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 (May 1, 2013).

May 2013. Hayden Valley grizzly family. Photo courtesy and copyright Tim Zaspel

May 2013. Hayden Valley grizzly family. Photo courtesy and copyright Tim Zaspel

About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is past President of the Western Watersheds Project and the creator of The Wildlife News.

516 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? May 18, 2013 edition

  1. Robert R says:

    I’m all for protecting any animal with low population numbers but is it really nessasary to restrict activities to accomadate said animal. The Lynx can and will adapt to human activities.
    I can see maybe stoping industrial activities like logging and mining etc. but recreational activities NO!

    • alf says:

      “I can see maybe stoping industrial activities like logging and mining etc. but recreational activities NO!”

      Not even putting an end to snowmobilers high-lining in Wolverine, Lynx, and Mountain goat habitat ?

      Frankly, every time I read or hear about one of those obnoxious cretins getting killed in an avalanche he himself starts, I smile, say to myself, “One more down, unfortunately only one, but too many left”.

      • Robert R says:

        Alf you would say the same about a cross country skier or snow shoeing?

      • SaveBears says:

        It really scares me, when people are “Happy” when another human is killed! I served in the Military, saw combat and killed others, and I am not happy about it.

    • aves says:

      The problem is that recreational activities that compact the snow (snowmobiling, snowshoeing, skiing) give bobcats and coyotes access to lynx habitat they wouldn’t normally have. The breakdown of the natural barrier allows these 2 more aggressive predators to displace the lynx.

    • Mike says:

      Great news. Hopefully we can end trapping in lynx habitat, too. That lawsuit was just launched.

    • Louise Kane says:

      I vote for restricting snowmobiles, atvs, anything that makes noise and compacts dirt and snow and is capable of destroying peace and or hunting down wildlife. Perhaps if these uses were allowed they could be restricted to some very few areas where paths were created and the motorized vehicles were restricted from leaving the paths. I hate these noisy, smoke belching machines. Walk in silence and peace….

  2. CodyCoyote says:

    GREAT photo!

    • Leslie says:

      Is this ‘recent introduction of domestic sheep’ referring to Hoppes or are there a lot more new sheep ranchers out there?

      • CodyCoyote says:

        I second the question. Do the sheep now pastured a Yellowstone’s front stoop belong to Hoppe ?

        I hope Montana FWP has a competent epidemiologist to get to the bottom of what’s killing those bison.

  3. Zach says:

    Wolves kill 31 sheep near Sun Valley, oops…

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Wasn’t anybody watching the ewes at such a senstive time as lambing, over a two-day period? The rancher himself needs to take some responsibility.

      I guess an extended wolf hunting season isn’t working.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I don’t like the ‘sad sack’ tone of these latest wolf predation sob stories. They deliberately insist on practices that invite wolves to their property, such as baiting. The only thing missing is the nebulous ‘death threats’ from environmentalists that Hoppes was sure to let slip. I don’t believe these people ever get threats of any kind, and they need to prove it if they do instead of using it as a way to gain sympathy in the media.

      • WM says:


        Did you even bother to read the article?

        Extra labor, problems with fladry not so easy to use in the sage brush, dogs not big enough (or enough of them) or up to the task, alternatives to doing the free range “nursery” thing. And, again Susanna Stone doesn’t address the cost of doing all this stuff. And, why the free range thing? Well, it’s cheaper, by about $100/ewe apparently, when compared to wolf- free Nevada, where it is done.

        It is all about the cost to producers. And, it appears these lambs were killed on private land. So, the anti’s just got another rallying cry data point to carry forward – whether valid or not.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I did. And I read several others from other years that told the same story. It’s a regular thing. Probably cheaper to just placate him. He’s subsidized by the taxpayers.

          • Ralph Maughan says:

            You are absolutely right this one, Ida Lupine.

            I think WM should go back and do a search on this site for Peavey. They knew what would happen, and they are super subsidized even though this is private land.

        • cobackcountry says:

          I wonder how cheap it was to live when Native Americans didn’t have all of their resources being bled dry by ranching and oil?
          I wonder how much tax payers have paid to try to combat diseases spread to wild sheep from livestock? How many wild animals have perished as a result of livestock?
          No response is really needed, the questions are not generally regarded by people who defend the agriculture and big oil dictatorship we allow to control the resources of this country.

          • WM says:


            You forgot hard-rock mining, surface mining and allocation of water pursuant to a state first in time, first in right doctrine. Welcome to the story of the settling of the West, pursuant to federal policy.

            • cobackcountry says:

              That isn’t settling the west, it is appeasing greedy people. But yes – it sucks.
              A lot of days, I lose most hope that it will get better. Rare days happen that I am very hopeful. Generally though, my faith in humans to do the greatest good is shot all to heck.

              • Ralph Maughan says:

                In my opinion, the Western sheep industry’s day should be over. They directly employ almost no one, except low paid foreign sheepherders, who try to save it and take money home.

                The huge majority of sheep come from these states (in order of production) Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Oklahoma,Kentucky,North Carolina, California,South Carolina, Alabama,Florida.

                Sheep are tender animals, totally unsuitable Western range, and they are incredible vectors of disease to both ungulates, and an attractant to most carnivores, and so a danger to carnivores.

                The open range sheep industry would quickly disappear if it was not for continuing production subsidies from the government and their imposition of environmental costs on others.

                As for myself, I now will never eat any more lamb or mutton, especially after reading some of the huge amount of material on CWD and scrapie that Terry S. Singeltary Sr. has been posting to our comments.

      • SaveBears says:

        How many commenting on this story actually live or have lived in an area inhabited by wolves, or even coyotes?

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I have not. But, we have to be realistic about what we can do out there. Leaving animals unattended for miles and days and especially while giving birth is at odds with the natural world. Any number of predators are out there – bears, birds of prey, wolves, lions. What they are saying is they do not want predators and don’t want to take the extra steps to protect their livestock from them.

          • Ralph Maughan says:

            Just to quote from one of our past articles on the Flat Top Ranch, “John Peavey, a former Idaho politician, and Diane Josephy Peavey, a former commentator on Boise State Public Radio, who’s Flat Top Ranch near Carey, Idaho has reportedly received payments totaling $970,139 from 1995 through 2010 according to the Environmental Working Group’s Farm Subsidy Database, . . . See this article:

            • WM says:


              I know it seems like alot at first blush, but $970K over 11 years = $88K/year (actually the Environmental Working Group link shows it to be closer to $60K/year, nearly half of which is wheat subsidies or conservation payments.

              This is pocket change compared to the medium size farmers/ranchers in the Midwest, and even some of the medium size wheat operations in MT. The conservation payment subsidies are for keeping highly erodable lands out of production and in wildlife habitat, if I interpret this summary correctly.

              I do recall the Peavy/Flat Top history now with your reminder to an earlier thread. Don’t care for what they do, but still these guys are not really players when suckling on the federal government teat. There are lots worse out there.

              And if ranchers in wolf country are fair game for subsidy criticism, EVERYBODY in agriculture, anywhere, who pulls from the federal treasury and adversely affects wildlife ought to get the very same scrutiny, IMHO.

              • Ralph Maughan says:


                I’m glad you remember part of the story and their federal subsidy. Note that they are also getting an extra subsidy from Wildlife Services to make this new carnivore unfriendly way of lambing possible.

                Most importantly read about the huge subsidy they are getting from Blaine County for a conservation easement on their ranch where they pledged not to engage in this kind of predator control. Of course, enforcement of this easement is up to the citizens and officials of Blaine County and the Nature Conservancy.

                I am not a resident of that county. If I was, I would have voted/contacted to save the money with the idea that wildlife would as secure in the general area without an easement (they might not subdivide anyway, extracting easements by landowners is often a game) or be even more secure if they did subdivide and this nuisance attractant was gone.

                This discussion of this is going on behind the scenes on Facebook, but I think folks are too disgusted to even write a story, though if someone does, I will link to it.

          • Ralph Maughan says:

            Once again, it is a producer of some kind refusing to meet all of their production costs and passing them onto bystanders. In this case taxpayers and wildlife.

        • JB says:

          C’mon, Save Bears. The ‘you have to live here to understand’ argument simply doesn’t hold water. You don’t need to get an abortion to have an opinion on the subject, nor do you need to live next to a nuclear power plant to comment intelligently on the costs/benefits of that technology. Yes, some folks lack empathy for the rancher. And it appears (from my limited knowledge of where people live) that some live in wolf country and some don’t.

          BTW: Nearly all universities are located in cities–which typically don’t have ranching, agriculture, large predators, wilderness, and a variety of other things. Should their location preclude them from commenting on topics related to wild or rural areas?

          • SaveBears says:

            Bullshit JB, living in a certain area gives you information that you would not otherwise have, you defending everybody and everything is what is getting old, I didn’t say you have to live a certain place to comment, I asked how many have lived in an area inhabited by wolves and coyotes.

            Everybody has an opinion, but now a days, not many have an informed opinion and jump to conclusions when they read a damn story in the media.

            • JB says:

              “Everybody has an opinion, but now a days, not many have an informed opinion and jump to conclusions when they read a damn story in the media.”

              Agreed. What I disagree with is your assertion the implicit assertion that living somewhere somehow gives your opinion more weight–that was what your post implied. I work a few doors down from a plant pathologist and I don’t shit about that subject. My office is a half mile from a private research group that specializes in chemistry–again, admittedly, I don’t know squat about the subject. However, I do know quite a bit about wolf policy in the NRMs, despite living many miles away.

              • SaveBears says:

                The difference is JB, you have made a concentrated effort to become informed about the wolf issue in the NRM, most have not/

                My post implied nothing, my post asked a question, you assumed something that was not present.

              • JB says:

                “My post implied nothing, my post asked a question, you assumed something that was not present.”

                Okay, now I’m the one calling “bullshit”. You wrote, “living in a certain area gives you information that you would not otherwise have.” And this was in response to my post. So yeah, I think my assumption (i.e., that you intended to imply that people who don’t live somewhere are less entitled to have an opinion on the matter) was right on.

                Living in an area CAN give you access to information you wouldn’t otherwise have–assuming you go looking for it (or at the very least, keep your ears/eyes/mind open). But it’s pretty easy to live near something and have all sorts of misconceptions about it (hey, I think I just agreed with TimZ for once).

              • SaveBears says:

                Ok JB, Living with wolves, gives you a very different perspective than reading about living with wolves.

                Are you happy now?

              • SaveBears says:

                Of course, I have no perspective on living with drug dealers in Detroit either.

            • timz says:

              “Everybody has an opinion, but now a days, not many have an informed opinion”

              You mean like the wolf haters?

              • SaveBears says:

                You mean like wolf lovers?

              • timz says:

                yes just what I mean. Every “wolf-lover” I know personally knows at least a little about wolves, they’ve bothered themselves to read a book or something. I have yet to meet a “hater” who still isn’t talking about 200 lb Canadian wolves running around killing all the elk and breeding out of control.

              • jon says:

                sb, just come out the closet already. Admit that deep down you are a wolf hater. There is no need to hide it anymore. You hate wolves and you hate environmentalists and non-hunters. BTW, great picture timz.

              • SaveBears says:

                Jon, I don’t hate any wildlife, I simply pay attention to what is going on. I have never shot a wolf or a coyote, really I don’t hate anything.

              • SaveBears says:

                Just to add, I have talked to people on both sides of the wolf issue, that are pretty misinformed, it is not limited to those that hate wolves.

            • cobackcountry says:

              And seriously? Does here need to be more?


              We could also count the smaller stuff, like getting dead cows out of cabins…


              • cobackcountry says:

                Rancher Bob,

                Let us not forget when we help with drought…although we pay for water from ranchers and farmers with rights….


              • Rancher Bob says:

                finally something not 18 years old, one program.

              • cobackcountry says:

                Rancher Bob,

                Let me be clear. I am opposed to public land grazing, but I support a private property owner’s right to protect and defend within his/her property.

                I could give you examples all day, but used some old (although still in place) and some new (because we continue to do these things knowing what a dead end it all is).

                It is pretty obvious that we give farmers and ranchers aid. We have offices under the USDA specifically for that purpose. FSA= Farm Service Agency.

                Livestock Indemnity programs, Supplemental Emergency Revenue Assistance Programs… there is a large list.

                A few programs, I whole heartedly support as they work toward a greater good…like Tree Assistance and Emergency Reforestation Assistance. The later two actually give something back to every one in the larger picture. We need oxygen and we need to conserve soil and lessen flood damage and water pollution and debris issues.

                So I am not entirely negating the need for some programs. I just dislike the hypocritical approach and entitlement which fails to be recognized on many levels.

          • cobackcountry says:

            One of the leading AG and Forestry universities in the world is Colorado State University. CSU students are highly regarded in professional, social and political arenas upon completion of degrees. There are no wolves on campus. I would still say that you can become educated on wolves there.

            No matter where you live, you can be informed if you choose to be. No matter where you live, you really should feel obligated to try to be informed before forming opinions. However, there is a lack of any ethical inclination to be informed by an exceedingly large number of people these days.

        • Mike says:

          The problem really is this gun culture. So much violence. People wanting to shoot and trap and kill.

          These people teach each other that life isn’t very valuable.

          When your pa hands you a stack of books instead of a gun, you’re not going to behave this way.

          • SaveBears says:

            Guess what Mike, they are winning the battle, look at the bull that is going on! Seasons are being drug out, and game depts are giving them as much latitude as they want! There is no longer a middle of the road, it has swung from one side to the other!

            • Mike says:


              We’re not too far off from re-listing if this keeps up.

              • SaveBears says:

                not going to happen Mike, USFWS is washing their hands from wolves.

              • JB says:

                “We’re not too far off from re-listing if this keeps up.”

                That’s simply not going to happen. The leaked draft rule delisting wolves throughout the conterminous US suggests SB’s comments are on the mark–FWS is doing their damnedest to get out of the wolf business. Expect some announcements by the middle of next week on the topic.

          • JBurnham says:

            For a more nuanced look at Montana’s gun culture you could check this out. First of three parts airs Tuesday.


            Montana Public Media presents “Guns in the Big Sky”. A series of in-depth programs looking at Montana’s gun culture, the laws that regulate it, and new ideas to make our schools safer.

        • cobackcountry says:

          I do, I have, and I always will. I don’t see how that makes me or my opinion more relevant. I get that living in an area gives you a certain “rumor mill” knowledge of local opinions. But these are not merely local issues, and the implications are not either.

          • SaveBears says:

            You all can continue to deny, that the local opinion means more or less, but just step back and look at what has and is happening. Then ask yourself, if the local opinion carries more weight?

            The hunters and ranchers in the effected states are getting what they want, even in Washington, where the population of wolves is small, they are getting what they want. Continue to fool yourselves if you wish, in the mean times, you are loosing this battle.

            • SaveBears says:

              I mean really, look at the representatives that came up with the idea to attach a rider to a bill to delist in Montana and Idaho, did they represent Florida, California, Maine? Or did they represent Idaho, Wyoming and Montana?

              • Ida Lupine says:

                They want to be reelected by their constituents of course, so they do whatever they ask.

                I’ll grant you that your local issues are of more concern to those who live in the state.

                But stay out of the National Parks and park boundaries because the wildlife there belong to the country and the country’s people. So we’re gonna speak up and be very active about that. Killing collared park wolves is being very retaliatory, and cowardly. Playing games with livestock in order to kill wolves in a roundabout way and stick it to those who would protect them is also. Taking subsidies and violating conservation easements is also.

                The recent deaths of bison outside YNP has me wondering if it isn’t in response to Governor Bullock’s recent vetoes. We’ll see.

              • SaveBears says:


                Once a wild animal leaves the boundary of the park, it is under the management of the state it ends up in.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Yes, but I think people can show some respect for the program of wolf recovery by not hunting where and when possible. They’ve gotten the delisting and hunting, what more do they want?

                They want to get rid of them entirely. Well, that’s up to the states I guess. But I don’t think humans have the right to do that.

              • cobackcountry says:

                Frankly, the entire system has been manipulated. This country is bought and paid for, and it is a darned shame. No wonder we are in constant decline….the moral character of this country is trashed.

                I get so sick of hearing how wolves don’t belong on the landscape. Horse shit! They are more suited, more rightfully belonging and better for the ecosystems than cattle or sheep. How about when I get to stop having to live harmoniously with cows and their crap in the forests I hike, fish and hunt, then we can talk about abolishing wolves? It only seems fair that in the interest of living harmoniously we all make the same sacrifices, right? I give up wolves that venture through private lands, and ranchers give up grazing on public lands. My desire for wolves for their desire for a cheap place to let their animals defecate and eat.

                Why am I supposed to feel badly for losses of ranchers who fail to give a crap about anything that other people see as important? They are just as extreme as any religious zealot, and their narcissistic belief that they are some how more important than anyone else is repulsive. They see things as their way or no way.

                People can spare me the “well we live here, and all these California tree huggers shouldn’t get to have input in our state” b.s. When you reside in an area, and work there, you don’t automatically get to over-rule the value that the ecosystem you are in has to the rest of the country, or world.

                So, why should I see anything differently? I rationalize through a lot of this forum, because unlike most (not all) people on a side of the issue—–I have common sense and the personal integrity to consider others, as part of a desire for the greater good. I can see middle ground, and think there should be some. I even know of a few ranchers who agree, and a lot of hunters who don’t hate wolves, but would want to hunt them.

                The only thing standing in the way of solutions, are egotistical, greedy and power tripping extremists.

                Ranchers might be getting their way, but the rest of the country is still evolving and changing. Ranchers are not an island unto themselves. It is a matter of time before the remnant populations of public land grazers are declared historical, unnecessary and undesirable.

                Times change, and so does the way people perceive the value of other people’s ways of life. Conservation is going to become increasingly more magnified in places with less settlement, as people see it is easier and cheaper to live in the city- but value keeping things constant in their get-away places. They may value living closer to a light-rail, but they also value seeing wild animals when they leave the city.

                It won’t be long until ranchers are considered as insignificant to this process as the Amish are to the auto industry. One has no need or consequence for the other.

                The simple truth is, while ranchers usually vote party line conservative, and bitch and moan about ear-marked funds and subsidizing industry- they are among the most aided industries around. We prop up the rural agricultural industries as if they are the life blood of our nation. The truth is, we don’t need public land ranchers, we pay farmers not to grow crops (although that is due to end soon). We lease land at below dirt cheap to people who, in turn, act like their opinions are the only opinions that count.

                Show me a person who thinks it is a beautiful sight and experience to hike through cow shit and see eroded stream banks in a national forest… show me a majority of people that do? The opinions of the majority should still matter. Period.

                I get it that this whole system is slanted. I also get it that we need to change that.

              • SaveBears says:

                Boy that was quite a rant!

              • Rancher Bob says:

                Painting with the wide brush are we, well maybe you can name a couple of those government programs that prop-up beef producers, besides the cheap federal leases of coarse. Then feel free to rant.
                I always find it interesting the small percentage of federal land grazed yet how everyone spends time hiking in cow shit.

              • cobackcountry says:

                Rancher Bob,
                Well, would it not seem obvious that most people hike on public lands? Which is where public land grazing occurs? Therefore, there is crap there?

              • cobackcountry says:

                I am pretty sure that over 70 percent of federal lands are still grazing lease eligible.

            • Rancher Bob says:

              Another example is living with wolves changes your view of wolves. There are a number of people I talk with quite often who went to school at the U of M, wolves were going to be the greatest thing to have on the landscape. Now they think reintroduction was wrong on so many levels. Fact is the wolves effect more people than ranchers and hunters, and as more people are effected the pressure against wolves will increase. One reason I feel every state should have wolves.

              • Robert R says:

                Some will never get the hands on or seen it happen approach because its not a scientific study or in someone’s writings….

              • Kathleen says:

                I know just as many people who believe a landscape should be home to the full range of its native wildlife and who are happy for the restored presence of wolves. Some live on the edges where predators range (as I do) and some recreate in semi-wild and wild places (as I do). Some people accommodate the wild ones by not going to these places if they’re uncomfortable with it, or by not going alone. Others, like me, who insist on solitude, go armed with awareness, bear spray, and a sense of aliveness and gratitude for the chance to be a guest on the wild ones’ home turf.

                So while you may have spoken with people who “think reintroduction was wrong on so many levels” (outside of ranching/hunting self-interests, I’m not sure what those levels would be), you simply can’t extrapolate from that to say that “living with wolves changes your view of wolves” in a negative sense, and for all people.

              • Rancher Bob says:

                What I said is living with wolves changes your view of wolves. I did not say everyone would have a negative sense. My mention of the U of Montana is because there is a difference between Park studies and life in the real world.
                While in your world there may not be people who think reintroduction was wrong, I know many educated and raised in other parts of the states. Many others who were raised and grew up with the wild ones on their home turf who are just as wild as any animal. Many of us who were raised in the wilds of western Montana, not on the edge, are not that impressed with your wolves for many reasons.
                So while each of us has different backgrounds, friends, educations, each of us have different views and living with wolves changes those views, so until all of us have lived with wolves it,s not everyone has a equal voice.IMHO

              • jon says:

                RB, the only reasons why people who live with wolves hate them are because they eat elk and deer and because they kill some livestock. Any other people who live with wolves probably wouldn’t mind them. Those people you talked to, why do they think wolf reintroduction was a mistake? Wolves are a native species to Montana and they have every right to be there. I would have no problem with bringing back wolves into my state, but I’m sure the hunters would as hunters (a lot of them) hate wolves, coyotes, etc. I don’t live with wolves as I don’t have them in my state. Why would my opinion of wolves change if I lived with them? I know they are a wild animal, but why would my opinion of them change? They kill elk and deer and I have no problem with this. They kill a small % of livestock. That’s the price that ranchers pay. Most of rancher’s livestock is killed by weather and disease. Just because wolves kill a small % of livestock does not mean they should be banned from a particular state.

              • jon says:

                If you don’t hunt or ranch, what would be the reason why someone’s opinions of wolves would change? I think most people know and understand that wolves are not a cuddly animal. They are a wild animal that should be respected, not feared or hated. I know a lot of ranchers and hunters hate wolves in Montana and want them gone, but why can’t they understand that wolves are just wild animals trying to survive?

              • jon says:

                I should have worded that better. Ranching has risks. When you ranch, you knowingly know that losing some of your livestock to predators is a consequence of the job. Instead of reaching for the gun, find ways to co-exist. Some ranchers who live with wolves are finding ways to co-exist, but this hatred of wolves by hunters and ranchers really needs to stop, but I don’t think it ever will.

              • Rancher Bob says:

                Just reading your three comments shows just how removed you are from the issue and how narrow your understanding and I can’t help you there. You continue to believe only hunters and ranchers are effected by wolves. You have that dreamy pie in the sky love for wolves where we all just co-exist. That’s what many had when they left college then real world slapped them.
                That’s the problem it’s a dream until all that co-existing comes to a end because no one ever told the wolf there were rules. The human defines co-exist different than the wolf, co-existing with the wolf in a dream, risk can be reduced but why should I give 1% when you give zero.
                We were all told wolves would be hunted and trapped when delisted there are over 600 wolves in Montana, yet you spent all day hating ranchers and hunters because humans kill some wolves.
                So here’s some thoughts for you, some people hate wolves, some people love wolves, wolves die, wolves repopulate, don’t let it rule you life. If you want to see wolves go see some wolves. As a rancher one quickly learns there some things you can control and some things you can’t control, right now Montana is going to control the wolf population. Learn to not worry about things you can’t control.

              • jon says:

                Bob, wanna you and the rest of your ranching buddies learn to co-exist with wildlife instead of reaching for the gun or calling in wildlife services. The way you ranchers treat and view wildlife will leave some to believe that a lot of you people seem to be anti-wildlife bigots.

              • jon says:

                Rules? wolves are not supposed to abide by “rules”. They are wild animals, not humans. You still have not told me why my opinion of wolves would change if their lived in my state. Why would my opinion of them change mr. rancher? I don’t care that they kill elk and deer to eat, so I have no reason to hate them. I accept that they are wild animals. Ranchers and hunters hating wolves makes them look like rednecks to the non-hunting public.

              • jon says:

                Wolves are going to be wolves rb. It is ranchers that will have to change and adapt. Wolves are not humans. They don’t follow “rules” as they are wild animals. I would think you would know that.

              • Rancher Bob says:

                Appears you took that my comment other than friendly so if you would rather have me pissed off so be.
                Being as you’ve never been on this ranch or maybe even Montana you wouldn’t know squat about co-existing. Once again your knowledge of what happens in Montana and on ranches is limited to the propaganda spewed here and a few news articles you find. There’s more wildlife in a million acres of this ranching valley than your 2 million acre Yellowstone park.
                You fail once again to realize without ranchers and private land 75% of Montana’s wildlife would be lost.
                You sure you want to start name calling jon?

              • Rancher Bob says:

                Once again you prove how little you know about wildlife and the issues surrounding.
                You said,”They don’t follow “rules” as they are wild animals.” I’ve been running wild in Montana since I was 5 and first thing one can learn is animals have rules and signs. They understand and learn rules and signs. If you don’t live by the rules there are penalties. There are many rules in the wild when I’m in the wild I have to follow animal rules.
                I have lions, coyotes and foxes on the ranch every day black bears and grizzlies in the summer, they don’t kill my cattle they know the rules, we co-exist.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Rancher Bob,

                “… first thing one can learn is animals have rules and signs. They understand and learn rules and signs. If you don’t live by the rules there are penalties. There are many rules in the wild when I’m in the wild I have to follow animal rules.”


    • Ralph Maughan says:


      This is the second year of this. This new method of lambing is a rolling feast for every predatory animal out there — an example of maximizing for sheep and to hell with wildlife. Brian Ertz did a story on it back in 2012. . Notice that is was exactly one year ago.

      • SaveBears says:

        Guess what Ralph as long as this crap continues with both sides hating each other, there will be a third year and on and on. Something has to change on both sides in order for things to change.

        • cobackcountry says:

          Yes, a girl has to rant from time to time. I helps me retain what little sanity I have left.
          Some days, I feel like we all just keep running full speed ahead at brick walls. I get frustrated 🙁

      • Zach says:

        I remember reading about that before on here. It’s sick, sad, and total bullshit.

    • Leslie says:

      “fairly revolutionary” process.

      Well, I suppose every revolution has its casualties

  4. Rita k Sharpe says:

    Why does the ranch, Flat Top Ranch, and John Peavey sound all to familiar?

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      It is familiar,and it appears it will happen year after year after year.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      What bullshit crap. Like reporters have no knowledge of history whatsoever. Will they use use the same headline when it happens here in 2014 too?

  5. Another article on the controversy over abolishment the former Denali Park wolf buffer zone just north of the park, a parallel issue with hunting of predominantly park wolves around Yellowstone. The recent Denali wolf population is at the lowest level in 26 years and there has been a substantial decline in visitor wolf viewing opportunity along the park road over the past 3 years.

    I recently read an interesting early account from the area indicating the Stampede Trail north of the park was long known for wolves, from the biography of a guy who lived on the Savage River in the 1920s. Alaska’s Wolf Man: The 1915-55 Wilderness Adventures of Frank Glaser by Jim Rearden.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Thanks for the link – it seems the sentiment from residents was more favorable toward wolves than recent actions being initiated by the state.

  6. Robert R says:

    It’s good to see the magpie making a comeback in areas where it was all but gone. I never new west nile affected them that bad. Years ago when warbex was used on cattle it killed a lot of birds including magpies.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Yes. 🙂

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      I didn’t know they had taken a big hit from West Nile.

      Here in Bannock County, ID and nearby counties West Nile has often been bad, taking a lot of horses and some people; but the magpies seemed and seem plentiful. They get my truck about every other day ;-(

  7. aves says:

    “North America” begins tonight on the Discovery Channel. If this video clip is any indication it could be quite good:

    • Louise Kane says:

      It was good
      and refreshing to see wildlife not portrayed as some threat to humans while some creep wrestles a poor beast to the ground to kill it. It was nice a return to stories about animals in the real world, beautiful imagery

  8. Mark L says:

    A wolf supporting Republican {or even ‘wolf neutral’ one) would definately throw a monkey wrench into a lot of these issues.

    • cobackcountry says:

      Mark L.

      I am a wolf supporting independent. I’d settle for a politician with common sense and respect for science…Now an honest one- that would be a fabulous change!

  9. Mark L says:

    Honest? That just crazy talk.

    I do think a ‘blurring’ of the present lines will be necessary before wolf issues….and larger overall predator issues…will resolve itself. Your earlier rant does have some merit, especially the Amish/automotive industry part.

    • cobackcountry says:

      Mark L.

      My rant was more for my benefit than anything else. I make no claims to expertise. But thanks.

      I agree about the blurring of lines. I have said from get-go, we are going to have to prepare for hunts the same way that ranchers have to prepare for wolves. But practicality falls upon deaf ears when spoken by real folks.

  10. jon says:

    Here’s a good article about hunters in OR trying to overturn the hound hunting ban of cougar. This article exposes the truth about one hunting organization in particular.

  11. jon says:

    Government indefinitely delays decision on wolf protections in Lower 48, but reason uncertain

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Good. The entire delisting, hunting and so-called management of wolves has been abused.

      • SaveBears says:


        The story has nothing to do with wolves in the Great Lakes, or the Northern Rockies, those wolves are still delisted and still have state management in control, the article Jon posted is about the complete lower 48 being delisted, so in truth, at this time, it only really affects the Mexican wolf populations. As far as the NRM, in Montana and Idaho, the only way they will ever be considered for relisting, is if those numbers fall below the thresholds. I seriously doubt we will ever see that again and with USFWS wanting to distance themselves and get out of the wolf business, odds are very low.

        • SaveBears says:

          All of the state hunting seasons are still in place and will proceed in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming again this fall, this decision has nothing to do with state management in these states.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Well, at least it won’t go any further than what we have now, at least for the time being. What I meant what they have now has been abused. Not a rational management of a delisted species – but an irrational free-for-all. I hope it has caused some to reconsider the delisting of them in other states.

            • SaveBears says:

              It will be up to the USFWS on when the lower 48 gets completely delisted, I seriously doubt they are reconsidering, I would be more inclined to believe, they are conferring with the new DOI director and getting her up to speed.

              • Immer Treue says:

                However, a slight hiccup for the itinerary of Don Peay.

              • Louise Kane says:

                I hate to agree with you SB but I fear this too. Maybe just maybe MS Jewell will call folly when she sees it. I hope some heads roll if she does.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      It is possible that Sally Jewell, now taking hold of her job, said “wait a minute.”

  12. jon says:

    People need to see the truth about hunters. There are graphic pictures. The lack of respect these people have for wildlife is appalling.

    • cobackcountry says:


      I get it that you feel passionately about this. But it is no more accurate to say that is representative of all hunters than to say that all pro-wolfers eat granola bars while at orgies and smoking peyote.

      Very few people will ever find someone credible who attacks entire groups without discretion or rationalism.

      I am not saying all hunters are great, or they all suck. But I am saying you do more harm than good when you lump them all in with this type of propaganda.

      • Louise Kane says:

        I think what Jon means is that there seems to be a trend in hunting that can be easily demonstrated on the many and easily found disturbing websites, that is appalling. Is it a trend or is it that social media allows us to see more? I agree by using the word hunters it lumps all together, some hunters would have been more appropriate. more to the point is what is being done to stop these abuses, and they are abuses.

    • rork says:

      jon: I’ve actually appreciated when you post links to hunting web-sites sometimes, cause it really is interesting what goes on there sometimes. Most times it reminds me of how otherworldly such sites are. First, the participants self-select from the get go – must be a big bad hunter and need to prove it to others. A bad bragging thing happens, and that seems to include being the loudest and most over-the-top anti-anti-hunter, as well as dabbling in politics (in MI hunting sites, there’s racism – I can’t stomach that). It exemplifies why almost no thoughtful hunters participate in such places.

      TV doesn’t make us look very good either. Some people have refused to believe me when I say what words of apology and thanks and promises of good deeds I say to my dead deer, cause they have never seen anyone do that on TV (just celebration after the shot, or at the dead body – we love killing), even though it’s not uncommon in the tradition I’m used to. I say sorry and thanks to fish too, whereas on TV I see folks throw salmon into boxes to suffocate, without even bonking them, as if they were broccoli. Some guides have got to set better examples.

      • Immer Treue says:


        “TV doesn’t make us look very good either. Some people have refused to believe me when I say what words of apology and thanks and promises of good deeds I say to my dead deer, cause they have never seen anyone do that on TV (just celebration after the shot, or at the dead body – we love killing), even though it’s not uncommon in the tradition I’m used to. I say sorry and thanks to fish too, whereas on TV I see folks throw salmon into boxes to suffocate, without even bonking them, as if they were broccoli. Some guides have got to set better examples.”

        I am continually addled by the need to pose with what one has just killed. Looks like some pretty big guys posing with their dead bloody coyotes, especially with that big smile. Perhaps it’s just me, but I think it a bit macabre to have a big shit eating grin standing/kneeling over/next to the body of an animal that moments before was full of life, and had little to no insight said hunter/sportsman(sarcasm) was even there.

      • jon says:

        “TV doesn’t make us look very good either.”

        Yeah, just watch shows like yukon men. One of the guys on yukon men who is a hunter said that the only good wolf is a dead one. The hunting shows on tv make hunters look bad. You’re right about that.

        • Leslie says:

          I have been appalled by some of these shows on Discovery and NGW. they portray these guys ‘living off the land’, hunting bears and trapping, appealing to some impulse that is no longer appropriate nor necessary in today’s world.

          I sent an email to, I think it was Discovery Channel, after watching one of their shows about a guy trapping wolverines. I told them how irresponsible it was, with wolverines about to be listed, and especially for a channel that is supposedly promoting wildlife. I urge everyone to email them, although I think these ‘reality-in-the-wild’ shows have high ratings with couch potatoes.

          • SaveBears says:


            What is appropriate and necessary in today’s world, is not up to you, those are individual choices.

            • Leslie says:

              I don’t think a wildlife show promoting trapping an endangered species aka wolverines is ‘appropriate and necessary’.

              A lot of these shows are so unreal relative to wildlife and lifestyle realities. Many of these people are set-up reality shows. I really don’t think most of this is their ‘way of life’ vs. a TV show reality.

              One fellow who ‘lives off the land’ in the south on some TV show had a lot of legal violations, like no sewage system, etc. He was making tons of money from the show and the county found out about his violations from the TV. Then he called ‘foul’–gobermint intervention! What did he expect? Not the sharpest tool in the shed I’d say.

          • Robert R says:

            Leslie I would like you to contact these people on these shows if you have the nerve to confront them. This is there life style and how most of them make a living off of the land weather you agree with how they chose to live there life.
            These shows have the ratings because its real life it’s not manufactured.

            • Mark L says:

              Robert R,

              I’m not sure how ‘real’ some of the people really are. There’s a lot of ego and bravado that’s being sold as ‘fiercely independent’ personalities on several shows…and some decent acting with obvious 2nd and 3rd takes (its set up). Some have merit, some just plain suck.

            • Leslie says:

              These shows have the ratings because people are so out of touch with nature.

              Robert, would you say the Survival show has such a long run and top ratings because its ‘real life’. C’mon!

              • Leslie says:

                I think its actually called ‘Survivor’.

              • Robert R says:

                Go into the backcountry away from all luxuries and see how long you can survive.
                Leslie if your talking about surviverman its a whole different show than survivor.

              • Immer Treue says:

                C’mon Leslie. Survivor is my one guilty pleasure.

            • Rita k Sharpe says:

              Just like the show,”Keeping up with the Kardashians”,if it brings in the sponsors and the ratings, they will continue to put them on. They film a lot of footage and edit out what they think won’t fit into the scheme of things. We watch for its the flavor of the present time, live TV.

              • Leslie says:

                I think survivorman with Les Stroud is a great show. And even someone as experienced as him can just barely survive for those 10 days. You’ve gotta enjoy bugs!

                I intended to compare the Survivor show(one on the island with teams) to these shows where guys go out to trap wolves, or bears, or wolverines and make it look like they are mountain men. Both are just entertainment, not a way of life. Mountain men no longer exist. TV just promotes these fantasies as much as Survivor (the island) promotes a fantasy.

                And my point is a lot of these shows are glorifying the same warped hunting ethics that Immer was alluding to. One of my friends who hunts for food says that when you don’t feel that pang anymore when you kill the animal, its time to quit hunting. I consider that hunting ethics.

                Robert R., I think North Woods law is more interesting, where they catch the guys doing illegal wildlife stuff.

  13. CodyCoyote says:

    Wyoming’s wolf hunting plan is called into question yet again. The Montana based National Wolfwatcher’s Coalition has written a 9-page critique to Wyo G&F during the current slate of statewide meetings being held to discuss last year’s hunts and plans for this year’s wolf management.

    Among other things, the Wolfwatchers state a pretty solid case that the Wyomning hunts do not dovetail well at all with the sport hunter’s holy scripture of the so-called ” North American Model of Wildlife Conservation “.

    I happen to agree with that assertion wholeheartedly amnd have said so countless times , and surprisingly not gotten much blowback from the defenders of the NAMWC. I’d guess most of the regular readers here can see through to that argument as well.

    Article at the Jackson Hole News & Guide today :

    • jon says:

      I hope she says no. All Idaho cares about is letting hunters kill grizzly bears.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      “The Idaho Fish and Game Commission voted in favor of delisting during its meeting last week, saying the state is in a better position to manage the species (grizzly).” From timz’s link.

      What? Like they are doing with wolves?

  14. Ida Lupine says:

    I really do hope the party is over for these states. They have gone completely overboard with the irresponsible killing recovered species. Not a good record with wolves, and I’d hate to see grizzlies suffer the same fate.

  15. Peter Kiermeir says:

    For the first time in a few hundred years, a European Bison, the Wisent (Bison bonasus) has given birth to a calf in a German forest! The first herd with the pregnant cow has only been released in April this year. The projects website is in German language only. See the pictures and note the difference between Bison bonasus and Bison bison. Even the calf is not a “red dog”.

    • Immer Treue says:


    • Kathleen says:

      RE: Wisent – Looks like they are a big tourist attraction, though my many years of high school & college German are not serving me all that well anymore.

      Meanwhile, back in Montana, here’s what Montana’s Dept. of Livestock is doing to Yellowstone-area bison

  16. Ida Lupine says:

    Wow – that is just great news!

  17. Ida Lupine says:

    Robert R., I think North Woods law is more interesting, where they catch the guys doing illegal wildlife stuff.

    We need more shows like this – I’d never miss it. 😛

  18. Louise Kane says:

    Speaking of keeping the pressure up

    From Nancy Warren

    See Press Release below. Voters will decide whether the wolf should be a game animal. However, a new law PA 21, overrides the law being challenged. So, there are still many unanswered questions.


    Board of State Canvassers Certifies Signatures

    LANSING, Mich. – Action by the Board of State Canvassers today to certify petition signatures gathered by Keep Michigan Wolves Protected (KMWP) to place a wolf hunting referendum on the November 2014 ballot serves as another reminder of the abuse of power at the hands of Gov. Rick Snyder, the legislature and the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to silence the voice of Michiganders who signed the petitions to stop the senseless slaughter of wolves.

    “Following the submission of more than 255,000 signatures , the Board of State Canvassers upheld its responsibility to the people of Michigan by certifying our petition drive to place the wolf hunting referendum on the November 2014 ballot,” said Jill Fritz, director of KMWP. “How will Gov. Snyder, the legislature and NRC explain to Michigan’s 7.2 million registered voters that wolves are being needlessly slaughtered and their votes won’t count? We will continue our tireless struggle to stop wolf hunting and trapping in Michigan and fight for the return of the democratic process for voters.”

    KMWP submitted more than 255,000 petition signatures on March 27 to suspend Public Act 520 – a law that was rushed through last December’s lame duck legislative session and signed by the Governor to classify wolves as a game species – until a referendum vote in November 2014.

    Two weeks later, Senate Bill 288 was introduced and fast-tracked through the legislative process in 23 days and signed by Gov. Snyder on May 8, before the Board of State Canvassers could certify signatures of registered voters from every corner of the state, essentially nullifying the petition effort.

    S.B. 288 empowers the NRC, a politically-appointed seven person panel, to designate animals as game species without legislative or voter oversight. Michigan voters would be unable to reverse decisions of the NRC because it is a regulatory body. This legislation has resulted in Michigan’s 7.4 million registered voters losing their right to decide whether to protect Michigan’s fragile population of 658 wolves in the November 2014 election.

    On May 9, the NRC voted 6-1 to establish a wolf hunting and trapping season in three areas of the Upper Peninsula between November 15 and December 31.

    KMWP is committed to protecting Michigan’s wolves. KMWP will continue to support this ballot referendum and is considering other options, including another referendum campaign to place S.B. 288 on the ballot in November 2014.

    • rork says:

      Even if moot, having the referendum in 2014 will make it harder to forget what happened.

  19. Robert R says:

    Hypothetical ?

    I believe this has been post but it brings a good question.

    The small Russian town of Verkhoyansk has recently been fighting a “super pack” of about 400 wolves. The predators have attacked livestock and killed 30 horses in four days.

    Twenty four teams of shooters and trappers have started thinning wolf numbers with officials offering a cash reward of £210 for each skin they turn in.

    The size of the pack has stunned animal experts, who say wolves usually hunt in small groups of six or seven. In this case, the Super Pack may have been driven together because of a sharp decrease in their usual prey: rabbits.

    The cold, remote town is located in “Stalin’s Death Ring,” so named because the former dictator exiled prisoners there. With a population of just 1,300, town officials say they need more manpower and will begin shooting wolves from helicopters once daylight hours in the region increase.

    Lets say wolves were protected and hunting or trapping was not aloud. They continued to populate but there natural prey was all but eliminated by hunting and predation and all that was left was livestock??
    I don’t think no one would alow this to happen in the u.s. If some want the wolf so badly protected you must pay the price.

    • CodyCoyote says:

      Of course a super-pack of wolves hunting 200 miles from the Arctic Ocean way in far East Siberia way north of Mongolia in the middle of absolute Nowhereski-vosk has tons of relevance and parity to our Northern Rockies situation on the ground…

      People who live in such desolate places have to take what Comrade Babushka Mother Nature metes out.

      Oh by the way , Robert…the population of predators follows the abundance of prey up and down in parallel. Just look at northern Yellowstone…only 23 wolves in three packs, less than half what was there at the peak, and the elk herd count down from 14,000 to somewhere around 4500 depending on how you tally it.

      • Robert R says:

        Cody your right it does fallow the abundance of prey, but the prey ran short, so livestock was the next prey species. I do believe the elk herd was at 19,000 not 14,000.
        Jon I don’t where you get the #200 wolf claim, I do believe the biggest around #175’s.

        • jon says:

          Robert, this is a serious question. Do you really think that there is a super pack consisting of 400 wolves? Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. It’s not me who says that wolves weigh 200 pounds, it’s the wolf hating hunters and ranchers that do. What would be an acceptable number of elk in yellowstone park according to you Robert?

          • Robert R says:

            Jon an acceptable number of elk for any where would be the carrying capacity of the environment. I think it’s good that the numbers have been decreased.

            The point was a (Hypothetical question) not that I believe there is such a super pack.
            Lets say wolves were protected from hunting or trapping. The wolf continued to populate but there natural prey was all but eliminated by hunting and predation and all that was left was livestock. I don’t think it would this way and that’s why I said Hypothetical.

            • Mark L says:

              Robert R says,
              “an acceptable number of /elk/ for any where would be the carrying capacity of the environment.”

              Ok….just insert another animal. Say, wolf.

              So if you didn’t think there was a ‘super pack’, then why bring it up?

            • rork says:

              I’ve seen deer at carrying capacity – in MI, we didn’t have enough predators, and weren’t shooting enough. I never want to see it again. It’s a recipe for destruction. It reduces the carrying capacity of the land. It’ll make some plants completely vanish. It hammers the farmers, who start doing terrible things. It unravels the efforts of well intentioned forest managers. It resulted in near-unimaginable winter kills, and a heavy toll on young of the year most winters, not just bad ones. Health of deer was bad. It’s not even good for hunters. Just try to find the good in that wind.

              • Robert R says:

                Immer isn’t the carrying capacity for any animal determined by the available food source/vegetation or prey and or the weather and climate.

                Mark I brought it up to make a point that it could (hypothetically) happen (IF) predators ran out of there natural prey species

              • Immer Treue says:


                The carrying capacity will fluctuate. It is not static. Things change, even with predators. Inherently I feel that is the problem with the game farm mentality with elk/deer etc. hunters can manage the ungulates, then you have a bad Winter or two and its five years before populations are restored.

                Plus with stuff like CWD do you really want that many deer/elk. There are more deer in the upper Midwest than whenever. Is this necessarily good?

                When do you look at the ungulate population in terms of its ecological carrying capacity? Is it more “normal”
                After four or five easy Winters, or after a couple really tough ones?

              • JB says:

                Amen, Rork. I’ve brought up this example before, but it deserves revisiting. In Sharon Woods Metro Park (Columbus, OH) during the early 1990s the deer population grew to number 347 in a 308-ha park (that’s a little over 1 square mile). In 1991 over 50 DVCs were reported on adjacent roads, the park had a visible browse line, and had lost >150 plant species.

                The Yellowstone elk population near carrying capacity would/has had similar effects, as have numerous other parks where both “natural” and human predation is eliminated. These should be lessons both to hunting fanatics, such as Robert, and anti-hunters, such as Jon.

              • ma'iingan says:

                Most of the forested ecosystems in the eastern US have been permanently altered by white-tailed deer – they have been the scourge of forest diversity over much of the landscape.


            • Immer Treue says:


              But the carrying capacity itself fluctuates over time. You get elk/deer populations at the max carrying capacity can support, then a bad Winter, and thousands die of starvation.

              Cases in point:  Lolo elk, winter of 1996/97 where elk numbers dropped from ~ 12,500 to  ~ 8,000. This is prior to any real wolf activity in the area, and after an elk high of ~ 16,000 in 1988 when there were no wolves.  So the elk population was cut in half prior to wolf activity due to winters, over hunting (female elk harvest stopped since 1988) and decline in carrying capacity.

              Even by 2007/08, when wolves had substantial impact, malnutrition was also an important factor in elk mortality.

              Source: IF&G News August 2010 Volume 22 number 2.

              Not saying wolves don’t have impact on Lolo elk, but IDFG goes on to say in 2005 is when wolf depredation on Lolo elk herds began to rise sharply, the population was at~ 5,000.


              I can’t locate my original source, but from a hunting forum you will see references to the Winters of 95/96 and 96/97.


              Even this year as  heavy April snows (50+ inches) and sub zero temperatures extended to the end of the month contributed to starvation and some very skinny deer.

            • jon says:

              I don’t know of any other animal that has to be kept in the lower hundreds besides the wolf. Why is that Robert? Why are there thousands of elk, bear, cougar, etc but some are whining about there being too many wolves when the wolf population is far lower than the elk, deer, bear, and cougar population. Why is that?

              • rork says:

                I think you know the reasons jon, and are mostly saying they aren’t good reasons, and I mostly agree, but will give it a stab:
                Ahem, it is because wolves eat allot of ungulates.
                In upper MI it might be more than 10% of the deer, every year, perhaps 20K deer, maybe 25K. (I’m not saying that is too many, I’m saying the perception or missperception is that it is too many. Even if a few less deer are available for hunters, I was and am still willing to pay for wolves with some of those deer, cause I place a value on wolves.)
                And this: we have about 20 times as many bear as wolves in MI’s UP, and maybe they eat allot of deer too, but more are fawns, and, wait for it: hunters at least get to sport hunt those bears, quite a bit infact. So the bears have value to the hunters. If they can’t hunt the wolves, the wolves are of less value, or even no value. Again, I’m not saying this calculation is nearly nuanced enough for my tastes, but that it is the one made (perhaps unconsciously).
                Corollary: Bears may be better tolerated and killed less because of their value to sports hunters (and in turn, to the corner store, which may get a few less deer-hunter customers, but the bear-hunter customers make it up). Folks have argued that could be true for wolves, and some people here have said that could be wrong, but I think it might be true – but how true, eh? I personally don’t need the extra value sports hunting adds to want healthy populations of either, but others with weaker biological understanding and greater selfishness sense only their personal immediate costs and benefits. Getting folks here to value cougars is gonna be hard, once they appear in any numbers. Maybe 5% of the people here understand how modest coyote effects on deer are, finally – and I’m reporting that as a positive sign I’m ashamed to say.

              • Mark L says:

                Also, there’s less gray/black market value in wolves and cougars than in bears. Wolves (even grey) eat lots of stuff other than ungulates, but ungulates are their primary prey in a lot of places because most of the other stuff has been hunted out (or was never there to begin with).

                rork’s approach is a ‘value to people’ approach rather than a ‘value to ecosystem’ approach, fair enough? Not saying 1 is right or wrong, just making an observation.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          Actually , in the late 1950’s the Northern Herd was closer to 30,000 elk, and they were all ribs. Starving. Hence the infamous Gardiner Firing Line method of population control…

          … because we were so stupid to eliminate wolves and most of the grizz.

          I have some serious doubts there there is a super pack of X100 wolves anywhere on Earth , either.

          • Ralph Maughan says:


            The maximum Northern Range Yellowstone elk population so far as I found was a bit over 20,000. That was in 1994.

            It quickly dropped from that, but for many years most of the concern was indeed too many elk.

    • jon says:

      A super pack of 400 wolves? Come on, this is your typical fear mongering BS. It’s just like the 200 pound canadian wolf claim.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      The claim of the 400 member wolf pack has been around for about 3 years now.

      Wolves are not animals to form into herds . . . ever.

      The only question to answer here is who started this rural legend and why does it persist?

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Oh no, please not that „superpack“ from vodka-heavySiberia again! Nobody, I repeat: nobody, has ever seen it. Nobody, has ever photographed it! Once in a while somebody who “want´s to believe” digs this out. Search for older posts here on this blog. The whole story is………simply BS. It was a political issue to sanction wolf culling – nothing more. Since when do you Americans believe what´s coming out of Russia

  20. Peter Kiermeir says:

    To support that Russian monster wolf saga, do not forget to mention that video, showing a pack of wolves going wild in downtown Moscow and ‘charging’ at Russian traffic cops. It went viral with “those who wanted to believe”. Many had trouble working out if it was real or fake. Eventually, the truth revealed itself – it was an advertising campaign for a brand of vodka!

  21. JEFF E says:

    and most does not think sh#$ matters

  22. aves says:

    Illinois Congressman Mike Quigley has moved to protect millions of bird deaths by introducing a “cost neutral” bill requiring federal buildings to incorporate bird safe measures:

  23. Peter Kiermeir says:

    No, this time no bashing of the usual suspects, Idaho/Montana/Wyoming/NewMexico/Arizona …. 🙂
    We all have our own share of “rednecks” and many reasons to look into our own backyard first. It´s eastern Bavaria again. The region of Germany bordering the Czech Republic, with the Bavarian Forest National Park. The Bermuda Triangle for the Lynx! The Lynx Project continuously releases them into the wild, they even breed …..and disappear! Once in a while you´ll find them again, albeit dead. A few end up as a roadkill. Others, like the one last year, poisoned with insecticide. The one recently, the female pregnant with three fetuses, shot and left near a popular hiking trail as a statement that the Lynx is definitely not welcome by some……hunters and peasants! And there we are again, back with the usual suspects.
    (article in German language only but you get the picture)

    • rork says:

      Thanks Peter. Keeps me in practice too (Mom and her cow-farmer family from Bad Wiessee – it’s why I know some about hunting in Europe).

  24. Peter Kiermeier says:

    Washington license plate fee to help pay for wolf kills

    • Immer Treue says:

      Don’t know why all states with wolves have not done this. It allows wolf advocacy to directly put its money where it’s mouth is. I know WI has a wolf plate, but not sure where that $ goes.

      • Peter Kiermeier says:

        Is it known if this is a special „wolf-motive“ plate or whether all personalized license plates are subject to the (additional) fee?

        • Immer Treue says:

          If ma’iingan is around, I think he could fill us in on WI. I think it’s a conservation plate with the & going into a general fund.

          • ma'iingan says:

            Immer, the Wisconsin Endangered Resources license plate monies go into the Endangered Resources Fund. This fund had been used to pay for wolf damages, and eventually was no longer sufficient to cover the annual cost of depredation.

            Now that wolves are no longer listed depredation costs are paid by the sale of wolf harvest tags and the Endangered Resources Fund is used for other endangered species.

  25. jon says:

    These are the people who get to have a say on how and how many wolves are killed. Notice there seem to be no non-hunting conservationists on that list. Mostly hunters and houndsmen. There is also a rumor going around and it’s just that at this point that Wisconsin is going to let trappers and hunters kill 400-500 wolves this upcoming hunting and trapping season.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Very irresponsible. This is why it was such a bad idea letting states manage anything.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        There’s too much corruption and very little oversight and enforcement at the state level. Not that it doesn’t exist at the Federal level, but it’s much more difficult.

        • Mark L says:

          I mostly agree. Many wolf issues are actually morality/corruption issues in disguise. (smiling faces)

        • Mike says:

          This is why national forests and parks were created in the first place. The same people who want to wipe out wolves are the same douchebags who didn’t want Glacier National Park.

  26. Mike says:

    Can anyone verify that the Obama administration just reversed course on the delisting action? Just got an email from CFBD.

      • Rancher Bob says:

        Nice link, first they claim to have stopped wolf delisting single handed then they ask for more money because things may change. They even use the PLEASE word, good to see the old wolf used to loosen the purse strings no matter the side.
        Then jon post a Toby story, someone ring the bell to start the next round of fighting or did it even stop.

        • Mike says:

          False equivalency.

        • JB says:

          “…first they claim to have stopped wolf delisting single handed then they ask for more money because things may change.”

          I noticed. It annoyed me as well.

          “…someone ring the bell to start the next round of fighting or did it even stop.”

          I don’t know. It seems the federal ‘brawl’ has fragmented (with delisting) into a bunch of smaller fights. I wish they would turn their focus to restoration efforts in the southwest and northeast and just let the NRs and GLs cool down for a while. But too many people have a vested interest in stoking the fires.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            That’s what happens when you return ‘management’ to the states. Instead of one battle, you could potentially have 50. The worst decision ever was to delist and return control to the states. And permanent damage has been done because of it. Those thousand plus killed wolves can’t be brought back.

            I see no problem with the statement you mention because it is true, you don’t know what could change from one day to the next. Nothing has been decided; the decision is on hold meaning that it could change, and there are those who will be trying to change it.

            I do agree with you that it would be nice to focus on reintroduction of the wolf to New England and the Southwest. Whenever a wolf does arrive from Canada to New England, it is shot and we also get the same “I tought it was Wiley Coyote, I did, I did!” response.

            The RM and GL states will never cool down, and the RM states haven’t since the beginning. But we all knew that. What was surprising was the response of the Great Lakes states, who I always thought were proud of their successful wolf polulation.

            It is foolish to keep thinking science and cool heads will ever influence their views of predators and the wolf in particular. Somebody will always be stirring the pot, and if people let their guard down, the wolf could go extinct. You can’t expect pro-wolf sides to ingnore and hope someday they’ll come to their senses. Hasn’t happened yet and doubtful if it ever will.

            Have a good holiday weekend, all. We’ve got the craziest weather here – rain, rain, rain, snow in our mountains, and temps predicted to go down into the 40s for the next couple of nights, and it’s almost June!

            • JB says:

              “And permanent damage has been done because of it. Those thousand plus killed wolves can’t be brought back.”

              Not the same individuals, but certainly wolves are reproducing. I’m curious how this constitutes “permanent damage”?

              “The RM and GL states will never cool down, and the RM states haven’t since the beginning. But we all knew that.”

              No we didn’t–and we don’t. In fact, there is widespread disagreement on whether cooler heads will prevail with time. My guess is that they will, though it might take a generation.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Each animal is a unique individual contribution to its species. Wiping them out, and when the numbers are threatened saying’we’ll just replace them with some from somewhere else’ is callous and does nothing to prevent the imported wolves misconception that keeps perpetuating and that no amount of scientific evidence seems to convince.

                Let’s hope wildlife can hang on until then. Cooler heads and wolves have been mutally exclusive for hundreds of years. Only this time, we don’t have the numbers to continue with guesswork about what might happen.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                For example, Yellowstone’s Alpha female 06 was said to demonstrate superior hunting, care of young, and pack survivor skills. Now that she’s gone, she won’t pass either these trais or propensity on to young or other packs. Sure, another wolf might, but this particular wolf definitely will not. Callously destroyed by ignorance.

              • JB says:

                I’m sorry Ida, but arguing that each individual is unique (an argument I can agree with) is a long way from demonstrating permanent damage. The reality is that the population of wolves that gave rise to NRM-US wolves was hunted (and trapped) and it certainly hasn’t seemed to hurt wolves ability to hunt, reproduce, socialize, and otherwise do what wolves do.

              • Mark L says:

                are you saying that the past hunting and trapping of NRM wolves has had no effect on their socialization, and none on their future genetic makeup either? Explain.

              • JB says:

                “are you saying that the past hunting and trapping of NRM wolves has had no effect on their socialization, and none on their future genetic makeup either?”

                No, of course not. Remove a breeding animal and you’ve changed the genes of future pack members. But given that wolves have been hunted since…well, forever, I think the burden of proof is on anti-hunters to show that any changes in genotype that result because of hunting actually have discernible effects on morphology or behavior (that is, that “hunted” wolves are some how physically and/or behaviorally different from un-hunted wolves). And even if one was able to show such an effect, then one needs to consider whether the effect actually constitutes “damage” (per Ida’s claim). So from an evolutionary perspective, is there any reason to believe that the wolves being killed in a hunt are more well adapted to their environment then those that are not killed? I am not aware of any evidence that would support such a claim?

                Likewise, the fact that pack social structure CAN BE temporarily disrupted by hunting is not evidence of “permanent damage”. Wolf pack members are always dying, and packs seem capable of adapting to such disruptions; or they break up and the wolves form other packs (which isn’t necessarily bad, and actually could be good!).

              • JB says:

                And the above should not be taken as an argument in favor of wolf hunting; rather, it is merely a bit of critical thought applied to arguments against.

  27. jon says:


    Here’s the new wolf control scenario…

    “How many game wardens would it take to stop 100,000 armed Montana sportsmen from waging all out war on wolves, or for that matter mountain lions and bears (black and grizzly), to halt the destruction of big game herds?”

    Answer…”It can’t be done…there are only about 100 conservation officers working statewide for MT Fish, Wildlife and Parks.”

    This is exactly where FWP is pushing predator control in this state. It’s already happening. Sportsmen have grown extremely disgusted with the agency’s inability to actually do something about wolf control…rather than just talk about it, and then turn around and hamper predator harvest by enforcing overly restrictive methods of take and seasons that prevent hunters from pursuing predators during times of the highest chances for success.

    FWP has lost all credibility with those who have funded the agency for decades. Sportsmen who have witnessed the destruction of once great big game herds are now beginning to take matters into their own hands…and they are now shooting predators every chance they get – day or night 365 days a year.

    Vigilante Sportsmen Conservationists…

    Kind of has a ring to it, doesn’t it?

    How much sportsman provided funding do you think the wildlife agencies in MT, ID and WY haved pissed away on wolf studies or so-called “wolf management”?

    Time to pull the plug on ANY sportsman provided dollars being used on wolf anything…unless it’s aerial gunning to take their numbers down quickly.

    Toby Bridges

    Toby sees himself as a conservationist, yet constantly continues illegal activity. Is there something wrong with this picture?

  28. Rita k Sharpe says:

    I think he ,Robert R, was being sarcastic.

  29. Immer Treue says:


    I know, but this sarcasm made little sense, especially if one reads the included story.

    • Rita k Sharpe says:

      I agree.

    • Robert R says:

      Immer does the whole control thing over wildlife make any sense other than selfishness on both sides.
      One side wants to hunt for management and the other wants total protection and to let nature take its course and to close off public lands.
      I have had a dog attracted by coyotes, but the outcome for the coyotes was my dog killing them to defend himself.
      The point being made was, if total protection for all predators is made do some live in fear because there pet might be killed or them self be injured.
      There was a woman recently injure because she tried saving her dogs from a cow moose.
      Keep track of your dogs and keep them leashed. Some of the ones who want wildlife protected are the same ones who don’t use precautions with their pets.
      Yes maybe I was being sarcastic and at times I can be very blunt with my comments.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        There’s only selfishness on one side – the killing side.

      • jon says:

        What about dogs used to pursue wildlife Robert R? Wouldn’t it make sense to not let them run loose in the wild where wolves might kill them? If you support people leashing dogs, than you should be supporting not letting hounds run loose to pursue and chase unpredictable wildlife.

        • Robert R says:

          Jon the difference is hounds and dogs for pursuit are trained to hunt, most family pets are not. Hounds are either in dog boxes or on leashe until an animal or fresh track is found. To add about the hound hunters using protection. Some use protective collars and kevlar vest but it does not totally stop a wolves from maiming or killing.

          • Louise Kane says:

            and just why should trained dogs be let loose to terrorize wildlife, Robert? I can’t imagine how it would feel to be chased by a pack of baying, barking trained dogs. Why is this legal. I think its a terrible thing to do to any animal.

      • jon says:

        Hound hunters are not using protection when they let their dogs run free Robert. Why is that?

      • Immer Treue says:


        There’s a difference between blunt and ridiculous. Woman’s dog got killed by coyotes, that “may” have been protecting a den site. Hell, Ive been pecked by red-winged black birds protecting nest sites. It’s bloody nature.

        I am on record many times of supporting sound wolf management, and somewhere in this blog I have a pretty comprehensive answer for what I thought was “sound”. Perhaps we disagree on what wolf management should be, as I don’t recall you submitting any ideas.

        I live in, and travel in wolf country. I have a dog. Yep, he stays close. Flew up to Canada fishing three times with a dog too. Don’t do anything stupid. Backpacking and winter camping trips with a dog… Better be a responsible dog owner, or you won’t have a dog.

        • Robert R says:

          Immer there are some who would love to see some get their dogs killed by wolves and have commented to that affect and even human life means nothing to some if a hunter is involved.
          I also did not mention wolves in my comment, I said all predators, but it always reverts back to wolves for some reason, why?
          You are correct in saying to be a responsible dog owner but sometimes things can go beyond anyone’s control.

      • Immer Treue says:


        “The point being made was, if total protection for all predators is made do some live in fear because there pet might be killed or them self be injured.”

        Other than grizzly bears and possibly wolverines, can you name another predator that is not hunted or trapped at one time or another in the lower 48, during sometime in the year.

        Back to coyotes, the critter that got this discussion going, has very little protection.

  30. Leslie says:

    Wyoming: “Proposed quotas for the coming wolf hunting season are about half of what they were last year, and that trend is expected to continue.”

    • CodyCoyote says:

      I went to the Cody wolf hunt meeting on Thursday night 5/23. Unlike other meetings around Wyoming where only 2-3 people showed up , suggesting folks are either happy with Wyo wolf hunt management or no longer care because of either futility or apathy, the Cody meeting was attended by dozens.

      Here’s some of what Ic ame away with . The principle reason Wyoming dropped its 2013 wolf hunt quota to 26 – half last year’s 52 head – is the disproportionate amount of wolves taken during the year for ” control” due to alelged livestock predation. In 2013, that will be roughly two wolves for the ranchers for every one taken by sport hunters. So Whether they admit it or not, Wyoming’s recreational wolf hunts are driven by rancher taking their ” quota” first . Problem being, the rancher take is a wild card variable while the planned hunt quota is fixed

      The other thing that has far ranging problems for Wyoming is the drop in Yellowstone Park wolf population and especially breeding pairs. YNP is down to 6 breeding pairs now. it could easily go to five. The Wyoming plan is based on YNP maintaining at least 5 breeding pairs so the state of Wyoming only has to maintain 10 breeding pairs outside the Parks and Wind River Reservation. The Guv Mead admin negotiated with USFWS to establish this unwritten but very much adhered to ” Dual Status” in maintaining a statewide wolf population count.

      I asked the outgoing large carnivore specialist and meeting moderator Mark Bruscino ( who leaves his job June 1 ) how the biologic bookkeeping would work if Yellowstone dropped to 4 breeding pairs. Does that mean Wyoming has to post a pair from outside the Park to balance the book count ? He basically said yes, that while that is not written into the plans, Wyoming would be stupid to not ” give” YNP a breeding pair on the book as ex patriates to keep the state above the threshold.

      Here’s the monkeywrench on that notion: Wyoming hunters took a heavy toll on ” Yellowstone” wolves this past season, killing all the collared YNP research wolves in the east and north east portions of the park as those. Like it or not, wolves that spend most of their time in Yellowstone and den there are still hammered by Wyoming hunters outside the Park, and this does mess up the books. Recall the outrage last fall when the collared YNP wolves were showing up in Wyoming’s mortality. Ditto Montana for that matter. WYoming’s wolf plan is hard welded to Yellowstone’s wolf vitality. They don;t talk about that much , but it has severe implications if a bout of disease or other impacts suddenly drop Yellowstone’s denning pairs.

      Someone else asked Bruscino a question I had not heard put before. Could Wyoming simply go back to Alberta or B.C. in Canada and get fresh new wolves if they come close to the relisting threshold? Bruscino said that would be fine and doable, if Canada upheld their end. And it would add in some genetic diversity. Hmmmm…

      One other thing. I asked Bruscino about Wyoming wolf management costs going forward in the face of decreasing federal budgets and shrinking state budgets. Wyoming spends about $ 450,000 on wolves, but only recieved $ 80,000 in wolf hunting license fees ( 4500 tags at $ 18.00 each ). He said USFWS gives Wyoming $ 230,000 per year towards wolf management, and he did not expect that to change in spite of the sequester ( ???!!!!??? ). Is that funding a slushy honorarium to Wyoming from USFWS in lieu of the agency forsaking wolves and allowing Wyoming’s flawed plan to become du rigeur? I think as much. Bruscino also noted tha the Wyoming Legislature will give Game & Fish whatever they feel they ened to ” manage” wolves in a lump sum , even though the Legislature has curtailed G&F funding in other line items and did not allow G&F to increase license fees this past session. But they are willing to bankroll wolf funding, big time. Nobody should be surprised by that , but it does not remove the stain or stench of the whole funding thing.

      The ONLY reason that the outfitters and guides are supporting Wyoming’s lower quota at all is they do not want to get anywhere near the re-listing threshold. I have yet to hear of any outfitter anywhere in Wyomng who promoted wolf-only paid hunts as a new big game opportunity. They offer wolves as dessert to the main course of elk hunts. The outfitters have to that extent been marginalized. I’m OK with that. But those damn ranchers still hold the wild cards and jokers in this new game of Wyoming Wolf Poker.

      Bottom Line: Wyoming’s wolf hunt plan going forward is not near so rock solid and stable as they would have us believe. Stuff could happen several different ways .

      At least Wyoming does not allow trapping of wolves like Montana and Idaho …a small sliver of a silver lining.

      * Funny afterthought: my spellchecker flagged “Bruscino”. Suggested I replace it with ” ruinous”. Make your own case.

      • WM says:


        For what it is worth, the wolf management plan for WY isn’t really a done deal yet. Remember, there were 3 suits pending in 3 different jurisdictions (WY, CO and DC). That, to my understanding has been reduced to one, now, through various court procedural actions, and the fact that plaintiffs dropped the WY suit, in favor of going forward in DC, before a liberal federal judge in that Circuit, and away from the “local” influence of a possibly more sympathetic forum in Cheyenne.

        So, what will be the paramaters of wolf delisting in WY and how should the plan look to accomplish that, after a DC based federal judge weighs in? Stay tuned, but I guess you may know all this.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          WM—Wyo G&F is proceeding forthwith as though their plan and management structure will stand, and the hunt quota will remain about where they are right now for at least the next 4 years till the mandatory 5-year USFWS ” probation period” expires. Inlcuding the predator Zone. They really are confiedent they will rpevail in this latest lawsuit cycle. Although I have to note that Wyoming and its friends of the OCurt started screaming and whining when the enviros decided to drop one of the two major suits and/or roll it into the lawsuit currently set to be heard in the Washington D.C. court of appeals. WYoming wanted those suits to be ehard in the courtroom of their own friendly judge Alan Johnson in Cheyenne. Funny how they whine and whine about enviros ” Venue shopping” for Judges, then turn right around and do it themselves when the tables are turned.

      • Robert R says:

        I can understand not killing the wolves. The problem I have is that YNP and the scientist/biologist do not own these wolves just because they have a collar, there not pets or are they? Maybe they should put shock collars on them instead and a pet safe fence around YNP.
        Also I have watch a number of documentaries on wolves and alpha male/females are not the only ones breeding, so breeding pairs??

      • Ida Lupine says:

        🙂 Good post.

        Yearly hunting is going to cause the inevitable harm, and result in relisting at some point, I am sure of it. Could this inevitable relisting make a good case for a buffer zone around the parks?

        • Ida Lupine says:

          And I question the logic of importing wolves from Canada to reinvigorate the gene pool, only to have them killed every year?

          • jon says:

            That really seems like a waste. Those wolves they “import” would likely be killed by hunters or ranchers/ Wyoming kicked itself in the butt by allowing wolves to be shot as predators in most of the state.

          • Leslie says:

            Ida, weirdly enough that import idea could come to pass. I say this because the idea of importing grizzlies into the GYE if and when the diversity gets too thin is seriously talked about.

          • SEAK Mossback says:

            Stranger things have happened. Sweden has a very small inbred wolf population, that they (those with the political upper hand) want to keep very small, but be able to call it genetically healthy — so they have been importing and releasing a small number of animals at the same time as hunting them to try to hold a tight lid on the population. A very small population of brown bears in the heavily grazed and traveled Pyrenees Mountains is supplemented with imported animals from Slovenia, as an alternative to trying to expand habitat capacity while reducing impacts on the current population. Such things happen when society tries to balance priorities on the point of a needle in heavily populated landscapes.

      • Leslie says:

        Cody, thanks for attending. And interesting about those YNP quotas. Travel to the Lamar this spring and you will be hard pressed to see any wolves there at all. There are no wolf watchers on the hill this year. It is not fully known if there is a breeding pair, but there may be. And it is not known if the remaining wolves are breeding or not.

        Over time the genetic diversity in the Park (and its WY environs outside)I am certain will be compromised.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        This year Idaho will be trapping wolves in Island Park on the west of Yellowstone.

        This could mean even more wolf mortality in the Park.

        It is as though the states were trying to eliminate wolves from the Park by this indirect method.

        • cobackcountry says:

          You don’t need a degree or a cattle lease to see cause to agree with that statement.

          There needs to be more consideration of pack dynamics and dependency given to management policies.

  31. Louise Kane says:

    state of oregon and conservationists come to agreement to bypass legal action

    90% of people in oregon want stronger protections for wolves!
    conservationists fight back to ensure state follows its own wolf recovery plan and exhausts non lethal methods before killing wolves

    • jon says:

      I think it’s only a matter of time before the wolves in WY are put back on the endangered species list. Wyoming really made a stupid move by letting people kill wolves outside the trophy area.

    • WM says:


      WA had the benefit of learning from how OR was hamstrung by its poorly drafted wolf management plan. The WA wildlife commission, said all along it wanted to remain “flexible” in applying its plan, while the OR plan got pushed into court, with a resulting settlement.

      Next round? Will the OR wildlife commission get smarter and realize the error of its ways (according to the view of some) with not being “flexible?”

      By the way, I just got back from SE OR. I guarantee wolves will not be welcome there, except for maybe on the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. Cows are king in that dry, high desert, except for maybe the Kiger area of Steens Mountain, where mustangs are numerous and trying to be adopted out by the costly BLM “adopt a wild mustang” program.

  32. Mareks Vilkins says:

    After three months Yakutia’s wolf hunt (with the goal to reduce wolf population from 2300 to 500)has resulted in 583 killed wolves.
    Now professional teams are searching for wolf dens to kill pups.

    Wolf depredation costs 28.6 million rubles (however, Dr.D.Bibikov pointed out that investigation in Soviet times showed that up to 90% consisted of fraudulent claims).
    Bounty expenditures are 32 million rubles for current year.

    • jon says:

      This is disgusting killing wolf pups? The things humans do to animals is sickening.

    • WM says:


      So, like how many US dollars or Euros are the equivalent of $28 million rubles?

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        ok, WM – I see your point:

        1)28,000,000.00 RUB = 893,105.77 USD

        2)32,000,000.00 RUB = 1,020,692.30 USD

        Latest Exchange Rates: 1 United States Dollar = 31.35127 Russian Rouble

  33. jon says:

    The quota for Wisconsin’s wolf hunting season this year is 275 wolves. Does anyone know if a certain amount of tags will definitely go to the tribes like last time? If this is the case, then far less than 275 wolves will be killed. There is an ongoing lawsuit to stop the Wisconsin wolf hunt this year because of the use of dogs on wolves.

  34. ma'iingan says:

    “The quota for Wisconsin’s wolf hunting season this year is 275 wolves.”

    Fact check: The 275 recommendation emerged from Thursday’s Wolf Advisory Committee Meeting. From there it will go through the WDNR Wildlife Policy Team, the Secretary, and ultimately the Natural Resources Board. Public opinion will be solicited along the way, both through online comments and public hearings.

    There is an ongoing lawsuit to stop the Wisconsin wolf hunt this year because of the use of dogs on wolves.

    Fact check: The appeal of the decision to allow the use of dogs for wolf hunting is still pending, and it only addresses the use of dogs, not the wolf hunt in general. In addition, the judge’s decision is only valid until permanent wolf hunt rules are established, which will likely happen in 2014.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Public opinion will be solicited along the way, both through online comments and public hearings.

      We’ve seen the results of that. The equivalent of throwing public opinion and 250,000 signatures into the trash and doing what they want anyway.

    • jon says:

      ma, do you know if any of the tags will be given to the tribes? If so, how many? Is it a lottery system for the tags?

      • ma'iingan says:

        As always, 50% of tags issued for the Ceded Territories will be allocated to the Ojibwe. It should be roughly the same percentage as last year, when they were issued 85 of the 201 tags.

  35. jon says:

    This is a graphic video. It’s a video that shows coyote hunting with dogs in Idaho. Watch this video and tell me that these people care about wildlife.

    • jon says:

      And these people film it to. This is a sickness that these people have. They get off on killing wild animals.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I don’t watch theses things anymore. I’ve seen enough! People like these, Toby Bridges, Don Peay, are all making the wolf advocates’ job much easier. This should not be considered part of a management program by any stretch.

        Having ten different states managing their wolves in ten different ways makes no sense at all. A wolf’s habitat is a range and we need to go back to Federal management as soon as possible.

      • cobackcountry says:


        The earliest uses for dogs, by humans, were for hunting. It might not meet with your tastes, and I can understand why. But there is a great deal of historical reverence for hunting with dogs.

        I most certainly think that there are limits to how dogs should be used. However, hunt that requires a dog will give an animal chance that a hunt without need for dogs would not provide. If you need a dog to hunt something, chances are it has evolved to exceed the basic hunting skills of man. At very least, it is a clever quarry.

        Just an observation.

  36. Ida Lupine says:

    Yes, good people. 🙂

  37. Ida Lupine says:

    But today, wolves haven’t been hunted since forever. They were a species in recovery. So any amount of hunting, in addition to what they face in nature such as deaths from starvation, mange, bad winters, is going to affect them. The intent by those in management authority is to decrease their numbers yearly to the lowest possible that they can get away with (not necessarily the healthiest number), so to combine that with the other risks wolves face, it isn’t out of the realm of reason to think their could be permanent damage to the packs’ genetic diversity.

    The breaking up of and forming of new packs would be encouraging, I agree. But packs break up not for natural reasons but indiscriminate killing of them by humans.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      oops, that should read ‘there’ could be.

      Also, I wanted to bring up something else. The anti-wolf and hunting groups who may or may not be anti-wolf are very noncompromising. Many or most who are pro-wolf are willing to reluctantly accept that hunting or removal for livestock depredation may be necessary at times.

      But the anti-folks won’t stop killing collared wolves, won’t agree to a buffer zone, want to hunt by any and all means such as hounding, poisoning, baiting, trapping, snaring, shooting, bowhunting, lengthening seasons and takes. Even the delisting was done by slipping in a rider to a must-sign budget bill, and didn’t get decided upon on its own merit.

      Why can’t they make a few concessions for the sake of compromise? Talk about selfish. There should not be hunting of wolves every year – it is not sustainable.

    • JB says:

      “But today, wolves haven’t been hunted since forever.”

      Not true. The animals that were brought to Yellowstone and central Idaho were hunted in Canada, and wolves in the NRMs have continuously been killed for depredating on livestock, as well as via illegal poaching. While this occurred the population did fine. And you did not address my other arguments. Wolves have been hunted throughout their history and continue to be hunted in nearly all of the places they persist.

      “…any amount of hunting, in addition to what they face in nature such as deaths from starvation, mange, bad winters, is going to affect them.”

      That’s an assumption on your part, and it isn’t necessarily tenable. It is interesting to me that you are using the same logic the anti-wolfers use to claim that the impact of wolves is strictly additive, not compensatory. SOME of the wolves that are killed via human hunting would have died anyway, Ida. Just as some of the elk killed by wolves would have died anyway. And again, “affect” isn’t the same as “permanently damage”.

      “The intent by those in management authority is to decrease their numbers yearly to the lowest possible that they can get away with (not necessarily the healthiest number), so to combine that with the other risks wolves face, it isn’t out of the realm of reason to think their could be permanent damage to the packs’ genetic diversity.”

      True. But there is no indication that this is a problem. And remember, if wolves are managed for 150 individuals per state, that’s 400 wolves, plus any dispersers from Canada, WA and OR. That’s hardly a genetic bottleneck.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I’m glad I asked.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        You’re extremely patient with our questions. Thanks! 🙂

      • Mike says:

        ++And remember, if wolves are managed for 150 individuals per state, that’s 400 wolves, plus any dispersers from Canada, WA and OR. That’s hardly a genetic bottleneck.++

        That’s a pathetic number for such a wide area.

        • Rancher Bob says:

          Idaho has been managing for 150 wolves for 3 hunting seasons and still has over 600 wolves. Montana has been managing for 425 wolves and still has over 600 wolves, so over 1200 wolves in two states and the pro-wolf people act like 150 is the magic number even more so than the anti-wolf people were hung-up on that number. Managing for 150 wolves maybe a goal but there are still over 1200 wolves, and all I hear is a bunch of bitching like the population is 150.
          We’re approaching a wolf density where the states support more wolves per square mile than Yellowstone in many areas, and the states support humans also.
          Pathetic is the lack of reality.

          • CodyCoyote says:

            RB— maybe we should also manage for 150 beef cows per state…being alien experimental exotic nonnative species and all …then let the cowchips fall where they may

            • Rita k Sharpe says:

              Good one, CodyCoyote.

            • Rancher Bob says:

              From what I’ve read here about cows I thought that was already your management plan.
              Reality of it is there about the same chance of seeing 150 wolves per state any time in the future as 150 cows per state.

            • cobackcountry says:

              One step further CC. Why not manage elk, deer, and other wild game (Bison comes to mind) as the primary food source for humans? We might end the need for cattle entirely!

              Sadly, neither solution is viable socially or economically.

          • Robert R says:

            RB even if there were ten times that it would never be satisfactory.
            The wolf is here to stay and will survive just like the coyote. I don’t want the wolf eliminated only managed.

          • Mike says:

            Rancher Bob –

            When you factor in available habitat, yes it is a pathetic number. Not to mention that slaughtering Northern Rockies wolves hurts their chances of repopulating other states.

            The recovery of the grey wolf in the lower 48 is linked directly to the NRM and Great Lakes. The wolves must be allowed to repopulate former habitat to be fully taken off the list.

            Managing for the minimum damages this goal, and there are people who precisely know this and are hoping for it. These people are known as “douchebags”. They are usually trappers, and hunters who use lead bullets.

        • WM says:


          JB, was just giving you the legal requirement for maintainin delisting in the NRM. The truth is wolves from the NRM non-essential experimental population plus those coming into MT, WA and a sliver of ID, are continuing to expand range and ultimately numbers. There are today, and will be well in excess of 1,000 even with some of the rather drastic take-off goals of the three core states.

          What is so pathetic to me is that folks like you keep clinging to and restating hte miniumum number in the 400-450 range, as if it were true. It is a BS argument, and will never happen.

          WA has officially between 50-100 until the next official count this winter. That likely means there are closer to 100+ today. Similar stats in OR officially and unofficially.

          So, let’s be intellectually honest, here. Could there be more? Sure, but then the tensions increase dramatically with livestock producers, hunters and pet owners. I am just waiting for the reaction in WA when some of our new wolves take after some urban/rural pet owners, llamas or horses. Just watch the quick shift from those “wait and watch” folks in the middle.

          RB is right about all the bitching about the minimum numbers. They will never reach those low thresholds, but they will be managed to reduce conflict, even on Indian Reservations, as they already are on the Colville Rez.

      • Louise Kane says:

        jb do you really believe 400 wolves provide a healthy genetic population? Your statement that 400 wolves plus any dispensers is hardly a genetic bottleneck, seems equally presumptive. It seems unlikely under the current management objectives that many dispersers will make it into these states and if they do they will be quickly killed. Since wolves have only been hunted (in recent years) with this level of mortality, isn’t it a bit premature to make projections about the effect of relentless killing of these populations from a genetic or evolutionary perspective. Its odd to think that an animal that once ranged widely and in great numbers might be hunted under the conditions they now are with no genetic or biological consequences.

        • JB says:


          One’s “health” could be measured along a continuum; making a judgment about what constitutes “healthy” dichotomizes this continuum. Existing research seems to suggest that if 450+ (I mis-typed “400” above) wolves are maintained, along with connectivity between populations, that the population will be sufficiently genetically diverse to continue to persist. Does lowering the population to this level increase risks to the population? You bet. Does trying to manage them at this low a level increase the costs of management? Yep. Is there any discernible difference between the effects of 500 wolves and 1000 wolves on elk populations and livestock depredations? If there is, it is probably very small.

          I didn’t say it was smart management. But it appears that it is “sustainable”–insomuch as a population is likely to persist.

          • WM says:

            ++Is there any discernible difference between the effects of 500 wolves and 1000 wolves on elk populations and livestock depredations? If there is, it is probably very small.++

            I guess one needs to define “small.” Maybe if these wolves are spread very thinly across the landscape. Otherwise, I expect every wildlife agency that has wolves in its respective state would likely challenge your statement from a biological perspective, as would livestock owners, hunters and the politicians that represent these areas. I don’t care whether there is academic debate over whether there is “additive” mortality. A wolf will eat between 12-23 ungulates a year between November and April, as well as additional elk from May thru October. Not all of them are sick, injured or old. Wolves eat young ungulates of the year in fairly large numbers (along with some other predators). A thousand wolves will surely eat many more than 500 wolves. And, if it results in higher density of wolves there will be fewer of these dead/weak, injured elk to go around.

            • JB says:


              It isn’t any academic argument to attempt to discern the “true” effect (i.e., irrespective of other natural causes) of wolves on a particular population–it’s the fundamental question (unless you’re really only interested in killing wolves to get back at them for having the audacity to eat ungulates).

              One question we can answer is the effect on livestock. If you look at the USFWS’s data, you’ll find the first year there were more than 450 wolves was ’01, the first year there were at least a 1000 was ’05. Take a three year running average of those years (to smooth out the “bumps”) and you’ll find that between ’01-03 there were an average of 664 wolves, which killed an average of 290 domestic animals (mostly sheep); between ’05-07 an average of 1283 wolves killed an average of 488 domestic animals (again, mostly sheep). I’m willing to concede the point about judging the size of this effect. I’ll stick by my original comment and suggest that ~200 domestic livestock over three states doesn’t amount to much.

              • Robert R says:


              • WM says:


                I tend to agree with you a degree. BUT, what about all those wolves that got thumped for depredation of livestock by WS shooters, or the untold numbers of wolves dispatched by 3S? I don’t think you counted them in the net tally?

                See, the problem is nobody wants to talk about how we get from one data point to the next (500 => 1,000 or more) in some free-form fashion. It is the costs associated with the higher numbers, whether it is the preventive measures or non-lethal and lethal control costs of non-compliant (from the livestock owner’s perspective). To keep the effect “small” additional expenditures of public and private funds must be made, to prevent the negative effect and keep it “small.”.

                And, I will submit the elk may indeed, locally, be fewer, more skittish, possibly lower in weight going into and coming out of winter, into the calving season, where lower weight calves are dropped, survival rates possibly lower and easier to take by those extra wolves. You know the arguments as they get brought up regularly by the anti’s, the wildlife agencies and hunters/livestock owners who don’t particularly relish the actual or (or perceived) changes with more wolves going from one population threshold to one that is doubled.

                And, one footnote to my agreement on your trending statistics. We are still dealing with the effects of small numbers, and other variables not accounted for, including the important fact that no depredation will occur where wolf populations increase in areas where livestock are absent, because there simply is no risk. For example, there were no cows or sheep in Yellowstone NP while the wolf population sated on plentiful elk during that time in the Park. Same is true in parts of Central ID, where no livestock were grazed. It is much about opportunity creating the risk and the result that shows up in the summary numbers. Just as one incident involving multiple sheep killed in one or two nights by just a couple wolves is an abberation. It skews that stats the other way, which is also not representative of the risk.

              • WM says:


                [….continuing] and I should say, where I have hunted elk for the last twenty years there are no domestic livestock of any kind EVER, but there sure fewer elk with more wolves doubling or tripling in about five years (qualification: no other variables adversely affecting habitat to reduce elk numbers, but maybe a few more bears). And, I stand by that part and so does IDFG.

              • JB says:

                “…what about all those wolves that got thumped for depredation of livestock by WS shooters, or the untold numbers of wolves dispatched by 3S?”

                Good point. According to their data, they averaged about 100 more wolves killed ’05-’07 per year than were killed ’01-03 (so about 33 per state per year). I don’t think 3S’s costs agencies anything, so I’m not sure why you would count that in the tally? Again, relatively minor effects.

                “…the important fact that no depredation will occur where wolf populations increase in areas where livestock are absent, because there simply is no risk.”

                Yep. And there are an order of magnitude more livestock on public lands than wild ungulates. Hmm…I wonder how one might reduce the costs to agencies, while increasing the benefits to both ungulate hunters and wolf enthusiasts…? 😉

                “there sure fewer elk with more wolves doubling or tripling in about five years (qualification: no other variables adversely affecting habitat to reduce elk numbers, but maybe a few more bears). And, I stand by that part and so does IDFG.”

                Now we get to the meat of things. Perceived localized impacts. Agencies deal with this problem with other species as well (local farmer says too many deer here). When wildlife populations are not managed near their minimum, then it is easy to issue a depredation permit, or increase hunting quotas locally for a time to deal with such local problems; however, when you attempt to manage a species near the point of minimum viability everywhere, you lose such flexibility.

                By the way, your (and agencies’) assertion that no other factors have changed assumes omnipotence about the ecological drivers of elk populations. Cougar populations, for example, are notoriously hard to get a handle on…

              • Robert R says:

                I think you made a good point that holds true for most animals.
                Cougar populations, for example, are notoriously hard to get a handle on…
                Any animal that gets educated either from being hunted or hunted by a predator or has had a bad experience learns to avoid the things that can harm them and they adapt.

              • WM says:

                ++…when you attempt to manage a species near the point of minimum viability everywhere, you lose such flexibility. ++

                Except you can always do some genetic augmentation through translocation. Afterall, isn’t that the way this all started in the NRM, with the non-essential experimental population. For ESA purposes there really is no colorable genetic “extinction” issue for the NRM that cannot be fixed fairly easily. That has been proven in spades over the last fifteen years. But it does leave open the issue of “throughout their range.” It is the combination of species and space to be occupied … in this instance it is one of tolerance by states representing those who live there. The science seems pretty easy. The politics is not.

              • WM says:

                ++By the way, your (and agencies’) assertion that no other factors have changed assumes omnipotence about the ecological drivers of elk populations. Cougar populations, for example, are notoriously hard to get a handle on…++

                Ya got me there, but cats leave scat and tracks. Not much of that seen. These elk remain fairly local. Lots of wolf scat and tracks. Cat(and bear) scat can be analyzed, if it could be found, elusive nature of the animal, or not. Absence of cat scat tells the agencies (and me) something else. Presence of bear scat says they are there, but still not the big impact of the wolves that were (not so many now) there. Will the elk population rebound, and how long will it take? Stay tuned, I’ll be reporting back this next October, hoping I see more young of the year.

  38. Zach says:

    Oregon approves settlement allowing ranchers to shoot wolves…

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Some more information on the Oregon wolf issue

      I liked the part about Idaho having fewer wolves now and more depredation on livestock while Oregon has more wolves and fewer livestock killed in 2012 – only 4.

      • bret says:

        Barb, my understanding is that the Imnaha pack has spent a good deal of time in the Eagle Cap, if they move lower as it appears they have, things could change.

        On May 15, 2013 a yearling cow was confirmed by ODFW to have been killed by wolves of the Imnaha pack.
        third and fourth confirmed wolf depredation incidents by the Imnaha Pack in 2013.
        On May 21, ODFW confirmed that 6 sheep were depredated by wolves which resulted in four dead (3 lambs, 1 ewe), one injured (ram), and one missing (lamb). By the Umatilla River Pack.

      • Louise Kane says:

        also interesting in this settlement is that it is predicated on the idea that non lethal management must be used first – and they spell out fladry and alarm boxes as well as the requirement that 4 documented attacks must occur before lethal management can be used. I have not had time to research the issue about being able to kill wolves attacking herds. This part is troubling as I don’t see the same requirement for hard evidence. It seems like a move in the right direction but as the article mentions this will depend on the parties living up to their agreements. I hope the agreement has competently defined the range of non lethal tactics that must be employed and more importantly the proof that must be submitted.

        • zach says:

          I feel like if this is going to work, it’s going to be in Oregon.

          • jon says:

            We can only hope. The wolves did nothing wrong. They are exhibiting natural wolf behavior and they should not lose their lives just for being wolves. Where are these ranchers when their livestock is being killed by wolves? That is the question that many want to know. The wolves will be wolves and there is no changing that, but ranchers MUST adapt and change. This is a human caused problem, not a wolf. Clearly if livestock is being killed by wolves, then there is a period of time where ranchers are not watching over their livestock. I don’t know if one calls this lazy behavior or what have you, but ranchers obviously need to watch over their livestock more carefully.

  39. jon says:

    Ranchers saying that wolves don’t belong? Someone needs to inform these ignorant ranchers that wolves have been on this planet far longer than they have.

    • jon says:

      The wolves were here first and we humans have encroached on their territory, not the other way around.

    • Rancher Bob says:

      Leaches, ticks and fleas are part of a healthy ecosystem and have been on this planet longer than rancher so we should just let them suck the blood from us because they have been here longer?
      It’s ignorant to think that ranchers have a larger negative impact on wolves than than people like you, you’ve totally displaced wolves over a larger area of previous historic range than ranchers. People like you encroach over a large area of wolf territory maybe you should look at your negative impacts on all wildlife a bit closer before judging others.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Just for the sake of discussion, in your minds eye, if natural decolonization occurred, or if the magic mystical indigenous (sarcasm not meant for you) where left alone (oh, I thought it was a coyote) again sarcasm not meant for you, in the almost twenty years, where do you think the NRM area would be now in regard to wolves?

        • Rancher Bob says:

          There were wolves here, mid western Montana, in 1993 and from the people I know from this area they had been for over 5 years. Now 20 years later north west Montana would have the wolves they now have Yellowstone and south of here very few wolves. All the talk of SSS is mostly talk you can’t SSS that many wolves to stop the colonization of wolves. People have jobs and work killing wolves takes time and effort and people who live here work, play and hunt very little time left over. Sure some wolves get SSS but it’s a drop in a lake.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Rancher Bob,

            I’m fully aware of wolves in the Glacier area, and of course the Ninemile wolves of the early 90’s.

            These are not the mystical
            Wolves to which I referred.

            • Rancher Bob says:

              I guess that I can’t tell a mystical wolf, but there were more wolves in Montana than the ninemile and glacier wolves. I suggest looking at a Montana wolf pack map, there’s easily two different groups of wolf populations. Remove the southern packs and you have what would have happened without transplanting wolves in Yellowstone.
              If you have another 20 years you’ll be able to watch the spread of wolves across Washington and Oregon. There’s more people and more open country and all the SSS they can muster won’t stop the spread. I would guess it won’t take 20 years.

          • jon says:

            That’s not my fault rancher Bob. I’d be more than willing to accept wolves back into my state and I would have no problems with it. Ranchers have caused the death of many wolves. So to say that I have had a larger negative

            • Rancher Bob says:

              It is your fault, what have you done to bring wolves back to where you live? Is all you time and effort put into that mission?
              Sure wolves die here but wolves now live here overall a positive. Where you live no wolves live so overall a negative. Both areas historical wolf range.

              • jon says:

                it’s not my fault Bob. I would support and would love to have wolves back in my state, but I’m only one person. Do you think my state is going to bring back wolves just because I want them back in my state? of course not. I wish it was that easier, but it’s not.

              • Rancher Bob says:

                I didn’t say it was easy,I ask what have you done. Look at history and who has changed history, most changes started with one person. The claim here is most people support wolves on the landscape yet people like you don’t have wolves. Do most people want wolves or do they just claim to want wolves. You claim to want wolves yet seem to have made no effort to make wolves a reality. Seems a bit like I support (fill in the blank) I just don’t want (fill in the blank) in my backyard.

      • jon says:

        You’re ignorant to think that ranchers don’t have a larger negative impact on wolves.

        • Rancher Bob says:

          wolves live here they don’t live where you live so who is a larger negative..!.

      • jon says:

        It’s true Bob, you ranchers do infact have a larger negative impact on wolves.

  40. Louise Kane says:

    Immer in your question to RB are you assuming ESA protections remained in place?
    but no wolves were brought back into Yellowstone, is that correct?

    good question and to add to that question
    if those 66 wolves were not brought to yellowstone, and the same numbers of wolves recolonized how would your position be altered?

    • Immer Treue says:


      Damn right ESA would be enforced! You hear so much from the antis about indigenous wolf this and indigenous wolf that… How come they did not “take off” like the infamous 66? They had years to do so. If wolves were indeed there, so was SSS.

      Only difference may have been Feds and radio collars watching them.

    • JEFF E says:

      there were not 66 wolves brought into Yellowstone

      • SaveBears says:

        If I remember correctly, the total between Idaho and Yellowstone was 66 wolves.

  41. jon says:

    Don’t these people know that federal trumps state?

    “This is another livestock industry attempt to attack the very vulnerable Mexican Wolves that are out there and to challenge the broad authority and responsibility of our federal government to conserve and eventually recover this endangered animal,” Robinson said.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I hope our new Interior Secretary can see how vulnerable our wolves against with the likes of what’s out there. The worst thing ever was to delist them.

      • SaveBears says:


        Once an animal is deemed to be recovered, it is an improper use of the Endangered species act to keep them on the list, it is this type of thinking that is going to result in a complete rewrite of the ESA..

        • Leslie says:

          PEER sues over political deal behind wolf delisting

        • Louise Kane says:

          with wolves savebears, delisting them was a tragedy especially since they are up against the same ignorance, hate and bias as in the past. And that damn recovery plan, what a mess, a travesty. Wolves need federal protection, most predators are not being managed responsibly or humanely.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          True, but the immediate calls for hunting them afterwards and the lame reasoning for it could bring the numbers way down again. It’s not a rational, scientific approach but an emotional one, and extremely disappointing to see still existing in modern times.

          • cobackcountry says:

            It was always a very real expectation that once wolves reached the point of delisting, the would be hunted. Were that not as assumption, I doubt (can’ prove it) we would have gotten this far with reintroduction.

            Many species become extinct while waiting to be listed. But many are also managed so they don’t make it onto the list, or return to it. The last thing anti-wolf groups want is to slug this out again.

            This is a fight that we need to learn from. The state of wolves going forward will likely be a blueprint for some other species. However, not man of the animals that are listed live in a pack dynamic. Wolves are unique in their reproductive, social, and predatorial, and geographical needs. So, who knows.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              You are right in that we need to be passionate about all wildlife and wild areas to protect them. The future looks pretty dire.

              I think what really gets people though is how irrational the wolf persecution has been for centuries, and how disappointing that misinformation and superstition about them still persists. All for reasons that exist only in the human mind and one-sided, human perception of the world, and don’t necessarily exist in reality.

              I’m sure that whatever the misdeeds wolf haters can come up with, they can rest assurred that wolf advocates will continue to ‘hound’ them.

              • Rancher Bob says:

                Lets face it there’s a lot of misinformation and superstition about wolves on both sides of the wolf issue.
                One of the biggest misinformation point would be that the wolf is being wiped out again. How about the future is dire, is that just a perception of the mind?

              • Robert R says:

                Rancher Bob there to many misconceptions about wolves and other animals also. One of the biggest of why the wolf populated the way they did is subordinate females were breeding. It’s been proven and shown in a few wolf documentaries. So does the pack mentality really hold true all of the time??

              • cobackcountry says:


                Yes, we should be passionate. I agree. For me though, it was never a question of if wolves would be hunted. It was a question of when. They have been hunted as long as there have been humans on his continent.

                Rancher Bob,

                There is misinformation abounding. As for wolves being wiped out, my personal feeling is that if they were completely unprotected…they would be wiped out. Why? The same reasons they were before in areas. All of these actions and reactions are coming from a non-tangible human valuation. They vary as much as people do. That is why the science should be a divining rod.

                Robert R

                I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that betas have historically bred from time to time. It really is an adaptive behavior in my view. Just like coyotes have larger litters when there is abundant food? Or as it is thought bears delay implantation until body chemistry indicates how many cubs the mother can feasibly carry and feed based on fat stores. In times where food abounds, more cubs will be born. Of course, that off sets food supplies once they are born, so they self regulate to some degree…just as they are cannibalistic when a natural fluke causes less food.

                The future is dire, in my opinion. Not because of too few animals or space, but because there are too many minds unwilling to be open to middle ground. Fixing problems doesn’t occur when you give the opposition their way. It occurs when you understand why they oppose you and how to appease that reasoning.

            • Louise Kane says:

              “It was always a very real expectation that once wolves reached the point of delisting, the would be hunted. Were that not as assumption, I doubt (can’ prove it) we would have gotten this far with reintroduction.”

              I’m not sure I agree with this. I think the general public supporting wolf recovery might have expected some form of control of wolves post delisting but random trophy hunting not so much. Certainly not trapping, snaring, helicopter hunting, near endless hunting seasons etc. The state of wolves going forward needs to change radically before it should ever be accepted as a blueprint for other species. Its a disaster now.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I agree. I don’t think anyone has a problem with having wolves removed for livestock depredation (blech! I hate to use those kinds of cold and mechanical terms for living animals) and while we may not love it, could tolerate and accept it, but the absolute hunting free-for-all tht has come about has abused of the privilege of hunting.

              • cobackcountry says:

                It was actually the subject of much debate pre-intro. It was also apart of the conversations and plans submitted for review under the ESA and via litigation.

                I have followed the story for many years. I was a part of many petitions, sat in at a few meetings/hearing way back in the90’s in Wyoming. From get-go there was always the issue of ‘when’ they’d be managed.

                I always felt, and still do, that you can have wolves and have hunting, or you likely won’t have wolves period. Managing a reintroduce species beyond the endangered status requirements is part of the process.

                I completely understand that some people who read here, and post here, oppose all hunting. I also completely understand that these recovery efforts and the protections many animals receive, and the habitat they have that is conserved is in large part funded by sportsmen. So, I would ask, how else do you propose managing them? Or how do you propose funding continued protection and conservation efforts?

                It is a very emotional topic. But it is also a very economic and publicly propelled topic. Without the revenues the government receives from hunting and fishing based fees and taxes, we would literally be managing resources (wildlife) like Mexico.

                We are not a socialism, (although our wildlife and fisheries management polices are very socialistic and based on the early actions of a few socialist with some clout, smarts and bucks in the USA). So, in a democracy, the will of the people comes to fruition by votes. Like it, or not, the votes of people in the areas where wolves have been reintroduced do not align with a hunt free perspective.

                So, on a national level, the wolves have been managed for a sustainable level under the guidance of the ESA. Once those requirements are met, the states have a preponderance of the burden both ethically and financially to manage these animals.

                The dialogues and planning which started pre 1995 on the subject always included how wolves would be managed. So while you may no have expected it, I sure did. I also think it is a far more humane way to manage the wolf numbers than trapping and sterilizing them (which has a far more extensive long term effect on populations than eliminating some of them immediately). But of equal importance for all things wolf, how would you manage and fund them otherwise? You won’t get a tax reform for it, you won’t get a legislative change to aid it. However, you might get the ESA (long under fire and highly contentious) tossed right out or over-hauled in a manor that would be even less satisfactory.

                Hunting is a major part of our natural resources management model and laws. It has always been a corner stone and consideration, and the basic funding foundation for what has been conserved. Multiple Use laws, Migratory Bird recovery, P & R Acts and even NEPA and the ESA include the wants and needs of hunters in their EIS’s.

                Unless you completely over-haul our entire wildlife management system, we should all expect to concede to some compromises we may no like.

                For the record, I’d rather have wolves and have them hunted than lose them all together. I fully believe, and you don’t have to agree, that hunting wolves has probably lessened much of the SSS mentality and action that happened early on.

                But before we go trying to change our system (and I think it needs some changes) we should consider what would happen if it changed to the other side’s line of thinking? It is just as possible to go that way. What if we had a system that was like African systems. or Mexico’s?

                I ask myself these questions often. It is not without heavy heart that I often see the reasoning and logic to some of it all. I am seeing more and more how our management hangs by a thread, I rarely find another system which I’d fight to change ours to resemble, let alone risk some of our key tools for furthering research and conservation.

                For me, this was never about ‘if’ and always about ‘when and how’. It was always a far bigger picture than hunting and the ethics of it. It was about things like , do wolves need to be brought back? Do they stand a chance? How do we do it? How do we pay for it? How do we do the most good while doing the least damage?

                Wolves have implications the same way we do.

                I hunt, and will continue to hunt. It is as much a part of my heritage as Christmas trees and turkey dinners are for most families. I don’t want to hunt a wolf, but I do think some genuinely well intentioned people do. Not everyone who enjoys hunting is a vicious and evil, backward or uneducated person.

                I don’t generally argue wolf issues, because I am that person who is not extreme enough to make most people happy. I believe they should be here. I support hunting them as a trophy species because I feel it is a necessary tool to managing them. I don’t feel they are vermin, and they should be hunted on a draw or points system. Do we need that yet? I don’t know, I am clearly not expert enough to make those determinations….nor are most of the people who post here. I am not a biologist (yet). So I can’t tell you that I have an opinion about what numbers are ‘enough;. What I can say is, the people who drew up the management plans and the officials who determined those numbers, did it with more background and a broader picture and specific requirements they had to meet than we could probably ascertain the magnitude of here. I will question it, and learn about it, but I will also feel darn lucky to live in a country where our system is designed to give a damn about it, and everyone it impacts.

                I don’t think we often give enough consideration to how the desires of some effect those of others. That is where the system can never win, you can’t please everyone, and most people only want to please themselves, so the song goes.

              • cobackcountry says:

                Side note:

                I respect your input. Thanks.

                But I’d say not everyone agrees that the wolf management of present is failing, not even all scientists can agree on that. The general public, wile entitled to an opinion, should really understand the many facets of management.

                There is no glowingly humane way to manage animals. You don’t want them hunted, snared, copter sniped, but you mention that the general public may have expected some management.

                There I not a major large predator in this country that isn’t hunted. (Polar bears perhaps but I do think their is a tribal hunt-could be wrong). Why would wolves be excluded? Before they were placed back in the current areas of contention, I rarely heard a murmur about them being hunting in the areas where there weren’t extirpated, and I read a lot and stay more informed than the average person likely does.

                I think it became a much bigger issue because of the media accessibility, because of the populations being high enough to see a wolf here, and see one shot, and grocery store dependence mentality of a lot of people. So it brought hunting wolves to the forefront. At the very least, it has gotten more people to examine our processes. I count that as progress. As with any evolution of common people’s education (albeit through the media some times)….. we will see more people take a stand. I am always glad to see people take a stand. It is the key to our freedom. 🙂 Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

  42. bret says:

    My old stomping grounds in SE WA state, a rather nice surprise!

    from WDFW wildlife weekly

    Monday of this week District Biologist Wik was notified of three pronghorn antelope
    being sited in Asotin County.
    On Wednesday, Wik was able to locate
    the two bucks and one doe with the help of the local Department of Transportation (DOT)supervisor.
    It is not known how long it has been since naturally recolonizing pronghorn have been seen in the
    State, but it has likely been a very long time.

    • SaveBears says:

      That is good news, I am always amazed when I drive through SE Washington that I don’t see pronghorn, the climate in that area is perfect for them, it will be interesting to watch how this goes.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      For example, when Grandjeat was following the effort to take gray wolves off the federal endangered species list, he got the impression Americans were “taking the attitude there was a possibility of sharing territory with other species – that wolves had a right to roam that territory.”

      Boy, is he in for a rude awakening.

      • Peter Kiermeir says:

        The question is how naïve and off-set from the real world this professor actually is. I know, they already have electricity and internet and all this modern stuff in Bordeaux. So why isnt´ he just using it? Or is he merely on a sightseeing tour with his spouse in lovely Montana, sponsored by his university?

        • JB says:

          I don’t know, Peter. This statement suggests he’s got a pretty good idea about what’s going on:

          “ it seems more that you were saying, ‘We can control wolves,’ ” he said. “It’s a power relationship, that maybe hasn’t altered in the way it might have been. I’m wondering if this is more about the human desire to dominate the environment.”

          • Peter Kiermeir says:

            He has more or less a mirror situation at home: Hostile ranchers (ok, we are talking about sheep not cattle)and a hunting happy society against carnivores. In the Alps region they make front against the few wolves they got there and in the Pyrenaean mountains the locals shoot the bears as soon as stocks are replenished from Slovenia. On the opposite he´s got those dedicated wildlife conservation orgs (a far cry from “Defenders”) backed by those you call the “enviros” . So what does he really expect? Fresh input and modern ideas for carnivore management? Sorry, if this sounds cynical but he already might know the most progressive part of American wildlife management: Boooom! Maybe there is one factor that you got but not he in France: wildlifewatchers! Think, he could have learnt more about conservation on Ralph´s blog here !

            • JB says:

              “…Think, he could have learnt more about conservation on Ralph´s blog here !”

              Well then, send him an email and invite him to comment!

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I can’t wait for his impression when he sees one of those ‘smoke a pack a day’ signs. Maybe they’ll clean up the place for his arrival.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I had read where one of the windfarms got an incidental take for one (incredibly) endangered California Condor? How awful and unfair is that.

  43. Jim Naureckas says:

    I was wondering if you could comment on this piece–I’ve seen it posted a couple of times by friends on Facebook, and unless there’s been a recent revolution in wolf studies, it seems pretty misleading.

    • Mark L says:

      Isn’t that the same one as on

    • Rancher Bob says:

      Prepare yourself in the coming years your going to find many of the things once thought to be true about wolves were wrong.

      • timz says:

        You mean they are actually going to start killing kids at bus stops?

          • Rancher Bob says:

            What kind of sicko LOL’s a kid being killed at a bus stop. Statistically speaking the chance of someone being killed by a wolf increases every day.

            • JB says:

              “Statistically speaking the chance of someone being killed by a wolf increases every day.”

              Actually, statistically speaking the probability should decrease with decreases in wolf populations (in NRM states).

              • Rancher Bob says:

                Actually every day without a wolf attach increases the chance that it will happen, same could said about any event, statistically speaking.
                While the number of wolves is decreasing at times in the RMA wolves are increasing range and increasing numbers as we blog nation wide. (:

              • Louise Kane says:

                RB in 100 years only two confirmed fatal wolf attacks in all of North America, Canada included. One of the attacks is still debated. So how does that impact your theory about the chances of attacks increasing. Like a meteorite killing you, it might happen but would a rational person actually worry about this?

              • JB says:

                Perhaps a bit more nuance is required. For the most part, people are interested in the risk of an event happening–in this case, the probability of being attacked/killed by a wolf. This probability is a function of a variety of “risk factors” (e.g., proximity to wolves, working/recreating outdoors, wolf densities locally, wariness of wolves, etc.). Reduction in any of the risk factors for any individual reduces the probability of said individual being attacked or killed. So probabilities have increased for those living in (or visiting) eastern WA and OR (due to exposure to the hazard), but have decreased for those living in the NRMs (due to decreased exposure to the hazard).

                The likelihood of an event occurring does not increase with non-occurrence (see the Gambler’s Fallacy:

            • Louise Kane says:

              RB Timz made a very facetious remark. if children were really being killed at bus stops, than you might be able to call me a sicko. Its an absurdity, the whole hype about wolves taking over and threatening people’s safety, like martians or something. Your outrage is misplaced. send some outrage toward your elected state officials who are mismanaging your wildlife and perpetuating myths and stereotypes about wolves.

              • Rancher Bob says:

                I didn’t bring up wolves killing people and there’s no outrage. Also Montana officials are doing a good job of managing our wildlife your the one spreading the myths and stereotypes about wolves and the residents of Montana. I’ll ask you what I asked jon what have you done to return wolves to your state? Seems your state official are the ones you should be outrage about your in no danger of attack from wolves so what’s the problem.

        • Rancher Bob says:

          I was thinking more of like the belief the wolf is a apex predator. A predator that as a adult has no predators of it’s own. What apex predator of North America gets killed as often by another animal. What apex predator of NA spends so much time in a submissive posture. The wolf is a sissy when not in a pack setting.
          How about the wolf is needed for a healthy ecosystem. If this was true wouldn’t ecosystems of Canada be noticeable healthier than ecosystems of the US. Where are the studies comparing the two.
          That should be enough for now.

          • Mark L says:

            the Wolf=sissy thing:
            most men alone in known grizzly territory without a gun or bear spray assume the same stance, unless they are trained.
            Wolves are just like gangsters in an urban setting…tough guys until they are caught alone. Unlike us, they have no training until they actually do it. Wolves become hardened just like people through experience.

            • Robert R says:

              Mark you don’t how true your statement rings true with all wildlife.
              Wolves become hardened just like people through experience. This is why the wolf will not be eliminated.

            • Rita k Sharpe says:

              We’re not comparing animals to humans, are we?

              • Robert R says:

                Rita why not?
                Animals teach there young the do’s and don’ts of survival and what to fear. Animals who get shot at hurrassed or have had near misses with other animals avoid being harmed.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Humans are animals.

          • Mark L says:

            As far as the ecosystems go, it may matter how long it takes for them to degrade (seasons, decades, centuries) and whether they roll to a green or brown state.

          • JB says:

            “How about the wolf is needed for a healthy ecosystem. If this was true wouldn’t ecosystems of Canada be noticeable healthier than ecosystems of the US.”

            Except that Canada manages the hell out of their wolves as well. In all likelihood wolves will have little to know impact on ecosystems (ungulates included) outside of national parks. Ironically, I was just thinking about posting some research that demonstrates this (from Canada).

            • Rancher Bob says:

              “wolves have little to no impact on ecosystems outside national parks.” I believe most people would be surprised to hear that one.
              Look forward to reading your posting.

              • JB says:


                I’ll be meeting with one of he author’s of the paper in a few weeks and will wait to post then. Some here won’t like it, but what the paper makes explicit is that trophic cascades (or broad ecosystem-level effects) are not likely outside of NPs (or protected areas) because humans negatively influence wolf populations. Note, I don’t think anyone will like this because: (a) the wolf-lovers will not be able to use ecosystem benefits to justify wolves in more places (at least without protection, which is unlikely), and (b) it again conflicts with hunters’ claims that wolves are having substantial impacts on ungulate herds (this, of course, is a prerequisite to trophic cascades, as wolves are thought to influence plant biomass via predation on ungulates).

            • Louise Kane says:

              JB re a comment on your post on the upcoming paper on wolves and trophic cascades….
              one might argue that this research only underscores a need to protect wolves. If as you state…” trophic cascades (or broad ecosystem-level effects) are not likely outside of NPs (or protected areas) because humans negatively influence wolf populations” then this research seems to underscore the value of protecting the species to preserve the maximum associated benefits? You’ll have to post the link to the article when it comes out

              • JB says:


                I’m going to refrain from commenting in detail until I talk with the author, but my understanding is that it isn’t simply the negative influence we have on wolves (which protection won’t totally fix), but also the ways in which we modify landscapes. The authors assert that in human-dominated landscapes “bottom-up” factors (i.e., quality and quantity of forage) are more far more important drivers of domestic ungulate populations than top-down predation. Of course, that doesn’t mean that there are not reasons to conserve wolves; it just means we should not expect the types of ecological changes that accompanied wolves return to YNP.

              • Louise Kane says:

                Thanks JB please do send a link when published. I would like to think that the existing and emerging body of literature that illustrates the impacts humans have on discrete systems calls for a more thoughtful approach on how to minimize negative consequences. I know there is that small issue of how you perceive negative. Lets say I’d argue for natural intact systems or at least as close as is possible. For this reason, I hope that wild predators start getting a better shake.

          • ma'iingan says:

            “The wolf is a sissy when not in a pack setting.”

            Except the ones that aren’t. We’ve had a couple of alpha males in leghold traps that wanted nothing more than to kill us. Not from a fear posture, but with ears up and forward – pure aggressive.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              I believe it! 🙂

            • Mark L says:

              Not that different from us after all. I’d reach the same conclusion under the same circumstances.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I think so too. It’s nice to think that when some of these YouTube nitwits video their exploits, the wolf would spit in their eye.

            • JEFF E says:

              Didn’t you read Mech?

              The Alpha, Beta, Omega, thing is dated and largely discounted by currently scientific opinion. (Actually a few years old now).


              Basically the way I understand it is that the characteristics that were once thought to determine the status, and hence the label of “Alpha” are not accurate.

              • Ralph Maughan says:

                There is real irony in this revision because now some people are calling other people (or themselves) “alphas”.

                If it doesn’t work for wolf packs, the concept is even less appropriate for people.

              • JEFF E says:

                ya, I know.
                as one who has been following wolf ecology, and understanding dynamic wolf ecology, for over 40yr.,

                I find it curious that you can hear a pin drop.

                I guess the current crop are not all that.

      • Louise Kane says:

        when do you think these ramped up wolf attacks will start, someday soon maybe like in the Alfred Hitchcock movie the birds. In a remote cabin, the hero and his family are first trapped in heavy snows while thousands of wolves snarl and lunge first at their door and then at the homes of the terrified townspeople…So please Jim remember you heard it first here. All these things you have heard about wolves will be wrong. They will rise up, kill all the cattle, then the elk, the moose and deer and then just for fun (because they like to kill for fun) the small children at bus stops and their horrified parents trapped in their homes. The ultimate wolf nightmare coming to you soon.

    • SAP says:

      See Packard, Jane M. 2003. Wolf Behavior: Reproductive, Social, and Intelligent. Chapter 2 in L. D. Mech and L. Boitani, Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. University of Chicago Press.

      p. 53: “These terms (alpha, beta, omega) have been used in describing interactions among orphaned siblings in captive groups [omit citations] as well as free-ranging wolves [omit citations]. The terms may be appropriate in ambiguous situations in which the relatedness among pack members is unknown or complex (e.g., more than a single pair of breeders). However, I agree with Mech (1999) that the terms are inappropriate for typical packs consisting of parents and offspring(Packard 1980).”

      p54. “Based on studies of a larger sample of packs over multiple years, I tend to think of the alpha behavioral profile as an internal state (or mood). Moods are subject to change as the health and environment of an individual change.”

      I think this whole “alpha/beta/omega” thing has been passed around in popular portrayals of wolves. It sounds kind of sciencey, and it implies great intimate knowledge of a particular pack of wolves. What Mech, Packard, and other experts seem to be getting at is that most wolf packs consist of a breeding male, a breeding female, and assorted offspring from a litter or two or three. What we call the “alpha pair” is simply the breeding pair.

      Also, with a a few notable exceptions from Lamar Valley primarily, we really don’t have much of a window into the lives and interactions of wolf packs. But we love to act like we do.

  44. Peter Kiermeier says:

    “A Yukon hunter has started a social media campaign to ban roadside hunting in the territory. He said the recent killing of a blonde grizzly bear along the Tagish Road is prompting the campaign”.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Good. I’m an advocate for corridors around parks. People try to hide behind weaknesses in laws to justify bad behavior.

  45. Peter Kiermeier says:

    Lion Meat Tacos are the latest threats to conservation

  46. Mike28 says:

    No reason to hunt off the roadways in my opinion, when i have hunted in Saskatchewan it is illegal to hunt within a quarter mile of a road, which is a good thing.

  47. Eric T. says:

    An interesting look at the Cascade coastal wolves as a DPS dealing with potential genetic mixing from NRM DPS wolves and how it could effect delisting.

  48. Louise Kane says:

    Bob Ferris and the settlement in Oregon. I think they did a stellar job

  49. Ida Lupine says:

    What about the fact that the wolf was put here by some greater power, call it what you will? This is why I cannot understand wanting to eliminate the wolf. It goes against nature.

    Mankind is an apex predator with no other predator – I believe native peoples respected and emulated the wolf’s pack hunting. Man also gets a little more courage in a group than he would have alone, and can be an extreme coward. I don’t know that a wolf is any less of a fighter alone, especially when cornered. I wouldn’t want to test the theory. I always thought that Canada’s ecosystems were healthier than ours in America, until lately.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Take on a wolf without the courage that comes from a big gun and a metal trap, and see.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I’d also be more worried about a human pedophile hanging around children’s bus stops and preying on children than I would a wolf.

    • rork says:

      Try searching “naturalistic fallacy” – in science, it is famous.
      Also consider other natural stuff like polio, HPV-16, HIV.
      I’m not trying to contradict famous sayings of Aldo Leopold about intelligent tinkering.

  50. Ida Lupine says:

    I was going to mention the same thing – 2 confirmed deaths in 100 years (or more) from wolves. And probably at time periods where there were a lot more wolves than today. I thought I read that one of the deaths was questionable also.

    Such bizarre propaganda. Compare it to automobile accident deaths or others that happen on a daily basis in our country and we can see how outlandish this resurgence of wolf propaganda really is.

  51. aves says:

    A camera on captive whooping crane chicks being raised at the International Crane Foundation in Wisconsin for reintroduction into the wild:

  52. aves says:

    A camera on a wild condor nest at Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge in California. I think you can view photos/videos without actually joining Facebook:

    The video labeled “Family Time” is my favorite so far:!/photo.php?v=644648642216129&set=vb.545728192108175&type=3&theater

  53. CodyCoyote says:

    My local Am talk radio show in Cody Wyoming today ( May 30 ) has two guests…outgoing Wyoming Game & Fish wolf and grizzly manager Mark Bruscino , and George Wuerthner ( by phone).

    Can be heard live online ( Windows media Player req’d ) at

    MP3 audio archive in a day or three

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I wish these real estate deals would consider ‘air rights’ where birds and bats are threatened by windfarms and cell phone towers. It sounds like a bait and switch where just terrestrial conservation is part of the bargain. All of these high tech after-the-fact assurances mean nothing when even one member of an extremely endangered bird is killed. But, I guess we know what’s important to our country.

      • aves says:

        This is a stunning reversal of where the USFWS was on this issue several years ago when their biologists and regional supervisors were pretty clear that this should not and would not happen. But those that knew the condor best weren’t high ranking enough to stop the political slime flowing from the agency’s hierarchy and above. Now it’s hard to tell the USFWS’s quotes from the wind developers.

        They play up the increase in condor numbers without mentioning it’s only possible because of the continued releases of condors from non-federal captive breeding facilities. They claim condors don’t frequent the proposed area but fail to mention they’ve been within 2 miles and that there’s a major roosting site just 12 miles away. And so on….

  54. Leslie says:

    Here is the place to comment online or by mail for the Wyoming wolf hunt 2013

  55. cobackcountry says:

    I am doing an internship with APHIS and specifically the National Wildlife Research Center. Yesterday, I worked with a biologist who spent considerable time in Africa working to save black rhinos. I spoke to him about the struggles between pro and anti wolf groups.

    I make no light of that situation, but when he replied “I wish there were enough rhinos to be able to consider hunting quotas.” I felt a new level of resolve to assure animals make it off that list, and a little less desperation about the issues that follow their recovery requirements having been met. Just a thought about the way we look at the issues an where our values are placed. How many animals are listed? How many should be getting some more of all this passion? Hmmmm

    • JB says:


      Just an observation- The thread you’ve posted to starts with a picture of a grizzly, and the first post is about lynx, the next about bison…immediatly above your post are posts about fox, wolves, bears, tigers and more bears. I know we get fixated from time to time on wolves, but I think it is safe to say the passion here extends beyond that subject.

      BTW: Say “hello” to Are from me, and good luck with your internship. 🙂

      • cobackcountry says:

        LOL! I am probably the most guilty of being fixated. I live in a fantasy world where public land gazing is extinct ad bison run free in a world where all native trout thrive.

        I am certainly not bashing, it was just a big kick in the teeth to me. I seriously drove home asking myself “when the hell did I lose track of a big picture?”

        I will tell Are! Small, yet big world!

        • cobackcountry says:

          p.s The passion here, is an exception to the rule in most circles I converse with…this site, regardless if which side the passion leans toward, is refreshingly engaging. I actually appreciate the ‘umph’ people here display. It’s MUCH better than the ‘meh, not my problem’ attitude I all too often get.

        • JB says:

          I took no offense, just wanted to make sure you stuck around. This blog (now more of a news aggregator with commentary) has grown by leaps and bounds since I first started posting 4 or 5 years ago. It’s exciting when someone new gets involved–especially when they don’t see things through B&W lenses. Please keep posting!

          • cobackcountry says:


            I’ve been reading and occasionally posting here for several years. I like the direction the page has gone in.

            I will keep posting. This page is an excellent source of info. The posts here are always full of insight.

            I’m always hoping for a middle ground. It would seem the only way to do the most good.

            Are is gone for a week, so may I ask….How do you know him? He is a wealth of information, much like yourself.

            • JB says:

              I hadn’t realized that you’ve posted before–apologies! Are and I went to grad school together at USU (ask him about our hostile takeover of our advisor’s office). 🙂

              • cobackcountry says:

                I will ask hm. It bet I leave with a few more interesting stories!
                I had the please of adhering labels to skunk collars with him. His office is like watching The Discovery Channel.

                Don’t apologize! I switched up the screen name so when my name is googled,I make less of a WWW impression.

                I have actually been following your, Ralph, Elk275,SaveBears, (used to follow post from Linda Hunter) and several other slightly more radical folks here, for a while.

                If memory serves, you were one of the first people to agree with me on topics which I got hammered on….like wind energy and the undeniable fact that nothing substitutes for less consumption in general. 🙂 The irony there is, I live a few minutes from Vestas, which followed those posts by weeks. Woosh, I now feel older!

              • cobackcountry says:

                him, pleasure…an excuse the typos please. My p.c. drops letters when I type quickly.

  56. Louise Kane says:

    the ultimate propaganda “documentary” like watching the old chinese anti intellectual propaganda films

    very sad to see this BS getting 65, 00 hits

    • Immer Treue says:

      The drama “queen”. Look at his list of supporting characters. Says it all, a who’s who of wolf haters

    • jon says:

      That is quite sad. 65,000 hits over 2 years is nothing to brag about. You got videos posted on youtube that get a million hits plus in a few days or weeks.

    • jon says:

      This is his anti-wildlife facebook page.

      He’s bragging about his new documentary. Apparently, his new documentary is going to expose the so called “illegal” acts that were committed with wolf reintroduction. He keeps saying that people involved with wolf reintroduction are going to go to jail, but how many times have we heard this over the years? Wolf reintroduction was not a criminal act no matter how much these anti-wolf people claim it is.

      • jon says:

        Just read all of the comments in rockholm’s page. These people are not only anti-wildlife, but they are sick and laugh when a wolf dies of parvo.

  57. Ida Lupine says:

    Seems to have a familiar cast of characters too. How does he get away with it.

  58. CodyCoyote says:

    Northern Gateway pipeline turned down by British Columbia for lack of environmental safeguards! This is the best news I have heard all year. The horrendous 600 mile twin tube pipeline from the Alberta tar sans over the Canadian Rockies and the Coast Range to a seaport yet to be built on the west coast was rejected by the BC provincial government. Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline was supposed to be the alternative to Keystone XL and a way for Stephen Harper’s conservative pro-industry government in Ottawa to tell the US to go blow smoke. Well, his own western province had other ideas. Maybe Keystone XL is now on the ropes if Obama and Kerry are paying attention here….

  59. Ralph Maughan says:

    Thanks Cody.

    This good news makes my day!!

    • CodyCoyote says:

      Caveat: the federal government of Stephen Harper could still totally overrule this, since Ottawa has the final decision making say. But they would have a hard time letting it slide by now or doing so with a straight face.

      Might be a good time for us Baja Canadians to use BC’s objections to environmentally suspect pipelines on the American side of the Keystone Xl debate . The concerns are real. The industry had sidestepped them , and now have to answer for that in bright sunshine.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        Canada has more of a states rights (province rights) tradition than the U.S.

        I wonder if Harper would try. He has, in my opinion, the kind of attitude that has already changed Canada much for the worse . . . not a friendly place to migrate to for liberals where there is tolerance and good health care for all.

    • jon says:

      From the article.

      “Interest in hunting wolves in waning,” he said. “Where would we be without the trapping that was in place last year?”

      Many trappers asked for more leniency in regulations. One trapper asked for more tools, saying that trapping two wolves last year was “one of the hardest things I’ve ever done,” arguing that increased bag limits will not result in higher harvest numbers.

    • Louise Kane says:

      lets hope that that Sally Jewell protects wolves, as the NY Times argues there is no reason for her not to and every reason to.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        From Leslie’s article:

        But many scientists argue, persuasively, that these delistings are premature — that the service is giving up on recovery before the job is done. For one thing, they note a 7 percent decline in Rocky Mountain wolves since they were delisted and controlled hunts were authorized. They also note that other recovered species — notably the bald eagle and the American alligator — were allowed to expand into much of their historical range before they were removed from the list.

        This is the crux of the matter right here. Delisting is one thing, but hunting has been premature and damaging to the population. Some killers are deliberately targeting park wolves and putting the program and years of valuable research in jeopardy. Speaking for the entire country to remove them from protections where they haven’t even made a start and in remote places where they may be wanted goes against the ESA and democracy, especially since some are constantly whining about outsiders staying out of their business.

        Stay out of the other states’ business then!

        What are these sudden new studies that question the pack hierarchy from decades of research? If other wolves are breeding in addition to the ‘alpha’ pair, I was under the impression that that did not happen frequently. Might it be a function of decreasing wolf numbers and pack disruption? As with coyotes, the more we try to destroy them, the more they reproduce?

        Mother Nature’s got their backs, and I love it!

        So we don’t call them ‘alpha’ – semantics don’t doesn’t change anything about pack dynamics. More BS propaganda.

        I’m hoping Sally Jewell will put an end to this nonsense, but I realize there’s a good probability that I will be disappointed.

  60. Robert R says:

    I know scientist and wildlife biologist need answers but here we go again putting collars on the park zoo animals. I sure would hate to step in one of the snares used to catch bears. You could get a broken foot or leg. They do not always use culvert traps.

  61. Louise Kane says:

    This is cool
    so nice to see
    contrast to some websites showing a small child learning to kill wildlife using a bow and arrow while playing target practice with a live animal or families posing with dead animals and small kids. A refreshing and happy site…

  62. CodyCoyote says:

    And now, some interesting wildlife news, in colorful black and white ! Far right extremists in London being chased thru the street by attractive women dressed as Badgers. The protest , actually against the government’s culling of badgers in England, was led by none other than rock showband Queen’s lead guitarist Brian May.

    I am not making this up….

  63. CodyCoyote says:

    “The Week” magazine both in print and online is sorta the Reader’s Digest of news stories. It’s a great , concise publication and aggregator. Check this out:

    ” Why we don’t need the Keystone XL pipeline ”

    – then when yer done, check out their cartoons section. Best topical funnies out there.

  64. Ida Lupine says:

    Wildlife report:

    Hiking at my local Audubon sanctuary yesterday, and saw some endangered piping plover chicks. Cuuuuute!!!!!

  65. Ida Lupine says:

    Good news!

  66. jon says:

    This is a trailer to Rockholm’s new anti-wolf documentary coming out later this year. According to him, wolf reintroduction was illegal and scientific fraud. Watch the video for a good laugh.

  67. JEFF E says:

    can you say SFW.

    After saying that I would wish that this one tread had a constant link on the title page as it consistently gets the majority of submittals.
    Then when a flash in the fire topic comes up like the current, “Western wolf issue is mostly not really about wolves”(duh) those of us tired of plowing the same field year after year, do not have to search for a place to post “new” subject matter.

    • Ida Lupine says:


      From what I have been reading (though never visited) the U.P. is one of the last bastions of unspoiled wilderness? Wouldn’t it be nice to keep it that way. I’d love to see it.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I have seen people behave this way and it is maddening. I agree with the park officials that they should discourage it.

      • JEFF E says:

        does not seem to matter if it is YNP, GCNP, or wherever, it constantly amazes me how little average Joe six-pack knows or cares about wildlife.

        • cobackcountry says:

          It is a constant in Estes Park, bordering Rocky Mountain National Park. What I think gets lost in translation is, people are so disconnected with nature that they either overly embrace it and get too close, or they are so oblivious to nature being wild that they behave with reckless disregard.

          There are animal harassment reg’s in every park. What is lacking is personal connections and viable education in al or our class rooms Without learning the value of nature, we are doomed to lose some of those who are foolishly unaware of nature’s power.

  68. rork says:

    Antler restrictions considered in MI southern lower:,4669,7-192-45414_45416-304791–,00.html

    I have always worried about “high-grading” (hunters selecting for genetic runts, by preferring to kill large antlered males), but lately figure a little more escapement of any kind might give females more choices. We high-grade even without antler point restriction regs, so it’s not as obvious that antler requirements are stupid. It’s at least four points on at least one antler – where I live the very best 1.5 year olds can qualify. They currently let us kill 2 males: 1 of any sort, and 1 that must be to that 4-points-on-one-side standard. Calls to reduce it to just 1 per person as an alternative to every deer meeting the standard haven’t gotten serious consideration. People wanting any such regs aren’t thinking about genes, they just want larger males available for hunting.
    I really wish I worked on deer or salmon genetics rather than humans. I worry we don’t have much scientifically sampled historic DNA: I’d love to look for allele frequency changes. Differences between locations too.

    Anyway, I post in hopes of learning from someone.

  69. Immer Treue says:

    Minnesota Moose Calves Perishing

    Within days of finishing a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources effort to capture 49 moose calves and fit them with GPS transmitter collars, 22 of the newborns already have died, most killed by black bears and wolves.

    Of the 22 that had died through Wednesday, DelGiudice said as many as eight may have perished from circumstances surrounding the capture process, but that a final number won’t be known until all lab results come in.

  70. Leslie says:

    Looks like the White house has given the green light for wolf delisting.

    “Don Barry, executive vice president at Defenders of Wildlife, who said yesterday he believes the White House has given Interior the green light to officially propose the delisting.

    An announcement could come as soon as this week, he said.”

    • Rita k Sharpe says:

      Not surprised here. I believe that SaveBears said, in the past,that the Feds wants to wash their hands from the wolves. I know he will be nice enough to correct me if I am wrong.

      • SaveBears says:

        My contacts at the USFWS have been saying this for over a year now, they really don’t want anything to do with wolves anylonger, it has cost to much money and other species have suffered, which they are now starting to get sued over. The same groups that sued over wolves, is now suing over the other species because the service has had to put so much into wolves.

        Might not be want you want to hear, but I have heard this from so many, it has become a given when the conversation is about wolves.

        • SaveBears says:

          Just to add, watch out, because the same path is coming for Grizzly Bears, which is why I have said in the last few weeks, watch out, because I have a very strong feeling that the bear issue is going to end up in Congress as well and if that happens… You are going to see Congress address the heart of the ESA. If it does happen, I don’t think the ESA will be as effective as it has been and I think the law as we know it will be gone.

          • JEFF E says:

            after what Idaho’s POS Simpson did; it is already gone…

            • SaveBears says:

              Jeff and they are going to continue to do it, despite what we say. We really need to clean house starting from the top down, but I fear, the people(Sheeple) of the United States are just to naive to really watch what is happening.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I agree with you.

              • JEFF E says:

                as long as we can by cheap Chinese garbage at #%l-&a^t.
                why worry

              • SaveBears says:

                Before I went to school to get my degree I spent 26 years in service to this country at a pretty high level, worked in the Pentagon, spent time in combat, wounded, I know what happened to me even after I went to work at the state level.

                I don’t know everything, but I have been exposed to quite a bit over the last 30 years, believe me, it is not a very pretty picture right now.

                I am not a conspiracy theorist, but there is some very shady things going on at the top levels in this country. Watch out for this IRS thing, one of two things will happen, shit will hit the fan or and the IRS will be gone, or it will be diminished and swept away.

              • JEFF E says:

                thank you, sir

    • jon says:

      “We’re reading between the lines a bit here,” Greenwald said. “All signals point to this being Jewell listening to all of the opposition to this rule and pulling the plug. We’ve heard as much from at least one inside source, but true that we don’t have official confirmation of such.”

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I’m not surprised. I’ll never give up hope, but it isn’t going to come from this administration. What I don’t understand is why clamping down on wolves is the only thing that seems to get done in Washington, even to a point of a government shutdown back in 2011. Meanwhile, everthing else is at a standstill, and banksters will never see jail time. But by God, we’ll keep the boot to the neck of those wolves.

        • SaveBears says:

          Ida, things drastically changed in this country in 2001, and the environment took a back seat to the “security” of this country. 9/11 presented the perfect opportunity to start clamping down on people in this country, freedoms have disappeared and the whole country has become very polarized.

          I don’t care which party is in power, there is a move to put totalitarian rule in place. There are going to have to be some very drastic changes in the future or the United States will be gone, at least as we know it.

          • JEFF E says:

            follow the money.
            you, wolves, your kids, your parents, on and on mean little of nothing.

            research or not, it’s up to you

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Something is terribly wrong. I don’t even feel safe anymore, for the first time ever I sometimes think the NRA may be right about having to protect yourself.

  71. Leslie says:

    Wow, this article is direct from the NRA blog. Depending upon when and who they are talking to, their story changes. 26,000 elk killed in one year is a heck of a lot. I don’t think the less than 200 wolves in our state could make even a dent like that.

    “Biological Services Supervisor Bob Lanka said the exceptional harvest is attributable to a robust elk population. “We are in the golden age of elk right now,”

  72. Ida Lupine says:

    Should Lake Superior Wolves be Saved?

    Uh, yes?

    Here’s an interesting one:

    Europe Should Walk on the Wild Side

    You know, sometimes I think if I could move to Europe, I would, in a heartbeat. At least the food would be better and they have gun control. And it looks like a more progressive attitude towards wildlife.

    • JEFF E says:

      I have lived in Europe for an extended period of time. I have family that have lived there even longer. Europe sucks.

      Question?: Where were the last two world wars started?

      Are you really that naïve?

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Sometimes I think I’d rather take my chances elsewhere. Anywhere.

        • JEFF E says:

          have fun

        • SaveBears says:

          I have spent extensive time in Europe and the Middle east, all I can say, if that is the way you feel Ida, don’t let the door hit you in the ass and don’t come back complaining when you find out it is far worse than it is here.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Lately I don’t think it could be any worse. It’s full circle – my peeps came over from the UK and I’m running back home screaming! lol

          • Ida Lupine says:

            I’m (mostly) venting. I’m very disappointed in the leadership of our country. I know after serving your country, it offends you when people say things like that against it, I don’t mean to offend. I think very highly of and have the utmost respect for the sacrifices our veterans make and have made.

            • SaveBears says:

              Ida, I am not offended, it is easy to look and say, I want to give up, many people have already given up on many things they believe in, but if we are to sit down and look deeply at what has happened since 9/11 you can follow a very distinct path. Currently all sectors of society are embroiled in battles, most of them in the whole scope of things are small battles. The wolf issue is important to those of us that pay attention to it through websites like this. Guess what the true majority of the US really does not even know what is going on with wolves. Those in Detroit are not paying any attention at all to wolves, bears, elk, squirrels or dogs, they are paying attention to food in the mouth, cloths on the kids, jobs, health care and unfortunately, that is how it is in most big urban environments in this country, we are a divided people, what is important to you, is not important to them. What is real scary, is there are some very good salesmen out there telling them or you who to be mad at and they are believing it.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                It is scary. It’s that way here mostly too. Everytime you turn around, there’s a shooting, a bombing. I wish people could even just spare an afterthought to our wildlife and wild lands.

                Anyway, good night all – tomorrow’s another day.

              • SaveBears says:

                There is a whole lot of little battles that can be won, no matter which side of the issues you are on, but those little battles mean nothing unless we all become one people again to get rid of the scum that is taking our lives away and believe me, they don’t reside on foreign shores, they are right here in the US. A lot of things are going to have to change if we are go on in this country.

              • JEFF E says:

                example: Detroit has gone from an urban powerhouse of many millions residents, fueled by really good jobs from the automotive industry.

                Today, I believe the population is about a 10th of that.

                NONE of those residents give a rats ass about wolves. And that is only one example.

                On the flip side there are areas of this country that had barely a hiccup from the “big recession” mostly in the mid-west agriculture states.
                And guess what? None of them give a rats ass about wolves.

          • Peter Kiermeir says:

            Thank´s guys JEFFE and SaveBears for your statements about Europe and it´s people! Your certainly meet some of our stereotypes about Americans! That you have lived in Europe does not say much. Americans normally live in their American enclaves and do not mingle with the dumb natives.

            • cobackcountry says:


              I don’t think they were speaking as to people, rather as to how government manages wildlife, and how freedoms vary. We don’t have the worst system. Neither do many places in Europe. The Middle East, well the people are of an entirely different mind set. Their governments are all based on very different structures.
              We are fortunate to have a voice, a vote an a chance for change here.
              You point out how Americans are viewed, and that is all relative as well.
              It is not always a people issue, it is a choices issue.

              I think there is a lot to be learned on management of resources from the USA. Likewise, I think we could learn a lot about the value f forestry from other countries too. The biggest lesson we need to learn, is that we can improve and some times people are resistant to the very changes which are best for them in the long run.

        • cobackcountry says:

          Slippery slope….

      • Peter Kiermeir says:

        Have you ever spent a minute thinking, why you Americans are so dearly loved all around the Globe?

        • Immer Treue says:


          Comes in waves. I’d say we have a tough time keeping our noses out of other peoples business as we promote our agenda, but then again, Germany (a country I admire) might be either yet under the jackboot of National Socialism, or the specter of a communist Russia if not for our “meddling”.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Specifically, the tribes of the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority say the state did not consult with them in a meaningful way before establishing a gray wolf season.

      Noone was consulted with in a meaningful way!! Good luck to them and I hope they are not run roughshod over like the petion signers.

  73. Mark L says:

    Because we look good in denim and Stetsons?
    Honestly Peter, many don’t get why you asked that question, so you’ll need to ‘dig deeper’ to get the gist of it for some (please). I speak and\or read several languages so rarely have a problem fading in with locals. Not everybody is that fortunate. Help them out here, Peter.
    Ralph’s thread about wolf issues not being about wolves is still accurate. The moral question about accepting something that is ‘very foreign’ to your values being allowed to exist right in front of you may be appropriate here. People react differently in this situation. Some overreact….xenophobes.
    Wolves are (and were) a natural part of our landscape, and now some are resisting the ‘discomfort’ of their presence…and realizing their comforts came at another’s price. Others welcome them with no reserves. We aren’t so different after all.
    Wow….I sounded like Zeewolf….weird.

  74. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Unfortunately it is difficult in longer threads to assign a reply to a specific posting. You sometimes need to follow the grey frames the software provides. Nevertheless: My question and posting was a direct response to statements in the thread like: “Europe sucks” and “Who started the last two world wars” and so on. Hope this makes it clear to you all those others you mention, what was meant. Have a fine day!

    • Mark L says:

      Gotcha, Peter…..interesting stuff.

      But Europe DOES SUCK.
      (If you are a North American with a certain set of preconceived conceited values.) Hell, North America sucks too if your standards are different and you want it to be like where you came from. (early Europeans figured this out quickly)
      And I think Savebears comment about salesmen and being told who to be mad at is dead on. We’ve got nowhere to run…we gotta make it work here.

    • SaveBears says:

      Peter, I didn’t say those terms in my posts. But, I don’t like Europe, I don’t like the way the countries are governed, just as many Europeans don’t like the way the US is governed.

      Peter you have often had comments about how our country operates as well as our states, about how you don’t visit any longer, does it surprise you that some of us feel the same way about Europe?

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        SaveBears and all,

        Perhaps everywhere “sucks.” We need to build an off planet colony. 😉

        It will soon be time for a new Interesting Wildlife News post.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          🙂 The new Agrarians.

        • Mark L says:

          Kind of my point, that everywhere is actually ‘cool’ if people will just learn to like what’s already there (for the most part), instead of always changing it to where they came from (leave home at home).

      • WM says:


        Europe is a big place. There are probably just as many criticisms of countries/cultures within Europe as there are about critiques of America and Americans. How you folks in the EU feeling about Greece these days?

        I have spent some time in Europe over the years (Italy/France/England/Netherlands/Switzerland// etc.), and found that the people were universally nice, especially when one is curious about THEIR culture and even making the smallest attempt to be humble and converse in the native language, however rudimentary the skill. The people seem to get nicer the further one is from the big cities. We, my wife and I, try to stay local and in pensions -private homes with rooms to rent- when traveling for personal pleasure. Business was always in the big cities and downtown hotels.

        For the most part,in my experience, people are generally the same, trying to make a living, raising their kids. Their hopes for the future bubble to the top. It is the politicians that seem to take culture and hence government in certain directions that the people find distressing (except everybody wants cheap health care and in some European countries they get it).

        Attitudes toward wildlife are not that dissimalar from the US when assessing the views of the folks who live in the country or those who live in urban environments, in my experience.

        By the way, I tend to think more highly of most Europeans than Texans or Manhattan, NY residents in my own country. Come to think of it, I don’t much care for Chicagoans, either. Or, maybe its their respective politicians and power brokers I don’t like.

  75. jon says:

    These are the people who claim they are conservationists yet they hate certain kinds of wildlife just because they eat other wildlife. These people are sick.

    • Immer Treue says:

      All the same tired arguments. The individual is now an expert on elk genetics. No argument from me that wolves are a vector in suppressing elk recovery, yet with the “cloak” of HABITAT, what oils the Lolo support in regard to numbers of a “recovered elk population.

      And again we hear the ditty of we should have protected the wolves (native) that were already there. Huh? What the hell did they eat, if indeed they were really present. Then the specter of compound 1080 is brought up. If these supposed. Stove wolves were so benevolent to game populations, why the extermination campaign of the past to remove the wolf?

      • jon says:

        Immer/ralph, Mike Popp and others like him basically want a wild elk farm.

      • jon says:

        These people are passing their hatred for some wildlife onto their children as you can see in the picture that is in the link I posted. This is scary stuff.

      • jon says:

        Immer, these people think that the new wolf exterminated the “native” wolf. They refuse to acknowledge that humans were responsible for the “native” wolf’s demise. As you and many others wonder and have probably said multiple times, if the “native” wolf was so loved by these people, why was it wiped out? I find it hard to believe that someone would hate one wolf and like another. These people generally hate all wolves and want no wolves in Idaho regardless of what subspecies of gray wolf they are.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          It’s like they will continually try new tactics to see which the American public will fall for. It’s not limited to these guys either. The latest amusing thing I am reading is that ‘poor Ken Salazar was strongarmed into the delisting by Congress’. Where’s my violin.

        • Immer Treue says:


    • Ralph Maughan says:


      I am amazed that people who don’t understand the food chain — basic biology — get so much attention by politicians.

      There some really ecologically stupid hunters and hunting organizations that have a lot of influence, but then too there are some anti-hunting groups and people who avoid the stark biological facts that carnivores eat meat and so do omnivores.

      I see many beautiful pictures of wolves, orca, eagles, just for beginners; but not so many of them doing what they must to eat.

      As for myself, I love to see a life or death battle between wolves and elk. I have seen elk die both quickly and after an extended battle. While I haven’t seen a wolf get killed by prey, I have seen the elk get away and one time almost kill a wolf.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      The Great Ghastly.

    • rork says:

      I didn’t see any conservationists. I saw simple people whose livelihoods depend on guiding elk hunters on public lands – a category of people I detest (I’m a snob), but their problem is perhaps real. They would benefit from elk numbers being very high, and they don’t care to think about any other costs or benefits.
      With ecosystem changes we make winners and loosers. As with fighting spotted knapweed near me, the winnings are perhaps small and thinly spread, and few understand it (Mitchell’s satyr – who cares), but the losers (honey producers) know who they are and just what the losses are. They are not prone to think about large areas, or long time-lines, but rather their wallets. Their problem is simple and easy to describe, whereas my thinking is much harder to make clear.

      • jon says:

        Do a lot of people dislike outfitters? I can’t stand outfitters myself. These people make a living off of killing wildlife. They want an elk farm for their clients. All they care about is money.

      • Immer Treue says:


  76. Ida Lupine says:

    I hope I didn’t cause trouble with my remarks last night!

    I just have grave concerns lately about the direction our country is heading. I have concerns about GMO crops not being labelled and people not having a choice about what they eat. I don’t think I should be called anti-progress and anti-science, and told ‘just buy organic!’ and have these concerns steamrolled over because they are legitimate concerns. Europe and other countries either outright ban them or require labelling.

    I have had nothing but positive experiences with our trips to Europe and the people I have met. I remember Germany and the UK especially fondly. My husband’s work required him to visit Germany, Norway, and the UK quite frequently. Americans I think can have very shallow and superficial mindsets, and feel they are superior, which understandably is very offputting to people of other cultures. Especially the ones who helped build this country.

    • JEFF E says:

      Did not cause me any heartburn, but apparently some others had their feelers hurt.

      To clarify, my reply to you was specific to your post,
      To wit, “At least the food would be better and they have gun control. And it looks like a more progressive attitude towards wildlife.”

      The food is certainly not any better in any way but you would be able to eat things like horse, so maybe.
      Authoritarian dictatorships just love things like “gun control” and is/was an absolute must for the scum that started the last two world wars, which if NOT for America, would have made the world a very different place today.(wonder when all that War debt is going to be repaid to us)
      Unfortunately America is degrading into a clone of how Europe is being governed and is depressing to see and I feel sorry for my kids and grand kids, but that does not mean that I am going to run to a place that IS what I am afraid America may become. And all the time I lived there or have read about The treatment of animals does not appear to be any more or less “progressive” than any where else. Does not make sense in my opinion, so yes Europe sucks,

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I was somewhat venting. I have said that I don’t like the direction we’re heading in either. I don’t eat red meat – so I am thankful that I don’t when I read about that horsemeat scandal. I don’t think some countries there are happy about it either. This country’s European ancestors did set the scene for the way wildlife, and especially wolves, are treated even to this day. It does appear that some European countries are trying to fix it. I don’t know about Norway tho.

      • Mareks Vilkins says:


        1) USA government supported Hitler and Mussolini till the WW2’s beginning

        2) USA govt happily supports right-wing dictators – just google ‘USA friendly dictators’

        the list includes :

        America’s Allies
        17 CHIANG KAI-SHEK
        18 NGO DINH DIEM
        19 PARK CHUNG HEE
        26 IAN SMITH
        27 P. W. BOTHA
        31 HUSSAN II
        32 ADOLF HITLER
        36 TURGUT OZAL


        “The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989” by David F. Schmitz

        “Thank God They’re on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965”

        “The United States and Fascist Italy, 1922-1940” by David F. Schmitz

        A comprehensive analysis of American foreign policy and Mussolini’s Italy. Schmitz argues that the U.S. desire for order, interest in Open Door trade, and concern about left-wing revolution led American policymakers to welcome Mussolini’s coming to power and to support fascism in Italy for most of the interwar period.

        3)the Nazi army was NOT defeated by the USA army

        “The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War” by Jacques Pauwels

        Hitler’s Germany was defeated, first and foremost, by the Soviet Union. Some 70-80 percent of German combat forces were destroyed by the Soviet military on the Eastern front. The D-Day landing in France by American and British forces, which is often portrayed in the United States as a critically important military blow against Nazi Germany, was launched in June 1944 — that is, less than a year before the end of the war in Europe, and months after the great Soviet military victories at Stalingrad and Kursk, which were decisive in Germany’s defeat

        4)just google “US Military and Clandestine Operations in Foreign Countries – 1798-Present”

  77. WM says:

    Now here is something that really “sucks!”

    Increased graffiti in national parks on artifacts, natural wonders and even living plants. Are Park animals next?

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Oh I hate this. In cities it can rise to the level of art – but it is ugly in natural areas, criminal on artifacts, and speaks terribly of the mindset of those who do it. It’s violent. I think Sally Jewell is going to have her work cut out for her if she wants to teach kids about the national parks.

  78. farm says:

    It assures and ensures not only the survival of the agri-business but also of the community, once farmland is handed over
    to the succeeding generations. Do some research in to what has made for successful farm
    diversification in the past. With more than 20 million tons of carbon dioxide being produced
    globally each year; reducing carbon emissions, curtailing waste, and producing more
    clean energy are the call of the day.


May 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

%d bloggers like this: