Have you come across interesting wildlife news? Jan.13. 2013 edition
Here is our second edition of interesting wildlife news for the year 2013. Please post your wildlife news stories and your comments in the open thread below.
You can access the previous edition (Jan. 2, 2013) of “Interesting Wildlife News” here.
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.
Ok, I’ve heard a lot about how contests and lotteries are a bad thing when applied to such predators and coyotes and the like. So what is the opinion of the following link? Very curious to hear what everyone has to say.
I have posted links to this a couple of times with the same curiosity as you.
The usual suspects were curiously……….silent.
I guess I missed any of your posts. I looked back on the most recent things but I must have missed it.
There was a curious statement in the program Raccoon Nation, I caught some of it the other night. The narrator put forth the speculation. Are we invading their space or are they invading ours? this was pertaining to raccoons in the suburbs and even in the big cities where they are thriving. The same could be said for coyotes because they are so adaptable and flexible. I’m playing devils advocate to some extent here because I don’t believe in rural places there should be a derby on coyotes or wolves or anything like that. However, I do believe if they become a nuisance, they need to be taken care of.
Unfortunately, the great lakes have had their share of non native species that are wreaking havoc on the eco systems and they need to be dealt with.
Way way too many snakes to put up in a zoo! It’s scary how they are multiplying so rapidly.
Harley define nuisance. That word is the root of the problem. Nuisance usually meaning wherever humans don’t want them or they are deemed inconvenient. Not a big fan of that word in the same vernacular of wildlife and management.
You do realize that the snake problem in the Everglades is way out of hand and it has started to effect the indigenous wildlife, and is in danger of wiping out many species that are living on the edge now. Right?
SB don’y get up in arms, I was referring to a concept first but also in reference to this statement….”I don’t believe in rural places there should be a derby on coyotes or wolves or anything like that. However, I do believe if they become a nuisance, they need to be taken care of.
Who is getting up in arms? I had this very conversation with a good friend of mine today, that he thought it was wrong to kill the snakes.
I am not up in arms at all, you you cool your jets as well and simply know that I was just asking you a question, because many don’t know what is going on in the Everglades.
One thing, I will add, I believe you are a bit hung up on terminology, I know hunters who take trophies and eat the meat, the state of Florida may be calling this a contest, when it fact, they are offering incentives to get rid of a dangerous and destructive invasive species that is doing much harm.
The bad thing is these snakes have an unlimited food supply with natural and introduced prey and pets. Not to mention it could end up being someone’s small child. The nutria another non native is a huge food source which is nothing more than an over sized muskrat.
It is amazing the amount of damage the nutria have done in OR and WA, they are very destructive to dikes and canals.
Savebears this kind reminds me of napweed and the honey producers in a way. Every thing that has been introduce has been to make money and has back fired in some shape or form.
I’m not arguing the anacondas are not invasive just that contests are bad policy, bad precedent and I think they bring out the worst in human behavior and reinforce and incite mob mentality. OK not looking for a fight.
I could say that wildlife activist blogs bring out the worst in human behavior.
In the Everglades, it is an eradication, is that better?
Louise, unfortunately, you are always looking for a fight, I am many that I correspond with here on this blog believe this.
Sorry I missed this earlier. When I say nuisance and coyote in the same breath it’s usually when coyotes have been snatching small dogs from backyards or from leashes as people walk them. Another nuisance is when raccoons think your home is better suited for a nursery than a more natural habitat not 10 feet from the house.
The online dictionary defines nuisance as follows: an obnoxious or annoying person, thing, condition, practice, etc.
The above scenarios would certainly fall within the realm of that definition.
I support efforts to rid landscapes of nonnative species, that’s why I work to end public lands grazing.
Ken if you are working so hard to end public land grazing, do you support the cattle industry in general.
Kind of hard to compare this kind of contest to a coyote killing contest Harley. Coyotes are not an invasive species and they are key players in the ecosystem, keeping rodent populations in check.
Maybe it would be a good idea to take some of the WS employees from the west and stick them in the Everglades for a few weeks. Give the planes & helicopters a rest 🙂
Or better yet, maybe some trappers could start a group – Pigs & Pythons. Live trap feral piglets and use them as bait to lure in pythons. The possibilities are endless.
LOL! Pigs and Pythons, love it! Yeah, I had forgotten how bad the feral pigs have become too! An interesting solution to that problem…
there are a great many areas in North America where coyotes are an invasive species.
Anyway I believe the bigger question of why not the foaming of the mouth outrage at one contest but not another?
I think that’s kinda where I was going too Jeff E when I posted this.
For one, I am not an animal rights advocate, I am an advocate for wild, thriving, and properly functioning ecosystems filled with native species. However, I think that there are things that are and aren’t acceptable when dealing with animals. There should be as little suffering as possible. Any method that inflicts or prolongs the suffering of an animal is simply f****d up and shouldn’t be tolerated. Trapping comes to mind.
I also have a problem with killing that is done for reasons other than for procuring food. Predator derbies and using squirrels for target shooting are done purely for entertainment and I find them rather despicable.
Hunting and trapping of rare wildlife such as wolverines or grizzlies bothers me as does hunting or trapping of species that play a key role in ecological functions.
Removal of clearly nonnative species such as pythons, pigs, and other species is fine with me as long as it is done with as little suffering of the animals as possible.
Ken I think you speak for many. Despicable is a good word for killing contests.
Remember guys, the serpent is the one that led us down the wrong path and caused humans to be expelled from Eden…
ahhhh…..Eden. 18 below zero here this morning SB.
Compared to you, we are having a heat wave, was zero when I got up, now we are up to about 4 above.
Nancy I was thinking the upper river might as cold or colder, on the lower river we had -21.
48 where I am, supposed to get up to near 60. But it got down to 8 last week. 🙂
We had -27F Friday night and -36F this morning. I took some pictures of a “double mirrored sundog”!! It was all the way up to -17F at that point. A double mirrored sundog is when there is a prism encircling the sun (sometimes only partially which manifests on the left and right sides of the sun or at cardinal points) with another prism occurring above that forming a mirror image of the upper arc of the sun encircling prism, only today’s had two “mirroring” arcs. I’ve seen singular mirrored arcs many times before but never a double. It’s kind of like a double rainbow inverted, amazing. It lasted about twenty minutes. This,of course, is caused by frozen atmospheric moisture falling from the sky, looks like glitter falling in bright sunshine.
Love the Sundogs, we had them for a while this morning, such a beautiful sight.
“there are a great many areas in North America where coyotes are an invasive species”
And the bigger question Jeff E, is why?
And to answer your question about the python killing contest, I don’t believe this is the way to address the problem – turning a “mob” loose into a sensitive area like the Everglades. And where is WS when you really need them? 🙂
Nancy, are you asking why coyotes are considered an invasive species in some places?? Perhaps… because they didn’t live there before??
I think that the answer lies in the eradication of wolves that routinely killed or otherwise kept coyotes in check.
which also exacerbated the spread of raccoons from east to west.
Harley – a rather dated article from your neck of the woods:
And an article about living with coyotes, that I’m sure made a thread here:
Wow this article says they are protected against hunting! amazing I wish that was the case everywhere
Oof, dated yes! But still an interesting read, thanks for putting that and the other link up.
As an aside, I think many of the troubles in the ‘burbs’ is the uneducated that feed all the ‘cute’ wild life, not realizing they are creating a HUGE problem. One person’s cute coyote is another person’s demon pomeranian killer.
Nancy, I used to live in Marin and was just there visiting at xmas. The coyote population has definitely boomed. A few years ago a coy/dog killed a deer 10′ away from a house near I was staying and was eating it out when I came upon it. A coyote snatched up a friend’s cat. Marin has an explosion of gophers, voles, and of course Norwegian rats. They’ve got plenty to eat. What I don’t understand is why they are proliferating now. In the mid 90’s there was an outbreak of distemper and most of the foxes died. They are returning to Marin as of the last few years. That could have affected the coyotes as well.
and I do believe this would be a “valid” pursuit for WS.
as far as “this” contest; a publicity stunt IMO. I am a hunter but I am fairly certain that I would need more than a month or so to fully understand what it takes to pursue Burmese Pythons while a 20 footer would only need me to make myself available….
as a side note, I wonder why other types of snakes such as Anacondas have not made it to the everglades,
I went to school once with a Venezuelan who recounted a time riding in the back of a pick-up at night when they ran over “something” When they stopped and looked it was an Anaconda that was stretched clear across a two lane paved road.Maybe 30 or so feet?
FYI Jeff E –
another time I knew a person who had a python, a 12 footer. He lived in an apartment complex where the snake escaped. a week later he heard screaming from the apartment below. It turned out that the woman who lived below him with her 3year old had went in to check on the kid napping and seen the cover move next to the floor. So she got down on her hands and knees and lifted up the cover only to come face to face with the snake….
I read an almost word for word article that only reference pythons, and even this one seemed confused as to what is a python and what is an Anaconda.
any killing “contests” send the wrong message and invite people into sensitive habitats. They incite people to kill and when in comes to snakes most people would not know what species they were killing. A big mistake and bad policy all around. Invasive or not removal should not be done by a bunch of yee haw vigilante killers that think its cool to kill.
@JEFF E “there are a great many areas in North America where coyotes are an invasive species.”
Maybe some people will have to say what they mean by invasive when they use it. I volunteer with others mostly on invasive plants in MI. We don’t even care about non-native so much as what environmental harms they cause, and are much more likely to consider white-tailed deer invasive than dandelions. We only consider about 1 out of 10-20 alien plants invasive. If you merely mean alien say alien rather than invasive. Phragmites is an interesting example for us, where the invasive form and the usual one are the same damned species, but one is from hell.
Perhaps due to ignorance, I’m not very impressed by the coyote harm. Though I do worry about foxes and some other species getting knocked down, I see no big downside yet. My neighborhood has now had coyotes for 10 years, and I’d been thinking they’ve done more good (less cats, maybe more small rodents = more owls, etc) than harm (less raccoons, opossum – but there are still tons out there). It’s really complicated and pointers to science appreciated, since my anecdotal observations aren’t squat.
As in many other parts, in my particular area there were historically no (or very few) coyotes, but most think that was only because we had wolves, so I’m not comfortable considering them alien. And like I said, invasive implies damage.
Mostly near me it is my fellow deer hunters thinking the deer are being overly knocked down – I think the effect is rather minor. We still had way too many – until this year – epizootic hemorrhagic disease (a virus) might have killed half the deer, in areas with around 40 per square mile originally. More appropriate deer densities, for a moment anyway, but the scenes of prolonged gruesome death are sad, and everywhere.
You do raise an interesting question about exactly what makes something an “invasive” species. Is an animal or plant that is expanding its range invasive, or does it need to have jumped over an ocean and/or moved with human assistance in some discontinuous way?
My proposal would be that rather than a dichotomy of native/invasive we look at species movements as lying along a continuum from native to invasive/displacing, with many points between the two.
I salute you for pointing out the damage to deer herds from things like epizootic hemorrhagic disease and other diseases which have reduced deer populations in certain areas (some of them large areas). Too many people focus singlemindedly on just one factor, such as predation.
good thought provoking question.
I do believe that the too terms alien and invasive are used mostly as supporting each other as opposed to differentiating one from another .
Is it that you mean that the difference is if a Species is just filling a niche in the ecosystem as oppose to causing verifiable harm to the ecosystem by moving into it.?
Agree there is a continuum of invasiveness, including a continuum (of many dimensions) of harm. I don’t mean to claim no possible harm from coyotes, since none are that omniscient, but it’s low on my list, and in the absence of wolf/bear/cougar, they might be helping some.
Bounties are what put our wildlife in the precarious place they are today. But being an invasive species that is having a huge detrimental impact on floridas rookeries, something does need to be done. Its not much different than the lake trout efforts in yellowstone and other fisheries of the west. I would support live trapping and zoo or shelter placement but from my understanding there are alot of theses snakes taking over the Everglades.
Yes, I agree totally. It is a necessary evil I guess, although I would prefer non-lethal means. I’m leery of lake poisonings tho, and I know that there are those who advocate capture for the lake trout.
I have wondered what they do with all the lake trout they remove from Yellowstone Lake.
I think an argument could made made that they ought to be fed to the bears and other Park animals that used to get this protein since the protein is generated inside the Park (in the Lake), and it seems to be that removing it with it not nourishing the various mammals and birds is a form of depleting the Park’s fertility. This is not to be taken lightly in a high altitude ecosystem with shallow, infertile soils and a very short growing season.
Found this on another website that I read, if true, gives a whole new meaning to what the EPA really does:
This seems bizarre. Why does the EPA do these kinds of studies in a controlled enviornment, when there are more than enough homeless people, living under polluted freeways in LA and other cities, who would probably (and gladly) donate blood and tissue samples, for a few extra bucks.
One of the disturbing issues is not only are they doing the experiments, they are claiming they are above the law and the courts have no jurisdiction over them.
It sounds like a bizarre twist by this “American Traditions Group” think tank (wing nuts’ lobbying group). Poor air quality is something that already exists – the automobile industry, coal companies and oil companies could glady step up to the plate and reduce their pollutants voluntarily, but they fight regulation tooth and nail. There have been studies ongoing about the exposure of children taking school buses and those exposed to inner city pollution and the rise in childhood asthma. Is this what the studies involve? These people are probably already exposed to poor air quality anyway which is what I am guessing – but if this group bringing the lawsuit is truly concerned and doesn’t have the agenda of ultimately getting rid of the EPA, why don’t they take steps to sue the polluters?
Ultimately it will be decided by the court, but again, it concerns me greatly when any government agencies they are not subject to the law.
So they claim. It doesn’t sound legitimate to me – ‘experiments’ is a lot more alarming-sounding than ‘studies’. I’m sure those involved signed their informed consent, gladly.
Is this the group? I love how they imply that environmentalists are ‘gangrenous’. lol!
Thank you, mods, for the new editing feature!
I remember when a lot of claims like this were made about the IRS, I also remember that after many years, it was found out to be true.
Knowing the people in the various agencies that I do, I would not be surprised if it is in fact true, I have been told on numerous occasions by various agency personal, they are not worried by the law.
Well, hopefully this is false. It’s a very serious charge.
Yes, it is a very serious charge, unfortunately in our lifetime we have seen it happen time and time again, all the way to the White House.
The use of the term “above the law” is imho a bit alarmist.
Filing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is a common defense strategy in many, many cases involving private individuals, corporations, and yes, government agencies.
That appears to be the sort of pleading filed here by the EPA.
Having practiced law decades ago, I can think of few federal cases I was involved in where lack of jurisdiction wasn’t routinely raised by one of the parties.
BTW–out of curiosity, what IRS cases are you referring to?
There were several instances in the 80’s in which IRS supervisors and directors were quoted as not being subject to the courts jurisdiction.
Would would be amazed, while working at the Pentagon, how many there thought they were above the law and not subject to prosecution.
I am not being alarmist, I am simply being honest based on my extensive experience working in the military as an officer as well as working with and for government and state agencies.
Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “above the law”. I offer the following example:
In IRS cases, after an audit the taxpayer may receive a “notice of deficiency” letter. This simply means that the IRS has determined that you owe additional taxes.
This is also referred to as a “90 day letter”. That means the taxpayer has 90 days to file a suit in tax court denying the additional taxes.
If the taxpayer fails to file a suit within that period, tax court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, and it will be dismissed.
It does not mean the IRS considers itself above the law. It means the law doesn’t allow a taxpayer suit after that period.
I’m not sure if you are referring to examples such as that or not. Agents or revenue officers might spout language such as you refer to, but I have never met an IRS attorney who does.
And such language gets them nowhere in court.
I will be repeating your post as it captures exactly how I feel and said the way I’d like to communicate. I am amazed everyday that as a species we continue to struggle about common decency. Whether it be how we care and nurture one another, our pets, wildlife or Mother Nature. On this -18 degree morning, I can’t help but think of the birds and animals in my backyard who a merely trying to stay alive. Doesn’t seem like much to ask for.
“I read an almost word for word article that only reference pythons, and even this one seemed confused as to what is a python and what is an Anaconda”
Jeef E – a good breakdown on these two snakes:
Recall years ago watching an episode of Wild Kingdom, when
Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler came across a huge Anaconda in a swampy area. Jim jumped right in, started wrestling with this snake while Marlin gave a “blow by blow” from the sidelines. I was sure ole Jim was a gonna…..
Weird stuff going on, several of the websites and blogs I visit, keep going offline then back on today, anybody else having this problem? I am now just able to access this site after about 45 minutes.
Heard hackers had attacked Java, SB. Google it. I uninstalled both Java programs I had on my laptop.
I have had no problems with the Java hack, actually this exploit was found a few months ago and there have been no real attacks documented.
SB, I had some problems for a few minutes only, but everything’s ok now.
I think some time ago you were looking for the video of an osprey carrying two fish. Some of us including myself searched for and found some video clips but I don’t think we ever found what you had alluded to. Today a friend sent me this clip from BBC and I am quite sure it must be what you were looking for. Its amazing
let me know if this is it
and everyone should watch this if they want to see true skill and prowess in hunting and fishing.
Yes!!! That’s the one I was looking for! Thank you so much! Bookmarked.
I love the way the Osprey looks like it’s riding or surfing that big fish at the end but all of it is fantastic footage.
Wow! That was pretty cool!
They are very impressive birds. I have seen them dive for fish and catch them also, it is amazing.
Opinion piece in the Boston Globe today:
Stop the slaughter of wolves
It began with one of those congressional quid pro quos….
I love it. How did I miss this?
Virginia Fuller was instrumental in getting the 1996 anti trapping initative passed in MA!
In the GL,
Wolf season closes with more than 400 wolves killed
(Note: This is not the Dr. Doug Smith of YNP)
And I’m sure each and everyone of those “sportsmen” felt, deep down in their hearts, that they did their part, their utmost, to control the spread of evil.
And herein, lies one of the major problems we have in this country. Each side thinks they are right based on their ideal of “evil”
Think about it this way if a wolf pack consisted of 10 wolves per pack more then 40 of the packs were killed! Wow Anyone know how many cattle or livestock wolves killed in MN this year?
From the MN DNR for the last several years. 2012 ran over $150,000 in compensation, the again ~ 270 wolves removed.
Immer what does the compensation represent number wise, how many livestock killed? A bizarre policy, compensating livestock owners for risks of doing business. If the programs meant wolves would be left alone fine, compensate…. but its a no win situation for wolves, the ranchers are compensated, the depredating wolves are killed, maybe, and the general population is hunted regardless.
Prior to the hunt this year, most stakeholders were satisfied with the how and why depredating wolves were removed in MN.
yes Immer I know thats what makes the hunt so tragic in my mind. wasteful, inhumane and not even publicly supported.
Another way of looking at it, if average wolf pack is ~ 6-8 wolves, the social structure of ~ some 50 to 70 wolf packs has been compromised. As the Winter so far has been mild in Northern MN, temperatures rarely have been below zero so far ( about to change this week) and only about five inches of snow, deer have not been overly “taxed” so far this year.
What will this mean in terms of livestock depredation? Will the number of wolves killed equate to less live stock depredation, easy winter on deer (healthier does = healthier fawns more adept at predator avoidance) and wolf pack social disruption equate to more livestock depredation, or no real change? Interesting questions in search of answers.
The question you pose is interesting, I wonder if it will be studied since so much energy is expended on killing wolves rather then studying their value, or perceived negative impacts in particular ecosystems…. against the insane amount of gibberish, hate, and intolerance from some of the public. It seems no matter how benign their presence or how well targeted wolves can be effectively killed, the same segment of society (to remain unnamed) will always push the same trash about them and the wildlife agencies reward this by defending management actions through hunting. the 50-70 wolf packs being compromised is quite tragic.
I’d like to elect you to the legislature in MN please anyone for Immer for state senate seat…ok how about as a wildlife commissioner if senator would take too much of your time. Only please revisit the part of your plan to kill many of the wolves near livestock in favor of requiring livestock owners to use better avoidance tactics and try to enact requirements to ensure people take classes on learning to coexist with predators. OK you’re in
Thank you. I accept.
However, we have all seen how Bob Fanning fared on a singular platform in his run for MT governorship. Don’t think I’d fare any better.
I second it! 🙂
Salle and all,
It was a much smaller percentage of the total wolf population in Minnesota than the wolf hunts in Wisconsin, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.
Rough figures for MN wolves 2012.
410 trapped or shot. 13.7%
410+ 270 killed by MN DNR = 680. 22.7%
+ 17 more killed by private land owners = 697 23.2%
The unknown is wolves illegally killed. Estimates in past years ran as high as 400.
This for an estimated population of 3,000 wolves +/-
MN Wolf population survey scheduled for this Winter.
do you know how many livestock were killed by wolves
111 verified claims, mostly cattle.
Lets say that 100 cows were killed by wolves divided $150,000 by 100 or $1500 per cow — that is about right. Also,all of these cattle were on private land.
The first post since the edit function a nice addition.
roughly 1/3 of the population
how sad the most stable population of wolves reduced like that
I wanted to watch something good tonight so I revisited the Dutcher’s Living With Wolves special. Unfortunately, it made me even more sad seeing the intense sociality of the wolves they studied and their family ties. That led to thinking of how many wolves were killed this year, in such brutal ways with no regard for their family requirements, social structures and the impacts on the remaining members. The pups not even 6 months old trapped and killed…
Its hard to find the words most times
The following guest editorial just appeared in the Helena Independent Record. “To recover wolverines, we must quit trapping them.” By Mike Garrity. Alliance for the Wild Rockies.
Ralph I could be wrong but some the numbers don’t add up to me. The other thing that is hypocritical is if trapping alone disrupts the wolverine than why do any kind of trapping,live trapping included.
I have no problem with wolverines being protected and if that’s the case leave live traps out of the equation.
Mexican wolf released into wild:
I find this humorous in a way. The coyote has been hunted, trapped and poisoned and yet in a way has stuck its tail in the air and adapted to what ever man has dished out and even prospered in most cases.
I think the wolf will do the same.
***Despite millions of dollars spent on trapping, shooting and the use of poisons, the coyote survives, even thrives”
Nothing humorous about that statment Robert R, given the studies that have come to light over the past few years – killing them in large numbers, only increases their litter sizes.
A vicious circle, don’t you think? With taxpayers footing the bill.
Nancy I don’t find the killing humorous but the way the coyote taunts man.
I was referring to the millions of dollars spent/wasted Robert R “yet they survive, even thrive”
As far as taunting man, talking to a ranching friend the other day and we got on the subject of coyotes. She flat out told me they never have problems with coyotes. Is it because they are hunted and trapped or could it be, its a small percentage of ranchers who actually have problems with coyotes?
Nancy being you live in the upper river have you seen the photos of when they hunted coyotes with snow planes.
“…but the way the coyote taunts man.” ???
Plus wolves will spread like coyotes, especially into urban/suburban settings. They’re too big, and generally their food source is larger than them. What do they eat, the homeless?:-)
No Immer the wolves will also eat all pets, children and sub adult humans after they eat the homeless. Probably they will also be able to hunt down and consume most of the western state’s livestock population quite quickly. I’m quite sure that this will happen and in addition they will probably expand their numbers exponentially, just as they did after their reintroduction. Remember the wild population explosion that occurred. In 17 years wolves reproduced to a population of close to 2000 in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. My God thats almost being overrun in the millions of acres of wilderness of those three states. 2000 wow we should be in a state of total and complete shut down.
Heck yeah….look how much chatter only 1 caused in Cali….epic!
++A vicious circle, don’t you think? With taxpayers footing the bill.++
….and taxpayers (with their tax paid scientists) still trying to find an answer that works.
Yet, on this forum some of you folks have it all figured out. I wonder what would happen if your “solutions” were implemented. Apparantly those tax paid scientists don’t think you have it quite right either.
WM – It would appear this was being discussed almost 30 years ago. And maybe those “tax paid” scientists have their own agenda – as in keeping WS alive and funded 🙂
In deed, Nancy. The over-arching question is if there is a better way of controlling coyote populations, what is it? How many state land grant agricultural colleges in the US (as well as Canada which you reference in the link) as well as the, love to hate ’em USDA APHIS/WS agency research activities, have looked at this problem?
One would expect the competition among the participants to find a solution would bring fame (and maybe even fortune to the university researchers) to whomever solved this perplexing, persistent, and rather costly agricultural phenomenon.
On the other hand, we have the “bring in the wolves, they will fix the problem,” camp. I think even the YNP research showed that after the wolves showed up and knocked down the coyote population initially, it went back up. Dr. Mech’s recent paper “Is science in danger of sanctifying the wolf.” He believes the research shows coyote population may be about the same, just in smaller packs. Biological Conservation 150 (2012) 143-149.
From information I have read, coyotes like wolves will select a territory and defend it against other coyotes. The packs remain stable more or less if undisturbed. They mate for life and a carrying capacity (of sorts) is reached in territories and habitats that support them. Jon Way can speak better to this but it begs that old question why must we “control” coyotes. Their prey, habitat, other predators and own territoriality will probably do a good job of that. Selectively targeting problem animals should take care of any real threats. The rest is unnecessary and proving to be unsucessful while also perpetuating a vicious inhumane cycle of killing a particularly social and wary of humans animal. I know there are exceptions, but they are rare, as with wolves.
Perhaps the answer is simple. How about we (people) leave the coyotes alone for five years? See what happens and draw conclusions. Hunting and trapping has done little but allowed coyote numbers to increase. See if nature can do a better job of regulating itself, rather than man doing the regulating. Some might, oh probably would, howl at the moon if this were attempted, but as coyote numbers seem to increase with regulation, cease the regulation and observe.
Immer, a lot of cities have taken this stance…only intervene if necessary.
If I remember correctly, there was a lot of talk bantered about in Illinois about making a concerted effort to thin out the coyotes but I’m not sure what the end result was. I know many experts on the subject said that trapping and hunting them down would do little good in thinning out the numbers and I think that view was actually followed. I’ll have to dig deeper into it when I have more time….
I hope you are right, Robert R. The wolves would be the ones to keep them in line. 🙂
Now, Japan is totally different to the US: There´s a shortage of hunters and gun purchase is subject to stringent rules. Furthermore, venison is not a staple food (Cannot make sushi roles out of a buck I suppose). That´s why their mushroom growers are overrun by deer. Could the reintroduction of wolves be a solution?
Hmm… wonder if they could export the venison?
From the article:
“”We can bag up to 18 deer in a single day. They’re just everywhere,” laments Yoichi Kodama, the 60-year-old head of a local hunting group, who says that after shooting thousands he finds traps more sporting.”
Great…back to trapping. Why not introduce wolves FIRST then tra….? Oh, wait, we’ve already done that.
Closer to home, deer are grossly overpopulated on Haida Guaii (formerly the Queen Charlotte Islands) in northern B.C. Oddly, Sitka blacktails are an exotic there (introduced in the 1920s) but are native on the islands of Southeast Alaska even within sight to the north. The bag limit is 15 with a 9 month season and commercial hunts have been considered and even (gasp!) introducing wolves, which would add one more exotic to the mix. Strangely, the same species seems to function well without similar effects just about everywhere in SEAK without severe ecological impacts(save on the odd predator free island like Coronation hanging out in the Gulf), and apparently have for millenia. On the southern islands they are regulated by a mix of wolves and black bears. On the northern islands including Admiralty, Baranof and Chichagof they are regulated just beautifully by mass starvation, with nearly no predators except brown bears. The difference is snow, which periodically covers their food deeper-than-normal on the northern islands, often when deer are at higher than average density . . . and they move to the beach and die enmass with bellies full of kelp (as useful as feeding hay to starving deer), and the cycle begins anew the following spring. Its a sad sight but five millenia or more say it works great without predators. The problem on Haida Guaii being a bit further south, hanging further in the ocean and having vast lowland is that there is neither enough of the silent, efficient killer (snow), nor enough black bears (or other predators or hunters) to make a dent. So they strip everything, even stopping forest regeneration of species like red cedar, and increase until their nutrition and reproductive rate force an equilibrium that keeps the population from growing further. It would make a great home for some unwanted wolves, with likely at least partial ecological recovery and no doubt continued good deer hunting, but the idea appears too radical to have remained long on the table.
Thought occasionally you´d be interested to learn from corners of this globe where not much wildlife info leaks through. Even we in Europe seldom receive wildlife news from Turkey. They´ve got spectacular wildlife and scenery there.
I am pleased that you make the effort to help us be aware of wildlife news around the globe.
Peter I am always so pleased to see your posts too. Preservation and conservation of wildlife and wild places is a global issue, not just national. That you take the time to be thoughtful and to provide information about corollary issues and to contribute with your thoughts, is valuable and considerate.
I received this today from HSUS
They are looking for volunteers in MI to help obtain 225,000 signatures needed in 70 days to help prevent wolf hunting in this state. Please forward and if you are a MI resident consider volunteering. The last two years have been dismal for wolves.
Reposted from HSUS mail
Ballot Campaign Launched to Keep Michigan Wolves Protected
Posted: 14 Jan 2013 10:23 AM PST
Last year was the worst year for wolves in half a century – with Minnesota, Wisconsin and Wyoming opening up trophy hunting and sport trapping seasons and an expansion of those activities in Idaho and Montana, on top of the standard fare of aerial gunning, trapping and shooting of wolves in Alaska. In the waning days of the Michigan legislature’s lame duck session, lawmakers authorized declaring the wolf as a game species, setting it up to become the seventh state with a wolf hunting and trapping program in the fall of 2013.
In 2013, however, we are hoping to turn the fortunes of wolves around. Today, we announce with our coalition partners the launch of a referendum campaign in Michigan to nullify the legislature’s ill-considered action, in order to maintain protections for wolves there. We helped lead an effort seven years ago to restore protections for mourning doves, and voters in the Wolverine State responded by favoring the measure in every county. There are only about 700 wolves in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and until 2012, they had been protected under the terms of the Endangered Species Act for nearly 40 years.
We are joined in this effort by local humane societies, environmental and conservation groups, Native American tribes, and leading wolf scientists, who decry the idea of a trophy hunt at this time. Rolf Peterson, Ph.D., chair of the federally-appointed Recovery Team for the Gray Wolf, Eastern Population, and a research professor at Michigan Technological University, told the legislature that “[human-wolf] conflicts can already be managed under existing state law, which allows for lethal control of individual wolves that are perceived to threaten human life and property.” He added, “wolves provide a firewall against new diseases in deer,” such as Chronic Wasting Disease. Peterson has studied wolf-prey population dynamics for more than 40 years at Isle Royale National Park in northern Michigan, and is one of the world’s leading authorities on wolves, specifically the wolves of Michigan.
Other scientists also note that wolves have had a beneficial “cascade effect” on animal populations in their ecosystems, limiting populations of deer and other ungulates. This reduces impacts on forest vegetation and crops, and on automobile collisions with wildlife.
And let’s remember, nobody eats wolves. Killing them is more about securing a trophy or a pelt, and more specifically, bragging rights. That’s an important distinction, since most hunting involves killing to consume meat. But that’s not at work here, and we expect to align with many hunters who believe in the principles of full use of an animal they kill.
So when you roll it all up, wolf hunting and trapping in Michigan is unnecessary, inhumane and detrimental to farmers, motorists, tourists and others who value wolves.
If you are a Michigan resident, we need your help on the ground. We need volunteer petitioners to help us amass the 225,000 signatures in about 70 days – a tall order indeed. If we secure the signatures, it will put a hold on the legislature’s wolf hunting bill, pending a statewide vote by Michigan citizens. Please go to keepwolvesprotected.org to help us in this critical campaign.
Paid for with regulated funds by the committee to Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, 5859 W. Saginaw Hwy. #273, Lansing, MI 48917.
I don’t care for their irrelevant speculations about the internal mental states of hunters, and there seems to be an assumption that no wolf hunting means significantly less deer – just what upper peninsula hunters don’t want. To recap their view: get to hunt wolves and there’s more deer too, this is win-win.
I agree with their conclusion that we need no hunt right now, but I’d rather not get it done this way. The problem with my view is that trusting it can be properly done any other way might be naive.
Ah yes, Participatory Democracy, beginning with the petition process. We, the people, deserve all we get with citizen iniatives and referendums. Votes of, by and for “the people” expressing their collective knowledge and wishes about complex topics.
Maybe in the end this will be a good one. On the other hand, there are lots of bad ones. In my state of WA, and Seattle, we got a monorail project that never penciled out, and after thousands of supplemental vehicle tax registration dollars paid by vehicle owners, the project died its own death -again by popular vote. The last two years, we have gotten 24 hour hard liquor in grocery stores, legalized marijuana and gay marriage. We might expect to see wolves on the ballot here in about five years too, through the initiative or referendum process, while funding for schools, healthcare for the poor and capital investment in our communities take a back seat to populist causes. Give the people “panem et circenses” (bread and circuses in latin) at their own request. Wonder how the unemployed in Motor City Detriot feel about prospects of wolves on the ballot?
I’d like to see a state without wolf hunting, if nothing else than to have a ‘control’ group upon which to compare with the hunting states (that have breeding wolves). Of course…I’m not in Michigan, so as with the NRM states, some would say my opinion matters not.
Minnesota has had a fairly large population of wolves for the last twenty-thirty years, and now is engaged in reducing their numbers. How long a period does one need to have a “control” group.
By the way – and this is important- the wolves in-migrating to WI, reproducing or continuing their journey, and then in-migrating to the Upper Peninsula of MI came from MN. That fact is missed by alot of so-called knowledgeable wolf advocates.
WM as Immer pointed out, and I believe he lives in MN, most stakeholders were happy with the control program in place in MN before the hunts. This hunt was not publicly supported, quite the opposite, and is being conducted to satisfy a small group of people that want to kill wolves. Lets be honest, the wolf hunt is not about needing to “manage” wolves. Its about being able and wanting to kill them.
and furthermore that fairly large population had stayed very stable for the last ten years proving that the population was not exploding. I know, a certain number were killed each year for depredations, but not 1/3 of the population and they were selectively killed when creating conflicts or being “problem” wolves, aka doing what their natural instincts require them to do, eat.
Did you miss the part about the out-migration and reproduction of MN wolves to new territory. Nobody is suggesting it is an “explosion,” but the WGL wolf population is continuing to grow. That is a dimension about “control” that some just don’t get. The numbers and range are increasing, notwithstanding the fairly substantial numbers of problem wolves that are taken-off each year in MN (where population appears stable/static), the suspected take-off from the 3S crowd, as well as in the new range they are inhabiting in WI and MI, possibly north to Ontario and Manitoba (where the density might be lower if the Canadians are killing some, which I believe they are), and maybe to the west in ND/SD.
I don’t think I would call that stable population at all, it is a net increase in number and range from a central core population in MN.
MN has been trying to get the WGL wolves delisted for the past 12 years or more, and your buddies at HSUS have been the primary reason they have not been successful. Now they are shifting to MI.
That is why I started off with calling out what might be problems of the participatory democracy model. Stakeholders taking the direct initiative rather than letting duly elected officials who study a problem before acting on legislation. I know it has flaws, but in my view, the vox populi, if relied upon for input is equally and maybe even more flawed with its quick rush to solve a problem without thinking it through completely. The public is fickle on hot button issues. Just look at the Tea Party movement of a couple years back, and what it has brought to collaboratie decision-making, or not.
WM you cant be serious ….you said “I know its flawed (the legislators making policy which is what they have done in essence…” When it comes to wolves and predators thats the understatement of the year. Legislators are not studying the problem, they are making back door deals, like the one to delist the RM wolves and Wyoming what the hell is that? Now attempts are underway to delist all the populations despite the states underhanded attempts to eradicate wolves. They are going right back into the same policies that once exterminated wolves. Oh I know they are going to leave 150 in each state and poison is not yet being used. Do you really think HSUS has not thought this through? These citizen’s initiatives are a direct vote, participatory process.
” Stakeholders taking the direct initiative rather than letting duly elected officials who study a problem before acting on legislation. I know it has flaws, but in my view, the vox populi, if relied upon for input is equally and maybe even more flawed with its quick rush to solve a problem without thinking it through completely.”
OK WM, a post..hunting..control..group. (More specific?)
Does it really matter which state a population came from? If they are ‘right on the line’ does that make them from 2 states? Or is the biome more important?
MN forked out $150,000 in wolf depredation compensation this past year. 111 live stock and pet claims, while ~270 wolves were removed in the process. The $$$ is always the focal point.
I certainly don’t want to make a red herring argument, but what is $150,000 in the grand scheme of things? One modest foreclosed home in the Twin Cities. The bailout of banks and financial institutions, the unfunded Iraq war, heck, the misplaced priorities in this country where someone like Albert Pujols is paid ~ $148,000 per game. Per game! That all but covers wolf depredation in MN per year.
I agree with you regarding the nominal scale of $$$$ involved in depredation compensation, or even overall wolf management at the federal and state levels. It’s hardly even a footnote on a budget.
The larger issue is what the wolf issue itself represents to the various stakeholder groups. I am pretty sure Ralph and George Wuerthner, among others, have pointed out on this forum.
From the perspective of agriculture and hunters wolves are packaged as a “front on assault” to the future of these activities. Don’t just think of hunters as just those engaged directly in the activity, for example. Think of the manufacturers of equipment used by them, from clothing, to firearms/ammunition pick-up trucks, atvs, optics, etc., and importantly the retail sellers of those goods. The group of potentially affected stakeholders gets a bunch bigger when the circle of those potentially affected is increased, and their respective lobbyists get to working an issue.
“Think of the manufacturers of equipment used by them, from clothing, to firearms/ammunition pick-up trucks, atvs, optics, etc., and importantly the retail sellers of those goods. The group of potentially affected stakeholders gets a bunch bigger when the circle of those potentially affected is increased, and their respective lobbyists get to working an issue.”
Believe me when I say I understand this. First got the feel for it when I saw some of the rigs people have spent $ on for fishing. One could probably eat fish for the remainder of their lives and have $ left over for the dime spent on expensive boats/trailer and tackle.
The trapping industry is also firmly entrenched. All one has to do is peruse trapping supply sites, and they can comprehend how deep and widespread nature of that “industry” has become.
++First got the feel for it when I saw some of the rigs people have spent $ on for fishing. One could probably eat fish for the remainder of their lives and have $ left over for the dime spent on expensive boats/trailer and tackle.++
I think for the folks who spend $$ on that sort of thing, it is alot more than the economics of fishing. It is vanity and the aura of pursuit of the activity itself. Should see how much $$ is spent on sail boats, yachts, or things that go fast on the water, without ever dropping a fishing line. Then there are those folks from Detroit that count on the vain buying cars generally with their emotions, giving no thought to fuel consumption, cost of insurance, or even ride comfort.
Or, my favorite from last summer – a fully jacked up Ford F450 with big belching diesel motor, white in color, with aggressive tread oversize tires, mudflaps with pin-up profile, and alot of chrome. Some little scantily clad honey, about 28 years old, climbed up in the cab on the two rung running board, who looked like she did nothing but tan her bod and work out. Vanity license plate said “TSTSTRONE.” She backed the boat trailer down the ramp, where her muscle-bound significant other cranked up the 30 ft. long cigarette boat, as it entered the water — vvvvvrrroooooom, vvvvrooommm!, rattling windows for a quarter mile around. About made me vomit. Sorry for the topic diversion, but it is a sensory image I am having trouble shaking – kind of like an annoying ear worm, in the form of a BeeGees song from the late 70’s. LOL
Hey, Hey, Hey!!!
I like the Bee Gees, spent many a good night listening to them and!
legalizing gay marriage is a civil rights issue and is taking one step closer to tolerance of another’s rights to choose how to live their lives. A step in the right direction, to me. No one tells you what to do in the bedroom, how to love, or how you should share your property or life with a partner. What possible harm can come to anyone by allowing two people to enjoy the same civil and legal privileges that the heterosexuals enjoy. Homophobia is right up there in my list of sins. Seattle can be proud of itself for passing this as a citizen’s initiative, a step out of the dark ages. I hope animal rights and wildlife issues follow suit state by state.
You misinterpret my concern. I have no problem with gay civil rights (I have gay friends with whom my wife and I socialize nearly every day). What I have a problem with is YOUR inconsistency between being a citizen of the United States and citizen of a state following established federal or new state law. On the one hand, you seem to support following federal law (where there is no recognition of gay marriage and marijuana is a listed narcotic by the way). In my state now both topics seem to be legal, and maybe supported by you with your statement above, notwithstanding conflict with federal law.
Now, let’s go back to the subject of wolves – a couple of states have expressed their contempt for having to follow federal law, the ESA to be precise. Should they be allowed to dissent and carry out their wishes? How does one resolve these inconsistencies in state and federal law, as among citizens of states or the United States?
Seems to me you like pick and choose where it suits your purpose.
And by the way, for the gay rights issue it creates conflicts for the federal tax laws (no recognition of status for federal income tax filings). For the marijuana issue the US Attorney is in an awkward spot for allowing state approved and regulated grow operations which are in direct opposition to federal law, and should be shut down and the owners/operators prosecuted for possession, distribution/sale. See the comparison/contrast in your views, Louise – follow federal law all the time or not?
WM sorry to misinterpret your post. I think that interface between state and federal law often overlaps and is conflicting despite federal law superceding state law. I am glad that we have the justice system we have despite the confusing and complicated overlap. One does not have to be labeled as inconsistent in being a good citizen of the US or of its state by holding certain beliefs. In my case, and I’m sure its no surprise to you I am very liberal. I don’t want to see anyone’s civil rights trampled, I am concerned that conservatism is being replaced by lunacy, I KNOW that big money and corporations are not people and that this money is corrupting democracy. Without federal intervention, we stand no chance of preserving or conserving wildlife and wilderness. I like to think that when the states get out of hand and repress, hinder or stagnate civil rights, destroy or trample public resources, that federal laws will help to correct the regional inconsistencies with our overall goals as a nation to maintain ideals that are consistent with our constitution and that protect us as a nation. States lose sight of their responsibilities to our country at times, imho. I first am a US citizen and second a citizen of MA. is that inconsistent, you tell me. as for the gay rights issue, The defense of marriage act (DOMA) is the federal law that has hampered gay marriage by ignoring an area of civil rights that harkens back to the separate but equal days, and ignoring the similarities in the problem… in my mind. Thankfully, the provision of DOMA that forbid the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages have already been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including two federal appeals courts. I believe that five of the cases are pending review by the SC. I’m trying to remain optimistic about the SC decision on this.
Yes, nobody is forcing anyone to accept something they don’t believe in or change their personal views on same sex relationships or marriage – but there’s a civil rights issue here with DOMA that needs to be addressed. In our world, if you can find happiness and love with someone, more power to you! Live and let live.
And Wisconsin wants to allow hunters to use dogs to hunt wolves? This supposedly happened very recently in Montana if the story is to be believed.
sounds like its going to make the problem worse in the long run, Elk are going to multiply and expand in the are surrounding wind cave np
A video ridiculing efforts to protect OR7 in California was recently circulated by the nonprofit group Americans for Prosperity, which is partly funded by the Koch Brothers Foundation, well-known supporters of oil interests and far-right crusades against climate-change legislation.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Move-to-extend-wolf-protections-in-state-4191167.php#ixzz2HzkQDbWE
The comments get me so pissed off. The ignorance and hatred from these people is intolerable, wolves really need to be relisted or to be protected nationally.
Billionaire brothers buy another Idaho ranch
Wyo. bison hunt hits goal of 200 by season close
FWP expects to revisit wolf trapping near Yellowstone
looking at the wolf trap in the image…barbaric nation we are toward wolves
one of the commenters thinks the hounders should be compensated for the loss of his dogs. WTF hounding another hunting method that should be abolished. Terrorizing wildlife with dogs and putting dogs in harms way.
Louise if you were out walking your dog if you have one and a wolf killed your dog.
Where would you put the blame for the dog being killed or is it just part of nature.
if a wolf or coyote killed my dog, I would be sad. Having said that I would never subject my dog to the dangers of hunting other animals that could kill him. More importantly, I would never subject wildlife to my dog or to hunting them with my dog. I live in a place where coyotes roam. These are the rules I follow. I leash my dog when its close to dark or early in the AM when wildlife is most active. I do not allow him to harass any wildlife from chipmunks to fox to coyote. He unfortunatly has a really strong prey drive so during early morning walks or late afternoon when his nose is quivering and he is itching to chase something he wears an electronic collar, so I can control him from chasing wildlife. He is 100+ pounds so I am not so fearful of him being killed but its not fair to have him chasing any animal that needs to expend energy to live, not being chased by a non- invasive predator. When he wears that collar he stops on a dime and comes when called. Even off collar he is pretty good I just don’t take chances. I take all responsibility for my dog and that he is well behaved, does not intimidate or kill wild animals. This keeps both him and other wildlife safe. Wild animals have no other place to live… our pets do. I know that if I live by the rules I set for myself and my dog I’ll keep him safe and also keep wildlife safe. I have no tolerance for people that let their dogs run loose on wildlife. Its terrorism in its worst form. It should not be compensated or tolerate. Additionally, dogs are like children, if you can’t be responsible for them don’t have them. That means not leaving them tied up for extended periods of time, roaming loose and expecting other wild animals may not attack them and not training them to behave and respect your own property, other’s property and wildlife. so do I feel badly the dogs were killed, yes and no. I hate to think about the dogs suffering but I hate to think about the thoughtless, inconsiderate whiners that want to blame wolves for defending their homes and how they will use this as more PR against wolves. Really its sickening. Should they be compensated – hell no. They should be jailed for terrorism and animal abuse to their pets and the animals they chase.
Well said. I have often wondered how I would respond in a similar situation. I have wolves that run my bit of land, that is surrounded by 10s of 1,000s of acres of young forest (more deer = more wolves).
We are responsible for our dogs. Mine is older, doesn’t roam, responds to the word no… Probably should carry bear spray. Dog is never leashed, and never out of sight. Does not mean an attack won’t happen.
If i go with a pup in the future, leash will become required, and bear spray should be an everyday requirement.
you can call these houndsman what ever you want.
do you think because your dog is 100 pounds he has a chance with a wolf, I think not.
have you looked at the pictures of the dogs?
Rancher Bob looking for a fight? You came out swinging but never bothered to think about what I wrote. The point being, I don’t think dogs should be harassing wildlife. It pisses me off. Its my job to keep my dog safe, 100 pounds or not, and my responsibility to keep him from being a terrorist where other wild animals must live. I’d never put my dog in a position to be killed or pit him against another animal. Its selfish and destructive, and anyone that does bring their dog into an area to hunt predators assumes a risk that their dog (s) will be killed. My dog is my friend, I’d never expose him to that risk and those that do sure as hell have no right to blame wolves, coyotes, lions for defending themselves.
I would have to say that’s life (nature). If you know wolves are there, or there’s the possibility they are there, you don’t take your dog there. If there are traps there or the possibility of traps there, you don’t take your dog there. But even under the best of circumstances, things happen that are out of our control.
We in the modern world seem to expect a life without risk, and it just isn’t realistic.
I have another question – must there be wolf hunts every year? It would seem that alternate years wouldn’t be so overly aggressive on the population, would take poaching and non-hunting related deaths into consideration, and allow the next generation to grow up – but yet you would still see some benefit in ‘management’.
Ida how about letting the agencies do what they did before the delisting, deal with the so called problem wolves and leave the blood thirst hunting out of it, so wolves can do what they are meant to do on a landscape. Sorry, the alternate year still disrupts the packs stability and is not really management targeted at any problem, its designed to allow people to kill wolves for sport or trophies. I think they deserve better then that. IMO
That would be best, of course. But what’s being done now is terrible; I’m just trying to think of a better alternative compromise to what’s going on now, which is the fastest route to extirpation.
I can never understand the logic with that. Why do the states, especially in these tough times, have to compensate hunters who deliberately put their animals in danger by tracking wild animals? It makes no sense. Like ranching, your losses are the cost of doing business. If programs are being cut left and right and conservatives don’t want taxes or paying for health care, the audacity of these claims is astounding.
There’s a comment that says that dog owners whose dogs were caught in traps and injured/killed should be compensated too. But you can bet that won’t go over well. The article says the man was out hunting with teenagers and he didn’t want them to see the dogs in that condition. But it is ok to see the mountain lion in that condition? I sometimes wonder if anything but wolf and hunting legislation goes on by the lawmakers in these areas.
I agree with the absurdity of compensating a person who uses a dog to hunt and that dog gets killed in the process of a hunt. That’s like compensating a man who’s rifle gets lost on a hunt or compensating a cattle man if his dog gets mauled doing it’s job. Doesn’t seem to make sense. As far as your comment about the man not wanting the teenagers to see the dogs. Well yes, that is different. Despite his poor judgement in using dogs in the first place, there is a difference between seeing a dog your raised from a puppy killed as opposed to something you’re already hunting and expecting to look not so good after it’s been caught. I suppose few here would sympathize with a man who lost his dogs while using them to hunt and I agree I struggle with that too, but I can certainly understand why he would be upset and why the kids would be too. Maybe this will help form their own thinking that this is just not right.
Ida and Harley,
In the story the hunter commented that they have treed 26 cougar this year and only taken one. Its a very neat experience seeing a cougar that close.
Why do you say its just not right?
I’m glad they only killed one of the cougars but a neat experience for who the terrified cougars or their cubs that may have been left behind.
It probably was a terrifying experience for the cat. It gives them a natural fear of humans and dogs which will ultimately help keep them safe.
You are again applying human emotion to the animal world, if we are to say they are in terror, which really has not been defined in animals.
All wildlife faces challenges, do we really know if the challenge they face from what they see as another animal affect them more because it is a human?
You do realize there are cases of wolves chasing and actually killing cougars right?
Two years ago a friend and I were cat hunting and cut a lion track. It had a single set of wolf tacks following the cat tracks. We leashed our two hounds and began to walk them on the track. After following for a ways a second wolf came onto the track. A few hundred yard more and we found where the cat had started to run based on the distance between tracks and the snow kicked up. It ran about twenty yards or so and went up a tree. The cat was still sitting in the tree when we showed up. The wolf tracks circled the tree a few times then left. we never let our dogs off leashes (we each had 1) because of the wolves but we got some good exercise and got to see something that most do not. That same friend was cat hunting a few weeks ago with the same dog and she was killed by a single wolf. The only tracks they had found that day besides the cat and some ungulates were coyotes. He did not find any sign of wolves in the area till he got to the tree.
SB whats your argument…that animals chased by dogs don’t experience terror? I’m not taking the bait
And please explain your ability to explain what “terror” is?
I will add, you took the bait a long time ago.
Thanks for the compliment! I guess I never considered that a dog was bred to do that sort of thing. Kinda like a shepherd herding sheep I suppose. Hmm, would that open up an argument for dog fighting if someone said that the dogs were bred for for fighting I wonder? Not that I’m for that! Just speculating outloud in print.
Anyway, thank you for the decent dialog. I enjoy civil discourse.
Here are two cougars that got moved from the city to more suitable habitat because of hunting with hounds.
I guess I mean the over all idea of using dogs. It’s purely from an emotional response, I will freely admit that. I would hate to see my dog injured by another animal!
That being said, I wouldn’t really want to impose my will on someone else. If they want to use their dogs, if the dogs are trained, that is their choice. I do, however, agree with the compensation part. I don’t think they should be compensated for that if their dog is injured or killed. That’s part of the risk of what they are doing.
I can understand not wanting to put your dog in a vulnerable position but that is specifically what they were bred for. I also believe as you do that I should not impose my will on others. Here in Washington we passed the right for homosexuals to get married. I personally feel that homosexuality is immoral but I still voted for it because I don’t think I have the right to tell others what to do with there life. I also don’t believe that anyone should be compensated for their dogs or livestock that are killed by wild animals. I thinks it sets a bad precedent and would open the door for more people to have the government pay them when a wild animal affects their private property. You seem like a pretty reasonable person and thanks for taking the time to answer my question.
I ended up putting the reply in the wrong place, sorry about that!
I don’t believe it does. Hounds are bred to trail, tree and bring to bay their quarry. Dogs that try to fight wild game end up dead pretty fast and don’t usually do much breeding. Also dogs that show aggression towards other dogs or humans are culled fairly quickly. Dog aggression will spread through your pack like wild fire if you don’t nip it quick. There is quite a bit that goes into breeding for specific traits. For example someone who hunts cougar in Arizona in the desert is not going to breed for the same characteristics that I want in my dogs that I hunt bear with in Idaho. The different terrain and the different style of hunting will dictate what you look for in a dog.
If I remember right, as part of the delisting process dogs were not allowed to be protected by lethal force.
I birdhunt with pointers, but 350 days of the year they are house pets. I can only imagine the pain of losing one. I have got to tag along on hound chases for cougar, it was a pretty neat expirience. (we only treed a female and let it walk) Most houndsmen I have met care much more about cougar populations than the average joe and our very particualr about the cats they take.
The issue is now that hound hunting has been removed in many parts of the nation there has been an explosion in cougar populations causting drastic decline in sheep and deer populations. I hunt in the North warner mountains in southern oregon, the deer hunting is very limited (less than 40 rilfe tags and limited primitive weapons opportunity. Unfortunately due to the cattle operations (both public and private) the cat populations have grown and lead to a drastic reductions in the sheep herd. The fishlake rim herd is down from 100 animals to 9 at last count.
jaguar and ocelot spotted in SW
I have a question, I’m no biologist, but it seems that humans could never be as successful in control and ‘management’ of deer and elk that having natural predators in place does.
As we have heard before, the predators take the sick and old, sometimes young, with the trees, grasslands, rivers in our environment benefitting all the better for it, and human hunters the biggest and best. So, without predators, are we helping diseases like CWD and EHD spread further in our ungulate herds? Can these diseases be passed to predators and humans?
Hunting seasons address alot of different variables. In most states you have antlerless seasons (where young, old, and everything inbetween is taken) and the average joe hunter who shoots what ever buck or bull is seen. I agree that predators have a place but the natural ecosystem has changed because humans have added additional food sources to the envoiroment (livestock and pets) that offer supplemental food sources for apex predators which changed the effect that prey populations play to a large part.
Also you have social requirements which include ungulate damage on private property (not an ideal situation for pretators to control as there is usually livestock present. Then across the west then there is the hunters requirements for take as well.
Ryan – a summary (with regard to predators) from the 1971 handbook on Game Management in Montana:
The thinking of the Montana Fish & Game dept. and other state game depts. concerning predator control has changed radically over the years.
The tendency for game depts. to minimize the value of predator control for game management has been well documented.
A new management program for the Montana Fish & Game Dept. was proposed in 1958; in summary it read:
Although indiscriminate control of the large predators may have benefited big game during the restoration era, predator control has little place in the management of our overstocked or properely stocked big game ranges of today.
The following statement sums up the present thinking (1971) “It appears that most of the predator species will be with us in the future. However, modern agricultural practices will tend to limit predator habitat and future numbers.
Ironically, the modern agricultural practices that will control predators will also limit game species – the very game species that were to benefit from predator control programs that began nearly a century ago in Montana.
***Full credit is given to Montana Fish & Game Dept. and authors, for the reprint of this material.
Its interesting how back and forth game management & the hunting mentality has changed over the years but the biggest losers here?
Wildlife. Patiently waiting for us “mankind” to finally get our fricken sh*t together when it comes to their RIGHT to exist on this planet.
How do you figure wildlife are the biggest losers here, we have more bears, more cougars, more wolves, more deer, more elk, more of most species than we did in 1900. Obiviously the model is working. Some hunters don’t like it, some bunny huggers don’t like. Thats a pretty good sign in meets in the middle for all user groups.
Why did you pick 1900?
I generally agree with your sentiments, though it is not correct that there are more wolves now in Montana than there were in 1900.
++How do you figure wildlife are the biggest losers here, we have more bears, more cougars, more wolves, more deer, more elk, more of most species than we did in 1900. Obiviously the model is working. Some hunters don’t like it, some bunny huggers don’t like. Thats a pretty good sign in meets in the middle for all user groups.++
So because we’ve improved certain numbers from the original hunting/trapping slaughter it’s working?
If you set your house on fire on purpose, and were then able to hose off the garage and save it while the rest of the house turned to ash, would you call that “success”?
Your right mike, we should probably all kill ourselves so the earth need not be burdened with our existence.
Your lack of knowledge of the west is only exceeded by your bias..
“If you set your house on fire on purpose, and were then able to hose off the garage and save it while the rest of the house turned to ash, would you call that “success”?”
In the case of wolves and a variety of other species our forefathers burned the house to the ground. Increases in carnivore populations in a variety of places suggest things are improving–so to continue your metaphor, we’ve rebuilt, but smaller. Is that a success? Damn right it is! Is it enough? Well, that’s debatable.
But the termites are eating away into the foundation! 😉
“But the termites are eating away into the foundation!”
Perhaps. But there’s no question that the neighbors are complaining that the smaller rebuild is going to negatively impact their home values. 😉
What’s a bunny hugger Ryan?
(From Urban Dictionary)
1. Bunny Hugger
A nature-lover who champions the fauna over the flora (for latter see “tree hugger”). Hyperbole often used as a deprecating reference to those in the “environmental extremist” camp.
He shared his hunting pictures around the office mostly to enjoy the horrified look on the Bunny Huggers’ faces.
2. Bunny Hugger
Similar to a Tree Hugger. Such as a member of PAWS or PETA.
The Bunny Hugger won’t let me put lipstick on my sheep.
Interesting question, the major thrust of my studies focused on predator, prey relationships and the possibility of brucellosis transfer. I specifically focused on bovine tissue transfer to wolves and the possibility that wolves were transferring to other prey species.
Brucellosis and CWD was what I was studying.
FYI- Immer et all
The 2013 Midwest Wolf Stewards meeting will be held on April 17-18 in Silver City, Michigan. Silver City is right on Lake Superior and just down the road from the picturesque Porcupine Mountains State Park. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, International Wolf Center, and Michigan Technological University are sponsoring this year’s meeting. It promises to be another interesting and informative meeting given the recent changes in wolf management in the region.
Soon, we will be sending out information on how to register and where to book your accommodations. Also, if you are interested in presenting a paper, please let me know and we will add you to the agenda.
We are looking forward to seeing everyone in Silver City this spring.
Dean E. Beyer, Jr., Ph.D.
Wildlife Research Biologist
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(906) 227-1627 Office
(906) 250-8974 Cell
(906) 227-1621 Fax
are you from the Midwest? 🙂
Harley no I am from Cape Cod, MA. I’ve traveled a lot but oddly not much to the Midwest. I love wildlife, and canids and predators in particular. I’m hoping to do some travel specifically to spend time in the Midwest in the next year or tow
Well… if you like wildlife, stay clear of the city unless you want to observe Coyotes and Raccoons in their… natural adopted habitat!
International Wolf Symposium 2013: Wolves and Humans at the Crossroads
October 10 – 13, 2013
The Wolf-revered, feared, misunderstood, iconic figure of mystery, ultimate survivor. As wolf populations continue to grow and reclaim portions of their historic range in many parts of the world, key questions about our role in their future must be answered. How might we respond to increasing contacts with wolves? Given the historic and current polarizing atmosphere, how can we educate and dialogue with each other about our values and their role in the wolf’s future? What new information about wolf ecology, behavior and management can help guide us in making sound decisions?
The International Wolf Center is calling educators, wolf enthusiasts and conservation professionals to come together to learn and respond to the evolving social and biological realities of wolves and humans at the crossroads.
More information will be posted here as details are confirmed.
Call for Presentations
The International Wolf Center seeks proposals for presentations for International Wolf Symposium 2013: Wolves and Humans at the Crossroads being held in Duluth, Minnesota USA October 10-13, 2013.
Presentations should relate to the following sessions:
Wolf Human Interactions
Wolf Ecology, Behavior and Genetics
Wildlands: Their Importance to Wolves and Humans
Dogs’ Relationship to Wolves: Genetics, Behavior and Conflict
Wolves and Environmental Education
International Status of Wolves
The International Wolf Symposium Program Committee is interested in a wide range of topics and presenters. Individual presentations will consist of a 15-minute presentation followed by 5 minutes for questions. Other types and lengths of presentations will be considered on an individual basis.
Please submit your electronic proposal with the following information by March 15, 2013 to Jerritt Johnston.
Presenter contact information: name, address, phone, e-mail.
Corresponding Session from above list
Session type: Individual presentation, group discussion, panel, etc.
Please provide a 250-word abstract or summary of your presentation.
Description for program (description as it would appear in convention program; please include presenter’s preferred professional title): maximum 50 words
Presenter bio (brief bio for session introduction)
AV needs: A projector and computer will be provided.
If you are submitting a proposal for something other than an individual presentation, please provide the following additional details: topic, time required, type of presentation (Ex: panel discussions, film, etc.).
Proposals are due no later than March 15, 2013 and emailed to Jerritt Johnston. Proposals will be reviewed by the International Wolf Center Symposium Program Committee. They will be evaluated for scientific accuracy and relevance, quality, participant interest and balance of topics. All presentation submissions will receive a response from the International Wolf Symposium Committee by May 1, 2013.
Questions: Please contact Jerritt Johnston.
I will continue to post this monthly. I hope to be there in one capacity or another. If at all possible, come. It would be nice to see Some of you in person
thanks for the info!
The Isle Royale Winter Study starts this week. I will be following this closely to see what they find…
Not good news if I heard correctly. Stopped by the IWC very briefly today and I thought I heard some one say seven wolves, one female.
Yeah, I’ve been following it. Only one girl. And so inbred. Yikes. I know there has been talk bantered about as to whether they should just let nature take it’s course or bring new blood in. The moose haven’t been doing so well either and I’m pretty sure it’s not because of all the wolves.
I wouldn’t put down the things people like to do in and of itself, (nothing wrong with testosterone either) but what worries me is that there isn’t enough wildlife or wild places to support these activities on a continuing basis. It’s a different kind of ‘resource’ in that it cannot be depended upon because it fluctuates, and it will continue to do so with increasing pressure from unchecked human population growth, and all the other things we do such as our voracious need for fossil fuels.
I wanted to mention in one of my posts that when I talked about the dichotomy of art, music, literature, philosphy as opposed to war and killing all at home in the human psyche – I was talking about the human sensitivity that allows the former, but yet don’t exclude the latter.
Yikes, you’d think she’d have known better no matter what anyone else says. Ouch, actually worse than ouch.
Aves where are you? Secret World of Red Wolves due out in May 2013.
T. Delene Beeland is the author of ‘The Secret World of Red Wolves’ (due in May 2013, UNC Press,http://www.uncpress.unc.edu/browse/book_detail?title_id=3245)
She recently formed a group as a program of The WILD Foundation, called ‘Friends of the Red Wolf’. They work directly with the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Red Wolf Recovery Program to support the conservation of wild red wolves in northeastern North Carolina (their only wild population).
Friends of the Red Wolf website:www.FriendsOfRedWolves.org
Background about this, on the author’s personal blog – http://sciencetrio.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/announcing-friends-of-the-red-wolf/
Peter a petition to help Russian wolves.
I still try to unearth some reliable info out of Yakutia. I have a few contacts in Russia but not right there.
Louise and Peter
What other source of protein do these people have besides reindeer.
The people of Yakutia are hunters, fishermen and ….reindeer herders. That´s why – understandably – the do not shy any effort to protect their livestock. There is not much agriculture due to permafrost. To give some indication of the country we are talking about: The population is roughly 1 ooo ooo ! And the country itself, the eighth largest on earth, is approximately the size of continental Europe.
Peter another petition asking to prevent the slaughter of 3000 wolves.
From what I have seen, Vladimir Putin is involved in wildlife conservation – Siberian tiger protection, and Siberian cranes, and bringing attention to it. Does he condone this killing of wolves?
Interesting petition. When I first broke the story about these Yakutia wolves on this very forum (several times in fact), there were skeptics as to its origin, veracity, and the very severity of the problem as this Siberian Republic represented it. Since then, a second republic has joined the effort. The story was carried on many news services, which a quick news web search would reveal.
Now there is a petition to stop the Siberian wolf hunt, apparently the result of imbalance between prey base and wolves which rely on hares. This has caused a migration and concentration of these wolves who are now targeting reindeer which the locals raise for subsistence and to sell. The local governments, on behalf of the people, want to trim the wolf population some – well, alot.
If you go to the petition article, do look closely at who is signing – most signatories show United States origin, rather than the folks who are actually affected by any management plan for wolves in this part of Siberia. I sometimes think it is good to let locals solve their own problems, with locals having a greater say in how they live their lives.
Also, if I were a real skeptic, I might be a little careful about giving out any information to such a website which has personal information necessary for a petition siging AND computer registry information + email (I didn’t open the petition signing portion). I would be especially careful with a Russian based effort, if ya know what I mean.
I´m not aware of a second republic having joined the efforts. Which one is it?
Responding to your second republic question, I am sorry I don’t have time to look for more information. This is what I quickly found. I think it is the same article I had seen before, which I discovered by accident. Some real ugly photos here so be forewarned:
WM, thanks, this one is indeed leading to another republic: Khakassia. This might however be an independent move because Khakassia is a long way from Yakutia.
Wolves Unleashed, a documentary film about wolves in Yakutia wildlife by Andrew Simpson
There are still skeptics to its origin.
I was not aware of this film. What I do get from their homepage is that apparently this Canadian animal trainer took his (trained) wolves across the globe to Yakutia for this film project! That was the first thing what I noticed in the trailer: The wolves look definitely like Canadians!
wolves who are now targeting reindeer which the locals raise for subsistence and to sell. The local governments, on behalf of the people, want to trim the wolf population some – well, alot.
the picture is not so simple – there is not a big market for reindeer meat, in part because local hunters kill wild reindeer and so are getting the very same meat cheaply
and bigger threat to reindeer husbandry is oil/gas/uranium/mining developers (pollution + pasture loss)
by the way, Yakutia has more than 200 thousand reindeer (not counting wild reindeer) managed by 195 brigades (smth like family if I remember correctly) – so we can’t say that they make a majority of local people (actually most of them live in towns)
It seems people are the same everywhere.
the average number of herders in brigade is 8 persons
WM I believe we also discussed the very real possibility that the charges against wolves were trumped up and exaggerated. I don’t agree that people from around the world should ignore issues that affect whole ecosystems and rampant persecution, like wolves are subjected to everywhere. Its a global problem as well as regional one.
Idaho officials considering use of professional wolf trappers
Another data point. Mountain lion hunter’s dogs killed by wolves north of Missoula:
Sad loss of life for no reason at all.
When you are running mountain lion dogs in country occupied by wolves, there is a risk,” Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Region 2 wildlife manager Mike Thompson said Monday. “Guys now go through all kinds of pains to check out an area to see if they dare let their dogs loose, but they can never be 100 percent certain.”
How do they know it was wolves, if as the man states, the location he was hunting in doesn’t have wolves. Plus, so many wolves have been shot this year, I find this difficult to believe. I wouldn’t put anything past some, whatever you can think of has probably already been done, like the GPS coordinates thing. Nothing new under the sun with anti-wolf tactics. These people are totally out of control – contrary to those who think they’d ‘get it out of their system’ (appalling thought) the more they kill, the more they want to kill. It’s like a feeding frenzy, and some kind of order needs to be restored very soon.
Final stats disprove notion that trappers and hunters are out matched by wolves.
1. wolves aren’t dumb
2. Perhaps there are more of them than we thought
Did anybody stop to think that the difficulty of hunting and trapping wolves was based upon a time when there were just fewer wolves, and very few people hunting a trapping them?
If the supply is low, the take will be both low, and far and few in between. When 6,000 individuals go after 3,000 wolves, it’s not difficult to imagine the quotas being met early.
Immer – The author of the article you posted seems to have some of the same problems I had with Mech’s comments about trapping wolves
Here is another one on pubic anger about trapping in MN
Again, what we have here is 1,000 to 2,000 trappers out there in areas of high wolf density. When Mech was trapping for study purpose, it was just him and his team.
When the trappers of Western lore were attempting to trap the few remaining wolves, it was tough.
In MN it was lining up at the meat counter at Bohacs.
Serious blowback for creepy new NRA ad:
Hunters need to ditch these goons ASAP.
Y’stone wolves down 25%
Loss of collared wolves complicates tracking and research, internal park correspondence shows.
[MT]FWP Commission sets meeting on wolf hunting, trapping closure for Jan. 29
Wildlife refuge manager looks ahead, reflects on past
Sure it’s cold — but cold enough to kill pine beetles?
Sustained, extremely cold stretch is necessary to kill off mountain pine beetle
Miners May Pay U.S. More in Royalties Under 1872 Overhaul
Interesting mix of Senators making yet another attempt to update this outdated law that is costing and killing us.
You’ve got to stop with these little articles. How are we supposed to keep up with you for next years grand prize. Come on, get into it with WM again, that was fun to read and…
Thanks for the chuckle, Immer!
I made a New Year’s resolution to be positive in all my comments spoken or otherwise, though I’ve missed it a couple times already, and getting into it with WM may have been entertaining for some,it certainly wasn’t for me! So I also decided to just ignore comments that I find offensive, baiting or far beyond what I consider worthy of response.
And I’m gonna try to stick to it by gum.
I only post all those stories because I find them and have to tell someone about them, this is the best outlet for most of them. I don’t talk to many people on a day to day basis so this is it. My voice is crusty from not using it much.
I’ll try to keep it down so others can have the crown of prolific posting! I never dreamed I would attain such a high “honor” (?). :0
wolf update Oregon
Direwolf presence confirmed in Nevada
speculates about extinction from competing wolf species or lack of prey but also indicates human presence there. I wonder if humans played any role?
Montana environmental groups sue to protect whitebark pine
Oh boy, such a deal. (sorry about the sarcasm but seriously…)
Entry to Yellowstone free on Monday
Montana lawmakers consider separate parks board
“The new Parks and Recreation board would resemble the FWP commission, with five members appointed by the governor from different districts across the state.
An attempt to split the Fish, Wildlife and Parks agency in the 2011 legislative session failed because opponents found it too costly and complicated. This time, the proposal does not call for a split in the agency, but it would shift oversight of the agency’s parks division to the new board.
The new board would review and approve parks and recreation spending, land acquisitions and land use, while the FWP commission _ to be renamed the Fish and Wildlife commission _ would continue to oversee issues related to fish and wildlife.
FWP spokesman Ron Aasheim said the agency has not taken a position on the bill.
Supporters, which include several recreational groups, say the board would allow the parks division to emerge from its position as a minor player in the FWP commission’s affairs. Too often, parks matters are overshadowed by more controversial topics, such as wolf and bison management, they said”
182 pound wolf killed in Minnesota.
I seriously doubt it, looks like another camera manipulation again, quite easy to do with a telephoto lens.
Already dispelled in MN. Number of things phony about picture. Dressed pretty lightly for late November/December. Grass green. Look At rifle sling buckle.
WDFW Wolf meeting on Friday: •Jan. 18 – Magnuson Park’s Garden Room, 7400 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, 6-8 p.m.
For any of you urbanites who are interested in going!
They will also have Carter Niemeyer there speaking.
DLB, the Spokane meeting well attended.
Yeah, I heard. Sounded like the crowd was about 50/50, and most folks were saying the discussions were fairly neutral.
According to what I read on a hunting website, there was a hunter there wearing a t-shirt that said shoot, shovel, and shut up.
I would rather have him wearing one, than actually practicing it.
Jon, I see you are a fun of the Hunting Washington blog……
DLB, he is a fan of any website that show hunters in a bad light.
I don’t believe that website shows all hunters in a bad light. Sure, there are plenty of folks that engage in the status qou anti-wolf rhetoric, but I was originally surprised by the number of people who post there that come across as relatively informed & intelligent. My impression is that forum is quite different from ones such as the Bad Bear Blog. If my memory serves me, there have been a couple of the more well known NRM internet anti-wolfers who were roughly treated after trying to dominate the wolf threads.
No, I’m not a fan, but I check out the website specifically the wolf forum. The wolf forum does show the hunters in a bad light. Do you not agree DLB? Hunters can sometimes be their own worst enemy.
Jon, the website leads me to believe that hashing out a compromise in Washington over wolf management is MAYBE possible.
The ones who screw it up will be the ones that can’t see the forest for the trees.
Are you talking about the hw website or this one? I suspect that you do take a look at the comments posted in the wolf forum of the hw website. 99% of the comments there are very hostile towards wolves. I don’t see where the compromise is. What I think will happen is that the ranchers and the hunters are going to keep fighting with the pro-wolf people and vice versa. You had one person going to the meeting with Carter Niemeyer and Mike Jimenez with a t-shirt that read, shoot, shovel, and shut up. It’s good to have some hope I guess, but wolves are a very controversial topic and some hunters and ranchers feel that there should be no live wolves in Washington.
Do you really read the comments, or do you gravitate to one particular thing and obsess over it?
There are many degress of pro-wolf, as well as anti-wolf. If you forget about the T-shirt for a moment and really read the comments from those who attended, pro & anti, you see that there was a neutrality to the tone that I’ve never seen displayed following a meeting in somewhat anti-wolf territory in the five years I’ve followed this issue. Quite possibly meaningless, but at least it something different for a moment.
I would rather he was politely shown the door and escorted out of the meeting.
Then you would open up the people in charge of the meeting to a 1st amendment violation, this has been adjudicated in the US Supreme Court more than once over the years, no matter how offensive, he has the right of free speech to express his views.
And don’t even go with yelling fire in a crowd, T-Shirt slogans are not even close to the same.
I would think it would be up to the discretion of the meeting holder(s) and security whether or not this could be seen as inciting trouble.
No it is not, T-shirt message have lawsuits have been taken clear to the supreme court and the supreme court found in favor of the t-shirt wearer.
Advocating shoot, shovel and shut up is illegal. And violent.
“The First Amendment does not mean you can say anything you want, wherever you want, or whenever you want. For instance, fighting words – words that cause distress or incite violence – are not protected.”
“While most forms of conduct could be said to express ideas in some way, only some conduct is protected as symbolic speech. In analyzing such cases, the courts ask whether the speaker intended to convey a particular message and whether it is likely that the message was understood by those who viewed it. To convince a court that symbolic conduct should be punished and not protected as speech, the government must show it has an important reason.
At any rate, I hope you would be as tolerant to a message emblazoned across the chest of the Humane Society about trapping if they attended one of your meetings.
I would be just as tolerant, and have been when I have given seminars and training classes, you can walk down the street in Harlem or Watts with slogan I hate “Nigg**s” and it is perfectly legal, just as is one of my pet peeves, Burning the US Flag.
Rights guaranteed by the constitution apply to those we disagree with just as much as those we agree with.
If you remember, perhaps not, but a disgusting publisher fought the US on this very issue, he published and continues to publish a magazine that the majority of the country finds very offensive, it is called “Hustler”
I find the slogans that White Supremacists have on their shirts to be offensive, I find the Swastika offensive, but even though they are disgusting symbols they are also protected by the 1st amendment.
I think you’d have the discretion of asking the person to leave. But if it were my meeting, if he or she had gotten past the metal detectors and security frisk at the door, perhaps he could sit in at the meeting.
Where I live, I see “Smoke a pack” Bumper stickers daily, which I find offensive, but there is nothing I can do about it, they are expressing their 1st amendment rights.
There are being smartasses.
You have the discretion to ask someone to leave, if it is your private property, if you are giving a presentation at a public venue, you have no right to ask anyone to leave, unless they have physically disrupted the meeting. People attend sessions of Congress all the time, with offensive slogans on their signs and shirts, but they are only removed, when they physically disrupt the meetings.
I don’t know, nowadays where violence is commonplace, you might have more discretion if you felt unsafe or feared for violence at an enclosed public place.
Just as those that wear T-Shirts that say Shoot, Shovel and Shutup, they are not inciting anyone to do anything, they are just expressing their opinion.
Over my two different Careers, I have given many public seminars and speeches, I have never been able to have someone removed, just because they had a sign or wore a T-Shirt that I found offensive, The constitution applies to all, good or bad.
No where have I read, anybody felt unsafe or in fear because this person was wearing a T-Shirt with a slogan on it, in fact, it has not even been confirmed, Jon said he heard someone was wearing it, there was no mention of it in the press.
I know it wasn’t confirmed – I just thought it would be interesting to discuss if someone were to do that.
Ida, Washington state is very diverse and tolerent. from looking at the crowd size and make up I would guess that at least 3-8 people were packing concealed , many of the hunters and ranchers had knives and multitools and no one felt threatened or intimidated, all sides were respectful.
Does a hunter wearing a t-shirt that supports breaking the law shows hunters in a good light savebears?
Toby Bridges expresses his opinion as well sb, by telling people to go out there and sprinkle xylitol in order to kill wolves. When a hunter wears a t-shirt saying shoot, shovel, and shut up, he is basically saying kill wolves even if it’s illegal. He is supporting a criminal activity.
Where did I ever say it shows anyone in a good light? You need to learn to read, if they are advocating illegal activities, then they are criminals, how many times do I have to say that. I never once said I agree, but I also know they have the right to express their opinions, which is all they are doing.
Is that Rich Landers guy a hunter? I wonder where he got his information from. 12,000 wolves in Canada? Last I checked and I checked today, the experts say there are 60,000 wolves in Canada.
Why does it matter if he is a hunter?
my guess is they are referring to Western Canada population segment that could disperse into the PNW.
That’s what I was assuming as well.
Did you enjoy the meeting?
DLB, yes I did, it was well attended, they moved everyone to a larger room to accommodate everyone.
I felt all three presenters took a very factual/middle of the road approach and laid out what is ahead for us.
extraordinary how quickly the population is growing, I thought they would confirm a pack in the Blues? instead the Touhet pack is now the Walla Walla and dens in Oregon.
More proof Idaho is not managing wolves like other wildlife.
Look how much effort is expended to hunt wolves. It’s like these people have nothing else to do. Of course they will have gotten collar coordinates!
Where are you getting this stuff? Yikes, I guess there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll! LOL
good lord Ida, consider changing your screen name to “daffodil”
I feel kinda bad for the guy!
yea Harley nice to hear someone with empathy, for all life even mice. He felt really bad. I believe this is how “normal” people react when they see a life extinguished.
I would say the great majority of people feel that way if they witness nature first hand. That’s the sort of reactions I’ve seen, even in my tough and burly son. He’d be pretty upset if he went to all that trouble to catch the mouse and release it, only for a hawk to snatch it up right in front of him! Yes, I know it’s nature lol but darnit, why couldn’t the hawk have waited til the guy went back inside? In some ways it is humorous on some level. The hawk’s gotta eat too!
I agree Harley, in this situation, it would have been disappointing to see this happen.
Being a grad of this institution, I would suspect his superiors may be questioning his mental abilities for the job he signed up for.
But I would say the vast majority of people have empathy in a situation like this.
West Pint grad? So you weren’t just an enlisted man! Cool!
I retired with the Rank of O-6
My son will be working towards his E-5 this year. Navy of course 😉
I feel less bad knowing that it was a hawk that took the mouse, because that is part of nature. People have a real disconnect when it comes to predators of any kind. There was a man who was arrested for trying to beat a hawk for catching a pigeon – just couldn’t understand that it was the hawk’s prey. (Hawk flew away from cops unharmed). In Manhattan, there a red-tailed hawk who nests in one of the skyscrapers on 5th Ave. (good taste!), and some were upset he and his family eat pigeons, but yet people routinely poison them as pests. Go figure.
Yeah pigeons, rats with wings *shudder* The hawks are welcome to them! Just as long as they don’t make the hawks sick.
While it is difficult to watch, say a killer whale munching on a penguin, it is a part of the natural cycle. Sucks for the penguin though lol
It sure does! 🙂
I showed a video at school once of orcas catching seals on the coast of Argentina. Some times they would swim out from shore and “play ball” with them. On one occasion when they were through with the tossing one swam with it back to the sandy beach and released it.
OK someone pinch me or give me a shot of that Patron that Joseph got into last night. Anyone with any insight into this please educate me. Kucinich on Fox!
not exactly wildlife my apologies but wanted to get a take from some of he the most staying on top of the issues people I know. I am now speechless.
Fox News Channel’s newest contributor might raise a few eyebrows – on both sides of the political spectrum.
Former congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has signed a multi-year deal with the network to serve as a contributor, the network said Wednesday.
Kucinich will make his debut on Thursday’s edition of “The O’Reilly Factor,” before branching out and appearing on other Fox News programs.
Urgent: Obamacare — Find out the new rules before it’s too late. Get the Amazon #1 bestselling guide — Go Here Now
It’s an attention-grabbing union; Kucinich, a former mayor of Cleveland who went on to serve as a congressman in Ohio, was regarded as one of the more liberal members of the Democratic party during his time in office.
During the George W. Bush Administration years, Kucinich voted against the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq, and pushed for the impeachment of Dick Cheney – making him an interesting choice, for an network that’s regarded by some as having a conservative slant.
But in a statement announcing the hire, Kucinich characterized the network as a dependable venue for airing his viewpoint.
“Through 16 years in Congress and two presidential campaigns, Fox News always provided me with an opportunity to share my perspective with its enormous viewership,” he said.
Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, meanwhile, championed Kucinich’s convictions.
“I’ve always been impressed with Rep. Kucinich’s fearlessness and thoughtfulness about important issues,” Ailes added. “His willingness to take a stand from his point of view makes him a valuable voice in our country’s debate.”
Late last year, the network signed radio personality and former “Dancing With the Stars” contestant Adam Carolla as a contributor.
Urgent: Obamacare — Find out the new rules before it’s too late. Get the Amazon #1 bestselling guide — Go Here Now
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/kucinich-fox-contributor/2013/01/16/id/471807?s=al&promo_code=12052-1#ixzz2IHDLnFf1
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
What is suprising about this?
I’m sure that during a series of meetings, FOX executives were hoping for a bunch of people with your same reaction to give viewership a boost.
If you are going to get a couple of democratic contributors, why not do it with a bang?
more about where I thought Kucinich was coming from…
I can’t stand most of the people on fox like Hannity or Ingram. I don’t mind O’Reilly all that much. Seems more like a moderate to me. I like Juan Williams.
DLB nailed it. It’s about the money. Fox is dumb like a….well, a fox. Kucinich has draw power > more people watch Fox > sponsors like that, which means they spend more money with Fox.
And you just thought it was about their fine news and programming. Silly you.
Then there is the part about Kucinich becoming a whore to Fox for the $$$$. Gotta wonder who approached whom about this affiliation?
more dogs killed in traps for wolves. Hunters and trappers are calling for safer trapping methods.
Leslie maybe I misread the article but it was not traps intended for wolves. The traps mentioned was body gripping traps, mention for beaver or smaller animals. Yes a dog can get there head caught in the medium to large body gripping traps. All traps for wolves,coyote, fox or bobcat are leg hold traps and wolves are the only I believe that is excluded from the use of snares.
Any not targeted animal caught in a trap for a wolf will not immediately die.
This is something MN needs to address quickly. Other than conibear water sets, your dog gets caught in on of those it’s all over, these traps need to be five feet off the ground. Snares need cable restraints.
Perhaps if the MN trappers association had to compensate dog owners for accidental deaths, they’d be quicker to make changes. Oh,”it will be tougher to trap bobcats.” who gives a rats ass? Do the right thing now or the anti-trapping movement will be given more momentum.
This kind of goes with my above comment.
Liz is really informative and knows what she is talking about. She has trapped a fair amount of wolves for study.
Wolf hunt in Michigan being opposed: “An animal welfare group has the green light to start collecting signatures in its attempt to stop a new law opening Michigan to a wolf hunt.”
It will take over 160,000 signatures, and if it gets them, our current law (letting us set a wolf hunt) will be suspended until a 2014 vote of the citizens. It’s on many news feeds, here’s a brief one:
Referendum tactics previously worked to make mourning dove hunting illegal here. I’ve seen some hunters not liking democracy so much this morning. Also, upper peninsula folks will say those in the lower should shut up. I’m not really sure what chances it has to get the signatures, or win a vote. This will cause more debate though – that’s good I think.
I think the article is mistaken and they need 225,000 signatures unless they already achieved the difference. Its very exciting and as you point out regardless the outcome, the story is getting aired. Also a web page is up on HSUS if people want to volunteer. I’m wishing them luck, something has to stop this madness against wolves. I’d like to think its the public voice. I don’t think Minnesota has the option of a referendum or Howling for Wolves indicated they would have been using that option.
Listening to the commentary about the President’s agenda to ban assault weapons and the varying opinions coming out on that discussion, there is one point people seem to agree on. If an assault weapon had not been so readily available, and used by the attacker in some of the recent attacks, the attacks would not have been as successful in taking lives.
I heard one commenter state surely the hunters can give up this one right traditionally associated with hunting to protect innocent lives….you can imagine where this is going.
anyhow I do wonder why is it acceptable to think about killing animals with an assault rifle or highly powered bow, or traps or body gripping devices and to kill them by the millions as a right? In contrast, when human lives are taken, new laws are proposed albeit its taken some overly atrocious acts and lengthy intervals to achieve the common sense proposal. Even then, some argue that it will restrict their hunting rights or right to bear arms.
I’ve got a question: where do people believe that the right to kill animals for fun, trophies (as game animals) derive? I’m not talking about hunting for food please specifically as described above. And I am interested in the derived part, what is the justification in your minds? Its a question I am posing to hear your thoughts not to incite an argument one way or another.
I would submit that the “trophies” had their origin in ceremonial and practical usage. Headdresses, rituals, protection from the elements,shelter, etc. With the exception of weather extremes, where some “natural” headgear has its place, the real of trophies are walls, floors, and end tables.
I would add that other early collectors of “trophies” were naturalists like Darwin and Audubon, though this work was more about discovering/documenting organisms.
Yes I did know that JB and was saddened when I learned of it years ago. But in modern day what do people base this idea of having a right to trophy kill animals on?
You may be right about that Immer, makes sense but the rights issue is what I am after
I’ll bite: the “right” to kill animals derives from the people in a democracy. “Right” is not the best word, and I try to never use it to describe such a privilege.
Details: The people will likely want some demonstration that the killing and/or torture leads to some good things (damn them!). Doves was a hot topic in my state a few years back. They can be eaten but my limited understanding is that meat is not a big motivator. Anyway, I will not hunt them, so it is the problem of those that do want to hunt them to convince me that they won’t harm the population of doves (or kestrels), not harm the land much in other ways (lead), perhaps do some biologically good thing (I have no example here), create some positive economic activity (tourism, bullet sales, or protect crops perhaps), and generate money for non-game wildlife management or other environmental goods (osprey, trumpeter swan, buy land, remove dams). If they can convince me the good more than offsets the harms, just maybe I’ll vote to let them. I slid by the humanity questions (and many other considerations), but that should be factored in there as well. What weight to put on that is hard though.
Maybe part of your question is why would I want to hunt them. Why is it exhilarating to hook and land a big steelhead if you release and obtain nothing tangible from it? I think I know something about it, but it’s tricky to say clearly, though folks opposing it are sometimes able to give very simplistic sounding explanations.
thans rork but I am really looking for an example of what the perceived right to hunt for trophies is based in.
There is no right to hunt. Hunting is a privilege, even in states that have a constitution amendment on hunting and fishing. Certain hunting and fishing violations will revoke one’s privilege to hunt, fish or trap. It is the state that sets the hunting season whether it is for deer, elk, antelope or trophy animals like grizzly bears, mountain lions and wolves.
That is the way it is in all 50 states. I can tell that you do not like it. Get the state legislator to change the law. It is not going to happen in your life time — live with it.
I suppose the best answer I have is that it is grounded in the peculiar status of wildlife under our legal system. Wildlife, like some other natural resources, are “res communes” belonging to no one in particular but open to capture by all. Wildlife (nor domestic animals) do not have “rights” per se, these are reserved for humans. This is the system we imported from English common law.
Being a resource, wildlife have always been available for human harvest/hunting so long as one follows the necessary laws. Throughout time, we have had a variety of reasons to kill wild animals (e.g., protect property, obtain food, protect life, eliminate competition, etc.)–all of which have been considered valid and again, are generally allowed as long as one follows relevant laws/regulations. Hunting for trophies is not really any different from these other reasons, except that there isn’t an explicit benefit to killing the animal beyond the sense of accomplishment.
those who think that banning whatever is going to keep individual (a) from going off the deep end are pissing up a rope.
It is just not possible to prevent a determined individual from carrying out, even a half assed plan, before the fact.
I am reminded of a statement by some law enforcement individual concerning terrorism, “they only have to get it right ((once)) “(sic)””
Sometimes wildlife conservation succeeds too well ? A Welsh fish farmer is suing the UK’s Environment Agency for $ 4 million for restoring an Otter population in the river near his operation , and those Otters ate his fish.
Carping about carp.
Deal struck to reintroduce wood bison to Alaska wild
An Old Lesson
A young Indian brave asked the old Indian chief, “why are some people good and others evil?” The old Indian chief said,” there are two wolves that live in the heart of every person, one is good and one is evil and they fight constantly.” The Indian Brave asked which one wins? The old Indian Chief said,” the one you feed.”
That’s a good one, heard it many times… and it rings true as well.
‘Threatened’ lynx trapped, shot
A North Idaho man, whose name was not immediately available, pleaded guilty in state court to mistakenly trapping and harvesting a lynx.
He was fined $200 and ordered to pay $25 restitution to Idaho Fish and Game and $160 in court costs. The Boundary County Prosecutor’s Office handled the case.
The man told investigators he would have released the animal from the trap had he known it was a lynx. Because he could not see the animal’s paws because of snow, and he believed it was a bobcat, he shot it.
$385.00 in fines…
he could not see the paws, how about the bobcat has a shorter coats with more spots, shorter tufted ears and black bands on their tails while the lynx has longer coat, much longer ear tufts, and black bands just a black tipped tail and is much larger then a bobcat. Would it have killed him to wait until he could ID properly?
a fkn bobcat does not look any thing like a lynx.
So I’m guessing this guy goes to check his trap, see’s something in it and shoots it… then identifies it…?
Oh grrrr, where’s that edit thing? I meant sees, there’s no apostrophe supposed to be there.
And yet, we continually get assurances that these things won’t happen. And the fines are a pittance. If he doesn’t know a bobcat from a lynx, he has no business being out there. Again, reality is something quite different.
The fine and restitution was peanuts. That’s part of the problem.
Idaho Fish and Game commission’s choice opposed
there is a world of stupid behind those bright blue eyes….(first impression) which is just what Clem wants.
I don’t know anything about her, I figured there must be something up when Clem and his followers aren’t in lock-step on something.
Maybe honey #3?…….
On a side note, that jack daniels chaw will get You every time.
“August 1992, Otter was pulled over on Interstate 84 near Meridian, Idaho for suspicion of driving under the influence. He claimed the arresting officer observed him swerving as he was reaching for his cowboy hat, which had been blown off by the wind in his open car. Otter offered several explanations for failing the field sobriety test including: his stocking feet were stung by weeds and gravel, he had run eight miles and his knee hurt, he was hungry, and that he had soaked his chewing tobacco in Jack Daniels. A jury convicted Otter in March 1993. He was sentenced to 72 hours of community service and 16 hours at an alcohol treatment program. This incident allegedly forced Otter to abandon an anticipated run for governor in 1994 and instead seek re-election for lieutenant governor.”
Something else to be concerned about:
Another brazen wanton killing of wildlife incident- only this time the perps was a Boulder Colorado police officer and he shot a popular 6-point bull elk in the suburbs of Boulder on New Year’s Day , called an off suty cop to help him deal with the carcass, then didn’t bother to report any of it , or as required , that he had fired his weapon while on duty. Outrage at the killing exploded with a cover up by the department being alleged. Over 75 people turned out for a public meeting on the incident where the Chief apologized profusely. The two cops are on administrative leave.
This ought to piss off just about any wildlife lover. Four bald eagles shot for no reason at WA lake north of Seattle.
Working in the wildlife lab, I have been shocked at how many eagles/hawks come in killed by gunshot wounds. Why would anyone do such a thing.
I am not trying to point any fingers, but I have run into quite a few native Americans that think it is their right to take eagles, we had a similar problem when I lived in Hawaii, the natives felt it was their right to hunt and kill the endangered Hawaiian Monk Seal.
My understanding, there is a $14,000 dollar reward being offered in this case, hopefully someone will turn the criminals in.
Wolves must be managed, and some wolves will be killed in the process.
Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/washington-learning-how-to-live-with-wolves/article_3c5f8c8d-283c-59a3-b9ba-4a281bccbedf.html#ixzz2IR3TbTCY
That’s not what’s happening – it’s overkill. It all sounds good tho, doesn’t it.
What’s not happening, and what is overkill??
Sorry, it was in response to that quote from the article:
Wolves must be managed, and some wolves will be killed in the process.
If you’re on the extremes, wanting all wolves killed or wanting all wolves protected, get over it.
It will take a collective effort and money to make wolf recovery work.
What I meant was they are not being managed, just overly killed by every known way possible, and probably some we don’t.
“Right now the brunt of the whole thing is being borne by my district, basically,” he said, noting there have been as many as eight wolf packs in his district. “It’s really easy for a senator in the San Juans to criticize dealing with wolf depredations in Eastern Washington.”
Gosh now where have I heard this before…?
Here’s an interesting perspective…
Wolf Killings are Based on the Most Cynical of Premises
Not sure if this has been posted.
This is why I hate the ESA. It kills jobs and restricts renewable resources. There are ways of harvesting timber with destroying habitat. One way to think about not harvesting beetle killed timber is when it burns up, no one gets any use from the timber.
Should say without destroying habitat.
Dale ruled the agency’s failure to conduct an environmental impact statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act when creating the 2005 map meant decisions based on the map are invalid.
Maybe so, but they didn’t follow the rules. As we learned with the closing of the northern border of Yellowstone, if you don’t follow proper procedures…you lose.
There’s a lot more going on than just jobs and building.
And don’t blame the bad economy on the wolves and the ESA – blame the real culprits – Wall Street and corporations that don’t want to hire, downsize the workforce, want to cut benefits, and get cheap overseas labor. Once you’ve destroyed all the forests, there are no more jobs either. Nobody ever considers the future, which is why we are in such a mess in every way in modern times. Personally I just don’t think the economy will ever be the same again – companies have learned to profit more, and hire less. And I don’t know if with our large population there are going to be good times for all.
Renewable? It takes a long time to replace a forest, if it ever comes back.
Properly managed, forests are renewable, when I liveed in OR, we used to go out in the summer and plant trees in areas that had been logged, and now I am old enough they have actually started harvesting some of the trees I planted back when I was in my teens.
I understand that, but it won’t keep up with demand, nor stop damage from mismanagement other factors out of our control, like climate change and pine beetles. Or, the environmental impact study ought to have been done if they wanted to ‘harvest’ trees. It is really irresponsible to go ahead without doing one, especially nowadays.
In the US these days, the majority of timber harvest is done on private timber company lands, there really is not much national forest service lands being logged these days.
And to be honest with you, the majority of trees harvested now, are being harvested in other countries.
The forests are dying from the mountain pine bark beetle far faster than any timber harvest is possible to stop. This will continue too, I am afraid, until almost all the pine are dead unless we have a cold enough winter finally to kill the eggs of the beetle larva.
Fortunately this has been a colder than normal winter in Idaho this year and a few other places. It gives me a little hope.
With so much dead (and often still harvestable timber), I can see no reason to complain about protecting some areas where harvest of dead or dying pine might damage endangered or other animals.
Cutting the dead or dying trees may or may not have a negative effect on animals. It depends — depends area by area and animal by animal.
There are plenty dead pine (unfortunately), and I know from long experience that dead lodgepole pine in dry places like Idaho and Montana are usually usable many years after they have died. I am not so sure about other kinds of pine, so will not comment.
My main point was how the ESA is used for control of the environment to stop logging etc.
Ralph, do you think that the policy of at least some timer companies to replace varied timber species with pine seedlings has made any contribution to the pine bark beetle infestation?
Ha! I wondered about that – they aren’t replacing the varied species? Typical.
I wonder if they are keeping a minimum distance between the seedlings now to help prevent beetle transfer. I think I remembered seeing an article recently about that.
The court ruled that the FS did not comply with NEPA, so it would seem your hatred is largely misplaced. Moreover, the process of complying with NEPA (i.e., conducting environmental assessment) also creates jobs, and it’s not like the bar it sets is very high.
Rex collects wild mushrooms and truffles in the woods of the Coast Range for sale to restaurants. He produced a video during a recent hunting season contrasting the management of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and Weyerhaeuser in the checkerboard land west of Dallas, Oregon. The only time the private gates are open into this area is during the hunting season even though about 50% is public land. The video is a bit dreary but it is taken during that brief fall hunting season when access is allowed by the private corporation.
Old growth trees of some species have heartwood with a greater resistance to decay than the younger heartwood; cedar and redwood are examples. Sap wood is worthless for decay resistance. I don’t see any planning for forests that have old growth characteristics. They are planning on 35 year rotations now on some private lands here. The development of trees with these favorable qualities requires centuries not decades. George Wuerthner recently posted an article here talking about the value of stand replacement fires and not cutting the trees for salvage. Even though the dead trees may not be useful to man they are valuable for the future of the regenerating forest. Studies in the Siskiyou forests following the Biscuit Fire have shown that areas which had been “salvaged” from previous fires burned hotter and killed more trees than those left intact.
Trees are a renewable resource in stands of 35 years; stands of trees take a long time to become a functioning forest.
Dramatic. Thanks for posting that. Sustainable forestry sounds a lot like clean coal. 🙁
I am sure, once we drop the demand for timber as well as the demand for power, then we can really address these issues.
By the way, you live in a wood house and you do have power? Right?
Yes, you are right – but I try not to overdo it with power usage and my home is rather modest. 🙂
I try to not overdo as well, but if we rally against those things we practice, then we are nothing but hypocrites.
Also, no paying of timber taxes to the state? What a racket. How do they get these sweet deals? (rhetorical question) 🙂
Gosh, what a beautiful place tho – I think I would like that climate, misty temperate rainforest. Just beautiful.
I hope no one else has posted this. It came from the remarkable Maureen Bracket – Howling for Wolves. I could not get a link to post –
Thank you Dr Bracket, out there in MN working so hard.
To repeat a part of the post that has particular relevance to me,
“We at Howling For Wolves take this moment to ask you to think about how our society makes change. It comes in fits and starts. We make advances and at times we slip backwards. And most of the time, we really cannot predict how exactly the change we seek will ultimately occur. We know that the wolf faces negative forces. But there are many people quietly in support of stopping the recreational wolf hunt. Some of these people have influence and political power. It is up to us to encourage them by our actions.”
The Start of the Howling for Wolves post in its entirety….
“Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
Today, we celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the second inauguration of President Barack Obama. Dr. King’s visionary work for civil and human rights is an inspiration to all of us. His message was uplifting while he faced negative and daunting forces far from his vision of tolerance and respect. He stayed true to his message and to his unwavering commitment to nonviolence.
The first inauguration of President Obama was a pivotal moment for our country. I was among the millions of people there and stood on the Capitol lawn to witness that ceremony. The air was electric with excitement and awe. The moment had arrived when America leaped toward enlightenment in our race relations. Today brings it home again and with a comfortable familiarity that makes Dr. King’s vision permanent.
We at Howling For Wolves take this moment to ask you to think about how our society makes change. It comes in fits and starts. We make advances and at times we slip backwards. And most of the time, we really cannot predict how exactly the change we seek will ultimately occur. We know that the wolf faces negative forces. But there are many people quietly in support of stopping the recreational wolf hunt. Some of these people have influence and political power. It is up to us to encourage them by our actions.
This legislative session we have an opportunity to stop recreational hunting of the Minnesota gray wolf. We can move forward beyond the step backwards that we took in 2011 and 2012. The political process is our vehicle to stop the wolf hunt. We ask that you take the time and energy to inform our lawmakers that recreational wolf hunting and trapping does not belong in Minnesota. Our law makers have the power to stop the wolf hunt. Over the next few days we will invite you to join us in this very necessary and important process of contacting lawmakers and writing letters to newspapers.
For today, feel the inspiration.
Follow Us on Twitter
Like Us on Facebook
“I hope no one else has posted this. It came from the remarkable Maureen Bracket – Howling for Wolves. I could not get a link to post –
Thank you Dr Bracket, out there in MN working so hard.”
It’s Hackett, Louise. Dr. Maureen Hackett.
Here is an update article from Slate Magazine on the wildlife of the Chernobyl human exclusion zone, and here is a shortened URL linking to the article. http://q.fm.gs/vDpO
I have also added it to the original story I wrote. You might want to direct any further comments there instead of this thread which is now getting long enough that it will soon be replaced with a new one.
Was just listening to the President’s inaugural address and noted that, despite the consistent badmouthing he gets on this site, he dedicated a portion of his speech to climate change and energy independence. He was even pretty forceful about it: “We will respond to the threat of climate change…”
Has any other US President ever taken such a forceful stand on an environmental issue in their inaugural address?
Is this like when he said in his last one science would decide env policy?
Obama’s science report card (from The Scientist magazine): http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32632/title/Obama-s-Science-Report-Card/
Science education: A
like everything else political it depends on who you ask.
“TUCSON, Ariz.— In a report card released today, the Center for Biological Diversity gave President Obama a grade of C- for his two-year environmental record. The report card chronicles positive and negative policies on endangered species, climate, energy, public lands and oceans.
“Barak Obama is no George Bush, but he’s no Theodore Roosevelt either,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center. “His environment record is pretty dismal, considering all the promised hope and change.”
“…like everything else political it depends on who you ask.”
Agreed. The question is, who do you trust to be a better judge–scientists, or the advocates at CBD?
Maybe these scientists.
“Meanwhile, some government scientists say they still feel pressure to adjust their work for political considerations.
“We are getting complaints from government scientists now at the same rate we were during the Bush administration,” Jeffrey Ruch, who heads the whistleblower group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told the Los Angeles Times.”
How about these guys:
“The new report documents several steps the Obama administration has taken to stem the tide of corporate influence. For instance, they have instructed federal agencies to adopt new scientific integrity policies and adopt some additional transparency measures.
Despite these efforts, the new report concludes that further and more expansive reforms are needed to ensure federal policies and regulations are based on the best available science. The report recommends that the White House and Congress adopt comprehensive protections for government scientists who report political interference in their work and enact greater transparency in the policymaking process.
“President Obama has put us on a path forward, but the journey is far from over,” said Grifo. “Fully neutralizing the problem of political interference in science will take persistence and the engagement of both government and the private sector.”
So it would seem there’s a fair number of scientists who think Obama’s policies have been good for the environment. And he’s now publicly committed to do something about climate change…oh, I forgot. The Fiscal Cliff agreement contained a whole variety of subsidies for green energy–both for large scale wind, as well as tax benefits for more energy efficient homes and appliances.
Oh like the Solyndra deal where $535 million taxpayer dollars went down a rathole?
I want to know how I can get some of that money Obummer is throwing around. As of 1/1 higher taxes and a 35% increase in my health insurance premiums, the ones that were suppose to decrease with Obama care, means I could use a grant of some sort.
I don’t trust any of them..
This might not really be appropriate for me to say in your case (just your brief sentence), but I am cynical about those who are too cynical.
Trust is the most basic element needed for government to function. Cynicism is 2nd only to corruption as a government killer.
After what I have been through, I am VERY cynical. At this point in time after the last 30 years, I have seen no reason to change.
Misplaced (or fake) outrage over Solyndra:
I replaced some very old windows and appliances. I now use less energy and the government (YES THE GOVERNMENT) helped! Not hard at all to do.
The NY Times has a story: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/politics/climate-change-prominent-in-obamas-inaugural-address.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
“Mr. Obama is heading into the effort having extensively studied the lessons from his first term, when he failed to win passage of comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions of the gases that cause global warming. This time, the White House plans to avoid such a fight and instead focus on what it can do administratively.”
I was pleased with his inaugural address today, and on the climate change part the things he can do is to make sure the Keystone XL pipeline is not approved by the Department of State or the EPA.
He must also oppose the proposed giant Washington State coal port to send Western coal to Asia. Reducing the coal plant GHG emissions in the U.S. is only of slight importance if these emissions are simply transported halfway around the world. It is a global problem.
These are things he can do administratively without the approval of Congress.
Cap and Trade has no chance in Congress. At any rate, I think a pollution or carbon tax is a more effective way of reducing emissions. A tax also has the potential of being more just in its effects.
I agree on all counts. I would add that I think this was his best speech since his Sept. 2008 speech in Denver.
Yes, gay rights and giveaways, no mention of high unemployed, anemic economy,soaring debt, etc. The Obama apologist will make no mention of Fast and Furious, billions wasted on bank bailouts, BP oil spill, ESA sellout, dead diplomats, broken promises to end the wars,dead wolves litter the NW, etc. All you got is to google some garbage about Solyndra was no big deal. No wonder the country is doomed. But hey, I know the response, it’s all Bush’s fault and Mccain and Romney would be worse. I can’t wait for the apologies for his next DOI Sec. But that will be the same response, so-and-so would have been worse.
I keep wondering if a little vitamin D, or Ex-lax might improve you disposition. Ever tried either?
don’t need the ex-lax, drop something that resembles you every morning.
(1) It’s great that Obama has taken a stand on rights for gays. We spend a lot of time talking about tolerance on this blog–it’s about time we had some for gay Americans.
(2) National debt is really only relevant relative to GDP. One of the ways to fix it is to raise revenues–which Obama just did.
(3) I didn’t need to google to know that your Solyndra argument was bullsh|t; some businesses fail-whether government bets on them or not.
The rest of your post has no substance–merely typical right-wing ranting.
In four years of posting here I’ve never once seen you write anything positive about a politician–come to think of it, I’ve never seen you write anything positive at all. It’s all b|tch, all the time. Your eternal pessimism is exactly what is wrong with this country.
It’s all about tax and spend.
Keep it up and china will own the US.
no substance because you say so?nothing right wing about any of it it’s just fact. There was nobody killed in fast and furious? We don’t have dead diplomats in the middle east? we’re still not at war?there was no bp spill? But your seemingly un-natural love for this guy or just your being completely uninfirmed makes presenting any of this to you a lost cause. WM – kiss my ass.
and you won’t find me writing anything positive about a politician because in four years I’ve seen nothing of the sort from any politician from either side. it’s get power and keep it at any cost. that’s what’s wrong with this country not my pessimism. but thanks for thinking i have so much influence.
Solyndra is bullshit.
“On 22 October 2012, in the case In re Solyndra LLC et al., No. 11-12799 (Bankr. D. Del.), Judge Mary F. Walrath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled “that the evidence does not support a finding that the principal purpose of the plan was tax avoidance.” “Solyndra’s owners, Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP” will “realize the tax benefits of between $ 875 million and $ 975 million of net operating losses, while more senior creditors, including the Department of Energy, which provided a $ 535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, will receive nearly nothing.”
yes businesses fail but not with $535 million of my tax dollars. you really are a blind fool aren’t you. I suppose the ruling is just right-wing bullshit though.
Wait, you’re the guy that can’t find anything positive in the past four years and I’m the blind one? That’s rich!
I enjoy watching Mark Shields and David Brooks debate politics on PBS. Their reasoned dialogue is what is right in America. I don’t think Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I’ve written the white house on several occasions to let them know when I disagree with their policy. But I do think his policies have us moving in the right direction. We’re drawing down troops in the Middle East, increasing the rights of gays, making health care universally available, raising taxes on the richest (who increasingly had more and more of the pie), and creating incentives for green energy.
Sorry Tim, but blind, ideological rage doesn’t make you right–it just makes you bitter.
Good night. 🙂
Guess timz’s folks left the keys to the liquor cabinet out again. Must be tough repeating an entire year of high school…again.
In one day the debt goes up 3 million $’S and a trillion $’S for each year Obama has been in office and past presidents keep getting the blame.
I guess if I couldn’t play my bills it would be bankrupsy but not liberals. Just keep raising the debt ceiling and printing more money, excuse me but we cannot spend are way out of debt.
If your a federal or state employee or union you will stick up for Obama’s spending. Some talk about subsistence for farmers and ranchers but nothing is said about federal or state employees.
From 1932-1986 the highest tax bracket never dipped below 50% (it hadn’t been below 63% until the early 1980s). In 1987 Reagan succeeded in lowering it to 38.5, and it has hovered between 28 and 39.6% ever since. Reagan lowered the tax rate while growing the government considerably; G.W. Bush also lowered the tax rate while growing the government considerably. This was okay for a while, but the baby-boomers (those born from ’46-64) where starting to have health problems, and they are a huge chunk of our society. When much of your society is old, they demand more of the health care system. This problem was made worse in the 2000s as boomers started to retire.
All this is to say this “crisis” came about because we cut revenues at a time when our expenses were about to grow. And they are going to keep growing too as baby boomers continue to retire, and stop putting money into our social welfare programs and start taking it out.
You can blame Obama if you like, but the fact is that the recession was already underway when he took office. He’s started to “right” our fiscal problems by increasing revenues (taxes) and decreasing military spending. Have we got more to do? You bet.
I pretty much agree with JB’s assessment. Then add the increased costs of Homeland Security to transportation and other necessary areas, two wars and the Wall St. meltdown and bailout, subprime bank ripoffs and some other stuff, with the resulting “depletion” of investment wealth of many aging boomers, some of whom lost jobs during their highest earning years, and it explains alot more about why this economy is in the shitter. If one adds up the mistakes of the “party on” Clinton years, Bush’s empowerment of the wealthy and his 2 wars, along with growing economic steam of China, alot of this makes more sense.
That the best you can do with the insults? I haven’t come across some of this stuff since high school….You must be a real gem in the flesh.
my timz, did we get a new supply of turds or a new fence to throw it over?
as far as telling WM to kiss your ass, u will probably have to put a x on the exact spot you have chosen, being that you are all ass…
I’m really proud of you guys because you can dodge a question and make excuses and always put the blame on someone or something else, that’s the democratic way.
JB nice post on tolerance for gays, as well as overview on fiscal crisis and Obama heading in the right direction. Like you, I don’t agree with some of the policy coming out of the white house but this country does not need any more policy or laws that restrict or segregate the rights of others, or that deny people in need basic needs while the wealthiest fight to keep their taxes from being raised to the same levels of the struggling middle class. I don’t say this lightly, as self employed in MA we pay hefty taxes.
Isn’t it meet to look at the debt clock.
As I mentioned before, debt is only a problem relative to GDP. If the economy grows at the same pace as our debt we don’t have much to worry about. Unfortunately, spending has increased substantially in recent years due to the boomer/health care issue, a two front war on “terror”, and a fiscal crisis brought about because of lack of regulation.
You might be interested to know that while debt/GDP has grown in recent years, we’re at about the same level we were in the 1950s and no where near as bad as we were during the war. See for yourself:
PS-Debt “clocks” are tools for conservatives to rile up people whom they guess won’t dig a little deeper.
A business is a business, if its government or your personal finances.
Tell me if you personally default on a loan can you keep barrowing money as the government does. I don’t think you can keep raising the debt limit and continue.
I sure hope this rate of spending don’t continue at a trillion dollars a year for every year in office for Obama but that’s how liberals operate.
P.S. I’m done beating this dead donkey.
I rant a lot, but I do remain hopeful. 🙂
Trapping is a public safety risk.
This was posted a few weeks ago.
The date on the article I posted is January 20.
It is just a copy and paste from an article that was posted in the Missoulian a couple of weeks ago.
Things (news) must be slow SB, this story was covered again yesterday on the local NBC news program OR it could be an attempt to keep the dangers of trapping in the news.
The dog was trapped on private land.
shows that a wolf can survive In a place like wine country california. There are over 700 wolves in italy now, this shows that they can coexist with us if we let them.
another article about wolves in tuscany I traveled there a couple years ago and I heard wolves howling, mostly mixed farmland with wooded areas.
Dog trapped in Phx, and this Files character just happens to work for wildlife services.
Not exactly wildlife but has been discussed here many times. I think the lesson here is eat local, and have as little impact as you can on the land. For people who don’t eat meat it’s really a lot more in keeping with the ethical considerations behind choosing to eschew meat, to eat local. the quinoa story is an eye opener for me, I was not aware of the impact this market had on locals. No more of that grain for moi
I eat very little meat – chicken and seafood. I’m lucky to live where seafood had been plentiful all my life – but in the future I’m not so sure since our oceans are the world’s garbage dump. We have so many people in the world now, our eating and living habits can’t help but affect the planet and its other people and wildlife negatively – so that is why I’m skeptical of being totally vegan. Palm oil plantations are devastating to wildlife and rainforests, and terribly cruel to wildlife. My philosophy is use only what you need, farm humanely and ethically, and do not waste. There’s no need for bigger, better, best. 🙂
New Zealand moves to eradicate Cats:
start with rats, move to cats later (and good luck with that one)
Maybe they should just promote spaying and neutering and not eradication? That whole, be a responsible pet owner thing? That might get more backing than wanting to take away someone’s beloved pet.
I wonder if he knows that one guy, I can’t remember which blog he posted on, maybe both here and b3, but man, he absolutely detested cats for the damage they cause. Feral cats.
I wrote to him those same sentiments and also suggested that he look at the last conversation/thread on the Wildlife News that related to the same. I could never advocate to kill cats but I’d sure like to see some laws that require/mandate cat owners to keep their cats indoors and also mandate spay neuter of them before adoption as well as hefty fines for anyone letting their cat loose with the possibility of euthanization for recidivist offenders. I have several friends that are educated and seemingly normal in other aspects of their lives yet they still let their cats roam despite my rantings. It really pisses me off. Its outrageously irresponsible to let a cat outdoors – for the cat and wildlife, although I have to admit I am more concerned for the wildlife.
wrote to the economist I should have clarified. I’m hoping he adapts his campaign so it has a better shot of succeeding. be nice to see cat owners forced to be responsible and to keep cats away from all wildlife.
Way too extreme.
Why is it way to extreme? I read the article and they are not advocating euthanizing the cats, just make the cat you currently have be your last cat.
He should not demonize cats. They tried that in the middle ages. You can’t tell people they can’t have a cat. Promoting responsible ownership is the key – abandoning them has been what created problems.
Unfortunately, if they pass a law, they can tell them they can’t have a cat. Of course, I promote responsible ownership, but I didn’t find his proposal offensive, extreme? In some peoples opinion yes. Cats have been demonized far longer than just the middle ages, and it has proven true, they are very destructive to native species.
Anything with the word ‘eradicate’ in it, if it hasn’t to do with medicine, is extreme in my books. It will never fly.
They should also give the warning ‘that little bundle of joy you gave birth to could also grow up to be a natural born killer’ with the wave of mass shootings we are seeing. 🙁
When we compare the amount of shootings that have happened, to the overall population of gun owners, it is hardly a “wave” they are still rare isolated incidents.
As far as it flying, I don’t know that we can say that, you are talking a completely different country with completely different rules and politics.
To add, as far as the word “eradicate” being extreme, myself, I would love to “eradicate” poachers, is that an extreme position on my part?
In that sense no, but in the original sense of the word.
It’s not being fair to blame their loss of wildlife and habitat entirely on cats, when all of it, even the cats, is human-caused. As usual, we do a lot of blaming the ‘other’ and very little self-reflection. I’m speaking generally, not meaning you personally, of course.
“and it has proven true, they are very destructive to native species”
Hmm… and what do we have out here in the west SB, that’s been proven true to be very destructive to native species, not to mention, habitat?
Moo, Baa 🙂
Ida Lupine says,
“You can’t tell people they can’t have a cat. Promoting responsible ownership is the key – abandoning them has been what created problems.”
Cats on a island, even big islands, are a problem (and yes, rats are a bigger problem). I’ve actually advocated cat/rat removal on smaller islands, and will in the future (sorry it it offends–not removing them is removing other species that arrived on their own biogeographically speaking…they EARNED their way there).
I don’t hate cats, I actually like them, but they have no place on a island where they hunt other islandbound animals to extinction, and are kept due to vanity/selfishness only. That said, New Zealand is huge as islands go (both of them) and this won’t work as people will deliberately breed them to snub the government just like wolf hunters SSS here….it’s a catch 22 when you give people freedom and no responsibility.
If cats are banned, only criminals will have cats.
The problem is, this hurts responsible people, not just the ones who let their cats roam or don’t have them spayed and neutered. (Why is this sounding like a gun control argument?) 🙂 Cats don’t kill wildlife, people with cats do!
Cats shouldn’t be hunting animals into extinction. People should keep their cats indoors, or in a fenced in yard or area. Wouldn’t it be better to teach responsibility than to just kill as the go-option always? With the pythons in the Everglades, I don’t know if this would work. What about dogs? Would they be banned next for killing wildlife for those who can’t keep them leashed, or don’t clean up after them? Domestic livestock because they compete for resources?
The article clearly stated, they were not saying euthanize the cats, but to not acquire another one when your present cat is gone.
In many places, including MN at certain times of the year, dogs can be shot for chasing wildlife by any landowner.
Here in MT, they can be shot at anytime of the year for chasing wildlife or attacking domestic livestock.
I don’t like the approach. Pictures of kittens with devil horns in the proposal doesn’t address the root problem which is people letting the cats run outside or abandon them. It penalizes responsible pet owners. It’s the wrong approach. Sure, if someone doesn’t want to replace their pet cat, that is always their prerogative. But those who do want to should be able to, and education about cats and wildlife is the right approach. I don’t know why the world is becoming so regressive. The damage cats do to wildlife pales in comparison to what human settlement does. It’s ridiculous to even compare.
There is documented evidence that the number of birds killed yearly are in the millions by cats, even domestic cats that are well taken care of kill them.
As I said yesterday, this is a different country, with different rules and different politics.
Also, I am not saying I am against cats, I have had several over the years, but none of my cats ever left the house or camper, unless they were on a leash.
Well, just wait till we start installing wind farms en masse if you want to see large numbers of bird kills. No comparison. Birds are at risk from many things we humans do, and cats are just one.
That is one thing, I am against and that is wind farms, they are not efficient, they are very costly and require lots of government support.
I have only one cat and she doesn’t go outside. She doesn’t even seem to miss it. Sometimes she goes out on the porch. I don’t think she has been outside in her entire 16 years. She watches birds from the window, but can take them or leave them. They still come to the feeder. Wild cats that have been abandoned, let roam or are feral on the other hand, would see them as prey. Not to mention reproduction. This plan is the wrong approach.
They are simply asking people to not get another cat when the current cat they have is gone, they have passed no laws or rules, but they could and make it illegal to get a new cat.
Often times countries will pass laws when they don’t get voluntary compliance, time will tell what they do.
I am absolutely, totally, dead-set against off-shore wind farms and very large tracts of them on sensitive lands. They work, to my mind, in small areas, on land, with smaller populations such as islands, and northern Europe – but the demand and the large population for our country is a different thing entirely. They will never replace fossil fuels, just look at forecasted demand for oil and coal all over the world. Plus, it has become a money-making venture rather with environmental concerns not the first priority. The small coastal town where I grew up has three turbines and they are powering almost the entire town and one business has one. They are ideal under those conditions, but inefficient large scale, and unfair to the communities that have to put up with them on a large scale.
Ida Lupine says,
“Cats shouldn’t be hunting animals into extinction. People should keep their cats indoors, or in a fenced in yard or area. Wouldn’t it be better to teach responsibility than to just kill as the go-option always? With the pythons in the Everglades, I don’t know if this would work. What about dogs? Would they be banned next for killing wildlife for those who can’t keep them leashed, or don’t clean up after them? Domestic livestock because they compete for resources?”
I agree cats “shouldn’t” do a lot of things, but we let them. I’d never advocate killing/taking away a cat on an island, but I don’t agree with anyone saying they have a ‘right’ to breed cats on an island that has threatened wildlife. The responsibility issue IS the point…we see ourselves as responsible but WE (collective) are letting them go breed (tough to legislate morality, huh…just like the gun issue). Then there’s the NIMBY problem…”hey, MY cat would NEVER kill a (fill in blank)”. Sure, sure (rolling my eyes). Historically, a single cat on a small island almost made a bird species extinct. Island rats have done this easily.
Pythons were a deliberate act, several breeders deliberately bred them next to the Everglades and knew they could survive there (there’s a good history on this subject on herp sites). To me, that’s premeditation. It wasn’t a mistake.
Dogs, domestic stock, etc.? Yes, that may be necessary on an island. But once again vanity and selfishness will win so it’s irrelevant.
I didn’t realize that about the pythons, Mark. I had read news reports attributing their presence in the Everglades blamed on them getting loose in hurricanes! We never want to take responsibility. Hawaii’s had terrible problems due to introduced species.
Rats on an Island
on front page of Wall Street Journal today:
This one is better (no video)
In memory of Wolf 06 – thanks John Sheldon!
This is from the Economist in late December, so apologies if it was already posted and I missed it. But it is a good read on wolves with a global perspective.
“As people moved to towns, attitudes to nature moved from utilitarian to romantic.”
That’s what it’s all about isn’t it? The conflict between utilitarian and romantic, and the importance of being seen as motivated by the former.
The wolf advocate espouses the benefits of ecological services of a keystone predator and the economic benefits of tourists, ahead of personal emotion about the animal and its role in the romantic idea of a complete “wilderness”.
The rancher portrays himself as the ultimate utilitarian, deploring senseless attacks on his beneficial domestic animals by creatures sent by sentimentalists and the government that have no utilitarian function — while deftly employing the powerfully romantic cowboy image/myth to insure continued sway in the popular and political arena (thereby guaranteeing favorable treatment and timely flow of government benefits).
In this neck of the woods, it was the industrial logger employing a $40 million annual federal subsidy to mow thousands of acres highly functional ancient forest into a moonscape — while standing with Paul Bunyan. How authentically utilitarian is an activity that pencils out so poorly?
The same could in most cases be said of the hunter/fisher/gatherer who could probably purchase “suitable” food for less than the complete cost of pursuing it in forest and field, as our ancestors did.
“Pierre de Boisguilbert, the general secretary of France’s Société de Vènerie (hunting with hounds), characterises the wolf’s supporters as “bobos”—bourgeois-bohemians, a disparaging term for urban left-wingers. “The bobos love the wolf. They’ll never see one, but the idea of the wolf is great.””
Most of us (except the truly dull or desperate) are part bobo — “romantic” is widely prevalent and important.
As before, please keep me on the short list for when the book comes out.
the message about ‘bobos’ is clear:
after the Cold War wolf is French communist’s progeny
it seems that French hunter leadership has siege mentality (assuming that not everybody sees the world as they do) while city dwellers assume that everybody is sharing their feelings
anyway, one just needs to remember lavish subsidies for French farmers to appreciate remark about ‘bohemians’
I disagree – the large carnivore core population in Europe lives in Romania which is not a wealthy industrial society by any stretch of imagination but somehow 22 million people co-exists with large predators just fine
1) more than 6000 brown bears (grizzlies) in 47 000 sq. km area
2) more than 2500 wolves in 57 000 sq. km area
3) ~ 1800 Eurasian lynxes
the depredation level on sheep herds were ~1.2 %
Another pointless death of a condor.
I wonder if Condors are more sensitive to lead poisoning than turkey vultures who you don’t ever hear about dying from lead poisoning.
“Interestingly, deleterious effects associated with elevated lead exposure were not observed in captured turkey vultures, despite observed blood lead concentrations in some individuals that have been reported to cause lead toxicity and death . However, intensive long term follow-up of individual birds with telemetry and frequent recaptures would be necessary to detect clinical signs associated with lead intoxication and lead-associated decreases in survivorship. Experimental intoxication of turkey vultures has shown that this species can tolerate a substantial burden of lead exposure and must ingest more lead to reach high levels in the blood and cause mortality than levels that have been reported in other avian species.”
thanks Ma. Interesting
We don’t hear as much about turkey vultures dying from lead poisoning because they are not as closely monitored as condors nor are they valued as much. Turkey vultures also have a much higher reproductive rate so population level impacts are minimized and much harder to discern.
“some have said it’s because they believe the ammo ban subjugates their rights.”
Wouldn’t want to do that would we? How about the condor’s right to live?
I hope this is not a repeat post…
Do you think hatred leads to bigotry?
Before you answer how about the hatred of trapping and trappers or ranching or predator hunting or some political issues. Shall I go on?
Yes it is a repeat.
I don’t hate trappers, ranchers or predator hunters, I really hate what they do to predators. Most of it is misdirected and driven by hate, ignorance and sometimes sadism. I hate that alot.
Yes but you feel hatred, directed at people.
My comment was not directed at you, so much, just at every day comments made on this blog.
I think that is a good article and it really shows the truth about these radical anti-wolf extremists. These people hate wolves just because they are wolves.
And as Rancher Bob was trying to point out, some people hate all hunters simply because they go out and shoot animals, for whatever the reason. They paint them all in the same color.
That is not new information, it has been well documented that some people hate wolves, just because they are wolves, heck I bet there are some people that hate many things, just because they can.
From Wolves of the Rockies
apparently its not enough to blast away large mammals its also necessary to use silencers. I guess that way if the animals are in pairs or groups you can kill more before its mate or family realizes its been hit. WTF
any of you living in Montana the hearing is the 29th
FYI……I apologize for any redundancy. Marc
**** SCHEDULED HEARING ****
BILL NO: HB27
SPONSOR: Ted Washburn
SHORT TITLE: Authorize use of sound suppressors while hunting certain large predators
COMMITTEE: House Fish, Wildlife and Parks
DATE: January 29, 2013
TIME: 3:00 PM
NOTE: Hearings are subject to change.
Wolves of the Rockies
Stevensville, Montana. 59870
“Because we are their only voice”
and you won’t be heard if you are having some after hours illegal fun
You do realize, there is a big difference between a suppressor and a silencer, right?
Rifle modifiers are legal and used all over the U.K. and Europe and required in some places. There is no such thing as a silencer if the bullet is traveling faster than the speed of sound; it becomes modifier.
If a person purchases a modifier then that modifier is subject to a $200 federal tax stamp.
You and I know that, but it seems many don’t want to know it, or won’t take the time to actually learn about it.
My hunter friends tell me, in Europe they are legal insofar as they are part of the stringent rules for the purchase of other weapons. In Germany use/purchase of “modifiers” or suppressors are subject to separate permissions. Permissions are seldom granted. They are recommended for hunting rabbits on cemeteries or for hunting near heavily populated areas. In general they are in no way common and only rarely used in hunting, often considered unethical and useless for the exact reason you state: Makes no sense with supersonic bullets. Some say use is more widespread in the UK.
$200?!? Oh brother…
There are numerous items that you have to pay a yearly fee of $200 to own. Of course with the tax stamp, you have also gone through and extensive background check.
I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised. I live in Illinois, I think they are trying to figure out how to tax for breathing and using the restroom…
It is the same $200 tax stamp if one wants to own a machine gun or a saw off shotgun. It is paid at purchase and good for as long as the owner owns the gun, if the gun is transferred then the new owner has to pay another $200.
They were selling modifiers at a Bozeman gun show last March. It is not something that I would ever want. The outside of the barrel must be threaded to hold the modifier. It appears to me that the modifier’s cantilever weight would push the barrel into the bedding causing accuracy problems. I doubt that modifier’s will ever increase the number of wolves killed.
Opps, I thought you had to renew the tax yearly.
so enlighten us do they suppress sound and if so why is that needed for hunting wildlife
They muffle sound, but do not make them silent, they lower the report by about 30 decibels, to a tolerable sound by the human ear. Many arguments have been made, the use of them will lessen hearing damage caused by shot reports which are quite loud.
The term “silencer” is incorrect, it suppresses sound, but does not silence it, making the argument that it will aid in poaching is also incorrect, the animal never hears the shot that kills it. I can tell you many times we have been target shooting and have had deer and elk walk right into the range area we were shooting across.
TV and the media have done a good job of misinformation being out there, what you see on TV is not what you hear when you are actually using one of these devices.
Instead of jumping to full attention every time something is brought up, you would do yourself good by actually researching the item before railing against it.
Save bears thanks for the explanation. I did not understand the distinction so I asked. Perhaps as you have pointed the animal being shot might not hear the sound but its companion would. Suppressor silencer the intent appears to be the same. If its jumping to a conclusion, seems like a logical one.
The term “silencer” is incorrect, it suppresses sound, but does not silence it, making the argument that it will aid in poaching is also incorrect, the animal never hears the shot that kills it. I can tell you many times we have been target shooting and have had deer and elk walk right into the range area we were shooting across.
If your a legal hunter, it would not matter if its companion hears the report, your not going to shoot the companion animal.
Silencer implies a “Silent” shot, which is not what a suppressor does, it lowers the sound to tolerable levels for the human ear and lessens the chance for hearing damage. In order to “Silence” a shot, you would have to lower the speed of the air entering the barrel of the firearm to less than the speed of sound, which on modern hunting rifles is virtually impossible.
When I was in the military, we used suppressors quite a bit, but believe me, the firearms were not silent.
And no, it is not a logical conclusion, it is an uniformed conclusion.
What is the measured report on a suppressed, but subsonic (less than the speed of sound) round? Did you use that in your military application?
One hears quite a bit about subsonic .308. I have never heard one, however.
By the way, Ruger just announced the 10/22 take-down .22 will now be equipped with a threaded barrel end to accept an aftermarket sound suppressor. I just saw that this morning.
We had subsonic pistols and we used suppressors on some of our assault rifles, but that was for very specialized applications.
The suppressors we used, lowered the sound by about 35 percent, a M-16/M4 had a report level of about 120 decibels, with the suppressors lowered that to about 88 decibels, also take into account often times we wore in ear mounted suppressors, so the perceived sound was quite low.
Normally we all had in ear transmission systems, it all depended on what we were doing., there are to many variables to describe each unique situation.
My only point is, sound suppressors would not be an aid in illegal activity, because it would not be silent.
Forgot to add, when we really wanted a silent shot, many times we used a military Air Rifle, that shot a .30 caliber bullet that could kill at up to 100 yards.
Current air rifle technology is amazing, there have been many articles about them being used in Africa on big game hunts.
Further to the suppression/subsonic sound issues, here is a video from the SHOT show which is currently going in in Las Vegas (I think?). It is the arms vendors’ annual meeting where they showcase their products for the coming year.
A short video on a “suppressed” weapon. Don’t know whether it is intended for “sporting” use but the platform for it suggests another. Pay careful attention to the mention of 2 stamps necessary to legally own one of these things, even if intended for hunting. Two states are mentioned where these might be popular for future sales. Geez.
“Many arguments have been made, the use of them will lessen hearing damage caused by shot reports which are quite loud.”
So what’s the point of allowing them for wolf and puma hunting? The hunter is seldom going to be firing multiple rounds.
I don’t know Ma, what is the point of them not being allowed?
I will add, if this is to pass, I think in its final rendition it will apply to all hunting, not just predators.
I also could ask you, why the legislatures back east seem hell bent on allowing dogs to be used in hunting wolves? We don’t have any idea why our legislatures do what they do, we are just the guys in the field that have to put up with there bullshit.
“I don’t know Ma, what is the point of them not being allowed?”
Seriously – the proposal is obviously not aimed at protecting shooters’ hearing, and wolves and puma are not animals that will be hunted close to settled areas.
So why just for wolves and puma?
Well for one, we have lions in Montana and that is how they are defined by our laws. Second, it really does not matter, the bullet travels so fast, that other than protecting the human’s ear it serves no purpose to take an animal.
Again, if it passes, I am almost sure it will be changed to say all game animals, not just predators, but using a suppressor gives no advantage to the hunter, now in combat when we used suppressors, it did give us an advantage, so the enemy could not pinpoint a shot and target us.
By the way, I live in a settled area and most days could shoot just about any animal I have a desire to, that includes lions, bears, wolves, moose, deer, elks, etc.
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE USE OF A SUPPRESSOR WHILE HUNTING CERTAIN LARGE PREDATORS
This makes no sense. Why do you need a suppressor for hunting only “certain large predators”? (Translation: wolves)
I’m afraid that’s the reason, Louise – certainly wolves and lions won’t be easier to hunt, but people’s hearing isn’t nearly as acute.
A wolf’s hearing is at least 16 times sharper than a human’s. Wolves can hear a sound as far as six miles away in the forest and ten miles away in open country. It is believed that the upper range of a wolfs’ hearing is upwards of 80 kHz. The upper range of humans is only 20 kHz. It is stated that a wolf can hear up to 6 miles away in forest and 10 miles in open areas, including some high-pitched sounds that even a human can’t hear, in the range where bats and porpoises produce sound. Even when it sleeps, a wolf’s ears stand straight up so it can catch sounds made by other animals at all times. This helps the wolf catch prey, and lets it know when danger is near. Their large, pointed ears act like big scoops to catch lots of sound. Unlike humans, wolves can easily tell what direction sound is coming from by turning their ears from side to side. The direction the ears are pointing when the sound is loudest tells the wolf which direction the sound is coming from, which can help them locate rodents under a snow pack. (source: Wiki)
Incidentally, the UK and other countries in Europe have gun control also, but I don’t see anyone referring to that – only when it is convenient. But that said, I am not against people owning guns for protection or hunting. I can see where it would have limited value there. There was a story about a young man who stopped an after hours robbery at his store because he had one.
Well, once again, Marc is manipulating information to fit his agenda, he has no clue as to what he is talking about, but it does get a rise from the faithful.
Sorry for posting such bad news–from the Big Horn Basin Core study here in WY in combo with IEA new climate report
Not wildlife news, but a topic that comes up here from time to time, some blowback by Senator Al Franken on the SCOTUS Citizens United decision giving corporations unfettered avenues to spend money to influence elections, exercising free speech as “persons.”
This is a very good Senate speech by Franken explaining the decision, delivered nearly a year ago. He now has a petition going to seek a Constitutional amendment. Worth the time to listen to his disection of the decision (I am sure he had some talented legal help). http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=1915
Corporations and banks for that matter have no “soul” nor humanity. I have. Ever understood their desire to personhood.
Using that handheld device again Immer? lol I hate when it does that!
I don’t really trust banks much these days, Many moons ago when I got my first teaching job, one of my older co workers advised that I use a credit union and I’ve been with them every since.
Actually, I’ve been on the hand held for about 7 mos. long story for another time.