Drawn in response to the photo of the masked Wyoming wolf killers. The image is now in the public domain.

This was drawn in response to the photo of the masked Wyoming wolf killers and contributed first to The Wildlife News. The “Ku Klux Kowboys” image is now in the public domain. TWS


Our readers find lots of news and have many comments. Please post yours below in comments –“Leave a reply”. Here is the link to the old thread that’s now being retired (Oct. 1, 2013).

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.

574 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? Oct. 29, 2013 edition

  1. jburnham says:

    Global warming and forest disturbances may have a silver lining for threatened species of grizzly bears in Alberta, Canada.


  2. Wisconsin Wolf Front says:

    For more information:
    Elkhorn Protest In Support Of SB 93:
    Wisconsin Wolf Front: https://www.facebook.com/WisconsinWolfFront

    The Elkhorn Protest In Support of SB 93 will be held in front of Elkhorn City Hall on S. Broad Street in Elkhorn, WI from 12-5pm on October 26th. The organizations, “Wisconsin Wolf Front” and “Friends of the Wisconsin Wolf” are hosting this protest to show support for the Wisconsin State Senate Bill 93 authored by Senator Fred Risser. This bill would remove the use of dogs from the Wisconsin State Wolf Hunt. Elkhorn’s State Senator, Neal Kedzie is the Chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and he has attempted to kill SB 93 by not allowing it out of committee. Both hosting organizations have called on Senator Kedzie to allow SB 93 to go to the floor of the State Senate, where it can be debated on its own merits.

    When you look at the DNA of a wolf vs. the dogs used to hunt them, they are incredibly similar. The running of hounds on wolves is really nothing more than state sanctioned dog fighting, and should have no place in a civilized society. As evidenced by the 26 hounds killed by wolves during the recent summer, while hunting in known wolf territory, the practice of running them directly against wolves will have obvious results.

    Wisconsin Wolf Front organizer, Adam Kassulke, cites the recent survey conducted by student volunteers from his organization as a strong show of support for SB 93. Over ninety days during the recent summer, groups of volunteers traveled to public events in ten Wisconsin counties. They surveyed 6,500 Wisconsin residents of those counties regarding the use of dogs to hunt wolves. The results showed 94% of those surveyed stated they are against the use of dogs in the hunt. Yet, as Adam Kassulke stated, “the Department of Natural Resources and the State of Wisconsin continues to allow this barbaric practice. Wisconsin has become the new blood sport capitol of the United States. We are the only state in America to allow this practice.”

  3. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Americas potential next no.1 export hit makes the headlines since yesterday. National Geographic had it already. Guess what it is, the next Ipad? A next generation airliner? No, it´s KID CAGES!!!


  4. Nancy says:

    Around here parents drive their kids to the school bus stop and wait with them because its usually pretty darn nippy in the pre-dawn hours 🙂

    Seems they ought to be more concerned about these fellows:


    • Ida Lupine says:

      Thank goodness. I used to hate reading about this annual slaughter. In modern times, this cannot continue or the birds will be gone.

  5. Barb Rupers says:

    When I lived in Maine I found that it had some archaic, in my view regulations. The most intrusive to me personally was that one couldn’t hunt on Sunday. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-345579 If you did manage to shoot your deer on Saturday, or any other day, it had to be taken to a local check station – often a local resident that “usually” was at home – to be documented as legally taken (there were no tags to attach to the carcass at the time of taking). So in case you shot the deer (that is what I hunted) on your own property (which I did) you still had to take it elsewhere to have it verified as to the kill date and the legality of its taking. Now if the “checking person” was “briefly” away that meant another return visit the next day, with the carcass in order to have the “game warden” verify that it had been taken legally and skinned on the previous day – Saturday.

    Automobile registration was similar. The plates went with the owner, not the vehicle, so if you had never owned a car before you had no plates until they came from Augusta via snail mail.

  6. Nancy says:

    Elk – did you find Charlie?

    • Elk375 says:

      We flew the area Tuesday and there was no sign of him in the Hellroaring/Corral Creek area. I called the ranch where my horse trailer is and they have not seem him. I am going down tomorrow and put up signs. If there is new snow I am going to try to tract him. I will be down there for three days. He will show up with other horses or mules sooner or later.

      Any hunter who sees a horse or mule loose with a saddle on him, I would hope that he/she would report it as the rider could have been hurt.

      • Nancy says:

        Good luck Elk. I hope by now he’s found a camp and or maybe even some elk to hang out with 🙂

        • Elk375 says:

          Charlie has been found with rifle in the scabbard and saddle intact. I am going to get him Saturday morning and hunt the rest of the weekend. A rancher in the East Centennial’s Mountains found this morning. No more riding with mares, sorry ladies.

          • JB says:


          • Ida Lupine says:

            🙂 Glad to hear it!

          • Immer Treue says:


            Good news. From comments in the past, I know you had a bond with that mule. Must be a relief to have Charlie back.

          • WM says:



            You didn’t say whether Charlie still had his goodies intact. Was that part of the …eh, problem?

            • Nancy says:

              Good news ELk!!!

              FYI WM:


              Although it doesn’t mean Charlie didn’t have feelings for that little grey mare 🙂

              • Jake Jenson says:

                Mules can mate with each other, meaning they can have sex with one another, however a male mule and a female mule/female horse cannot produce offspring together. Charlie wanted him some action.

              • SAP says:

                CharlieMule maybe wanted some action, but mules are all the time falling in love with mares, mostly in a worshipful, non-erotic way. We usually manage 6 or more mules in the backcountry just by having a mare picketed near camp. The mules are loose (with bells on), but never stray far from their matriarch. I have yet to see any of the john mules try to mount the mare.

                Elk, glad you and Charlie are both ok! You may already know about these, but if you don’t, I’d say look into a pair:


                Trying to dismount from an agitated animal is scary and dangerous, as you know. Having stirrups that won’t result in a deadly dragging is serious peace of mind for me.

              • Jake Jenson says:


                Consider yourself fortunate because john mules that mount female mule/female horses can be quite annoying. I own two male mules two female mules and they take well beyond “falling in love with mares, mostly in a worshipful, non-erotic way.”

              • Nancy says:

                learn something new everyday Jake 🙂


              • Jake Jenson says:

                Believe whatever you want, but gelding horses and mules will in fact mount horse mares or mare molly’s. Been there seen it many times with these eyeballs of mine. I’ve owned gelded horses that also mounted mares. it’s one of the reasons I never owned horse mares. I bought the molly’s because supposedly they don’t go in heat. One here does the other doesn’t. They only mount her when she is in heat, the rest of the time they ignore her. I separate them since one day years ago I learned something new about geldings when this happened and became a dangerous problem for me. All geldings don’t do this, although it is not rare that other geldings do. Capish? Ok I need to get out and learn something new today.

          • Jake Jenson says:

            Congratulations Elk, I’m glad this turned out so well for you.

  7. rork says:

    A new study of coyote admixture with wolf and dog, fairly big data, east coast and Ohio. I point to the abstract because I’m not sure if everyone can get to the full paper or not.

  8. Tim says:

    Help send a wildlife trafficker to prison. See this post for info


    This is a post on the dreaded hunting Washington forum about a wildlife trafficker that will be sentenced soon. These people that traffic wildlife are the real threat to wildlife and wild places. Help send a message that this not acceptable in this country by sending a letter to the courts asking for the most severe penalty allowed.

    • SaveBears says:

      There is a lot of typical comments following that article, especially from those who don’t know of don’t care about the laws concerning protection of a persons livestock. Based on the law in the state of Montana, there were no laws broke by the person who shot this animal.

      That said, there were laws broke by the owner of this animal, any dog, no matter the breed can be shot for harassing livestock, also, if the hybrid didn’t have a tattoo in its mouth, then it was an illegal wolf hybrid, as tattooing them for identification purposes is required by law and the breeder is required to perform it to maintain their license to breed hybrids.

      • Nancy says:

        Hard to know all the facts SB. I believe in one of the comments it was mentioned that the enclosure where the wolf dog was kept had been cut, allowing the dog to escape. Doesn’t sound like an irresponsible dog owner to me.

        There’s a powerful double standard in this part of the country when it comes to dogs. Ranchers can let their dogs run loose (watched them chase cows and wildlife) and I’ve come close to hitting one ranch dog a couple of times, while it was feeding on road kill.

        Shoot first and then ask questions later when it comes someone else’s dog though. I could of shot my neighbor’s dog for “eyeing” my chickens but I knew who’s dog it was so I ran him off and then called the neighbor.

        When you live in a little community, you get to know the dogs around you. Do you think Slippers might of known who the dog’s owner was?

        • SaveBears says:

          I read that comment as well, and even if someone else lets your dog out and it harasses livestock in the state of Montana, it can be shot. Your dog is your responsibility in this state, no matter the circumstances.

          Now with this being a hybrid, that is virtually indistinguishable from a wolf, there was no wrongdoing on the part of the shooter, it does not matter if he knew the owners of the hybrid, he was within the law when he shot it. Remember, we are not talking about a normal “dog” we are talking about a Wolf hybrid.

          I live in horse country, I have a lot of neighbors who have horses as well as dogs and they know for a fact if one of their dogs is harassing someones horses, it will be shot.

        • SAP says:

          “Law” is often the lowest common denominator. “I can do this because the law says I can,” cf George Zimmerman. “I can shoot your dog because the law says I can, even if I know who the dog is and could just pick up the phone or take the dog back home.”

          (Yes, I understand that sometimes a neighbor will continue to let a dog run wild after repeated complaints.)

          When we end up going straight to the legal bottom line, it’s a symptom of a weak community that’s only going to get worse. We can (and I believe we should) go above and beyond what the law demands, and instead hold ourselves to a higher standard. Do unto others . . .

          • SaveBears says:


            I am not saying you have to like it, I am simply saying right now that is the way it is, will it change in the future? Most likely, but for now it is what it is.

            As I said in this case, there was no gray line, an animal that was part wolf and looked 100% like a wolf was harassing livestock, and paid the price.

            • Nancy says:

              There is a big difference between “eyeing and “harassing” SB.

              And he wasn’t no time getting the pic up on WI Wolf Hunting Facebook so all his buddies (near and far) could “eye” it.

              • Nancy says:


              • SaveBears says:


                Eying or harassing, it does not matter in Montana, the law states that if it ends up around your livestock, you can shoot it. If we don’t like it, we need to make an effort to change it!

              • SaveBears says:

                The biggest problem, is a lot of people are bitching, but there is not a lot of people actually doing anything.

              • Nancy says:

                How do we go about changing it SB when hunters and ranchers run this part of the country?

                Oh and thanks for sharing the Bob Cat sighting, bet it was fun to watch 🙂

              • SaveBears says:


                If you are not willing to get involved, then I don’t know what to tell you, we all have the ability to get involved in changing things.

          • JB says:

            “When we end up going straight to the legal bottom line, it’s a symptom of a weak community…”

            It’s also a symptom of a weak argument. If the best defense you can mount in the face of ethical inquiry is ‘everything I did was 100% legal’, then you know you’re on thin ice. Funny it seems I often here politicians making this argument.

            • CodyCoyote says:

              Case in point: In Wyoming, a woman I know had a Wolf-German Shephard hybrid . Looked pretty ” wolfy” except the feet were too small and the ears a little too long . Wyoming Game and Fish took it from her and put it down. Said it was illegal to keep wildlife as pets. This would’ve been in the early 1980’s.

              Much I could say about that , but I’ll just leave it at the precedent of Wyoming Game and Fish actually considering wolves to be bona fide wildlife way back when. Imagine that…

  9. SaveBears says:

    This morning has turned out to be quite an incredible morning, for the last hour an a half, my wife and I have been lucky enough to be sitting here watching a pair of Bob Cats, hunting and playing, been quite a nice experience!

    They seem to be a mated pair and playing the games that cats play when preparing to breed.

    I love living in the woods!

    • Ida Lupine says:

      You’re lucky!

      • CodyCoyote says:

        Wow. I’m envious. I haven’t seen a Bobcat in the wild in a couple decades, let alone two.

        • SaveBears says:

          I am surprised, I have not seen one for over ten years now and in the span of two weeks have seen three, I had one jump out of the ditch the other day and sit down in the middle of the road looking at me when I was coming home!

  10. Salle says:



    The White House

    Office of the Press Secretary

    For Immediate Release
    November 01, 2013
    Executive Order — Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change


    – – – – – – –



    • SaveBears says:


      The genie has been let out of the bottle, in the US, we are never going to be unarmed..

      That said, this article has nothing to do with wildlife, it seems as of late a lot of non-wildlife articles are being posted, what is up with that, there are far better places to post these types of articles and thoughts?

  11. CodyCoyote says:

    While the American leg of the Kestone XL pipeline is getting all the Sturm & Drang in the media due to its voerwhelming environmental concerns and underwhelming economic promises, we should not take our eyes off the OTHER big Canadian tar sands pipeline proposal, the Northern Gateway.

    That project by Enbridge to run a 650 mile dual strand pipeline from Edmonton Alberta across the Canadian Rockies and the Coast Ranges to a yet-to-be-built supertanker port at Kitimat B.C has to my mind a much more ominous spectre. It will cross more than 100 streams. It will encroach and divide a huge amount of habitat. It will pump the same awful thick sub-crude oil from the tar sands as the Keystone XL, but will have a second pipeline to return-pump the horrendous solvent used to thin the heavy tar oil all the way back to Alberta. THAT stuff is truely noxious in every way , should it spill. And it likely will, somewhere, sometime. The seaport certainly has its own set of ominous issues. The Northern Gateway is intended to deliver to the East Asian market, primarily South Korea who is investing a huge amount of heavy equipment and much money in the Alberta sands complex.

    From a wildlife impact perspective, the Northern Gateway is of much greater concern than Keystone XL , and underscores the hyper- l’aissez faire attitude of Canada’s western province of Alberta in nearly universally favoring business over natural resource conservation. It is somewhat better in British Columbia. That province has openly expressed concerns about the Enbridge project, while Alberta has all but greenlighted it willy nilly. But B.C. cannot stop it if the Canadian Feds want it approved . ( They do )

    – here is an excellent commentary in the Vancouver Sun about concerns with any spill , especally maritime:

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Cody Coyote,

      You are right. The Northern Gateway is going to be an utter disaster.

      Canada has been turned into kind of thuggish petrostate by the Harper Government (Tories). Perhaps the best way to fight their tar sand Earth crunching industry is to produce cheaper fuels. That doesn’t mean I am now OK with the Keystone XL or any of tar sands pipelines or pits.

    • Cody –
      I also agree about the Northern Gateway project. If there’s a coastal pipe or tanker spill, the coastal current will bring it right up the way to us, but it doesn’t even seem to be on the radar screen in this state.

  12. Ida Lupine says:

    Yes, I am disagreeable, cantankerous person.

    We were discussing Bison issues and how to go about allowing them to roam free in certain areas of Montana.

    After these two comments, instead of SaveBears, we’re going to have to start calling you Old Buffalo! 😉

    Just kidding.

    Your comments make for a lively and interesting discussion, just as all do here.

    • JEFF E says:

      If SB is only a ” disagreeable, cantankerous person.” then what am I?


      • SaveBears says:


        Do you really want me to offer an answer to that question?

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I don’t know Jeff, you’re a little rough with Chicago Mike and Sunny Jon (just teasing about the names), but you don’t seem like a bad guy? Maybe an Old Grizzly or Old Wolf. We’re quite a bunch here – we’ve got Elk, Bears, Wolves, Coyotes. Aves used to post here too?

        Ha! Have a good Sunday, all –

    • Ida Lupine says:

      “The big surprise is the fast pace of harvest,” MacFarland said. “That’s a function of hunter and trapper effort.”

      Really? Nobody should be surprised at the zeal.

      Aquatic invasive discovered: The New Zealand mud snail, an aquatic invasive species, was recently discovered in Black Earth Creek in Dane County.

      Oh darn ….

      In this case you can clearly see an invasive by mankind’s activities. But in other cases, such as expansions of territories as one our readers Chris just mentioned, or the horse, where do you draw the line? Before or after migration from the Bering land bridge? It’s very susceptible to politics.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        It really is kind of mind boggling to think that all of these wolves were killed in less than a month. But, at any rate, I’m glad it’s ovah!

        • Immer Treue says:


          Wolf trapping is so very productive because: traps/snares; baiting; game cameras all depending on regulations for that particular state, can make wolf trapping particularly effortless.

          Last year I threw some old dog food out by a game camera and trapping wolves, coyotes, and fox (grey and red) would have been rather easy.

          In trapping history, we always read about the efforts of those few trappers going after those few remaining wolves. Now there are plenty of wolves out there, and legions of trappers flooding areas with their traps like land mines. Statistics will probably play out that the majority of trapped wolves will be < one/two years old.
          However if we look at wolf age structure as somewhat pyramidal, we will probably see a correspondence of close to equal % of each age cohort taken.

  13. Immer Treue says:

    Forest worker encounters Aggressive Wolves.


    Once again, dogs (I have a dog and live in wolf country) part of the equation.

  14. Ida Lupine says:

    Also, is this not something the average person is going to encounter? A forest worker is going to be in more remote areas than the general population, except maybe for hunters, who voluntarily take on the risk.

    Don’t know what to make about the ramping up of the campaign against wolves, a non-human being who cannot defend themselves.

  15. Ida Lupine says:

    Hmmmm…I almost made a mistake thinking ‘forest service’ as I read it. It actually says ‘forest management firm’. What is that, a euphemism for a lumber company? You’ve got to wonder.

  16. Chris Harbin says:

    Here is a link to a series on the upcoming Michigan wolf hunt. Definitely an interesting start to the series!



  17. Ida Lupine says:

    • When state lawmakers asked Congress to remove wolf protections, they cited an incident in which three wolves were shot outside an Upper Peninsula daycare center where children had just been let out. That never happened, MLive found.

    • A leading state wolf specialist said there are cases where wolves have stared at humans through glass doors, ignoring pounding on windows meant to scare them. That never happened as well. The expert now admits he misspoke.

    Wow. How, again, have we allowed this to happen?

    They have a graph of livestock losses since 1996. Why not go back to the turn of the century? You’d have an even more impressive number.

    Thanks for posting, Chris.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I was wondering what the significance of the year 1996 was:

      The first verified attack after wolves disappeared from Michigan was in 1996, when a free-ranging bear dog was killed in Luce County in 1996. Since then, there have been nearly 300 verified attacks on more than 500 livestock and dogs – half in just the past three years.

      ‘Free-ranging’ bear dog, is that like in abandoned?

  18. Chris Harbin says:

    That caught my eye too – the “free-ranging” bear dog. I was under the impression that Karelian bear dogs were expensive and well trained. Why would you let such a dog free range?

    The other thing about that graphic on the article is that the bottom category was a group of animals that included chickens, etc which would definitely pump up the total number of losses. Even at that level it’s less than 30 incidents a year and I would hazard to guess that half can be attributed to poor ranching practices.

  19. Immer Treue says:

    Odd day today. When I awoke, the sun was already licking the horizon to the now east south east. And, it became dark surprisingly early tonight. What gives?

  20. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Michigan’s wolf hunt: How half truths, falsehoods and one farmer distorted reasons for historic hunt

    • rork says:

      Posted above already, but it’s OK. mlive has a number of articles out today, and promises more then next few day. They did a FOI on our DNR about some of these things.
      Warning: mlive famous for dumb, lying, politically-motivated commenting.

    • Chris Harbin says:

      Well someone has to lie for the good guys! Just kidding, just kidding. Everyone keep the fur down!

    • WM says:

      Just wondering who fact checks for the assertions of Mlive and this particular contributing poster? Looks like Mr. Barnes likes gritty topics and is not above putting his own SPIN on topics.

      He tends to use the term “Mlive Media investigation,” to add some kind of authority/legitimacy and distance from what is probably this guy himself doing the “investigating.”

      Interesting backstory referenced in the main body of this one – and an example of folks trying to “summarize” into one event the cumulative story of several. And then, there is this author’s own spin. So, hard telling what the real story might be.


      Note from the story – one says “backyard of a daycare center,” and another says 3 wolves were killed on a 5 acre lot over two days.

      Got news for ya folks the dimensions of a five acre lot about 155 yards x 155 yards. A wolf (or my golden retrieve) can cover that distance in less than the time it takes a five year old to get from a swing set twenty yards from a sliding door.

      What a shit for brains, uh …reporter!

      • rork says:

        mlive’s goal is to create controversy and get lots of comments. This gets a few more eyeballs seeing ads, which means more money, which is how score is kept. They will run about the same story, slightly altered, 3 days running, if it can generate lots of debate. And the stupid burns in the comments, since policing them to help with sanity costs money.
        We’re yokels, and have no shame.

        • Louise Kane says:

          The goal of these reports was a very targeted effort to expose actions taken by the DNR, the legislature and special interests to bypass public process and spin lies to the public to justify an unpopular hunt of wolves. Specifically the DNR intentionally trashed public comments and Casperson and other legislators bypassed a legal referendum process using bogus reports. I know this because I was asked to coordinate an effort to catalogue comments that were given to the DNR by the public. In that effort one of the volunteers helping to catalogue discovered e mails between DNR employees and the director instructing employees to trash comments. The e mails with the instruction were sent to us along with the public comments, by mistake. We were all so shocked at first we could not believe what we were seeing. They trashed thousands of comments. There was a great deal of debate internally by Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, who had asked me to coordinate the comment cataloging, and others about when and how to release the information. The sorting of the 7000+ comments that were received have just been completed. I’ll have the compiled results in the next day or so. Perhaps instead of picking apart the quality of reporting, an outpouring of concern and outrage might be more appropriate. Trashing public comments…..
          and thank you to all those that helped to catalogue the comments and expose the DNR, and to Nancy Warren if you are reading. and thank you Jenny, Becca, and Oliver!

  21. Michael says:

    I saw this video and was hoping someone could address the relative effects of grazing on conifer encroachment and its role in the decline of the greater sage grouse.

    • Nancy says:

      “There are several arguments for the cause of this rapid expansion over the last 130 years. Increasingly sophisticated fire suppression policies and the uncontrolled livestock grazing that reduces the fine fuels that are necessary for the frequent, extensive and naturally occurring fire are the two that are most supported. Another argument suggests that climatic conditions and increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have also fostered the expansion of juniper woodlands. [Miller]”

      Michael – what I found disturbing about this video is how the trees were cut down and then left to rot (defeats the purpose) Since removal of the trees seems to be the bottom line here (I suspect more to benefit ranching than sage grouse 🙂 why not allow the trees to be harvested and used in a positive way?

      A good read on the subject:


  22. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Florida Could Break Record for Panther Road Kills
    A record-tying 17 panthers died from vehicle collisions last year.

  23. Louise Kane says:


    I know the bow hunters won’t like this but really should any animal be subject to this. I don’t have the statistics and perhaps someone here does but I’m betting there are quite a few missed shots like this. I find it very cruel. I can’t imagine the pain of an arrow embedded in my flesh and having no way to remove it. which one of us would want wish this on our worst enemy? I’m seeing so much of it in the news. These are just two recent images. North American Model of Conservation be damned if you bow hunt.

    • SaveBears says:

      All I can say Louise, you very mis-informed and highly un-informed about bowhunting.

      • Louise Kane says:

        save bears could you ever say that anyone but you was highly informed about anything?

        • SaveBears says:


          You are being a real B! You have your opinions about things, and I have mine, and part of mine is over 20 years of exclusively being a bow hunter, now I know you don’t like hunting at all, but for you to continue to find these emotionally charged opinion blogs that never offer any scientific evidence of what you are claiming is nothing but that, put emotionally charge opinions and opt ed pieces.

          As I have told you, if you don’t like what I have to say, then don’t read it, if you don’t like others challenging you, then find someplace else to post your Bull.

    • JB says:

      I would rather have bow hunters in the field than shotgun or rifle hunters. More preparation, time and expertise is required, and you also need to be closer. Generally, this means people who bow hunt care to do it right (and those that wound animals don’t last long in the sport). Also because it requires more skill, the animal has a greater chance of escape (fair[er] chase).

      I don’t know that there are statistics, but with modern weapons I suspect these types of wounding incidents are relatively rare. Most people that don’t know much about hunting are surprised to learn that it isn’t uncommon for an arrow to pass right through.

      And recall: None of the ways animals die in nature are “pretty”. Animals get parasites, diseases, injuries (including being killed by predators), starve, etc.; are these deaths/afflictions any better than bleeding out after being wounded? I will go out on a limb here and suggest that preventing hunting in many cases would mean a net INCREASE in animal suffering.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        Before people write about terrible cruelty to animals, I think they should recall how until about 400-500 years ago, people were killed by arrows, spears, battleaxes, swords, and the like. Death and grave injury were delivered up close and personal as well.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Ralph that may be true but haven’t we progressed any, would scalping be acceptable behavior today? and it was cruel back then and still is today in my humble opinion

      • timz says:

        According to a study by the dept of wildlife in Oklahoma the wound rate is around 50%, not all that rare.

        • JB says:

          Timz’s comment prompted me to do a quick review of the literature on wounding rates:

          A few relevant facts about the study he cited:

          (1) The hunters in that study used “traditional” archery equipment–i.e., long and recurve bows (not modern compound bows).
          (2) The sample size was 22 animals; hardly sufficient to draw conclusions from.

          Ditchkoff et al. (1998) Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 52:244-248.

          Another recent study reviewed wounding rates by bow hunters. Rather than attempt to interpret the results for you (and make Tim’s mistake), here’s what they author’s say about wounding:

          “Deer wounding rates reported by hunters ranged from 7-62% in 12 studies (Table 4). It is unknown whether wounding rates reported by hunters include animals actually hit, or whether wounded deer died or recovered from the wound. No studies confirm the number of crippled (debilitated) animals caused by bowhunting wounds. In our study, no radiocollared deer were crippled. Wounds on collared deer were superficial, and these deer were documented through radiotelemetry and visual sightings to survive 1 year after the hunt ended and to produce fawns the following spring.”

          However, they also note:

          “Not all deer reportedly hit are actually hit, not all deer that are hit die, and those that die may not die immediately.”


          “Studies that used ground searches to estimate deer hit but unrecovered by bowhunters report estimates of 9-18%.”

          Draw your own conclusions.

          • timz says:

            I conclude that even 9-18% does not qualify as “rare”.

            • JB says:

              Yes, but what percentage of those animals essentially walk away unscathed? That is, were hit but were wounded superficially. According to the authors: “In our study, no radiocollared deer were crippled. Wounds on collared deer were superficial, and these deer were documented through radiotelemetry and visual sightings to survive 1 year after the hunt ended and to produce fawns the following spring.”

            • WM says:

              More importantly, it appears the wound rate has been going down as a result of better archery equipment, pre-season practice on targets and in some areas proficiency testing.

              Over an 18 year period the average was 18 percent wound rate; over the last 13 years right at 10 percent in this MD study. Also noted is that the inexperienced bow hunters do most of the wounding.


        • JB says:

          Forgot the citation:

          Kilpatrick, H.J. and Walter, D.W. (1999) Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(1):115-123.

      • Louise Kane says:

        where to start JB…I guess I am too tired tonight to try, perhaps I’ll take a stab at it tomorrow, no pun intended

        • JB says:


          Let me help you. You’re thinking: States should require some sort of test for archery hunters to make sure they are proficient and reduce wounding, right? In fact, a number of states actually do this, which may also explain why wounding rates are going down.

          Okay, now you can give me the glass half empty version.

    • rork says:

      I see some Kane person wrote “bow hunting is right up there with trapping and snaring as an inexcusable highly cruel way to kill a living being”.
      They offered no evidence that it’s worse than using guns. There was only sad pictures as an anecdote. I could send you pics of deer with the various parts shot right off – it wouldn’t be by arrows. Cars aren’t very good shots either.

      Some folks will shoot even when the shot is very bad (too far, stuff in way, deer not static, 20 other things). They’ve got a problem, I admit. But consider: Archer has 1 shot. Gun hunter has many more, usually (around me). Who do you think takes more crappy shots? I actually have no evidence that bow harm is proportionately less, but I’m not calling people names using conclusions based on no data.
      Good hunters tell each other only to take good shots. Lets do more of that, eh? That if you can miss, it proves you could have hit them anywhere. My group agrees static deer only, obey strict distance and orientation and stuff-in-the-way limitations – no exceptions (we have jobs, so no excuse for dire need is there). I hear some gun guys squeeze off 7 shots in a row, obviously at running deer – that’s crazy.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Rork, nice way to start a dialogue. I see some Kane person….like you don’t know I post here
        anyhow if your bitch is that I offered no evidence that bow hunting is worse than using guns then you did not read my post correctly. I said that its right up there with trapping and snaring as an inexcusably cruel way to kill a living being. I stand by my opinion.

        • rork says:

          Clearly knew it was you. “right up there” is vague. Avoids saying what you think about bullets. It’s rabble-rousing of a ugly kind.
          However, my comments should probably have been exclusively about what bow and gun hunters can do to improve the situation. The list would be long, much of it saying how to act with fellow hunters:
          – encourage practice, particularly among a group. Bad shooters will be revealed and provided with help. Make guests prove their abilities and vow not to take any but good shots.
          – After bad shots, grill the shooter. Go over what people in the group think the limits are. Repeat offenders should be condemned, perhaps outcast.
          – Make sure archers understand the time between sound arriving at deer, and arrow arriving, and that if the lag is too great (perhaps .25 s), it’s a bad idea. Inexperienced folks may not know this.
          – Just cause you can have 3 inch errors at 50 meters at targets doesn’t show you have any business shooting animals at that distance. We have great anxiety about newbie cross-bow folks overestimating what is allowable.
          – A deer going straight at you, under your feet, and then straight away, offered no good shots (for archer). Can work, but my group’s experience says failure rate is unacceptable.
          – gun folks: missing is not a sign to try again, but rather a sign you had no business shooting in the first place.
          – see deer often, have them close often, but you don’t have good shots often, just get used to it.
          – the limits on what is permitted are not affected by antler size.
          – we have to do this to be ethical, and do it for each other as a practical matter of not being proven goons in the eyes of the citizens.

        • rork says:

          More about your opinion.

          If bow is inexcusably cruel, every reader instantly wants to know what is thought acceptable but isn’t told. That’s a failure (one famous in science I might add), but it’s not a failure of the reader. Presumption might be that bullets are OK, implying better than bow, which can be challenged. Alternative is bullets are also unacceptable, in which case alternatives should be named, and you’d face a different set of challenges (and I thought that low probability, perhaps I was wrong – you aren’t saying).
          Repeating your sentence merely ducks the obvious questions that immediately follow.

    • WM says:

      So Louise, how much different from this is it when a wild prey animal goes on for weeks as it slowy starves in winter or with disease/parasites, or maybe it is attacked, unsuccessfully initially by a large predator), or is eaten alive by other large predators that hunt in packs, and we talk about here all the time?

      Extending your stated empathy, I can’t imagine what it is like for those animals in the circumstances or conditions described above. But, do consider that a wounded animal (even those hunted unsuccessfully by bow or gun hunters) may be weakened, thus enabling some predators to complete the job, possibly at less risk to themselves.

      Will there be undesirable exceptions from hunting? Unfortunately, yes, but I don’t think it is really that many.

      • Louise Kane says:

        WM I winced when I saw you state you don’t think its that many. I don’t think its a good idea to argue with anecdotal evidence so I won’t. If anyone has any statistics on this I’d love to hear them. Hmmm how many of us would stand with the proverbial apple on our heads while a bow hunter proclaiming to be an expert took a shot? Children and young adolescents are allowed to bow hunt. I think its incredibly cruel, as I said I can not imagine how painful being hit with an arrow would be. Is bow hunting really in keeping with the North American Model of Conservation ethics that supposedly require minimizing suffering. To address the other thought, the chances of ungulates being attacked unsuccessfully is diminishing each year, at least in the west…how many wolves will be left?

        • WM says:

          Something to think about, Louise. Remember all those narratives we have read or heard about wolf attacks on prey, in which not all are successful. Probably even seen a few of those on video. How many of those encounters are there in nature every day?

          What do you suppose it is like for a bison, elk, deer or whatever to have numerous areas of crushed and bruised muscle tissue on rear haunches or other body parts after an unsuccessful wolf attack? Wonder if that is any less painful than an arrow in a non-vital area? Maybe the wolf crushed tissue heals, maybe it gets infected, maybe the animal remains weak and is killed the next time that pack or another predator keys in on the injured animal, or wanders about for days before septis sets in. There are lots of painful possibilities out there. In a terms of total numbers, I bet the other stuff outnumbers arrows by quite a bit.

          I can’t imagine how painful severe bruising of crushed tissue can be. Actually I can, and have had severe bruising after a car accident, and even a really bad fall while hiking once (surgery was required).

        • WM says:

          Thought you didn’t like anecdotes? Besides, drunk or not, this guy didn’t shoot anything. 😉

        • SaveBears says:

          Key word “drunken”. Which means not a hunter, but a guy with a bow breaking the law.

        • rork says:

          Definitely another rule for my list: no alcohol or drugs until end of day, not even a little. Be vocal that you think it is never acceptable. It endangers animals, other humans, and you, and is terrible public relations to boot. Advocate stiff penalties.

  24. Louise Kane says:


    story on guide convicted of numerous counts of poaching etc
    only faces 3 years of loss of license.

  25. Louise Kane says:

    Lots of information and coverage on Michigan and its shove it down your throat wolf hunt and the lies and agency complicity in the hunt.

    Michigan’s wolf hunt: How half truths, falsehoods and one farmer distorted reasons for historic hunt


    DNR official recants his story:

    The Michigan myth: How lawmakers turned this true wolf story into fiction

    John Koski, Part 1: Tour the farm with more wolf attacks than anyone in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula

    John Koski, Part 2: See how Michigan is cracking down on the cattle farmer with the most wolf attacks


    • Ida Lupine says:

      I really don’t expect much in the way of change from these sleazy politicians – even when confronted with the truth, and open season on their bad character. They’ll probably just quickly scribble out another law to cover their behinds. But we’ll see…I won’t give up hope.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      All over chickens? If that happened to me, I wouldn’t want the bears killed. It’s the kind of risk you have to accept with raising livestock, and you have to be the one to take the steps to avoid it, hopefully something requiring a little more effort and long-term success than killing them.

      That farmer in Wisconsin just lets his cattle roam the woods too, with no oversight it appears, and games the system.

      • WM says:


        The point is these bears are learning new behavior. If the ploy to find food is successful, they will do it again, and possibly even become more bold. So, think of the terms we have used here before – food conditioned or habituated.

        But, one does have to wonder if a little electric fencing might serve as a good deterrent at relatively low cost.

      • Kathleen says:

        Ida, I was sick and outraged when I heard this on the local news last night. Those bears were not “euthanized,” a word that means “good death.” It’s not a good death to be killed in the prime of life for pursuing a meal made easily-accessible, but FWP persists in using that euphemism.

        If a bear is habituated, it’s because humans provided attractive nuisances. The point is not that bears are learning new behavior–the point is that humans have made this possible while themselves refusing to responsibly accommodate their wild neighbors. Speciesism rears its ugly head again: grizzly bear here and private property there–which is more important? Why wouldn’t people living in griz country *want* to do everything possible to deflect conflicts with bears in the first place, KNOWING that bears’ lives are at stake? (Because we’ve made the bears expendable.) Barring that, the state would compel them by aggressively pursuing those who create attractive nuisances with meaningful fines and even jail time for noncompliance. But it’s apparently easier to kill bears than to hold humans accountable. BTW, Nyack is literally on the edge of Glacier NP.

        “Officials say the bear tore through the wall of the “bear-proofed” building.” This is curious…was it really bear-proofed? Maybe not bear-proofed enough? If we know what it takes to thwart bears–who can smell food miles away (this has caused me more than one restless night in Yellowstone’s backcountry, food stowed in bear canister notwithstanding)–why don’t we thwart them?

    • AG says:

      Ahhh… Those comments. Nothing but fear/lie based opinions. I will countain myself and just stop reading these.

  26. Mareks Vilkins says:

    one way how to create a positive image about the wolf:

    “The Estonian Olympic Committee’s official clothing line for the Sochi Olympics has been revealed.

    Produced by Monton, an Estonian-based fashion company, the opening ceremony costumes were inspired by the spirit of the wolf, and weave together Estonia’s national colors with ethno-cultural patterns”


    • WM says:

      In the US and Canada there are a lot of high school and college sports team mascots called “Wolves” or “Timberwolves.” Sequim, WA high school newspaper is called the “Growl.”

      We even have the MN Timberwolves professional basketball team. Doesn’t seem to be doing much on the wolf acceptance/tolerance front, however.

      A most common trait in selecting a mascot has to do with intimidating opponents, so there is a tendency to focus on animals/humans which instill fear (Warriors, Vikings, Vandals, Cougars, Grizzlies and even Wolves). Occasionally there are more passive animals chosen, for example Ballard HS Beavers (industrious).

      “Spirit of the Wolf” likely won’t fly in the US as a symbol of competition, and least likely the Olympic team. However, when I think “wolves” as a mascot the traits of perseverance and tenacity come to mind.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        It’s a love hate relationship we have with the wolf, for sure.

        I think of those qualities you mentioned plus loyalty and close-knit family, and every member of a team valued and with its own needed place in the pack.

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        mascot has to do with intimidating opponents

        that’s right if one is talking about such aggressive games as ice-hockey or basketball, but Estonian winter Olympic team is mostly about skiing (and it correlates more with endurance and speed,- and the wolf is better at running over snow than elk ),

        and if one takes a look at the picture then it’s obvious that the purpose is not to intimidate (especially at Olympics!!)

  27. Louise Kane says:

    more red wolves killed
    unbelievable that coyote hunting is allowed here
    stupid, irresponsible, and short sighted

  28. Kathleen says:

    Rawlins hosts national coyote calling championship starting today and this weekend:

    “The contest runs during daylight hours on Friday and Saturday. The goal is for each two-person team to kill the largest number of coyotes.”

    Nat’l Coyote Calling (KILLING)website:

    Rawlins Chamber of Commerce

    • Louise Kane says:

      I read these news releases and wonder what these people are thinking about when they go into the wood or field to slaughter animals for a fun outing. How does a person gear up to take part in an activity like this and what kind of town would ignore this kind of mayhem. What a sorry and misdirected lot of people that engage in these activities. Notices like this makes me feel hopeless

  29. CodyCoyote says:

    The cause of death for those 100 Elk carcasses found in northern New Mexico in August has finally been determined. It was not predators, poachers, nor heomorrhagic disease, botulism, or anthrax, nor lightning that caused the sudden death of that herd of Elk.

    It was Pond Scum. A blue green algae that multiplied in warm watering holes.


    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Some cannot wait until delisting:
      Officials seek information on grizzly bear shooting death near Ovando
      The bear had three cubs and FWP was able to trap two of them. The cubs will be placed in the Bronx Zoo. Multiple attempts to capture the third cub were unsuccessful.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        It’s shocking, isn’t it.

        Thanks for the post about the wolves not leaving a fallen member behind as well.

      • Kathleen says:

        The cubs’ fate is the same as the two whose “problem bear” mom was intentionally killed by FWP back in 2005 near Coram, MT–they were sent to a tiny, 15-acre zoo in the Midwest where they’ve gone crazy from confinement. Now that I’ve recently (& finally!) launched a Facebook page I can share the video taken when I visited the cubs (now about 8 yrs. old) last year. It’s only a 15-second clip, but “Circling Bear” (as opposed to her sister, “Pacing Bear”) makes three complete revolutions and kept right on going long after the camera stopped (and is no doubt circling at this very moment). Find the video by scrolling down here https://www.facebook.com/pages/Other-Nations/129598773783875 — it’s near the bottom.

        I wonder if this kind of impoverished existence (it sure ain’t *living*) is better than letting cubs take their chances at surviving through their first winter… I’m not so sure. And since zoos never address this kind of psychotic behavior, what are zoo patrons learning about wild grizzlies?

    • CodyCoyote says:

      I would be in favor of delisting the Grizzly , but only if they weren’t paroled into state management systems like Wyoming’s bear management plan . The state had managed G-bears in Wyoming for some years now.

      Wyoming keeps all G-bears inside an artifical map boundary , called the Primary Conservation Area drawn mainly along highway routes. Bears inside that zone are shuffled and shuttled in an endless game of Musical Bears if they have a human conflict, or two, and given an electronic tracking bracelet by their probation officers ( radio collars). Outside the PCA, they are generally killed and not counted towards recovery, not given the chance to expand their range or help populate other bear islands.

      That needs to change. The present delisting scheme will only make a bad bear management situation in Wyoming much worse. It is no model for the other states to follow, beleive me. Wyoming’s grizzly management program is for people’s benefit , not the bears’.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        I agree, Cody. It is less the delisting than the stupid bureaucratic boundaries. It is another effort to cram the natural world into some small minded human’s idea of order.

        • Leslie says:

          I understand the Mgmt Team argument for delisting is so they can concentrate on the Selway-Bitterroots which I find a weak argument. The PCA is first, too restrictive as Cody says. Bears need to be able to travel into the WY range and esp. the Winds. Also, their ‘delisting’ plan does not take into account corridors. Thus eventually the genetics will wither and grizzlies will no longer be robust here. The science says they will eventually die out without genetic diversity. The delisting plan has a fix for this: They say they will FLY bears in if they need genetic exchange. That’s about the dumbest plan I ever heard.

          At one time I thought I favored delisting, but I no longer do for several reasons:

          1. Pine nuts. Although their ‘science’ says they are no longer essential and bears will go elsewhere, that elsewhere will be down in human habitats such as where there are Russian Olives which they do eat.
          2. Presently there are no connective corridors. and most important
          3. Grizzly bears are as smart as the great apes OR rather, humans. This has been proven. They are slow breeders and with present day weapons, too easy too kill. They are magnificent animals and unless they are a threat, should never be killed. In my opinion.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            The delisting plan has a fix for this: They say they will FLY bears in if they need genetic exchange. That’s about the dumbest plan I ever heard.

            Arrogant too. As if we have the right, or even could, move animals around at will unless they were severely endangered, not deliberately put in danger of extinction when they don’t have to be. Why not leave well enough alone? Also such a drastic, and stressful to the animals measure is impractical. Who would pay for it an/or where would the funds come from? As an American taxpayer, I don’t want my money wasted and to ‘manage’ our country’s wildlife in such a cavalier manner. Who’s running this shop anyway?

            About the pine nuts food supply: in our modern overpopulated, climate challenged and polluted world, all of our foods supplies are threatened. How long has this been studied? If there are not enough pine nuts, who’s to know whether or not a substitute food will even be available, and not also fall like dominoes?

  30. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Michigan Senator apologizes for fictional wolf story in resolution: ‘I am accountable, and I am sorry’

    • Ida Lupine says:

      So when you don’t have a real incident, make one up or embellish. It’s almost fascinating to watch the lies our politicians today are blatantly capable of. He needs to be censured.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Little, er, Big Red Riding Hood is alive and well in the form of Casperson.

      One might wonder how of this type of embellishment (bullshitting) has been used by him, and so many other of our “elected” officials.

  31. Peter Kiermeir says:

    When wolves and Montanan habitats collide
    A Game Warden and a Wolf Management Specialist elaborate on wolf hunting and management techniques.
    “(He) described this as a good technique when hunting wolves with a friend. After shooting one, just wait a while and the rest of the pack will likely return, giving the rest of the group a chance at one”

  32. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Here´s some nice and rare video footage from the French Pyrenaean Mountains, showing a female bear with her twin cubs on a scratching tree. The tree had been prepared and a camera set up.
    The bear is “Hvala”, imported from Slowenia to strengthen the bear population. Unfortunately Hvala already has some “reputation”. Few years ago, she had an encounter with a hunter. The Pyrenaeans are not very bear friendly, to say that polite!

  33. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Wisconsin on record pace for number of bear-hunting dogs killed (by wolves) this year
    Fine Business Model. If I understand it correctly, you bait the bears (makes it easier for you to find them in the woods) – wolves find the bait and claim it – bear hounding dogs encounter wolves and get killed…..and you collect $2500!

  34. Ida Lupine says:

    Fast Kill Rate in Wisconsin Wolf Hunt Could Mean No Dogs Will Be Used (Video)

    Hunting dogs are not considered members of the family, all the time. It depends on the owner. Many times, if they are not up to the task or do not have an affinity for it, they are disposed of (with all that entails).

  35. White Pine says:

    Few weeks old, not sure if it was already posted but good news nonetheless.


    • Ida Lupine says:

      They’re beautiful! But be careful, a Special Task Force will be set up overnight to assess the danger to the children at the bus stops in the area, and a hunting season will be declared….funded in part by Safari Club International.

    • Montana Boy says:

      wolverines found good news two of them males not great news.

  36. SEAK Mossback says:

    Another sign of a stressed ocean or just a typical anomaly? A friend who lives on an inlet 45 miles to the west and watches her environment like a hawk (including all species large and small) discovered this disease widespread in starfish in front of her house a couple of years ago and brought it to attention (sent samples to a university lab for analysis). Even I, who monitor inedibles a bit less, noticed substantial disintegration and mortality of starfish on our beach last year.

  37. Jerry Black says:

    Grizzly with 3 cubs shot and killed near Ovando
    She,and her cubs frequented my son in laws’ ranch on the North Fork of the Blackfoot. My family is devastated including my 6 year old grandson.
    Too many unethical, slob hunters and their population is growing.
    Please don’t tell me “it’s a small minority”….BULLSHIT!!

    • Louise Kane says:

      Jerry I’m sorry for your family and the bears. My Dad loved to see a family of coyotes near our house over the years until one day he saw them dead on the back of a pick up. It was devastating. Where are our rights to enjoy the unique personalities of animals we come to know and that enrich our lives and provide us with a touch of magic? I hate all the killing as well as the sense of entitlement of the people who kill for fun.

  38. CodyCoyote says:

    Some anti-wolf hysteria coming out of New Mexico where enclosed Wolf-proof mini-forts have been built for children’s rural school bus stops . More ominously , a discussion of a new anti-Wolf film ” Wolves in Government Clothing” by David Spady , a consultant to 100 Christian radio stations and the Montana state director for Americans Fr Prosperity, the right wing activist organization funded by the Koch Brothers.


    Article by Laura Paskus at High Country News online November 5 ( apologies if this has been posted and linked to ehre already …)

    • WM says:

      The author of this HCN piece misses the single most obvious aspect of these kid cages. Each one constructed is and of itself a sustaining political statement, and probably more effective than a billboard proclaiming anti-wolf sentiments. Even better for their message that they used public school district funds to build them. And, guess what, people are write about it because it is novel and thought provoking, and even including it in their anti-wolf films, which spreads their message – even if it appears to be inaccurate.

      Not only that, there is probably a little utilitarian value for kids at bus stops, maybe when it rains or snows. Also appears to be a good garbage can and focal point for vandalism (not unlike bus stop shelters in the city).

  39. Ida Lupine says:

    you know, say they live in really close family groups; they only hunt the weak, sick, old and young; and that they serve as overseers of the whole ecosystem

    Isn’t this, like, true?

    • Montana Boy says:

      True only if you romance wolves.
      Wolves do live in close family groups.
      Wolves also kill more wolves than the number of wolves killed by humans.
      Wolves only hunt the weak, sick,old and weak. untrue
      Wolves also eat many perfectly healthy animals.
      Wolves also surplus kill which some see as killing for fun.
      Wolves as the overseers of the whole ecosystem. really?
      As the article said the truth lays somewhere between the extremes of evil and savior.

    • Louise Kane says:

      whats the good news? more people killing wildlife?

      • JB says:

        “whats the good news? more people killing wildlife?”

        (1) A healthier source of protein.
        (2) More people interested in–and required to–fund conservation.

        FYI: Waterfowl and small game hunting has rapidly declined in most parts of the US in recent decades–so there is actually less hunting pressure on wildlife than in the past. I don’t know about Massachusetts, but here in Ohio we could do with some more deer hunters.

        • Nancy says:

          JB – Curious, since (1) its a good source of protein & there is a lack of people interested in taking up the sport, why is the states (overrun with deer populations) haven’t come up with a way to utilize the abundance?

          Would certainly take the pressure off say food banks or people in low income brackets, if they had a place to go for that protein.

          Too complicated to organize? I can’t see it stepping on the toes of the NAMWC because trapping for commercial use, already does that.

          Would it be too much competition for the livestock industry?

          • JB says:


            A complete answer to that question would include a discussion of the history of wildlife management, state and local policies that are in conflict, as well as federal policy concerning how wild game meat is regulated. However, the simpler answer revolves around money–both how we pay for conservation and who pays. Harvesting deer outside of regulated hunting seasons would be perceived as competition for hunters; since agencies are largely funded on hunter dollars, using agency resources to reduce hunting opportunity (how it would be perceived) would go over like a lead balloon. Agencies are also terrified of taking any action that could potentially reduce the number of hunters (e.g., like reducing opportunity).

            And commercializing deer or other game meat (though it has been suggested by some) would be perceived by many as conflicting with the NAM.

            • Nancy says:

              I could see a program like this working in areas overrun by deer.

              If hunting is all about the joy of being in the great outdoors then enhance it a bit by offering a second tag free, provided the deer is donated.


              State-wide sponsors of the cost-reduction program include the Conservation Department, Shelter Insurance, Bass Pro Shops, the Conservation Federation of Missouri, Missouri Chapter Whitetails Unlimited, Missouri Chapter Safari Club International, Missouri Chapter National Wild Turkey Federation, Drury Hotels, Midway USA Inc., Missouri Deer Hunters Assoc. and Missouri Food Banks Association”

              Would certainly address the problem of deer starving or dying from disease due to over population in so many areas of the country.

              “One of the most important ideas articulated by the NAMWC is that wildlife is a public trust and must be managed for all citizens. No one can “own” wildlife”

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I’d prefer to see the apex predators working the way nature designed to keep deer populations in check. What if the food banks don’t like deer because of the gamey taste? Many people don’t.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Or the meat industry and grocery stores donating to food banks for the hungry, which I believe they do. We are so intent on humans micromanaging everything, and we should admit we can’t do it in today’s world. Animals die in the wild; it is the natural way of things – they most likely would not starve if nature and her apex predators were in proper balance. We don’t have wolves on the East Coast and are overrun with Lyme Disease, for example. Nature does not need duplicitous mankind to blow things away in order to ‘help’ her.

                There’s still the thing about hunters and conservation which I do support, because the majority of our modern population is are disconnected from nature – so I have mixed feelings about it.

              • WM says:

                ++If hunting is all about the joy of being in the great outdoors then enhance it a bit by offering a second tag free, provided the deer is donated.++

                It is pretty clear you haven’t a clue of the effort involved in processing and transporting a deer/elk from the field to its end destination.

          • rork says:

            It has been suggested that large culls in populated (by humans) areas might sell deer commercially. It was in Wall Street Journal, Oct 18 “If Only Hunters Could Sell Venison” (but they mean companies – you’d hire them to cull). I was terribly skeptical of any such, since it risks helping to create black markets, but maybe there are special cases like culls where it could be regulated without everyone trying to go out and kill deer for the money.
            Ahem, I don’t think wolves are the answer in Fairfax county, VA, or other rather suburban areas now being deluged by deer – we need new ideas in some of these places.

            Suggesting women who hunt are emulating men is maybe politically incorrect? I think sexists was the term you were seeking Ida. Can’t speak for all, but I haven’t been employing my private parts when hunting for food. Fishing either. Nor cooking, gardening, cleaning toilets, changing diapers.

            • Nancy says:

              Rork – spent some time talking to my mechanic this morning. He and a buddie hunted over the weekend and finally filled their elk tags – 2 bulls.

              Took them awhile to cut those elk up & quarter them for packing and by the time they made two trips out with the meat – 8 hrs. had passed.

              When I said “well that must of filled your freezer” He said he didn’t care much for elk meat, other than maybe the backstrap, the rest tasted to gamey 🙂

              Ida – when you’re hungry, you can get over the taste 🙂

              He gave the meat to some elderly folks and some families he knew, in need. Said he could of given away twice that amount.

              Totally agree that special cases, like culls, should be arranged in areas where deer populations have gotten out of hand. Especially in urban areas, where humans have become their only predators. Because after all, our species set ourselves up to be their only predators. Its called urban sprawl….We’ve killed off or controled/managed most other predators that might of been helpful.

              WM – I’ve lived in “big game” country far 20 years so I have more than an idea of what it takes to get an animal out, once its shot dead. But the discussion I got into from what I can redall was about JB’s area and a lack of hunters:

              (1) A healthier source of protein.
              (2) More people interested in–and required to–fund conservation.

              And the word “sacrifice” comes to mind when one takes the time to think about those that might be hungry out there and part of a species that ought to be looking at controlling THEIR numbers, that are less fortunate enough to be able to afford a gun, tag and all the BS associated with hunting 🙂

              And Rock – you mentioned Fairfax, County, VA. Popeshead Road ring a bell? I spent a good part of my youth on that road 🙂

              • Ida Lupine says:

                🙂 I love to cook, so I’d be curious about preparing venison. I’ve never tried it.

              • Nancy says:

                Oops…. Rork, not Rock. Although I might of been not far off when it comes to family friends etc 🙂

              • rork says:

                I mentioned Fairfax cause they changed some of their regulations recently to let some land-owner kill deer on their properties where it wasn’t permitted before, as a response to too many deer. There are many similar places near me now in MI. Culls are becoming common in parks, and more frequent in towns/suburbs too, though not common yet. Donation is often coordinated by Michigan Sportsmen Against Hunger, who also ask hunters to give meat and money. I don’t know how common such groups are.

                (I went to high-school at JEB Stuart for 3 years, near there, but don’t know your road well. Back then, deer were rare.)

              • Nancy says:

                Rork – back then, agreed, it was rare to see deer. Ten miles, in any direction from where I grew up, the land was still covered in fields, woods and small streams with a few homes dotting the landscape. Lots of places for wildlife to go un-noticed in.

                It was also a great place to explore and roam as a kid 🙂

                Flew back there about 8 years ago and if I’d been left to find the old “homestead” on my own (instead of my brother picking me up at Dulles) I’d of wandered around for days over a maze of subdivisons, roads and a “parkway” to boot.

                Kind of glad that where I’m at, I might just be able to spend the last few years of my life looking out over wonderful views and at hillsides covered in sagebrush and enjoy, often, some great wildlife that wander by on occasion 🙂

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I don’t know if it really is a healthier source of protein. I’ve read or heard that with our terribly polluted waters, game meat loaded with contaminants such as heavy metals. Then there’s always toxoplasmosis to be concerned about.

          If people want to hunt, it’s a choice, not a necessity like it used to be in ages past. There’s a ‘romanticizing’ of hunting your own food, but as with everything, there’s the reality also. Also, our wildlife is dwindling (bears and wolves, wolverines, we need stats JB on waterfowl and others 😉 ), and our population is growing, so a lot of it is going to be unsustainable in the long run.

          I’m going to say something that isn’t going to be politically correct – I don’t think women ought to emulate all the behaviors of men for equality, as in trophy hunting. Yes, I know that in days past both had to put food on the table, but it really is the domain of men for the most part. I can’t imagine myself ever being able to kill anything.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            And let’s hope it’s a passing fad, like sometimes raising backyard chickens is, so that bears and other wildlife don’t have to be sacrificed for that in addition to everything else!

            • JEFF E says:

              lets hope it is not a passing fad so that ever more people, men and women get out in the countryside and become a larger voice in how it is managed instead of leaving it to the extractive industries, the livestock industries, or, the my way or the highway individuales on both extream ends of the subject matter, to decide it for the rest of us by default.

      • JEFF E says:

        I did not expect you to get it hotflash,
        move along.

  40. JB says:

    ~It appears that 100 elk killed by a neurotoxin in pond scum that collected in a water trough on a ranch in NM


    “Based on circumstantial evidence, the most logical explanation for the elk deaths is that on their way back to the forest after feeding in the grassland, the elk drank water from a trough containing toxins created by blue-green algae or cyanobacteria”

  41. Ida Lupine says:

    Sadly careless. People are warned not to let their dogs drink and play in ponds and other water sources that have algae bloom. Weren’t these people concerned about their own livestock, not to mention a breeding ground for mosquitoes that can spread disease?

    • Immer Treue says:


      Those interested in the legal take of wolves in MN will purchase their tags. Only so many pelts to go up on so many walls for the effort involved. So much easier for the anti-wolf folks up here to SSS.

      That said, mange is fairly wide spread up here. Couple of friends have seen wolves almost denuded of fur. The two I have seen recently, were in nice shape, including one in my driveway, oh my!

  42. Ida Lupine says:

    While we’re on the subject of pond scum:

    This year, the long-standing Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wolf Science and legislatively mandated Stakeholders Committees were wiped out by order of the DNR secretary. In their place, the Wolf Advisory Committee was created, membership “by invitation only” from the DNR Secretary. Twenty-five of the 26 members are wolf removal agents.

    Wisconsin Wolf Management Becomes(?) Political

  43. Immer Treue says:

    Two meetings to be held in MN, to discuss wolves and Isle Royale.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Let’s hope it turns out well. I’m happy that MN isn’t the most bloodthirsty of the Great Lakes states! Waiting to see how Michigan is going to handle it, and not impressed by what I’ve seen so far.

    • Chris Harbin says:

      Thanks Immer

  44. Ida Lupine says:

    I also really cannot imagine that too many modern women are going to enjoy field dressing a deer that’s been shot.

    • SaveBears says:

      My wife has been doing the field dressing of our animals for years now.

    • rork says:

      Replace “field dressing a deer….” by “being a programmer” or “being a surgeon” etc if you don’t get it about sexism.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I do get it – but there probably are a lot more female programmers and surgeons than there are hunters? But if a woman wants to do hunt, it is certainly her prerogative.

        I do think on certain levels that male and female brains are different (generally speaking), and thank God for that. Our biology hasn’t caught up entirely with our technology and society.

        • JEFF E says:

          actually Ida I believe women would are much better suited psychologically to the task.

          lets take one of your favorite subjects as an example, Native Americans.
          now when the hundreds of buffalo, or more. was run off a buffalo jump; who do you suppose it was that spent the next several days or more “processing’ that meat, until it started too rot and the remainder left for the scavengers. Hmmm/
          or the salmon fishing by coastal tribes?

          Or whale hunting?

          Or lets go European. Who do you think went out too the chicken hutch and secured tonight’s dinner.

          I sure hope you never have to actually provide for yourself outside of the grocery store. Would be kind of sad thing to see.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            🙂 It certainly would be sad.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            It would be sad, but I’d hardly be the only one in today’s world. There probably aren’t even that many men today who could.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            I should say I would be fine with fishing, Salmon to my mind is a gift from the Gods and we should do everything in our power to preserve natural salmon – the entire chain of life depends on it and its DNA presence is even found in trees. Of course, I could raise backyard chickens for eggs.

            Probably under the right circumstances, I could hunt and field dress too, only for food though. I see no purpose in a human changed world to continue with trophy hunting. Something about killing an animal in the same taxonomic class as myself is difficult for me, if for reasons other than survival.

            I like reading about food and cooking, and here’s a site I’ve been reading:

            Hunter Angler Gardener Cook

        • rork says:

          Latest good figures I get are from 2006 (“demographics, recruitment, and retention of michigan hunters” – it breaks down location, age, sex, etc).
          Deer hunters were 8% female = 56000 women. Years ago I would have guessed many of those were buying tags that male accomplices would illegally use, but think that’s rare now. (Female license buyers decreased when we liberalized the tags 10-15 years ago to 2 bucks, with doe tags common.)
          Women got 8.5% of bear licenses, 10.2% of elk.

          The total number of licensed physicians in MI is about 45000. I can’t find how many were surgeons, or of those how many were women.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              I think having it all is a myth – if you want a demanding career in medicine, something has to take a back seat. If you want to have a family, then they come first and you have to cut back your work.

              Somebody has to give 100% or close to it, attention to raising children – if the man want to do it and the woman work full-time, that’s great too. Sometimes the parents both have to work full-time, but if you don’t have to, material things aren’t that important.

              As a doctor or a surgeon, you’re protecting and preserving life, not taking it.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                We’ve all heard the cliché about the doctor or surgeon who devotes his life to his career and is never home. It’s probably the same for anyone regardless of gender, going into these demanding professions.

                Anthropologically, men and women developed some different skills for survival for themselves and offspring, and their groups, that should be equally valued, IMO. Today it seems that we’re all trying to turn humans into unisex beings with no differences at all.

                It depends on the person, some women could be great hunters and some men might not be. Some men might be great nurturers of young and some women terrible.

  45. Ida Lupine says:

    Is waterfowl hunting less? All I know is that the hills are alive with the sounds of gunshots (ka-blam!) where I walk around ponds and lakes, and it isn’t even deer season yet! (Late Nov/early Dec I think)

    But as long as people are respectful and eat what they hunt, I can tolerate it. But the psycho killers (Qu’est-ce que c’est?) I can’t tolerate and they should not be allowed to carry on as they do.

    Well, have a great day all, and a big thank you to our veterans today.

  46. jon says:


    Ralph is mentioned in this article, but it seems like the author is putting words into Ralph’s mouth.

    From the article,

    “However, the larger and more aggressive central and northern Alberta, Canada wolves USFWS introduced here eliminated any survival chance of native wolves [as a result of competition or elimination], as USFWS knowingly violated the Endangered Species Act, according to Maughnan.
    It was and is common scientific knowledge that the native male wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) of the Northern Rockies averaged 90 to 95 pounds at maturity. The wolf USFWS brought in as a replace-ment was a noticeably larger wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) from north-central Alberta, with mature males topping 140 pounds, and some specimens weighing up to 175 pounds. “

    • CodyCoyote says:

      I just read this article at the Montana Pioneer, a publication I was not heretofore familiar with.

      Pure propaganda. So much to dispute. So little factuality.

      Item: When the author feels compelled to quote Toby Bridges across several paragraphs and some utterly hyperbolic made-up numbers by Old Toby , there is zero credibility.

      Not worth reading.

      • JEFF E says:

        this will be latched onto by the haters as representing absolutely god given fact.
        the real fact is that when links are not provided to substantiate, and your primary source is an individuals that make statements such as, to paraphrase, the Service (USFW), started to go downhill when they started to hire women and minorities, then it is not even god fish wrap.
        But wait and see, by days end, or sooner the daffodils will be parroting it as absolute fact.

        • Immer Treue says:

          Perhaps Beers enjoys a touch of Tennyson to season his chicken.

          “Woman is the lesser man, and all
          thy passions, matched with mine,
          Are as moonlight unto sunlight, and
          as water unto wine.”

      • Barb Rupers says:

        Jim Beers, mentioned in the article, doesn’t help the credibility either.

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      They got me right on the first two paragraphs, but the third paragraph, the one you quote above, is contrary to anything I ever said or wrote.

      I never said there were any native wolves surviving in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. I only said there were a few wolves that wandered down into Idaho and clearly into Montana from time to time.

      I never wrote this, “It was and is common scientific knowledge that the native male wolf (Canis lupus irremotus) of the Northern Rockies averaged 90 to 95 pounds at maturity.”

      It is not likely there ever was a wolf we should label “Canis lupus irremotus.” Biologists don’t use that sub-species name anymore.

      It is the wolves they brought from Canada that averaged 90 to 95 pounds, not the discarded sub-species irremotus. No one knows how large the wolves in the American Northern Rockies were before Euro-American settlement.

      And the following quote is a statistical trick to mislead: “The wolf USFWS brought in as a replacement was a noticeably larger wolf (Canis lupus occidentalis) from north-central Alberta, with mature males topping 140 pounds, and some specimens weighing up to 175 pounds. [boldface mine]

      Notice how they shifted from average weight of 90 to 95 pounds to maximum weight of some? That is like saying “humans are vicious omnivores that stand up to 8 feet tall.

      Finally there was no 175 pound wolf brought down to reintroduce. The largest seems to have been 140 pounds.

      The average weights of wolves actually killed in the wolf hunts in Idaho and Montana since (they are all progeny of “Canadian” wolves), is about average size. This is the clincher about size — what is actually here in Idaho Montana, and Wyoming, not what someone thinks was reintroduced.

  47. Ida Lupine says:

    Interesting article about MA deer hunting. I didn’t know we had so many:


    Have a good day, all –

  48. rork says:

    Some different info, but some the same as the Nat Geographic article pointed to a few days ago:
    “Number of Female Hunters on the Rise”.

    • WM says:

      There certainly are more offerings for hunting clothing for women. The Cabela’s multi-page newspaper ads that come out periodically usually have at least a page dedicated to everything from weatherproof, coats to pants and boots to long underwear (even in camo!).

  49. Ida Lupine says:

    Minnesota: More than 40 wolves killed in One Weekend

    Beware about delisting grizzlies, I see the same fate for them and any other delisted species. A-Right something needs an overhaul regarding the ESA. Just because a species has recovered enough to be delisted, why does aggressive hunting have to follow?

    • Immer Treue says:

      Fresh wolf scat in road again this a.m. They’re eating deer, which will piss off the (the deer are mine faction) of hunters.

      I don’t know, it’s just fascinating living in an area where one can coexist with wolves. Unlike the deer, which are harvested for the meat, most of the wolf goes to waste (in most cases). Mange is a concern up here, yet the hunting focus is on wolves that don’t have mange. Some folks are concerned about wolves approaching the city limits of Ely, and other surrounding towns. Wolves are focused on food, but the irony of the situation is, those who attract deer by feeding them (a practice condemned by MN DNR), also bring in wolves.

      As beautiful as it is living here, one is at times addled by the parochialism of the rural life mindset of some.

      I meander. Lots of thought at this time of year.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        You’re lucky. I had no idea we had a population of 90,000 whitetail in my state! It would seem plenty enough for wolves and the few humans who hunt.

        • Immer Treue says:

          This is also a time of bounty for wolves. I know of two friends who shot (one with bow, one with gun) deer, and could not find them when the ran off. One died and was definitely scavenged by wolves/coyotes, and the scat in the road today, might, and i qualify this as might, be from the one shot Saturday. Both individuals were sick to death at not finding the deer, but neither begrudge the fact that one or both were found by wild canids prior to locating said deer.

          It’s all about food.

        • Immer Treue says:


          Another irony. When one hears the antis saying wolves breed like rats, it’s actually the deer that breed like said rodents.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            I think in the grand scheme of things they were meant to – as long as there were/are apex predators. We’ve screwed things up royally.

          • SaveBears says:

            Immer, both species are quite good at keeping their species going.

            • Immer Treue says:

              No argument, but to make a point that deer are just as prolific breeders, if not more so, than the critters that prey upon them.

              Wolves are the lightning rod for vitriol and misunderstanding, yet it is the deer, “the good animal”that creates much more of a problem in the form of auto collisions, agricultural damage, and forest herbivory destruction.

              Point being, the wolves won’t come close to killing all the deer.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I’d say all three species are prolific breeders and good at keeping their species going. Nature’s way, I guess. But the only one whose numbers are kept to a bare minimum is the wolf, all due to human perception, not reality. If the RMW doesn’t want them, send them here.


                I’m not sure if this F&G article is current, but it says there’s approx. another 85,000 whitetail in NH. Our areas are the epicenter of Lyme disease.

                I thought I read somewhere that in the upper reaches of Maine and Vermont, whitetail deer are not native and are an ‘introduced species’? Go figure. In that case, the wolves would have moose as prey.

              • Immer Treue says:


                Prior to 1860, white tail deer were rare in the Pine forests of northern and northeast Minnesota.

              • SaveBears says:

                Immer at the beginning of the 1900’s Whitetails would have been qualified to put on the current Endangered species list country wide! Now they have proliferated so much, that cities and counties are hiring shooters to drop the populations. Whitetails are one of the success stories that can be attributed to hunters, without hunters, they are a species of deer that would have disappeared from the American landscape.

                Now, I know, there will be people that say hunters did it so they can hunt them, but think of how many who don’t hunt have enjoyed them because of those efforts.

              • Immer Treue says:


                I understand what you have said about white tails. My point was prior to 1860, northern Minnesota was not white tail deer habitat. Extensive logging of majestic white pine, and agriculture allowed deer to come into the area. Over hunting and conservation/recovery followed.

      • Nancy says:

        “I don’t know, it’s just fascinating living in an area where one can coexist with wolves”

        Sadly Immer, I live in an area that wants NOTHING to do with wolves or any predators that might interfere with hunting or livestock operations.

        RB, Robert R? Your thoughts? You’ve both been pretty quiet lately when it comes to comments about a shared landscape.

        • Immer Treue says:


          I’m not saying there are no people up here who feel the only good wolf is a dead wolf, because they are up here. Old ways take a long time to wither away. The wolves I’ve seen lately, or their signs, have ~ 16 more days to run the legal gauntlet.

          Yes, I was thinking about RB and RR earlier today.

        • SaveBears says:


          I personally know people that live in your area that are not against wolves.

  50. CodyCoyote says:

    The case of an Illinois man’s attempt to get Grizzly Bear policy data from Wyoming Governor Matt Mead last year is now heading to the Wyoming Supreme Court.


    I have firsthand experience with Mead withholding public information on Grey Wolves and Wyoming’s role in forcing a delisting in the state that led to the ” hunts” , beginning after he was elected in November 2010 and before he even took office in early 2011.

  51. Immer Treue says:

    From a friend in MN DNR

    Brainworm and liver flukes in Rookie Lake moose cow.

    I wanted to pass along some preliminary finding from the sick cow that was out on Rookie Lake in late October. She came back positive for P. tenuis (brainworm) infection. I’ll pass along additional information as I get it back from the lab. There are a number of websites with information about brainworm, however, I thought the following article was worth attaching. This one is from the Minnesota Conservation Volunteer magazine (1997).


    Rookie Lake Cow of 10.20.13
    · This adult came back histologically positive for P. tenuis infection

    Minorca Mine Sick Cow 0f 11.01.13
    · Upon necropsy @ the Vet Diagnostics Lab this adult cow had two significant health related complications.
    o She had a very heavy liver fluke infestation w/>60% of her liver being compromised w/flukes cysts and necrosis and many flukes had migrated to other portions of her body and organs causing major infections in her lung, GI tract and mesentery.
    o More importantly, the attending pathologist actually discovered an adult meningeal worn (P. tenuis) in her cranium. This was the reason for her weird behavior – hind quarter weakness, inability to stand when we located her and her lack of fear of humans.

    Moose Project – Field Biologist
    Wildlife Health Program
    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

    • rork says:

      It’s gotta be the wolves you blindly ignorant commie-liberal scientist warm-believer you:

      Folks in NH can’t cry wolf though:

      • rork says:

        Correction. A famous person says I am wrong about NH – there’s coywolves there doing it.

      • Immer Treue says:

        So you took a trip the the “Wolves are responsible for every problem with wildlife site”. How was your reception?

        I recently attended a presentation by the MN DNR on their moose and moose calf studies. One thing they made clear from the get go, was that its not just moose in MN that are having problems. But through the entire belt of where moose exist (even where they are supposedly expanding in the Dakotas all the way to Maine) at these latitudes, moose are having trouble.

        Wolves are not helping the situation, but they are doing what they have always done, and that is hit moose calves hard. Its never been a problem until recently, as moose numbers have plummeted. The wolf is the constant (k) in regard to moose, something else is going on.

        Heiko Wittmer has conducted studies, I believe in British Columbia on the decline of Woodland Caribou. A hypothesis was put out, and tested, that anthropocentric interference (logging) has created seral forests, which allowed moose and white tail deer move into local where they were uncommon. As their numbers increase, so have the predators, wolves and cougar. Results of the study show a strong correlation with increased predation on woodland caribou due to the increase of predators, who’s populations have increased due to the influx of moose and deer.

        That said. the moose country of Northern Minnesota was not good deer habitat. Logging and agriculture have made it possible for deer to expand their range. Does this increase in “food” for wolves buffer their numbers in time of low moose numbers, thus increasing pressure on moose?

        The report i received from my friend in the DNR reveals a multitude of problems this one moose had, including brain worm, a byproduct of deer influx to the area. If one adult moose has this litany of flukes and brainworm, it is very likely many more moose are thus afflicted.

        Yet it always comes back to the “dogs”.

        • rork says:

          “How was your reception?”
          Bahahaha. Good one.

          And thanks for those pointers. It really is tricky.

  52. CodyCoyote says:

    A fascinating article at NBC News.com about the origins of the ” Little Red Riding Hood ” story of the wolf that ate Grandma and set a trap for her granddughter. Turns out that story had been around for at least 1600 years in Europe, the Middle East , and even the Far East before the Grimm’s wrote down the version we all know and love…


    Old superstitions die hard.

    • SaveBears says:

      Well I see Wilkinson is stirring it up again.

      • SaveBears says:

        To that I will add, at least he mentioned that BOTH sides are doing this and BOTH sides are wrong when they do..

        I, myself have been threatened more than once by pro wildlife people and as I have said, never go out without my side arm because of it.

      • Jeff N. says:

        You may consider Wilkinson’s article stirring it up, that’s your opinion, but I think the anti’s are doing a pretty good job of stirring it up all by themselves, and I don’t think I need to expound.

        • SaveBears says:

          Yes Jeff(Who is ignoring me) It is my opinion, which is just as valid as yours, leave it at that.

          • SaveBears says:

            By the way Jeff,

            I have told Scott that I think he is stirring stuff up to his face many times, he and I actually consider each other friends, which is why I posted in the first place, he has progressed a lot, he said Both Sides.

            • Connie says:


            • Jeff N. says:

              Hi SB,

              I find the article less than “stirring it up”. I find it suggesting that the rhetoric and actions have become so extreme that for the first time Wilkinson did not mention someone’s name, due to a request, for fear of that someone’s safety.

              And yes he did mention that blame lies on both sides, but let’s not use this as a false equivalency. From what I’m seeing/reading on a daily basis, the pendulum has swung and remains on the “anti” side in regard to hateful rhetoric, unsavory pictures, etc….

              Quick question for you. Why would someone who is pro-wildlife threaten someone like you, who claims to be pro-wildlife? And why do you feel the need to be armed when stepping outside your door?

              • Jeff N. says:

                Quick edit to my post regarding withholding the identity of someone in his words

                “Why do I mention this? Never in my nearly 30 years as a journalist have I pulled a story at the last minute at the subject’s behest — until last week.”

              • SaveBears says:


                At a point in the past, I was very vocal in condemning the acts that were committed by ALF(Animal Liberation Front) and the ELF(Earth Liberation Front) when they burned down properties as well as let animal go that could not live in the wild. This was in the early days of the internet, at that time I was also very active in support of hunting and especially archery hunting.

                Not to long after I moved to my current home, I received a phone call from an individual claiming to be with ALF stating they would kill me if they found me in the field. I took it with a grain of salt until a very snowy evening around 11pm when we had a car show up in our drive way, I live remote and during the time of the year this happened, it would take quite an effort to end up in my driveway. The sheriff took the threat very seriously and eventually caught the individual who made the threat. The sheriff deemed it a real threat based on his investigation.

                I have also been very vocal against the extremists on the wolf issue, especially those advocating illegal activities, I condemn the images that have been posted by them.

                I understand it is a small part of the hunting community, that commits these acts, but also understand that of those that do, many are willing to commit crimes to get their point across.

      • JB says:

        “Stirring it up”? As I read the article, Wilkinson expressed disgust at illegal threats, apparently motivated by disagreement over a policy issue. Is it your intent to condemn Mr. Wilkinson for supporting a woman who was threatened for having the audacity to speak out?

        • SaveBears says:


          I did not condemn anyone, I simply stated he is again stirring things up, and I was GLAD that he mentioned that BOTH sides are at fault, you folks read way to much into comments posted on this blog!

        • JB says:

          SB: I apologize if I’ve ‘read something into’ your comment that was not intended. Can you clarify your intent? I think most people (apparently Jeff N. among them) would read your comment ‘stirring things up’ as condemnation of Wilkinson’s actions. If you were not intending any evaluative content in your message (i.e., to judge his actions one way or another), then what message did you intend to convey? If we take out the evaluative meaning, your message might read:

          “Well I see Wilkinson [reporting a story about wolves] again.”

          Um…isn’t that his job?

          • JB says:

            Sorry, should read:

            “Well I see Wilkinson is [reporting a story about wolves] again.”

            • SaveBears says:


              Yes, he is stirring things up, I made no condemnation on either side, but if we read some of the comments right here on this blog, it was automatically assumed by some that it was directed at the anti wolf crowd, which it was not.

              This is the reason I made a point of saying at least he pointed out that BOTH sides have extremists and BOTH side are WRONG!

              • SaveBears says:

                The continued hate directed to hunters by many because of the actions of few has got out of hand. I am actually glad he stirred it up and showed Both sides have individuals that are keeping this inflamed, including some right here on this blog.

        • SaveBears says:

          As a victim in the past of being threatened for having the “audacity to speak out” See my post answering Jeff’s question.

    • jon says:

      That is typical of the wolf hater crowd. I’ve received numerous death threats myself on the internet from these hunters who hate wolves and so have many other pro-wolf people. These people are nuts and hate and despise anyone that doesn’t hate wolves like they do. They should be arrested for death threats, but sadly most pro-wolf advocates don’t contact the police about the threats.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I don’t understand why they need a blanket delisting. What are they afraid of? Why is the USF&W cowering? I just don’t get it. They got what they wanted in the West and the Great Lakes. Isn’t that enough? There are no wolves anywhere else. It is very very strange, for the 21st century.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Darn….I feel left out. Nobody has threatened me yet. LOL

      • SaveBears says:

        I guess I am again in the moderation file, so I will say it another way, both sides have jerks that break the law, and endorse breaking the law, we have all see it time and time again, neither side in this, is innocent.

  53. WM says:

    Looks like Orin Hatch, Doc Hastings and Company are at it again. A second letter asking FWS to do a blanket delisting of wolves. A link to the letter is at the end of Hatch’s news release:


    • JB says:

      “The gray wolf is currently found in 46 countries around the world and has been placed in the classification of ‘least concern’ globally for risk of extinction by the International Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission Wolf Specialist Group. This is a clear indication that this species is not endangered or threatened with extinction.”

      Notice how they have completely ignore the definition of an endangered species. Hatch would have us believe that the ~85% of the conterminous US states where wolves have been exterminated do not constitute a significant portion of the wolf’s range.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        Nothing gets me into Snark Mode quicker than the likes of Orrin Hatch starting to preach on something.

        So I’m gonna give as good as I get from him here, by using a strongly spiced analogy to his sermon on Grey Wolves not being endangered, by comparing those selfsame wolves to that other reindtroduced creature having some difficulties outside their protected homeland , the Mormons.

        (Snark) ” Since Mormons were first provided protections under the Endangered Religions Act , uncontrolled and unmanaged growth of Mormon populations has resulted in devastating impacts on hunting and ranching and tragic damages to historically strong and healthy herds of Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians , Lutherans and Baptists. This is why we believe it is critical that the people as a whole reconsider the decision to list Mormons as a sub-specie of Christianity under ERA, which would have a severe impact on private landowners, including ranchers, in Arizona, New Mexico, and surrounding states… anywhere but Utah. We believe that state governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage Mormon populations and are better able to meet the needs of local communities and Christian populations.” ( Endsnark)

        OK, Orrin…I’m done snarking now. We return you to your regularly scheduled indoctrination program.

  54. Ida Lupine says:

    Since wolves were first provided protections under the ESA, uncontrolled and unmanaged growth of wolf populations has resulted in devastating impacts on hunting and ranching and tragic damages to historically strong and healthy herds of moose, elk, big horn sheep and mule deer. This is why we believe it is critical….

    Not in my neck of the woods, they ain’t. Devastating!Tragic! Critical! Oh where’s my violin.

  55. Nancy says:

    What an excellent way to sum this up:

    “You know I sometimes feel like I’m living in a nation of lab rats, and I don’t know why the American public is so willing to be duped, so willing to think that if there is a job attached that it’s good,” said Hoff”


  56. rork says:

    Pretty good guest column by Nancy Warren, on the day before sports wolf hunt starts here in MI, arguing we don’t need wolf hunts:

    Here’s DNR press release of yesterday:

    It’s also the start of the deer gun season (ruining my deer season, but I’ll shift to swinging a 10-weight rod). Part of that orange army will permit themselves to be outlaws. I hate to admit it, but that’s actually a feature of some (a minority) of folks in Michigan. They feign themselves mavericks not slave enough to obey the evil government of south MI. I fear that much more than a few legal trophy hunters, and not just cause of wolf poaching.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Warren’s editorial was well written and supported.

      One can’t help but think that, even with the conservative numbers in MI’s hunt, that this is just the metaphorical foot in the door in regard to MI wolf hunting.

  57. Ida Lupine says:

    Thanks for the link, Immer –

    It is kinda what I was getting at in my inexpert way – in extreme northern Maine and Vermont, pine forests dominate, and maybe calling whitetails an ‘introduced’ species isn’t entirely correct. Their range changed/expanded due to human footprint.

  58. Rich says:

    Interesting article by NWF – perhaps its not just wolves threatening our wildlife.

    Nowhere to Run: Big Game Wildlife in a Warming World


    • Immer Treue says:


      Be careful. According to some out there, this borders on heresy. If they had their way, burning at the stake would probably be restored.

      Interesting how this is all a conspiracy, yet this type of information pours in from just about every point on the compass.

  59. Kathleen says:

    Wolves & Isle Royale: Manipulated zoo or wild wilderness?

    Excerpt: “The current debate over the potential loss of wolves also indicates the fairly short-sighted approach of most land and wildlife management that is often based on the next 1-10 years, not centuries or millennia. Because Wilderness is forever, we need to look beyond the short timeframe of human lifetimes and allow these natural processes to play out over much longer time spans…”


    • Ida Lupine says:

      This means that we allow Nature to call the shots, even if that might lead to extirpation of the wolves, either temporarily or permanently.

      It’s much, much too late for that because human impact on nature is deep and widespread. Letting Nature takes its course on Isle Royale and nowhere else is a bit hypocritical. I hope it isn’t just that these animals are wolves and the human issues with wolves, both real and imagined, complicates things yet again.

      • ma'iingan says:

        “Letting Nature takes its course on Isle Royale and nowhere else is a bit hypocritical.”

        And where else would you let “nature take its course”?

        • Ida Lupine says:

          For one, I’d stop the hunting of wolves under human ‘management’. Leave the policy in place if wolves are attacking livestock, but otherwise, leave them be.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Or the policy that was already in place. Generalized killing does nothing to stop wolf predation on individual farms and ranches. And it has been shown that the wolf populations stabilize on their own depending on the availability of prey. Wolf effects on ungulates shouldn’t even be in the equation, because that is how nature designed them. Habitat loss and human activity is behind most of wildlife, not wolves doing what they were made to do.

            Wildfire management, not damming up rivers, etc. many ways to not interfere and let nature take her course.

        • ma'iingan says:

          “Letting Nature takes its course on Isle Royale and nowhere else is a bit hypocritical.”

          What’s hypocritical is inserting wolves into a known genetic bottleneck, where we know they will develop congenital defects unless we “refresh” the population regularly.

    • JB says:

      The title is pure hyperbole. No matter what choice they make with wolves, Isle Royale is one of the (if not THE) least touched places in the lower 48. If IR is a “manipulated zoo”, then every national forest in the lower 48 is a suburban shopping mall.

      • WM says:

        I have gone back and forth on the issue of whether to let the Isle Royale wolves die out or be “assisted” with genetic rescue (even if it has to be done more than once). Even been sarcastic about what has gone on there to date. And, I tend to agree with JB about the unfortunate choice of title by this “wilderness” author. It is sloppy advocacy journalism on a topic that deserves better.

        It is reasonable to conclude that we live in a managed environment, and it will continue to be more so as more people inhabit earth and our own United States. Having an essentially closed wolf/prey populated ecosystem which allows for study and exploration of management options that could assist elsewhere doesn’t seem so bad to me – even in designated Wilderness.

        I truly hope an EIS is done to fully flesh the issues at the core of the future for IR and its wolves and the moose in a climate changing world (more wolves naturally coming back to IR – yeah right, this writer isn’t being realistic). Wilderness is not forever in a changing US landscape inhabited by humans. And, importantly, this writer doesn’t understand that Wilderness in the US is an artificial status created by a federal law, which can be changed (important distinction he misses there). Heck I don’t even mind if Rolf Peterson has a conflict of interest which may be advanced by genetic rescue.

        Maybe anyone interested ought to ask for an EIS so we understand the full range of options and the selection of a good one. And, I don’t even mind maybe disagreeing with Dr. Mech on this one.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Beautifully said!

        • George Vincent says:

          WM — whoever you are. By referring to Kevin Proescholdt as “this ‘wilderness’ author,” you’re letting your ignorance show.

          I worked on Isle Royale for two years in the 80s. The same issues Proescholdt raises were being raised then, as they were back in the 30s by Murie before wolves even got to the island.

          What IS the essence of wilderness?

          And, as Dave Foreman has said, if you think wilderness is just an artificial construct, then you haven’t spent enough time in one.

          • WM says:

            George Vincent,

            I have been in a lot of different designated wilderness areas over nearly fifty decades. I understand the concept and value its worth to body and soul, and the need to protect it.

            Quite honestly, I don’t know who Kevin P. is, but he mischaracterizes IR in my opinion. He does not acknowledge that IR and many other places in the US are Wilderness only because of specific acts of Congress, and federal ownership of the land. What Congress gives, it can take away.

            If he (or you) are referring to the abstract construct of “wilderness” as in wild lands untouched by the handprint of man, I assure you I understand and appreciate its worth to mankind well. But, I am a practical sort. And as a lawyer (trained in natural resources by the way), I know we are a young country, and a country of laws. And, importantly, most lands under authority of the National Park Service, and designated as Wilderness mostly aren’t. IR is no exception to this. There are man-made regulations that control human conduct even in designated Wilderness. Like me to quote a few sections of the US Code or Code of Federal Regulations, or may be individual National Park (or US Forest Rules) for you?

            And, while I like the quote from I Dave Foreman you give, he and a bunch of other Earth Firsters are anarchist pinheads that have done more harm than good to the “wilderness” movement.

            • Mareks Vilkins says:

              while I like the quote from I Dave Foreman you give, he and a bunch of other Earth Firsters are anarchist pinheads that have done more harm than good to the “wilderness” movement.



              according to his own words he is:

              a) registered Republican and

              b)’true conservative’ who quit EF! in 1990 because of marxists’ and anarchists’influence in that organization

            • WM says:

              Sorry, ..fifty years [not decades].


              Copies of Monkeywrench Gang and Desert Solitude by Abbey are on my bookshelf and have been read several times.

              From the article “conservationism and environmentalism as two separate movements….”. Maybe, but the cause for the need for both is more people harming the land, water and air.

            • George Vincent says:

              WM: You do not have to quote the CFR for me — I have actually written federal wilderness regulations, so assume you would be quoting me some of my own words. And I have written wilderness law, so I am well aware of the legal construct of wilderness.

              While you (or I) may disagree with Earth First! tactics, one thing Foreman is not is a “pinhead.”

              Just keep in mind that though you may think yourself the most knowledgeable reader of this site, chances are it isn’t so.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Then by all means, share your knowledge rather than your antagonism.

              • WM says:

                George Vincent,

                My comment on this thread started out as a critique of the view alternative futures for Isle Royale. I agreed with JB, that the title chosen for an article written by Kevin P, was not well thought out. I also suggested Kevin P’s view of wilderness on IR and what should happen there was a bit naïve (a word I will now embrace for his view). In a changing world wild lands, whether designated by Congress as such or not, it will need more “management” of sorts. That is the reason you (I and others) contributed to writing the regulations for them. Mostly those are things one cannot do generally in Wilderness, as well as what might be allowed in specific Wilderness. You should know that very well.

                Now, we can disagree what constitutes management going forward, but wild lands and their wild inhabitants are likely in the long run to do a little better with some help along the way. Of course Congress in some subsequent session can tell us what it wants (not that I have much faith in the body these days).

                As for my ignorance, I now know a little more about Kevin P., but that doesn’t change my view about his writing which started this exchange. And, I don’ think I am the “most knowledgeable reader on this site,” but I do have opinions I can support, unlike some.

                And, don’t get me going on Earth First, as an organization, past or present, and some of its members. Maybe you were a former member, yes?

              • George Vincent says:

                Immer: Point taken, thank you. I hope I have done so later in this post.

                WM: You wrote that “…you (I and others) contributed to writing the regulations” for wild lands. Well, then we must know each other, but I can’t for the life of me place you by what I’ve read.

                It seems you support your opinions with your opinions. Of course you can disagree with Proescholdt’s focus on putting the untrammeled quality of wilderness character first and foremost, but not by writing “this writer doesn’t understand that Wilderness in the US is an artificial status created by a federal law, which can be changed.” He may be an idealist, but is certainly not “naive.” If you had read the short bio at the end of the article, you would have realized he does indeed know about changing a federal law — he was involved in passing the only law that has ever amended the original ’64 Act. But changing the definition of wilderness is not germane to his argument.

                The tension between keeping areas untrammeled and manipulating them in order to keep some semblance of what we consider “natural” is a constant source of debate, and one not easily as resolved as your comments indicate — though I do realize the limitations of this format. The we-know-best-for-wild-lands-and-their-inhabitants approach to land management has it limits, as innumerable instances have shown us. As Egler wrote, “Ecosystems are not only more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think.” Even ecosystems that are as relatively closed and simple as an island.

                Isle Royale is an ideal place to follow the untrammeled line. Murie recognized this back in the ’30s. At first he favored bringing wolves to the island to control the relatively new and growing moose population. But he soon changed his mind, saying that in wilderness (small “w” of course, there was no capital “W” then), managers should be judged not on projects accomplished, but rather on projects forestalled.

                Proescholdt writes for an organization that always favors the untrammeled quality, as you can tell by his quoting of the man who wrote the Wilderness Act. I am of a somewhat different school that says we have a greater understanding of ecosystems than in earlier days and that in some instances we may need to manipulate. But we do so at the peril of not only the idea of wilderness, but of making things worse. Your glib and condescending comments do a disservice to both sides of the argument.

                As for your crack about maybe being a former member of Earth First! — as you should have been able to discern from my comment about disagreeing with their tactics — no. I have known Dave Foreman for 20 years, though, and appreciate his contributions since his EF! days. Again, you may disagree — but referring to him as a “pinhead”…?

              • Immer Treue says:


                More than welcome, and the type of reply that I feel makes TWN one of the best, if not the best wildlife blog in the cyber world.

                If I can interject my own feelings in the discussion…

                I can go either way on the IR wolf issue, yet, in honesty lean toward a wolf presence, if for no other reason the boom/bust moose cycle.

                Also, I believe there is yet more to learn from IR, with applications to more land locked “islands” of wild life populations with the steady encroachment of humans.

                I have followed IR for ~35 years, and have spent about 60 days there during the 80’s and early 90’s. a truly unique place.

              • George Vincent says:

                Immer, I know what you’re saying about the boom and bust of the moose if wolves die out on Isle Royale. There will be many hundreds of animals that will starve over the coming decades. On the other hand, with global warming, winter ticks may end up being a greater problem. I remember when I worked there, Rolf estimated one moose died with over 70,000 ticks on her (or his — I don’t remember) body.

                Gruesome in any event.

                I do think, however, there will be plenty to learn about the biology of islands (nature-made or human-made, as you point out) whether or not wolves are augmented. It’s just that different questions will be asked.

                Since ISRO is designated wilderness, my tendency is to go with Zahniser’s basic tenet “guardians not gardeners” that Proescholdt quoted. I know the island has a long history of serious manipulations by humans, and we’ve caused the rise and disappearance of many species there. But at some point I’d like us to show some restraint about always trying to “fix” the island in whatever image we have of it at the moment, and say, “we’re just not going to do that anymore.”

                I know, I know — one could argue that “letting nature take its course” is just another form of imposing an image of ours on the place. But it is an image, I think, a little more grounded in humility — which is important if were are to keep any places wild.

              • Immer Treue says:


                Perhaps IR is such a focal point for either action, or none at all, because for the longest time, it was a location that, simply put, had wolves, while nowhere else other than northern MN did, in the lower 48. As literature about wolves began to hit bookshelves, Isle Royale became “the place” to visit to at least see signs of the wolf presence, just to know they were there.

                Moose. Here in N MN, a litany of problems assault moose, including ticks of the quantity you referenced on Isle Royale; liver flukes; brain worm (vectored in by deer); weather; and of course wolves.

              • WM says:

                George Vincent,

                ++It seems you support your opinions with your opinions.++

                Not really. I tend to try to climb on the shoulders of the opinions/conclusions of others more knowledgeable than I, and whom I respect. Let’s use, for example, the topic you and I have been discussing, with you defending Proesholdt’s view.

                The idea of genetic augmentation, or “rescue”, for wolves is not new. Translocation (moving them to a new location) of wolves is just a subset of that concept. It was discussed by Ed Bangs in the NRM wolf reintroduction program EIS in 1994 (with cites to primary sources), it is a cornerstone of the WA wolf management plan (lots of Wilderness in both places and where suitable habitat is not contiguous in WA). Genetic augmentation, has been discussed elsewhere, as well in other federal and state wolf management planning in the NRM, WGL and it is the only way the Mexican wolf will take hold over time in AZ and NM. It has been used with limited success in WI, according to a state biologist who posts here. It is just moving of wolves, where they might not go themselves but for the lack of contiguous habitat or other constraint, or maybe hostile folks that don’t want them somewhere. And some of this involves occupation of designated Wilderness as well as other wildands. I really don’t view an alternative future for IR as much more than a specific example potentially benefitting from translocation or other rescue, because it is isolated, and there is no contiguous habitat without maybe the occasional ice bridge from the mainland (how could Proescholdt object to that if speaks of the wilderness concept in perpetuity). And, by the way, Dr. Mech, if I understand correctly, supports the concept of translocation in other locations even if he does not at IR.

                And, let’s not forget that ice bridges are less likely to form from the mainland to IR in the future (arguably a human caused condition if developing science is telling us anything), it’s just another instance of lack of contiguous habitat. I don’t see so much an affront to “Wilderness” by bringing in a few wolves periodically, any more than anywhere else. As you know, Wilderness in many places has exceptions for certain types of management written into the statutes and regulations creating them. We have discussed on this forum before whether it is legal to run helicopters into the Frank Church to “gather data” or even thump a few wolves (The Frank Church even has a couple air strips grandfathered into the wilderness legislation that are used for access and will be for perpetuity unless Congress changes it). Heck WWP, utilizing one of its employees was a plaintiff if I recall. Finding for defendants a US District Court determined helicopters to monitor wolves was OK in that instance, with the usual cautionary language not to overdo it.

                Again, Isle Royal did not start out as a “pristine wildlands” as most of it became designated Wilderness after human exploitation of the island. Policy makers with input from the public just need to figure out what they want to do there going forward, maybe in perpetuity. And, again, I don’t know where I fall out on the future of wolves there, but think it deserves full airing. When one wilderness advocate, participates on a panel and writes as Proescholdt does from his little bully pullpit, I don’t think he or Wilderness Watch speak for everyone with a stake in wilderness, or IR Wilderness specifically. “Zoo manipulation!” It is a good rally cry, but not an accurate portrayal of what might be done.

                And, again I am always suspicious of people who quote other people, sometimes from centuries or even decades past, to make their point. I often wonder what the authors (Congress members themselves, not those who lobby members to get something passed) would think about the bills they pass, were they in office today nearly 50 years later). I frequently think this about the vague parts of the ESA, and sometimes even the Wilderness Act with some of its vagueries, leaving judges in the role of trying to fill voids in legislative histories.

                While I am on the topic, I wonder what some of those authors would say about replacing wooden shelters within the Olympic National Park – a federal lawsuit now prevents replacement of a couple key shelters in hostile exposed environments, the key being they would look out of place, but now the disassembled remnants of the old ones (in anticipation of placement of the new ones by helicopter) still set, since about 2003, as stacked wood under ugly plastic tarps, adjacent to big metal NPS equipment boxes. And, those same helicopters are tasked with other work, and come in at the end of summer and haul out the big plastic bins holding human waste. As if, those things aren’t a visual affront, as well, in “wilderness” I don’t know what is. But it appears even wilderness needs management of sorts in modern changing times with more use. Yeah, I’ve even seen people on their cell phones while on the shitter in other Wilderness. Naïve is still a good word to describe those who refuse to become educated about change, as they hold on with religious zeal to phrases like “untrammeled by man” in the original act, even as we come up on 50 years to celebrate the Act. I’ll have to give that “untrammeled” concept some brain time next opportunity I sit atop a plastic throne attached to a plastic waste tank that will be helicoptered out at the end of summer, or yearn for the safe haven of a CCC shelter, no longer there because of a federal court ruling, but of historical significance and built prior to “wilderness” designation.

                Yes, Wilderness with a capital “W” in the US, is a man created artificial construct in the United States as a matter of law. That is not my opinion; it is the law of the land. You and Kevin P. can spin it all you want George V. but, it doesn’t change the reality.

                And, last, my memories are of Dave Foreman are as he was in the mid 1980’s, when he still openly rationalized the use of eco-terrorist tactics, and gave little quips, still quoted today, that rallied his disciples. Whether he (or other early EF’ers) has changed his leopard spots in his later years, I still question. The term “radical” still follows him wherever he goes (and of course he doesn’t deny it, but relishes the attention like an old war hero in favorable forums), and I would not put it past him to have an alter-ego where his disciples just do their work out of sight. Of course you can still buy “Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching” (1993), at his lectures or on Amazon.com. So, I’ll stick with the pinhead moniker for Earth Firsters, if he still wants to flaunt his history as one of its leaders, as well as make a living by publishing his past, maybe the term fits him today.

              • JB says:

                “When one wilderness advocate, participates on a panel and writes as Proescholdt does from his little bully pullpit, I don’t think he or Wilderness Watch speak for everyone with a stake in wilderness, or IR Wilderness specifically. “Zoo manipulation!” It is a good rally cry, but not an accurate portrayal of what might be done.”

                Well said. The model predictions coming out of recent climate change research increasingly point toward dramatic alterations of our earth’s climate in the relatively near future. I think the question of whether to assist with species’ survival via translocation to a wilderness area will be increasingly raised as we struggle to deal with the effects of a changing climate, in combination with fragmented habitat.

                It may, as George asserts, show humility to leave wildernesses be. However, both our own interests as well as the interests of other species (and ecosystems–if they can be said to have interests) are likely to be better served by human interventions. Humility taken to the extreme can also be a fault.

            • Nancie Mccormish says:

              WM (and others) just tossing in my two bits here, having taken a canoe to Isle Royale many years ago.

              My recollection is both the moose, then the wolves, arrived there on separate occasions due to intermittent complete ice cover on Superior. So there was a time when neither was there, and it is at least conceivable more could naturally arrive, or leave, when there is sufficient ice and inclination.

              My experience there was disappointing… apparently I had different notions of what constituted “wilderness.” A lounge, some sort of hotel, and very restricted campsites (that part I understood and expected). However, on arriving at the only campsite reachable by canoe in the time allowed, what a disappointment to find that little beach occupied by several high-power fishing boats from Michigan, replete with very loud diesel generators and lights, which were running all night to keep the beer flowing, I suppose. We pitched our tent illegally (no other options) and guiltily, then endured the sublime wilderness diesel generator experience.

              Hiking the well-traveled public trails the next day, we didn’t see anything but moose tracks and one set of wolf tracks along the shore, but saw many varieties of H. sapiens. I never went back.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                What a horrible experience! I like solitude too, I hate the evidence and presence of modern man (and women and kids). So I guess you could say that IR isn’t a untouched wilderness where nature must take its course (what is, today?)

  60. jon says:


    This woman is truly evil. And some people say these people care about wildlife? What a joke!

    • Ida Lupine says:

      This kind of hunting really isn’t sustainable and can’t continue indefinitely – killing endangered wildlife for trophies and ego, worlds apart from hunting whitetail deer and elk for food. Good that she got such a barrage of criticism she had to shut down her site.

  61. Jeff N. says:

    This sh!t is out of hand. What is happening here?


    • JB says:

      My best guess: someone with a gun has decided that red wolves are nothing more than ‘government protected super-coyotes’, and they’re going to do their damnedest to get ’em all. Of course, that’s just a guess.

      • Louise Kane says:

        How is it possible that the state of NC is still allowing coyote hunting in any region where red wolves exist, and that this activity has not been challenged in court. WTF

        • aves says:

          Hi Louise,

          It has been challenged in court: http://redwolves.com/rwc/getinvolved/federal_complaint.html

          The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has long been hostile to red wolf recovery. They had been pushing for the night hunting for years and publicly acknowledged that red wolves would be taken. They also refuse to recognize the red wolf on the state’s list of endangered species. Instead they have the gray wolf listed and have publicly doubted that red wolves are a native species.

          The only solution I see is to ban the hunting of coyotes within the red wolf’s range. There are very few coyotes there anyways. This will be a hard sell to even ethical hunters but is the wolf’s only chance.

          • Louise Kane says:

            Thanks aves but why will banning the hunting of coyotes be a hard sell to even “ethical” hunters. There is so much evidence to illustrate that hunting coyotes does not achieve any management goals. Its done for sport and arguably killing for sport is not considered ethical by many

            • aves says:

              I should have written “law abiding” rather than the subjective “ethical”. It’s a sad reality that changing people’s minds about coyotes is hard to do.

            • Louise Kane says:

              Aves I know you follow the red wolf debacle closely, when you see a ruling please post, and thank you

              • aves says:

                More bad news, another red wolf has been shot, the 5th in the last month:


              • Louise Kane says:

                I saw this aves
                what is the population estimate now
                wasn’t it around 100 before night hunting of coyotes?
                do you think this is intentional
                hard to believe a lawsuit could not stop this with an injunction…5 wolves in such a shot time!

              • aves says:

                I don’t know of any current estimates. Yes, I believe the shootings are deliberate. But I don’t know if they’re being specifically targeted at night or being killed opportunistically by people hunting bear or deer during daylight hours.

          • Louise Kane says:

            Aves is any progress being made to end the hunting of coyotes within the red wolf range? I know you are following, is there any action we could take to help?

            • aves says:

              I don’t know where it’s at other than the 2 sides are talking. The Red Wolf Coalition keeps the most up to date information on the lawsuit through their website ( http://redwolves.com/rwc/index.html)and facebook page.

              What I do to help is give money to the Red Wolf Coalition, tell everyone I can about what’s happening, call and write my displeasure to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, call and write newspapers and tv channels, call and write congress, and give encouragement to those with the program. It is obviously not enough and I’m not sure what else to do. If I lived closer to the recovery area I could probably do more.

    • Rita k Sharpe says:

      Well, they, the shooters, knew exactly what they were doing and, if they get caught , I don’t want to hear that line of “I thought it was a coyote,” for it won’t cut it for me here. I get rather tired of that excuse and it plays like a broken record.

      • Jeff N. says:

        Sadly, I think that this type of sh!t will soon be coming to my neck of the woods, AZ lobo country. As we all know the Feds want to delist the wolf in the U.S. with the exception of the lobo down here in good old AZ and NM, where the ruling would give el lobo full ESA status.

        The reactionary natives are already getting restless down here. The “old news” stories of wolf proof bus stop shelters have resurfaced and the paranoia machine is getting oiled up.

        My guess is that carnage is on the way.

    • aves says:

      Unfortunately this is typical for this time of year. The 4 wolves poached in the last month are getting more publicity than past killings, but over 40 have been killed since 2008.

      I’ve met people in the recovery area who openly say they hate wolves because wolves prey on deer and every deer a wolf kills is one they can’t kill. Poachers also kill them because they are symbols of the federal government or of a diversifying world they cannot control.

      If caught, some claim they thought they were shooting a coyote but I think they know exactly what they were shooting. The young ones do look like coyotes, but most of the wolves killed are adult breeders, which are clearly different from coyotes. Plus everybody knows wolves are present so nobody should be shooting any canid there to avoid the risk of killing the rare one.

      • Mark L says:

        Yep, my guess is the list of ‘really good suspects’ in these cases could be narrowed down to a few dozen at most. Probably less. BTW, are electronic calls legal in NC?

  62. JEFF E says:


    “In 2011, close to 250,000 people hunted in Idaho.

    That’s up 25 percent from just ten years earlier, and, it could be due to a rising new trend.

    “Our fastest growing demographic is female hunters, and we’re recruiting a lot of youth,” said Hatch.”

    • Mareks Vilkins says:

      that means $600K or 600M ?? if the first one then it’s less than 1% – so it seems more like 600M


      how many of those 250K hunt within a wolf range and how many non-residents hunt in a wolf range? how big is ID wolf range?


      on more personal level – what do you, Jeff E, think about Yuri Mashkin ( 23:23; 25:46; 51:35; 1:03:13) and Aleksei Kuznetsov (10:28; 49:24; 51:16; 1:06:59) – do they possess what you would define/qualify as a ‘fortitude’?

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      “…..saw a man in camouflage holding an assault weapon”
      “….After the man allegedly shot Spence’s dog six times, he took off without another word…..”

    • Ida Lupine says:

      So now you can’t even resemble a wolf or you’ll get shot. This is the second time this has happened, at least. I remember someone leering over a dead wolf/dog hybrid recently. Disgusting. I hope they throw this guy’s ass in jail.

      • Nancy says:

        They will have to find him first Ida and you can bet he’s not gonna be coming forward “claiming he thought it was a wolf” with the owner standing right there screaming at him to STOP SHOOTING!!

        • Ida Lupine says:

          That’s exactly what they did:

          Sheriff’s Office: No Criminal Wrongdoing in Hunter’s Shooting of Malamute

          Malamutes really don’t look that much like wolves. I wonder if the owner can still sue as a tort claim.

          • JEFF E says:

            my “big guy” does not get to go out for long runs in the countryside this time of year.
            Even if he was on a leash, there are too many Bellevue perverts(see the latest poisoning incident) out there that would shoot, or worse, and ask questions later.
            Other times of the year he wears a hunter orange dog vest which still does not give me real peace of mind knowing the daffodils that roam the back roads.

    • Kathleen says:

      Years ago we met friends at Lee Creek for an afternoon of snowshoeing with our three (combined) dogs. Little did we know that trappers had laid snares in the area. We kept our dogs within sight and thankfully no mishaps occurred, but shortly afterward other dogs were snared. Subsequently, signs were posted about the danger of traps/snares at this popular skiing/snowshoeing area. The Forest Svc. even notes that winter recreation opportunities are available here

      although I should note that nothing in today’s article states that the skier accessed the area from the campground on US12, though this is typically the parking and jump-off point for such activities.

      The point is, it’s no stretch of the imagination to think that a bullet zinging through the dense woods toward a wolf, phantom wolf, or companion dog couldn’t miss its intended victim and strike a skier or snowshoer. Not that I’m minimizing the brutal death of this dog (certainly I’m not!), but the apologists for the blood sports will find reasons to justify it, even if it’s the “one bad apple” defense. (There sure are a lot of bad apples out there.)

      Why doesn’t the Forest Svc. close off these popular recreation locations to killing “sports”? Why is the onus on the benign user– “skier beware”? “snowshoer beware”? Especially now, with a wolf killing season that spans six months, where the hell are we safe?

  63. Louise Kane says:


    still not too late to comment on delisting of wolves
    one argument against managing by numbers

  64. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Who’s afraid of the American gray wolf?
    The guy that wrote that paper linked to in the article surely is: http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/WolfReport02.pdf
    This elaborate even beats the “kids cages”!
    Mabe this paper has been discussed here before, I haven´t seen it yet.

  65. Nancy says:

    “Bison is not a game animal in Poland, meaning specific permission must be sought in order to kill one. But a small number of permits are now being issued annually to commercial agencies, providing the chance for hunters from anywhere in the world to add this rare beast to their trophy collections at a cost of up to $30,000 per animal”


  66. Louise Kane says:


    page 5 is an article on killing contests by Guy Dicharry, a New Mexico lawyer

  67. Immer Treue says:

    The anti wolf crowd has the Motor City Mad Man (who is still alive and not in jail), while pro wolfers have Iggy Popp


  68. Ida Lupine says:

    The state’s 2012 wolf hunt, the first in half a century, was approved with support from several state sportsmen groups, including the Safari Club International Wisconsin Chapter, Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association and Wisconsin Bowhunters Association, all of whom are now represented on the Wolf Advisory Committee.

    This is taken from the article I posted a day or two ago, about the new and improved wildlife advisory boards where they have excluded scientists and university researchers. I don’t doubt that a below board hunt with dogs might be in the works to avoid controversy?


    • rork says:

      Methods: We determined the degree to which more wolf hunting would increase ungulates available to human hunters – by polling hunters. We tabulated the results on a 3×5 card with #2 pencil.

      Thanks for pointer.

  69. Louise Kane says:

    500 year old ocean quahog –

    killed by scientists

  70. Louise Kane says:


    more on the 507 year old Ming
    surreal to think of an animal beginning its life at the time Columbus was exploring the new world. I saw the oldest tortoise in the Galapagos, when visiting some years back. Mind blowing to think of life spans in the centuries

    • Immer Treue says:

      Shooting of dog wasn’t criminal? WTF! You have a gun and you shoot something, you better know what the hell you’re shooting at!

      • jon says:

        This hunter should be put in jail immediately. He is a criminal and as you said, if he wasn’t sure what he was shooting at, he shouldn’t have pulled the trigger. This is not the first time a hunter shoots a dog claiming it was a wolf. These hunters are killing people’s dogs and they are getting away with it. I feel for the dog owner.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Nancy stated yesterday that the crazies have been given the green light….wolf, dog, dog that looks like wolf, wolf pups…. kill, shoot, trap and generally make life hell for anything resembling a wolf. a very dark time

  71. Ida Lupine says:

    Well, said JB and WM. The time for humility has passed, and we’ll have to do a lot of helping out our fellow inhabitants and ourselves if the climate predictions are accurate.

  72. Nancy says:

    And without a doubt, the Keystone Pipeline Project will do a much better job of avoiding stuff like this (wink, wink 🙂


  73. jon says:


    Hunters can shoot your dog and it’s perfectly legal. What a messed up world we live in.

    • rork says:

      Strange that the article did not mention whether having the dogs off leash was legal or not .
      Between off leash dogs and dogs getting shot, the first is a bigger problem for me than the second, cause its so much more common.
      I in no way am saying the hunters were other than idiots. I am saying I am tired of having people illegally have dogs off leash, who then can threaten me and other animals, bite me and the wildlife, or injure me by knocking me over while skiing 30 mph.

      • Elk375 says:

        Or, worst yet is a dog off leash or not under the owner’s immediate control barking and nipping at the heels of your horse/mule. I would hate to be bucked off on a mountain trail onto scree/rocks or downed timber.

        Ninety 98% of dog owners are very conscious of stock animals and immediately get their dogs under control. My mule is not bothered by dogs. It is the other 2% who could cause an injury. Then again it was a gentle gray mare who got me into serious trouble several weeks ago.

        • Louise Kane says:

          whether the dogs were off leash or not, 15 yards is a damn short distance to have to worry about some maniac shooting your dog 5 or 6 times. The bastard that shot the dogs should not have a gun in his hands, like most people. The death of the dog is a tragedy, at least there is someone to mourn. These sobs kill wolves 6 months or more a year like they are trash. Doesn’t it ever seem horrific to you hunters that wild animals that are not eaten and that live in families have to live in places where there is no escape from hunting. I find it heartbreaking.

          • Kathleen says:

            Has this latest article been posted?
            “Authorities spoke with hunter who killed dog, say he won’t be charged.”


            If anyone here hasn’t yet read the first person account of the tragedy from the man whose dog was killed, he gave me permission to use it–it’s here for anyone interested:

            • Ida Lupine says:

              Why did he keep shooting in front of the dog’s guardian, what, four or five more times? These people are allowed to do whatever they want, with impunity.

              • SaveBears says:

                Talk about twists and turns, this story has sure changed a lot since I first heard it on Sunday evening.

            • rork says:

              Can’t tell if having dogs off leash was legal in that story either.
              In both stories, I think the dog owners would have been breaking the law if it was in MI, but that might not be true in other states.

              • Nancy says:

                Interesting that its okay to let a pack of hunting dogs run loose (to chase and harass wildlife) but not okay to have your dogs come along for a winter outing.

              • Immer Treue says:

                The whole “dog” thing is a conundrum. Up here, depending on the time of year, anyone can shoot a dog pursuing big game. As hounding is not allowed in the case of wolves, I would assume that would apply to someone’s dog chasing a wolf.

                The irony is, that while one can shoot a dog for chasing a deer, if a dog is stupid enough (not well trained) to chase a wolf (a game animal that can take care of itself) and gets killed by said wolf, then the authorities are brought in because of a wolf problem.

              • rork says:

                Winter outing: they can come, on a leash (near me).

              • Immer Treue says:

                rork, Elk, and anyone else,

                Dogs: As a dog owner living rural, during deer and wolf season my dog wears orange, as do I. About the only thing for which the malamute owner could really be faulted. Yet, Where the malamute was shot, the wolf season is half the year… It is a multiple-use area frequented by skiers. This in itself is not good for hunting. Was the “shooter” aware?

                One question I have is what time of day was it when the shooting occurred? Was it early/late morning, or early afternoon? How long had the shooter been “sitting” out there.

                Was there any real attempt to identify the target? Was hunter out there a long time, or just going out? Did he near something, have just enough time to flip safety and shoot? “Blowing back leg off” of dog might indicate hurried shot, aiming behind shoulder of moving target, thus hitting leg. Rapid follow-up shots to kill. In my minds eye, hunter thought wolf, incorrectly, and hurriedly shot. I’d also like to throw out there, that malamutes resemble wolves, but there are differences.

                Perhaps a poor analogy, but the bear hunters who thought they shot a black bear a couple years ago, and mistakenly shot a grizzly. When one went into the brush to search for the bear, and was attacked, only to be shot by his partner while shooting at the bear.

                Point I guess I want to make is its all about identifying target. We hear of these accidents every year. Sometimes there might only be a second or two to make that “shot”, but before one shoots, for the life of me, I don’t understand why these “accidents” of improper identification are made.

              • Nancy says:

                “I don’t understand why these “accidents” of improper identification are made”

                Because “slob hunters” aren’t held accountable Immer. But you can bet your sweet bippy, if it had been an elk or deer, shot out of season, some official would of been all over it.

                This guy should be held liable for the loss of this dog.

                A fitting punishment would be to hog tie him to the top of an SUV and parade him around Missoula with a big sign on the rig that says “I’m a prime example of not knowing my ass from a hole in the ground” 🙂

              • SaveBears says:


                That would be like the Guy that strapped the wolf to his SUV in Jackson and basically said.

                I do know my ass from a hole in the ground and here is the proof!

                Nothing is going to come of this, the authorities have talked to him and said he didn’t commit any crimes.

              • Kathleen says:

                Allowing the dogs to run off-leash was not illegal. There are no leash laws on the Lolo NF unless otherwise posted though dogs are required to be under their guardian’s control, of course.

                My dog hikes and snowshoes with me all over this area on up to Lolo Pass. When dogs started getting trapped and snared, I started carrying cable cutters and cord (for opening body-grip traps, although I suspect that under extreme duress it will be impossible–watch the woman illustrate it in this video, then imagine trying to do that with a 70-lb. thrashing, terrified dog caught in it
                http://scottlindenoutdoors.com/wingshootingusa/about-us/save-your-dogs-life-how-to-release-him-from-a-conibear-trap/ ).

                Do I resent this? Yes…trapping is simply a brutal taking of life that causes intentional suffering…for commercial gain! And now a SIX MONTH wolf (trophy) killing season? My dog (ironically, a sleek hunting breed cross–someone even did a bad chop job at docking her tail before they dumped her like garbage) wears a “jester collar” that I made for her–a bandana with strips of bright plastic flagging tape tied all the way around it PLUS a set of large jingle bells attached to it. Plus, since I hike in black bear country, I’m always yelling “hey bear” whether they’re hibernating or not, just to announce our presence to predators, including those with guns. As I said earlier, the onus is on the benign user of public lands, and now that has become a full half-year burden.

              • SaveBears says:


                This was not a trapping incident.

              • Immer Treue says:


                Technically, said hunter did not break the law, because he shot a domesticated animal (dog), in the road. Yet, he thought it was a wolf, and shooting a game animal in the road is illegal. So, the intent of what the shooter did was, technically, illegal. I don’t like using this term, but this individual certainly does fit the parameters of a slob hunter.

              • SaveBears says:


                As and ex FWP employee, you don’t need to explain anything to me, and I have not made any statement in support of the hunter in this instance, but law enforcement has spoke to the hunter and nothing is going to be done. That said, my posting does not in anyway show support for the hunter.

              • SaveBears says:

                By the way, speaking with the US Forest Service LEO that investigated this, no it would not have been illegal to shoot a game animal on this road, the road is permanently closed to vehicle traffic, the only time in Montana that is illegal to shoot a game animal on the road, is if it is open and maintained to vehicle traffic.

              • Immer Treue says:


                Rest assured I am NOT making any inference that you support the said hunter.

                And I only bring up the question of legality to the road shoot, as in one of the stories of the incident, it made reference to the illegality of shooting game on the road, but that this statute did apply to domestic animals. I could not get the iPhone to copy and paste that passage.

              • SaveBears says:

                Yes, there were a couple of stories about the legality and the road issue, but USFS investigator stated that the road is closed to vehicular traffic and not maintained for vehicular traffic so it is not out of bounds.

              • Louise Kane says:

                Nancy/Immer there is no way to answer to your posts about why these mistakes are made in the thread so this pertains to the issue of making mistakes in the field….perhaps another reason being that semi automatic weapons are used in hunting. These weapons have long been defended by the gun crazy lobbyists for use by the public because they are intended for hunting. Geez are semi automatic weapons really needed anywhere? if this man did not have one of those horrendous weapons in his hand the owner might have had a chance to save his dog. Slob hunter is right. I’d go so far as to say anyone hunting with a weapon like that could have that moniker. and I thought I read the sob also had a sound reducing device on the rifle. Whats that for….so he could kill the whole pack before any members realized they were hit? This kind of hunting is crazy barbaric and sick. I anyone else as disgusted and sickened by the thought of some ass with a semi automatic with sound deadening device waiting to shoot up some wolves minding their own business, or the thousands of traps and snares set for the measly populations of these animals. These states and their wolf policies are set and backed by reckless people that use hate, ignorance and cruelty to guide their agendas. Unless the USFWS is blind, then Ashe and Jewell are as equally ignorant, if not corrupt. When does the GDamn monitoring come in?

              • Kathleen says:

                SaveBears says:
                November 21, 2013 at 10:38 am

                “This was not a trapping incident.”

                I didn’t say it was. You must have failed to read the last 12 lines, which are about the six-month wolf hunt. The point I was making, in case anyone else missed it (and if you did, I apologize that I wasn’t more clear)is this: The burden is placed on those of us non-consumptive (non-killing) users of OUR public lands, and now that burden extends for six months of the year. Why? Wolf politics. Trophy hunters. Vendettas against predators. Shooters who don’t know what they’re shooting at. This, in addition to “big game” season and “furbearer” trapping season and year-round trapping for other species. People who love their dogs and whose dogs love running free in snow (isn’t that about 99% of them?) want to give their companions that opportunity on OUR public lands, but who can do that with peace of mind?

                So, to belabor the point, that’s why I used the example of needing to be prepared with tools and knowledge about opening traps–all that just to go for a “peaceful” hike in the winter!

              • SaveBears says:

                Crips Louise, now you are going to rant about the type of gun used? Please, bolt action as well as lever action rifles can be empty very quickly as well.

                Should we limit the type of car you drive, no, you, despite your skill level can buy any car you want and drive it on the road, including 1000 HP Ferrari’s and Lamborghini’s, you are only limited by your bank account.

                This is nuts, now the gun did it! No, It was an irresponsible hunter the killed the dog and it did not matter what type of gun he had!

              • WM says:


                Without weighing in on the broader issue of what kind weapons are covered in our Constitutional freedoms and the “right to bear arms,” I do think there are valid rational reasons to exclude certain kinds of guns and magazine capacities for harvesting wildlife.

                And, I think wildlife agencies can (and actually do) regulate what kind of arm is acceptable – from caliber/gauge and bullet weight, to total gun weight and optics. Why anyone needs a high capacity, rapid fire, and maybe suppressed rifle to shoot wolves or other game escapes me. They should be outlawed!

                A reasonable regulation could include something like no more than 4-7 rounds total in magazine and chamber. Heck shotguns have been regulated for bird hunting at 3 shells for 6 decades, or more in some states.

                Unfortunately this “what kind of gun” thing is just a side argument to the circumstances surrounding the shooting of this dog. And, you are right, the outcome would probably not be different regardless of what was used. From the previous discussion here, what people don’t understand is that wildlife regulations typically don’t cover destruction of private property as between the owner of that property and the person doing the damage. That is a matter for the civil courts, including courts of limited jurisdiction, like a small claims court (SCC). Montana has SCC’s.

                In this instance, without a lawyer, the dog owner could present his case to a SCC magistrate, under very liberal rules of evidence. The guy who shot the dog would be able to raise defenses (though I don’t know if a defendant might have legal help): 1) I thought it was a wolf (some malamutes do look somewhat like a wolf, and Hollywood has used them for that purpose for years); 2) The dog owner could have had the dog on a leash; 3) The dog owner could have put hunter orange on his dogs, since he knew it was wolf hunting season and its cheap to do. – the dog owner assumed the risk during wolf season. So, what would a reasonable dog owner do? And, what would a reasonable wolf hunter do, under similar circumstances. Kind of looks like common sense from both perspectives would determine the outcome.

                Then the judge/magistrate would decide whether plaintiff and/or defendant were negligent, by what percentage. If there was a finding of liability the dog would be (unfortunately) valued as a one of the same breed of similar sex, age, confirmation, color and training. No consideration would be allowed for how “special” the dog was to its owner or family.

                Then the judge/magistrate would render a common sense, unbiased decision (hopefully).

                In short there is a remedy at law for the dead dog, albeit not one that is much of a deterrent – and the dog is still dead. Very sad story.

              • SaveBears says:


                We have no such regulations in the state of Montana, in our game laws, we have no definition of what type of gun can be used and the legislature has declined to even read bills of the nature that would restrict any type of gun

              • SaveBears says:

                To add WM,

                I really don’t know what more there is to say, law enforcement has investigated, the hunter as well as the victim have made statements and law enforcement has stated, there was no crime committed, I believe the hunter was negligent by not identifying the target beyond a reasonable doubt. I feel really bad for the guy that lost his dog. They are not releasing the name of the hunter because there has been no crime committed based on the judgement of both State and Federal officials. So there is not much more to say.

              • SAP says:

                What is left to be said about this? Well, on the legal dimension, I’m having trouble seeing how this wasn’t a crime. Based on what I’m reading, apparently someone could shoot my horse on the trail and claim they thought he was a moose (the chestnut is a very moosey color; the sorrel and the bay shouldn’t be easy to mistake) or some other wild ungulate. Perhaps there’s a legal distinction between “livestock” (horses and mules are regulated under Dept of Livestock) and “pets” like poor Little Dave.

                On a cultural dimension: first, we still don’t know anything about the shooter, other than where he was and what he did there. Those two facts speak volumes, though: what kind of friggin idiot has such poor situational awareness that he ends up “hunting” near a popular x-country skiing area, and shooting a dog that is predominantly white & caramel colored, sporting a collar with lights? That’s really incompetent and thoughtless.

                Be that as it may: we still don’t know anything about what was motivating this shooter, any more than we truly know what motivates people to hunt “Yellowstone wolves” right on the park boundary.

                What we do know is the larger cultural context in which these acts occur: a constant bombardment of messages about how awful wolves are, blaming them for everything wrong in the world, and typically, either insinuated or directly, tying them to hatred of a perceived enemy culture. Here in Montana, Missoula may well be the capital of the perceived enemy culture.

                So, here, I’ll speculate: constantly bombard people with propaganda, exhorting them to go do their duty and kill off some/all wolves; hold up those who are killing wolves as heroes; what do we expect to happen?

                Psychologically, that’s a lot of pressure on people: extreme threat (disease-carrying non-native monster killing machines!!), and big rewards (you, too, can be a hero! Act now!) could be causing people to act without thought to consequences (can’t pass up this chance to shoot a ‘wolf,’ even though there’s a chance it may be some guy’s dog!!).

                Yes, I’m inclined to put some of the blame squarely on the anti-wolf propagandists. It’s all circumstantial evidence, of course, but we know the messages they’re putting out there.

                [and let me predict that they’ll soon, if not already, be claiming that this whole thing was staged. That either the dog didn’t really get shot anyway, or that the shooter was someone trying to discredit the anti-wolf jihadists, or some such.]

                As to the firearm used: I am doubtful that he was using a silencer, just because they’re not widely available. It could have been a muzzle guard (some tactical rifles and shotguns have a device for protecting the muzzle from debris and to serve as a secondary weapon [jagged edge] for close-quarters combat where an opponent may try to grab the muzzle), or a weird device that Ruger calls a “harmonic dampener” on the muzzle
                for improving accuracy. As to the supposedly muffled sound, might be due to snow covered trees and small caliber (likely .223). Who knows? I wasn’t there.

                I will point out that you can object all you want, point out all you want that a semi-auto rifle isn’t really a big advantage, but the ‘optics’ of using military-looking semi-auto rifles for hunting are going to always look bad. The semi-auto does allow a shooter to lay down some lead rapidly — if there were no technical advantage, why would militaries choose them? But primarily, the choice of a “black rifle” (military-style, highly accessorized, >5 round mag) is symbolically loaded — to me, it represents a “militarization” of hunting that I’ve seen in my 40+ years of killing game animals. The militarization is technically focused on giving the human predator every advantage conceivable; the psychology that goes along with this seems to be that the prey animal is on par with bin Laden: it must not be allowed to escape.

                We talk out of one side of our mouths about fair chase and beautiful traditions, while on the other side we’re using robotic duck decoys and night vision and digital wolf calls. Meantime, hunter numbers fall, young people decline to take it up, and we inch closer and closer to the day when sheer demographics will lead to a ban on hunting. We could and should be taking some simple steps like discouraging the use of black rifles (but remember what happened to poor ol’ Jim Zumbo when he tried to bring that up??). With that, I’m going to sling my iron-sighted Ruger No. 1 International (7mm-08 custom) and take a walk up through the woods here.

              • JB says:


                Nice post, but I will disagree on one small point:

                “The militarization is technically focused on giving the human predator every advantage conceivable…”

                Hunters (and “killers/shooters”) could get a better edge from a more accurate, longer barreled, bolt-action rifle than they do from the semi-auto, military-inspired crap. I think they’re more interested in the image that comes along with being ‘militarized’ than they are with any real advantage.

                I will never understand gun nuts.

              • SaveBears says:

                How people legally hunt and what they hunt with is not the problem. People are the problem, I am retired military, give me a single action six shooter and I will kill six times, it is what I was trained to do.

                There is another issue going on here and it does not involve the weapon.

              • JB says:

                “How people legally hunt and what they hunt with is not the problem.”

                When they legally hunt domestic dogs I (and lots of other people) think it is a problem. When they are hunting with semi-automatic, military-style weapons I (and lots of other people) think it is a problem. It’s a free country, so you’re welcome to disagree.

              • SaveBears says:

                Despite the outcome JB, I don’t believe he set out to hunt a dog.

              • SaveBears says:

                Despite what we have to say here, the issue is over, the authorities are not going to prosecute anything or anyone, so we are really debating a moot point.

              • JB says:

                Therein lies the problem. Which is worse I guy who purposefully kills somebody’s pet, or a guy who kills someone’s pet because he can’t tell the difference between a dog and a wolf–then gets off without punishment?

  74. Peter Kiermeir says:

    „Allen presented information from Catron County, N.M., that showed there were 3,476 wolf-animal and wolf-human incidents since 2006, as well as many problems with pets because the wolves came onto property and into barns, where they would attack dogs, cats and chickens, for example.”

  75. Louise Kane says:


    new law being proposed to hand implementation of ESA to states to “manage” the species under it state by state. Hopefully the first thing most legislators will think when they see this is, “not in my tenure or over my dead body”.

  76. Louise Kane says:

    to address your comment SB, yes I object to semi-automatic weapons being used against wildlife…and sound deadeners. I object strongly. Cripes yourself

    I posted another another lovely tale of two people shooting a 60 pound pup and chasing the larger male into a mine shaft to kill it.
    I think of my beautiful black German Shepherd Akita and know how terrified he would be and how wolf-like he behaves sometimes. I see the images in my head from Living with wolves and the way these animals care for one another. I wonder what they felt as they were chased down and shot at by these creeps. The larger male seeing the pup die. This makes me so sick to my stomach, so horrified and sad. From hunting season on its hard to sleep. Those amazing animals, beautiful black pup and pack mate killed for someone’s entertainment. The hateful stupid, ignorant comments that follow. People are disgraceful in their treatment of wolves and other predators. The most heinous, indifferent, hate-filled, ignorant, cruel and horrible treatment reserved for the most skilled, graceful, intelligent animals. And for women that believe its sexy to carry a rifle and torment two members of a wolf pack ( a pup and its father perhaps) and then crawl in after a dying wolf and shoot it, I say heartless, cold hearted, coward. Her glee filled excitement at killing the animal made me want to throw up. I am glad my mother was gentile, caring and respectful of life. Glad the women friends I stand by and that stand by me are intelligent, educated, peace loving people that would abhor this kind of wantone wasteful violence against other living beings. These people in this video are losers illustratiing ugly, disgusting behavior.


    • SaveBears says:


      That is the problem with zealots like you, you don’t focus on the problem, which is reckless or irresponsible people and you focus on the tools they use, you can object all you want, it has already been shown, the majority of people don’t hold the same opinion and most importantly, the Supreme court does not hold the same opinion as you do.

      Even in your post, you show, it is people not tools that cause the problems.

      • Louise Kane says:

        SB how do you define the majority of people? I think the exact opposite is true. The majority of people do hold similar opinions, about wolves and guns. It’s no secret that public opinion is not the only factor at play here, partially because democratic traditions are so corrupted by special interest money and will continue to erode under rulings like Citizen’s United. But to say that my opinion about the need for stronger gun control laws and my “zealot’s” hatred of squandering and wasting predators is not supported is incorrect. Gun control laws were squashed by the gun lobbies and wolves are hunted only after a political delisting that was not in fact supported by the majority of Americans. Unfortunately, for the reasons that have been discussed here, ad nauseum, public opinion is often dismissed by the legislators that are supposed to be beholden to their constituents, not to the purse strings of organizations like the NRA or the Cattleman’s Association. The recent debacle in MI illustrates very clearly that politicians with their own agendas ignore public opinion and worse yet lie and cheat by trashing public comments and work against the public like a badly derailed runaway train. Other examples, the polls in MN were also largely against wolf hunting, WA state developed a management plan that used its public input (76% in favor of wolves or maintaining a good presence and in using non lethal force) and there are numerous other polls that have been taken to show that Americans do not support the god awful bloody and disturbing violence against wolves that’s been unleashed. I’d love to see Ms Jewell, D Ashe and Obama at a dinner being treated to a short video of a wolf strangling in a snare, or the black wolf in the trap having pot shots taken and it, a coyote dying after inhaling one of those unholy cyanide cartridges, or these slob humans killing the wolf pup and adult male in the mine shaft. If people really saw these things, I am sure the legislators could not get away with the wasteful, cruel and barbaric laws that currently define wildlife management. I’m not a zealot SB just a disgusted American who is sickened by the terrible policies that corrupt people use to sanitize and justify killing wolves and other wildlife- despite public opposition, despite the “science” that is increasingly illustrating how destructive it is to kill predators and despite the experts that condemn the current wolf plans and national delisting. I’m so confused about who you are, good ol’ boy, advocate, or antagonizer. The only thing I can be certain of is that you quite consistently argue for the status quo. When anyone argues for change, you can always be counted on as the first to chime in that things can’t be changed, or argue that “its” the law and it won’t change, or in this instance the SC or some other court would not support the contention being argued.

        and it is the people causing the problem but giving them access to highly destructive tools just exacerbates the problem. Trusting people, like the people I see boasting and posting wolves with semi automatics or any weapons for that matter sends shivers of fear down my spine.

        Most humans are untrustworthy toward their fellow beings and giving them licenses to use suppressors and semi automatics means that much more damage. someone tell me why semi automatics and suppressors are needed in hunting. Someone give me one good reason for the public to hunt wolves.

        its a coward’s sport

        • rork says:

          Louis Kane:
          Silencer aren’t allowed near me – you are talking about somewhere, but I don’t know where.
          Calling people cowards is so easy, and nearly always purely made-up – I suggest stop doing that. It often indicates bankruptcy of anything solid on the part of the speaker in my experience.

          It’s our job to change the laws if we want to – but I don’t think harping about the atrocity of it is the way to go. I don’t find mixing arguments about health of ecosystem with “shivers down my spine” and name calling very good. I don’t like arguing that wolves are more majestic or intelligent or worthy of my concern than deer is anywhere I want to go either – it’s bad for all of the less cute animals that deserve our respect too. Pro-hunters perceive and paint the anti-hunters as hysterical, and there’s a reason for that, to which you are contributing. We really don’t need to mention that wolves are cool – that’s so damn obvious, except to some people, who we have no chance with, so there’s no point.

          A reason to allow public wolf hunts: If it could generate enough money and stewardship to do other good things, where we thought the benefits outweigh the costs. I’m not saying I think we can make that happen with wolves, but that’s my formula for every other animal (and plant and fungus – try getting your friends worked up about our seriously threatened clams or insects with your style of argument). Do you have some other way of deciding such things? I fear you might.

          • JB says:

            Rork is right, Louise. Your rhetoric might be useful for recruiting college kids to your cause, but you are alienating conservation-minded hunters who are generally sympathetic. Note: The data suggest this is not an insignificant group of people, and they do have some influence with state agencies.

            • Immer Treue says:


              In the past I made comment about hunters policing their own ranks. If folks still subscribe to the hunting rags such as Field and Stream, do those publications do anything to either temper some attitudes and or profess proper ethics to their readers?

              Or is most hunting information now spread in the cyber world?

              In defense of Louise, and I mean this complimentary, there are many like Louise, and all they require is a unifying high profile event or principal to begin snowballing a process that could put in monkey wrench in hunting/trapping.

              I know, a snowballs chance in hell, but a chance no less.

              It’s not about taking people’s guns away, or ending hunting, but getting all people who are afield with fire arms to act responsible. Get rid of the trigger itch, or get rid of the gun.

              So, to return to my original point, does there exist, in the hunting community, enough peer pressure, so that these “accidents” end? If not, the snowball will have that chance at gathering some inertia.

        • SaveBears says:


          At times, I may be all three, when I mentioned the Supreme Count it was in context saying they have not ruled in favor of gun bans and have upheld the right to own guns. When I spoke of the Majority, the majority of people in the country has rejected legislation banning semi auto weapons.

          We only have to look at what happened in Colorado to see even when representatives pass new laws they get recalled.

          Simply put, I am a person that has worked on wildlife issues for many years now and know that the rhetoric coming from the anti groups is not having desired effect and the extremes on both sides of these issue are not a benefit.

          The internet has allowed anyone or any group to publish anything they want to and as we all know, it does not even have to be truth.

          I am an advocate for legal ethical hunting, I am 100% against illegal actives and poaching.

      • Nancy says:

        “That is the problem with zealots like you, you don’t focus on the problem, which is reckless or irresponsible people”

        Louise isn’t the only “zealot” pissed about this SB. Fact IS, this reckless, irresponsible person unfortunately will get away with gunning down someone’s cherished companion.

        Even hunter orange might not of prevented this tragedy and take a good look at Sophie. She look like a coyote to you?


        There are other states out there that atleast make an attempt to see it as reckless & irresponsible and, hold these slobs accountable.

        • SaveBears says:

          Louise and Nancy, you are so far off subject, it is not even funny anylonger!

          • SaveBears says:

            I am seriously thinking about starting a blog to try and bring this back to the middle, the extremes on both side of this are so freaking far out of control that there is nothing productive being done any longer, it is just one big pissing match and nobody is winning.

            It is time for serious people to deal with serious issues.

            • Nancy says:

              Gonna have to define serious people SB.

              Right now all I see/read/ experience is people who have no problem offending wildlife and people who are offended by those people’s actions… and trying to defend them.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Nancy, I just find this last few years since wolves were delisted so unbearably sad. Just when you think you have seen the worst some other horrible image or story pops up. And the sites with these freaking crazy people that are allowed such great license to abuse wolves and coyotes, too make me feel so angry. I feel so heartbroken knowing that no laws protect wolves from these creeps, from the sadists and slime bags that brag about their killing. Anything goes, and does indeed happen. If the images I regularly see do not constitute actions that should be illegal, I don’t know what would. Could you imagine the uproar if a dog was snared, trapped and beaten to death or inhaled cyanide. We are talking about canids all of them. Sick sick sick
          I think the words slob humans better applies than slob hunters…. getting a thrill killing a wolf or any animal in a trap or torturing it while trapped, or killing it while curled up in a fetal position is the sign of a fckdup mind and a cold heartless person. and I am sick about it and pissed off. To see women bragging about it somehow is even worse. What kind of a woman does this? Melissa Bachman is ostracized for killing a lion in Africa on a canned hunt, its no worse than what is happening here with wolves. From Wikipedia….Most lions now live in eastern and southern Africa, and their numbers there are rapidly decreasing, with an estimated 30–50% decline per 20 years in the late half of the 20th century.[2] Estimates of the African lion population range between 16,500 and 47,000 living in the wild in 2002–2004,[139][140] down from early 1990s estimates that ranged as high as 100,000 and perhaps 400,000 in 1950. Wolf populations are much less in the US – I’d like to see similar outrage directed at trophy hunters of wolves in the US.

    • topher says:

      My favorite waterfowl gun is a black imported semi-auto. It has been on lists of guns that many would like to ban but in the end it’s just a duck gun limited to three rounds like all migratory bird guns.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Gee, that couple sounds like a match made in hell, doesn’t it. Our politicians live and legislate from ivory towers, outside of the dirty real world, and I honestly don’t think the Liberal Democratic mindset will admit to or is just too idealistic to see just how dishonest and evil some people really are. So now they are making decisions and the rest of them just fall into the party line. Everybody is good, and everybody will do the right thing – bull.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        And yes, I’m blaming the ecologically clueless Obama administration for this. It is just crazy nbelievable how these states are abusing the law – the only one(s) that even are remotely respecting the law are MN, WA? and CA. And what can you even say about MI. MN has gone on record as saying they want to maintain their wolf population – the rest want to get rid of them by any means necessary.

        Minnesota’s Second Wolf Hunt Offers Lessons for Michigan

        In this telephone interview, Howling for Wolves gets a shoutout.

  77. aves says:

    It keeps getting worse for red wolves, a sixth one has been killed:


    • Ida Lupine says:

      Now there’s some good news!

    • WM says:

      ++Hiring a range rider costs $15,000 to $20,000 for the five-month grazing season, Kehne said. The state and individual ranchers, including Dawson, also contribute to the cost.

      In addition, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife provides daily satellite downloads on GPS-collared wolves to help range riders manage the cows.++

      From my frame of reference that is a fair bit of money to keep track of a dozen or so wolves, which will eventually grow to an even larger number. So, what happens when WADFW, Conservation NW and the rancher get tired of shelling out this much $$$ or substantially more every year in the future as wolf range grows for 5 months of range rider time?

      • SAP says:

        With feeder calves closing at $164 CWT (or $984 for a 600 lb calf) in Chicago today, it’s pretty clear that a skilled rider would more than pay for herself by saving a dozen or so calves, and/or being on the spot fast enough to ensure compensation for calves killed. Keep 20 extra pounds on 100 calves at $1.64 per pound, there’s $3,280.

        So, maybe ranchers will choose to start paying for most of this. If it’s too easy to just pick up the phone and have WS kill some wolves instead, they won’t see any need to.

        • Montana Boy says:

          Considering ranchers fund more than half of WS’s Montana budget and considering that a rancher must call WS in most states to confirm that dead animal. There’s no need to call WS to kill wolves their already on the job site.
          Problem is you expect the rancher to take his profit to pay for those wolves he didn’t want because he’s a minority. How would that sound if the minority was say black.
          Seems the rancher must pay for everyone else having wolves all the while being blamed for wolf killings.

          • JEFF E says:

            the solution is simple. do away with public lands grazing. raise cows only on private pasture. If and when a predator comes on private land and kills livestock, or other privately owned animals, take the predator out. simple

            • Montana Boy says:

              Yes the solution is simple. Year in and year out around 80% of the cattle killed by wolves in Montana are killed on private land. Yet I doubt the end of federal land grazing will change much.

              • JEFF E says:

                so provide your back-up with documented stats.

                If what you maintain is indeed fact then so be it.

                I personally have no problem at all with protecting private property ON private property. I do, however have a problem with paying to protect private property when said private property is being also subsidized with my tax money while on MY public property.

                your turn

          • JB says:

            Wait a second, ranchers have access to a federally-subsidized program (wildlife services)–they don’t pay the full price for these “services”. Moreover, public lands ranchers pay less than 1/10th market value to lease land (more federal subsidies, paid for by American taxpayers). What (some) taxpayers are now saying is that IF ranchers want access to this very cheap public lands and subsidized help, they they need to take action to coexist with the wildlife on these lands–lands, that the American people, not ranchers own.

            I don’t expect ranchers to “pay for those wolves…because [they] are in the minority.” Rather, I expect them to accept and try to coexist with the wildlife when they make use of the lands that all of us collectively own. Is that so much to ask?

            • Montana Boy says:

              Perfect comment JB here you complain about helping to fund WS which works for all american’s not just ranchers.
              While expecting ranchers to fund living with wolves which belong to all american’s yet all american’s don’t pay for, all because some ranchers least federal land.
              So less than 1% of western cattle are killed by wolves and your claim is ranchers are not coexisting.
              Is it too much to ask the american people who wanted wolves to pay for the cost of wolves?

              • Ida Lupine says:

                No, it isn’t.

              • Michael says:

                Is it too much to ask ranchers who want to run cattle to pay for their own negative externalities? Running cattle should be a market based user-pays system. The idea that “all Americans” should pay for wolves, i.e. that we should pay business (in this case a rather uneconomical business industry)to not destroy our natural heritage is ransomatic nonsense.

              • JB says:

                (1) lease re-read my comment, I never “complained” about helping to fund wildlife services. Rather, I noted that wildlife services are subsidized by all taxpayers, not just ranchers. The agency provides a number of valuable services, which I have noted here in many times in the past.

                (2) You don’t judge attempts to coexist by the percentage of cattle killed by wolves, but by the percentage of wolves killed at the behest of the cattle industry.

                (2b) Less than 1% doesn’t sound like a huge problem, eh?

                (3) The American people who wanted wolves did pay for them by paying for the compensation program (which only went away when states decided compensation wasn’t good enough). Hey, do you think the American people who want the coopers hawk should have to pay for them? And grey owls, meadowlarks, fox and alligator? Why is it that you think wolves should be singled out among all species to be funded by the people that want them?

              • WM says:


                You might consider it is a paradigm shift asking ranchers (and hunters) to immediately accept a economic risk (inconvenience in the instance of hunters) which has not been present for nearly a century. And, of course, was eradicated through a nationally sanctioned program for much of that time.

                And, if you look carefully at the history of the West, and the rest of the country agriculture EVERYWHERE is heavily subsidized (for all kinds of risk which the federal government underwrites with DIRECT payments to farmers). For that matter many sectors of business are subsidized – including things like aerospace. So, if your intent is to make things market based – and industries paying for externalities, and accepting risk etc., you need to cast a very broad net. In doing so, the price of a loaf of bread, an ear of corn or your morning cereal will skyrocket, as will airline tickets. And, there might even be greater risk of things like soil and wind erosion on croplands being brought back into production – ever hear of the dust bowl? And, maybe we should just close down water diversion and storage projects throughout the West, and all of those cities and towns can dry up and go away, along with ski areas and golf courses the recreationists from in and outside those areas use.

              • JB says:

                “You might consider it is a paradigm shift asking ranchers (and hunters) to immediately accept a economic risk (inconvenience in the instance of hunters) which has not been present for nearly a century.”

                With due respect, there have always been some carnivores on the landscape (i.e., coyote, cougar, bear, feral dogs). You’re right in that wolves are likely perceived as a novel/new hazard among ranchers. However, while that helps explain ranchers risk perceptions, neither wolves’ novelty nor the inflated risk perceptions justify treating wolves differently from other wildlife (this idea that only the people who want wolves should pay for them). What if we were to extend this to all wildlife? Hey, what if deer and elk hunters were forced to pay the increased cost in car insurance premiums for everyone due to DVCs? And you may as well tack crop depredation payments on there as well? I’m with Michael; “ransomatic nonsense” is about right.

              • WM says:

                For those who have been brainwashed into believing “welfare ranching” is a product of only Western states that have public lands grazing, here is a little current reality check for you. Read carefully:


                *The above comment does not mean I support public lands grazing in its current state, only that many sectors of the agricultural economy receive subsidies (as I said to Michael above). You can expect Western Congressional votes on these milk/soybean/corn subsidies to come with strings for continued support from Midwest and Eastern Congressional types for Western grazing subsidies.

          • Kathleen says:

            “Problem is you expect the rancher to take his profit to pay for those wolves he didn’t want because he’s a minority. How would that sound if the minority was say black.”

            Oh good grief, now I’ve heard everything. Please tell me you aren’t equating the “terrible plight” of heavily-subsidized, for-profit ranchers with the struggle of African Americans for freedom and civil rights?!? (Talk about your persecution complex!) In the real world, most business people *do* use some of their income to pay for insurance, routine losses, and what amounts to the cost of doing business.

            Jeff E has nailed it–end public lands grazing. It costs the government (taxpayers) more to administer the grazing program than it takes in from the ridiculously low AUM fee (also taxpayer subsidized) and then we’re expected to also pay for the eradication of our public lands wildlife–what a bonus for us, and all for a product no one actually needs! And that’s not even getting into animal agriculture’s role in promoting climate change and the terrible cost of farmed animal suffering.

            • Kathleen says:

              Yet another instance of the livestock industry throwing its weight around to harass native wildlife…


              Message from the Gallatin Wildlife Assoc.:
              This unilateral proposal by the Department of Livestock flies in the face of sound science and recommendations from the diverse Bison Citizen’s Working Group as well as Native American Tribes, Yellowstone Park officials and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Please contact the governor of Montana at (406) 444-3111 and/or governor@mt.gov and let him know this is an outrageous step backwards and a complete waste of time and resources. You can also contact the State Vet. with the same message at (406) 444-0782 and/or mzaluski@mt.gov.

            • Michael says:

              WM, as a former small horticultural producer I recognize that asking ranchers to pay for depredation is a paradigm shift and I accept that *commodity* agriculture is heavily subsidized. Most business is, but it must be done intentionally and questioned; for instance few among us would be willing to subsidize Blockbuster because we recognize their business model is outdated. I do take a great deal of issue with the idea that shifting subsidy priorities would lead to “skyrocketing” of the price of bread, etc. Most cost associated with food in the US comes from ‘value added’ production and commodities market manipulations, not from production. The reason we must prop up commodity producers is arguably because commodity markets are regulated and manipulated for the benefit of the Cargills of the world rather than farmers. I have, facetiousness aside, certainly heard of the dust bowl, and I also recognize that the Taylor Grazing Act was passed not to stabilize ranching outfits–although the Federal Land Management Policy Act arguably was–but was rather passed to deal with a legacy of “unintended damage to soil, plants, streams, and springs.” If we can’t question the validity of legalizing takings of relatively rare and keystone species for what amount to questionable production methods with marginal economic benefits without resorting to a chicken little mentality then we are not doing ourselves, our environment, or our economy a service.

    • Montana Boy says:

      Here’s some additional information to consider.

      Collaring _a_ wolf means the rest of the pack is unaccounted for, wolves do not always hunt together.
      Collaring a wolf does not mean that wolf will stay in the pack.
      It’s easy to find money for wolf programs, like range riders, while they are listed, delist wolves and that money tends to disappear.
      Having a range rider on one ranch only pushes those wolves on to other ranches.
      I’m looking forward to the day drones are cheap enough to pick up the work load.

  78. Ida Lupine says:

    While I don’t like it, I can understand matter-of-factly ‘removing’ wildlife for livestock depredation, or to ‘manage’ them, going out and quietly doing what needs to be done, and that’s the end of it – what I cannot understand for the life of me is this delight and even pride in cruelty and violence during wolf hunting – something is very screwy with that, IMO. I guess they want to stick it to the pro-wolf types, but they only succeed in making themselves and their complaints look bad.

  79. SEAK Mossback says:

    Agency considers pinto abalone for endangered list —
    In the 1980s, these were one of my favorites from local restaraunts, as well as those cooked up by a friend in Sitka who easily caught them with dive gear near his home (they are limited mostly to the outer coast). Diving for them for either commercial or personal use has been banned for years, and I had assumed that they would never be significantly available for human consumption again with the expanding sea otter population — but never suspected they might be considered for listing.

    • Louise Kane says:

      on private property with posted no hunting

      • Immer Treue says:

        Not to make short of this Incident, it did NOT occur in the UP.

        • SaveBears says:

          From the small amount of information contained at the link Louise posted, it does not sound like a hunter out on a walk, it sounds like the dog was specifically targeted.

        • rork says:

          Yeah, many commenters babbling about wolves. So such anywhere near this place.

          • rork says:

            I mean “no such”.
            Damn shape shifting internet devils always garble up my stuff, never for the better. Have I told the one where the rare and majestic albino pheasant shape shifts into the neighbor’s chicken in just a few seconds? It’s like that.

    • rork says:

      Details range from not-so-clear, to fishy, to utterly unintelligible. Original article:

      If your dog gets off-property during deer gun opener in MI, it’s life expectancy is very limited. I’m not saying I know it was off property, but article failed to convince me it wasn’t.

  80. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Memo to feds: Thanks for the wolves
    “ Idaho has had its fill of wolves and other critters”. http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20131121/ARTICLE/131129986/1009

    • Immer Treue says:

      Here is part of the problem.

      “Otter formed a task force made up of state wildlife managers, livestock operators and sportsmen’s representatives to find a solution. Later this winter our state legislators will have the dubious pleasure of deliberating over a bill that will generate money from both state and private sources to fill in the void left for us by federal officials who think they know what’s best for Idaho.”

      Wildlife managers, livestock operators, and sportsmen’s representatives. Here is an opportunity to include those who advocate for wolves, give them the opportunity to contribute, to put up, or shut up, to carry part of the financial load, for perhaps a seat at the table. If part of the problem is $$$, then there should be a way for those advocating for wolves to both be heard and contribute.

      • JEFF E says:

        One of the best comments I have read in years. whoever this is, thanks.

        Fyrflyer04 (says in the comment section)
        “Hello – I lived in Idaho years ago, and later in Wyoming.
        It appears Wolves have become some kind of regionally-specific, hatred-causing, Social Psychology benchmark and touchstone.
        Consider scientific studies designed to establish predation facts,
        such as the longitudinal research studies initiated and funded by
        USDA. A quick examination finds total predation losses (from all predators) equating to approximately one fourteenth (1/14) the
        amount of loss from non-predator, medical, disease (or other)
        process. (USDA/APHIS 2010)
        Again; What is that ratio?
        14-1: Non-predation loss from medical/disease processes
        (14) claiming livestock; to total Predation by: Bears, Coyotes, Lion,
        Eagles, etc.,: (1).
        Of total predation numbers (1); Wolf is responsible for about .045%
        of that total fraction of predation: So, it is: 1/14th., divided by .045,
        equals what livestock losses wolves cause.
        Again: Approximately .045%, of one fourteenth, are wolf-caused Livestock predation losses.
        Their number is less that what Bald Eagles cause.
        Now; Do you like diseases?
        Do you find Rabies, Hanta Virus, Bubonic Plague, and other
        Rodent-transmitted Diseases by: Mice, Rats, Ground Squirrels, Prairie Dogs (and the like) acceptable?
        Wolves feed on these disease-transmitting Rodents; controlling numbers of the sick while not contracting the disease themselves.
        Have you learned of Chronic Wasting Disease and how it now ravages Herds of Elk, Deer, and related animals?
        Wolves cull-out those diseased animals from these desired healthy.
        I love to eat meat, it gives me strength; I wear leather; it is durable and warm; I hunt; and, while doing so, I also humbly respect all
        natural things which took eons to create and balance of which I now seek to consume.
        A quick question: What is socially “new,” in some humans, which engenders wolf hatred?
        Just to consider…
        Ecology, Social Science, Biology, Psychology, Physics, (and much more) are human examinations of specific natural systems which have been in-place…in other words; We “new-comer” humans are just now learning about those natural things which have been successful and operationally established upon our Earth–
        for hundreds of thousands of years.

  81. Immer Treue says:

    Possible Wolf Delisting Ramifications in Colorado


    Another opportunity for wolf advocates to get a seat at the table, but it will require $$$ not law suits.

    • WM says:

      If WildEarth Guardians spokesperson Keefover-Ring and zealot lawyer Jay Tuchton would just shut and quit filing legal papers that would be more likely to happen, I expect.

      • JB says:

        WM: In case you missed it, the other organization quoted in the article was…wait for it…Americans for Prosperity. They’ve now identified the wolf issue as a ‘wedge issue’ related to private property rights.

        Now who do you suppose has a bigger bankroll…?

      • WM says:


        My comment was directed to WEG’s role in some of the NRM delisting publicity and the legal challenges, including the rider and its appeal. Their role was to keep wolves in the spotlight, not actually win the suit (too much precident against it, and I bet Tuchton and some of the other participating NGO’s knew that), and Keefover-Ring, much like Michael Robinson at CBD are spinmasters of “facts” and omissions. Not that they are alone, because the anti’s do it too. But, if they want to win a “seat” at the table they need to back off some or be marginalized even further – since at the present time the juggernaut seems to be marching on.

        Of course, the respective righteous indignation and whining of both sides does help fill the coffers and pay salaries no matter how radical their positions.

        I am afraid I don’t know anything about AFP, other than to see it has a Koch brothers connection, which isn’t good for many reasons.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          … which is precisely a sterling case in point of why I throw flames at both ends of most environmental activism- antienvironmental activism these days…

      • Louise Kane says:

        WM are you suggesting that if the NGOs stopped fighting the states that wolves would be better off, I don’t believe that.

        • WM says:


          How’s it working for ya so far, with the amped up rhetoric and polarizing view. All it does is pump up the other side, and no middle ground solutions are sought. As for the states, paybacks are hell, as they say, and I don’t see the momentum changing much. And, did I mention the resolution from Western Governor’s Confrence from last summer (that would be 17 states that are pissed about the ESA, alone)?

          • Louise Kane says:

            Immer not sure where you are coming from in arguing that hunting benefits wolves? do you mean hunting other species? I can’t speak specifically to MN wolves but all wolves are social creatures and rely on each other to hunt and that teach each other skills. It would stand to reason that being restricted to nocturnal activities must have some long term implications. I was rereading the Hidden Lives of Wolves last night and remembering the first time I saw Living with Wolves. I remember thinking how the wolves were extremely playful and much they seemed to enjoy one another’s company. I was grateful they were able to enjoy their habitat without human persecution and wondered if they would have behaved the same in the true wild if hunting were allowed. These wolves were not primarily nocturnal creatures, and neither were the wolves in Yellowstone. I’m not clear on what remains of the Yellowstone packs but it seems like the wolves have dispersed and formed new packs as members were killed, or died, but that post hunting they are much harder to see now. Is that because there are far fewer as they picked off outside the exterior of the park or because they have altered their behaviors. I still stand by my theory that it can not be helpful to a species to have to limit the majority of their actions to the evening hours. And finally, the hunting of wolves now overlaps some of deer season in most places so wouldn’t any “benefits” they might reap by hunting of deer and leftovers be outweighed as they are shot by deer hunters that also possess a wolf tag.

          • Louise Kane says:

            WM what exactly is payback about? Why should wolves pay the price because some politicians are crooked, and pander to corrupt, ignorant, dissatisfied humans. If this is the rationale behind killing wolves, then you are making an argument against compromise and for protection via federal and state statutes. Right from the beginning there was compromise, a special exemption under the ESA despite clear mandates in the ESA that were meant to protect species and their habitats from being exploited, threatened or killed despite economic consideration. Ranchers had compensation, the ability to remove wolves, and one could argue that the recovery plan itself was a huge concession by advocates. The meager recovery goals are embarrassing and have allowed these terrible wolf killing plans to pass off as recovery. How does one negotiate with wildlife terrorists and people whose way of life has been based on the belief that decimating natural populations of predators is justified to keep their pocket books as full as possible, as the expense of wolves, their ecosystems and the rest of Americans who supported wolf recovery and now are voiceless. I think its absurd to argue that the best way to protect wolves is to negotiate with people who preach shoot, shovel, shut up or that pose with gut shot wolves, and brag about smoking a pack or that want to kill a wild animal in retribution for some crazy ill conceived notion that they are committing an act of heroism. These people are irrational and ignorant. Would you negotiate with a bully who terrorized small children? The states and the ngos like Big Game Forever are not interested in negotiating, nor in conservation, they hide behind masks like the KKK did while the appalling number of carcasses of dead wolves rises daily. IMHO these people should not have the right to renegotiate the same failed policy year after year, decade after decade and century after century. When you argue the middle ground show me how this works as the special interests squander public resources, indoctrinate new generations to their hate filled rhetoric, and continue to lobby for the same appalling policies and barbarism. You asked me where has my stance gotten me, I ask you where is this middle ground and where has it gotten wolves where has it gotten us? Im sure you remember from law school, in order to ensure effective deterrents to criminal activity that punishment must be swift, certain and severe. I believe the only way to stop the unwarranted violence against wolves and other predators is to insist on laws that will stop the cycle. Then perhaps education and compromised measures can be implemented. It seems to me the wolves have been and are compromised to death.

            • IDhiker says:


              Very well said!!

            • Immer Treue says:


              • Rita k Sharpe says:

                Louise,count me in,as well, for being well said.

              • JB says:

                “Perhaps a better word than shout (meant metaphorically) is rationalize. Yet, I ponder if rationalizing makes an impact.”

                I actually agree with both of you. Shouting will actually hurt your cause, and there is very little chance it will change anyone with strongly held beliefs and attitudes. However, calmly laying out rational, well-reasoned arguments can have the effect of swaying many people (and making the folks shouting at each other look foolish to boot).

              • Immer Treue says:


                As this thread is long and comments are beginning to turn up belter smelter, one of the best jobs of rationalizing with the antis was done by you. I read the exchanges periodically as a how to, yet, at times I fall prey to using a bit too much sarcasm.

                Doubt if it worked on the engaged individuals, but a text book lesson on how to rationalize with the irrational.


            • rork says:

              -1. Way too much name calling and putting words in the mouth of the other side.
              Not everyone against my view has “hate filled rhetoric” and is a “wildlife terrorist” or bragging smoke-a-pack retributionists. But that’s how you wrote.