Rattlesnake on road. Near Bill Williams River, Arizona. copyright Ralph Maughan

It is time for another new page for 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 (Nov. 19) “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.

580 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife related news? Dec. 1, 2014 edition

  1. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Will Lima climate talks pave way for a binding treaty in Paris in 2015?

    Failure will condemn developing countries to unchecked climate change for another generation, and the poorest countries will be worst hit

    Developing countries last month publicly welcomed the $9.7bn pledged for the GCF, but were in fact bitterly disappointed that it was so little. The money – no more than City of London financial workers are paid as bonuses each year – is to cover 2015-2020 and is so far from what is considered necessary as to be laughable.

    Developing countries will separately press for compensation for the “loss and damages” caused by climate change. The idea has been strongly resisted by the US and other rich countries, which fear they are laying themselves open to unlimited compensation claims.

    If commitments are made to provide climate finance, poor countries could achieve spectacular success in developing green economies, says Oxfam

    Developing countries have been consistently outraged that rich countries, which have largely caused climate change, are fighting to do as little as possible.

    Oxfam has calculated that the US should be responsible for providing 56% of financial flows to shift the world on to a low-carbon path during the first commitment period of the new agreement, with 22% coming from the EU and 10% from Japan. Other climate finance contributors should be Russia, Brazil, Korea and Mexico.

    • Mareks Vilkins says:


      A technology that adds up

      “All the world’s power could be provided by a square 100 km by 100 km in the Sahara.” Is this true? Concentrating solar power in deserts delivers an average power per unit land area of roughly 15 W/m2. So, allowing no space for anything else in such a square, the power delivered would be 150 GW. This is not the same as current world power consumption.

      It’s not even near current world electricity consumption, which is 2000 GW. World power consumption today is 15 000 GW. So the correct statement about power from the Sahara is that today’s consumption could be provided by a 1000 km by 1000 km square in the desert, completely filled with concentrating solar power. That’s four times the area of the UK. And if we are interested in living in an equitable world, we should presumably aim to supply more than today’s consumption. To supply every person in the world with an average European’s power consumption (125 kWh/d), the area required would be two 1000 km by 1000 km squares in the desert.

      Fortunately, the Sahara is not the only desert, so maybe it’s more relevant to chop the world into smaller regions, and ask what area is needed in each region’s local desert. So, focusing on Europe, “what area is required
      in the North Sahara to supply everyone in Europe and North Africa with an average European’s power consumption? Taking the population of Europe and North Africa to be 1 billion, the area required drops to 340 000 km2, which corresponds to a square 600 km by 600 km. This area is equal to one Germany, to 1.4 United Kingdoms, or to 16 Waleses.

      The UK’s share of this 16-Wales area would be one Wales: a 145 km by 145 km square in the Sahara would provide all the UK’s current primary energy consumption. These squares are shown in figure 25.5.

      Notice that while the yellow square may look “little” compared with Africa, it does have the same area as Germany.

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        from my favorite book on the climate change by David Archer “The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing The Next 100,000 Years Of Earth’s Climate” (2010), pb, page 168 – 169 from Epilogue. Carbon Economics and Ethics:

        “I have two personal favorite big ideas for generating lots of energy. One is to build solar cells on the moon, an idea advocated by David Chriswell at the University of Houston. There is no wind on the moon to cover solar cells with dust, no rain, no birds. No atmosphere and clouds would reflect the incoming sunlight away. The power could be beamed back to Earth as microwaves, a large beam that apparently wouldn’t fry birds as they flew through. The energy from the beam would be received by an antenna on Earth maybe 10 kilometers on a side. Solar cells on the moon could be constructed from material refined from the lunar regolith, so the mass of the cells wouldn’t have to be lifted up into space from the Earth’s surface. It would take decades, technological developments (especially in robotics), and hundreds of astronaut tours of duty to construct this power source, but once construction got started, it could continue until it reached the required tens of terawatts of power.

        My other favorite idea is high-altitude windmills, flying like kites in the jet steram. Electrical power can be transmitted through wires in the tether. For a nice artistic rendering of what this might look like, see windskypower.com. The power density (watts of energy per square meter of propeller area) is much higher at 30,000 feet elevation than it is down at the ground. High-altitude windmill power could also potentially scale up to generate the tens of terawatts of power we’re looking for.”

        • Louise Kane says:

          high altitude windmills and commercial jets and birds? Impact?

          • Mareks Vilkins says:


            1) Most birds fly below 500 feet except during migration

            2) more specific details about kites here:

            Kites flying in high-altitude winds could provide clean electricity


            Other safety issues were raised in the discussion, such as the kites interfering with plane traffic and the possibility of damage from lightning. The first problem does not seem to be difficult to solve. The atmosphere is crowded with all sorts of flying objects and we seem to be very good in managing air traffic: collisions are very rare. Kites will have their reserved flying area and active avoidance can be practiced by the control system on the ground, which is equipped with a radar. Kites can be rapidly retracted or moved out of the way if an aircraft is detected moving too close to the reserved area. This kind of control could also be used to avoid damage to birds, a point that was not raised in the comments. About lightning, the issue has been studied and it seems to be a modest risk since the cables are not conductive. Of course, in addition, the kites won’t be flown into thunderstorms.

      • Ralph Maughan says:

        Mareks Vilkins,

        I am glad you called “halt” above to the perpetration of the myth that a 100 km by 100 km square of solar panels in the Sahara could supply the worlds energy.

        It is one of those things that is told and retold without anyone thinking about it.

        A similar myth is that the huge amounts of greenhouse gases released by volcanoes dwarfs human greenhouse gas emissions, thus showing that nature is responsible for any global warming.

        In fact human caused emissions dwarf volcanic emissions.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Mareks, Why so low for Japan and what about China and India, two of the countries with the largest populations are not even mentioned?

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        The average American consumes about 250 kWh per day. Average European consumption of “primary energy” is about 125 kWh per
        day per person. The UK average is also 125 kWh per day per person.


        Breakdown of world greenhouse gas emissions by region and by country. Data source: Climate Analysis Indicators
        Tool (CAIT) Version 4.0. (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2007). The first three figures show national totals
        of all six major greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, PFC, HFC, SF6), excluding contributions from land-use change and
        forestry. The figure on p14 shows cumulative emissions of CO2 only.

        Congratulations, Britain! …in the table of historical emissions, per capita, we are second only to the USA. Sincere
        apologies here to Luxembourg, whose historical per-capita emissions actually exceed those of America and Britain;
        but I felt the winners’ podium should really be reserved for countries having both large per-capita and large total
        emissions. In total terms the biggest historical emitters are, in order, USA (322 GtCO2), Russian Federation (90 GtCO2),
        China (89 GtCO2), Germany (78 GtCO2), UK (62 GtCO2), Japan (43 GtCO2), France (30 GtCO2), India (25 GtCO2), and Canada (24 GtCO2).

        The per-capita order is: Luxembourg, USA, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Belgium, Germany,Estonia, Qatar, and Canada.


        The major countries with the biggest per-capita emissions are Australia, the USA, and Canada. European countries, Japan, and South Africa are notable runners up. Among European countries, the United Kingdom is resolutely average.

        What about China, that naughty “out of control” country? Yes, the area of China’s rectangle is about the same as the USA’s,
        but the fact is that their per-capita emissions are below the world average.
        India’s per-capita emissions are less than half the world average. Moreover,it’s worth bearing in mind that much of the industrial emissions of China and India are associated with the manufacture of stuff for rich countries.

        So, assuming that “something needs to be done” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, who has a special responsibility to do something? As I said, that’s an ethical question. But I find it hard to imagine any system of ethics that denies that the responsibility falls especially on the countries to the left hand side of this diagram – the countries whose emissions are
        two, three, or four times the world average. Countries that are most able
        to pay. Countries like Britain and the USA, for example.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Thanks for detailed response, as always.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          the countries whose emissions are
          two, three, or four times the world average.

          Yes, it is frustrating. I am waaaaaay below average usage – I drive a Prius (which gets nearly 65 mpg), work ten minutes from home, don’t have kids, keep my thermostat at 65 or lower, use energy efficient lightbulbs, don’t eat beef, pork or lamb, and as I mentioned before and which made Mareks chuckle, recycle like a madwoman! We in America are spoiled – if we expect to tame the big, bad beasts of industry, we’ve got to step up ourselves and use less. And re the per capita usage of the less wealthy nations, that’s only temporary – once their standard of living improves to Western ‘ideals’/standards, I shudder to think of what is going to happen to the planet. Because of our large population – it’s going to take more and more to employ people and to keep our economies going. At the expense of everything else. Alternative energy? I don’t see much being done; and I hope we get the timing right so the additional birds and wildlife being killed to make room for wind and solar farms just doesn’t hasten their extinction.

          But it doesn’t make me feel very good to know that whatever I don’t use, someone else just gobbles up.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            oops, make that 60 mph.

            I finally saw deer, an older fawn, in my yard at 5:30 this morning. We’ve had so much development recently that I haven’t heard a whole lot of gunshots, although I have heard some, it’s deer season.

            This young one didn’t look fearful, but innocent and happy. What a world he or she is facing. 🙁

          • Gary Humbard says:

            Ida, you hit the nail on the head, each one of us has the control to use the absolute minimum amount of energy resources and products made from livestock to make a difference for wildlife and wildlands. It makes me feel real good knowing that I did the very BEST that I could do reduce my footprint and besides, I save money to buy things I want instead of gas and fatty foods.

        • Peter Kiermeir says:

          So it´s the tiny Grand Duchy of Luexembourg! I doubt that they are Aware of this! As they no longer have a significant industry it must be all that stinking money that is brought into that Country with that big SUV´s…. 🙂

  2. Mareks Vilkins says:

    now, this is intriguing:

    UN to investigate claims that UK spies infiltrated climate talks


    A government document released by Edward Snowden showed that an officer from GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping agency, had been embedded in the official British delegation to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009 and at Cancun in Mexico.

    The role of the officer, according to one slide, was to discover countries’ negotiating positions, report on how far they were prepared to negotiate, find out whether foreign negotiators were receiving instructions from their own governments and to report these back to UK officials to give Britain an upper hand.

    But Britain could have been breaking international law in sending a spy because the venue of all UN climate summits is declared to be UN territory for the duration of the negotiations.

    The document also reveals the security services’ preoccupations. Under the title “new challenges for intelligence”, GCHQ asks whether foreign governments are “planning for instability or mass migrations” caused by water and food scarcity, and whether they are making the link between extreme weather and high commodity prices.

    WikiLeaks cables in 2010 showed that the CIA had asked US diplomats to pass on the negotiating positions of key countries at Copenhagen and to report deals between nations.

    Asad Rehman, international climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “It’s long been a fact that rich governments have bullied and bribed poorer developing countries to get their way in the climate negotiations – we can now add spying to that list. It’s morally and politically bankrupt for the UK government to try and undermine the voices of those most affected by climate change in calling for more action.”

  3. skyrim says:

    Good news for the Grand Canyon wolf. State highway 67 closed to traffic for the season on Monday. Presumably closed at Jacob Lake until May 15, 2015.
    This will give the wandering wolf some badly needed space. She will likely remain a lone wolf, but she will be safer than when the highway was open.
    If a serious effort is put forth to track her, trap her and re-collar her, it will be done by boot, snow shoe or skinny skis. That’s the best possible news in my opinion.

  4. Ed Loosli says:

    The hub-bub about “climate change” (global warming) is a little distracting to what should be our top priorities regarding healthy ecosystems, including wildlife conservation. Over the next 10, 20, 50 & 100 years, the biggest threat to natural lands and wildlife is habitat loss and fragmentation due to the world’s ever expanding human population and humanity’s drive to develop every square inch of the earth. The real threats are palm-oil plantations cut out of intact jungle in Indonesia, it is roads cut through the Serengeti in Tanzania, it is massive clear cutting in Alaska’s Tongass Nat. Forest, it is expanding cultivation into the pastoral/wildlife lands surrounding East Africa’s savannah national parks, it is Monsanto being allowed to sell bee killing pesticides, it is the Montana livestock industry being allowed to control where bison can and cannot go, it is hunters/trappers slaughtering wolves, coyotes, bears, mt.lions, coyotes for no scientific or ethical reason, and on and on. We should do what we can do to slow global warming, and at the same time, we must keep our eyes on the prize of preserving and protecting the world’s remaining natural lands, wildlife corridors and the wildlife trying to survive on these irrepressible lands.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      The hub-bub about “climate change” (global warming) is a little distracting to what should be our top priorities regarding healthy ecosystems, including wildlife conservation.

      I’ve thought this too – and worry about it. Palm oil is a real threat, and it is even in vegan butters. Called ‘sustainably harvested’ but I’m not so sure about that.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Clearing virgin jungle for Palm Oil plantations is on its face NOT SUSTAINABLE and the orangutans inch closer to extinction. Habitat destruction caused by development is world wild threat number one, from suburbia USA to rainforests, to remote valleys and mountains.

    • rork says:

      You might want to check who makes and sells neonics. Wikipedia suffices.

  5. Rich says:


    Thanks for the great analysis. There are many rooftops cooking in the sun in places like Phoenix, Albuquerque, southern CA, and other areas in the US. What is the realistic potential for making a significant difference in the US if these rooftops are used for solar? Obviously there will be an initial capital and energy cost but that would hopefully be amortized over the long term. Also it would seem the reduction of electric transmission losses by having the energy generated where it is used could make a difference as well.

    • Mareks Vilkins says:


      David MacKay – a professor in the Department of Physics at Cambridge University and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK – provides free download of his very helpful book “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air”


      “David MacKay’s book on sustainable energy is a complete resource for assessing the many options for choosing between different energy options and for using energy more efficiently. Teachers, students, and any intelligent citizen will find here all the tools needed to think intelligently about sustainability. Solar, wind, wave, tidal, and most other proposed technologies are assessed carefully with numbers making it possible to compare them quantitatively. Whether you are interested in advocating a sensible energy policy in or in reducing personal energy waste, this is the place to start. The book’s conclusions are based on fundamental physical principles, which are clearly explained in a set of technical chapters toward the end of the book. So “Sustainable energy” is also a great place to see how fundamental science can be used to inform critical decisions about energy over the next decades. While the focus is on the UK, the book’s methods can easily be adapted to the situation of other countries. One of the book’s great strengths is its extensive set of links to hundreds of other sources. This is the most important book about applying science to important public problems that I have read this year.”
      – review by Jerry Gollub, Professor of Physics, Haverford College and University of Pennsylvania
      Member of the US National Academy of Sciences


      “Of the many works I have read on the subject, this is the most cogent and compelling.
      A brilliant masterpiece, a perfect combination of form and content. You might be content with that, if the issues it illuminates were not so weighty. Indeed the book has an implicit poignancy, an air of imminent tragedy: Given the time scale and magnitude of the challenges, the challenge of an appropriate response is intimidating. The crisis still has an air of unreality – nothing visible has happened yet – and yet is as inevitable as the First or Second World Wars can be seen to be in retrospect.
      The main service is to rank the energy options on a uniform and intuitively clear scale with credible precision. The DESERTEC project (for harvesting sunlight in the Sahara) in particular lends itself to the kind of effort that governments are capable of making – especially if they grasp the scale of the issues. It will require a national effort similar to that of the World Wars to come to grip with – but is something tangible that can be done, and can serve as a rallying focal point. It is the sort of thing that nation-states do well. It is similar in scale to the unrolling of the automobile economy and the electrical grid. And if it comes a little short, if we have to cut our suit to fit the cloth, that is still within our capacity to adapt.”
      – Avner Offer
      Chichele Professor of Economic History, All Souls College, Oxford

  6. Nancy says:

    “Vogel says he looks forward to helping Zinke promote a business friendly environment in the state by getting rid of unnecessary regulations and creating jobs”


    Increasing harder and harder to grasp what elected officials really give a sh*t about their people, their state, let alone their wildlife:


  7. Louise Kane says:

    Watching an AlJazeer interview with Robert Kennedy jr.
    very fascinating

    he just called the Koch Brothers and other corporate entities that deliberately mislead the public and the ignore the consensual science behind climate change, sociopaths!


    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Never have American sociopaths had so much wealth to advance their selfish interests.

  8. Ed Loosli says:

    From the Earth Island Journal – Winter 2015

    “Cargill: No More Tree Cutting”
    In Sept. 2014, the agricultural behemoth Cargill committed to zero deforestation across all of its products, including cattle, sugar, soy, and cocoa. This pledge extends an earlier commitment by the company to eliminate deforestation in palm oil production.

    Agriculture is the single biggest driver of tropical deforestation, with cattle ranching ranking first when it comes to forest loss. And Cargill isn’t the only company to take note. Wilmar, an agricultural giant based in Singapore, committed to zero deforestation last year, as have dozens of additional companies over the past several months.

    “We know we can do it” Cargill CEO David McLennan said in a press release. “Our stakeholders demand it. And it is he right think to do.”

  9. Immer Treue says:

    Thanksgiving Elk Shootout


    “Flynn said the misbehavior is becoming more common.”

    “It’s not just a few anymore,” Flynn said. “I think it’s a lot of the local community. We have more elk than ever before, and the elk are lower in the valleys. In that situation, people have a tendency to not think things through.”

    • Nancy says:

      Stiffer fines and how about mandatory community service? Appearances at local schools discussing legal verses ethical hunting practices, fair chase, etc.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Well, at least it shows that the ‘wolves taking all our elk’ complaint is made up in order to kill wolves – if these shooters can waste elk at their pleasure, doesn’t it? And also, the ‘violent killing of elk by wolves’ charge too.

  10. Peter Kiermeir says:

    California Coyote-Killing Contests Could Be Banned In First-In-Nation Move

  11. Nancy says:

    Ah, the price of doing business in predator country. According to the F&G weekly wolf report, only one possible injury by a wolf this year (although the Livestock Loss board’s Facebook page differs) so I’m guessing there’s a lot more predation from other predators:



  12. Louise Kane says:


    new low
    study killing close to 900 wolves to determine impact on caribou radio fitting judas wolves to kill packs and using strychnine! Thanks Marc Bekoff for the expose.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      You just have to wonder, why?????? These people have thrown their ethics out the window to keep their jobs, or something.

    • Immer Treue says:

      I don’t know how often and how loud it can be shouted before it sinks in, if ever. It’s the HABITAT stupid! How could caribou have exhisted here for thousands of years with the maligned canine before man’s footprint in the form of logging and petrochemical exploitation upset the equilibrium?

      From other readings, there only seem to be two options: kill all predators; stop logging and extractions. Otherwise, tis only a matter of time before the caribou are gone.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Yes. And the hell of it is, the study failed. I wonder if this was just a means to ‘manage’ the wolf population under the guise of a scientific study. Strychnine? I don’t understand how this inhumane method could still be used and call it science, unless farmers and ranchers, etc. have been ‘deputized’ to take part in the study?????? Doesn’t it stay in the environment? Also, the killing methods did contribute to collateral damage of other animals.

      • Louise Kane says:

        +1 Immer

    • WM says:


      I prefer the study paper by the authors for unfiltered data and conclusions, rather than a spin piece by Bekoff (aided by “Kenton Carnagie was killed by a bear” advocate Paul Pacquet).

      From the study paper:

      Caribou demographic response to wolf removal
      Prior to initiation of the wolf reduction in the LSM, mean adult female caribou survival was 0.89, mean calf recruitment was 0.12 (as measured by calf:cow ratios), the mean empirical population growth rate was 0.95, and the stochastic population growth rate was 0.94 (Table 1; annual estimates of all parameters are given in Supplementary Table S11). Following the initiation of wolf reduction, mean adult female survival was 0.91. Mean recruitment increased to 0.19 … Throughout the entire study, adult female survival did not significantly increase … but RECRUITMENT [*** this term refers to young of the year that survive] did significantly increase over time…++


      Predator reduction by itself may be an effective short-term strategy to reduce the risk of population extirpation of an endangered species facing declines due to apparent competition. In our test of this recovery strategy, woodland caribou population growth rate increased to approximately stable levels during 6 years of reductions of their main predators (wolves). The strongest evidence that our treatment had its hypothesized biological effect was born through comparison of the realized trajectories of the adjacent RPC and LSM populations following the initiation of wolf reduction. Statistically similar during the before wolf reduction period, the population trajectories of LSM and RPC rapidly diverged by as much as a 14% difference in population growth rate that can be best explained by the wolf reduction. Conservatively, we annually removed 40%–50% of the initial wolf population from the caribou treatment area, and the positive response of recruitment supports the role of wolves as the proximate cause of woodland caribou declines…++


      So wolf population decreases resulted in a woodland caribou population increase. Imagine that. But collateral damage is inevitable when poisons or trapping are involved, and this stuff sometimes involves hard choices in a world filled with more people, and as Immer points out, less habitat.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        But it is only short-term. If we do nothing to change other threats to caribou in this short-term ‘window’, what will this study have proved? What will we do over the long-term when habitat keeps getting take for human needs? Then not only one species will be endangered, but two (or more).

        As someone said here, we seem to be incapable of comprehending long-term.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          We can’t continually reduce predator populations to compensate for our activities. Hard choices will come back to haunt us when there’s nothing left, and we’ve only delayed the inevitable.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        I can’t believe that people in authority had to kill hundreds of wolves to know that wiping out predators in a particular area, will enable a rise in prey numbers.

        Idaho often kills so many coyotes, wolves, foxes etc. that they have tremendous rabbit and mice population explosions. Then Idaho F&W “experts” call for mass rabbit killings of the rabbits — a vicious cycle that would be unnecessary if they would just leave the predators alone in the first place.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Lyme Disease is rampant in the Northeast because there are no major predators to control small mammals or deer. The entire map is basically filled in for the Northeast. Our answer is to just kill everything.

          Any word on our wolf in Leominster?

      • Louise Kane says:

        I read the paper but I also repsect Mark Bekoff’s work and like his writing style. He writes and defends, arguments for compassionate conservation.

        • WM says:

          Louise, I don’t know who this guy is, but I am intrigued by this closing sentence of his writing (which is of course absent of authoritative sources for his broad conclusions):

          ++The very best predator management systems would be those in which predator behaviours are directed away from woodland caribou during the sensitive but short 6 week calving season, in an effort to allow populations to increase without constraining the function of wolves to keep deer, moose and coyote populations in check. ++

          And just HOW is this to be done? Incidentally, there is that wolves kill coyotes in large numbers assertion that Dr. Mech thinks is kind of goofy.

          • Ed Loosli says:

            Louise and WM:
            When WM says, “I don’t know who this guy is”, I don’t either, because the paper has no author and no publication date. I assume by the content that is must have been written in late 2013 (?).

            Most importantly, at the very end of this report is the caveat: “DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT MANUSCRIPT NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION”

            • WM says:


              Thanks, but I know of Bekoff. It was the short piece on Caribou calf mortality in Canada by some unknown person, that Louise referenced, which raised a bunch of questions. Incidentally, there is a lot to potentially disagree with in some of Bekoff’s writings.

  13. Immer Treue says:

    A veritable library of David Mech research and papers.


    • Ida Lupines says:

      I really enjoyed reading the one linked to Congressman DeFazio’s letter to the BLM about the predator derby, where Dr. Mech pointed out all the weaknesses in the research paper.

    • Professor Sweat says:

      There goes my productivity for the rest of the day…

  14. Barb Rupers says:

    RMEF Team Elk has added Randy Newberg, Bozeman MT, to its group. He recently said “Thanks to RMEF, there are now more elk in the hills than at any time in my life.”


  15. Yvette says:

    An interesting viewpoint on leopard print used in fashion.

    Something I thought was key:

    It’s impossible to consider anyone cold hearted and emotionally depleted enough to want to kill such a thing. But people do. CITES still issues about 1,000 permits a year to hunt and kill leopards in Africa. Every place in Africa that leopards are hunted sees a decline in the population and yet we continue to allow this to go on.

    It is time to take on the fallacy of sport/trophy hunters as conservationists. Blood for habitat is BS. If the conservation goal is mostly to benefit the hunters’ bloodlust so they can continue to kill is it truly conservation?

    There is no justifiable reason to hunt leopards.

    And fashion? I’ve previously ranted on the fashion industry’s responsibility in the torture of animals at fur farms and on the trappers that supply them fur.


  16. Professor Sweat says:

    “In response to overwhelming public support for banning wildlife-killing contests, the California Fish and Game Commission voted today to adopt regulations prohibiting hunting ‘derbies’ targeting species such as coyotes, raccoons and badgers. The ban came after thousands of Californians expressed opposition to the killing competitions”


    • Barb Rupers says:

      I hope other states follow!

    • Ed Loosli says:

      So let’s see, California has banned the hunting of mountain lions, banned bear baiting and the hunting of bears with dogs, placed wolves on the State’s Endangered Species list, and now have banned predator killing contests… I think Californians are on to something, that we all can learn from.

    • Nancy says:

      “Additional efforts across the country to end wildlife contest-hunts are meeting with success. In response to a lawsuit filed by the Center and allies, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management decided last week to withdraw a permit it had issued to a private party for a predator-killing contest in Idaho. Earlier this year a coyote-killing contest in Oregon was shut down after public outcry, and Washington residents spoke out at a commission hearing against similar contests”

      Our species waking up and its about time, given the scientific data available out there regarding predators and their role in ecosystems.

  17. Nancy says:

    BUTTE, Mont. –

    “Police suspect a confused hunter might have shot and killed an albino quarter horse near Butte. Police do not believe the shooting was intentional”

    Hello??? White horse? In a corral?


    • Kathleen says:

      This article has an accompanying photo, for anyone who can bear to look.

      The sheriff’s comments are outrageous–calling it an “accident,” “some sort of mistake.”

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Albino animals may be sacred, but white people are about as far from sacred as can be, aren’t they? They didn’t call them white devils for nothing.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Shooting teenagers in the streets, killing wildlife in klansmens’ hoods while holding up the flag, predator derbies where you shoot anything that moves. Shameful.

      • Nancy says:


        Interesting story. A $5 thousand dollar horse and the owners didn’t notice right away, that it was dead in their corral?

        I have a handful of $2 dollar (a piece) chickens and would notice immediately if one of them was dead…..

        • Elk375 says:


          Maybe the owner shot his own horse for insurance, not saying he did, it has happen before and who says that horse was worth $5,000. My father sold the neighbors a horse (Bum) nearly 40 years ago and 6 months later that horse was shot. It upset everybody.

          Six months later I ask father if they ever determined who shot Bum. He said I can not prove it but he shot his own horse. That was coming from a person who was an insurance adjuster in the fifties. Apparently the horse owner had a history of insurance claims.

          • Nancy says:

            Kind of like that “Sun Valley Colt” over in Idaho back in the spring, maybe Elk? Despite all odds, killed by a lone wolf……..

            • Elk375 says:

              No. The Sun Valley colt was killed by a lone wolf despite all odds.

              • Nancy says:

                Okay Elk, so we agree, this albino horse was shot and killed, in its corral, by a “confused” hunter?

                • Elk375 says:

                  Let’s let the sheriff office investigate and determine the what really happen. I do not think a confused hunter killed that horse. There probably is more to it, than we are reading about. There is lots of meth around where that horse was killed, unfortunately there is lots of meth everywhere.

                • Yvette says:

                  “Let the sheriff investigate”…..

                  Hands up, don’t shoot.

                  The sheriff has already said it was probably a mistake, an accident.

                  Hands up, don’t shoot.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  This latest killing by police in NYC, the poor man killed by a chokehold, all on video and the police not indicted, really saddens me. 🙁

    • Yvette says:

      There is no way this was a mistake. Impossible.

      • Kathleen says:

        Here’s an updated story with no mention of a “confused hunter” as suggested by the Undersheriff:

        Excerpt: “Police say the death appears to be by a deliberate kill shot. “There’s no doubt about the shot being fired intentionally. What the person was thinking when they fired the shot we can speculate on that but obviously it’s a white albino horse so it certainly doesn’t have the coloring that would be a game animal so that leaves me to believe it was probably an intentional act,” said Sheriff Ed Lester.”


  18. Ed Loosli says:

    “Lethal Control Of Wolves Backfires On Livestock”


    • Immer Treue says:

      It would be interesting to see a table containing when depredations occur(ed). The Mech papers I posted above May have some insight. I believe Jim Shivik alluded to more intensive deterrence measures are required when pups are born, as the breeding female is taken out of the hunting equation, and she becomes one of the extra mouths to feed.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        From the NY Times version of this research announcement (thanks John Philip);


        “The study’s lead author, Rob Wielgus, an associate professor of wildlife ecology and director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University, said he believed that the anti-wolf forces do not really want serious wolf management at all.
        “They just want to get rid of wolves,” he said. “Livestock lobbyists are pretty much vehemently opposed to my research,” he added. “But in terms of hard science, it stood the test.”

        • Elk375 says:


          Killing wolves has an impact on the number of elk, deer and moose to a lessor or greater extend depending upon the area. That is what it is all about.

          • Ed Loosli says:

            I think you might have missed the fact that this study is focused on livestock predation by wolves and the fact that the more wolves are killed, the more cattle are attacked by wolves. I don’t think this study delved into elk, deer, moose numbers… Many Western ranchers are some of the most anti-wolf advocates, and if they can be educated that killing wolves actually hurts their livestock business, then maybe some of this science can become main-stream.

            • Elk375 says:

              I did not miss that, but western ranchers did not want the wolf reintroduced in the first place. I wanted the wolf reintroduced because it would kept the elk moving, moving off private property on to public lands and the wolf belongs. But I believe that wolf management belongs to the state.

              • Ed Loosli says:

                Do you agree that the states managing wolves should use the best available environmental-science in making their decisions (like this recent research being discussed here)? Or do you prefer the current status quo where the political views of the ranching and hunting industries frequently dictate the actions of many state wildlife managers?
                And do you further agree that private livestock ranchers grazing on public lands should defer to the public’s wildlife on those lands and not be able to dictate wildlife management policy on public lands?

                • Elk375 says:

                  I believe that states should manage wildlife. The state should manage wildlife for the wishes of the residents of the state.

                  Western states fish and game departments require a master degree in wildlife for their biologist. Are their biologist incompetent?

                  So what is the best available science, maximization of hunting opportunities or the best available environmental-science. Who is to decide?

                  I do not think that private livestock ranchers have much say about wildlife management on public lands.

                  I was hunting in the Centennial Valley Thanksgiving weekend and where I was hunting was a combination of private, state and BlM land interspersed. Without Montana’s Block Management Agreement the general public will never get on the public land. There are millions and millions of acres of federal and state landlocked lands that you and I will never be able to access. Instead of bitching about how states manage their wildlife why don’t you work towards getting access to public lands that are currently inaccessible so that the public can enjoy their wildlife and lands.

                  Several years ago a hunter noticed that there was a 40 acre tract of land for sale adjacent to the Snowy Mountains in Montana with and offset section line, 30 feet bordering the National Forest. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation was able to quickly purchase the property and resold it to the Montana Fish and Wildlife. That 40 acre tract opened up 18,000 acres of extremely difficult to access National Forest.

                • Louise Kane says:

                  Elk I think a federal scheme of to set standards for state wildlife management plans is becoming more appropriate.

                  The federal government sets standards for clean water and air. They set standards and regulate vessels traveling in state waters, implement and oversee OPA and natural rescource recovery and oversee fisheries under the Magnuson Act (although not so well because of political pressures exerted on that process through the fishing industry that the act mistakenly allowed for).

                  Federal regulations/oversight of wildlife is an appropriate, albeit an entirely new way, of looking at wildlife management. In setting standards for states, if done correctly, the federal government could include and correct widespread considerations for predator prey relationships, incorporate wildlife habitat corridors, and reduce regional bias against species and carnivores that receive inadequate protection under state laws. Federal legislation could also address/eliminate killing contests, define wanton waste, and perhaps reduce the need for as many listings under the ESA by looking at wildlife management in terms of defining and achieving ecosystem health and maximum biodiversity goals.

                  As it stands now, states receive federal grants but don’t acknowledge public input from “outsiders” and they are under pressure and subject to strong regional bias and influence that might be alleviated somewhat under a federal regulatory scheme.

                  water, air, soil, minerals and timber are all under the purview of the federal government. Wildlife are living beings, many are migratory and there are no continuous protections save for those species under the ESA. It makes sense to have a federal regulatory scheme.

                • Elk375 says:


                  Good luck with getting the western congressional congressman/women and senators to allow the passage of a bill giving the federal government control over what has always been managed by the states. Good luck with getting very many states to support that concept. It is almost impossible to getting any new wilderness designations. No way is this going to happen in the next 20 years.

                  If the federal government took control of wildlife on federal land then private landowners are going to want ownership of wildlife on their lands — it is almost that way in Texas and New Mexico.

            • Yvette says:

              Ed, while I think education is a must, I don’t think it significantly changes someone’s beliefs with an extreme divide. Here is why I believe that education alone rarely changes someone’s stance.

              + People tend to believe what they want to be true rather than the truth.

              + Peer pressure from others in their demographic. For example, rancher Brown showed a willingness to try non-lethal methods, but did not want other ranchers to know because it would have a high probablity of turning him into a pariah with life long friends. He just isn’t willing to take the risk.

              + Risk perception. Ed, for people like you and me it is difficult to see how someone could honestly believe that those “big, bad Canadian wolves” are the primary reason for elk population decline; wolf attacks on humans and school kids (we know the number of deaths related to wolf attacks over the last 100 years; 2, but tell that to the anti’s and they simply process the data differently than people like you and I.

              Again, I do believe education is important, but believe it has less impact on changing minds of extremely held beliefs than what we’re led to expect.

              If my post is true and my statements are held up then we need to explore additional ways to resolve the acceptance of hounding, hunting, trapping, and generally, slaughtering America’s remaining wolves.

        • Ralph Maughan says:

          I am afraid that scientific dispute of the value of killing wolves to stop attacks on livestock will be totally discounted because first of all, it damns what Wildlife Services does and secondly, livestock owners for some reason hate a wolf-killed animal far more than one killed by disease, poisoning, exposure, or vandalism. In Idaho, I have little doubt they have set up situations on purpose to get their cows killed by wolves, just so they could express their anger.

      • Mareks Vilkins says:


        John (not James) Shivik

    • John Philip says:

      The venerable Old Gray Lady just ran that story:http:


      Great photo as always Ralph.

  19. Kathleen says:

    (Reuters) – “California wildlife managers on Wednesday banned the awarding of prizes for hunting contests targeting non-game animals like coyotes in what is believed to be the first such measure in the country aimed at lessening the appeal of such competitions.”


    • JB says:

      I am glad to have played a very small role in making this happen. No legitimate purpose is served by these killing contests; and, more importantly, making a contest out of killing sends the exact wrong message about hunting. I wish more hunters would voice their outrage about such events.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Wow. Thank you very much, JB.

      • rork says:

        Outrage is cheap, common as dirt, can be entirely emotional, illogical or internally inconsistent. Proofs of this are abundant here. Even if your outrage seems appropriate to you, it lumps you with others that might be loony. Gatherings of hunters, anglers, gatherers, or gardeners can be about introducing new people to the activity, sharing knowledge, or just telling stories and being in the company of others with similar interests. Near me they sometimes raise money for good causes. Their messages vary greatly, and form a continuum covering many dimensions. We have a “single fly tournament” that could be characterized as a contest to see who can torture the most smallmouth bass: http://www.hrwc.org/tag/huron-river-single-fly-tournament/ Feel free to send your hate mail.

        • Nancy says:


          Is this a catch and release tournament?

        • skyrim says:

          I can assure you that my personal outrage is none of those expressions implied above. As well, it has developed over a lifetime of injustice, outrageous selfish behavior and the ego inflating destructive activities of others with many or your descriptions above.
          You left out the collection of monies in your “gathering” claim.

          • rork says:

            Nancy: all the fish are released as far as I know. It may not be required, but anyone who enters that tournament probably hasn’t killed a smallie in decades, if ever. Most folks may stick to the no-kill stretch near my house – fish densities are good there.

            skyrim: I was trying to give examples of better things. Gatherings to teach folks to ice fish or pick shrooms are typically free – we wouldn’t want impediments to our proselytizing.

        • JB says:


          Of course outrage is emotional, though it need not be illogical nor internally inconsistent (I really don’t know what “cheap” and “common” refer to in this context). Right now there is a lot of outrage regarding the treatment of racial minorities by police officers. Much of it is emotional, but also based upon logic–it’s logical to feel outrage at the idea that I might be killed without cause. You are correct, some people who express outrage are absolutely loony. So are some people who are white, black, male, female, rural, urban, etc., ad nauseum. If people apply a stereotype (i.e., outraged = loony) to me because I feel or express outrage, that does nothing to deligitimze my feeling nor my expression. It’s their problem, not mine. The fact that one feels and/or expresses emotion should never be used as cause to dismiss their opinion.

          Gatherings of hunters and anglers are great! I was talking with a grad student this morning who was lamenting the loss of such gatherings. He noted that check-in stations were going away (replaced by ‘online’ tools) and that was a convenience, but also kind of a travesty.

          It is, of course, possible to have such gatherings without a killing contest (gathering does not equal contest). Thus, it is a red herring to suggest that because one opposes killing contests, they necessarily oppose such gatherings (and the social good that can come from them). Gather, talk, share, celebrate, hunt, fish (and eat drink and be merry)! All that is possible without turning killing into a contest.

          • Immer Treue says:

            ” All that is possible without turning killing into a contest.”

            One might only hope that this is a statement with which most could agree.

          • rork says:

            They gave some reels and such to the single-fly “winners”.
            Cheap means easy to do. Common means we see it all the time. If emotion is all a person has got, then I think it does decrease the effectiveness of their message.

          • Louise Kane says:

            I can assure you emotion is not all that Skyrim brings to the table. If he is the same person I am familiar with he has recently written a paper that was discussed here and is a long time, respected and devoted advocate. Many people express emotion and outrage, including myself as you know. Don’t dismiss compassion or the need to express frustration, anger and outrage as looney. Its human. In fact, the hunters here post almost predictable wildly emotional and even angry responses when hunting methods or traditions are challenged. Doesn’t mean you are all crazy.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          You are minimizing the killing aspect of these derbies, which most people find abhorrent. Sewing bees and other get-togethers can do all of those things you mention without killing at the center of it.

  20. Susan Armstrong says:

    Article in the New York Times today:
    “Study Faults Efforts at Wolf Management”

    It includes an image of an inflammatory new anti-wolf billboard from a group called Washington Residents Against Wolves.

    Here are the first two paragraphs of the article:

    “SEATTLE — The anti-wolf billboards that went up this week in eastern Washington State are not at all subtle. Two glaring yellow eyes peer out at the top, with an elk and other animals below, leading, left to right, toward a laughing little girl in a swing next to what appears to be her dog. The text reads: “The wolf … who’s next on their menu?”

    But supporters of the idea that wolves and people must find new ways to coexist also have ammunition to fire back, in a surprising new report published Wednesday. A statistical study of 25 years of records across several states by researchers at Washington State University concluded that traditional wolf management — killing some wolves to reduce their impact on livestock like sheep — mostly does not work.”

  21. Ed Loosli says:

    you wrote; “I do not think that private livestock ranchers have much say about wildlife management on public lands.” You can’t be serious!!

    Since you know the Centennial Valley of Montana so well, why do you think there are no wild bison there now?? It’s because the Montana ranchers do not want wild bison there or anywhere in Montana except for a few thousand in Yellowstone NP and some more fenced in on Indian Reservations. Why are cattle still allowed to over-graze sage-brush country in the West affecting the fate of the greater sage-grouse? Why are 900 bison going to be slaughtered early in 2015? Why are wolves allowed to be killed for just looking crossed-eyed at domestic livestock on our public lands? Why are bull-trout in trouble in cattle grazed regions? Why are coyotes allowed to be killed on sight at any time? The answer to all these questions is largely because private livestock owners (ranchers) dictate to states how wildlife is “managed” so as not to interfere with their private business operations taking place on our public lands.

    • Elk375 says:


      You can not be serious.

      ++Since you know the Centennial Valley of Montana so well, why do you think there are no wild bison there now?? ++

      The main reason that there are no wild bison in the Centennial Valley is because the valley floor is about 40% federal, 40% private and 20% state. The lands are interspersed with no large contiguous one ownership tract. How are you going to put bison on a checker board? As for the rest of Montana most BLM tracts have grazing leases and very few of those tracts are large enough for free roaming bison. Sage hens and the Centennial Valley I have been around sage hens all my life and there are no shortage of sage hens in the Centennial Valley.

      ++Why are 900 bison going to be slaughtered early in 2015?++ Why, because there is no public lands to winter bison north of Yellowstone Park. There is public land but that land is not going to be utilized by bison in the winter. Bison are going to go where there is feed and the mountain sides are covered with snow in the winter. The feed is in the valley, a valley that has been subdivided into 20 acre tracts, a valley where a owner of a 20 acre tracts wants to graze his three horses and does not want bison to destroy his fences.

      When you are dealing with Montana one must remember that the state is 30% federal and 5% state. Over 50% of the federal is in smaller tracts.

  22. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Cattlemen’s Association: Fish and Wildlife should do more to protect people from wolves

  23. Louise Kane says:


    I find these coastal wolves so interesting
    the photographer recounts an encounter with a wolf that laid down and rested in her presence. It reminded me of Galapagos where no hunting created animals with no fear. I wonder if the wolf was on an island with little human presence. beautiful wolves and story

    • Susan Armstrong says:

      I’d just like to comment that having wild wolves “without fear” of humans is not desirable.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Wow!! What a remarkable experience for this photographer…”I was alone on a beach when a wolf approached me and laid down a few feet from where I sat, trusting me enough to fall asleep in my company”. photo


  24. WM says:

    Missouri bow hunter shoots celebrity “albino buck.” This is really too bad (But, I was actually going to say, “What a dumb shi*!”).


    • Louise Kane says:

      the word I would use starts with an a
      something rare, unique and enjoyed by the masses
      kill it

      what a jerk

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I don’t understand this mindset – what is it about these albino animals that sets hunters off? Kill them so no one else can enjoy seeing them, and take it for yourself. What an attitude.

  25. Ed Loosli says:

    Grand Canyon National Park Under Siege From Development


  26. Ida Lupines says:

    Wolf Hunt in Wisconsin Comes to and End Friday at Mid-day

    Yay! I wonder how much over quota it was this year.

    • Elk375 says:


      All quotas have an overage built into them. Montana is the only state in the nation that sells mountain sheep licenses over-the-counter. Each of the five district has an assigned quota which sometimes is reach and other times not reached. When the quota is reached the hunting district is shut down on 48 hour notice. There are times when the number of mountain sheep in a particular district killed are over the quota. The FWP has built in an overage to handle the addition animals harvested.

      Do not worry.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        You mean shooting big horn sheep (mountain sheep) to death is like like “harvesting” wheat?
        Can you plant more mountain sheep in the Spring?

        • Elk375 says:

          “What ever”. Yes, you can plant more mountain sheep in the spring. Montana wants to transplant 50 sheep this spring. Several herds have gotten to large and there is a danger of young rams wandering and bring back disease. It is those damn domestic sheep.

        • WM says:

          Can you plant more human kidneys when a surgeon “harvests” one for a transplant?

          Seems to me big horn sheep and other mammals are capable of reproducing and creating more of their kind. Thus harvest is an appropriate term for a renewable resource in the wildlife management discipline, agriculture, and in the case of medicine the verb decribes a procedure. Those disciplines, of course, are comfortable with the vernacular of their respective professions, because it accurately describes what they do whether the term is a verb or a noun. You just don’t like it.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            No, ‘harvest’ is a term that is a rationalization to turn down the cognitive dissonance so that we can make something unethical more acceptable to us. Yes, animals are capable of reproducing more of their kind, but this mindset perpetuates the concept that all creatures are the same, one is the same as the other, no one is unique and can be replaced – like inanimate ducks in a shooting gallery. I guess only human life is important and unique. I’ll amend that protest chant to say “All Life Matters”.

            Every animal killed is one less that can reproduce his or her genes that leads to a strong gene pool, especially in a world where wildlife populations are pressured and endangered. Indiscriminate killing of animals, and taking the biggest and best, threatens the entire herd, pack or group by weakening genetic diversity. Fragmentation of and taking of habitat makes it worse.

            As Ed says, organ ‘harvest’ (from one who has passed away and has consented to and wants to donate their organs) saves and continues life. There’s no taking or sense of entitlement to this.

            • JB says:

              “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

              ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

              ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”


              Sometimes the banter here just gets ridiculous.

              • Amre says:

                This week, some students at my school have begun harassing me by saying “I like to kill wolves” or “I killed and ate a wolf for thanksgiving.” One person even said “I like to kill wolf pups.”

      • rork says:

        Elk375 is right. But he really should have used the short phrase “legally killed by humans and the remains later recovered” to avoid derailing the discussion.
        http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/wolf.html is where you can get information, if that matters.

  27. Ed Loosli says:

    WM / Elk:
    When doctors (not hunters) “harvest” a kidney they do it so save a life, whereas when hunters “harvest” an animal, it means to KILL IT.

  28. Elk375 says:


    the word JARGON



    special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

    “legal jargon”

    Are you having trouble understanding the language hunters.

    • Kathleen says:

      a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

      Slaughter, kill, destroy, exterminate…or “harvest.” Which is more palatable?
      Talking about sentient individuals as nothing more than a renewable resource to harvest–like an ear of corn–entirely denies their sentience and makes them into things, commodities. The “language of hunters”? Hiding behind euphemisms doesn’t fool anyone.

      • Yvette says:

        ++ Kathleen, and the people that defend the use of ‘harvest’ to make killing more palatable know precisely why the word is used.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      WOW! What a trek, and into Idaho at least twice. I wonder what caused her to return to Montana and not continue going west during either trip. Ethyl spent a lot of time wandering the Montana Rockies.

  29. Ed Loosli says:

    Thanks for this amazing story about an amazing bear.
    Sleep well indeed.
    It is unfortunate that Chris Servheen, grizzly bear recovery coordinator, who is quoted throughout this article is the same Chris Servheen who is calling for the grizzly bear to be removed from the Endangered Species list in the Yellowstone ecosystem. If Ethyl wakes up and travels anywhere near Yellowstone NP, she may soon find that hunters are waiting there, salivating for a chance to kill a grizzly.

  30. Barb Rupers says:

    I was not aware that northern Idaho, Zone 1, had the greatest number of wolf kills by hunters and trappers in the state, or that a former commissioner of IDFG is a founder of a group that offers incentives to those that trap wolves.

  31. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Italy: Chianti Cashmere Goat Farm Earns Wildlife Friendly® Certification For Coexistence With Wolves,
    becomes the first Certified Wildlife Friendly® Enterprise in Europe


  32. Mareks Vilkins says:

    does anyone remember the story about wholesale wolf reduction program in Yakutia 2013 when authorities screamed about 3.5K vicious wolves in that 1.3M sq mi vastness ( and mumbling in passing that hunters have decimated the local hare population – the staple prey for wolves there)?

    well, Ladies&Gentlemen, after using aviation to kill those beasts for the last 2 years they now have … 6K wolves.

    by the way, that’s the same region where 400-strong wolf pack is roaming

    • Mareks Vilkins says:

      Until the lion has his historian, the hunter will always be a hero – African proverb

    • Peter Kiermeir says:

      Mareks, what is thea source / link for this number?

    • WM says:

      A little unvarnished information on the Yakutia wolf culling matter from last year(with graphic content). And their wolves alleged do attack people (not trying to be antagonistic, but the parables -lessons- present in fairytales apparently do have elements of truth at their base (so why are their wolves more aggressive than ours in Candada/US? Genetics or learned behavior over centuries?):


      • Ida Lupines says:

        There probably were a great many more wolves in ages past than there are today, and we did not have modern agricultural techniques and weapons of today, and of course humans are imaginative and great story tellers around a campfire, embellishing the facts to get a few more frightened ‘oooooohs’ and ‘aaaaaaahs’ and perhaps a movie and book deal. Not to mention our capacity for deceit, especially when there’s money or some other coveted thing to be gained.

        Nowadays it is rather silly to think wolves present any real threats to people, with 7 billion plus of us and only mere thousands of them, and basically wiped out from most of the planet.

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        that’s more like a pure agitprop article to me not some ‘unvarnished information’ told by 12 year old smiling girl

        1) from the beginning the authorities were talking about 3.5K wolves in Yakutia – after a couple of weeks they were talking about 2.3K (no explanation for the drop was provided)

        2) sum-up about Yakutia’s wolf season 2013:

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

        After 11 months 770 wolves have been killed, in total 880 wolves were killed in 2013

        (on average 560 wolves were killed per season in 2009-2011).

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

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

        3) wolf depredation costs 28.6 million rubles/ $893K – however, Dr.D.Bibikov (in the Soviet Union he was similar authority on wolves like D.Mech in the US) pointed out that investigation in the Soviet times showed that up to 90% consisted of fraudulent claims.

        Bounty expenditures were 32 million rubles / $1M

        seems rather intriguing that the alleged wolf depredation costs are similar to bounty expenditures.

        4)there is not a big market for reindeer meat, partly because of local hunters kill wild reindeer and so are getting the very same meat cheaply.

        and bigger threat to the reindeer husbandry is oil/gas/uranium/mining developers (pollution + pasture loss)

        by the way, Yakutia has more than 200 thousand reindeer (not counting wild reindeer) managed by 195 brigades (smth like a family/kin unit and the average number of herders in the brigade is 8 persons) – so we can’t say that they make a majority of local people (actually most of them live in towns)


        it’s interesting that century ago local people had more reindeer than now with all subsidies & bounty policy secured by the government

        • Mareks Vilkins says:

          in Yakutia 557 wolves were killed till late September,2014

        • WM says:


          ++4)there is not a big market for reindeer meat,…++

          Maybe that is true locally, but think of the larger picture. It would appear the market for reindeer meat globally is increasing. The big obstacles seem to be getting the product to market – processing and transport. A Chinese – Russian company seems up for the task in what appears to be a growing market (two districts to the west of Yakutia):

          Similarly apparently there is a push to sell northern country reindeer meat to Muslim countries.

          And this with respect to countries including Norway and its neighbors as reported in a 2007 U of Alaska study of Western countries in the Circumpolar North: http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/reindeer_markets_jeh9-13-2007.pdf:

          ++Producers face many challenges in herding reindeer in remote and northern locations, yet there is high demand and competition between buyers to acquire the little that is being produced. To better understand an analysis of the industry, aggregate data such as the number of reindeer in each country, pricing, and exports are examined. Overall demand is very high, and if supply were to be greater, many more countries would import reindeer meat than are currently.++

          • Nancy says:

            A related article WM:

            “In this paper, I draw the connection between these “believers” as potential customers and the reindeer herders as the “producers” of this mysterious medicine, panty in Siberia, who mostly are “non-believers”. I show that the growing importance of national and international trade in this commodity affects the way of life of the arctic reindeer nomads, and it affects how they react to their integration into a network of worldwide exchange. I argue that it is mainly because of the interest in this commodity, “panty”, that we can talk about what I call the globalization of reindeer herding”


            • WM says:


              The author’s focus is yet another dimension of reindeer trade. I think the articles I cite to are production of meat. This guy is talking about antlers in the velvet, and whatever medicinal properties they are alleged to have, imaginary or real, to some cultures. Reindeer hide, by the way is very soft and has utilitarian purpose, as well.

              So, there you have it, three products: meat, horns and hide, each apparently with demand and international market value. Maybe we can all chip in for a new pair of mukluks for elk375 and surprise him for Christmas. 😉

              • Nancy says:

                WM, I think I’d much rather chip in to organizations that are trying to relay the fact that predators play an important role on the landscape, where ever that landscape might be.

                Elk would understand 🙂

                • Elk375 says:

                  With climate change mukluks are relics from the past and I have no interest in spending a winter in Arctic Alaska again.

                • WM says:


                  Would you be happier with a pair of Sorel Caribous (long standing model of Canadian felt lined winter boots, and no real hide on the ruff anymore, used to be sheepskin I think)?

                  I also think Nancy might be in favor of depriving some rural Russian reindeer herding family, who has a privy out back, and maybe bathes from a bucket once a week when the weather is not so cold, from bettering their life.

                • Nancy says:

                  Did you read the article WM?

                  Pretty sure sh*ting on the tundra and bathing being optional, is a way of life.

                  Also sounds like the way of life here about a century ago, hides, meat and antlers for trade goods when natives met up with “civilized society” hoping to barter – beads for furs, alcohol for furs, tobacco for furs etc.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  WM and all,
                  As I sit here in my 10+ year old Sorel Caribous(~-10°) this morning with lake ice groaning and hoar frost on most vertical surfaces,I’ve done a bit of research on Sorels.

                  Evidently, Columbia bought them out, and the boots are lacking in quality. No longer made in Canada, rubber cracks, boots leak. Look elsewhere.

                • WM says:


                  I’ll have to look into that. My Sorels are even older than yours, maybe 15 years, from when they had the vibram type sole configuration, rather than those round knobs. They have been great. Sad to hear of the quality decline, especially if it results from Columbia ownership. They are for the most part a pretty good manufacturer, in my experience. Just bought a pair of Keen Summit County III boots, for warmer winter weather, which are not as clunky and a bit lighter than the Caribous on sale from REI. Looking forward to comparing. Insulation is bamboo charcoal. And REI will take them back if they don’t perform as expected.

          • Mareks Vilkins says:

            Maybe that is true locally

            yes, we are talking about ‘locality’ on the scale of 1.3M sq mi + harsh climate + rudimentary infrastructure

            and Yamalo-Nenets region is in the Western Siberia – quite a lot of distance between Yakutia and Yamalo-Nenets

            and guess what – in 2014 Yamalo-Nenets (where are the majority of Russia’s reindeer herds) exported 500 tons of reindeer meat to European Union. No China or Gulf region, mind you. So much for ‘big reindeer meat export from Siberia’.

          • Mareks Vilkins says:

            more realistic picture:

            Reindeer industry braces for downturn as export orders slump


            A meat processing plant was built nearby five years ago. At the time, there was no demand for reindeer meat outside the Yamalo-Nents Autonomous district at all. Now the factory has five shops and is receiving orders from other regions.

            But sales have dropped 30% in the financial crisis. And expansion into the western as well as Russian markets is hindered by other difficulties according to Evgeny Amaltsev, Director of the Yamal Reindeers Plant.

            “We have orders from Germany, Italy, Greece and Latvia. But to provide supplies we can only use helicopters and winter roads. Soon the ice will melt and we won’t be able to work for a month. Logistics is one of our major problems.”

    • rork says:

      I say biologists there, as well as in MI, have spoken truth, and seen to it that we do not provided protections for any class of mutations in hunted wildlife populations. The result is that some will be killed.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Idiots rule the world – this man doesn’t sound like the brightest bulb, and yet he can do what he pleases, and without any scientific study or credentials, makes the determination that the animal was ready to go anyway as some sort of a god, defending the world from genetic mutations. And if he’s giving away the meat, I doubt it is for any altruistic reason, ‘giving it to a needy family’ just sounds like an excuse. He probably doesn’t want it anyway. Just a big ego to go out and get a trophy testament to himself and his prowess.

      • Nancy says:

        I was thinking psychopath, Ida. Knew this deer was cherished by others in his community.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Yes, it goes without saying that this animals deserves to live his life free of interference from humans, but also this person has taken away the right of others to enjoy the possibility of seeing this animal also, just for his own selfish desire to conquer something and have a trophy of that fact.

          “Giving the meat to a needy family” is so oft repeated and anonymous that it has become meaningless (what if they don’t want it?), and as for helping to keep the hordes of wildlife viewers off his neighbor’s (private) property – well, this man just keeps digging himself in deeper, doesn’t he.

    • Mareks Vilkins says:

      Jerry Kinnaman, 40, said he had seen the deer for years and refrained from shooting it because a neighbor enjoyed watching it

      poor soul, obviously he suffered a lot all these years when he was temptated by this deer

      never mind, that he could get meat for himself & local needy families by culling other deer from that local herd – no, he gave in to temptation and killed exactly the white one cherished by locals.

      Ain’t it funny that hunters are quick to point out that non-residents should not tell them how to live when they themselves do not give a dime about local community’s sensibilities

    • Mareks Vilkins says:

      some additional details:


      Kinnaman said the deer had been shot before, surviving wounds to the shoulder.

      “I gave him a fair shot. He had a good life,” Kinnaman explained. “He’s famous. He still will be.”

      Kinnaman said he had the white deer on his mind as he took his bow to the woods before sunrise Tuesday. He spotted the buck on a ridge with two does and drew him closer by grunting like a rival male.

      “He came up looking like a monster when I made that grunt,” he said. “He came in ready to fight.”

      The first arrow glanced off a branch and just grazed the animal. Kinnaman lured it back using a doe call and, from 25 yards away, shot an arrow into its side. The buck ran about 30 years before collapsing and dying.

      Kinnaman plans to have the deer stuffed and to sell it. He’s already been contacted by potential buyers.

      “This is the buck of a lifetime,” he said.

      • Nancy says:

        “He had people trespassing on his land (to see the deer) and it was getting to be too much of a hassle,” Kinnaman said. “It got so bad that he came back to me and said, ‘I want you to shoot this deer”

        Ah, the plot thickens…..

  33. Friday, December 5, 2014

    SPECIAL ALERT The OIE recommends strengthening animal disease surveillance worldwide


    ‘’the silence was deafening’’ …tss


    • Nancy says:


      No doubt “the silence is deafening” because and just MHO, the hunting (and livestock) community/industry would rather stay “stupid” about a growing concern.

      Thanks for the update.

  34. Ida Lupines says:

    The buck ran about 30 years before collapsing and dying.

    I guess he did have a long life!

  35. JB says:

    For those interested, Conservation Northwest and the University of Washington sponsored a Wolf Management Research Symposium in October and recorded all of the presentations. Speakers (in order) include: Donny Martorello, Carter Niemeyer, Scott Brainerd, Rob Wielgus, Doug Smith, Jeremy Bruskotter and Adrian Treves.

    Anyway, they did a great job hosting the event, and the video and audio are very high quality.

    • JB says:

      Try this again, removing “https://www.”


      • bret says:


        thank you for link, sorry I missed CWN meeting. Listened to Bob Wielgus, watching yours now.

        • Nancy says:

          Thanks JB for posting the link to the WMR Symposium. A lengthy but excellent series of presentations. Great selection of panelists (GO JB! 🙂 Thoughtful Q & A’s. Gives me hope!

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I’m listening now – interesting. I’m really enjoying Dr. Brainerd’s presentation. JB’s is coming up!

        I’m dismayed about all the concentration on the 3 year goal or number of wolves/packs, which implies to me that once that ‘goal’ is met, then the wolves are abandoned to predators, who intend to destroy all the work that was done. It’s bizarre to me that even in the 21st century, people are still fearful of and control freak-y about nature and wolves.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          These presentations are great – Dr. Weilgus’ was wonderful, and I’m listening to Doug Smith’s right now – fascinating.

        • Nancy says:


          A couple of centuries ago, the human species expanded (mostly from European countries) and started taking over a vast unknown wilderness called the US.

          Our ancestors raped and pillaged not only our own species (native to the land) already on the continent, but wildlife and wild lands, in our “quest” to expand.

          Thankfully, our species is finally getting a clue as to A) how destructive we were in the past and B) we’re finally starting to address the problems because of that destruction (listing endangered species and addressing their right to what’s left of habitat)

          Ain’t gonna happen over night, your words:

          “I’m dismayed about all the concentration on the 3 year goal or number of wolves/packs, which implies to me that once that ‘goal’ is met, then the wolves are abandoned to predators, who intend to destroy all the work that was done”

          But it is happening. Thru workshops, shared knowledge and Symposiums such as the one at WU. I’m grateful AND hopeful that the word continues to spread – coexistence with large carnivores might someday be a reality.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            We have to be hopeful of course, but we have to be very mindful of and not underestimate the extremely destruction minority of opposition out there, and the unaware and apathetic, that make up the majority. It ain’t gonna happen overnight’ is an understatement that is insulting. Of course it won’t, if we are reversing any progress made.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            You shouldn’t be naïve in your hope. It may be too late, especially with climate change, and the suffocating number of people on this planet.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              In fact, I find it very annoying that you would even try to challenge my views. Give it up; my views are not going to change. I don’t have high hopes for the future of wildlife, but I will go down fighting for them.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                We thought there was hope for change back in the ’70s too – and now look what’s happening across the boards in the country, from race relations to wildlife and the environment – we’re regressing. So I would have to say I am guarded in my hope.

              • Nancy says:

                Oh Ida,

                Read my comment again. I have NO desire to annoy or “challenge” your views. That, would be like “dumping” wolves on other wise happy, productive landscape like ranching in the west 🙂

          • Barb Rupers says:

            Well said, Nancy.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        Good presentation, JB. Thanks for putting up the link.

    • DB says:

      I don’t understand what has happened to the hunting community, their attitudes, as expressed by your research. Why would a majority of hunters, most of whom just hunt pheasants, squirrels, ducks, deer, rabbits, etc, be in favor of killing a wolf given the chance? And why do thy “hate” wolf supporters or conservationists in general? ( Maybe it’s the way questions were asked). Our Idaho Wildlife Federation has all but disbanded, and they used to do great work supporting the IDF&G, wilderness classification, hunter education, conservation, etc. Hunters now seem to be meat hunters, trophy hunters, gear-geeks with no apparent interest in traditions and ethics.
      Maybe it’s a reflection of how polarized our politics have become. We’re definitely not sitting down with each other, and we don’t seem to care about facts much either. Hell, even I’m rooting for the suckeyes, er..Buckeyes tonight. 🙂

      • Ralph Maughan says:


        If I can reply, perhaps it is because ethical hunting traditions were not passed on, and these people were “educated” instead by true action magazines, which make their revenue by selling gear. It might also be part of the “Fox News effect” where coarse and socially discredited attitudes have been unearthed and spread by those who get their news from television and radio rather than by reading.

      • Nancy says:

        “Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. ” Frank Outlaw

    • Mareks Vilkins says:


      will presentations be posted online in PDF format like did Washington’s Department of Fish & Wildlife?

      Gray Wolf Conservation and Management

      July 18, 2013

      Experts from three western states to discuss effects of wolves on hunting opportunities


      Jon Rachael, Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s state wildlife manager and Jim Williams, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks’ northwest wildlife program manager will discuss the impacts wolves have had on deer, elk and other big game animals in their states. They will also discuss strategies that successful big game hunters have adopted while hunting in their states. Dave Ware, WDFW statewide game program manager, will describe the status of wolves and big game hunting in Washington.

      Follow along with the presentations
      As you watch the video of the three presentations, you can also view a PDF of the actual presentation, with large, high-quality images.

  36. Ed Loosli says:

    “Wyoming and Feds Appeal Restored Wolf Protections”


    • Ida Lupines says:

      They just refuse to come up with a legitimate, open and above-board ‘management’ plan, don’t they.

      But they’d rather try to change the law to suit them and circumvent those already in place to protect wildlife, and take away the public’s right to challenge their decisions.

      • jon says:

        The Wisconsin DNR makes me sick. They don’t close the season as soon as the quota is met. They give the worthless wolf hunters more time to kill a few extra wolves over the quota.

  37. Ida Lupines says:

    Mine are waterproof Merrells that I’ve worn in excess of 15 years, and I live in them – and they and Thorlos hiking socks have kept my feet dry and comfortable with nary a blister. I love them and can’t recommend them highly enough. I’ve got a more current pair that are still in the box, I love these ones so much.

  38. Immer Treue says:

    Rather fitting, that within the zone in which I live, wolf hunting and trapping ended yesterday (5 over “harvest” target); and today, I observed first wolf scat in a month on morning dog walk, and having just returned from
    A long late afternoon walk, a series of howls, resonated through the fading light.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      They are probably glad it’s over too! 🙂

    • Nancy says:

      “Rather fitting, that within the zone in which I live”

      And a zone which I suspect you also love Immer? 🙂

    • Yvette says:

      Glad you are hearing howls and seeing scat. Any update on the young wolf running around with a trap on his foot?

      • Immer Treue says:

        A couple pictures about a week after the original(10/31)series. Then, about a week after that tracks in snow, three normal and prints, and one misshapen print. Small “sheets” of blood associated with the misshapen print. That was mid November. Other than that nothing.

    • Louise Kane says:

      have you come to know the individual calls or other clues to the identity of individuals that you see or hear? I like to think your wolves survived. Hopefully your home and land being a safe harbor helped them.

      • Immer Treue says:

        It’s not that I hear or see them that often. They cover an enormous amount of territory. When I’m offered a beaver carcass deer rib cages or other good items that bring the wolves in a bit more, I want to be extremely careful not to habituate them, so only 4-5 times a year at different locations.

        Usually the birds, ravens, eagles, magpies(rare) find the food source first, so it mimics scavenging. From the trail camera pictures, I know I had 4, possibly 5 individual wolves. The last time I put something out was mid October, and I won’t put anything else out until mid to late January or February.

        Also, as baiting of wolves is allowed for hunting and trapping, one does not want them accustomed to too much “unusual” scavenging.

        • Louise Kane says:

          of course I meant by safe harbor that you did not allow wolf hunting on your property and would not hunt them yourself.And I know through your posts of your affection for these animals.

          I am completely aware of the issues with baiting and habituation and was not suggesting that.

          When you set your trail cam keep us apprised.

    • Louise Kane says:

      I’m jealous again!

  39. Ida Lupines says:

    I’m finally at JB’s presentation – it’s almost like meeting you, JB! I love your passion and knowledge, very exciting. Each presentation has something unique to offer.

    I enjoyed this very much, thank you!

    • Ida Lupines says:

      The Q&A is outstanding too – answers to a lot of things I’ve wondered about and/or hoped for, Dr. Treves’ presentation was great too, that studies are showing that not only does hunting progressively decrease tolerance for wolves from year to year, but increases poaching. I appreciate Dr. Weilgus’ comments, and how much ultimately has nothing to do with science, but what society will tolerate. And Doug Smith’s comments on keeping Yellowstone wild!

      Thanks, good night! 🙂

  40. Louise Kane says:


    Chris Genovali on two populations of killer Whales and the threats they face – among them human predation on salmon and individuals stolen from pods for zoos and human entertainment…and the lack of a sound recovery plan

  41. Louise Kane says:


    must see video footage from drone
    also note at end of article the claim that after drones deployed in Himalayas zero poaching for a year!

    • Professor Sweat says:


      While being ferried out to Channel Islands NP this summer, our boat was besieged by a mega pod of nearly 350 dolphins. We could see them breaching in every direction for hundreds of yards. There are almost no words to describe how incredible it was.

  42. Louise Kane says:


    whale researcher and vet tries to figure out key to saving right whales and the detanglment issue.

    really nicely written chronicle of his attempt to save Bayla a northern right whale calf entangled in fishing gear

  43. Immer Treue says:

    On the subject of trapping, Wyoming family loses three St. Bernard’s to snares.


    Once again,legal, but incidental deaths attributed to trapping.

    • Yvette says:

      I read the article and this comment is infuriating to me.

      “It’s just one of those circumstances where you can’t blame anybody,” Olsen said. “It’s just a very unfortunate circumstance where three dogs are actually caught in snares and perished. It’s a very, very sad story.”

      An “unfortunate circumstance”? This is an incident that makes me glad to be in Oklahoma where there is not as much trapping as there is further west. I know my temperament and I fear I would only end up in serious legal trouble if I lost 3 dogs to traps. Legal traps. This is heartbreaking. I usually only have one dog at a time, but it is usually a large breed. I still miss my Great Dane and she’s been gone for 4 years. I could not imagine losing 3 at the same time and for such an egregious reason.

  44. Yvette says:

    I came across this site yesterday and think some of you will enjoy it. I’m sharing an article about a study that will be in print this coming March. The research paper is on the psychology behind why we humans reduce animals to resources, commodities and properties.


    This NG article covers some of Dr. Lori Marino’s background and the research she had done.


    I was unable to access the paper. But for those who can, here is the link.


    I’ve long thought that many species of nonhuman animals understood and felt much more than we humans have given them credit for understanding. All I ever had was a suspicion and no way to validate it, so I’m glad to see there is research being done in this arena.

    • WM says:

      Who would have guessed? Grow less tobacco and get bigger, and maybe more, bears in North Carolina.

  45. WM says:

    And some of you think we in the US over-react to dispatching coyotes. Pesky foxes in Britain seem to be giving Londoners and rural Brits fits (and heck a fox is smaller than a coyote), and the population dynamics when some are removed seem to be equally as perplexing, as is the polarity of views:


  46. Gary Humbard says:

    Brucellosis found in one cow near Yellowstone, likely infected by elk. Who would have thought!


  47. Louise Kane says:


    Interesting article illustrating many problems
    1) Albania once out of dictatorship saw a rise in purchase of guns and subsequent hunting. I think this is an issue rarely addressed here as well. Guns ownership in the US is out of control. Technological advances and machinery used in hunting including GPS, cell phones, rifles, scopes, atvs, snowmobiles, traps, snares, bows and arrows, and the sheer number of people hunting (legally or not)negatively impact many wildlife populations. I think the population number of certain species is wildly overestimated, especially in states where unprotected species are hunted relentlessly with no protections. Overestimated or not, unrelenting hunting keeps wildlife populations at much lower numbers than their habitats might support. Wolves are one good example. Calling 1200 – 1600+ wolves in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming a huge success is bizarre. How many wolves could the tens of millions of acres of public lands support if they weren’t “harvested” every year? Certainly many more than 1200- 1600+-. Anyhow, where can large populations of animals lie where they are unmolested and do not have to compete with technological advances that make it almost certain that a dedicated hunter will not find even the most wiley of them? Not many places.
    2) Then again, species suffer even if not directly targeted because humans are so greedy about taking all of the food sources that other species use. The article I posted about the Orcas and salmon is a good example.
    3) People see it as a right to hunt even as they kill until nothing is left. The tragedy of the commons issues.
    Banning without coupling education and enforcement is ineffective.

    I often wonder what would happen if all hunting ceased for a five year period, in marine and terrestrial environments. The earth has a tremendous capacity to heal but humans are too greedy and short sighted to collaborate to allow healing.

  48. Louise Kane says:


    I can just hear the howls of indignation, by some here, as I post. Anyhow a well written essay against wolf hunting using the U Washington study about impacts of hunting on predation rates.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      I thoroughly enjoyed the Wolf Seminar VIDEO that JB made available to us. As to Wayne Pacelle’s points, they seem to have been backed up by the speakers at the seminar. I do not think there was one comment from any speaker that said, non-targeted hunting or trapping of wolves was beneficial to wolves, nor was non-targeted hunting/trapping beneficial in preventing livestock depredations by wolves either.

      • Louise Kane says:

        I’m not done watching the video
        but most of what was presented has been posted here on TWN in the past few months but somehow the newest and latest and greatest seems very intuitive if you think about how social wolves are. Nice to see the studies though and to see some push back on the, “hunting is necessary to improve tolerance” myth. I think it was not so long ago Doug Smith was repeating that nonsense. JB without making it awkward for you did anyone ask Mr. Smith about his take on the new research results that you and A. Treves wrote about in WI?

    • rork says:

      Pacelle, like the stopped watch, can say some correct things occasionally, but his record is not good. A bit better than Mike Adams on medicine, sure.
      “small, recovering wolf poulations” was spewed allot in MI, and it hurt the message from many of us that, what we have is about all we may ever get in upper MI, and that the people saying we’d have thousands unless we started culling were wrong.

      • Louise Kane says:

        without Humane Society in MI there would have been no Keep Michigan Wolves Protected Campaign. I think they did an awesome job. Were it not for the corrupted politics wolves in MI would be protected from a hunt. It remains to be seen what will ultimately happen but at least now, the corruption is exposed. from trashed comments, to the Koski farm incident, to Caspersen lying his ass off, to the erroneous claims about the dangers of wolves to the public by the trapping, hunting and livestock lobbies and their followers.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      It’s sad what passes for journalism nowadays. Would never harm a badger, but thinks nothing of shooting foxes. Wildlife shouldn’t be at the mercy of people’s illogical whims.

  49. Ida Lupines says:

    Emotion has been what has inspired people to change, lit a fire in them, throughout history. If you deny emotion, you are denying your humanity. If you don’t have that, you can’t relate to others. I think what you mean is overly emotional, and we can see plenty of that kind of thing on the anti side. In fact, they are the ones who have tipped the balance so far that they are even going so far as to kill in order to get their message across.

    If you listened to the video that JB provided us, you will see scientists saying that all the scientific facts and evidence means nothing if people don’t like or want to hear the message. It is politics and social acceptance, and benefit (to paraphrase Dr. Weilgus). Nice to see some of our questions and feelings validated by experts.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      And I saw quite a bit of emotion and passion for what they do, (even in the face of crushing opposition) in among the data and fact by this panel. It was wonderful!

      • Ida Lupines says:

        And appreciation of beauty – I loved Dr. Treves’ wolves-bringing-back-the-trilliums-in-Michigan-forests comment. 🙂

  50. Louise Kane says:


    my husband saw this. Not usually engaged in predator issues but I think even this got him riled.
    conspiracy theory by Arizona wildlife commissioner.

    • Yvette says:

      I saw that yesterday.

      “Recently, I got a long look at this animal, and while it looked like a wild wolf, it behaved otherwise.” emphasis mine.

      Wow, let’s not hide our bias. My first thought was if this was not a wild wolf then why was he/she wearing a radio collar? Even though it is inactive s/he was still wearing a collar. I’ve never heard of placing radio collars on ‘domesticated’ or sanctuary wolves. Has anyone else?

      I think this Robert Mansell may not be the sharpest tool in the shed. His insinuations should be cleared easily when the radio collar is evaluated. Am I wrong?

      Further, he states, “Lore should not be the basis for sound management.”

      Whose lore, Mr. Mansell, and how do you define ‘sound management’?

    • Louise Kane says:

      just seeing this Timz
      weird post
      I wonder what the neo nazi was doing in the lion cage the report said it could not have been accidental. The one comment posted pretty much sums up my thoughts ” a good waste of water”!

  51. Louise Kane says:

    anyone doubt that predator killing is becoming an epidemic
    you can see these kinds of posts all over. This one was posted on a the stop wildlife killing contests sites. Just some good old boys having fun killing wild predators, no harm in organizing events to kill em night and day!

    From the post

    “ave you all seen this announcement for a contest south of Flagstaff this weekend? Organized by this group – https://www.facebook.com/groups/738073219583351/?pnref=story

    We are trying to get hunters who care about our herd populations back up by holding events to take out the predators . Help us help the animals out!! We want to be part of the future of hunting

    We are getting a group together to help out save the future of hunter threw predator management . We would love to start holding big group events for predator hunting day and night hunting in the areas that allow it. We would have fun games for the love ones that do not like to go out in the field but love to just camp like cornhole,washers,horseshoes,poker,maybe hold like bingo night for the ones who like that . We would love to have all the help we can get and look forward to letting you know where the nest events will be held. We could alternate units on the hunts so everyone has a chance to hunt by there homes or areas.”

    • Louise Kane says:

      a result of unprotected species status, ignorance, no laws, and a some badly needed reform that is thwarted by wildlife agencies ignoring these abuses or perpetuating this kind of thinking.

    • jon says:

      Those hunters are extremely sick individuals. They don’t like it when anyone, but themselves kill the herds.

  52. Ida Lupines says:

    I’m still thinking about the Wolf Management and Research Symposium video. I’m not sure whose presentation included this (Dr. Brainerd’s?) – but it showed that natural wolf mortality was due mostly to territorial fighting, and the most lost to ‘unnatural’ mortality was due to human hunting.

    So why again do we even need human hunting of wolves? The study said that most wolves do not live beyond 6 years. It seems like there are natural ‘controls’ such as food availability and loss to territorial battles (including pup loss). We don’t need haters lurking outside the park boundaries to do them in also. Wouldn’t it be nice to read about a study of older wolves and long-lived packs?

    • Ida Lupines says:

      It seems very sad that wolves have such a short life, and it is mostly due to humans and their subjective only beliefs. There’s something very wrong with that, to me.

  53. Elk375 says:

    In the last month there has been 2 or 3 lengthy discussions about hunter ethic’s at Canyon Ferry south of Helena, Montana. On Monday 20 hunters meet with Laura Lundquist, a reporter from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, at the Glass Slipper Bar in Townsend, Montana. They told their story.


    I was not at Canyon Ferry, what was reported is more to what I have seem in the past.

    I drew cow elk tag this year on the Wall Creek Wildlife Management area in the Madison Valley south of Ennis, Montana. After several different days of hunting I called it quits, due to the shit that was going on and went to the Centennial Valley. One of those hunting days, Ryan the game garden, was observing with his spotting scoping actions on the East side of the Madison Valley on several large private ranches. He mentioned that there was people chasing elk back on to private ranches that did not allow hunting. He was in no mood to talk and I left immediately. What is the legislature going to do about this, nothing.

    In the Canyon Ferry incident the one of the ranchers is an outfitter named Rep Kelly Flynn a state legislator. Flynn been appointed the chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks committee.

    • Yvette says:

      It’s private land so I guess the new owners can do what they want. If they don’t want public hunting on their private land it is their decision.

  54. Diane Downey says:

    We would love for you to be part of the conversation at urbansoil.org – a symposium that looks at the many benefits that healthy soil can bring, not just to human life, but to wildlife too.

  55. Ken Cole says:

    One of our friends on The Wildlife News has been shot while jogging. Be sure of your targets! Better yet, don’t hunt in populated areas! I hope he will be okay!

    Hunter charged with shooting jogger in Hyannis woods – News – capecodtimes.com – Hyannis, MA.

    • Nancy says:

      I hope so too Ken. Please an update when you know more?

      • Ken Cole says:

        He posted to his Facebook page that he is okay. Some shot to a pinky and the back of his neck.

        • Yvette says:

          I’m glad he is okay. Every year many people end up dead from hunting accidents, so I’m glad he wasn’t fatally shot.

        • Louise Kane says:

          Jon has a very sweet dog and a wonderful young son who is often with him. It’s so very fortunate that his son was not with him and his dog was not injured. I had no idea this happened until I saw the post here tonight, even though we are in touch quite often. I’m very relieved to see he is ok. Considering Jon’s support for carnivores and wish to see them more fully protected from hunting, this is the ultimate irony. Jon a speedy recovery to you!

          • Nancy says:



            Extremely glad you are going to be okay.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Nancy and all,
              Two things:
              1. Not in jest, but Jon now has first hand knowledge of how a coyote feels. He was lucky, and here’s wishing him a complete recovery.
              2. If it was a deer, perhaps a larger silhouette, but probably a non-fatal shot, and another wounded animal wandering around.

              Reminds me of the Wisconsin study, even though the sample size was small, they figure 13% of deer shot are never found.

              I saw a road hunter driving around in his car a while back, legal up here for handicapped hunters, which he was, but the question that occurred to me was if he shot a deer, and it did not go down immediately (he was using open sites to boot)how the “F” was he going to track said deer? I’m very familiar with the terrain in the woods where he was driving. Thick balsam, granite boulder fields…

    • Ed Loosli says:

      I wonder why this criminal was not arrested for Attempted Murder, instead of just for a misdemeanor “hunting accident” crime?? Obviously, this guy did intend to kill his victim and obviously this guy knew his victim was a HUMAN (Humans wearing a white shirt are unmistakable from a deer) . —- This is the definition of Attempted Murder in my book. And, why are “hunting crimes” like this just misdemeanors rather then felonies in the first place.

      • WM says:

        Now why do you think “attempted murder” is an appropriate charge in this hunting incident, Ed, and do be specfic?

        • Ed Loosli says:

          WM: It is Attempted Murder because the shooter intentionally shot at the human with the intention of killing that person — That’s why.

          • Elk375 says:

            Ed the shooter did not intentionally shoot at a human unless there is more to the story, it was a hunting accident, there is no excuse for not identifying ones target before shooting. It is early December and ski season has started, I wonder how many people were injured today from other ski skiers running in to them. Should those skiers be charged with attempted murder or assault?


            • Ed Loosli says:

              WM & Elk:
              What indication is there that this criminal was “hunting”?? Because he said so?? Let him tell it to the judge and jury during his Attempted Murder trial.

            • JB says:

              I found the juxtaposition of these two statements to be ironic!




              If “no excuse” is acceptable for not positively identifying one’s target, what does the “hunter’s side of the story” matter?

              • Elk375 says:

                In the early 1980’s there was a spring bear hunting accident in Gardiner, Montana that made national news. The hunter mistaken an orange tent for a black bear killing one of the occupants in the tent. How could a hunter mistaken an orange tent for a bear?

                Darkness was around 9:30 pm. The bear hunters were walking down a logging road above Gardiner just at dark. During the day they had seen 4 or 5 bears including several grizzlies, both of the hunters were jumpy and scared from the grizzly encounters. In the middle of a logging road was an orange tent pitched with a couple inside. The tent had a slight movement and there were sounds coming from the tent. One of the hunters shot killing the women. What happened?

                The following day the Park County Sheriff’s department returned to the site and pitched the tent in the same spot and stood where the hunters had shot. At the exact time of the shooting the orange tent had turned black, the noises, they were having sex and she was on top.

                That is the hunters side of the story and what the court determined. It was and accident and a sad one.

                A sad accident, the shooter was bounded over to the Park County Court and tired for a lessor charge than murder. The jury found him guilty surprising the judge. The judge gave him 5 years probation and the following year he drown in North Dakota.

                The hunter’s side of the story matters.

                • Ed Loosli says:

                  Elk & WM:
                  Yes, like the Montana case you site, I would like this shooter to be Arrested and tried in a court of law, where he can tell his “story” to the judge and/or jury. I have yet to read about any evidence that this shooter was out hunting animals, as opposed to Humans, except that is what he says he was doing. If all any murderer has to do is say “I was hunting” to get excused, then our laws have to change.

                • Elk375 says:

                  Ed you hate hunters so bad that your thinking becomes jaded.

                  Years ago a young lady skiing out of control hit me broad side damaging my knee which sooner than later will need to be repaired. Should that young lady be tired for assault? I was below her and it was her responsibility to avoid all objects below her.

                • JB says:


                  Your rule, not mine. If the principle, “THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFY ONE’S TARGET BEFORE SHOOTING” means anything, then the hunters story (the excuse) is rendered moot. Your anecdote and conclusion, “The hunter’s side of the story matters”, is in conflict with the principle you articulated. That was the point of my post.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Another case of someone who did not know what they were doing.

                  “Dad, does it kick?”
                  One should have practiced with a gun prior to using it…

                  “Dad, should I get him now?”
                  One should be able to recognize ones own skill levels with said rifle, and comfortable/uncomfortable range without having to ask dad.

                  Ah Caribou Barbie, gotta watch this every once in a while, you betcha!

                • WM says:


                  For me it is a sobering reminder of just how the R party has degraded to its lowest common denominator. I was never more stunned in observing American national politics when McCain announced Caribou Barbie/”I can see Russia from my house,” as his running mate. It sort of marks a watershed moment to a rapid decline in the infrastructure that currently runs our country. Wildlife issues are just a small part of it, but wow, I am concerned for our future as a country – this effort to gut FLPMA and NEPA on BLM/FS lands with the “Grazing Improvement Act” attached to a must-pass budget as a rider is just plain disgusting. I am even more fearful of what an R majority House and Senate will do with this President in the last two years of his run, in the field of natural resources. The West is pissed, and it appears it is revenge time.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  I had a conversation with my brother last night, and we got on the subject of the extractive industries. My take is we are going through the next phase of manifest destiny and exploitation of the earth.

                  Extractive war will be declared on the last open and clean and wild locations on earth. What is happening in Alberta is a great example.

                  The requirements of the world’s population of humans demands this destruction. At a time of dumb downed education, and increasingly “urbanized” populations in conjunction with the god-smack people, I have little hope for things wild in the near future.

                • JB says:


                  In re-reading your post about the Gardiner incident, I found that I had little sympathy for guy who fired the shot. Essentially, what your anecdote (and the above incident) make absolutely clear is that (a) people’s perceptions mislead them, and (b) when they are misled, not cautious, and armed, then innocent people get injured or killed. The remedy to (b) is not to be more sympathetic toward the armed person who mistakenly injures or kills someone! Indeed, I agree with Rork; the remedy is to do just the opposite–to more harshly penalize people ending or endangering others’ lives.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Trigger itch is no excuse for not positively identifying ones target.

                • WM says:

                  Apparently this “hunter” was using a “musket style” primitive black powder rifle. The word “pellet” is used in the description of the guy’s injury, so it leaves open the question of whether this was was a single projectile or multiple projectiles with each shot (there apparently were two, and a required reload of powder/projectile and possibly an ignition cap on a nipple, if not a flint lock, which would require recharging a powder pan). So, just speculating this guy would have to have been very deliberate to get the next shot off, as it takes about 10-15 seconds to reload. One has to wonder about this guy’s eyesight and mental acuity to mis-identify his intended target. Seems doubtful the guy was hunting something other than a deer, at a time and place he shouldn’t have been hunting at all.

                • Louise Kane says:

                  To WM “I am concerned for our future as a country – this effort to gut FLPMA and NEPA on BLM/FS lands with the “Grazing Improvement Act” attached to a must-pass budget as a rider is just plain disgusting. I am even more fearful of what an R majority House and Senate will do with this President in the last two years of his run, in the field of natural resources. The West is pissed, and it appears it is revenge time.”
                  when will it be revenge time for Americans who want wild places and things protected? I say it again, I don’t believe our elected officials really consider their constituents except when its fundraising time.

                  what is needed, a rider to prevent non germane riders attached to an omnibus bill.

                • Nancy says:

                  Some interesting comments on this site (pages of them) on Jon’s incident:


                • timz says:

                  A few pots calling the kettle black I would say.

          • WM says:

            From what article did you read he intended to kill this person? I read quickly, but didn’t see anything on that aspect in the linked article (sorry if I missed that).

            Unless he intended to kill a person (not mistake it for a game animal) there is no “specific intent” and thus it would not meet the elements of attempted murder.

            • JB says:

              Massachusettes’ law defines murder as, “…committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought…”

              Translated to layspeak: A prosecutor would have to have evidence that the individual in question had intent to kill the victim in question. Unless then “hunter” (using that term very loosely) shouted, “I’m going to kill you Jon” or left a note, or some other such incriminating evidence, such a charge won’t be brought–because it can’t be proved.

              • Ed Loosli says:

                I would look at the direct evidence of shot-gun shot imbedded in the body of this man as the shooter’s intent to kill this victim.

              • Louise Kane says:

                Reckless endangerment might be an appropriate charge. I still can not determine whether he was shot when it was still light and don’t have enough facts to determine but there is evidence that the shoot was an unsavory character with a history of violence. a definition of reckless endangerment “Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn’t required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse. State laws and penalties vary, so local laws should be consulted.”

            • WM says:


              Murder is a “specific intent” crime, requiring a mental state consistent with the intent to murder a HUMAN. It does not generally extend to intending to kill an animal (transferred intent), but killing a human accidentally, or wounding them (attempted murder or assault/battery).

              There is a rule in many states that if a person is found to have committed a felony, an incidental death to that felony may also be prosecuted under a “felony murder” statute, if the state has one.

              But, as usual, you have opined incorrectly through your lack of understanding of the la).

      • Nancy says:

        “Humans wearing a white shirt are unmistakable from a deer”


        My guess would be this hunter (who shot Jon in the back) thought his white shirt was a white tail deer “flagging” On top of being an idiot and NOT positively identifying his target, he’s a slob hunter, shooting at a target, running away.

        This guy needs to do time for his thoughtless actions.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Oh my gosh! I had heard the story earlier in the day, but it there was more information on the evening news just now.

  56. Ed Loosli says:

    House Passes Spending Bill That Would Block Protection Efforts For Sage Grouse And More


  57. Ida Lupines says:

    Glad to hear that Jon is going to be ok, but what a thing to have to go through. Wishing you a speedy recovery also, Jon!

    This hunter was out hunting after dusk (after 4:10), in possession of an illegal firearm. People don’t pay attention to the rules, we see it all the time. They should take care to positively identify what they are shooting at, but they aren’t perfect and make mistakes, and accidents do happen. With continued development of our wild places, unfortunately I think we will see more of this kind of thing. This is human nature. So when I hear assurances from hunters, ranchers, oil executives, and politicians…. I think ‘yeah, sure’.

    There was a woman out walking in the woods behind her home who was accidently shot and was badly injured. I’ve been hearing shots very close to my home during this deer season, so I haven’t been going out into my woods. I hope that little fawn I saw is ok, and with today’s ‘lazy man’s hunting’, deer driving is sending a lot of deer running out into traffic and being hit by cars. Sad.

    For what it’s worth, he does seem pretty shaken up by what happened, in the news videos.

  58. Ida Lupines says:

    You can’t eliminate this kind of hunter. You’ve got good ones who respect wildlife and tradition, and others who either don’t have the skills and never will (but because they are human they have rights that override other life on the planet, rights I tell ya!), or are morally bankrupt and ego-centered. You can improve the situation somewhat with hunter education, but you can never eliminate it.

    BTW, Minnesota’s ‘early’ wolf hunt ended with 19 wolves killed over quota. Still think this is manageable?

  59. rork says:

    Just another story of a shooting accident near me, covered by many papers, but I instead link to a forum where you can see what some hunter comments look like (though there is inappropriate victim blaming too). While I’m willing to hear the hunter’s excuses in such cases (was victim dressed in a convincing deer costume?), the excuse of “I was being an idiot” does not cut it. I do think most people, and most hunters, think the penalties are almost never enough. I have actually never seen a case where I thought the sentence sufficient, and don’t understand why. One of the scientific reasons for penalties is their deterrent effect, and that is increased if I don’t care about your excuses very much. Bertrand Russel discusses this.

  60. rork says:

    Durn, misspelled his name (Russell). They’ll surely fire me from the math police if it’s discovered.

    • Yvette says:

      That map is a spectacular piece of art! I’m stealing it!…umm, saving it for my enjoyment. The artist should print it on a tee-shirt. I’d buy.

    • Cody Coyote says:

      Slogan for t-shirt using this amazing map : Western Large Carnivore Apex Predators had lousy immigration policies

  61. Ed Loosli says:

    I agree with Tony Sciarrillo, who wrote, “Maine and Vermont have it right with target ID laws, which will charge you with a felony for mistaking a human for game and causing bodily harm. In Mass, we have chpt131 sec60 which basically states that if you carelessly injure someone with a gun or bow while hunting, you are charged with a misdemeanor and lose your hunting license for 5 years – this law needs to be changed!”

  62. Gary Humbard says:

    Hey Boo Boo lets go over and talk to that ranger and see what we can learn about humans.


  63. Kathleen says:

    This has probably already been mentioned in the many hundreds of comments on this site, but since the deadline to comment is tomorrow, the 11th, at 5pm MST, thought I’d mention it again. Seriously…granting marginal habitat for increased slaughter? Don’t let the livestock industry and its lackeys get away with this. From Buffalo Field Campaign:

    “Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) and Department of Livestock (DOL) officials have re-opened a public comment period on their Bison Habitat Environmental Assessment (EA), a process that started 28 months ago in July of 2012. By the end of the public comment period in 2013, nearly 120,000 people had commented heavily in favor of more wild bison on Montana’s landscape.

    “This addendum EA includes “Alternative G,” the Governor’s alternative. It incorporates language from the original Bison Habitat EA with language crafted by anti-bison livestock interests that forces slaughter ultimatums for any increases in habitat. “Alternative G” would allow for some buffalo to occupy habitat that they haven’t shown to use or favor in decades.

    “Worse still, with Alternative G, Montana wants to cap the buffalo population in Yellowstone National Park for any kind of tolerance on lands in Montana. Habitat would be open only in exchange for a significant increase in slaughter.”
    Continue reading here:

    You don’t have to spend hours trying to figure out all the nuances if you don’t have hours…a short message is better than none at all. Tell FWP to reject Alternative G, the addendum to the Bison Habitat EA. Check out BFC’s sample letter and from that grab a point or two to make. This is especially important for MT residents to address.

    MT Fish, Wildlife & Parks comment form:

  64. Ed Loosli says:

    The Omnibus Spending bill just passed by the US House of Representatives includes a number of provisions authored by rabid Idaho pro-livestock industry Congressman, Mike Simpson that are aimed at giving whatever the Cattlemen’s Association wants: Among them are provisions to:
    •Extend for two years long-standing authority to allow the BLM to extend expiring grazing permits while they complete the environmental work required for renewals;
    •Make vacant grazing allotments available to grazing permittees adversely impacted by drought or wildfire;
    •Provide for the trailing of livestock across public lands during fiscal years 2014 and 2015;
    •Continue important efforts to prevent the sage-grouse from being listed as an endangered species;
    •Restore $1 million to compensate ranchers for livestock killed by wolves;
    •Prevent agencies from limiting recreational shooting and hunting on federal lands; and
    •Prohibit the Department of Interior from implementing the Wild Lands initiative.

    Of interest to WM, who mistakenly still insists that the States have full control of hunting on federal lands, please note the new provision authored by Mike Simpson (R Idaho) to: “Prevent agencies from limiting recreational shooting and hunting on federal lands”. If States already had the right to control hunting on federal lands, this provision would not be necessary in eyes of ultra pro-hunting Congressman, Mike Simpson.

    • Gary Humbard says:

      The BLM currently has authorization (due to a 2002 rider) to automatically renew grazing permits for lower categories of grazing permits which typically consist of one or more of the following: small acreages, permit area surrounded by private land, minimal to no riparian areas, and no T&E species and greater sage grouse issues.

      There are thousands of grazing allotment permits just on BLM managed land in Oregon and what this rider bill will do is to allow the BLM to concentrate their on the ground resources on the permits that could adversely affect greater sage grouse, riparian areas, T&E species and other important resources. This rider will ultimately improve the BLMs ability to address the most important issues (e.g. greater sage grouse conservation, removal of cheatgrass, T&E species protection) instead of spending valuable time on less critical permits.

      As a former BLM employee of 37 years, I know the vast majority of grazing permitees meet the terms and conditions of the permit and when they don’t, the BLM makes sure the necessary corrections are made. Unfortunately its those few individuals who don’t meet the requirements that make the headlines; thus insinuating that cattle are destroying the range land.

      If an organization or individual believes that one or more of the terms and conditions are not being met, then they should contact the local BLM office and discuss and work to resolves the issue(s).

      One of the actions that protects the general wolf population is a compensation fund. It’s economics that makes ranchers hate wolves. Pay them for their losses and the controversy subsides. The $1 million to compensate ranchers is a good thing for wolves in general.

  65. Louise Kane says:


    NY Senator adds her name to list of Congressmen/women opposed to national delisting. Please note JB’s contribution to letters listed at the end of the post. Thanks JB and A Treves.

  66. Louise Kane says:


    good commentary on piss poor television depicting wildlife in violent, stupid, and disturbing contexts.

    • Nancy says:

      “This is a new form of greenwashing, a deceptive PR effort to make a product seem more environmentally friendly than it is. This is especially offensive coming from a network like Discovery Channel, which promotes itself as a source of environmental and educational information. The decision to air “Eaten Alive” has serious negative consequences not only for the wildlife involved in the stunt, but also for the public’s awareness of its condition”

      Sad, very sad, Lousie.

  67. Nancy says:

    “Morbid or not, according to Sanders County Sheriff Tom Rummel, the hanging animal is perfectly legal.

    He says it’s on private property, a coyote is a predator — not a game animal — and because the coyote in question is already dead, it’s not an issue of animal cruelty”

    “It’s just not very pleasant to drive past, and I feel it’s pretty gruesome for the school kids to be passing by on their way to and from school.”


    • Ida Lupines says:

      Just because it isn’t illegal, doesn’t make it legal. This still is animal cruelty, because it shows a disrespect for and desecration of life, and a rather simple outlook, one that you’d think had disappeared over a few hundred years ago – but apparently still exists in a few small pockets of its former range.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I’d also bet that they would still consider themselves believers in God too. But yet desecrates God’s creations, land and animal.

    • Louise Kane says:

      the word indecent comes to mind

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Yes, and of course it is still animal cruelty, because even if the animal is already dead, the cruelty being inflicted doesn’t stop. It isn’t legal, but falls in that lawless area where a law hasn’t been broken yet. But that doesn’t make it acceptable or moral behavior. The mental development and rationalizations of a child or teenager.

  68. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Emergency Endangered Species Protection Sought to Save Florida’s Miami Tiger Beetle From Shopping Mall, Theme Park
    Development Would Destroy Beetle’s Only Known Habitat

    • WM says:

      From the article:

      ++They have changed their habits, getting accustomed to staying in the croplands and irrigation pivots, where they’re safe from hunters and predators, and as a result, they’re over-populated.++

      Imagine that, and which predators might those be? And extending the phenomenon, wait until WA wolves (coursing predators) get to sufficient numbers in Eastern WA to send more elk into apple and soft fruit orchards. That time is coming, I’d say in about 4 years. I don’t think the planners thought that one thru when they adovacated their draft wolf management plan.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        What is keeping the elk out of apple and soft fruit orchards now??
        Elk seem to choose where they want to be and when they want to be there. It seems logical that the more wolves there are in Eastern Washington, the more wolves would drive the elk out of the apple and soft fruit orchards, not into them.

        • WM says:


          Sometimes the fruit ranchers will try to shoo them off, only to have them return (occasionally the rancher will shoot a few if Fish and Wildlife officers don’t try to shoo them off). But with wolf presence I would expect more elk would seek some sanctuary, and they would want to stay. Think I will go with the conventional wisdom on this one. Heck the planners simply missed that aspect, like so many others in their EIS. Orchards, typically are at lower elevation have less snow, more browse and grass, sometimes more cover, and most of all closer to MORE PEOPLE, which would tend to suggest wolves might not be there as much, if they want to avoid people. I suppose wolves would come into the orchards, just like they come into town in places like Banff, or at Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone. I doubt elk are going to go back up to the higher ground where the snow is deeper and the feed is tougher to get Hunger is an incredible motivator for both species, though. And how about those elk in MT that are in the hay fields, maybe scratching their heads on the center pivot sprinklers in the photo which accompanies the article in the Bozeman paper? Whaddaya think, there, Ed?

          • Ed Loosli says:

            As for the photo of the elk scratching its antlers on the center pivot, I think it is wonderful and shows how man and wildlife can co-exist. As for the wolves in Eastern Washington getting near the elk in the orchards – it is winter, the trees are bare, and if the orchard owners do not want elk or wolves inside their orchards, they can fence them out.

            • WM says:

              Well, Ed, there are some folks that still use set sprinkler pipe (light weight aluminum), with pipe and sprinkler head riser, on the ground, that elk can bend or crush real easy. This stuff is expensive. I don’t know many orchardists who fence. I don’t know whether you know much about elk and fences, but they need to be heavy duty (capable of stopping several 600-1,000 pound animals moving as fast as a horse (40 mph or faster), high and visible. That means very expensive, otherwise elk will mow them down and or get tangled up and injured in them.

              Then there is the part where a coursing predator, like a wolves (or dogs) are aided by any kind of fence and can run their prey INTO THE FENCE, causing injury to multiple animals. Forgive the candor, here, you don’t know what you are talking about – but that has been said before.

              • Ed Loosli says:

                I know a lot about elk fences and wildlife fences of all kinds, and I look forward to the day when you show even the slightest interest in enhancing the protections of wolves in our midst.

                • WM says:

                  Just thought I would interject one more dimension, Ed.

                  Wolf re-introduction was contemplated, in much the same manner as the NRM, for Olympic National Park – but was rejected, in part, because officials thought wolves would run elk down into Sequim (small town north of the Park).

                  Reintroduction was also evaluated for Rocky Mountain National Park – but was rejected because wolves would run the elk down into Estes Park (small town east of the Park)and Grandby on the west slope, and there was no support from adjacent land owners.

                  Now the problem with elk in the lower elevations seeking sanctuary would result in wolves maybe approaching town following the elk, and then getting into trouble, and maybe running horses, llamas, sheep, cows into fences, or eliminating the family dog on multiple ranchette type homes at the fringe.

                  And one needs to remember, wolves just don’t stop procreating at some magic low density number, wherever they are.

                  By the way, if you want to include WA in your Western state boycott, I’d support that.

                • JB says:

                  “And one needs to remember, wolves just don’t stop procreating at some magic low density number, wherever they are.”

                  Procreating, no. But they do start dying much more frequently:

                  “In northern Yellowstone, density dependence regulated adult survival through an increase in intraspecific aggression, independent of prey availability. In the interior of the park, adult survival was less variable and density-independent, despite reduced prey availability. There was no effect of prey population structure in northern Yellowstone, or of winter severity in either area. Survival was similar among yearlings and adults, but lower for adults older than 6 years. Our results indicate that density-dependent intraspecific aggression is a major driver of adult wolf survival in northern Yellowstone, suggesting intrinsic density-dependent mechanisms have the potential to regulate wolf populations at high ungulate densities. When low prey availability or high removal rates maintain wolves at lower densities, limited inter-pack interactions may prevent density-dependent survival, consistent with our findings in the interior of the park.”


                • JB says:

                  And recall that wolves do coexist in other, similar mountain systems without eating all of the children at bus stops–a fact that a colleague from Spain recently emphasized to me in a conversation.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                But where will it end? As our population gets bigger, and we also export more Washington apples, where will the elk (and wolves) go? These animals are not meant to live their lives out in fragmented, small islands of habitat. They need lots of room to roam and migrate. How much more do we need to take? I know the answer, all of the available land, and water. With water becoming scares, there’s really no excuse for fracking.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  sorry, ‘water becoming scarce.’

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  And we can’t forget, probably genetically modified Washington apples that use less water and produce more. The future doesn’t look very good.

    • rork says:

      Thanks. I’ve been wondering what any practical solutions could be. Seems messy.

      My ignorance about elk is such that I could use a lesson about when, if ever, they stop being in such large groups out there. My simpleton thought was just altering the dates of hunting seasons, but I know that if that would solve things it would have been done already. In Germany different harems are on different mountains during rut. I know animal and ecosystem is different. (And should a prize elk from mountain A go for a look at mountain B females, the mountain B humans will shoot him, since they know he’s not from around there – they have names for all the respectable local bulls, and may know the name used by mountain A humans for the visiting bull.) So spoon feed me please.

      • WM says:


        Not all elk tend to herd up, even in winter in parts of the West. I know of places where the typical group size is less than 10, often 4-7, individual animals. It is another tactic for predator avoidance. Some of the researchers even address this model, for wolf avoidance. Mark Hebblewhite is one.

  69. WM says:

    Unintended consequences (collateral damage or good publicity?) of a movie emphasizing a wild place. The movie “Wild” is increasing interest and potentially impacts on the Pacific Crest Trail. As someone who has spent a lot of time on parts of the trail over decades, this increased use saddens me greatly. Hollywood exploits the environment for money, too!


  70. WM says:

    This just released Washington Post article says much more articulately than I ever could, what is happening to America’s middle class. We have talked about this on this forum in recent months. Part 1 of 2, and no mention so far of the middle class paying for those at the bottom rungs to move up ($15 min. wage, etc.), while the 1 or is it 5 percenters take advantage of both the middle class and those at the bottom. So, do you want to own stock in WalMart or work there?


    • Ida Lupines says:

      Excellent article. The trouble is, humans cannot live with uncertainty, and cannot imagine any other living thing could, either. We really have a strange sickness when it comes to wolves.

      For example, ‘Sam’ can’t see any other posts but the ones about wolves – he totally missed the bison post, bull trout, grizzlies, and the ones lately about sage grouse species. A sudden attack of hysterical blindness?

  71. Ed Loosli says:

    Private Land Inholdings Within Wyoming’s Grand Teton National Park Are Now Open To Hunters.


    • Ida Lupines says:

      This is a unique situation. The private land still falls within a national park, where wildlife should be protected. It is still a National Park, and ten’ll get ya twenty that hunters and private landowners won’t stop at the borders. Could even be a roundabout way to get at those pesky wolves. This is trouble waiting to happen, and I hope it gets headed off at the (Teton) pass.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Thanks for these articles…Domestic Livestock owners causing kidney failure deaths in vultures is unacceptable and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if tests in humans eventually reveal kidney damage as well. The drug diclofenac must be banned immediately for use in domestic livestock (and humans obviously).
      The more I read about the treatment of domestic animals for food, the more vegetables I want to eat.

  72. Louise Kane says:


    suspected involvement of disgruntled fishermen who don’t like dolphin hunting for fish

  73. Nancy says:

    “The chamber has been sifting through many of the same arguments that tied up the House on Thursday, when disagreements over immigration and provisions related to Wall Street and campaign finance nearly derailed the bill. Senate lawmakers wanted votes on amendments that would address those issues”



  74. Ed Loosli says:

    “China Plunders Zimbabwe Baby Elephants”


  75. Louise Kane says:

    Recently I have been working to seek a ban on killing carnivores in the Cape Cod National Seashore. You can view the letter at http://www.carnivoreconservationact.com/in-the-works/
    The letter was delivered to the Park supervisor on 12.10.14. There is now a poll about the issue in the local paper. Please cast your vote to help us end predator hunting in the Cape Cod National Seashore.

    And thank you to the many who contributed review and signatures.
    The poll is on the right hand side about 1/4 way down


    Thank you

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Thank you, Louise – this is wonderful.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Thanks Louise;
      Have you contacted HSUS to get them to link to this survey? Obviously, more believers in not killing predators need to learn about this important issue. The Nat. Park Service should not be treating this like some sort of local issue – it is a national issue involving federal property owned by all Americans.

  76. Louise Kane says:


    great commentary on the “anti” wolf billboards plastered around Eastern Washington

  77. Louise Kane says:


    root cause of Woodland Caribou decline not addressed but wolves continue to be killed. Dystopic images of logged areas follow article. I’ll never forget the shock of coming to the edge of a clear cut forest while hiking in British Columbia.

  78. Louise Kane says:

    I posted this last night. I am reposting as its a Monday and hoping it will get more attention. Recently I have been working to seek a ban on killing carnivores in the Cape Cod National Seashore. I co drafted a letter to the Cape Cod National Seashore asking for a ban on carnivore hunting in the National Seashore. We are starting to see coyote hatred manifest itself in organized hunts. The letter is posted on our Carnivore Conservation Act site and can be viewed here http://www.carnivoreconservationact.com/in-the-works/
    The letter was delivered to the Park supervisor on 12.10.14. There is now a poll about the issue in the local paper. Please cast your vote to help us end predator hunting in the Cape Cod National Seashore. The poll is on the right hand column about /14 way down.

    The poll is on the right hand side about 1/4 way down


    And thank you to the many scientists and activists here and elsewhere who contributed review and signatures.

    Thank you again. Please post widely

  79. Immer Treue says:

    Another hunt for prizes, in of all places, Minnesota.

    Scavenger Hunt


    • rork says:

      I’ve seen privately organized things like that in MI, and known participants. The chief activity seems to be burning gasoline in cars. (I do get how it might be good for local economy.)

  80. rork says:

    Search “greenpeace nazca lines” if you hadn’t heard.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      I saw this a day or two ago and just assumed that it was a PHOTO-SHOPPED image that Greenpeace put out. This is about as dumb as can be and I hope they do jail time. Fortunately, it looks like they did not actually touch any of the Nazca lines.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        If this is true, even our so-called enlightened activists still seem to be influenced by (perhaps unintentionally and subconsciously) of Western white privilege. Importance was never placed on or taught about cultures other than our own.

  81. Ida Lupines says:

    Whatever became of the suggestion to bring some of our last remaining unhybridized bison to the American Prairie Reserve? This place sounds gorgeous and I bring it up until I am blue in the face, the bison belong on a place like this:


    • Ed Loosli says:

      Yes, the American Prairie Reserve in Northeastern Montana is in line to receive Yellowstone bison… HOWEVER, they also have intentions that once they have enough bison on the Reserve to turn the bison management over to the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks who will then start allowing them to be KILLED BY HUNTERS.

      • Elk375 says:

        A large portion of the private land that the American Prairie Reserve owns,the MTFWP’s owns the hunting rights from former conveyances. Ed, people like you never are going to get away from hunters, man up and accept it.

      • WM says:


        Bison have nearly always been at risk to hunters. Some hunters just ran dozens or maybe even hundreds off a cliff (buffalo jump).


        • Ed Loosli says:

          I wonder how many bison were in the United States when the Native Americans were in charge?? — something like 30,000,000 (at least) I believe. Compare that to how the European conquerors and their ancestors have dealt with the bison. I say bison should not be hunted until every possible nook and cranny of bison habitat is restored with bison. If there is a conflict between privately owned livestock and bison on our public lands, it is the livestock that should be removed, not the bison.

          • WM says:

            Why would that be, Ed?

            And while you contemplate a guilt-ridden, nostalgic, Western answer, and translate it into 1’s and 0’s on your computer which is likely powered from a hydro-electric dam on the Columbia or a windmill on some windswept California ridge, and buzzes thru a complex network of phone lines and wireless energy waves, just think if the world had stayed the same maybe descendants of those noble Native Americans could be this very minute freezing their butts off in some smokey plains teepee or burrowed into an earthen hut, burning buffalo chips to make the next meal, which might consist of bison, and only bison, and maybe prairie roots and a few dried berries if the fall harvest was bountiful.

            I say this not to denigrate a way of life or an ethnic group, but to say the world has changed, and things are just different. What we do to preserve what we have has lots of competing interests, and some of those interests like the technology and convenience it affords.

            I would love to see more bison across the West, as well. Management which will include hunting will no doubt be a part of whatever is put into place.

            • Nancy says:

              “What we do to preserve what we have has lots of competing interests, and some of those interests like the technology and convenience it affords”

              Sadly yes, I agree WM. Not unlike the middle class in our own species, disappearing, due to convenience and technology.

      • Professor Sweat says:

        If it means we can see more bison in more places across the west, I would be in favor of sustainable hunting. They do make a fine alternative to cattle both on the landscape and in the freezer.

        • JB says:

          PS +1

          • Ed Loosli says:

            WM,JB,Professor Sweat:
            My comments were directed at those thinking that sustainable hunting of bison is somehow important, beneficial or necessary. My issue is with the word “sustainable”. If, say there are currently 20,000 wild free roaming bison in the Western USA, then “sustainable” hunting would sustain that 20,000 number, which is all well and good for those who only want 20,000 wild bison. With “sustainable” hunting holding the bison level to 20,000, how will we ever get to 200,000 or 2,000,000 wild bison??

            • W. Hong says:

              Where would 2,000,000 Bison live these days?

              • Elk375 says:

                W. Hong

                Ed lives in fantasy land – two million bison, I want to know where two million bison are going to live.

                • Yvette says:

                  I want to know where 9 billion people will live. That is the number we’re predicted to exceed by 2050. Yee-haw.

                • W. Hong says:

                  Ms. Yevette, I lived in China for a long time and we had a very large amount of people, but I do know that we had a lot of places people could live but didn’t.

              • JB says:


                I don’t know how many cattle currently graze federal public lands, but I’m willing to bet it exceeds 2 million? According to the BLM, they administer 21,000 livestock grazing permits. If each of those held 100 bison, that would be 2.1 million bison just on BLM lands (i.e., not including private lands, nor Forest Service, NPS, FWS, or DOD lands).

                Also, I don’t know what the current number is, but for a time there were an estimated 2 million deer in Michigan alone.

                I’m not against hunting bison in the least, btw. But you asked where 2 million bison would roam…

                • WM says:


                  Maybe that takes care of the summer months (the same ones the cattle graze), but what about the rest of the year?

                • JB says:


                  As you well know, not all habitat is created equal. The winter-summer distinction you allude to is not apparent everywhere, nor in fact, is it apparent on the majority of the bison’s former range.

                  I have been searching for a figure for how many cows are on public land, but can’t seem to find an estimate? The BLM provides grazing allotment numbers (21K) and permittees (18k) but not cattle. I could not even find info on the number of allotments on FS lands.

                  Currently there are 628 million acres of federal public land–about 379 million are not in Alaska and not managed by DOD. I don’t claim to know how many bison could be supported by 379 million acres, but I’ll bet you a six pack it is more than 20,000 or even 200,000?

                • JB says:

                  Sorry, source for federal land stats: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

                • Nancy says:


                  “Grazing use on public lands has declined from 18.2 million AUMs in 1954 to 7.9 million AUMs in 2013”

                  So double that figure and that gives you an idea.


                • Nancy says:

                  A dated but good read on public lands grazing:


                • JB says:


                  Thank you. To figure yearly capacity you would need to double and divide by 12 (an AUM is the amount of forage required by a cow and calf per month). So 16 million / 12 [months] would be 1.3 million animals over the course of a 12-month period. And the article you cite notes that those are lands managed by the BLM. The BLM’s holdings represent about 40% of all federal public lands.

                • WM says:

                  JB, Nancy,

                  Wait a minute on your back of the envelope calculations. Again, do remember that many of these AUM’s are available only seasonally, and some are in remote and isolated places, not conducive to bison production in the 21st Century. For some acreage, that also means from about mid-November through May or later the lands on which the vegetation grows is a covered in more snow than even the most tenacious of bison could ever uncover.

                  You will also want to consider the patchwork of federal/state/private lands which are checkerboarded, with some of it fenced. Then you will want to possibly acknowledge that some of the acreage and the AUM’s supported were never in historic bison range. Too my knowledge the range maps do not identify most of CA, OR, all of WA, NV, NM, AZ, and a parts of other Western states, though these are in the total federal lands and AUM calculations (big numbers of acreage, actually). Doesn’t mean bison couldn’t survive in limited areas in those places, but it does mean in addition to cows they might displace elk, deer, big horn sheep or antelope.

                  I think most of the good bison habitat is now growing corn, wheat or other crops in the vast plains of the Midwest, as far south as Texas. Nearly all of it private land. And, the land in the Dakotas, eastern MT and parts of WY and SE Idaho are either private or marginal in terms of AUM production to have much carrying capacity for bison. They were/are a migratory animal, we must remember, and they would go where the feed and water is as seasons changed, with some degree of required protection from the weather, though they can withstand substantial extremes of all types, cold/wind/precipitation and on the other end heat/drought. Do remember, bison migrate out of Yellowstone NP for example. Again, bison can’t paw through 6 feet of snow for grass (not sure how deep they can get if it is powdery, but it is still an energy expenditure.

                  1 AUM = amount of feed for one rancher’s cow-calf combo = 1 mature bison.

                  Here are some more stats on AUM production from GAO. The report is a bit dated, and the number of AUM’s has probably been reduced, maybe substantially in some locations since it was written in 2005: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05869.pdf

                  By the way, JB, I wouldn’t take the bet for the 6 pack, but I still think finding places for 200,000 wild and unmanaged bison on federal lands, would be a challenge, especially if it was desired they would co-exist conflict-free with human activities, and roads/fences alone would be a substantial obstacles). By the way, my cautions are not to suggest we should not try to have more on the landscape.

                • WM says:

                  One other thing I forgot to mention, which is kind of obvious. Even local migrations from areas with lots of seasonal higher elevation AUM production in more hostile climates would be difficult. That is because the lower elevation fertile valley bottoms and river courses are nearly all private land, again with fences and occupied (we have talked about this phenomenon before, and it is even mentioned in the GAO report). So, where do these migrating bison which would eat federal land AUM vegetation all summer go when the snow gets deep come December, and where do they roam from that time until green-up when they can follow the vegetation growth migrating back up into the high country for the next annual cycle (and where do they calve)?.

                • Nancy says:

                  Fact is allotments are being retired to the benefit of wildlife, and in some prime bison habitat.


                • WM says:

                  Yes, I was aware of the retirements on the NWF list, Nancy. The most prominent for bison was the Royal Teton lease (for 30 years). Only 4 of 18 retirements benefit bison, according to the summary.

            • Ed Loosli says:

              How about answering my question about how we can INCREASE bison numbers, say to 200,000 (before we get to 2,000,000) if hunters keep them at a “sustainable” level of 20,000?? By the way, there is habitat for well over 200,000 bison between the states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and the Dakotas.

              • rork says:

                Hunters don’t determine targets for large numbers of ungulates, their managers do, but often on smaller units of land than continents. I think the question some people are really getting at has to do with the possible difficulty of living with bison all around you – those deer JB was talking about are hard on gardener, farmer, and other species that are negatively impacted by deer. Elk can create havoc. Bison sounds tough – I’ve not heard lots of stories of them wander through the yard or farm, but it might upset some people.

                • WM says:

                  They are very tough on fences and pretty much go wherever they want. Get some bull pissed, or mess with some calves in the nursery and watch the mamas, come and gore your dog, you or maybe your car under the right circumstances.

                  Warning from Theodore Roosevelt National Park:

                  ++Warning: Bison are wild animals and can be dangerous if provoked. They can run up to 35 miles per hour and spin around faster than a horse. Always view them at a distance and give them the right-of-way if encountered on a trail or the road. When bison are in the road, be patient, stay in your vehicle, and observe them quietly. On trails, make a big detour around them, move slowly, and avoid making loud noises. Keep dogs under control at all times; wild animals are often nervous when dogs are nearby and bison may charge if dogs are too noisy or too close. If a bison raises its tail, especially if the tail is straight up in the air, a charge may be imminent.++

              • WM says:


                According to NPS there are over 500,000 bison in the US right now in public and private ownership. So, its not like there aren’t any.

                • Ed Loosli says:

                  Yes, I have read the figures for Total bison numbers. I am talking about wild, non-buffalo burger, bison. I think most Americans share my view that wild bison should be left to multiply, and if they are in conflict with private cattle on our public lands, it is the cattle that should be removed, not the bison.

                • Nancy says:

                  “They are very tough on fences and pretty much go wherever they want. Get some bull pissed, or mess with some calves in the nursery and watch the mamas, come and gore your dog, you or maybe your car under the right circumstances”

                  That comment is kind of amusing WM given the fact that many of us who live out here in the west (and don’t raise livestock) have to put up with that kind of crap from domesticated cattle. Its called “open range” Be mighty interesting to see the “tables” reversed for a change 🙂

  82. Ida Lupines says:

    I had the strangest dream this morning – I looked out on my back deck and all kinds of water fowl had congregated there – long-legged shorebirds and the regular backyard birds. The police were there, talking to my husband and me, very nice but obviously something was wrong, I don’t know what.

    I had what looked to be a wine bottle with a nuthatch and a Cooper’s or Sharpie hawk in it. I thought that I had better get the smaller bird out before the hawk got him, so I removed the cork and the bird turned out to be a black-capped chickadee, and flew away. Then I became concerned about the hawk, so I tipped the bottle towards the open sliding glass door, and he flew out and away, causing the entire bottle to shatter.

    I guess I’m thinking about wildlife a lot? Any dream interpreters out there? 🙂

    • Immer Treue says:


    • Kathleen says:

      The displaced shorebirds represent your concern with global warming and rising oceans. The policeman represents authority–a nice face, but still, an agent of the status quo.

      You are concerned with the trammeling of nature (captive birds in a bottle) and want to be the agent of freedom…knowing that–while things aren’t always what they appear to be (nuthatch/chickadee)–constraints *can* be shattered.

      Or maybe the now-empty wine bottle was Whistling Duck chardonnay (or Wild Turkey bourbon?) and you had just polished it off and were seeing things.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Oh beautiful, I like that interpretation! I usually remember the dreams I have closer to morning when I wake up.

        I don’t drink much, but I may have one now. Some Grey Goose. 🙂

  83. Ida Lupines says:

    Northern White Rhino Dies at California Zoo, Leaving Only Five Alive in the World

    “Rhino horns are valued as dagger handles and are mistakenly seen as an aphrodisiac.”

    Yeah, like that’s needed in a world with in excess of 7 billion humans. More examples of mankind’s exaggerated opinion of his place in the natural order, and subjective viewpoint. Trying to appeal to mankind with science is doomed to fail.

  84. Ida Lupines says:

    I’m sure the lives of those Native Americans would be different also, if we hadn’t wiped them out and taken their land, and consigned them to poverty and ill-health and social problems on a reservation. Removed their culture by forced assimilation. We’ll never know what might have been, but we know that their view of the natural world and their place in it was vastly superior to the greedy exploitative, self-centered, racist and land-owning view of the European invaders.

    What we’ve got now is just more than convenience and progress, it’s greed. We could easily live a modern technology-enhanced life with its comforts without destroying and taking everything we come in contact with.

    Surely there is a place for much more bison to roam, and I believe the American people want that too. Perhaps some (ethical) hunting might be involved, but not the every-man-for-himself free-for-all that we feel entitled to since this country was overrun by settlers.

    Thank goodness I’m not young – because if I thought all that I had to look forward to in the future was oceans of humanity, asphalt roads and concrete, cheap and tacky businesses – I’d probably take a flying header off Buffalo Jump also.

    • rork says:

      Jared Diamond would say it’s not a fundamental difference in people, just a difference of their package of domestic plants and animals. Give any people the fertile crescent package in N America (plus american package with corn, squash, beans, etc), and the result might be the same – high densities of humans dominating the landscape with domesticates, or near-domesticates. A modern view can be what’s vastly superior, but that’s comparing now with other times.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        The European settlers might not have learned about corn, squash and beans for a very long time without the help of the Native peoples (it appears in all the countries Europe controlled that people brought their ways with then and bended the land to their will – and then we turned on the indigenous people for control of land, and taught our succeeding generations a revisionist history. So it is a fundamental difference in cultures; how each views the world and the land, religions and beliefs. To try to minimize that to continue to justify modern behavior and for some kind of political correctness isn’t completely correct or honest.

        • Yvette says:

          Ida, I will keep pestering you to read Jon Coleman’s book, “Vicious: Men and Wolves in America. One of the best history books I’ve read and Coleman’s use of metaphor is superb and realistic. The philosophical and cultural differences between the Indigenous and the colonists and new immigrants will jump out at you. I loved the way Coleman covered the great Hinckly (Ohio) Christmas Eve hunt.

          Just remember, we Indians are still here. We’re not all gone. We just have to remember we’re human, and being so, we’re not ecological saints. The more traditional Natives usually have a bit different and more holistic philosophy toward ecology, animals and earth, but they still hunt, fish, and yes, make mistakes.

          I do appreciate your admiration toward the Indigenous people of this continent. Mvto! (that means thank you)

  85. Peter Kiermeir says:

    66 years ago, beavers parachuted into Idaho’s backcountry

  86. Nancy says:

    Friendship 🙂

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Nancy, interesting behavior. I notice it was taken at a zoo in Taipei, Taiwan. Definitely looked like they were the same species – how about same or opposite sex? Any herpetologists out there that can shed light on the issue?

      • Immer Treue says:

        If anything like box turtles, the one that was upside down, was probably a male. The plastron (ventral portion of shell) was concave. Rationale behind this is when mounting of female during reproductive act, less likely to slide off. Natural selection works in unique ways.

        As for the other turtle/tortoise???

        • Nancy says:

          Thanks Immer. I’ve replayed this a few times. The school kids cheering, is heartwarming.

          • Louise Kane says:

            It’s amazing how egocentric humans are. We seem to think we are the only species capable of caring, concern, empathy, fear, grief, or of partnership. One of the worst aspects of being connected to the internet is seeing the terrible injustices people inflict on the land and other beings. Conversely, the internet also provides daily proof that animals are much smarter, more capable, and empathetic than most humans. Nice little film, Nancy thanks.

  87. Ed Loosli says:

    New Study Finds That Grass Height Drives Sage Grouse Nest Success


  88. Ida Lupines says:

    Obama Quietly Signs $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill

    Quietly. The environment and wildlife isn’t on this man’s radar at all. He’s not even a good lame duck president. It won’t be very quiet once they start mining for copper.

  89. Ida Lupines says:

    I think it can be done, making room for more bison – but it has to be a priority for America, and it will take time. A lot of damage to them and their habitat needs to be undone. We have to make allowances for migration of wildlife with improved design of our highways with overpasses also. We have to be careful about this Administration willingly giving away the store and compromising by weakening the ESA and other environmental protections in the interest of ‘getting along with the GOP’. I don’t see it anywhere on the line-item veto list for the foreseeable future.

  90. Mareks Vilkins says:

    could you drop me an e-mail (latvijas.vilki@gmail.com)? hopefully you’d help me

  91. Ed Loosli says:

    Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. Given Management Authority Within Grand Teton National Park


    This is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent…If the National Park Service can lose it’s control here, it can happen anywhere.

  92. Ida Lupines says:

    Obama Bars Oil and Gas Development in Alaska’s Bristol Bay

    More quiet. I’m happy he did this, but I hope he’ll also bar the Pebble Mine from this area too.

  93. JB says:

    “EXPOSED: USDA’s Secret War on Wildlife”
    December 2014 – We’re thrilled to announce our film “EXPOSED” just received a wonderful review from none other than Jane Goodall. It also won the award for Best Wildlife Activism at the New York Wildlife Conservation Film Festival, the premier wildlife film festival in N. America.


  94. Louise Kane says:


    Another morbid disturbing killing contest. The comment that resonated with me, ” psychopaths never run out of ideas do they?” The question is why do management agencies not shut these kind of events down? Institutional bias, indifference? Its BS that killing contests do not break laws. That in itself is as disturbing as the contests.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Usually a team of about three people shoot from a platform at the back of the boat when the rays are mating. “You can see these rays skittering across the water, and then they’ll settle into a euphoric state with their wing tips out of the water,” said Robbie Bowe, organizer of Bowes & Arrows Skate Shoot and owner of an archery shop in Woodbridge, Md. “The object is to run your boat up as fast as possible and shoot ’em while they’re right on top.”

      Oh boy. Now there’s a fine example of humanity.

      Re Nancy’s video – yes, it’s always nice to see confirmation animals have compassion for each other and help each other as we see here. I don’t approve of zoos and keeping animals in captivity.

      Here’s a case where the human has none of the compassion and mercy that we’ve been told of. Who lied to us? Church, I guess.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Thank you for this link alerting us to another one of America’s obscene killing contests. We are justifiably quick to protest the Japanese slaughter of dolphins or China’s responsibilities in the elimination of elephants, rhinos, and tigers, but we should also look inward and start raising a HUGE RUCUS over these sorts of senseless killing contests.

    • rork says:

      We have contests among bowfishers near me in MI, but bowfishing is only allowed on a very limited number of species, typically invasive aliens (usually, it’s carp). Those involved think they are doing us a favor, and most people may agree that they are. I do not find it disturbing or morbid, and have not noticed that they are psychopaths. Psychological insulting judgements are not my specialty. They seem yours though.

      What the facts are here is very unclear – that article said nearly nothing about the abundance of the rays. About 5 or 6 times it used scare phrases like “That is exactly what scientists fear” and never backed them up, except about fear of a commercial fishery. Horrible journalism!

      States can easily outlaw bow fishing of cownose stingrays if they wish. Judging from the VA slogan “Save the Bay, Eat a Ray”, and a lack of outlawing bow-hunting of them, my hunch is that authorities don’t mind. It did seem like commercial fishery wouldn’t work well, or have to be quite small. I do think that bow-fishing should be restricted to a fixed list of species considered overpopulated, and easily identifiable. Outrage is less impressive if applied constantly.

      • Louise Kane says:


        Perhaps you might read the article and something about Rays. Rays are not carp. They are not invasive introduced species. They have low fecundity rates (1 pup) and their age to sexual maturation is late.

        I live in a place where I see the results of bad management policy. Our towns used to be heavily dependent on fisheries that are now shut down. Our culture was developed based on the super abundance of ground fish and cod.

        Now cod and ground fish are commercially extinct and so are most of the other species in the waters of Nantucket Sound, Stellwagen Bank and George’s Bank some of the richest fishing grounds in the world.

        What happened? At every juncture, when policy makers had an opportunity to make regulations that would have made common sense, when they could have mandated restraint, protected habitats or restricted take they did not. They allowed and pushed for unreasonable harvests that defied all logic. They were muscled about by fishermen and ignored hard science that wasn’t industry supported. They failed us and the fisheries.

        When one fishery collapsed fishers moved onto the next with regulators promoting the harvest of the next fishery just as strongly as they had the last. New England went through halibut, haddock, cod, hake, monkfish, rays and dogfish. The remarkable and dismal truth is that the science was there the regulators just ignored it. The waters off Cape Cod are dying and dead and no one did anything.

        One of the hardest things to swallow is that it didn’t have to be this way. Cod usually reproduce for the first time when they are 5 or 6 years old. The fecundity (number or eggs produced in a given year) of females increases with size and age. A 40 inch (although almost none exists at this size class) female may lay about 3 million eggs. A 50 inch female can produce in excess of 9 million eggs in one spawning season.

        Atlantic cod are winter spawners. They reproduce from November to December along the coast of southern New England. Spawning takes place at depths of 3 to 350 feet, with the greatest activity occurring in about 200 feet of water.

        We know so much about stocks of fish but nothing is done to protect the smallest fish that have not reached sexual maturation and nothing is done to protect the largest that are most fecund. Their habitats are maimed and ruined by trawling and gill nets run through their mating and spawning grounds. Abundant Cod and ground fish kept the oceans alive.

        Your wrote, “States can easily outlaw bow fishing of cownose stingrays if they wish. Judging from the VA slogan “Save the Bay, Eat a Ray”, and a lack of outlawing bow-hunting of them, my hunch is that authorities don’t mind.” I’d expect more from you. That’s like endorsing slogans like Smoke a pack a day as good management policy. Wildlife managers in the midwest and west don’t do all that much to refute those kinds of attitudes just like fishery managers don’t spend much time disabusing fishers of their misplaced hate of marine predators that compete for fish they want for themselves or that prey on there farmed species.

        I recognize the politics that helped to destroy fisheries and is also destroying terrestrial ecosystems and predators. This makes me very angry. But killing contests really piss me off. What is there to defend about a killing event, spree, contest or whatever you want to call it.

        Where rays are concerned, fishermen typically demonstrate hate and disdain for the species that prey on their oysters. The ocean is now widely farmed, just like terrestrial systems. Marine aquaculture farms are also often subsidized like traditional terrestrial farms. And like traditional farming, the areas that are being used are often habitats that support publicly owned resources in publicly owned lands.

        Oyster farming is conducted now all over our flats, as it is in the Cheaspaeake and other coastal areas. The question is, I suppose do marine farmers (aquaculture producers) have a right to destroy wild animals that present a threat to their economic interests? I would argue no and especially not with impunity as killing events and concealed as management actions.

        We are going to have to make some really hard choices in the future and business can’t be conducted as usual. Unfortunately your claim, “States can easily outlaw bow fishing of cownose stingrays if they wish. Judging from the VA slogan “Save the Bay, Eat a Ray”, and a lack of outlawing bow-hunting of them, my hunch is that authorities don’t mind.” is probably true and that is exactly the crux of the problem. Mass killing of wild animals at events like these without protest means they will continue. State wildlife managers are doing nothing to stop predator killing contests. But that doesn’t mean the contests are good policy or that the result obtains a good or valid management objective. The silent complicity by wildlife managers to these contests attests more to their allegiance to hunters and fishers than to scientifically defensible or good policy. If we can wipe out the most productive fishery in the world where fish that produce millions of eggs each year, how long before rays and sharks are gone when they produce one pup per year? What scientist in their right mind would support that kind of action? The resources that are being destroyed sometimes can’t be farmed, fixed or recovered and they are necessary to healthy ecosystems.

        I wonder would you be so quick to condemn my post if I was as hunter? I read your posts and quite often I think we both have similar thoughts about issues. How do you not find it disturbing or morbid to see people use wildlife killing contests as the justification to manage wildlife or to protect economic interests. I don’t see you as the kind of person that would participate in something like that.

        You wrote, “Psychological insulting judgements are not my specialty. They seem yours though.” Rork, perhaps I’m wrong but I think I am not alone in my outrage. Nor am I alone in thinking that events that promote mass wildlife slaughter are aberrant behavior. If you object to a the use of the word psychopath, a simple definition at Wikipedia backs up my use of the word. “psycopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, lack of empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior.” People that organize events to kill as many animals as they can, the smallest or largest, or target certain species fit that definition of psychopath pretty well.

        • Nancy says:

          Thank you Louise.

          “The ocean is now widely farmed, just like terrestrial systems. Marine aquaculture farms are also often subsidized like traditional terrestrial farms. And like traditional farming, the areas that are being used are often habitats that support publicly owned resources in publicly owned lands”


        • rork says:

          You utterly failed to show that this event has any impact on these rays or ever will, or that the rays are not now overabundant, or that harm to oysters is trivial (which are at a serious low, and impacting peoples lives in the bay – I go there, and know). Instead you burned many words about other species in other places. People whose livelihoods depend on the bay feel they are being hammered by environmental degradation – and they are. Ray population may have expanded recently – as some species are loosers, others will be winners, which may do further damage to some of the loosers. That is why people may be tempted to reduce there numbers. Would I participate – no way, but that’s cause it was a contest. One of the states (VA I think) subsidizes industrial use and sales of this ray. If I were convinced they were now overabundant (I’m not – data is not very good) I might kill a few – we kill certain abundant native plants (e.g. gray dogwood) in some place where we want to help with other rare natives.

          “I think I am not alone in my outrage” – argument from popularity gets you nothing from me except derision. Lots of people think TDaP vaccines should be avoided.
          I endorsed no slogans. I don’t want to dispute everything else you said that I could dispute cause my comments would then be as long as yours. But one more:
          ” If we can wipe out the most productive fishery in the world where fish that produce millions of eggs each year, how long before rays and sharks are gone when they produce one pup per year? ” Are you seriously thinking a few bow-hunters can impact these rays as it currently stands? Are you as delusional as the derby participants themselves? If managers thought there was a problem they would not only make bowfishing for them illegal, they’d make all fishing for the illegal. You fail to get that, perhaps your outrage cause you to rationalize.
          I not only read the article, I read the very long science report it linked to, which was very good.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            That isn’t necessary, to show that it has an impact on them. I’m sure it does, but the important thing is that it is an unethical practice. “Overabundance” is no prerequisite for killing, aside from being a subjective idea.

            At least I have the functioning brain capacity to have outrage, to understand ethics, and to have a sense of shame in bad behavior. These people don’t seem to know, or care how they appear to others.

            By the way, it’s ‘loser’, not ‘looser’. As in: Every species is a loser except humans, because humans don’t have a looser grip on having to control other populations except their own, or that some have a looser interpretation of morals and ethics than some who are outraged by needless killing, and killing for fun.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Yes, it always disturbs me that the only thing protecting me from some people is the fear of the law, and laws in place, and police protection. Animals don’t have these kinds of protection, and in fact I believe society feels these kinds of contests might be a safe outlet for some of our less-than-desireable instincts. As in ‘let them get it out of their system’. Trouble is, it seems to compound. “Delare war on rays” is ridiculously stupid, little boys who never grew up.

          I do think, from the tone of this article (and the links), that the states will put an end to this useless embarrassment of a contest.

          Oysters are taking a hit due to human overfishing, acidification, oil spills, and the perception of the ocean as a human garbage dump.

      • Louise Kane says:

        Something from the Scientist on the threats to Rays….fishermen at top of list. Article warns that resource managers need to implement significant regulations to help Rays if they are to survive.

        as one last note Rork, I’ve spent time around Rays. They are amazon creatures. Gentle giants most of them are.


    • Ida Lupines says:

      It’s interesting that you post this, Louise –

      Awhile back Barb posted a link to Tom Remington’s site, where I saw our names mentioned. But, aside from the fact that we will never agree on predator management and will never change each other’s minds, I find I am curious about why they feel the way they do and have been reading. Tom himself seems like a very respectful man, and again, aside from our views on hunting and wolves, they have some interesting things to say sometimes. And hunter or not, we all love the outdoors.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        In my opinion there is a difference between a “love for the outdoors” and a respect for nature. Tom Remington is a supporter of trapping, bear bating, hunting with hounds, predator killing contests to name a few. Go back and read some of the Black Bear Blogs to get a better feeling of his values. Immer and others here have also been there.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          No, it’s not a group that’s respectful of wildlife.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          They really seem to be preaching to their own choir over there. They’ve not been that bad to me, other than a little ribbing. Which I would expect. 🙂

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Three-tenths of one percent risk? It’s ridiculous. I really do believe it is what they represent, the country as it was before it was taken over – the possibility that we have not conquered and dominated everything and everyone in this country.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Folks should read all 19 articles that Todd Wilkinson has written this year in the Jackson Hole News about the stupid, hostile, contradictory, inhumane, and politically motivated management of bison in Montana and elk in Wyoming.

  95. Immer Treue says:

    Deer counts down in many prime White tail states. Interesting and refreshing responses by members of the hunting community.


    In response to the article, I believe you will observe comments by rational hunters that bootstrap together many realistic reasons for the decline in white tail harvest, minus the usual “suspects.”

    • Louise Kane says:

      The problem I always have with understanding population dynamics is in using harvests and extrapolating data from dead animals. It never worked with fisheries and I think its a piss poor way to determine populations of other animals. anyhow back to your original point, it is good to see that the posts are not hyper focused on predation, actually amazing to see one that blamed over harvesting of does but if availability of deer is down for any extended periods of time how long do you think it will take before someone suggests that predator control must be much more aggressive to allow for more deer?

      • Immer Treue says:

        But comments hit thing like 120K deer died in Wisconsin last Winter, and just the mention of other stakeholders such as farmers, drivers/insurance companies, homeowners looking at deer as pests…
        Hunters thinking about others.

  96. Louise Kane says:

    Seal Beach rescinded its contract to kill coyotes in mobile gas chamber, but not before 4 animals were gassed to death. Thankfully they are implementing a coexistence strategy after a huge outpouring of opposition.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Marin County, California threw out USDA “Wildlife Services” about ten years ago in favor of a non-lethal coyote program, and they have had less predation at less cost to the taxpayers ever since. Let’s hope many more counties all over the U.S. get the message that killing predators is not the answer.

      • WM says:


        Not that facts have been your strong suit, but Marin County is about 800 square miles, nearly 40 percent is water. It is an urban county with a fairly large population and sophisticated animal control services. It virtually has no agriculture, and quite a bit is urban. So, telling WS to take a hike is not much a deal.

        It is the larger rural counties, with an agricultural base, often with less human population that seem to require their services, unless it is one with airports, or federal reservations like military bases.

        And, let’s be clear, roughly half their budget for some of this “killing” work comes from local/state and private cooperators.

        Scrutiny of their work should occur, and non-lethal should be tried to see if it indeed is effective. Who bears the financial and public safety risk (think airports and disease vectors here) if the lethal control stuff doesn’t work in the meantime? That is the question ranchers, farmers and health departments want to know.

        • WM says:

          That is the question…and elected officials in those counties (and some city co-operators, too) want to know.

        • Ed Loosli says:

          I do not know where you live, but clearly it is not Northern California. Almost nothing you wrote about Marin County is true. If you are interested in learning; approximately 167,000 acres in Marin are farms or ranches. This is amounts to 50 percent of the land in Marin County. Marin County threw out USDA “Wildlife Services” about ten years ago in favor of a non-lethal coyote/predator program, and they have had less predation at less cost to the taxpayers ever since.— All True!!

          • WM says:


            My point was that it is that larger,rural agricultural counties, with quite a bit of roaming livestock, or vast irrigated or non-irrigated crop lands, with low human population, and little in the way of sophisticated animal control are big users of Wildlife Services. Where I come from, that would be WA (and where I currently live), and CO, WY, ID and MT, where I have worked and recreated for the last 40 years. Typically have larger counties. Marin at 528 square miles of land area and 127k acres of land with 250,000 liberal and affluent residents (Wiki description of the area), hardly is in the same category. Most the counties that come to mind for me are 2-8 times the size of Marin. I would say that Marin, even by CA standards is among the smaller 20 percent of counties in the State, as basically a suburb of San Francisco. And, yes, I have been to Sausilito and Tiburon.

            • WM says:

              Sorry…. 127k acres of AGRICULTURAL land …

            • JB says:


              To add to WM’s comment (because it may not be obvious), folks should consider that the Marin model is essentially a Local control (decentralized) model. Now imagine what local control without federal oversight will get you in rural Idaho or Utah…

              • Ed Loosli says:

                Local control in Idaho and Utah is what they now have, and they hire the FEDERAL wildlife killers, the wrongly named “Wildlife Services” to do their killing with the FEDERAL taxpayers picking up half the tab.
                “Wildlife Services” should be severely DOWNSIZED to where they just have the responsibility of protecting airport runways from wildlife hazards. It could be re-named, “Airport Wildlife Services”.

                • Mark L says:

                  Many airport authorities have their own people doing the job now too..WS is just a cheaper option a lot of times.

        • Nancy says:

          “It is the larger rural counties, with an agricultural base, often with less human population that seem to require their services, unless it is one with airports, or federal reservations like military bases”

          Hmm….Possibly things are a changing in some of those rural areas, WM?

          Its on my calendar 🙂 I hope others not far away can also attend – SAP? Elk? Barb? Salle?


          • Yvette says:

            Dang, I wish I could go. Do you think they will post the presentations online? Could you ask them if they are willing to do so?

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Yes, it’s certainly a good counterpoint to the predator derby.

          • WM says:


            Could be a good opportunity to learn about non-lethal alternatives.

            From the agenda:

            “The Role of Efficacy, Emotions and Economics in Developing Non-Lethal Tools for Predator Management”

            Dr. Stewart Breck, Research Wildlife Bioligist, USDA APHIS/Wildlife Services/National Wildlife Research Center

            “Economics” – That is a topic Defenders and some other advocacy groups never seem to get around to addressing, notwithstanding that is sometimes a formidable obstacle for producers.

            I would surely attend if I were closer.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              I don’t know if it means that things are changing, but that some are trying. Which is a good thing. (I really had to choke that out. lol) It’s not like non-lethal management is a new thing; how long does it take people to learn? I know it ‘isn’t going to happen overnight’, but we’re going on 300-400 years now. The idea of non-lethal management has to be accepted first, they’d rather kill stuff. How do you change that irrational mindset?

              It’ll be interesting to see how many show up. Do keep us (sur)apprised.

          • Barb Rupers says:

            Too far from western Oregon for me to go. I noted one of the speakers was John Helle. I have been following the Helle sheep for quite a while. Joe was the president of the Idaho Foresters at the U of I when I was a freshman and John (Jack)was a a classmate. Their ranch near Dillon is where Carter Niemeyer started his career in the west trapping and moving golden eagles for Wildlife Services.

            • Nancy says:


              I recall it was the Helle ranch that lost close to 100 rams 3-4 years ago to wolves outside of Dillon. Will be interesting to hear his thoughts. Looking forward to Dean Peterson’s talk also. A rancher involved (in the Big Hole area) with People and Carnivores:


      • Ida Lupines says:

        Really??? I love that place. Now more than ever.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Oh, Good Lord. 🙁

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Why, why, WHYYYYYY would anybody still use that terrible, inhumane method?????? We are the most sadistic species on the planet.

  97. Nancy says:

    So many natural signals and no one paying attention….


  98. Yvette says:

    I think I like this guy. Ron Kagan, Director of the Detroit Zoo and his stance on wolf hunting.


    • Ed Loosli says:

      Thank you Louise:
      Yes, Anja Heister is fighting the good fight, as the one of the leaders of the group “In Defense of Animals”. She is based in Montana.

  99. Ida Lupines says:

    Yes, that study was appalling. I guess all human needs trump those of animals, in this case human knowledge, and with very little restraint. It reminds me of little boys saying “I wonder what would happen if we did this?” We really objectify animals ‘used’ in studies.

    Speaking of which, how could anyone condone that contest of shooting rays? Why does it matter the abundance of them – why should a bunch of half-wits get their jollies killing mating rays (and any further generations) without a legitimate reason?

    Marin County – I’ve always said that if there was anywhere I could live happily outside of my home of New England, it would be Marin County and San Francisco, my husband’s neck of the woods. It’s Muir Woods country.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      It’s the luck of the draw when a man shoots it and it’s a female: A lot of the times before they get to the scale, the pups are already coming out,” said Bowe. “They try to retain the pups inside to get more weight.”

      What kind of people could find this fun? The photo was one of the more ghastly things I have ever seen. Why isn’t this stopped? Same excuses too – ‘decimating my oysters!’ Well, there’s a lot of human acitivy decimating a lot of things in the ocean.

    • Professor Sweat says:

      Back home in IL, this was the response whenever a wandering cougar was found. It was frustrating, as I now live in Los Angeles where there are wild cougars living within the city limits without conflict.

      They’re protected in IL along with wolves and black bears under the state’s wildlife code now, but it’s not like there is much habitat for them there in the sea of corn.

  100. Ida Lupines says:

    Here’s a great piece from that wonderful High Country News. I