way that makes it suffer. And if children are being taught to kill before they are taught about biology or ecology then I think there is something very wrong with that. and teenagers sorry, like I said its a very conflicted time…giving most teenagers a rifle or gun seems criminal to me.

          • Savebears says:


            Have you ever once spent some time searching out those that do it right? Or do you focus on those who do it wrong? Based on your posts on this blog, I think you don’t look at the good guys, but you used the bad guys to persecute the good guys.

            You really need to expand your horizons, because at this point in time, you have no understanding of hunting, let alone the outdoors lifestyle.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Savebears I said earlier I have men in my life that are some of the best men I know and they do hunt. Some of my dad’s friends, provide the best examples and some of my Cape Cod friends. I don’t know any hunters that kill animals they don’t eat and I respect that. These men also don’t purposefully use methods that may prolong an animals suffering. One of them has given up hunting and taken to carving birds at which he excels. I love him… especially, in his 70’s now.. a man at home as the captain of many boats, a great outdoorsman, and respectful of life. He spends his spare time in a cabin in Maine. He never killed anything he did not eat. The outdoors lifestyle, I think I do understand it quite well. Killing for sport not so much

            • Savebears says:

              Ok, your Cape Cod Friends, I can guarantee you, they differ greatly from my Montana friends..

              Louise, you are an extremist, that is clear.

    • josh says:

      What does this prove? Just curious.

      • elk275 says:

        Just a statement to Save Bears.

      • Savebears says:


        It just proves, that there are individuals out there that are not doing things correctly and that environmentalists are using criminals to try and get hunting banned, when the majority of hunters are not criminals..

  80. Louise Kane says:

    JB You wrote, “Likewise, many of the laws you seek to establish will not stop sick-minded people from killing and torturing wildlife; however, they surely would prevent good people–people who obey the law and care about conservation–from engaging in a highly-valued activity.

    Something to consider.”

    OK what do you suggest?
    I ask in earnest
    because I certainly don’t know have the answer but I think that just accepting the way that wildlife is now managed and especially predators, is unconscionable. I know if I saw someone treating my dog or another dog in the way that people treat wildlife, I could do something about it, have legal recourse. Not so with wildlife. Worse yet wildlife managers tend to dismiss people who complain about abuses or treat them like they are ignorant. I know of at least one damned good researcher whose work has been stymied because he/she tried to prevent collared animals from being hunted.

    Some of the hunters that express frustration here because they feel that antis are trying to stop all hunting might ask themselves how do you think wildlife watchers/lovers feel seeing animals they have become accustomed to seeing and have enjoyed draped on the back of a truck dead and lifeless to be used as a trophy or left to rot. 3 coyotes in my neighborhood one year and others just gone….

    The happy pastime you argue that is valuable and provides a lot of enjoyment to some creates misery and sadness for many many others and is an activity that a huge number of people do not agree with. But the laws favor hunting because that is how its always been. I bet you have statistics but I’m quite sure the majority of Americans do not hunt. The most recent USFWS also showed that the majority of wildlife users were not hunters.

    If you believe that your right to hunt is threatened, then what about our right to want places where animals are not hunted. If you want us to work with hunters I ask you why don’t hunters advocate for hunt free zones… state or federal parks, anything? anywhere? Even asking for restraint against predator derbies or killing contests, creates an uproar about protecting one’s second amendment rights.

    I’d like to see some hunters get together and advocate for some wild places that are hunt free zones, to rally against killing for sport, to rally for humane treatment for wildlife and to ask for stiff penalties for the bad seeds. I’d like to once see this instead of that old argument, “we are not all like that”.

    I’ve even seen some pretty ethical, progressive and excellent comments by some ranchers here – including a Steve some time back who posted about his predator friendly beef, and that to me was pretty wonderful. Less likely to see hunters here coming up with ideas about working with people who like their wildlife experience to be about living animals. Conversely hunters always ask advocates to work with hunters. Hunters already have the laws working for them. Be nice to see a more even playing field.

    The exasperation you feel in hearing impassioned arguments to protect wildlife and wolves (from me) can’t be more than the bad feelings I have as I go to sleep seeing dead wolves or coyotes posted everywhere, There is a lot of anger and frustration on both sides.

    • JB says:


      What I suggest is a focused and restrained response. Many (most?) hunters fear and distrust animal rights and welfare groups, and their fear and distrust will lead them to be skeptical of any suggestions coming from these groups (in the same way you harbor distrust for hunting groups).

      If you want to actually affect change, then you need to convince the WMs, Elks, Save Bears, that you are not out to ban all hunting (I get that this might be difficult with these individuals at this point), but rather, that you seek to put a stop to animal cruelty. You can start by focusing your ire on the INDIVIDUALS who commit such atrocities, rather than condemning all hunters. Here you will find that many hunters agree with you.

      Moreover, many hunters are aware that the behavior of these people reflects poorly on them and would very much like to see it stop. So the way I see it, advocating for very focused laws allows you to co-opt support from many hunters, and potentially build a coalition of groups interested in ethical hunting. Or you can try and pound the nail with a sledge hammer (by going after hunting, in general) and watch as your efforts are frustrated by a coalition of all hunters united against your efforts.

      Part of what frustrates me (and I believe others) on this forum is that we agree with you and Jon, and Mike about what constitutes unethical behavior–at least in most cases. However, you lose the support of such folks when you start attacking all hunters for the behavior of a few miscreants.

      • Louise Kane says:

        JB, the frustration is equal. You wrote, “Part of what frustrates me (and I believe others) on this forum is that we agree with you and Jon, and Mike about what constitutes unethical behavior–at least in most cases. However, you lose the support of such folks when you start attacking all hunters for the behavior of a few miscreants.” Do you really see the problem as a “few miscreants”? I don’t and I’m guessing many others don’t either.

        • Louise Kane says:

          I think that characterization “a few miscreants” greatly trivializes the problem and does nothing to engender a fertile middle ground to open discussion .

          • WM says:


            Discussion really does nothing. Exactly what would you have the silent majority of ethical hunters do? I think the toolbox is pretty limited, especially where many of the bad acts take place out of sight, there is little law enforcement, and except for the occasional “poacher hotline” there isn’t a whole bunch some of us can do to discourage or prevent the behavior of the bad guys. That is the part I just don’t think you understand (and a few other things as well).

            • Louise Kane says:

              My points exactly WM
              the toolbox is limited
              But ethical hunters can support good laws instead of laws like the national sportsman heritage act or fighting toxic lead ammunition through support of groups like NRA, or electing people who do not have conflicts of interest into government or management positions etc. Lots you can do starting with defending the way states are managing wolves.

            • Immer Treue says:


              Thanks for the reply. I guess it’s tough for anyone removing something like a pine marten alive if caught in a body trap, and though it canbe done, tough for the recreational trapper to release a wolf from a leg hold trap.

          • JB says:


            According to the USFWS’s most recent assessment, nearly 14 million US residents hunted in 2011. From our prior surveys, we know that for a variety of reasons the majority of hunters (60-70%) don’t hunt every year. At minimum you can double this estimate, though I’d guess it’s closer to 40 million people who’ve hunted say in the past 5 years. So you find a few, dozens, a few hundred videos of people doing despicable things to wildlife. Let’s say you can find 1,000 different individuals who are posting such crap and let’s say for every one of them there are fully 100 who keep their mouth shut. That’s 100K miscreants, which amounts to 0.25% of the hunting population. Heck, let’s say you can find 10,000 jerks posting this stuff and they are still only 1% of the jerks in the field. That’s 1 million or 1 in 40 hunters.

            My assessment is that number is an extreme upper bound estimate, and it still equates to less than 3% of the hunting population. So you punish 39 people for every one person you prevent. But wait! Remember, the laws you pass won’t stop all of these folks. So yeah, I think “a tiny fraction” or “a few miscreants” sums it up nicely.

            I think you and Jon (and others) bias their assessments of the problem by constantly searching out and watching examples of unethical hunting behavior.

            • Rancher Bob says:

              The worst part of the whole thing is hunters have a much smaller impact on wildlife, than the crushing impact of the entire human population. The growing size of the human population is the greatest threat to wildlife. Spend your time fighting small things or the big problems.

            • Louise Kane says:

              JB while this pertains to BC its yet another fun wolf bounty hunt by a few more of the miscreants

              I did not search it out, it came to me through wccl sent by a BC scientist. No one has to search out these appalling activitites

              Contest offers cash prizes for wolf kills in northeastern B.C.

              Conservation scientists condemn cash reward for hunter who can kill biggest animal

              By Larry Pynn, Vancouver Sun November 19, 2012


              A privately sponsored wolf-kill contest is offering cash and other prize incentives for hunters to shoot the predators this winter in northeast B.C.

              Hunters who kill the largest wolves stand to receive $250 to $1,000 and up, with a booby prize of $150 for the smallest wolf and draws for prizes such as a rifle and free taxidermy work.

              “It’s just kind of a social thing that’s gotten bigger every year,” said Rich Petersen, a hunter and realtor in Fort St. John who is co-sponsoring the event.

              “It’s not a contest to exterminate wolves, not an organized thing where we go out and shoot every wolf in the country. If you are driving down the road and see one and you happen to shoot it and you’re in this contest, you have a chance to win something.”

              Advertising for the event obtained by The Vancouver Sun depicts a snarling, vicious-looking wolf, the sort of image that hunters would not typically observe in the wild.

              “Bottom line, if you’re going to make a poster you need to draw attention to it,” responded Guy Lahaye, a school teacher and president of the North Peace Rod and Gun Club, which is another co-sponsor. Asked if the image demonizes the wolf, he said: “The wolf has been demonized throughout history. That doesn’t mean it’s a demon.”

              Lahaye said in an interview Monday the purpose of the hunt is to “reduce the number of wolves,” especially in agricultural areas but also the 6.4-million hectare Muskwa-Kechika Management Area in the Northern Rockies.

              “We’re not talking eradication of wolves, but we are talking sustainable numbers so ungulate populations can survive as well.”

              He added of the contest: “I think there will be more interest this year. We will be going ahead with the hunt.”

              News of the contest drew quick condemnation, including from Chris Darimont, a conservation scientist in the University of Victoria geography department, who said the event gives the vast majority of hunters a bad name.

              “This is not about putting food on the table or feeding families, this is about feeding the egos of small men with big guns,” he said. “There is this focus on size. I’ll leave that up to psychologists as to why, but it seems to dominate those interested in hunting for trophies.”

              He said the “biological irony” of the contest is that by taking out the big dominant wolves in a pack hunters only create more problems.

              “It’s the worst thing they could be doing,” he said. “Remove the older animals and it leaves a bunch of teenagers in the landscape and they could do things that older more mature wolves do not, such as prey on livestock.”

              He argued that the province’s approach to wolf management “permits and encourages this sort of thing,” including through its draft wolf management plan released last week.

              Paul Paquet, a research scientist with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation in B.C. who has studied wolves for 40 years, called on the province to ban such contests.

              “It’s really questionable,” he said. “It’s hunting from a motivation of hate.”

              He added it’s a “back-door way to control wolf populations to improve their hunting opportunities. That’s really what they’re up to.”

              The province’s draft wolf management plan showed that B.C.’s “wolf harvest” is at its highest since 1976, when the species was declared a fur-bearer on which royalties are paid to the Crown; a high of 1,400 “wolf removals” occurred in 2009, the plan said.

              Lahaye suggested more wolves are being killed because the population is at an all-time high.

              Al Martin, a consultant to the 40,000-member B.C. Wildlife Federation, said the hunt is unlikely to have much impact on populations of wolves or ungulates, such as moose or deer.

              He said that he believes money raised by hunters should go back into conservation but that he doesn’t see that happening in this wolf contest.

              “There are some real visceral reactions to hunting,” he added. “Clearly, some people will be offended by it ….”

              The event does not include trapping and supports “fair hunt” methods.

              Asked what that means, Lahaye said hunters must respect private property, bag limits and other B.C. hunting regulations, which allow not just high-powered weapons but pickup trucks and snowmobiles to access wolves.

              Petersen said about a decade ago a few hunters started a social daylong competition for hunting coyotes on a local farm, an event that has grown and now focuses on wolves; he figures about six were shot last year.

              Steve Thomson, Minister of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, said that the hunt does not violate any wildlife regulations. He added he plans to discuss the issue further with groups such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation.

              The contest runs through March 31 and allows each hunters to submit three wolves.

              It costs $50 to enter, with winners receiving 10 to 40 per cent of the entry prize pool in addition to the guaranteed prizes of $150 to $1,000.

              In the Peace region, there is no closed hunting season on wolves below 1,100 metres elevation. The province is considering a no bag-limit on wolves in the area.

              Other Fort St. John sponsors of the wolf-kill contest include Raven Oilfield Rentals; Backcountry, a fishing and hunting store; T & C Taxidermy; and Mr. Green-Up Envirotech Ltd., which offers hydroseeding services.

            • JB says:


              I don’t see how this applies to your claim at all? Shooting and killing wolves is not torturing wolves, nor evidence of any sort of pathology. We all get that you don’t like this activity. As I’ve noted before, I don’t care for it either.

              On the other hand, hunters (and yes, trappers) that utilize furs either for their own use or for sale are not wasting the animal (i.e., the animal has a subsistence purpose)–thus, we’re not talking about sport or trophy hunting exclusively.

              I also happen not to like the idea of turning killing into a contest. But as a PhD student I interviewed and surveyed tournament fishermen. I found they were much the same as other fisherman, just more passionate about fishing and more skilled. They weren’t pathological killers, just guys who really enjoyed fishing and were as excited as hell that they could make a living from it. Again, you assume ill intent that, in my experience, is not there (see Ma’ post as well).

            • WM says:


              From the article you post, you realize of course Paul Paquet is an unabashed wolf advocate, with motivation of his own. From my readings of his past work, he has no interest in managing wolves to increase ungulate populations (for the benefit of humans). Is it hunting from a “motivation of hate” which reinforces the negative hunter image, or is it just management of natural resource assets? And, looking to the core reason of this BC hunt/contest that is exactly what it is – management.

            • Immer Treue says:


              “I also happen not to like the idea of turning killing into a contest. But as a PhD student I interviewed and surveyed tournament fishermen. I found they were much the same as other fisherman, just more passionate about fishing and more skilled. They weren’t pathological killers, just guys who really enjoyed fishing and were as excited as hell that they could make a living…”

              Catch and Release makes this a suspect analogy.

            • JB says:


              Good point. However, the folks I worked with were walleye tournament anglers (not bass anglers); and walleye do not do well in the summer when these groups like to hold their tournaments. On hot days, most of the fish caught were killed and donated to local food pantries by the organization running the tournaments. On cold days nearly all could be released. Importantly, anglers are docked points (i.e., weight) for dead fish, so they do their damndest to keep fish alive. Of course, I can already hear the animal rights activists protests–(paraphrasing) “keeping fish alive in livewells only to be killed hours later amounts to needless suffering and torture.”

        • ma'iingan says:

          “Do you really see the problem as a “few miscreants”? I don’t and I’m guessing many others don’t either.”

          I think your perception is a far piece from reality, Louise. I am immersed in hunters daily – friends, family, colleagues, and almost all the clients of my bureau. In fact because of my career I may know more hunters and trappers than anyone else on this blog – and I don’t see this bloodlust or rampant poaching that you seem to think is so prevalent.

          I work out of the same service center as a couple of conservation wardens, and they are rabid about catching violators. Nothing gives them as much glee as catching a poacher in the act and confiscating not only his weapons but his vehicle as well. You know where they all their tips from, Louise?

          You’re far out of touch – your concern for animals is admirable and shared by most of us on this blog, but your insistence on painting hunters and trappers with a broad brush of cruelty and sadism is only creating enemies, not allies.

    • WM says:


      ++I’d like to see some hunters get together and advocate for some wild places that are hunt free zones++

      I think you will find there are alot of “hunt free” zones, already. National Parks, many national Wildlife Refuges, many National Monuments, conservancy reserves, lots of state and county parks, of course cities and towns, rural subdivisions, ski areas, golf courses and a bunch of others. What you suggesting is even more acreage, and you want them to be “wild places.” Hunting only occurs a few months out of the year (we have talked about that here before). I think your request is going to be a tough sell, especially with all the heat you and others like you are directing at hunters. Just being candid.

      • Nancy says:

        “Hunting only occurs a few months out of the year”

        And that of course, depends on the species being hunted, right WM?

          • Nancy says:

            “Is hunting becoming a rich man’s sport? No. Not for people looking to simply hunt and I don’t see that changing anytime soon”

            And that paragraph might sum it up until you spent time listening to long time locals, who can no longer hunt areas they were use to hunt.

        • Louise Kane says:

          its not a few months for wolves or coyotes –

        • CodyCoyote says:

          Here in Wyoming, we have a different take on what part of the year is taken up by ” hunting”. Ask that guy in the plaid shirt and redwing boots over in the corner with the stubble beard and a sly look in his eye…

          ” We got a Short season and a Long season. The Short season is the two week season in October where you need a license. The Long season is the rest of the year…don’t need no license for that.”

          In other words, fresh venison on the grill… in July.

          • TC says:

            Not here in the Wyoming I know. Not here with the landowners or hunters I know and work with. Not as some endemic and pervasive problem. Please don’t use “we”, when “we” includes me about 500,000 other law-abiding citizens – and I’d suggest finding a new cadre of friends and acquaintances (and having the local game warden on speed dial) if you spend a lot of time with poachers and other criminals. You seem pretty down on Wyoming ~ 99% of the time. It makes me wonder why you stay. Surely there are good days, good projects, small moments of awe, beauty, splendor, little battles won in your world. Let’s hear about one of those sometime. The endless cynicism is counterproductive and is not the message to send to the next generation.

      • WM says:

        Exactly, Nancy.

        And, of course, not all species occupy the same habitat. So, I know tens of thousands of acres of sage brush, scablands and grasslands both private and federal where there simply is little to no hunting at all. There are federal military reservations where there is no hunting. There are lots of alpine areas where there are mostly hunt free zones. So, there are even more “hunt free” zones than previously mentioned.

      • Louise Kane says:

        and who is advocating for the national sportsman heritage act and just what will that do to the no hunting zones you outline? Its not the wilderness society, NRDCA, Audubon or any of the other major wildlife groups. cities and towns , rural subdivisions, ski areas, golf courses all make for great wildlife habitat? just wondering how many of those critters escape wildlife services or the local critter control agencies when they wander around. I seem to remember a few cougar taken out for wandering downtown just recently. Hmmm You must be tired tonight. I expect more from you.
        Just being candid

        • JB says:

          A very strong argument could be made that the National Sportsman Heritage Act, like all of the constitutional amendments that provide for hunting as a “right” (good grief), is reactionary in nature. Some/many hunters fear the loss of hunting privileges because animal rights groups are actively working against it. The Wildlife Society has adopted a policy of supporting animal welfare organizations as distinct from animal rights. This is an olive branch to animal welfare groups who are interested in preventing cruelty, but not banning all consumptive uses.

          • Louise Kane says:

            You could be right JB, I think that trappers have a big stake in this. But I don;t think its all reactionary. The NRA. Big Game Forever and Safari Club International have been very active in ensuring that hunting rights are protected but not only protected, expanded. They seem to defend everything including the predator derbies and also promote and conduct horrible anti predator campaigns.

            I don’t think you’d see as much emphasis on curbing hunting if the worst (at least in my mind) activities were severely curtailed or ended. So you can make the same argument about organizations seeking to curb hunting, its reactionary.

            wildlife watchers and lovers, non hunters, non consumptive users are not being listened to and its not because we are a minority, fringe group. The push to stop some of the worst excesses is in reaction to a terrible wasteful history of managing some wildlife, especially animals that the livestock and agriculture industries don’t want.

            I think some of the most offensive issues that many advocates would like to see banned or severely curbed are trapping and snaring, no poison and leave the predators alone, or at least the ones that are not causing damage to livestock.

            Its hard not to be reactionary when you see such wanton waste being defended as hunting, and so many of these groups do actually defend the right to hold derbies as part of their right to hunt.

            so its reactionary on both sides

        • josh says:

          Louise, I scout for 2-3 months every summer for elk and deer. I NEVER see another soul… EVER. If I do, its another hunter. Every basin and mtn range in UT is available for you to enjoy wildlife in ANYWAY that you want! During my wives elk hunt, we saw 2 other hunters in 12 days! There were elk screaming and rutting everywhere! EVERYDAY we saw unreal elk rutting happening. Not one soul out there enjoying it. It happens on every mtn every year. We saw over 200 Sage Chickens, guess how many wildlife watchers we saw? ZERO. Saw over 500 pronghorn, guess how many wildlife watchers we saw? ZERO. Its like that every year, you have no idea what you are talking about! Come out to UT and I will give you coords to go see some of the most beautiful country FULL of wildlife. And they will be pretty much undisturbed! You have no idea what you are talking about, its almost comical.

          • Louise Kane says:

            your story is your story, and its anecdotal. WM saw two elk, you saw more then anyone in history. What exactly is your point.

            • WM says:


              ++WM saw two elk, you saw more then anyone in history++

              Not to speak for Josh, but UT doesn’t have wolves. ID, on the other hand, has many, it seems in recent years, where I hunt elk. Connect the dots.

              Incidentally, I think his point was that non-hunters could go to where Josh does (he suggested you might find it a good place to see wildlife) without seeing many hunters, and its not a designated hunting free zone, as you suggest you require. Apparently you will not see wolves there, though.

      • Louise Kane says:

        not defending

    • bret; says:

      Thanks Rancher Bob.

  81. Ida Lupine says:

    I wish all of you good and decent men who hunt would encourage something be done or better laws against these poor examples who even take sport hunting and give it a bad name. Dropping these terrified animals like stones is shocking, and then to laugh about it, and teach impressionable children that wildlife is only for human use and abuse is wrong. What’s also dismaying is that some of the worst examples are working for our government, I don’t know if that is a fringe element.

    • Savebears says:


      One key thing that many seem to forget…None of you know what we do, day in and day out, we make a statement on this blog and if it does not meet with you and others expectations, then we are labeled.

      I just got back from town, and the reason for my visit was some information I had about something I considered wrong, spent some time with the local Game Warden, letting him know what I saw. I hope it comes to fruition and that another criminal is taken out.

      You and others have to remember, what gets posted on this blog, does not represent what happens in the on the ground real world, you have no idea of what hunters do, to stop criminal activity, the truth is, most criminal activity is actually reported by Hunters!

  82. CodyCoyote says:

    Wyoming’s Natrona County ( Casper) is using public money to finance its Coyote bounty program, through the county Predator Management Board. They have budgeted $ 10,000 for the bounty , paying $ 20.00 per coyote. Last Saturday was the first collection day , and 36 coyotes were redeemed. 464 to go, I suppose…

    ( article originally appeared in Caster Star Tribune )

    • CodyCoyote says:

      I forgot a salient point. On the question of how the Coyote bounty is funded, the Natrona predator Management Board says:

      “Public money does not fund Natrona County’s bounty program. Instead, the program is paid for by revenues collected from a $1-a-head livestock producer’s tax to Natrona County’s Predator Management District”

      In other words , a tax on beef does not count as “public money ” , whereas a tax on property or sales apparently is public money . Semantics. Parse it any way you want… a tax is a tax is a tax. The NCPMB is taxing cows being sold to pool the funds that eventually pays out the coyote bounty. They just obfuscate that.

      We are really good at obfuscating in Wyoming.

      • Louise Kane says:

        no wolves no coyotes

      • jon says:

        Coyotes are one of the most hated predators. It’s really sad how hunters view coyotes.

        • Savebears says:


          I am a hunter and have no problems with coyotes, I really wish you people would get over this all or nothing mentality!

          • Louise Kane says:

            how about some people getting over calling a kill as many as you can contest hunting!

            • Savebears says:


              You might want to review the thousands of messages I have posted on this blog, I have always called it a kill, I have never participated or endorsed these so called contests, but I suspect you would know that by now.

            • Savebears says:

              What is really sad Louise, is with your radical agenda, you are not winning this battle. You are, however placing a stamp on yourself, which instead of working to find solutions, is actually pushing the divide further apart.

              You might want to step back and reevaluate, working together is always better that working apart.

              Many on this blog agree with most of your points, but those of us that hunt, don’t agree with you methods, as we find with those on the right, in your face is never going to win a war.

      • Rita K. Sharpe says:

        It is what it is,no matter how you slice it.

  83. Ida Lupine says:

    Louise, Salle –

    We have so much in common. My Dad was a commercial fisherman from Maine, then Massachusetts, who hunted with his father in Maine, deer and birds I think. No predators to my knowledge. He always had a love of nature and wildlife, and on my mother’s side nature lovers also. Maybe it was the era, because you don’t see it as much today. 🙂

    • Savebears says:

      You guys, predator hunters are a small percent of the hunting community!

      • Louise Kane says:

        hmm there is that inference again, small, insignificant, fringe

        • Savebears says:

          Somebody has to counter the 800lb false gorilla in the room Louise..

          You really just want to believe your way is the only way, you have to remember, there are 330+ million opinions in the US, yours is but one!

          • Savebears says:


            I am off until next Monday, so we can keep this up for the next few days, that is if you have the stamina!

            • Louise Kane says:

              lol you too SB there are a lot of opinions out there and mine is just one, so is yours! Its pretty funny to think about actually, back and forth all weekend, No I say uncle.

            • Savebears says:

              I am game if you are, the only thing I have to do the next 5 days is fix the damn plow truck, so the break from that would be good! Especially since we are going to get at least 2 inches of rain in the next couple of days!

    • Louise Kane says:

      Ida, My Dad fished out of Chatham and Harwich. I spent most of my childhood/life around fishermen. Way back when…. my sister and I would make daily trips to the pier to see if the boat had come back to port. We had the telephone numbers of his close friends in case the boat was late so we could call to organize a search if necessary. These are the guys that were his closest friends and they kept a close watch on each other. Most of them had lost friends at sea, my Dad lost quite a few. Sometimes after they had a trip to the Grand Banks it would be days before we would see them. I always thought of those guys as returning heros. They had amazing stories to tell of oceanic sunfish, huge swordfish, the gulf stream and the exotic fish in it, sharks. I thought everyone lived like we did.

      My Dad wore his fishing boots everywhere, and when he was not commercial fishing, he was fishing. Saturdays never meant tv for us, it was out the door in warm clothing through the woods somewhere or hauling a skiff out and hours on the water with a lesson in fish, birds and wildlife.

      I don’t know what kind of fishing your dad did, mine was a tub trawler. They baited gear and Dad would bring home gangions (tarred line that hooks would attach to) that he draped around the back of the chairs. You’d have to tie a hook on and place/curl the line and hook into a wooden tub where the trawl stayed. Our fingers were always black with the tar. we spent a lot of time tying gangions, opening scallops or culling on deck for quahogs that he raked for.

      Wherever he was he loved birds, wildlife and our many dogs and cats, in no particular order. He instilled in me a respect for wildlife, empty spaces and wilderness. Sometimes, I resented the camping, fishing or ice fishing and roughing it that were the only vacations we ever had but I’m grateful for them now. He could be tough, as all those guys were, but had the biggest heart.

      he stopped being able to fish for anything some years before his death, he could not bring himself to catch and release or kill. Some of his friends are like that too now.

      What kind of fishing did your Dad do?

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Hi Louise!

        I knew you had said you were from New England, but I didn’t know if Salle had at some point either. Anyway, I grew up on Cape Ann where everyone at that point in time, were fishermen it seemed. My dad fished for cod, haddock, pollock, I think scallops, different things, he was a crewman when he was young. He would hunt in the fall with his father up in Maine. I don’t think they did any trapping. I don’t have as vivid memories as you sadly because my parents divorced when I was very young, but I do have some. Growing up in a seaside town there were lots of stories, boats and crew lost at sea, sharks. It was great! 🙂 I live closer to Cape Cod now.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          And it was long before the fisheries collapse, of course.

          • Salle says:


            I spent the majority of my first two decades of life in northern New England on the coast from northern Casco Bay (Maine for those unfamiliar) to the south shore of Cape Cod where my grandparents lived. The fishing community I remember best in Maine was Harpswell where the primary fishery was lobster and crab. There were lots of other species to enjoy on the Cape but I remember spending many a day along the shore by the wharf near the town center on the mainland in Harpswell. We dug clams in season, had lots of berries to pick and my dad would get his tags filled hunting deer in the fall, that was the primary meat, besides chicken and fish (lobster, crab, clams, cod and flounder) that we ate. Little girls didn’t go on the boats so I never had the opportunity to see what happened out on the water. My dad wasn’t in that business as he was military, stationed at NAS Brunswick in the VP squadrons so I learned about war and its machines instead from him… was in Key West for the missile crisis and all that in the 60s after which we returned to New England.

            Since we lived near the shore and life at home, for me was hell, I sought my peace by going into the woods and down to the shore and communed with nature during all of my spare time. I learned from watching the activities at the wharf and asked questions when I dared. Some of the boatmen and older wharf/pound workers would answer my questions and taught me about their business, the fish and shellfish, the tides, the many islands and seaweed after a while they sort of adopted me. There was an annual seagrape harvest that was an interesting break in the fishing world when lobster season was off.

            In the woods there were cedar groves where I would encounter rabbits, deer and fox. They didn’t run from me and I was just as curious about them as they seemed to be with me so we would look each other over and go our separate ways eventually. The animals I was warned to be wary of were moose and black bears. Much of those memories stay with me when I venture into the wild anywhere I happen to be. Here in the northern Rockies I have the opportunity to see so many species that I can’t get enough. (I have been offline for a few days… the hunt for wolves has really upset me as a number of wolves that I have been tracking outside YNP the past few years have been taken and I am not over that yet. It’s like people killing my brethren for personal gratification and I am reconsidering my respect for my own species, or the severe lack of it at this point… again. Not interested in conversing about it yet because it upsets me so.)

            So you and Louise are both New Englanders, cool. I haven’t been back there for a long time though I still have a couple family members there. Maybe next year I can take a trip out there, I miss the ocean sometimes and I don’t eat seafood inland, not very fresh, kind of scary. I have learned about the local fisheries here and when I eat fish I have salmon or trout. Gosh, some blue claw would be nice for a change… time to start planning a run eastward I guess.

            • Rita K. Sharpe says:

              Thanks,Salle,for the glimpse of your life and the picture that you potrayed.Brings back memories for me when I was young.I have yet to hear a wolf and hope to get to before age and my MS prevents me. I still love my walks.My seven year old grandson helps me thru the woods.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              How beautiful. I appreciate my childhood a lot more now too. I always thought I would never love any other place but the East Coast – that is until my first trip to the Rockies. Looking out a picture window at the Tetons, I about fell over on my butt. My hub is originally from N. Ca, but lived in Idaho for a time (Idaho Falls and Pocatello). I have not been lucky enough to see/hear wolves yet. 🙂

              Happy Thanksgiving to everyone,

            • JB says:

              Happy Thanksgiving, Ida!

            • Jerry Black says:

              Thanks for sharing, Sallee
              I too grew up in New England. We had a summer cabin on Cape Cod (Dennisport) and had relatives in Truro.
              Wonderful memories of striped bass fishing. (we traded fish for lobster with the lobster fishermen), digging clams and quohogs in the Bass River and crabbing.
              At 14 we moved to New Mexico…culture shock!!

            • Louise Kane says:

              yes Salle,
              thank you a lovely rendition. I’m hoping when you want to come back this way you’ll take me up on my offer. a place to stay anytime!

            • Louise Kane says:

              I’m 5 years into MS. If you ever want to converse please feel free to ask Ralph for my e mail. I don’t go to the meetings or anything. It took a long time to diagnose and hit me hard, when I finally knew what it was and the first two years of attacks subsided, I began my own research into what I could do to stop progression. My neurologist who is very good, but like many specialists, did not really look at food and exercise and other healing therapies as key to recovery. Yet, I have had some remarkable success with using copaxone but also integrating a lifestyle change, food and excercise. I took a survey of people who were doing well and what they were doing also and its very much in line with the research. anyhow be glad to share if you like. And don’t believe that MS will culminate with you not walking, you have to fight and push hard and be dedicated. Its full of ups and downs but people do beat the odds. Its not like ALS. Keep your spirits up.

            • Louise Kane says:

              and Salle
              I am sorry you are losing the wolves you know, I’d be devastated. I am so sad just thinking about them be hunted so aggressively. Hearing them howl and seeing them, knowing them and knowing they were being killed for trophies would kill me.

        • Louise Kane says:

          ah so you are stil in MA! Cape Ann is some beautiful area also. Its funny how the towns have changed and fishing is not the prominent activity it once was. But still there is a bigger presence then most areas
          Thats great – sometime we should meet
          Thanks for letting me know
          there are also some great people here who belong to the MA coyote conservation alliance.

          where are you Ida?

          Interesting to note
          Jon Way
          New Englanders

  84. aves says:

    “Wildlife about to fall off the fiscal cliff”, a report on the impact of a 10% budget cut on the National Wildlife Refuge system:

  85. Louise Kane says:

    This comment was posted following the issuance of a rebuttal piece in the Star Tribune, which took to task a ‘scientist’ and ‘wildlife researcher’ running a center in Minnesota. It was her claim that opponents of the wolf hunt reacted largely on an emotional [read: irrational] basis. The rebuttal took her to task.

    This letter writer offered observations regarding his experience at Minnesota DNR with regard to public input and the impact of politics on the process of the Wolf hunt:

    Nov. 20, 12
    9:01 AM
    As a former employee of the DNR who worked in programs funded by dedicated accounts such as the Fish and Game Account, I can tell you that there is little concern given to the preferences of the public when it comes to serving the group who pays into the fund you depend on. We were partisans for their interests, with little or no functional interest in considering the larger picture or the concerns the general public. The concerns of opponents were simply ignored or passed over as selfish over reactions. We never questioned whether the overall goal of what we were doing was sound or not. I am sure this same thinking is at work within the DNR in the hasty creation of this wolf season. This has never been a carefully thought out process, from the enabling legislation in the emergency budget bill to the decision to ignore the 5 year study period to decide how to do it right. It is a chance to satisfy important NE Minnesota legislators, raise money and serve a tiny portion of the state’s population that is driven by their emotional desire to kill wolves. The desires and preferences of Minnesotans as a whole has nothing to do with it, and never did. The public input was done just so they can say they did it. It was never meant to have an effect on the outcome.

    Michael Lafferty
    Creative Technologist
    Predator Defense
    541-485-6670 mobile
    541-937-4261 office

    • Immer Treue says:


      Only to the tune of $180,000 this year for 6,000 tags.
      Get the crow and Chardonnay ready: prediction if a season is held next year, 10,000 tags.

  86. Savebears says:


    Here is a story that I find very disturbing, and it proves, that there are wacko’s in all walks of life!!

  87. Louise Kane says:

    Savebears they wrote …”He faces an arraignment hearing Wednesday in 4th District Court, where authorities say they’ll charge him with at least two felonies: burglary, for allegedly breaking into Zoo Boise, and grand theft, for taking and killing the monkey.” He should also be facing jail time for animal cruelty. Not sure hwy he is not. People attacking and killing zoo animals is less rare then you would think. I remember a zebra being beaten and stabbed at the Stoneham zoo…and in DC from time to time animals would be attacked. awful the poor thing

  88. Salle says:

    When contemplating how off the wall radical some folks are, here’s an article that should give everyone pause… This guy was Bob Fanning’s running mate:

    Former Montana Rep. declares himself ‘last man standing’ in court protest

    I guess that when the facts don’t matter because you’re lost in the 19th century and you live in Montana, wild west rules still reign… yee haw.

  89. PNW says:

    I just watched this episode of Nature – Animal Odd Couples. It goes to show that wild animals are not just wantan bloodthirsty killers nor are they biomechanical killing machines. Just like us they kill for food or as a response to real or perceived endangerment. Sure I have seen footage of animals playing with there prey. Just like us some individuals lack empathy, but mammals have emotions and are capable of benevolence. They can form relationships, friendships, and they can and do grieve. I realize also that the animals in this program have unique circumstances, but the emotional tools and the capacity to use them are present and there is no denying that fact.

    This program reminded me of the one with the badger and coyote. I’m going to have to go back and look for that one. Does anybody the one I’m talking about?

    • Mark L says:

      Yes PNW, I’ve seen it. BAdger works the front entrance and the coyote covers the escape route. Great stuff….somebody is gonna eat, just a question of whom.

  90. Salle says:

    Gallatin County passes predator policy

    Geeze, what could go wrong? (Note sarcasm).

  91. Salle says:

    Here we go….

    Illegally trapped: Dog caught in foot-hold trap at Florence Bridge fishing access site

  92. JB says:

    Norway, driven by the desires of sheep producers, is moving to reduce its population of 25 wolves down to 13. And you guys thought things were bad in the NRMs.


    • Ida Lupine says:

      They have always hated wolves since forever, and probably brought that hatred with them to this country, among other European immigrants. Sorry to sound bad, but it is what it is. 🙁

      • WM says:


        A couple of months ago I read a book called, “The Raven’s Gift,” by Jon Turk (2009). It is a non-fictional account by an extreme sport kayaker and xc skier, who is also a PhD scientist (chemist, as I recall). He has some pretty bad physical injuries from an avalanche skiing accident that also killed his wife. He makes several trips to Siberia in kind of a transcendental self-discovery/self-help voyage that involves a Shaman. He and his travelling companions spend time among the reindeer herders in remote wilderness of Siberia. The herders are constantly on alert for wolves that attack herds taking calves or mature reindeer, which significantly affects herd population dynamics and hence their ability to make a living (very harsh conditions, so it is really just about bare economic survival post USSR, and every lost animal takes them closer to even worse poverty). They have armed herders guarding at the flanks of the herds in all kinds of weather 24/7, including below zero, night time and blizzard conditions. If they let their guard down even for a moment, the wolves go to work and kill their livestock (one night they let their guard down and it happened).

        This is no fairy tale, BS. It is no political statement. It is the harsh reality of humans living with wolves, and some here just don’t want to accept the inevitable conflicts and trade-offs, or that humans want to correct what they view is the problem.

        I think I posted here early last spring a link to an article where in an Eastern European country wolves started coming into town eating pets and livestock, so the town council in conjunction with the national government concluded they must reduce the wolf population by at least a third (removing something like 200-300 from a population of 800 or so, maybe it was Bulgaria, I don’t recall).

        If this sort of thing is happening today, I suspect the stories from history in European, Scandanavian, former Soviet and Asian countries can’t all be fabrications (maybe in some cases exaggerations, yet their core must ring of some truth).
        And Happy Thanksgiving to you, and everyone else here!

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I wouldn’t mind if it were just the reindeer herders, but this is a national policy. Every little while, it comes up and has been going on for years(from Wikipedia):

          In Norway, in 2001, the Norwegian Government authorized a controversial wolf cull on the grounds that the animals were overpopulating and were responsible for the killing of more than 600 sheep in 2000. The Norwegian authorities, whose original plans to kill 20 wolves were scaled down amid public outcry. In 2005, the Norwegian government proposed another cull, with the intent of exterminating 25% of Norway’s wolf population. A recent study of the wider Scandinavian wolf population concluded there were 120 individuals at the most, causing great concern on the genetic health of the population.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Some more of Norway’s history with their wolves. They’re not very good about whales either:


            I’m not sure where the status of this is now, but where wolves were once wiped out of the UK, they were reintroduced in the Scottish Highlands, where they haven’t been seen in 250 years:


            • Peter Kiermeier says:

              Nothing so far about that very ambitious plan to reintroduce wolves in Scotland. They were never meant to roam free hovever. It was planned to create one very large enclosure. That was maybe the main problem of the project: The cost calculation for miles and miles of wolf proof fencing…..

            • Peter Kiermeir says:

              Surprisingly, the wolves in Norway and Sweden are not located in the northernmost parts but closer to the center of these countries and with no direct connection to the populations in Finland and Russia. Lack of genetic diversity is one of the main problems of the population. As the article says, 80% of the people in both urban and rural areas are pro-wolf. The problems arise with the mentioned “small minorities”, in this case the sheep owners and – the hunters. With hunting there being a similar fetish as in the US and hunters not really being a minority (Sorry hunters, but that´s the way it is and you know that I love my venison). Why they are little on the barbaric side there, I don’t´know (could be because of the harsh and long, dark winters – and that Viking heritage, you know). :-))

          • Peter Kiermeier says:

            Latest news on this subject:
            Norway’s Plan to Kill Wolves Explodes Myth of Environmental Virtue
            One important core message however is: “Wolves are very popular in Norway: surveys suggest that around 80% of the public — in both urban and rural areas — want to keep them at current or higher numbers But as so often with rural issues — in Norway and in many other parts of the world — the dominant voices are those who belong to a small but powerful minority”. Now guess, who this minority is.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              Yes, I know that I should not write negatively about an entire group of people, and that most people in Europe probably do want their wildlife preserved, such as we do in the US. But under the progressive veneer, it seems we are the same everywhere – those in power beholden to special interests, or abusing their position for their own selfish reasons.

              Something else that doesn’t ring true to me – most of Norway and Sweden’s population are in the southern cities I believe – why are they so paranoid about northernmost wolves?

              I guess I have been reading too many Henning Mankell and Stieg Larsson novels. 🙂

            • Louise Kane says:

              Peter thank you for posting. The article was very well written. Unfortunately it resonates with policy here in the US in the western states

              The following paragraphs could have been written about the Tester Baccus rider and our own politicians using wolves as a platform to grovel to the special interest group vote while they ignore science as well as the voice of the majority of Americans who want wolves.

              “Nothing we have learnt about wolves over the past few decades — the marvels of their social structure, the very low risk they present to people and even to most livestock, the remarkable extent to which they shape the ecosystem, allowing other species to flourish — has altered attitudes among the hard core of people determined to exterminate them.”

              Politics in Norway tend to be local in character. For people who possess an almost religious aversion to wolves, the persistence of the species is an election issue. But those who like wolves tend to vote as most people do, on issues such as the economy, tax and, perhaps, broader environmental policy.

              The Centre party (which is well to the right of centre) currently holds the environment brief in the ruling coalition. It has been chasing the votes of sheep farmers and hunters. It appears to see the wolf — and the international obligations to protect it — as an issue of Norwegian identity: if we want to kill them we damn well will. This is reminiscent of the Japanese political attitude towards killing whales and dolphins.”

              The part about the center party seeing the wolf (or ability to exterminate it) as a local issue of identity is illustrative of the western states and their destructive predator policies.

              Thanks for posting – I hope the author is correct and the over the top proposal gets shut down by the environmental groups.
              I wonder if the same old tired arguments about those damn radicals and their pesky lawsuits is just as persistent as the desire to kill wolves and other predators.

              Shocking to see the same kinds of proposals elsewhere, like denning. When you really think about some of these management actions being implemented, I ask myself who does this? Pulling baby animals from their dens is so beyond creepy its like a horror story.

        • Peter Kiermeier says:

          * …reduce the wolf population by at least a third (removing something like 200-300 from a population of 800 or so, maybe it was Bulgaria, I don’t recall)….+
          Horror stories of large scale wolf cullings in eastern Europe countries appear and disappear quite regularily. Thanks god, nothing came true so far. The horror story of that gigantic wolf pack coming into town eating people, pets and livestock was nothing more than wodka ladden “propaganda”.

          • WM says:


            I researched my qualified statement, which you restate above. The major control action was, in fact, in Armenia. My recollection of the number of wolves killed is a bit less, but not much, but I do recall and cannot find the article that said that between 1/3 to 1/2 of the population would be reduced. That part I recall for sure, as there was some concern about the genetics and recovery expressed by critics, but defended by scientists/government.


            The neighboring country of Georgia has, what appears to be, a fairly liberal wolf hunting season, though not quite the scortched earth approach of Armenia.


            • JB says:

              Peter, WM:

              Relevant to your conversation–and the fears of some in the NRMs–Armenia’s estimated 500-700 wolves exist in a country that is a bit more than 1/7 the size of Idaho (~11,500 vs. 83,500 sq. miles) and more than twice as many people (~3.2 vs. 1.5 million). Wolves throughout Europe not only persist but thrive in places with much higher human densities–and remember, these are those horrible man-killing wolves of lore (joke).

    • Peter Kiermeier says:

      Do a search for keywords Norway, Sweden, Scandinavia right here on this blog and you´ll find quite a few posts over the years.

  93. aves says:

    “Love wolves and hate coyotes? A canid conundrum for conservationists” by Jon Way:

  94. Mark L says:

    Good story WM.
    Ask yourself how those poor reindeer survived for millenia without the herders..same wolves too.
    Speaking of the wolves, they are NOT the same wolves we have in North America (people even back to Darwin emphasized this). And speaking of North America, how is it the natives got along with wolves and we can’t. Is it the wolves?
    Or us?

    • Savebears says:


      Native Americans regularly killed wolves, of course for different reasons, but the plains groups killed them not only because of threats to their livestock, they were also a part of their religious ceremonies.

      • Mark L says:

        Somewhat….I should have said “on a regular basis”. There was no agreed upon threat by any group i.e. the next tribe over didn’t do the same thing. The use of wolf skins in buffalo hunting was an exception also (subsistence). Disguise yourself as a wolf, and buffalo think you aren’t capable of throwing spears and shooting arrows.

        • Savebears says:


          I regularly work with Native American groups, and it is amazing how many myths are perpetuated by the whites about what they did and didn’t do.

          • JEFF E says:

            how so very true. One of my pet peeves is all the white eyes trying to say what Native Americans did or did not do.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Tribes may have had different views on predators, but never did they put bounties on them, deliberately plan to get rid of them by the thousands along with the buffalo and anyone else in their way, including other humans. I don’t think we as humans have any right to wipe out predators because they are inconvenient, no matter what continent we are on.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            I guess what I am saying is whatever native tribes did to hunt wolves, it was never on the massive scale of European settlers. History shows that the Europeans are a very violent, aggressive and conquering race – wherever they have gone in the world they have brought mostly destruction and misery and greed for resources, or violently putting down other culture in favor of their own. I say that having a Northern European background. Any reasoning for eliminating wolves today is archaic and not necessary. If America or other countries want to wipe them out, why not just say so instead of the livestock excuse.

      • Mark L says:

        What ‘livestock’ did the plains groups have prior to Europeans?

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      Here’s a reference, fairly brief, describing precontact management of predators by Alaska natives:

      It is from a 1997 study commissioned by the State of Alaska (Tony Knowles administration, which took a stance generally in strong opposition to predator control)and prepared by the National Research Council.

      • Louise Kane says:

        a dismal history of predator management in Alaska
        I did not know all but 13 wolves were eliminated!

        • ma'iingan says:

          “I did not know all but 13 wolves were eliminated!”

          That was in ONE Game Management Unit.

        • WM says:

          Some might say certain Indian tribes/bands had destructive land management practices as well. For example, the Native Americans of the Olympic Peninsula, especially in what is now the seasonally very wet coastal strip of Olympic NP, used to burn off (after harvesting the trees, of course) fairly large tracts of old growth forest, and keep them cleared and burned off. Why? To make it better habitat for what are now called Roosevelt elk, and easier for them to harvest (kill).

          If I recall correctly some plains Indians used to torch large tracts of prarie, encouraging new grass growth, and hence bison habitat.

          It is not a stretch to think anywhere competing predators were there was not discussion or even action to control their numbers IF it would make getting food easier. Waddayaknow, management of the resources for benefit of “the people,” even by early inhabitants.

    • ma'iingan says:

      “Speaking of the wolves, they are NOT the same wolves we have in North America (people even back to Darwin emphasized this).”

      True, New World wolves are distinct from Old World wolves, but then Northern European wolves are distinct from Italian wolves, Spanish wolves, and Middle Eastern wolves as well. Are you suggesting behavioral differences?

      • Mark L says:

        Behavioral differences in the people or the wolves?
        So, yes.

        • WM says:

          Why not behavior differences in wolves? People, and some higher animals of the same species, in certain geographic regions have behavioral differences.

          The key question is what behavior is genetic, or what is learned and why? Wolves have learned/genetic predisposition to be opportunists, and going for the easy meal, with minimal risk to self, is always near the top of the list when hungry. Recall, Dr. Valerius Geist (who some here love to hate) has spoken of years of various aspects of prey testing by wolves?

      • Immer Treue says:

        For the sake of discussion, not argument. We have heard so much about those big bad old Canadian wolves being a different “subspecies”… What about humans? We have convieniently put ourselves into races, not subspecies despite regional physical and behavioral VARIATION.

        From Stephen Jay Gould “Ever Since Darwin” copyright 1973. Page 233.

        “the subspecies differs from all other taxonomic atefories in two fundamental ways: 1 it’s boundaries can never be fixed and definite because, by definition, a member of one subspecies can interbreed with members of any other subspecies in its species ( a group that cannot breed with other closely related forms must be designated as a full species); 2. The category need not be used. All organisms must belong to a species, each species must belong to a genus, each genus to a family and so on. But there is no requirement that a species be subdivided into a subspecies. The subspecies is a category of convieniece. We use it only when we judge that our understanding of variability will be increased by establishing discrete, geographically bounded packages within a species. (HERE COMES THE IMPORTANT STUFF, EMPHASIS MINE). Many biologists are now arguing that it is not only inconvienient, but also downright misleading, to impose a formal nomenclature on the dynamic patterns of variability that we observe in nature.”

        This was based upon information available to Gould in 1973. Regional variation is just that, I would submit.