Interior Secretary Sally Jewell received two letters today from conservation scientists criticizing a draft Rule that would remove protections for wolves across the lower 48 states. One letter came from the American Society of Mammalogists, the other from 16 conservation scientists.  Signatories include several scientists who conducted the research the government relied upon in the draft rule. According to these scientists, the draft rule does not reflect “the conclusions of our work or the best available science concerning the recovery of wolves.”  Interestingly, the letter comes on the heels of an announcement that the proposed delisting is being held up indefinitely due to an “unexpected delay”.

As one of the signatories, I was particularly disappointed by the Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS) analysis of the threats faced by wolves.  Despite acknowledging that, in areas with higher human densities “the primary determinant of the long-term conservation of gray wolves will likely be human attitudes toward this predator”, the FWS did not cite any of the scientific (or commercial) data available to address this threat, as required by law; rather, the FWS relied upon the conjecture of biologists involved in wolf recovery efforts.  Though the opinions of these professionals carry considerable weight, they do not reflect “the best available science” on tolerance for wolves.

See the Center for Biological Diversity’s press release.

Scientists: Don’t drop federal protections

Scientists call on Obama administration to keep gray wolves protected

About The Author

Jeremy Bruskotter

Dr. Jeremy Bruskotter is an associate professor in the School of Environment and Natural Resources at the Ohio State University where his research interests are centered around the human dimensions” of wildlife conservation and management. Jeremy is passionate about wildlife–at one time or another, he has called himself hunter, angler, and wildlife photographer. Most of all, Jeremy is concerned with bringing the tools and techniques of the social sciences to bear on pressing issues in wildlife management.

67 Responses to Conservation scientists oppose efforts to remove federal protections for wolves across the lower 48 states

  1. Robert Goldman says:

    NOW is the time for Sally Jewell to hear from all ecologically informed, ethical and decent Americans who demand that America’s wolves be kept in the Endangered Species List indefinitely.
    For those of you who have signed the Protect America’s Wolves! petition (thru SignOn), please look for an Action Alert in your in-box in the next day.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I really am beginning to have hope about Sally Jewell – I was so disillusioned after the disasters of Ken Salazar that I didn’t want to get my hopes up. He caused a lot of damage to the ESA.

  2. Justin Forte says:

    I’m not ready to celebrate yet. This could be another game the government is playing. Besides wolves need to be relisted under The ESA in states where they still exist before hunters, crooked wildlife service agents, and crooked politicians kill them off!

  3. Richard LeMieux says:

    Please stop the outright slaughter of the grey wolf that is presently taking place all across the Western United States. And those public lands belong to all of us, not just the ranchers and sheep herders with you allow to graze there livestock on for free. And the Great Lakes Wolves are the next in line to be butchered for sport and profit. Once you allow the killing of one, groups like the NRA, the Cattlemen’s Assn., the Safarie Club and greedy furriers and trappers will never let you stop the killing. I have lived in Wisconsin my entire life and was so thrilled to see the return of the wolf.And my taxes helped pay for reintroduction. I did not pay my taxes to see the grey wolf murdered, trapped and tortured for the pleasure of a heartless few. I will not forget this and I will vote appropriately. It is time that this administration shows some backbone,

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I feel the same way. Rational, responsible management I could tolerate – but an excuse for depravity I cannot. To keep numbers ‘managed’ you don’t need such things as hound hunting. If wolves are attacking livestock, you have a professional FWS person or a hunter matter of factly handle it. It should not be something that is ‘fun’, but sparingly used only when necessary. These animals were brought back from extinction and found to be recovered. How can anyone justify hunting them immediately after delisting? It is really shameful. It appears Europe learned their lesson and wants to restore their wildlife and wild lands.

      I don’t think our President is environmentally- minded either. I don’t think I have ever heard him speak about anything related to the environment or ecology to any great length, or any philosophy about it, such as Bruce Babbitt.

      • jon says:

        Obama has failed wildlife and the environment. Obama allowed people to bring guns into national parks. I could not find any scientists saying delist wolves nationwide. This is a good step and maybe Salle Jewell will listen to scientists.

    • Jeff N. says:


      Not trying to nitpick, and maybe you unadvertantly used the wrong word, but wolves were not reintroduced to WI. They naturally recolonized the state, coming from MN.

      I too was thrilled to see them making a comeback in WI. I remember buying a Wisconsin Outdoors magazine back in the mid 80’s. On the cover was a wolf paw print in mud with the caption “on the track of the Wisconsin wolf pack” and inside was an article by Dick Theil. At that time there were only a few documented packs in Douglas County.

      I was a youngster living in IL just south of the WI border and Northern WI represented “wilderness” to me. I must have read that article 30 times.

  4. Robert Goldman says:

    It’s not a matter of backbone. Pres. Obama simply has no heart for wildlife. He has never shown any interest or concern for ecology. Obama’s concern for animals does not extend beyond enjoying a steak dinner every Friday. He is one of our worst Presidents environmentally, a real disaster.

    • Mike says:

      I’d agree, unfortunately.

    • john says:

      he has no backbone as well,,, stop covering for him

      • Robert Goldman says:

        John, “covering for him”… what about my statement is covering for him???? I wrote that Obama is one of our worst Presidents environmentally. What about that statement is “covering for him”???

  5. Snaildarter says:

    I agree Obama doesn’t have a strong interest in the environment but next to Baby Bush he’s a Saint. However I blame the mainstream environmental groups not Obama. They are so focused on the Global Warming they refuse to take tough stands on anything else. Given the fact that they have not been every effective on the GW front maybe they should rethink that strategy.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I wouldn’t go that far – the wolf was delisted in his administration, which is something even Bush couldn’t achieve. They are on par as far as environment, with Bush slightly better about setting aside conservation land, but President Obama as a Democrat is far more disappointing, and he really doesn’t seem to care about the issue. He seems to see it in people terms only, not in its own right. But then again, that may be the only way to save the environment in today’s world.

    • Mark L says:

      Snaildarter says,

      “However I blame the mainstream environmental groups not Obama. They are so focused on the Global Warming they refuse to take tough stands on anything else. Given the fact that they have not been every effective on the GW front maybe they should rethink that strategy.”

      Absolutely. I think the flora/fauna loses taken in the past five years will be regretted for a generation (or more)…all for a ‘GW obsessed paradigm’.
      Maybe it’s time to admit this inning is over and let’s change batters.

    • Mike says:

      I’d say Obama is worse. What Tester and Obama did trumps any single Bush anti-conservation act. Obama literally sled hammered out a peg of the ESA.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Yep. All for political reasons.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          The same ‘kill them now to save them in the future’ modern environmental reasoning that I can’t seem to understand. 🙂

  6. Joseph C. Allen says:

    This is a letter written to Jewell re: wolf issues. It was written to as an enlightenment letter and I think we as wildlife advocates must keep the “heat” on the politicians. We wildlife lovers have get in the faces of politicians on both sides of the aisle.

    Dear Secretary Jewell,
    This past July we had the privilege of watching the Lamar Canyon Pack in Yellowstone National Park, under the leadership of the most famous and widely-viewed wolf in US history, the alpha female known as 832F or 06. By December this iconic wolf was dead, shot by a hunter just a few miles outside the boundaries of the park. Other collared research wolves were also killed just outside the park and other packs have suffered similar effects as well.

    Many ill-informed hunters and ranchers in the western Rockies target collared wolves and have hindered the Park’s wolf research program. States like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and now Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, abound with wolf-hating, anti-science, and culturally bankrupt Neanderthals whose first response to any wolf is to shoot it, irrespective of its scientific import or place in the ecosystem.

    Since the death of 832F, the Lamar Canyon Pack has been adversely affected in a host of negative ways. This is just one of many examples of the impact of short-sighted acquiescence to the demands of special interest groups in the western states, particularly hunters and ranchers and their minions in state legislatures. Such misplaced bias to their interests disregards the tremendous economic impact of wolf study and observation in the park and surrounding environs. The predation levels of wolves on cattle and sheep are very low. In fact, more livestock is killed by feral dogs in the west than by wolves. Now, another collared Yellowstone wolf, 831F, has been killed just outside the Park by one who, although legally, killed the “alleged” trespasser after “baiting” it with dead sheep. As a hunter and fisherman myself, I deplore this egregious, unethical and wanton waste of wildlife.

    As college professors and environmental field scientists, we have brought our students yearly to the greater Yellowstone ecosystem to study wolves and other predators and their interaction with prey and a recovering ecosystems. All together, we estimate that we spend around $50,000 a year on cabins, transportation, fishing licenses, food and other “things west.” Likewise, we want to see wildlife, NOT COWS and SHEEP. And especially we want to see wildlife on public lands without hindrance from the private commercial use of these public lands. And with elk harvests the highest in years, blaming the wolf for wildlife depredation as it relates to hunting of ungulates, is a moot point.

    I hope the Department of Interior will re-evaluate the delisting of the wolf, but short of that change, at least can there be a ban on shooting collared wolves around the park, a no shoot perimeter? The Yellowstone wolf project has provided more knowledge and data on this iconic species than any study in the history of mankind, and the work should he supported, furthered, and protected from the short sighted interest of those who want enough elk around to shoot from their vehicles. Their mindset confirms for all thoughtful observers that wolf recovery is far from over.

    Thank you for reading my thoughts.

    George L. and Joseph C. Allen

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Beautiful. There should be a penalty for shooting a collared wolf. It completely goes against the concept of responsible management. Once a wolf is outside of the park, it does not become just another wolf. If our government has respect for the study of these animals, the park wolves should be protected. I’d love to see a hunt-free buffer zone also, and making it a crime to shoot a collared wolf subject to fine and imprisonment.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Referring to those you oppose as “Neanderthals” will do nothing to help your “cause”. Also, it appears that 831F was not “baited” with dead sheep.

      Keeping the heat on is a good thing, but getting in the faces of politicians will make you no better received than some of the more notorious wolf haters.

      though I critique what you write, I Am on your side.

      • Joseph C. Allen says:

        As a child of the 60’s, I would beg to differ about getting into the face of the politicians. Had the drugged-out, over-sexed, peace and love generation not raised the Hell we raised, it is unlikely that this country would have ended Vietnam when it ended, unlikely we’d have the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act or any of the visionary environmental legislation we depend on today. Politicians bend with the money as you know, surely not with the ethics. They need to be constantly reminded who elects them as I am sure you know. Now, “Neanderthals,” ok, it may have been harsh; how about “intellectually bereft?” Thanks for being on my side….

        • Immer Treue says:


          “Now, “Neanderthals,” ok, it may have been harsh; how about “intellectually bereft?” ”

          If you want to drop insults, it won’t help the cause. If you are a child of the sixties, one would believe you have acquired a bit of maturity by now when dealing with adults.

          And though I do not agree with much that Hoppe says, in addition to the fact he killed a wolf that had nothing to do with his depredation problem, it appears your accusation is false

          “When we investigated we found absolutely no evidence on the scene,” said Andrea Jones from MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks. ” Circumstances didn’t indicate anything that would say baiting. We believe a lot of this talk is a myth.”

          “Thanks for being on my side….”

          You’re welcome

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Whatever you want to call it – leaving dead sheep on a property near wolves has the same effect.

      • JB says:

        Thanks for being a voice of reason, Immer. 🙂

        • Immer Treue says:


          My pleasure. I guess the pen can still be mightier than the sword when wielded wisely.

          • Mark L says:

            Did he really pose, dead wolf in hand, in front of a camera for all to see?

            • Ida Lupine says:

              And nowhere in this article does it say categorically that he didn’t leave dead sheep out to bait wolves:

              “There was no dead sheep left out down there on the morning I killed that wolf,” Hoppe insists.


              Officials agree with Hoppe about his version of the event.

              “When we investigated we found absolutely no evidence on the scene,” said Andrea Jones from MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks. ” Circumstances didn’t indicate anything that would say baiting. We believe a lot of this talk is a myth.”

              • Ida Lupine says:

                In fact, you could drive a tractor through some of the holes in this story. 😉

              • Immer Treue says:


                Above was to Mark L.

                To you. Hoppe has been a vocal critic in regard to wolves. He has appeared in drama queen Rockholm’s movies. I don’t disagree with you, but it appears he has covered his ass, shot a wolf “legally”, and fanned the flames for the anti-wolf folks.

            • Immer Treue says:


            • Immer Treue says:

              Mark L

              Yup he did. And as I said to Ida, he got to kill a wolf “legally” and got press to stoke more anti-wolf flames.

              • Joseph C. Allen says:

                I fully understand those who are a voice of reason, whatever that means. I respect the less active, more literary approach to wildlife science. BUT, I am sick and tired of seeing animals die. And dying for no biological or evolutionary reason. It’s that simple-death at the hands of ignorance and greed, to me, is unacceptable. So an intellectual debate is great on a blog but there must be others who are willing to be on the firing lines of environmental activism. The lack of familiarity with, and urgency of, wildlife issues is not remediated by waiting for our “leaders” to absorb and respond to the writings of scientists. A more direct educational
                approach is needed and needed soon or we will continue to be “played” by those that don’t give a shit about nature. And, as an aside, “If you are a child of the sixties,one would believe you have acquired a bit of maturity by now when dealing with adults.” How’s that maturity working with the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Wyoming Game and Fish, and the Idaho Fish and Game? They seem respondant to the intellectual pontifications of us biologists…right? It’s time to raise a little hell (if there is such a place)…and base it on firm, solid science.

              • Immer Treue says:


                In terms of blogspeak, I agree with about all you have to say. Yer, I did attend two Wolf Symposia where both ranchers and hunters were assured by a panel of the leading wolf biologists in the country, that wolves would be managed.

                That said, returning to your letter, I would assume that most of Jewell’s mail is read by assistants, I could be wrong. Regardless, as soon as the insults flow, the letter gets put in the trash. If you are going to spend the time to compose a letter, don’t waste the effort. Also, you want someone to read your concerns, which you have listed, not your thoughts. Picky perhaps, but spend the time, back up your claims, keep it brief, and make your points without insults.

                Your passion above would indicate you are capable of better.

            • john says:


              • Barb Rupers says:

                Well said,Immer, as usual. Thanks for all your reasonable responses.

              • Immer Treue says:


                Thank you! Plus I did get that interchange I was looking for.

      • Ken Cole says:

        Uh, isn’t that exactly what the anti wolfers did to get their way?

        • Immer Treue says:


          You want to act like them, go ahead. But even in Rockholm’s propoganda pieces, one does not see/hear wolf pimp, wolfhugger, etc. I think anti-Wolfers got their “way” for two reasons. One, the politicians themselves were largely anti-wolf. Second, they were promised wolves would be managed. Unfortunately that 150 number equating to recovery was used as a goal to start “managing”. I believe no right thinking person would believe that 500 or mor wolves per each of the NRM states would have been acceptable at that time.

          One wonders if naturally dispersing wolves would have faired any better over the long run if reintro never occurred. Then again we have the “indigenous” wolf fairy tale that ate small mammals and lived in harmony with elk.

  7. snaildarter says:

    As well as I remember the wolf delisting was a GOP rider on a highly contested spending bill not exactly Obama’s fault. Baby Bush is an outdoors man and Laura is pro-environment so even though their party was systematically trying undo the Clean Air and Clean Water act occasionally they would do good things, but they would have to sneak around a do them. Obama is a jock from the city he has trouble relating personally so he depends on his continuants and Michele who seems to get it. Many of his continuants are pro-environment and they have led him to locally grown food, eco-friendly urban design, with the idea that people should live in cities which is very good from the environment. But as far as wildlife and the outdoors he must be trained and we have not done a good job of that.

    • timz says:

      so, Obama could not find his veto stamp and ink pad?

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        Snaildarter and timz and others,

        If folks will go back and seriously read about the passage of the rider, the wolf delisting rider was added to “must pass” legislation.

        A veto was not feasible given all the other things in it. The President would not have vetoed it though even if it was a stand along bill because it was Democrats trying to make sure Jon Tester (Democratic senator from Montana)get reelected who made sure the rider by Tester get added.

        In doing so, other anti-wolf riders mostly from Republicans (and much worse for the wolf) were side-stepped.

        I find it hard then to figure out who was the worst on the vote (assuming you think it was a bad bill). The blame is widely shared.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Ralph there was an opportunity to strip the language from the bill, but as you point out once that negotiation opportunity was lost and wolves were well “thrown to the wolves”, it was too late. But if we had a congress with some integrity that language would have been stripped and jettisoned with the 16, i think, other anti wildlife environmental provisions that were. I heartily support a rider that would eliminate all non germane riders. Time to get rid of those sneaky sleazy provisions that come in under the radar and that have nothing to do with the bill at hand.

        • timz says:

          True it was a “must pass” bill, which is
          why I think Obama could have demanded it come to his desk free of any riders. I would love to see the Feds go to a system that many states have in place where a bill can only address a single issue. In fact these riders are usually nothing but pork in exchange for a vote. Sorry but as for it could of been worse for the wolf, I don’t see how at this point.

    • john says:

      nothing is ever obamas fault, haven your realized that yet,, he has a scapegoat for every occasion. his latest is they didn’t want to tell me anything so it must be there fault..

      • Ida Lupine says:

        We’re waiting for Keystone – that’ll be John Kerry’s fault.

  8. Ida Lupine says:

    True, you wouldn’t want to offend the Neanderthals. I understand they were kinder and gentler than the Cro-Magnons.

  9. JEFF E says:

    while the DOI might be pressured to halt de-listing in most areas of the L 48, that would not affect the de-listing in the NRM recovery area as that de-listing was the result of congressional action, as in the “back door insertion” of legislation by Idaho’s own POS Simpson.

  10. Ida Lupine says:

    I still do think the final decision stops at our President. Threatening shutdown was tried during the Clinton administration and President Clinton called Gingrich’s bluff. What is different about today? Is the country just big babies? Our President is too conciliatory and it just isn’t going to happen; it’s a waste of time.

  11. Richie G. says:

    I am not in favor of Obama, but many things he does I think some of it is fear. Yes fear, he has no big family behind him, he has no roots in government I believe. Clinton, had Hillary’s family, her family had some old money. Obama runs from a fight most of the time, Tom Hartman, and other talk show hosts have made this point many times. Look the IRS thing that is filled with powerful tea party groups. So the IRS is checking their 501c,d status, so the government doesn’t fund a fraud charity,but not to look bad Obama ran from this point. It took a congressman to bring the subject to light, the point was 1.6 billion dollars was spent in the last election, from the tea party side. Remember corporations are people, Obama can’t even get congress to blink on some gun control. Do you think he is going out for wildlife and wolves, I’m afraid he will not take a stand, big business wins again. It just feels like he is afraid to take a stand. So the winners are the state agencies who are funded by big business and life goes on in Washington.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      It’s the cerebral approach, not the viseral approach. One is encouraged in our modern world, the other is not. We need a little of both, I think. It would have been easy enough to sidestep back then. Delisting had been overruled by a judge the first time around. But the administration wanted it.

      Lest We Forget

      • Snaildarter says:

        I think the wolf is just another casualty of how ugly politics has gotten in America and I blame that on the current Republican party. Extremist on the right have systematically targeted moderates and pragmatist and defeated them in the primaries so all they have left are the arrogant and the ignorant. They will not compromise or play fair in anyway.

  12. Immer Treue says:

    Perhaps he had an inside track, but a positive letter to S Jewell in regard to wolves by  Raul Grijalva.

    Washington, D.C. – Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva today sent a letter to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell urging her to cancel a pending rule that would cancel endangered species status for most U.S. wolf populations. The letter is attached and the text is available below. 

    The rule was scheduled to be released this week but has not yet been published in the federal register. Grijalva calls on Jewell and the Interior Department not to release it and maintain full Endangered Species Act protections for wolf populations currently covered by the law. 

    “Today we stand at a crossroads for wolf recovery,” Grijalva writes. “Populations have grown substantially in the Great Lakes and the Northern Rockies. Individual wolves have dispersed into California, the Pacific Northwest, the Southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast. Now is the time to support full wolf recovery, not shut down our efforts. With your leadership, our great country has a real opportunity to recover wolves on a national level[.]” 

    As USA Today reported in April, “If the rule is enacted, it would transfer control of wolves to state wildlife agencies by removing them from the federal list of endangered species. The government has been considering such a move since at least 2011, but previously held off given concerns among scientists and wildlife advocates who warn it could effectively halt the species’ expansion.” 

    Grijalva, the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations, supports continued Endangered Species Act protections for wolves where scientifically appropriate throughout the country. 


    Dear Secretary Jewell: 

    It is my understanding that the Department of Interior this week decided to withhold publication of a proposed rule that would have removed gray wolves outside the Southwest from the endangered species list. If true, this is welcome news and a wise decision. Such a rule would end federal recovery efforts for certain endangered wolves and cause irreparable harm. 

    Today we stand at a crossroads for wolf recovery. Populations have grown substantially in the Great Lakes and the Northern Rockies. Individual wolves have dispersed into California, the Pacific Northwest, the Southern Rocky Mountains and the Northeast. Now is the time to support full wolf recovery, not shut down our efforts. With your leadership, our great country has a real opportunity to recover wolves on a national level with vibrant populations in California, the Pacific Northwest, the Southern Rocky Mountains, and the Northeast, not just isolated, relic populations in the Great Lakes, Northern Rockies and the Southwest. 

    I strongly urge you and your Department to use this current pause to cancel the scientifically flawed delisting proposal developed by your predecessor and preserve opportunities for wolves to recover in additional parts of the United States. 

    The fate of wolves in the United States is in your hands. We urge you to work with all interested Americans to ensure conservation for the gray wolf across multiple ecosystems as required by the Endangered Species Act. Our mutual respect for America’s natural heritage demands nothing less. 


    Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva 

    Member of Congress 

  13. CodyCoyote says:

    I believe when you scrape the hide from it, the core issue here is the Department of Interior feels the pain of wolves and the drag the wolf places on the entirety of its agency management. Thus DoI thru USFWS are doing everything they can to get all things wolf codified to utterly dismiss the wolf to remove a political impediment to the agency. Wolves have proven to be a source of great heat and friction to DoI and especially USFWS , way disproportionate to their real world management issues. Look no further than the wholly unrelated Simpson-Tester wolf rider that was attached to must-pass budget egislation in an act of utter political spite.

    On the surface, it’s difficult to drag Obama into this issue , since he has little or no knowledge of ANYTHING in the American West except Denver, and beyond his blue state voting bloc in Colorado could not care much less about western issues and policies. He’s a city kid. I do not believe that Interior’s shameless duplicity on wolves went all the way up the ladder to the Oval Office.

    Caveat: Having said all that , I still cannot completely dismiss a scenario where Mr. Obama did in fact realize that wolves were becoming an impediment to other more pressing issues, and he told Ken Salazar to ” do whatever you have to to get those 1600 wild dogs of the table…”, something rancher Salazar was more than willing to accomodate. Why else would Northern Rockies wolf coordinator Ed Bangs suddenly produce a lame but acceptable plan for Wyoming that Interior could tolerate — that ridiculous Flex Zone idea allegedly came from Bangs , who rendered it unto Caesar Salazar then promptly resigned/retired before the next denning season after 23 years. That’s what I thinbk happened…the mandate to Interior to enforce the ESA was abrogated in favor of blunt instruments, and Bangs banged his own ass on the way out the door with it. Dunno.

    This is the ultimate scapegoating of wolves , just running in the other direction.

    The league of scientists are correct in protesting full delisting of wolves in the Lower 48 as being unsupported by science or even a cursory examination of reality on the ground by anyone who knows the fundamentals of Wolf Ecology 101. But when has science ever been a decider of anything in this millenium in Washington D.C. ? – hard to find an answer to that…

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Yes. I’m sure our President wasn’t completely invoved in this, but in the end, he is the President.

      It’s frustrating to know that correcting this wrong relies on reason and science, when the wrong itself was created and continues on with anything but sound science, reason, and honesty. I cannot believe it could happen in the 21st century, wolves still thought of as stealing babies and grandmas, and violence the only remedy.

      And that SuperPac wolf story (at least the ones from Russia!)is still making the rounds. Perhaps our new Interior Secretary is going to put the brakes on this at last.

    • STG says:

      Thoughtful comment!

  14. jdubya says:

    Well done, J.B.!

  15. Mal Adapted says:

    I had email today from Oregon Wild, about an apparently successful rear-guard action by wolf advocates:

    After nearly 18 months of grueling negotiations with the state, we are pleased to announce that we have reached a historic settlement on wolf management in Oregon. If all parties honor this hard fought agreement, we are confident wolf recovery will stay on track and unnecessary conflict over wolves will continue to decrease.

    The email links to a Q & A about the settlement. I think this buys wolves some time in Oregon, at least.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      I haven’t posted on this because I think some negotiations are still underway. Webmaster

  16. Richie G. says:

    Ida just a month ago Obama issued millions to the depletion of elephants and Rhinoceros that that are being kill for their ivory and farmers who do not want them close same with lions and tigers have their problems. Now he gave to Africa now he had to think where he lives.


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: