It is time for a new “wildlife news” thread.

Please put  your news, links and comments below in comments.  Here is the link to the thread being retired (April 3, 2013).

Alaskan black bear suddenly emerges from the grass along salmon spawning creek. Copyright Ralph Maughan 2011

Alaskan black bear suddenly emerges from the grass along salmon spawning creek. Copyright Ralph Maughan 2011

About The Author

Ralph Maughan

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

458 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? May 1, 2013 edition

  1. Barb Rupers says:

    Golden eagle problems with lambs near Dillon, Montana during the James Watt era and before; Carter Niemeyer was involved in this issue and has written about it in his book “Wolfer”. Checking into the issue in more depth it seems that this rancher lost more lambs to eagles in a year than current losses to wolves in the state.

    Were hunters pushing at that time for the control of birds of prey as they do now for wolf control?,6319789

    • Nancy says:

      An example of bad government 🙁

      “It probably would have seemed ridiculous to the immigrant families that their descendants would have to employ a multinational force of Peruvian herders, guard llamas, and Turkish Akbash and Great Pyrenees guard dogs just to protect their sheep from wolves **deliberately forced upon them by the U.S. government”

      And example of good government 🙂

      Helle Livestock received payments totaling $537,505 from 1995 through 2011

      Rebish & Helle received payments totaling $1,012,264 from 1995 through 2011,Montana

      Would be interesting to know when eagles became such a problem for sheep ranchers. After their prey base (gophers, ground squirrels) were poisoned off? Gopher hunting is quite the spring & summer event in Montana. People come from all over the country:

      “That poison doesn’t do too well when you’re ranching,” said Stroyan, a Bozeman-area resident who came up to watch the event. “Years ago they had some pretty toxic stuff, but that’s illegal now.”

    • CodyCoyote says:

      Barb- there was an insidious case of a sheep rancher in Wyoming who was paying unscrupulous flyers to blast eagles out of the sky from helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. His name was Herman Werner and he was the largest sheep rancher in the state in the 1970’s, the Bolton Ranch southern Wyoming in the Rawlins area. Hundreds of balds and goldens were shot down. The difficulty came in trying to prove it. Werner considered himself the King of Sheep Ranching in Wyoming when that still counted for something, and felt he was above the law.

      (quote ) ” Between the fall of 1970 and the spring of 1971… Buffalo Flying Service owner Doyle Vaughn had employed him to fly a chopper from which sharpshooters fired 12-gauge shotguns, bringing down more than 500 bald and golden eagles over Wyoming and Colorado. ” Read on.

      One big break in the case came when USFWS agents were able to use some new tech developed during the Vietnam War, infrared imagery from surveillance aircraft. Originally developed to find humans and camps along the Ho Chi Minh trail in North Vietnam’s jungles, IR scanners are also pretty good at detecting rotting decomposing carcasses of buried eagles. Flying with some borrowed military gear, wildlife agents using the IR scanners detected a ” hot spot” out behind some of Werner’s ranch buildings and the agents got a warrant. They dug up a lot of birds.

      Werner was charged with some serious crime, but unfortunately never made it to court. He crashed his pickup truck and died a few months later. The Grim Reaper’s little sister is named Karma.

      Folk rocker Stephen Stills of CSN&Y fame wrote a hoppin’ little bluegrass ditty about about Herman Werner’s decrepit eaglecide. ” Fallen Eagle” is on the excellent ” Manassas” album.

  2. Barb Rupers says:

    Sorry if I offended hunters on the forum. There are many hunters who are not “pushing” for reducing wolf numbers for the protection of wild ungulates; the vocal ones are those that are reported in the media.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Do you have the link to Barry asks questions, gets answers that you posted elsewhere a while back.

      And yes, reading “Wolfer” seems as though Golden Eagles were more of a problem for sheep herders than wolves have ever been.

    • Mike says:

      Those hunters are the minority. Don’t apologize for telling the truth.

      • Vicki Fossen says:


        I am a hunter. I was not offended. I also believe that wolves should be present to have healthy ecosystems. Of course, I advocate for wolves, but I have always said they will need to be a hunted predator at some point. (Same as lions, bobcats, bears). I believe their numbers are low enough that they should never been hunted as vermin.

        You were being fair.

        • JEFF E says:


        • Louise Kane says:

          and just why do they need to be a hunted predator? Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin wolves were not causing any trouble, and those that were were being eliminated. Minnesota’s population was very stable and Michigan’s had dropped slightly. Ralph has pointed out here in the past that the RM wolves were looking as though there numbers were also leveling out, before the hunts. The “need” to hunt predators seems very questionable.

    • I don’t see all those “good” wildlife killers fighting hard for wolves either. Killing is killing and wolves are not the only form of life that needs protecting. All life is sacred – and you know that when you are “treated like an animal” which, of course, humans are.

      There is no other species so interested in being “above” and separate from every other species – none other so wantonly destructive of the earth and her beautiful variety of inhabitants.

      Deer are the most loving spirits imaginable – unless you consider every other non-human animal when he or she trusts you.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Ida Lupine,

      Thanks for alerting us to this story and its resolution, at least for now.

      This needs wider coverage.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        A quick web search shows that the story did have legs. It was reported in a variety of places.

        I do think the fight against ag gag laws will go better if it is not made into a animal rights issue, but rather as a movement to stop Big Ag from throwing a blanket of silence on complaints about the dirty, mislabeled, and/or poisonous food they foist off on us.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Yes. I think as time goes on and the world’s population gets larger and larger, it will be increasingly difficult to have a safe and clean food supply with these awful factory farm methods. Muzzling critics isn’t the way to fix it.

        • JEFF E says:

          I agree!

          Particularly with the ever increasing incidents of contaminated food being foisted on the public. Most recently contaminate turkey products. Secrecy will only exacerbate this type of food poisoning.

        • The unlucky animals taken from the wild to be domesticated into factory farms – or even family farms ( an animal does not distinguish the two when faced with the slaughterhouse) – those animals are to be killed for $$$ – so they are exempt from animal cruelty laws, simply because the consumer does not care enough about life – theirs or his own, to organize for humane treatment.

          Humane treatment would solve many cruelty issues that lead to making our human food supply toxic – but it does not solve the slaughterhouse problem of the ultimate “utility” of the animals. Watch the documentary EARTHLINGS on youtube in total and determine whether you want to be part of that – or lead a healthy life:

          • Nancy says:

            Thanks for posting this Patricia Its a very good documentary that should of gotten the same attention (and acclaim) that The Cove generated when it made the rounds at the Academy Awards in 2009.

            The movie Earthlings covers the entire spectrum of not only pet & domestic animal abuse but the abuses to wildlife (and marine life) as well, at the hands of humans.

            But, I’m thinking the documentary got an X rating:

            Xenophobia – is an irrational or unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.

            Only because we’ve become such a superior species, that we no longer know or care, where our meat and clothing comes from, as long as we are fed and clothed.

            You sadly, said it well with this comment:

            “There is no other species so interested in being “above” and separate from every other species – none other so wantonly destructive of the earth and her beautiful variety of inhabitants”

            • Louise Kane says:

              Yes thank you Patricia for your tireless work. I just saw this posted on your website as part of the hypocrisy blog, I thought I would be sick

              “And let us not forget the ultimate hypocritical statement about how having a killing season for wolves will make the wold haters more tolerant of the species. Sure. Just take a look at the revolting Wisconsin Wolf Hunting Facebook page to see how “tolerant” these cretins have become. How about this sadistic fantasy quote from the page

              “The only regret I have is that I used a recording device without sound! Just think how cool a video with sound would have been. To hear him trying to gasp for air would have been amazing! I should have taken an “after” pic, because it looked like it tried to claw it’s own face off with it’s front paws.”

              I feel sick that wolves are dying like this in America with our legislators ignoring and circumventing the public’s attempts to protect them. The MI law 288 is an unholy disgraceful abrogation of democracy.

              for an animal to die at the hands of one of these Fck up monsters is outrageous, Its 2013 what have we become to allow this, anywhere

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Karma has a way of paying back. Just wait till he or someone he loves suffers with a terminal illness. He’ll soon be sorry he took pleasure in someone gasping for breath. It isn’t pretty.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        You’re welcome. I think so too! 🙂

    • JEFF E says:

      I dated a gal who maintains that she was invited to a back stage party after a concert by the “boss”, in Flagstaff Az., when she was 13 yrs, old.

      At the time we dated, late nineties, her son lived in Idaho Falls, Id.

      I have no reason to not believe her, then, or now.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        After all, what is Cat Scratch Fever (the song he wrote) about?

    • Too bad on both accounts. It is a comment on this society that he lives and advocates violence constantly.

  3. Vicki Fossen says:

    Since there was a great thread about Pyramid Lake recently, and it brought up some comments on fisheries and how they are managed (specifically Colorado’s native cutthroats), I wanted to share this:

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Vicki Fossen,

      Thanks for the information — the happy news that there are some pure greenback cutthroat trout left (Colorado’s state fish), if only in a 4 mile stretch of a creek.

      The Lahontan cutthroat is Nevada’s state fish.

      Currently, but I hope not for long, I am confused whether all these kinds of cutthroat trout are sub-species, varieties, strains, lineages, or what? Then, what is the difference between these “categories” just listed that have been used in news stories?

      • Vicki Fossen says:

        I think the further along we get with DNA, the more we will know.

        I know that the Colorado River Cutthroat and the Greenback (Colorado’s state fish, and hopefully it can recover) are both somehow connected to the Snake River and Yellowstone Cutthroats. The work they now do with DNA is phenomenal and intricate. I think we are just beginning to understand the history of cutthroats.

        The physical similarities will likely keep all cutthroat in Colorado listed until the Greenback is proven to be out of any type of jeopardy. They are different in appearance, but it is difficult to determine unless you are very educated. For the Colorado River and Greenback, it boils down to the size of spots on the tail.

        My guess would be (and it is just a guess) that there is a lineage difference which led to adaptive changes. Also there have likely been some cross-breeding which may have resulted in a variety that have been previously assumed genetically unrelated.

        I may take a genetics class and volunteer with a research hatchery just to better understand it. I think it is valuable info as I believe one of the biggest challenge we face these days is water and aquatic species.

        Water quality and now quantity will probably put more fish before the ESA for consideration.

        Pyramid’s Lohontans have given me some hope. Even the mass effort toward what we now know to be Colorado River Cutthroats give some hope.

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          Vicki Fossen,

          A little web search showed me that many Western states have cutthroat trout or a sub-species of them as their state fish: Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico.

          Cutts seem to be very popular even though they don’t fight like a Rainbow Trout. I think it might be because they are seen as a bit of pristine America or a thing of beauty.

          • Vicki Fossen says:


            I actually agree. They are definitely beautiful fish. They are, like many of our iconic animals, shrinking in numbers.

            I personally have a soft spot for them, because they exist in clean waters and are usually in scenic areas.

            Different genetics or not, they are a fun way to spend time!

            • Ralph Maughan says:

              Vicki Fossen,

              I think there is hope for cutthroat trout. The days of the “bucket biologists seems to be past. Many of the Cutthroat sub-species are protected by the ESA. I think many Fish and Game departments understand that the fish in the lakes and the streams need to fit each other or they will die out or need to be constantly stocked. However, I was never a bait angler for fishing creeks and I didn’t fish with people who were. As a result my perceptions might be wrong.

              I do see the continuing problems with invasive species, disease, and climate change.

              • Robert R says:

                Ralph I know this last year they poisoned some small lakes because the cutthroat did not have the right DNA.
                Sometimes government lunacy is just like bucket biology.

              • Vicki Fossen says:

                I see hope as well. We need more water quality control.
                I believe fisheries management has been able to surpass wildlife, because the level of contention the receive is slightly smaller.

                Management really is about humans and not nature.

  4. jon says:

    Montana FWP proposes new wolf season in Montana. Hunters can kill 5 wolves each and bait wolves as well and the season closes March 31st just like Idaho meaning pregnant wolves can be killed.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Good God
      What a disgrace

      • jon says:

        This will put the wolves back on the endangered species list. Hunters and trappers will easily kill 400 wolves.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Is this what is meant by compromise? I don’t think it should be.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        From the proposed law:

        Wolf trappers would be required to set pan tensions on wolf traps to a minimum of 10 pounds, on
        any traps set in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

        This requirement will preclude the incidental capture of
        wolverines, which are restricted in distribution to Regions 1-5. Ten pounds is a recognized standard
        to preclude wolverine capture in foothold devices, and is recognized as such in the draft AFWAUSFWS
        pamphlet, “How to avoid incidental take of wolverine while trapping other furbearers”. It
        will be appropriate to minimize incidental trapping of wolverines once they are listed. This standard
        will also preclude capture of lynx, which are currently federally listed.

        Nice way to skirt around the endangered wolverine issue, but I don’t think it’s gonna fly. Trapping needs to be bannded so that desperately endangered animals are not caught.

        • Louise Kane says:

          What a sick joke, maintain viable populations….
          these people are criminals and the USFWS standing by supposedly monitoring ever increasing wolf slaughter.

          1. Maintain a viable and connected wolf population in Montana. 2. Gain and maintain authority for State of Montana to manage wolves. 3. Maintain positive and effective working relationships with livestock producers, hunters, and
          other stakeholders. 4a. Reduce wolf impacts on livestock. 4b. Reduce wolf impacts on big game populations. 4c. Maintain sustainable hunter opportunity for wolves. 4d. Maintain sustainable hunter opportunity for ungulates. 5. Increase broad public acceptance of sustainable harvest and hunter opportunity as part of
          wolf conservation. 6. Enhance open and effective communication to better inform decisions 7. Learn and improve as we go.

          • Louise Kane says:

            The last line should read “ignore literature, public sentiment, decency and improve killing techniques as we go.” Disgraceful, shameful, ignorant, intolerant, losers.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              “And never forget who your liege lord is at all times.”

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Its unenforceable. Take a class and read a pamphlet. Laughable.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            They really do this to stick it to those who would oppose them. “Learn and improve as we go.” What an insult. And that F&W just lies down for them for whatever they want.

            5. Increase broad public acceptance of sustainable harvest and hunter opportunity as part of
            wolf conservation.

            Never gonna happen. At least not with these methods.

            • jon says:

              They are putting those that hate wolves ahead of the wildlife they are supposed to properly “manage”. It doesn’t matter how many wolves that are killed. Those that hate wolves in Montana are going to hate them regardless. Why doe FWP have to resort to killing a lot of wolves, just so people will accept wolves more?

              • Ida Lupine says:

                They’ll get a pink slip if they don’t. Or magically defunded from just a phone call to politician friends.

            • jon says:

              They made the quota for wolves higher too. What is the point of this? Montana FWP wants 7 wolves killed near yellowstone. What is the purpose for a higher quota near yellowstone?

      • jon says:

        At the end of the wolf hunting season in MT, FWP says there were 525 wolves. Nobody knows how many wolf pups will be born this year. Let’s say that only 100 wolves will be born this year. That is 625 wolves and FWP claims that they want 400-500 wolves in Montana, so why are they letting hunters and trappers kill 5 wolves each?

        • Robert R says:

          Jon you must understand even though FWP wants a liberal season on wolves they do not want them relisted so they will not let the numbers go to low.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            They may not be able to help themselves. And like golden eagles, we’ll be waiting.

          • Louise Kane says:

            Such a logical, way to “manage” an intelligent, beautiful, species. Thank you for reminding us that we need to remember the logic behind Montana’s wolf management. so comforting to know they will do everything possible to keep wolves hovering just above a re listing.

            • savebears says:

              Well if the rumors abounding about USFWS and what is being said about nationwide de-listing, it seems FWP has some powerful partners.

              Despite what you posted a couple of days ago Louise about your Conversation, I have spot to a couple of highly placed USFWS people here in Montana and Idaho and they are saying that the LA Times was closer than you think on their story.

              Both of them monitor this blog and have some interesting thoughts about the conversations that happen on here.

              • Vicki Fossen says:

                Interesting thoughts huh? As in, yada yada (shrugging and waving off opinions)….or hmmmm (scratch your head and think)?
                Oh, dare to but imagine a site that would actually influence feds!
                And I am moderate!

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Do tell! 🙂

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I hope it’s Josh Bransford or Jamie Olsen, because we have some choice words for them. 🙂 Just kidding.

              • savebears says:

                Do tell what, I will respect their identity, just as Louise did when she posted she had spoke with someone.

          • JB says:

            “…even though FWP wants a liberal season on wolves they do not want them relisted so they will not let the numbers go to low.”

            Robert: You and others consistently use this logic in support of policies designed to minimize wolf populations. Essentially, you’re saying “what are you guys complaining about, they aren’t purposefully eradicating wolves”. Yet, the same folks that consistently make this point seem unwilling to accept ANY reductions in their favored species–elk. So why should advocates of wolves accept policy designed to minimize wolf populations, when elk hunters will accept nothing less than maximum sustained yield?

            • topher says:

              Pay to play

              • JB says:

                So why should advocates of wolves accept policy designed to minimize wolf populations, when elk hunters will accept nothing less than maximum sustained yield?

            • ma'iingan says:

              “…even though FWP wants a liberal season on wolves they do not want them relisted so they will not let the numbers go to low.”

              Statements like that ignore the fact that managing a population at less than 1/2 the carrying capacity (<K/2) is impractical and expensive.

              It's impractical because hunting effort is prohibitive when the population is <k/2, and it's expensive because it requires intensive monitoring of the population's inherent instability at that level.

              • Robert R says:

                I don’t think it’s as exspensive as the introduction and on going studies and the monitoring of collared wolves. So it goes both ways.

              • Immer Treue says:


                There are those that contend that a “native” population of wolves existed prior to reintroduction. If so, would “we” not currently find ourselves in the same situation?

            • JEFF E says:

              of course the other dynamic is; who is going to do the “official count” and with what oversight?

              will it be someone such as billy-bob remington, or, some one with a modicum of credibility?

  5. frank Renn says:

    Hunters should not have the same attitude towards Golden eagles that the sheep industry has. Their effect on game populations is limited to a few Sage grouse,Antelope fawn and an occasional winter stressed deer. In 1962 Golden eagles were added to the Bald eagle protection act of 1940,(although Bald eagles were killed in Alaska till 1953). Seems they had Salmon breath. Prior to gaining protection aerial gunning was a common method of killing eagles. Aerial gunning on the northern plains was a minor event compared to the slaughter that went on in Texas. Wintering concentrations of eagles during lambing season led to hundreds of them being gunned out of the sky. One of the key issues that led to protection was the fact that the gunners could not distinguish a Golden eagle from an immature Bald eagle.
    There are now non lethal methods of protecting lambing operations from eagles. They can be trapped and moved to a safe area.

    Falconers are allowed to have a Golden eagle if they are willing to trap one in a area where Eagles are a problem to livestock operations.

    • Robert R says:

      Frank you would be amazed how many bighorn sheep are killed by golden eagles. Just wait if golden eagles can be used the same as a falcon, someone will try and copy the Mongolians who use them to hunt wolves.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        If only.

      • Louise Kane says:

        hey why not, snares, bows and arrows, traps and trap lines at every step, helicopters, snowmobiles, packs of dogs, baits, rifles, bludgeoning, strangling and choking. Golden eagle hunting of wolves too.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I think golden eagles taking lambs and hunting wolves is a bit of an overstatement. It’s impossible, frankly. It isn’t their prey, and as reports of mythical wingspans and talons, is exaggerated. We’re truly going back to Dark Ages thinking.

          The ones I have seen don’t seem big or strong enough to carry away lambs, and the ranchers or herders aren’t doing their jobs, if the report I read yesterday is any indication – 44 lambs lost. The bald eagles I have seen seem larger. But if you want to hunt wolves with eagles, that’s a compromise I can live with because you won’t get any. 😉

          • Robert R says:

            Ida all though the wolves in Mongolia are not as big as the Canadian they do train the golden eagle to hunt wolves, its not a myth, google it.

            Oh hi Louise??

          • savebears says:


            I don’t know what species you are seeing and calling them golden eagles, which by the way is quite a bit larger than a bald eagle. I watch them fight off balds around here all the time on road kill deer

            You do realize that the eagles are trained to take the species the hunter is after, right? Falcons and Eagles are not that difficult to train to target certain prey species.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              Of course I do. But the bald eagles I have seen seem much larger. I haven’t seen Western goldens.

              • savebears says:

                Well the Western Golden Eagle is a very large bird, they tower over our Bald Eagles.

            • savebears says:


              You might want to read over this short comparison of the two.


              The only thing I disagree with in this article, is the bit about them not often eating carrion, we see them on dead dear around here all the time.

              • JEFF E says:

                “disagree with in this article, is the bit about them not often eating carrion, ….”

                which is one reason Ben Franklin was against the Eagle as the national symbol.

  6. Wisconsin has about 10% of the population killing wildlife. But there are many states that have 1 or 2%. The citizens in all states need to organize and demand that they have the same rules that apply to hunters applied to them. In Wisconsin a trapper can pay $20 and go into our public lands and kill as many animals as he or she can take with unlimited traps on unlimited traplines for 7 months. For private profit. This is a business off of our commons. So non-hunters should be charged the same fee and be able to go in and live trap and prominently tag the wildlife they take to be SAFE FOREVER ( they are killing forever) and be able to sell them or keep them to re-wild their raped out landscapes. The children of the deer we tag, for example, should be ours as well, since they would not exist if we had not claimed them.

    We are citizens too – why are we putting up with the only ticket out of our commons is death for the few who love to kill?

    • Louise Kane says:

      Patricia, I agree with your comments. The question is how to overturn the corruption in wildlife management. Even when citizens, as in MI, express their voices en mass, legally and loudly and clearly…. the minority voice and corrupt legislature squashed their efforts. The cronies need to be ousted. That seems more difficult after citizens united and with all the money being thrown into campaigns. Federal or state the battle is being waged with money. No one pays much attention to their constituents anymore its all about where the money is coming from and it starts the minute an election occurs. It would be interesting to election reform that allowed each campaign to raise up to a certain level of spending and no more. Then the candidates could focus on issues instead of raising money and spreading lies and defaming one another. They would also have to be damned careful about how to spend that money and where. Until that kind of reform occurs the entire system is broken.

    • rork says:

      “for the few who love to kill”
      I’m so tired of generalizing bad things about hunters that I will on occasion get defensive.
      I’ve met many hunters, but none who love to kill. I think it’s cause they are rare. Those that do exist are perhaps louder than I would like.
      I like picking blueberries – I don’t think it’s cause the act of removing them from the bush is so awesome. It’s cause I’m obtaining wild food – a quintessential act of humans – and it’s not just about my stomach. I may feed others those berries or that meat (deer or domestic animal I killed) or even that corn I grew, but the most important things I gained while obtaining these things will never be tasted by those that merely eat my results, or the food from farmers and ranchers. I figure with this one life I’d like to at least have experienced what being a human animal is essentially like, while harming the land as little as possible.
      If that sounds like Thoreau, it’s no accident.

      • JB says:

        Well put, Rork. I’ll add that while there is no question that hunters are in the minority, people on this site consistently misuse and misunderstand statistics on hunting participation; for example, “Wisconsin has about 10% of the population killing wildlife.” Wisconsin has 5.7 million people and according to the USFWS’s most recent (2011) report, about 763,000 people hunted. That’s about 13.4% of the state’s population; however, those figures do not account for “churn”. That is, not all hunters hunt every year. Our data (from Minnesota) suggested that if you look over a 5-6 year period, the number of people who purchase a license more than doubles.

        Churn rates vary considerably from state to state, but I would wager that a safe estimate for Wisconsin is closer to 25% of the population hunts at least once in 5 years. That’s considerably greater than the 10% figure cited above.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        But a blueberry bush isn’t sentient in the way that our fellow mammals are.

        I don’t know that we have the right to take another animal’s life because we want the ‘experience’ of what we used to be like as hunter/gatherers. Wildlife is in dramatic decline and there are upwards of seven billion of us. But even so – hunting wolves doesn’t fall under hunting for food. It is sport and hatred, nothing else. So the ‘few who love to kill’ seem to be mostly concentrated on hunting wolves. Generalizations are not being made about hunters in general – just wolf hunters, from the YouTube and Facebook accounts of their exploits that would seem to back it up.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Also, when people ‘harvest’ plant life, they don’t usually kill the entire plant. Just take what they need and the blueberry bush still survives. Although I have heard of a recent trend of digging up an entire blueberry bush and tossing it in the back of the pickup. Such greed.

          When you kill mammal life – the entire animal is dead, and a valuable member of a herd or pack is gone and disruption in their life is created – in family-driven animal life such as wolves and elephants the effect is especially dramatic. We don’t want to recognize these traits in other living things.

          If F&W wants the general public to accept hunting wolves as a management tool, they are going to have to adopt and enforce stricter hunting laws for wolves, not the increasingly more lenient, anything-goes policy such as they have now. Compromise isn’t one-sided. JMO.

          • JB says:


            I think you’ve missed the point of Rork’s analogy, which speaks to one’s motivation for “harvesting” wild foods:

            “…I don’t think it’s cause the act of removing them from the bush is so awesome. It’s cause I’m obtaining wild food…”

            It is a fair point that blueberry bushes are not killed in the process of harvesting; however, your missing the point that most hunters don’t kill for the sake of killing (or pick for the sake of picking). This is an important point for many folks on this blog, who seem to need to be continually reminded that most hunting is not motivated out of sadism nor hate (despite continued assertions to the contrary).

            • Ida Lupine says:

              I didn’t miss the point at all. I said that I don’t think it is a valid enough reason for havesting animals that may be in decline, and it doesn’t apply at all to hunting wolves.

              The point that everyone keeps missing is nobody is faulting the decent hunters, but just because there are decent hunters does not minimize the damage that the sadists do. You are continually reminded of the fact because the sadists, cowards that they are, hide among the decent hunters. So I wish the decent hunters would rout them out and not defend them. I do think despite claims to the contrary that there is a “Joy of Killing” among hunting.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                So, as I have said many times, if people want to hunt deer and elk, like any other predator in the food chain, we are entitled to eat too, and they seem to be in good supply. As long as they observe fair chase and don’t behave like lunatics, I don’t have a problem with it.

                I just don’t see how wanting to eat wild food applies to wolf hunting, or wolverines or mountain lions. There, even at best, it’s for a trophy. At worst…

              • JB says:

                I don’t think anyone is arguing that motivation–in and of itself– is an justification for harvesting animals (whether their populations are declining or not)? However, motivation is consistently brought up as a reason for banning/restricting hunting (thus, the defense). What you guys seem to fail to grasp is that you can’t regulate an activity based upon individual motivations. Or maybe you do grasp this, and that provides the motivation for stereotyping hunters (i.e., if they’re all sadists, then we can eliminate hunting and not feel bad about it).

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Well, I wouldn’t say all hunters are sadists, but there is a level of disassociation from killing that is disturbing in a world where it is no longer necessary.

                For some, it is about wild food. I don’t know about other hunters here, but SB has been most vocal about it and he seems to live his life that way. He and his wife grow their own food, gather wild plants. So I do have an understanding there.

                Generations ago, it was about eating wild food, and a way for men to get out there and enjoy the nature that is in all of us. Some of us don’t hunt tho. Today, it’s all about making money, fancy, high-tech equipment. When the animals are gone, what will these outfitters do then? It would seem conservation is in their best interest also.

                • Ralph Maughan says:

                  Ida Lupine,

                  I think two good examples of what you say about different kinds of hunters are 1. Bob Ferris, who, oddly (I thought) got some criticism here for being too something or other (too much Oregon, I guess it was); and 2. Ted Nugent, who might have missed his calling by picking up a guitar instead of looking for work at a slaughterhouse.

              • savebears says:

                Wolves are possibly in decline in one area of their habitat, of course there are far more wolves now in that part of the habitat, then there has been for the last 100 plus years.

              • rork says:

                Ida “nobody is faulting the decent hunters” – baloney, it is common for some to paint all hunters as bad, even here, and that’s what I was objecting to. I was responding to Patricia Randolph, who wasn’t just talking about wolf hunters. She mentioned deer too. I hope you know I’m never gonna hunt wolves, bear, bobcat, coyote, badger, etc.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I feel I have gained a better understanding of hunting and hunters.

            • Vicki Fossen says:


              I completely get where you are coming from. I honestly do.

              I also think that it is impractical to think we can first exterminate a species, let an ecosystem evolve for 100+ years without it, encroach into the ecosystem, tweak the flora and fauna of the ecosystem, then place the animals we exterminated right back in- and then expect not to manage them.

              I have advocated for wolves since about 1992-93 (early into things). However, I knew from get-go that if reintroduction was successful, we would come to numbers where wolves would either be hunted, or be exterminated again.

              People have different perceptions of hunting, and like their perceptions on everything, they come from personal experiences and connections.

              Hunting wolves may not be something you would ever entertain the thought of doing. But just like we have people who hunt coyotes, and mountain lions, we will have people hunting wolves.

              We can’t control or change that past the threshold of populations outlined by management plans which are dictated under the ESA and the EIS. What we can have in put in, is how they are hunted, and to what end, I think they should be a trophy species.

              Hunting, actually is necessary. Maybe not every where, or to every person. But to many, and for various reasons, it is necessary. Management became necessary when we first started capitalizing on resources. It is a human cause and effect based reality.

              I really admire that you are so passionate. I hope you keep speaking up, and listening. That’s where change becomes possible.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Thank you Vicki –

                I hope so, too. I have learned a lot here, from all sides.

      • Kathleen says:

        “No humane being past the thoughtless age of boyhood, will wantonly murder any creature, which holds its life by the same tenure that he does.”

        “…I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals.”

        H.D. Thoreau, Walden

        • rork says:

          Thoreau had not experienced deer destroying the land, or annihilating his beans.
          I might also argue that using a little bit of many animal resources might help us do less damage to the land in theory anyway. Given human numbers, that tactic is harder to do well now. Cod was pretty sustainable for several centuries (then we screwed it up). Given our numbers though, using animals less generally makes sense. I’ve had pig twice and cow once this year – rare enough so I can remember exactly when. It’s not cause I feel empathy for cows or pigs though. It’s “diet for a small planet” stuff.

    • Vicki Fossen says:

      It’s good to see people taking initiative. It may be a tiny wiggle forward, but it is better than doing nothing.

  7. Louise Kane says:

    Everyone MI needs your help. Nancy Warren has listed ways you can help below. For those not familiar SB 288 was proposed by Sen Casperson in a sleazy back door move to overturn the citizen’s initiative to put the issue of hunting of wolves on the ballot for a vote. The new legislation is being passed by a largely republican senate and house along party lines and against the people’s wishes and collective voice. More then 257,000 people signed a petition in MI’s legal process to have the question of whether to hunt wolves put on the ballot.
    If you can make a call please do and forward widely.

    From: Nancy & Al Warren
    Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 20:29:39 -0400
    To: Warren Nancy
    Subject: Michigan Issues Action

    Hi All,

    SB 288 which extends the authority to the NRC to establish any species a game animal passed the Senate last week. Several amendments failed. To see how your Senator voted go to:

    After hours of testimony this afternoon, the House Natural Resources Committee voted 8-0 in favor of advancing legislation that allows the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) or the Legislature to put a species on the game list. Both Scott Dianda & John Kivela (U.P. reps) voted for the bill.
    Kivela also questioned whether residents of the U.P., where he said 1 percent of the state’s population lives, would be able to have their due say in the ballot vote despite the fact that the wolf issue only impacts the U.P. “Do you really believe that their voices are going to be heard?” Kivela asked at one point. And when one opponent brought up the “agenda” of people backing the bill, McBroom tried to clarify his “agenda” for supporting the measure. “My agenda is to save the people of the Upper Peninsula,” McBroom said.
    The bill now goes to the full House on Thursday,

    Please make one more call (okay 2) – Ask your representative to vote No on SB288. This is not just an assault on wolves, it is an assault against democracy.

    Find your representative: You can call tonight and leave a message

    Call Scott Dianda 517 373 –0850

    House Switchboard opens at 8:00 am – 517 373 6339 – they will transfer you to your representative

    The goal is to get this bill on the Governor’s desk this week.

    Everyone, call Governor Rick Snyder 517 373 3400 Ask him to veto this bill – It is the right of citizens to vote on the repeal of PA520 without legislative intrusion.

    Next Step

    The Natural Resource Commission meets next week when they will be deciding on the proposed wolf hunting season. Both meetings will be at the RAM Center, Roscommon (address is shown on the agenda)

    The May 8 Wildlife Committee meeting is just for the wolf issue. Public comments made at that meeting will not be read into the regular NRC meeting the next day, May 9. It is not necessary to comment both days, but okay to do so if desired. Public comments on the 9th can be on any topic related to the DNR.

    Tuesday 5/8 is the NRC Policy Committee on Wildlife and Fisheries

    Wednesday 5/9 is the NRC Meeting
    To read the proposal, go to

    If you’re unable to attend the meeting but wish to submit written comments on Agenda items, please write to: Natural Resources Commission, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909 or e-mail: . If you would like further
    information or would like to address the Commission, please contact Debbie Whipple at 517-373-2352 or e-mail: . Persons registering on or before the Friday preceding the meeting will be allowed up to five (5)
    minutes for their presentation. Persons registering after the Friday preceding the meeting or at the meeting will be allowed up to three (3) minutes. Persons with disabilities needing accommodations should contact Debbie Whipple

    Thank you!


    • rork says:

      “The Michigan House on Thursday approved Senate Bill 288 by a 72-38 vote.”
      “Gov. Rick Snyder’s intention is to sign the bill, pending final review.”

      As a howling ultra-liberal, I hope the political damage is considerable, but it may be wishful thinking, and bad poetry for sure.

      My letters to NRC say that if it’s less than 50 wolves, pros can do it. (Didn’t MN government types kill nearly 250 last year?) That gets the right wolves and doesn’t tarnish (us) hunters.

  8. frank Renn says:

    Robert R.
    No surprise here. I was aware of the fact that Golden eagles preyed on Big horn sheep. It was an omission on my part as I was limiting my thoughts to some of the experiences I have had with Golden eagles in S.E. Idaho.

  9. Kathleen says:

    I imagine that most at this site have already submitted their comment regarding the USFWS proposal to list the wolverine as threatened in the lower 48; this just serves as a reminder, or as notice to newer visitors, that the comment deadline is this Monday, 5/6 at 11:59 pm ET.
    You can access the comment site along with some outrageous gulo footage (gulo takes on a black bear; gulo takes on a wolf) here

  10. Robert R says:

    I just love this billboard! It shows how exstemist will go to any length to get their way because some cannot stand the park pets being killed. Maybe I’m a little harsh but I idolize ungulates. I think I woulike a billboard of wolves killing elk or just killing.
    It’s double edge sword. I recently seen an article about elk and not one pro wolf person made a comment and that tells me that most could care less about most ungulates.

    • JB says:

      “I recently seen an article about elk and not one pro wolf person made a comment and that tells me that most could care less about most ungulates.”

      Robert: Expressing concern for one species is not an indication of lack of concern for others. However, you might consider the fact that there are more elk in the Northern Yellowstone herd alone than wolves in the entire northern Rockies. Generally, concern for a species is motivated by rarity, so lots of elk = little concern. Where I’m from (Michigan originally) many people are concerned about ungulates for the opposite reason. MI annually has some 65,000 deer-vehicle collisions–and those are only the reported collisions; they estimate that there are probably an equal number that go unreported. Multiply 130,000 DVCs by $2,000 per accident (a conservative estimate of avg. repairs) and you have $26 million in deer damage–and we haven’t even began talking about crop damage or loss of species diversity.

      I care about ungulates. But that doesn’t translate into a desire to have unlimited numbers of them. On a related topic, I find it terribly ironic when you guys scream about the need to hunt wolves in order to have “balance”. From where I sit, ungulate management looks more like an attempt at maximum sustained yield than a balanced approach to wildlife management.

      • JB says:

        I should have added that you can’t support wolves in the NRMs and not be an advocate for elk–at least not logically. In fact elk and wolf supporters need the same thing: habitat (largely winter habitat) for elk. This is one of the reasons I am frustrated when these groups spend money working against one another.

    • Rita k Sharpe says:

      Robert R, how can you tell that no pro wolf commented? You know for a fact that no pro wolf person said anything. When I read comments here, am I to assume everyone here are non hunters? I am sure the other side has their media output such as bumper stickers saying something like,smoke a pack a day. Everyone can agree on, is that there are extremist on both sides

    • Vicki Fossen says:


      I think you’d be hard pressed to find a pro-wolfer who was anti-ungulate, or even one who lacks concern for wildlife as a whole.

      The personality type required to be a pro-wolfer essentially requires that they are considerate of other animals. That is a personal observation, not statistical.

      The billboard is not offensive to me, nor does it incite me. It is just a realistic look at one perception of wolf hunts/killings.

      Nobody is advocating loudly (or loudly enough that I have ever heard of it) to exterminate or remove all elk. If there was a legitimate push, you’d hear people speaking up, and see billboards of motherless calves. Then again, you don’t need a billboard to see an elk’s blood tongue hanging off a tail-gate. It is just more common to see elk harvests.

      • Robert R says:

        You say, The billboard is not offensive to me, nor does it incite me. It is just a realistic look at one perception of wolf hunts/killings.

        Ok but what if it were a billboard of wolves killing.

        • Vicki Fossen says:

          Same thing. And I have seen those ads too. I have actually filmed and photographed it myself. It is just a reality. Animals eat. Just because they don’t use forks doesn’t mean they are savages.

          • timz says:

            I heard yesterday a new form of entertainment has been discovered, it’s called “trunking”. A guy was putting two
            dogs in the trunk of a car and driving around until allowing them to fight until one was killed. He would then stop
            and toss out the dead one. Who are the real savages on this planet, I don’t think it’s the wolves.

    • Nancy says:

      “Maybe I’m a little harsh but I idolize ungulates”

      Me too Robert R but I’m sure for different reasons 🙂 Seeing the 200 to 300 head of elk grazing across the way this morning, is quite a sight!

      Nature at its best but then, in another 5 months, they will be traumatized & harassed, from dawn til dusk (for roughly 3 months) by a predator that numbers in the hundreds in just my area alone, that they too often can’t see or smell. Cows in their prime killed, calves orphaned and the best of the gene pool (bulls) killed simply for their head and horns.

      Yep, we all have our own opinions when it comes to predators – those that are part of nature and those that are not.

    • Jeff N. says:

      Robert R., once again, proudly putting his boundless ignorance on full display.

      Ok Robert R., I can’t lie anymore, I hate elk, deer, moose, bunnies, chipmunks, armadillos, woodchucks, pelicans,on and on and on…..if it’s not a wolf then I consider it worthless. Boy, it felt good to get that off my chest.

    • Jeff N. says:

      Robert R. Idolizes ungulates so much that he honors them by blasting a piece of lead into their shoulder area.

      Robert R., I’m just guessing, but English probably wasn’t your best subject in school.

      • Robert R says:

        Come on Jeff do you have anything better than picking a person for bad (English). I have seen many others miss spell, not space or only spell part of a word and your singling me out because you don’t agree with me.
        So you think I’m a wildlife terrorist that shoots everything I see. Think what you like but you are so far out of touch with reality. Yes I like to hunt, but not just to shoot an animal. The animals I shoot are for winter meat to feed my family.
        My comment that I idolize ungulates is no different than you or anyone else making an iconic symbol out of wolves.
        Jeff you know it take a big man to call someone a name.
        Ok Robert R., I can’t lie anymore, I hate elk, deer, moose, bunnies, chipmunks, armadillos, woodchucks, pelicans,on and on and on…..if it’s not a wolf then I consider it worthless. Boy, it felt good to get that off my chest.

        If this the case why can’t you defend anything but wolves

        • Jeff N. says:

          Robert R.,

          For starters, what name did I call you? And when did I accuse you of being a wildlife terrorist who shoots everything you see. You’ve once again made another pointless and irrelevant post.

          Secondly, being able to structure a coherent post is kind of important when trying to get one’s point across. You tend to fail at this on a regular basis.

          Another thing…you repeatedly make the assertion that many who post here don’t give a shit about elk or ungulates, and only worship wolves. Breaking News Robert R., this website is run by an organization called the Wolf Recovery Foundation, so most who post here actually support wolf recovery. However, I can say with certainty that everyone who posts here values both the elk and the wolf. It just so happens that currently, elk number in the hundreds of thousands whereas the wolf, after a decade or so of recovery, now is being quite heavily managed to minimize its presence on the landscape in order to maximize the population of ungulates.

          Sorry Robert R., I can’t get all weepy because a wolf pack brings down an elk in a not-so-clean fashion in order to feed.

          However it does piss me off that the wolves are once again being treated as vermin by the states that now “manage” them, in order to provide folks like yourself a better chance of blasting a piece of lead into the shoulder area of one of your idols.

          You see Robert R., I don’t hunt but I’ve made it clear in my posts that I am not anti-hunting. I initially was in support of a wolf hunt, but after seeing how the states have proceeded, I now strongly oppose a hunting season for wolves.

          And one more thing. I hope the billboard has an affect on the conversation. You call it extremist….and it was certainly over the top, but the extremist crap coming from the anti-wolf side dwarfs these billboards, and yet you say nothing about the anti-wolf extremism. You are just saddened and confused as to why nobody here verbally mourns the loss of an elk to a pack of wolves.

          • jon says:

            I think most predicated on here a while ago that once Montana and Idaho are allowed to have killing seasons on wolves, they would and as times goes on, the seasons will be more aggressive. These fish and game agencies cater to the hunters, trappers, and ranchers and ignore the rest of the population. As more and more people become wildlife watchers and less people become hunters, these fish and game agencies are going to be faced with a choice. Cater to the minority that wants to kill wildlife or the majority that continues to grow and wants to have wildlife around to watch it and shoot it with a camera. 🙂

          • Robert R says:

            Jeff your just like a grizzly. You get possessive and defensive when you don’t get it your way.
            I guess I’ll have to quit (blasting animals) like you say.
            This is not grammar class and I’ll keep commenting the way I want.

          • Louise Kane says:

            thank you Jeff N

        • jon says:

          That is because no other animal is being persecuted like wolves Robert R. If FWP continues to let hunters and trappers kill collared wolves, don’t you think FWP is going to have a hard time trying to find out how many wolves are in Montana? FWP wants to let hunters kill wolves during breeding season. Do you find this acceptable Robert R? You obviously don’t like when wolves kill elk and you seem to feel sorry for the elk that are killed by wolves, but do you care for the elk that are killed by you hunter? I don’t see hunters getting angry with each other when they kill an elk, but when a wolf kills an elk, you hunters go ballistic. Why is that?

          • Robert R says:

            jon really!
            The coyote has been shot and trapped year around for decades and if its a non game animal or not a furbearer they are shot and trapped. I want you to find my comment where I say I don’t like wolves killing elk. Further more I have said I don’t want wolves eliminated only managed.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Robert R have you not figured out yet “managed” equals eliminated in post delisting lingo

              • Robert R says:

                Louise I know what management is, you however with all your education don’t understand why management is needed.

              • jon says:


                People like RobertR try to use the word “manage” in order to try and confuse them. People know what you’re talking about RobertR. Please explain why grizzlies need to be killed as soon as they are delisted.

              • Robert R says:

                Jon you have way saying I made a statement when I never did. I did not say grizzlies needed killed did I!!
                Here is what I said,
                The grizzly is far more threatened than wolves will ever be! Managed does not equal killed. It means animals must be delt with on a case by case basis.

                It is not always hunters who kill, it can be wildlife services or even you driving down the highway.

              • Vicki Fossen says:

                Okay, I am not defending or siding here. Let’s just keep facts, facts. Killing, in what ever form it occurs, is an anticipated factor in management of any animal, and every animal. Wolves and elk are no different.

                Managing is not equivalent to killing, although killing may be a part of a management plan. Wen you blur these lines, you are guilty of the same blurring that you accuse others (FWS) of using to the advantage of anti-wolf groups.

                No where in any wolf management plan allowed by the ESA is there an allowance for the elimination of a species.

      • jon says:

        Robert R. Idolizes ungulates so much that he honors them by blasting a piece of lead into their shoulder area.

        Doesn’t seem like caring or idolizing to me. If you idolize or care about something, you usually don’t shoot and kill it.

    • Mike says:

      ++It’s double edge sword. I recently seen an article about elk and not one pro wolf person made a comment and that tells me that most could care less about most ungulates.++

      No, they care more. They do that by not putting a bullet into their lungs.

    • Louise Kane says:

      This is a letter I wrote to Lamar Outdoor Advertising and sent out. Later today I learned they had taken down the billboard. I encourage others to write to these people. Why should this billboard be taken down. Its not bad taste to show the truth, its bad taste to do the activity.
      This is the e mail for the company rep

      From: louise kane
      Date: Sat, 04 May 2013 10:32:31 -0400
      Subject: Inquiry comment about wolf billboard – thank you for exposing this issue

      Louise Kane, JD
      PO Box 148
      Eastham, MA 02642

      May 4th, 2013

      Dear Kirby Palmer,

      I am writing today to congratulate Lamar Outdoor advertising for your courage in placing the graphic add that depicts the true face of “wolf management” in the western and mid western United States. Please do not back down and remove these ads. Ironically, some people that argue that these ads are in bad taste have no problem posting images of dead or dying wolves in traps, snares or with arrows through their heads on Facebook and in other public forums. Some may brag about killing wolves. Some describe how to make the animals suffer longer or more intensely, or they may explain how to kill entire families or packs of wolves. Ironically these people do not consider killing wolves or inflicting unbearable pain as in “bad taste” or inhumane. Yet when the reality of killing wolves is exposed, it is suddenly an issue of taste.

      History has shown that a majority of people support wolf recovery, and do not want wolves hunted. Wolves were nearly extirpated from all of North America by the barbaric and inhumane campaigns that were waged against them by the livestock industry. Unfortunately this same group of individuals has forged efforts with trophy hunting groups to inflict the same short-sighted, inhumane policies against wolves that caused their original demise and created the need to protect them under the Endangered Species Act. Despite the history of extirpation, and since the politically motivated delisting of wolves, these normally peaceful predators that avoid human interactions have been once again singled out for destruction. State “management” policies call for killing off most of the wolves in all the states where they occur and for allowing only a small fringe population of wolves. The numbers they call healthy mean that wolf populations will hover just above what is considered to be a minimal viable population number.

      It’s likely that under these unconscionable “management” plans the few remaining wolves will be constantly hunted through their mating, birthing and pup rearing seasons. And under these plans their families will be torn apart, their pups killed, the alphas targeted and the fragmented pack disrupted and scattered trying to survive without stability or the leadership necessary to successfully feed themselves. Increasing peer-reviewed literature illustrates that wolves that are hunted become unstable and human or livestock conflicts increase rather then decrease. Wolves are intensely social and so these programs are all the more inhumane. Wolves are bonded to one another and are known to grieve at the loss of their pack members. There is no good reason to hunt wolves. There is no good reason to inflict this misery on wolves, the first relatives of dogs.

      I applaud your support of your client and your choice to place these billboards. Please do not remove these billboards. Yes, the images are graphic, yes they are disturbing. But the incessant, unnecessary killing of wolves is at the core of these ads. And its the killing that should be labeled disturbing, not the expose’. The world needs to see the atrocities that are inflicted on wolves behind closed doors. The special interest groups that have pushed for these radical policies are thieves. They are expert at making it appear that hunting wolves with ever increasing cruelty and aggressiveness is necessary and sane. But these policies are anything but sane. Killing wolves deprives our ecosystems of the drivers that help keep them healthy. These policies that allow for killing wolves needlessly steal the lives of the individual animals but also steal from us and our future generations the opportunity of seeing and experiencing fully recovered populations of unmolested wild wolves.

      Wolves deserve better than this, and so do we. When people squander our wildlife public trust resources using lies, bigotry and ignorance to legitimize their atrocities, its time to fight back.

      Thank you for helping to expose the real face of wolf management in the US, and please thank your client.
      The majority voice needs to be heard and wolves need protection from the minority special interests that are squandering our wildlife.

      Louise Kane

  11. Brian Ertz says:

    “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” ~ Frederick Douglass

    • Vicki Fossen says:

      Right on Frederick!

    • Louise Kane says:

      an amazing man he was. a great mind in a not so great time… undergraduate degree was in history with a minor in black history. I did not remember that quote. I love it

  12. Rita k Sharpe says:

    Robert R,I care for ungulates along with the rest but, it’s the habitat that concerns me the most.

  13. jon says:

    Robert R, what is FWP going to do when hunters and trappers kill all of the collared wolves in Montana? How do they plan on keeping track on how many wolves there are in Montana? You whine about those that want to see a good sized wolf population, but at the same time, people like you want a good sized elk population just so you can harvest the elk and put it in your mouth.

    • Robert R says:

      Maybe they use drone planes?

      • jon says:

        The FWP will be the ones responsible for putting wolves back on the endangered species list. By upping the quotas and letting hunters and trappers kill collared wolves, they are going to find it to be very hard to get collars on enough wolves. Montana is proving just like Idaho it’s an anti-wildlife state that only caters to those that want to kill wildlife.

      • jon says:

        The FWP will be the ones responsible for putting wolves back on the endangered species list. By upping the quotas and letting hunters and trappers kill collared wolves, they are going to find it to be very hard to get collars on enough wolves. Montana is proving just like Idaho it’s an anti-wildlife state that only caters to those that want to kill wildlife.

  14. Elk275 says:

    To all wildlife watchers:

    Yesterday I was out working and saw 5 full curl rams along the Gallatin River at Swan Creek next to the campground. I have never seen sheep that far north off the highway. I am glad I live where I do. I have seen sheep, goats, grizzlies, wolves, moose and elk working. It is great to live in Montana. It is great to see wildlife.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Wow! 🙂

    • Rancher Bob says:

      Don’t tell them it’s a great place to live, let them visit if they want. If they move here all they will do is whine about how much better Montana could be if we changed this and that. How often have you heard some transplant bitch about how they want to change Montana, never mind what made the state great to begin with, never mind enjoying all that the state has to offer. Some how they become a expert on what would make life here better, given they have never been happy living anywhere.
      Keep enjoy that wildlife, how’s this years crop of Richardson’s?

      • JB says:

        I can’t believe you just gave poor Elk the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ lecture. And you worked in the ‘transplants ain’t like us’ bit as well. Way to be the paragon of anti-progress, RB! 😉

        Now I need some young person to show me how to make the eye-rolling emoticon so I can reply to Bob properly, LOL!

        • Mark L says:

          That’s just sad…. :casty:

        • Rancher Bob says:

          It’s not a lecture about Montana it’s a lecture about not letting others know about how good it is in Montana. If we have a good fishing hole we don’t brag or even hint about the fact it we know of one. We may share with friends but never post on line.
          I also know many people who have moved here who accept Montana and enjoy Montana without trying to make it like where they came from.
          Anti-progress that’s funny JB, appears you haven’t noticed but we have electricity and running water.

          • JB says:

            “Anti-progress that’s funny JB, appears you haven’t noticed but we have electricity and running water.”

            Well you have me there, Bob! LOL!

      • jon says:

        Montana is changing rancher Bob.

        Give it a few years and people like you will be the minority in Montana. 🙂

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I don’t see any mention of their views on ecology and wildlife. I don’t know if we can assume liberal is better, if our current administration is any indication. Personal interests seem to outrank anything else, regardless of where in the political spectrum we fall.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Steve Bullock, the new Democratic governor, won after campaigning on a promise to freeze college tuition. Young voters also helped Senator Jon Tester, another Democrat, who narrowly ousted a Republican incumbent in 2006 and won re-election last year.

            That’s all I need to know. 🙁

            • savebears says:

              They should have said, Young, uninformed voters, which is the reality of the situation. What is scary now a days, is the new generation elects individuals based on one issue that is most important to them, they don’t take time to look and learn about the multitude of issues that face a state or a nation.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Yes. I’m not sure I want Montana to change too much, and become like everywhere else in the nation. Of course all these issues are important, but our human problems never go away. We’re still working on issues from decades ago, and whatever scraps are left get thrown to worrying about the environment. A clean and healthy environment affects outranks most of them. Even tho climate change has finally come to the forefront, the approach is skewed. We shouldn’t create short-sighted jobs just to throw numbers up on the board.

                There is no future; only what we do right now. If we want to preserve a future.

              • Immer Treue says:


                You pegged it. May have mentioned before during a conversation with a conservative friend, when he more or less said we are in Iraq because of abortion. It was that “one issue” that threw the election in “W’s” favor, and we know how narrow that margin of victory (?????) was.

                Had to be careful here in MN to not get the panties in a bunch because Klobuchar voted for a wolf season. What are all the other issues?

              • jon says:

                Amy is no friend of wolves. Just goes to show you that even democrats can be anti-wildlife.

              • JB says:

                “What is scary now a days, is the new generation elects individuals based on one issue that is most important to them, they don’t take time to look and learn about the multitude of issues that face a state or a nation.”

                I do not believe this particular affliction is limited to young people. I know many single issue “gun” voters, all over 60 years.

              • savebears says:

                Right JB!

        • Rancher Bob says:

          Montana is changing, well, thanks for letting me know.
          The biggest mistake people like you make is that you believe Montana and it’s people are not changing. 137 years ago Custer got wiped-out, 124 years we have been a state. My grandfather did all his work with horses, my father was born in a sod house with no electricity or running water.
          We don’t want to be like people on the east coast or the people on the west coast there is more than enough of those people. We are Montana why the F should we be like the rest. Every day we change but we will not be what you want, because the factors that make us Montana are different than the factors that make you who you are. Get over it, our values will always be different, as they should. If you lived here 10 years you would change.
          As far as me a minority, really, what was your first clue.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Well said!

          • Vicki Fossen says:

            Rancher Bob,

            I read what you posted and can only say, no wonder, wow!
            Generalizations about people from a certain region is what you are complaining about, and you do it within your very complaint.

  15. Rita k Sharpe says:

    Indeed, it is great to see wildlife.

  16. CodyCoyote says:

    Addendum to something noted above, a shady misinformational pro-Wolf billboard campaign in the region surrounding Yellowstone.
    A billboard showed up on the tourist corridor of west Cody Wyoming late last week. it is a graphic of four dead wolves in the snow, blood dripping down from the top of the billboard, and a message that reads: ” THIS is what is happening to your Yellowstone Wolves. Do you care ? “. There is an internet address along the bottom :

    Read the article about the brouhaha that broiled up in Cody this week about the billboard:

    The latest is, the billboard was ordered taken down by Friday morning before noon ( today ) by Lamar Advertising , who hired a local sign company to do the deed after Lamar received over 100 complaints about the Cody sign this week..

    A spokesman for the company said the purchaser of the billboard had given Lamar fraudulent information. That spokesperson identified the actual purchaser of the billboards as Darlene Kobebel who stated she was with the Colorado Wolf and Wildlife Center at the time she contracted with Lamar for the billboards. ( Information from a KODI-AM radio breaking news report )

    I was also told by a local outfitter that this same billboard erected somewhere in eastern Idaho had been severely vandalized. There is at least one other billboard somewhere near Yellowstone in Montana, exact location unknown. web page says they are not a group , per se. They seem to be a fundraising aggregator and a web link hub. The same graphic used on the billboard is their web page splash.

    Under a column heading that states ” Get Educated is a list of other websites to link to, including this one, The Wildlife news, along with Center for Biodiversity , Wild Earth Guardians, Footloose Montana , Predator Defense , Howling for Justice, and HOWLColorado.

    Personally , I found the billboard offensive and divisive, and am glad it is gone. Even though I am very pro-wolf, this is not the tactic the pro-wolf supporters need to use at all. The message is disinformational at best. There are better ways to get the point across that wolves are wildlife wherever they may be.

    The publicity that blew up around this billboard probably got its message out more than any amount of road traffic would have.

    Make of it what you will.

    • WM says:

      If I recall correctly, someone called something like “Howl Colorado,” used to post here sometimes. The poster was IMHO a bit of a dingbat – often didn’t have his facts right, and seemed mostly looking for a skirmish. Of course, there were references to the website. There has been no verifiable evidence I have seen that Howl Colorado is anything more than this guy’s website (him and a couple buddies, if that). But from the organization’s very cryptic “About” tab, there is the following:

      HOWL Colorado is a group of concerned, informed Coloradans who are looking to educate Americans about the plight of the wolf, dispel the myths from hundreds of years of misinformation about these elusive apex predators, and are actively participating in protecting the future of American wolves.”

      Of course, there is no reference to the “group,” no staff, no board of directors, and no advisors with names associated to extend credibility of sorts. Howl, and an individual by name, according to the article, is acting as a filter contact for queries about the billboards, but denies the funding of it. Hmmmm.

      Then there is the website where the content of the offending image (and more) can be viewed. Again, a cryptic “About” tab. Is it the same guy(s) or more than a handful with a couple websites? Just how big a “movement” is this source of arguably divisive behavior, as Cody suggests?

      • Louise Kane says:

        so what WM? who cares they wanted to make a point and they did. those images depict wolf management and people should know about it. They don’t and this billboard showed what wolf management does. does it matter whether or not the person who paid for and got them up has a PHd or is one person or a whole organization, who cares? They have it right, its a full on war against wolves.

        • WM says:


          ++They have it right, its a full on war against wolves.++

          Three points from my post to which you respond:
          1. The guy from HowlColorado is/was fact challenged when he has posted on this, the Wildlife News, site.
          2. He appears to over-inflate his organization’s size and reach in the construction of his website and possibly to the one to which he is linked (if his or their statements are not true, those would be lies, of course).
          3. He and/or his organizations have poor taste, in the minds of some of us – apparently shared by the billboard owner and those who saw it, since it is now down.

          Let me add these facts and management policies.

          Removal of wolves above agreed numbers between the states and FWS was always part of the plan from the beginning of the reintroduction; problem wolves were also to be removed (even under Interior Secretary Babbit).

          Does anyone really know the history of this objectionable photo? Were these wolves specific to WY/YNP or from elsewhere? It does not appear any copyright credit is given to the photographer, or where the photos were taken.

          So, were the wolves on the billboard removed for livestock depredation, or part of a regulated annual harvest conducted by a state or FWS?

          And so, Louise, would it be your view that if one of these anti-wolf groups (say Rockhead and his crew – another group of fact challenged zealots, with questionable size and taste) put up similar billboards with blood and guts photos depicting chewed up elk carcasses, cows/sheep or dogs, it would be equally as valid as a reflection of the face of “wolf management?”

          I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see push back from the other side if projectwolf photo billboards go up and stay up. And, unfortunately, maybe the real winners are the corporate communication businesses that own them, especially Lamar Advertising (one of the largest billboard forum advertisers in the country out of Florida). They are probably all R’s anyway. So, I guess they likely win either way.

          By the way, I personally don’t like billboards in any location, as I find them distracting to drivers, hence a public safety issue of sorts depending on content, AND, an aesthetic blight on the landscape of most places they are placed – urban or rural locations.

          • Robert R says:

            You make some very valid points that some do not agree with or will listen too.
            I made about the same comment as you about the billboard and got persecuted from all sides.
            I’m not sure if turn about would be fair play or it would show poor taste and offend certain people. I for one do not want to see a billboard of wolves killing.

            • Vicki Fossen says:


              Yes, but again…it is a very slippery slope.

              Thanks for the link.

              A great many things are inappropriate, some people would call that innovation, others would say progress, some might say blaspheme. The question is, who gets to decide?

              I see things I would definitely rate pg-13 on T.V. every day.

              Come on though, this wasn’t some animated porn on parade. It was a picture of dead wolves which appear to be shot. If it is too offensive to be publicly viewed, perhaps it is too offensive to do?

              To me, and I call it like I see it, this is more of an opportunity for people to say “well, what if it was a billboard of dead elk”? So? What if it were? We see dead elk all hunting season long. This isn’t about a billboard, it is about how people view management.

              I think it is often better to deal with what the real problem is, than pretend a moral high ground exists where there is none.

              • Vicki Fossen says:


                I doubt we will be discussing the out-rage this should cause? Same difference. Same intention. Propaganda.


                This one will squeak by on religious pretext.

                I would challenge that any person deeming this offensive should be demanding that every sporting goods store or bait shop displaying pictures of trophy kills should have to remove the displays, as someone may find the bloody photos offensive? They are, after all, put on very public display where a high volume of people (children included) funnel into and out of stores. Example (Sportsman’s Warehouse) DO we then go further, and force all hunting shows from t.v. as they are riddled with killing of defenseless animals, and may offend people? Or a child might watch as Bone Collectors chalk up another rack?

                This is about some people being worried about how this may effect their behavior, or what attention it may get, or who it may inspire to actually be educated about the management tactics being implemented. Again, I call it like I see it.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                If it is too offensive to be publicly viewed, perhaps it is too offensive to do?

                Absolutely. Out of sight, out of mind.

              • WM says:


                The difference between a billboard and a what might be considered an offensive display in a store, or a magazine is that the public has the choice to enter the store or go beyond a magazine cover. Billboard content CANNOT be easily avoided.

                Billboards are just there – if you travel a roadway it is plainly hard to avoid the content. A driver just can’t shut or avert their eyes, though maybe a passenger could. Even if in one’s peripheral view they are still there for the entire distance of the viewing lane, while traveling in the direction of the sign. That is why it is such an effective form of advertising – you can’t avoid them…unless you take a different route… oops there’s another billboard. It’s big business, with huge revenues, by the way.

              • savebears says:

                I loved it when Oregon banned any billboards along the hwys.

              • Vicki Fossen says:


                I agree, billboards are an out-dated method of advertising. With all the concerns of distractions while driving, they should be considered just as worrisome.

                Besides, they are usually in the way of something far prettier.

              • ZeeWolf says:

                Thank you, savebears, for bringing up Oregon’s ban on billboards. They are eyesores and nothing more, regardless of whether or not I agree with the message. Pro or anit wolf, abortion, etc… or commercial, they ought to be removed from the landscape.

            • Vicki Fossen says:

              While it may be true that billboards are harder to avoid, they are still a universal platform. The pics in the store may be a store you choose to go to, but for many in some areas they are the only choice for shopping for certain items.

              I’d say ban them all. However, we should not pick and choose. I’d rather not see them in general.

          • Louise Kane says:

            WM you’ve made that point many times, the point about removal of wolves above objectives always being a part of the plan. Then I always make the point that it was a bad plan and politically motivated as well as abrogating the intent of the ESA and we go back and forth. Would anyone in their right ming call wolf management in the US fair, sound, reasonable, humane? Yup the states do. I don’t. The measly indefensible objectives seem to apply to one animal, wolves.

            • savebears says:


              What you are saying, might be true, but at this point in time, the plan that was drawn up many years ago, is being implemented. Where were you in the 80’s and early 90’s when this was being put together?

              I don’t think you are going to see much change for many years to come, wolves are going to be managed at the minimum, just as it was put together.

              • Vicki Fossen says:

                I think the billboard did what it was intended to do.

                What’s next? We censor billboards. Slippery slope folks.

                It is irrelevant to ask ‘how would people like to see wolves gnarling away on carcasses?’ The simple truth is, every year during hunting season, we see deer and elk, moose and antelope strapped on, over and in the back of all sorts of vehicles. We don’t need a billboard to illustrate what it looks like when animals die. Period. This billboard wasn’t about how animals look, is was about why wolves are dying.

                The origin of the picture is as irrelevant to the purpose of the billboard as many scientific data showing wolves haven’t killed every elk in their territories is to some hunters.

                Save Bears is correct, wolves will be managed. For anti-wolf groups to find this billboard offensive is hypocritical at best, and a significant reflection of their acute ability to deny their behavior at worst.

                I have read and seen many campaign horror shows and picture from anti-wolf groups for years. I watch wolves hunt and eat, and find it to be natural. Those groups have no problem showing wolves disemboweling pray, or elk calves crying as they die. Yet, we are to find this billboard offensive? Dead is dead. Why something is dead is the only thing of relevance beyond that.

                It is a billboard of dead wolves. Seeing it is no more offensive than the measures used to manage them and equally as subjective based upon who is viewing it.

              • Robert R says:

                Vicki ? if you have children would you find the billboard offensive to them because it portrays violence or the same if the billboard was of wolves naturally killing. We live in a society where there are a lot of nuts with crazy ideas.

              • Vicki Fossen says:

                Robert R.

                I have four, and they were raised to understand that death is a part of life. Now that they are older (most in college) they also know these issues are very political.

                I have a grand daughter, and she will also be raised to comprehend what you see and what you do are different. She’ll be brought up to understand that she should question things, she should formulate her own opinions based on facts, and I can assure you that she won’t become a raging murderer because if she ever sees dead wolves on a billboard.

                Trying to say that a billboard is motivation for wrong doings is as off as blaming an abused spouse for provoking a beating.

                At some point, we have to point the finger at the real problem. This billboard is not it.

                It isn’t offensive to me. What offends me is people being uncomfortable with it forcing their views on others. That not only offends me, it makes my stomach burn the same way many laws recently passed do. I’m more worried about infringing on people’s rights than people’s feelings.

                This billboard is no more controversial than those that say “Abortion stops a beating heart”. It is only as impactful as the perceptions and explanations of people who see it or put it up.

              • jon says:

                Did sb just admit to Montana and Idaho wanting to bring the wolf population down to 150 animals? This is how you “manage” wildlife the right way? While there are thousands of elk, bear, cougar, etc. the wolves have to be kept at only 150 animals right.

              • savebears says:


                I have always known Montana wants to manage for the minimum, where have I ever denied that? They are going to manage for the lowest number possible, but they will stop short of a number that could put them on the ESA again.

              • savebears says:

                Remember Jon, the reason I don’t work for FWP any longer is because I disagreed with the politics of wolf management.

              • jon says:

                So, all that talk from Montana FWP saying they want 400-500 wolves in Montana was just that, talk? FWP wants to bring the wolf population down to 150. There you have it folks.

              • jon says:

                The only good thing that comes out of keeping wolves at the min number is there will be likely be no trapping and a very low quota season. If FWP wants to dig their own grave, I say let them. So much for “managing” wolves like other wildlife. I do find it interesting on how they plan to keep wolves at a min number when they have admitted themselves they have no true idea of how many wolves are in Montana.

              • savebears says:


                All of the states that have wolves wants to keep them at a minimum number, after all of these years, you know that.

              • WM says:


                Content neutrality (or not) has been a topic before the US Supreme Court, and lesser appellate and trial courts, for the past 30 years. Local government has attempted to regulate content – and rightfully so, since some might say some content offends. A community out to be able to say what goes up in its boundaries, to some degree. I have seen some pretty racey liquor advertisements that maybe some kids shouldn’t see. Here is a pretty good paper that shows the struggles at hand trying to balance free speech, subject content and signage location. A number of issues are presented, including “noxious signage,” and some not fully resolved legally (U of Mich. is a tier one law school by the way, so this is likely a pretty good paper).


                And, I do believe there is such a thing as “noxious signage.”

              • JB says:


                I agree that the content of the add is not offensive; however, I find billboards offensive generally. Especially with today’s technology (e.g., internet, smart phones), I question the justification of having billboards at all.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Cody Coyote,

      Among other information things, you wrote, “The publicity that blew up around this billboard probably got its message out more than any amount of road traffic would have.”

      I agree with you. My guess, for I have no information about what prompted these signs, is that the signs were not meant to convince those who saw them while on the road. The predictable controversy was anticipated and is hoped will give the issue “legs” to walk into a national news story/debate.

      • Leslie says:

        Ralph, that is an astute observation. The article said more billboards are planned by different groups but these would have less offensive pictures, like a nice big picture of a beautiful wolf face. I suppose we call this ‘shock then awe’.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Cody I usually agree with most of what you write but why do you find this offensive. Is it offensive to show the truth? The acts, policies and slaughter committed against wolves now is offensive not showing the truth. There are a number of ways to get out the message, this was good advertising. as you pointed out it caused a lot of publicity and thats needed not some more worthless petitions.

  17. A second rabid wolf from the Brooks Range in recent weeks. The first recorded rabid wolverine was found to the northwest of this location last June, and had injuries suggesting it had been bitten by a wolf. Feeding the carcass of an evidently sick wolf to his dog team was not a great idea.

    The mention of Echinococcus being bacterial is wrong, they must have meant tularemia.

  18. Ida Lupine says:

    The wolf caught in a leg trap March 15 was alive when the trapper approached but appeared dull and unaware, the department said.

    How long had he been languishing in the trap, I wonder.

    Feeding the raw wolf meat to his dogs was a very irrational thing to do. It is his fault if they die, but what does he care. He took his frustration at his miserable existence out on the wolf. *SMK* and *eyeroll*

    I think all of our native wildlife is iconic, Elk included. Some of the most beautiful examples have been herds of elk with their families I have seen, and elk bugling in the field.

  19. WM says:

    Yakama tribal leadership and the NW Tribal Horse Council irritated with Obama administration blocking USDA funding for inspection of horse slaughtering facilities, while horses on tribal trsut lands continue to degrade habitat (just like over-grazing cattle on public lands). Is this a breach of US trust obligations to tribes?,0,3188867.story

    Looks like the pro- feral horse crowd doesn’t give a shit about Indians, environmental degradation on reservations lands or the alternative transport and inhumane slaugher options out of the US (like carting a truckload to Mexico). So, like where are the PETA and HSUS folks when they are really needed?

    • Ida Lupine says:

      We can always count on them. I wonder if these are the 1/32 sort. 🙂

      There are many more tribes who don’t want horse slaughter. I would say we owe Native Americans a lot more than that. Nobody is forcing anyone to truck horses to Canada and Mexico, and blind them so they don’t make a fuss on the terrible trip, and there is legislation to end it – the SAFE Act. Making a buck trumps compassion.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        If we didn’t force our Native people onto reservations in the first place, it wouldn’t be a problem.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Where I am, the “tribal leadership” doesn’t reflect the views of the tribe at all, and I believe they are either being taken to court or ousted! You have to ask yourself why horse slaughter is so important or the only answer, and the answer is usually money. There are really only two or three motivators of human behavior, and money is one. A lawyer once told me. 😉

    • Vicki Fossen says:

      I don’t really think it is as simple as anyone not giving “a sh*t”.

      Feral horses are parasitic. They are also feral by our own fruition, and that includes Native Americans.

      It never ceased to astonish me how we can so easily say “kill feral horses”, yet we facilitate cattle and sheep defecating upon and degrading public lands, and people think that’s just a-o.k.

      The process of deporting horses for slaughter is an ugly one. The process of trying to satisfying everyone is even more ugly.

      It might be (just an option/opinion) cheaper to spay the mares and/or geld the stallions and let the horses die off. By the time the courts got through all the litigation and all the messy animals rights groups and USDA reg’s actually achieve any progress, the horses will likely be dead and a non-issue.

      This same stuff happens with feral cats, and if they should be shot vs. fixed. It is all about the money and public opinion.

  20. Leslie says:

    Wyoming game and fish 2013 wolf hunting proposals:

    My area, area 2. After last years hunt, we don’t have any resident wolves right now, just the Lamar pack that goes back and forth between the Park and here. Wondering about those four wolves. Spotter planes were out yesterday, likely looking for wolves to collar.

    • Jeff N. says:


      What happened to the Sunlight Pack? Were they taken during last season’s hunt?

    • Louise Kane says:

      How sad for you Leslie…..
      a terrible statemnet
      “after last year’s hunt we don’t have any resident wolves right now”
      That is a tragedy

  21. Leslie says:

    Sunlight pack disappeared several years ago, maybe killed by the then Hoodoo Pack. Hoodoo pack had about ten wolves, several were shot by USF&W last summer, the rest probably took the brunt of the eight quota from last years’ hunt. At least three park wolves were in that quota of kills as we all know. The remaining Hoodoo joined forces with the Lamar pack. The lamar pack was in and out of my valley all winter. Without their alpha female ’06 they didn’t seem very efficient hunters. I’ve found numerous winter deer kills and hardly any elk kills. Most of that pack seems to be back in the Park. How many of the Lamar females got pregnant and where they will den is still unknown, at least to me. Seems like at least one of the lamar females will be denning in the Park.

  22. Leslie says:

    Here’s another grizzly link. Grizzlies in the GYE are going to go extinct again eventually unless they have corridors that connect them north and south. Think Y2Y.

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      I strongly support corridors, and the draft grizzly conservation plan for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem provides some (I am working on a story about the draft plan just released). The GYE, however, is a sorry case (the plan is a sorry case). Nevertheless, GYE bears could be saved over time if grizzly bear genes from the outside were introduced from time to time. This could be done without even bringing in a bear from the outside, e.g., artificial insemination.

      • Robert R says:

        Ralph if you support a corridor as Leslie does, do you want one surrounding the national parks or the spine of the Rockies.

        • Leslie says:

          I’ve heard of this idea of just moving bears into the GYE or artificial insemination. I would say that’s a last ditch effort, of course. It is kind of pathetic to watch the Interagency moving bears around all summer long.

          Robert, what do you mean by a corridor surrounding the national parks? The GYE is considered a ‘core’ not a way for bears to move into new territories.

      • Vicki Fossen says:

        Corridors must be made a priority.

        We hear of grizzlies making it into Colorado at times, but also know that ranchers would SSS before coming forward in many instances.

        There is also a lack of range and corridors here in CO. The biggest problem here is urban interface and edges and coupled with a lack of education.

        I hope they get to the business of fixing this.

  23. Ida Lupine says:

    As long as people don’t insult the country’s intelligence by putting the legalization of marijuana anywhere near the table when we have other way more importan issues at hand.

    Gun control – that horse left the barn a long time ago. There are too many guns out there. I don’t see anything meaningful happening for gun control except maybe the standardization of background checks and possibly doing away with assault weapons. Chances? Slim and none.

    The economy is the big deal, and bringing corporate America back in line.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Ida I disagree, I’m not sure one issue trumps another….its not that black and white. This is one of the reasons that environmental issues are taking a back seat. People seem to be afraid to talk about other issues then jobs and the economy. There are other issues to be concerned with then “the economy and bringing corporate American back in line”. I think the hang up on these issues is creating a single focused administration that ignores other important domestic issues that would allow us to move forward in any number of ways including socially, intellectually, environmentally and economically.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        For me, it is black and white.

        There is always something that comes before it – and after years and years and years of watching and waiting with only a few glimmers of progress, I devote my entire resources and time to this issue alone. Today, we stand to lose even more than ever before. My vote is up for grabs for whoever does the best job on stewardship of our environment and wildlife – Democrat, Republican, Green or anybody.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I am also lucky enough not to have any personal stake in any of the problems facing this nation – so I feel free to devote my time and energies, and whatever financial resources I have to protecting the environment and wildlife.

        • Mark L says:

          Ida Lupine says,
          ” My vote is up for grabs for whoever does the best job on stewardship of our environment and wildlife – Democrat, Republican, Green or anybody.”

          This philosophy scares me, personally. Many dictators in Europe left large swaths of uncut trees so they could have private hunting grounds all to themselves (by penalty of death). WE could end up that way to if we’re not careful. I’d rather see our wilderness as a place of meritocracy, where one has to ‘work’ to get there, than an oligarchy that is given to the least deserving. Neither is fair to the common man, but only one has meaning to anyone that cares about wild area. Please think about this….let me know why you would go to the ‘highest bidder’.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Try not to read so much into it. It isn’t literal.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            It’s unfair to lay all that at my feet. I didn’t say anything about ‘highest bidder’ nor private hunting grounds. You did. I said I will give my vote and any support I can to the party that does the most for the environment and for wildlife. I’m unsatisfied with the job both parties are doing.

    • ZeeWolf says:

      Ida, I am offended by your comments regarding marijuana reform, especially suggesting that it would be insulting to the intellegence. I can only surmise that you don’t personally partake and most likely think little of those that do. Currently, millions of people in this country alone are incarcerated, fined or otherwise hassled by a bureaucracy that seems bent on subverting our fourth amendment rights.

      Most people who use marijuana are not guilty of any other crime and yet are now criminals because they want to toke up a weed that is less or at least no more damaging than the two legal regulated drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

      Marijuana reform has been a progressive issue for at least four decades. Considering that in your posts you (justifiably) rant about big business and corporate America, it is sad to me that you are playing into their game. Anhueser-Busch, the large multi-national brewer, is considered by many to be the leading sponsor of anit-marijuana reform campaigns; DuPont and other producers of synthetic materials love it that hemp is illegal to grow. Hemp production, by the way, would help reduce pressure on our forests since it can be used to make paper, among many other products. Hemp seed was used as an industrial lubricant long before Big Business dominated the industry with thier synthetics and happily swept the competition under the rug.

      How much money is spent on our failed drug policy in this country? I don’t know for sure, but guess that it is in the billons of dollars a year; money that could be much better spent on wildlife, national parks or other worthy public expenditures. If marijuana were to be legalized, then it could be taxed and could help to reduce some of these pesky, on-going budget cuts and maybe even add revenue to other progressive programs within the government.

      Marijuana has numerous uses for medicinal use, and recreational as well. I don’t know if it causes long term problems or not, but as an adult citizen, nobody, you or the government, should be allowed to tell me what I consciously ingest. And while the original prohibitions against marijuana date to other efforts to rightously protect our food and drug supply (this occured about the same time that Coca-cola removed coca alkoids from thier soda) marijauna prohibition has also the dark side of history in that it was banned because Mexican immigrants were the main users.

      If you can’t support this progressive cause, one that allows the people to make their own choice and face less repression from the government, then at least remain nuetral and stand aside.

      • WM says:


        I knew your views were of doobieous origins, even before this disclosure.

        Just hope you are right about marijuana reform, and all it promises. If it is ever going to work, the two states that passed the initiatives are the best of experimental grounds. I have an old acquaintance who is a county DA in the Denver metro area. He seems to think that notwithstanding the tax revenue that will be coming in from legal regulated sales, supposed pressure to compete and undercut illegal cartels and put them out of business, he remains VERY concerned it will put more dope in the hands of the under 18 crowd, link it to more petty crime and auto accidents, as an adjunct to alcohol. He also thinks it will result in experimentation with other drugs as a progression toward cocaine, and worse.

        I hope he is wrong. And, by the way I voted for legalization in WA, believing what we have now isn’t working. Will I feel that this is the right thing to do, five years into this experiment when things settle in and the statistics begin to show trends?

        • ZeeWolf says:

          WM – My views are indeed of doobious origin, and I had a good laugh at that; as matter of fact, writing this from the free state of Colorado, I can admit to being currently of doobious state of mind.

          Of course, I can’t say for certain that reform will work, it never having been tried. I am certainly aware of the “Law of Uninteneded Consequences”. However, though it should be obvious that I did so, I can state that I voted pro Amendment 64 because I felt it in my best interest to give reform an opportunity to prove its inherent worth.

          Unfortunately, my views on the War on Drugs is that that so-called war isn’t really about narcotics but rather more about subverting, consciously or otherwise, the Fourth Amendment; you know, that pesky (satire alert) amendment that prohibits the executive branch of the government from searching your abode and person, articles and effects. You know, I admit to watching “COPS” all the time; not because I wanted to participate in the vicarious thrill of seeing some poor, under-educated victim – whoops, I mean evil-doing lawbreaker – get busted, but because of the agitation I would feel at seeing said victim have their constitutional rights grossly violated by those who are supposed to respect those rights. This issue alone, regardless of the potential positive effects of increased tax revenue or other issues, is worthy of Cannibis reform in and of itself.

          That being said, I feel that the reason 64 passed with so much ease this time around was (speaking of politics, it should be noted that 64 garnered more votes than either major party candidate – talk about bi-partisan!) that it contains provisions to keep Cannibis out of the hands of minors. As if it has ever been difficult to obtain marijuana for any age segment in the last forty years. Anecdotal story: Before the recent intensive increase in drug-war violence, most Mexican citizens had little to no concern about the illegality of drugs in thier country or the narco-traffic in general; the attitude was that it wasn’t thier problem or concern that American parents couldn’t keep thier children off drugs. Ergo, I am not concerned about THC infused products falling into the hands of young people because I believe the parents bear the responsibility to teach and regulate thier children. I should not have to face repression nor persectuion simply because some parents are too inept, lazy or callous to intervene in thier child’s life.

          As far as Marijuana being a “gateway” drug, that idea has been repudiated numerously. However, I agree wholeheartedly that time will tell and I, for one, eagerly await the results of this social experiment.

          Oh, yeah, I laughed about the Zippy reference as well (if that was directed at me) since I used to read it in the Denver Post or the old Rocky Mountain News; I can’t now remember which (surprise, surprise). Though I do think that the creator of Zippy was partaking of something a bit more potent than THC.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            It isn’t working out too well in LA. They’ve had to close down some of the ‘dispensaries’ for doing exactly what everyone predicted. *shrugs* Oh well.

          • Vicki Fossen says:


            I think you have over looked the failure which Colorado’s legalization for medical purposes. It resulted in large numbers of illegal rx’s and a sudden declaration by marijuana smokers galore that they are some how disabled.

            Tax it, sell it, grow it, but figure out the right way to proceed first without creating a battle ground between state and federal laws.

            You paint a real pretty picture. I will give you this, pot is no more a detriment than many other things. However, Colorado needs to have a driving under the influence plan for the depressant which does effect motor function. We have done it for drugs, alcohol, texting and teens driving with extra riders. It seems only logical that before we pass the “freedom pipe” around, we should know how to legitimately handle the repercussions of it.

            • ZeeWolf says:

              Vicky – I think it is merely supposition on your part that I have overlooked the fraudulant medicinal aspect. Most strains of marijuana have been bred to contain high amounts of THC, the stuff that gets you high. Other strains contain minmal to no THC and should be used for true medicinal purposes. I never obtained a card because I have always considered myself a recreational user. It sure did bring the price down, I have to admit. My feeling is that most people saw that having marijuana available for distribution didn’t cause a huge social rift. Again, as I said a couple of times earlier, this is a social reform issue to me; not as important as wolves on the ground, or extinction of anything anywhere due to our industrial lifestyle, or proliferation of nuclear weapons; but nonetheless a positive step forward that releases millions of human beings from the bonds of oppression.

              For the record, I believe that Colorado now has a standard for THC content while driving, although I don’t recollect the exact standard set. Also, for as long as I have lived in Colorad, I believe that you could be charge with driving while intoxicated if you were suspected of being high. I have never found any source saying how many traffic deaths are cause annually by people driving while intoxicated with TCH.

              And yes, of course I paint a pretty picture – after all, I’m high as a kite, and my creative genius is at its height. All kidding aside, if a person feels that a course of action is the poisitve course to take, why shouldn’t they view the scene with proverbial rose colored glasses? The prudent investigates the downside of the argument and I am aware of the arguments regarding the downside of marijuana use. Still, I feel I am in the right. Back in the early nineties I became educated about wolf issues and advocated for the return of the wolf to Yellowstone. I saw this as an important issue, one that still captivates, and although aware of the potential downsides of reintroduction, some of which are notoriously playing out now, I painted a pretty picture then – and am glad I did.

              As far as federal and state law conflicts, I hope Colorado and Washington’s positive vote on this issue spur enough states to similar action that the federal government has no choice but to end its doobious campaign of marijuana prohibition.

              • Vicki Fossen says:

                Well, I don’t know if I will ever agree that marijuana and oppression are dynamically responsible for one another, lol.
                However, I get a kick out of you zest!
                The THC is what causes much of the medical relief. To dilute weed is to void it’s relevance. I would never recommend smoking (of any kind). However, having a lengthy history in medicine, and seeing people in extreme constant pain, or failing to thrive, I do see medicinal benefits.
                I would also say that we could push for more products closely lumped in with marijuana, like hemp soil enhancers and filtration. Greener, safer, natural.
                But I still think the mile Higher Than a Kite state needs to get some stuff worked out. 🙂 Happy day to ya!

              • ZeeWolf says:

                Vicky – zest is good! Nothing like a good, lively and slightly off-topic debate to keep the blood pumping. I realize that the sentences I used, “Most strains of marijuana have been bred to contain high amounts of THC, the stuff that gets you high. Other strains contain minmal to no THC and should be used for true medicinal purposes”, wasn’t well written nor expressed. I did a bit of searching and found a wikipedia article on Cannabidiols, known in shorthand as CBD’s. To paraphrase the first few paragraphs of this seemingly well documented article, CBD’s have more medical applications than THC and are also non-psychoactive, unlike THC. Its interesting stuff, but while I knew of this ingredient in cannabis, I didn’t know enough to not sound like I was talking out my a** when I wrote my earlier post. There is a movement within the true medicinal growing community to boost this ingredient in certain strains of cannabis.

                But really, I am a recreational user first and foremost. I see a sunset, I smoke a bowl. I see some elk, ditto. I’m about to hike ten miles? Better blaze up!

          • WM says:

            Yeah, Zippy was indeed to give everybody a laugh. It is also a reference to Zig Zag rolling papers, if ya know what I mean.

            As for the DA I referenced, he may very well be the next Colorado Attorney General running as a D. He will likely get endorsements from both the Salazar brothers, and Mark Udall, I suspect. He was Attorney General Salazar’s No 1. Section Chief Assistant AG, at one time. He’s a good guy, too.


            There already is a THC driving impairment provision in CO, if memory serves. Just like booze, test too high and you get nailed. I understand the CO State Patrol lab has been processing lots more samples according to former Adams County DA Quick.


            • Ida Lupine says:

              🙂 I think I owe you an apology also, WM.

            • Vicki Fossen says:

              One of the things they are working out this legislative session is the problems with that, and the numerous other issues stemming from legalizing it for medical use.
              There is a lot of ambiguity and unenforceable content.
              They do have availability to test, but have yet to get all law enforcement agencies the adequate training or testing equipment.
              Not to mention the back log of investigations going on surrounding fraudulent prescriptions, doctors who wrote for unfounded reasons, doctors who charged just to write the scripts etc.
              It was a mess, hence the need for more “legislative” work.
              How much they have, or will resolve, remains a mystery and very uninspiring.

        • Nancy says:

          ” he remains VERY concerned it will put more dope in the hands of the under 18 crowd, link it to more petty crime and auto accidents, as an adjunct to alcohol”

          Wm – “ITS” been in the hands of the under 18 crowd since I was part of the under 18 crowd and that, was over 40 years ago.

          As a society, IMHO, we need to be far more concerned about “mind altering” powerful drugs that are LEGALLY being pushed by drug companies to solve everything from “can’t get to sleep at night? feeling alittle depressed? or even worse…. got a problem child”

          Heard on the news, just this morning, that some teacher was gonna dope her kids up with sleeping pills because she didn’t think they “napped” long enough to suit her.

          Can count on one hand (so far) the stories (and people I know) that have run into legal trouble stealing prescription drugs from friends and neighbors (also on, but not abusing, the same kind of medication)

          Their problems started out as a need to address the pain and then after awhile, turned into an addition.

          Tough sometimes to just stay alive when you’re aching and in pain (job related or not) but drug companies have made it SO FRICKEN EASY anymore when it comes to addressing our species ills 🙂 $$$$$$

          Spot on……..

          • Ida Lupine says:

            That’s true also.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              If you want a good laugh, my high school sweetheart (who I was dumb enough to marry) was a pothead. Still is a pothead, but an extremely successful one. Alas, hes a Director of an IT Department now. Doesn’t seem to have affected him in any way. I never did anything or me (and I tried). He’s my ex and I’m celebrating my 26th anniversary this week with my current husband. He’s from the West Coast – and our relatives keep us informed of all the political goings-on. East and West Coast are different mindsets, so Rancher Bob is kinda correct, but if there’s anywhere I could live and be happy, it’s No. CA. 🙂

          • Immer Treue says:

            And where $ is no problem, kids from upscale neighborhoods drive into the “hood” for heroin. Drugs are readily available. The war on drugs is and has been a losing cause for decades.

            Pot is all over. Legalize it, tax it, and quit putting people in jail for it.

  24. JEFF E says:

    Nos, 12,7,5,4,3,1 are especially good.

    I hate zoos and will not go to them. My opinion is they are only worth while as a refuge for otherwise endangered creatures)

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Awwww. I agree with you about only being a refuge for endangered creatures. I don’t even think people today appreciate them.

    • Louise Kane says:

      I hate most zoos as well, but if properly run and perhaps using wildlife that is orphaned or not able to be returned to the wild, this may be the only exposure some people ever get to wild animals. Its difficult to expect people to want to protect resources they have never seen or experienced. But yes most zoos are prisons for wildlife.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Fishermen are the ranchers and hunters of of the oceans, with the same MO. 🙁

  25. JEFF E says:

    ..does not seem to affect the pump price much. I guess obscene profiteering does not equate.

    • rork says:

      Even if a country extracts more energy than it uses, the price won’t necessarily fall, since you’d have to flood the world market to affect the price.
      More extracting is good for the company that does it, true, but that doesn’t prove that it is their fault that the price hasn’t crashed.
      Our right wing tries to ignore the first idea, our left the second.

      • Immer Treue says:

        A lot said in a brief statement.

        • topher says:

          If we can produce more than we use we should change the law and never let it hit the world market. The mining mineral 1876? Help me out if you know why we let foreign companies extract our resources put them on the world market and sell them back to us at inflated prices. Doesn’t make much sense to me but I’m not sure I really understand why you never hear more about this stuff. Seems like a scam.

          • topher says:

            Just read my comment and the “we should change the law” part is pretty funny. For a second there I thought it was actually up to “us”.

          • Immer Treue says:


            “Help me out if you know why we let foreign companies extract our resources put them on the world market and sell them back to us at inflated prices.”

            Kind of like how we used to do it to them.

            Here in NE MN there is a war of philosophy going on in regard to a planned nickel, copper sulfide mining operation at the watershed of a great portion of the BWCA. Foreign company, metals won’t be used here, and very little of the $ will be seen here. Very few jobs other than perhaps truck drivers. And this could put the entire BWCA at risk. For what? Twenty years of metal that we don’t need. Probably most will go to China.

  26. Louise Kane says:

    discussion between Wayne Pacelle and Ellen DeGeneres about the ag gag laws being pushed nationwide

    nothing remotely smacking of unconstitutional with these laws….

  27. jon says:

    The outfitters, all they seem to care about is profiting over dead wildlife. The same hogwash you always hear from these guys, the wolves are making it harder for my clients to bag an animal.

    • savebears says:

      That is what outfitters do.

    • JB says:

      Except the article itself is about how outfitters are backing a cut in wolf permits. I’m no fan of outfitting, but it seems to me that you’re just as guilty of telling one side of the story as they are.

  28. Louise Kane says:

    This is the kind of young person who sees stewardship of wildlife and wilderness for the future, a person with intelligence and thoughtfulness. a vision so completely at odds with that of a child being taught to kill wildlife kneeling in front of dead animal with a gun in hand.

  29. Vicki Fossen says:

    I am hoping to contact someone about doing a non-paid internship with WWP. I am a student, and really want to do my internship work in a meaningful capacity.
    I’m in Colorado. Would you happen to know who I should contact?
    Thanks in advance.

  30. Vicki Fossen says:

    We know these things, yet we fail to temper management, economics and CONSERVATION with what we know!

    Millions of dollars are being given to loggers right now, and the amount of repository planning to assure nutrients are going back into the forests and soil is viable for regeneration is sadly lop-sided.

    It is time to come out of the dark ages, and look at how the forests need to be managed for all of our future generations.

    • ZeeWolf says:

      I have held doubts as to the validity of claimed benefits of salvage logging and lo and behold – research from ten years ago suggesting that I was correct all along. I suppose that the same could be said for pine-beetle killed forests. Our heavy-handed style of management regarding wild places always seems out of place to me. Like the man said, “Love it or Leave it alone”.

  31. Ida Lupine says:

    Well, to be honest with you Zee – it doesn’t bother me about legalization of it, I do support it, and I would like to see minor offenses decriminalized. Too much of our country’s funds are wasted on the war on drugs, I agree – and my feeling is just stop using it. If there is no demand, supply drops. I must be immune to its effects, because it has never done anything for me. I don’t think it should be anywhere near the top of the heap of our country’s problems, nor is it going to be a magic panacea for all the world’s ills. I do think it has medicinal value also, and certainly people can injest whatever they want. We should be a little more careful and responsible in how we take care of our health if we are going to adopt affordable, national health care, however. It does insult my intelligence when we have so many problems with the environment and extinction. That is the number one issue, at least for me. It never takes priority for anyone, with the exception of a few times in our history.

    • ZeeWolf says:

      Ida – I am pleased to see that your number one issue is the environment and extinction. They are mine as well and drive my conscious self daily. For the record, I vote and donate towards those same goals. I gave up a lucrative, six-figure potential salary in industry to follow my heart and passion working with wildlife and in wild places.

      Darnit… I forgot the point I was trying to make (Just Kidding!!!) Stoner joke, get it?

      What I don’t understand is why you have the negative attitude towards marijuana reform, persisting in calling it, effectively, insulting to the intellegence. Sure, THC use does nothing for you. Fine, fine, I am not offended by that. I could also understand complete indifference on your part. I’ll be rhetorical: Would you call feeding the hungry “insulting to the intellegence” just because you yourself are not hungry and wildlife/extinction/environment are more important to you? I would hope that you would take compassionate view that the hungry should be fed because it is the right thing to do. I don’t want to conflate starvation with marijuana reform, although I suppose I just did. The point I am trying to make is that millions of Americans have suffered repression, humiliation and injustice due to what should be a non-issue. Although not nearly as important as the current ongoing extinction crisis or for that matter many other serious issues, the reform of marijuana prohibiton is social reform nonetheless and in my book should be supported for that reason alone. Why knock it?

      Regarding national health care… I am all for it. My major dissapointment is that so-called Obama-care isn’t a single-payer system. However, the logical conclusion of your argument, that I shouldn’t smoke pot because I will cost more (I know you didn’t say that explicitly, but you did clearly imply it) to the systme, is that I should just stay at home an lock myself in the house since I shouldn’t get hurt. Hells Bells, why even be alive, then, if all the good it will do is to add to the burden of healthcare costs. Personally, I feel that an adult individual ought to be able to do as much, or little, damage to thierself as they wish. I have serious disagreements with laws that require people of majority to wear seat belts, or wear helmets while riding a motorcycle (or a bicycle for Pete’s sake).

      Since this is a wildlife forum, I will try to stay on topic: Hemp may be a much better crop to raise and use for industrial products than most trees and could potentially, just might possibly, help reduce the pressure on forests that are used for the same products. I realize that hemp/marijuana reform isn’t some magical panacea, that if the world collectively swallows this magic bean everything will be happy and wonderful, but if it could possibly help in some small way shouldn’t we embrace it? Yes, I am skeptical of any mono-culture, but it seems like a good alternative.

      Secondly, if marijuana as a recreational drug is legalized, then quite possibly the cultivation of Sativa can become a front-of-the-house operation; no illicit use of public lands for grow operations. These operations are hidden from public view for obvious reasons and most likely disturb critical wildlife habitat. Get the growers out of the forest and into the greenhouse where they belong!

      (Man, I am so baked right now, completely out of my gourd)

      • Ida Lupine says:

        🙂 I’m sorry if that is how I sounded. I do support it and I don’t mean to put it or anyone down. I could use a dial-down in my enthusiasm for wildlife and the environment I think. My apologies. It’s just that the current state of affairs is upsetting.

        We probably do agree on most everything you mention; but time is running out I fear for wildlife and the environment.

        • ZeeWolf says:

          Ida, I hope I didn’t come off as too snarky, but I just didn’t understand your position. Of course you are upset with the current state of affairs. The current state of affairs regarding climate change, species extinction and the long list of other ills facing the earth and all forms of known life insults my intellegence and would think yours as well. The future looks bleak for the state of the environment, and measures need to be taken by concerned citizens. But it is a difficult task, one that makes a person feel that they are constantly fighting a rear-guard action. At times, the sense of doom and catastrophe is palpable and very real. I applaud you for sticking to your topic of concern and advocating for wildlife and wildplaces. Years and years ago, I worked at a facility that focused on providing captive-born wolves a safe haven and also conducted public education about wolves. There were a few nearby communes, in existence since the early 70’s, filled with people who could only be called social activists of all stripes. One day, one of these folks said to me something to the effect of how excellent it was that we focused on one issue and made a significant amount of positive change on that issue. His point was that if you were concerned about too many issues, it could be overwhelming and the people involved would be less effective as advocates.

          Incidentally, there were many facets about all things wolf – pack structure, howling, a certain undefinabel joie de vivre – that captivated me, but the one thing that inflammed my passion and sense of righteousness was the history of how wolves had be extirpated from almost all the lower U.S. That is what motivated me, and made me feel just in the cause of wolf restoration in the Northern Rocky Mountains. I feel for most socially progressive causes; labor, civil rights, ect… but can only do so much. What motivates me to speak up for drug reform was seeing on television that show “COPS” and the law enforcement’s blatent disregard for civil rights of those being interrogated. It really ticked me off.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Yes, to all of that.

            Don’t worry, a lively discussion is good. I don’t mean to be snarky either, but you are right – these times really test our patience. All of these issues are very important – equal rights for marriage, law enforcement abuse, falling back of women’s rights, escalating gun violence. But extirpation of wolves again was something I thought I’d never see. It made me made to read of it then, and it makes me mad now too. I have personally felt that I would put my time and energies now on an issue that gets the least amount of attention.

            Have a great evening,

  32. HOWLColorado says:

    It is heart-warming that WM remembers me with such fondness, spent so much time trying to figure out what HOWLColorado is all about and continues, to this day to make claims about my posts (presumably hoping I wouldn’t find out and correct him).

    Really quick so I can get to the important stuff.

    HOWLColorado doesn’t need a board of directors, doesn’t need to list staff, and doesn’t need to do anything at all because we aren’t a non-profit. We are I suppose a negative-profit group. The reason for this is that 501 (c)3 groups aren’t allowed to be political activists. We never misrepresented our size, we have only a membership of 97 and a staff of 5 unpaid volunteers, we have given speeches about wolves at the University of Colorado and at schools in the area. But regardless of all that, we have been a voice for wolves for several years and I don’t think we need your permission or approval WM, on how or why we do that. So I will thank you to keep your assumptions to yourself and focus on the debates at hand.

    The important stuff.

    Project:WOLF billboard. There has been a LOT of misinformation about this billboard.

    Korbe Palmer from Lamar Outdoor Advertising took the billboard down for one reason and one reason only. He was getting a lot of complaints. He knows as well as I do, because he emailed me apologizing for the confusion, that the “deception” he has been referencing was a miscommunication/confusion over a desire on his part for some kind of contact information to give media and the like and an assumption he made that the contact information was for the person who paid for the billboard.

    Since I offered to be a media liaison, my contact information was provided just for that reason and he drew conclusions from there.

    So, newspapers and radio stations stated I had paid for the billboard.

    1) I wish!

    2) I am not a fan of graphic imagery as a way of generating controversy. It has it’s place and PETA has shown you can create conversation, but you all know how PETA is viewed by a lot of people.

    But the discussion was important and if I could get some information out about the wolves (specifically Wyoming’s rather dismal attempt at a wolf management plan) then I was happy to be involved on that level. I didn’t design the billboard, and certainly didn’t sign any contracts or pay any money.

    I honestly can’t answer questions about Project: wolf itself. I think the billboards and the web site aren’t particularly closely connected (the messaging seems to be fairly different between the two – one talks about yellowstone wolves, the other talks about trapping, and wolves of the northern rockies, and upper midwest) but clearly there is some communication.

    I guess you can spend more time trying to figure out the mystery of project: wolf, hell the number of reporters trying to get information from me is non-stop. And that is the biggest problem with this.

    Yes, people are energized, but the last thing they want to talk about is the wolf issue and that is irritating. They want to solve the mystery of project: wolf and understand decisions made about editing the photo and all this extraneous crap that just shouldn’t matter.

    The arguments being made by the opponents to wolves has been fascinating though and illuminating for me in terms of figuring out which direction to go.

    1) Wolves kill elk, look at this pictures of dead livestock and elk, see wolves are evil!

    There was a study done over 35 years that suggested that with best available science, the models show that declining elk populations would have declined 7.9% without wolves and the actual decline was 8.1%.

    They don’t offer photos of elk hit by cars, or elk shot by bad hunters and left to suffer and die somewhere else, or cattle struck by lightning, killed by bears, … you get the picture (or in this case don’t)

    Elk numbers are harder to find these days. RMEF seems sick of people using their numbers against them 🙂 But one thing we know about elk in wolf populated areas. They don’t stand on the plains to get shot, they move up in altitude to find forested areas. This makes them harder to find for hunters, but also harder to hunt for wolves. Oh the inconvenience.

    2) evil Canadian wolves!

    This has the feeling of a deeper, more psychological issue. These people have an oddly similar feeling of hate and resentment towards tourists or “imports” of the human variety. Xenophobia spreads to wolves too, it seems.

    Urban dwellers, or “them people who don’t understand us.” are not welcome – though the argument is often connected to “come here and see for yourself… anecdote about how there are no elk anywhere.”

    Do I need to go in to this again? Irremotus is irrelevant (thanks to Ed Bangs for that particular quip). Irremotus IS nubilus. The ridiculous 24 subspecies breakdown served to feather the hats of some biologists but the 6 subspecies breakdown is just better science. Nubilus was an almost extinct population when the wolf reintroduction was getting planned so they couldn’t use them for the reintroduction.

    Occidentalis is not a Canadian wolf, you can look up it’s range. It goes from Alaska all the way down the rockies. They may have taken the population for the experimental 10(j) reintroduction from a part of Canada, but assigning nationalities to wildlife smacks of desperation. The claim of more aggressive is just plain not true. There is no evidence to support it. The claim that they are bigger is just not true anymore. They likely were larger at the time of reintroduction. Perhaps Ralph knows if they actually targeted bigger/healthier wolves to use for reintroduction. But the very first Idaho wolf hunt proved beyond a doubt that these wolves are now very similar physically to the nubilus wolves which were exterminated in the region – almost every wolf they weighed from that hunt was below 100lbs.

    3) You don’t understand our way of life. Wolves changed it.

    I don’t really understand this one as an argument. The ecosystem is improved by having an apex predator, coyotes are better controlled by having wolves around, and there are many ranchers in wolf areas who have done what is necessary to live with wolves.

    Raise your hand if you have a deadbolt on your door? Does that lock mean no one can get in your house? No, it means it’s a lot more difficult.

    Wolves are deterred by inconvenience. They like things that have the path of least resistance. All predators do. Bears take food from poorly organized camp sites because it’s easier than catching something. Wolves scavenge when possible… you get where this is going.

    Putting a llama in amongst your sheep seems like a silly idea. There’s no way that llama will ever believe it’s a part of the flock, no matter how similar they look with the fleece.

    But llama aren’t afraid of coyotes and will attack them. A llama in your flock is an ideal coyote protection strategy.

    Does this put an undue strain on ranchers? Does getting to use public land for free make up for that? Reimbursements for wolf kills (and nothing else) a reasonable compromise? Helping pay for deterrence systems seem like a good idea? There is a very interesting program out there that collars sheep and texts the rancher when the sheep are scared, and could even be fitted with defense systems.

    4) Only supposed to be 150 wolves per state

    Ed Bangs didn’t like this talking point of the wolf opposition. He said that was never the intent and that the plan was always to let the latest science determine the right minimum wolf population. He said it was an intentional misinterpretation of what states were actually told about maintaining a minimum number of breeding pairs. But this one continues to haunt wolf advocates. It’s hard to argue against since minimum is now talked about as the goal and no matter how much you try and point to what Ed Bangs said about it, they don’t care. It’s a number and that’s their number and they love it and hug it and hold it close. Forget the science that suggests that a healthy population for the region which will ensure wolves for at least 100 years (the goal) would be closer to 3000.

    • CodyCoyote says:

      Here is the most comprehensive, fair and balanced article about the controversial and very graphic Project Wolf billboard that set fire to Cody Wyoming’s duffs last week.

      C J Baker reports. You decide.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Thanks! I hadn’t seen it and look forward to reading.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Nothing wrong with it. Not even the most graphic I’ve ever seen. They save them for YouTube.

          Would I want kids and grandkids and the average citizen to become informed? YES. Keep up the good work.

      • Leslie says:

        Sounds like from the Tribune article that we are about to experience a billboard ‘war’ with anti-wolfers posting their own. Regardless, tourists might become aware of what’s going on.

        Last summer my relatives came here and said in the Park stores, not YA ones, they didn’t see any info toys pix etc on wolves. I thought it was just strange how they were not educating nor advocating in their own backyard.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          It might be worth mentioning for those having seen it that the source images of the four wolves dead on the ground used in the billboard graphic and the web page is actually heavily Photoshopped to remove the hunters.

          One of the series of images has a hunter in his camo gear posing with the four dead wolves alongside his wife and two very young children.

          The image was apparently poached from the SkinnyMoose website in Maine , purveyors of the incendiary Black Bear Blog ( decidedly anti-Wolf , and a plethora of other outdoorsy blogs.

          The location of the source photo was apparently Alberta Canada, nowhere near Yellowstone NP or its surrounds.

          Somewhat out of context all around…

          • JEFF E says:

            I have been warned that this website, or an associated one , has recently been the source of virus attacks on the web.

            • Immer Treue says:

              CMB retrovirus. I’ve heard it’s patterned after RNA molecules that only have to match with half the byte information. It causes non-reading, misunderstanding and Facebook searches. It is redundant, and only responds to the first two words of a posting; ie, it does not read, understand or answer, only attacks your senses.
              Do not, I repeat, do not engage as it will lead to frustration, serial copy and paste problems, and digs for your personal information. It also calls in more conventional viruses that attack with misinformation, rebooting and more misinformation attacks. Doesn’t like wolves to boot.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Ugh. Families smiling over dead animals just really emphasizes the disconnect between the modern world and nature. I don’t know why anyone would have a problem with the billboard. It’s a lot milder than the reality.

            • Mark L says:

              Nothing points out truths like irony. There’s enough ‘irony’ in this whole billboard story to build a battleship.

              • SAP says:

                I agree about the irony. Four dead wolves and some stylized blood? Hell, the photos of Hoppe and his dead wolf (he must know he’s fading away, since he took no precautions about getting that wolf blood on his hand) has way more shock value. This one


                is probably too busy for a 55 mph billboard, but it packs a punch!

                It’s ironic that we have a not-so-sensationalistic photo of four dead wolves — regardless of where these wolves got dead — with the indisputable statement that this is what is happening to wolves. Not exactly sure why people who whole-heartedly agree this is what should happen to wolves should get so worked up over this factual statement. Cognitive dissonance? A fear of being “misunderstood”? Worry that people who leave millions of dollars behind in Cody every year might be “manipulated”? Sorry, I don’t get what the hubub is all about. Wolves are getting killed. Sometimes it’s way worse than the photo on the billboard. Sometimes we have people intentionally creating conflicts so they can kill wolves. We have people advocating the scattering of dreadful poisons throughout wolf country. We have people encouraging others to gut-shoot wolves with jacketed bullets so they die painful deaths far from the ballistic evidence. We have people shooting at wolves in traps, then other people posing for photos with the doomed wolf while it awaits its death.

                If all of this is ok, if folks agree with it, why worry about some silly billboard out past the Wal-Mart?

    • ZeeWolf says:

      HOWLColorado – When I read through your webpage, I noticed that it was stated that the organization was attempting to gain non-profit status, has that attempt been thrawted or dropped as unobtainable or unneeded?

      I was under the impression that 501(c)3 organizatons could be political activists and that their actions were only limited to lobbying elected officials and backing candidates for office. Other that those limitations, I thought a 501(c)3 could agitate for whatever cause they support. If 501(c)3 status is too restrictive, you could always incorporate as a 501(c)4, but any money spent on political campaigns or lobbying would be taxable.

      On the other hand, I suppose being un-incorporated would have its benefits in providing shelter for those who don’t want to own up to thier activities. For example, it isn’t prudent for Darlene to be the front for such efforts as your recent billboard foray, as her organization cares for captive wolves and the negative feedback could be intense, even to the point where political hacks would attempt to close her facility if she caused too much agitation. I like her organization and her moxie, and yours as well for that matter even if I don’t agree with certain aspects of your campaign; the only problem I really have with Darlene’s organization are the landscape obscuring billboards posted along U.S. 24 blighting up the scenery and further fragmenting habitat already divided up by excessive amounts of roads, barbed-wire and other by-products of our modern industrial age.

      • HOWLColorado says:

        We dropped plans for 501(c)3. We were successful in the initial process, but the limitations and restrictions we felt were too much for our plans to be involved in political elements of the wolf fight.

        Additionally, we really felt that the “donate now” button adds an assumed motive which we really didn’t want to have associated with us. We decided as a group that the low costs of maintenance and a social media-based campaign combined with good working relationships with surrounding groups and organic search made the need for fund generating unnecessary.

        We tell all people wishing to support us to donate to one of the myriad of other groups who want money.

        We also had the plan of unifying groups in a few projects (which has been a hard task) but we felt that competing with them for funds would be detrimental to that plan.

        All in all, we don’t want the hassle of donations, we don’t want the limitations of donations, and we don’t want the implied assumptions associated with gathering funds.

        We could enter the world of plush toys and membership drives, but who has time for such things.

  33. Mtn Mamma says:

    HOWL, Thank You for your clarification on your position. WM seems to have no better thing to do than to nitpick people who post on this site. I have yet to read of anything in particular that he does that is proactive to the cause of wildlife conservation (will wait for the enlightenment as I am sure it will be delivered with a hammer). The billboard idea is one of the best I have heard of in this losing battle to save the wolf, therefore I donated to it. I also wrote to the Cody Enterprise in support of the billboard. That anyone finds this graphic offensive is a joke- especially anyone who hunts kills, skins, guts, etc. Even non hunters are so desensitized from current media- I can watch the local news or read Yahoo news and find much more disturbing graphics. I am sorry this thread got off on a tangent about pot smoking. Wolf advocates desperately need to get focused and work together to come up with some winning solutions. Things are falling apart quickly folks! It is past time to get cohesive and creative.

    • ZeeWolf says:

      Mtn Mamma – I was wondering when someone was going to call me out on taking the board off-topic. But, I have to say you seem somewhat irritated and kind of crabby, perhaps you should toke up that pipe a bit.

      Frankly, you and HOWLColorado/Project:Wolf (or whomever) ought to be ashamed of yourselves for using a form of advertising that contributes to blight and defaces the natural world. Seriously, that is the best that you can think of? What about direct education of the public regarding the facts of the situation, or gathering scientific evidence, or petitioning the government or other decision makers, or striking up a conversation with a rational and sane member of the opposition so as to find compromise?

      My opinion is that this type of “F-you” aggression is a poor tactic in that it may offend and consequently ward off many who would otherwise be interested in wolf conservation. Not many people, especially the vast majority who are politically moderate, really want this shoved in their face. And again, the billboard… really? A billboard? What’s next, tagging Old Faithful with your message of discontent?

      The end doesn’t always justify the means, perhaps if you haven’t you should watch or read a synopsis of “Bridge on the River Kwai”.

  34. john says:

    i understand the guy who lost his sheep outside gardiner has now shot one of the yellowstone canyon wolves, over a gut pile he put on his property,, he has two wolf permits to shoot them,,,,,

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      I hear he deliberately bought these sheep with the intention to lure wolves. Seems he ran bragging through Gardiner. Can Gardiner, as a gateway community to YNP afford such people? That is one of the reasons I no longer go to Yellowstone. All I need is a guy at the next table in a restaurant bragging about killing something…..

      • Leslie says:

        He posted these images with his happy face on this facebook page. Warning: these are very graphic images

        With this guy, the anti-wolf crowd has reached a new low. He admitted to his friends that he purchased the sheep with one intent and says it will be interesting who goes first–his sheep or the wolves. Hard to imagine how he can live in Gardiner and behave this way.

        • Ralph Maughan says:


          Are you sure he admitted this? It is very important whether he did because while he will have his supporters or opponents regardless, an admission would make a big difference to many people and also what the media can write about the situation.

        • Immer Treue says:


          If possible could you share this information, as there exists quite a bit of disinformation about those sheep/lambs, on both sides. That could really clear up the issue.

    • ZeeWolf says:

      It is my understanding that Mr. Hoppe has had an adverserial attitude towards Yellowstone National Park and the park service for quite some time, predating the restoration of wolves. Personally, I feel outrage and disgust at the situation, but also helpless and impotent to do much about it. At the very least ranchers and livestock producers ought to be regulated and required to properly dispose of carcasses so as not to attract predators and scavengers, especially when that rancer is receiving aid in predator control.

      I can only imagine what Mr. Hoppe’s standing in the local ranching and hunting and outfitting community is, much less his public image at large in Gardiner and Paradise Valley.

      Peter – I truly understand your position regarding your not visiting Yellowstone National Park in general and Gardiner specifically. I am one who votes with my wallet. However, in this case I feel that a trip to Gardiner and YNP is justified. Spending money and supporting businesses that support non-lethal wildlife experiences (or ethical hunting, if that is how your stick floats) can only add value to wolves, bears and the concept of fully functioning and intact ecosystems. By all means, do not spend a penny at the businesses that support Mr. Hoppe or his idealogy.

      At a certain point, the man, Mr. Hoppe, has his rights to property and free speech, even though I vehemently disagree with him and his policies. He must feel like a Big Man right now; I am wary of adding fuel to his fire and guess that most of my acquaintances in the area feel similar and are quietly going about thier business, garnering support for wolves, wildlife and the park itself. Metaphorically, if he keeps poking a stick in everyone’s eye then eventually he’ll get his hand bit off.

    • Mike says:

      Unfortunately, these types are all over the Rockies. You can identify them by the size of their gun cabinet versus their bookshelf.

  35. Mtn Mamma says:

    Zee Wolf,
    “ought to be ashamed of yourselves”
    I have nothing to be ashamed of. It isnt me who is full of hate and killing. The truth through education, science and litigation has been tried again and again. Dirty politics, and back door deals have degraded democracy and will drive the gray wolf back to near extinction levels in the lower 48. If you care about wolves or democracy, you will put down your bong and really pay attention. Thanks for the suggestion to put the billboard at Old Faithful- thats great- that way the huge crowds of grayhound bus riders can see a wolf (albeit a pic) – they will have a tough time seeing a wolf out in the Lamar as hunters were allowed to kill so many of them.

    I dont have time to tit for tat in cyber space but you will find those on this blog who will give you the attention you are seeking. Sounds like you really have no idea about the history of wolf advocacy or politics so your comments completely lack credit.

    • ZeeWolf says:

      Mtn. Mamma – LMAO, thank you for brightening up my day; a good laugh will do that. If this isn’t the kettle calling the pot black then what is? “I dont have time to tit for tat in cyber space but you will find those on this blog who will give you the attention you are seeking. Sounds like you really have no idea about the history of wolf advocacy or politics so your comments completely lack credit.” That’s great! And yea, I probably should put the bong down, but only when I am good and ready and its been cleared properly and ripped! LOL

      I hate to break this stunning piece of news to you but backdoor deals and “dirty” politics has been the name of the game since the day before ol’ George Washington himself took office. It does not matter what the subject might be and anyone with a long term outlook will know that the inherent nature of politics will eventually drag down any noble cause, including all wolf issues, to the same level of mud, filth and degredation that all such causes are eventually relegated to once entered into the realm of politics. Just how much double-dealing and back-stabbing occured to get wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho in the first place? I’m not complaining that it took place, especially since I consider myself a wolf partisian in politics, but I do acknowledge that it is a part of the democratic system and therefore no big deal.

      The problem with your type of wolf “advocacy” is that instead of forming consensus between pro-wolf groups, organizations and government bureaucrats and uniting them with those who are moderately interested in wolf conservation is that you fragment and disunite those same groups and individuals. You might be “in the right”, I can easily admit that you and yours have constitutional protections to do and say as you please, but in the end your actions are more like an agent provocatuer. Some might say you are the vanguard while others claim your actions are more like the work of fifth column saboteurs; yes, politics is indeed dirty work.

      Personally, I don’t like wolf or predator hunting in general and am extremely concerned with having a core population of wolves and other wildlife that is not hunted and only moderately influenced by human behavior. Towards that goal, I would like to see YNP enlarged so that a core population of wolves would not face hunting pressure. I know that enlarging YNP is a pipe dream (figuratively and literally, at least in my case) but one that I support nonetheless. Congress couldn’t do it much less get anything else done and getting it done by presidential fiat seems unlikely to say the least. But for sure, if it did occur, billboards would be banned. The only problem I have with the hooligans who vandalized your billboard down in Idaho is that they didn’t go far enough and chop the da*ned thing down like that character in that book by Abbey would have done.

  36. Peter Kiermeir says:

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife: Montana Grizzly Season May Open Next Year

    • Leslie says:

      Wait, I thought they have to complete their pine nut study first? Are they assuming the results of their study will be favorable?

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Well, I guess that´s what vultures are supposed to do: keep the countryside clean!
      The real problem is with the regulations of the European Union. One the one hand the vulture is given protection – on the other hand food is denied because a regulation says that carcasses of livestock have to be removed immediately.

      • ZeeWolf says:

        I do not want to die unexpectedly at 52, and feel that I have some good decades ahead of my yet, but when the time comes, I would rather my flesh be rendered from my bones by vultures and ravens than have my body filled with toxic fluids and hence stowed in a box and chucked in a deep, dark hole.

        Peter, if memory serves me correctly, were you not just railing against Mr. Hoppe baiting Yellowstone wolves with an unregulated carcass pit? It seems to me that it is in good practice to not attract wildlife to static and human induced food sources. Carcasses are an industrial by-product whether in relatievely remote Montana or heavily populated Europe. Either way, thier proper disposal should be mandated. I am all for having the stored up energy in the carcasses re-entering the food chain but only in a manner that eliminates potential human and wildlife conflict.

        • Peter Kiermeir says:

          I think it´s a bit of a difference if a certain Mr.Hoppe deliberately piles up carcasses and wait´s until a wolf turns up or if some livestock is lost and the vultures turn up immediately to clean everything up. Have you ever seen how fast they are? Yes, carcasses should be removed. But, vulture feeding places in remote locations have been proposed but nothing came to fruit until today. Of course you always have the problem that those Mr.Hoppe´s of France or Germany or Spain or from wherever they are (and you´ve got them everywhere), grab their guns and hope that a wolf or bear also turn´s up at the feeding place! What´s the purpose of an excellent project to reintroduce the bearded vulture in the alps when they have no reliable food?

          • ZeeWolf says:

            Peter – I understand your point about restoring a species that doesn’t have an adequate and reliable food base in the restoration area. I believe that red wolves were once reintroduced to Smokey Mountains National Park because there was a large space available for them; but there wasn’t a good prey base and the reintroduction failed in that location.

            Yes, I have seen plenty of scavengers in action on wolf-killed elk carcasses and it is truly amazing how quickly flesh becomes bone. I do not mind the idea of livestock carcasses being turned over to wildlife in theory and the situation in Europe, which I admit to knowing very little about, does seem different after you made your further comments that clarified the situation for me. I suppose that my real point was that Mr. Hoppe should not have been given two wolf permits while having a huge pile of sheep carcasses available as bait and inducement. I do in fact feel that his pit should be condemned as a public nuiscanse and closed.

            Europe and the just cause of restoring bearded vultures aside, in the Western United States the carcass pits that ranchers keep on thier property end up attracting numerous critters for obvious reasons. These animals, after doing what comes naturally, are then declared a problem and menance to society, if you will. Eventually, certain players within the ranching community will then turn this poorly mananged and unregulated disposal practice and predator/scavenger magnet into a cause celebre, just as Mr. Hoppe did. Ergo, my position in the Western United States is that it would be beneficial to society at large to create stronger regulations regarding the formation and maintainence of carcass pits, working at least towards a solution that does not allow these attractants to work against wildlife.

            • JEFF E says:

              “… I suppose that my real point was that Mr. Hoppe should not have been given two wolf permits while having a huge pile of sheep carcasses available as bait and inducement.”


              • Ida Lupine says:

                +2 doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in the management program. 🙁

      • JEFF E says:

        so why would livestock have to be the primary or even the majority food source. Even if this bird is protected it would seem that the normal cyclical population numbers would manifest; high when there is an abundance, low when there is not.

        In fact the immediate removal of domestic animals would seem, to me least, be desirable in supporting a more natural ecosystem.

    • JEFF E says:

      there is NO waste in nature

  37. CodyCoyote says:

    Forest Service files a Cease and Desist order against a graphic artist who used a bear in a Smokey hat to send a message about fracking.

    Draw your own conclusions, or draw your own poster…

    • ZeeWolf says:

      Is it true that defacing an image of “Smokey the Bear” is a felony or is that just urban myth? I have come to hold it as a belief that it is a felony and it has something to do with an Ed Abbey book, namely that one of his characters was in the habit of vandalizing images of Smokey by applying to said bear a large phallus, the image of which cracks me up every time.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Smokey Bear is a trademark of the USDA Forest Service, although it is also used by other agencies for similar safety messages on occasion.

        Commercial use is administered by the Chief of the Forest Service, in the US Department of Agriculture, under the rules at 36 CFR § 271.

        Reproduction, manufacture or importation other than § 271 authorization is prohibited under § 261.22. Penalties may be up to $500 fine and 6 months in prison, under § 261.1b.

        I don’t know about that, but this is what I thought was the reason the graphic artist cannot use it. No big conspiracy theory.

  38. jon says:

    Even hunters don’t like Bill hoppe. Here is what one hunter said about Bill Hoppe.

    “Get rid of the domestic sheep, get rid of the conflict. He shot a wolf that was baited in, not one of the depredating ones. Just because he hates wildlife doesn’t mean his actions should get a pass.

    Time to buy the SOB out.”

  39. Larry says:

    Today’s issue of Mountain West News, “Wildlife officials in Colorado, Idaho, Alaska and other states are getting help in tracking wildlife from drones retired by the military.
    The unmanned craft have been used to conduct night counts of roosting sandhill cranes in Colorado, and may soon be used to do salmon counts in Idaho, where steep canyons have proved to be dangerous to manned aircraft.”

    I wonder what the conspiratorials (members of the giant wolves from Canada club) will do with this information. the unmanned flights will be on loan from Big Sister (aka Homeland Security). Hope Rammel doesn’t hear about this.

  40. Here is a link to state laws regulating the disposal of dead livestock in Montana:

    • Leslie says:

      Sounds like Hoppe was not following the disposal laws of Montana. According to a map posted on facebook by a neighbor, the carcasses were near the river.

      • SAP says:

        Good catch! Very likely within 200 feet of the highway, too.

        For what it’s worth, and not excusing all the harm he inflicts on so many innocent creatures (including the sheep he was supposed to be stewarding), it cannot feel good to wake up every morning, surrounded by so much majesty and wonder, and choose to put such negativity out into the world.

  41. CodyCoyote says:

    I guess this qualifies as ” interesting wildlife news ” . Two guys more than a little drunk ” accidentally” let loose a dozen live rattlesnakes in a bar in Livingston MT .

    No word on any charges filed etc etc etc , but the snakes are still at large.

    I hear a new country song coming…

  42. Ida Lupine says:

    The principle of nonintervention touches on fundamental conservation wisdom. But we find ourselves in a world where the welfare of humans and the biosphere faces considerable threats — climate change, invasive species and altered biogeochemical cycles, to name a few. Where no place on the planet is untouched by humans, faith in nonintervention makes little sense. We have already altered nature’s course everywhere.

    It is ironic that we would now consider ‘nonintervention’ when nothing is untouched by humans. Maybe we should create a means for crossing to and from the island, and definitely genetic rescue. JMO.

    • Immer Treue says:

      I’ve brought this up before, but with ~270 wolves in MN removed for depredations, I would presume
      Most trapped and then shot, take a couple good males three or four good females, and release them
      on Isle Royale. New wolves, new genes, observe. Not so much a penal colony, but a redemption island. Don’t see how it could hurt.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Also, in regard to Isle Royale, if past trends were to continue, in the absence of wolves, or when the wolf population was suppressed, the moose population sky rocketed and they outstripped their food supply, result, mass starvation.

      Some say, no wolves, allow hunting. But is that not intervention. So few places where man doesn’t leave an indelible foot print with his presence. Here is a chance to “help” nature out a bit.

      No livestock, pets, or bus stops. Other than researchers, no one there for half the year.

  43. DLB says:

    “Weed warriors vanquishing Scotch broom on local prairie”

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Sometimes I have to wonder about returning things to a pre-invasive state. It may no longer be possible. For obvious things like zebra mussels and snakes, and exotic species smuggled in, maybe it is necessary. But who can make such fine distinctions for other animals, and for plants that may also have been carried by the prevailing winds and birds? Control may be the best we can do – and some desired plants that we grow are not native, and some invasives have great human health potential like autumn olive as a high source of lutein.

      • rork says:

        I can’t contain my disappointment.
        I probably spent about a hundred hours killing autumn olive just last year. Even more on garlic mustard, spotted knapweed, dame’s rocket, glossy buckthorn, common buckthorn, purple loosestrife…
        I’m not the only one.
        Lutein? That makes it OK?
        If you’re fighting with dissonance from advocating for wild horses, my condolences. Or perhaps an acute Leibniz infection, in which case I prescribe Voltaire.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          🙂 Maybe so. That sounds like backbreaking work. Sorry, I meant lycopene.

  44. Louise Kane says:

    This has to be one of the most disgraceful sleazy things a legislature has ever done. There is a number to call if you feel as outraged as I do that a citizen’s ballot initiative process was overturned by such a sleazy undemocratic move. These legislators have no decency.

    • rork says:

      The DNR and NRC can share some blame – they didn’t need to propose a hunt at this point. Hunters too. It’s not really clear to me why our DNR proposed a sports hunt – help from experienced people in understanding how that works inside would be appreciated. The stated reasons just don’t seem real.

      I don’t know if the NRC ruling is under the old law or the new one (don’t know when the new one takes effect).

      • Immer Treue says:

        $120,000 for starters. The beginning of the slippery slope. If only the $ goes to depredations and further study. Still don’t understand how hunting/trapping will contribute to “human safety” as any habituated wolf needs “surgical” removal.

        • JB says:

          “Still don’t understand how hunting/trapping will contribute to “human safety” as any habituated wolf needs “surgical” removal.”

          Their logic: Fewer wolves means fewer opportunities for wolves to become habituated or food-conditioned, which, in turn, lowers the risk of an attack. Of course, the risk of an attack is already extremely low when compared with other wildlife. You’re more likely to be killed by bees…or ants.

          • Immer Treue says:


            < wolves = < chances for habituation.

            Not like they are planning to remove that many wolves. I'm still curious as to dynamics of pack structures/dispersals after hunting/trapping seasons. Will these few habituated/depredating wolves go up or down in number?

            Up here, the deer are literally staggering around. Things are just beginning to green a bit. Very little nutritional food after a long winter/brutal April. Interesting to see observations made after one wolf season.

            Still waiting for age cohort breakdown from wolf season.

        • rork says:

          In another post I was skeptical about the money being much incentive – that’s money for about 1 person for 1 year, and might not be more than it’ll cost to administer such a hunt.
          Thanks JB – I guess it makes some sense, even if it’s not as sensible as pros killing the problem wolves now. Increases recreation for some too I suppose. I’m worried I’m showing signs of confirmation bias in not recognizing that it might not be completely crazy (so long as sports hunting doesn’t actually increase problem wolves).

  45. Nancy says:


    (I thought this was a joke til I looked it up on Snopes)

    This is happening in Wyoming. There were several of these found in Lusk

    You may already know about this, if

    not please read and pass on. Important warning – Very real kids are

    putting Drano, tin foil, and a little water in plastic drink bottles

    and capping it up – leaving it on lawns, in mail boxes, in gardens,

    on driveways etc. just waiting for you to pick it up intending to

    put it in the rubbish, but you’ll never make it!!! If the bottle is

    picked up, and the bottle is shaken even just a little – in about 30

    seconds or less it builds up enough gas which then explodes with

    enough force to remove some of your extremities. The liquid that

    comes out is boiling hot as well. Don’t pick up any plastic bottles

    that may be lying in your yards or in the gutter, etc. Pay attention

    to this. A plastic bottle with a cap. A little Drano. A little

    water. A small piece of foil. Disturb it by moving it; and BOOM!! No

    fingers left and other serious effects to your face, eyes, etc.

    • Mark L says:

      Why not just kick it first, step away for a sec, and then pick it up?

  46. jon says:

    This was posted on Toby Bridges FB page. He’s at it again advocating illegal activity.


    If you live in the wolf country of the Northern Rockies…never leave home without a center-fire rifle in your vehicle…and don’t be afraid to use it should you spot a wolf or two. Perhaps Montana Fish, Wildlife abnd Parks CANNOT get a handle on wolf numbers…Perhaps the Idaho Department of Fish and Game CANNOT get a handle on wolf numbers. BUT IF THE SPORTSMEN OF THESE TWO STATES SHOOT EVERY WOLF THEY SEE…WE WILL GET A HANDLE ON WOLF NUMBERS. To hell with ignorant regulations which protect predators that are destroying big game populations. To hell with game agencies that have lost their way.

    These agencies have their AGENDAS…and we have our ETHICS as the real wildlife conservationists of this county…and they are not one and the same.

    One thing is for certain…the target which accounted for this fired cartridge case won’t be killing any elk calves this spring. That, I can guarantee you!

    It’s no longer “Shoot…Shovel…and Shut Up”. It’s now, get on your target quickly…place the shot…and get the hell out of there immediately. We really don’t give damn if they find the carcasses. We want them to…and to know that there will be many more.

    Toby Bridges

    • jon says:

      This is how sick these people are. They claim they are conservationists and have ethics, yet advocate for illegal activity. Toby Bridges just admitted to killing a wolf illegally on his fb page now whether he’s telling the truth or just making stuff up is a whole other story.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        It’s sad that our country lets something like this run amok, but worries about conservationists and wildlife defenders as a danger. This creature wouldn’t know ethics if they jumped up and bit him.

    • CodyCoyote says:

      What do we have to do to get Toby on an FBI-ATF-DHS watch list ? For starters…

    • Immer Treue says:

      Typical empty headed bully rant. Jon, I think his one down comment was in regard to Hoppe. But just like Bridges suggestions of poisons, he takes the “safe” way and suggests others do it. Someone weak minded caught in the act or aftermath, and TB is free and clear. Posterior portion of anatomy is a good discription for this flotsam.

    • SAP says:

      “I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.”

      James A. Baldwin

    • Louise Kane says:

      This man should be jailed. What a disgusting excuse for a man. One can only hope he finds himself at the mercy of the wild animals he terrorizes someday without his guns. Bridges is to wolves as Nugent is to….idiots with no brains, no compassion and no balls. a big loser

  47. Jeff N. says:

    Very small, insecure, pathetic adult man. Bridges is clearly struggling with masculinity issues. He was probably bullied by girls as a young boy.

  48. Jeff N. says:

    Guys like Hoppe, Bridges, Gillette, Rockholm, have yet to resolve their mommy issues and most likely wet their beds well into their teen years.

  49. jon says:;_ylt=A2KJ2UhwDJBRt2cAUBDQtDMD

    “Under the Montana plan, the hunting season for wolves would open in September and close at the end of March instead of February. Also, the number of wolves that could be killed in a given calendar year would climb to 10 from six per person and a wolf could be shot if the animal were drawn to a baited trap but not captured.

    That last change would serve as an exception to an existing prohibition in Montana that forbids hunters from attracting game with bait to shoot it.”

    Baiting, 10 wolves for a trapper and 10 wolves for a wolf hunter. Does this not disgust you? These hunters and trappers are killing YOUR wildlife.

    • Robert R says:

      Jon I could be wrong but your numbers don’t add up.

      The overall bag limit for the upcoming seasons would be five wolves per person in any combination of wolves taken by hunting or trapping, up from one per person last year.

      For the upcoming seasons, archery only hunting would run from Sept. 7 through Sept. 14. The general hunting season would follow, beginning Sept. 15 and ending March 31, 2014.

      The trapping season would run Dec. 15 through Feb. 28, 2014, and those new to wolf trapping would have to complete an education course to participate.

      • jon says:

        From the article Robertr

        Under the Montana plan, the hunting season for wolves would open in September and close at the end of March instead of February. Also, the number of wolves that could be killed in a given calendar year would climb to 10 from six per person and a wolf could be shot if the animal were drawn to a baited trap but not captured.

        The wolf season is more aggressive than the black bear and cougar season in Montana and by far many more bears and cougars in Montana. Why is a wolf population of 525 wolves at the end of the Montana hunting season being aggressively managed like this? With thousands of bears and cougars in Montana and Montana is trying to do all it can to bring the wolf population down to 150 I assume. They upped the number of wolves that can be killed near yellowstone national park.

  50. Ida Lupine says:

    Baiting an animal who otherwise might not bother livestock or be a threat in any way is unethical.

    Someone mentioned the predator debate in the past is a lot like today. The difference is predator numbers are vastly lower than they were then, too low for this foolishness. Thanks a lot, Democrats for contributing to bringing this back. We never expected much from Republicans.

  51. CodyCoyote says:

    … and timely for Mother’s Day , a Gallatin County Judge has overruled wildlife advocates to allow Ted Turner to keep his Yellowstone bison and their offspring.

    • WM says:

      Looks like BFC and WWP are a little slow in reporting this (bad) news. Apparently, from the article, Judge Brown ruled against plaintiffs and dismissed the case three weeks ago. Any chance the Moderators could link to the Judge’s opinion so we can understand why?

  52. timz says:

    Just returned from a coouple days in Yellowstone. Wildlife viewing was the best I’ve ever had. Only saw one wolf but it was for about 45 minutes and involved an encounter with some angry Bison. She was trying for a calf. Saw 5 mama grizzlies, one had 3 brand new cubs, frolicing around like puppies. Also had a rare experience, saw 5 moose in the park in one day, haven’t seen that many total in the years I’ve been going. Also saw some mountain goats for the first time there. Also seems like there are a lot more antelope in the park. Dozens of Bison babies, and of course deer,elk,fox and 1 coyote.

    • Immer Treue says:


      I thought Yellowstone was Dead! All the sarcasm in the the world intended.

      • timz says:

        Immer, unfortunately the wolf viewing is tough, according to a park source I ran into which shall remain unnamed there are only two small packs in and around Lamar that are visible, one is new and unnamed and has only 3 in it. They do have a den and suspected to have pups however. except for the folks that were around watching the wolf I saw I only spoke with one other person that saw wolves, he said he saw 5 at Slough Creek at 5:30AM. My unnamed source says there may be 70 or fewer wolves in Yellowstone, not counting pups in dens.

      • jon says:

        That can’t be, rockholm says the wolves wiped out all of the elk in yellowstone. Glad you had a good trip timz.

  53. ZeeWolf says:

    News from the Front (St)range: It seems that people love wildlife yet simultaneously have no common sense nor respect. In my opinion, this editorial weakly (as in not-very-effectively, as opposed to “half-heartedly”) defends the right of the paper to dole out information as it sees fit.

    Another article that describes plans to use sterile tiger muskies as a biological control agent in efforts to control Northern Pike, a purposely-introduced invasive species.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I agree. The rationale is poor. Vulnerable wildlife that could be harmed isn’t the same as the location of a great new restaurant. Too much activity interferes with nesting.

      We had an osprey couple who had built a nest within public view a couple years ago. People were just thrilled to see them, and between that and an especially windy spring which damaged the nest, I think it caused them to move.

      I saw one successfully fishing in a more remote hiking spot recently (what an awesome sight); hopefully it is the same family.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        But, I will say it is very nice to see people enjoy and appreciate wildlife. 🙂

    • aves says:

      I agree as well. Raptors are very sensitive to disturbance at their nesting sites, far more so than most types of birds. Putting location of their nest in the newspaper was certain to attract an unacceptable quantity and quality of people.

      • ZeeWolf says:

        My own two cents:

        There are certain times that orginazations and businesses want publicity to generate interest; other times the public has a right to know, say as in the location of a toxic waste dump.

        In still other times, handing out a location willy-nilly is more ambiguous. Having lived throughtout Colorado I can attest that there are two types of valleys in this state: One that desires, like children with visions of sugarplums on Christmas ever, a positive review in the travel section of the “Big City” Times, and the other; the one theat dreads the publicity and the hubbub that such notice would create.

        But this seems to go beyond reason, and potentially create liablity, in that by creating such a commotion the object of attention is essentially ruined. Most newspapers would show editorial restraint by not publishing the personal information of a victim of crime. I can’t help but feel that showing a tad bit of editorial restraint would have resulted in a more satisfactory outcome. I can only surmise, or rather, would like to think, that this blogger had no real notion that such publicity would result in large, unruly masses. Perhaps he even had noble intentions that publicity would encourage conservation. In some ways, I suppose that possible motive worked too well; I wonder if Parks and Wildlife will seek remediation for the expenses resulting in these owls’ rehabilitation?

        Personally, I have always held all aspects of nature in high esteem and it disturbs me to see nature wantonly destroyed. Especially in this case, where nature was desgraded from revered object to sideshow freak. Nature became just another piece of diversionary entertainment for the masses, part of the “bread and circuses” that society creates to keep the unruly rulable.

        If there is a silver lining to be had, it may be that it creates conversation, and out of that conversation may come some small gain; small, but positive. Perhaps these three owlets will all survive into maturity, whereas had they been let alone maybe only one would have. That, of course, brings up another set of values, one that I will let the reader make up thier own mind on.

        I also agree that it is encouraging that so many people are interested in seeing nature up close and personel. That the demand is so high suggests that the supply is low. I have no qualms with the public wanting to interact with nature but do feel that they should be taught etiquette and respect. Maybe next time the mob will be more polite and watch from a respectful distance, occasionally sharing optics with those whom lack them – similar to my wildlife viewing experiances in Yellowstone National Park. I know that it is a stretch but it seems like a good course to set.

  54. WM says:

    It seems a highly valuable source of lithium has been found in WY. Lithium mining, it is my understanding, is very destructive of wildlife habitat(apparently in this case briney water containing the mineral brought to the surface in conjunction with a CO2 storage project. No doubt we will hear more about this as the resource is exploited.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Battle lines have already formed in NE MN about nickel/copper sulfide mining. Once these things begin, there’s no stopping them. This is at the headwaters of a good chunk of the BWCA.

      A few jobs will be had, the money and ores go over seas. A chance, slim as it “might” be, to literally destroy a good portion of the BWCA, ruin businesses, and contaminate drinking water, not to mention the affect on wildlife of all kinds.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Why do some persist with this? It it totally illogical. They obviously must have seen the inside of a slaughterhouse, and have butchered their own prey while hunting. They are saying that humanity is exempt I guess.

  55. jon says:,125030.0.html

    I don’t understand why people hate wolves just because they kill other animals. Hunters kill animals. Cougars and bears kill other animals, but are they hated in the same way as the wolves?

  56. jon says:

    The Governor in MI is pissing a lot of people off including the native americans.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Reaction from former Tribal Chairman Derek Bailey, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians:

      “Compared to Minnesota and Wisconsin, very few predation incidents have been documented in Michigan and a process already exists for targeted elimination of these animals.”

      Yes, what about this? And why ignore everyone who is against it for the wishes of a few?

      • JEFF E says:

        because the few have the money that pays to be reelected.
        I will bet you a two dollar bill that a large part of any political prognosticator factors is money contributed/spent.

        That’s why Romney thought he had it in the bag.

      • Louise Kane says:

        a Republican dominated house and senate followed Casperson despite the hundreds of thousands of signatures illustrating the electorate wanted to protect wolves and against the thousands of calls made against the legislature. Exactly how democracy is not supposed to work. a slap in the face to its citizens and a wake up call to get these legislators out. Its not just the issue of wolves that was at stake here, its the process for a citizen’s initiative and the ability of the people to protect species from rouge agencies that was compromised. A terrible and sad betrayal of the people of Michigan by these rouge and corrupt legislators

  57. Louise Kane says:

    Looking for comments/input/ suggestions – see below. We need candidates…..

    Help Expose the Dirty Dozen

    Dave Foreman, who posts on WCCL, suggested creating a “Dirty Dozen Not Wanted” list of the twelve worst agency staffers for wolf “management.” He wrote that the villains could be federal or state. I suggest we extend the title to anyone that has had a hand in the sleazy, irresponsible, inhumane and undemocratic tactics that now define “wolf management”. Dave wrote that, “Done with the right kind of media savvy …, it could become as big a deal as the old Dirty Dozen list of congressmembers by EDF (I think) or 10 most endangered rivers by American Rivers”. Many people really liked this idea.

    If you want to contribute, please include your nominee, a brief paragraph about why you think your candidate should be included, and your organization’s name. You can post here or send me an e mail via Ralph. Thanks Louise I posted the candidates we have so far

    By state

    • Alaska
    • Idaho
    • Michigan (submitted by Louise Kane)
    Tom Casperson, R 38th district state senator
    Senator Casperson, the ultimate hypocrite, writes on his homepage,
    “It is important in a democracy that citizens help keep their legislators informed. In order to be true representatives of the people, legislators need to know the thinking of their constituents on those issues upon which decisions will be made, and the facts on which such thinking and conclusions are based. As a citizen, you can help insure good legislation on state and national levels by communicating with your elected representatives at the proper time.”
    In the early days of 2013 257,000 Michiganders followed the proscribed state process to bring the issue of whether or not to hunt wolves to a vote. The voters collected these signatures in the dead of winter, in the extreme cold, in less then 65 days. When the signatures were submitted to the state for verification on April 1st as required by law, Senator Casperson introduced senate bill 288 on April 9th. This bill was quickly pushed through the senate with little notice. It was a blatant attack on the democratic citizen’s ballot process that allows citizens to determine controversial issues by taking a vote. In this instance, Senator Casperson’s bill was intended to silence the right of Michigan’s citizens to vote on whether to hunt wolves. Against strong and prevailing public sentiment, Casperson pushed the bill through the all republican house and senate and then with the stroke of a pen, Governor Rick Snyder signed the bill into law. In a stunning abuse of power, these two politicians squashed the rights of voters to decide whether or not wolves should be hunted, gave the DNR (a politically appointed body) the sole responsibility to determine whether or not new species will be considered game animals to be hunted, and silenced hundreds of thousands of voter’s voices. .
    • Minnesota
    • Montana
    • Utah
    Mike Noel: (submitted by Kirk Robinson)
    He vocally supported the gift of $300,000 from the state treasury for Don Peay’s spawn, Big Game Forever, to bring about “wolf delisting.” Word is that Don Peay and Big Game Forever E.D. Ryan Benson are already taking credit for it even before official announcement of the proposed delisting.
    • Wisconsin
    • Wyoming

    • Ken Salazar, Former Secretary of the Interior

    • Canada
    Since wolves and other wildlife don’t recognize borders and they migrate from Canada I think Canada could be included. Also Canada’s wolves get terrible treatment also.

    • Ryan Benson
    Big Game Forever

  58. Rancher Bob says:

    There’s going to be 10 people bragging about making that list.
    Maybe the anti-wolf people should start a list, how fun.
    The pro-wolf people keep flexing their muscles, yet it seems it’s there’s no muscle.

    • Louise Kane says:

      there is muscle RBob. unfortunately there are quite a few extremely sleazy politicians at the helm that don;t seem to give a shit about what their constituents want. Ask the 257,000 people that wanted a vote in MI. The legislators ignored their voices. as for wanting to be on the list you may be right, but eventually this will turn around. These people will be exposed for what they are. Traitors to their constituents and to Americans everywhere who see wildlife as more than an expendable commodity or vermin to be hunted and exterminated to satisfy special interests.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        And nobody wants that kind of popularity. 🙂

      • Rancher Bob says:

        “there is muscle RBob”
        That’s what I keep hearing, yet.
        Maybe you should read some Dave Foreman it’s the growing human population that’s the greatest threat to wildlife. Your efforts seem a bit misguided, stopping hunting will not save wildlife.

        • Mark L says:

          I agree, Rancher Bob. I suspect not adding roads to roadless areas and not cutting old/second growth trees would do more good than ceasing hunting…and both help hunting. Parking lots and subdivisions are the common foe.

          • Louise Kane says:

            Trophy hunting of wolves is now a primary cause of death for wolves. Difficult to defend in light of the slaughter taking place.

            • WM says:

              ++Difficult to defend in light of the slaughter….++

              Louise, not if the objective is controlling numbers and range… always a part of the plan from the respective states perspective, and always will be. What do you think WA and OR will do once they get their magic “self-sustaining” wolf population goals? They will start trimming numbers with trophy hunting (or more control actions), and the range thing will already be implemented, at least in WA as they contemplate moving some around as densities increase.

              I suggest a “Top 10” or Dirty Dozen of “Irrational Dingbats” on the topic of wolves, as well. Got a few nominees for consideration, too.

              And for the human population increase being the biggest issue wildlife faces – truth there, and we added about another 11 million people to the US because the federal government wouldn’t control the borders (and now we have the compounding effect from the high birth rate from that group). I have mentioned before, former Governor Richard Lamm (2 term D from Colorado) ran for the board of Sierra Club about 10 years ago on that platform as a threat to wildlife, and was not elected. Should add a “Top 10” environmental/wildlife organizations that are “In Denial” because some topics are politically incorrect to address.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                WM, believe it or not, I agree with a lot of your posts. An ‘agreed upon number’ – but I hope you aren’t disregarding the ‘irrational dingbats’ who do not approach management from a logical standpoint and try to get everything short of aerial drones to kill them, targeting collared wolves, and eliminate them entirely. If only it were as simple and staying with an agreed upon number.

              • Mark L says:

                WM says,
                “What do you think WA and OR will do once they get their magic “self-sustaining” wolf population goals? They will start trimming numbers with trophy hunting (or more control actions), and the range thing will already be implemented, at least in WA as they contemplate moving some around as densities increase.”

                See, this is where I think a lot of likewise-thinking people draw an incorrect assumption, as I think they (wolves) have demonstrated they will ‘manage’ their own numbers through attrition. the assumption that we ‘have’ to hunt them is a fallacy. UP of Michigan is a great example.

              • WM says:


                I am inclined to believe the “incorrect assumptions” belong to those who believe the biomass density of the Upper Midwest is the same as the Rockies, and thus the wolf/prey densities are likely the same. I don’t share those views, and I suspect Dr. Mech does not as well.

                Wolves will never be allowed to achieve densities (hence higher numbers keeping in mind each wolf will eat 12-23 ungulates between November and April each year, many of which are elk in the NRM, OR and WA) which give meaningful opportunities to control their own numbers/densities. It will never happen in the West. Never.

                I keep waiting for some bright and comprehensive scientists to take on a meaningful study to compare these two geographical areas to show why they are so different, but guess that is way down the list of priorities.

                Again, Mark, it is all about the numbers, and those who believe their activities are being affected by higher numbers/densities, which are always going to be managed below natural densities, except maybe MN, or within Yellowstone NP.

                And, again, the ESA standard is a threat of extinction threshold. It is not about managing for some “desired density.” Alot of folks can’t wrap their heads around these different concepts.

              • Immer Treue says:


                Twenty five years ago I went to my one and only Sierra Club meeting. A guest demographer was a features speaker, and he said we would have close to zero population growth in the US if not for “illegal” immigration. He was all but shouted down as a racist. Not only the strains on our health, legal, and educational institutions, illegal immigration is also threatening our wildlife.

              • WM says:


                I saw an interview (Youtube) with Governor Lamm from 2009 in which he was on some kind of panel. A question, possibly from a reporter, raised an interesting point and asked for his comment about being shunned by the Sierra Club in his directorship bid. Apparently, the Sierra Club leadership was pressured NOT to raise illegal immigration, by a very large philanthopist donor from California. The amount of the donation which would be withheld was absolutely huge (nearly $100M over several years?). Talk about groveling for money.

                Interesting and very timely read. Note the chart:

                And, something, nobody really thinks about except at election time. What does this mean in the form of power shifts in the way the US interacts with the world on immigration policy? Does that mean more in-migration, illegal or not?

              • rork says:

                WM: That the west is different than great lakes as far as prey densities doesn’t lead to any conclusion about how management should be different. The wolf densities are merely different.
                What the people do and want is the thing that’s different that matters.

                In UP Michigan, I think that approximately “at natural density” is what might make the most sense, and we cull a bit based on geography (where we don’t want them). For someone to say for another place that this is not good, I’d want reasons. It’s a very long calculation, and I’m not saying there are no good reasons, but “it will never happen” isn’t one, and intent of ESA isn’t either – they say nothing about what is smart.

              • Louise Kane says:

                WM I asked for assistance or thoughts on a dirty dozen to call out the worst of the wolf killing advocates. You can call it whatever you like but meeting objectives generally means killing all wolves except a 100 to 150 per state, and that is indefensible, short sighted, inhumane and just wrong. Wolf “management” is a national tragedy WM. To deflect attention away from slaughtering wolves by using the same tired arguments is boring and silly. Do you really find anything defensible about these state plans?

              • WM says:


                ++For someone to say for another place that this is not good, I’d want reasons.++

                I will readily give you three reasons, which, I am confident you know we discuss on this forum regularly:

                1. Elk are a mainstay of wolves in the West. They prefer them over deer by a large margin, if available, and that is unlikely to change. Hunting of elk by locals is a major recreation activity. Cash rich non-resident elk hunters produce a revenue stream for local businesses. There is conflict between those objectives, and states will err in favor of the revenue streams (and by the way wolf-tourism outside NP’s is a pipe dream in my view, including the supposed revenue offset which some assert).

                2. Cattle producers don’t like wolves for the reasons we talk about all the time here. It adds to production costs. And, they will moan about it forever, even if nominal for some.

                3. Wolves represent big government, and all the things Westerners hate about the federal government. It is a rallying point for some politicians, from US Senators to county commissioners to the sheriff.

                I don’t see this changing much in the next 20 years. These mostly are not huge obstacles in the Great Lakes area like the West, and there are more urbanites and much less federal land or state-federal tensions. And again, it takes less ground to grow a deer in the GL than it does in some/many areas of the West, so the prey densities are higher in the GL, and thus the wolf densities could be higher without as much conflict with the competing goals, IMHO.

                Not what you wanted to hear, but I think the reasons are sound (and, yeah I know it doesn’t make them good reasons, but they are enough to keep the political and wildlife management pot stirred and keep wolf densities hugely lower than “natural” levels, such as Mark L. suggested earlier).

              • Louise Kane says:

                WM I agree with your post to rork about the reasons that target wolf densities will remain lower in the western states as opposed to the mid western states, this is precisely why the states should not be managing them.

              • JB says:


                I agree with your reading of the political ‘tea leaves’. However, while political realities in the West explain wolf policy, they do not provide adequate justification for the policies that have been set.

                The process of planning at land management agencies requires managers to articulate desired conditions (indicators) and some set of standards that allow agencies to judge whether the policies/regulations/rules/practices put in place are allowing the desired condition to be met.

                In the case of wolves in Idaho (for example), indicators might consist of (a) hunting opportunity, (b) livestock depredations, and (c) wolf population viability. Once indicators are identified, standards can be set that allow managers to assess whether their program–the entire suite of management actions–is succeeding or needs adjustment. (This is what some call “adaptive management”.)

                In this case, the issue is that while increasing elk hunting opportunity and decreasing cattle depredation are held out as reasons for hunting wolves (i.e., desired conditions or indicators), agencies have refused to articulate standards (which would define the goals). So what is an acceptable Likewise, what constitutes an acceptable level of elk hunter success? Were standards defined, agencies could point to the standard as a reason to hunt wolves (or not) in each management unit. Instead, what we see is fixation on a number of wolves (statewide) established as a federal recovery goal based upon an entirely different desired condition–i.e., population viability. However, population viability is maximized via increasing a population, not decreasing it. PV provides no justification for reducing wolf populations. Thus, again, the need to articulate standards relative to other indicators (i.e., hunting opportunity and cattle depredations).

              • JB says:

                Sorry, should read:

                ” So what is an acceptably low level of cattle depredation. Likewise…”

              • rork says:

                Thanks WM, that 3 point list was more of what I want to hear. About deer: I simply don’t know how many more deer will be available to hunters if we half the wolf population, so it’s hard to give losses of people who hunt deer as a reason to decrease wolves. I think the affect in MI might be minor, but its just guessing based on what I know here, plus tiny data, and I certainly do not know what I expect in any particular environment out west (extra predator species, different weather, different reproduction rates of prey). If wolves actually do affect ungulate densities much, the the ranchers can fight it out with the other farmers who have losses to ungulates rather than wolves – do I have to now give some money to the alfalfa growers cause we killed lots of wolves. It’s such a messy cost/benefit to estimate might have been my point. I’m more openminded that it may appear sometimes, as befits a complicated situation about which I don’t know very much.
                Thanks also to JB for the “indicator” comment 2 below that (maybe 2 above this one).

          • Ida Lupine says:

            I also agree! My nominee(s) for the rogue’s gallery are those involved with the sneaking in the budget rider!

        • jon says:

          Hunting is killing, so if one was to stop hunting, it would indeed save wildlife, but one must always remember that there are other threats out there facing wildlife. Humans seem to be the biggest threat to wildlife.

  59. Mark L says:

    Louise Kane,
    Gonna be a while b4 I can get to typing it up (hard to sum it up in a few minutes), maybe someone can come by with an assist in the meantime…

    • Ida Lupine says:

      These killers may be the minority of hunters (I don’t call them hunters), but this small minority does considerable damage.

      • Mike says:

        Not really the minority, especially when you consider that most hunters still use lead bullets, which contribute to the slow, agonizing death of 20 million birds a year by lead poisoning.

        They just don’t care. Most hunters do not ask what they can do for the environment. They do not seek out books to learn about non-target species. It’s “what can the woods do for me”. That’s it.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Wow…hooray! Good news for a change.

      • Louise Kane says:

        ida watch the accompanying video carefully before you get too excited. The rancher shoots a snake as the reporter states this is how ranchers deal with threats and this is what they want to be able to do to wolves….stay tuned. The new law that now allows ranchers to shoot wolves without registering or verifying a loss and that just passed is not a good trend in this state. Once again the majority of voters voices are not being heeded and it seems headed in bad direction.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Yes. I jumped before watching the video. There’s still a old mindset regarding predators.

          But, when I read it, it seemed to me that with even the smallest amount of effort on the ranchers’ part, good results were achieved. But that rancher interviewed didn’t want to cooperate in the least.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      For those who want to see the Washington wolves declared “recovered,” this is good news. Ranchers should be happy about this movement (not that they necessarily will).

    • Rancher Bob says:

      Interesting these photos showed up on jon’s post May 13 10:17 am about backcountryrebels. Appears some locals had the photos before the press.
      The Cascades could be wolf heaven.

      • WM says:

        ++The Cascades could be wolf heaven.++

        Could be, but for how long, and will “heaven” work out in the longer term? When the elk become tougher for hunters to get (not that it is easy here as compared to ID or MT), whether from depredation or increased predator avoidance, expect some push back with the Wildlife Commission. And, to the WA Wildlife Department biologists, wolves are still a curiousity/novelty. In about two to three years that will wear off as the wolf numbers increase, when the pissed off elk hunters start pressuring them. It will likely be on the short end of the time-frame in Wenatchee or Ellensburg, and maybe a little longer in Cle Elum.

        And from this King 5 TV (Seattle’s biggest most liberal station), it didn’t sound to me like this rancher was too keen on feeding hay, when his cattle could be moving onto range.

  60. Robert R says:

    It’s not rocket science. No mention of any other predators.
    Someone is trying to redirect the decline of both fish and elk in a different direction.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Robert R,

      I have believed for a long time that the decline the Yellowstone cutthroat trout posed a great danger to grizzly and black bears and that it would force them to eat other foods if they were to survive.

      The bears have gotten better and better at nailing elk calves. In fact the Yellowstone grizzlies are documented to have become much more carnivorous from the time the old Park dumps were closed.

      They are much more carnivorous than the grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem of northwest central Montana.

      • Robert R says:

        The fish were not the bears soul food source to survive, there omnivores. Doesn’t it tell you the bear population has outgrown the park.
        What happened to the bears won’t survive without pine nuts.
        All predators eat the avaiable food source or they adapt to the next one.

        • JB says:

          “Doesn’t it tell you the bear population has outgrown the park. What happened to the bears won’t survive without pine nuts.”

          There is a subtle but important difference to the way you’ve framed the problem, which suggests bears are at fault for “outgrow[ing]” the resource, and the facts on the ground. Pine nuts are not declining because of bears, but because of human-caused (in part) climate change.

          “All predators eat the avaiable food source or they adapt to the next one.”

          Bears may adapt (behaviorally) by finding new sources of food, as you suggest. But they also adapt by MOVING from areas where food resources are low to areas where they are higher. Of course, grizzlies are unnaturally limited in this capacity by the presence of people.

  61. Robert R says:

    Maybe some other info down the road will come out.
    He could still be guilty, but until you know all the facts don’t convict someone from hear say….

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      We can’t read Hoppe’s mind. We can only try to make sense out of his activities, and I think it makes no sense to think he could raise sheep on the Park’s doorstep and make money.

      He has lived in the area all his life, so it seems. Therefore, he is not some naive newcomer who didn’t know that wolves, bears, cougars, coyotes cross the Park boundary with impunity.

      He might not have been baiting wolves specifically, but I have learned he has been very active against wolves and also has been a long time critic of the Park and of people with a bent toward conservation. He would certainly know that his buying of the sheep would cause an uproar.

      • Peter Kiermeir says:

        “….he’ll replace the killed sheep, which he said he got for his grandchildren to teach them how to take care of animals”.

        What a brilliant idea! This was lesson no.1

        “And the backlash he’s faced has left him even more embittered toward an animal he did not want to deal with in the first place”.

        Read more:

        • JB says:

          “In a Monday letter to wildlife advocates who pressed for an investigation and wanted Hoppe’s second kill permit revoked, a state official said there was “no convincing evidence” to suggest the wrong wolf was shot.”

          More to the point, there was no convincing evidence that the right wolf was shot either!

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          Hoppe’s disregard for the health of Yellowstone’s bighorn sheep, and the media’s failure to even mention the huge disease threat from his domestic sheep, is perhaps the most disturbing part of this to me.

          Montana has a small number of reporters on these issues. Their reports are predictable and rarely dig for information or new angles.

          • CodyCoyote says:

            Anybody bother to call the AP reporter? There are very few of them , and they definitely need some ” edjikatin’ ” on wildlife issues not taught at the one-room schoolhouses paid for by ranchers…

            If the AP writer ain’t reporting something, there’s a 50/50 chance it is because they aren’t hearing something….

        • Ida Lupine says:

          He sounds kinda mangy himself.

          • jon says:

            He does. You see you look at ranchers like Hoppe and his obvious disdain for wildlife, you tell yourself there is surprise why many dislike ranchers.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              When I read it, I thought – “Who you callin’ mangy?” 🙂

  62. Louise Kane says:

    Some insight from Matthew Koehler reposted from a WCCL post

    Hello: Thanks for all the effort to expose the fact that Montana is quickly becoming the most backward state in the country as far as wolf killing is concerned.

    One of the big reasons for this, in my opinion, is the effort of “Sportsmen’s” groups (such as Montana Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation and even the anonymous, dark money group Montana Hunters and Anglers. Unlike the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, which, of course, is as pro-wolf killing as it gets, these three other groups in Montana have become a huge force campaigning for Democratic politicians, including our Dem Governor Steve Bulluck.

    These groups (Montana Wildlife Federation, the Missoula office of the National Wildlife Federation and dark-monied Montana Hunters and Anglers) are providing the cover these Democratic politicians in Montana need for these crazy anti-wolf policies that veer far away from the much heralded North American Conservation Model these groups claim they adhere to.

    For example, earlier this year, the Montana legislature passed, and Gov Bulluck signed, a bill that allows hunters and trappers to kill 3 wolves and for rifle hunters to use electronic calls (an unethical device that isn’t allowed for any other big game hunting) to lure wolves in. Montana also did away with any buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park, ensuring the continued death of more collared Yellowstone wolves that are so very important to researchers and our understanding of the important role wolves play in our ecosystem. NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRATIC Legislator in Montana rose up to oppose this bill and these polices. All of them were lock step with the GOP on these bad wolf killing policies and, in my opinion, the reason was the lobbyists for MWF, NFW and MT Hunters and Anglers. Again, these groups are giving the Dem politicians in Montana bad information, bad ideas and certainly the cover they need to continue down the road of outright craziness in Montana over wolf management.

    Now MT FWP wants to take the wolf killing to a whole new level in Montana with a proposal to allow hunters and trappers to kill 5 wolves and expanding rifle hunting season for wolves to a full 6 1Ž2 months, meaning that other recreationists on federal publics lands are sure to encounter more wolf hunters…and Anja has pointed out, hunters will be killing pregnant wolves. Recent media statements from Montana Wildlife Federation and others (of course RMEF) indicated that these “sportsmen’s” groups favor Montana hunters and trappers killing up to 5 wolves a year and expanding rifle hunting of wolves on public and private lands to an entire 6 1/2 months.

    No Democratic politician in Montana will rise up and speak out for the wolves and against they policies, especially since MWF and the dark-monied Montana Hunters and Anglers (Who’s president is the former NFW-staffer Land Tawney, who just went to work for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers) are in support of these new, expanding wolf-hunting regulations and since these same groups are now dumping so much time and money into electoral politics, including spending millions of dollars of anonymous, dark money running statewide TV ads, etc.

    In my opinion, this is the same dynamic we’ve seen in Montana as we attempt to prevent Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, from becoming law. The MWF, NWF and Montana Hunters and Anglers are major promoters of that bill and they certainly have been there to work tirelessly to re-elect Senator Tester and provide him, and other Dem politicians in Montana, the cover they need to pass bad wolf policies.

    Anyway, that’s my take on all this from Montana. Some of us are in the process of putting together an on-line tourism boycott of the northern Rockies wolf states in an attempt to try and bring some much-needed attention to the fact that in the short time that Senator Tester’s rider de-listed wolves in Montana and Idaho these states and our politicians (Dems and GOP’ers) have literally gone off the deep end and have either passed, enacted or proposed some incredibly troubling wolf “management” policies….all cheered on and supported by the likes of Montana Wildlife Federation, Missoula office of NWF and dark-monied Montana Hunters and Anglers.

    Please contact me if you’d like to help with this boycott.

    P.S. Please note that I write these opinions about these hunting/sportmen’s groups, as an avid – and successful – backcountry elk/deer hunter myself….so I’m not even coming at this from a strictly “anti-hunting” perspective, although I certainly appreciate and respect those of you who do.

    Thanks again for everyone’s efforts.

    • rork says:

      Maybe I don’t quite get the motivation of the groups described. In MI, quite a few Dem representatives voted for our wolf hunting changes, and that’s not a real shock here – ranchers aren’t that powerful, and so it’s less clear that it would be a partisan issue (it’s just that rural is correlated to conservative here, and its correlated to wolves too, and perhaps hunters also). I did have another thought that it might be money from folks like NRA come election time, but would a pro vote by a democrat get them much? Maybe their opponent gets less help, eh?

      • Louise Kane says:

        In another conversation I had with a friend about the efforts we both made during the MI voters’s initiative she wrote this to me

        “It’s frustrating I know , I my view there is a lot more and a much bigger picture developing here. Republicans and some democrats as well are trying to reverse voters rights , take away workers rights, a child’s right to a good education, women’s rights, consumer rights, declaw the EPA and kill the ESA protections for all wildlife. Anything that stands in the way of special interest groups making bigger profits is up for grabs.
        It’s not just wolves that are taking the hit, Its, bison, badgers, beavers, polar bears, grizzlies , dolphins, whales , owls, sparrows, bighorn sheep and the list goes on and on including, children, seniors and many more groups. We are fighting to stop the US fish and wildlife service from aggressively killing wildlife on all fronts for the benefit of Big Oil, lumber, miming, natural gas and livestock interest who see conservation as impeding their profits. Meanwhile they take the focus from conservation issues and redirect it to seniors, children’s, voters and consumer rights issues that takes the base for conservation causes and splinters it. It s divide and conquer tactic so often used in warfare. The use fear and they will say and do anything to get what they want and play on the citizens fears of losing their SS and the like to get it.
        The very wealthy just cannot get enough , it’s greed on a scale I have not seen in my life time. The need to have more and more is like the investor that has to add that one more mine, that one more oil well, that one more cow to get that extra profit. I am not sure the general population sees this bigger process nor will the wake up in time to stop what is happening. It will take all 99% of the population to put on the brakes and change congress and the senate and send them a message, do what the majority wants or you are out! Right now they are ignoring the population they think we have no teeth.”


        I think its a very dangerous time and that laws like the ag gag laws or SB 288 that bypass citizen’s initiatives and give power to appointed officials are frightening. I’ve said it before but I think citizen’s united was a pivotal moment in our history. Now the focus is on getting money not on issues. and the bigger the pockets the more ass kissing the politicians do and they are selling national resources against the public’s wishes and best interests.

  63. Dude, the bagman says:

    So the didn’t do an Environmental Assessment because they mitigated the harms the didn’t bother to assess? Huh?

  64. Ida Lupine says:

    Wow! 🙂

  65. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Don´t leave your possesions unattended!
    Well, that ´s how it could look being mauled by a bear!
    Just imagine that terrible breath odor…….
    (Switch the video to fusscreen modus)

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      ooops, I meant “fullscreen” of course. Wasn´t there once a “modify” button?

  66. Louise Kane says:

    for talking points in commenting on Montana’s dismal proposals for wolf “managment”/slaughter in 2013/14 there are some on point arguments on Wolfwatcher’s site and their excellent comment

  67. Louise Kane says:

    Jeff thanks for posting that

    here is some somber predictable news about Denali wolves

    Read more here:

    This quote made to defend the loss of wolves “But trying to protect Denali wolves, while recognizing the needs of hunters and trappers, is complex.” is such BS. What needs do hunters and trappers have? a need to kill animals they don’t eat or need to wear.


April 2013


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

~ Edward Abbey