It is time for a new page of reader generated wildlife news. Please use “comment” at the bottom to post your news. Do not post entire articles unless you have our permission, or post copyrighted materials unless you own the copyright. Here is the link to the most recent — “old” news.

Moose drinks from rainwater in trough in an abandoned corral. Southern Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan. June 2014

Tall, dark, and handsome moose drinks rain water in trough in an abandoned corral. Southern Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan. June 2014


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.

369 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife related news? July 2, 2014 edition

  1. Mareks Vilkins says:


    where one can find information about wolves in Germany (in English)? and poll about public’s attitude to large carnivores


    game species (red deer, roe deer, moose, wild boar etc) statistics?

    thank you

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Infos in English language will be difficult. It is one of the major problems her in Europe.
      The web sites and documents are mostly in native language and you are supposed to have your fun with the French, the German, the Spanish, the Italian or whatever it is language! It´s a nightmare.
      I can offer you some material in German language however:
      First, the webpage of the Wolf management Team and the Wolf Region in Eastern Germany.
      This should give you a good introduction with many in-depth details.
      There is a good blog available, that offers many links to press articles
      Klick on “Deutschland” and choose “Ost” (Eastern Germany), “West” or “General”. Following this forum and the links provides a good insight into the attitude of the people.
      If you have questions, do not hesitate to drop me a private email. Just ask the webmaster here.
      Here´s a link for hunting statistics:

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        thanks, Peter – yesterday I’ve found official website about wolves in France

        and hoped that maybe similar website is also about wolves in Germany.

        • Peter Kiermeir says:

          here in Germany we are quite lucky that there is nothing „official“ with the wolves. In fact it is a very “low profile thing”. Quite contrary in France, where you face a very strong opposition against wolves and bears. That´s the reason why you have government intervention. Further, in France it is up to the Gov to do the homework and provide a better wolf management (plan). The poor wolf management in France is partly the reason why there is so much opposition. In Germany management is overseen by the individual federal states (and they of course also provide some info about wolves on the web) and in the hands of some NGOs (e.g. the link i provided – that´s mor ore less the official source) respectively the hunting organisations. Hunting of wolves is prohibited, no exceptions.

          • Louise Kane says:

            and the opposition to wolves comes mostly from the farmers in the mountainous regions not in the populated areas of France
            its interesting and sad how local enclaves of farmers and ranchers still control so much policy in many countries

    • grdnrmt says:


      If you use Google Chrome as a browser, you can add an extension called Google Translate. You can use this extension to translate web pages that are in other languages. It is not perfect, but it helps. SW

    • Amre says:

      It would be wonderful if they stopped doing this predator control completely. Killing natural predators just so some hunters can shoot a moose or caribou is simply atrocious.

  2. LM says:

    Here’s a link that will get this blog post rolling:

  3. Larry Zuckerman says:

    The comments are very interesting …. and for the most part, strongly oppose this self-described act of “civil disobedience” – which seems to missing a key portion that Gandhi and ML King experienced, law enforcement, arrest, and the willingness to pay the price for your cause. Where’s the EPA, FWS, and NMFS?

    Wonder what Federal laws don’t suit your tastes… and therefore, you can totally disregard?

  4. I would really like to know how trappers control what animals they trap? And I’m sure they don’t report it when it is an endangered species

    • Nancy says:

      Gina – trappers don’t “control” they just trap/ kill other species (for profit) and hope most of them fall within their guidelines.

  5. Ida Lupines says:

    Mystery nest solved! After work today, I happened to glance out at the deck, and climbing over the corner was my little phoebe. He or she then went underneath the deck!

  6. Jeff N. says:

    The Obama administration continues to disappoint in regard to the ESA.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I really don’t understand what is wrong with this Democratic administration.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        He’s been declared the worst President since WWII by a CNN poll. I go further to say since recorded history.

      • Immer Treue says:

        How soon one forgets “W”!

        • Ida Lupines says:

          No, we haven’t forgotten “W” – he got lots of scathing criticism too – but he never promised Change, at least weakening the ESA wasn’t the kind of change I had in mind.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            I consider myself extremely lucky to have been around when all of these landmark environmental laws were passed – and to see them all being undermined is shocking.

          • Immer Treue says:

            He (W) sure brought change about, eh?

  7. Savageslc says:

    Wolverine filmed on trail cam in Utah’s Uinta Mountains.

  8. Nancy says:

    Very cool Savagesle 🙂 I was thrown through by the comment the gal with DNR made about wolverines having retractable claws.

  9. savageslc says:

    Here is another article on the wolverine with a significant contradiction to the first article. If wolves were documented in this area they would recieve full federal protection.

    • Nancy says:

      Agree. Maybe that’s why the camera was originally set up. So did a fox or wolves cart off the road kill? Interesting set of tracks in the background, right side.

  10. Richie G says:

    Montana really puts a paper out a wolf conflicts with cattle, how big do they need the state to be to leave predators alone. I do see the way they were taught cattle is money to them that’s all money. When you use living things for your profession a person almost becomes heartless.

    • Ida Lupines says:


    • WM says:


      It has been awhile since I have thought about this, but aren’t coyotes a huge threat to nesting cranes on the small islands that seasonally dot the S. Platte and Platte River streambeds, sometimes with not enough water remaining in the river to protect the nests from hungry coyotes. Anything to be done about those rascals in this habitat improvement effort?

      • aves says:

        Their efforts would likely help nesting cranes too but the focus is on the migrating cranes that use the river as a staging area during migration. I don’t know what, if any, predator control is done there other than managing the habitat to make the cranes less vulnerable. Cranes will avoid roosting in areas with low water depth and low visibility because of the increased vulnerability to predators. In what must be a very difficult and expensive task, Audubon (and many others) remove vegetation and invasive plant species by hand, mechanical clearing, and prescribed burns.

        • WM says:

          So, still, isn’t one of the largest predator risks from coyotes, (and some avian species and maybe black flies in some locales)?

          My recollection from nearly 25 years ago was that several major Platte River system water storage projects were stopped/delayed partially because of the potential impacts to whooper/sand hill crane habitats far downstream. Less water in the river at certain critical times, means riverine habitat change, and greater exposure of the bird nests/fledglings to predators, the largest group in that part of the country seemed, at that time anyway, to be coyotes.

          • Amre says:

            Well, killing a bunch of coyotes isn’t going to help the situation since they adapt to it through larger litter sizes, faster maturity, etc, so what do you suggest is done about this problem? Also, if you can could you put up a link to a scientific study/story that show’s this is a problem?

            • WM says:


              Not sure what the solution is, but the coyote PROBLEM is real in a highly regulated water diversion system of the Platte River system for migrating sand hill and nesting whooping cranes. I used to know guys at FWS in Fort Collins who studied this stuff, and wrote the comments for EIS reports for the major water storage/diversion projects I mentioned earlier:


            • WM says:

              ++Well, killing a bunch of coyotes isn’t going to help the situation …++

              I will also add coyotes are by far the largest predator of livestock – cattle, sheep, poultry- in NE, according to the stats.

              This report is dated, but I doubt the stats have varied much since it was written.


              And I never cease to be amazed at how many times statements like yours are made, without offering a concrete solution that is workable and different from what is being done by WS and state wildlife agencies across the entire country (many universities affiliated in this effort to see if things can be done cheaper and better).

              • Amre says:


                When i said killing a bunch of coyotes doesn’t work i meant it wont reduce the coyote population. Your stats only support my case. Despite the fact WS is killing around 76,000 coyotes a year, populations around the country are still doing well and the number of livestock being killed stay’s the same. While lethal control may work in certain cases for a temporary period its highly likely that other coyotes will move into that area later on and again cause problems. A good solution for attacks on livestock are nonlethal methods which i’m sure you have heard about such as guard dogs, fencing, and fladry.

                For the nesting birds, they could use hazing, fencing, and maybe some lethal control if the nonlethal methods don’t work.

                I’ve never said that lethal control shouldn’t be used at all for predators. I just advocate using non lethal methods first before using lethal control.

              • WM says:


                I understand that. This is a group in NE that includes some univeristy folks that are trying the alternative non-lethal methods.


                Again, I don’t know what the solution is, but the non-lethal stuff that has been tried doesn’t seem to work all that well, and conventional wisdom seems to suggest lethal is required just to hold the line. These people aren’t stupid, as some might want you/us to believe.

              • Nancy says:

                “And I never cease to be amazed at how many times statements like yours are made, without offering a concrete solution that is workable and different from what is being done by WS and state wildlife agencies across the entire country”

                And it never ceases to amaze me WM, that proof continues to come to light that killing predators is not the answer.

                As Ames stated: “since they adapt to it through larger litter sizes, faster maturity, etc”

                BUT, wildlife agencies continue to ignore these facts. And, all sorts of wildlife pay the price.

                Lack of (livestock) responsibility IMHO, is the #1 factor when it comes to predation.

                Do check out the depredations (by wolves) for 2013. Most occurred on private land.


                About a 1,000 head of cattle were just pushed to public lands a few miles away from where I live.

                These grazing allotments cover big areas of forested and open range, and…. there might be two hired hands, living in primitive conditions for the summer, doing what they’ve always done – putting out mineral blocks and checking to make sure fence lines are kept up or repaired, so each rancher’s cattle, don’t mix it up. Nice. $1.35? per cow/calf, per month.

                Lets break that down – 500 head of cattle (PLUS their offspring so really its a thousand head of cattle) get to degrade and trash public lands, for about $675 bucks a month.

                What a fricken deal right? 🙂 given each year’s offspring (heifers, steers etc.) will fetch about a grand$ at sale time?

                I know I haven’t taken into account the expenses but many of the ranches around me seem to be able to support anywhere from 2 to 5 families, no sweat, and after 20 years (re: wolf reintroduction) none of them have gone out of business.

                I’m thinking “shell game” 🙂

                “a method of deceiving or cheating someone, by moving things from one place to another in order to hide what you are doing”

                Again, just my opinion 🙂

              • Amre says:


                “Conventional wisdom seems to suggest lethal control is required just to hold the line.”

                As i have said before, i’ve never said lethal control should never be used. I just said that it’s not always effective due to reasons i have mentioned before(coyotes adapting to high kill rates and replacing ones that have been killed through lethal control.) Things should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

          • aves says:

            The river flow does make nesting birds more vulnerable to predators and coyotes would be the most successful in that area. But whooping cranes are only there during migration and I’m not aware of any sandhill cranes nesting on islands in the river. I’d expect the resident sandhills to nest more in adjacent marshes and wetlands. I wouldn’t expect any predator control on their behalf since sandhill cranes are so numerous. I suspect that the habitat modifications and water level control are enough when whooping cranes pass through but I’m not positive.

            Endangered piping plovers and least terns do nest on sandbars along the river and are greatly vulnerable to unsuitable water levels (both higher for flooding nests and lower for enabling predators) and almost every predator out there.

            The endangered Mississippi sandhill crane (a subspecies that is darker and smaller than regular sandhills), is so endangered (<100 birds in the wild) and has so little habitat left that they require both annual releases and continuing removal of predators (bobcats, coyotes, great horned owls).

            • Amre says:

              And i’d imagine pesticides and habitat loss would be a much bigger problem for the cranes than coyotes.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      She has a video that her ‘film crew’ made of a very large group of villagers butchering an elephant (don’t know if she the animal or not). I haven’t watched it but for the first few swarming seconds of it.

      All judgments aside, I imagine it is the antidote to those comments we read about ‘have you ever seen what a wolf does to its prey?’ We’re no different.

    • Louise Kane says:
      Thanks for posting Nancy
      The end of trophy hunting has to come as these gleeful killers are embarrassed and ostracized from conducting a socially repugnant act. I think its going to take baby steps…
      interesting when these “conservationists” expose themselves as the gleefully excited killers they are the amount of derision that is directed their way. Trophy hunting is clearly not supported by most people. I can’t get into my head what kind of heartless bastard wants to shoot lions, tigers, leopards, rhinos, wolves, coyotes, zebras or any other magnificent being and then pose with a lifeless body in a grotesque caricature of a hug and expect to be applauded. Its about time Facebook banned this and listened to their clients. They are getting the message. No one but a select few think this is cool and we aren’t stupid; this is not conservation no matter how they spin it. The rest of us are disgusted and find it obscene. When people shun an activity and that activity becomes unacceptable or embarrassing you will see change. Keep calling trophy hunting what it is, killing for fun and being loud and clear and I think we will see laws change.

  11. WM says:

    Since some find sheep so disgusting – whether it is public lands grazing or the animals themselves, here is yet another dimension of their influence and utility, which seems to be expanding from Europe to the US. And Scottish poet Robert Burns would be so proud, with his very special address to this cultural ikon – behold the haggis!

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Blech! I never have found sheep disgusting, but beautiful. Is there anything more sweet than a baby lamb? Or symbolic of springtime (well, many baby creatures are). Plus, their beautiful spun wool, naturally water-repellent.

  12. Ida Lupines says:

    In Nebraska there used to be about 200 miles of river suitable for cranes whereas now they’re crowded into a 50-mile stretch between Grand Island and Kearney. Thanks to numerous dams, only about 30 percent of the Platte’s water makes it as far as the Rowe Sanctuary, limiting the cranes’ habitat even more.

    What a beautifully written, evocative piece! This paragraph I find is the explanation for any predation of the birds by coyotes. That we’ve made their habitat so out of balance is no reason to blame the predators for doing what they were created to do. We need to open up areas like this more, or bring together larger areas of habitat, find less lethal means to deal with it. It isn’t working anyway.

  13. Ida Lupines says:

    The tone of this article is so clueless about the sage grouse – and the general public’s knowledge and interest about endangered wildlife. Is the poor bird really considered ‘odd’ and ‘obscure’? It’s like people have never heard of it before:

    The same crap: Jobs, economic growth, cost. Things that mean everything to humans, but nothing in the Grand Scheme of Things. Human population growth and it’s domino effect of problems is reaching critical mass and it’s not the fault of wildlife. I don’t think jobs and the economy will be what they once were – between too many people, sending jobs off-shore and mechanization to reduce manpower. Let’s not forget how putting wolf ‘management’ in the hands of the states has been a colossal failure for conservation efforts.

    • Amre says:

      Ranchers just won’t stop complaining. They keep on saying the same things about wolves but i haven’t heard of anyone going out of business because of them (or any other species.)

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Or, as Orwell might have it, a creature’s natural habitat is natural no longer once the creature is driven out. For his part, Heller might see it as another Catch-22: The ESA exists to protect plants and animals from eradication by humans, except in those areas where humans prefer to eradicate them.

      Worst thing ever. Disgusting.

  14. Ida Lupines says:

    A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official has ordered federal biologists to withdraw their conclusion that the last 300 wolverines in the continental United States deserve threatened species status.

    US Reverses Proposal To List Wolverine As Threatened Specied

    There’s that “don’t worry, there’s plenty in Canada” mindset again.

    Officials in three states where most of the animals are still found — Wyoming, Montana and Idaho — vigorously objected. They argued that conclusions about the effects climate change will have on wolverine habitat are premature.

    The states also warned that safeguarding the animals could have dire economic effects on recreational activities, development and trapping on large swaths of alpine terrain already locally managed for wolverines in their states.

    Noreen Walsh ordered a reversal of the recommendation to list the animals as threatened, the agency confirmed Thursday. She cited uncertainties “about the degree to which we can reliably predict impacts to wolverine populations from climate change,” according to agency documents obtained by The Times.

    And ‘can’t predict the timing of climate change’? Give me a break, isn’t that why it’s all systems go with the solar and wind power industries?

    • Nancy says:

      Ida – what always makes me sad when I read crap like this is the fact that we are only taking about a few hundred of a species, just trying to hang on in an ever increasing, human dominated, landscape.

      Accidental trapping of ANY species that is or was worthy of ESA listing, should be on everyone’s radar, but then maybe you do have to live out here and realize how little is left of their habitat that isn’t either being over grazed or over recreated by our species.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Yes. Just because I posted about wolverines in this instance doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the plight of other wildlife vulnerable to trapping. I really have to pinch myself to think that Democrats are running the show and allowing this erosion of wildlife protection. I thought Clueless from Seattle wasn’t going to tolerate any climate change deniers on her watch?

        As far as having to live in the West to understand, maybe yes, maybe no. It’s the same here. This kind of thinking is what has stripped the East Coast of a lot of its wildlands and wildlife, and you’d think that other parts of the country might take a page from our book of What-Not-To-Do.

        These issues such as trapping arise in what wildlands do remain here too.

        Overgrazing is an issue – but until we quit eating meat for an ever growing world population, it won’t change. As in one of the articles I recently posted, it said that the Federal agencies are sometimes comically (tragically I’d say) at odds with one another.

    • Kathleen says:

      This is outrageous. The effective (breeding) population for Northern Rockies (MT-ID-WY) wolverines is at a precariously low 35!!! Continued trapping in MT (which gets the green light to resume now???) combined with their very low birthrate, climate change effects, and habitat disturbances could be catastrophic. I am frickin’ beside myself over this.

    • Amre says:

      I’m getting tired of USFWS shoving away evidence for political reasons and delist a species (or in this case, keep it from getting listed) and then acting like their using the “best available science.” It looks like someone may need to give Dan Ash a biology lesson.

  15. Nancy says:

    “talking about”

  16. WM says:

    As predicted, it looks like Bundy and his followers may still be held accountable (but when and how?). Clark County Sheriff weighs in:

  17. topher says:–265909301.html
    Looked like it was burning west of the river and hopefully east of the wilderness boundary. Upper Hell Roaring and Imogene are a couple of my favorites.

  18. Pamela Gartin says:

    Could more studies like this be funded with Carnivore Conservation Stamps like the one proposed in the MA Carnivore Conservation Act – thereby, benefitting carnivores in the long run? It’ll be interesting to see what affect this has on decision makers:

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Wow! But no doubt the same old crap will be trumpeted despite the facts.

      Meanwhile, hunting was the leading cause of death in both study areas the past three years. Of the collared deer, roughly 15 percent of antlerless deer and 40 percent of bucks fell each year to hunters.

      Because these results don’t implicate wolves, the study will disappoint critics who pushed hard for it five years ago. But they’re in no position to attack it. This research has been transparent, and included more than 1,000 citizen-volunteers during its first 18 months alone.

    • Amre says:

      But who expects the wolf haters to listen to studies?

    • Pamela Gartin says:

      I should have included mention of the Montana Wolf Stamp, too. No doubt, science doesn’t really influence those with extreme views, or those with vested interests. But in the up-hill marathon of an effort to educate and persuade members of the public and politicians, studies like this are very helpful, especially if they are carried out by state agencies.

  19. WM says:

    The largest underground aquifer in the world is going dry, after a half century of pumping to grow crops to feed a growing world population – the Ogalalla in America’s breadbasket. While some parts are closely regulated in other states it looks like TEXAS screwed the pooch, and T. Boone Pickens was just one of many, but he made $100M selling some of the water to cities, AND fracking for gas. What a scumbag!

    • Yvette says:

      Good article, WM. The drought in this region has been big news since at least 2011. That region of TX is so dry, as well as Western OK and the OK panhandle. They’ve been in severe drought at least since 2011.

      The drawdown of the Ogallala aquifer has been discussed for years in this region. I have no idea what will happen when it finally goes dry. I drove to NM last week and took the route across OK straight across the OK panhandle. There is a nice spot called the glass mountains that is west of Enid, but it’s now marred by so many oil & gas operations. Oil well pads, tanks, berms and NG pads. Other than that little area most of the panhandle is just ugly unless one appreciates the flat plains that seem to go on for eternity. It’s surreal to drive through that region.

      A little video of a dust storm that happened June 30, 2014. It’s weird, because that is the day I drove through this area, and there were no storms. I guess I barely missed it. Cool video.

  20. Kathleen says:

    “American Wilderness Faces the Firing Squad” by Doug Peacock. He discusses paddling Yellowstone rivers, wild bison, Outdoor Magazine, national parks, the Wilderness Act, and more.

  21. Ida Lupines says:

    Climate Change – an actionable threat to the ‘way of life’ of humans only?

    Feds Doubt Climate Change’s Impact On Wolverines

    • jimT says:

      Once again, Obama is showing his administration gives not one whit for ESA or plight of species. What I cannot figure out is the reason why, other than politics. They don’t conflict with the usual power players like ranchers, game industry; they are solitary. Any ideas besides just usual DC crap? Less than 300 in the lower 48, and they are not threatened? Is FWS saying in this that climate change is going to kill them all off with habitat loss anyway, so why bother?

      • Yvette says:

        You raise an excellent point. Perhaps it’s that wolverines aren’t on his radar. He’s a city guy. He isn’t a hunter/fisherman, not an outdoors enthusiast, and he isn’t from the West. Does he even know what a wolverine is? Has he ever given thought to the perils of trapping? Do the higher level management in USFWS and/or DOI even brief him on such decisions? Maybe it’s politics within the DOI and USFWS. The Obama administration hasn’t been a friend of conservation, IMO.

      • Kathleen says:

        “What I cannot figure out is the reason why, other than politics.”
        Politics is the reason. MT, ID, & WY came out against the listing proposal early. It’s more regulation, and that’s bad for business (timber & ski industries, e.g.). It’s the Feds reaching into the states’ business… again. It will hamper trapping–remember that MT is the only state in the lower 48 to still allow wolverine trapping, though it’s currently on hold. This decision has an added red flag in that it involves climate change; some have even suggested that the Feds will use it as a backdoor entry to regulate greenhouse gasses. With the steady drumbeat of ‘federal overreach’ that’s coming from the Right, it’s no surprise that the spineless Feds have backed off, really. So we sacrifice an animal no one’s ever even seen–there’s plenty in Canada, eh? (Maybe not: )

        • JimT says:

          I really see this as several things. One, the lack of a strong leader at Interior; Jewell is a joke and a lightweight. Two, Obama is an Eastern enviro, to the extent he is one at all, which means EPA issues…pollution, and Damn the impacts on the Western landscape of megawatt constructions of solar or wind. I am hoping the embarrassment of a whistle blower leak will force Ashe to back off from ignoring the science, thought it is a much lower profile predator than the wolf. I can only wonder if Grijalva had been named at the beginning, but Emmanuel threw him under the bus for his perceived lack of fund raising results among Latinos in the first Obama election, or so the story goes in DC circles.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            I really don’t believe wildlife is on his radar at all. He’s more of a people’s needs only President – energy, recreation. It’s just hard to accept that Democrats are the ones turning back all of the environmental progress made. Even the national monuments he has named are primarily historical sites.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              I disagree; I think Sally Jewell can do much damage in her term. Her credentials are good if you consider oil development, fracking and recreation, and running the national parks like a profitable business important. I don’t know that I’ve heard her mention wildlife very much, except that we have to ‘listen to the science’ on wolf delisting, and ‘wild horses reproduce too much’. I think her credentials are all wrong.

              Obama can’t personally concern himself with everything, that’s why he has a staff. And he and/or they aren’t very competent. Arab countries (and others) melting, terrorism, immigration, etc. are issues for every administration has had to face for quite some time. Yes, I do think he should consider the fate of 300 wolverines.

              OK, so if it is unreasonable for him to ‘concern himself’ with endangered wildlife, the implication being that it is trivial in light of human problems, then we might as well kiss them all goodbye and quit pretending we care.

          • WM says:

            Grijalva, for whatever good traits he would bring to SOI, he would by himself be responsible for a loss of a couple seats in the House and the Senate in the mid-terms – maybe even Mark Udall. Jewell has the right credentials and is unlikely to do much damage, even if some consider here a lightweight (which is what Obama and the D’s want/need(?) right now.

            • Kathleen says:

              Yes, I think that’s a good assessment. It’s unrealistic to think that Obama is going to personally concern himself with 300 wolverines when the Arab world is melting down, airport terrorism threats have ramped up, a flood of immigrant children is pouring over the border, and so on. Yes, Jewell is a lightweight, but bureaucrats aren’t chosen for originality and boldness and it’s likely that she isn’t even calling the shots.

  22. Jeff N. says:

    We need a few more conservation minded congressman like DeFazio, and Grijalva…..

  23. Ida Lupines says:

    Environmental groups are concerned that the trade deal, which is being negotiated out of the public eye because the U.S. government treats trade negotiation texts as classified information, will undermine environmental goals. And they worry that it would increase oil and gas drilling in the U.S while also discouraging the development of renewable energy in Europe.

    Secret Trade Docs Call for More Exports of Oil and Gas to Europe

    Where are all of these ‘hard choices’ about climate change we’re supposed to be making? It looks like we’re sacrificing our wildlife instead. Sally Jewell is worried about Jamestown losing coastline. Instead of worrying about monuments to ourselves, 300 or less wolverines need to be protected as a threatened species.

  24. Nancy says:

    Being forced to sell their oil to domestic refiners prevents the oil companies from squeezing every last bit of profit out of their Earth-choking plunder. So they are demanding that Washington bless them with bigger profit margins by allowing them to bypass domestic refiners.

    Says Taurel, “It doesn’t make any sense to export oil and spur destruction of public lands to only benefit oil companies and provide oil to China.”

    Lifting The Crude-Oil Export Ban Would Worsen Pollution and Climate Change

  25. Louise Kane says:;jsessionid=C09197875F869D2EB720C8E53DD4E2F5.f02t04

    more evidence that wolves and social animals are heavily and negatively impacted by unnecessary random trophy hunting.

    • ma'iingan says:

      “Breeder mortality and pack dissolution had no significant effects on immediate or longer term population dynamics.”

    • rork says:

      Reading the paper is best, but Park Service had a blurb about it, with a quote or two from the authors:
      “higher rates of breeder mortality and pack dissolution did not correspond to lower population growth” is the restatement of ma’iingan’s quote from the abstract.

    • JimT says:

      Is there any kind of necessary trophy hunting?

      • timz says:

        No. Trophy hunting serves the ego of the hunter. Otherwise, there would be no need for those idiotic photos of a grinning goofus holding the head up of a dead animal. That isn’t hunting. That is killing for the sake of an over-exaggerated sense of self.

        As for the people who partake in African safari hunts, I don’t even consider them hunters. Mostly, they are rich people who pay an African national to track and find the animals. All the trophy ‘hunter’ does is pull the trigger. Most likely, without the Indigenous Africans as guides to do all of the hunting the wannabe hunter would become the hunted. I doubt these types would last long in the bush.

        • Yvette says:

          Hey, timz didn’t make the above comment. Not sure how that happened, but I am the one who made the comment.

        • Yvette says:

          What the heck? timz didn’t make the above comment. That was my comment.

  26. Louise Kane says:

    don’t have enough time to write a personalized response against the newest version of the heinous misleading “sportsman heritage act”, you can write against it here

    • Amre says:

      This is good, but sadly NC wildlife commission (and most other state fish and wildlife agencies) don’t listen to public opinion.

  27. Amre says:

    Sadly, the NC wildlife commission (and most other state wildlife agencies) don’t listen to public opinion.

  28. Peter Kiermeir says:

    U.S. Rep. Greg Walden meets ranchers: “I’ve always felt that, once wolves and cougars showed up in Portland, we might have a change in urban attitudes,” said Walden.“We get all this stuff out here like it’s somebody’s playground and I think there’s a real need for more education about how things work on the ground.”

    • WM says:

      I never figured The Dalles, OR, where this Congressman spoke, was all that conservative to the point they didn’t like wolves that much. This guy hit on all the scripted talking points. It is like WA’s Doc Hastings wrote out his speech for him (Hastings is just across the Columbia in WA and Pasco/Richland where the Snake joins the Columbia). Afterall, it is less than 60 miles east of the Portland metro area (but still the opposite side of the Cascade Mtns.). Between lies the town of Hood River where all the wind surfers come to ply their skills on the super windy stretch of the Columbia. In addition to this article there are several other past articles in The Dalles Chronicle beating the ID wolf reintroduction to death, emphasizing what Eastern OR ranchers must do to protect their interests from the ones that migrate in. Almost sounds like a repeat of what they think in the Wallawa/Enterprise country further east – oh wait its the same Congressional District that includes almost all of Eastern OR. And it is a very different world than the one Eugene/Springfield (urbane college town) that Rep. DeFazio lives in.

    • Amre says:

      The wolf haters will never be satisfied unless every wolf is dead. They are some of the most selfish people i can think of…..

  29. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Congressman wants buffer for wolves around park

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I tried to post this also, I can’t wait to hear the response.

  30. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Montana Wolf Collar Recovered in Canada After 15 Years

  31. WM says:

    Guess they missed the bear spray memo (in 2011), eh?

  32. Ida Lupines says:

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had a proposal under consideration to ban the trade of nine large constrictor snake species that the U.S. Geological Survey identified as posing a significant risk to the environment. But after pressure from reptile dealers, the Obama administration moved ahead with a half-measure in 2012 and banned the trade in just four of the nine species: Indian pythons (including Burmese pythons), northern and southern African pythons and yellow anacondas. The White House’s rule addressed just 30 percent of the problem and left 70 percent of imported large constrictor snakes unchecked—including reticulated pythons and boa constrictors, which represent more than two-thirds of the large constrictor snakes in the U.S. pet trade.

    With all of our talk about invasives species, we shouldn’t then turn around and allow exotic snakes to be imported into the country and released into the environment when people no longer want them!

    Good news for native species tho:

  33. Logan says:

    Does anyone know anything new about this grizzly grizzly? She wandered around north idaho and denned in the St. Joe drainage. I spend a lot of time in there and I have seen convincing evidence of grizzly bears even further south, not to mention the bear shot in 2007 further south in Kelly creek.

    • Amre says:

      Haven’t heard any news about her lately. Maybe if she keeps on traveling she could end up in the clear water national forest. It would be cool if she went to NE Washington.

  34. Ralph Maughan says:


    We are having a problem with comments.

    Until it is fixed, if you comment, before you post your comment make sure that WordPress has not already filled in a name and email address, that is the wrong name and email address.

    If it has not, go ahead. If it has, delete the improper text and put in your correct name and email. Hope to get it fixed on July 10

    • Amre says:

      What kind of sick person would leave an animal in a leg hold trap/snare for 15 days, more than 2 weeks!

    • Amre says:

      What kind of sick person would leave an animal in a leg hold trap/snare for 15 days straight, (really, 3 days already sounds like a long time to me).

      • Amre says:

        Then theirs the fact that most elk management zones in Idaho are at or above objective.

    • Amre says:

      Then theirs the fact that most elk management zones in Idaho are at or above target.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      No. There’s too much probability of trapping and snaring other animals such as wolverines and lynx as it is, and if the USFW can’t see to it to protect wolverines and lynx with an actual law, they can damn sure not put this extended trap check requirement into effect. Remote areas should be free of traps and snares. We really are headed back to the times of wolf eradication.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      God, I never realized how bad it could get. Once Idaho gets down to its magic number of 150 wolves, then what will they do? Dumbest thing ever to allow the wolf delisting, and predictable outcome – but a 15-day trap check is inhumane and way over the top. I think Idaho would truly like to see zero wolves, but with dispersers ****From****!!!! British Columbia like we heard about yesterday, they’ll be working for the rest of their natural lives to do it, besides being fought every step of the way by wolf advocates. Yay!

  35. Louise Kane says:

    Fron a fellow advocate
    the Sportsman Heritage Act moving forward for vote in Senate.

    Scott Beckstead
    SPORTSMEN’S ACT UPDATE: UPDATE: Yesterday, the Senate took a procedural vote on the Sportsmen’s Act and it passed 82-12, meaning they will move forward on considering the bill. This does not mean the bill passed, but only that the Senators decided they would bring the bill to the floor to consider it on its merits. Members will often vote yes on procedural votes simply on principle – because they support the idea of debating ALL legislation on the merits. So it is still important to call them and ask them, again, to OPPOSE the Sportman’s Act. They need to continue to hear from you. One of the Kansas senator, who was a co-sponsor, CHANGED HIS POSITION because of his constituents reaching out to him.

    While the vote yesterday may seem demoralizing due to the lopsidedness, we still have a chance of defeating this dangerous bill. Please make another call asking their two U.S. Senators to OPPOSE the bill. Here’s a roll call on the vote:

    This is a link to see how your legislators voted

    If you don’t want to see this bill turned into a devastating law call and write now.

    • WM says:


      With a near 2/3 passage in the House (with 41 D’s voting in favor) along with all the R’s, it would seem there is a fairly good chance the Senate likely pass it as well. Frankly, I don’t know much about the bill – especially the bad stuff- but I do strongly suspect the reason it was crafted was to head off strident views like yours opposing hunting and maybe even fishing.

      I am not too keen on the exclusion from toxic substances any components of items taxed under the Pittman-Robertson or Dingle-Johnson bills (think lead used in hunting and fishing). However, I think over time both industries and the users of their products will step away from lead that might adversely affect fish and wildlife.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        But how much time, WM? I don’t think people oppose hunting and fishing in moderation, but we really need to tackle this lead issue. If for no other reason that it is harmful to people also, and it is extremely selfish of sportsmen not to care about that.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          I should say extremely selfish of sportsmen and the guns and ammunition industry. It’s all about nothing but money today.

          • rork says:

            I support no lead ammo out in field, as do many sportsmen. I hope it passes as a state law. Perhaps, another day, we can pass similar laws at the national level (rather than by EPA decree or such).
            I’m a bit frightened about the access parts of the bill (some fraction of the land should have difficult access), worrying that we will get less road removal. Some other parts may be slyly written too.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          I would love to see an amendment or rider attached to this bill to relist wolves, or to protect wolverines as threated, or a buffer zone around the National Parks. Hee! Good times.

      • Louise Kane says:

        what exactly do you like about this bill?
        I see nothing good about it.

        “Another cynical assault by House Republicans to roll back protections for public lands and wildlife,” said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This supposed ‘sportsmen’s legislation’ would actually jeopardize the health of hunters, promote needless lead poisoning of our wildlife, and prevent hunters, anglers and other members of the public from weighing in on decisions about how to manage 150 million acres of federal land and water.”

        H.R. 3590 seeks to exempt toxic lead in ammunition and fishing equipment from regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the federal law that regulates toxic substances. The EPA is currently allowed to regulate or ban any chemical substance for a particular use, including the lead used in shot and bullets. Affordable, effective nontoxic alternatives exist for lead ammunition and lead sinkers for all hunting and fishing activities.

        Spent lead from hunting is a widespread killer of more than 75 species of birds such as bald eagles, endangered condors, loons and swans, and nearly 50 mammals. More than 265 organizations in 40 states have been pressuring the EPA to enact federal rules requiring use of nontoxic bullets and shot for hunting and shooting sports.

        “There are powerful reasons we banned toxic lead from gasoline, plumbing and paint — lead is a known neurotoxin that endangers the health of hunters and their families and painfully kills bald eagles and other wildlife,” said Snape.

        H.R. 3590 would also exempt all national wildlife refuge management decisions from review and public disclosure under the National Environmental Policy Act and allow the import of polar bear “trophies” from Canada. The Republican-controlled House approved similar “Sportsmen’s Act” legislation in 2012 by a vote of 274-146, but the bill was stopped in the Senate.

        • rork says:

          To name some things I think were in the bill that were not bad:
          1) reauthorization of wetlands conservation act through 2017. 40 million $ per year.
          2) reauthorize National fish and wildlife foundation (NFWF). 25 million per year.
          3) Maybe the Federal land transaction facilitation act reauthorization was a good thing too.
          4) The part about shooting ranges didn’t sound too terrible.
          I could list 4 things I didn’t like.

          A rational legislature could pass those measures separately, but you can see the problem there.

      • Louise Kane says:

        “However, I think over time both industries and the users of their products will step away from lead that might adversely affect fish and wildlife.”

        hah self regulation always works so well. Name some instances where an industry self regulated itself without legislative mandate. I would think you would be embarrassed to suggest this…..

        • WM says:


          You get the part about the very limited polar bear import, right? The bear had to have been harvested prior to Feb. 1997 when it was legal to do so, and reported into the system for import by 2008.

          • Louise Kane says:

            yes I do get that part why does that make it any less offensive?
            The import ban sends a message and a good one in my mind.

          • Yvette says:

            “Very limited” means a crack in the door that will lead to breaking it wide open. I have no faith that these trophy hunters will be satisfied with importing their trophies killed prior to 97′. (let’s be honest; we harvest wheat and we kill animals). Look at what happened when CITIES removed the ban on ivory trade that they set in 1989. It was supposed to be ‘very limited’ but it has led to slaughter of thousands of elephants….to the point that if it is not quickly gotten under control then they will be extinct within about 10 years.

            You give them a little and they will suck the well dry.

            • W.Hong says:

              I didn’t think anyone other than the native peoples could hunt polar bears anylonger?

            • WM says:


              I think the ivory matter is a bit different, as it is likely to be desired by a larger market throughout the world. The polar bears that would come into the US under this backdated bill would be in the very low hundreds, maybe significantly fewer than that – total. There would be no more. And, I suspect there are very few things of commercial value you could do with a polar bear skin and attached parts in that small volume. Though that leaves open the possibility they could be sold outside the US (same problem with the ivory ban).

              These people harvested/killed these polar bears when it was legal to do so, and likely want to keep them. Some probably spent a lot of money in that effort. I also suspect some were not as filthy rich as some of you seem to think. Equity seems to suggest they should be able to acquire and keep their lawfully obtained “trophies,” or maybe even sell them.

              I don’t agree with the mind set that brought them to kill these animals, but nonetheless, it seems improper not to let them take possession of their lawful property. That is yet another area of the ESA that is a bit sensitive and maybe not so common sense. So, look for that change to the ESA if it doesn’t pass in this bill.

              I recall back in the 1970’s I had gone to Vancouver, British Columbia, and while there bought a neat looking tooth on a leather thong, if I recall in Chinatown, but in a shop that had lots of Northern fur and animal part stuff (including scrimshaw art which was legal at the time). This sort of thing was very popular at the time, especially stuff out of Canada. Nice big white thing, about 5 inches long, and maybe 2 inches in diameter at the root end. Purchased as a gift for a hippy friend. Thought it would go with his Turquoise and silver heshee necklace and the macramé plant hangers in his apartment (instead of a bear tooth, which is what it looked like).

              As I passed through the border to get back into the US, the Customs Officer asked if I had anything to declare. I handed him the tooth, and then he questioned me about the item. He told me it was from a Sperm Whale (I hadn’t a clue at that stage of my life), and that they were endangered and on the ESA list. The Customs guy stared at me a long time, and said he should confiscate it, because it was illegal in the US. Then he smiled and said, “Let’s just say you didn’t declare this, but don’t buy another one,” and passed me thru.

              I had no idea I couldn’t bring it into the US, and it had been purchased legally in Canada. It cost me about $10 at the time. I still have the tooth, deciding it would be a bit tacky to give it to my friend with that knowledge.

              • WM says:

                The question, Louise, is whether it was turned down for the right reasons:

                My own D state Senators Murray and Cantwell: Yea

                Other states solidly in the Nay column:

                AZ- Nay
                ID- Nay
                KS- Nay
                MS- Nay
                NE- Nay
                SC- Nay
                OK- Nay
                TN- Nay
                TX- Nay
                WY- Nay

                And several other states with Tea Party leanings or other conservative agendas split their votes (UT. Some I would not have guessed would vote for it did, like NY, VA and VT.

                This appears to be motivated by some R’s that weren’t able to add their own necessarily felt gun rights amendments, according to the article.

                Probably right result for this bill, but maybe for all the WRONG reasons. It is why Congress at this point in time is such a worthless institution. That is the part that scares me. Don’t be so quick to count your blessings, Louise.

    • Amre says:

      This bill would simply be devastating to wildlife on public lands and the ability of the public to have a say about how it is managed. When will these hunters and ranchers remember that the world is not just for them? This reminds me of january when Idaho illegally sent that trapper into the frank church river of no return wilderness to kill wolves to “help out the elk herds.”

      These “sportsman” and state wildlife agencies don’t want naturally functioning ecosystems. Instead, they just want to turn them into game farms so these wilderness areas can become hunter playgrounds with few natural predators.

      Theres no doubt led will hit birds hard, as we’ve seen with california condors (led poisoning is the #1 source of mortality for them.)I would whole-heartedly support a ban on led ammunition.

      In the end, this bill would only benefit those who want nothing but money.

  36. Louise Kane says:

    wisconsin wolf harvest report
    wondering why they on;y examined 27 pelts
    and why so many citations were issued and for what they don’t say although most were issued to trappers
    also at least one wolf showed injuries consistent with bites

    sobs that hunt wolves for sport and then use dogs. The DNR is crazy to allow this
    what is wrong with these people

    • ma'iingan says:

      “wondering why they on;y examined 27 pelts”

      Every pelt is examined by a Conservation Warden at the time of registration.

      The 27 pelts referred to were among the 35 harvested with the aid of dogs, and they were examined by an investigative team for evidence of trauma caused by dogs.

      “and why so many citations were issued and for what they don’t say although most were issued to trappers”

      Citations ran the normal gamut, but most issued to trappers were for trapping in zones that had been closed. Because zones closed so quickly during the early part of the season, many trappers were caught by surprise and did not pull their traps in time to comply with the zone closing laws.

      “The DNR is crazy to allow this”

      I should remind you that the use of dogs was established statutorily by a highly partisan Legislature, not by WDNR.

      “what is wrong with these people”

      You make this comment in response to nearly every kind of public harvest, so what’s new?

      • Nancy says:

        Ma, has the situation in WI changed much since that article was written?

      • Louise Kane says:

        Wisconsin’s hunting or “harvesting” wolves with dogs is a real low. That term public “harvest” really rankles. Harvesting canids for sport especially with dogs is hard to digest. That its legal is the disturbing part. Lets look at the DNR and the Natural Resources Commission

        Cathy Sepp, former real estate developer and high school graduate is DNR Secretary, Cathy Stepp. Sepp admitted that pro-wolf groups were explicitly excluded from the “Wolf Advisory Committee” in favor of hunting groups like the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, and Safari Club International. From the article:

        Department of Natural Resources Secretary Cathy Stepp revealed at a DNR Board meeting on Wednesday that the agency removed people who were staunchly opposed to wolf hunting from the state’s Wolf Advisory Committee.

        While a lot of the public discussion during the meeting was about a new wolf hunting quota, some of it was also about a change over the last two years in the makeup of the DNR’s advisory committee on wolves.

        Stepp confirmed what her critics have alleged: that wolf hunting opponents were by and large removed from the committee.

        “When we’re charged to manage and to implement a hunt, coming in and telling us, ‘Don’t hunt wolves,’ is not a productive way to run a committee, frankly,” said Stepp. “That’s just the candid way to lay it out. We had to have people who were willing to work with us in partnership, and be willing to help us and advise us along the way in implementing state law.”

        Board members:

        Gregory Kazmierski, Secretary
        President and Owner, Buck Rub Outfitters Ltd. Appointed May 1, 2011. Term expires May 1, 2017.

        Kazmierskiis the founder of the hunting lobbying group the “Hunters Rights Coalition” is or was the Chairman of the Dairyland Committee for Wisconsin’s Safari Club International.

        The coalition includes the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association, the state chapters of Safari Club International, and Wi-Force (Wisconsin Firearm Owners, Ranges, Clubs & Educators.)

        The paid lobbyist for all of these groups including the “Hunters Rights Coalition?” is former state senator Bob Welch. The Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association.

        The Wisconsin Chapter of Safari Club International are members of the hunter stacked DNR “Wolf Advisory Committee” that recommend a yearly wolf kill quota. After the sham committee “recommends” the kill quota it goes to the Natural Resources Board whose members include the Hunters Rights Coalition founder Greg Kazmierski.

        The coalition’s paid lobbyist, Welch, testified before Kazmierski’s board a few weeks back before they rubber stamped the current wolf kill quota of 156.

        From the article about the Board’s June 25th meeting:

        Bob Welch, lobbyist for the hunter’s right coalition says the number would ensure a wolf density both the landscape and residents can support.

        “The goal is 350, don’t change that goal, a lot of people are saying change that goal, the goal was set for a reason,” Welch says.”I want to say, we don’t hate wolves – we manage wildlife and we think it should be based on science.”

        Thats an arrogant lie…..

        After several hours of listening, the Natural Resources Board issued a speedy vote.

        It seems like a huge conflict of interest as Wisconsin Wildlife Founder pointed out in a post, to have the founder of a lobbying group of the “Coalition” vote on proposals that members of the “Coalition” he founded put forward?

        I read today that a new court ruing allows dogs to train on wolves – there was a restriction before- Now Kazmierski and the Natural Resources Board will vote in the future on dog “training” rules against wolves.

        From Randolph’s post, “In other words the rules, likely written by “Coalition” and “Wolf Advisory Committee” members the WBHA and SCI, will be voted on by the the FOUNDER of the “Coalition” that they belong to.”

        Yes I suppose technically its legal but can you really defend this and be an apologist for this kind of sham management?


        • ma'iingan says:

          “Yes I suppose technically its legal but can you really defend this and be an apologist for this kind of sham management?”

          I’m no apologist, just helping you get your facts straight.

          Please recall that your original post was some questions about Wisconsin wolf harvest data.

  37. Ida Lupines says:

    The American people want a buffer zone around Yellowstone and Denali. It’s been all take by the wolf hating states, and now its time to give a little back:

    • rork says:

      The Interior Secretary should politely ask the states to put buffer’s in place. It’s sure to work.

      • Louise Kane says:

        they are probably working on a draft of the buffer as we write…

  38. Gary Humbard says:

    Has there been a recent symposium where conservation and pro-hunting organizations attended and heard the latest research findings regarding the effects of predators on ungulates and other wildlife?

    I believe there is some common ground that pro-hunting and conservation organizations share and by learning and using the latest information they could become more effective as they work for a landscape that has abundant wildlife and that is wild.

  39. Louise Kane says:

    the focus is always on displaced humans or destruction of homes, any studies on how these fires impact wildlife populations. 7000 acres is huge

    • W.Hong says:

      I read some information the other day about the Yellowstone fires of 1988 and it stated that these fires do little to impact the wildlife in those areas and in fact actually help many different types of animals when the new grasses start growing back, I am not well versed on this stuff, but it was quite easy to find infomation.

  40. ZeeWolf says:

    Trifecta? Sounds more like horse racing than even-handed wildlife management.

    • Nancy says:

      Interesting how they put the word “wild” in front of Bison (tag winner) as though elk, moose, wolves, bears etc. aren’t wild?

      • ZeeWolf says:

        I’ll go out on a limb and speculate: I suppose that the word “wild” (and, I noticed elsewhere, “free-roaming”) is used to differentiate this bison hunt from a captive or canned hunt.

        Here is the rhetorical question: Is buffalo hunting as allowed by the state of Wyoming better or worse than the hazing that is conducted by the state of Montana?

      • Kathleen says:

        “Interesting how they put the word “wild” in front of Bison (tag winner) as though elk, moose, wolves, bears etc. aren’t wild?”

        Perhaps that’s because bison are routinely ranched, and those animals–though they still look like genetically-pure, wild bison–contain cattle genes. In other words, the wild behavior was bred out of them to make them tractable and willing to stay behind flimsy fences. The other animals you mentioned haven’t had that genetic insult perpetrated on them…so far as I know.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Ridiculous. What if the ‘landowners’ bait wolves onto their property? These kills really should be part of the statewide quota. We keep seeing over and over what a mistake delisting has been, with the way it keeps getting repeatedly abused and taken advantage of. The ‘landowners’ already can call in a professional to kill the so-called problem wolves. So now all it has to be is a perceived threat, which pretty much means poaching.

    • Nancy says:

      “When wolves were protected under the federal Endangered Species Act,

      Montanans felt powerless to deal with the predators’ impact, and that fostered intolerance for their presence, he said”

      Doesn’t quite seem to carry the same weight as say “Montanans were powerless to deal with high health insurance rates (so many are uninsured) and that fostered intolerance for their politicians” 🙂

      Come on, lets put it into context – ranchers, who make up a fraction of the population of Montana, not only foster intolerance of wolves, they are also intolerant of coyotes, badgers, ravens, bears, mountain lions, elk, deer, antelope, eagles, gophers, tourists, small property owners, the government (even if they get subsidies) etc. etc. 🙂

      • Elk375 says:

        +Come on, lets put it into context – ranchers, who make up a fraction of the population of Montana+

        Yes, the rancher only makes up a fraction of the population of Montana but the rancher owns 90% of the fee land where as the other’s own only a faction of the land. Ownership of large tracts of land is power. Sometimes it seems that it is not one man, one vote but one acre, one vote.

        • Nancy says:

          “Sometimes it seems that it is not one man, one vote but one acre, one vote”


          But who pays more in taxes per acre?

        • Ralph Maughan says:


          Western ranching is much like a landed aristocracy. Whether this is compatible with American democracy makes a heated question.

      • Louise Kane says:

        and intolerant of bison!

  41. Ralph Maughan says:

    I think the comments problem of the last day or so is now fixed.

    We are sorry for the troubles.

    Ralph Maughan

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I love this idea! I especially like how it can melt or maybe even prevent snow and ice on roads.

      • Nancy says:

        I seem to recall awhile back someone having the idea of recycling glass into paving roadways. Crushing it of course 🙂 The sun’s reflection off it would help melt snow and ice. Not sure that went anywhere but this is a terrific idea given the millions & millions of driveways that sit empty all day long.

      • Nancy says:

        Check out the video, its a hoot!!!

  42. Gary Humbard says:

    It is human nature to resist when something is forced on you. Right or wrong, when wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone and central Idaho, residents were not generally intolerant as they did not have a choice.

    The article stated that ~10 wolves have been killed each year by landowners using a “shoot on site” if livestock is being threatend policy. That low number is encouraging as landowners are not agressively killing wolves. Its the politicians who we must replace with more progressive, conservation minded individuals.

  43. Gary Humbard says:

    oops, I meant “tolerant” in above comment.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Many of those who opposed the wolf reintroduction objected because the federal government was involved.

  44. Ida Lupines says:

    The water shortage couldn’t be made worse by the fact that humans always get first dibs on the water for ski resorts, golf courses and development in deserts, could it? Lake Tahoe is naturally beautiful.

  45. Wolfy says:

    This is Big! Please pass it on…

  46. Louise Kane says:

    a fascinating legal strategy
    Valerie Bittner are you our rhere

  47. Ida Lupines says:

    Well, you knew this was coming:

    A wolverine’s visit to Utah’s Uinta Mountains last winter indicates the rare species is seeking to expand its range, one reason it should not be considered for listing under the act, she [Noreen Walsh] wrote in the memo, stamped May 30, 2014. It was addressed to an assistant regional director.

    That’s a lot to put on only one wolverine. And that’s if the trappers don’t all trip over themselves trying to get him first.

  48. Pamela Gartin says:

    Thought I’d share this New Yorker article from 2010, by Malcolm Gladwell. We see a lot of social media wildlife activism which is often dominated by – or degenerates into – expressions of vitriol, name-calling, general ugliness all leading nowhere fast. I appreciate the discussions and information provided by the Wildlife News. There aren’t too many forums like this out there. Food for thought for those involved in trying to change policies:

    • Yvette says:

      That was a great article, Pamela. Thanks for sharing the link. I had never thought about the weak ties vs. strong ties in relationships between activists.

    • Amre says:

      Its true. We probably aren’t going to stop poaching anytime soon with just some angry facebook post.

  49. Nancy says:

    Given the fact that far too many communities are “cattle” dependent out here in the west, its good to see some communities are at least curious about an industry that really needs to be “reined” in.

    Coming to an area near you:

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Oh Good God. 🙁 Further erosion of modern civilization.

    • Amre says:

      It seems Florida is getting dumber and dumber every day. Do they really need 7 walmart’s, or even 6 in that one area? Our governor (Rick Scott) is pretty anti environmental. Remember last month when that judge approved oil drilling in florida panther habitat? Also, investigations for violations of environmental laws have gone down since he took office. His administration wants to cater to business and commercial interest rather than wildlife….

  50. Kathleen says:

    I didn’t see this posted anywhere? from Sunday’s Missoulian:
    “Grizzly bears: Officials explore plans for delisting.” A subtitle in the print edition then goes on to ask, “Are we ready to share our landscape?” Seems to me “we’re” less ready and willing than ever.

    Excerpt (a point I’ve made many times about wild bison migratory movement): “Arbitrary boundaries don’t correspond to ecological boundaries for predators or fire. You can see the western boundary of Yellowstone from space. It’s a straight line. And that just magnifies the management issues. You can’t just walk away and say it’s going to function on its own and we can do whatever the hell we like.”

  51. Louise Kane says:

    they are limited in what they can do once public lands are leased……

    • ZeeWolf says:

      This is just an anecdotal observation, so treat it with a grain of salt. Most of the mule deer here in Gunnison County, Colorado, died off during the record-setting severe winter of 2007-08. The Division of Wildlife (now Division of Parks and Wildlife) provided supplementary feed but to little avail. If I recollect, it was estimated that about 50% of the population died off. I have noticed that the deer population has never returned to the levels before this exceptional winter.

      I am not surprised at all that when comparing aggregate numbers of mule deer from 2005 to 2013 that the population has decreased. I would be surprised if it were otherwise. In fact, I can’t help but opine that this may be much ado about nothing. Isn’t it possible that with the general elimination of apex predators the mule deer population exploded over the decades to reach population highs that were more or less unnatural and were bound to be curtailed, in the long run, due to severe weather?

      That being said, I also find it disingenuous of the Denver Post (the quality of which, IMO, has steadily decreased ever since their rival Rocky Mountain News was closed) to shine their feeble light only on the extraction industry and not the livestock industry. They do point out the 2,000 collisions a year, but out of a population of hundreds of thousands can that really have an impact?

      If roads have an impact it isn’t likely due to the direct number killed by collision but rather by the fragmentation of habitat. They do mention development, but just barely, probably because they don’t want to tick off the real estate industry. Remember, as unsavory as the oil and gas industry is, it is an easy target to pick on and may just well distract from the real issues. Ranching, real estate devlopment and road building are venerable, well-respected industries in this state and the Post might well lose advertising dollars for offending them. The petroleum industry needs heavy regulation, in my opinion, but so do these others.

      And how reliable can this article be for a true conservationist who values all members of the biotic community regardless of the economic or recreational value an animal or plant provides us? As usual, two of the few remaining predators, the coyote and cougar, are implicated in this decline. Well, hell, we’d better get out there and kill them off, too, since they don’t provide enough economic stimulus to keep the DPW afloat.

      WM – “I am guessing there are not many cheering much for wolves moving south into this area.”

      I realize that I am only an individual and my values may conflict with those of my neighbors, but I would love to see wolves migrate into Colorado (beyond the few that have and then subsequently perished) and establish a breeding population. I would also like to see Ol’ Ephraim return along with free ranging buffalo. Yeah, I know, it probably won’t happen, but I’ll keep on dreaming and posturing.

      • Immer Treue says:


        “Isn’t it possible that with the general elimination of apex predators the mule deer population exploded over the decades to reach population highs that were more or less unnatural and were bound to be curtailed, in the long run, due to severe weather?”

        The anti-wolf zealots more often than not conveniently fail to factor this into their mindset. Artificially high ungulate numbers, habitat fragmentation, lack of sufficient Winter range, supplementary feeding by humans, and corresponding lack of predators all contribute to a general decline in fitness/health of said ungulates.

        • ZeeWolf says:

          I had to re-read Aldo Leopold’s essay Thinking Like a Mountain that contains the oft-quoted line “fierce green fire dying in her eyes”. More relevant, perhaps, to a discussion of mule deer, or any ungulate, and the lack of predators: “I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise”.

          Leopold continues to describe the ecological devastation caused by an overabundance of deer consequent of the extirpation of wolves and goes on to say “I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer.”

  52. Ida Lupines says:

    Well at least this isn’t one they can blame on wolves – 2000 vehicle collisions per year, eh? Wanna bet somebody will say they are sneaking over the Colorado border and back. How many are lost to predators? Can they build wildlife overpasses or is that ‘tooooooo expennnnnnnsiiiiivvvvvve’.

    We keep hearing about ‘hard choices and tough decisions’. Just what are they?

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Mule deer have the most beautiful faces. I guess it would ‘behoove’ people who want to keep the deer around to build over/under passes on highways. Perhaps a Sportsmen’s Act. This domino effect of human activity is hard to watch unfold.

    • Nancy says:

      Ida – Many wildlife agencies from what I can gather, are just starting to discuss/relate to ungulate migration (mule deer, elk and antelope) here in the west although any old timer or new timer (over 20 years in my location) probably could of clued them in.

      And, IMHO, fence lines should also been listed as a major problem.

      The fence line (in the pic, in that article) was in sorry shape, as are hundreds of thousands of miles of fence lines across the west – “dad or granddad built them) and I doubt few are keeping track of how many ungulates are caught often and die in them each year. (I’ve cut my share out and sadly, its too late by the time I get to them)

      Then there’s woven fence line, that maybe an aid in keeping predators out close by the ranch but orphans young ungulates, at critical times in their lives, when herds are migrating around areas or out of areas for the winter.

      Interesting how the ranching/hunter “wagons” keep circling and changing positions out here regarding wildlife – ranchers being over run with elk, deer (or OMG the thought of bison) etc. but, ya got the hunters wanting more access, pissing some ranchers off. But then some ranchers happy when hunters/outfitters take out elk, deer and predators.

      A sad circle that doesn’t include most wildlife, just humans.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Yes, I hate fences – every time I see something rigged up I imagine it impeding some poor creature from getting around, a constant obstacle course. I saw three fawns awhile back who were crossing the road, and one tried and tried to get under a fence. A mallard and her brood were trying to cross the other day but blocked with some kind of construction sheeting. A coyote crossing a median strip quite brilliantly.

      • Elk375 says:

        I have 55 years of observing mule deer. Mule deer populations goes up and down every 8 to 10 years. In 1973, 74 and 75 mule deer were nowhere to be found. By 1984,the mule deer population was so high that hunting districts in Eastern Montana allowed up to 5 doe permits.

        If the population is low then in 8 to 10 years it will peak again. With today’s large elk herds there is some thought that elk are impacting mule deer numbers which I believe but elk is better eating.

        I am not worry about the low mule deer numbers in Montana at this point. They will rebound.

        • Nancy says:

          “I am not worry about the low mule deer numbers in Montana at this point. They will rebound”

          Spoken like a true, local hunter, Elk, who perhaps won’t realize they are gone, til their gone? 🙂

          We didn’t have near the same problems with habitat destruction, improved highways, too many people, etc. back in the 70’s, even the 80’s right?

          • Elk375 says:

            The fastest way to increase mule deer numbers would be to reduce the mountain lion numbers substantially and curtail doe permits which was done this year. But increasing the mountain lion population is not a popular option these days or is reducing the doe permits.

            • WM says:

              This deer story was focused mostly on CO. If I recall when the oilshale exploration was going full bore in the mid to late 1970’s, there was pretty good bump in the Piceance deer herd (largest migratory mule deer herd in the world I think) a couple years after they left. This, of course, was also linked to some pretty tough drought years, just as we are having now. So, it is likely there are a lot of factors at work here, and the wildlife agencies in CO and elsewhere will factor all this stuff together, adjust seasons and hunter opportunity, maybe encourage some predator removal, and watch to see what the weather does over the longer term. But, I am guessing there are not many cheering much for wolves moving south into this area.

            • Nancy says:

              IMHO Elk – The fastest way to increase mule deer numbers would be for hunters to just leave all of them the hell alone for a year or two 🙂 When pigs fly right?

  53. WM says:

    Oh, this is rich. Cliven Bundy’s son (one of several sons if I recall), faces arrest in a separate criminal case stemming from his felony conviction on burglary and weapon charges. He could face two to eight years in state prison if he is found in violation of terms of the five years’ probation imposed after he pleaded guilty in February 2013 to felony burglary and weapon theft charges.

    • Immer Treue says:

      “Bundy attributed his conviction to an addiction to opiate pain killers, and said he has been getting counseling.

      Bundy’s parents, Cliven and Carol Bundy, said they thought their son obtained medical releases from the court-ordered drug program.”

      So Limbaughesque! The fake patriots are nothing more than posers playing the system.

      • Nancy says:

        “Bundy’s parents, Cliven and Carol Bundy, said they thought their son obtained medical releases from the court-ordered drug program.”

        Cliven & Carol also thought THEY could mooch off public lands. How sweet is that 🙂 Guess ya gotta know the ropes….

    • Amre says:

      Reminds me of the fact that just a few months ago a former bundy ranch employee committed a mass shooting with his girlfriend. As for the son, what do you expect from a person whose parents are so radically anti government?

      I have a feeling that soon enough the days of bundy taking public land like his own property will come to an end….(:(:(:

  54. Ida Lupines says:

    The July wolf update from Yellowstone is very exciting! I really should plan a trip out there soon.

  55. Ida Lupines says:

    Isn’t this beautiful? The sea turtle’s flipper looks damaged (hopefully it will heal), but it still is a nice story. And refreshing!

  56. jburnham says:

    State [Wyoming] says elk will persist in face of CWD

    ”It helps to know that based on this research, if CWD should become established on feedgrounds, we won’t see a devastating effect on populations as many have feared,” he said in a statement. “This research also looked at how hunting would affect populations, and it appears, Game and Fish would still need to have hunting seasons to manage elk populations even if faced with CWD on feedgrounds.” Scott Edberg, deputy chief of the Game and Fish wildlife division.

  57. Nancy says:

    That you Kathie Lynch! Always look forward to your reports 🙂

    • WM says:

      Who says national park concessionaire operations and lodging isn’ big business?

      West Glacier Inc. is a subsidiary, owned by Viad (HQ’s in Phoenix, AZ and Las Vegas), an international travel and event hosting company with about $1B in annual sales annually, and operations in the Arab emirates, UK and US. Nosed out by Xanterra, another heavy weight parks concessionaire, for the next 16 years for Glacier Park visitor services. This is the same template for national parks all over the country – and where much of that $31M in projected annual wolf tourism goes in the case of Yellowstone (the study economists forgot to tell you that part). Minimum wage jobs for the little people, senior management from outside the area, and profits to shareholders, some of whom are Wall St. institutional investors like insurance companies or some well heeled celebrity or business tycoon with a penthouse overlooking Central Park in NYC, or some exotic place like Riyahd, Saudi Arabia. Ain,’t corporate ownership a wonderful thing?

      Now Via owns another 200+ acres of MT, which will be developed for profit.

      • WM says:

        Sorry, “Viad owns…”

      • Ida Lupines says:


      • timz says:

        So your saying the Feds should run the parks concessions themselves because we all know how well they manage things. At least in this scenario someone is making money rather than the taxpayer losing out again.

        • WM says:

          I didn’t say the feds should run them. I would like to see more contracts given to local companies, where the money stays a little closer to communities. And, in a qualified defense of companies like Xanterra, they seem to do a very good job of running campgrounds. I was most impressed by the ones they ran in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area the last few years. Seems to me it would be equally as possible for some other SMALLER private operators to meet those standards. But, unfortunately, the feds want to deal with fewer contractors, and they now have in place a qualification system that may even prohibit some from getting into the bid queue even just to compete for these contracts. If you had experience with their on-line contractor base registration (which as gone by past names like CCR and ORCA), which is now called SAM, you would know what I mean.

    • JB says:

      “The majority of Nevadans do not support hunting and trapping as there are over 2½million Nevadans who hold no wildlife killing licenses — 98 percent. These Nevadans are an overwhelming majority to the 2 percent of Nevadans who hold hunting and trapping registrations.”

      Supporting an activity is not the same as engaging in an activity. Studies that measure attitudes toward hunting typically find 70+ percent of Americans support the activity.

      If we apply Ms. McGrath’s logic to other activities, nearly every type of recreational activity would be banned for lack of ‘support’.

      • Elk375 says:

        Nevada has legal prostitution which is supported buy the majority of state residents or it was be outlawed. I will bet you less than 2 percent of the residents of Nevada visit the sporting houses on a regular basis.

        • JB says:

          Was in your neck of the woods this week, elk (Missoula). We enjoyed the stay–especially my wife. I think she would move today!

      • WM says:

        JB, I am very glad you took exception to the logical construct of Ms. McGrath’s statement, and her conclusion. She is a former HSUS lobbyist, as well. So, carrying forward my dislike for the spin truths that HSUS likes to throw out there, it is probably worth keeping a close analytical eye on this one, as well. I gather from the article she is affiliated with the Nevada Political Action for Animals and Lake Tahoe Wolf Rescue.

      • Nancy says:

        “Supporting an activity is not the same as engaging in an activity. Studies that measure attitudes toward hunting typically find 70+ percent of Americans support the activity”

        70% of what percentage, is the question though, JB?

        “Beyond the “traditional” fighting, now, more commonly, dog fights are informal street corner activities. These are spontaneous events triggered by insults, turf invasions or the simple taunt, “My dog can kill yours.”

        ****Many of these participants lack any respect for the animals, forcing them to train wearing heavy chains to build stamina and picking street fights in which they could get seriously hurt. And many of the dogs are bred to be a threat not only to other dogs, but to people as well—with tragic consequences”

        What percentage of people loved this guy til his “lifestyle” came to light?

      • Louise Kane says:

        supporting is not the same as engaging in an activity but I think the point here is that a minority of individuals are driving wildlife policy and that in Nevada that policy is harming wildlife.

  58. Kathleen says:

    Good news out of Zion N.P.: Utah’s first condor chick (apologies if already posted)

  59. Louise Kane says:

    does anyone have a copy of the Joy Williams essay the killing game

  60. Louise Kane says:

    discussion of hate as a reason to kill wolves and Idaho and its war on wolves

    interesting comments
    I’m hoping something changes
    what beautiful country but a terrible place for predators

    • Nancy says:

      Good article & comments Louise. Surprised that it’s been up for 2 days and Rockhead & his ilk, have jumped on it yet 🙂

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Yes, Tumbleweed has a great comment.

    • WM says:

      He seems a bit confused and conflicted – even the choice of title for this piece. I would be willing to chip in for the guy to get a razor, or alternatively fertilizer for his beard, whichever way he decides to go. At least he can clear that part up pretty easily. 😉

  61. Nancy says:

    Idaho is burning again this year and the smoke is getting thicker in my area of southwest Montana.

  62. Kathleen says:

    Here’s how we’re supposed to help out the sage grouse–by killing all their natural, native predators. Of course (palm to forehead)–kill more animals.

  63. Ida Lupines says:

    Wildlife report – what a delightful racket – fledgling birds all out learning to find their own food, some more reluctant than others. Yearling male white tail with velvet antlers roaming through the yard the past couple of nights.

    • bret says:

      Looks like a new pack in NE Oregon.


      Depredation, new wolf activity in Chesnimnus Unit (Wallowa County)

      ODFW has confirmed new wolf activity by previously unconfirmed wolves in the Chesnimnus Unit (Wallowa County). The finding was made last night when an investigation confirmed that a domestic calf was killed by wolves in the Cougar Creek Area, on national forest lands (Wallowa Whitman NF) approximately 30 miles north of Enterprise. ODFW had received irregular reports of wolf activity in this area but this is the first recent information showing evidence of resident activity by more than a single wolf.

      At least two to three wolves were believed to be in the area where the calf was killed. These wolves are not believed to be part of any previously known wolf pack. ODFW is now working to gather more information on these new wolves, including determination of their reproductive status, and will attempt to radio-collar individual wolves in this group.

  64. Jeff N. says:

    Uh oh…..”finish the’danged’fence” – J. McCain

  65. aves says:

    Highway barrier (and vehicles) killing ocelots in TX:

  66. MAD says:

    Article by Doug Peacock – author, naturalist and close friend of the late Edward Abbey (and inspiration for the character Hayduke in The Monkey Wrench Gang).

    “Who will Save the Wolverine? Not the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service”

  67. Immer Treue says:

    2014 Minnesota Wolf population survey.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Finicky birds? Having the right to a little bit of land to live makes a species other than human finicky?

  68. Mareks Vilkins says:

    lynx walking on the road in Latvia
    (video 3:43 min)

    • Mareks Vilkins says:

      • Nancy says:

        Mareks – this video was a rare treat to watch. Thank you for posting it 🙂

        How threatened or endangered, are Lynx in Latvia?

        It was interesting to watch this lynx walking along a “man made” road but suddenly acknowledging a car and having an adverse reaction to it.

        • Mareks Vilkins says:


          I guess that he was amused both by car and by human with a rifle ambushing wild boar or roe deer (or maybe just enjoying summer-time. He was slowly strolling and then paused, did some licking (cats usually do this when they are confused/pondering smth) and then decided it’d be smart thing to get out of here with style 😀

          Hunter’s profile photo features a shot wolf – so one can rest assured that he would blow that lynx to pieces if it was open season (Dec-April or season is closed sooner if the quota is met)

          “Action plan for the conservation of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Latvia”

          Latvian version has an appendix of discussion/debate among game officials and hunter org representatives @ p.46

  69. Nancy says:

    Another very sad example of “wildlife bites the dust” due to mankind’s stupidity:

    “Rangers say the same 225-pound bear had been seen digging in a fire pit and wandering on and near the park trail system in the area, making it a threat to human safety”

  70. Louise Kane says:

    This from Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, a campaign I have volunteered on for phone bank and to collect and catalogue comments….

    if any of you want to donate time to a good cause and put you money where your mouths are, now is your chance need some more specific background info you can contact me by e mail via Ralph or call the campaign.

    “Hello Phone Bank volunteers,
    I wanted to take a few minutes and give you an update about the campaign and also ask for some help this week to get folks out to canvass. This Thursday the board of elections will most likely certify our oppositions petition that would aim to negate our two referendums. We think the next time the legislature would be able to vote for this would be at the end of the month, or possibly the second week of August. We have continued our canvass operation in key districts. I am hoping you have an hour or so this week to make some calls for the campaign. People are pretty open to dropping off door hangers as it requires no conversations at the door. I really appreciate it and look forward to hearing from you. If you can help, drop me an e-mail.
    Thank you for all your support!”

    Chris Silva
    Campaign Coordinator
    Keep Michigan Wolves Protected

    P.O. Box 81096
    Lansing MI, 48908

    Office: 517-993-5201

    Mobile: 313-744-2603

    • bret says:

      Wildfires have burned nearly 900,000 acres of forests and grasslands across the Pacific Northwest.

      Almost 10,000 firefighters are battling 19 wildfires that have burned nearly 900,000 acres across Oregon and Washington since early last week.

    • jon says:

      Makes me sick those extremists are trying to go around the voters.

    • bret says:

      New pack in NE WA

      Becker, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife wolf biologist Trent Roussin and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service wildlife biologist Wade Jones were recently tracking an as yet unnamed pack of wolves on national forest land south of Sullivan Lake near Ione, Wash.

  71. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Ahh, those big, bad, non-native Canadian wolves again!
    First hand information by the Idaho Farm Bureau Information Director:

  72. Louise Kane says:

    This is not wolves but it speaks legions to what is wrong with wildlife laws. These people think that killing prairie dogs and using them as target practice is acceptable and no laws stop them. We can do better…..
    one day will people say can you believe that people shot prairie dogs for target practice and that this was a factor in their extinction…

    I feel so sickened by this article.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Like they aren’t even alive. God, we are terrible creatures. I’d be happy if these kinds of things were outlawed, the killing contests and target practice of other living things. If some creature is a problem (ultimately because we’ve overrun the planet) – then take care of it, but don’t make it ‘fun’ or a ‘family outing’!

      I think I’ll go see Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

    • Immer Treue says:

      “…While those are all great ways to amass invaluable time behind the trigger, there’s simply no replacement for shooting at live animals in a real world situation.”

      One small quote from article that calls into question the path this particular mindset has taken

  73. Louise Kane says:

    litter of mexican wolves born in wild in Mexico!

  74. Yvette says:

    A victory for the Florida Panther: Dan A. Hughes oil company withdraws plans for exploratory drilling near critical panther habitat.

  75. Immer Treue says:

    Mayfly hatch overwhelms upper Midwest caught on radar.

  76. JB says:

    I hesitate to post this on the Wildlife News, but comments on MT’s wolf stamp close tomorrow. Rather than blasting the idea from the start, I suggest readers look carefully at the proposed policy and send MT FW&P constructive comments. Here are a few of mine:

    “I would like to commend MT FW&P for considering a wolf stamp. I believe this is forward-thinking policy that (eventually) other states will follow. I sincerely hope that you’re able to make this work. However, there are a few minor ‘tweaks’ that I believe could make the policy more palatable to a broad range of stakeholders, and more effective over the long-term:

    (1) First, this is a small point, but advocates of wolves have come to equate the word “management” with “killing”. If you want this stamp to have broad public appeal, I suggest replacing the word “management” with “conservation”.

    (2) Paying for livestock losses after the fact does not do anything to incentivize behavior/practices that could actually prevent future depredations. The problem, as I see it, is that advocates will feel betrayed if the money they paid for wolf conservation/management is used to pay a livestock producer AND the wolf/pack responsible for the depredation ends up having to be removed–a scenario that is likely. The solution, I think, is to pay not for depredations, but for non-lethal deterrents or for husbandry practices aimed at reducing predation. Another method for incentivizing coexistence would be to pay producers a small fee for verified reproduction on their property or allotment (a technique used in Sweden). If MT FWP chooses to pay for depredations from wolf stamp funds, I would encourage you to limit payments to the first year (in which depredation occurs), then cut off future depredation payments to that producer and switch to an incentive-based approach. This would allow MT FWP to help ranchers who haven’t had a problem with wolves in the past while at the same time incentivizing coexistence in the future.

    Thank you for considering my suggestions, and best of luck!”

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Thanks JB – I don’t like equating ‘management’ with ‘killing’ either, when there certainly are non-lethal ways of handling wolf/human conflicts. The only one most often used seems to be killing, and not a lot attention is given to those ranchers using more non-lethal means.

      I do support the MT wolf stamp, and want to give it a chance to work.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Those are great comments!

    • Mark L says:

      ” At the sanctuary, the mother and her four remaining pups were reintroduced to a former mate, who officials say adopted the pups as his own.”
      Now THAT was unexpected, but doesn’t suprise me. Neat story line.

  77. Mike says:

    huge black bear poaching ring busted:

    There’s something very wrong with the male human species in the Bitterroot.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I don’t know why our government assumes we have any kind of integrity at all when it comes to relaxing laws for endangered species. It isn’t reality.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        In return for that cooperation, the wardens opted not to pursue felony charges in the case.

        Why not? Continued slaps on the wrist and laughably small fines only are not going to deter poaching.

      • Elk375 says:

        Black bears are not an endangered species, what they did was not right. Montana does not allow black bear baiting, nor should it, but across the Bitterroot divide Idaho allows bear baiting. Were these bears killed during black bear hunting season or were they killed out of season over bait?

        • Elk375 says:

          I think that they were killed during hunting season but illegally baited.

      • JB says:

        Ida: For clarity, black bears are not endangered in Montana. In fact, the are quite numerous. The bears, in appears, were killed under permit and reported (not poached), but were taken illegally (i.e., over bait). The point–there is no risk to black bear populations here.

        Please, before you jump down my throat (again), please read what I’ve written. I’m not condoning the behavior of these ‘gentlemen’, merely noting that their behavior (in this case) does not endanger bear populations.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          See, here’s is the thing: you are excusing bad behavior because it *supposedly* doesn’t endanger the black bear population. It shouldn’t matter whether or not the populations are endangered. The behavior is still wrong, unethical, illegal, greedy, low……

          I just read an article where 50 men in North Carolina and Georgia were rounded up for illegally poaching bears and other animals, so I really have a hard time believing it doesn’t endanger the population(s). It certainly puts hunters’ ethical reputations in jeopardy.

          It’s an abhorrent crime and one of the extremely rare areas where lifelong sportsmen and ‘misguided’ antis can even agree


        • JB says:

          “…you are excusing bad behavior because it *supposedly* doesn’t endanger the black bear population.”

          No I’m not. I specifically wrote: “I’m not condoning the behavior of these ‘gentlemen’, merely noting that their behavior (in this case) does not endanger bear populations.”

          I was responding directly to your post, where you suggested: “I don’t know why our government assumes we have any kind of integrity at all when it comes to relaxing laws for endangered species.”

          Black bear in Montana are not endangered (Georgia is a different site altogether and isn’t relevant to the above incident).

          Let me be clear: The behavior of these individuals, while wrong, doesn’t jeopardize bear populations. That does not excuse their behavior, but it should inform how we respond. So, for example, if we were talking about red wolves in North Carolina, or Florida panthers–animals whose populations put the in danger of extinction–I would recommend a different response. In this case, the fines and court fees are sufficient because–again–the population isn’t jeopardized by the behavior of these individuals.


          • Ida Lupines says:

            No. No allowances are made for the poachers when we assume everyone is going to behave honorably. There’s a lot of these (I can’t call them gentlemen even in jest) and hunting numbers for animals don’t reflect how many are illegally taken. Perhaps if the fines were larger, they could be added to the hunting and fishing coffers.

            • JB says:

              Ida: There are between 10 and 17 thousand bears in the state of Montana, which ‘harvests’ about 1,000 bears annually. My point is that black bear POPULATIONS in Montana do not need endangered species status because of a few rednecks decided to hunt them over bait (you do understand the significance that these kills were reported, correct?).

              Perhaps application of your logic to another scenario will help illustrate the fault? Last year I uncovered a pile of poached white-tailed deer while out on a run in Michigan. There were 4-5 carcasses with the antlers hacked off. Your response suggests that–despite the fact that Michigan is near overrun with deer–we should list deer as endangered because we can’t count on some people to “behave honorably”. Do you now see the problem…?

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Sorry, no. It’s the behavior, not whether the animal is endangered or not. The problem is, that it isn’t just a few. It seems like an awful lot of people doing this.

                People who disobey the law should receive harsher penalties is all I am saying, and it has nothing to do with how many animals a population has. That’s just my opinion – endangered just makes it that much more selfish and worse. Hunters themselves ought to be opposed to this. Illegally killing a deer and hacking of its antlers ought to be repugnant to just about anyone, for the waste alone. It probably just scratches the surface of how much poaching actually goes on, and our feeble punishments don’t really seem to do much to deter it.

                With a small population like wolves and grizzlies and sage grouse, you can see where the danger would lie. If the penalties are across the boards for poaching, it will deter them all?

              • JB says:

                Okay, Ida. If this constitutes a problem, what’s your solution? You understand that these folks have already broken the law, right? So clearly laws are not a barrier for them. So do you think changing the law to make their behavior even more illegal is going to make a difference?

                How about greater fines? Maybe even some jail time? That might help to deter some bad behavior, but not all. And what happens when you catch the sole ‘bread earner’ for a poor family? You going to lay the ol’ smack down on ’em–put him in jain, and maybe give him a nice $10k fine to boot? You think a judge is going to do that for taking an animal (or even 10!) in a population large enough to sustain the mortality? When he looks out and sees some poor sap with a wife and two kids to feed?

                I get it, you don’t like hunters and you don’t like killing. Well, then what’s your solution, Ida?

              • Elk375 says:


                ++How about greater fines? Maybe even some jail time? That might help to deter some bad behavior, but not all. And what happens when you catch the sole ‘bread earner’ for a poor family? ++

                If the justice system tries to impose higher fines and jail time then the defendant is going to get a lawyer, plea innocent and demand a jury trial. Montana FWP’s has had fair success in prosecuting wildlife crimes before a jury. These bears were illegally baited and apparently killed during legal season and tagged. There was some wanton waste. A jury in Ravalli County (Hamilton, MT) or Beaverhead County (Dillon, MT) would go easy on these local boys and the charges against them.

                It would almost be a waste of time and money and maybe the county attorney would not take the case due to the expense and time.

                Wildlife crimes are the same as any crime, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

              • JB says:

                “It’s the behavior, not whether the animal is endangered or not.”

                If the behavior is bad, it is bad for a reason–i.e., there are consequences that society wishes to prevent. In the case of an endangered species, those consequences are obvious and could be severe (the loss of a species, either locally, nationally, or worldwide). In the case of species that are widespread, the consequences are that a few less animals are available for the public (either for harvest or viewing). My point is that the consequences for the species should determine the way we respond–and they do.

                You wrote: “The problem is, that it isn’t just a few. It seems like an awful lot of people doing this.”

                Seems, shmeems. If the problem occurs frequently enough, there will be consequences for the population. In the above example, there do not appear to be consequences. Montana has 10-17 thousand bears which support a robust harvest.

                I think you’re simply looking for an excuse to make it illegal to engage in behavior that you disapprove of? That’s fine. But if so, you’re obligated to explain why this behavior is so deplorable. Thus far, the reasons you give aren’t very compelling.

        • Immer Treue says:

          A while back, there was an article where an IDFG officer commented that poachers take more ungulates than do wolves. I think the article was somewhat lambasted, yet, more and more if these illegal activities become exposed.

    • Yvette says:

      It sounds like the Wildlife and Parks warden is fairly ticked over this. It’s good that the ringleader may lose his hunting, fishing and trapping license for 10 years, but it’s too bad they aren’t being charged with the felony counts. The article states this was one of the biggest illegal bear takes in MT history. That should warrant felony charges. I wonder if more severe penalties would reduce the illegal hunting, poaching or whatever you want to call it.

      Let’s wait and see if they even lose their hunting licenses for 5-10 years.

      • Elk375 says:

        I would plea innocent if I was the defendants and demand a jury trial. They would never be convicted of all charges.

        • Yvette says:

          Which is probably what will happen. Out of curiosity I did a search on the one named as the ringleader. He has a business in Darby, and comes off as a pretty friendly chap. I think this is a wait and see situation, but if he faces a jury of locals he likely won’t have to contend with consequences.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      lol If they advocate SSS, there are many who advocate the three D’s for traps and snares. i.e. have bolt cutter, will travel. 😉 But do these people want a continual war? I think they do.

  78. Louise Kane says:
    new org with a good education mission

  79. Ida Lupines says:

    Well, if it truly is some poor sap fallen on hard times, perhaps then give him a break. But clearly, most of this is just a racket, corruption and the ugly side of human nature. Selling off bear parts to Asia, etc. Throw the book at them. Or not look at wildlife as a ‘resource’ so much.

    • Louise Kane says:

      I’m not sure I agree with that about poor sap
      one of the tenants about making deterring crime and I’m betting that would apply to poaching as well, that its certain, swift and severe. I would think the judge would have some discretion as they do with sentencing and using sentencing guidelines but in order to be effective the message has to be loud and clear and in that respect I agree that slaps on the wrist are not working. If you used that rationale (that some poor sap is trying to support his family) then stealing and pilfering would be less criminal for some than others. I get where both of you are coming from but the reality is that its no less of a crime if a poor person commits it than a wealthy trophy hunter. The effect is the same……the punishment to be effective as a deterrent should be equal. It would perhaos be more effective?

      • Elk375 says:

        Louise you are a lawyer and a good lawyer can either try the case or plea bargain. A good lawyer in this case can reduce those charges or have a jury find them innocent on many of the charges.

        What they did is illegal and I do believe that they should be consequences but reality is reality.

      • JB says:

        “… but the reality is that its no less of a crime if a poor person commits it than a wealthy trophy hunter. The effect is the same.”

        Louise: I believe another principle of law is that the punishment should fit the crime? Killing an endangered (or threatened) species–as I noted–is different than killing a species that is abundant. Why? Because the consequences for society are less. I used the deer example because one might make the argument that the consequences of the poachers actions actually result in a net gain for society (removal of an overabundant species causing agricultural and ecological damage).

        Ida seems to think that the consequences don’t matter; but rather, we should punish people equally for engaging in bad behavior. Fine, she’s entitled to her opinion, I’m simply trying to explain why that ain’t going to happen. Consequences matter.

        • JB says:

          As a follow up, I think a method of discouraging this type of behavior that would be more useful would be greater enforcement (rather than greater punishment)–the idea being that if wrong-doers were more frequently caught and prosecuted, that might act as a more effective deterrent (though again, there are additional costs associated with greater enforcement).

          • idalupine says:

            Well, greater enforcement then – something, anything to curb it!


          • Nancy says:

            “In this case, the fines and court fees are sufficient because–again–the population isn’t jeopardized by the behavior of these individuals”

            Kind of like drug dealers, huh JB. Always a good supply available….

            But seriously – is it sending the wrong message for the crime? As someone in the comment section pointed out “you can kill whatever for about $5 grand”

            Black bear rugs on the internet are going for upwards of $2 grand.


            But is there more going on here than meets the eye?
            Could Harrison’s little ring of poachers, just be part of a much larger network of international poachers?

            The kind that are willing to kill elephants for their tusks and endangered rhinos, for their horns.


            But who wants to go there. right?

            • JB says:

              “… is it sending the wrong message for the crime? As someone in the comment section pointed out ‘you can kill whatever for about $5 grand’.”

              Not really. Again, kill an endangered species and the fines go up substantially. Query: Do you think killing a rabbit illegally should land one the same fine/punishment as an endangered grizzly bear?

              “But is there more going on here than meets the eye? Could Harrison’s little ring of poachers, just be part of a much larger network of international poachers?”

              Honestly, I doubt it. If he was truly out to make big money poaching, he wasn’t doing a very good job. After all, he hunted under a license and paid for tags–and the article said he killed 3 bears over bait since 2009. $6K over 5 years hardly puts him on the scale of international poachers.

              In any case, ‘coulds’ and ‘maybes’ don’t hold up in court.

              • Nancy says:

                “and the article said he killed 3 bears over bait since 2009”

                Well that ought to be proof enough right?

    • JB says:

      The problem is the generalization. The author details research surrounding trophy hunting of African lions (mostly in South Africa), but then generalizes well beyond that context:

      Big game hunting is clearly not helping poaching, it’s not helping community development and it actually often contributes to illegal smuggling.”

      The analysis is fine–for African lions, the problem is generalizing it to big game hunting in general. Big game hunting does not equal trophy hunting of African lions.

    • Elk375 says:

      The article starts out about trophy hunting in South Africa. With the exceptions of national parks most all land in South Africa is privately owned and the landowner owns the wildlife. Therefore, the landowner can decide what to do with his/her wildlife. If the wildlife is not trophy hunted then it will be market or biltong hunted.

      If the wildlife did not have a value then it would be removed and replace with cattle. When I hunted Africa my PH told me in the 50’s that he was hired to shoot off all of the wildlife which was replaced by cattle. In one year he shot over 3000 zebras and 3000 wildebeest; he commented that he went to sleep seeing stripes. Years later they removed the cattle and replaced the wildlife and started trophy hunting and selling the meat.

      Over 90 percent of the private land tourist will never visit.

      • idalupine says:

        In one year he shot over 3000 zebras and 3000 wildebeest; he commented that he went to sleep seeing stripes.

        How awful. How can we justify this out of control human behavior? We really do not own wildlife, we take it because there’s no one to stop us. How I wish there were.

        I’d love to visit just to be able to see African wildlife.

      • Yvette says:

        Yeah, South Africa is the main African country where they breed lions specifically to be hunted…..if one can call shooting a caged animal hunting. Of course, Texas ranches are big on the canned and caged hunting, too.

        “the landowner can decide what to do with his/her wildlife.” That wildlife is not his or hers to own, regardless of their man made laws. That very tenet goes against the natural laws of this planet, and those natural laws are higher than any of man’s laws.

        Just because something is legal does not make it ethical or moral. When things are driven primarily by capital gain where does that leave us as a species? With the colonization and unfettered capitalism now spread throughout the world, we seem to be divided into humans that believe if a dime can be made, regardless of how it is made, or who or what dies in the process, then all is great; and those that believe there are moral and ethical limits to our actions and, to capital gain.

        As a species, I believe we need a collective reevaluation of what we have evolved into, and where we should strive to be. It is even more important for individuals to examine themselves for their character and evaluate what things they use to validate their character and ethics against.

        Your comments on South Africa reminded me of a video I saw quite a while back. This is hunting? This is not hunting. This is paying someone for the right to kill—one of the lowest forms of human beings, IMO.

  80. WM says:

    WA Congressional delegation (most of it anyway) seeks full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is the fund that pays for federal acquisition of lands for conservation and recreation, including wildlife refuges and national parks. The R’s, except one, in WA are the holdouts. The R’s elsewhere are likely to see it gets minimal attention. Very sad.

    • DLB says:


      Would you like to grab a beer sometime? I’ve been reading this blog for several years and have enjoyed reading your informative posts & perspective. You’ve obviously accumulated an impressive reservoir of knowledge over your lifetime about a number of issues.

      If your curious as to why, chalk it up to a desire for personal enrichment on my part. My interest in the issues discussed on this blog are purely personal.

      I’ve refrained from asking in the past because so many people desire anonymity over the internet. However, I seek out the advice of the dwindling list of people I truly respect professionally when the opportunities present themselves, so why should I stop short of that when it comes to issues I deeply care about personally?

      • WM says:


        Thanks for the kind words and the offer of a favorite libation. I think, for now anyway, I would still like to remain mostly anonymous on this forum. Do appreciate the thought, though.

        • DLB says:


          I understand.

          Some food for thought: I have been told by others that passing along knowledge obtained over a lifetime to younger generations is a rewarding experience. Just saying….

          • WM says:

            Interesting you should mention that – passing on knowledge to the next generation.

            Ironically, I had a telephone conversation earlier this week with a former boss from years ago. He was going to be in Seattle in a couple weeks. He is writing a book, ostensibly for the next generation, and has been trying to schedule a meeting with William Ruckleshaus, the very first (and later the fifth) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Ruckleshaus still lives here, and is now in his early 80’s. My friend, who worked for him in DC, wanted some reflective perspective on the creation of the EPA. Unlike some other agencies are created by an organic act they administer, EPA was created by Executive Order by President Nixon – as a protector agency of the environment, hence the name (it was once contemplated it would have a broader in natural resources conservation) and its leader a Cabinet level position. Its gestation period was just a few months, which resulted in how it came to be organized in the Summer and Fall of 1970. It has not changed much in that organizational structure. Some have made the case that it still should be a Cabinet level position, recently – especially as we approach the future with a much larger population, greater demands on the land, air and water, and apparently with a more variable and drier climate in many places. To put one aspect into perspective think of the scarcity of water in the West, and an apparently insatiable commercial desire to frack the shit out of ancient seabeds in search of oil and natural gas – all unregulated to some degree. This, of course, puts groundwater resources at risk. And once they are polluted it will be an expensive mess to clean up. And then there are all the marine aspects that EPA is involved in to protect sea life under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other statutes, and hope that other countries do their part at protection, as well.

            I had forgotten much of the history of how EPA came to be and how it operated and gained traction in its infancy, including the initial implementation of the NEPA law, and its ubiquitous environmental impact statement (EIS) process. And, there is always the confrontive regulatory role it plays in environmental protection, often doing its regulatory acrobatics without a net and making decisions, sometimes with little science to go on in a politically charged and finance driven environment.

            And we know that this federal statute and agency creation spawned similar state agencies with combined regulatory functions over activities and industry, and processes to evaluate “significant state actions,” under their respective statutes, in much the same way as NEPA.

            We are almost at that stage where the youth of today do not know where we have been, and how far we have come in search of environmental improvement, even with a recognition that we really could be doing a better job of environmental stewardship.

            Sorry for the nostalgic rambling, but the phone call, and the biking in Wilderness thread got me thinking about the big picture of conservation and environmental protection birthed in the 1960’s and early 1970’s when we actually had a Congress that could recognize differences of viewpoints but still solve problems.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              Even a few Republicans. I was wrong in saying ‘we Yanks are rarely original’. These times were some of our finest hours. It’s very disappointing to see it all being chipped away at.

  81. JB says:

    On getting what you want…

    Over the past few years, I’ve noticed a number of folks who post here have argued diligently against hunting, against trapping, and against lethal control. When pressed, some of them will allow for exceptions (e.g., it’s okay to hunt for subsistence), but their comments usually make it clear that they would prefer animals not be hunted at all.

    Today I was caught up (yet again) in a conversation about what should be done about nasty poachers. List the species as endangered! Increase fines! Give ’em jail time! Essentially, legislate morality. I tried to point out some of the problems inherent in this approach (e.g., dissuading lawbreakers by making things illegal hardly seems logical, judges and juries (thanks, Elk375) won’t convict people or dole out heavy punishments for ‘crimes’ they see as minor violations, and increased enforcement comes at a cost). These arguments received much the same reception they usually get– a healthy dose of moral outrage, a pinch of hyperbole, and more than a tad of outright hostility.

    So rather than spend any more time posting on the subject this eve, I decided to sit down with a book I’d been recommended by a few friends — John Shivik’s ‘The Predator Paradox’. A few of you might be familiar with Dr. Shivik’s work? He led the predator research facility in Millville Utah (based out of Utah State) for several years, and also worked as a furbearer biologist for the state of Utah (he’s the guy that convinced them to evaluate their coyote bounty, and has shown pretty unequivocally that it failed).

    Anyway, I was reading along this evening when the following passage caught my attention (for some context, John is describing a conversation he’s having with Spanish researchers who are working on lynx conservation and trying to figure out a legal way to trap fox–most traps being banned–he’s just shown them a non-lethal, canid-specific ‘collarum’ trap):

    “I showed how the spring would launch the arms up and propel the cable loop over a dog’s head and around its neck…’It holds them like a dog on a leash with a collar’
    ‘Foxes, exactly. Canids love to bite and pull on things…’
    Paco was very pleased.
    I tried to understand why the device was so important. ‘So they can’t use traps for foxes, but they can use this one. What does that have to do with lynx?’
    ‘It’s not the foxes,” Victor said, struggling with the fine points of translation. ‘It’s the people and what they use instead. [Now pay attention folks, this part’s important!] It is illegal to use traps, so they find other ways to kill foxes. Cheap things that they can just put out.’
    Poisons, I surmised.

    Those of you that are keen to ban traps, hunting, and lethal control might pause and consider for a moment what pragmatic people who do not share your morals or values will do when faced with ‘problem’ animals and unhelpful laws. I think many hold Europe on a pedestal for being forward-thinking with its legislation, not understanding that the bans that are put in place are often ignored completely–or worse–foster a bit of creative ‘self-help’, that has ramifications for other species–in the case Shivik describes, an endangered species.

    Return to your regularly scheduled programming.

    • Immer Treue says:

      I’ve recently read Shivik’s book. He has a very pleasant way with words. I like these short passages from nest the books end.

      “Perhaps it is too difficult to not take sides in the war. Indeed, people fall too easily into for or against camps, rather than learning from setbacks. We have to accept that something has to give, that we can’t enjoy the benefits of predators without accepting the costs and difficulties in managing them.

      In our experiment, we were intermediate actors, and the wolves were unknowing subjects. They were wolves, so they weren’t innocent, but they were wolves, so they weren’t guilty. It is the recurring theme of Wildlife Biology; managing animals is difficult, but managing people is hell. In our interactions with predators, we will have failures even given our best intentions, and we will have to be as persistent and clever as the animals we are working with.”

      This rather echoes the Mech quote, “wolves are neither saints nor sinners except for those that make them so.”

      • JB says:

        I’ve enjoyed this book immensely, Immer. Shivik dispenses with much of the scholarly jargon, and appears ready, willing and able to see things from others’ perspectives. In fact, I think ‘walking a mile in others’ shoes’ is a recurrent theme in this book. Advocates on both sides of the conflict should read it–and think long and hard about what he has to say.

        • Immer Treue says:

          I completely agree with your take on Shivik’s. Only part of the equation I feel he and others miss, is that there are some/many of us who live in predator “country” who welcome their presence. Perhaps an enigma to the paradox.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          I’ll give it a go –

          I think humans can be persistent, but we may not be able to be as clever. We need to accept that there are areas we are weak at, and we hold ourselves in such high esteem that we never do.

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        Crying wolf! Creating conflicts where none exist

        Author: John Linnell

        The role of media in spreading conflict
        In both cases there were unsubstantiated and unfounded rumours that wolves were to blame for the tragic events. Although it is not unprecedented that wolves can chase horses or kill dogs, the probability of this being the cause of the described events was tiny compared to other alternative explanations. However, the media immediately chose the most dramatic angle on the story, running the speculation as an almost certain conclusion. These are not the only examples of such tabloid abuses of the wolf. It is impossible to say if this is a result of a deliberate bias among certain media, or if it reflects a general trend to seize on any angle that grabs readers’ attention. What is clear is that the consequence of this is to escalate conflicts and to polarize standpoints in what is already a heated conflict. The wolf is not the only loser.

    • Yvette says:

      JB, laws change as people’s attitudes, ethics and morals change. Laws are malleable as they should be. Where would we be, otherwise? Yes, there will always be people who find loopholes, or new ways to break a law so there is less chance of being caught. Surely that doesn’t mean society shouldn’t change laws. None of us will agree on all things, but people will find a range within which most people in a society deems acceptable. We enact laws that fit within that range, but they are not permanent. The boundaries within which a society finds acceptable shifts, and laws are eventually amended to fit the shifts within the new boundaries of acceptability. When they do there will always be those that refuse to accept the change.

      I think the number of people that find trophy hunting, killing (calling) contests, and trapping to be unacceptable. I won’t see all of those things outlawed in my life, but I do believe there will be changes, especially with the killing contests and trapping. Heck, in 2002 Oklahoma finally outlawed cock fighting. We were the last state in the union where it was legal. It was a long and hard fight up to the end, but it did happen. Things do change. Even in backazz Oklahoma.

      • JB says:


        I understand–of course laws change. The point here is that “society” isn’t unified about what is acceptable with regard to wildlife, and the dichotomy largely exists between people who live where the wildlife are and people who don’t. If laws are seen as ‘city slickers tellin’ us what we can and can’t do’ they are likely to be ignored–or worse (Shivik’s example).

        So you might win the war and change laws– only to have the outcome for wildlife worsen.

        • Yvette says:

          “So you might win the war and change laws– only to have the outcome for wildlife worsen.”

          I will trust your experience with this one. I also agree. How many times have we applied a solution to some problem only to have the solution make things worse, or cause new problems? I think it takes a skilled, knowledgeable and patient person to attempt to buffer the hysteria from all sides. Kudos to those who manage to do it. I maintain my opinion on previous posts, but I do try to listen to other views and understand their perspective.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I guess I don’t understand why you excuse people taking the law into their own hands when it comes to predators. When trap and snare destroyers can work the say way, except they are chastised. If poachers, SSS and illegal trappers and snarers are out there, then I hope the monkeywrenchers are too. If that’s the way the game has to be played, because people are too slow to evolve and everybody is afraid to change laws.

      • JB says:

        “I guess I don’t understand why you excuse people taking the law into their own hands when it comes to predators.”

        I’ll repeat: “So you might win the war and change laws– ONLY TO HAVE THE OUTCOME FOR WILDLIFE WORSEN.” (Extra emphasis, added).

        Let me make this simple, Ida: I put wildlife and wildlife populations first–i.e., before any self-righteous desires to tell people what to do.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          But it’s a vicious circle – special interestes and anti-wildlife types are telling people who want wildlife what to do, and worse, holding the wildlife hostage (if the outcome should worsen)! It’s fearmongering.

          I’d better sign off before Ma’ingaan protests! See you all later,

          • JB says:

            “…special interestes and anti-wildlife types are telling people who want wildlife what to do.”

            And how is that different from what you’re doing? Honestly, you’ve made my point for me. Do you like having special interests tell you what to do? And how have you responded? By becoming more entrenched in your positions. Why would you expect the other side to act any differently.

            I’m not telling you to give up, Ida. I’m asking you to come down from your high horse and see things from some else’s point of view.

    • Nancy says:

      JB – you might want to go back and read the comments below the article (and the comment section is growing)

      I’d be willing to bet, many if not most, demanding stiffer fines & punishment, were posted by hunters.

      • JB says:

        I don’t disagree, Nancy. And I’m glad to see so many (presumably) hunters stepping up to express their outrage. Unfortunately, I don’t see how that outrage changes what was discussed, above? Judges and juries are not going to crack down on people for what are seen as minor infractions. And again–they see them as minor infractions, in part, because the population is numerous.

        Again, I don’t know what the solution is? (Gosh, I’m starting to sound like SaveBears.)

      • Elk375 says:


        Over the years, I have learn that what is in the news can be different than what really happen. There could be more or less to the story and extenuating circumstances. Before a developing a lynch mob mentality we all should wait until the final disposition of the case and all of the facts are presented.

  82. Larry Zuckerman says:

    charismatic super-sized fauna in Wyo:

  83. DLB says:

    “Fisher photographed in the Bronx – First ever NYC record of this squirrel and rat predator”

  84. Louise Kane says:

    two wonderful actors, decent humans and animal advocates died this year

    I’ll miss seeing their work
    RIP James Gandolfini and Robin Williams

    • Nancy says:

      Thank you Louise for posting this video! A joy to watch. Robin Williams, always, always entertaining but obviously “star struck” at meeting a very “distant” relative 🙂

  85. Larry Zuckerman says:

    latest on proposed Salmon carnivore contest for BLM public lands: – Idaho group proposes controversial annual hunting contest

  86. Louise Kane says:

    Today there was a discussion on the thread about the wolf stamp concerning how human hunting pressure might create a biological/evolutionary reaction ….this article from the NY Times today has fascinating take on this. The article is really well written and while some of it may seem familiar there is some that is not.

    “Humans are increasing the stresses on wildlife in myriad ways. Oil spills and agricultural runoff, each linked to fish hybridization, are not uncommon. Hunting and habitat alteration, of the sort that spurred coyote and wolf to mate in Canada, abound. Then, of course, there’s climate change. The list goes on, which leads to the following conclusion: One way we affect animals is by inadvertently enlarging their circles of sexual consideration, to the point that it even includes other species.”

    the article uses the coy wolf, darwin finches among other species as examples

  87. Louise Kane says:

    I have a Facebook page entitled Coyotes and Wild Predators Need Protection. I established it as a repository to contain some of the images that are sent to me as examples of abuses to predators and the to illustrate that abuse is not isolated. Today I received a great unusual image from a photographer that photographed a coyote hunting a road runner. The images are awesome. I’m leaving them in there to show the contrast between the terrible images of dead, trapped or captured coyotes. The cover image entitled pounce by Peggy Coleman is also a beautiful image. I can’t comprehend that people set out to annihilate these animals with a dedicated, unwavering hatred and passion to kill.


July 2014


‎"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