This is America the Beautiful edition of “Do you have some interesting wildlife news?” Let us not allow her to be destroyed by a group of political extremists.

Please put your news, links and comments below in comments –“Leave a reply”.   Here is the link to the old thread that’s now being retired (Sept. 6, 2013).

Sunset on one of the Lake Creek Lakes. Frank Church Wilderness, Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan

Sunset on one of the Lake Creek Lakes. Frank Church Wilderness, Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan

About The Author

Ralph Maughan

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

442 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? “America the Beautiful” edition.

  1. Ralph Maughan says:

    I would be interested if anyone encounters any government barriers erected on the public land roads to keep people out.

    My guess is we won’t find any except in the national parks, but let’s see.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      In Idaho it appears that entry to Forest Service and BLM is open. Craters of the Moon National Monument is closed. Some or all of the national wildlife refuges are closed to the public.

      Campgrounds, picnic areas, visitor centers, ranger stations are of course all closed.

    • Nancy says:

      WOW!! Just wanted to say that shot of the lake is incredibly beautiful, Ralph!!

    • Larry Zuckerman says:

      yes, the colors are like those of Thomas Moran and Albert Bierstadt, like those commissioned by the railroads to get people to visit the national parks in the West at the turn of the 20th Century.

  2. rork says:

    My 3-person team caught about 40 chinook on the Hanford Reach (columbia river) in 4 days. The odd part: 90% male, no fish over 20 lbs. I can’t find coverage about the fish being so small and male anywhere yet.

    Hypothesis: large run means large quota for lower river gill netters using 8inch mesh, which was finally closed about a week ago, and was perhaps able to intercept nearly all large fish. Only “super-jacks” (8-15 lb) made it up-river so far cause there’s almost no such thing as “super-jills” (females running earlier in the lives). explaining the sex ratio.
    I’m very concerned about the possible genetic implications of such high-grading on size/age , and also selecting against fish that migrate earlier.

    Another theory: “You are fishing the jack water idiot” but I doubt that as we were doing about the same as always, where we catch 50% females, and over half are >20 lb.

    • WM says:


      Contact Mark Yuasa, the fish guy at the Seattle Times ( and let him research your interesting questions. Or, better yet, call Ron Roler the lower Columbia fish policy coordinator at WDFW (360-696-6211 ex 6737) for the real scoop, if there is one.

      You raise some interesting issues regarding Lower Columbia entitlements (and ultimately apparently undesirable selective reproduction potential) that are typically recited only in numbers of fish, not size, or how they are caught, including treaty obligations. Tell us what you find out.

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      rork –

      Glad you had a successful trip. From your description of the “super-jacks (8-15 lbs)”, I am curious as to whether they are predominantly 2 ocean jacks (which would be closer to the bottom end of the range – 8 lbs) or 3 ocean adult males which would be nearer the top of the range and larger (or both)? Did there appear to be two distinct size (possibly ocean age) classes? Even amongst “adult” Chinook spawners, there is a tendency for more of the 3-ocean fish to be males while more of the females tend to remain at sea for 4 years. Exceptional marine survival of one or more year classes could potentially explain it, and if it happened mainly in the 2010 sea entry year, that would explain a lot of smaller 3-ocean adults this year (possibly with a male bias) and bode well for the 4-ocean return next year (including presumably a higher proportion females).

      Secondly, older Chinooks have been declining in size-at-age for nearly 3 decades all the way from the Southeast Alaska troll fishery (in which the Columbia upriver brights from Hanford Reach are a major contributing stock) to rivers entering the Bering Sea, but the evidence so far seems to point more toward a decrease in major forage populations (probably squid) due to the recent cooling trend in the North Pacific climate (and likely also foraging by other salmon species), rather than fishery selectivity. Chinooks landed in the troll fishery here also averaged small, similar to now, from the late-1960s to late-1970s when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation was last solidly in cold phase (but Gulf of Alaska salmon abundance was much lower).

      Fishery selectivity is always a concern, and could be part of what you are seeing if 8 inch mesh was fished extensively downriver. However, salmon populations seem amazingly resilient in the face of it — a primary example being coho salmon from Oregon to southern B.C. that followed a long declining trend in size for decades (mid-1950s to mid-1990s) under very intensive fishery exploitation, before showing a remarkable rebound when both hatchery releases and fisheries were curtailed. The overall pattern of evidence suggests to me that high density in coastal waters from increasing hatchery coho smolt production was the main underlying cause, rather than fishery selection (which likely reinforced it), but I understand that many state and tribal biologists in the Lower 48 hold an opposite view. In any case, a remarkable reversal within a single decade (when fishery and density pressures were reversed) of decades of relentlessly declining coho size clearly shows that whatever role fishery selection played, the genes for large size were not lost. I suspect that part of it is that males in particular pursue different breeding strategies related to size (sneaker, satellite, alpha) , and each strategy is more successful when rare (less competition) so as long as the genes that allow fish to play a large, dominant alpha role are not actually extirpated, they will quickly be reasserted when other selective pressure is relaxed. However, that said, there are some compelling examples of declining size-at-age among exploited fish species around the world that are most likely related to genetic effects of fishery selection.

      Please let us know anything you find out.

    • rork says:

      Thanks WM and Mossback.
      I couldn’t distinguish 2 vs 3 salt fish. Seemed a continuum to my ignorant eyes, and I figured most were 3 year (except the <2 lb jacks), also perhaps just out of ignorance. We stained no scales – I want professionals doing it. Wrote Yuasa so far.
      2010 was a year of big late spilling of water due to unexpectedly big rains in June combined with less spill earlier cause predictions were for a low-runoff year (final-report-columbia-river-high-water-operations.pdf) so they ended up with lots of water. Lake Roosevelt seems huge, but capacity of it and other dams on Columbia/Snake are no match for the size of the watershed some years. I've seen anglers joke that the Bonneville Power Admin won't talk about 2010 that much now, least too many people learn how effective that spilling may have been.
      I agree size selection altering allele frequencies is easy to do, both ways. There will always be variants of genes like IGF1, IGF2 (and H19), IGF1R, and many others that dramatically affect size, and can experience selection pressures. I recall studies of wild Drosophila on leeward Hawaii where the alleles change one way and then back again every year (small is good in the hot dry season or such).

    • rork says:

      is an article where Ron Roler, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Columbia River policy coordinator, says
      “In reality, yes, nets will be somewhat selective toward larger fish, but when the run is this big, that will make virtually no difference,”
      But the data given is not sufficient to convince me of that. Maybe he isn’t saying things to make that a more honest statement like “no difference by the end of the spawning season”. These Washington guys sound like the MI ones, not so forthcoming with data that you actually wanted, unless it shows something good.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        That is the explanation I pretty much expected, as far as a younger age composition as well as a bright outlook for larger fish in the next couple of years. It is interesting that they attribute the high survival to favorable dam flows rather than the usual suspect (ocean conditions) – but flows are certainly an important additional wild card in a heavily dammed and regulated system like the Columbia.

        As far as the relative effect of the gillnet fishery on size-age-sex composition, you are correct that they did not present specific data on that. However, they likely collected data from both fishery and escapement that should make it possible to determine what effect the gillnet catch had on the composition of fish reaching Hanford Reach. The only caveat would be whether the stock(s) caught in the downstream gillnet fisheries match those sampled in the escapement (or they are able to identify stocks in the age-sex-length samples, perhaps through genetics). Of course, gillnetting (various tribal and non-tribal fisheries) may be occurring in different parts of the river. I am not that familiar with the distribution and timing of Chinook stocks in the Columbia, but the lower river gillnet catch may also include at the same time the lower system fall chinooks (known as Tules) that feed more in southern waters from Oregon to southern B.C and return mostly to lower river hatcheries (unlike the north-migrating wild fall upriver brights that feed in Alaska and northern B.C. and spawn primarily in Hanford Reach). My understanding is that the brights (as their name suggests) are in nicer condition and more desirable than the Tules after entering the river. Maybe, if there is enough public interest, they will decide to present data on the relative effect of downstream gillnet catches.

  3. Immer Treue says:

    Couple of day ago, I posted this in the wrong thread.

    More bad news for MN moose.

    49- calves collared
    11- calves die almost immediately due to complications from capture and abandonment
    4 – calves slip slip collars

    Of 34 remaining calves in study
    4- calves killed by bears
    16- calves killed by wolves

    Remainder of story is interesting read. And I guess, based upon numbers, it can be spun either way that wolves are the main culprit, or are taking about what they always have.

    DelGiudice noted that Minnesota had a thriving moose population 10 to 15 years ago when the state’s moose range had roughly the same number of wolves. Wolves clearly aren’t the cause of the steep decline in moose population, he said. But they may now be helping to push the decline a little faster.

    • mikepost says:

      Given that capture myopothy can take up to 2 weeks to fatally impact the aninmal captured there may be a large percentage of your predated calves that were selected due to obvious impairment caused by the collaring operations and not the overall impact of bears and wolves. In other words the only thing this study really says is that the capture methodology is probably inappropriate for this critter when over 20% die as a direct result.

      • Immer Treue says:


        I agree with you. It’s a foregone conclusion that wolves and bears will take moose calves. The % of calves that died directly, or indirectly due to this type of invasivness would indicate that this particular type of study is shooting itself in the foot.

        Currently, I’m digging on deer population trends in northern MN moose country. Something else is going on beside brain worm, warming to the area, and wolves.

        • sleepy says:

          I didn’t realize that the Northwestern MN moose population is now virtually all gone. Ten or so years ago, I recall the figures in that part of the state at about 1,000.

          It’s strange too that this is happening in MN, while in the Northeastern US moose are increasing and expanding their range. Moose have been spotted 50 miles north of NYC and are in Connecticut also.

  4. Larry Zuckerman says:

    Here is link on Reuters story on Southern Selkirks mountain caribou lawsuit for your reading enjoyment:

    Spoke to a fishery biologist yesterday from Salmon-Challis National Forest and he said folks renting cabins, also spaces in formal campgrounds would be getting 48 hr notices to vacate the closed facilities. Also said yesterday there was a real run on firewood cutting permits.

  5. Larry Zuckerman says:

    Got this from FWS via email today;

    Bruce Decker

    * *

    *U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Suspends Operations
    Due to Federal Government Lapse in Appropriations*

    Because of the shutdown of the federal government caused by the lapse in appropriations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will suspend most programs and operations, including public access to all National Wildlife
    Refuges and all activities on refuge lands including hunting and fishing.

    “Closing off public access to our national wildlife refuges and public lands is the last thing we want to do, but is consistent with operations called for during a government shutdown” said Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dan Ashe. “This is difficult news for the families,
    birdwatchers, hunters and anglers, and recreationists who enjoy the great outdoors on the refuges – as well as for the many local businesses who depend on the tourism and outdoor recreation economy they generate. I think it’s most difficult for the thousands of furloughed Service employees who are impacted in carrying out their mission to protect our nation’s resources and providing for their families.”

    Main impacts to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the lapse in appropriated funding include:

    • All 561 National wildlife refuges are closed to public access. Visitor centers and other buildings are closed.

    • The National Wildlife Refuge System hosts more than 46.5 million people per year, and generates more than $342 million in local, county, state and federal tax income. Refuges also support more than 35,000 private-sector jobs.

    • All activities on federal lands and in public buildings are canceled. This includes hunting and fishing activities on refuge lands.

    • No permitting work or consultations will occur with respect to the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, the Lacey Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.

    • The shutdown will affect more than 7,000 Service employees, who are furloughed until an appropriation is passed.

    • Employees and others may not volunteer their services on behalf of Service functions or on federal lands.

    Services and programs that will remain operational fall into the following exempted categories:

    • Programs financed by sources other than annual appropriations.

    • Activities expressly authorized by law.

    • Activities necessary to protect life and property.

    • Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration.

    • Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fund activities

    • Refuge Law Enforcement emergency operations

    • Firefighting emergency operations

    • Care and feeding activities at hatcheries and captive breeding facilities.

    Because the website will not be maintained, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website will be down for the duration of the shutdown. Additional information will be available at as well as at, which will contain information about the government’s operating
    status on Tuesday, Oct.1, 2013, and the days following.

  6. Larry Zuckerman says:

    This just received from US Dept of the Interior – dramatic photos.

    • Nancy says:

      And lets get “doomsday” about it, just a month away. Actually ran across this NASA Alert while checking out Botkin’s site.

      Some very “heavy” hitters in our government, weighing in on it:

      • Nancy says:

        Bob Z – your thoughts?

      • Wolfy says:

        Thanks, Nancy, for scaring the crap out of me! Seriously, a major disaster would be a very bad thing right now. Most of our response folks (including me) are furloughed and it would take a lot of time to call us back.

        • Nancy says:

          My apologies Wolfy (and sad to hear about the furloughs effecting you) but I was quite surprised to run across this video on Botkin’s site. And I have no idea whether its related to his site or given how playful the internet can be at times:) attached its self somehow to his site and why I asked for Bob Z’s thoughts on the subject since he stated over on the IR post:

          “he’d be personally interested in your (our) responses to Botkin’s facts and assertions”

  7. Larry Zuckerman says:

    BLM will allow grazing with fees for AUMs, but will discontinue grazing monitoring:

    Here is link for all the DOI agencies:

    The best one is the Forest Service and USDA:
    Here is Forest Service message referring to USDA web site:

    and here is what you get at USDA:

    Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not available.

    After funding has been restored, please allow some time for this website to

    become available again.

    For information about available government services, visit

    To view U.S. Department of Agriculture Agency Contingency plans, visit:

  8. Eileen says:

    Ralph, as far as access blocked, the road across Lucky Peak Dam is blocked with Jersey Barriers. The message sign usually used for travel issues (fires, snowy conditions, animals on roadway) note that the Corps of Engineer sites on the lake is blocked, and State Park sites open.

  9. Derek Farr says:

    A story about the end of Idaho’s Sagebrush Rebellion.

  10. john says:

    who are the extremist,, just wondering if a reply can be made with out upsetting the other side extremist

  11. Nancy says:

    Just me or does anyone else think the sale of hunting licenses will be down this year? 🙂

    • SaveBears says:

      It is you Nancy, license sales are already a head of what they have been the last couple of years. What I do think, is a lot more people are going to be eating venison in the future.

    • JB says:

      Here in Ohio, year-to-year variation depends a lot on the weather, especially on opening day of deer(gun). Deer hunting drives license sales here. Of course, it is different in other states. My colleague in South Dakota tells me that the pheasant is king in that state.

  12. Ralph Maughan says:

    “10,000 Walrus Converge On Alaskan Beach As Arctic Sea Ice Declines”

    See the amazing photo of this huge aggregation of walrus.

    The cause is lack of sea ice.

  13. snaildarter says:

    Hunting and fishing are down a 1/3 in Georgia over the last 25 years, even though the human population has doubled. The State has promoted fishing to get kids outside, but electronic devices is still seems to be winning that battle. They also dramatically increased the number of deer that can be taken of both sexes and they finally brought the ballooning deer population down. Now they are panicking and blaming coyotes. We do still have a lot of interest in hunting alligators but they have kept a strict quota in place although they are killing the really large ones. Considering that a gator’s favorite prey is dog a few of those big guys could help them with the precieved “coyote problem.”

  14. Wolfy says:

    Hopefully, our wildlife will get a break from the Wildlife Services slaughter.

    • CodyCoyote says:

      If only.

      In Wyoming, the Wolf control ( extermination) done by Wildlife Services is contracted and reimbursed by the State of Wyoming.

      pretty much all wolves eradicated in Wyoming are at the hands of WS. We have individual county rpedator boards that handle the smaller animals like coyotes and skunks, etc etc etc although there is some voerlap with WS and co-pament there, too.

      So not much changes for wildlife on the run under the Shutdown.

    • Leslie says:

      They are still working here from my understanding of one local employee. Is WS considered critical to government functioning?

  15. Chris Harbin says:

    Many of you have probably seen or heard this story. I’m appalled that this man can blame a park ranger that is basically working on the belief she will eventually
    be paid for the closure of the WW2 Memorial. Disgusting really.

  16. SEAK Mossback says:

    A new method of hard core bear deterence — don’t just inflict pain (which could cause anger) or fear (which will wear off), but make them feel helpless and mess with their self-confidence . . . . probably not the new preferred method of managing less serious problems, but maybe an effective step to manage some of the more serious problems short of lethal removal.

    • Immer Treue says:

      As per the usual SEAK, whether a story of your own, or passed down from Alaska, interesting. Again, when might the book come out as the tales you weave and relate are always worth the read.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        Interesting reading.

        Good question, Immer. I’m a potential customer.

      • SEAK Mossback says:

        Immer —
        As I mentioned some time back, I am pretty focused on technical writing for awhile. Will consider more popular writing in the future, maybe in retirement. Besides that, interesting things are still happening. Just this morning, a weir crew I supervise reported that last night a brown bear got tangled and apparently immobilized in the electric fence strung a few feet around their wall tent. They heard a roar down at the creek and a bear running (likely from another bear) up the path toward the tent. It went into the electric fence and stopped, panting loudly and sounding distressed, until they reached over and pulled the plug out of the socket after which it quit making noises and quickly departed (leaving broken wire, etc. that they were able to repair). There are electo-shock baskets that have been used to briefly immobilize large salmon for sampling, but I have never heard of it working on a large mammal!

    • Nancy says:

      Another article on the subject and some interesting comments below it:

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Yes, some interesting comments. I can see it possibly being useful in the hands of wildlife professionals, but not the general public, if how they behave with guns is any indication. We want to encourage people to keep away from wild animals for safety’s sake (both theirs and the animal’s). As one of the comments said, what’s wrong with bear spray?

  17. Louise Kane says:

    for anyone wanting to observe a life well spent see Running Wild a film about Dayton O’Hyde. A remarkable film about an equally impressive man. Cowboy, photographer, writer, and lover of wild things. Its hard every day to bear witness to the cruelty, ignorance and indifference most of us posting here know of through our interest in wildlife…following O’Hyde’s journey is joyful.

  18. Louise Kane says:

    O’Hyde’s book on coyotes
    if all ranchers could follow his example

    • Elisabeth says:

      Thank You so very much for drawing this book to our attention. We are doing all we can to stop the ruthless coyote killing contests that are happening here in New Mexico and all over the USA. It is truly inspiring to read about a rancher who is so compassionate. Our coyotes need help and it is great that the publisher decided to re-release it.

    • WM says:


      Just a nit, but it is Dayton O. Hyde. He is, of course, a writer by profession, and it appears a marginally successful one at that. A rancher, of course, has different interests and financial motivations (valid or not) when dealing with a perceived threat to livestock -coyotes (or wolves).

      And, despite its literary value and popular reader appeal, it would appear Hyde’s book is about coyotes he personally food conditioned and habituated. All things to think about for those with similar intent in mind. Don’t you just love the anthropomorphic aspects of creative writing? “The Don,” indeed.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Its the unusual open mindset that is appealing. Unusual in that he is not interested in killing other beings that live on the land….

  19. cobackcountry says:

    I just wanted to share that I was reading on the Colorado DOW’s site to check out fishing conditions. I was wondering how they were addressing flooded areas. They are in process of assessing things.

    I have driven through a lot of the accessible areas that were flooded. There are new channels of rivers every place. I hiked some river trail that should have been teaming with cutties right now, and there was no sign of fish any place. The blown out rivers are going to be impacted. The lakes will have extremely different composition too.

    The force of nature in the areas impacted is intense to see. I am going to chronicle the next several years in places that are new and those which are altered but remain somewhat the same.

    You can already see where nature is heeling. Flip side is, we are seeing the resilience of animals as they struggle to find range that hasn’t washed away.

    Much of the land which has changed is also being hit by fall snow, and the migrating animals are going back and forth instead of just staying down for the season.

    America is beautiful, and nature is mighty. So much for the plans of men.

    I hope people take something away from this, which would be that we cannot alter the face of mountains, throw houses on slopes we create, put roads over creek beds and then expect that there will be no consequence for those actions.

  20. Louise Kane says:

    From Exposing the Big Game

    Early snow–Not Wolves–kills thousands of cattle in S.D.
    by Exposing the Big Game
    This sad story backs up what I wrote about the cruel treatment of cows in my recent post, Animal Industry = Animal Abuse.

    It also highlights just one of the many ways that ranchers lose livestock which make the occasional wolf depredation pale in comparison. Because they can’t go out and trap or shoot a snowstorm, they shrug it off and accept their losses in stride. But if a wolf wanders through, it’s panic time. Scapegoating and killing a few wolves and coyotes must make them feel better about their powerlessness to stop a snowstorm.

    Also, how many times do the deniers have to hear the word “record-breaking” before they take climate change seriously…

    A record-breaking storm that dumped 4 feet of snow in parts of western South Dakota left ranchers dealing with heavy losses, in some cases perhaps up to half their herds, as they assess how many of their cattle died during the unseasonably early blizzard.

    By CHET BROKAW Associated Press

  21. Nancy says:

    Louise – being somewhat familiar with cattle ranching here in Montana (got more than a couple of big ranches, close by) this weather event no doubt devastated a few ranchers there in South Dakota.

    Very sad pictures to look at given how these cattle died:

    What bothers me a lot is how those cattle must of suffered and then realizing the “dumbing” down of cattle over a century (for food) out here in the west AND….. fencing to boot, might of led to this kind of catastrophe.

    Were the creeks (pictured) so run down by cattle, it was the only area they could take refuge? And did some of these cattle run for miles, trying to out run the storm only to find them selves fenced in?

    No one, in the livestock business taking into consideration how early winter storms, might effect their liveyhood? Or is it more about, what can be reimbursed by the government when sh*t like this happens when you as a producer, forget, your dealing with another living, breathing being you should of cared more about?

    Cattle that are bred and raised in the west now, don’t know how to dig down for grass and don’t know how to seak shelter when weather gets rough.

    Had just a few inches of snow last week here (and I’m pretty sure it was from the same front that grew in size and then hit South Dakota with one hell of a punch) and I noticed the lease cows over on the meadow across from me, bawling and milling around because they didn’t know how to deal with a couple of inches of snow because their life, come winter (snow) means a tractor hauling hay out twice a day.

    Googled and can’t find anything about how South Dakota’s wildlife faired thru that “record-breaking” winter storm.

    • SaveBears says:


      Are you really claiming you know about ranching because you “Live” close to a couple of large ranching operations?

      • Nancy says:

        I believe I said I was somewhat familiar with cattle ranching, due to the couple of big ranches close by.

        Oh, and should I also have said, thats after 20 years in the area SB?

        • Leslie says:

          I too noticed that the cows on the fed lands next to me were bawling ceaselessly, even after some of the snow melted down enough for them to dig and eat. No, they weren’t being trucked away (they have till the end of Oct. and will be here come hell or high water I’m sure), and they weren’t looking for their calves.

          Cattle never have been able to deal with big storms. Remember the storms of 1888. It was after that that ranchers began feeding hay to their cows in winter.

    • SAP says:

      Nancy – the bawling cows may have been because the storm coincided with weaning time — ie, the big truck came and took their calves away.

      Most cows do know how to take shelter if it’s available to them. Problem out there on the plains is there may not anywhere to go. They drift in the direction of the wind til they hit a barrier; if it’s a place where snow can cover them then they’re probably doomed to suffocate. They seem to fare marginally better if they’re trapped in a place where the snow blows away — they can crowd together for warmth and maybe survive exposure til they get rescued.

      • Nancy says:

        SAP – these cows had their calves weaned from them a few weeks ago and went thru the “where’s my baby” stress for about 5 days before things got back to normal.

        Seemed a bit early to wean since other ranches just got their pairs off public lands around me but then again, this ranch has had most of their cattle on leased land for the summer where good grass is plentiful.

        One thing I’ve noticed over the years is nothing brings cattle down faster from the forests (short of driving them) like an early snowstorm 🙂

    • Louise Kane says:

      I too thought it was sad Nancy
      for all the reasons you articulated and also because it illustrates so clearly the craziness of the claims some ranchers like to make about predators and their impact on their living. When I read ranchers talking about how terrible it is to find a baby calf half eaten by a wolf or other predator, I think about stories like this or the veal calves pulled from their mothers to live in a hellish existence from almost the moment of their birth and think how disingenuous those outraged tirades come across. and before SB gets all into a tizzy and ready to pounce, I don’t claim to live in or have close ties to ranching but I can read.

      • SaveBears says:

        Louise, I already know you have no exerience with cows,but it sure does not keep you out of the conversation.

        • Louise Kane says:

          SB if every single person posting here had direct experience with every thing they commented on, you’d have a pretty boring dialogue. If forward momentum relied on a requirement to be in direct contact or have direct knowledge or experience of something then mathematicians and physicists like Copernicus, Einstein, and Archimedes might have been discredited because they were not able to observe the revolutions of the earth or sun to validate a theory of heliocentrism or the theory of relativity. res ipsa loquitur would not be a legitimate doctrine in law where “proof” is normally required to prevail in negligence cases. In other words sometimes the thing speaks for itself.

          • Louise Kane says:

            come to think of it, many scientists and finest thinkers have historically faced discreditation because they colored outside the lines or rejected the status quo face or deviated from accepted theory

          • SaveBears says:

            What’s up yuor butt today Louise, I simply asked Nancy a question about her statement, then you bring me into your statement about the subject, which was simply a digg, so knock it off!

    • Barb Rupers says:

      The link worked earlier last week but I just got a page with no pictures today.

      • Nancy says:

        Barb – The pictures been replaced with a Q & A on why all those cattle died (click on questions)

        • Harley says:

          The Q & A was very informative. I’m glad the writer did this. I know many many people here are rabid anti-ranching. Hopefully they read it but somehow I doubt it will change their perception of the industry and the people who are in it.

  22. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Bait hunts cause host of problems for wildlife, habitat and ethical hunters
    Well, the headline of that article is not exactly my point. What I find much more interesting is the following from a – wait a minute, what´s his profession – hmmmm a “senior conservation officer” : “
    “Folks really get upset with predators and what wolves are doing to our wild populations, and justly so, but when you put an illegal salt out, what you have done is made predators — including wolves — very effective,” said Barry Cummings, senior conservation officer at Moscow.“While a hunter may take an elk or deer off that salt in a year, predators are hunting it year-round.”

    Read more:

    • Immer Treue says:


      Interesting article.

    • rork says:

      Here’s a Michigan politico talking about how great it is to be able to bait deer again near him, and me fighting it a bit. I even stooped to the old pun about not wanting to be famous master baiters. I argue with some guy who says it’s almost impossible to bow shoot a deer without bait, based on his experiences about deer behavior in the gun season. Doh!

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Wow. Traditional hunting is referred to as a matter of luck and great skill, and a rare occurrence?. I thought that’s what it always was, and what our forefathers and mothers considered hunting. Dumping a truckload of garbage down in your backyard and shooting anything that comes near it isn’t hunting – it’s the lazy man’s way.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Sheesh – we probably wouldn’t even be here today if our forefathers and mothers thought like that and were as helpless as some of these ‘hunters’.

          • SaveBears says:

            Ida, there is no accurate way to compare what hunting was in the past to what it is today. The hunter of the past, used everything to give him/her an advantage, now a days, if someone does that they are called all kinds of nasty names and condemned on what we call the internet.

  23. Immer Treue says:

    Getting close to a year now, and Ted Nugent still alive and not in jail.

  24. snaildarter says:

    Bait hunts are a really bad idea. Of course now that elk populations are back to more natural levels thanks to the reintroduction of wolves. Hunters actually have to work at hunting, poor babies, its so much easier to bait an area so
    you don’t have to walk far from your pickup truck.

  25. CodyCoyote says:

    Here is a boilerplate article at Wyoming Public Media about the town of Thermopolis trying to come to grips with its growing urban deer population.

    You could replace the name of the town with almost any other town in western Wyoming these days.

    The irony is much of western Wyoming is lamenting the sharp drop in wild Mule Deer numbers ( read: the deer we hunt and sell licenses for ) across much of the state , but urban deer numbers are seemingly on the rise everywhere.

    My town of Cody has about 350 mule deer on any given day . over the course of a year, somewhere north of 100 will be killed by traffic. Which suggests to me that the deer have a complementary people problem. Twenty years ago we had few deer in town at all. Just incidentals. But my town grew, and is now completely surrounded by gentrification, subdivisions and a web of housing outside the City Limits in what was once pasture and open land. We also passed a strict leash law for dogs.

    The bottom line is we all but invited the deer to town. They came, they saw, they liked, and now raise their children here from the day they are born , in my back yard behind the hedge.

  26. Louise Kane says:

    anyone able to help elizabeth, please contact her especially wyoming residents. Wildlife killing contests in 2013 speaks to an deep sickness in society. To end these contests is a dream.

    Good Morning,

    For those of you who do not know me, I am the person in NM who has been specifically trying to stop coyote killing contests especially in my own state and county. The national Coyote killing contest, an annual event, is happening about Nov 6 in Rawlings, Wyoming. The best way to get the public lands offices to pay attention is to get someone from Wyoming to write/call their regional offices for BLM and FS and ask them if the contest promoters have applied for the recreational permits that are supposedly required for these “special” events. And then get the public lands offices to enforce their rules. Our experience has been that the offices generally do not listen to folks from other states as much as they do their own residents.

    This is also the same contest that Humane Society spoke about way back in 2006 and named in their announcement supporting ending killing contests. I think this is also the same contest which was highlighted back in 2001 in the movie, ‘Killing Coyotes”. The movie is dated but still applies although the weaponry and technology for killing coyotes has vastly advanced not to mention the TV shows glorifying the contests.

    As most of you know, there are two coyote killing contests coming up in my town, one November 15 and 16 (sponsored by Guns and Gold Pawn) and the December 6-7 contest (Gunhawk). Our coyotes are heavily pressured from these contests down here and I am making homemade videos to show how we are losing our coyotes and the specific effect it has had on our eco-system here in Valencia County. We are seeing and hearing far fewer coyotes. We are also seeing more rodents and raccoons which is effecting our livestock. Guy has notified our public lands offices of the upcoming local contests. Our state land office has banned these contests from happening on state trust lands. But our federal lands have not banned the contests. Also the November contest is being advertised as open to states bordering NM (Colo, Az, Texas, Utah, Ok). And that contest is being sponsored, among others, by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife. So we really do need the other states to notify their land offices too.

    As far as we can tell, more than 50 contests are scheduled in the next 6 months all across the USA. The Fox Pro contest (and National Predator Hunting Assoc contest ) has again targeted other wildlife including wolves, foxes, wolverines, and bobcats. And the World Coyote Calling Contest will be held Dec 6-7 again in Elko Nevada.

    If you have any specific suggestions, please notify Guy (505-269-3757) or I. Please help us do all we can to get the promoters and contestants to stop using our public lands for these contests. Hopefully, we can also get the contests banned. And yes, we have also been in touch with our NM legislators although, at the moment, they are all busy with the shutdown.

    Thank You,
    Elisabeth Dicharry
    “Stop Coyote Killing Contests New Mexico” FB page
    Los Lunas, NM

    • sleepy says:

      And fewer coyotes in the southwest could mean an increase in the plague with more rodents.

  27. Larry Zuckerman says:

    wonder what wildlife in North Dakota and northeastern MT think about this landscape-level change in habitat in the Bakken Fields?

    • sleepy says:

      That’s really beautiful country up there in northwestern North Dakota. Sad to see the damage.

  28. CodyCoyote says:

    Briefly, two of Wyoming’s 12 Wolf hjunt areas have closed already after reaching their quto. Wolf hunts began Oct 1, and an area near Jackson Hole hit its quota the first day.

    – from the Casper Star Tribune, quote:
    Wolf hunt area 5 closed recently after hunters killed the quota of three wolves.

    It is the second wolf hunt area to close after the quota for area 10 near Jackson filled on opening day.”

  29. Connie says:

    Wolf Rally in Gardiner, MT scheduled for October 19th.

    Stay tuned as the exact location has not be finalized due to the government shutdown. The AIC/MSU Bobcat Singers, a Native American drumming and singing group from Montana State University will perform as well as a bagpipe piper. Come show your support for Yellowstone Wolves! This event is co-sponsored by War of 754, Wolves of the Rockies and Legend of Lamar.

  30. Louise Kane says:

    This was sent in my mail box
    from one of the biggest creeps on earth, Ryan Benson of Big Game Forever
    its entitled wolf activists turn to extremist measures

    this guy is unbelievable, the spin and fear mongering
    a real loser

    anyhow here it is


    It is starting to happen. We are starting to see the greater extremism when it comes to efforts to block wolf and other predator management. From “dangerous” and “illegal” sabotage to lawsuits to aimed at blocking federal predator control programs.
    Here are just a few examples:

    NPR Report: Earth First tries to sabotage wolf-hunting season
    Quote: “the manual lays out strategies for releasing that wolf back into the wild. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks spokesman Ron Aasheim says that’s not only illegal, it’s dangerous. RON AASHEIM: ‘You bet it’s dangerous. And some of their techniques, you’re talking about a wild animal, a predator, and, you know, they’re hundred-pound animals.’”

    Associated Press: Wild Earth Guardians says USDA Wildlife Services Predator Control should be suspended
    Quote: “ The conservationists said the program that spent $127 million to exterminate more than 5 million animals in 2010 should be suspended nationally until USDA updates its scientific analysis that’s based largely on an environmental impact statement conducted in 1994 when the program was much smaller.

    Animal’s Rights Rhetoric moves to the forefront in wolf delisting
    Quote: “When wolves loose protection, they die.”

    The bottom line is simple: Powerful special interest groups are trying to use unmanaged predators to cause the decline of wild game numbers in America. Responsible predator management is an important component of maintaining and/or restoring abundant wild life numbers. We need American’s sportsmen and conservationists to fight for the future of wild game in America.

    Please help spread the word. Please forward this email to every sportsmen you know and ask them to send a letter of support using our automated system at

    We can no longer afford to take abundant wildlife in America for granted. We need millions of sportsmen to answer the call if we hope to preserve our outdoor heritage.

    Thank you for your support,”

    Ryan Benson

    • AG says:

      “Powerful special interest groups are trying to use unmanaged predators to cause the decline of wild game numbers in America.”

      Wait… What? I don’t understand why there is people who actually listen to him.

      • SaveBears says:

        The same question is asked on the other sidearm as well, “why do people listen to DOW”

        Despite our opinion, there is two sides on every issue.

        • Immer Treue says:

          C’mon SB,

          Sure there are two sides to the story, yet

          “We support national delisting of the Canadian Gray Wolf”

          And the same old story about the Northern Yellowstone elk herd descending from ~20,000 to ~ 4,000 when literature from close to fifty years ago said there were too any elk. Even Charles Kay, favorite of the antis said there were too many elk, and those that wanted the elk, directed mainly at tourism, but can be applied to the “Yellowstone Is Dead” crowd that “the park would be better managed by Disney. Heck, where have we heard that analogy before?

          As far as DOW goes, the way they handled the delisting; they were the one organization that could have used its weight in deal making, to where, just perhaps, by now some of this pro wolf anti wolf animosity could start to disappear.

          • SaveBears says:


            It does not matter if we like it, the simple fact is, there are people that will listen to them, just as there are those that will listen to the pro side, to ask a question of why they listen is really not a realistic question. Hell people listened to Hitler as crazy as he was and it cost over 20 million lives!

            • rork says:

              Some people’s minds are hard to change, but what would change them is a fairly important consideration it seems, for both sides of any issue.

              Oh, and here’s your Godwin award. By the time the killing had started in earnest, and even before then, my relatives and others that did speak out ended up in Dachau wearing red triangles for many years. All the others weren’t necessarily listening either by the time crazy was obvious.

    • Nancy says:

      “Responsible predator management is an important component of maintaining and/or restoring abundant wild life numbers”

      So WE (the human species) always have the “best” opportunity to kill wildlife at will or whim…… these groups always fall short of mentioning that sad fact in their attempts to maintain and/or restore abundant wildlife numbers.

    • rork says:

      I think even in a perfect wilderness there wouldn’t be “abundant wildlife” enough for some folks, and that this phrase is code for “abundant ungulates for us to shoot”. Nature must be managed to help create abundant wildlife in this code. We already knew managed means killed.

  31. Ida Lupine says:

    Well, that’s just it – we mostly fall short of the mark of responsible predator management due to our greed, ‘hierarchy’ of human needs always coming first no matter how trivial or no matter our own fault, politics, etc. It’s an ideal we can’t possibly meet.

    As far as powerful special interest groups, you can’t get much more strong-arming than the NRA and Safari Club. But with a little editing, this sentence could have possibilities:

    “We can no longer afford to take abundant wildlife in America for granted. We need millions of sportsmen to answer the call if we hope to preserve our outdoor heritage.”

    Now, I personally don’t care for hunting – but I do understand the love of the outdoors. I wish that responsible hunters would call out the bad ones.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      And one more thing – these groups should stop whining (whaaaaaaa!) about the Earth First saboteurs, if they even exist – they don’t say anything about the Shoot, Shovel and Shut-Up’ers, and the Bridges Poisoners – so what’s good for the goose…

      • SaveBears says:


        I can guarantee you 100% the earth first saboteurs exist, as well as their counter parts, the animal liberation front, I was threatened by the animal liberation front, they threatened to kill me.

  32. Louise Kane says:

    if you love wildlife this will enrage you. The poor bears are in subterranean concrete pits
    I don’t understand humans sometimes. No animal is safe from our greed, inhumanity and the atrocities humans commit with such indifference. Who could think living like this is not a hell on earth.

  33. Alex Frieske says:

    Ralph, I have loved your site for some years now.

    I wanted to reach out to your vast audience to implore some input: I was recently let go from my position as Lead Editor at a medical education company (rather unceremoniously, at that. However, I wanted to take this respite as a chance to move into an area that is closer to my heart: the outdoors, wildlife, wilderness, activism, and so on.

    Anyone know of any organizations, magazines, websites, etc., in need of a good copyeditor? I have seven years of professional experience, including technical work.

    Please, anyone out there, let me know. The heart is willing, as is the mind.

    Thanks, all; keep up the great work. And, take care.

  34. Louise Kane says:

    This letter was posted in coyote chronicles
    too bad most people don’t take the time to write their congress and or state and federal reps when they purport to care about an issue.

    10/11/13 Letter to the Governor

    Dear Governor Martinez,

    I writing to notify you of a Project Coyote presentation at the Rio Grande Nature Center next Saturday, October 19th, from 10:30 am — 12:30 pm. Camilla Fox, Founder and Executive Director will be present to discuss coexisting with coyotes. Camilla Fox is a recognized expert on coyotes. (Camilla’s father, Dr. Michael W. Fox is a recognized expert on wolves. Both species are indigenous to New Mexico; both species have been unrepentantly persecuted in this state.)

    Last year New Mexico suffered from extremely negative publicity, national and international scorn and boycotting amid the Valencia Country coyote killing contests. The state’s reputation was denigrated further with the horse slaughter controversy. As you know, the national outrage was sufficient to attract attention from former Governor Bill Richardson and Robert Redford. Subsequently, New Mexico was again the focus of more negative publicity with the prairie dog killing contests and the poisonings in Clovis.

    Along with our reputation for animal cruelty New Mexico has a reputation for extreme violence. Only this past week an Albuquerque man was arrested and held on $100,000 cash only bail given the extreme nature of his violence against the family dog. The link between violence to animals and domestic violence has been established beyond any doubt. In fact, the City of Albuquerque HEART Ordinance states “The council further finds that animal abuse has a direct and significant correlation with domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse.”

    The 2012 New Mexico legislative session heard HB316 which proposed to end the coyote killing contests. As you know the bill was defeated 38-30 amid a far less informed population that now exists. We all mourn the untimely passing of Representative Stephen Easley who eloquently made the analogy between the persecution of our indigenous coyote and the historic persecution of Native Americans. It is reasonable to assume New Mexico’s violence and violence to animals will be a future campaign issue. And, despite the leveraged influence of the state ranching and hunting interests the animal rights segment is quite large, well educated and highly motivated.

    It is accurate and fair to say that the state’s persecution of the coyote, with virtually no controls or constraints, is without any scientific basis and reflects badly upon the state’s character, reputation and wildlife management practices. The animal killing contests are bloodsports. The contests are NOT about hunting or predator control. These are ventures into genuine pathology were killing is pursued for entertainment and profit. There is virtually no difference between the contest motives and the already illegal cockfighting and dog fighting. By extension the state also has a dismal reputation for coursing and penning involving calculated cruelty which defies imagination. This egregious situation does not make our state an attractive destination for visitors, residents, business or investments.

    Project Coyote seeks to promote understanding and coexistence with the coyote. The Project Coyote approach is actually holistic and applicable to our vastly diverse state where we need to understand and respect all species, their part in the community and the environment. Project Coyote and their work is an opportunity for a better understanding of why the killing and violence needs to stop. It’s about far more than the coyote.

    I hope you or a member of your staff will have the opportunity to attend the Project Coyote event.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    J E Newman/Santa Fe

    • rork says:

      Try and change the regs or management goals with logic instead of harping on the contests. Otherwise oppose every fishing derby, squirrel-hunting prize, and big-buck award, perhaps any reward or recognition of hunting or fishing ability. My state DNR gives out patches for catching pretty big fish of any given species. I and my friends share pictures of especially good shroom batches – our souls will surely burn, for our sin has opened a door for others to sin (yuuup, stealing from John Donne again).

      PS: the argument from popularity was used too often (reputation, attractive destination, negative publicity).
      Also: I like coyotes, wouldn’t hunt them.

  35. Leslie says:

    This is an interesting article on MRI brain scans in dogs and how they share remarkable similarity to humans. The author/scientists contends that dogs are emotional beings like humans and he postulates that many other animals have emotions just like humans. In the New York Times;

  36. Snaildarter says:

    Yep the more we learn about animals the less different and special we become. Monkeys, elephants, pigs, wolves, lions, all rival primates in many areas of emotion and social interaction.

  37. Louise Kane says:

    from the facebook page Kids against animal cruelty.. This was so awesome to see. Compare this to children grinning over the dead bodies of animals they or their parents killed. Compassion over indifferent cruelty. This made my day

    Liked · May 8

    A beautiful animal that is part of our heritage past and present. Poisoned, trapped, killed… why? We kids must fight to protect our wildlife against all odds. These amazing animals deserve our respect, protection, understanding and love. They are predators… and like so many wild animals… are condemned.
    Please give wildlife a chance to be what they are… wild and free.
    Please don’t leave your small dogs and cats out at night.
    Bring in cat and dog food and keep your garbage covered.
    Always keep your dogs on a leash.
    Coyotes need to stay in the wild. Lets help keep them there.

  38. Ida Lupine says:

    Just a little reminder, folks. According to the moderators and the blog rules, we aren’t supposed to be doing this (’tis verboten):

    Reductio ad Hitlerum

  39. Leslie says:

    Sadly, in just the weekend, probably all at once, five wolves were killed in my area–one over the quota of four. That’s a wipe out all at once.

    • Nancy says:

      Sad indeed Leslie and what’s worse is the “boys with toys” (weapons) are just now getting started for yet another open season on wildlife in these parts and elsewhere across the country. Although some actually debate about what’s right and wrong when it comes to the slobs out for the fun of it or those that hunt for food:

    • Louise Kane says:

      Leslie I don’t know how you can bear it…Im so sad for you and the wolves. What a terrible terrible time for wolves and for people like you who love them. This killing is beyond understanding.

  40. CodyCoyote says:

    New York Times article sumamrizes the surprising decline in Moose populations all the way across the Continent from east to west . Many causes suspected, but when you scrape the hide off the common denominator seems to be climate change. What’s missing? — any mention of Wolves.

  41. snaildarter says:

    The arrival of Coyotes in the Southeast is helping to fill the empty niches caused by the missing Apex predator’s panthers and red wolves. Many Wildlife Officials are quietly pleased. Now there is a movement to re-introduce the Florida panther into the Okefenokee Swamp area. There could be local opposition to this idea knowing how far the males have been known to range. Okefenokee Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is only about 400,000 acres. However the cats return would certainly help with the feral hog problem and there are simply too many people in south Florida closing in on the Panther’s habitat. Another population in Georgia would be useful.

  42. Louise Kane says:

    an article worth repeating

    History has demonstrated clearly that societal values and perceived needs ultimately determine the treatment and often survival of species such as the wolf. Appropriately, public sensitivity to the killing of all large predators has now made any killing of wolves a contentious issue and placed management agencies under intense scrutiny.

    With notable exceptions such as parks, the management philosophy and policies of most government agencies are narrowly directed towards treating wolves as a “resource” to kill. Most government agencies have adopted policies skewed towards preserving opportunities for recreational killing rather than conservation or preservation of ecological integrity. Ignoring biology and the intrinsic value

    of species, wildlife agencies have resolutely judged wolves as animals in need of management, adopting policies that treat them as a problem, rather than as respected members of the biological community.

    This traditional management ethic favors an anthropocentric view that humans are an exceptional species and, aside from their utility for humans, other species are of little or no consequence in the large scheme of things. In traditional wildlife management, human domination over nature is the natural order. Nature is a commodity that is owned, and used by people, in pursuit of personal interests.

    Management strategies regarding wolves in North America range from full protection to hunting and control. The lethal strategies are supported by efficient technologies (e.g., aircraft hunting, poisoning, and snowmobile hunting). The idea that wolves can affect mortality rates and densities of their prey has provided much of the basis for killing wolves. Some government agencies cull wolves to reduce real and perceived conflicts between wolves and livestock.

    Wolves are also killed by recreational hunters and commercial trappers. The primary motivation of this recreational trophy hunting is gratuitous killing for pleasure. Likewise, commercial trapping is done for profit but the method of capture and killing causes intense suffering in wolves.

    On moral grounds, killing for pleasure or willing infliction of pain is highly questionable behavior, considered aberrant and deviant by most people. Certainly, society has long recognized that taking pleasure in killing an animal or knowingly inflicting pain are all “red flags” that signal the need for professional intervention. This is especially true when the person has the cognitive maturity to understand that what s/he is doing is wrong – and repeatedly does it anyway.

    Many human activities harm wolves, both individuals and populations, in direct and indirect ways. Direct effects include lethal culling, hunting, trapping, poisoning, and the destruction of food supplies. Indirect effects include changes to habitat or movement patterns that result in death or disrupt social relationships.

    Importantly, harmful direct actions can have broader indirect effects. For example, in animals like wolves, culling some individuals in a social group can also cause indirect harms by disrupting the transfer of cultural and genetic information between generations, and altering group stability and breeding structures in the population. Although direct harms are more obvious and more likely to attract public attention, both direct and indirect harms need to be recognised as important determinants of animal welfare and conservation.

    In making moral judgments, people tend to regard harm as more serious if it is deliberate rather than unintentional. Both recreational and institutional killing of wolves, for example, are viewed as more serious acts than unintentional killing. Similarly, people may regard harm as less significant if done for a seemingly worthwhile purpose. This is a slippery slope, however, because social and moral justifications are often used to sanctify harmful practices by investing them with worthy purposes. Disengagement of moral self-sanctions enables people to pursue detrimental practices freed from the restraint of self-censure.

    I think it is undeniable that we are harming wolves by knowingly inflicting physical and psychological pain and suffering, which often results in their deaths. Sometimes we do this for our own pleasure, sometimes for dubious pragmatic reasons, but usually for reasons that are gratuitous and selfish.

    Some of us are well-informed participants, deliberately pursuing harmful activities that serve our own interests. We justify our behavior through moral disengagement by switching off our conscience to exonerate and sanitize our malpractice in the name of worthy causes. Others are uninformed or unmindful bystanders. But all of us are accountable.

    From an ethical perspective that considers the intrinsic value and welfare of individual animals and populations, most killing of wolves is morally indefensible and should be stopped.

    Further, wildlife conservation aims to ensure that populations and species survive, and that ecological and evolutionary processes continue. For evolution to continue, however, individuals are important because natural selection acts on individuals. Many subspecies of wolves have no evolutionary future because of misguided lethal management practices that ignore the fundamentals of biology and fail to consider individuals. Animal welfare, however, is concerned with the well being of these individuals.

    Accordingly, many conservationists and managers are embracing and incorporating ethical considerations of animal welfare. Likewise, animal welfarists who have direct connections to ecology and place are drawing upon information from environmental research. The mutual recognition is that although wildlife science and animal welfare constitute different paths to knowledge, they are rooted in the same reality and affirm one another.

    The article above was written by Dr. Paul Paquet and originally a Plenary Session of the 2013 International Wolf Symposium. Dr Paquet is Senior Scientist and Carnivore Specialist with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation & Science Advisory Board Member of Project Coyote.)

  43. Louise Kane says:

    thankfully Ryan Benson and Don Peay getting some more bad and well deserved press. The destructive wildlife hating thieves.

  44. Ida Lupine says:

    Young bears, barely on the planet, know nothing about man except violence.

    I think about this a lot. Any animal knows nothing about man except violence. I don’t see how these creeps can consider themselves men ganging up on baby bears. Lawsuits are being worked on as we speak because the gov’t shutdown has temporarily interfered with…hunting! – not children’s programs, health care, but hunting! And this Administration will probably give away the store to appease them. Well, this country may have had a tradition of hunting and fishing a hundred years ago, but today’s world is dramatically different.

    I’ve got some young animals on my property – and deer season starts soon. I’m sure some Big Man is going to feel great about killing a couple of fawns or yearlings.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I don’t know if this hunting mania is a tea party thing or whatl. Well, at least some animals will be safe on my property. I suppose if any analogy is appropriate, it would be ‘La Résistance française”!

      Goodnight, all –

    • rork says:

      So would fawn deer be protected under your game management by emotion utopia? You get they are the most expendable, right? The Big Man of your fantasy might actually not kill fawns (or does) thinking it too unmanly, and might denigrate hunters shooting them. Tomorrow you’ll probably be criticizing hunters trying mostly for big bucks rather than the meat,the only consistency being the insults, and commenting first to your own comments.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Ha! It really is the stuff of nightmares, not fantasy. Well, if a hunter was the way you describe, hunting with the future of wildlife in mind – I’d have no problem with it. They’re not the ones who like to video their exploits, unfortunately. They deserve the insults, and they give as good as they get.

        Only the most arrogant, crude and juvenile seem to do that. Maybe they need a little more emotion so that they don’t consider animals just inanimate objects in a shooting gallery. Someone posted some of the terminology modern hunters use and it was just appalling.

        By the way, I am also appalled at Sally Jewell’s statement about expanding hunting in the Wildlife Refuges – just encouragement of ‘using it up’ and not one single word about protecting wildlife for the future in it’s own right, without consumptive use. We need to face reality and not look at hunting as a fantasy – it is brutal and crude for the most part.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          For example, killing a white moose is an insult to the culture of Native Americans – crude and arrogant. Either it was deliberate or these fools are too ignorant to know better.

          • SaveBears says:


            If they were not informed of the cultural nature of a white animal to another culture, then they well be uninformed. We had a couple of white Moose up this way a few years ago and the FWP put out a press release stating they were in fact legal animals for hunters.

            Not everybody knows of the ties between Native Americans and certain types of wildlife. In fact, I would speculate that the majority of hunters have never heard of, let alone seen a white animal, Pie Bald deer are pretty common and they are taken all of the time by hunters.

            This is one of the big problems these days, anti hunters fully expect everybody to know every little situation that might come up, and hunters pay attention to what is published in the rule book, things are not as clear as they always seem.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              SB, I don’t mean to offend anyone – but with some hunters (not all) there’s a need to push ahead and take everything, just because they can, no restraint whatsoever. I just don’t understand it. Do they have any concern for anyone else or compassion at all?

              • SaveBears says:

                I am not offended, but it amazes me, that both sides continue to harp that everybody should know everything.

            • SaveBears says:

              I will add, I hunted in Nova Scotia back in 1998 and nothing in their hunting regulations even mention albino animals, let alone the cultural significance they have.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I hope you enjoyed NS! At least the article says there was a hunter who was moved to tears by the insensitivity, so that speaks well of him. I think there are many who don’t respect indigenous beliefs or culture because (my personal belief) it threatens their place in this country. A white animal is so rare that even if these weren’t aware of the culture surrounding it, should be left alone to live. I think even European-descent and other cultures have similar beliefs, but today we have no culture.

              • SaveBears says:

                I loved NS, and not because of the hunting conditions, I relished my time at the Titanic museums and the bays that have 30 foot tides, in reality, I spent way more time fishing than I did hunting.

              • rork says:

                In MI it used to be you weren’t allowed to shoot albino deer, then we came to our senses – we don’t want to artificially help increase the frequency of those alleles, cause it’s bad for deer.
                Deer with achondroplasia or no teeth are rare too. There’s a reason.

  45. Salle says:

    Don’t know if this has been posted earlier, didn’t see it anywhere:

    Sacred albino moose killed by hunters

    Apparently they have apologized to the Native Americans and given them the hide but won’t relinquish the head.

    • Nancy says:

      Rather than witness a truely rare & beautiful creature in the wild and then let it pass unmolested, these guys couldn’t wait to become the next “grinning idiots” on Facebook.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Can you just imagine the mindset: “Oh look, a white moose – let’s kill it!” Infuriating.

      Accept their apology? I hope the Native Americans spit in their eye.

    • Leslie says:

      “locals consider it bad luck to kill white animals”.

      Well, once informed, these guys still are keeping the head. A lot of people who take rocks from Uluru, the sacred mountain in Australia, wind up sending them back in the mail because it is said that it is bad luck to take pieces of this mountain.

      So did they experience bad luck and contribute it to the rock? Might just happen with these guys.

      Even once they know how sacred the animal is, they still can’t relinquish their acquisition. I feel this shows a disregard for what is sacred to this tribe, even if its all within the ‘law’ etc.

  46. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Helicopters versus drones: The cost of the war on rhinos

  47. Ida Lupine says:

    Now I feel terrible. I realize that all hunters aren’t like some of the ones we hear about, nor all ranchers.

    Unfeeling behavior isn’t just the domain of hunters, it’s a human thing:–beheaded-bird-vegas/?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=green

    • SaveBears says:


      I really hate to say, I told you so, but I have made statements to this effect many times over the years, humans killing animals for pleasure is not a new thing.

      • SaveBears says:

        And it is not only hunters that kill animals, humans kill animals and many times it is not for food.

  48. snaildarter says:

    It’s not just tigers, elephants and rhinos. Third-worlders with money have created new demands for all sorts of wildlife. For example they have devastated the world’s freshwater turtle populations. Most of the Southern States in this country have finally passed regulations controlling freshwater turtle harvest. A couple of years ago Texas was shipping 300K turtles to China each year for food. That is definitely not sustainable.

  49. CodyCoyote says:

    An article in today’s Casper Star Tribune on Wyoming’s Elk feedground quandry, especially with respect to brucellosis. Wyoming has been supplementally feeding elk for over 100 years.

    The article makes a statement that I question , stating that the 17 elk feedgrounds in western Wyoming help control the spread of brucellosis. COmment ?

    It also rightly mentions that brucellosis is not the only disease that wildlife conservationists should be concerned with at the feedgrounds. Chronic Wasting Disease , for instance.

    • rork says:

      The part about not just sticking to the same place is good. In MI we have families with long traditions of going to areas that used to have high deer densities, but are now in 40+ year old conifer plantations without end (deserts biologically speaking, ghastly to see). They complain about the number of doe tags or predators, maybe not even bothering to use their eyes.

  50. Barb Rupers says:

    An article in this publication discusses ways to pay for Idaho’s management of wolves and other carnivores. Mr. Grimm, a fitting name, director of Idaho’s Wildlife Services mentioned the number of coyotes and wolves killed recently, livestock lost, and where their personnel are located in the state. They do have an opening in Emmett 😉

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Having Ken Salazar out of the Interior has definitely made things a little more difficult for some. Good! >:)

  51. Peter Kiermeir says:

    $13,500 wins spot in first mountain lion hunt“Hunters are the biggest conservationists there are anywhere in the world. Hunter dollars provide a lot of things for the outdoors, hunting, fishing and parks. Hunting is a heritage of the state, and I’m proud to be part of it.

  52. Nancy says:

    Ya got your motorcyle (and bicycle) chasing wolves and now ya got your motorcyle chasing elk….!prettyPhoto/0/

    • SaveBears says:


      That elk was chasing the motorcycle, it was shown on the news here in Montana quite a few times, that elk was put down due to the fact it had been habituated to humans and had become dangerous, stupid people feeding wild animals again.

      • Nancy says:

        I can imagine it was shown again and again here SB but I haven’t watched TV in months so I missed it.

        And agree, stupid people feeding wild animals again.

  53. Mareks Vilkins says:

    if somebody could suggest me some resources about ungulate populations management guidelines in NRM & Pacific NW it would be nice

  54. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Information about wolf hunting in Latvia:

    wolf pup killing is dominant feature of current wolf hunting’s season season and reminds one about famous anti-wolf slogan ‘ Smoke a Pack a Day’

    from July 15 till October 5 hunters killed 113 wolves and 74 were pups, that is, they killed 2 1/2 – 5 months old pups).

    The trick/ruse how they accomplished this is by using fake (human) howling and eliciting pups’ response – so they were able to lacate where wolves are and later organized hunt with a fladry.

    The number of wolves allowed to kill in 2013 / 2014 hunting season – 200, but it seems the quota will be extended to include 250 wolves as in the previous season (biologists estimate wolf population at 200-300 at the end of hunting season on 31st March and 500-600 wolves with pups in July )

    video about wolf hunt in Latvia @ September 7, 2013


    Just in case you didn’t see this. . an anti wolf person doing public relations.

    • Nancy says:

      “Bill Addeo swears he didn’t park an SUV with a dead wolf strapped to the roof on the Town Square just for the attention”

      Yeah right….. What if he’d shot an elk? Would that have been up there too so he didn’t get blood all over?

    • AG says:

      This type of hunter makes me sick. Treating wild animals as things that can be shot and ignoring that they’re highly social animals is just.. inhumane.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      What a tremendous ego.

  56. Mareks Vilkins says:

    in Latvian mythology wolf is a God’s Dog – that’s how ancient Latvian tribes summarized Trophic Cascades phenomena/effect at that time. I mean, wolf as a [boreal] forest ecosystem’s guardian angel/ manager/ steward, ok?


  57. Larry Zuckerman says:

    Troubling discussion about extinction and modern genetics with a growing threat on the world’s wildlife habitats.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Particularly dispiriting is the fact that financial support for species conservation is waning even as the threats to so many species grow.

      And also the lack of care that support for species conservation is waning and the careless, selfish increase in hunting.

      I would love to see the passenger pigeon brought back, and other species that have gone extinct in modern times.

  58. Louise Kane says:

    sob killed the biggest wolf while elk hunting in the predator zone but could have killed all of them if they only stayed put. When will this insanity end? Disgusting human being.

    • SaveBears says:


      You might want to take that up with the state, they are the ones that set the rules up! It is getting very old with the continued name calling of hunters that are following the laws as set up by their state game depts.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        SB, I’ve notices that you have great leadership qualities, I would be from your time in the military. I wish people would put a stop to this kind of in-your-face unnecessary violence. It just shows that this man is an ethically poor, soulless individual. If he only knew it doesn’t make him a Big Man at all, but a very small one.

      • Nancy says:

        Some thoughts on the subject of “legal” SB:

        “Congress could pass a law tomorrow declaring that we have too many elderly people, and therefore anyone who’s turned 70 must turn themselves in for euthanasia. That law would make their killing ‘legal’ – but not moral, or ethical, or right, under any system of ethics or morals of which I’m aware”

        The ones that “relish” killing wolves (and can’t wait to put those kills on display) aren’t hunters in my book SB, they are assh0les with a hateful agenda, encouraged by even more assh0les that just love to get their jollies off, killing and displaying their “trophies”.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I hope that the next red mist they see in the air will be their own.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I love the title of that blog. 🙂

        • Immer Treue says:



        • SaveBears says:


          Your idea of ethics, my idea of ethics, and Ida’s idea of ethics matters not in this issue, the state of Wyoming came up with the rules and some people are going to follow them, the state says it is legal to kill as many wolves as you want in the predator zone. Based on the law in the state of Wyoming, he did nothing wrong. Calling him names and wishing him ill will, will do nothing to change things, you have to go to those who write the laws, which is the legislature and the Game Dept.

          You people just don’t seem to understand, what is what in your book, my book or anyone’s book does not matter, what matters is what is in the book the state wrote..

          By the way, Congress could not write a law that states there is to many elderly people, it would be considered a violation of an individuals civil rights as defined by the constitution as well as Supreme Court Rulings since the Constitution was wrote. You have to remember, many of the men who killed African Americans during the 50’s and 60’s were never convicted of murder, but many were convicted of civil rights violations because they denied them the right to life.

          • SaveBears says:

            Remember, “Congress shall write no law, that violates the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights of the United States of America”

            • SaveBears says:

              There is that little statement in the laws of this country, that says, We all have the “Right” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and also note, it does not say “Happiness” it says the right to “Pursuit” of Happiness.

              • Louise Kane says:

                be nice if humans allowed wild animals the same rights, right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. we make life a living hell for most animals wild or not,
                just where do we get off thinking its ok to kill for sport and destroy wild families and lives for fun

          • Immer Treue says:


            Yes, it’s legal. But this part of Nancy’s quote is integral to what is wrong.

            “The ones that “relish” killing wolves (and can’t wait to put those kills on display) aren’t hunters in my book SB, they are assh0les with a hateful agenda, encouraged by even more assh0les that just love to get their jollies off, killing and displaying their “trophies”.”

            I have never understood the need, desire, or stoking of personal gratification by posing and filming oneself with a recent kill.

            Living during thee informational age, where this has probably been posted across the country carries hidden ramifications (that I steadfastly oppose).

            As in Wisconsin, all it’s going to take is one lame brained video of wolves and dogs fighting to get hounding banned, and possibly wolf hunting to boot.

            Perhaps there is too much preaching to the choir here, but it serves as a platform to keep the fires burning.

            Also, with the killing of wolves possibly calling Yellowstone their home territory, hunters are giving themselves a black eye. Sure it’s legal, but that doesn’t make it morally.

            Not meant as anti-hunting, but a petition to common sense and dignity to all animals that fall prey to hunters

            • SaveBears says:


              I will keep preaching, what you and I consider Moral, has nothing to do with this, what matters, is the state said it is legal and the hunter is the one that has to look inside him or her self.

              You, I and many others have been discussing this issue for many years now on this blog, and things have not changed, in fact they have loosened up and there are more ways of killing wolves than ever before, what we are doing, is not working! The majority of hunters, don’t even pay attention to websites like this, they just start their own, so they can say what they want.

              The information age, is great, it has allowed a lot of people to learn a lot of things, but it also has been a detriment, it has allowed the extremes on both sides of issues to express their opinions and post their shit, with no fear of ramifications or responsibility.

              • Rita k Sharpe says:

                I have to agree with you, SaveBears, especially, on the last paragraph.

              • Nancy says:

                “what matters, is the state said it is legal and the hunter is the one that has to look inside him or her self”

                So would it be safe to atleast call these people anything BUT hunters SB?

                Like many, I’m trying really hard to grasp what their idea of hunting is, when they have NO problem blowing away life, just cuz they can.

              • Immer Treue says:


                The information age, is great, it has allowed a lot of people to learn a lot of things, but it also has been a detriment, it has allowed the extremes on both sides of issues to express their opinions and post their shit, with no fear of ramifications or responsibility.”

                You expounded on what I said above. But as soon as pictures and attached names are involved, the gloves are unfortunately off.

              • SaveBears says:

                No, Immer, it would not be fair, we are a society of laws and rules and many look to those above us to set those rules, when the rules are set, they follow the rules, what you and I think really does not matter.

                The rules have been set for the time being and there are many out there following them, I was a commander in the army, I understand that certain individuals, follow the rules, so I set the rules and never had a problem with them, then there are those that DON’T follow the rules and guess what, right or wrong, they think. I am more afraid of those who only follow the rules, and don’t think.

              • SaveBears says:


                I would not recommend going after those who follow the rules as set, and post their names, the only thing you will accomplish it getting the legislature setting new laws that prevent us from knowing what is going on and who they are.

                It is already been shown.

              • Immer Treue says:


                Perhaps I was not clear with my comment. I agree with you, and as I said in an earlier comment, in somewhat veiled terms, I do not agree with harassment of those who are only following the law. Hopefully this individual is not receiving “shit” from others. And I’m in no way condoning that type of behavior.

                That said, whether its deer, or fish in my case, I feel no need to share with the world that I killed something. I’m thankful for the food.

              • SaveBears says:


                Over 90% of what my family eats is because I am very good at hunting and I agree, I don’t brag, but when they are following the law, then we need to focus on those who write the law and not those who follow the law.

              • Kathleen says:

                Activists are not likely to silently accept rules they see as unjust and pronounce that morality–yours, mine, anyone’s–is irrelevant because “what matters is what is in the book the state wrote.” The state can’t be depended upon to serve as a moral agent. Jim Crow laws were legal, “on the book” state and local laws. Who would defend them today?

                In our country and probably every country, many unjust laws have been written, passed, and enforced to benefit those in power. Many of those same laws were also removed when people with moral objections spoke out against them, against their enforcement, and against the beneficiaries who took cover behind the “legality” of those laws.

                Ed Abbey said “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” Speaking out on this blog, rallying support, petitioning state legislatures, and calling out those who benefit from unjust laws is, in part, what Abbey was talking about.

                The difference here is that human animals derive their power over all other animals through institutionalized speciesism. Our advantage is much, much larger than “just” race, religion, gender, ethnicity, political ideology, whatever. Animals are the ultimate voiceless, unrepresented victims and we exploit them with and without the sanction of laws.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Save Bears,

                You and I are in accord.

        • SaveBears says:

          Jon, are you really suggesting, that sport hunters kill themselves?

      • Louise Kane says:

        I do “take it up” with the state SB and I’ll never stop feeling outrage over killing wolves or other predators or wild animals for “fun” or that its “legal”. I’ll also never understand why you so quickly resort to the it’s legal mode whenever anyone posts a bit of outrage about these sobs (yes sobs) that love to kill and maim and get off on posting their atrocities. they are sorry sobs, no apologies on my end.

        • SaveBears says:

          I don’t understand why you resort to calling people names, that are following the law that was set by their state, if you don’t like what I have to say Louise, then find someplace else to rant and rave, because I will continue to call you on your BS every single time.

    • jon says:

      What a disgusting you know what. This guy is very sick.

      • SaveBears says:


        If you are going to comment, at least come up with something original instead of restating what others have already said!

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          To Everyone,

          SaveBears echos my view. I want to see a discussion of wildlife and related issues here.

          Everyone has an opinion; in fact thousands of them, but facts are what I like to see. If there are facts behind an opinion, then the opinion could be worthwhile.

          I am happy this forum usually presents facts and interpretations of them. Two long time members here were recently dropped because we decided their comments were almost always just whether they liked or disliked something. That raised the temperature without shining light.

          • Nancy says:

            “Everyone has an opinion; in fact thousands of them, but facts are what I like to see. If there are facts behind an opinion, then the opinion could be worthwhile”

            Ralph – The one thing I’ve looked forward to over the years on the Wildlife News is the lively discussion that often comes after “facts” are posted and opinions are given as to whether those “facts” are actually true or….just someone’s opinion as to whether they ought to be considered as fact 🙂

  59. Mareks Vilkins says:

    I will recycle some info about wolves in Latvia to put things in context:

    Latvia :

    Area ~ 64 000 sq km

    Forests ~ 50% of territory

    The number of lynxes allowed to kill in 2012 / 2013 hunting season – 150 ( biologists estimate lynx population at 300-400 lynxes at the end of hunting season and 600-700 lynxes with kittens in July)

    Right now 70% of adult wolf females are breeding every year (6 pups per litter) – so the policy basically comes to this:

    1) make local wolves to become breeding machines and then

    2) kill every single wolf within 5…6 years time (as director of Hunting department explained to me – ” demand for wolf and lynx hunt is bigger than a risk to damage predator population’s structure”).
    During 1999-2007 the average hunting quota was 130 wolves (43% of population) and no more than 300 wolves when hunting season started in July.

    But during 2008-2012 the average hunting quota was 180 wolves and 200-300 wolves left when hunting season is ending.

    And interesting connection to Northern Rocky Mountains wolf management plans is that director of Latvia’s Hunting department Janis Ozolins intends to publish scientific paper which shows that wolf and lynx populations in Latvia can endure bigger hunting pressure than usually is referenced in literature (for wolves above 40% and for lynxes above 10%).

    I mean, J.Ozolins intends to show that for a whole generation under very intense hunting pressure the local wolf population is stable and even slowly increasing – and that sounds like a music to ranchers, politicians and wolf-haters who can fiercely demand wolf harvest bag’s increase.

    However, it is unknown to what extent this picture is distorted due to incoming wolves from neighboring countries like Russia, Belarus (70 out of 201 wolves were killed in border area in 2011-2012 season), Estonia and Lithuania.

    one can take a look at LV wolf management plan “Wolf conservation plan” , especially pages 12-23 (management policy is referenced to Dr Dave Mech)

    and one can compare this breeding rate with wolf population which is not harvested (in Poland the ban on wolf hunting is since 1998 and now they have only 700 wolves or in YNP (2009) there were 124 wolves and only 6 breeing pairs)

    livestock depredation (usually happens to the same owners every year due to negligence):

    2005 – 9 sheeps, 5 goats, 6 cattle

    2008 – 39 sheeps, 6 goats

    2010 – 5 cattle, 41 sheeps, 2 goats + injured 6 cattle/calves , 29 sheep

    2011 – 242 (of them 176 sheep + 25 dogs)

    2012 – 170 (of them 163 sheep)

    2013 (till Oct 1st) – 174 (of them 152 sheep)

    one adult sheep costs ~ 140 euros or $200


    ( “uzskaitits” means ‘official census’, ‘limits’ means ‘harvest quota / bag’ , ‘nomedits’ means ‘actually killed’)

    The European Roe Deer in 1997 were 38 419 (allowed limit to hunt 4 214 and actually killed 2 137) but in 2009 – 240 204

    The Red Deer (elk) in 1997 were 20 460 (allowed limit to hunt 4 219 and actually killed 2 675) but in 2009 – 43 700

    The Wild Boar in 1997 were 15 228 (allowed limit to hunt 7 037 and actually killed 4 061) but in 2009 – 66 669

    The Moose in 1997 were 6 974 (allowed limit to hunt 1 288 and actually killed 994) but in 2011 – 17 509

    The Beaver population exploded as well – in 2008 they were ~ 83 thousands

  60. Mareks Vilkins says:

    I will recycle some info about wolves in Latvia to put things in context:

    Latvia :

    Area ~ 64 000 sq km

    Forests ~ 50% of territory

    The number of lynxes allowed to kill in 2012 / 2013 hunting season – 150 ( biologists estimate lynx population at 300-400 lynxes at the end of hunting season and 600-700 lynxes with kittens in July)

    Right now 70% of adult wolf females are breeding every year (6 pups per litter) – so the policy basically comes to this:

    1) make local wolves to become breeding machines and then

    2) kill every single wolf within 5…6 years time (as director of Hunting department explained to me – ” demand for wolf and lynx hunt is bigger than a risk to damage predator population’s structure”).
    During 1999-2007 the average hunting quota was 130 wolves (43% of population) and no more than 300 wolves when hunting season started in July.

    But during 2008-2012 the average hunting quota was 180 wolves and 200-300 wolves left when hunting season is ending.

    And interesting connection to Northern Rocky Mountains wolf management plans is that director of Latvia’s Hunting department Janis Ozolins intends to publish scientific paper which shows that wolf and lynx populations in Latvia can endure bigger hunting pressure than usually is referenced in literature (for wolves above 40% and for lynxes above 10%).

    I mean, J.Ozolins intends to show that for a whole generation under very intense hunting pressure the local wolf population is stable and even slowly increasing – and that sounds like a music to ranchers, politicians and wolf-haters who can fiercely demand wolf harvest bag’s increase.

    However, it is unknown to what extent this picture is distorted due to incoming wolves from neighboring countries like Russia, Belarus (70 out of 201 wolves were killed in border area in 2011-2012 season), Estonia and Lithuania.

    one can take a look at LV wolf management plan “Wolf conservation plan” , especially pages 12-23 (management policy is referenced to Dr Dave Mech)

    and one can compare this breeding rate with wolf population which is not harvested (in Poland the ban on wolf hunting is since 1998 and now they have only 700 wolves or in YNP (2009) there were 124 wolves and only 6 breeing pairs)

    livestock depredation (usually happens to the same owners every year due to negligence):

    2005 – 9 sheeps, 5 goats, 6 cattle

    2008 – 39 sheeps, 6 goats

    2010 – 5 cattle, 41 sheeps, 2 goats + injured 6 cattle/calves , 29 sheep

    2011 – 242 (of them 176 sheep + 25 dogs)

    2012 – 170 (of them 163 sheep)

    2013 (till Oct 1st) – 174 (of them 152 sheep)

    one adult sheep costs ~ 140 euros or $200


    The European Roe Deer in 1997 were 38 419 (allowed limit to hunt 4 214 and actually killed 2 137) but in 2009 – 240 204

    The Red Deer (elk) in 1997 were 20 460 (allowed limit to hunt 4 219 and actually killed 2 675) but in 2009 – 43 700

    The Wild Boar in 1997 were 15 228 (allowed limit to hunt 7 037 and actually killed 4 061) but in 2009 – 66 669

    The Moose in 1997 were 6 974 (allowed limit to hunt 1 288 and actually killed 994) but in 2011 – 17 509

    The Beaver population exploded as well – in 2008 they were ~ 83 thousands

  61. Leslie says:

    Hunt area 2 where 1 over quota of wolves was killed last weekend is creating quite a stir again this year. I do know that one of these males was a yearling.

  62. Leslie says:

    Yet another wolf story, this time hunter likes to brag and display his kill on top of his car in Jackson’s downtown square. What do the tourists think of that?

    • Leslie says:

      Sorry, didn’t see this was already posted.

      In my book too, these people are not hunters. The great difference between hunters today and in past times is their treatment of the hunt itself.

      There was a reverence for the animal, and a respect for its life. The hunt was a ceremonial event and the animal’s spirit was respected. Hunters had to kill to eat, and they knew what they were doing–taking a life–and they didn’t take that lightly.

      There are hunters who still honor that and I know many. But killing for sport, for fun,for trophy, for spite, in hatred, or for the ‘red spray’…to me that is a demonstration of the worst of human traits.

  63. Ida Lupine says:

    Speaking of “America the Beautiful” – here’s the example of some of the fine upstanding citizens killing wildlife for fun and profit. Name sound familiar?

  64. Ida Lupine says:

    Well, at least it does my black heart good to know that this guy is a bit of a scumbag, who is not a legitimate outfitter in the state of Wyoming. Maybe it’s only a matter of time before his outfitters license is revoked permanently.

  65. Ida Lupine says:

    Following the law is one thing, but taking advantage of the law is another. This ‘outfitter’ is a documented wolf hater, and wanted to send a message by contacting the newspaper and making a public spectacle I am sure. See Michigan.

    Goodnight all –

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Oops, left something out:

      Before the (see Michigan) I had written that I could see what SB means by making up laws as they go along.

  66. Louise Kane says:

    aves are you out there
    finally someone litigates for red wolf

  67. Immer Treue says:

    All this talk of animal abuse, trophy hunting, ad nauseum. As our short autumn quickly slides into the vastness of a Northern Winter, and most of the land based fur and feathered denizens become more skittish around man, as the hunting seasons are upon us, this morning I witnessed trust from one of our smaller feathered friends.

    Putting out the oiled sunflower seeds, I held a handful of seed upon a large flat stone feeder I have constructed. Within seconds, I had chickadees feeding from
    My hand. Trust can be wonderous.

    As a disclaimer, this does not translate to habituating deer with food, or the toothed canines that feed upon them.

    • Ida Lupine says:


    • Nancy says:

      Very cool Immer! And I can relate.

      A few years ago while at a friend’s house, I put my finger up next to a busy hummingbird feeder, hanging from the side of the house. A few seconds later, a hummingbird landed on my finger. The touch from those two, incredibly tiny feet, was the only indication I had a hummingbird perching on my finger.

      They weigh next to nothing 🙂 It was a brief, priceless encounter with another species OR….maybe not 🙂

      • Immer Treue says:


        I remember my first “close” hummingbird encounter. I was backpacking Isle Royale and decided to take a nap. I was just off trail and was having a pleasant snooze when I awoke to buzzing. When I opened my eyes I was almost eyeball to eyeball with a hummingbird. Evidently the red bandana around my neck proved irresistible.

        The red hat I frequently wear has the same effect. Have to wait till next May for those little helicopters of class Aves.

        • SaveBears says:


          I wear a red baseball cap quite often and have had the hummers zip into the house to let me know their feeders are empty, then when I fill them up, they will actually land on the bill of my hat as I walk their feeders out to the places I hang them.

          • Immer Treue says:


            Cool! The hummers around here don’t seem to tolerate one another. I can put up two feeders separated by ten feet or more, and one bird will monopolize both feeders. Sometimes one will perch on a small white pine, watch the feeders, and chase newcomers away.

            Slight change of subject, but still on birds. I’ve been reading the old collection of Stephen Jay Gould essays. One of said essays dealt with the dinosaur/bird connection. This caused me to dig a bit deeper and locate an old paper I wrote during my evolution class.

            As an individual schooled in Biology, and I would assume evolution. What is your take on the dinosaur/bird/endothermic connection?

  68. Moose says:

    Re: Sale of wolf hunting licenses in Michigan

    Interesting that UP hunters only accounted for 25% of total license sales.

    • rork says:

      “The distribution of wolf license sales across the state shows that there is support for the hunting season statewide, not just in the Upper Peninsula,” DNR spokeswoman Debbie Munson-Badini in Marquette said.
      I declare this unadulterated spin, by official spin-doctor of our DNR. Why is our DNR applying this kind of spin though? Something closer to truth: It shows that a few people want to hunt wolves, and that the population is far greater in the lower peninsula.
      That it took a week to sell out 1200 tags maybe shows that the number of people wanting to hunt wolves is rather few. It might also be a function of how much effort it will take, and what low chances of success there will be. It’s impractical. Yuppers are not famous for being money-flinging romantics.

  69. Salle says:

    And now for some good news…

    Action prevents development leases in Utah’s red rock country

    “We are fortunate to find ourselves at such a point of celebration: the U.S. Supreme Court denial of a “petition for certiorari” in the Impact Energy v Salazar (Jewell) litigation closes the door on the efforts of a group of oil and gas companies and three Utah counties to force through 77 federal leases in the heart of Utah’s redrock country. Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park and Dinosaur National Monument and other public lands will remain protected for now.”

    • AG says:

      “I was born and raised in Nevada County California.I moved to Sandpoint Idaho in 1993, after serving in the Army. I married my wife in 1993, and we have raised three beautiful daughters. I work in the heavy construction industry. ”

      “I helped draft legislation HB343, the Idaho Emergency wolf bill. ”

      Can you tell me how the hell a guy working in heavy construction helped draft HB343? This guy is such a moron! God…

    • Immer Treue says:

      Don’t have the time to listen to the Queen. Any other nuggets?

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      It doesn’t surprise me — Rockholm’s association with the Tea Party. Their ideology is hostile to science and supportive instead of a mythological interpretation of a large variety of phenomena, both social and natural.

      I have been interested in the function of myth and ritual in stirring people up and quieting them down for most of my career. I need to make time for an article on this

    • Immer Treue says:

      I believe this has been posted before:
      But as Mr. Rockholm’s hat size grows, it’s nice to see those on his own side take Jim down a notch.

  70. Leslie says:

    here is a success story with non-lethal coyote preventative methods. Marin County has gotten rid of Wildlife services. I used to live and work in Marin. They have a lot, and I mean a lot, of coyotes because nobody can shoot them and they have an exploding rodent population. Hey, if this can work there, why not in Wyoming?

  71. Ralph Maughan says:

    Here is more on the issue of what to do with the inbred wolves of Isle Royale.

    It’s from the Detroit Free Press. “Climate change blamed for plight of wolves on Isle Royale.”

  72. Nancy says:

    85 wolves have now been harvested/killed/slaughtered in Wisconsin, in less than a week, according to the tally being updated daily (left side) by the Wildlife News.


    2013-2014 Wolf Slaughter
    Idaho 77
    Montana 36
    Wyoming 44
    Wisconsin 85
    Minnesota 0
    Michigan 0
    TOTAL 242

    • jon says:

      Wisconsin surprised me big time. 85 wolves killed by sport hunters so far and in a couple of weeks, houndsmen will be allowed to use their dogs to terrorize wolves. Minnesota has thousands of wolves and Wisconsin has 800, yet the wolf kill is higher in WI than MN. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Looks like Wisconsin is trying to kill the wolf off as fast as possible.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      It is alarming.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        But, as I was thinking today – the hunters I met seemed respectful, and the activity seemed healthy even. And they had constructed the most careful fire ring I had ever seen, it must have been a gorgeous few nights. With wolves, the mindset seems different, an axe to grind or something. I hope I’m proven wrong.

        • Rita k Sharpe says:

          Ida, they’re respectful hunters out there but, as with everything in life it seems, it only takes a few to give hunting a bad rap.

          • Louise Kane says:

            there is no “respectful” aspect to hunting wolves. Just killing an animal that does not need to be killed or have its family unit ripped apart.

            • Rita k Sharpe says:

              Did I mention wolfs in my statement,Louise? I must have missed something. Not every hunter is out hunting wolves,nor desire to, but some that are, are posting their,you know what, all over the anti wolf sights. Do I enjoy reading it? No, especially, when some people think that the wolves in the Great Lakes area were put their by the government and the DNR can’t count deer for the wolves are eating them all. The little red riding hood syndrome is doing fine.

              • Immer Treue says:


                I stopped when I got to this crapola

                “especially, when some people think that the wolves in the Great Lakes area were put their by the government and the DNR can’t count deer for the wolves are eating them all.”

                Also, did you read the incorrect wolf is in Wisconsin? The wolf they had was the “Timber Wolf” not the Grey wolf that now populates the state.

                Whether ignorance or conservative agenda (just keep throwing lies plus misinformation, and and sooner or later it starts sticking to the walls).

              • Rita k Sharpe says:

                Immer, To answer your question below, yes I read that ,too. I,also agree on what you said in your last paragraph.

  73. Louise Kane says:

    I think there was a post sometime in the past about the cattle killed in an early cold weather event. This from Bob McCoy….

    “Bob McCoy” wrote:

    The recent blizzard in South Dakota certainly raises varying emotions in me. First off, I regret the final hardships that the many cattle endured before freezing to death. While I do not want cattle on our public lands, displacing our native wildlife and taking wildlife’s browse and forage, I hold no malice toward any individual cow, and would guess these cattle were on private lands.

    The ranchers, though, cause a more complicated emotional mix. As a person, I sense their loss, and surely many of them have feelings of tremendous loss. Certainly, collectively, we should offer help. But what is South Dakota’s collective compassion regarding others? The New York Times tells us “South Dakotans are fiercely self-reliant, but they now feel invisible as they ask federal officials to lend a hand.”

    That fierce self-reliance has earned South Dakota the Bronze Medal position in USDA Livestock Subsidies competition with the other states, with Texas and Oklahoma taking the gold and silver podium positions from 1995 to 2012. For all-category USDA subsidies in the same time period, the Fierce Self-Reliants fell to eighth place.

    South Dakota seemingly has TEA Party sensibilities according to this partial list of accomplishments:
    What has the SD Tea Party accomplished?
    1. In SD we had major victories of about a dozen legislative candidates who regularly attend Tea Party meetings. These are principled legislators who understand economics, and value voter issues.
    2. Two state wide candidates, Kristi Fiegen and Chris Nelson who both spoke at tea party meetings were victorious.
    3. Last year we had multiple legislative coffees which legislators appreciated as they didn’t have to deal with hostile union people who demand more government money.

    Now, I generally think of the TEA Party as pushing for small government, so it might go against the moral fiber of South Dakota’s ranchers to “demand more government money.” And certainly, they wouldn’t ask or beg.

    As far as the freak, record-breaking blizzard goes, South Dakota seemingly declared itself to be on a par with top climatologists back in 2010:

    By a 36-30 vote, the South Dakota legislature recently passed House Concurrent Resolution 1009, “Calling for balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota.”

    Said resolution contained some telling statements: “WHEREAS, the earth has been cooling for the last eight years despite small increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide;” and “That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative.”

    Certainly, South Dakota ranchers did not need an astrologer to read the x-logical signs to tell them there would be bad blizzards, they already ‘knew’ the earth had been cooling and the interplay of the astrological dynamics was just redundant.

    As an advocate for apex predators, I do not see any compassion in South Dakota regarding predators. Of the 158,000 head of cattle lost in 2010 to all causes (including weather), only 3,000 were due to predation. Of that, about 160 were lost to mountain lions, but South Dakota carries on an aggressive ‘management’ program to reduce the cats to a miniscule population—in spite of pleas from inside and outside the state, including those from well-known puma scientists. For a state with an inventory of about 3.7 Million cattle and calves, all-predator losses of 8 per 10,000 head would not seem to require as much attention as 420 per 10,000 head lost to non-predation. In dollars, predators cost South Dakota cattle ranchers $1.3 Million, versus $110 Million non-predator losses, of which—in 2010–$14.4M was weather-related. This year, while I would expect that weather-related deaths may be higher than normal, other non-predations deaths will probably be lower, as the weather struck first.

    In a state that seems to dislike the Federal government—except for its subsidies—and where neighbor helps neighbor, it seems that the cattlemen would form a mutual insurance company, and charge a per-head amount to cover losses that cattlemen say commercial insurance won’t cover. That would be an efficient neighbor-to-neighbor solution.

    In sum, I find it difficult to relate to those who vote against the collective weal afforded by government, and that want to operate an 1800s type of business while pretending they live in an 1800s climate.



  74. jon says:

    People need to see the truth about wolf hunters and how much they love killing. These people are not conservationists in any way, shape, or form.

    • Rita k Sharpe says:

      Ahh! The freedom of speech and the opinions are plentiful as they, like everyone else, justifies, what they do, whether it is right or wrong. That in your face mentality, seems to be a problem in most aspects of life, like it or not.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      For us foreigners it always amazing at what an early stage your society teaches the kids how to kill something and be proud of it. You spare them almost everything, sexuality is a taboo, alcoholics a sin, (ok, you cant´do much about drugs) – but you buy them a firearm as soon as they are strong enough to carry “My first rifle”

      • Louise Kane says:

        Peter that type of hypocrisy is not only amazing to foreigners. Many US Citizens are likewise dismayed, amazed, disgusted that people teach their children to kill. I find it interesting that conservatives in this country, as you point out, want to regulate sexuality, assault Roe v. Wade at every chance they can, work to keep gays from enjoying the same civil liberties and legal benefits as heterosexuals yet the minute gun reform is on the table (even after increasing and escalating violent events involving guns) they scream government interference and proclaim that their constitutional rights are being trampled on. Never mind that this right derived in colonial america in response to a newly emerging nation attempting to break the stranglehold that GB had over it. After the last school massacre, I remember hearing an anchor on the news talk about regulating semi automatic weapons and that the concern was that this would affect hunters. That was so disturbing to me. Some Americans are so conditioned to thinking that its ok for hunters to use these weapons against animals. I remember thinking how the country ground to a halt for a few days because some 20 something people were killed in a school yet every year humans create open seasons on non humans for months at a time and its legal to use semi-automatic weapons, bows and arrows, traps and snares and all manner of torturous devices. Those that complain about the killing are labeled as liberal, tree huggers, environmentalists like these are dirty words. The killing is dirty.

      • Immer Treue says:


        In defense of our system, our way of doing things, we have not had the continued trials by “fire” horrors of warfare within our borders that the nations of Europe have suffered. Perhaps the last one, WW II knocked some collective sense to most Europeans. That might temper our taste for violence a bit.

        As for sexual and social agendas, we have not had the great history/tradition of the fine arts that Europeans have been exposed for centuries.

        The development of the US was based on expansion and exploitation in a relatively short period of time, with religious zeal.

        Not trying to make excuses, but guns have been part of this History, as have slavery, and genocide of native Americans, and …

        • Louise Kane says:

          It’s time we start civilizing…..guns have been part of the history but they don’t have to dominate the future

          • Jake Jenson says:

            Louise, I just googled – man kills several people with knife –

            Man armed with knife kills 10 in Philippines

            Do you own a knife?

            Not Just Sandy Hook: China’s Terrifying Knife Attacks

            • JB says:


              Point taken. How many more people could he have killed with an AK-47 or an AR-15?

              • Louise Kane says:

                exactly JB

              • Jake Jenson says:

                In a gun free zone against teachers and students I’d say several more than ten. Maybe someone could throw a knife at him and save several helpless people awaiting emergency responders.

              • JEFF E says:

                maybe more, maybe less.

                he knew how to use a knife, did he know how to use a firearm?

                how about if someone that was present had a firearm to stop the knife attach.

                stupid comparison

            • Louise Kane says:

              2 of the comments sum up my thoughts abut the violence whether gun or knife Jake
              Dec 15, 2012
              I’d rather neither, but would take 22 kids wounded over 20 kids killed …

              Dec 15, 2012
              But it’s so much more efficient with a gun.

              My husband’s best friend was killed by a machete in St Thomas in the late 1980’s. He was a peaceful man, landscape gardener on his way to work and saw a german shepherd being attacked and when the owner tried to stop the attack the attacker killed her. My husband’s friend tried to intervene and the machete wielding monster decapitated him too. The dog survived and the distraught husband gave his wife’s best friend to the shelter. It was tragedy all around. The man who committed the crime, was mentally ill like the knifer in China. Guns are not needed to cook or cut food and make sense to regulate. Knives would be very hard to take out of the common household.

              • Elk375 says:

                Those that melt down their swords to plow shares, plow for others. I will never plow for others.

              • topher says:

                There is a process in place to amend the constitution. Maybe the kind of firearm regulation you desire isn’t as popular as you think. Since when does gun control and school shootings qualify as wildlife news? Maybe you could find a different place to discuss topics that don’t really relate to wildlife.

              • Jake Jenson says:

                Ending gun ownership won’t end hunting anyway. It will just cause a boom in archery components.

              • JB says:



                P.S. Some gun control does not mean taking away everyone’s guns (I am a gun owner myself), it does not mean taking away anyone’s shotgun or hunting rifle, there are degrees between the free-for-all policy we have now and an outright ban on weapons (despite what the NRA might say). And please, please, PLEASE don’t come back with the ‘slippery slope’ argument!

              • JB says:


                Who said anything about “ending gun ownership”? Good grief, the NRA has you folks terrified. BOO!!!

              • JB says:

                Okay, I’m a behavioral economist at heart, so to Hell with restrictive gun legislation, here is my proposal:

                Start the federal excise tax (currently at 11%) at 10% for .17 caliber weapons, and increase a percentage point for every .05 caliber (so your .22 would be taxed at 11%, or .270 Winchester at 12%, etc.). Likewise, any clip holding 5 or more shells gets taxed at a higher rate. You want a high capacity clip, you pay more in taxes. Then we (i.e., our society) takes the extra money (above and beyond current PR funding) and put it into enforcement and a fund to help victims of violent gun crimes. Can you guys go for that?

                (Of course, the NRA would never go for it–they’re all for selling more guns and against anything that gets in the way.)

              • Jake Jenson says:

                Who said I had anything to do with the NRA? I certainly don’t and neither do I need the NRA to do my thinking for me.

              • Elk375 says:


                Wait a minute. After 30 caliber the demand goes down and continues going down for each larger caliber. My next 3 guns are going to be a 35 Whelen, 358 Winchester and a 416 Rigby. Try finding and buying ammunition for the above calibers, 416 Rigby is $229 a for a box of 20, 358 Winchester is currently not available and 35 Whelen is difficult to find.

                I can not see your logic.

              • SaveBears says:


                You keep mentioning the NRA, I am not a member of that organization and don’t agree with their position. Why is it people automatically think, because we own guns we are NRA members and subscribe to their position?

                The NRA does not talk for me, my military experience overseas and my experience with different government around the world has shaped my view of what stifling gun control does.

              • Jake Jenson says:

                JB, legislate away, those with murderous intent will slip through the cracks and make fools of the added legislation. They have done so and will continue doing so.

                What is the percentage of gun owners that are obedient to current law versus those who are not obedient from a historical standpoint? Say over the last 30 years?

                Maybe we should look at statistics of lives saved while defending against criminal activity?

                Perhaps upon examination of all the stats involved it’s you that deserves the childish paranoia accusation and BOOO back!!!


                I’m for better education teaching respect for human life and better enforcement.

                That being said if the Congress deems it necessary and proper to disarm this society as a law abiding man I would obey that decision. Because some might believe they someday will pass such legislation has nothing to do with being paranoid.

              • JB says:

                “JB, legislate away, those with murderous intent will slip through the cracks and make fools of the added legislation. They have done so and will continue doing so.”

                Except that the statistics show that they do so LESS when there are fewer guns to be had. BTW, “Boo” doesn’t scare me, Jake. I’m no less a man without my gun, and the facts are pretty clear–fewer guns means fewer homicides. 😉

              • JB says:


                I never said that you were a member. One need not be a member of an organization to be swayed by their rhetoric.

              • topher says:

                I understand that the Pittman Robertson act benefits wildlife and I still believe it’s a stretch to consider this conversation wildlife news.

              • SaveBears says:


                I agree, you don’t need to be a member to be swayed by the rhetoric, but you have to at least listen to it!

              • SaveBears says:


                It is not even a stretch, it is simply what we are discussing right now, has nothing to do with wildlife, there are certain posters that are trying to take this blog into a different subject matter.

              • JB says:

                “I can not see your logic.”

                Elk: The logic is quite simple. The NRA controls the politicians (I agree with SB on that much) and they say that we can have whatever guns we want. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em–but with a caveat: the more lethal the weapon, the higher the tax rate. The “extra” (above and beyond what is demanded by P-R) goes to pay for enforcement, added security, payments for those affected, etc. Make sense?

              • JB says:

                It’s a stretch, really? Countless times I have watched you all argue about how important hunters and gun owners are for wildlife management when it suits your argument–Hell, I’ve even defended the view myself (because it is absolutely true). But when talk turns to the uglier side of guns then it has nothing to do with wildlife news? Really? Really?

                Well, I’m happy to let Ralph decide. Isn’t that what you always say, SB? Until he shuts me down, I’ll speak my mind. Good night.

              • topher says:

                It seems like everyones here and actively commenting right now so I’d like to ask about something I’ve been wondering about. Where’s Mike? I remember someone asking awhile back but don’t remember any response. A little off topic but possibly wildlife news depending on how his trip went.

              • topher says:

                “Start the federal excise tax (currently at 11%) at 10% for .17 caliber weapons, and increase a percentage point for every .05 caliber (so your .22 would be taxed at 11%, or .270 Winchester at 12%, etc.)”
                I would be reluctant to support a tax that could encourage people to shoot animals with a smaller caliber round. Among the things I consider when purchasing a firearm for hunting are the prices and availability of ammunition. I also am kind of a traditional guy when it comes to hunting firearms(shotguns excluded ). If it were up to me everyone would use a bolt action with wooden furniture.

              • JB says:

                “I would be reluctant to support a tax that could encourage people to shoot animals with a smaller caliber round.”

                I don’t think this would be a problem (at least not a pervasive problem) as we aren’t talking about huge changes in taxes. (A single round for a 30-06 costs about $1-2. A 2% increase amounts to 2 cents/shell).

                “I also am kind of a traditional guy when it comes to hunting firearms(shotguns excluded ). If it were up to me everyone would use a bolt action with wooden furniture.”


        • JEFF E says:

          The 1938 German Weapons Act[edit]

          The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” But under the new law:
          Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition.”[4]
          The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
          Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5]
          The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]
          Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[4]

          Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns’ serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

          On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, promulgated Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.[6][7]


          • SaveBears says:


            Becoming “Civilized” has often been the beginning of a slaughter, or dictatorship in which the people of that country suffer greatly.

            • Louise Kane says:

              not if the restrictions apply to all.
              from NY Times editorial
              several of the countries with the strictest gun control laws such as Australia, Canada and GB are probably not in danger of imminent slaughter of its citizens….and Jeff E pre Nazi Germany and the example of Jews being restricted from using guns is a disingenuous argument. I don’t even know where to start…

              In Other Countries, Laws Are Strict and Work
              Published: December 17, 2012

              [copyrighted material deleted here by webmaster]

              • SaveBears says:

                Louise as a side point, you do know, that publishing items that have been published in News sources such as websites and newspapers opens Ralph up for all kinds of liability, don’t you? AP has been suing website owners for allowing users to publish copyrighted materials that originally appeared on their website or that was published in newspapers.

                Ralph has posted messages about this in the past, perhaps it would be a good idea to update and let all of the newer users know.

                Now, on the issue of Gun control, you saw what happened after Sandy Hook, no new gun laws, with it being a constitutional issue, that has been upheld by the Supreme court, there is not going to be any changes anytime soon. Also to remind you, for the first time in the history of Colorado, the two strongest supporters of changing gun laws and who help push just the few things they did, were recalled, and it would happen in many states. It comes down to something we all bitch about here on this website, if the lawmakers don’t listen, the people will do something about it.

              • SaveBears says:

                One other thing to add, just because gun crimes have decreased in countries with stifling gun control, such as Australia, if you will look at their crime statistics, it shows other forms of crime and assault have risen by leaps and bounds, the criminals have simply switch to different tools. Gun control, does not equal crime control, currently we have over 1000 laws on the books about guns, we don’t need more laws, we need more enforcement.

              • jon says:

                Wrong sb, we need more laws and more enforcement. I am not shocked you support the same views the NRA does. I thought you said you are not a member of the NRA? Gun control has been proven to work.

              • jon says:


                Just about all of them are red states. Weird huh sb? :rolleyes:

              • JEFF E says:

                it wasn’t an argument, “hot flash”, it was a fact, and to answer both you and Herr Kiermeir; “those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.”

                as far as not knowing where to begin(or end), you never do.

              • SaveBears says:

                As normal Jon, you have very few clues to the subject you are trying to talk about, but you will believe anything you read that is inline with your world view.

                I am not a member of the NRA, have never been, won’t ever be, but I am a gun owner that has been around the world and experienced first hand, what gun control does, and I can tell you one thing, it does not stop crime.

              • SaveBears says:

                Here is a link to a article Jon, JB and anyone else interested in reading:


                You might want to actually study the crime statics in the countries you claim that gun control is working.

              • jon says:

                sb, are you saying that link is lying? You are using the same old talking points from the NRA. Just come clean. You are a lifetime member with the NRA. Can you tell me why the top 10 states with the most gun violence are red states? Are you against background checks as well? The logic from the gun nuts is always, why have background checks if criminals are going to ignore them?

              • jon says:

                And you will believe anything that the NRA says sb. You use the same talking points that the NRA and their rabid supporters use.

              • SaveBears says:


                I go through a background check, every single time I purchase a new or used gun, I don’t buy guns from private parties.

                I am not a member of the NRA, You have now accused me of being a wolf hater as well as an NRA member, you are a fool Jon and need to learn your subject matter you liberal jerk.

              • SaveBears says:

                By the way Jon, I thought you were ignoring me?

                Are you an untruthful person Jon? It would seem so as you say you don’t do many things then contradict yourself through your posts?

              • SaveBears says:

                And again, what the hell does this topic matter have to do with wildlife?


              • jon says:

                I’m proud to be democrat sb and you are proud to be a republican that supports the NRA. The only difference is I am not afraid to admit that I am a democrat. You use the same exact talking points that the NRA and their rabid supporters use.

              • SaveBears says:


                I am proud to be a Republican, have never said I wasn’t. I am one of the Republicans that don’t support the NRA, I have stated that many times over the years I have posted to this blog, believe it or not, there are a hell of a lot of Republicans in this country that don’t support the NRA or subscribe to their position.

                At last count, the NRA has approximately 5 million members, 31% of the population claims to be Democrats and 29% claim to be Republicans and over 30% claim to be independent. Now if we are to take the number of registered voters in the US, those numbers would be quite a bit higher, than the membership of the NRA

              • JEFF E says:

                Sunnyvale Jon.
                If you are so proud, why not be proud about where you live.

              • SaveBears says:


                He does not need to be proud, it is quite easy to post Google images of Jon Wilson’s location in the town that he lives in, he was not hard to track down.

            • JB says:

              “Experts from the Harvard School of Public Health, using data from 26 developed countries, have shown that wherever there are more firearms, there are more homicides. In the case of the United States, exponentially more: the American murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries…”

              I don’t think gun ownership completely explains differences between these countries; desperation begets crime, access to guns makes crime violent (or perhaps, more deadly). Unfortunately, the current push against government (e.g., less welfare, food stamps, etc.) could push more people into a desperate situation.

              To Save Bears point: Enforcement = government.

              • Peter Kiermeir says:

                I don´t think that „guns“ as such are the problem. I strongly belief however the problem is that certain lighthearted attitude towards guns and the use of lethal force deeply woven into your society and your everyday life. That attitude, that I sometimes use to call the “American weapon fetishism or gun-mania”.
                Give you two easy examples: Quite recently I posted on “wildlife news” an article about a hiker in Alaska killing a bear with an AK47. You guys immediately started a discussion about the AK47, the different models, the ammunition, it´s use in various conflicts, whether it is the right weapon for bears etc.etc.
                Nobody considered questioning, why on earth, a HIKER carried along a Kalashnikov !
                When I go to CNN US News this morning, I find 3 articles about kids, having killed somebody with a gun or being involved in an incident with a gun. Some extracts, again from the comment section:
                “It’s better to teach a child gun safety and teach them how to shoot so in case they ever do stumble upon a gun, they will know the dangers and how to handle a firearm”. Isn´t there something wrong with this?
                Somebody else said:
                “…..I had a hunting license at age 11, hunted responsibly ’til I was 18….” Hey, your society really consider a 11year old child (and sometimes even younger ones) mentally mature enough to kill a living creature?

              • Immer Treue says:


                I find little to disagree with in your statement. Hunting has always been a staple of mostly rural folk, since this country was settled. That said, the drive by so many to just kill is mind adding.

                There was a story and a number of pictures a few years back about a young girl who killed a “record” Brown near in Alaska. Something about it, perhaps the posing afterward with this little girl and an enormous dead near, seemed grossly obscene.

              • Louise Kane says:

                JB I did not think SB point was that enforcement = government I read it as a country where it’s citizens are unarmed are in danger from the government, a viewpoint I do not agree with. a quick search for unemployment rates shows
                Canada unemployment rate oct 2013 6.9
                australia 5.6 oct 2013
                Great Britian 7.7
                US 7.2

                all these countries are in similar positions in their unemployment rates. But these countries have stricter gun control laws. if desperation begets violence then that is one more reason to limit access to guns. Its a lot easier to kill more people with a gun than with a knife. I find it hard to imagine a knifer could conduct a mass knifing at a school and dispatch the same number of people that a well armed gunman could. I do agree that eliminating and reducing benefits like food stamps and welfare will make people more desperate. I hope we don’t do that, I’d rather my tax dollars help out a needy person than fund a war or the wildlife services.

              • SaveBears says:


                Enforcing the laws that have already been passed and are on the book does not mean bigger government. We already have the tools to stop these shooting, we are not using them!

              • JB says:


                I didn’t write “bigger government”–I wrote “government”. Nevertheless, I’m interested to know how you expect more enforcement without more resources?

              • SaveBears says:


                The record keeping and database systems are already in place and being used, it would not require extra resouces to use them correctly.

              • JB says:


                It was this point I was responding to: “Gun control, does not equal crime control, currently we have over 1000 laws on the books about guns, we don’t need more laws, we need more enforcement.” I think you may be confusing Save Bears’ response with Jeff E’s? In any case, I agree with both of you: I think we need more and/or better gun control legislation, AND more/better enforcement.

                SB: So your contention is that if law enforcement used their databases ‘correctly’ (meaning?) that gun violence would go down? And without any more funding for enforcement? Just want to be clear.

              • SaveBears says:


                The background checks are done now, there records are kept now, there are databases of serial numbers being kept now. We have the laws and systems in place to change the events that can happen in the future.

                Why is it, no matter the subject matter or what I say, you feel the need to challenge me on everything these days? I, often challenge Louise, but not on every single issue, being honest with you, the subject matter of this blog and the current conversation we are having really have nothing to do with anything, I was wondering why you posted a note the other day about the school shooting, when it had nothing to do with wildlife?

              • jon says:

                sb does not like it when people challenge him with the facts. I’ve been paying attention to you and JB sb and JB has owned you time and time again with the facts. I’m sure you will continue to repeat the same old false NRA talking points. See you later buddy.

              • SaveBears says:

                Don’t call me buddy, you jerk, or should I say, you chicken shit jerk, JB and I actually agree on many points, you on the other hand are like a tree in the wind and allow your bullshit to blow with the wind.

              • jon says:

                sb, you seem angry there buddy.

              • SaveBears says:

                Nope Jon,

                Not angry, just tired of people like you. You still did not answer my question, you told me you were ignoring me, but you seemed to have been dishonest.

              • JB says:

                “The background checks are done now, there records are kept now, there are databases of serial numbers being kept now. We have the laws and systems in place to change the events that can happen in the future.”

                Thanks, SB. That at least helps me understand your position. I am not convinced that existing laws would be sufficient to curb gun violence. Part of the reason these laws don’t get enforced is that they are not adequately funded. Nevertheless, I would certainly support additional funds to enforce existing laws before putting in place more restrictive measures, though it will never happen in this Congress.

                “Why is it, no matter the subject matter or what I say, you feel the need to challenge me on everything these days? I, often challenge Louise, but not on every single issue..”

                I hardly have the time to challenge you on every single issue. In fact, as you explain to Jon below, we often agree. I try to restrict my comments to subjects I have some knowledge of and passion about (though I’m not always successful). You and I apparently care about the same issues, though we sometimes disagree over what should be done (witness the present example).

                “I was wondering why you posted a note the other day about the school shooting, when it had nothing to do with wildlife?”

                As I explained to Elk when he made the same assertion: “We fund wildlife conservation in the US primarily through an excise tax on the sale of guns and ammunition. With each mass murder come renewed calls for gun control, which (perversely) create boons for conservation.” I think these school shootings point not only to a need to find ways of reducing gun violence, but also (again) the need to find different (hopefully better) ways to fund conservation.

          • Peter Kiermeir says:

            JEFF E
            I´m not sure what your “hmmmmm” should tell me? Yes, I know that you guys always love to have that “Nazi” thing somehow involved but the german legislation has certainly somewhat developed over the last 60 years.

  75. Ida Lupine says:

    Wisconsin is trying their damndest to outdo the Rockies and they are succeeding. I don’t see these people as Big Men – they’re probably henpecked husbands, the kids don’t respect them, they’re frustrated at work under a boss’s thumb or maybe lost their job. And they think they can reclaim their manhood by killing an innocent animal who cannot speak or fight back. It only makes them look worse. Hopefully they’ll get the bloodlust ‘out of their system’.

    • rork says:

      How you permit yourself these rants amazes me.
      You realize folks could do that from the other side about cute-animal-lovers. I could speculate about their weak brains, sexual frustration, childhood abuse, and keep on making stuff up. Wouldn’t that be special? And so useful too. Like your stuff.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        You don’t see the animal lovers torturing wildlife on video and enjoying it. If you have such indicators about animal lovers mental states, then by all means, please share it with us.

        Meanwhile, continue to be amazed.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I also have to say that I haven’t watched this latest one and won’t watch or read any of their subhuman antics. I won’t give these cretins the simple satisfaction they are looking for. Just keeping track of the tally.

        • jon says:

          Animal lovers and animal killers are clearly not the same. Those that kill animals do not love them. Animal lovers are clearly more NORMAL than animal killers.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Yes, our ‘rants’ are a good deal less violent and deadly! There really is no way to defend this behavior, and decent hunters should not even try.

      • jon says:

        The people who truly care about animals don’t usually kill them. You going to defend wolf hunters and the sick comments they make about wolves and other wildlife that they don’t like?

        • rork says:

          I don’t perform ax-grinding over-generalized speculations about peoples psychological states in order to belittle them. Ida does. You wanna defend that behavior, it’s your choice, but it won’t stop me from objecting on occasion. I am not countenancing bad ideas (none of which were mentioned by Ida – there being no room between the insults to hold any such content) fostered by certain dumbasses who hunt.

          Truly care? Like feral cat protectors? Not enough videos I suppose. Ida’s defended feral horses and autumn olive for crying out loud. Maybe such people are not true Scotsman, if you know the fallacy I’m referring to.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Wow, you sure keep track of my comments. I guess I should be flattered. But I won’t be responding to yours or anyone’s else’s baiting anymore after this post. It serves no purpose.

  76. Louise Kane says:

    anyone doubting the states should not be managing wolves take a look at this. This must change some of these bastards are really sick. This is what has been unleashed on wolves. I am grief stricken.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      No brain, no money for a dentist but an arsenal of weapons!

    • jon says:

      This video shows wolf hunters are sick psychopaths. This video needs to be shown to the public. Laughing while an animal suffers shows there is something mentally wrong with the loser in this video.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Something looks strange with this video. Wolf looks very light color from supposed 30 Yard mark, yet dark on top when approached after shot.
      Even though video was not terribly clear, no sign the wolf was trapped, nor any movement from wolf. The noise this snuffer was making would have spooked any wild animal out there.

      Not saying a wolf did not die, but looks very staged. Still, the kind of stuff that does not shine favorably upon hunters in general, wolf hunters in particular.

      Who needs bill boards when idiots are willing to put this out for the world to see?

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        This kind of video is in my opinion not so much about wolf or animal hatred as it is about humans of one social group hating those of another. This, and similar videos or photos are made by angry people who want to offend.

        If someone kills your dog or cat and displays it, almost everyone will understand it is not about cat or dog hatred. It is a message to you that they might harm or kill you.

        • SAP says:

          Quick take: economically-marginal, semi-literate person who makes himself feel powerful and valuable by slaying the Big Bad Wolf, simultaneously stickin’ it to what he imagines to be an alien culture (urbane treehuggers) that he imagines ignores, devalues, or hinders him. It’s a symbolically loaded act.

          These people are also largely “innumerate”: if they had any sense of how close they are to creating a massive anti-hunting movement out of the overwhelming nonhunting majority in the US, they wouldn’t be doing this crap. Or, at a bare minimum, they’d have the good sense to not make videos or photos of their atrocities.

          • JB says:

            I couldn’t agree more, SAP. Public attitudes toward hunting are largely favorable, but people like this may turn the urban majority against hunting.

            One lens through which to understand these types of actions is the literature on intergroup conflict. If folks are unfamiliar, a great place to start is the “Robbers Cave Experiments” conducted by Mazafer Sherif during the 1950s (here’s a nice summary:

            • Rita k Sharpe says:

              Sap,I couldn’t agree more,too.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Perhaps public opinion toward hunting for food is largely favorable but I question whether trophy hunting and killing for “sport” is supported. What do you know of public opinion on trophy hunting or killing for fun, which it is.

              • SAP says:

                I imagine that most people see a big gray area between “hunting for food” and “hunting for fun.” Where I live, it mostly pencils out for locals to kill and eat wild game (elk & whitetail deer, primarily) versus just buying half a beef. Even here, the margin is fairly thin — a tank or two of fuel extra and it would have made more economic sense to eat livestock. Do most people who hunt look at it that way (ie, weighing costs & benefits and choosing domestic or wild based on economics)? I know I don’t, really: the time spent in the hills, pursuing game; plus the time spent retrieving a dead elk; plus the time spent butchering the animal: those inputs don’t weigh against wild meat and for livestock. Instead, they make a freezer full of elk feel that much more valuable. Does that mean I’m killing for “fun”? I really can’t see it that way, although I agree that some people are indeed having a way different experience and for them it probably is merely “fun,” in the same vein as roller-coaster rides and xBox games.

                There’s no way I can tell you that most of us here in the Rockies are killing elk because it saves us money over buying domesticated meat. At the same time, there’s no way I can agree that we’re therefore killing elk “for fun.”

              • Nancy says:

                Its interesting to note Louise that hunting is the only “sport” where bystanders can be fined or arrested, for warning the home team of inpending disaster.

                Sap – Its not hard to spot the ones doing it for fun and the trophy out here. They are the guys that drive around town for hours, hitting the feed stores and local haunts, with a big rack in the back of their pickup. Or as in the case of the guy in Bozeman, parking in the square with his trophy on top of his SUV. As though shooting an animal from a quarter mile away, is sport.

              • Immer Treue says:


                More of an oxymoron.

                ” As though shooting an animal from a quarter mile away, is sport.”

                Rather ironic how some “sport hunters” accuse the wolf of sport hunting.

                I’d like to see these “sportsmen” sport hunt like a wolf.

  77. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Ah, Bigfoot is back!
    Search continues for bigfoot spotted in the NorthState
    „He had his doubts until his brother came for a visit and spoke with the Bigfeet.”

  78. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Another of your wildlife trouble spots:
    Griffin, Gowan, Stevens hold wolf hearing in Clifton
    “Almost everyone in attendance was opposed to expansion of the wolf reintroduction program, citing attacks on ranch animals and reduced deer and elk populations for hunting since the program began in 1998.”

  79. Louise Kane says:

    cnn airs Blackfish a documentary on captive orcas at 9 EDT Oct 24th
    as shown at Sundance

  80. snaildarter says:

    It is a proven fact that serial killers start out by torturing animals. Next this guy will be snatching children off of a school buses.

  81. wyores says:

    Hunter displays wolf on roof of car

    If this wolf was taken in the predator zone the hunter has 10 days to report to Game and Fish and does not have to bring skull or hide to G&F for review unless requested. Certanly no regulation states the whole carcass needs to be brought in.
    Obviously a staged disgusting display

  82. Nancy says:

    While too much of the country now is being dickered over, destroyed (search fracking) and laid to waste for “fuel” we hear these little words of encouragement:

    “I’m on a well, it’s night, I’m alone.” Stars overhead, gas flares in the distance, maybe the far-off cry of a coyote. Connell’s standing on the catwalk, high above the ground, opening the hatch on a tank of clear salt water that came from thousands of feet beneath the surface, in the middle of the continent. She leans forward and breathes deeply. “It smells just like the ocean,” she says.

  83. Louise Kane says:

    check out the comments after the article. Outrage, anger and disapproval. This is what happens when people really see what wolf hunting is.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I really hate to give these people any attention at all for their crimes, but:

      That original article in the Jackson Hole news was written in a exaggerated way – he said the wolves were ‘sated’. So what? And how would he know? It appeared he was trying to make them sound like the ravenous fictional kind. Who believes that?

      He claims no one commented and people seemed ‘happy’. So he says. I doubt it very much, especially in a place like Jackson.

      The ‘outfitter’ Sam Coutts has been seems to be a regular contributor to the Jackson Hole news and has been vocal about hunting grizzlies and their delisting, an annoyance to neighbors because of ’round the clock gun shooting at a ranch he has or had, and he claims to have done ‘contract work’ for the government!

  84. Peter Kiermeir says:

    As wolf hunting season in Wisconsin gets underway, a Wisconsin legislator introduced a bill to prohibit hunters from using dogs in the hunt, saying the practice is “inhumane” and puts hunting dogs in danger. It is legalized animal fighting. I don’t see the sport,” he said.

    • jon says:

      “The group of people against allowing dogs to hunt is small”

      That’s a lie. Many people oppose using dogs to hunt wolves. Sport hunters already have a bad reputation.

  85. WM says:

    Spa for tuckered out spawning steelhead on the Columbia. Yakima Tribe to the rescue.

    Now here is some good wildlife news!

    • Rita k Sharpe says:

      Thanks, Jeff E, for a nice read , along with WM’s news.

      • JEFF E says:

        you’re welcome.
        and just to say it, this behavior is the norm, not the exception.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Yes, made my day after watching CNN’s Blackfish program last night. That distress cry! Thanks, good Idaho hunters!

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I’m happy to say that I have never set foot in places like Sea World, and I hope I live to see the day when their doors are shut for good. They are not ‘educating children’ about whales – they are selling the public a fake bill of goods about warm and fuzzy animals, which Orcas definitely are not. I don’t understand why their employees do something they find distasteful like good little soldiers, instead of standing up to this animal cruelty from the beginning. There were a lot of hangdog looks about how they either stood by or participating in distress and death of Orcas back when they were being captured in the wild, even disposing of the dead whales by splitting them open and weighing them down with rocks so they would sink to the bottom, like a Mafia hit. Every time you think you’ve seen the worst of human behavior, you are proven wrong. But then, there are good people as well, like in the video about the baby elk.

        If children and their parents can go to Sea World, then they can go to the Pacific Northwest to see Orcas in their natural habitat, and it will probably be a lot more enjoyable as well.

        What a sad, sad program.

        • JEFF E says:

          I hate zoos

        • Kathleen says:

          Yes, it was a sad, sad program. I, too, noticed all those “hangdog looks” from former employees who once enthusiastically participated in what is now so obviously industry exploitation for financial gain. I suppose that, back then, if you were young, naive, and idealistic, you might really believe that what you were doing had some value for whales and dolphins. I wanted to give them the benefit of that doubt and do appreciate that they’re speaking out now.

          Afterward another program featured interviews with the filmmaker, a biologist, and a couple of industry mouthpieces. Jack Hanna (Columbus Zoo–PETA has called him an “animal pimp”) vociferously defended SeaWorld–surprise, surprise.

          Zoos, circuses, marine parks–animal exploiting industries will shrivel up and disappear when consumers stop supporting them. So how do we reach/educate the consumers who often operate on selfish motives? (THEY “love” animals. THEY want an “experience” with the animals. THEY want to “get close” to the animals, etc.) I guess this documentary–and the fact that it was available to the masses on CNN–is a start.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Yes, I do give credit for their speaking out now, but I couldn’t help but notice the regret they feel – it was painful to watch.

            I wanted to watch the commentary, but after a few words from Jack Hanna, I shut the television off. These places are entertainment and exploitation, not conservation. The poor animals getting the crap beat out of them by other whales in order to ‘teach them’ and food deprivation was shocking. Bleeding at the shows, etc., lack of training for the personnel, especially at the park in Spain, was atrocious.

  86. Nancy says:

    This has a familiar ring to it:

  87. Kathleen says:

    GE subsidiary gives up megaload battle

    Looks like US12 is saved from becoming a heavy haul industrial route.

  88. Ida Lupine says:

    The other thing I noticed is that I don’t think Orcas are as easy to train as these marine parks would have us believe. It seemed many times they would not perform on command at the shows. The trainers were in a lot of danger from such large animals, just from sheer size alone. I don’t believe they whales ‘rebel’ or ‘get revenge’. Talk about your anthropomorphizing! I think they are just not suited to captivity and performing. Sea World and the like are just lying to the public. My heart was ripped out when they separated the young from their mothers and they shrieked for hours.

    The most dangerous predator on earth is the corporate type.

    • WM says:


      With a little modification, I think I will frame that one sentence quote and put it on my wall. Thanks.

      ++The most dangerous predator on earth is the corporation.++

  89. jon says:

    This is a picture of WY hunters holding up a dead wolf that they killed. Why are they wearing masks and why are they holding up an American flag? What is wrong with these people? These people are sick psychopaths. Their masks look like the KKK.