Willow Lake. WInd RIver Mountains, WY. Photo taken Sept. 7, 2014. Copyright Ralph Maughan

Willow Lake. WInd RIver Mountains, WY. Photo taken Sept. 7, 2014. Copyright Ralph Maughan

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.

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.

391 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife related news? Sept. 10, 2014 edition

  1. Larry Zuckerman says:

    Montana governor issues new Executive Order for Big Sky State sage-grouse conservation. Seems like the new plan is just like the old (Wyoming’s and Idaho’s) plan.


    • Ida Lupine says:

      The program, hailed by representatives of Montana’s petroleum, mining and ranching industries, also would borrow a strategy crafted by Idaho and Nevada that calls for killing ravens and other creatures that prey on sage-grouse.

      Same as the elk plan too – kill the predators, keep hunting and continue with habitat encroachment, rewrite the ESA to suit them. How is that going to work? It is only going to delay the inevitable continued sage grouse decline. It’s pretty bad when you can’t even spare a mile.

      And yet with this Administration, they will not receive any protection. If it were any other Administration but the current one, I’d have a little confidence, but with this Administration giving away the store is called ‘cooperation’. Sally Jewell, in her latest propaganda video, says that environmentalists can’t expect ‘change overnight’ (the ‘night’ has actually been decades of work ruined and turned back to pre-ESA, clean water, etc. days), and that there are extremes on either side. Well, she and her boss seem to be catering to the extreme side for energy development, ranching, and the usual! All their rhetoric on climate change has been shown to be a big nothing.

      I just can’t believe that hunting can’t be stopped for a few seasons at least.

      • Elk375 says:

        ++I just can’t believe that hunting can’t be stopped for a few seasons at least.++

        If hunting closed people like you will resist it ever opening again.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          I wouldn’t. It would be up to F&W departments, how to set that up.

        • Barb Rupers says:

          Elk 375
          I always figured that wolves would be hunted after their numbers had recovered to a viable population in the Northern Rockies; though I didn’t like the idea, I accepted it.

          The stated minimum number of wolves needed for recovery is not the same as a viable population; it was not a promised maximum number for the landscape; it was not said that wolves would stay within Yellowstone NP or the Frank Church Wilderness. These were areas where the population could recover and expand into other suitable habitat mostly on public lands.

          There was no promise that they would not kill native or introduced ungulates. That is what wolves do. It was considered, not ignored, in the reintroduction.

          I prefer hunting above the inhumane trapping of wolves for controlling their population.

          After living in Maine for six years I moved back to Idaho because of the paucity of public land in the east. In my opinion national lands are what makes the West so exceptional!

          • Elk375 says:

            Barb, the important idea is that all stakeholders unite and resist any privatization of federal lands or turning them over to the state. The Montana Republican platform calls for federal lands to be turned over to the State of Montana.

            I do believe that the state owns the wildlife and it is up to the state to make any and all decisions about wildlife management.

            • Ed Loosli says:

              Elk375: Just to be clear, the states do not “own” the wildlife within each state. If that were the case, states could (and would) allow hunting within National Parks, or within cities. Wildlife management on our federal lands by the states is a gift to the states by the federal government – it is not a law that the states get to manage wildlife on our federal lands. In my opinion the feds have given too much wildlife management authority to the states much to the detriment of wildlife like wolves and bison. The feds, for example, should take back management of bison on the US Forest lands surrounding Yellowstone Nat. Park so bison don’t get slaughtered when they cross the invisible Park boundary line. I admit that in today’s world the Obama administration is not much better then the states at protecting rare wildlife like bison and wolves, but I do think that when the states mis-manage rare wildlife on federal lands, the feds should take back their management authority on federal lands.

              • Elk375 says:


                Why were the wolves delisted in Montana and Wyoming — politics. The 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The authority to manage wildlife is not delegated to the United States.

                There is a federal court case in 1971 Kleppe v New Mexico which grants the federal government some authority to manage wildlife on federal lands. As far as I know the federal government has never tried to make a major policy change.

                If the federal government tried to take authority from any state there would immediately be federal legislation introduced to curtail any federal intervention wildlife management on federal lands. There would be support in all 50 states. The bill would pass and the federal government would have a lessor role than it does today. People are going to have to realize that the states are going to management wildlife within there boarders. Changes will come but it is several generations away and the change will not necessary please the hunters or wildlife watchers.

      • Amre says:

        What do you expect from Montana?(Or any other NRM state). They blame everything on parts of nature like predators and completely ignore the human impact which is having a bigger affect…..

  2. Nancy says:


    Gonna make a difference? because truth be told:

    “The coal planned for export from proposed West Coast terminals is primarily federally owned coal from the Powder River Basin, or PRB, in Montana and Wyoming, which is the source of approximately 40 percent of all U.S. coal and approximately 13 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, if approved—cause an increase in carbon pollution equivalent to 35 million additional cars on the road”

    Even when it appears the US is trying to get their act together on clean energy, “big business” can’t wait to profit from and pollute other countries……….

  3. Ida Lupines says:


    How did we know that DNA testing, and releasing the lion wasn’t going to be an option? But let’s see Rabies testing ain’t pretty either – maybe they can put the poor creature’s head on a pike after they’re done testing for rabies, at the trailhead as a warning to all future cats about what happens when you dare come near a human child – what we consider the most sacred form of human life. I live near a Native American burial ground where just such a thing was done – to a human!

    • Ida Lupines says:

      We are a barbaric species is my point. Our country was founded on barbarism. Our leader is on television trying to make a case for more war, we can’t seem to keep our noses out of them. And certain backward types can’t wait to get back to their roots.

      This is just like the shooting of the alpha female in Washington – lie to the public by giving them a feel-good story about relocating the lion, or making sure you have the right one and then releasing it, and then once the trigger-happy tracker gets involved, the animal will most likely be shot first, questions asked later.

      We’ll see if the right lion was in fact the one that attacked the kid.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      The California Fish % Wildlife rangers said they were going to dart the lion, test is for DNA left on the boy’s shirt… HOWEVER, when the time came, they took the usual action of just shooting it. I think if the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife had live-trapped the mt. lion, they still would have found some excuse to kill it… for, that is what they specialize in.

      • bret says:

        Ed Loosli,
        As I understand the cougar was over 75’ up in the tree and the fall once tranquilized would have would have killed him. If they could have tranquilized him he would need to be relocated to a remote area away from people and likely already occupied by a mature tom and that tom will kill him. The other alternative would be captivity, none of them good.

  4. Louise Kane says:


    wow wildlife serial killer trophy hunter crazy ass Nugent is just as rabidly anti American, hating native peoples apparently as much as everything else. what a loser

    • Ida Lupines says:

      It’s a good thing he’s a has-been.

    • Yvette says:

      It’s hard for me to be offended by someone that crapped his pants and kept them on for weeks to avoid the Viet Nam war. Nugent not only makes God awful music but he is a bonafide nutcase. Surprised he loves to kill animals, but was too scared to be drafted into a war? He definitely fits the profile of the flag waving right wing. Kill as many animals as possible, and try to diss a brown person.

      • Louise Kane says:

        think you are right Yvette
        hard to be offended by such a loser
        but the scary part is he has his “support” base of equally rabid freaks

      • rork says:

        Would you have wanted to go fight in Nam?
        I might lay off that particular point, perhaps unless you were there.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          In those days, they had the draft, so people went whether they wanted to or not.

          The point is, if this is true, then that makes him a draft evader, which you wouldn’t think would sit very well with right-wing conservatives.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            This is why, even tho I vehemently disagree with them on many issues, I have great respect for the John Kerrys, Al Gores, and John McCains of the world, as opposed to the Dick Cheneys. Especially when they came from well-to-do families and could have bought their way out.

    • Louise Kane says:

      one of the bow head whales taken in a substance hunt was rumored to be 228 years old

      subsistence hunting for rare and endangered species needs to be reexamined in light of pressures on these animals, their incredible longevity and the ability to eat other food. Surely if the governments of states can reimburse ranchers for livestock losses sources of funding could be found to provide the equivalent of the meat that is used from the slaughtered whales.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Yes, I think so too. Times are different now, and through no fault of their own, subsistence hunting by native peoples has been affected by the general overuse and overhunting of our wildlife and resources.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Seems like a fair article.

    • Gary Humbard says:

      Since wolves tend to change elk behavior by making them move and stay in timber more, I wonder if the hunters have changed their tactics. I also wonder if IDFG takes this into consideration when they estimate elk populations as elk are not as visible as they were before wolves returned.

  5. Kathleen says:

    “Rogers Pass man sentenced for feeding black bears peanut butter, sugar, frosting”

    “Numerous citations.” “Multiple convictions.” At least a dozen dead bears. Where is the jail time??? “He’s done more damage to black bears than any 20 poachers,” said a state investigator. This IS poaching, and Montana law should be amended to reflect it. Are we getting the entire story? He “doesn’t understand that his actions endanger himself and his neighbors”–does that mean he’s intellectually challenged? After more than a decade of this behavior, does anyone believe that a suspended sentence is going to deter him? A fed bear is a dead bear–where is justice for the bears???


  6. CodyCoyote says:

    I’m having some trouble getting my head around the amount of change to pine forest reported by the Union of Concerned Scientists , who say massive declines in pines could come to the northern Rockies in just a few decades if climate change persists in creating a hotter drier climate hereabouts.

    Story in today’s Missoulian : http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/report-rockies-pines-firs-lose-majority-of-habitat-on-current/article_cf387824-395f-11e4-8ca2-8fba0c7824f7.html

    Lodgepole pine could drop 90 percent by 2060
    Ponderosa pine habitat would shrink by 80 percent
    Englemann spruce would lose two-thirds
    Douglas fir would decline by 58 percent

    – we already know what’s happened to Whitebark and its chances for regeneration.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      What can be done to turn it around at this stage of the game is what I wonder about?

      • Barb Rupers says:

        In western Oregon we have planted some species of trees from the SW that are more heat and draught tolerant: incense cedar, Jeffry pine, grey pine, Modoc and Arizona cypress.

        I was also thinking of suggesting for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming such species as Joshua tree and Saguaro. Hopefully, it would be free of the invasive buffelgrass, Cenchrus ciliaris, brought in from Africa for cattle forage and soil binding that is now a threat to the cactus. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-a-threat-to-saguaro-national-park/

        • CodyCoyote says:

          Ida- I have a friend who is a retired ecologist for the agencies and a noted grizzly bear authority. Even a the age of 75 he tromps alone in bear country , and above timberline. He’s been a steward of Whitebark Pine for some years.

          The guy realized early on that the advance of Blister Rust coupled with climate change was going to decimate Whitebark pine viability. It was already happening.

          Yet there are always trees that survive or even thrive even when stressed. They have the desireable genetics to withstand the assaults. So he started gathering up sacks full of those naturally ruggedized Whitebark’s seed cones , and spreading them far and wide thru the Absaroka Mountains subalpine. He multiplies the seed dispersal vector of Clark’s Nutcrackers, squirrels, bears, and even fire, as best he mortally can. Been doing it for over a decade.

          Like Johhny Appleseed, except he is Chuck Whitebark.

          That is one organic remediation that comes to mind

  7. Kathleen says:

    That great bogeyman HSUS goes after the Michigan wolf hunt in order to “destroy conservation”:

    Check out the “scientific fish & wildlife conservation act”–conservation is what *they* say it is (“wise use”) and it gives all the scientists in the state legislature a share of the decision-making power.

    • Nancy says:

      “For them, that’s even another fundraising ploy, as in, “give us money to save cute wolf pups from evil hunters,” that kind of thing”

      Okay, so give US money so we can insure you always have cute wolf pups to shoot at?

      MUCC 1-year Standard Membership
      min. $30.00

  8. Gary Humbard says:

    Grizzlies in conflicts with livestock in the Upper Green River. There are grazing practices that reduce conflicts with wildlife but the ultimate answer is the gradual reduction of livestock from public lands.

    There are many products made from livestock, but I would bet that by simply not buying beef, lamb, wool and dairy products would dramatically impact the livestock industry. All products have a “footprint”, but there is a better way to care for the land than to have sheep and cattle rule over native wildlife. If you are waiting for the government agencies to be pro-active, good luck! As consumers WE have the power to bring the livestock industry to our knees, are we willing to do it?

    • Immer Treue says:


      “There are many products made from livestock, but I would bet that by simply not buying beef, lamb, wool and dairy products would dramatically impact the livestock industry.”

      One might assume so, but then we’d find the producers would export the hell out of these products. Just like the bogus oil drilling and fracking for our supposed energy independence. How much of that product is exported. Last year with near record cold in the north central portion of the country folks had to abandon their homes because either that could not get or afford propane. Yet it was still being exported. $$$$$$$$$&$$$$$$$$$$!

  9. Immer Treue says:

    A slightly older story but apt as deer/elk seasons approach. Helps explain the I see wolf sign but no deer sign phenomena.


    • WM says:


      I don’t know what to make of this short generalist paper. Also don’t know how transferrable the conclusions (no studies cited or any links to sources), might be from the WGL/MN to parts of the West.

      We have discussed here the work of Dr. Scott Creel, who asserts that elk tend to be on steeper slopes, at higher elevation and in more dense cover where predation risk is higher due to wolves, and that pregnancy rates and neonatal recruitment drops, in some cases significantly.


      My anecdotal observations in ID are very much in alignment with the conclusions of Dr. Creel. And, we have seen fewer spike elk over the period since wolves moved in to the area we have hunted for over 20 years. This suggests wolves are having an effect on young of the year survival, as well, and even to a degree pregnancy rates. Elk in the West, of course, are not deer in the WGL, and when Dr. Glenn DelGiudice can support his assertions with some data maybe some of us will find his conclusions more convincing. I am not familiar with his name in any of the predation risk, or nutritional studies in the West (though I gather he studies both ungulates and wolves from his bio at UMN).

      I have also learned that the observations of wolf biologists are sometimes different than those of ungulate biologists, depending on which species they tend to study. Wonder why that is?

      • Immer Treue says:

        Story was a reprint from MDHA Whitetails magazine. Up here, it’s the Winter baby, but if hunter deer harvest is down, wolves are scapegoated. I think with data and research del Giudice has done, he was trying to show that deer are still there, might be in a different area, but are not necessarily being moved around by wolves.

        Presentation given last night in regard to trophic cascades and wolves at the IWC. David Mech, Shannon Barber-Meyer (currently heading wolf study in this locale, and did her PhD work in Yellowstone bear predation on elk calves), and Lori Schmidt (Curator at IWC and instructor at local Junior College).

        One of the big ideas driven home last night was that correlation does not necessarily mean cause. All were somewhat skeptical of work coming out of Oregon by Ripple and Beschta. There was a paper a while ago 2010ish authored by Creel about wolf mortality rates that Mech was rather critical of. If I recall, it was posted on TWN, and Mech had trouble with some of Creels data, and I believe Mech asserted wolves could sustain higher mortality rates and not be adversely affected.

        As with all things wolves, as much as I like wolves, it’s more than obvious that either side of the conundrum At times leap to unfounded conclusions.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          But why should they sustain a higher mortality rate?

          • Immer Treue says:

            It’s not that they should or shouldn’t. All Mech did was criticize Creel’s data. That’s how peer review science works. You put out your study/data for perusal of those in your field. It stands by its own merit, or it doesn’t.

            • WM says:


              Important to note, Creel’s assertion which was criticized by Mech had to do with how much wolf mortality could occur without creating problems.


              This, of course, is different from his data on wolf impacts to ungulate prey/elk behavior and population dynamics.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Yes I am aware.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Sorry, WM,

                If I remember correctly when Creel’s elk data/paper was presented, the anti-wolf folks were all, see I told you so and liked Creel. When his wolf mortality study came out, it was their turn not to like Creel so much anymore.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              Well, it isn’t the gospel, is it.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              All Mech did was criticize Creel’s data.

              It does more than stand on its own or doesn’t. You don’t seem to want to acknowledge that it has be used to justify more killings, which is exactly what is happening.

              • Immer Treue says:

                You just refuse to get it. No one is saying more wolves can or should be killed. Mech, based upon other studies, in his opinion (which carries much respect in the world community)found fault with Creel’s numbers. Nothing more, nothing less

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Oops, I mean that ‘compensatory’ mortality seems more theoretical than real world – additive makes more sense to me, at least in the case for wolves.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              For example, the unethical could extend hunting seasons and take limits for more revenue, based on Dr. Mech’s data which could be quite persuasive, when probably the Creel data is the reality.

              • Immer Treue says:

                How do you know the Creel data is the “reality”, your gut or your heart on your sleeve?

              • Ida Lupines says:

                It has been believed up till now that such efforts can remove as many as 28% to 50% of the animals in a population without causing long-term harm to their numbers.

                I’m no scientist, but even I know that you cannot remove 50% of an animal’s population and expect it to remain healthy.

                ‘Compensatory vs. additive’ mortality is a concept that I have difficulty with, because it seems more theoretical than real-world. It irresponsibly opens the door to more hunting of wolves that just might be pushing the envelope for their survival.

                The comment by musician/songwriter pretty much sums up the questions I have too.

                Obviously they have NO way of knowing which wolf was due to die in any year. So naturally they killed some that were going to die anyway and some that would have survived to live another year.

  10. Yvette says:

    The comment period on the evaluation of the red wolf recovery program is being extended by two weeks.


  11. Kathleen says:

    Toxic gulls offer clues about flame retardants

    “The gulls that inhabit Deslauriers Island every summer are the most contaminated colony in Canada when it comes to flame retardants, including one compound that has accumulated in their eggs at concentrations up to 44 times higher than elsewhere.

    “Although several of these flame retardants were banned a decade ago, they are still showing up in gulls, kestrels and other winged creatures from the Great Lakes to China…

    “Research on Deslauriers…indicates that flame retardants are altering birds’ thyroid hormones, reducing their clutch sizes, damaging their eggs, changing their behavior, shifting their gender ratio toward males and weakening their bones.”


    • Ida Lupines says:

      This is frightening. There’s such a chemical cocktail in the environment in modern times it’s not surprising that it can result in all kinds of health problems.

      I’m not crazy about the methods, or protocols, or whatever you call them here tho – if there are already exposed birds in the wild, dousing more, poor captive birds seems unethical. As well as letting a 5-year old around bird eggs. It seems a foregone conclusion that too much exposure to chemicals due to careless disposal in the environment, and for decades, in our environment will cause harm to living things. It sometimes seems like we’re looking for a reason to keep using them and to keep dumping them.

      • TC says:

        “I’m not crazy about the methods, or protocols, or whatever you call them here tho….It seems a foregone conclusion that too much exposure to chemicals due to careless disposal in the environment, and for decades, in our environment will cause harm to living things.”

        So chemicals are bad. Which chemicals? At what exposure levels; by what routes; over what duration; acute or chronic toxicity; what is the pathogenesis of lesion development or alteration in structure or function; what synergistic effects occur with other agents in producing multifactorial disease events; how do we detect or diagnose a true problem – what are methods, preferable tissues, QA/QC standards; are assays validated, robust, and repeatable; what are expected outcomes of exposures; what species are susceptible and what roles do age class, gender, production status, season, etc. play; EDs LDs etc; sublethal effects; and God love us how do we prevent, treat, control, or mitigate the problem?

        I suppose we could muddle through not having these and many more answers (or derive questionable proxies for these answers from existing data, to be proven wrong often and taken to task in places like courts of law), but it’s sure a lot more helpful when we do have the answers, and can apply them appropriately and thoughtfully. These data/answers can be used to help drive effective regulatory, policy-making, and management decisions; occasionally including holding citizens’ or industries’ feet to the fire in criminal or civil proceedings.

        Not to even get started with your condemnation of the scientific method or your complete inability to comprehend additive versus compensatory mortality and dismiss these categories as “theoretical” and simply tools to justify killing of more wolves (a fair number of folks out there right now working demographic models, life table response experiments, and other analyses for hundreds of different wildlife species will be crushed to learn this).

        You’re on quite the roll. Gathering no moss I presume.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Simmer down, nobody is condemning your precious science, just commenting that some studies and their methods and their theories are more convincing than others, and new data can change what we originally thought. I and others find the Creel study quite convincing.

          The point is, and one that you don’t want to acknowledge, is that we are much to free with wasting animal life for our own needs, whether in scientific experiments, for food, entertainment, and in the ugliest and disrespectful of life other than human ways. What was the point of letting a five-year old play with bird eggs and move them to different nests? Is that part of the GLPs?

          We’ve got reams of data on the hazards of flame retardants that have been studied for years. All of this does nothing to hold anyone’s feet to the fire if regulations are not enforced and laws are passed by special interests to allow the laws to be circumvented, as we can see happening currently.

          We have collected enough data to know that disposal of industrial waste and our garbage into the environment is toxic to ourselves and animals, and in any event is irresponsible. Why can’t studies be done before things reach this point? We should not act like these are revelations.

          • Kathleen says:

            “The point is…that we are much to free with wasting animal life for our own needs, whether in scientific experiments, for food, entertainment, and in the ugliest and disrespectful of life other than human ways.”

            Absolutely. Check this out–it’s causing a “media and political storm” in Germany right now, where it was filmed undercover (wait a minute, is this going to embed the screen? I don’t intend to do that, and if the mods want to remove the screen, you can alternately find it here: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=725224180887995&id=129598773783875

            And here’s a story on the same topic from Internat’l Business Times:

          • Yvette says:

            “We have collected enough data to know that disposal of industrial waste and our garbage into the environment is toxic to ourselves and animals, and in any event is irresponsible.”

            RCRA regulations are in place to minimize the adverse effects of specific waste disposals. RCRA isn’t simple, and there are thousands of different types of industrial waste. They are categorized based on a multitude of factors (i.e., toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity) for the product/chemical. RCRA is meant to add protection for people, animals, land and environment by regulating and enforcing those regulations on the transport, storage and disposal of products and, eventually waste. Compliance of industry isn’t perfect, but RCRA waste is one of the most regulated. Infractions come with extraordinary high fines.

            Operators (industry) is separated into large-scale operators and small-scale operators (mom and pop places).

            Do RCRA regs resolve all of the waste disposal problems? No, but federal regulations are devised to be amended and updated, and even that doesn’t resolve everything.

            What are your suggestions to resolve the disposal of waste? How does one dispose of any and all products/chemicals that are used in thousands of different manufacturing processes? What do we do with the waste that is long lived in the environment (like DDT, which is still in regular use in some parts of the world) and settles in the soil and and substrate of streams? Some things are there from periods of time long before the EPA was established and before environmental regulations were enacted into law. We can’t undo actions of the past that came from lack of knowledge on a substance. This is why we have CERCLA and superfund sites.

            Everything we do, everything we produce has a consequence somewhere.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              I love this. It isn’t my responsibility to dispose of the industrial waste. That’s why the CEOs of these companies make the big bucks, isn’t it.

              • Yvette says:

                Do you use the products? Fly on an airplane? Travel down the highway? Buy anything that you yourself don’t make? If so, they you are a part of it. We all are a part of the process, and bare some responsibility of regulations of all products and the constituents used to produce products.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              Want my suggestions? Quit dumping shit into the environment. It’s the companies’ responsibility. And it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce regulations. Very simple, really. Superfund sites are old news now, and yet we’re still dumping.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I really don’t think it is up to all of us. Consumers are limited in what they can do, and we are flat out deceived in many cases. It is up to companies who manufacture products and other things we as consumers buy to ensure they are doing things in an ethical, responsible manner, and the FDA, EPA and others to protect us. Companies have mission statements for this.

                I drive a hybrid car which I am happy to say gets me nearly 60 miles to the gallon on average. I haven’t bred any extra little consumers. I take great care to buy what I need from responsible companies, but there’s no accounting for what some of them do not divulge information, such as no labeling of GMOs. I take my business elsewhere if I don’t like either the quality of the products or their environmental/social policies.

                I’m disenchanted with plane travel and am going to start traveling by train. I’m in no rush.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I forgot to say I don’t eat red meat or pork either, don’t wear fur, and don’t wear leather.

        • Ed Loosli says:

          This is where the “Precautionary Principle” should come into effect and should be made the law of the land… It should be required of the chemical industry and chemical companies to PROVE that their chemicals will not harm wildlife and humans in the short and long term BEFORE they can be sold. Only after having been proven safe to wildlife and human environment should chemicals be allowed to be marketed.

  12. Ida Lupines says:

    How do you know the Creel data is the “reality”, your gut or your heart on your sleeve?

    Don’t knock it, we know that many scientific discoveries are the result of intuition or gut instinct being followed up on.

  13. Ida Lupines says:

    Yes, Immer, people are saying more wolves can and should be killed. Have you not been following what’s going on in Idaho and Wisconsin, and even Washington? A scientist has an obligation to be responsible – and putting it out there that wolves can sustain more killing without affecting their population is at best irresponsible, and at worst, harmful to their survival. We know that the opinion of someone like Dr. Mech would be very persuasive.

  14. topher says:

    Holy Sage Grouse! I have never hunted them and never been very close to so many before today. They really are neat birds. I have seen many of them from a distance and a few up close but today I got the opportunity to see a couple hundred spread in small groups across the area I was hunting. I ended up in the middle of a group of ten or so and got within a couple yards of a few of them for a couple minutes before they spotted me. Neat stuff.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Awww, that’s nice. I hope someday to see them too.

      • Elk375 says:

        I am debating whether to drive to the Centennial Valley this weekend and do some Sage Hen and Blue Grouse hunting, myself. There is not a better way to spend the weekend driving across the top of the Gravelly Range and into the Centennial Valley. Plus, there are several small interesting streams that need a little fishing.

        • topher says:

          Looks like I’ll be back out for antelope when the grouse season is open and after I have had a chance to practice longer ranges with my bow. I figure I better pick up a grouse so I have something to show for my vacation days. I was told to remove the bones and the sheath before cooking for a better tasting bird but also considered cooking the whole bird. I suppose if I skin rather than pluck I could mount the bird before it is illegal to do so.Any thoughts on the preparation for eating?

          • Elk375 says:

            Shoot a small one, this year’s hatch. Some people soak them in vinegar for 8 hours. I would cool the bird down placing the bird on a grill but not over the coals and slow cook. It is wild game, enjoy the wild taste.

  15. Ida Lupines says:

    I’ve noticed that Dr. Mech is misquoted and misrepresented quite frequently? Here’s what he actually said:

    David Mech, a U.S. Geological Survey wolf biologist based in Minnesota, said both studies (Creel and Murray) underscore that some hunter harvest of wolves is possible without hurting the population.

    Those quotas can be set higher, Mech said, if hunters can successfully target wolves that have been attacking livestock. Mech said those animals would be shot anyway by government wildlife agents.


    And talk about condemning scientific research:


    • Immer Treue says:

      Here is the Creel and Rotella paper from 2010.


      And here is Mech’s critique and exchanges with Creel.


      Ed Bangs also ways in with a good summation.

      The bottom line is no one was saying that more wolves should be killed, but on a perhaps flawed data collection methodology. In particular, that this type of study was new, it might be prone to certain biases. Here even the word bias has a different meaning than the bias used by the general public.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Ed Bangs weighs in…

        • Nancy says:

          Immer – an excellent interview with Carter Niemeyer back in 2009:


          • Immer Treue says:

            Carter has always been a voice of reason. I met him at the 2000 Intl Wolf Symposia (no, we are not best buds). In regard to the recent subject matter during this thread, and so often over the years on this blog, we return to hunting of wolves.

            At the same Wolf Symposia, there was a panel discussion. I know there were representatives of the cattle industry, and if I remember correctly, hunting and outfitter members on the panel. The subject was would wolf hunting be allowed. The answer was unanimous, with no dissent from any of the wolf biologists. Carter says as much,

            “As a biologist, as part of the wolf recovery effort, it was always discussed, and the ultimate goal was to delist wolves and have a hunting season. That was just one of the ultimate outcomes.”

            You have known me over the years to be pro-wolf. That will not change. Managing wolves is probably easier than managing people. The whole wolf issue is too politicized. That said, the wolves now have the advocacy they didn’t have when all but extirpated from the lower 48 in the past.

            The extremes on both sides of the issue, however, continue to stoke the cinders.

            Shivik, “They were wolves, so they weren’t innocent, but they were wolves, so they weren’t guilty.

            Mech, “Wolves are neither saints nor sinners, except for those who would make them so.

            The sooner all involved, professionally or self appointed, understand all the ramifications of these quotes, the better for wolves.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              Nobody disputes that there will be hunting; but not so much that we go completely and recklessly overboard with it, which is what is happening in the Western States, Wisconsin, and even part of Washington state. There’s no denying it. We do need a voice of reason for conservative hunting measures.

              What’s wrong with erring on the side of caution? Why must we promote as much killing as possible? We should stop painting the wolf advocates as the ones who are over the top, because without them, we’d have no wolves left.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                That’s a wonderful article Nancy – Mr. Niemeyer really does hit the nail on the head, just one example:

                It’s a little late now, but I wish that when the states assume management of wolves that there could have been some kind of a moratorium where the states took the responsibility and didn’t jump right into a wolf harvest, or a wolf culling, or whatever you want to call it. It would’ve been nice, I think, to establish some credibility with wolf advocates and conservationists, environmentalists and people who appreciate wolves for other values. And just sort of get a handle on things and get a feel for managing the wolf. Because there’s this perception that suddenly we’re going from a listed animal to a hunted animal and I think a lot of the public is having a struggle with coming along with that.

              • Immer Treue says:

                “We should stop painting the wolf advocates as the ones who are over the top, because without them, we’d have no wolves left.”

                Who painted wolf advocates as over the top. I’m a f&&@1@g wolf advocate!

          • Yvette says:

            I listen when Carter speaks. I respect his opinion and, as a professional, he has on the ground experience on all sides of issues for wolves, and for trapping.

            Enjoyed reading that interview. Thanks for sharing the link.

            • Nancy says:

              Have you had a chance to read Carter’s book Wolfer? (my copy is in Philly right now 🙂 Excellent, first hand account of Carter’s life and his involvement regarding the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone.

              I can still recall the first few years and the “sky is falling” mentality around here (Montana) when wolves starting showing up in areas other than Yellowstone but fact is, ranchers were not driven out of business, like some feared would happen, by their presence (they may even have become even more pro active protecting their livestock against any predator, willing to take advantage of lax ranching practices ) and wolves didn’t eat all the elk and deer.

              What worries me is humans continuing to keep a tight cap on all predators and their place in the ecosystem, the prey base (which a tiny percentage of the human population loves or lives to hunt) will continue to diminish from forces we can’t control – like disease (google the growing trend in disease of ungulates) that could be controlled, if predators were given half a chance to manage, like they did for what? Ever?

              • Yvette says:

                Yes, I’ve read about 1/2 of it. Got sidetracked and just finished Viscous, Wolves and Men in America. Now I’m going back to Wolfer.

                It’s difficult to read how perverse some of the actions are against wildlife, especially wolves, but I think we must.

                I highly recommend the Jon Coleman’s book, Viscous . His writing is superb, and the book truly lays out the history of our actions, attitude, and interactions with wolves on this continent. This was his dissertation in history so it is well researched and cited. He begins with the early English explorers and takes you on a historical trip up through the eradication of the last stragglers in the 1950’s on to the reintroduction. I think any wildlife biologist and all those with an interest in wildlife should read this book. It helped me understand how ingrained the hatred of wolves and from where that hate and the mythology manifested.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Really? You don’t say. Yes, I’m aware of what study bias is. It could be true of any study.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        But I appreciate reading the thoughts of what the expert and experienced say. Thanks Immer.

      • Yvette says:

        I appreciate the links. I’ve downloaded and read the Creel paper and read the responses on PLOS ONE. I’ve downloaded one of the papers Mech referenced in comments but haven’t read it yet.

        It’s all quite interesting to me, though my statistical background isn’t nearly good enough to grasp the full context of the debate. The debate between wolf mortality being compensatory or additive is new to me, but it gives me something to try to learn more about.

        I enjoyed this. Thanks for sharing the links.

  16. Immer Treue says:

    Forgive me if this has already been posted.

    Sweeping new rule for Alaska predator control.


    • rork says:

      Baiting brown bears, eh? I guess I didn’t know what inconceivable means.

    • WM says:

      This is one of those “hole in the boat” articles where the author doesn’t tell the whole story. I have found that often happens with HCN articles, where the author just doesn’t fully explain things. The NPS rules ONLY apply to national preserves, typically a buffer around a national park, and created by a separate federal law. Areas not administered by NPS (read this as any lands not national park or national preserve, or in other specific hands status like a military base, or maybe a wildlife refuge) in the state of AK are not affected by the proposed federal rule, including national forests or BLM lands.

      Notwithstanding this assertion by NPS to make rules for national preserves, it does break with historical management of preserves where the state has had substantial leeway to make rules, or the feds just to go along with the state.

      These proposed NPS rules are good ones, based on rational thought, but it creates enough political tension that there could be state push back if the Senate goes R in the coming election, and the already D House gets a bug up its butt over an increased bureaucratic role for feds to manage state wildlife, wherever they are, outside national parks.

  17. rork says:

    That’s just one of a hundred news articles about the Columbia Chinook run, which will be very large this year, and with more mature fish. Other articles may be better at pointing out that most of the fish are hatchery, so don’t party too hard. There have been more no-gillnet days too. It’s good for me personally using the non-ecological metric of pounds of salmon in the freezer – I’m going to Hanford Reach on the 24th, baring death from the grant cycle. I’m sad to say that metric drives fish manager decisions somewhat too.

    • WM says:

      Knock ’em dead, Rork! Be careful of the fish that glow in the dark, though, from that stuff leaking out of the Hanford facility. 😉

    • bret says:

      Good luck Rork, take a camera as well might see some Hanford bulls or nice mulies.

      • rork says:

        I have never seen the elk from the river, but have seen mule deer bachelor groups where 4 or 5 will all have crowned antlers (not sure how to say that fluently, they have “extra” tines). That’s on the side where guys in black uniforms lacking any insignia come if you walk on the land – not much hunting. I am friends with a (gorgeous, *sigh*) man whose dad was the chief wildlife killer in days past, collecting “samples” to test for strontium 90 and such. Officials want sturgeon heads, since they are older and resident, and so glow better than salmon or steelies. We supply these, but not from big ones – gotta release those. For fish that feel over about 250lb we break them off rather than trying to land, to spare them exhaustion (we don’t have heavy enough gear to land them quickly). We debate our ethics there. Single barbless hook (5 or 6/0 gamakatsu’s, over $2/hook). An interesting side issue is whether to kill (native) pike-minnow (formerly “squafish” in local mouths) or not. There may still be a bounty. They eat smolts, as do the (alien) walleye. The top angler made $77K in 2012.

    • JB says:

      “I’m going to Hanford Reach on the 24th, baring death from the grant cycle.”

      One of the best predictors of the number of days an angler will fish…[drum role]…education; the more you get, the less you fish. Good luck at Hanford, and with the grants.

      • rork says:

        We posit reverse causation too. We are grateful to have been steelhead-ignorant in the early days, cause that addiction could hurt your studies.

  18. Ida Lupines says:

    Here’s an interesting article about the killing of the mountain lion in Cupertino. I’m glad that at least someone is reminding people of their own responsibilities regarding things like this. There’s even been speculation that maybe the parents had been drinking at the winery before taking the “Zinfandel” trail:

    “Families that enjoy hiking trails and rambling in the woods may want to review safety guidelines in light of the case of a 6-year-old California boy who is recovering from injuries after being carried off a trail by a mountain lion on Sunday.”

    Yeah, might want to think about that.


  19. CodyCoyote says:

    Time to start making lists for all the reasons to denounce GMO food crops; Monsanto and ADM, etc. And it’s not just soybeans and corn…

    Very high on my list would be the threats GMO crop farming pose to Monarch Butterflies and other pollinating insects. I really have a soft spot for Monarchs…I visited the ” hidden ” winter sanctuary of the migrating Monarch in southern Mexico in 1987 shortly after the Monarch migration phenomena had been revealed to the outside world by National Geographic Magazine , and again in 1998.

    Good story here:


    • rork says:

      The problem there is the widespread use of glyphosate. We happen to have obtain the resistance trait via fancy means, but could obtain it by other means, so don’t concentrate on the means, but the effects. A funny example is Hawaii trying to ban GMOs but having the brains to exempt Papaya, which have been given a very simple cheap trick, an miRNA complementary to the virus hassling them. I declare it beautiful, with widespread possibilities for application. The folks there are familiar with this trick and so know not every new trick is bad, yet failed to actually deal with GMOs one at a time, merely carving out the single exception. I’m not saying all GMO’s (or new conventional strain) are good, each one will have it’s consequences, but please consider them one at a time. Check out Pamela Ronald’s work for example, and her book. You can make GMOs to learn which genes control the traits you’re trying to fiddle, then go back to conventional means to get the (wild) gene you need into your plants, thereby avoiding GM in the final plant (but not that it matters, except in some minds, and in safety laws, and therefor to your bottom line). You should see what we do with mice, controlling not just what (synthetic) gene will be expressed in exactly which tissue (loxp + Cre recombinase tricks) but exactly when (tamoxifen tricks). With a few of the genes we intend to give them human-like cancer (any kind you name), and with others we then try to cure it, thereby learning which genes we need drugs to inhibit, and then test our drugs in place of the second set of genetic modifications. We have only just opened our eyes. Don’t make it illegal to use them.

      • JB says:

        Many working in the area of food security (i.e., how do we ensure a stable food supply for a population that will approach 10 billion) argue that we will absolutely need GMOs to get there. Personally (and this is my opinion, as I’m well out of my comfort area), I think GMOs will be crucial in coming decades. Food security isn’t the only issue. We could, for example, genetically modify food crops to increase their resistance to drought, or perhaps, decrease the amount of water required to get a particular crop to harvest. Such modifications could increase our capacity to deal with the coming effects of climate change.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        You got it! That’s my concern too, glyphosphate, and other types of herbicides/pesticides. If people want to try to combat a plant disease like with Hawaii’s papayas, I’m not as concerned with that. Florida too is trying to fight an orange disease by trying genetic modification. At least we should label them so stubborn types like myself can choose to buy them or not, and people who aren’t as concerned about it can too. Companies shouldn’t just say ‘buy organic’ because for many people it is expensive.

        I have “Silent Spring” concerns with the neonicotinoids and GMO glyphosphate in crops.

        I was out walking in the bird sanctuary near where I live last weekend and I did see a few more beautiful Monarchs; we simply cannot lose them.

        Sorry for my posts yesterday, I get so fed up at times.

  20. Immer Treue says:


    “Before European settlement, there were an estimated ten million elk roaming the North American continent. The species had the largest range of any deer species, spreading throughout every part of the continent except for the Great Basin Desert and the Southern coastal plains. But with unregulated hunting, grazing competition from domestic livestock, and habitat destruction by urbanization and westward expansion, American elk populations dwindled to less than 100,000 by the early 1990s.”

    I believe that is a misprint, should probably be 1890’s.

    However for the spirit of conversation, and yes a bit of saber rattling, oh, and yes I know times have changed with man’s footprint over everything, but I thought wolves in particular and predators in general created a great predator pit …How could there have been so many elk on the continent with the presence of such a voracious predator living unchecked among them.

    Just feeling like stirring up some scat!

    • Jake Jenson says:

      So before 1553 someone counted ten million elk?

      Who made the ten million elk estimate? The British, French, or Spanish when they arrived? Or did an indigenous tribe make the estimate? Maybe it was the Vice Royalty of New France 1553-1763 who counted all of those elk. Lol…

      New France

      • Immer Treue says:


        Go ask Gohunt.com. You should know that everything on the internet is true, especially dealing with wolves and elk.

        • Jake Jenson says:

          I thought about asking them the questions. Then decided against it because that might be their best guess.

      • Immer Treue says:




        Here are three sources, and you don’t have to wade through Wikipedia to find the numbers; and to boot, look at this astonishing number.

        Two million wolves.

        They weren’t killing all the elk then, granted there were a few more bison around, gosh, but who/what killed them, and they’re not killing all the elk now.

        Jake, this is not meant for you, as you know how to think and reason. Occasionally I get worked up about how the wolves kill everything in sight, the wolves are killing all the elk, the wolves are killing all the deer, you know, that Yellowstone is dead crowd, the smoke a pack a day boys, those giant Canadian wolves folks. Yeah, man is part of the equation, but it’s man who put everything out of whack, not wolves.

        Times are different than back then… But are they that different?

        • Jake Jenson says:

          Thanks for the links, will read them.

          Deer seem to be doing good, at least where I’ve been scouting deer. Elk are another story. Did hear one real bull answer my bugle last Wednesday evening, another was a man not so well in tune.

          There have been large reductions in elk hunting options here for years now. Must be the drought{serious about this drought}. Or all of the elk moved into other units because they didn’t like these units where they seem tough to locate.

          Maybe the UFO elk abductions by the little treys are on the rise again. lol..

          Seriously though, I wonder if various landscapes, vertical, wooded, open, rolling gives variable results when considering predator prey relationships.

          Perhaps the more vertical landscapes with heavy snow seasons where elk can be locked into wintering there require different wolf management than say the open rolling and desert regions would need?

        • Nancy says:

          “The 1890 census announced that the frontier region of the United States no longer existed,[6] and that the Census Bureau would no longer track the westward migration of the U.S. population”


      • Elk375 says:

        So before 1553 someone counted 40 million buffalo and 10 million antelope of was it 20 million antelope. What I know is in 1554 some Belgium Monks developed a beer recipe and today New Belgium Brewing using that recipe brews a beer call 1554, my favorite beer.

    • Nancy says:

      “But recent studies have shown that mountain lions may have more of an impact” (Montana)

      And how about the black bear?

      A couple of years ago, a few people in a subdivision close by, witnessed a black bear killing a newborn elk calf, the mother elk tried in vain to save her calf but maybe not experienced enough to deal with a large predator?

      This past spring, I watched a couple of cow elk running out from a stretch of willows (with their tiny calves in tow) on the ranch across the way from my cabin. Less than a half hour later, in the same area, I watched 3 cow elk running a black bear off, from what no doubt, was an area where their calves where hidden.

      These cows were pissed, protective and ran this bear a few hundred yards and thru at least one fence. They paced back and forth and then head back to the willows.

      Tried to google black bear populations in Montana in the past, vague at best, but I would think their numbers are in the thousands and would venture a guess, they are seldom taken into account when it comes to elk calf depredation? Or fawn depredation – (White tail & Mule deer)

      Do black bears cover their kills the same way grizzlies and mountain lions do? Would think that would make it even harder for biologists or trained FWP personnel, to get an accurate account of what’s killing what when numbers make a difference.

  21. Ida Lupines says:


    I saw this on the news today – can you test an animal for rabies and release them?

    • Yvette says:

      At first, I thought this would be good news, but I see the Diamond M ranch is involved. Not good news with that Bill McIrvine man. Not good news.

    • WM says:

      More on this newly reported WA pack, which is not included in the current estimate (or will be until early next year when the official tally is reported):


      One more data point supporting Dr. Mech’s assertion under oath that wolf population estimates are about 20% HIGHER than reported official estimates.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        The thing is, you can’t always count on that, that the actual population is about 20% higher than the estimate, so erring on the side of caution is best. Otherwise you endanger the wolf population. It’s healthier for the wolves to have more live wolves out there than dead ones.

        I don’t know why we can’t seem to do that and have to make up reasons why we should proceed on questionable paths. We need to back off and butt out.

        It is absolutely bizarre to me that controlling this animal is still one of the top priorities of this nation, especially in the 21st century. As our population continues to grow out of control, we are going to need more cattle, more grazing, more farmland, more energy, more, everything. It’s ugly now and it’s going to get even uglier.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          So what’s the point of wolf management and delisting, or any kind of wildlife management?

          But I guess it only means the human right to exercise their right exercise their impulse to kill sumthin’ and make money. Disgusting.

          I always thought it was to have a healthy population, relatively left alone from and uninterfered with by human activity – except in rare cases of conflict. Increased conflict is going to be a given in the future as we keep creeping further into undeveloped areas.

          No matter who says there are ‘more wolves out there, let’s go get ’em!’ and under oath or not, it’s still an estimate. People are not stupid, and not all of us are dazzled by degrees and legal procedure.

        • bret says:

          Ida Lupine,
          The population is of lesser importance than the number of successful breeding pairs and where they are located. The number of wolves is a known minimum not an estimate, my guess, the population could be 30-40 % higher.

          “While we can’t count every wolf in the state, the formation of four new packs is clear evidence of steady growth in Washington’s wolf population,” said WDFW’s Donny Martorello in a press release. “More packs mean more breeding females, which produce more pups.”

          • Louise Kane says:

            “The number of wolves is a known minimum not an estimate, my guess, the population could be 30-40 % higher.”

            Montana and Idaho do not count wolves so there is no known minimum and to say that the populations are 30-40% higher is not truthful and erroneous

          • Ida Lupines says:

            I prefer real numbers to estimates. Are there really two new packs in WA, or is it just progaganda?

            What about killing wolves and coyotes resulting in more reproduction? Perhaps if they were not persecuted so much the populations would stabilize. There’s no need for hunting of them, just perhaps removal of wolves for verified attacks on livestock. Maybe in order to satisfy kill lust, you’re creating your own problems?

            I’ve read that, to justify hunting, that only the less experienced, juvenile wolves are killed, and the older, breeding pairs are not killed. Aside from reports stating otherwise, at some point the older wolves are not going to live forever, and younger wolves take their place. Indiscriminate killing of young wolves harms genetic diversity.

      • Louise Kane says:

        20% higher where wolf hunting occurs? I do not believe that

  22. Ida Lupines says:

    Well, whatever these ranchers try to do, I just feel really good about the Wolf Patrol for today. As far as people calling Mr. Coronado a ‘terrorist’, that photo of those cowards in klan hoods holding the flag over a dead wolf would be what I would call terrorists. They and those like them are the only killers and terrorists that I can see.

    Bless you, Wolf Patrol!

    • Yvette says:

      “As far as people calling Mr. Coronado a ‘terrorist’, that photo of those cowards in klan hoods holding the flag over a dead wolf would be what I would call terrorists.”

      + one, Ida.

  23. smalltownID says:

    Latest science published on ravens. Study was on the INL. http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S014019631400175X

    • Yvette says:

      That is enough to enrage any decent person. We can say what we want about impoverished African nationals and poaching, but it looks like we probably should clean our own house.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Why do we have to put our own desires before everything? There’s no need for this. The bird is rare, the methods are cruel, and it is just a hedonistic self-indulgence for gluttony. Why do we do this? We’re disgusting.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Humans wipe out life with hardly a thought, remorse or need.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Whatever was done in times past does not apply today. The birds are rare now. That should be the priority now, not self-indulgent gastronomy. The hunting methods, cooking methods, and eating methods are barbaric, and there’s not need to glamorize it or hearken back to Roman times.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Unless we want to round up some of our worst violent wolf-hating transgressors and pit them, unarmed, against wolves and grizzlies and mountain lions, in the Colosseum, Gladiator-style.

  24. Nancy says:

    Hmm…and not one word about the bigger threat to cattle – elk, also carriers of brucellosis.


    • Immer Treue says:

      But, but, but…
      Don Peay in the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me god The Real Wolf page 103 “Well as we now know, there has been an 80% reduction in the greater Yellowstone elk herds, moose are for all practical purposes gone from Yellowstone, and now the bison are the final prey…and they are declining as well.”

      Mmmmm. Contradiction Apparent, eh?

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I thought they just had a cull, didn’t they?

  25. Jerry Black says:

    “Exposed” selected as award winner for Best Wildlife Activism Film
    This just won an award for Best Wildlife Activism Film. It’s about the federal agency Wildlife Services, which kills millions of native wild animals every year on behalf of the livestock industry and other special interests. Our tax dollars are subsidizing this cruelty and waste! I’ve seen it, and it’s quite an eye-opener. Every American taxpayer should watch this. Please check it out and share!
    Thankyou,Joanne Favazza
    EXPOSED – USDA’s Secret War on Wildlife
    In this film three former federal agents and a Congressman blow the whistle on Wildlife Services–a barbaric, wasteful and misnamed agency within the USDA–a…

    EXPOSED – USDA’s Secret War on Wildlife
    In this film three former federal agents and a Congressman blow the whistle on Wildlife Services–a barbaric, wasteful and misnamed agency within the USDA–a…

  26. Immer Treue says:


    Morning dog walk. My driveway is about 800 feet long, tough to shovel in the winter, and my old GS was onto a scent from the get go. Only really acts that way when a wolf has been through. Gosh, but he was smelling everything. Sure enough, as we reached the gravel road my drive spills into, a wolf was trotting away to the west…

    The point of all this is, I never would have been aware of the wolf’s recent presence without the dog, and sometimes, just sometimes, man’s best friend actually helps one observe nature.

  27. Ida Lupines says:


    No matter how they try to pretty it up, a zoo is still a prison for wildlife.

    • TC says:

      Two mountain lion kittens found apparently abandoned in a backyard in California killed = outrage.

      Two mountain lion kittens rescued from a wildfire in Montana, and transported to a zoo, lacking other viable options = angst and condemnation.

      Curious. What is your solution? And where does it fit into the grand scheme of wildlife conservation, given challenges facing species much more imperiled?

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Um, release them back to the wild? Humans quit meddling and effing up the environment? Those are two suggestions. We do not know best, it is painfully obvious by our environmental blunders.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          It takes generations to ‘domesticate’ an animal. A few months of human contact isn’t going to compromise their survival instincts. It is also disingenuous to say that the top cause of mortality is attacks by other older, territorial males. It’s because we’ve decreased their territory so much – humans are the top cause of wildlife mortality for every reason.

          Release them back into the wild when they are old enough like other states have been known to do with wildlife.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Also, one of the key takeaway points was that F&W was going to be ‘paid’ by the zoo for these animals, whether they are ready and weaned or not, for another one of their zoo programs. Apparently these little guys are very lucrative.

          • Immer Treue says:

            “It takes generations to ‘domesticate’ an animal.”

            But only a very short time to habituate them to human presence. Simply not a good idea with large predators.

            • Mark L says:

              I agree, Immer Treue. We don’t need to have contact unless absolutely necessary.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I disagree, Immer. They are too young and in contact for too short a time to be seriously affected by their human contact. They’ll know what to do in the wild.

                I guess I’m a child of watching Elsa the lioness and “Born Free”. If we can care for a lion cub and successfully release her into the wild, we can certainly do it with mountain lion and wolf cubs.

                We must never think that zoos are safe, albeit benignly boring, places for wildlife.

                We know that when these two cats cease to be lucrative and become old, and/or a financial drain on the zoo, they may be killed, as we’ve been seeing in the media lately. For two males, that is a distinct possibility. A zoo can never, never equal the wild for a wild animal – never. I’m disappointed in Montana. Instead of being at the forefront of animal welfare as one of the few places on earth left with such amazingly the varied wildlife they still have, they are way behind.

                That tired trope a zoo being a place to teach children about animals and conservation doesn’t hold true either. The best place for children to learn is in the actual wild (and not dragged along by tipsy parents as an afterthought after a visit to the neighboring winery.)


        • TC says:

          Release young kittens back into the wild? Dead. Killed by one of many potential aggressors or dead of starvation.

          Raise them, and then release them? Again, dead in most cases, and a liability no agency will accept. These are not cottontail rabbits or American robins. Horrendously habituated to find humans as sources of food and shelter, fairly unclear on the whole idea of suitable prey and how to find/kill it, very unclear on the idea of territory, home ranges, competition, sympatric species (those you can eat, and those that can eat you/hurt you/kill you), etc. We cannot duplicate what mountain lion dams teach their young over the course of more than a year – it’s not all instinct (I’d venture pure hard-wired behavior tells them we look pretty damn easy to kill and tasty too). It’s not disingenuous to state that the leading cause of mortality for more than a few mountain lion populations is interspecific and intraspecific aggression. It’s what quite a few studies have documented. Including the latest one in the GYA. Perhaps different for some peridomestic populations, but that study will be published shortly.

          Stop effing up the environment? Two found in a backyard. I doubt those people are now tearing down their home (and getting all of their neighbors to do the same) and converting the land back to suitable habitat for mountain lions. The other two found in an active wildfire. That was being fought. I guess we could let all fires burn – those kittens would now be carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere (and a little residual ash on the ground).

          Sometimes this almost is rocket science. To come up with good SOPs that address fluid situations, and have desirable outcomes. I guess that was my point.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            The best way to handle wildfires is up for debate now. That can’t always be done now. In ages past, they could burn, and unfortunately some animals perished, and others moved to safety. But their populations were not interfered with and nearly overwhelmed by human presence and needs. I think you will find that this fire was human-caused, which obviously could have been prevented.

            We can cite as many studies as we like, but it is all speculation. We have to admit that we do not know it all, and it is extremely arrogant to insist that we do. We know some, and we continue to learn all the time, about animals, including ourselves.


          • Nancy says:

            When I first ready the story about this two tiny mountain lion kittens, I wondered about the timeline – they had been drenched by flyovers so guessing this crew was part of a fire fighting cleanup crew? How much time passed before this crew found them after the fire passed? Could it have been possible to have just left them alone for a day or two, in hopes that mom might return? Maternal instinct is pretty damn strong in wildlife plus this was her territory.

            Looking at the backdrop where the original photos were shot, indicates that the entire area didn’t go up in flames. So was mom still around?


            We are often reminded, if out in the wild and stumble over what appears to be abandoned young wildlife, to just leave them alone……

      • Yvette says:

        I agree with Ida. It’s possible. While this person is in a completely different region, I know she is a wildlife rehabber that has successfully reared and released wildlife including bobcats, coyotes, and many other species. Cougars? I think it may be possible. This lady is not in it for herself and is 100% on the up and up. She is dedicated to the animals’ welfare and will always make the best decision for the animal. I’m certain there are others out there closer to where these cubs lived. http://www.wildheartranch.org/default.asp?p=articles

        It has been done. http://bigcatrescue.org/canadian-group-rehabilitates-orphaned-cougar-cub/

        Lastly, I’m sure these people have the best intentions for these two cubs. I do wonder if they contacted anyone at Teton Cougar Project, or perhaps, one of the wildlife sanctuaries in that region?

        A zoo may not be the best option, but it is better than being dead. Most zoos have improved their habitat for wildlife even though it isn’t perfect.

        A good meme used in the wetlands world: First, avoid impact; if you can’t avoid it, minimize it; as a last result, mitigate. Avoid, minimize, mitigate, in that order. I think that meme works with this situation.

        Hope these little ones have the best life possible.

  28. Ida Lupines says:

    God, I loved that movie. It was long before video. Probably we are too unimaginative and money-grubbing to do this today:


    • Ida Lupines says:

      That’s good – this incident, to me, had no redeeming value to it at all.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        What I mean is, the Bundy incident only served to highlight the shortcomings of the BLM. This RTV ‘right to trample’ was ridiculous.

    • Yvette says:

      They were charged with misdemeanors. That is pitiful. If they were trying to protect animals they would have immediately been labeled terrorists and charged as such. And I still have not forgotten the multiple federal laws that Cliven Bundy and his ‘real tree’ clad band of marauders have managed to escape.

      The laws are applied to some, but certainly not to all.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Perhaps Bundy will be next!?

      • Yvette says:

        A resolution from Stevens County, Washington. Please do read they last three ‘Be it further resolved’.

        They have basically passed a resolution that they will take the law into their own hands.


        • Ida Lupines says:

          Never let it be said that they didn’t have more balls than brains. I hope they are arrested.

          • Yvette says:

            “I hope they are arrested.”

            IF they were to illegally kill a wolf or wolves, I have so little faith in our law that I do not believe they would be charged, let alone arrested. However, I will give them the same latitude I am giving the YWP. Until they break the law I’ll hold off any armchair convictions and name calling. I’ll just leave it with I do not have faith in our legal system to work equally for all people.

            Hopefully, they are just beating their chests.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              I really wish I could take the high road, like you do. I simply do not respect them enough. They have not behaved deserving of it. I do think that the BLM, F&W and others really need to step up and show some backbone, and I hope they do at this time.

              This is the folly of putting wildlife in the ‘care’ of the states. Predictably, they write the laws to suit themselves, and ranchers and hunters can do whatever they like, with impunity. Just as Immer’s post shows.

        • WM says:

          Dashiell is the last name of the guy losing sheep to wolves. Dashiell is the last name of one of the Stevens County Commissioners signing this “resolution.” Different first names. Are they relatives (and possibly business partners)?

          Nothing illegal has been done so far by the County, but a resolution is a way for local government to officially pee on the state for their lack of action on a particular matter – in this case WDFW promised to do more, then didn’t. Why not pee on them? Happens all the time across America. Didn’t we just see a county resolution in ID, where the city of Ketchum wants the IDFG (and Blaine County) do something different, that might be against the rural interests of that same county?

          That is what resolutions are for – official statement of government policy, proclaiming to citizens and other governments the position of their elected officials of that unit of government.

          Yvette, the Stevens County resolution only says, the County “will consider all available options,” then in the following paragraph seems to invoke some Constitutional jibber-jabber, which I surely don’t understand, that is grounded in the authority of local government to “secure our public in their lives, liberty and property.”

          Looks to me to be a kind of we (Stevens County) are keeping our options open, if you guys (the state) don’t get your act together.

      • Yvette says:

        I am hoping that they are just biding time to get past the mid-term elections, though I have little faith. Still, the difference in BLM’s response and handling of the Bundy situation as to the way they dealt with the Dann sisters has made me downright resentful.

  29. Leslie says:

    That Blanding area has a long history of lawbreaking. Redd’s father was arrested in the federal sting. He had been digging large amounts of Anazasi artifacts and selling them world wide. When the feds busted him, his house was like a museum of stolen artifacts. Because he was such a prominent figure in the town, he committed suicide instead of facing the consequences of his actions.

    The Blanding museum has rooms and rooms of pots confiscated from this sting, all stolen and now out of context so they are not useful archaeologically.

    When I was there last year for over 6 weeks, I saw many ATV violations and even took photos including license plates–people riding over sensitive desert terrain and into archaeological sites. I gave them to the Forest Service police. I never heard back because I doubt they ever pursued these violations.

    There is a lot of anger at the government in that town and the federal sting still smarts. Regardless of their feelings for the feds, these violations represent some of the townspeople’s continued disrespect for the heritage of the Puebloans who are the descendants of the Anazasi. Just like they disrespect our American heritage of public lands.

  30. Gary Humbard says:

    Bison may not be glamours, beautiful, or elusive but when I think of formitable, there is no other animal that comes close. Yellowstone NP is planning to build quarantine facilities so that more bison may be transferred to tribes, great plain grasslands and other federal lands so that fewer of these pure strain bison are slaughtered like livestock.


    • Ida Lupines says:

      I love them, and I think they are glamorous and majestic, and beautiful – and historically so too. I am appalled to think of our history of shooting them like fish in a barrel.

  31. Elk375 says:

    Wolf Stamp will not be offered this year:

    Proposed administrative rules to establish a voluntary management stamp to enable anyone to make a donation to Montana’s wolf program won’t be adopted this year, state wildlife officials said today.

    Instead, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks will convene a diverse group of representative interests to discuss how to balance the challenges and benefits of creating a new or additional way for those who don’t hunt or fish to contribute to wildlife management.

    The proposed rules would have directed FWP to make available for sale a $20 wolf stamp. The rules would have defined how the voluntary donations would be allocated to wolf management activities. FWP received and reviewed more than 50,000 comments on the proposal over the course of the nearly two month comment period.

    “The large number and variety of public comments shows a need to further discuss the concept,” said Ron Aasheim, spokesman for FWP in Helena. “With so many different points-of-view expressed, many unanswered questions and divergent expectations remain. We want to get this right the first time, and don’t want to compromise the obvious potential of offering an opportunity to those who don’t hunt and fish the chance to contribute to wildlife management.”

    FWP Director Jeff Hagener will seek to convene a group for a day-long discussion this fall. The group’s central task will be to identify or develop common ground for developing future funding recommendations that could be considered for public review and comment.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      What bullshit. But I am not surprised.

    • topher says:

      Identifying or developing common ground to develop future funding recommendations will be a difficult task, considering that it rarely happens here among the people who care enough to pay attention and bother listening to other points of view. I would be more hopeful if I saw more agreement from frequent posters on this site. It’s really too bad, I would have liked to add one to my waterfowl stamps.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        You sound like you actually believe this. It’ll never get as far as agreement between people like us, so don’t put the blame here. This post really says nothing – it’s the same old delaying tactics, because to dismiss it outright wouldn’t be good PR.

        There’s nothing definite – a ‘proposed’ meeting sometime this fall, the group’s central task will be to identify or develop (which?) ‘future’ funding ‘recommendations’ that ‘could be’ considered for public review and comment (another long drawn-out comment period).

        A big nothing. Apparently somebody put the kybosh on the idea. I figured it wouldn’t get very far.

    • Immer Treue says:

      For the sake of discussion, let’s say half of the 50,000 comments were pro wolf stamp, or 25,000 for it, and if all purchased a stamp, we are looking at $500,000 in stamp money. This would more than cover administrative costs, with a boatload of dabloons remaining for wolf “management”.

      It will be interesting to hear Montana’s rationalization for withdrawing the wolf stamp from the table. I would think that the anti-wolf lobby was very strong and wants little part of non-consumptive users havin a voice. Here is a case where non-consumptive folks may have had the opportunity to cough up some dollars in a meaningful way, for at least a foot in the door, of the room with the “table”, but metaphorically, Lucy has pulled the football from Charlie Brown.

      Perhaps Montana FWP did not anticipate the support/antagonism, and the “plan” does require rethinking/rewording. Assuming a lot, on the front and rear of the stamp perhaps created some very cold feet. Best to think it through in detail so as not to pour more gas on the fire of wolves/no wolves, come up with a sound plan where the extremes on both sides are more or less told to go to hell. As has been said before, managing wildlife is easy, the problem is managing people.

    • rork says:

      It doesn’t seem impossible to me that exactly how the money gets allocated is a dicey decision. It might be hard to keep the folks who want wolves knocked down happy – they may have been vocal about what they did not want it spent on. Even the stamp backers may have differences of opinion. How it’s earmarked may be very influential on who buys.
      I may be prone to dismiss conspiracy talk too easily, since the crazy is so rampant in public heath issues. (My reptilian overlords don’t monitor TWN, I think.)
      It may be trivia, but all the articles about this assume that only non-hunters and non-anglers would be interested. Couldn’t decide if that was just not speaking carefully, or spin.

  32. Immer Treue says:

    MN grouse hunter blasts (twice) thirty pound wolf pup from eight feet away with 12 gauge to protect his 75 pound yellow lab.


    • Nancy says:

      “It wasn’t eating very well, probably reflective of the deer population in the area,” he said”

      What?? At 30 lbs. this pup should of still been with its parents.

      Probably didn’t occur to this guy to just call his 75 lb. dog off and leave. Interesting also that he was using a Labrador to hunt grouse. In my early years attending field trials with bird dogs, never saw Lab show up but I guess things have changed.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Yes, and though all types of gauges of shot are used for grouse, 12 gauge is a bit on the heavy side. I would imagine pumping two twelve gauge rounds into a thirty pound pup,from a distance of eight feet, there wasn’t much remaining.

        • Elk375 says:

          Maybe a 12 gauge is all he had. I have shot many, many grouse with a 12 gauge as that was all I had in my younger years. Today I have all the gauges and my 28 gauge side by side is my favorite grouse gun.

          How many different shotguns do you have Immer?

          • Immer Treue says:

            All I have is a 20 gauge, from a friend who would rather use a 410, that’s perfect for where I live, lots of young aspen/popple. In retrospect, I guess that a 12 gauge is a jack of all trades for a shotgun, waterfowl, deer… And a good place to begin rather than a specified gun. As I have no intention to go after anything other than grouse, at least at this time, the 20 gauge suffices.

            • Ed Loosli says:

              Gee it’s fun to read all the happy talk between Immer, topher and Elk375 as they lightly banter about what kinds of guns they use to kill water-foul, up-land birds and deer.

      • topher says:

        My lab is a duck dog but loves to hunt grouse. Mostly a flush and retrieve situation. I used a 12 with light loads for grouse for years until I could justify buying a dedicated grouse gun.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I noticed he got a ‘plug’ in for the so-called decreasing deer population too. What a jerk.

        • Immer Treue says:

          You’re like the Ely,MN mayor. You’ve got to think before you write something down for all to see. The northern MN deer population dropped drastically over the past two years. Not due to hunting, car collisions, or wolf/bear predation. The protracted Winter of 2012/13 where twenty inches of snow fell about mid-April, followed by subzero temps when deer fat reserves were depleted, and then last years record cold along with three feet of snow that lead to emergency feeding in most of the state really knocked back the deer population.

          There are far fewer deer in Northeast MN than there were two years ago at this time. Hunters can bitch about it, but more wolves may starve because of it, especially the young.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Well I hope the DNR takes that into consideration when they plan the wolf quotas. Somehow I doubt it.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Thirty more wolves than last year. As fully fifty percent of harvested wolves are pups or < 2 years old, many of these would most likely not make it through the Winter, ie they'd starve. A good hunch is that the take would be largely compensatory. Therefore, with no antler less deer take this year, more food for remainder of wolves, and hopefully at least a modest rebound of deer population. Which is better for wolves.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I’m sure we have their best interests at heart. *eyeroll*

                But to go along with that, if the deer recover in numbers, will they cut down the wolf harvest, ya think?

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I don’t know if blowing a starving pup away with a 12-guage is what I’d call humane. Compensatory mortality = ‘they’re gonna die anyway, so I might as well blow ’em away.”

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Here’s another story about it:

            Minnesota Wolf Hunt: More Permits, Higher Harvest Level Set For 2014

            “The move to kill more wolves is likely to please some farmers and hunters who say too many wolves roam the northern third of the state, killing too many livestock and whitetail deer. Others say the season helps keep wolves in check while offering hunters and trappers an added trophy to pursue.”

            Of course, that’s all that matters, pleasing farmers and hunters. I don’t see where I got anything wrong, Immer, because whatever the reason the deer are in decline, it’s being blamed of wolves, or killing wolves to make up the difference.

            At any rate, I wouldn’t concern yourself about my posts. I don’t care who sees them, and neither should you waste your time.

            • Immer Treue says:

              “At any rate, I wouldn’t concern yourself about my posts. I don’t care who sees them, and neither should you waste your time.”

              You responded to a thread I initiated. To not reply would be rude.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Wouldn’t it be nice if someone considered introducing some of these ‘surplus’ wolves into Isle Royale….

              • Immer Treue says:

                I suggested that long ago, but the decision makers of Isle Royale have their priorities.

  33. Ida Lupines says:

    Here’s more on the ‘postponing’ of a wolf stamp:

    “Montana wildlife officials have delayed a decision on a wolf management stamp after the proposal ran into resistance from hunters.”


    JB and others: instead of constantly laying compromise at the feet of wildlife advocates and environmentalists, I wish you would ask it of hunters and ranchers also.

    I think the first inclination of just about anyone concerned about these things is to consider the other’s side, point of view and living with wildlife, and to try to come to some kind of agreement or find common ground. But hunters’ and ranchers’ rigid and inflexible opposition to even the smallest compromise makes it appear nearly impossible. It doesn’t take long to see that they have no intention of doing the compromising, if posts at certain other sites are any indication. It certainly isn’t for lack of trying on many wildlife advocates’ and organizations’ part.

    • Yvette says:

      + one, Ida. Well stated.

    • Elk375 says:


      Everyone is forgetting that come January the 2015 Montana State Legislator is gong to convene. If the wolf advocates want and get a wolf stamp then the Republican legislators are going to say “nay”.

      • Mark L says:

        I think getting Republican legislators to say ‘nay’ publically is actually a good strategy.

    • JB says:

      “But hunters’ and ranchers’ rigid and inflexible opposition to even the smallest compromise makes it appear nearly impossible.”

      At the risk of seeming culturally insensitive (and really old), I feel compelled to say: “Pot, meet kettle.”

    • IDhiker says:

      The wolf stamp decision invalidates the hunter argument of, “We pay the bills, so we get to make the decisions.” It made a good sound bite, but hunters never wanted to share the expenses, nor the playing field.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      My suggestion would be to have the name and mission of the “Wolf Stamp” renamed the “Wildlife Stamp” and have the proceeds go toward non-fish&game related habitat improvement and other non-fish&game enhancements, and these enhancements would also benefit wolves in most cases, because these improvement projects would improve the local eco-systems in general.

    • bret says:

      New wolf depredation in Mt. Emily pack. On September 15 and 16, ODFW confirmed depredations of sheep by the Mt. Emily pack. A total of 8 sheep were killed in separate incidents on consecutive nights while on a public land grazing allotment. In addition, two livestock protection dogs were injured and one is missing following the first incident. These depredations are the first attributed to this pack, and also the first time that
      recently discovered

      livestock protection dogs were confirmed injured by wolves. ODFW is working with the producer to increase wolf deterrent measures. ODFW will also be coordinating with area livestock producers, landowners, and other relevant interests to prepare an area specific wolf-livestock conflict deterrence plan per state wolf management rules.

    • topher says:

      Was up that way a couple weeks ago. They emptied the trap at the hatchery just before I stopped there so didn’t see much. There were a couple spent salmon floating in the river near Decker flats.

  34. Kathleen says:

    Bundy’s cow causes accident w/injuries on interstate:

    Excerpt: ““It’s a state problem. It’s not our problem,” Bundy said. To reach the interstate from Bundy’s 160-acre ranch along the Virgin River, his cattle must cross miles of federal land for which the rancher holds no valid grazing permits.”


  35. Louise Kane says:


    If you can stomach this story, I feel sick and outraged after reading it, perhaps it would help to write to the agency to ask for them to follow through on this investigation. Brook’s comment about the growing body of evidence showing predator hatred and wolf hatred is spot on. Wolves need protection from freaks like Bridges.

    • Elk375 says:

      This incident happened 4 mile east of Lookout Pass. The highway is Interstate 90 and the picture of the truck and road does not appear to be Interstate 90 and the wolf that he hit was a black wolf and the wolf in the picture is a gray wolf. Interstate 90 four miles east of Lookout Pass is very crowd with trucks either slowing down for the climb or gearing down for the decent. There would have been 5 or 6 vehicles going either way witnessing this incident.

      If the wolf was left on the highway then the highway department would have picked it up within 24 hours. Did he really try to hit the wolf or was it an accident. I do not think anyone would try to hit an animal on purpose causing car damage or cause an accident.

      Lets see how this plays out in the next few days. There is nothing in the Missoulian about this incident.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Elk, Bridges states he hit two wolves. He also states that one was black but does not identify except also states that one pup was with injured and his hindquarters were dragging and that he ran off. It’s hard to know for sure what he did but one thing is for sure, Bridges hates wolves, he has bragged about poisoning them and gut shooting. I think the salient point here is that is that removing protections for wolves has legitimized wolf hatred. The aggressive state management plans are a real problem because Bridges actions real or fantasized are an underlying symptom of a sickness that is now pervasive once again, wolf hatred and widespread killing without reason and contrary to all that is known about the value of predators and the stupidity and inhumanity of allowing them to be killed under the guise of achieving valid management goals. Some people just like to kill wolves and other predators and in my opinion a zeal to kill predators should not be directing bad wildlife policy.

        • Elk375 says:


          You are a lawyer. Do you think that you could successfully prosecute Toby in a rural Montana court of law.

          Secondly, there has been no mention of this incident in the Missoulian. I would think that the Missoula newspaper would have pick up on this story.

        • Barb Rupers says:

          Bridges said he saw in his rear view mirror the black wolf with an injured hind leg on the road. The way it was written sounds to me it was the black wolf with the injured leg that went up the hill.

          • Louise Kane says:

            Yes thats what I thought too which would make sense because the dead wolf shown at the vehicle is a grey and white

            as Immer wrote,” Screw it if Bridges did it or not. If he can talk the talk, let him walk into the post that anxiously awaits him.”

            The guy is a creep and articulating thoughts like that underscores the deep dark underbelly of the beast that is wolf hating. if he did it I hope, like WM, that he suffers some unfortunate set of circumstances.

            • JB says:

              I will pass on the psychoanalysis, but would offer that Mr. Bridges may be looking for a confrontation. That is, surrounded by like-minded “thinkers” (using that term very loosely), he may be attempting to provoke a reaction reasoning that it will only get him more recognition. He seems to relish the limelight.

              • Louise Kane says:

                you could be right JB but perhaps Bridges has finally put his money where his mouth is and is now scrambling to undo the damage. he sounds insane and dangerous. Bragging about killing wildlife with vehicles and watching them suffer is really twisted. I think the MFP needs to investigate. If this kind of post does not constitute a reason to investigate what would?

    • Nancy says:

      Mr. Bridges has been out of the limelight for awhile. What better way to bring attention back around to his pathetic life than to run down a couple of wolves, in his wife’s mini van no less and then, brag about it.

      Karma, Mr. Bridges, karma. The clock’s ticking 🙂

      • Yvette says:

        I didn’t see this had already been posted. Sorry for the duplicate.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          It doesn’t hurt to post something like this again, and far and wide. Maybe (hopefully?) it isn’t true. This guy has a reputation for being a nutjob. He’s posted instructions on his nutty website for poisoning wolves, and how he has gotten away with it I’ll never know. Someday I hope he steps wrongly, and is prosecuted.

          • IDhiker says:

            Bridges, and people like him, have gotten away with this sort of stuff because the various agencies allow them to. FWP should charge him. They have his statement and pictures. Then, let Bridges get out of it by admitting he made the whole thing up, thus embarrassing himself and losing any credibility he has left.

            • Ralph Maughan says:

              I think it is likely he operates out of deep hatred of people who don’t share his views about animals.

              I don’t know, but I suspect he ran down no wolves, but wants to pull folk’s strings. He is like an Internet troll but a quantum level more disgusting.

            • WM says:

              ++Bridges, and people like him, have gotten away with this sort of stuff because the various agencies allow them to…++

              Maybe, but I would be more inclined to believe a successful prosecution would be difficult (lack of physical evidence, alleged puffing construed as admissions and then recanting, as in “I made it all up. Or, even I dare you to go after me.”), without incontrovertible evidence, an objective fact finder (jury or judge) in a mostly wolf hostile community, and in the end likely a waste of taxpayer resources for no real gain or deterrence effect.

              I guess we can just hope he chokes on a chicken bone, or his cholesterol is high enough to give him problems, sooner rather than later (Did I really say that?).

              • Nancy says:

                Well, I’m sure “they” will have a few choice words about you on Toby’s Facebook page and his website, WM 🙂

              • IDhiker says:

                I agree with the chicken bone…but FWP has his statement of admission, and the pictures he claims are from the scene of his “crime.” Charge him and then let Bridges get off by saying he lied and made it all up. That may help ruin any credibility he may have left, and is certainly embarrassing, even if he gets off.

              • Elk375 says:

                This incident happened in Mineral County and the county seat is Superior 60 miles west of Missoula. Why waste anyone’s time or money, a jury is not going to convict him with the evidence that has been published. I doubt if a jury would convict anyone of killing a wolf except under the most incriminating evidence.

                To change someone with a crime that would never survive a court of law is wrong and it does and can work both ways.

                I have talked with Toby about having a muzzle loader only season in Montana which he was promoting as a representative of Knight Muzzleloaders. He felt that muzzleloaders and archery season should run concurrent. He stressed that muzzle loaders should have the option of a scope since older hunter’s eyes have a problems of focusing with iron slights and to deny the use of scopes was a violation of handicap laws.

              • Louise Kane says:

                it might put Bridges into an position to argue it was a story if the right prosecutor decides to use the image that he posted of the dead wolf near his vehicle as the “proof”.

                “I guess we can just hope he chokes on a chicken bone, or his cholesterol is high enough to give him problems, sooner rather than later (Did I really say that?).”

              • WM says:


                Seems I recall those miniature horses that were killed by wolves in a fenced pasture not far from a house, a few years back were also in Mineral County. That was around St. Regis just a few miles to the west of Superior, along I-90.

                Incidentally, I caught my first bull trout (believed it was a dolly back then) in the Clark Fork River near Superior, when I was about 12. That was a long time ago.

    • Amre says:

      This just proves what we all knew: wolf hating wackos will stop at nothing to inflict as much pain and suffering upon wolves as possible.

      • CodyCoyote says:

        I’ve always thought Old Toby was straddling the line between being just plain angry , and certifiably psychotic, depending on the day of the week and wind direction.

        If he’s over that line into the realm of psychoses in this case on this day , it doesn’t matter if the incident happened or not, so long as Old Toby wants us to believe it did and in fact believes it did himself. Reality is just a sack of dry cement that he mixes up and pours into a crude mold.

        We haven’t heard from Old Toby for a while. When he does come back into the limelight, the guy puts on a show. In olden days, vegetables and eggs would come raining down upon him from a disgusted audience. Such bad burlesque is Mr. Bridges…

  36. Yvette says:

    Sheez, just come inside and find this on my fb feed. These people are psychopaths. This one turned my stomach. I felt like throwing up.

    btw, most states have some kind of animal cruelty laws they could enforce if they chose. Then the are quoted as stating this is “unsporting”. “Unsporting”? Where do they come up with this chit?


  37. Yvette says:

    and another one on my fb feed. Damn, these people do not need to be free in our society.


  38. Ida Lupines says:

    Well, fall is here in New England. Is anything more beautiful than the wild grapes with their fruit and changing color leaves? I also, I think, saw a dark-eyed Junco (usually a sign of winter coming), hopefully he or she is just an early scout! I think I’ll go out and enjoy the weather.

    Have a good day all,

  39. Ida Lupines says:

    If that’s the van, it doesn’t look like it has and damage to the front end. *eyeroll* What a lying sack.

  40. Ida Lupines says:

    Here’s the epilogue:

    Poor Mr. Bridges hit the two animals at 55 mph, and one went smashing through his windshield. And before the poor animal passed away, he bit Mr. Bridges. At a subsequent visit to the doctor’s office, Mr. Bridges was found to have Echinococcus granulosus.

    And all the wolves lived happily ever after.

    The End.

  41. W. Hong says:

    I hit a deer about 6 months ago and it only went unter the tires on he car and did not do any damanges to the fenders, but that wolve don’t look like it was run over by a car.

  42. Yvette says:

    It looks like up in British Columbia there is conflict over trophy hunting, especially of grizzlies.


    Reading the following article seems to carry a similar tenet of the wolf conflict in America. http://www.wildlifedefenceleague.org/news/2014/8/15/can-grizzly-bear-watchers-end-bcs-trophy-hunt

  43. Louise Kane says:


    Now this is cool
    if Defenders and some of the big NGOs started putting the money they get from donors into grassroots sciene based curricula in western states you’d see some change. It would take a while but it has to start somewhere. forget hunter education courses teaching children to kill let them first learn about the wildlife they are bing taught to kill.

    • rork says:

      Ya didn’t need to bash hunter SAFETY courses, which are taken by young people who WANT to hunt (or sports shoot), but you can NEVER resist.

      • Nancy says:

        Didn’t sound like BASHING to me Rork. And honestly how many young people truly WANT to hunt if given the opportunity to weigh all the options these days?

        Tradition like religion, is ingrained. And you can quote me on that 🙂

        I’m one of 7 siblings (we are all in our late 50’s and 60’s now) and none of us ever had the desire to hunt, even though my father grew up in the backwoods of Kentucky, on a farm.

        The meaning of subsistence hunting needs to be redefined in this day and age (for the sake of wildlife) just like the old adage “the right to bear arms” IMHO 🙂

      • Louise Kane says:

        Rork, as Nancy stated “The meaning of subsistence hunting needs to be redefined in this day and age (for the sake of wildlife) just like the old adage “the right to bear arms” IMHO”

        how many children really would choose to learn to kill wild animals if they had the choice, to say, see them in the wild, take a photography trip to “shoot” wildlife and have it published in National Geographic or work with a local scientist to track and study wild animals? I don’t think most kids would choose the killing door.

        anyhow its no secret to anyone here that that I abhor trophy hunting, trapping, snaring and killing wildlife as sport or for “fun” .

        I think kids should have a chance to learn about the value of life, to learn about the relationship of beings to their habitats before they learn to set traps and let animals languish in them for days, or to stalk and kill, or shoot an arrow into another being.

        You may not appreciate that position, probably as much as I don’t appreciate people who prevent gun reform or use money to teach kids to trophy hunt.

  44. bret says:

    Habitat and access projects in Washington State.


  45. Louise Kane says:

    Was out waling today way out on the bayside flats at a late outgoing tide when the dogs started going crazy. When we caught up with them they had cornered an injured bird. We called them off before they could do any harm, but as I was trying to disengage the animals, I kept tripping on something. I realized it was a long strand of monafilament that was unfortunately attached to the bird, along with a two barb lure hooked into the underside of the birds’ left wing. My friend took the dogs and leashed them and stood back while another friend ran back over the flats and through the marsh to the car to call wild care. It took about an hour for the rescuers to come. In the meantime, I took up the loose monofilament and held the line to the bird taught so the bird would not keep wrapping the line tighter around itself. All around me the the fog was rolling in and the gulls and cormorants seems to watch the struggling bird. I had a lot of time waiting for wild care to reflect on the impact that human recreation has on wild animals. I remembered volunteering in Florida and filming a clean up of fishing wire campaign with NOAA. The volunteers cleaned out reams of wire leaders, monofilament and dangerous lures from the mangroves. They caught and freed the lucky pelicans, the not so lucky could be seen in the branches of the trees like grotesque caricatures of christmas tree ornaments. Seeing this bird up close and suffering so badly made me really angry. I mean how hard is it to retrieve a damn lure and make sure your fishing line is picked up? Wild Care arrived and the rescuer put on some heavy leather gloves. She encouraged the bird to bite her glove so she could control its neck. Once she had the bird under control we cut away the line little by little first at the ligaments near the wings and then elsewhere. The bird was calmly placed in a plastic tub with a sheet and we covered it so they could carry it back to the facility to remove the lure and assess the ligament damage. I stopped by on the way home to learn of any news but the bird was still in quiet time to calm it down before trying to remove the lure. On the flats, I tried to explain to the bird quietly that I was trying to help but all I could see was indignation, distress and fear. I knew it was an immature cormorant; i wondered what the fisherman who cut the line or left it would think if he could have seen the wild eyed panic of that small cormorant as it was hobbled by monofilament and its wings hooked on the lure? I hope the fishermen here are very careful about retrieving their lines. Like nets that are cut free, broken fishing line and tackle is a gift that keeps on killing…..

    • Louise Kane says:

      as a follow up Wild Care reported this morning that the cormorant is doing well. The lure was removed from the wing and the fishing line only left superficial cuts in his wing ligaments that are being treated with antibiotics. The director said he was in unusually good shape, with lots of fat and free from lice. She hopes to release in 5 days. This was really good news. I’ve brought in an oil soaked ruby throated loon, a displaced and off course puffin, and several other birds injured by shot in hunting season that were too far gone. very nice to know this bird is going to survive!

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Good to hear! I hate seeing that stuff – monofilament, floats, the packaging some of it came in, and all kinds of junk when I am out birding and I try to pick it up and dispose of it. How can people behave so carelessly.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I use this term with the greatest of affection. I hope I didn’t offend anyone. “Brits” and “Yanks” are used, at least in my mind, with great affection for each other – The UK and the US are very close nations.

    • Louise Kane says:

      good for them, I like how they argue that the divestment is smart financially and a morally correct position.

    • skyrim says:

      Wow! That is something Jeff. Thanks for putting it up. Little lessons from unusual places.

    • Yvette says:

      Winchester Dairy should be commended for taking action rather than blaming and complaining about the animal welfare investigator. I’m impressed, and glad to see the actions they have taken.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Yes, they should be. I was very happy to read that all the workers were fired (hooray!!) for such extreme sadism. I don’t and can’t watch the videos anymore, just the report is enough.

  46. JEFF E says:

    In fact I would suggest that any time there is some sick instance of animal abuse no matter what, when or where, that Toby Bridges name be associated with it sort of like a “going postal” dynamic. just my opinion but spread the opinion.

  47. Elk375 says:

    This is interesting a Rutger’s University student killed by a black bear in New Jersey.


    • Louise Kane says:

      seems they did everything wrong, ran, panicked, became separated
      sad for bear and human
      wonder why it attacked

  48. Nancy says:

    Interesting to note that wolf depredation on sheep (9 months into the year)in Montana, is WAY down from previous years. Don’t want to speculate just yet as to the reasons why.


  49. Justin Poehnelt says:

    I could use some help refuting this guest column on wolves in our local newspaper in Flagstaff, AZ. It makes numerous uncited claims.

  50. Ralph Maughan says:

    Glacial outburst flood on Mount Shasta.http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/22/6728037/heat-drought-cited-in-massive.html

    Caused by the long hot weather.

  51. Immer Treue says:

    Perhaps next time Sir Toby does something unusual while driving, in order to “help” elk, should bear this in mind, as should we all. This was posted, I believe, earlier in the year.


  52. Elk375 says:

    I just picked this up on 24 hour campfire:

    Posted: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 3:54 pm

    A judge today overturned a 2012 removal of federal protections for Wyoming wolves, taking management of the controversial carnivore out of the state’s hands.

    Endangered Species Act protections have been restored for the Equality State’s estimated 300-some wolves, and a planned hunt that was set to begin Oct. 1 will not go on. The state’s free-fire predator zone, which has a boundary on Highway 22 between Wilson and Jackson, has been done away with.

    “The Wyoming law that allows killing of wolves in any number at any time by any method in most of the state is preempted by this ruling,” Tim Preso, an attorney for Earthjustice, said Tuesday.

    See the Wednesday edition of the Jackson Hole News&Guide for the full story.

    — Mike Koshmrl

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I think this is great, but I wish he’d do more to protect areas closer to home. The 48 are becoming more and more drilled, fracked, logged, ranched and hunted.

      Sally Jewell says that kids need to connect more with wild areas. How can they do that when wild areas are shrinking more and more all the time? People generally aren’t going to see wildlife in American Samoa or remote parts of Alaska.

      Here, for example, the sage grouse habitat shrinking is being blamed on encroaching juniper, not cattle. Are ravens and juniper really harming the sage grouse that much? I don’t think so:


  53. Louise Kane says:


    75,000 comments (“pro wolf”) submitted on behalf of Mexican wolves (does not state how many against which i’d like to know….

    anyhow another site suggesting some recovery solutions that seem very credible. I’d like to see the revision of a recovery plan for grey wolves and can’t figure out why the national NGO legal teams don’y work on this. It was great to see the Wyoming wolves get a reprieve but the invalidation of the plan does not mean a permanent fix, working on a new recovery plan would very much help within that plan they might work toward no sport hunting of wolves recognizing their sociality and that there is evidence of self regulation while allowing for lethal control for depredations within specified parameters by professionals only – excluding lethal control for fluctuations of ungulate populations. I know I know its a tall order but that would be defensible scientifically. There is no valid management reason to kill wolves and only a political one to kill depredating wolves. I don’t agree with that but I recognize the political realities.


  54. Louise Kane says:


    last day to comment for red wolves – in worse or equally bad shape as Mexican wolves

  55. Louise Kane says:

    Ralph thats a lovely photo, I’ve been meaning to say so.

    • Nancy says:

      More on that locally – lots of comments:



      A handful of people with cameras filming wilderness -$1,500

      200 head of cows/with calves destroying wilderness – less than $300

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Photographer Alex Garcia said the line between news and commercial photography was already blurred, as shooters on one assignment may take commercial catalog or fine-art images, too. He wrote on Twitter: “I can see it now. The Forest Service leading Ansel Adams away in handcuffs with its new rule.”

      I found this amusing. That was then, this is now. I think it depends on the situation, and there’s a sense of entitlement by new media and photographers, as well as many, many more people, that can endanger wildlife and possibly damages wild lands. The important thing is protecting the wilderness, and all users need to get permits.

      Cattle on public lands needs to be addressed, but there’s no reason to let everyone else trample the wilderness either.

      • Nancy says:

        “The important thing is protecting the wilderness, and all users need to get permits”

        And whom are you referring to Ida, when you say “all users?”

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Well, what came to mind is that awful derby, or other group activities. Filming isn’t really a benign activity either, and the crew can be much more than a handful. They’ve been known to make up their own stories before, and who knows? maybe an adjustment here or there so it looks good on film? Or harassing wildlife to get a good shot. Any group activity, I think, needs a permit. Nowadays, whether its hunters, wildlife watchers, photographers. To me, it’s not an issue of freedom of the press, because they can still write whatever they want. If a wildlife area is restricted, they need to keep out.

          Cattle is different because since the beginning of our country they’ve been given special rights by the government because they, like oil companies, provide for our country’s people – but today is way out-of-whack and of course needs reining in. But there is nothing more arrogant than news media at times.

          • Elk375 says:


            ++The important thing is protecting the wilderness, and all users need to get permits.++

            The minute you start requiring all users to get a permit to use the wilderness is the end of any new wilderness and the beginning of eroding existing wildernesses. The population does not live or conform to the wishes Ida or her ideology. The more you write the less I think that you have ever spend much time western wilderness areas.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              *shrugs* I’m sure I’ll survive.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              Don’t you already have to get backcountry permits? Hunting permits?

              • Elk375 says:

                Once again, the lack of knowledge is showing. In Montana no one has to get any permit to use any wilderness. Hunting licenses are issue by the state and are good state wide, private, federal or state lands.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                Elk, give it up, will ya? I don’t care what you think of my knowledge or lack thereof. I’m not the most knowledgeable, I’ve already said so. What’s it to ya?

              • Ed Loosli says:

                For Elk and others: I believe Wilderness permits are required for the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness in Montana. The U.S. Forest Service wants to know who is using the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness and for how long. Rangers check hikers for completed permits when they travel within this Wilderness area south of Georgetown Lake. U.S. Forest Service spokesman Brandan Schulze said, “The permit is to give us an idea of trends in the area, so we can refine management to minimize impacts, but it’s primarily to reach out to people about leave-no-trace principles.”

                Most Forest Service wilderness trailheads have boxes with registration forms. In Montana, the forms are voluntary and don’t require a name or address. They do ask for the size of a party, expected campground stops and duration of trip. The forms are deposited in a locked box so others can’t find out who’s in the woods or how long they’re away from home. Rangers may cite people for failure to have a permit in the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness, with an accompanying fine of $50 or $75. No other Montana wilderness areas are actively enforcing the permit requirement with fines.

              • Louise Kane says:

                well you do need permits on some federal lands for particular uses, you even need a permit on national park land for a photography or film shoot

              • Elk375 says:


                I learn something today. The back of my brain remembers something about needed permits now. I have driven around the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness many times and viewed those mountains but have never been in them. Maybe next year.

              • topher says:

                The S.N.R.A. has permit boxes at most of the trailheads. The permits are unlimited and ask standard questions. More of a survey than a permit.

              • JB says:

                Busier wilderness areas do require advance permits (e.g., Yosemite back country, Zion, BWCAW). Here’s a link to Zion’s permit: https://zionpermits.nps.gov/

              • Elk375 says:


                Are you gong to be in Gardiner, Mt around the 1st of October as you mentioned more than a month ago. You mentioned that maybe we should enjoy a Moose Drool together. When are you gong to be here?

              • JB says:


                Yep, will be there from the 1st – 4th. I’m free on the evenings (6:30pm or after) on the 1st and the 2nd. We’re staying in Mammoth, so could meet up in Mammoth or Gardiner. Can I text your phone with details?

  56. JB says:

    Apologies if this has been posted…

    U.S. Forest Service takes heat over new rules requiring permits for filming in Wilderness Areas:


    • Ida Lupines says:

      Terrible. Such incredible selfishness by people. Well, at least the photographers will have to get a permit. I don’t want to see photographers making the news because of irresponsible behavior.

      • Nancy says:

        “Retired U.S. Forest Service ranger Anne Huebner of Idaho, who had been staying at the campground for a couple of days, said people were getting too close to the animals. Park rules prohibit people from getting closer than 25 yards to a moose. The limit is 100 yards for bear and wolves”

        I’m wondering why Ms. Heubner (even though retired) didn’t caution people about getting too close or at least try and notify park rangers as to a potential situation?

        More than aware you can’t “fix stupid” but as our population continues to grow, attractive areas like this (campgrounds, parks etc.) where wildlife might be close by and seen, may need to call on their rangers to do a better job of enforcing park rules in regards to approaching wildlife?

        And while its not possible to have a ranger in every campground, lots of campgrounds have hosts – usually snowbirds or retired folks who spend the summer and into fall months, making sure fees are paid and making sure the campgrounds are not abused. (Can count at least 5 campgrounds close by where I live that have hosts every year)

        Possible to enlist them to be a bit more than just babysitters for the campgrounds? Maybe enlist them as spokespeople for the local wildlife, so many come to see?

        • Ida Lupines says:

          A great idea.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            I actually do volunteer work, where I am authorized to ask people nicely to ‘restrain their enthusiasm’ around the wildlife. It isn’t always well received (but it is fun), because people don’t like to have their activities restrained – whether it is nesting bird habitat or fish habitat, they suddenly become unable to read and understand signs. 🙂

            What I meant for Elk was, I’m sure I’ll live, whatever his opinion is of me. 🙂

            • Nancy says:

              Ida – this blog (Wildlife News) is mostly about wildlife and often about wildlife out here in the western states.

              Not trying to be critical but it might be a good idea for you to allow your brain to digest why some comments are made, do a little research and then… allow your fingers to type a response, instead of the other way around 🙂

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I already do that, thank you. I don’t live in the Western states, but I have an interest in them.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I’ve been coming here for four years, and only lately have people become territorial? Since I am a visitor to the National Parks and the West, I feel I have a valid reason for reading and commenting. I love it and it is very important to me to preserve it, and dismaying to see how things are breaking down.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                You really have nerve, Nancy. I’m surprised at you. I can assure you I do lots of reading and research, probably more than many who come here.

            • Nancy says:

              I live in the western states (over 20 years now) and while I don’t always agree with say Elk’s thoughts, I do respect the fact that he’s lived here a hell of a lot longer than I have and has a better grasp of the emotions (regarding local issues/ politics etc.) that still rule/run most western states.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I do respect him; I think he’s a wonderful representative of an ethical hunter, and I’m sure he does have a good feel for the issues out there. If I haven’t made that plain, then I am correcting that right now.

                But he doesn’t have to be condescending.

              • Nancy says:

                “You really have nerve, Nancy. I’m surprised at you. I can assure you I do lots of reading and research, probably more than many who come here”

                Not looking for a pissing match Ida. Just saying there are many sides to the articles that are posted here.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                I know, I don’t mean to either. But what’s happened to the wolves, and potentially other wildlife in the West, is enough to make people upset. I don’t mean to offend.

                I have learned much from those who actually live in the West, and also from hunters who post here.

                My apologies!

    • SEAK Mossback says:

      The Craigheads where hailed as the bear research pioneers and got all the glory using what? – syringes on sticks to poke dump grizzlies in culvert traps.

      This guy started earlier (minus the movie cameras) on Kodiak with foot-holds (after briefly trying culverts), lasso’s and buckets of ether.

      We was a guest speaker, about the Kenai Moose Range not bears, at a course I took in the 1970s.

  57. Nancy says:

    Never guess who made this statement:

    “The role of business is to produce products and services in a way that makes people’s lives better,” he said recently. “It cannot do so if it is injuring people and harming the environment in the process.”


  58. Connie says:

    The killing of Lamar Canyon ’06
    Female to be the subject of new DiCaprio movie. (I couldn’t find where this has already been posted.)
    Hopefully, this will in some way improve the plight of our Yellowstone wolves.


  59. Yvette says:

    Today, September 26, marks two years since Washington Fish and Wildlife killed the last member of the Wedge Pack. It was the Wedge Pack that awakened me to the serious issues we have in this country toward wolves, predators, wilderness and welfare cattle ranchers. Before the killing of the Wedge Pack I was not on either extreme for wolves or any other predator.

    I was 11 the first summer I lived in MT and learned of free range cattle. Through all the years of going back and forth from OK, MT, and WA, I should not have been as ignorant of these issues. I’ve learned a little in these last two years, but not nearly enough.

    Bill McIrvine’s inflammatory remarks stung, but with that sting I sat up and started studying. As far as I’m concerned, McIrvine is on the same level with Jim Inhofe and Andrew Jackson, so that is as low as one can go with me.


  60. Yvette says:

    Some of you might enjoy this short article on the Blackfeet Tribe’s desire to restore native bison.


  61. bret says:

    Looks like WA has two new packs, the Goodman Meadows Pack and the Profanity pack. Profanity is a successful breeding pack.

  62. WM says:

    I just finished up five days backpacking the Coastal strip south of Lake Ozette in Olympic National Park. Great trip (rain, wind, high tides on some headlands), except for observing a lot – and I mean a lot- of beach debris from last year’s winter storms, and maybe some Japan Tsunami debris from 2011 still making it to shore. This area is in designated Wilderness, and the adjacent stretch of Pacific Ocean is a National Marine Sanctuary. Both designations ironically prevent use of any mechanical equipment (think helicopter or motorized boat landing) to aid in picking up literally tons of washed up commercial fishing gear (hundreds of hard plastic floats of all sizes up to 2.5 feet in diameter and a few the size of a bathtub, wide variety of shapes and applications. Most have Asian writing noting they came from Japan, China or Korean fishing operations, and thousands of yards of stiff nylon 1/2 inch line, some attached to the floats and others just frayed and partly sticking out of the sand among driftwood logs. Also saw a bunch of plastic fish totes, inflated car tires on wheels, and some kids toys and the occasional tennis shoe or insole, and hundreds of empty water bottles and various empty food containers like ketchup and mustard bottles. Even saw remnants of a human burial canoe that had been launched about a week before according to the note in the bow, with the remains, probably from the reservation at Neah Bay about 25 miles to the north. This crap was collecting for miles along the beach, especially small sandy stretches with coves (otherwise most of the coast is pretty rugged).

    Crossed paths with two groups of high school kids from a private Sun Valley, ID school (one going north and the other going south). One of the advisors lives in Hailey. Otherwise, we saw no other hikers, since this time of year begins our rainy season, and the drive out to Lake Ozette is a pretty big time commitment. Large flocks of geese flying south along the Pacific Flyway, a signal that fall is near, a couple places with large flocks of pelicans (species unknown by me), and even a couple of coyotes beach combing one morning. May have observed some illegal commercial fishing within the National Marine Sanctuary one night, as there were intense large boat lights only a couple miles off shore, though difficult to tell exact location.

    The point of this monologue is that Wilderness might actually be aided, in this instance, by having a NPS sponsored landing of a helicopter or boat for just a couple of days, would clean this stuff up (volunteers have collected a lot and put it above high tide. However, the winter storms will just move it back out to sea, and redistribute it on these same beaches or drop it elsewhere. None of it good for wildlife.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I hate seeing all that garbage too. It’s a very strange phenomenon of our modern times – nobody wants to clean up after themselves. We have a bottle bill expansion ballot bill coming up in November, and it’s hard to believe that anyone could oppose such a thing. You may be right about a narrow exception to wilderness protection for cleanup and safety measures.

      “If Massachusetts residents vote yes on the bottle bill expansion, you’d be charged an extra five cents for any water bottle or soft beverage purchase that you make, and you could only get that money back if you come to a redemption center and recycle.”

      What an imposition, huh? 🙁 Getting rid of plastic bags, and expanding bottle bills is important.

      Hope you had a nice time!

    • Nancy says:

      So what kind of campaign would it take WM to request a cleanup? I assume you took pictures?

      • WM says:


        Indeed, I took pictures. Also talked with a couple Park rangers about the problem. I even suggested they try to work with the Coast Guard (Department of Commerce and responsible for many aspects of marine environmental protection as well as commercial fishing). Specifically, it would seem a good use of their resources to try to help.

        Didn’t get much of a positive reception. NPS was worried about being sued by the usual environmental advocacy groups, trying to “preserve” wilderness character. Isn’t that ironic?

        • Nancy says:

          Maybe NPS personnel were not the right people to talk to about this WM.


          Is there an organization like this one on the coast there?


          • WM says:


            I think you are right about talking to other agencies. NOAA has a big office in the Puget Sound area. The issues, however, are still the same – accessing Wilderness and going thru a Marine Sanctuary to get to the debris that needs removal. That is the rub.

            An organization called Coast Savers had a volunteer clean-up in the are called the Cape Alava loop just north of where I was. Their event took place September 20. Met a few volunteers with bulging plastic bags full of smaller and lighter debris on the boardwalk trail from Ozette to the beaches (2+ mile hike from the trailhead on either leg of the loop). This volunteer effort didn’t even put a dent in the stuff to the south.


            I fully expect a bureaucratic shuffle regardless of who I contact – everybody saying we can’t do anything because it is designated Wilderness/Sanctuary, and fear of a law suit if they attempt removal Never mind they admit they can land a helicopter or bring in a boat to evacuate a human in Wilderness on an emergency bais. Again, that is the irony.

            • WM says:

              National Marine Sanctuary maps and website:


              • Louise Kane says:

                you might try contacting the NOAA restoration Center they do a great deal of partnering to restore marine habitats and have a program called the community based restoration program that uses grants and partnerships between feds, state and local groups to conduct restoration. I have a feeling this could be a project they would like. In fact I just went to the website and see they have a funding initiative right now with a NOV deadline. If you are really interested in getting someone involved to write the grant proposal I have some contacts and you can ask Ralph for my e mail. I’ll be able to put you in contact with the former director of the program by e mail. I used to contract there and also have contact with the director of the center. Let me know and good luck. Its a good program I worked on a many of the clean up projects in an outreach and education capacity as well as in the grants and partnership development.


                NOAA Marine Debris Removal Project Grants$15,000 -$350,000Funds individual grass-roots marine debris prevention and removal projects that benefit coastal habitat like wetlands and coral reefs, as well as fisheries, marine mammals, sea turtles and waterways. NationalDeadline – November 17, 2014

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Here we go again with unethical, unsporting, predator killing contests…The fact that both the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM say that “it is not their duty to regulate or ban hunting on public lands” is the real problem. In certain circumstances like these killing contests, The federal government should take back the regulation of hunting that they have ceded to the state governments. It is not the law that gives states the control of hunting on federal lands, it is just custom that sometimes goes horribly wrong for our wildlife.

  63. Nancy says:

    “It’s just insane to think we’ll have chance to take a wolf,” Alder said. “It would be wonderful for someone to take a wolf, but I don’t expect it.”

    Well, gotta wonder, is it possible to come up with a sane reply to that “insane” comment?

    • JEFF E says:

      I grew up in a neighborhood that had a number of WWII vets including one in particular was a member of the Shoshone-Bannock tribes and had also been a member of Merrill’s Marauders from their onset when they were trained in India to go to Burma under Gen. Stillwell.(look it up to see what this outfit did) His family was as close to self sustaining as you can get. Had a huge garden, raised chickens and rabbits for meat and eggs,canned every thing that they grew, hunted ducks, geese, deer; don’t think they ever went elk hunting, don’t know why; fished,; I remember them bringing home 40 gal. coolers full of perch, filleting and freezing them all,
      and most of all I remember him telling me that the lowest form of human is one that kills just because they can.
      Another neighbor that I worked for spent six years in a Japanese prisoner of war camp.
      These were hard old men and did not talk a whole lot, but you never wanted to cross them

      • Yvette says:

        I’ve read your comment several times, Jeff E, simply because it makes me feel good. The hunters I know that are in my family have that same attitude. I wish there were more like them and less that hunt for trophy.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Yes, I agree, they sound like men of honor.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      They don’t seem to be well organized, every so often there’s another request – but didn’t this person say that it is just an exercise in offending environmentalists and those who would infringe on 2nd amendment rights? Originally.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Jeff E’s portion of his post, “most of all I remember him telling me that the lowest form of human is one that kills just because they can.” is a good reply Nancy

  64. Louise Kane says:


    A very disturbing read. 50% decline in wildlife populations in last 40 years. To think of this is mind boggling. How can one species with such capacity for intelligence be so insanely shortsighted?

    • Yvette says:

      Louise, which is why I recently said that I have come to believe that we humans may be highly intelligent, but our intelligence seems to only for the short term. We seem to not think of consequences beyond one or two generations. We fail miserably at thinking or planning for impacts for future generations. How intelligent can we be, in an evolutionary sense, if we fail future generations?

  65. Ed Loosli says:

    I think we should look seriously consider an effort at passing a law similar to the Marine Mammal Protection Act – to be called the Land Mammal Protection Act. The key to bringing back the gray-whales, dolphins, elephant-seals, etc. has be the MMPA, which does not get into the controversies about numbers of individuals in each species. Simply, under the MMPA, marine mammals cannot be harassed or hunted no matter what their numbers are, no matter if they are plentiful or rare. Likewise, if we had a Land Mammal Protection Act, with animals like grizzly bears, wolves, wild bison, bob-cats, wolverines, fishers, foxes, mountain lions, etc., then depredation permits authorized by the relevant agencies on the land where the animal is located would be the only way to legally kill these land mammals. Now, agencies go to hunting or the shoot first method rather than initially requiring non-lethal management. I know, it is a dream, but so was the Marine Mammal Protection Act until some far-thinking individuals and politicians stepped up to the plate.

  66. betz says:

    Where have all the birds gone? Arizona Mountains used to be alive with lots of birds…now I don’t see ANY! It’s October 2014….no birds.

  67. Nancy says:

    Okay, not a big fan of spiders but while living in Texas a few years ago realized the few Tarantulas I ran across from time to time seemed more like small fuzzy mammals than spiders. But puppy size??