Bitterbrush, arrowleaf balsamroot and great mule deer country. Copyright Ralph Maughan

Bitterbrush, sagebrush, arrowleaf balsamroot and great mule deer country. Copyright Ralph Maughan

It is time to create a new page of “Interesting Wildlife News.”     Please put your wildlife news in the comments below. Do not post copyrighted material, and here is the link to the “old” news of April 18, 2015.


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.

515 Responses to Do you have interesting wildlife news? May 11, 2015 edition

  1. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Massive census to record Amur tiger numbers takes place in the Far East

  2. Ida Lupine says:

    Fingers crossed that there’s improvement!!!!

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Thank you for the link, Ethan. We have written several stories about this new kind of ag gag law.

  3. Ralph Maughan says:

    The Wyoming law that criminalizes data gathering done to give to state or federal government was meant solely to deter the Western Watersheds Project. Debate records and coverage by the media make that perfectly clear.

    This violates the U.S. Constitution in a number of instances, but in particular free speech. So does Idaho’s ag-gag law that was passed in 2014 and recently seemed to draw the ire of federal judge Lin Winmill in a Boise hearing. Winmill did say it would take him some time to rule.

    Despite the huge overreach of the law in Idaho, no one has been prosecuted under the law. That means to me the law was intended to chill, to deter the examination of agriculture in Idaho, not to prosecute.

    In Wyoming, it was aimed not just at WWP, but its Wyoming employee, Jonathan Ratner. I told Ratner he must be doing something good when he got a corrupt state government to pass a law against him.

    • Yvette says:

      The overreach of the WY law is just scary. On many levels in our country I’m starting to feel like some are trying to build the Berlin Wall.

      I do have a couple of questions. The first being how is the WY DEQ staying in compliance with state water quality standards? How are they approaching the 303d list of streams not meeting numeric criteria for a specified pollutant? The next question is what role has Region 8 EPA WQS Division played in the approach of WY’s new law on collection of citizen data, and if there are streams not meeting standards if the state isn’t listing those streams is EPA allowing this?

    • Louise Kane says:

      gives you an inkling of how far out there these western states are and some damn good reasons for fighting state acquisition of any federal lands.

      Western Watersheds thank you for the work you do to illuminate the point source pollution issues related to the livestock industry.

    • WM says:

      WY has its own spin on the alleged “ag gag law,” which its governor says it is not. He says the focus is on trespassing, and ultimately, if you look at it close enough, a Constitutional issue of an “illegal search” by a private citizen trespassing on private property then turning the data over to a public agency for enforcement of possibly criminal conduct. This kind of law presents a very wide range of legal issues, even including deterring industrial espionage, in which someone unauthorized to come on your property takes pictures of perhaps proprietary processes and steals the technology for their own financial gain.

      • Cody Coyote says:

        As much as I despise the Wyoming ” Data Trespass” law, the Slate article gets its interpretation only half right. SF0012 as written and passed applies only to incursions onto/thru private land outside City limits. It does not apply to state or federal lands. Anyone who wants to do citizen science or take samples from public lands is still free to proceed if they do not trespass or transgress private property. The Slate author didn’t pick up on that part. In fact, exisiting Wyoming law concerning Trespass as legally defined( both simple and malicious ) already adequately covered what this Ag Gag Law made such a grunt over.

        But – further down in the SF0012 law are two very disturbing clauses that prohibit the use of any evidence gathered if trespass occurred. It nulls and voids the data , no matter how accurate or pertinent that data is. It disallows it as evidence, and criminalizes any attempt to use it, pretty much anywhere in an official or judicial capacity. In fact, it specifically calls for the expungement of said data.

        That’s the part I have severe Constitutional issue with…. throwing the data baby out with the trespass bathwater. Data is data; truth is truth. It is free speech and it is protected—except in Wyoming when it’s not.

        – here’s the relevant text of the law :
        No resource data collected in violation of
        this section is admissible in evidence in any civil, criminal or
        administrative proceeding, other than a prosecution
        for violation of this section or a civil action against the
        Resource data collected in violation of this section in the possession of any governmental entity as defined by W.S. 1-39-
        103(a)(i) shall be expunged by the entity from all files and data bases, and it shall not be considered in determining any agency action


        Make your own case.

        Mine is: Wyoming once again proves it is anti-science anti-enviro and the foundations of its statehouse are firmly rooted in the 19th century. Once again our dim bulb citizen legislators have cow-towwed to the Stockgrowers and their ilk by writing them some special rules.

        As Ralph noted, the Wyoming folly was a direct precipitate of what already occurred in Idaho, yet to date not a single prosecution has occurred there. So what’s the point of it all ?

        • WM says:


          So are you saying Constitutional “free speech,” trumps “illegal search and seizure” and private property rights?

          A law enforcement officer cannot come on private property to gather things {illegal search – unless there is probable cause or a valid search warrant signed by a judge who will ask questions about why and what they collect) to do the things you want a private citizen to do without any of these restrictions. In some states a public health officer can come on private property without probable cause, and often without a judge issued warrant. It’s complicated.

        • WM says:

          ++So what’s the point of it all ?++

          Deterrence effect?

        • Ed Loosli says:

          I think the case that started this new ag-gag law involving Western Watersheds Project, took place on PUBLIC LAND. The state said that because of the checker-board land ownership between federal and private lands, the data collector must have crossed (trespassed) on private land to get to the public land. No actual evidence was offered that this was the case.

    • Elk375 says:

      Turn 62 and one gets a lifetime pass for $10.00. That is not the best deal going as your years are statistically numbered.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      What a wonderful bargain we have…. In Kenya and Tanzania, entry fees for their national parks, reserves and community-conservancies, range from about $40 to $100 Per Person Per Day – and there are extra fees for the vehicle.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        And I’d gladly pay it, and then some. Look at what you’re getting!

    • Cody Coyote says:

      Yes, my gateway community of Cody and its tourist moguls are whining loudly about his lurch upwards in Yellowstone gate fees. Why , hopw dare they ! All the way up to $ 30 for three days in Y-stone and a separate similar fee if you visit its conjoined twin Grand Teton. That’s highway robbery and p[unitive fee , right ?

      I introduce Exhibit A: the country rock band The Eagles is playing at the Metra in Billings Montana on June 2. The cheapest ticket price available today for that 3-hour show is in the upper bleachers for a mere $ 115.00. The best seats, in the orchestra pit directly in front of the stage, are $ 1150.00 ( ten times as much , equivalent to 350 passes into Yellowstone for a total of 1050 days visitation ).

      Exhibit B: all day ticket to Disneyland , admit one Adult, is presently $ 92.00

      • Elk375 says:

        A one day ski pass at Jackson Hole or Sun Valley is in excess of $100 a day and a day pass at Red Lodge is in excess of $50. I do not golf but green fees on mediocre courses are in excess of $30. The Golden Eagle Pass is $80 and that is good for one year everywhere in the National Park Service.

      • sleepy says:

        Big difference between Yellowstone and Disneyworld–we own Yellowstone and we don’t own Disneyworld.

        I have nothing against reasonable fees for park admission, but imho to use third world nations like Kenya as a basis of comparison–“hey, compared to Tanzania, we’re pretty good”–doesn’t mean much to me.

        Beginning with Clinton, financial support shifted from general tax revenues to user fees, and continued with BushObama. It’s a market based approach favored by both dems and repubs and certainly by big business.

        Like market rationales in the past, it ends up destroying the commons. The more “users” pay, the more influence special interests will have. Charge a $500/yr user fee for mountain bikes in Yellowstone?

        Because markets.

  4. Ida Lupine says:

    It’s still the best deal going! 🙂

  5. Ida Lupine says:

    RCMP and conservation officers confirmed that O’Connor’s injuries were consistent with a black bear attack. A 300-pound bear, believed to be responsible for the attack, was shot to death by a Mountie. A lone wolf that had also been at the scene was also killed.

    I just love (not) the fact that they just shot the wolf for being there. 🙁 Now I feel even worse about that mother and cubs trying to negotiate her way across the bridge in Yellowstone. People can never be wrong.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Jeez – if I’m ever out in wildlife country and something happens to me, I’m pinning a note/waiver to my jacket “Please Do Not Kill Grizzly/Wolf/Mountain Lion. I Accept All Risk”. When you go to these areas, people shouldn’t be surprised that there is danger. The poor wolf was shot just for being a wolf.

    • Susan Armstrong says:

      After this gruesome tragedy, Jami Wallace, the young man’s fiancee, shows an amazingly generous attitude toward wild predators. Ms. Wallace seems to realize the bear was not a responsible agent as a human murderer would be. This was a piece of extreme bad luck in the face of natural forces, like being killed by lightning or a rockfall – a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      HuffPost: “A lone wolf that had also been at the scene was also killed because at the time, officers didn’t know what had caused O’Connor’s death.”

      The National Post reported: “A wolf was also shot by officers earlier at the scene, as they were unsure what kind of animal had killed O’Connor. They later spotted the bear.”

      In retrospect it was likely a needless killing – sadly they didn’t know that at the time.

      (2 days before, Ms. Wallace had posted a video to FB of a wolf sniffing around the campsite while they were inside the motorhome. I haven’t seen it but I am guessing that the wolf was hoping to find something edible the latest set of campers had left around.)

  6. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Alaska’s Wolves Face Hunter-Driven Decline, Admits Park Officials
    For five years now, there has been a notable decline in the number of wolf sightings in Denali National Park and Preserve. Now a new report from the National Park Service (NPS) is suggesting that wolf hunting could be to blame, as there are few limitations on when a wolf can be killed by a hunter in the Alaskan wilderness.

  7. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Asiatic lions face danger in ‘overcrowded’ Gir, some of them need relocation
    I must admit that for a long time I was not aware, that there are indeed Lions in India. First time I became aware was when I got hold on a book about the Asiatic Lion in a Mumbay book shop.
    Seems the number of those Asiatic Lions has significantly grown over the last years.
    Now they face a habitat problem – the Gir Region is to small for this fast growing population

  8. Mareks Vilkins says:

    change is possible, after all

    Hoppe, Cats Meat Seller, London, 1933

    fresh daily

    • Mareks Vilkins says:

      Long time Minnesota wolf expert David Mech, keynote speaker by Isle Royale scientist Rolf Peterson, Dr. Tim Van Deelen from the University of Wisconsin, current large carnivore specialist for the DNR Dave MacFarland, along with retired wolf professionals Adrian Weydeven and Dick Thiel. Other wildlife managers from Michigan, Minnesota and the Province of Ontario provided presentations to attendees as well.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Thanks Mareks:
      At least the researchers are telling us who the real killers are:

      “In both study areas, humans were the largest cause of adult deer mortality. In the north, hunting accounted for 43% (+ 8% poaching) of all deer deaths-or double all remaining factors. Starvation accounted for 9%, coyotes 8%, wolves 7% and road kill at 6%. The farmland zone, 53% of deer kills were attributed to hunting, followed by deer/car collisions at 17%, starvation 4%, coyote 2%.”

      • Harley says:

        I’m wondering how hunting can attribute more than wolves or coyotes since there is a season that deer can be hunted yet coyotes and wolves hunt year round? Doesn’t that seem kinda backwards? I don’t know, I read that and that’s what popped into my head. I could be wrong!

        • Ed Loosli says:

          It makes sense once you realize that wolves and coyotes do not kill many deer in relation to the huge numbers killed by hunters, which is why human predation on deer is the main factor.

        • Immer Treue says:

          MN wolves kill on average 60,000 deer peryear. Hunters, this year < 150,000 during archery, rifle, and black powder seasons. This stretches from ~ mid Spetember to mid December. During the 2000's hunter successes where well over 200,000 per year, as we had a succession of mild winters and increased habitat due to the 1999 blowdown, prescribed burns in concert with mild winters.

          Manage for high deer yield, and there will be more wolves, killing more deer. Moose have also suffered due to this management technique. More deer, more wolves, more predation on moose, plus Brainworm and liver flukes from deer.

        • Barb Rupers says:

          Compare the number of wolves killing deer out of necessity to stay alive versus the number of hunters doing the same for sport. How many hunters do you feel could not survive the year without the deer they kill?

  9. Ida Lupine says:

    For those of you who have Pivot television station:

  10. monty says:

    QUESTION: I have read that 90% of the moose population in Minnesota has declined due to climate warming and the abundance of ticks that are thriving in warm weather. The ticks are eating the moose alive. This is also true for parts of Canada. Would the ticks, also, be killing other mammals? And is this a fate for other areas? In the southern part of US, deer and other mammals cope with ticks. Are the ticks in the northern colder regions different from those found in the south?

    • TC says:

      Dermacentor albipictus, the winter tick. Ghost moose. Keep reading, the information is out there. The tick has a wide geographic distribution, and ghost moose occur sporadically across its range, including in the Rocky Mountains of the US. D. albipictus will parasitize other hosts, but we do not yet recognize it as a cause of significant morbidity/mortality in elk, deer, etc. There are several theories why this is so, none fully substantiated. Moose face many challenges anymore, this is but one.

  11. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Loch Ness Monster? You otter know better, says wildlife expert
    “A WILDLIFE expert claims his snap of an otter proves the animals are a common cause of Nessie sightings.
    The image was was taken by Dr Jonathan Wills and shows three humps in the water similar to many representations of the world-famous Loch Ness Monster.”

  12. Gary Humbard says:

    The point that Mr. Wilkinson was making is that wolves have never had and are not now having devastating effects on livestock and elk. Even when ranchers have confirmed wolf predations they are fully compensated (unlike the ~97% of total animals lost due to natural causes).

    Wolves are an easy target for some politicians to show their constituents they are “working for them”. Instead of spending their time on wolves they should work to solve the countries big problems like reducing the debt, protecting the environment, homeland security, fair trade, law enforcement relations etc. and leave the wolves to the scientists. But that would take hard work and have to be bi-partisan.

    • WM says:


      Wilkinson’s point is not lost on me. However, just how many wolves do NRM or WGL states have to kill each and every year to keep them at the levels they are now (Wilkinson ignores this aspect). And, let us not forget capital costs/O &M costs to livestock producers, effects on hunting if they don’t keep them at current levels in the NRM about 1,800-2,000 (he conveniently ignores that aspect as well). Just remember the research shows a wolf will eat between 12-23 ungulates between October and April, and a few more the rest of the year, many of which are young of the year calves and fawns of deer, elk and pronghorn during that time of year. So, I’m not ready to buy into the idea wolves have no impact, because not all ungulates they eat are old, infirmed or injured, as some who want to convince us they are.

      I am with you, though, in saying Congress (and federal administrative agencies) need to focus on things other than wolves. One way to do that is delist in places where it makes sense – NRM + WA and OR, and WGL states. Nationally, other than those places, ask states if they want some excess from other places. I’d start with CA and CO and the Dakotas- do they want any?

      • Nancy says:

        “However, just how many wolves do NRM or WGL states have to kill each and every year to keep them at the levels they are now (Wilkinson ignores this aspect)”

        Not to butt in here WM but:

        • Ed Loosli says:

          Nancy +1
          Thank you for reminding us that the best science tells us that wolves do NOT need to be “managed” by humans. And neither do coyotes for that matter.

        • WM says:

          The question that begs for an answer is, “What is the numerical difference between wolf social carrying capacity and human tolerance capacity, including impacts to prey base and putative cost to livestock producers?”

          Wolf density, from what I can surmise, will never be allowed to be as high as they can tolerate each other. Conclusion: wolves will be managed for numbers and range by humans. So much for your prognostication, Ed. Probably applies to coyotes too.

          • Yvette says:

            Who is going to manage the humans? We’ve reached our social carrying capacity in some parts of the world, and here in rich America we’ve certainly dwindling our natural resources. Some might even argue we’ve reached our carrying capacity for water in the dry West.

            ‘Punitive cost to livestock producers”? That is a tired argument. Given the facts on livestock lost to poor animal husbandry and lightning strikes, to continue to hammer on about wolves’ financial impact on livestock is like choking on gnat while trying to swallow an elephant.

            • WM says:


              “putative” was the word I used [not punitive]:


              1) commonly accepted or supposed;
              2) assumed to exist or to have existed

              So, again those are capital costs (think fencing of various types and guard animals of various types, turbo-fladry on wire with posts, noise makers); operation and maintenance (stringing fladry maybe daily, repairing fence, digging refuse pits and rounding up the stuff to fill it, more herders/range riders, labor and transportation to and from a remote site to check on stock, feeding and vet care for the guard animals). And, of course, if they make these expenditures and wolf problems grow as populations grow, who absorbs the cost?

              gnat and elephant:

              Phooey! And, quite honestly I don’t expect you to understand this, just like many here who have never run a business of any kind. If a business is running at a net profit margin of say 12% with known risks that have been static for forty years, and cost of dealing with new state/federal sponsored predator policy whittles it down to say 9- 10% (even if only perceived as such), it is not an “old” or “irrelevant” argument to the producer. That is what some here don’t want to understand, or if smart enough to figure it out, dismiss it. And, if it weren’t a real economic issue then Defenders and some other advocacy groups ought to get some experts in a room, do the economic studies and if it is a phantom issue, make it go away.

              It is one thing to do a PR stunt to send a couple college students to follow a herd of sheep (at no cost to the producer) for a couple months. Take a bunch of pictures and talk about how great this is, and no wolf problems. It is quite another to have to pay for this additional labor, dogs and their training, vet bills and whatever for as long as your business continues. Just why would ranchers roll over and take it, if they could make influences otherwise?

              • Nancy says:

                “Take a bunch of pictures and talk about how great this is, and no wolf problems”

                Probably why there were no wolf problems, WM. Someone else picking up the slack and being on site 🙂

                Don’t you find it rather interesting that the price of a cow, has more than doubled in the last decade, yet the rest of us continue to pick up the tab (in taxes) for predator control, here in the west?

                • WM says:

                  So, Nancy, you don’t think producer costs have increased (inflation will account for some) as well? And, don’t get sanctimonious about “picking up predator costs in the West.” The same has been true for agriculture throughout the country as subsidies of various types are also available to almond farmers, rice and corn growers and pig and turkey farmers of the South and Midwest.

                  I just love the distorted conversation of critics talking about the millions of wildlife WS kills every year. Those same mud slingers don’t bother to point out a lot (majority?) are starlings at feedlots, skunks in somebody’s chickencoop or safety risk birds near airports. And, the service may be specifically requested by a federal agency or a co-operator who pays half or more of the cost for removal. Sorry. I’m not buying the horse poopey you are selling today.

                • Nancy says:

                  Not nitpicking here WM. I live in what’s referred to as “wolf country” Been here since wolves were reintroduced back to their native lands, 20 years ago.

                  Can count on half of one hand, the times I’ve actually seen or heard wolves even though I’m surrounded by cattle ranches.

                  The hysteria over wolves back on the landscape, has tampered down over the years by the fact that they are not devastating other wildlife and aren’t causing ranchers to go out of business.

                  IMHO, hunters actually having to go out now and look for prey animals (not as domestic as they once were) and ranchers actually have to be more responsible for their product (livestock) was a good thing.

                  Going to be interesting when grizzles, still on the list, fan out to areas they once roamed and have to deal with that tiny percentage, who dictate how public lands and wilderness areas ought to be run.

              • Ed Loosli says:

                Arguments emphasizing economics for not protecting rare species like the wolf illustrates why keeping them on the Endangered Species Act is so important. The well being of a species is what matters under the ESA, so by law, science rules and economics is not a priority consideration.

                • WM says:


                  Significantly, important words you miss in the ESA -those species which are at “risk of extinction.” Wolves in the NRM and in the WGL are not, and the numbers prove it in spades, including the ones that are killed off every year. Some folks want to make the ESA a predator protection act, which it is not.

                • Ida Lupine says:

                  Totally agree, Ed – that’s the crux of the matter. We still haven’t moved beyond what caused them to become nearly extirpated in the first place. Instead of learning from our past mistakes, we’re doubling down and this is what makes all of this ‘constant gardening’ approach to the environment all the more troubling.

              • Yvette says:

                The 2010 USDA Cattle loss report states there was a total of 3,992,900 cattle lost. 8,100 of those losses were attributed to wolves.

                Only 5.5% is attributed to all predator related losses, of which 3.7% is due to wolves.

                1,055,000 cattle were lost because of respiratory problems. Weather alone was responsible for 489,000 losses.

                Yes, when anyone that continues to yammer on about the big bad wolf being such a menace to cattle when the respiratory problems kill 130 times more than wolves then the elephant/gnat meme is a perfect description.

                If a rancher improved their respiratory losses by a small percent they would balance losses due to all predators.

                • WM says:

                  You know Yvette, your comment is intellectually dishonest. If you want to compare losses from wolves as some sort of percentage of overall losses it needs to be ONLY WHERE WOLVES HAVE ACCESS TO COWS or SHEEP. It affects individual operators in specific areas of specific states where wolves are. Christ some people are dense!

                • Yvette says:

                  From my post:
                  Only 5.5% is attributed to all predator related losses, of which 3.7% is due to wolves.

                  WM, I don’t have a word to describe what it is with you and the thorn you have about wolves. Dishonesty is not it, but if there is a word for willful and intentional failure to accept the truth and facts when they are right in front of you then that is the word.

                  Enough. It is pointless and a waste of time to attempt to have an honest discussion with you on this particular subject. I believe you are blind when it comes to wolf predation on cattle and the true costs of those tiny losses. Willfully and intentionally blind on this subject.

                  I respect your opinion and knowledge on many issues. This is not one of them.

          • Nancy says:

            The question that begs for an answer is, “What is the numerical difference between wolf social carrying capacity and human tolerance capacity, including impacts to prey base and putative cost to livestock producers?”

            Depends where WM and as far as impacts on prey base and livestock (especially out here in the west) the “perceived” impacts too often lack credibility.

            The favorite prey (like elk for instance) are up in most regions around Montana and depredations on livestock are down from previous years.

            Is it because the trapping & hunting of wolves had an effect or like a recent study shows (can’t find it right off hand) destroying families like wolves, coyotes, etc. will only increase their populations and, add inexperienced members of their population to mix.

            The Ninemile Wolves by Rick Bass,


            perfect example of wolves that could and did, settle into a ranching community, till they lost vital members of their pack.

            Fact is, our own species can’t get a grip on what the loss of family members will do to the rest of the family/community (poverty comes to mind) yet we have no problem manipulating other species and their families, to benefit a few.

          • rork says:

            “Wolf density, from what I can surmise, will never be allowed to be as high as they can tolerate each other.”
            You know there’s been no wolf increase since 2011 in Michigan’s U.P., so quit saying never. I admit the barriers provided by the lakes makes it easier here, and we haven’t faced the real deal yet (wolves in lower MI).

            • WM says:

              How many “problem wolves” are removed from the Upper Peninsula each year either by the state, feds, or somebody doing a little 3S? I will stand with the statement as written, and my source for such a statement is one in writing previously made by Dr. Dave Mech.

              • WM says:



                And then there are the 3S matters that go undiscovered and unreported. Same is true in parts of ID, MT and WY.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  In private conversation with two MN DNR officials and open forum question and answer session with USFWS officer, who’s name I have inconveniently misplaced, concurred that on average 10% of MN wolves are killed illegally each year.

                  I would not think that MI, or for that matter WI are any different.

                • rork says:

                  It is indisputable that we in MI are the better hunters, marksmen and outlaws. 😉

                  I should have added to my other comment below: WM, you may be correct, and I may be wrong. Did not want to sound like it’s proven or that I must be right.

              • rork says:

                Argument from authority and argument from invisible data.
                One hard data point I know (our DNR is not so transparent) is that between January 27, 2012, and June 30, 2013, 73 wolf deaths were recorded by the state, about half from legal action, 20% from poaching, and 20% from cars. In order for people to be the cause of flat wolf numbers you will need to postulate a degree of wolf poaching that far exceeds anyone else’s estimates.

        • Yvette says:

          +++++ Nancy.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      +1 Gary!

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        one should point out that half of federal lands is operated by big corporations for whom a loss of one cow is not such big deal.

        there were 6.26M cattle in NRM in 2013, with 137 wolf kills. From 1987 to 2013 wolves have killed 1 990 cattle in NRM and 893 livestock producers were paid compensations by Defenders of Wildlife.

        Elk is much bigger troublemaker for ranchers so they should be thankful for wolves who eat at least some of those troublemakers, imo.

        but what about this ‘primer’ of the economics of ranching?

        • Mareks Vilkins says:

          Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West

          PART V
          Ranching Economics and Livestock Subsidies: The True Cost of a Hamburger

          • Yvette says:

            I fear WM refuses to accept the meaningless numbers (there’s really no statistical analysis; it’s simple division and/or ratios like we learned in grade school) since they hold information based on numbers and facts rather than an emotional response from all of those who fail to be wolf moderates.

            Again, only 5.5% of all cattle losses can be attributed to any predator. Those are the numbers and facts gathered by the USDA National Agricultural Statistical Service.

            Anyone with the time and desire could probably find a state by state break-out of cattle losses by category. My guess is it’s available. Cull the wolf states and compare the percentages of losses due to wolves to all other predators then figure out the predator losses compared to non-predator. My best guess is there will still be a significantly higher ratio of non-predator related losses than predator losses.

            Additionally, if ranchers were to improve their loss rate due to animal husbandry they could more than balance the losses due to wolves and all predators.

            • Ed Loosli says:

              Yvette +1:
              I think some of these private commercial cattle owners are stuck in the, “I’ll do my ranching any way I want, just like my Grandfather did… We will collect our welfare, we will shoot anything that gets in our way… Why change when the government takes care of most of our problems, especially regarding predators.”

              • WM says:


                You could probably say the same for the guy who grows almonds (federal water projects by BOR, extension service technical help paid in part by the feds usually thru a land grant university like UC Davis in CA), corn (CRP, crop supports, below market disaster insurance), tobacco (subsidies up thru 2014 anyway), and all the farmers/ranchers receive subsidized services from APHIS/Wildlife Services to deal with invasive plants, insects and all the various types of wildlife that are killed by those nasty folks at WS. Some even receive taxpayer help to design and pay for water delivery systems like center pivot irrigation, or lined ditches.

                “Welfare rancher” has become a convenient handle some have used to single a particular group of recipients, and not the whole group. So when you talk about collecting “welfare” you need to look a little closer to home. There are lots of subsidies out there and it takes many forms while given to many agricultural and non-agricultural businesses.

                And, if you don’t think some of these other businesses do a little self-help you are pretty damned naïve. Don’t you have a lot of water theft right now in CA? Wonder how many of those almond farmers and golf courses are playing by the rules?

                • Nancy says:

                  “There are lots of subsidies out there and it takes many forms while given to many agricultural and non-agricultural businesses”

                  Ooohhh, say can you see…………


                • Ed Loosli says:

                  You’re right about all the subsidies out there for Big Ag, not just welfare-ranchers. And about California water for agriculture, unfortunately, there are no rules — Agriculture in CA can use all the water they can pipe in or pump up. The only restrictions Gov. Brown has put in place regarding water use are for urban areas and their human populations.

                • WM says:


                  It is not just “Big Ag” that gets the subsidies. It is small farmers/ranchers, too, who get it. There is an entire network of Natural Resource Conservation Districts (federally created entities all across the US) that is involved in the administration of this political gravy. That is why it so popular in the agriculture sector – and difficult to get rid of.


        • WM says:


          I see you suffer from some of the same frailties as Yvette, including quotation of meaningless statistics.

          There is simply no risk of livestock depredation from wolves where there are no wolves.

          By the way, how many wolves were in the NRM in 1987 or even up until about 1997 -total?

          Sort of like there is no risk of a snow storm on the beaches of Hawaii, so there is no need to consider costs of snow removal.

          Now, if you break down how many cows there are in a county or portion of a county in a given year where wolves might travel the risk becomes more interesting and the statistics more meaningful. Let’s also think about the future where wolves might ultimately go as their numbers and range increase. The statistics may even get more interesting, as greater costs are expended for preventive measures by more producer operations which may be at risk. This is because now the producer in that “at risk” location must now deal with the potential for production losses, and/or incur increased costs for capital outlays or increased operations and maintenance costs. You know, adding the range rider, getting some big friggn’ dogs wolves are afraid of, and maybe even two or three in case a whole pack shows up to work over the herd.

          And, dang they ain’t no lessons on how to deal with wulfs or the additional costs of havin’ ’em around on the Montana cowboy college website.

          • Mareks Vilkins says:

            WM, it’s not a secret that you are control-freak and your understanding of ‘intellectual honesty’ a bit tacky

            1) maybe explanation is exactly because ranchers don’t consider wolves such a threat to even start to bother about prevention costs

            2)as you are constantly droping that statement [“There is simply no risk of livestock depredation from wolves where there are no wolves”] you are the one who should provide detailed statistics about cattle numbers & wolf depredation on a county / wolf range level

            3)when Defenders stopped to provide compensation fund The US Congress stepped in and created 5 year & $5M Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Project to cover both wolf kills and nonlethal methods implementation. For 2013 MT received $70K, ID $80K and WY $34K for depredation compensation.

            For nonlethal prevention projects MT got $100K, ID $50K.

            It seems there are not so many ranches to even give a try to get money from feds to implement nonlethal methods. So you are control-freak who tries to be more Catholic than the Pope, imo.

            • Mareks Vilkins says:

              article on 60 pages + lots of references

              Trampling the Public Trust

              Debra L. Donahue

              University of Wyoming College of Law, Laramie, Wyoming.

              This Article derives from presentations given in 2009 at the University of Montana Rural Law Symposium and the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation’s 14th Institute for Natural Resources Law Teachers


              Livestock production is a chief contributor to many significant
              and intractable environmental problems. This Article examines the causal role of livestock (especially beef) production in global climate change, predator control in the western United States, and winter elk feeding in Wyoming. It argues that ending livestock grazing on western public lands is a cost effective first step for dealing with these problems and is readily achievable under existing law. Removing livestock would lead to improved
              watershed conditions and make reintroduction of predators politically feasible, which would promote further recovery of landscapes impacted by native ungulate populations. Ending public-land grazing would facilitate the closure of (arguably unlawful) elk feedgrounds, which contribute to
              unnaturally high elk populations and promote the spread of diseases. Closing the feedgrounds would improve conditions on these sites and slow the spread of disease. Collectively, these measures would promote ecosystem restoration, which would enhance prospects for coping with climate change.

              • Mareks Vilkins says:

                and then of course there’s Mike Hudak

                Mike Hudak’s Western Turf Wars — the book you need to understand how governmental mismanagement of ranching is destroying America’s public lands with your tax dollars.

                Mike Hudak’s Remarks
                At Speak for Wolves: Yellowstone 2014

            • WM says:


              Control freak – that’s rich.

              States which have wolves – have the data on wolf caused injuries/mortality. Ag Census information is available for how many cows/sheep there are by county. I’m not the one making an assertion about mortality that is grossly out of context, so think I’ll pass.

              Here’s the thing about the $5M Demonstration project money. It is split among 10 states over 5 years, a million a year. There is no real money there, and likely little accountability on how it is spent. You heard any results about what has been or is being done with it? It is political grease meant to silence the squeaky wheels.

              Meaningful use might have been to give it to APHIS/WS or FWS in conjunction with a university or two for a couple multi-year comprehensive studies and field trial demonstration projects (with participation from Defenders and others). Purpose: Get the long term economic impacts to ranch operators in wolf country. And, by the way, Mareks I have no predisposition to which way the numbers come out. But, intuitively I do think the incremental cost increase may well be more expensive than some here believe it is. That is why Defenders and CBD aren’t behind it.

              As for Professor Donahue at U of Wyoming, I respect her work, and I even agree with her on many points. Heck, we were even trained or influenced by some of the same people. However, I think her reliance on the work of Ripple, et al (as stated in the paper you link to)is perhaps misplaced, at least for the present state of work on “trophic cascade.” I don’t disagree with her on the impacts of public lands grazing policy. But, that is only part of the huge puzzle that is the 19th Century natural resources exploitation economics of parts of the West. It’s complicated.

              Hudak – Pppffffttt. Here is an interview of this tofu turkey on vegan radio – and now he’s peeing on the Sierra Club for its public lands grazing policy.

              Hey, speaking of complicated, how’s the Greece thing with the EU working out for ya – your socialist views and all? The EU countries want the Greece problem gone (it is embarrassing), and then are willing to put together an aid package when their economy really goes down the tube (partially the result of bad government and lax tax collection from rich individual and company deadbeats causing them to default on huge government loans).

              • Yvette says:

                Greece? Nice attempt at a switch-a-roo. It’s a tactic used when people know their argument won’t hold. Save that BS for people on the witness stand.

                Again, only 5.5% of cattle losses were due to ANY predator, and of that 5.5%, 3.7% were attributed to wolves. That leaves 94.5% of the remainder cattle losses being for non-predator related causes. Given that 28% of losses are due to respiratory problems, ranchers can decrease that loss by finding the primary cause and instilling methods that improve recovery. Factor in most of the other non-predator related losses to improve survival and/or recovery and ba-da-boom, they’ll still come out ahead. All they have to do is improve their non-predator loss rate by 3.7% to break even. It’s just not that damned complicated. But then, what would the rancher whine about if the big bad woof fails to huff and puff and blow his little house down? I guess our corporatism government won’t reimburse for respiratory losses.

              • Mareks Vilkins says:


                2014 – 35 cattle, 6 sheep,1 horse

                2013 – 50 cattle, 24 sheep, 3 horses, 1 goat

                In 2013, Beaverhead County livestock producers received $22,170 for 14 cattle and one sheep death.

                The next highest payout went to Lewis and Clark County producers who received $11,200 for seven sheep killed by wolves.

                Beaverhead County is Montana’s largest county by area, covering 5,542 square miles. Approx. 2/3 of the land area contained in Beaverhead County is comprised of public lands, including Beaverhead Deer Lodge National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and State of Montana Lands.

                Beaverhead County is the top cattle-producing county in Montana, making agriculture one of the staples of the county’s economy. Beaverhead County is also home to Barretts Minerals, one of the world’s largest talc mines. Gold and precious gemstones are also mined in Beaverhead County.

                Beaverhead County Statistics: (2007 Census)
                A total of 431 Farms and Ranches combine to cover over 1.25 million acres, with an average farm / ranch size being 2,875 acres. Since Beaverhead County is home to some of the largest Farms and Ranches in the State of Montana, the median farm / ranch size is approx. 230 acres.

                Beaverhead County is home to over 137,000 head of Cattle and Calves, 14,000+ Sheep, and 2,200+ Horses.

                so 35-50 cattle out of 140K cattle is a huge burden

                to get more revenues maybe they should be more worried about the General Mining Act of 1872 – and not about few cows lost to wolves.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  Beaverhead county (2012)

                  Cattle & calves – 153.65K
                  Sheep & lambs – 16.19K
                  Horses – 2.36K

                • WM says:


                  I would not be surprised to learn there is a little 3S going on there than makes it on a summary chart somewhere. There are few identified wolf packs in the area, if you look on the FWS pack summary map. Some around the fringes, though. Could be some of that is habitat related, though. Beaverhead County only has a population of about 13,000 people. Wouldn’t be a bit surprised if you went out there and mentioned the word “fladry” while showing them a sample, that you would be found the next morning wrapped in it, with a little tar and feather frosting and wolf tail stuffed in your mouth.

                  They did have the first “non-lethal wolf/predator damage management” workshop for livestock operators and landowners in Dillon last January. Wonder how that went?


                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  in Beaverhead County (2013) ranchers lost 14 cattle and one sheep out of 153.65K Cattle & calves and 16.19K sheep & lambs

                  bottom line – huge risk for local livestock producers

                  in Montana Beaverhead is consistently among those counties where’s the highest wolf depredation, often closely trailed by Madison, Glacier and Lewis and Clark counties.

                  There are few identified wolf packs in the area, if you look on the FWS pack summary map

                  average dispersal distance for the wolves in the NRM is ~60 miles but Beaverhead’s area is ~5.5K sq mi – that is equal to 75 x 75 mi.

                  “if you went out there and mentioned the word “fladry” while showing them a sample, that you would be found the next morning wrapped in it, with a little tar and feather frosting and wolf tail stuffed in your mouth.”

                  well, first of all I wouldn’t mention fladry as I assume that they really don’t care about wolf depredation. But I certainly wouldn’t hide my views about wolf issue if it would pop-up in conversation. And don’t judge by yourself – I have streetfighting experience and I’m not shy to apply my know-how.

              • Mareks Vilkins says:

                and $1M per year is sufficient amount of money for wolf depredation + revenues from wolf ecotourism + ranching subsidies + the historical context of origins of livestock industry in the West (“Predatory Bureaucracy” by Michael Robinson)


                • Ed Loosli says:

                  USDA’s Wildlife Services did have the first “non-lethal wolf/predator damage management” workshop for livestock operators and landowners in Dillon last January. Wonder how that went?
                  Here is a report on how that went:


                • Ida Lupine says:

                  Good. Removing livestock carcasses seems like a big deal and a no-brainer. (Sorry, it needs to be said.) I don’t know why we still need to have these conversations in the 21st century, but I’m glad it appears this time non-lethal measures are is being taken seriously. Coincidentally, with all of the bad press poised, and damage control, of course. Now, did they ever fire the psychopaths WS had working for them, tearing apart coyotes with dogs?

                • Nancy says:

                  “Wonder how that went?”

                  Ed, thanks for the switchboard report on this workshop. I was there (green knit cap/black coat, red stripes, back to the camera 🙂

                  Posted my thoughts months ago (on the WN site) after attending this workshop.

                  Thought it was a bold move in the right direction, seeing some ranchers, taking a non lethal approach to raising livestock around predators, after decades of blowing away ANY predator that came close to their “product” (and also relying on tax payer’s dollars to blow the rest away, via WS)

                  About a hundred people there. Less than half, livestock raisers from what I gathered. But as I mentioned in my comments months ago, no ranchers from my area.

                  “Western justice” will continue to dominate the landscape here when it comes to livestock and predators because its always been an easy fix, thru a lot of channels – WS, legal trapping, shooting and then the “just for fun” bunch who come from afar, to kill.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  “Western justice” will continue to dominate the landscape here when it comes to livestock and predators


                  Lewis and Clark County cattle producers back predator control tax

                  The Lewis and Clark County Commission allowed a $1 per head of cattle tax to be enacted. The money will help pay predator-control expenses incurred by the Wildlife Services

                  All of the money that’s generated in the county by the tax is spent in the county

                  Fifty-three out of Montana’s 56 counties have taxes to aid in predator control, and with the addition of Lewis and Clark County, 24 of those 53 counties will have taxes in place to aid in protecting cattle

                  Two other counties are in the process of enacting a tax for this purpose too.
                  Of those 53 counties, 47 also have taxes to aid in protecting sheep.

                  “The reason I supported, my tax of a dollar a head is a miniscule amount compared to those losses,”


                  bottom line: there’s no future for nonlethal methods in the NRM

              • Mareks Vilkins says:

                Hey, speaking of complicated, how’s the socialism thing out for ya – your ‘free-market’ views and all?


                Among 18-30 year olds, supporters of socialism and capitalism are evenly divided at 43% each!in spite of the constant barrage of propaganda against socialism from the media and politicians.

                • WM says:

                  Yeah, I know, but think it might not last long. Here is the latest from my own Seattle, and its left leaning City Council (elected largely by the cash flush young techies downtown, but that may be about to change when they figure all this out). Seattle Times shedding a little light on the stupidity of one of many undertakings of this town, and the capitalists making money all along the way, from Wells Fargo bank, to ad agencies. What was it someone said….”you can’t fix stupid”, and “wisdom and youth should not be used in the same sentence”:


    • Louise Kane says:


    • Ed Loosli says:

      This is such a sad story and it is also ironic that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Chris Servheen)wants to soon legalize what this poacher just did.

      • W. Hong says:

        I thought hunting was a legal thing and poaching is a criminal act?

        • Ed Loosli says:

          W. Hong:
          What I said was that the USFWS wants to allow the killing of grizzly bears, which is exactly what this poacher did. — The grizzly is dead either way.

          • Ed Loosli says:

            W Hong:
            The latest census in China (2014) found that there were 1,864 giant pandas alive in the wild. There are more than twice the number of wild giant pandas as there are grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Would it be alright with you if China legalized the hunting of giant pandas??

            • W. Hong says:

              I did not say that Mr. Loosli, I asked a simple question. In fact, I read a story today that 10 people were arrested for killing a giant panda, I am sure if they are found guilty of doing this, they will be killed for doing it.

              • Nancy says:

                I would imagine poaching would go way down in this country W. Hong if the same kind of penalties applied.

              • Jeff N. says:

                W. Hong,

                Is that truly the penalty for poaching in China?

                Also, since you are from China what are the cultural attitudes towards wolves and brown bears in China?

  13. Yvette says:

    I don’t know if this will show up but it is a fantastic video of a bobcat and coyote interaction in a park in Arlington, TX. I felt so sorry for that little coyote and I am a feline fiend. All cats; big wild ones; small wild ones and domestic cats. I love all cats. The bobcat’s movements is no different than my gang of domestics when a couple of them are in a spat. A cat is a cat. At the end it’s like this little coyote is saying, “It’s cool man, everything’s cool”.

    And kudos to the lady on the bike that had enough sense to remain still when the bobcat walked right by her.

    I hope you can see this because it’s a good video.

    • Nancy says:

      Sounded like an interesting video Yvette but I get this up when I click on your link:

      Sorry, this page isn’t available

      The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed

      • Yvette says:

        Darn it. I was afraid of that since this video isn’t a youtube. It showed up on my facebook feed but the guy is not a fb friend. I wish I had a way to share because it’s one of the better wildlife videos I’ve seen.

        • Nancy says:

          Here ya go Yvette 🙂

          Both animals seemed pretty comfortable around humans. And that bobcat looked like it wasn’t going to take any crap from the person filming either 🙂

          • Ida Lupine says:

            🙂 My goodness, who’s king of the forest? I love the coyote’s streeeeeettttccchhh at the end too. 🙂

          • Yvette says:

            I’m so glad you got the video up, Nancy. That bobcat moves like he rules the whole freaking park, which he probably does. He walked like he was teh king. It looked like to me that the bobcat never touched the coyote even when the little yote yelped. That poor little coyote, he was too cute. That relaxed stretch at the end was perfect. It was like, ‘whew, I’m glad I showed that bobcat”.

            Obviously, I love this video. Two of my favorite things; bobcats and coyotes.

  14. Ed Loosli says:

    China Arrests 10 Suspected Poachers Of Killing Giant Panda

  15. Ida Lupine says:

    Jeez – is nothing sacred if a small population of giant pandas is under threat from poaching? If humans are a part of nature, then again, so was smallpox. (I hope nobody takes that the wrong way). Who was it, a scientist, who said not only would the plant do just fine without us, it would even thrive? Nobody to tear down the forests, no problem wolves, everything keeping itself in check by nature’s beautiful plan. Humans are the only creature on earth who can destroy the planet with their constant warring.

  16. Louise Kane says:

    Cormorants being hazed to protect fish
    plan to kill 10,000 birds to move forward to be killed by Wildlife Services

    ten thousand birds to be killed
    who is going to manage humans while we self destruct by killing everything that threatens us one way or another or needs to consume something we deem as our food alone.

    Its too sad sometimes, heartbreaking

  17. Ida Lupine says:

    It’s mind-bogglingly blind. We refuse to address the real problem:

    “Unfortunately, despite science’s recognition that salmon play a very important role in the Pacific Northwest, the fish are facing increased pressures on their population. Commercial fishing, habitat loss and degradation due to logging, mining, hydraulic dams and agriculture, water pollution, and global warming are just some of the threats faced by salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, wild Pacific salmon are facing threats from growing salmon aquaculture presence in the region. These efforts to provide more salmon for human consumption are placing increased pressure on already strained native populations and are wreaking havoc on the local ecosystems all in the name of dinner.”

  18. Ida Lupine says:

    Yes, you can always count on hard times to bring out the best in people:

  19. Ed Loosli says:

    Lawsuit Challenges U.S. Approval of Deep-sea Mineral Mining

  20. Ed Loosli says:

    “Preliminary Injunction Aims to End Unlawful Contamination of California’s Protected Water Sources from Oil Industry Injections” – Statement from EarthJustice Staff Attorney Will Rostov

  21. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Yes, bad beekeeping is to blame for unwanted urban swarms

    Novice beekeepers need to be vigilant for the moment a queen bee will lead workers to find a new hive, especially in cities and towns where swarms can cause disruption – even if they are harmless and nothing to fuss over

  22. bret says:

    Pinniped Monitoring At Bonneville Dam This Year Showing Record Numbers Of Sea Lions,Salmon Predation

    • Ed Loosli says:

      It is interesting so notice in this entire hysterical account of sea-lions eating salmon, there is not one mention of how many salmon were caught (killed) by humans from the mouth of the Columbia River to the Bonneville Dam during Feb., March and April. My guess is that humans caught a lot more than did the sea-lions.

      • Gary Humbard says:

        Ed, the article was about sea lions affecting spring Chinook salmon runs, not about the overall impacts to salmon in the Columbia River system. BTW, the salmon fishing industry is heavily regulated whereas Sea Lions, Cormorants and Caspian Terns basically have free reign on eating all of the salmon they can. Then when the NMFS proposes to kill some cormorants, all hell breaks loose. All of the impacts need to be addressed regarding salmonid restoration.

  23. Professor Sweat says:

    “One of the proposed regulations would prohibit fresh-meat baits, meaning only meat aged for at least 24 hours could be used as bait. Another bars the use of rabbit or hare parts — common Canada lynx prey — for bait.

    The settlement would also require bobcat trappers to check their traps once every 48 hours and ban the use of foothold or leghold traps with jaws larger than 5 and 3/8 inches.”

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Prof. Sweat:
      For being so wonderfully pro-active, big thanks again go to the Friends of the Wild Swan, Wildearth Guardians and Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

  24. bret says:

    Second wolf caught on camera in Western WA.

    • WM says:

      Sizeable old growth stumps and the corner of a newer building roof (carport?) in the background. Mossy alder tree on the right, and a couple big gnarly sword ferns. Definitely west/wet side. Could it have been in somebody’s rural home driveway?

      Do you have any more information, including location, from the video, bret?

      • WM says:

        By the way, just looking for more confirmation of this event with a Google search and came across an exchange between WDFW and the folks in Colville (Eastern WA, north of Spokane), where the highest concentration of wolves is. Interesting, and predictable comment – and we need to remember part of the WA wolf management plan involves translocation as an option.

        • Nancy says:

          “Onlookers also rejected the department’s contention that wolves are arriving naturally to the area. They said wolves were deliberately reintroduced into the Yellowstone National Park ecosystem in the 1990s and have migrated from the park”

          Such short memories WM. Cattle were never native to the west yet introduced and a century later, still dealing with the aftermath 🙂

          Abbey had it right:

          • WM says:


            What part of the statement you quote is factually inaccurate?

            Well, humans in large numbers and their various other impacts from asphalt to water storage were never native to the West, either. The harsh reality is humans view the land and what is on it much differently, largely depending on how they make a living, recreate or maybe hope to leave a legacy for the future. But, I guess we mostly know that.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        And why, prey tel, would you want to put out the LOCATION of this lone wolf in Western Washington on a very public web-site like TheWildlifeNews??

        • WM says:


          The request was intended for general information, perhaps near what major roads or towns. On the other hand, it appears this wolf could well be on somebody’s private property.

          Obviously someone recorded this on a game camera. Don’t you think those who live in the area have a right to know more, especially if they have animals -dogs, horses, cattle, sheep or other domestic animals like llamas or guanacos around? Curiosity aside, this wolf could be looking for a meal.

          If it decides to take on the family golden retriever, then what do you think will happen?

          • Ed Loosli says:

            If the neighbor’s golden retriever was running loose around the neighborhood, would you be in such a panic?? Domestic and feral dogs cause a lot more predation hassles for humans in Washington state than do wolves.

            • WM says:


              The distinction you fail to make is that somebody’s golden retriever just be within the bounds of its owner’s property when a wolf shows up. Again, then what? And what is an owner to do, if an uninvited protected wolf has the family dog by the throat, or is running a horse into a barbed wire fence? It seems the law even provides an exception for protection of the wolf in those instances, and with that I agree. Most folks would just like to know if the risk is in close proximity. You got a problem with that?

          • Nancy says:

            “Curiosity aside, this wolf could be looking for a meal”

            We’re all looking for a meal WM 🙂


            Although the landscape these days, seems to be in our favor, right?

          • Yvette says:

            “On the other hand, it appears this wolf could well be on somebody’s private property.

            Here is an NDN joke that’s been around for a long time and one I find as hilarious today as when I first heard it.

            A BIA (Bureau of Indian Agency) agent stopped by this old Navajo man’s ranch. He said, “I’m from the BIA and I’m here to inspect your ranch.”
            Old Navajo rancher, “Okay, but don’t go through that gate over there.”

            BIA Agent, “I’ve got a badge. You see this badge old man? I can go anywhere on the ranch I want since I’m here to inspect it.”

            The BIA agent goes through the gate that the old Navajo man told him to avoid. A few minutes later the BIA agent comes barreling back toward the gate screaming. The dust was flying and there was a bull hot on his BIA agent’s arse. The bull butted the BIA agent, threw him in the air and he plopped face down in the dirt.

            The old Navajo man, who now had a gaggle of grandkids standing around to watch the commotion, slapped his hat on his dusty jeans and screamed, “show him your badge! Show him your badge!”

            Moral of the story: Animals, wild or domestic pay no heed to man made fences and property lines.

      • bret says:

        WM, search Snoqualmie/North Bend/ I-90/ wolf, should yield a number of links. The wolf on the video is suspected to be same wolf killed on I-90 about 10 east of where Video and wolf sightings occurred.

        • Moose says:


          KIRO radio interviewed a ranching couple from east of Snohomish (city)..they said trail cam of wolf came from nearby neighbor…report didn’t equate wolf in video with the one killed on I90 near North Bend.

  25. Amre says:

    I’ve pretty much given up any hope of the western states changing for the better anytime soon. Instead of tackling problems like E.coli in streams head-on, Wyoming lawmakers prefer to act childish and make a law banning citizen science, all to prevent one organization (western watersheds) from exposing the deeds of ranchers on public lands. Shameful.

  26. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Early men and women were equal, say scientists

    Study shows that modern hunter-gatherer tribes operate on egalitarian basis, suggesting inequality was an aberration that came with the advent of agriculture

    The authors argue that sexual equality may have proved an evolutionary advantage for early human societies, as it would have fostered wider-ranging social networks and closer cooperation between unrelated individuals. “It gives you a far more expansive social network with a wider choice of mates, so inbreeding would be less of an issue,” said Dyble. “And you come into contact with more people and you can share innovations, which is something that humans do par excellence.”

    Dyble said that egalitarianism may even have been one of the important factors that distinguished our ancestors from our primate cousins. “Chimpanzees live in quite aggressive, male-dominated societies with clear hierarchies,” he said. “As a result, they just don’t see enough adults in their lifetime for technologies to be sustained.”

    The findings appear to be supported by qualitative observations of the hunter-gatherer groups in the study. In the Philippines population, women are involved in hunting and honey collecting and while there is still a division of labour, overall men and women contribute a similar number of calories to the camp. In both groups, monogamy is the norm and men are active in childcare.

  27. Ed Loosli says:

    “Growing human populations, unsustainable hunting, high densities of livestock, and habitat loss have devastating consequences for large, long-lived, slow-breeding, and, therefore, vulnerable herbivore species,” reads “Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores” in Science Advances, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
    We know the culprits, even if we’ve never set foot in Africa, where most of these creatures reside: poaching, habitat loss and environmental degradation. According to the Washington Post, the animals have only about 19 percent of their historical ranges left to roam on, with the elephant, hippopotamus and black rhinoceros “now living on ‘tiny fractions’ of their previous empires.”

    “So, what can you do? The researchers say we’re all tasked with saving these animals, particularly those among us who can afford to allocate funds to the cause: “The world’s wealthier populations will need to provide the resources essential for ensuring the preservation of our global natural heritage of large herbivores. A sense of justice and development is essential to ensure that local populations can benefit fairly from large herbivore protection and thereby have a vested interest in it.”

  28. Ed Loosli says:

    “Alfalfa and pasture that feed cattle consume the most water in drought-stricken California”

    “The crop that consumes the most water in California is alfalfa, which is largely grown as feed for cattle and dairy cows. Pasture grown for grazing livestock is the third-largest California water user. That means keeping cows fat (if not happy) consumes 2.7 trillion gallons of water a year.” And, to make matters worse, much of the alfalfa grown in California is exported to Japan and China for their dairy cows.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Huh. Was it really an actual goring, or a head-butt? Bison horns aren’t really long.

      Some of the things I’ve seen, with people getting too close (rushing) the wildlife to get photos would really curl your hair. Very young children scrambling over precarious steps at the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone while their parents don’t seem to be looking out for them was scary too.

  29. Louise Kane says:

    proceedings from wolf stewards conference

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Louise: Since you are very knowledgeable about predator and prey science, perhaps you can answer this question for me. In the Winter and early Spring, how do researchers of deer-mortality that come across a dead deer or fawn know whether it died of natural causes like freezing to death and then a meat eater like a bear, bobcat, coyote or wolf came along after it died and ate it, or if in fact, a predator did the actual killing?? It seems to me that without knowing which came first – natural death or predation, there is no real way to tell whether there was any actual predation or not. (?)

      • Louise Kane says:

        Ed, I am not the best person to ask here about this. I suspect Jon Way is a much better source, and I know others here that probably know more perhaps JB and Immer. I don’t recall reading any studies on this. I know that in the few instances of humans attacked by predators forensic methods were used to determine what attacked or killed the human but I don’t know how extensive predation on prey species by predators is studied post mortem. It’s a good question. anyone know of any studies on this?

  30. Yvette says:

    It’s happened again. “I thought it was a coyote”.
    A wolf, or as reported, what appears to be a wolf was shot by a coyote hunter.

    “The hunter did the right thing by immediately reporting it to fish and game”.

    Same playbook. Every time.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      What is with the knee-‘jerk’ reaction to wild canines? We’ve really got to work on that. Even if is was a coyote, why always the knee-jerk reaction to shoot?

    • Immer Treue says:

      As long as “McKittrick” is on the books, this will continue to happen, this will continue to occur with impunity.

      • Louise Kane says:

        +1 Immer

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        if the court cannot prove that a wolf who killed cattle or sheep hadn’t in his mind ‘feral horse’ then Wildlife Services shouldn’t kill that wolf

  31. Ida Lupine says:

    For the first time, all five big government hatcheries in California’s Central Valley for fall-run Chinook California salmon — a species of concern under the federal Endangered Species Act — are going to truck their young, release-ready salmon down to the Bay, rather than release them into rivers to make the trip themselves.

    And California’s wild native fish should pack a sandwich and something to read; they’ll be spending a lot of the summer on the road too.

    “Bone dry. Bone dry,” said fish biologist Don Portz of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, who is six years into an effort to restore the southernmost salmon stream in the U.S., the Central Valley’s San Joaquin River.

    Drought, a dam and heavy use of the river’s water for irrigation have dried 60 miles of the San Joaquin. For the young salmon, whose life cycle for millions of years has involved travel from the river back and forth to the San Francisco Bay, that now means a 1 ½-hour ride down California Highway 99 in a pickup-mounted fish tank.

    This is what I call a crying shame. Salmon and their lifecycle are just iconic and beautiful.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      What could possibly go wrong here? *making Edvard Munch ‘The Scream’ face* It’s too bad they couldn’t shut down the highway temporarily so that the fish could arrive in safety and in a timely manner, out of the intense heat and not subject to traffic accidents. 🙁

  32. Nancy says:

    Feeling rather insignificant after watching this video, but not going to give up on what changes our species can make… in the mean time 🙂

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Thanks, Nancy. It brought to mind the following set:

      • Nancy says:

        Nice Barb and why our species should be a bit more humble than what we are 🙂

      • Mareks Vilkins says:

        16.But that’s nothing. Again, as Carl once mused, there are more stars in space than there are grains of sand on every beach on Earth

        before Carl Sagan was born that knowledge was shared by the Buddha in Diamond Sutra when he was teaching about pure consciousness:

        ‘Subhuti, what do you think? Do Bodhisattvas adorn Buddha lands (by their moral actions)?’

        ‘No. World Honoured One. Why? Because this is not real adornment; it is (merely) called the adornment of Buddha lands.’

        ‘Subhuti, this is why all Bodhisattvas and Mahasattvas should thus develop a pure and clean mind which should not abide in form, sound, smell, taste, touch and dharma. They should develop a mind which does not abide in anything. ‘Subhuti, supposing a man has a body as great as mount Sumeru, what do you think? Would such a body be great?’

        Subhuti replied: ‘Very great, World Honoured One. Why? Because the Buddha says it is not the real body but is (merely) called a great body.’

        ‘Subhuti, if there were as many rivers like the Ganges as there are grains of sand in the Ganges, would the total of grains of sand in all these rivers be very great?’

        Subhuti replied: ‘Very great, World Honoured One! These rivers would be innumerable; how much more so would be their sand-grains.’

        ‘Subhuti, I now tell you truly. If a virtuous man or woman filled a number of universes, as great as the number of sand-grains in all these rivers, with the seven treasures, and gave them all away in alms (dana), would his or her merit be great?’

        Subhuti replied: ‘Very great, World Honoured One!’

        The Buddha said to Subhuti: ‘If a virtuous man or woman receives and holds (in mind) even a four-line stanza of this sutra and expounds it to others, his or her merit will surpass that of the almsgiver. Furthermore, Subhuti, wheresoever this sutra or even one of its four-line stanzas is expounded, you should know that all devas, men and asuras should make their offerings there as if the place was a Buddha stupa or a Buddha temple. How much more so if someone is able to receive, hold (in mind), read and recite the whole sutra! Subhuti, you should know that such a person will achieve the highest and rarest Dhama. Wheresoever this sutra may be found the Buddha and His respected disciples will be there also.’
        The Diamond Sutra

  33. MJ says:

    Promoting predators and compassionate conservation
    Arian D. Wallach, Marc Bekoff, Michael Paul Nelson, and Daniel Ramp

    Excellent study results and sensibility of compassionate conservation, rethinking our traditions

  34. Mareks Vilkins says:

    long article

    The Fight Over the Most Polarizing Animal in the West

  35. Louise Kane says:

    Why protect coyotes and wolves in wolf territory

    Another disperser wolf seeking a home territory in prime wolf habitat, shot in Colorado.

    Coyotes typically weigh between 20 and 50 pounds, this wolf was approximately 90 pounds.

    Until the Mckittrick policy is reversed, no dispersing wolves will be safe. The frequent claim for wolf killers is they thought it was a coyote.

    For this and many other reasons, state agencies where coyotes and wolves roam should be required to protect both species. Red and Mexican wolf populations hover in the low hundred, if that.

    Does anyone know here why the federal statute does not seem to be creating a legal mandate for these states to adopt coyote hunting restrictions?

    In fact in North Carolina, the rumors are that the USFWS is about to abandon Red Wolf Recovery. I don’t understand how they can do that legally?

    anyone having more insight into these questions please post. I don’t mean I don’t understand politically I want to understand why the states can’t be forced to adopt policies that protect wolves from coyote hunters when its obvious the coyote excuse is affecting Mexican and Red wolf recovery.

    Federal law trumps state.

  36. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Return of the WOLF

  37. Ida Lupine says:

    These are all fascinating articles. I also have wondered why coyotes aren’t given some sort of protection too, so that people can’t brazenly waltz in to F&W to report a wolf they knowingly killed as a ‘I tot I taw a coyote, I did, I did!’

    “What would you do if that wolf came trotting around the corner right now?” I asked no one in particular.

    “Shoot it in the face,” Zeb replied.


    With this kind of animosity, we simply cannot leave wolves and coyotes with no protection at all once numbers are deemed ‘recovered’, and throw them to the two-leggeds without any kind of protection at all from irrational violence against them. Proven depredation of livestock should be the only reason for killing them.

    I’ve also wondered how it can be proven after a livestock death if the cause of death was a predator, or if the predator happened along after the fact for a meal.

    • Nancy says:

      Some facts that might help Ida.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Thanks for this information. However, unfortunately it still doesn’t answer a question of dead deer/elk/moose (often days old) to know whether the deer/elk/moose died of natural causes and then was eaten by a wolf, or whether it was killed by wolves?? It seems to me that, these research statistics that say x% of deer/elk/moose are killed by wolves have to be taken with a huge grain of salt, unless the kill was actually witnessed by a researcher.

        • TC says:

          You’re looking for an easy answer to a complicated question. There isn’t one. It’s like asking how you choose a population model to determine if species X is stable or in decline, eithout understaning models, assumptions, or parameters. Or how to construct a genetic assemblage of a putative species to determine if subspecies status is supported, without understanding genomics and sequencing and analysis tools. To do this well requires training. A lot of it – in order to ascribe a cause of death to wildlife in the field you ought to know biology, ecology, ethology, anatomy, physiology, anatomic pathology, and forensic pathology. You need to train under skilled mentors, and know your limitations. And then spend a lifetime honing skills, and have some laboratory support when needed. And be sure to be honest about uncertainty (something I question in many articles I read). It really shouldn’t be a layperson hobby if results are being published. And it really should be performed more rigorously, even by many professionals. There are a million shades of gray – a moose with terminal pneumonia, down and moribund, killed by wolves. What was cause of death (proximate and ultimate), and how to you attribute this in your classification scheme? The honest answer, with wildlife, often is “don’t know for sure, but the evidence supports ____ best”. And this has to be indicated clearly, or animals should be censored from studies. A whole lot of biologists do this pretty poorly if you ask me, but I’m a bit touchy on this subject.

          • Ed Loosli says:

            You make my point by writing; “In order to ascribe a cause of death to wildlife in the field you ought to know biology, ecology, ethology, anatomy, physiology, anatomic pathology, and forensic pathology. You need to train under skilled mentors, and know your limitations. And then spend a lifetime honing skills, and have some laboratory support when needed. And be sure to be honest about uncertainty”.
            My guess is that State wildlife agents do not meet these standards day in and day out, and yet, they still make cause-of-death pronouncements that find their way into wolf hunting quotas and other official actions.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Thank you TC, this is a great post IMO.

  38. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Big Questions Essay Series

    Does evolution explain human nature?
    Does science make belief in God obsolete?
    Does the universe have a purpose?
    Does moral action depend on reasoning?

  39. Immer Treue says:

    Perhaps some of you have seen this:

    But for the sake of argument towards all those who cry wolves can hunt 24/7/365… It often times is accompanied with great risk.

    • Nancy says:

      A really amazing video Immer. The same folks that put the Planet Earth series together?

      Sends my mind in a lot of different directions given how powerful and determined wolves can be, simply trying to exist and what little depredation they’ve actually been involved in, when it comes to livestock here in the west since their “reintroduction”

      Cattle are not normal prey for wolves. Sheep either but sheep are usually weak when it comes to predators of all kinds.

      Seems like a no brainer for ranchers to make an effort to protect livestock from any predator but many of them continue to put their “product” in harms way by inviting predators in, no supervision in general or when dead cattle (who drop dead from a host of other reasons) are left to rot in fields or left to rot on public lands.

      Guessing its even easier now, to write off those losses (that have nothing to do with predation) given the price of beef today.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Thanks, Immer. I tended to yelp with the wolves when they were tossed about; it’s a tough life for predators and prey alike.

      Another that shows a not so pretty event of nature:

      • Nancy says:

        I remember that video Barb. Here’s another one came up to the right, that people filming wildlife, ought to pay close attention to:

      • Immer Treue says:

        Barb and Nancy,

        Who really needs anything like TV, when true drama, as performed over the millennia continue. Tough to find unless your out there. Kind of like shed hunting, won’t find them if you’re not out there, but they have to be there in order to find them.

        • Nancy says:

          + 1 Immer. Rounding out my 2nd year (or is it the 3rd?) without TV. Would rather read 🙂

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Thanks timz:
      Dan Ashe says; “Whenever you are driving change, you create unrest and controversy”. Yes, it is Dan Ashe and the anti-wildlife zealots in Congress who are trying to drive change and therefore create unrest and controversy.
      Dan Ashe has been trying to gut the ESA ever since Pres. Obama appointed him.

  40. Ida Lupine says:

    Oh no! Here’s more info about it:

    “The most powerful environmental law on Earth, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is under the gravest assault it has ever faced.”

    Endangered Species Act Caught in Congressional Crosshairs

    Why does this Administration continually give credence to the minority who have absolutely no motivation or desire to have the ESA work?

    • WM says:


      What makes you think it is the “minority?”

      Sadly, the R’s now hold both houses of Congress. And, some aspects of the ESA, as it is being applied in recent years through persistent and often highly technical legal aruments, including procedural flaws, has Western states including those with D governors asking for change. It also has a few fiscally conservative D’s in Congress shaking their heads behind closed doors. I am guessing CA Governor Jerry Brown and Californians that begin to understand the potential economic severity of long-term drought will be thinking more about agriculture, golf courses and jobs and lifestyle (hydropower,too) that are dependent on water storage and river operation between dams than on the fate of the pikeminnow, bony tail chub, humpback chub and razorback sucker (all ESA listed fish in the Colorado River basin).

      So, even that has to give Barbra Boxer (and Diane Feinstein who will not stand for re-election next year) pause to think about what it all means for their state.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Are you calling for a dam at the base of the Grand Canyon to flood it for hydro-power and golf courses in California?? That hasn’t even occurred to Dan Ashe or Senators Boxer and Feinstein, so I hope they don’t read your post or they might get silly ideas.
        By the way, it is Barbara Boxer who is not running again for the Senate in 2016. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s term ends Jan. 3, 2019 (too bad, as Sen. Boxer is better on wildlife /environmental issues than Sen. Feinstein).

        • WM says:


          I am certainly not calling for anything. The point is the water in the Colorado basin has lots of competing interests, and CA is using more than its share already, maybe to be usurped by upstream states that lay claim to their rightful shares under the Colorado River Compact as their needs increase. The fish, though, have to some extent impacted the way the river is run in parts. With drought, including less precipitation throughout the basin, and lower snowpack that goes away sooner in the high country of Colorado, combined with more consumptive use the situation is likely to get much worse. The storage that is already there hasn’t been fully utilized for several years, and reservoir levels are low. Once again, its complicated and if there is to be compromise you can be assured maintenance of environmental quality likely won’t be at the top of the priority list for most.

          Appreciate the correction. Mistakenly thought Feinstein was soon to go at age 81, but guess Boxer just decided she’s had enough, eh?

  41. Ida Lupine says:

    “Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, pledged to make it difficult for Republicans to get their bills passed.

    “We will have hand-to-hand combat on the floor if these bills get that far, which they may get voted out of this committee,” she said at the hearing.” Ha!

  42. Nancy says:

    “Upon discovering it was a grizzly, the hunter immediately reported the incident to FWP”

    Different strokes, for different folks……..

  43. Dave says:

    Great 1:44 trailer for “Unnatural Enemies: The War on Wolves”.

    Warning: it ain’t pretty.

    Pay special attention to the 6-second dialogue, 0:39-0:46.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Absolutely vile – the total nonchalance about killing. I loved the part where ‘it doesn’t work, but we do it because it’s part of the management plan’. Translation: the edict from another echelon. (I won’t say from on high).

      • Ida Lupine says:

        The only thing you can say is that it is informative, to know ‘what’ you are dealing with out there. They may have the 3S’s, but other have 3D – destroy, disarm, and dispose of. Snip snip! 🙂

    • Immer Treue says:

      I would be very interested in knowing what the 39-46 second mark pertains to in regard to wolf management.

      • Nancy says:

        Immer – what I got out of those few seconds?

        “Is it working? Probably not but its a management plan for wolves and predators”

        For whom?

        Last comment – ” Wolves are not the problem, we’re the problem”

    • Yvette says:

      I wonder when and where we can view the documentary in the U.S. The comments on youtube have been disabled.

    • Louise Kane says:

      Dave can you summarize the message I am not sure I can take a visual of another wolf slaying. Those visions haunt my sleep. summary please

      • Immer Treue says:

        Looks like a short history of wolf control/hunting based upon some if early footage. Also shows wolves in traps/snares being shot, and good example of jelly head/brain where wolf takes long time to die… Blood continues to pump to head via carotid arteries but jugular veins are pinched, resulting in characteristic swollen head.

        As with any trailer, tough to get real feel, but by title appears to have more with what’s going in in Alberta.

        • Yvette says:

          “and good example of jelly head/brain where wolf takes long time to die… Blood continues to pump to head via carotid arteries but jugular veins are pinched, resulting in characteristic swollen head.”

          I just learned something new. I was wondering what was the emphasis on the swollen head in the trailer.

          I saw on the youtube that it aired on a Canadian network yesterday.

        • Louise Kane says:

          thanks Immer not sure I can watch that

        • Nancy says:

          Some interesting comparisons between the US and Canada (land mass, population):

          Wolf populations Canada & the US:

          A good read:

          “And then the DNR did something very wise: it started a program of trapping wolves, attaching a radio collar to them, and monitoring their movements in the wild”

          I’m thinking if our species could only find a way to trap, collar & track organized crime like the biker bash in Texas recently (knew some Hell’s Angels in CA years ago and they were pussy cats, compared to these guys 🙂 welfare & medicare recipient abusers, corrupt politicians & their lobbyists (on the local, state and federal level) the Bernie Madoffs? Wealthy farmers & ranchers, sucking the breath out of good programs ($$ subsidies) which use to help local folk. The list goes on and on….

          Sorry for the rant.

          20 years since wolves were reintroduced back to their natural habitat around me and not one rancher has gone out of “business”

          Most are increasing their herds. A boom in in cattle prices since the US has convinced other parts of the world that “What’s for dinner? Beef!” is the way to go, regardless of the living conditions cattle go thru (after leaving the ranch) before reaching those markets.

          • Ed Loosli says:

            Nancy: Yes, the U of Wisconsin article was indeed a good read; “For scientists like Waller, who feel that the state’s large deer population has damaged diversity in general, wolves may be a biological boon. Waller notes that this agrees with the writings of Aldo Leopold, founder of the UW’s department of wildlife ecology. In his seminal essay “Thinking Like a Mountain,” Leopold wrote that, “while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades.”
            Soon, we will know whether Wisconsin wolves are at their ecological carrying capacity, without human wolf hunting involved.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              I don’t understand why we are still asking ‘how do we live with them?’ Also, ‘stirring the passions’ is because they have been so irrationally treated and brutalized over hundreds of years, with very little improvement in human perception of them. That’s why people defend them so vigorously. I would ask the question ‘why are we still crazed about them?’ If it is symbolism, that is our problem, not theirs! Without the ESA, they wouldn’t be here today, and since people haven’t really changed their viewpoints about them, they still need some kind of protection. The man with his hunting dog can’t reasonably expect that the landscape be cleared of predators so that he can have an uneventful day in the woods. Can he?

              • Ed Loosli says:

                Ida: +1

                • Ida Lupine says:

                  Thank you. 🙂

                  I think there are other predators I would be much more frightened of to encounter than a wolf. Humans rank among them.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                There is no symbolism except of our own making; they are an animal like any other; no more, no less – and they are unfairly persecuted. If it can’t stop by the 21st century, when can it stop? This is why they can never be left without protection.

                Fool us once, shame on you – fool us twice, shame on us! Delisting has been an abject failure.

            • Professor Sweat says:

              This is an interesting watch about wolf politics in WI.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Wow! Really informative. I really appreciated the majority of hunters who want and/or can tolerate wolves, and the cheese farmer who spoke about canine territories, and how once some hunters moved in and messed it up. Halfway through.

              • Nancy says:

                Thank you for posting this video Professor Sweat. Had not seen it. Well worth the watch.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Great! I’m always amazed though at the first response, always to destroy, cut down, bust right through – like the initial route of the Keystone Pipeline addition. Why can’t developers think of these things on their own? Recreation isn’t always kind to the environment either.

    • Kathleen says:

      “Some people in Lolo said the tree doesn’t leave that much of an impression on them.”
      Wow…I feel sorry for them–what a sad thing to be unable to appreciate a beautiful tree. This tree is one of the biggest and most spectacular weeping willows I’ve ever seen–ever. It’s beautiful in every season.

    • Yvette says:

      More on the efforts to overhaul the ESA: Oklahoma’s own, the biggest science denier of them all, Jim Inhofe is pushing the efforts forward.

      I swear this man must have made a pact with the devil decades ago to have gained so much power and to continue to be elected. It defies logic and he is a despicable man. He has no soul and those of us in OK that are left of fascism have had to deal with him for a long time. “Write your Congressman”? That serves no purpose here.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        This is what I mean, I don’t know why the Administration takes these kinds of politicians seriously. Negotiating with them regarding the ESA is like negotiating a nuclear weapons treaty with Iran, only with the latter, you’d have a chance of success!

        Politicians today only represent a minority of special interests, not the people.

      • Louise Kane says:

        despicable is a good word for him Yvette

  44. Louise Kane says:

    another good reason to oppose shell drilling in the arctic

  45. Louise Kane says:

    love this kind of sleaze
    using unwitting taxpayer’s money to fund agendas that amount to a loss of public resources. sleaze with a strong smell. The originators always taking a lion’s share of the funds one way or another on top of actually conceiving the dastardly deed.

  46. Louise Kane says:

    Alaska finally shuts down an area near the park to traping and hunting. Wolf population in Denali plummets to less than 50. The see saw ups and downs in wolf slaughter are tragic given what is known about carnivore ecology, wolves and wildlife management.

    • Yvette says:

      46 wolves within 6 million acres?

      What the heck is pressuring this population and why aren’t they rebounding? “Lack of rebound in population between spring 2014 and fall 2014”. But it’s not just one year. There was close to a 40% drop between 07′ and 08′ and with a steady decline since (except for 09′). Now I’m curious as to why the population is declining. Shouldn’t there be a moratorium on hunting (outside park boundaries) until they find out what is causing the decline?

      For those interested there is an interesting excel table that you can link to “Wolf Survey Data 1986-2015” on this link.

      You can see the population fluctuations and the years where there were bigger changes.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Thank goodness – wolves cannot lose protections because of the bizarre way humans react to them.

    • Barb Rupers says:

      I was pleased to see that Oregon was fairly well represented among the signers of the petition today; Idaho even had two that signed out of about 1,535 from around the world. Several from Alberta were also there; perhaps a reaction to the way wolves are treated in their province in order to save mountain caribou.

      Thanks for the link, Louise.

  47. Jeff N. says:

    120 lb. Mexican Gray Wolves….amazing.

    This article is a little dated but it has entertainment value.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      Another example of faint-hearted fools! America the brave? There are so many like this that I have to wonder.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I got as far as ‘said the witness, who prefers to remain anonymous’ and clicked away in disgust.

  48. Nancy says:

    Thanks Jeff N.

    Entertainment value. Guessing they’ve been on line and getting cued from the Idaho bunch 🙂

    “All I could think of was to make myself big (in spirit only because I’m only 5 foot) and pray for God’s protection”

    “There are many lies that have been told to the public the past few years about wolves – and one of the biggest is they don’t attack people. This is a falsehood.

    There haven’t been many recorded attacks in North America in the 20th century because beginning in the 1800s through the 1930s wolves were relentlessly hunted, trapped, and poisoned. The few that survived retreated far into the backwoods to avoid men.

    However, there is documented evidence that as the numbers of wolves are multiplying so too, are the wolf-human incidents. I just don’t want to see anybody get hurt because of some “experimental Mexican wolf population”.
    Maybe we should bring back tyrannosaurus rex, too. That makes about as much sense”

  49. Mareks Vilkins says:

    is there any study about a correlation between ungulate poaching and wolf depredation?

    to quote from Jim Yuskavitch’s “In Wolf Country”:

    “poachers were killing as many deer as were legal hunters in the central part of the [Oregon] state. Even more alarming, the poachers are having a far greater impact on the mule deer population because they are mainly shooting does in their reproductive prime.
    … government-suspicious locals often aren’t willing to report poachers or cooperate with wildlife law enforcement officers trying to catch them.”

    Study: Poachers kill as many deer in Oregon as hunters

    Poachers Kill More Game Animals than Wolves, North Idaho Officials Say

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Regarding the article, “Poachers Kill More Game Animals than Wolves, North Idaho Officials Say”… Since wolves and other wildlife are killed regularly by poachers, perhaps it is time to apply the same justice to human poachers. Both Botswana and Kenya have issued “shoot to kill” orders to their game rangers in the field to stop poachers in their tracks — Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to follow their lead.

      • Professor Sweat says:

        In Africa, game rangers lives are on the lines every day. Poachers there may just be looking for sustenance or are slobs looking to get their jollies, but they are also dealing with militiamen that happen to be armed with military-grade tech and are usually numerous, organized, and under orders to take ivory/meat/rhino keratin under any means necessary they can to fuel their group’s personal war efforts.

        Poachers can be anyone here in America. They can be cops, judges, doctors, etc. “Shoot to kill” is a knee-jerk reaction that would cause far too many problems in this country. It would probably also mean more court time for the game agencies, equaling more revenue wasted. Heavier fines and mandatory jail time are a more appropriate response.

    • timz says:

      These are the people we are suppose to compromise with.

      • Ed Loosli says:

        When you write, “These are the people we are suppose to compromise with.”, who are “these people” you are talking about?

        • timz says:

          the f&g people who “ushered” him off the stage and ordered his mic cut off, likely he was saying something they didn’t want to hear. And you can throw in the WY governor’s office who will offer no comment on the matter.

          • Ed Loosli says:

            timz: Thanks +1

          • WM says:

            Context is always important. It appears this gentleman from a Montana tribe was attempting to make a speech at a time not reserved for public comment, either during or shortly after a scheduled technical presentation (and this is important) ON THE WIND INDIAN RESERVATION which is in Wyoming. He was asked to stop, and when he did not the microphone was shut off.

            Don’t know whether he later spoke at the appointed time when everyone else was to be allowed to speak (his sons apparently wanted to do a chant/song, too). Big meeting and looked to be about 20+ Committee members engaged in an agenda based program, when this guy decides to speak. The guy who “escorted” him away does appear to be a bit of a rude gum chewing asshole, however.

            Guess Laura Zuckerman forgot to mention these facts -presentation on Wind River area, when some guy from Montana wants to speak out of turn- in her Reuters article.

            Could actually be a question of who was disrespecting whom at the unannounced time of his comment.
            See for yourself:


            • Yvette says:

              It was not a ‘chant’. I guess you missed the big bald guy chomping on his gum while standing in Mr. Walks Along’s face…..from the beginning.

              This ain’t over.

    • Yvette says:

      The required government to government consultation has reared it’s ugly head again. History of why it’s law:

      All agencies are legally bound in government to government consultation with tribes when the issue at hand will affect tribal interests. This is supposed to be more robust than stakeholder interests.

      Each federal agency has a policy on gov-to-gov consultation and USFWS policy can be downloaded.

      “The tribal representative who was ushered off stage at the meeting, James Walks Along, said his tribe was among more than 30 nationally that have banded together to oppose delisting and the sport hunting that may follow once the bears are stripped of federal safeguards.
      He said grizzlies hold great significance for the Northern Cheyenne.”

      It’s about time tribes start banding together. Glad to see this.

  50. Professor Sweat says:

    At least they admit human activity is at fault… Can they stop now with the culling?

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Ugh, I sure hope so. That video someone posted I believe was the Canadian government wolf cull, or part of it? The cracking bullets were just painful to hear, and the joking and nonchalance about killing was shocking.

      • Professor Sweat says:

        Psychological maladjustment. They’re no more than eleven year-olds with guns. There is no honor there.

        I hunt and have killed innocent animals so that I can eat them. I am no hypocrite. Dispatch with a single shot and consume what you kill. Hold fire unless that can be done.

        Those slobs in the clip have no business being anywhere near wildlife.

    • Immer Treue says:

      “It is thought that the recent increased in the amount and distribution of early-seral habitat has increased the abundance and distribution of moose, elk, and deer and lead to an increased in wolf numbers and distribution on caribou ranges. A similar process is believes to be threatening woodland caribou herds across Canada.”

      I’ve been saying this for the past three years. The same thing is playing out with moose in MN. Deer managed for the highest possible yield through the 2000’s, wolf population goes up, moose go down.


      • Professor Sweat says:

        Not to mention increased tick loads and creation of more vectors for diseases in these situations, coupled with habitat loss and climate destabilization. It’s like the perfect storm for the more vulnerable of the ungulate species.

        I can already hear those organs in my head.

  51. Ida Lupine says:

    Who is so adamant about delisting grizzlies anyway? Every article I read, it’s an outfitter(s). Not scientists, and with a personal interest. I hope Mr. Walks Along was allowed to speak at the specified time.

    With an isolated population and food supplies in question, is it really time for delisting?

    • Yvette says:

      Ida, it’s really not about him being allowed to speak. It’s about federal agencies complying with federal law on government to government consultation. It appears USFWLS’s grizzly ‘czar’ Christopher Servheen has lied.

      Dr. Servheen previously stated that he had written to all of the affected tribes, but disclosures subsequently revealed that Servheen had only written to four of the affected tribes in April 2014.

      “I know for a fact that three out of the four tribal chairmen Servheen wrote to never had sight of his letter,” says Sara Atiqtalik, GOAL Tribal Coalition’s national coordinator.

      Besides, a letter to the tribal chairman is not the consultation required by law.

      USFWS’s grizzly czar appears to be p*ssing off quite a few tribes. Now two of Oklahoma’s largest and most influential tribes are passing resolutions and speaking out on the failure to consult and Dr. Servheen’s lies about that process.

      The coalition has grown to 33 tribal nations, including all of the tribes of the Great Sioux Nation, the 315,000 strong Cherokee Nation, and the nations that comprise the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I should have said had the opportunity to speak. I’m sure glad that other people will have input, not just the hunters and outfitters.

        • Ed Loosli says:

          What makes you think that, “other people will have input, not just the hunters and outfitters.”? Just because U.S. federal law and treaty obligations with Native American tribes calls for equal consultations about issues of mutual concerns, does not mean that Dan Ashe has any intention of following the law or treaty obligations. Dan Ashe and his boss Sally Jewell are on a fast-track to de-list the Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bear, and it seems they will allow no-one to get in their way.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            It does seem that way. It’s terrible. 🙁 I wonder what their plans are for other wildlife, and I was reading the other day about two native flowers in the Unita basin, the only place they grow in the country, how they had a miraculous turn-around recovery, as the sage grouse, in no longer needing ESA protections. It’s an oil shale energy site.

            • Ed Loosli says:

              I think the reason the Obama administration is so against listing species that should be listed and why they want to de-list so many species that should stay listed (like the Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly) is wrapped up in LEGACY POLITICS and it has nothing to do do with the Endangered Species Act or science. Dan Ashe, Sally Jewell and President Obama are coming to the end of their public carriers and they want their legacy to show all the animals they were able to “bring back from the brink of extinction and so were able to declare them ‘saved’ and in no further need to be listed as Endangered Species.” They refuse to list new species for the same reasons – It might tarnish their “legacy” by showing that wildlife health and diversity might be going in the wrong direction under their watch. It’s all about their own personal egos and what people will say about their record when they leave public office. It’s hard to believe that these three important public officials are so self-centered that they would put their own personal legacy ahead of science, the law and the public interest, but I think that is the case. Hopefully, they will prove me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.

              • Ed Loosli says:

                Here we go again – USFWS to “de-list” Louisiana black bear


                “The Obama administration has removed more species from the endangered and threatened lists than any before it, Interior said.”
                And, they should add, “whether the species are actually recovered or not”. Stay tuned for more of these de-listings and failures to list over the next year and a half before Pres. Obama leaves office.

                • Ida Lupine says:

                  I think they are all just ecologically clueless, all about the people’s immediate needs. Long term, we still have to be concerned with clean air, clean water, and healthy food. The environment and wildlife are not a priority for them. To say ‘there’s plenty in Canada’ (Ashe)as if to say that we can turn the lower 48 into an industrial dumping ground and ‘some places are just too special for drilling’ and open up areas in a hurricane zone to offshore drilling such as the priceless Chesapeake Bay and Outer Banks, Georgia and Florida leave me speechless. And Congress has been a big obstacle for just about everything. Kids and everyone need more accessible nature than ‘going to Canada or Alaska’. Their home turf ought to be valued for more than drilling and fracking.

                  But now is not the time to cave – giving the states more involvement means they’ll hold up endangered species listings for years, until an animal or plant disappears. Is that the ‘sacrifices’ we are supposed to make?

                • Louise Kane says:

                  The worst part to me is that when a species seems to be doing well then someone champions hunting as if other living beings are here just to hunt. The black bear is hunted in Florida now for the first time in 20 years. I wonder what it would be like to have to worry about being shot or bow and arrowed abruptly or losing your child or other family member to a hunters arrow or bullet. With so many people on this planet and so few animals seems time to rethink the “right” to kill as a form of recreation.

          • Yvette says:

            I agree, Ed, but with tribes joining forces it helps illuminate the failure on USFWS’s part to follow federal law regarding appropriate consultation and then lying about it. Generally, tribes haven’t joined forces to a degree where it’s empowered us. Right now there are 33 tribes standing with the affected tribes. And that was before the Chairman of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee and the other guy entered the stage to remove Walks Along.

            The aggression shown by the bald guy chomping on the gum in that video isn’t going to bode well, especially following Servheen’s attempt to circumvent the government to government compliance.

            Let’s see how things progress.

      • WM says:

        Once again, something to remember. The ESA is an avoid “risk of extinction” law, not a please the public or tribes, whoever they are or wherever they might be law. So, that will ultimately be the test for delisting.

        And, while some tribes will be/should be consulted for input (even if that consultation appears deficient to some), it would seem unlikely “spiritual importance” would ultimately be part of the risk of extinction test under the law.

        If FWS kept grizzlies listed solely for “spiritual reasons” of one group, some opposing group like the Rocky Mountain States Legal Foundation might, by analogy, say that is a bit like the federal government endorsing/funding a manger or creche scene on federal land at Christmas time. And, wouldn’t that be an interesting alliance with the ACLU and RMSL siding with states on the same issue and against certain tribes wanting to keep grizzlies listed based on religious/spiritual grounds? Just sayin’.

        And, for the record, I would like grizzlies to stay listed to see if social carrying capacity will be high enough to allow more on the landscape without significant bear-human safety conflicts.

        • JB says:

          In the next few months I should be able to report with some accuracy on what scientists think regarding the appropriate listing status of grizzly bears.

        • Yvette says:

          “(even if that consultation appears deficient to some),”

          It’s not about whether the government to government consultation is deficient ‘to some’; it’s about whether the agency is in compliance with the law. There is over a 100 years of case law to support my statement.

          The United State’s obligation to consult with tribal nations is not a new mandate. The federal obligation for government to government consultation arises from numerous federal statutes, federal regulations and presidential orders; case law and international legal norms. They date back close to 200 years.

          A boilerplate letter to several tribes, informal communication with a tribal
          member or staffer, or a single meeting with a tribe, is not meaningful consultation. A
          federal fait accompli is not meaningful consultation. (see Lower Brule, 911 F. Supp. at 401.)

          What the grizzly ‘czar’ tried to pull off is not going to work for consultation. IMO, I believe you comprehend this as you live in Indian Country and you are an attorney.

          Whether the grizzly is delisted or not is a separate matter, but the tribes will be consulted. If not, USFWS will risk valid legal delays, and after the hostile and aggressive treatment of Mr. Walks Along by the committee chairman, most definitely, a political loss as this incident gains traction.

          • WM says:


            Maybe there are some things we don’t know yet about the “consultation” process. Perhaps WHEN it is required in a timeline of alternative proposals is a starting point for compliance. And, it is important to acknowledge no formal decision has been made for delisting, and no draft delisting regulation has yet been published. Not sure what consultation means in the case of a proposed delisting, with hearings and all. It is also my understanding there is direct tribal participation on several of the IGBC ecosystem subcommittees. But, again, consultation does not necessarily mean doing what a particular interest group wants. And, again, the “spiritual” aspect of grizzly bears, or wolves for that matter, are potentially different considerations than “risk of extinction” under the ESA. Those interests are more likely addressed under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA, PL 95-341 enacted in 1978). So, what to do when the ESA butts up against this statute?

            It would appear the Department of Interior responded back in February about the “consultation” issue. This, of course, precedes Mr. Walks Along’s recent impromptu speech before the IGBC. Perhaps he was planning a scene all along.

            You might consider that some of the information on this matter is filtered a bit as it appears in various media – and why not? It makes for a great rallying point if you only tell half the truth to those who are looking for just enough to advance their own agenda.

            In the words of bureaucrat speak:

            February FWS letter –

            April FWS Letter –

            And, I just wonder if the Wind River tribes, especially the ones running livestock for profit, are too excited about grizzlies there? Did they sign the “consultation” letter?

            • Leslie says:

              WM and Yvette, I was there at the 2 day meeting. First yes the Wind River reservation is represented on the committee and both Arapaho and Shoshone tribal reps stated their opposition to delisting. As far as Mr. Walks Along, I personally feel this video is being blown out of proportion as a political ploy as he was simply out of order, asked several times politely to sit down as he would have his chance to speak at a later time. When he ignored their continued requests, they had to cut off his mike, which seemed to them as their only option. Basically it was just a bunch of officials at a meeting following their set protocol. Whether that protocol was necessary, good, or bad, is another story. No comments were being taken by the public till the end and as he was not on the committee, he was public. He did have an opportunity during public comments to speak and did so eloquently. On the other hand, there was a blatantly racist comment made by a public person, and I felt a very patronizing speech by a white government official who works with the tribes. So racist undertones were here and there, but I personally didn’t feel the Walks Along incident was one of them. But I am not a political animal, and using this video politically is, I suppose, the name of the game.

              • WM says:


                Thanks! Objective input on some of these issues is important. Contemporaneously with the agreement in opposition to grizzly delisting by both Wind River tribes, there appears to be some unrest between them. The 2.5 times larger by tribal enrollment, Northern Arapaho have recently withdrawn from the Joint Business Council with the Eastern Shoshone that oversees many reservation activities, though each tribe remains autonomous as a sovereign there. The Northern Arapaho run cattle on the reservation, and have a tribal business that does the same. The Joint wolf management plan (which now might have implications from the dissolution of the JBC) calls for wolves to managed as a game animal with hunting/trapping according to whatever rules the tribes decide when wolves are delisted in WY. As I understand it, the reservation wolves don’t count toward whatever ESA numbers WY is ultimately obligated to maintain for delisting. This, once again, would seem to be a potential aspect of undercount for wolves in WY. One might wonder how things will ultimately develop for both wolves, and later grizzlies if and when the tribe(s)decide they could be a risk to humans or tribal livestock assets.

              • Yvette says:

                Thank you so much, Leslie. It’s good to hear the perspective from someone that was present. Thank you!

                • Yvette says:

                  Adding one thing: the incident at this meeting with Mr. Walks Along is a separate issue from compliance of tribal consultation and what a government to government consultation is and is not.

              • Elk375 says:

                Mr. Walks Alone sounds like Kane West at the Grammy’s. Speaking out of turn and interrupting the program.

  52. Nancy says:

    A short, great video to watch on “hump day”

  53. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Why India’s tiger census is misleading
    “With just 25% of world’s tiger habitat, India shelters 70% of its tigers. In a country with 1.2 billion people and the world’s 10th largest economy this is a remarkable fact. So when the Indian government recently trumpeted a 30% rise in its wild population of one of the world’s most popular animals, everyone cheered. But is that number real – or even useful?”
    I hope Mr.Putin does better with his census of the Amur Tiger Population…..

  54. Yvette says:

    It looks like Bend, OR may be trying to devise a better plan on how to handle dispersing cougars.

    Maybe they should look at how California is handling the issue.

  55. Ida Lupine says:

    Got to give California credit. Look at those gorgeous feet on the lion! In years to come, with human populations continuing to grow and encroach on what’s left of our wild spaces, we have to come up with a better solution than just killing wildlife and having a zero tolerance policy! The people were thrilled to have saved this lion. We need to protect wild habitat more.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Ida: Yes, California is certainly taking the lead in mt. lion protections… In 1990 California voters banned sport/trophy hunting of mt. lions and now Californians are trying to get bobcats added to this special protected list.

  56. Gary Humbard says:

    The City of Boulder, Colorado has been pro-active in minimizing bear and cougar conflicts with humans. I e-mailed their plan to the City of Bend.

  57. Louise Kane says:

    ignore climate change evidence at such a great risk

  58. Ed Loosli says:

    Eastern Shoshone leadership on the Wind River Reservation oppose grizzly bear delisting

    Nov. 9, 2014: Leaders of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe said they oppose any U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to remove grizzly bears from the endangered species list. “The Eastern Shoshone Tribe will not permit the State of Wyoming to inflict its policies on Eastern Shoshone tribal lands,” the Eastern Shoshone Business Council wrote in a release Thursday. “The leadership on the Wind River Indian Reservation rejected proposals to permit the trophy hunting of wolves on our land when the wolf was delisted from the ESA, and we hold that same position in relation to the grizzly bear.”

  59. Louise Kane says:

    Ed Read William Cronin’s Changes in the Land to see how European settlers viewed land as property with total ownership as opposed to Native Americans who moved with the land operating on the premise that it could not be owned. I don’t recall how they viewed resources but I’m betting not as separate from their sphere of life to be depleted and “managed” to death, or thought of as a sport to kill for fun.

  60. Louise Kane says:

    Knowlton took his 350K flew to Namibia, hired trackers and made his quest to kill a back rhino sound as if he was in mortal danger. The whole concept of conservation hunting is nauseous. What would that 350K buy say if was donated to Big Life, a whole lot of anti poaching equipment, salaries for rangers. outreach about poaching. You gotta want to kill a whole lot to pay 350 to kill an old bull that outwitted poachers and other threats to survive in a harsh environment such as this. Entitled wretch.

    • Nancy says:

      Thanks for posting this Louise, rare insight into what these wealthy boys, with too much money, do with it.

      “And the killing of an older rhino bull, which no longer contributes to the gene pool but which could harm or kill younger males, is part of the science of conservation, he argues”

      Interesting comment. No further information about just how those old bulls have managed to remain alive, in a human laced, hunting world, aching for their heads, horns, etc.

      “Silence is vital when you’re tracking a black rhino” I’ve got sagebrush higher on the hillside next to me, compared to what these wimps had to go thru.

      This was a controlled hunt, took place on a reserve if I’m not mistaken?

      “I felt like from day one it was something benefiting the black rhino,” Knowlton reflected just moments after the hunt ended. “Being on this hunt, with the amount of criticism it brought and the amount of praise it brought from both sides, I don’t think it could have brought more awareness to the black rhino.”

      Yet, bagging this rhino, amounted to one less critically endangered species on the planet.

      Will there be some documentation/money trail available, down the path that lead to this rhino’s death, or will the close to half a million, just end up in the pockets of a few officials in the government there, conveniently in on this “planned hunt” from the start?

      Knowlton’s $350,000 will go to fund government anti-poaching efforts across the country. And the killing of an older rhino bull, which no longer contributes to the gene pool but which could harm or kill younger males, is part of the science of conservation, he argues.

      Not rocket science to realize, we are slowly approaching that same simple mind set in this country, when it comes to the “Trophy Minded” few, with LOTS of cash on hand and the folks who have no problem, prostituting them selves, making those fantasies happen.

      • Yvette says:

        If you want to see where this kid came from, here is an article on his dad, the Texas oilman. Looks like the dad made built the business from scratch. Tough business all the way around, so success is limited by morals and ethics. Either you crush other people or you crush the environment and habitats, likely it is usually both.

        As a reminder of how the wealthy compare to the mid to lower income folks on empathy,

        I wonder what a physiological, or even, a sociological study would show about on the empathy level of sport, and big game hunters.

        • Nancy says:

          “We hope that Lary and his family continue to enjoy success and safety in all of their endeavors, as well as receiving the recognition and respect of their peers”

        • Ida Lupine says:

          I don’t know if I can delineate people with such a broad brush. It depends on the individual. Having grown up ‘less than wealthy’, I can assure you that the stereotype scumbag of the lower classes with no heart, soul, ethics or empathy does exist – and that sometimes the wealthy are well aware of their good fortune and are willing to give back, and are good people.

          At the intersections, today it doesn’t matter whether it’s a Mercedes or a crapbox – everybody just goes for him or herself.

    • Immer Treue says:

      ” You gotta want to kill a whole lot to pay 350 to kill an old bull that outwitted poachers and other threats to survive in a harsh environment such as this. Entitled wretch.”


  61. Louise Kane says:

    reforms by asking the state agencies that fail the species in the first place

    • Ida Lupine says:

      If what’s happening with the sage grouse (or not happening) is any indication of state cooperation, this environmentally clueless Administration should not be allowed anywhere near tampering with the ESA. The gall to think they could improve upon it. It won’t be enough for the GOP anyway, a gradual chipping away will mean its demise. “The people” are fine with current transparency and decisions based in science, but the big business cronies are not.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Then again, ‘the people’ would like a little more ‘transparency’ as to what is happening with industrial wind farms and their 30-year (3 decade) incidental take permits and exemptions for established bird protections laws, and the wind industry self-monitoring and self-reporting! We’d like to know how many birds are being killed.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          that should read ‘exemptions from long-established bird protection laws’.

  62. Ed Loosli says:

    The Shocking Amount of Water That Goes Into an 8-oz. Steak – VIDEO

    “A single beef cattle eats 451 gallons worth of water in its feed each day. Then there’s 5 gallons a day of drinking and cleaning water. That ads up to 499,021 gallons over the course of its lifetime.”

  63. Louise Kane says:

    Imagine, social creatures fare better when that are in a pack situation….

  64. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Mexican grey wolf killed after displaying concerning behavior

    A Mexican grey wolf has been shot and killed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service after showing concerning behavior around people.

    • Nancy says:

      It sounds to me as though there may be a problem with this program. 2 killed and 23 wolves had to be moved concerning behavior around people? Are they being raised in a situation where they have become too comfortable & familiar with their human care takers?

      • Peter Kiermeir says:

        Yes, I think they are raised in an environment too close to humans. This could well be an underlying basic problem with the project.

        • Yvette says:

          What I find curious is there were multiple incidents of the wolf watching people, but no attacks and the article didn’t state that the wolf showed aggressive behavior toward those he was watching.

          I think Peter and Nancy are probably right. It will take people that know wolf behavior and that are unbiased to figure out the situation. If it is that the wolves are too acclimated to humans because of the way they were raised and proximity to humans I hope they will correct it. There are so few Mexican greys.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            You don’t think there is pressure from the surrounding community? Or that they are not biased? These animals are being raised by people who know wolves and are unbiased. It shouldn’t be any different than any other program with established protocols. This is the general area where they just canceled a permit for no reason. If it is one thing I cannot abide it is repeated excuses being made for well established opposition to this program.

      • Ralph Maughan says:


        I doubt there is anything wrong with the program. After reading the description about what happened, I suspect the wolf was interested in the dogs. No information was given about the other 23 wolves, but in almost every case I know about when a lone wolf hangs around a farm and does not kill livestock, it is interested in a dog or dogs. Most trail encounters where a wolf seems persistent also involve a dog.

        We are so self-centered that we believe that if a wolf is nearby we must be the focus of its interest.

        • Nancy says:


          “Mexican wolves are ‘routinely’ transferred among the zoos and other SSP holding facilities in order to facilitate genetic exchange, thus maintaining the health and genetic diversity of the captive population”

          “Mexican wolves from captive SSP facilities that are subsequently identified for potential release are first sent to one of three pre-release facilities to be evaluated for release suitability and to undergo an acclimation process”

          “Mexican wolves are acclimated prior to release to the wild in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved facilities designed to house wolves in a manner that fosters wild characteristics and behaviors”

          My question, again, would be – how many times are they “man” handled, till they get to a facility that “fosters wild characteristics and behaviors”

          Dutcher’s wolves (that were raised in such a facility) were, if I’m not mistaken, not allowed to return to the wild – too much human contact.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I think that they are just trying to appease/accommodate the wolf haters, which is impossible. A professional team would take care and have protocols on how animals are raised and reintroduced, I have no doubt about that.

      It is widely known that this area does not/did not want wolves reintroduced, and it is a mistake to try to appease them, because nothing will work. A wolf who is just there and looks at someone sideways (which is subjective interpretation) should not be shot and killed. The ‘they have no fear of man’ ridiculousness. Maybe the poor wolf is/was just curious.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        ^^The vague, perceived threat justification for shooting – and I guess wildlife officials have to go along with it. Some of the Rocky Mountain states have added that to their laws (MT?), and I guess the Southwest does too? In order to keep the program.

      • Susan Armstrong says:

        “Officials say in one instance he watched a young man fishing along a creek, stood just 15 feet away and refused to move. . . . The wolf also stood just 10 to 25 yards from a 2-year-old boy near his home when he went to feed the dogs.”

        If these reports are accurate, IMO this is just not a safe situation – it’s sad but I can quite understand why they took this action. A normal wild wolf has a whole lot more wariness of people.

        I wonder if somebody in the area has been feeding this wolf deliberately, reinforcing the tendency to boldly hang around…

        • Ralph Maughan says:


          It might be safe, but given our lack of understanding of wolf behavior we will always think it is not safe. The wolf has to go.

        • WM says:

          Strikes me that “safe” might be a somewhat objective term. A group of 3 or people may very well be safe. A 150-200 pound person might be safe, too. A child under 100 pounds running away might not be “safe.” So how does one plan for one and not the other.

          I would suggest enough is known about wolf behavior to reasonably make such predictions, especially if hunger or maybe somebody is accompanied by a dog that might result in a challenge. It might be The wolf has to go. Actually, I think Dr. Geist said that several years ago outlining certain behaviors, specifically referencing personal experiences from his home on Vancouver Island – but then, he’s an anti-wolf guy according to some. To others he is a trained behavioral ecologist, who focused on prey animals in the presence of wolves for something like 50 years.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Maybe the kid could just go back in the house.

            • Ed Loosli says:

              Ida: +1

            • Nancy says:

              “The wolf also stood just 10 to 25 yards from a 2-year-old boy near his home when he went to feed the dogs”

              Ida – I’m still trying to wrap my mind around a parent allowing a 2 year old child, to go out and feed the dogs and were the dogs a lot more concerned about getting a decent meal than noticing a wolf, standing 25 yards away?

              So much information goes sideways when it comes to wolves/predators and their reactions to humans/dogs/livestock, etc. in the west, especially when it comes to young wolves or other predators dispersing.

              Remember Romeo?

              A couple of years ago a ranch manager nearby, was shocked to see a wolf playing with his cow dogs. I’ve seen coyotes playing tag with cow dogs from local ranches, its not that unusual.

              Its been interesting for me this past year, watching my two feral cats interact with my chickens, when the chickens gained more and more territory into “their” territory even though these two cats have been around these chickens since they were babies.

              “Surprise and then scatter” (a game with the cats) has be the norm but now, the chickens are not so easily scattered and the cats have realized that fact, especially when I’m sitting close by.

              A lesson here for livestock raisers when it comes to predators?

              Course that depends on the rancher’s mindset – at almost $3 grand for a cow/calf pair these days, does a rancher want to spend money on protecting their investment (range rider, better fencing, etc.) or buy a new truck, tractor, take the family on a nice vacation 🙂 and bank on Wildlife Services?

              It’s complicated but wildlife continues to pay the price…..

              • Ida Lupine says:

                I didn’t realize the child was that young – why are they out unsupervised feeding dogs? I guess people don’t have to take any responsibility.

                I remember reading about Romeo. I certainly understand why in rare instances it might be necessary to shoot a predator, but these gleeful potshots are just plain sick, IMO. I really enjoyed hearing about the farmer in WI who was doing quite well living with predators because of her dogs.

                It’s interesting, the cats and chickens, how animals we’ve been told don’t get along often times do! 🙂

              • Louise Kane says:

                and why was the wolf killed and not returned to the facility for its genetics or retrained to stay from humans and dogs. Killing it seems radical and reactionary

          • Susan Armstrong says:

            I don’t consider myself anything remotely like an expert however I’d like to say that I am partly – but only partly – basing my comments on my personal experience with both habitated and unhabituated wolves.

            I am one of the most pro-wolf people around, in fact most of you would describe me as an animal rights type. But in order to forestall a possible incident which would set back by decades the hard-won cause of wolf recovery and conservation – and thus, lead to far more deaths of typical harmless wolves out there… in order to forestall that, the sacrifice of this too-bold wild wolf is sadly justified IMO. (As I said above, this assumes that these incidents were accurately reported)

            Wolves are one of the world’s best studied species and we do have a comparatively good understanding of what is typical behaviour for an unhabituated wild wolf.

            The reason wild wolves are so remarkably harmless to humans in North America (and most places) is that they are afraid of us, in the sense of extreme wariness.

            IMO a wolf that stands 15 feet away from a person and “refuses to move” (presumably after gestures or sounds are made in its direction urging it to move) can be considered habituated.

            I feel safe as houses in the territory of unhabituated wild wolves because they regard humans as unsafe animals and they have a powerful drive to stay well clear of people.

            I would feel unsafe around this particular wild wolf as described. Well, not really unsafe on my own behalf, because I feel I have the confidence to have a good chance of controlling the situation. But I would feel it was abnormal and unsafe for this wolf to be regarding humans in general as “not scary”.

            I’m not saying anyone on this board thinks this way, but: there’s a bit of a myth in our society that habituated wild animals are “friendly” in a human sense. They are not – they’re simply unafraid.

            We would consider a wild bear or cougar that exhibited the described behaviour to be potentially dangerous and it would be removed and most likely killed. Why consider a wolf differently?

            I think somebody said above that there may be husbandry issues which lead to some released Mexican wolves being human-habituated – surely this is being looked at very carefully now.

            If this wolf was taken back into captivity as someone suggested, realistically it would have to remain there for life. Is that really what we want – continued life at any cost? This wolf has been able to lead a wild existence for which it evolved, fulfilling all its natural behaviour patterns. Is putting it back in a cage really better than ending its life? Not all would agree.

            My $0.02 CDN.

            • Ed Loosli says:

              Susan Armstrong:
              IMO, wild predators can be used to humans and not particularly afraid of them without being “dangerous”. A wolf, bear, lion that is habituated to humans in their midst and is not being aggressive toward a person close by does not deserve to be killed. There are non-lethal ways to move predators out of a person’s personal space and I agree with Louise Kane that in this case it was “radical and reactionary” to resort to killing the wolf.
              My goodness, in Kenya where predators are not hunted, people can be within 15 feet of lions, hyenas, leopards and cheetahs in open safari vehicles and within about 200ft on foot without having to kill them because they are “habituated” to humans. Some cheetahs even have learned to climb up on the hoods of open safari vehicles to get a better view of THEIR territory – Should these cheetahs and other predators be killed because they are “unafraid” of humans?

              • Susan Armstrong says:

                “people can be within 15 feet of lions, hyenas, leopards and cheetahs in open safari vehicles and within about 200ft on foot ”

                The people in the wolf incidents were not in a group in vehicles. They were single individuals on foot, a few yards away from the wolf (not 200 feet away). Quite a different situation.

                A group of people in a vehicle, including a professional driver who knows the local animals well (and may be armed), is a fairly controlled situation. Above all, these people don’t look vulnerable. A bunch of confident adults in a vehicle, looking the cheetah in the face? – nope. No weakness here.

                I am betting the driver tells people not to get out of the car, though. Animals can react quite differently to people in cars and out of them. (I don’t mean they necessarily get aggressive. On the contrary I’ve read that often animals will tolerate people much closer inside a vehicle than if they step out of it.)

            • Professor Sweat says:

              “I feel safe as houses in the territory of unhabituated wild wolves because they regard humans as unsafe animals and they have a powerful drive to stay well clear of people.

              I would feel unsafe around this particular wild wolf as described. Well, not really unsafe on my own behalf, because I feel I have the confidence to have a good chance of controlling the situation. But I would feel it was abnormal and unsafe for this wolf to be regarding humans in general as “not scary.”

              There is nothing to be afraid of is the wolf is not displaying any aggressive posturing (arched back, bared teeth, tail tucked between legs). They are highly intelligent creatures and are quite curious about other creatures in their territories. Just because a wolf might be unafraid of certain hazing techniques, doesn’t mean it sees any human as a food source or an intruder/threat. It’s very disappointing that this wolf was killed, when it had done no harm.

              BTW, any parent who lets a two year-old go outside alone is either on drugs or extremely naive.

              • Susan Armstrong says:

                “There is nothing to be afraid of is the wolf is not displaying any aggressive posturing (arched back, bared teeth, tail tucked between legs).”

                Wolves considering predation do not do any of those things. Different set of behaviours altogether.

                • Professor Sweat says:

                  Luckily humans aren’t on the menu for wolves, since we aren’t their prey. There’s a better chance that you’d win the lottery and then immediately be struck by lightning than to be attacked and eaten by a hungry wolf.

  65. Peter Kiermeir says:

    Farmers and ranchers in southern New Mexico are now suing the federal government over its jaguar program.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I knew this was just a matter of time also.

    • Yvette says:

      I was curious about the claim the farmers and ranchers made about there not being any jaguars in that region. I remembered there being an incident of a snared male jaguar being killed because of the trapping, but didn’t remember details. I did a quick search and found a paper that would probably refute the farmers and rancher’s claims. The researcher is big cat biologist Emil McCain.

      Who remembers the sordid incident surrounding the killing of Macho B., the male jaguar that traveled into the U.S. as part of his territory?

      The following AZ Republic news article is informative on the incident with Macho B., and the lead biologist is E. McCain.

      At this point, I don’t know that anyone could decipher the truth. I sure would like to see jaguars protected. Apparently, at least one of them has definitely had territory in the U.S.

  66. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Family Tree of Dogs and Wolves Is Found to Split Earlier Than Thought

    Based on the differences between the genome of the new species, called the Taimyr wolf, and the genomes of modern wolves and dogs, the researchers built a family tree that shows wolves and dogs splitting much earlier than the 11,000 to 16,000 years ago that a study in 2014 concluded.

    Their study also gives some dog-park bragging rights to owners of Siberian huskies and Greenland sled dogs, which have inherited a portion of their genes from the Taimyr wolf.

    The history of dogs is still murky, however, because it seems that different kinds of wolves and dogs have interbred at different times in different places over the past tens of thousands of years.

  67. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Roaming Elk at Point Reyes Bedevil Ranchers in California

    Ranchers complain that these elk trample their fences, feed on drought-limited forage and drink precious water meant for milk cows.

    “There are ranchers who are literally on the brink of losing their operations because of the lack of forage and the damage from the elk,” said Jeffrey Creque, who farmed at Point Reyes for 25 years and now works on agricultural ecology projects.

    The die-off in the elk refuge and the flourishing of the free-roaming flocks have rekindled a dispute over management of these majestic creatures found only in California, where they were half a million strong before the Gold Rush.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Ranchers complain that these elk trample their fences, feed on drought-limited forage and drink precious water meant for milk cows.

      Wow. Water and forage only meant for cows. Scary.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      The “ranchers” at Pt. Reyes Nat. Seashore use water and forage that is owned NOT by them, but by the National Park Service. The NPS primary mission is to preserve and protect it’s natural resources, which in this case include the native California tule elk. These lease-holders are free-loaders of the worse sort, and either they should share the Park land with elk, or they should get out.

      • Leslie says:

        I have never understood this arrangement. In WY ranchers can be compensated for private private forage eaten by wildlife. Marin Agricultural Land Trust, or MALT, is critical to preserving West Marin as open space but why can’t elk roam on these lands as well?

        • Ed Loosli says:

          The lease holding ranchers at Pt. Reyes Nat. Seashore are already being compensated by the Nat. Park Service for forage eaten by wildlife (like elk). The Nat. Park Service requires that the ranchers pay only about $7 per head of cattle in an area where the grazing fees on private land are closer to $20. For only about $24,000 per year these lease holders get 1,000 acres of California coastal property – including a house and outbuildings. This is the same price that a two-bedroom apartment rents for in Marin County that has NO land.
          As for the MALT lands; they are only involved with private open lands preservation and as their name implies (Agriculture), they favor cows over native wildlife, like elk.

          • Leslie says:

            Ed, thanks for that info as I did not know that. Of course, it’s absurd they are complaining on public lands about wildlife eating forage and taking water. Even ‘enlightened’ Marin County has its backwaters. I knew MALT is private lands and has been a great force in preserving what would absolutely be housing developments. Here in WY private ranchers are compensated for elk eating their forage. Why not there too?

            • Ed Loosli says:

              Although much better than most states regarding wildlife protections, all is not perfect in California. For example, native tule elk are generally NOT permitted to be on private property because the CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife is afraid that the private land owners will not allow hunting of the elk. The CA Dept. of F & W has even nixed tule elk being returned to 70,000 acre Vandenberg Air Force Base along California’s central coast because the Air Force did not want to open up this high-security base to public hunting. Unfortunately, hunters still control the actions of the staff of the CA F&W and this is definitely hurting the expansion of native elk herds.

        • Helen McGinnis says:

          The purpose of MALT is to preserve ranches and farms as open space, to prevent them from being developed. They are still managed as private ranches and farms.

    • Ralph Maughan says:


      “Roaming Elk at Point Reyes Bedevil Ranchers in California.” !!

      Why not just the opposite? The ranchers bedevil the elk.

      If you read the NYT article, please also read, or read instead “Cattle Grazing Is Incompatible with Conservation [at Pt. Reyes]”
      by Karen Klitz and Jeff Miller.

    • Ed Loosli says:

      Yvette: I hope the people of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia are getting ready for similar disasters – or worse, because Pres. Obama wants to allow the oil companies to drill off their coasts as soon as possible.

  68. Ida Lupine says:

    Yes, it looks like such an insurmountable task to clean it up.

    “Plains Pipeline, the large Texas-based company responsible for the pipe that ruptured in Santa Barbara County, has accumulated 175 safety and maintenance infractions since 2006, according to federal records.”

    So much for learning from the BP disaster, and safety assurances from the Interior!

    Santa Barbara Oil Spill: Pipeline Operator Has Long Record of Problems

    • Louise Kane says:

      oil spill clean up is always an insurmountable task and you can never really get rid of the oil or the damage it does no matter how many chemicals you disperse or the conditions.

  69. Ed Loosli says:

    Making Nice: A Battle Cry for Biological Diversity by Lisa Novick

    “This reluctance to actively consider something that causes cognitive dissonance [like the term ‘bioequivalent’] or necessitates reappraisal of our actions is reprehensible. This reluctance is the death knell of countless species and ecosystems on Earth that we have come to love and are loathe to imagine the world without…Besides pharmaceutical-industry drugs, there’s only bioequivalent bullshit, and making nice becomes more and more irresponsible with every species we lose. Making nice will yield only tragedy. We need to agitate, adopt the Singapore Protocol for Biodiversity and make native habitat everywhere we can for the wild creatures that have managed to survive despite our near total alteration of the biosphere. Our descendants will thank us for not making nice, because we determine the world they inherit.”

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Ha! 🙂 This made me think of that poor wolf in the Southwest who was shot for looking at someone the wrong way. I’m glad throwing a side-eye isn’t a shooting offense for me, because I’d be in trouble a long time ago.

      I should say that the photo for this thread is very beautiful.

      • Barb Rupers says:

        You beat me to it, Ida; I was just ready to do that.

        I spent about a month at Leadore during a high school summer interlude. The sage country was entirely different from my experience around Moscow ID.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          You’re lucky! I have not seen the sage country. I’m going to make it a point to do so.

          Nearly June, and it is snowing in Caribou, ME. Can you believe it? 🙂

  70. Yvette says:

    I think this is a fantastic project. Dr. Marc Bekoff is teaching an animal behavior class at the Boulder County Jail. Great response from inmates.

  71. Nancy says:

    This story is a little confusing, the nest was destroyed but what happened to the parents? Would think even on the ground, they would of continued to try and care for the baby.

  72. Immer Treue says:

    Another dog mistaken for wolf, and shot in Idaho.

    Problem here, wolf season was over, and father told son to shoot the wolf.
    Can’t hide behind McKittrick here. Time for this bullshit to end.

    • WM says:

      Clearly not a defense of this guy or his impressionable son, but a data point for confusion.

      A husky(and even a German shepherd) might be confused for a wolf by some. Hollywood was doing that for years, using these trainable breeds and putting a little spray paint or grease to change the color and hair texture to make them look ever more wolf-like. Teach them to snarl a bit on command. So maybe there are subliminal clues of “this animal looks like what I think a wolf looks like.”

      I used to have a Siberian Husky with intense blue eyes and heavy dark masking on the face in the late 1980’s. A Siberian’s tail doesn’t curl over like a Malamute. Got a lot of queries – is he part wolf?

      Query, was an Idaho wildlife law actually broken in this instance? Shot somebody’s dog thinking it was a wolf, even out of season? It seems unlikely, but maybe reckless endangerment or shooting over a roadway would stick.

      No doubt the civil suit for damages will be forthcoming from the owner of the dogs. Will the family get justice for loss of a valued family companion – or just the FMV for the dog and any vet bills? This happened in Idaho, so not much hope for any kind of $$$ damages recovery that might serve as a deterrent from some idiots doing this in the future.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        For the sake of argument, even if it were thought to be a wolf, there was no danger presented, and it was not hunting season. Maybe the man’s poor dogs presented a perceived threat. These two can try to convince a judge that they were quavering in their boots in fear. Maybe the kid’s old man ought to be cited for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?

      • Immer Treue says:

        I just find it so sad that another case of trigger itch, and what may be assumed as a member of the SSS fraternity (why else, with wolf season over for 1.5 months did individual tell his son to shoot the wolf), and another dog owner loses their pet. Where is the indignation about wolves killing pets, when someone with a gun, not only out of season misidentifies a target and shoots someone’s pet.

        And for those who say the dogs should have been on leashes, it still does not hold water.

        • Louise Kane says:

          anybody that shoots a husky and thinks its a wolf should have their gun taken away just on principle. They look nothing like one another

        • Nancy says:

          “Where is the indignation about wolves killing pets, when someone with a gun, not only out of season misidentifies a target and shoots someone’s pet”

          Thinking collateral damage” Immer.

          “Collateral damage is damage to things that are incidental to the intended target. It is frequently used as a military term where non-combatants are accidentally or unintentionally killed or wounded and/or non-combatant property damaged as result of the attack on legitimate military targets”

          Thinking our species is so conditioned anymore to war, that we can’t even muster outrage when it comes to”friendly fire/collateral damage” against our own species let alone what we do to other species, whether the threat is real or conjured up.

        • Yvette says:

          +1 Immer

    • Louise Kane says:

      “Time for this bullshit to end” +++

      which bullshit? the state’s shoddy treatment of wolves? People like this that have no respect for wolves or laws doing things like this? Too many idiots with too many guns? Good ol boys shooting up the woods and everything in it just cause they can, or Hood ol boys saying they thought something was something else and doin anything they want because the Justice Department policy is bullshit?

  73. Gary Humbard says:

    A male wolf is wandering in the Mt. Hood National Forest which is new territory for wolves.

    Journey (OR-7) is still alive and well in southern Oregon and probably with a new set of pups.–_or25_–_on_pr.html

    • Barb Rupers says:

      Good news, Gary. Do you think they will ever make it to the north end of the Coast Range? I’m hoping it goes well. I just had 3 deer and a coyote in the house area yesterday afternoon; also a rare visitor close to the house where there are no large trees – a silver gray squirrel.

  74. Louise Kane says:

    article rebutting the nonsense that trophy hunters are conservationists

    • Gary Humbard says:

      It would be interesting to learn whether “properly managed” trophy hunting does benefit conservation as most articles I’ve read; whether pro or con have a “dog in the fight”.

      The premise that “if it stays it pays” would seem reasonable in protecting animals from poachers. I would rather have game reserves for wildlife viewing only but if trophy hunting reserves significantly reduces poaching (assuming they do using armed guards) isn’t that a step forward?

      • Ed Loosli says:

        Where in Africa is there “properly managed” trophy hunting?? Out of 54 countries in Africa, maybe Namibia – maybe.

        • JB says:

          Yes, in Namibia. The broader issue here is that disingenuous people are creating false dichotomies. It is, of course, possible to have both ecotourism and trophy hunting in the same area–they are not mutually exclusive. And the same hotels, restaurants, rental car agencies and gas stations that support hikers, backpackers, and photographers in Estes Park (for example), also support hunters who pursue elk and deer in areas adjacent to RMNP.

          Conserving a population requires (a) protecting habitat and (b) limiting human killing to a sustainable level. Both of these CAN be achieved in areas that have both ecotourism and trophy/sport hunting. However, just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we necessarily should.

      • Nancy says:

        Gary, this article is a couple of years old but does put it into perspective, like so many articles out there:

        “It is a shock to realize that the greed of people has led us to a point where we are scrambling to save a species, so much so, that we breed lions just so we can kill them”

        “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed.”

  75. Louise Kane says:
    Texas rancher’s wife takes on husband and threatens divorce if he kills cows. She raised 30K in 4 months online bought the cows and converted her husband to vegan and the ranch to a sanctuary. Thats a determined woman!
    pretty damn cool

    • skyrim says:

      I’d say pretty damn cool too…….. And in Texas. Some kinda woman there.