Our readers find lots of news and they 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. 29, 2013).

Yellow swallowtail. It's doing better than the poor Monarch butterfly. Photo by Nance. Thank you!

Yellow swallowtail. It’s doing better than the poor Monarch butterfly. Photo by Nance. Thank you!

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.

367 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? Nov. 26, 2013 edition

  1. KCY says:

    Hi Ralph, Don’t know if you saw our post of the dead coyote found in a dumpster in Butte, MT behind a doggie daycare business, yesterday. It had been caught in a snare, the cable cutting the fur away from its neck reportedly and then shot in the stomach. I posted the 2 pictures on our Footloose Montana facebook page. Important to note coyotes, as you know, are not only persecuted relentlessly, they are provided no coverage under trapping regulations in Montana. No license is required to trap them. They are trapped year round and no reporting required. From the 1/3 of trappers that FWP says return the voluntary surveys, over 40,000 coyotes were reported trapped from 2006-2010. Trappers proclaim trapping is highly regulated but fail to mention regs like trap setbacks from trails does not apply to species such as predators, which inc coyotes, and nongame. They fall under the bailiwick of the Dept of Livestock. Not surprising. My aim is to increase the public’s awareness about the true nature of trapping, the significant numbers killed by these barbaric means and the lack of regulations or even possible knowledge of the whereabouts of these indiscriminate horrific landmines to monitor, enforce or regulate them. Thanks, Ralph and hope you have an article here. I know you will do us proud! Kc York Interim ED Footloose Montana

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      No I didn’t see it. I spent all day writing an article on corn ethanol and the environment, However, now I will look at it.

      Thank you for bringing this up.

  2. Proofrok says:


    One of the most ludicrous stories I’ve ever read: As a native Chicagoan–and one of the seemingly-rare coyote/urban wilderness lovers–this story sickened me. It just adds to the continuing hatred for the entirely harmless coyotes.

    Check the records! You have a better chance of being killed by a chimp or a tiger in the US of A than a coyote. No joke! Cook County (wherein Chicago is located) has a 150+-year history of animal attacks. There are ZERO coyote-on-human attacks.

    Thus, this would be the first. However, the amount of wild, feral, or abandoned dog attacks (mostly the last, of which there are dozens and dozens of attacks by former-fighting pit bulls which are turned loose on forest preserves) is extreme.

    To conclude that this “German shepherd” like dog was a ‘yote is unreal and absurd. It is fear-mongering at its finest.

  3. JB says:

    Not news but an observation…

    Lately, I’ve been reading a lot of posts from people who are trying to convince us that the ‘middle ground’ is shrinking and more people are becoming intolerant of wolves. The latter point is repeatedly backed-up with stories (anecdotes) about horrific treatment of wolves or wolf advocates, and the ‘intolerant’ parties are often called all sorts of nasty things in response. I have two problems with the continual posting of such anecdotes: (1) First, by making this behavior seem more frequent then it actually is, the folks who are posting these things are ‘normalizing’ the very behavior they abhor–that is, they are letting others know that it is not so uncommon, and because it is not uncommon, some will think it must be okay. In effect, you could end up encouraging the very behavior you dislike. (skeptical, please read this: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/Psyc591Readings/Cialdini2003.pdf). (2) Second, I suspect much of the ‘intolerance’ for wolves is actually displaced dislike for environmentalists, animal-rights activists, east-coasters, and generally, anyone with a remotely liberal agenda. If you think that people that dislike you–or more accurately the values you hold–will be bothered by your rage, disgust, hatred, etc. in response to the behavior, I believe you are sorely mistaken. I suspect that very few people have the moral fortitude to feel badly when they’ve hurt the feelings of someone they truly dislike–especially when that someone responds with insults, in turn. So when you rage on at them, tossing out insults and stereotypes of your own, you only encourage more of the same. If you do choose to engage with them, I suspect your arguments would carry more weight if you were to express disappointment with the behavior (not singling out individuals), and support your arguments with facts and sound reasoning. This will have the effect of ‘disarming’ such individuals, while showing observers that you have the moral and intellectual high-ground.

    Something to consider.

    Happy holidays!

    • rork says:

      Point 2 is good, but the rage at anti-wolf people is perhaps not aimed at altering their attitudes (indeed I agree it backfires there), but rather mobilizing pro-wolf forces. It’s pep talk. And venting. I do not favor it.
      (I’ll think about 1 more.)

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I think you are both wrong. What people may feel is outrage that people are capable of such violence and behaving in such a vile way. Moral high ground indeed. Nobody is trying to mobilize forces, or insult people (deliberately). It is just a visceral reaction to behavior that is beneath a civilized people and modern 21st century country. People like this do not deserve the respect that you are asking for. Respect is earned.

        But what’s really upsetting is the fact that our government and wildlife agencies and Interior department is underwriting this kind of behavior! At least that’s my opinion.

        • rork says:

          So this comment seems to say they are firing the cannons out of outrage (“venting” I said early), and not really aiming at anything.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            That’s a matter of opinion (yours). Public opinion will be the judge of that, I suppose. 🙂

        • JB says:

          ” People like this do not deserve the respect that you are asking for. Respect is earned.”

          Indeed. So I’ll ask what should be the obvious question: have you ever seen anyone earn respect by insulting others? People have the right to be outraged at some of the behavior that they’ve witnessed, but they work against their own goals when their response to such behavior is sling stereotypes, half-truths and vulgarities. Treating people with respect–whether they deserve it or not–is one of the quickest ways to earn the respect of others.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            In most cases, I would agree with you. But I don’t see anything changing, people have tried understanding, compromise, just about everything, but certain types will use it as an opportunity to take advantage even more than they already have. I’m sure these hardened souls do not care about our petty insults, but blocking their path is the only way to stop them. They will not compromise, and I don’t know how much is left to compromise on the pro-wolf side. What can be done? I’m open to suggestion.

          • carolyn Koppel says:

            thank you.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I don’t believe that at all. If these things are not brought to the attention of the public, people won’t know they exist. For most people, wolves and other wildlife aren’t on their radar much, but if they were to know about these goings-on, they’d be outraged and want something done about it, and they do. Facts and sound reasoning, and moral high ground aren’t the order of they day as far as wildlife management goes these days, it’s deep pockets. Keep posting, those of you who find these atrocities so that people will know. What these people are hoping is that no one will stand up to them.

      • rork says:

        This comment is saying it informs the public, maybe-kinda like mobilizing pro-wolf forces. (Maybe by accident.)

      • carolyn Koppel says:

        You are wrong. We have wildlife on our radar. Over 1,000,000 people signed petitions and wrote letters to stop the wolf killing contest in Idaho.

        Here in St. Louis, we have the Wolf Conservation Center, created by Dr.Fox DVM. Here we are raising wolves of different kinds for reintroduction to the wilderness.

        We treasure our wolves and pray for the pairs being released. Now, they are being sent to sanctuaries until they are once again on the endangered list.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Well, somebody(ies) are voting for leadership who throw our petitions and letters into the trash, and ignore those who want wildlife protected. I still think for the majority of people, wildlife isn’t on their radar, especially in this economy. You know the old adage about good people who do nothing…

    • SAP says:

      Excellent points, as usual, JB. Living here in rural MT, it’s pretty clear to me that the goal for many anti-wolfers is really to inflict psychic hurt on Those People — “greenies,” “bunny huggers, “hippies,” and so on.

      Don’t have time right now to elaborate — but there’s a long-standing tradition ( a “meme” if you will) amongst rural populations of believing that they are persecuted, disrespected, derided, and/or ignored by a culture of Others in America. Choose whatever label for those Others — “sheeple,” “tree huggers,” “city slickers,” so on. The Rural Persecution meme is spread in many ways — I recall those “Don’t Badmouth Farmers with Your Mouth Full” bumper stickers in the 1980s or even earlier. Listen to country music for a little while and you’ll hear the same themes — damn idiots honkin’ at me while I’m on the highway in my tractor! Don’t they know where their food comes from?!?

      I grew up in the rural Midwest, in an extended agricultural family. There is a bedrock of truth under the Rural Persecution Meme — ignoramuses who make fun of farmers and ranchers, or criticize them (“why don’t they bring their cows indoors in bad weather?”) and just manifest a smug (and unwarranted) superiority.

      I remember meeting a young woman from Philadelphia who thought it was hilariously absurd that farmers would put signs out by their corn and soybeans — she said “can you believe these stupid farmers are PROUD of their CORN?” I explained that the signs were simply to advertise the commercial hybrid seeds that were growing there (in the days before Monsanto & GMOs . . .), so that other farmers could see and possibly want to buy same seeds. She was unconvinced — corn is corn, why would anyone care, blah blah blah. Mostly, she was really invested in believing that farmers were stupid (plus she was stoned).

      I could go on and on. On the other side, my relatives and extended culture love to wallow in these stories. They dwell on it. It gives them a sense of purpose, I guess. It’s not a healthy or productive mental neighborhood to spend time in. Yet they do.

      Getting back to wolves: As JB suggests, the pattern has become entirely predictable. Rural people feel ignored/persecuted. Wolves are seen as the latest and most blatant manifestation of how much Those People Hate Us.

      Someone commits an “atrocity” against wolves (or a malamute). One side sees the atrocity as striking a blow for their own side; one wolf down, and a whole bunch of Those People deeply hurt. Score.

      The other side then launches into denunciations, labeling, stereotyping . . . which reinforces to the Rurales that Those People Hate Us, don’t understand us, whatever. So, it reinforces those perceptions, and also provides a big payoff: we’re hurting Those People, and we’ve got their attention.

      Just as JB suggests, I think that disapproval and denunciations do not have any effect toward reducing the atrocities. They probably have the opposite effect.

      I know that there’s a whole other side to this story, too. The story of speaking out against injustice, of not turning a blind eye to these wrongs.

      I think there’s a different way here. It’s not a new way: hate the sin, not the sinner. Be the change you want to see. Only love can conquer hate. Seek first to understand. Pick your bumper sticker!

      • Immer Treue says:


        On the subject of analogies, it’s like the beaten spouse syndrome or the job you hate instead of leaving and moving on to something else, an unknown, the individual is, for some reason, happier dwelling in what makes them miserable because it is a known predictable path.

        Parochialism. When I lived just outside of St. Louis, MO, I found this same sort of thing, perhaps with a bit more levity directed toward Chicago and New York.

        • SAP says:

          Yes! And the thing that makes you miserable can be the organizing theme of your life: I cannot improve my lot because of _________________; therefore, I am off the hook and don’t have to endure the terror of trying something new and possibly failing.

          Small world: grew up three hours from StLouis, near the Iowa line. We liked to make fun of Iowa. Along with Chicago cousins.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Rork to add to your post, This newest move is being done in response to the success that Protect Michigan Wolves campaign is having in its second signature gathering process and is meant to thwart this second referendum also. It is hunters against democracy

      • Louise Kane says:

        “it’s pretty clear to me that the goal for many anti-wolfers is really to inflict psychic hurt on Those People — “greenies,” “bunny huggers, “hippies,” and so on.”
        and then there is the issue that some of these people truly hate wolves and predators. The wolves are killed because they may hate them and then the posting and taunting is used to hurt but the wolves are killed to because nothing has changed and the laws now allow and legitimize the killing. Its the icing on the cake that they get to show off how they did it,

        • SAP says:

          Good point, Louise. I agree that genuine hatred of wolves themselves is definitely part it. It’s difficult to untangle the whole web of motivations — hatred of wolves because someone else likes them, hatred of wolves because they symbolize change and threat to worldview and one’s identity, and hatred of wolves themselves.

          I can’t claim to have certain knowledge of who’s motivated by what. What I can tell you is, in 20 years of interacting with folks here and having wolves come up on a regular basis, virtually every conversation pretty rapidly goes to the inter-cultural conflict aspect.

          Do some folks genuinely despise the biological species Canis lupus? I’m sure they do. Some of it is kind of visceral reaction to the way they hunt. I’ve experienced firsthand the aggravation that goes along with trying to do a good job managing cattle, only to have wolves completely upend things (on private land, with lots of human presence, and fladry — sometimes things just go sideways).

          Myself, with no actual $$ on the line, I could be philosophical about it: we want a predictable system of inputs and outputs, and wolves really run contrary to that predictability. (Same can be said for hunting and outfitting, to some extent — people want predictability within some bounds as to abundance and location of game animals. Too predictable = game farming, though.) Yet I was still frustrated and sort of angry at the wolves, because I wanted to do a good job.

          Livestock producers who were counting on a certain amount of revenue, outfitters who were counting on getting their clients into some elk — and all of them counting on paying their loans — may indeed just simply despise wolves. It’s easy enough for those of us who aren’t facing those pressures to sit back and say, “tough luck, you need to learn to share the landscape.” And that brings us right back to the perception that wolf advocates just don’t care whether rural people’s lives get wrecked . . .

          Anyway, point being, I can’t really untangle what causes people to hate wolves and want to do bad things to them. I will contend that just flat out hatred of the species is pretty rare — there’s always a big piece of cultural conflict thrown in there as well.

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      Thanks for the smart post.

      I want to add that writing a scary story about a boy and a menacing coyote (or whatever) is both easy and gains readership.

      I think that a bit of fear over something unusual that we really don’t fear gives many of us comfort when there are so many things that should scare the hell out of us.

      It is like watching the attack of the brain eating aliens in a B sci fy video while great grandma lies in the bedroom dying of Alzheimers.

    • topher says:

      I find if you inject a single fact into a stupid discussion it is often accepted. If you do this often enough pretty soon your stupid “friends” will have more facts than myths and half truths. I figure eventually they’ll draw their own conclusions from facts rather than the misinformation they’ve gathered from god knows where. I’m not one to tell you what to think and I don’t condemn those who feel differently on issues but I think an opinion carries more weight when it’s drawn from facts.
      Thank you JB for the thoughtful comment as they are becoming increasingly rare.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        It is not the real world. It is naïve, and it is what people in ideal situations do. Case in point: Do you call what the Michigan state gov’t and DNR is doing as dealing in facts? Throwing out voter opposition and making up stories?

      • topher says:

        I guess I should add that I’m not bent on controlling what other people do or why. I think some people are more comfortable controlling things and some people are more comfortable accepting and adapting.

    • Louise Kane says:

      JB what do you make of the extirpation of wolves in the mainland US by the 1920s, was that intolerance also “actually displaced dislike for environmentalists, animal-rights activists, east-coasters, and generally, anyone with a remotely liberal agenda.”? I think your argument might have some merit but that its a lot simpler. Legalizing hunting has really acted to legitimize and resurrect the destructive policies of the past. It was absurd to argue that hunting wolves would act as a pressure valve, and it still is because of teh socioeconomic status of some of these peopke, the lack of education about predator prey relationships and enough time had not passed while wolves were protected for new generations to learn a new order that also included learning to live with wolves on the landscape. Delisting wolves before attitudes had sufficiently changed allowed the wolves to be used as a convenient scapegoat again.

      • JB says:

        “…what do you make of the extirpation of wolves in the mainland US by the 1920s, was that intolerance also “actually displaced dislike for environmentalists…”

        No, not in the least because there was no such thing as an environmentalist–heck the term ‘conservation’ had only recently been coined. More importantly, in 1920 half of the population was still rural (as opposed to about 20% now). But by 1920 wolves were mostly exterminated anyway. They were killed by pragmatic people who saw them as an impediment, as well as people who feared and reviled them. They were (mostly) exterminated before there was a “North American Model” (P-R was passed in 1937), and before the existence of “sport hunting” as we know it. I see very few similarities between that scenario and the current situation.

        “Legalizing hunting has really acted to legitimize and resurrect the destructive policies of the past.”

        In my view, the really “destructive policies” of the past were bounty systems that encouraged people to kill as many wolves as they could any time they had an opportunity–that and the use of poisons. Neither one of these policies is currently in place. The closest thing we have is Wyoming’s classification of wolves as a nuisance/predator species in most of the state. There is a tremendous difference between regulated hunting and trapping (what we have now) and the full scale war that was waged during the late late 19th and early 20th century.

        “It was absurd to argue that hunting wolves would act as a pressure valve…”

        A colleague and I recently reviewed this evidence, and existing data suggest that people are no more tolerant of wolves now than they were before they were hunted. Still, people don’t change their attitudes over night, and higher social tolerance could result, perhaps, if people would stop giving ‘the haters’ what they want (i.e., attention).

        • SaveBears says:


          I agree 100% JB, well stated!

        • Immer Treue says:


          Prior to the release of Barry Lopez’s “Of Wolves and Men”, there was almost nothing in literature about wolves, save fairy tales like Little Red Riding Hood. I believe that one book, more than anything else in the last fifty years, put wolves in a positive spotlight, and began their true conservation.

          The difference between now, and prior to “Of Wolves and Men” is that we now have groups and organizations that both educate about wolves, and are willing to go to bat for wolves, tearing down the walls of hundreds of years of misinformation.

          Both sides have zealots. The pro-wolf zealots almost cancel out the anti-wolf zealots. But what we have now, as never before, are thousands (tens?) of people willing to question how wolves are treated. The “old” ways are continually questioned. Bottom line, is wolves now have two legged allies they never had before. Anti-wolf folks can’t just have their way anymore, and they don’t like that.

        • Louise Kane says:

          JB thank you for responding…I think the use of the word pragmatic to describe the people who were responsible for the extirpation of wolves is an unusual choice. Anyhow, I respectfully disagree that the really destructive policies are a thing of the past. Perhaps the use of poisons is not directed at wolves, legally, but cyanide cartridges are used all the time. As for bounties… predator killing contests and bounties abound, no pun intended. Utah for example as a most recent example of a state implementing a destructive coyote statewide bounty. Predator policies are just as destructive as they were in the past. But back to wolves, as you pointed out Wyoming has classified wolves in part of the state as a nuisance and as such can be shot/killed at any time for any reason with no restraint; Montana allows a tag holder to kill up to five wolves and the use of supressors is allowed during the overly long season. Idaho wolf hunting now runs most of the year. Trapping and snaring is back in vogue and touted by the state wildlife agencies and sportsmen’s groups as a cultural heritage or tradition to be promoted. There is good evidence that that random killing disrupts pack stability and that these animals are intensely dependent on one another and that random killing may actually cause more, not less, potential and undesirable conflicts. Still the bad policy prevails. Entire packs are killed like in the Lolo region to appease concerns about dwindling elk populations and excellent commissioners like Bob Reams have been driven out by the mob mentality when they have tried to refute the claims about ungulate losses. And states ignore their citizens as they throw away public comments and pass legislation to thwart citizen intitatives. maybe it will take awhile to change some minds, but in the meantime good laws would help. It would also help to call a spade, a spade.

          • SaveBears says:


            You can’t hunt big game animals in Montana with a suppressor, where are you getting the information that suppressors are allowed for wolves?

            • Nancy says:

              SB – I got that impression from the guy who’s Malamute was shot. He claimed it was an assult weapon with a suppressor.

              “The man took off, I just screamed “noooooooo” and tried to put him back together but his leg was torn off and yes 15 yards in front of me and yes he was shot with an ASSAULT rifle, I know I have seen them it was either an AR 15 or AR 14. It was all black had a sound suppressor and that was why no big BOOM BOOM semi automatic.

              I know guns, I don’t have any but I have shot them before, and yes I have hunted both Bow and Rifle. It is the irresponsible hunters who think they can shoot any animal they see if they are in the woods”


              • Ida Lupine says:

                You are going to get people who take advantage of laws like this – this is why I feel that liberal hunting laws are not taking the dark side of all of it into consideration. If this man can’t tell a malamute from a wolf, he has no business being out their shooting where he is a danger to the public, and with an assault rifle at that.

                It was pointed out to me that I mistook a mule deer for an elk on a video here – but at least I’m not armed and dangerous.

              • SaveBears says:

                Both laws concerning suppressors were vetoed by the governor this year, they are not legal for hunting big game animals. Wolves are classified as a big game animal.

                There were a lot of news articles about this incident and yes when first reported he said something about a suppressor, but the authorities did not believe it was a suppressed shot.

                As far as the AR15, it is not an assault rifle, it is a small caliber semi auto rifle with a military style stock, I can purchase the same rifle with a wood stock that looks nothing like a “assault” rifle. You can buy several different caliber rifles in a semi-auto configuration.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Oops, that should read ‘out there shooting’. Has this shooter apologized to the man yet? That will be the true test of whether he sincerely made a mistake or just wants to take out his petty frustrations on a poor innocent animal, and by proxy the owner and/or those who . These so-called hunters should not be so close to public ways and areas where pets and law-abiding, decent people are. This danger to the public has been brought up repeatedly, and yet our stupid politicians refuse to do anything about it, in fact have created this dangerous situations.

                OK, I guess we can see by my rant the one-day holiday moratorium is over. 🙂

                Against my better judgement, I’m off to brave the crowds on Black Friday for some holiday shopping. See y’all later!

              • SaveBears says:


                Many areas in Montana are public areas, where both hiking and hunting occur, the area this incident happened is actually pretty remote and it is also pretty popular. I have camped at the campground that is close to this area. With few exceptions Montana is a rural state with many areas that allow all types of multiple use.

                It is pretty amazing the areas that I have hunted how many hikers show up during hunting season, I have often asked the hiker if they were aware it was hunting season, most times they said yes, then wander on with no worries or anything to identify themselves. I don’t go into the woods or even my front yard during hunting season without an orange vest on.

                There is no real excuse for a dog in this situation to get shot, but people need to be realistic and understand humans are not perfect and mistakes will be made. As for an apology, based on the story, the owner stated the hunter did in fact apologize right after it happened, he also asked if he could help, this was what the dog owner stated.

                The authorities that interviewed the hunter as well as inspected his gun also stated the hunter told them he was sorry and felt very bad he made the mistake.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            I think the use of the word pragmatic to describe the people who were responsible for the extirpation of wolves is an unusual choice.

            So did I. I hope the implication is that animals can be wiped out for what humans think is pragmatic reasons.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              oops, that should be ‘I hope the implication isn’t’.

              • SAP says:

                The old “is/ought” problem again, Ida. The ethical question “should we wipe out animals because they compete with us for resources or threaten our well-being?” [no, we shouldn’t]

                is very different from

                have we in the past wiped out animals because they compete with us for resources or threaten our well-being?” Yes, we did. We had the technology to wipe them out (and virtually no technology to promote coexistence), and we had what amounted to a cultural consensus that we should bring all that technology to bear on wiping them out (there was broad agreement that wiping out grizzlies was in the same category as wiping out measles).

                I think that old consensus has mostly flipped into a new consensus that no, we should not wipe animals out, we should not tolerate anymore loss of current range.

                Where we lack consensus is on the question of reversing loss of range. We’re about two decades into working out what that looks like here in US Northern Rockies, with no clear answers (in part because we’re doing a real amateurish job of defining the questions!!!).

                [There seems to be a pattern on here of some participants taking someone’s observations of socio-ecological phenomena — such as JB stating that people got rid of wolves for pragmatic reasons — and confusing that observation with a defense of what happened. These exchanges might be shorter and more productive if folks could distinguish between explanation and justification.]

          • JB says:

            “I think the use of the word pragmatic to describe the people who were responsible for the extirpation of wolves is an unusual choice.”

            Louise: A few facts that may change your mind (though probably not) on whether my choice of words was appropriate. In the late 18th and early 19th Century, people did not have refrigerators, air conditioners, or gas furnaces. There was no Kroger, Safeway, or Giant Eagle to stop by on the way home for cheap food. Heck, there were few cars or roads for that matter, so if you wanted to ‘stop by’ you’d be traveling by foot or horse (at least in rural areas). In 1900, 41% of the work force was employed in agriculture; almost everyone in rural areas would have been in agriculture.

            Perhaps more importantly, people had little access (or ability to comprehend) the science of the day, and there certainly was little to no science on wolves (Murie’s ‘The Wolves of Mount McKinley was published in 1944). Lacking access to science (or modern new media) people got their information via direct experience or word of mouth. Those experiences and anecdotes told them that wolves (a) eat their farm animals, (b) eat other game animals, and (c) are a potential hazard.

            Even Aldo Leopold, father of modern conservation and an accomplished outdoorsmen, held this attitude most of his life. His pragmatism is on display in a portion of the famous ‘Green Fire’ quote:

            I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise.

            When you don’t know where your next meal will come from, it is pragmatic to kill animals that might take it from you.

            “Anyhow, I respectfully disagree that the really destructive policies are a thing of the past. Perhaps the use of poisons is not directed at wolves, legally, but cyanide cartridges are used all the time.”

            I’m not sure what you mean by ‘all the time’? Certainly M44s are used to kill coyotes, but their use has been curtailed by the controversy the generate. In any case, those not any Joe Schmoe can use an M44–their use is highly regulated (as are livestock collars).

            “As for bounties… predator killing contests and bounties abound, no pun intended. Utah for example as a most recent example of a state implementing a destructive coyote statewide bounty. Predator policies are just as destructive as they were in the past.”

            Actually, having organized a session on this topic for a conference earlier this year, I can tell you that the coyote bounty in Utah was largely ineffectual. They had about the same number of hunters on the landscape and didn’t kill any more coyotes than are normally killed in Utah. Moreover, the coyotes that were killed were largely killed outside of the fawning areas of deer (thus, the bounty had little chance of increasing deer recruitment). But I think it is disingenuous of you to switch to suddenly switch to coyotes; after all, we were talking about wolves. No bounties on wolves, poisons are illegal, and while predator killing contests may award you points for a wolf, people are still governed by state harvest laws. It is not the free-for-all that we see with coyotes.

            “But back to wolves, as you pointed out Wyoming has classified wolves in part of the state as a nuisance and as such can be shot/killed at any time for any reason with no restraint; Montana allows a tag holder to kill up to five wolves and the use of supressors is allowed during the overly long season. Idaho wolf hunting now runs most of the year. Trapping and snaring is back in vogue and touted by the state wildlife agencies and sportsmen’s groups as a cultural heritage or tradition to be promoted.”

            Okay. I dislike the ‘liberal’ wolf hunting and trapping policies as well, but thus far at least there hasn’t been much of an impact on the population (and this is getting pretty far afield from my original comment).

            “There is good evidence that that random killing disrupts pack stability and that these animals are intensely dependent on one another and that random killing may actually cause more, not less, potential and undesirable conflicts. Still the bad policy prevails. Entire packs are killed like in the Lolo region to appease concerns about dwindling elk populations and excellent commissioners like Bob Reams have been driven out by the mob mentality when they have tried to refute the claims about ungulate losses. And states ignore their citizens as they throw away public comments and pass legislation to thwart citizen intitatives. maybe it will take awhile to change some minds, but in the meantime good laws would help. It would also help to call a spade, a spade.”

            Okay, let’s be fair. Your criteria for bad policy isn’t really clear, though it seems that any policy that results in wolves being killed is bad. Of course, the other side views this quite the opposite, not because of wolves’ social ties or pack effects, but because they’re (in part) convinced that wolves are negatively impacting ungulate populations. The fact that east coast liberals keep telling them that their wolf policy is horrific likely suggests to them that they must be on the right track (my original point).

            • Louise Kane says:

              JB you wrote my criteria for policy for wolves is not real clear. It is actually. I understand that some wolves will be killed for depredations. Do I like it, no I don’t. I believe that people should be made to use cooperative/coexisting and non-lethal strategies before wolves (or predators in general) are killed. As for my criteria for bad policy. Liberal predator killing that neither achieves a valid “management” goal and to boot encourages misconceptions and myths about predators and wolves and allows inhumane and barbaric practices like trapping and snaring. I liked Washington state’s approach until their policy began to be abrogated by the ranching and trophy hunting industries and the state agency immediately caved. I wonder when enough is enough and all the coddling of the wolf/predator hating crowd will end? and I hate the anti democratic sleazy tactics that the states have been using to foist aggressive wolf killing on its citizens.

              JB maybe Montana is not calling their wolf season a bounty, but the effect of allowing 5 wolves per tag is very bounty-like to me minus the pay off. They don’t need to pay the hunters they can just keep implementing policies that reward people for hating wolves instead of educating them.

              • Montana Boy says:

                Five tags that sounds like a lot until you look at the facts.
                124 hunters took one wolf
                2 hunters took two wolves
                no hunters took three wolves

                62 trappers took one wolf
                13 trappers took two wolves
                3 trappers took three wolves
                Those are the facts.
                As far as education, those three trapper know more about wolves than you’ll ever know about wolves. Those three trapper also don’t hate wolves just great respect for wolves, I won’t tell you how they feel about people like you though.

            • Louise Kane says:

              JB you wrote
              Okay. I dislike the ‘liberal’ wolf hunting and trapping policies as well, but thus far at least there hasn’t been much of an impact on the population (and this is getting pretty far afield from my original comment).
              It seems at least one respected scientist might disagree.

              I don’t believe Montana and Idaho actually count wolves don’t they extrapolate data.

              • JB says:

                Louise – I don’t think the op-ed by Creel disagrees with what I wrote. A 7% decline is not much of an impact. As Creel states, it would take 10 years at that rate to halve the population. Ask yourself how you might respond to an irate elk hunter who asserts that their F&g agency needs to shoot more predators because some game population is down 7%?

              • Louise Kane says:

                JB that argument might be more legitimate if the elk population were 625. If that population was halved in 10 years that would be quite a concern. if elk depended on one another and were pack animals then elk might be a good comparison. But elk are ungulates and wolves are canids and pack animals. Wolves depend on one another for survival, elk do not. Wolves are hated in some parts by some people to an extreme and elk are not. The point is the numbers are in decline contrary to the nonsense that the state agencies spin.

              • Louise Kane says:

                “Ask yourself how you might respond to an irate elk hunter who asserts that their F&g agency needs to shoot more predators because some game population is down 7%?”

                They do it all the time! Thats the problem!

                you must be off your game tonight, not like you. sort of like a bad chess move when you hate yourself as you go into checkmate

              • JB says:

                “They do it all the time! Thats the problem!

                you must be off your game tonight, not like you. sort of like a bad chess move when you hate yourself as you go into checkmate”

                Actually, I asked you to consider how you might respond to such a poor argument. I think you’ve proven my point quite nicely. Clearly the argument worked for you with wolves, while it fails for game species. The fact that your adversaries use a poor argument ‘all the time’ is not a good reason for you to engage in the same behavior.

                P.S. I am feeling a bit off my game. Currently fighting a nasty case of the flu. 🙁

              • Louise Kane says:

                JB I hope you feel well quickly! Having the flu is miserable

              • ma'iingan says:

                “…if elk depended on one another and were pack animals then elk might be a good comparison. But elk are ungulates and wolves are canids and pack animals. Wolves depend on one another for survival, elk do not.”

                Elk and most other ungulates depend on each other for survival to a much greater extent than wolves.

                All animals have a social structure – you, and many other wolf advocates, seem to think that characteristic only applies to wolves.

                You’ll lose every time with that argument.

              • Montana Boy says:

                Let say this is the tenth time you’ve been told that Montana counts individual wolves. Packs have names known number of wolves down to how many are grey or black, how many adults and pups. This data is the known number of wolves. These known number of wolves are the numbers used for almost all reports. If you could, could you please remember this little bit of fact.
                Montana also extrapolates wolf numbers just as they do most predators just so they have a idea of how many wolves could be out there. So what you believe has little to do with facts it’s a belief. Is there a need to keep track for the next time, number eleven?

              • Louise Kane says:

                Montana Boy
                as SAP explains, “There’s a huge amount of “noise” in the system, making it incredibly complicated to make any sense of what’s going on. The FWP report shows the minimum wolf count climbing til 2011, then dropping a little in 2012. But there’s so much disagreement about the accuracy of these numbers.” disagreement and disbelief.

              • Louise Kane says:

                Montana Boy
                what a way to show respect. Keep talking, keep trying to convince yourself and others that the trapper who snares, traps and kills the wolf is acting respectfully.

          • SAP says:

            Louise wrote:

            “There is good evidence that that random killing disrupts pack stability and that these animals are intensely dependent on one another and that random killing may actually cause more, not less, potential and undesirable conflicts.”

            I’m not flat-out rejecting your assertion, because it could be true that removing certain wolves could very well turn a wild ungulate hunting pack into a livestock hunting pack. There is logic to that hypothesis. But I have not seen “good evidence” to support the hypothesis. Is there some new peer-reviewed research out there?

            I’m not trying to shut you down on this. We’re interested in getting to the truth and having a productive debate that is informed by reliable knowledge. In a highly contentious debate like wolf policy, anecdote-driven speculation is not “good evidence.”

            I think this particular question is going to be pretty difficult to study rigorously. Outside of YNP and maybe a handful of other places, it’s extremely rare to know very much at all about the personalities of individual wolves in a pack. Often, the best we’ll do is learn which one is the breeding female (she’s the one going into the burrow, and the one with the visible mammaries).

            If a wolf pack does live in a place where they could eat either wild prey or livestock, we may observe them switching to livestock yet have no solid information about why they switched. In many places with livestock, livestock biomass dramatically outweighs wild ungulate biomass (eg, a few thousand cow-calf pairs vs a few hundred whitetails or pronghorn, maybe a few moose). One explanation for the switch would be that livestock are just far more abundant and easier to locate.

            A lot goes on the in lives of wolves that we never know about. That well-behaved leader wolf may get old and arthritic and start going after easier prey. He/she may take a really unfortunate kick to the teeth while hunting elk. Might die in an avalanche. Point being, we may observe a pack with no history of conflict suddenly start killing lots of livestock, and we’ll never find out why.

            The simplest fact about wolves in the conflict zone (by which I mean everywhere outside designated parks and wilderness) is that most “packs” consist of a breeding pair, and their offspring from maybe two litters. It would be reasonable to hypothesize that leaving a bunch of yearlings and pups without any older animals would create a “pack” that lacks experience and hunting skills. But even with the “alphas,” (or, as Mech puts it, the “parents”), in a place with lots of livestock, and with lots of mouths to feed, we should expect some livestock predation to happen. If wolves learn that it’s risky to hunt livestock (either because the livestock protect themselves, as mother cows do, or because there are alert people or electric fences or other scary things associated with the livestock), they may choose to hunt elsewhere. But I don’t foresee anytime soon that people will have the information to say that killing a particular wolf is going to definitely send its pack into a spiral of conflict.

            • Louise Kane says:

              SAP in the last year, I read something directly related to that assertion. Can anyone help out here. I’m going back to look in the files.

              • Nancy says:

                Louise – since SAP’s post I’ve tried to find information related to that assertion. Rick Bass’s book regarding the Ninemile Pack is the only thing that might come close – A pack of wolves that actually lived around livestock, in harmony.

                I keep asking myself how our species can continue to be at war/management, with other species, when we’re the ones destroying what’s left of their/our habitat?

              • Louise Kane says:

                Nancy, I know I read a paper on it, now I just have to find it! I’m quite sure, it compared depredations post and pre hunting in several states. Thanks for looking

              • Immer Treue says:


                Really amazing, all the work Mike Jimenez did to try and keep those young wolves out of harms way.

            • Louise Kane says:

              SAP here is the paper by Creel and Rotella that I had placed in my files. This paper look at studies that suggest that human hunting on wolves is not just compensatory and is directly correlated to the packs ability to survive, or not as the study suggests. The first link is a summary.. and the second is the paper.


              I’m looking for the study this year that showed that predation incidents in states where wolves are hunted increased post hunting.

              • Immer Treue says:


                I believe Idaho depredations spiked after the first or second season. MN has been down, but is it for the hunt or that deer were easier pickings for wolves after last years long Winter. Mech and Fritts had a study ~86, that suggested calving depredations would decrease after severe Winters because deer were in such poor shape.
                The only anomaly to this occurred after the Winters of 95/96 and 96/97. SO many deer dies during those Winters that livestock was about the only thing left to eat.

                I know MN

              • Immer Treue says:

                I know MN not supposed to be there, as I was composing as I went along and forgot i left it there…

            • Louise Kane says:


              SAP am still looking for the paper related to increased livestock depredations related to human induced wolf mortalities. In the meantime this is a past post that hints at the same and if anyone remembers the information that compared post wolf hunting depredations to pre wolf hunting, please post


              • SAP says:

                & Montana didn’t see that kind of outcome for 2012.

                See FWP’s 2012 wolf report:


                There’s a huge amount of “noise” in the system, making it incredibly complicated to make any sense of what’s going on. The FWP report shows the minimum wolf count climbing til 2011, then dropping a little in 2012. But there’s so much disagreement about the accuracy of these numbers — a little variation could just be slop and not reflective of anything going on in reality. But take them at face value — hunting did not seem to have a big impact on wolf abundance statewide. At the same time as the population continued to climb, livestock killed climbed gradually (see graph page 14), with the outlier extreme event of the 140 sheep killed outside of Dillon in 09 (which I take as an anomaly and not representative of any trend). Then we see the livestock deaths dropping, even in the no-hunt year of 2010 (but ’09 & ’10 also show the highest levels of lethal control).

                There is a great deal that could be said about what’s going on here: killing wolves that are associated with livestock predations (I describe it that way because it may be the case that we’re not getting “the real killers”) is likely to have at least a short term effect on numbers of livestock killed. Wolves killed in wilderness areas on the park boundary won’t have any effect on livestock conflicts, increase or decrease.

                I can’t speculate about what happened in Idaho without seeing a distribution & abundance map of wolves, along with where wolves were killed, and the extent of overlap between wolves and livestock. It’s a very complicated system, to say something trite and obvious.

                One question I have — and I don’t know the answer, just asking — is: is this the conversation we really should be having about wolves? It seems that on a really coarse scale (say, statewide), we can’t say that hunting does or does not make conflicts worse. On the one hand, making wolves less abundant should lead to fewer conflicts. But, per our original topic, removing certain wolves that aren’t causing trouble may leave their packs short on experience, skill, and caution. But it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever be able to tell which specific wolves in a place shouldn’t be killed . . .

                . . . so . . . maybe, 20 years into this, it’s time to try to have some dialogue about what we DO want to see out there on the landscape, regarding wolves. Get beyond numbers of wolves alive and wolves killed, and describe what we want. Figure out where and how they have a strong chance of fitting back into the landscape, figure out what that looks like, and focus our energy and resources on making it work there. What I see now is a lot of arguing at a very abstract level, punctuated by the emotionally searing reality of wolves and other animals killed. Well-intentioned people end up spreading resources too thin to make things work well anywhere, and the cycle repeats itself. I reflect on how things have gone and it looks a lot like a stalemate. We need a new way of looking at this thing, we need to be asking different questions.

  4. rork says:


    I dubbed this Hunters Against Democracy on the first link.
    Attempted summary.
    Some folks in MI are now trying for a stronger version of PA21, the law that lets the NRC declare species game animals without voters being able to petition against it (and which was used to get our current wolf hunting season). The ne and improved version, unlike PA21, contains an appropriation, which in MI, would make the law itself immune to petition. At least that’s my take – wording isn’t out yet I think.

  5. Hi Ralph,

    This isn’t new but it is a video your readers will likely enjoy – cheers


    • Nancy says:

      Thanks Daryl!!! Wonderful way to start the day off 🙂

    • Immer Treue says:

      I agree with Nancy. Thanks.

      • Nancy says:

        Immer – check out the Apgar Mountain webcam (on Ralph’s list) for a breathtaking shot of Glacier this morning 🙂

        • Immer Treue says:

          Nice! In a good way, that shot depicts how insignificant we are, at least as individuals. a bit like looking at that night sky with the stars that go on forever.

          Once in Denali, at Wonder Lake, we were looking at the Alaskan range in front of us on a near cloudless day. You could actually see the clouds building up from the south actually spilling over the mountains.

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          Thanks Daryl and Nancy!

          About the web cams, I would like to add that if any of them go dead due to a bad URL, please let me know. It is hard to keep track of them. They blink on, off, go away, and and new ones emerge very often.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      My goodness – that elk rising from the snow was beautiful, as was it all! And George Winston’s ‘Thanksgiving’ is one of my favorites. Have a Happy one!

  6. Hello Mr. Maughen,

    Here in Wisconsin, we’ve seen a huge kill-off of wolves sanctioned by the WI DNR. Over 200+ wolves have been taken since the wolf-killing season began in October, primarily by trapping (over 75%). Worse, with one zone remaining open and the possibility of around 25 more wolves to be killed, the killers will release dogs on wolves beginning December 2nd. Wisconsin is the only state that legally sanctions this form of wolf killing, essentially making this “state sanctioned dog fighting”! In short, Wisconsin has become the “Wyoming of the Midwest”!

    Wisconsin Wolf Defenders and Wisconsin Wolf Front are hosting the first annual “Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholder Caucus” on Saturday, December 14th in Madison, WI. We hope to bring the state’s wolf advocates and activists together to be a voice for the wolf here and to raise awareness of what’s happening to our wolf population due to reckless legislation and crooked DNR catering to anti-wolf interests. Further, we hope to be able to establish the first PAC (Political Action Committee) to lobby for “wolf rights” in WI. The Caucus will be fed live via Twitter. Other wolf-groups from out of state have expressed a great deal of interest in the Caucus, as they are looking to see if WI can indeed pull together as many advocates as possible on one day for their voice to be heard! Could you please advertise the Caucus? I have a flyer, but of course cannot post this on this blog but would be happy to email it to you.

    Thank you very much Mr. Maughen for your time, and your wonderful writing as well!


    Elizabeth Huntley

    • Montana Boy says:

      One question, do any wolf advocates understand that wolves killing wolves is a major cause of wolf deaths?
      They advocate for a self regulating wolf population which means they advocate for sanctioned wolf fighting.
      Now I’m not a fan of hunting wolves with dogs but it has been the sport of the upper class for a very long time.

      • JEFF E says:

        one question, boy.
        you never answered /replied to my last post to you on the previous thread.
        why is that?

      • Immer Treue says:


        “One question, do any wolf advocates understand that wolves killing wolves is a major cause of wolf deaths?
        They advocate for a self regulating wolf population which means they advocate for sanctioned wolf fighting.”

        I think you’ll find that most who post here understand that wolves are territorial, and will fight to the death while defending or being caught intruding into territories.

        It’s got jack squat to do with sanctioned dog fighting. Deer, moose and I would imagine elk die while defending breeding territory. Hmmmm better to fight for food or screwing?

        Hunting wolves with dogs has nothing to do with wolves fighting wolves, and the first knucklehead who youtubes a wolf dog encounter will be the death knell for hounding, at least for wolves in “Vicksconsin”.

        • Montana Boy says:

          Wolves hunted with dogs.

          • Immer Treue says:


            Now I know you are clueless. Hounders from the land of cheese will track their dogs either driving pick-up trucks or ATV’s. they will be following their dogs on a grid system of rural roads where they will hit areas they will have to get out on foot, some of these area will be all but impenetrable, and they could be a quarter mile or more from their dogs if and when dogs make contact with wolves. No Cossacks on horseback in Vicksconsin. On top of which, if farmland, and other private acreages aside, they require permission.

            • Montana Boy says:

              That’s me just clueless. I don’t run around all full of myself like some here. I simply see things from a different angle. Yet I see you’ve changed.

              • Immer Treue says:


                Not a matter if I changed or haven’t, of if I’m full of myself or not. You’ve made some good points, and In the cyber world, it’s all but impossible to decipher tone of voice/message and often the entire thought behind post is lost in translation.

                I try not to be guilty of loading up with my reply before digesting what was said to me. If I have done that with you, I’d apologize. I have, however, replied to your posts.

                Using the term “clueless” especially to someone relatively new to this blog was a poor choice on my part, and I’ll apologize for that.

                In a few short days, hounds will be used to hunt wolves in Wisconsin. For more than two years, a battle has been brewing if this “technique” would be implemented of not. I have been consistent over those two years in condemning hounding of wolves. It’s not a matter of relaxing and breathing, it’s a matter
                Of right and wrong.

                I knew hunting and trapping was going to happen. I don’t agree with the depth and breadth of what all the states are doing. If in the very least, I would only hope that in between seasons folks would learn enough about wolves to just leave them alone.

              • Immer Treue says:


                I’m not a betting person, but I’d put that 50 cent piece up someone bet I couldn’t get a wolf to step on, and wager you’re Rancher Bob.

            • Nancy says:

              Immer – Got a feeling on the old thread, retired, and the last few comments here, that RB was back 🙂

              And what he fails to realize about the “upper class” in Russia and wolf hunting, is the breed of dog used – coursing/sight hounds:

              “Hares and other small game were by far the most numerous kills, but the hunters especially loved to test their dogs on wolf. If a wolf was sighted, the hunter would release a team of two or three borzoi. The dogs would pursue the wolf, attack its neck from both sides, and hold it until the hunter arrived. The classic kill was by the human hunter with a knife”


              Note also the “if a wolf was sighted” Not, a pack of wolves.

              Course over 200 hundred wolves have been killed in WI recently and my guess would be the boys with hounds will find a lot of disorganization when they get out there for their blood sport.

              • Nancy says:

                Interesting bit of information:

                “Wolf hunting with dogs became a specialised pursuit in the 1920s, with well trained and pedigreed dogs being used. Several wolfhounds were killed in wolf hunts in the *****warden sponsored Wisconsin Conservation Department of the 1930s.

                These losses induced the state to begin a dog insurance policy in order to reimburse wolf hunters.[10] Wolf hunting with dogs is now illegal in the USA”


                Seems no lessons were learned the first time……..

    • Louise Kane says:

      Thank you Elizabeth for taking the time and initiative to really do something

  7. Ida Lupine says:

    If you do choose to engage with them, I suspect your arguments would carry more weight if you were to express disappointment with the behavior (not singling out individuals), and support your arguments with facts and sound reasoning. This will have the effect of ‘disarming’ such individuals, while showing observers that you have the moral and intellectual high-ground.

    Hasn’t worked before, and isn’t working now. Again, high ideals aren’t doing anything allowing wolf deaths to continue, and to let anti-wolf forces gain more ground. I don’t know that ‘observers’ really care about intellectual and moral high ground, or if they can even discern it anymore. I don’t know what the answer is, other than to keep hammering our elected officials to at least get within a mile radius of trying to do the right thing.

  8. Nancy says:



    “For most snails the main predators are mice and moles.
    Robinson is hoping they can find a parasitoid fly that will prove to be a predator on these snails”


    The tinkering with nature just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.

    • rork says:

      There are risks to importing biological control organisms, sure, but we might consider it if the situation is sufficiently dire, other methods ineffective, and the risks studied.
      My plant warrior group moves around beetles that help us fight purple loosestrife. They’ve been pretty well studied (hundreds of links easy to find), but there’s no guarantees. I’ve not heard of a big downside yet, but I admit I’m not sure if we’ll ever say we are sure there isn’t one. We definitely see an up side. It’s very serious gambling though, not taken lightly.

  9. SaveBears says:

    Not wildlife related, but just wanted to wish everybody a happy Turkey Day and hope your Holiday season is once again special, enjoy your times with those you love.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Awww, thanks SB! Same to you and to everyone at TWN.

    • Nancy says:

      Happy Turkey Day to you too SB and to the TWN family of moderators, commentors & followers 🙂

    • Immer Treue says:

      Late start this morning… Fresh dusting of snow has turned northern MN into a Winter palace. On the morning dog walk, a wolf crossed the gravel road off which I live, perhaps fifty yards ahead. It stopped, looked for a couple three seconds, and then loped on down the road and into the woods. At this time of the year, as most of you know, they are particularly beautiful creatures.

      So in a long winded way, that was a wonderful start to a day in which to be thankful.

      Happy Thanksgiving to everyone associated with and contributing to TWN.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Awww, it sounds very beautiful. There’s something about wolves and winter, I agree. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving as well.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Happy Thanksgiving to you too Immer and everyone else. I’ll say my own little agnostic prayer for the wolf and you. For the wolf and family to stay safe and out of harm’s way and for you that you have many more moments like the one you had this morning.

    • jon says:

      me and sb agree on next to nothing, but happy thanksgiving sb to you and your loved ones. Everyone else happy thanksgiving as well.

  10. Rita k Sharpe says:

    Thank you, Immer ,for sharing a moment. Have a nice and wonderful Thanksgiving everyone..

  11. Cris Waller says:


    Wolf sightings by visitors in Denali NP down from 44% of visitors just 3 years ago to 4% today- primarily due to intensive wolf trapping on he park borders.

  12. Ida Lupine says:

    SB, if only they could all be like you. I realize people make mistakes, but our politicians do not. Too much looking on the bright side allows mistakes that could have been prevented to slip by the radar. What happened to extirpate the wolves decades ago was more than just protecting livestock (which at times is understandable, but I think exaggerated in modern times), it was overkill. A government policy to wipe them out is arrogant about mankind’s place in nature and a total misunderstanding of the wolf. It seems humans cannot do anything in a measured way.

  13. CodyCoyote says:

    Another journalistic bombshell from The Guardian in the UK. They report today on a new report detailing the massive extent to wichh the large multinational corporations have used private investigators and government intelligence operations to spy on nonprofit activists aorund the world. At the head of the list of heavily surveilled groups ( but not exclusively) are environmental and conservation NGO’s. Groups like Greenepeace seem to have every move scrutinized and when possible, countered.

    I’ve become pretty hardened to this stuff in recent years , yet I’m freshly alarmed at what the Guardian is revealing here. They term it no less than a War on Democracy.


    • Nancy says:

      Thinking you’ve got to go back a few more years CC when it comes to some who were very concerned about the “War on Democracy” and ignored…..


      • CodyCoyote says:

        Nancy- Of course governments have always been the biggest threat to democracy . I was pointing out here the extent to which private industry ( corporations) is now doing what the shadow government agencies have always done, using some of the same tools and personnel to do it , hand in hand. There are two Big Brothers…one civilian, the other governmental. Both are disruptors.

  14. Louise Kane says:


    discussion on the new attempts to keep wolf hunting in MI by special interest groups Safari Club International et al
    see Nancy Warren’s comment

    • WM says:

      Senseless. If it were up to me I would castrate these guys and sentence them to occupying the same room with jon, who posts here.

      • SaveBears says:

        Castration might be a little extreme, but I believe they should do at least 2 years in prison, loose all rights to ever hunt again and loose their right to gun ownership for life. In addition, the minimum fine should be $10K and at least 1000 hours of community service after serving their 5 years then make them talk in front of Hunters Education groups on the evils and ills of killing wildlife out of season with no license.

        Poaching should involve a lifetime commitment to paying back for you crimes.

        • SaveBears says:

          opps, that was after serving their 2 years!

        • Louise Kane says:


        • WM says:

          Neutering is cheaper, permanent, stops the defective gene flow that may create this behavior, and serves as a great deterrent for others who would do the same stupid senseless stuff. Just kidding about doing it, really, but you get the idea. Now the part about sequestering these poacher miscreants with poster jon, I wasn’t kidding about that. 😉

          • JEFF E says:

            wow. the old “fate worse than death” scenario.

            The only sure way to make it worse is to add the cackling of hot-flash into the back round.

    • Immer Treue says:

      The age of the three “men” makes one tremble for what the future holds.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Who gives birth to these monsters is what I want to know. At least the public isn’t tolerant of this kind of behavior, I’m very pleased to see. Still, 20 years without legal hunting privileges is a long time. And the wolves get blamed for decreases in ungulate numbers.

  15. Immer Treue says:

    Back to blaze orange for a while. Muzzle loaders for deer, and wolf season phase 2… Until quotas met.


    Wolf hounding in Wisconsin D-Day tomorrow.

    • Immer Treue says:

      My mistake. Wisconsin wolf hounding begins Monday, December 2.

    • jon says:

      I thought people letting their dogs harass wildlife was against the law? Hounding is highly unethical. It will result in more hounds being killed by wolves. Would anyone seriously let their dog purposely chase after dangerous and unpredictable wildlife? I sure as hell wouldn’t.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        And then send the state the bill! What a racket. But, surely the federal government knew these types of things would result from a delisting. What an unmitigated disaster.

  16. Immer Treue says:

    More on (pun intended) Wisconsin wolf hounding. I’ve read on one site, hounders will be allowed to use spiked collars on their dogs. At first thought, it seems ok, protect the hounds. Yet, when confrontations occur, and in any given scenario, wolf chomps on spikes, escapes… Now we have a wounded wolf, that may or may not be able to care for itself, plus a most likely prolonged painful death.

    Sorry, no HUMANITY in hounding.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I don’t understand why they need to do this. Most of the wolf quota was already filled in less than a month! Because it is ‘fun’? Because they can? How disgusting.

      The Hounds of the Baskervilles

    • ma'iingan says:

      “I’ve read on one site, hounders will be allowed to use spiked collars on their dogs.”

      I’d be pretty skeptical about claims like that. First of all, outfitting hounds with anything intended to harm wolves is illegal.

      Secondly, if such collars offered protection against wolves, houndsmen would already be using them on their bear dogs during training season, when wolves are most aggressive towards hounds.

      Thirdly, it’s unlikely they would be effective anyway – wolves don’t fight like dogs. I’ve investigated a lot of dog depredations – wolves eviscerate dogs,often in a matter of seconds.

      The reality is that Wolf Zone 3, the only zone left open, will see little if any use of hounds. There is a significant amount of ag land, including dairy and beef producers, and few large blocks of public land.

      • Immer Treue says:


        Thanks for that reply. I stumbled on a site that said shards of steel would be embedded I the collars…and though I looked in WI regulations (not very thoroughly, could find nothing about this.
        I agree that bear hounders probably would have already attempted to use such protections. Also, I was aware that Zone 3 was not all forest, therefore might present problems in regard to access to areas for dogs.

        Thanks again for reply.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Thank you!

      • Immer Treue says:

        Something else making the rounds is that Wisconsin wolf hounders will receive reimbursement if their dog(s) is/are killed by wolves. At least the 2012 rules refute this.

        Page 5


  17. Ida Lupine says:

    With all due respect SAP, it isn’t up to the readers to to try to guess or infer what a poster means, it’s up to the writer. America has, in the past, resorted to extermination tactics to remove (and remove isn’t quite accurate a term for killing and torture) predators for ‘pragmatic’ reasons; but it now appears, in the present, that we are resorting to the same tactics for pragmatic reasons (so we are told) also. Almost the same reasons.

    • JB says:


      Now your guilty of falling back on hyperbole. Not one state is attempting to ‘exterminate’ wolves–not one. Some have plans to reduce their populations, others are attempting to deal with problem wolves by focusing lethal management (including hunting) in certain areas. Utah is the only state with a stated goal of not having any wolves–and they never had any to begin with.

      SAP’s comments were dead-on (no pun intended). You need to be able to discern the difference between an explanation of what happened in the past and a justification for behavior in the present (my post was entirely explanation). And the explanation, in part, was given to contrast the apparent motivations of those who exterminated wolves with those who are managing them today. The culture, science, technology, and social context are much different today then they were 100 years ago.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        That’s just it – I don’t think they are. Maybe the science and technology (that can be both good and bad) but the culture and social context are not. There are too many people today to be hunting limited wildlife the way they did in the past, with dogs, or any other method.

        But we see it differently. IM(H)O, I don’t think the states are being honest about ‘managing’. I really hope I am wrong –

      • Ida Lupine says:

        JB, I realize now that I am (somewhat) guilty of misunderstanding what you were saying, that’s true. I do appreciate your posts – a voice of reason. As we know, these are emotional, hot-button issues.

        Hope you’re feeling better also!

  18. SaveBears says:


    I have to ask, are you going to address the mis-information you posted about the state of Montana allowing wolves to be hunted with suppressors? I would like to know where you got this information, because it is illegal to use a suppressor to hunt any big game animal in the state of Montana.

    Please post where you got this information?

  19. Louise Kane says:

    SB I posted this at 3:51 a a few hours before you asked me whether I was going to address my mistake. I had forgotten that the Gov vetoed. Lots of other states allow suppressors… see below including Idaho

    Louise Kane says:
    November 30, 2013 at 3:51 pm
    I stand corrected SB. Idaho allows suppressors as do many other states.



    • Elk375 says:

      Whether suppressors are allowed or not, what is the big deal about them. A suppressor will not silence any bullet exceeding the speed of sound it only reduces the decimal’s. A wolf going to notice any sound including the metallic noise of the action being worked after the first shot.

      I personally do not like them,

      • SaveBears says:


        Whether you like them or not, is not the issue, the whole argument about suppressors has been predicated on mis-information. The media has portrayed them as an item that renders a shot quiet, which is very far from the truth.

        It is fine to argue and debate issues, but when it is based on myths and falsehoods, then it needs to be corrected.

        I own a couple of suppressors and in my career have used many of them, but in the context of hunting, this should be a moot point, they do not make hunting easier, they do not make poaching easier and uninformed people are throwing muddy water into clear to try and make their point.

        Lets get back to the issue, and get over the “noise”

    • SaveBears says:

      Thank you Louise, I looked but did not see that post.

  20. Louise Kane says:


    not a lot of information to discern why the charge is murder!

    • SaveBears says:

      I am friends with one of the Wardens in that area and he said, they thought that there was retribution going on over a bad drug deal, time will tell. To add, it really does not qualify as wildlife news.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        It may not be wildlife news but it certainly became a topic for discussion with some of the anti crowd shortly after the event.

        “How much do you want to bet this is a pro-wolf extremist that very likely shot this innocent 60 year old hunter?” The author of this statement then listed several of those people that she thought might be involved.

        • SaveBears says:


          You people really don’t care about the truth do you, this is suspected of being a drug issue and not a hunting issue. I know one of the wardens involved in this investigation and he stated it had nothing to do with hunting, but something completely un-related.

          • Immer Treue says:


            Barb is correct. When the news of this first came out someone (lint) tried to make a wildlife issue out of this event.

            OK, it’s not. Some poor guy got killed, probably for no other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
            But, in the never ending litany of pro-wolf, anti-wolf some pig did try to connect this to pro wolf factions.

            Barb and you are both correct.

            Got no more to say on this issue.

            • SaveBears says:


              No, Barb is not correct, this has nothing to do with hunting or wolves, you people need to realize, wolves and wildlife are not the center of the world, the investigation is not even looking at hunters, someone stalked this guy because of his perceived actions in an illegal transaction.

              • SaveBears says:

                Louise posted this to put hunters in a bad light again, plain and simple.

              • JEFF E says:

                ..and that is all, and the sole motivation- of hot-flash

              • SaveBears says:

                Thanks Jeff, your input is always appreciated!

              • Immer Treue says:


                “You people…wolves…blah blah blah.” Barb and I both know this has nothing to do with hunting. The point she made, and I supported, the day this thing hit the news, one of the “infamous” attempted to connect this event to someone pro wolf shooting the hunter.

                Louise’s rationale aside, Barb brought this accusatory comment to light.

                As far as Barb’s comment goes it had nothing to do with wolves be the center of the universe, but a loose cannon shooting their mouth off.

              • SaveBears says:


                I said my piece.

              • Immer Treue says:


                As have I.

              • Barb Rupers says:

                I do not consider wildlife the center of the world.

                This was my response:”So, 70 miles west of where the Wedge pack was dispatched, in a sparsely populated area, a grouse hunter steps out of his vehicle, is shot and you would “bet this is a pro-wolf extremist that very likely shot this innocent 60 year old hunter.”

                That’s a stretch. Just curious, of what is the hunter innocent?”

              • Immer Treue says:


                Thanks for posting. Sure it will draw questions of OK, who said it?
                You were decent enough to the needy irresponsible individual who is responsible for penning these words to leave their name out.

                And as Jeff E has sorta said, “it ain’t worth the energy wasted”… by even perusing. Let it collapse of its own weight.

        • JEFF E says:

          cites? otherwise it is just gossip

          • SaveBears says:

            Thanks Jeff,

            You input is always appreciated!

          • Immer Treue says:

            JEFF E

            If Barb wants to dig, up to her, but I would imagine the non censoring daffodils have already scrubbed it.

            • JEFF E says:

              I agree, but why lower to that level?

              • Immer Treue says:

                JEFF E,

                No argument from me on that, yet when one attains celebrity status, the occasional temptation is to look. I have not turned into a pillar of salt.

            • JEFF E says:

              well Immer I can see your point, but if I can suggest, the only power those losers have is what someone else gives them.

              They are parasites that feed off of other peoples efforts and like all parasites the only result is to weaken those that they feed on.

              The only cure is to completely ignore the ignorant, and I guarantee, they will self implode, because there food source has been removed.
              They always do

              • Montana Boy says:

                I missed your question to which you referred to before you trip. So off subject what was you question?

              • Immer Treue says:

                JEFF E

                Well said.

              • JEFF E says:

                well MB, it had to do with grazing of livestock. so do your own research. I have already done mine.

              • Montana Boy says:

                Oh, I did my research, I see no reason to answer your question for several reasons.
                1) small insult, which is normal
                2) lack of question mark, for all your correction of my butchering the written word
                3) no need to playing your silly games, but thanks for playing along on mine

    • Louise Kane says:

      Jeff E
      perhaps you did not see my last post to you. I’d also assume you did not see Jeff N’s post about how assholian it is to call any woman, hot flash. I’d ignore you… but I’ve noticed once you start your version of online bullying and name calling you really never let up. You are like the schoolyard bully that keeps on taunting and shoving. I’d appreciate it greatly if you can keep your shitty name calling, about me and others, to yourself. Im sure others are offended, as well by using misogynist references about women here or using anti gay slurs against others. I’ve cringed more than once reading your extremely insulting acerbic personal attacks on people. Nothing valuable is achieved by making insulting personal attacks on people who post here. Ironically as one of the most outspoken people here who likes to point out the errors of extremists, your behavior doesn’t provide much of a good example of middle ground and intelligent debate. Please don’t refer to me in such a pointless and uncharitable ignorant manner again. I’m sure no one here appreciates the repulsive nature of your posts.

      Save Bears if you look at my comment you’ll see I asked I wonder why they charged the person with murder. I was hoping someone might have more info as it was interesting to me. So that was my rationale.

      • Kathleen says:

        “Im sure others are offended, as well by using misogynist references about women here or using anti gay slurs against others.”


      • savebears says:

        They charged him with murder because they suspect it being in retaliation for some percieved wrong. As I said, I know one of the wardens in that area and that is the information he has passed along.

      • JEFF E says:

        perhaps you did not see my last post to you. (and the wheels go round and round)
        I’d also assume you did not see Jeff N’s post about how assholian it is to call any woman, hot flash.(who is that?)
        (Mayhap, hot flash, you should brush up on medical science. The “change of life” affects men and woman with men also experiencing the “hot flash” in a probably less percentage,{ but that would be arguing minutia} one of your strong points.
        I do myself.
        My nick name for you has more to do with your off the deep end response to a myriad of topics which you clearly know little of nothing about, and also post and unending stream of what amounts to nothing more than rabble rousing invective.)
        I’d ignore you… but I’ve noticed once you start your version of online bullying and name calling you really never let up. You are like the schoolyard bully that keeps on taunting and shoving.

        (oooh, the new version of attempting to label someone as an aggressor when one cannot defend a position and is called out on it. You hot-flash, engage in more derogatory name calling in one month than I have in any given year. The difference, as far as I can tell is I do it in a face to face manner, when I do it.)
        I’d appreciate it greatly if you can keep your shitty name calling,( now there is the kettle calling the pot black, NO ONE does more shitty name calling on this blog than you.) about me and others, to yourself.
        Im sure others are offended, as well by using misogynist references about women here or using anti gay slurs against others. (when were you appointed the blog spokesman? And I have never used any term in a manner that you suggest. You are bordering on libel at this point, hot flash.)
        I’ve cringed more than once reading your extremely insulting acerbic personal attacks on people.
        ( don’t like what I post don’t read it. I am not here to be your buddy or to make friends.)
        Nothing valuable is achieved by making insulting personal attacks on people who post here. (then why do you do it?)

        Ironically as one of the most outspoken people here who likes to point out the errors of extremists, your behavior doesn’t provide much of a good example of middle ground and intelligent debate. Please don’t refer to me in such a pointless and uncharitable ignorant manner again. I’m sure no one here appreciates the repulsive nature of your posts. ( and I am sure you speak for no one but yourself)

        • topher says:

          I’m most offended by the constant babble about hunters and what must be wrong with them, otherwise how could they ….and on and on and on.

      • WM says:

        Gosh, Louise , “Hot flash” indeed!

        Jeff E. could have been referring to your tendency to ignite quickly, with lots of quick white light and orange flames, and little substance that dims quickly – kind of like a bulb flash on an old Graflex camera (remember those blue bulbs?). While I see Jeff E. is making his own defense quite competently, it strikes me if you are looking for an alternative explanation, what is good for the gander, is good for the goose. We sometimes see various misandristic adjectives and nouns used here to describe those irrational testosterone crazed males with an inability to reason (seems I recall something about psychopathic tendencies included, as well, with considerable frequency here). I think you even gone off in a hot flash mode in some of those dress downs.

        Referring to the mysogynistic definition of “hot flash,” why is it inappropriate to use names also grounded in changing hormone levels, especially when sometimes accompanied by irrational ramblings and wild assertions occasionally driven by inaccurate facts? Jeff E. could have gotten it right with a double entendre.

        Of course there are those who personally have the experience, and those who live with those who personally have the experience, and can attest to certain “hot flash” behavioral traits, not inconsistent with your own postings here. 😉

        I’m more inclined to celebrate the gender differences, and suggest you don’t take yourself so seriously (you either Kathleen). Don’t really know what to make of your reference to anti-gay comments, but knew you would find a way to slip it in, though not likely relevant.

        • Louise Kane says:

          I’m sorry, everyone, that you’ve had to read the last exchanges between me and Jeff E. Its unfortunate and discouraging that on this site, people have to see socially unacceptable pejoratives like hot flash, and three dollar and sunny side up used to personally attack other posters. It’s not funny or clever, just mean-spirited, creepy and stifles conversation.

          • JEFF E says:

            Hot-flash. you could have stopped at “I’m sorry”, but we already know that.
            on a different note it took a bit longer to train you, but still…

        • Louise Kane says:

          “Referring to the mysogynistic definition of “hot flash,” why is it inappropriate to use names also grounded in changing hormone levels, especially when sometimes accompanied by irrational ramblings and wild assertions occasionally driven by inaccurate facts?”

          Really WM …do you really need to ask why its inappropriate? why would numb nuts, fag, queer, prick, spook, bitch or any other terms that are used to denigrate people or classes of people be inappropriate to use here or anywhere. what about pedant?

          • WM says:

            ++Louise Kane says @ December 2, 2013 at 9:15 pm++

            Come on, lighten up. You keep escalating this by bidding against yourself. Ever hear of the saying, “The first thing you need to do to get out of hole you dug for yourself, is to quit digging.” Wise word there, I think.

            • Louise Kane says:

              “Lighten up….quit digging….”

              WM perhaps you should take your own advice. Defending personal attacks, is surprising from you. Don’t defense attorneys use similar arguments when they argue rape or other victims of violence are responsible for attacks because of the kind of clothing they wore or the places they frequented or whose company they chose. Essentially that’s what you are arguing. I make comments that Jeff does not like or agree with so its ok to attack me personally using universally offensive language. Jeff E has been doing this as long as I have been reading this blog. usually no one objects for whatever reason. This time I did, Jeff N and Kathleen weighed in also. I also communicate with others here that are really offended by his comments at times. There is a big distinction in commenting on the person instead of the comment. That distinction is one he glosses over and you fail to acknowledge in your defense of his gross behavior. Surprising from you, while you and I don’t always agree at least the conversation has been civil. I thought you were better than that.

              • WM says:

                ++ …..big distinction in commenting on the person instead of the comment…++

                Mostly agree, except when someone goes on lengthy, incessant and repeated rants and sometimes doesn’t know their facts. And, did I mention the double gender standard? Somehow the pop of the metaphorical flash bulb (has been replaced by the flash cube (remember those?), Louise.

                Again, how about getting back on topic?

              • JEFF E says:

                universially offensive language?

                Now you are the self appointed spokesman for the universe, hot-flash?


        • rork says:

          I agree that Jeff E’s hot-flash comments are very poor, are now egregious, and are personally directed. I don’t find them acceptable.
          I also agree that Louise paints groups of people as all being psychopaths, wildlife terrorists, etc, and have fought that as bad tactics and lying – with no effect. But it’s not the same as calling a specific commenter those things. Dante places the two types of sinners in separate circles I believe.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        This is an account written a few days after the incident.


  21. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Denali: More protections proposed after fewer wolf sightings
    Kenai: Brown Bear hunt emergency closure debated

    • Ida Lupine says:

      So sadly predictable. *Sigh.*

    • WM says:

      So, a state no shooting/trapping of wolves buffer zone adjacent to a national park (in this case Denali and it is unclear from the article whether some of the buffer is within the Park where some hunting is allowed) is not unheard of. Will AK Fish and Game renew a buffer with fewer wolves seen in Denali, or does it make the case for the federal government to seek an easement, land exchange or purchase? Now there is a good, and importantly sustaining, use of taxpayer money in my view.

  22. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Talucah child shoots bobcat
    “He had no plans; just a relaxing evening watching the woods by the family farm. Then he saw it…”

  23. Ida Lupine says:

    Here’s a front-page article from TIME magazine that I received in the mail this weekend – I haven’t had the heart to read it yet. When we start to refer to wildlife, the other living things we share the planet with, as pests…I don’t know what to say.


    • Ida Lupine says:

      It is just frustrating to think that with over 300 million Americans, and that we’re the ones encroaching with a relentless creep on wildlife habitat, we refer to the wildlife as pests. It is awful to contemplate a country with nothing but human civilization. Talk about hell! I fear that Emerson may be right:

      “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die from civilization.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

  24. Kathleen says:

    Today is the second deadline for comments on the proposal to list wolverines as threatened (in the contiguous states) under the Endangered Species Act–just a reminder for those who haven’t commented but would like to. Lots of info and links to the comment website here

  25. Wolfy says:

    An interesting article on the lagging sense of fulfillment that can come from working in the “E&E” agencies. I’ve felt a similar lack of support and loss of mission for some time in the BLM and FS.

    “FEDERAL AGENCIES:Environment, energy gigs aren’t what they used to be”

  26. Immer Treue says:

    Tres bien!

  27. topher says:

    Utility company sentenced in Wyoming for killing protected birds. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/November/13-enrd-1253.html
    I’ve been curious about monitorng bird deaths at wind farms. Does anyone know much about it?

    • Ida Lupine says:

      My observations is that they are following the same road as Big Oil and other corporations in trying to exempt themselves from regulation, and even writing their own regulations. They are, or at least were, trying to get exemptions from the Endangered Species Act for thirty years under Ken Salazar. I don’t think they have to report the numbers of birds killed at their wind farms as of this moment, and I don’t know if there is any incentive or if they had been working to correct the problem. They say now that they are.

      I expect more from our so-called green energy companies than following the same business model. I think 7 billion and counting humans can’t help but contribute to climate change, but it is an unknown at this point. Killing birds today to save them for some unknown event in the future doesn’t make sense to me; every dead bird today is one more who cannot breed.

  28. Louise Kane says:


    well written piece about the wanton waste in “sport killing” of black footed prarie dogs. Like killing contests despicable actions/activities.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Became aware of this ~ ten years ago. The analogy to passenger pigeons is appropriate. I also recall the same type of humor in the telling of this experience, and how one individual listening wanted to give it a try.

      I don’t know that much about prairie dogs, whether their populations can withstand these hits, or how it affects the mentioned critters that feed upon them. Is this type of activity beneficial?

      • Nancy says:

        Or this type of activity Immer:

        “Rozol Prairie Dog Bait is now registered for use in New Mexico under the following new restrictions”


        I ran across a flyer for this product the other day. The list of precauctions, restructions & dangers to non-target wildlife, is two pages long.

        They encourage their users to check for dead prairie dogs everyday or two and to dispose of or bury them. But you have to wonder how many birds of prey – eagles, crows, ravens and magpies (not to mention a host of other wildlife) – will discover those dead prairie dogs first?

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I have to smile at the ‘overly optimistic’ view that we have of human behavior. People, at least not all of them, are going to take the time to do this. Every day (or two) is quite a long time. Some farmers and ranchers can’t even take care of and remove their own livestock.

        • Immer Treue says:

          I read stuff like this and the movie Koyaanisqatsi, scored by Philip Glass continually comes to mind.


          • Nancy says:

            Thanks Immer. Had not seen this movie before. Stunning shots, beautiful soundtrack. Tried to watch it on Hulu but my cheap DSL connection makes it hard, plus there are commercials 🙂 Will see if the local video store has a copy or can get one.

  29. jburnham says:

    Bighorn sheep mingle with domestics outside of Yellowstone.


    The rancher’s name should be familiar to readers of this site.

    • Barb Rupers says:


      Thanks for the post. That is not good news.

      The name is familiar as one of those westerners with their “feet on the ground” who knows what is really going on here. According to one web post blog he also packed beaver into YNP after wolf reintroduction. Information I found said he was hired to pack some beaver into the wilderness area north of the park; Yellowstone NP already had a resident population which had been studied by numerous scientists including my cousin-in-law in the 1950s.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        In case there is any question I do not support this rancher – packer.

        • CodyCoyote says:

          Am I correct in understanding that this jerk Hoppe had never run sheep on his place before last year? That he pretty much put domestic sheep next to Yellowstone on purpose just to incite and inflame this very situation ?

          If so…

          Here’s the link to a Letter to the Editor that appeared in my local Cody Enterprise (WY) newspaper this week, but written by an activist ranch woman from eastern Montana, basically saying the private property rights trump EVERYTHING in Montana, but especially anything to do with Bison or other wildlife ( wolves inferred but it’s a long list ) infringing in the slightest any livestock operation in any way , QED. Unfortunately , this letter is not from the fringe in Montana…it’s right from the norm , the centerline.


          • Ida Lupine says:

            People want their ‘American Serengeti’ and are prepared to go to the mat for it.

  30. Cris Waller says:

    Native American Musicians Contribute To Benefit CD to Support Endangered Gray Wolves


    You can listen to the music at http://www.nativeamericanmusicawards.com/

  31. Immer Treue says:

    10:23 pm Central Standard Time

    All Quiet on The Western Front

    (At least so far)

  32. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Wolverine’s Status Change To Threatened Species Thwarted By Western United States Wildlife Agencies Interested In Fur
    Read more at http://www.universityherald.com/articles/5974/20131203/wolverines-status-to-threatened-species-thwarted-by-western-united-state-wildlife-agencies-interested-in-their-fur.htm#iSGg7kjCI8PJMjpM.99

  33. Peter Kiermeir says:

    One way to promote „wolf“. Our German wolves become the stars in a tv thriller!
    The plot is about the conflict between “wolf haters” and “wolf watchers” with a murdered wolf in between. The cops are there to prevent a homicide. Filmed “on location” in the wolf country in eastern Germany and with original footage of wolves in the wild.
    Now imagine “CSI Montana” 🙂

  34. WM says:

    Maybe someone already mentioned this.

    Even uber-liberal Oregon, under its wolf management plan and a legal settlement with wolf advocates, is considering lethal removal for wolves involved in multiple livestock attacks (after thorough vetting the ranchers took appropriate preventive measures). Snake River Pack – 3 or is it 4 strikes you’re out (well maybe)?


    • Ida Lupine says:

      It’s not realistic to expect never to have predator attacks on livestock. Three doesn’t sound like a very large number. My feeling is it is something that those who decide to go into ranching and farming must live with as a cost of doing business, just like other businesses do with events particular to them. You can’t eliminate risk entirely, unless you want to eliminate all wildlife and clear the landscape of everything but people and their cattle and domestic animals. I’m glad I do not eat beef.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Its four but I don’t know if they will kill the whole pack? or just offending wolves I need to read the agreement again.

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      This is what was agreed to, and I think most wolf conservationists in Oregon supported it.

      Oregon remain a far more friendly state than Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, and Washington state too.

      What Oregon needs now is more dispersal of wolves out of the NE corner, and despite wolf OR7, this hasn’t happened much (there have been a couple other fairly long dispersals).

  35. Ida Lupine says:

    (Some) of the truth comes out:

    What Do Chevron and ALEC Have Against The Lesser Prairie Chicken?

  36. Louise Kane says:


    This is a highly disturbing ruling…the article seems to say that the judge found that because the deer are on private land the DNR does not have the authority to restrict hunting in fenced in areas. but this would run contrary to the notion that wildlife are owned by the state and the public….
    I don’t have the actual ruling. If anyone does I’d like to read it.

  37. jburnham says:

    Montana’s looking to move the goalposts again on wolf killing. Proposed change would allow landowners to kill any wolf that is a “potential threat”, strips requirement that the wolf be in the act of threatening or attacking pets or livestock.


    • JB says:

      Isn’t every large carnivore, by its very nature, a potential threat?

    • Nancy says:

      “Jonathan Matthews said bite marks on livestock don’t necessarily equate to predation and said “scientific precision” is being removed under the new rules”

      The Snake River park in Oregon. Some news reports say it was a cow, some say a calf, found in a rugged area. Would of thought it would of been dead if a wolf pack attacked it, instead of the rancher finding it wandering around a week later.

      Blows my mind when you think about the fact that what? 25% of livestock drop dead because of a variety of illness that have nothing to do with depredation.

      Wonder if the few ranchers NOT crying for predator control at every turn, have actually seen a difference when they start paying attention to their cows, sheep (product) welfare, that they turn loose over hundreds or thousands of acres?

      • SAP says:

        Nancy – that 25 percent — don’t know the source on that, but I’d guess that’s 25 percent of death loss attributed to illness. Just to clarify — if anyone was losing 25 percent of their livestock, they’d be out of business.

        I’d guess most operations have death loss of less than five percent, made up of illness, weather & lightning, birthing problems, accidents (eg broken legs from walking on ice, broken necks while in corrals or chutes), poison plants, unknown, and predators. Especially on cattle, predation is usually a tiny slice of death loss, although it can be episodically acute.

      • Montana Boy says:

        Perhaps you recall the story of the guy studying moose in Minnesota. The moose had not moved in days so he moved in to see why, the moose was down so he shot the moose. End of story the moose was suffering from a old festered wolf bite. Happens all the time, a wolf’s bite crushes the muscle, the muscle dies, the wound festers, the animal slowly get sicker until the wolf finds that animal again or it just dies on it’s own. As for livestock most the time the rancher ends up shooting the animal because antibiotics don’t seem to help.
        Johnathan Matthews needs to do some research. Perhaps you also need a refresher on percentages. The belief that ranchers lose 25% of their animals every year would explain a few things about your passed comments.

        • SAP says:

          MTB – I couldn’t make sense of Mr. Mathew’s comment out of context, either.

          Giving benefit of doubt,I’d guess he means that dead animals need to be investigated, looking for the tell-tale subcutaneous hemorrhaging that means an animal’s hear was still beating when it was being bitten.

          Bite marks on a live animal? Something was trying to kill it and eat it.

          Bottom line is, wolves do what they do, and sometimes it isn’t pretty. An animal they don’t kill on the first pass may lose enough blood, get infected enough, shocky enough, to be a very easy mark a few days later.

          Just to be clear, I don’t condemn wolves for this, anymore than I would condemn the barn cats for prolonging the deaths of the unfortunate small mammals that cross their paths.

          • SAP says:

            oops, “heart”, not “hear”.

          • Montana Boy says:

            I don’t condemn the wolf either I just think it’s important that some truth about how nature works is injected. Suffering, pain and death are every day events, I get tired of the love and snow flakes view.

            • Immer Treue says:

              What’s the matter with snow flakes? We just received over a foot of it, and it’s a blowin all over. Perhaps it’s not love, but if its hate, might as well be sitting on a beach sipping rum drinks, rather than what I’m sipping at by the wood stove. 🙂

              Nature is tough.

              • Montana Boy says:

                Enjoy your Bush Mills and the snow we’ll be sending you some cold next.

              • Nancy says:

                I hope the cold MB mentioned coming your way won’t be as brutal Immer.

                17 below zero Wed. daytime high was 3. 25 below zero Thurs. with a daytime high of 2 below. This morning 17 below again. I hope we break zero today.

                The kids (dogs) and I are getting pretty cranky spending so much time indoors 🙂

              • Immer Treue says:

                MB, Nancy,

                The cold is here. -11 as I write, with at least a week with sub zero lows and single digit highs.

                On the bright side; no mosquitoes! JB you can come up from Ohio now.

              • SaveBears says:

                Look on the bright side folks, perhaps this extreme cold temp will get rid of some of the beetle problems!

        • Nancy says:

          “Blows my mind when you think about the fact that what? 25% of livestock drop dead because of a variety of illness that have nothing to do with depredation”

          I don’t believe I said every rancher has a loss of 25% of his herd “MB”

  38. JB says:

    The other day I suggested (see third post on this thread) that activists may be undermining their own agenda by posting materials that make poor behavior seem more common, and by actively engaging with people who may not dislike certain species as much as they dislike the advocates. Tonight I’m having dinner with a scientist (psychologist) that should have some insight on this second point. Here’s an abstract for her recent paper:

    The ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence

    Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. Researchers have previously attempted to understand this resistance to social change by examining individuals’ perceptions of social issues and social change. We instead examined the possibility that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant. Furthermore, these stereotypes reduced participants’ willingness to affiliate with ‘typical’ activists and, ultimately, to adopt the behaviours that these activists promoted. These results indicate that stereotypes and person perception processes more generally play a key role in creating resistance to social change. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    • Immer Treue says:


      Perhaps yes, perhaps no. In the meantime, things die. Would the 6 million plus who perished in the 40’s benefitted from a bit of social activism, as well as the countless million more after Chamberlain’s “Peace in Our Time”?

      I know, apples and oranges… I feel that some of the pro wolf sites I visit are so far out there, in not knowing anything about wolves, and voicing their opinions are as goofy as the extreme anti wolf side, but wolves are dying, as are other wildlife, predators in particular.

      Difference between 100 years ago and now, predators have large groups standing up for them, some of who live in rural areas.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Goofy, eccentric or not, at least the pro side isn’t doing any killing. When that is not considered wrong or at least militant, something is very wrong with the status quo.

        • Immer Treue says:


          But the pro side supports an animal that is killing all “our”:elk; deer; moose; pets; livestock; spreads disease; and ate grandma.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      How would social change ever happen then? We’ve had plenty of it. It just takes perseverance and time to overcome misconceptions about one another.

      “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

  39. Barb Rupers says:

    Most recent wolf update from Oregon: http://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/specific_wolf_info.asp

  40. JEFF E says:


    now this is one cool animal. I wonder if there are domestic varieties?. I bet a sweater out of that wool would be killer.

  41. Louise Kane says:


    hard to say if its a wild fox but its nice to think it is. Immer I know you are a GS fan also

    beautiful dog as well

    • Immer Treue says:


      That’s cool. I think so much of this type of behavior hinges on the dogs indicate individual temperament and on its socialization. You can see in certain dogs body language that they are just happy go lucky, friendly animals. I would think that something as sketchy as a wild fox would pick up on this…although perhaps there might be a bit more going on beyond the story.

      That said, the GSD I had before the present GSD was very tolerant of coyotes. By the way, my present and previous GSD’s were both the type of sable coloration as the GSD in this story.

      As an aside, in very unscientific surveys I have taken, when I run into someone, and have my dog with, I’ll ask how much they think he weighs. Both dogs have topped out at 105, but were more often than not in the mid to low 90’s. the response I received was usually ~ 120 or more.

      When one sees a wolf in Winter, with those long legs, large head, and thick beautiful coat, one can understand the legends of monsters roaming the woods.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        When one sees a wolf in Winter, with those long legs, large head, and thick beautiful coat, one can understand the legends of monsters roaming the woods.

        Not really. To me, the words ‘beautiful’ and ‘monster’ are usually mutually exclusive terms. I attribute the legends to the complexity of human imagination and creativity. A double-edged gift, for sure.

        I can understand it in centuries past, when humans were more agriculturally and less technologically oriented, and there were many more wolves and a lot less humans. Life and survival was hard for people then, but not anymore. There were also many more types of predators, so I find it hard to understand why only the wolf is so singled out among animals.

        These legends have no place in the modern world, except in storytelling and entertainment, and ‘scientific and reasonable’ people should be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and keep these stories in the proper place in their minds.

        • Immer Treue says:


          When one sees a wolf in Winter, with those long legs, large head, and thick beautiful coat, one can understand the legends of monsters roaming the woods.

          Not really. To me, the words ‘beautiful’ and ‘monster’ are usually mutually exclusive terms. I attribute the legends to the complexity of human imagination and creativity. A double-edged gift, for sure.

          That part of my post contained both description and some light sarcasm. A wolf in the wild, especially to the uninformed will appear much larger than they actually are, therefore the dog weight analogy story.

          Beautiful is in the eye of the beholder. I think most snakes are rather beautiful, but I find nothing “attractive” about spiders. Yet, both serve a purpose in nature, and both are looked upon as monstrous to some.

          My use of the word monster was used metaphorically for larger than life.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            My use of the word monster was used metaphorically for larger than life.

            Sorry, didn’t mean to misinterpret! In that case, I would agree. It just gets my hackles up a little when I am reminded of the twisted wolf stories of today! 🙂

            If find both snakes and spiders rather beautiful and beneficial too.

        • SaveBears says:


          legends do have a place in this day and age, if we are live without the myths and legends of the past, then we actually loose a good amount of who we are. I am a scientist and don’t want to live my whole life based on facts, figures and rules. The myths and legends allow us to dream and enjoy life.


          Not everybody uses those myths, legends and stories to do bad!

          • Ida Lupine says:

            I’m glad, I love the myths and legends too, and also believe they are an important part of who we are as human beings, and don’t want to live by facts and figures, and rules alone either.

      • Louise Kane says:

        yes I thought so too, Immer very cool. The fox is so very healthy looking and quite large. I was not sure about the caption wild fox and GSD but someone claiming to be a neighbor of the man in Norway wrote she has seen the two animals together often. I too love the sables but then I love the look of GSD and their intelligence and loyalty. My dog is also large. I have heard the same responses, people always think he is much larger than he is. He is something of a celebrity when we go out. There are few times that someone does not comment on how handsome he is. Even as he is nearing 8. He looks and behaves so very wolf like, that the images of wolves in traps or hunted for no reason make me very sad. To see a wild wolf that size would be a dream come true. I’m hoping to make a trip to do some watching at some point soon but it won’t be anywhere that hunts wolves. anyhow, what an amazing thing that two species would enjoy playing so much and bond. I spent some time in the Galapagos and the animals there truly are not afraid. It was incredible to see how organisms behave without fear of harassment by humans.

        • Immer Treue says:


          “…time in the Galapagos and the animals there truly are not afraid. It was incredible to see how organisms behave without fear of harassment by humans.”

          Mech and Jim Brandenburg filmed this relative lack of fear of arctic wolves on Ellsmere Island. National Geographic, I believe called “White Wolves”.

  42. JB says:

    On the topic of politics influencing science, a colleague sent this along today. Ralph, Ken: This may be worth a story:

    “Monnett, in a release, said the agency tried to silence and discredit him “and send a chilling message to other scientists at a key time when permits for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic were being considered. They failed on the first two goals, but I believe that what they did to me did make others afraid to speak up, even internally.”

    He said he could not, in good conscience, “work for an agency that promotes dishonesty, punishes those who actually stand up for scientific integrity, and that cannot tolerate scientific work not pre-shaped to serve its agenda.”

    “I am a very strong believer in transparency in the scientific process,” he said in a phone interview. “And I think it’s very hard, certainly in the Department of Interior, to pursue science in that fashion.”


  43. Cris Waller says:

    BREAKING: USDA Inspector General to Audit Wildlife Services


    • WM says:

      Will the USDA Inspector General audit investigation view the mission and how WS executes on that mission (sorry for the pun) from the same perspective as those who called for it?

      Big questions there, especially the standards for review. Forthcoming answers may not be what some folks here expect. Probably especially true where WS is acting on behalf of local and state governments which participate in their co-op program, paying up to half the cost of the services which are provided, and doing the things those governments feel need to be done, want to distance themselves from politically.

      Don’t expect the agricultural industry to roll over and play dead when a few Congressional types call for an audit. Reminds me of the Wall St. meltdown, or Congress looking into steroids in baseball. It may just be all for show.

  44. CodyCoyote says:

    My Senator John Barrasso ( R-Wyo) is generally not known for being a legislative workhorse. Not a lot of bills have his name on them, When they do, pay attention , since Barrasso is one of the Senate and national GOP’s most ossified ideologues.

    Case in point : His ” Grazing Improvement Act” made it our of the Senate energy and natural resources committee and is headed to the floor for a full vote before the Do Nothing Senate abdicates the capital next week for the holidays.

    Wanna know how bad Barrasso’s bill to improve the 1976 grazing and land management act might be ? Even Forbes Magazine says it is an awful bill and will fleece the taxpayers while doing great harm to the environment. Which is to say Barrasso’s ” improvements” make our deplorable public lands grazing policy much more worse.


    • WM says:

      This “Grazing Improvement Act” is the most disingenuous bill to degrade environment that has gone thru Congress in some time. Consider that automatic grazing permit/lease renewal because of a backlog and shielding them from NEPA review is a basically a major gutting of FLMPA, which is the organic act for the BLM covering most of what they do. It covers USFS grazing permitting process to if I recall. Also consider that it would seem to be a direct abrogation of Congress’ responsibility under other federal environmental laws like the ESA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act (think wind erosion here), and multiple use and sustained yield concepts that are embodied in several federal laws, in by-passing NEPA review. How this piece of crap got out of Committee is beyond me. What will happen with a Congressional vote. Are there enough responsible and D’s and R’s in the with the integrity and/or cojones to stop this transparent foolishness?

      The real solution is to fund BLM and FS to sufficiently process the backlog of permits and do necessary environmental reviews to get things back on schedule under current law.

      And for those of you who think the same thing couldn’t happen to the ESA (because of strident environmental obstructionist litigation over wolves as exhibited by groups like EarthGuardians and some regional advocacy groups), I’ve got news for you.

      • Nancy says:

        Okay WM, the “news” if you please 🙂

        • WM says:

          OK, Nancy, follow the bouncing ball:

          1. House side – Doc Hastings (WA – R) Chair of the Natural Resources Committee has been waiting to pull the trigger on changes to the ESA for years. R’s have a margin to get it out of Committee if some heavyweight sponsors get behind an ESA bill.

          2. Senate side – Slim margin of D’s over R’s. Some D’s are from agricultural, mining, forestry, sea-coast states with big ESA issues that have played out in ways that numerous jobs have been lost and even sub-sectors of industries devastated. If this absurd Grazing Act change goes thru the full Senate, there will be a big data point for Congressional political tolerance for laws that degrade rather than protect the environment (especially the part about grazing permits shielded from NEPA review).

          3. The wolf fiasco and all its warts and flaws brought about by numerous lawsuits (this is the tipping point in my view) has put tremendous pressure on the ESA. There is other recent ESA litigation that should be counted there, as well.

          4. The overall taxpayer costs of ESA administration for compliance with the law; federal, state and privately financed projects that have been nixed because of ESA protected species (think jobs again). Lack of State input, and adequate roles for states which have wildlife management responsibilities.

          5. The recent Western Governors Conference resolution (17 states) that want a rework of the ESA. They probably don’t agree on what that is, but the topic is ripe for legislative review from their perspective.

          6. Remaining states with ESA exposure problems. There is specifically MN, WI, MI and their wolf issues to add to the Western states.

          7. The lobbying power of the ag, mining, forestry, NRA and a bunch of others that have watched some of this stuff play out, negatively affecting their constituencies, and are just waiting to lay a heavy blow on environmental interests (doesn’t matter what the sub-topic is in my view).

          I don’t think it is a matter IF the ESA is tweaked. Rather it is WHEN, and it would not surprise me if something takes shape before Obama leaves office.

          Just sayin’.

          • Nancy says:

            Thanks WM for pulling it together 🙂

          • Louise Kane says:


            the strident obstructionist wolf litigators defending Wyoming’s wolves against the shoot on sight/site policies.

            • WM says:


              From the Earthjustice website:

              ++If we win this legal battle, we will stop the wolf killing in Wyoming—but we need your help.++

              Even if they win, they will just postpone wolf killing, as numbers increase and range expands. They won’t stop it, and the delay means that many more wolves will be killed when it is resumed. That is the part some of you don’t get. And, in this case, Earthjustice (Sierra Club’s lawyers by another name) are being disingenuous as they seek to lighten your wallet.

              The cause may be good, but the half truths to get your money are not.

              • JB says:


                Show me an interest group whose recruitment messages contain those kinds of distinctions and I’ll show you an interest group whose bank account will be rapidly depleted. Earthjustice may be guilty of ‘half truths’ but so is every other interest group you’ll find. Nobody provides the kind of nuance you seek.

              • WM says:

                Ah yes, JB, that is true.

                And in this case if Earthjustice and its NGO advocacy clients temporarily “win” the wolf distribution battle in WY, there will be one more underscored point to go to work on revising the ESA from the WY perspective.

                What has escaped me is how MN can have what is basically a no wolf zone in the southern half of the state and WY apparently should not/cannot. I don’t agree that 90% of the state should be “wolf free” as in the doomed Predator Zone (adjacent CO to the south might, though, and we know UT has taken the position it doesn’t want any and will fight to keep it that way). But, what is the magic percentage that meets the needs of the folks who live in a particular state?

                Wolves, by the way (and I know you know this) have been THE cash cow for donations at Defenders, Sierra Club and a bunch of others for years. Stop the conflict and stop the donation gravy train, from an NGO business perspective (and don’t anyone say they are not a business- they just aren’t for profit).

              • Immer Treue says:


                “What has escaped me is how MN can have what is basically a no wolf zone in the southern half of the state and WY apparently should not/cannot.”

                MN has 2-3,000 wolves. WY 300?

                Where would southern MN wolves disperse? Nothing but AG land to south.
                WY wolves could disperse into Utah and Colorado, where suitable habitat/prey are present, though Don Peay may not agree.

                MN has served as a conduit for wolves into WI and MI. WY?

              • JB says:

                Yes, and the same could be said of about SFW and RMEF. In fact, I would wager that RMEF’s anti-wolf switch was due in part to the successful fundraising of groups like SFW (and losing members to those groups). I agree that the misrepresentation that goes on (on both sides) is maddening.

            • Louise Kane says:

              This time it appears Natural Resource Defense Council, Defenders and Earth justice are working together, at least judging from the e mails. I don’t mind donating money for this. If these groups did not exist the resource extractors/producers etc would be unchecked. I don’t believe the oil and gas industries, agriculture and livestock or other extractive industries would self regulate as they would have Americans believe. Who are the watchdogs, these groups imperfect or not.

  45. Immer Treue says:

    Montana Wolf Forum lacks participants


    A sign that things are beginning to calm down???

  46. Immer Treue says:

    That’s not snow, its spiders.


  47. Louise Kane says:


    why would anyone do this? kill a cub and sow and leave them to rot. The story does not say but the hunter got jail time

  48. Louise Kane says:


    Immer and others,
    a follow up the GSD and fox some pretty wonderful images. I hope this fox stays safe. what a pair!

  49. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Fight to save rare red wolves takes grim turn
    “A barrage of gunfire in Eastern North Carolina is cutting into the tenuous numbers of some of the rarest animals on earth, red wolves.”

  50. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Central Florida’s suburban sprawl bumps into resurgent bears

  51. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Florida panther found dead of suspected gunshot wound in national preserve http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3f02adeb54a547fa8944b7294777a8d1/FL–Panther-Death

  52. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Sum-up about Yakutia’s wolf season 2013:

    After three months Yakutia’s wolf hunt (with the goal to reduce wolf population from 2300 to 500) has resulted in 583 killed wolves.

    After 11 months 770 wolves have been killed (in 2009-2011 on average 560 wolves were killed per season).

    Authorities are claiming that ~ 1000 wolves are still remaining and that the number of breeding pairs has increased to compensate for losses.

    However, those numbers seem dubious to me – even if one is not taking into account reproduction, somehow 500 wolves are simply disappearing (2300-770-1000=530).

  53. WM says:

    Michigan DNR Wildlife Division Chief responds to MLive “one sided and sensationalized” story series of its first wolf hunting season. I’d say he’s a bit pissed, …. and maybe with good reason.


    And let truth emerge from vigorous debate.

  54. JEFF E says:


    far more important than if wolf xyz was shot or sage chicken ZYX is protected. That is only focusing on the micro, not the macro. Probably how the powers that be want it as they laugh all the way to the bank.

  55. sleepy says:

    A wandering moose in Iowa. Every five or so years one seems to make it this far south. My concern is some yahoo shooting it.

    “DES MOINES — There’s a moose on the loose in Iowa, and officials said they’ve been able to track its every move because of dozens of calls from curious residents spotting the creature.

    The state Department of Natural Resources said it’s received many calls over several weeks about a male moose making its way from northern Iowa down south. It was first officially spotted in early November and looks to have covered at least 100 miles.”


  56. aves says:

    Snowy owl irruption in the Atlantic/Great Lakes states:


    Boston airport traps/relocates snowy owls while NY airport killed them:


    NY airport changes snowy owl management due to public outcry:


  57. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Whether Yakutia allow to catch wolves in the trap is to get known next week


    “Standard leg-snatching holding traps that catch wolves in the country, banned since July last year, as inconsistent with international humane trapping standards. But Sakha Republic asked to make an exception let them catch the wolves the old way. And succeeded in arranging the fifth formal meeting of the Joint Committee on Management in the Agreement on international standards for the humane trapping of wild animals between the European Community, Canada and Russia in Yakutsk.

    The meeting will be held next week on October 23-24 in Yakutsk. The representatives from the U.S.A are invited at the event as observers”

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Interesting article Mareks! Also the link to the Document in Russian language (Thus I do have some very limited knowledge of the Russian Language it´s hard to read).
      Do you have any info about the outcome of this meeting?

      • Mareks Vilkins says:


        my guess is that this article is Yakutia government’s PR … they are complaining about EU that its not ‘supporting Russia in ensuring the humane means of catching wild animals in 2013’ but one must remember that Yakutia asked Moscow to allow to use poison in wolf hunting.

        Will hunt to kill 3,000 wolves use banned ‘poisons’?


        Yegor Borisov, head of the region, warned people ‘are worried like never before’ over the wolf threat, stressing: ‘We must have a clear plan of how to fight the wolves’.

        Reports suggest that the republic’s government may appeal to the federal authorities to permit the use of unspecified banned ‘special means to kill the animals, including poisons.’

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        no, I haven’t read anything else about this meeting neither in Russian nor English

        I don’t know if Google Translator would be of great help but govt document informs that Hunting dept is planning to use light aircraft to intensify wolf killing

        so much for ‘humane’ wildlife management

    • Immer Treue says:

      Without knowing this guy, and the size of his operation, wolves may have actually helped this guy out. He has been able to cry wolf all the to the bank. However, all the publicity directed toward him and his “losses” due to wolves, has attracted an awful lot of attention. Is he just an older guy, somewhat sloppy in his habits, that benefitted from his wolf problem until thrown under the spotlight as a terminal result of his own practices? He must really hate wolves now.

      • JB says:

        Correction: I suspect he really hates wolf lovers now. The wolves took some cattle, but he got reimbursed for that. The wolf lovers have made him look the fool; it’ll be much harder to get the lost stature back.

        • Immer Treue says:


          I would presume we could partially invoke Mark Twain here, as Koski has done everything he could do, to remove all doubt, and become the fool.

      • Nancy says:

        Not gonna pick apart this story, I think the comments below already did that but gotta ask, what’s with that cow skull he’s holding in one of the pics? Do they really age like that in just a decade or two?

        • Immer Treue says:


          How’s your weather? Evening temperatures here have been double digit below zero going on two weeks. This morning -26°. Sunday -32°. Would imagine if clouds make no appearance tonight we will push toward -30.

          JB. It’s safe to come for that Bushmills now, as the mosquitoes are long gone.

          • Nancy says:


            17 degrees here this morning (a heat wave 🙂 after close to a week of single and double digits below zero at night and highs during the day that never got above zero.

            Had a yard full of Mule deer last night, good to see that some of them made it thru hunting season….

        • SaveBears says:


          I have seen them age that much in a month or two, depending on the circumstances.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Not at all. I wonder if this guy has been thrown under the bus by the state government in order to legitimize the wolf hunt. There’s been so much controversy surrounding it, and this is not because of the wolf lovers. The state legislature has been caught lying and embellishing the threat to human safety and depredation of livestock. To try and redeem themselves it needs to appear that they have a problem to correct. This is in no way the fault of the wolf lovers.

  58. Immer Treue says:

    Wolf livestock depredations in Idaho Down.


    But article is more about funding for the becoming more and more infamous Wildlife Services.

  59. rork says:

    “ADVOCACY: Mapping environmentalism’s road ahead”

    Pretty heavy reporting and analysis about finances and tactics, mostly from greenhouse gas perspective. Useful review.

  60. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Polar bear “Giovanna” in the Munich Zoo has given birth to twins – and the cam was in the right angle….. (scroll down a little bit to the video)

  61. Sam Parks says:

    On the left side of the page, where it shows the 2013-14 wolf mortality figures, it says 553 wolves have been killed by hunters in Wyoming. Now, I wish we had that many wolves in Wyoming! Probably ought to correct that.

  62. Barb Rupers says:

    Artificial nesting sites for burrowing owls on the Umatilla Army Weapons Depot. Also, the last of the pronghorns have been moved to other locations.

  63. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Competitive hunting of wolves, coyotes in Idaho sparks outcry
    The tournament offers cash and trophies to two-person teams for such hunting objectives as killing the largest wolf and the most female coyotes.
    Children as young as 10 will be welcomed to
    compete in a youth division.

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      I like the following comment about the event:

      Lynne Stone, director of the Boulder-White Clouds Council, an Idaho conservation group, called the planned wolf-coyote derby “an organized killing contest.”

      “Stacking up dead animals and awarding children for killing them has no place in a civilized society,” she said.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Ugh. It’s just so unevolved. Is it even legal? Idaho has a wolf quota which they are getting very close to. These are the realties that delisting brings.

  64. Immer Treue says:

    Fox Hunting Mice Under Snow

    Fox hunting under snow in an incredible way (VIDEO) | Best Online Videos | EdisProduction.de.

    I’ve seen shots like this before, but a twist is added.

  65. Ralph Maughan says:

    Everyone, this is from our tech support on the comments posted yesterday, some of which disappeared.

    There should be no problem with comments today.

    Ralph Maughan — webmaster

    “We migrated servers because of how often our former host had outages last year (they used to be the best, but were sold to a company that doesn’t seem to have the same QA). Some people must have posted to the old copy of the site due to DNS propagation.
    I will see if I can restore and import those that were missed, probably tomorrow once it’s been long enough for most people to be landing on the new copy.”

    • timz says:

      Just to clarify I understand it’s only a minority that do this stuff and we should not be looking on the web and using technology to shed any light on this behavior, like teaching 11 year old girls to slaughter animals.

    • Immer Treue says:


      “Idaho opened wolves to licensed hunting more than two years ago after assuming regulation of its wolf population from the federal government.

      But Idaho Department of Fish and Game wolf manager Jason Husseman said the upcoming event is believed to be the first competitive wolf shoot to be held in the continental United States since 1974, when wolves across the country came under federal Endangered Species Act protections.”

      Well, the first quoted paragraph, we all know how that’s going. The 2nd paragraph, hmmm continental US, not since “74”? Funny way of putting it. I guess it would include Alaska, but the remainder of the US, the only state that had wolves was MN, and I don’t know about competitive hunting?

      As an aside, spent some time today at the IWC. Watching the wolves interest with each other, just makes me wonder why people want to kill something just to hang it on a wall. Intelligent and communicating with one another beyond the depths of comprehension for most who choose the trophy wolf, rather than the live wolf.

      • Donald J. Jackson says:

        Immer there has always been wolves in Northern Montana, even during the endangered period.

        • Immer Treue says:

          Perhaps in very small #’s in Glacier area, but my point was, enough for a tournament prior to 1974?

          Another thing I’m having trouble understanding (an this is not a rant, but a comment for sitting around the table with friends searching for a solution), but why this recruitment for young children to kill? I understand that children in rural areas have early access to guns. But there seems to be a shift, by adults, to fighting their battles with children. Why this move to recruit kids to kill. Perhaps the analogy is poor, buts its like a children’s crusade, but adults pulling the strings. I’ve seen and experienced too many adults living vicariously through their kids, or in worse case scenarios, other people’s kids.
          Why the drive to get children to kill, for no other reason than killing?

          Not shouting/ranting, not anti-hunting, I just don’t understand.

          • Montana Boy says:

            Let’s face it the article was written to cause a stir. Young people are allowed not required. Laura used the child angle for it’s greatest effect. I know of at least one wolf killing contest from the last few years. There will be more in the future in a effort to motivate hunters to kill a larger number of wolves. Perhaps we should look at the horrors of youth in fishing contests while we at this witch hunt.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Whether with the hook, or bullet, same question.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I don’t there is a sytematic persecution of salmon, and the same perverse delight in being cruel to them. Wolves are a highly evolved mammal.

                Again, if the fish are going to be eaten, we all need to eat. Nobody hunts wolves for food, but for irrational reasons, and trying desperately to make them appear rational.

              • Montana Boy says:

                Recruitment of children by adults happens in all walks of life. Parents feel rewarded when their child follows in their footsteps. Children want to be like their parents. Far as I can tell that’s how it’s always been in both animals and humans.

          • Kathleen says:

            I don’t see the recruitment of kids to killing as baffling. Adult hunter numbers have declined; recruitment of youngsters (and girls and women) bolsters those declining numbers. It seems to be a well-organized strategy by state management agencies and many or most of the national interest groups, along with attempts to lower hunting ages legislatively. Then there’s the idea of “youth ambassadors” who will proselytize their peers, many of whom are turned off by causing pain to animals. While looking into this topic, I’ve also come across a number of “interesting” t-shirt slogans that seem designed to connect hunting/killing with kids’ identities. One is pictured–and others are linked–here: http://www.othernationsjustice.org/?p=9993

            • Montana Boy says:

              There is a difference between there being fewer hunters and a smaller percentage of the population hunting.

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          DJ wrote,

          “Immer there has always been wolves in Northern Montana, even during the endangered period”

          Yes. In fact, documented wolves began to come down from Canada into NW Montana well before the wolf restoration program begin, but the first documented case was in 1981.

          Quoting from Northern_Rocky_Mountain_Gray_Wolf_Recovery_Plan.pdf

          “In the spring of 1979, a female wolf was captured and radio-tagged by the Wolf Ecology Project near the U.S. – Canadian border in the North Fork Flathead River drainage (Boyd 1982, Ream and Mattson 1982). During the almost two years she was intensively monitored, there was no evidence of other wolves occupying the Flathead drainage (Boyd 1982, ream et al. 1985). In the fall of 1981, larger tracks (one foot was three-toed) were found in the area. During that winter, a pair of wolves was tracked in the snow in Glacier National Park and followed into British Columbia, and in the spring of 1982, seven wolf pups were observed several miles north of the U.S. – Canadian border.”

          • Donald J. Jackson says:

            I have been hunting the border cut for over 30 years now, long before I moved to Montana and there have been many wolves in NW Montana over the years, wolves migrating down from Canada has been happening for hundreds of years.

            The first leave I took while in the service, was to hunt in NW Montana with two fellow officers and we counted over a dozen wolves on that trip.

            • Ralph Maughan says:

              There were many unconfirmed reports, DJ; and I would guess that many of them were true, especially as Alberta and B.C. let up on wolf control. But did they stay in Montana before 1981 and begin to repopulate?

              And, of course, being Canadian wolves, they must have weighed about 200 pounds each 😉

    • rork says:

      I don’t see how to draw any lines between doing this with predators or squirrels or pheasant or bass. I am unable to make a sufficiently logical argument against them to want to say much. Your abilities may be better.
      I suppose taking the kids fishing while their is (or isn’t) a derby going on is recruitment. I myself help lead organized outing where we recruit adults and kids to care about, and even eat, fungi. If there is a just God, surely I will burn – but don’t imagine I’m worried. My group lets our family’s girls kill, eviscerate, and butcher deer, if they wanna – my 13 year old niece shot the family-record buck this Nov. I know it’s shocking, but we might let the boys go too *gasp*. We don’t call it slaughtering – that’s what we do with sheep, turkeys, chickens, ducks, rabbits. You might want to not visit some days, or at least not bring your kids. The reality may not suit some.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I’d certainly bring my kids, and tell them to trust their gut instincts, and not what they are being taught if they don’t feel it is right. The fact remains that most females don’t gravitate towards hunting and eviscerating, especially in the modern era, and the statistics show that.

      • rork says:

        I should have added: I can draw lines between what I would and wouldn’t support (though it won’t always be easy), but not what should be legal or not.
        I’ve seen fishing contests I didn’t like, while others seem OK.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          Very true. And I don’t mean to sound sexist, if a woman wants to hunt for food, that’s her choice. But today, it’s not the same world – we’ve got loss of habitat, pollution, and high-powered weapons, so the animals in lesser numbers than in days past don’t have much of a chance. It would be a very environmentally-unaware woman who wouldn’t be conservation minded if she does choose to hunt, especially endangered wildlife on a canned hunt, and I’d expect more from her.

          • WM says:


            Again, bullshit!

            • Donald J. Jackson says:


              I am going to add my “bullshit” comment as well.

              • Ralph Maughan says:

                Well OK to both bully and bullshit, but does anyone have more than anecdotes and speculation as whether this is true or not?

                The objective reality about women hunters would be interesting to know.

              • Donald J. Jackson says:


                The last time they did a study here in Montana, we were running 43% women hunters, 17% people under the age of 18 and the balance men. So there is quite a lot of women than hunt here in Montana.

              • WM says:


                I don’t know about studies and statistics on this topic (women and hunting), but it sure seems the marketplace has something in the way of information to provide. Look at a Cabela’s newspaper insert or on their website and see the offerings for women and youth. That ought to say something. Manufacturers and retailers don’t make and sell products for non-existent markets and stay in business. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s magazine has, in addition to its conservation and general hunting sections, a featured section on women in hunting. Sorry I don’t remember what it is called.

                As for anecdotes, the wife of an elk hunting acquaintance goes deer hunting with her sister while he is away (both women have responsible jobs). It has been made a bit more complicated since one had a child, but the grandparents seem to like to take the him. And, I think the whole family is “environmentally aware.”

                – – – – –

                We have run out of space for replies here, but as webmaster I can edit in my reply.

                These are impressive figures, IMO.

                Ralph Maughan

              • JEFF E says:

                I have just recently posted two links that show the fasted growing segment of the hunting population are women. Probably on the last Wildlife news thread. One was nationwide and one was from Idaho’s F&G website. Both started a pretty good string.
                But for those who live in fantasy land.

  66. Ida Lupine says:

    Sorry, that should read ‘ I don’t think there is a systematic persecution of salmon.’

  67. Ida Lupine says:

    The other thing I have noticed lately, in this killing contest and in the UP wolf hunt, killers (you can’t call them hunters because there is no fair chase or skill involved. Got a little too cold so the wimps up in the UP stopped killing. Awwww.) seem to be concentrating on killing female wolves. The message is, so that they can no longer reproduce, isn’t it? Are we doing that to fish? There are also catch and release programs for fish, and non-native species fished

    • Immer Treue says:


      With the relatively small sample size on MI wolves taken, how can you come to a conclusion that hunters there are concentrating on female wolves. Believe me when I say that the short glimpses you see of wolves in the northern woods, there is no way one can differentiate between males and females.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Well the trappers sure can. In the killing contest, it has been stated outright, at least in the media.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          The tournament offers cash and trophies to two-person teams for such hunting objectives as killing the largest wolf and the most female coyotes.

          The stated objective of the sponsor of this monstrosity isn’t even wolf management – it’s the preservation of gun rights!

          That 11-year old girl looking for adventure might better find it on a photo safari in Kenya when she grows up.

        • Immer Treue says:


          How can a trapper, who is not even there, distinguish a male from a female?

          • Ida Lupine says:

            My experience in life is that if something is possible, it’s already being done.

            Baiting and bringing wolves in closer, high powered scopes on rifles, wolves that are habituated to human contact, locating den sites, even the rumor about the DNR employees giving out GPS coordinates. And you can’t really believe because trapping isn’t officially allowed, that is isn’t going on?

            I wish somebody would have the courage to step up and do the right thing for a change. Human beings are more imitative than innovative, and it wouldn’t take much for one courageous state to influence others.

  68. Ida Lupine says:

    So I wonder if that means they can start a ‘catch and release’ program for wolves, coyotes, and grizzlies? Ha! Not bloody likely. It is for this very reason, the irrational fears and misunderstandings that persist to this day, that wolves and other predators should continue to have some kind of protected status.

    Now here’s a guy who knew wolves:

    But legendary wolf biologist Dr. Gordon Haber, who studied wolves for 43 years in Alaska, knew wolves. Prior to his death in a 2009 plane crash in Denali National Park while tracking wolves, Haber spent more time with wolves in the wild than any other biologist in history. His remarkable story is chronicled in a new book written by Alaska author Marybeth Holleman and (posthumously) Haber himself.

    After Haber’s death, Holleman sifted through truckloads of his research papers, reports, field notes, stories from friends, and photographs, and compiled the lot into Among Wolves – Gordon Haber’s insights into Alaska’s most misunderstood animal. The book peels back the layers of misunderstanding of the wolf, revealing a fascinating, complex, socially evolved animal that deserves our admiration and protection, not our fear and hatred.

    Haber was the old-school type of field biologist that is now virtually a thing of the past. He was tough, determined, methodical, and relentless in his quest to understand the real lives of wolves in the wild. He spent four decades studying Alaska’s wolves, with boots-on-the-ground even at 50 below zero in the bitter Alaska winter. Few modern biologists have such authentic experiential authority regarding their research subjects. And this hard-won, close-up and personal understanding of wolves led him to dedicate his life to their protection.


  69. Ida Lupine says:

    Wildlife report:

    I just happened to glance out my living room window overlooking where I have a long-established holly bush. A beautiful wood thrush landed there and was eating the red berries.

  70. Ralph Maughan says:

    A new version of this page will be going up at the end of today, Dec. 15.



November 2013


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

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: