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.

Here is the link to the “old” wildlife news of April 5, 2016.

It's springtime on the sagebrush steppe. SE Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan

It’s springtime on the sagebrush steppe. SE Idaho. Copyright Ralph Maughan

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.

592 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? May 21, 2016 edition

  1. monty says:

    90% of the Moose in Minnesota have been killed by ticks due to warming weather. The ticks are eating the moose alive. Is this accurate? If this is correct, then why wouldn’t the ticks invest all other mammals? Why are mammals in the south able to cope with ticks and not futher north? In Africa there are tick birds but am not aware of “tick birds” in North America.

    • Ralph Maughan says:

      I’ve wondered if these moose ticks are different than other ticks — a subspecies or something. It does seem that otherwise they would be killing the deer and driving people out of the woods.

      • ma'iingan says:

        Moose are a Eurasian species and have only been in North America a short time, relatively speaking.

        They did not evolve alongside D. albipictus as did native NA ungulates, so they do a poor job of grooming them off.

        White-tailed deer, on the other hand, evolved with the winter tick and are able to remove them fairly effectively.

    • Linda Horn says:

      I’m not a wildlife expert and I don’t know much about ticks except I sure don’t want them in my life. However, I’m curious and found a couple of articles that might be of interest.

      The first is about the Winter Tick(Dermacentor albipictus), which does infest other hoofed animals, but evidently prefers moose. The photos are disturbing.

      I’m familiar with PZP darting of wild horses and other species, so I wondered if that would work to immunize moose. Haven’t found anything about that yet, but I did find an article about a woman who has been experimenting with using a paintball gun to deliver pesticide powder-filled pellets. I have no idea how close you’d have to be to an unpredictable moose or how long the effects would last, but it’s an interesting idea.

    • ma'iingan says:

      90% of the Moose in Minnesota have been killed by ticks due to warming weather. The ticks are eating the moose alive. Is this accurate?

      No, it’s not accurate. Wolves have been the most significant cause of moose mortality – however there are a lot of factors that are pre-disposing moose to wolf predation.

      Winter tick infestations are certainly one of them, along with low deer numbers and warm winters (moose become heat-stressed in winter when temperatures get above freezing).

      • Immer Treue says:

        MN deer numbers may be down (recovery is well under way due to past two mild winters), yet, 1999 4th of July Blow Down, and a series of mild winters up until about 2008 contributed to a great increase in deer numbers in the moose zone.

        Wolf numbers increase, and put more pressure on moose. Deer also bring in liver flukes and brainworm, which are inconsequential to deer, but tough on moose.

        Mech documented an increase in wolf numbers in areas of moose economy in his paper with Fieberg (coincides with deer increase through the 2000’s). But he has also said that the wolf numbers have “since declined.”

        Emergency deer feeding was not allowed in the moose zone during our last tough winter 13/14, and we will probably see a more aggressive deer harvest policy in moose zones this coming season.

        • ma'iingan says:

          There’s a tradeoff with lowering deer numbers – while it might slow the spread of brainworm or liver fluke, it also increases predation pressure on moose.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Yes and no with predation on moose. Mech said the deer population helped support the higher number of wolves in an area that was mostly moose economy. Since deer numbers have come down, as well as moose, so have the wolf numbers.

            Similar to what’s happening with woodland caribou in BC. There are so few caribou remaining, but the wolves culled remains high…the wolves population is relying on something else, moose and deer out there.

            • ma'iingan says:

              There are enough wolves in the SNF to cause 34% of moose mortality through direct predation – that’s significant.

              Another 23% of moose mortality last year was caused by various and sundry infections or injuries, a portion of which must be attributed to wolves.

              Regardless of where the wolf numbers were overwinter, they are a significant source of moose mortality in SNF.

              • Immer Treue says:

                I’m not arguing wolf impact on moose. I have seen the data both prior to and after the stewards meeting. In a discussion with SB-M, a Mech associate, the ethics of culling in good habitat was chewed over. Does one kill wolves, only to have new wolves move in and repeat the problem? Or does one hit lower on the food chain and remove deer? Currently, the latter is the only option.

                Then you have some up here suggesting to do what Alaska does, however aerial hunting is about the only way that truly works. Cost and public outrage up here would prevent that.

                Good to see you posting again.

      • Nancy says:

        Ma, having witnessed first hand, a full grown bull moose, obviously suffering, when I first saw him and then dead, just a couple of hours later (died in a friend’s pond, last fall) makes me wonder if field biologists (especially those connected to the government) are spread way too thin when it comes to finding possible reasons?

        According to MFW&P biologists, this moose died due to carotid artery worm (Elaeophora schneideri)

        Not common in this area but moose are tipping over (dying for no reason) here, and in neighboring states.

        “So what is causing thousands of moose deaths each year, in places as varied as Utah, Oregon, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont? Understandably, the answer is complex: there appears to be not one, but a whole panoply of problems that are combining to stress and kill moose. There are some key commonalities, however.

        Parasites, disease, and malnutrition appear to be interacting in lethal ways, and warmer temperatures associated with climate change appear to be exacerbating the problem”

    • Linda Horn says:

      I don’t know if this fungus would kill Winter Ticks, but it might be worth a research project.

      • Nancy says:

        “Klingen would like to do further research in this area, but needs to secure necessary project funds in order to finance a study”

        Linda, I think that statement pretty much sums it up – do we continue to dump tons of funds into fine tuning what we already know (from decades of past studies) or encourage and fund, future studies that might just make important breakthroughs?

        Kind of like “paint balling?” moose? 🙂

  2. Nancy says:

    “Tamara Masterson of the National Trappers Association says it is a chance for young people to learn about the heritage of trapping.

    Experts from across the West are holding workshops on snare making and other skills”

    “Ethical hunting involves killing quickly, minimizing suffering, taking only those animals one has a license for, and consuming the meat. Trapping, on the other hand, involves crushing some part of an animal with a steel device, inflicting intense pain, stress and fear, and detaining it without access to food, water or shelter for hours, days or weeks, before finally shooting, clubbing, drowning or crushing it – all for its… fur, or just for fun.”

    • Kathleen says:

      Click here for the current Montana citizen’s ballot initiative (I-177) to eliminate trapping from public land:

    • skyrim says:

      ……”or just for fun”..
      Tamara. How ’bout you let me set my grizzly trap on your right foot while your smilin’ your biggest smile. We’ll call it just fer fun….

    • Louise Kane says:

      imagine how traumatizing it would be to see an animal in a trap as a young person (or at any age)

      this is the kind of heritage that engenders and fosters indifference and cruelty.

      It is a national disgrace that trapping and snaring are legal in any state.

  3. monty says:

    Thanks all!

  4. Ida Lupines says:

    What was that again about unprecedented cooperation to protect the sage grouse? Looks like the only cooperation is all the states and industry getting together to try to sue the government:

    • Gary Humbard says:

      Ida, when I worked for the BLM, there was a common knowledge that when the agency was litigated by both environmental and industry groups and the states, (which is occurring) the agency was making the right decisions.

      The agency heads such as Jewell and Visack are promoters and figure heads of their respective agencies, but all of the decisions they make are ultimately driven by scientists on the ground. While litigation is taking place, protective measures for the greater sage grouse are being implemented and IMO that is a very good thing.

      • timz says:

        ” when I worked for the BLM, there was a common knowledge that when the agency was litigated by both environmental and industry groups and the states, (which is occurring) the agency was making the right decisions.”

        Ids this why they lose so often?

        • BOB says:

          Once again Gary is right and the OH so smart timz is wrong.
          A quick search will show US Senate hearings revel:
          Litigation eats up about 50% of agency budgets.
          The Forest Service and BLM win like 99.9 percent of all appeals to these litigation.
          Don’t buy any bridges from timz.

          • timz says:

            So Bob,they revel at the US Senate hearings?
            I won’t sell you a bridge Bob but would be happy to sell you a dictionary.

            • timz says:

              I throw in a book on grammar as well. Looks like you could use one. I think my first grade granddaughter has an extra.

              • BOB says:

                Classic response timz.
                When your can’t attack the comment attack the person making the comment.
                Yeah, my spelling and grammar sucks mostly because I don’t care.
                You on the other hand seem to enjoy just being wrong.

                • timz says:

                  wrong? I can google BLM/FS court cases and find hundreds where they lost. But you not caring about being borderline illiterate is kind of sad.

                • BOB says:

                  Your define often as less than 1% of the time? By your definition wolves kill livestock often.

                  You should really research the definition of illiterate some time. By your definition how is it I even understand what you post. There is a difference between caring if my post are written perfect and being able to be perfect.
                  First grade grammar book that’s a timz response.

                • timz says:

                  Funny, as I read your response Bob my cuckoo clock went off. Must be a sign.

          • outdoorfunnut says:

            Do you have specific sites that support the 50% waste….not that I’m arguing the point. I am interested in what types of cases make up the bulk of the squandered tax dollars and grazing permit fees. Keep in mind that some on this site have the audacity to lip off on how grazing fees don’t cover the bureaucracy.

            • Jay says:

              Does this sound like they’re covering their fees?
              “In fiscal year 2004, federal agencies spent a total of at least $144 million. The
              10 federal agencies spent at least $135.9 million, with the Forest Service and
              BLM accounting for the majority. Other federal agencies have grazingrelated
              activities, such as pest control, and spent at least $8.4 million in fiscal
              year 2004.
              The 10 federal agencies’ grazing fees generated about $21 million in fiscal
              year 2004—less than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing. Of
              that amount, the agencies distributed about $5.7 million to states and
              counties in which grazing occurred, returned about $3.8 million to the
              Treasury, and deposited at least $11.7 million in separate Treasury accounts
              to help pay for agency programs, among other things. The amounts each
              agency distributed varied, depending on the agencies’ differing authorities.”

              How’s that for lipping off…

              • outdoorfunnut says:

                Thanks for making my point, the abuse of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act etc etc needs to stop! Adding more wolves to Idaho does Absolutely NOTHING for Endangered Species!

                • Jay says:

                  Hmmm, and here I thought you were lipping off about grazing fees. Maybe you wrote the rest of that stuff about wolves, the clean water act, etc.,in the post I replied to in invisible font…

            • BOB says:

              The source of 50% of budgets being use in litigation came from book form of Senate hearings before congress on Appropriations.
              Dept. of the Interior and related agencies appropriations.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I sure hope so!

        I found this darkly, ironically comic – and just scarily possible! Imagine Donal Trump as President, with his one of his sons as Secretary of the Interior, or at least they’ve got his ear about hunting decisions! Seeing him with the NRA yukking it up must be another sign of the Apocalypse:

        Will The Next Secretary of the Interior Be A Trophy Hunter?

      • Kathleen says:

        “The agency heads such as Jewell and Visack are promoters and figure heads of their respective agencies, but all of the decisions they make are ultimately driven by scientists on the ground.”

        RE: Vilsack & USDA Forest Svc.–do you mean to say that the decision to allow ID to kill a wolf pack in the Frank Church was driven by scientists on the ground?

        • BOB says:

          Perhaps you should think about that question Kathleen.
          Are biologist scientist?


          • Immer Treue says:

            Biology is a multi-tiered discipline, composed of many other “ologies”, that employs the use of other disciples, including chemistry, physics and math. When one thinks of Darwin’s work unraveling the marvel of natural selection; Mendel discovering factors (genes); Thomas Hunt Morgan’s mapping of Chromosomes (working with over 13 million fruit flies); Salk and Sabin and their work with polio; the work of Watson and Crick in regard to DNA, and the thousands of behind the scene biologists and biochemists working on DNA and RNA… To the field biologists gathering data on fish, placental scaring on female wolves… Yes biologists are scientists.

        • rork says:

          I am not aware of USDA having to make any decisions about wolf killing in the Frank, if you are talking about the trapper they sent in. No federal permission was required I believe.

          Plenty of biologists are scientists. I’ve worked with scores of them.

          • Kathleen says:

            The Frank Church is designated wilderness and Idaho’s wolf slaughter was a direct violation of the Wilderness Act. It was the Fed’s obligation to stop it and they didn’t. As for the baffling question, “are biologists scientists?” of course they are–I have no idea what BOB is getting at.

            • Elk375 says:

              When the Frank Church was designated a wilderness the enabling act stated that the State of Idaho was to manage all fish and wildlife. The federal government does not have a legal standing in regards to the management of fish and wildlife.

              • Jay says:

                I’m not a lawyer, but I believe Kleppe vs New Mexico contradicts your assertion of the federal government having no management authority.

                • Kathleen says:

                  You’re correct, Jay. I hesitate to post a YouTube link because the screen will be displayed and this one has been posted a couple times here in the past–anyone interested can google ‘Have We Heard the Chimes at Midnight and wilderness’ and skip to the 8:30 mark to hear this issue being addressed in a keynote speech at the Wilderness50 conference.

        • Louise Kane says:

          and then there is the matter of scientists at agencies being directed by policy makers beholden to agency heads.

  5. Nancy says:

    Trump’s offspring – putting things into perspective if good ole dad gets into the highest office in the US:

  6. Douglas McIntosh says:

    Oped :
    Disserving the Public Trust: the Despotic Future of Grizzly Bear Management

    This sounds exactly like wolf management in Alaska


    • rork says:

      I have criticisms. I’ll only mention 2. “The model” enshrines democratic methods of wildlife management, not just hunters and anglers getting their way. This is the part hunters are trying to throw under the bus lately, it’s true. It was originally intended as a counterpoint to having management be for just the rich. Second is about who the management agencies are listening to, which the author claims is just the hunters (and anglers). Where I live (MI) it seems more about businesses making money, where the managers decisions do create winners and losers. Direct funding of the managers is largely from sportsmen, it’s true, but that is merely millions of dollars, whereas the tourism is measured in billions for the state’s economy. When it’s clear that there is more spending from non-consumptive activities, political pressure to maximize those activities will be able to dominate the discussion. For animal lovers the problem might be that people can enjoy seeing cougars, while at the same time a few people are killing them. It’s not enough that non-consumptive activities exceed consumptive ones (the common as dirt argument used in various forms in the article), there needs to be an economic margin in deciding for a different course (e.g. How much extra tourist money or ecosystem services will flow if I stop or reduce the killing of Marten or Wolves).

    • timz says:

      “In brief, wildlife management by the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana is a corrupt and despotic system enslaved through culture and financial dependencies to serving the interests of those who have a worldview that features violence, iconizes weapons, makes fetishes of sexual organs, and instrumentalizes animals.”

      I don’t know if I’ve ever read a more spot-on statement.

      • Elk375 says:

        Bullshit. I have never seen the fetishes of sexual organs in the tri state area. It seems that everyone who is interested in wildlife is drawn to Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. Why do not people worry about their own state.

        • Nancy says:

          “It seems that everyone who is interested in wildlife is drawn to Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

          Why do not people worry about their own state”

          Oh, please, Elk, seriously? That question is a bit ignorant, given the explosion of people, homes, businesses, new roads, etc. in your neck of the woods, over the last couple of decades.

          “In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted”
          Bertrand Russell

          • Elk375 says:

            My great grand parents got to Montana when the Indians and Cowboys were still fighting. Bozeman has grown and it is a mess. In the last 40 years so many out of state people have moved in that the ambiance has changed for worse. You arrive here what 20 years ago. It was a very special place when 650,000 live here. Everything has changed.

            • Nancy says:

              “My great grand parents got to Montana when the Indians and Cowboys were still fighting”

              Yeah, that’s the history but what’s forgotten is it was a very special place long before your great, grand parents got here and when they got here, everything changed for the worse, for the people who’d been here, for what centuries?

              Wheels on the Bus…

              • outdoorfunnut says:

                Nancy, Your grandiose ignorant view of how the Indians lived prior to white man arriving is just plain wrong. My history books and knowledge of human nature says Indians fought amongst themselves even more than with the white man. I have a feeling that if we went back to those times… would end up on someone’s totem pole.

                • Yvette says:

                  The plains tribes did not have totem poles. “My history books and knowledge of human nature says Indians fought amongst themselves even more than with the white man.”

                  “Even more”. There were wars for sure, but ‘even more’? Where did you pull that from? Think about it. How many tribes in this vast region? What was the overall population? Was it so populated that they were tripping over themselves? What did they war over? Range? Hunting grounds? What? Do tell.
                  Who wrote your history books? OFN, you are by far the most asinine poster on here. You contribute nothing of merit to this blog. Now add Bob.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  It’s only Wikipedia, but it does explain away your estimates, in particular, the high side. Also, the greatest concentration of indigenous people were found in central,and South America.


                • Immer Treue says:

                  And Mexico.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Nothing remains the same. It will always change. There is only right now.

        • timz says:

          Where do you suppose they got the idea for Brokeback Mountain?

          • BOB says:

            Interesting to watch a bigot expose itself. Personal insults, gay slurs, grandpa timz must be a fine roll model for his grand daughter.

            • timz says:

              little to close to home Bob?

              • timz says:

                And again your obvious illiteracy is showing. It was a simple statement about where an idea originated, it contains no gay slur whatsoever. Rather than spending your time on here continually making yourself look like an imbecile you should study up and try to get your IQ at least equal your shoe size.

                • BOB says:

                  Isn’t the written word fun, that misspell was just for you, I’ll make it a point to enclose at least one in every comment to you.
                  Back track all you want timz, of all the movies made in the west you choose the one with gay cowboys. Even your response to me was to imply I was gay like it would matter. Two responses in a row that you think sexual preference matters. You seldom have a post without a insult, it’s just you.

          • BOB says:

            What’s more interesting is all the so called advocates sitting on their haunches letting timz make his comments without even one response.

            • Immer Treue says:

              Here’s a response. Both you individuals are boring, and to those who have not read the exchanges between these two ironclads, don’t waste your time.

              • timz says:

                Yes it’s a good thing we have you and your endless posts to break up the boredom. They’re mesmerizing.

            • rork says:

              I’d rather read about wildlife. We get more serious trolls sometimes – doesn’t mean we agree or have to respond, and it can be counterproductive. Takes willpower.

              • Nancy says:

                Nice, polite way of summing it up, rork 🙂

                • Susan says:

                  I’ve often wondered if there is some way to get rid of the prolonged exchanges of personal insults on this blog, via moderation… because they are a major turn-off.

                • timz says:

                  “Do wolves terrorize wildlife?”

                  Do wolves know to do any different? Stupid analogy.

              • timz says:

                I often wondered if there is a way to get rid of those that come on a pro wildlife blog and defend the status-quo as it applies to agencies like the Forest Service, BLM, and Fish $ Game commissions. Also trophy hunting, baiting, the use of hounds to terrorize wildlife, trapping and other so-called sporting activities.

                • outdoorfunnut says:

                  “terrorize wildlife” Do wolves terrorize wildlife? Do we control the number of wolves? It’s sad that those that pimp predators think they can wash their hands of the ugliness of their wildlife “concerns” racket.

                  Especially when they bleed into the private sector.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Do wolves terrorize wildlife? Good question in an anthropomorphic kind of way, but then again, if not for the processes of natural selection and the selective forces brought to bare by wolves and other predators upon their prey base, we would probably not have the species so prized by those that hunt; we’d probably have cow-like creatures that never developed the need to run.

      • rork says:

        I was actually gonna criticize his psychological theorizing too, but thought it wasn’t needed, cause I consider it not really on point regarding policy. It does grandstand to bunny huggers – I get that. I find hunting without weapons or violence difficult, the fetish stuff gratuitous, and the instrumental part important cause it cuts the other way like a razor.

    • Kathleen says:

      I guess that SIZE MATTERS: “The biologists decided to euthanize the bear because it was too big to be carried for six miles from the back-country to a place it could be confined while awaiting the test results, and they could not fit a tracking collar on its head, she added.” It’s looking more and more like national parks aren’t safe havens for their nonhuman animal inhabitants.

  7. Ida Lupines says:

    A beautiful piece from the HCN that sums it up the importance of naming the bison as our national mammal very well. It’s acknowledgement of past wrongs, an attempt at making them right, and means a lot:

    With notable candor, the National Bison Association’s Dave Carter says “the fact that we almost screwed it up” then did not prevent the diverse and sometimes conflicting groups from agreeing on a united effort to help restore the buffalo.

  8. Kathleen says:

    “To Rescue or Not, That is the Question With Distressed Animals” T. Wilkinson in National Geo

    Excerpt: Bekoff had argued that the mother bear shouldn’t have been lethally removed. He also believed the cubs should have—for their own dignity—been let go in Yellowstone to try and make it on their own rather than spending the rest of their lives in a zoo. He doesn’t like zoos, he says, because they don’t allow predators to take down prey, because audiences don’t have the appetite for it.

    “This can be hard stuff,” Wenk told me last year. “You’re not only making decisions about the life or death of animals but with social media sometimes the whole world is watching. No matter what you do, people will say you were wrong.”

    • Ida Lupines says:

      He also believed the cubs should have—for their own dignity—been let go in Yellowstone to try and make it on their own rather than spending the rest of their lives in a zoo.

      This is what I thought – keeping disruption of their natural life, even if they might die in the process, is to try to mimick nature in the ‘best’ way possible after something like this.

      I can’t help but think that there was an element of irrational holdover ‘punishment’ in the way Blaze and her cubs were treated because of what had happened to the human hiker. Even on this blog, someone indignantly tried to excuse the killing of Blaze by saying ‘it was because she ate the hiker!’ The bear doesn’t realize human morality, and it is unfair to try and convict them for human values. I also think that a pound of flesh was required so as not to deter future loss of visitor dollars and avoid what they feared might be a public backlash and liability for the incident.

      But let’s not sell the majority of people short. Many people have a more open-minded, reasonable view, and would not have required punishment and would have been happy to keep the cubs in the wild, to make the best of the terrible, but avoidable, situation in light of the facts about the so-called ‘experienced’ hiker.

      I must say it is dismaying that people get so upset about predatory behavior in the wild, and seem unaware of what goes on in slaughterhouses to feed them across the country.

      I still don’t know what to say about wrangling a bison calf into an SUV. Are the rules about wildlife clearly communicated to all visitors? Of course we realize that there are exceptions to every rule, that’s life. But the decisions should be made by Park personnel and biologists, not tourists.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I’m sorry, I just have no patience for this sort of thing. You visit a National Park, and you behave with good manners, respect the rules, and if you love animals, you think of their welfare first, and tread carefully. I will always treasure my visits to National Parks and other wild areas, and hold them dearly. I’m not out go conquer.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Or you might have patience once or twice, but when these behaviors go on time after time despite any ‘education’, something is amiss.

          You can’t blame the general public for lack of individual responsibility. It is not the Borg. We all don’t like the politics of the far right, but the far left I feel is responsible for creating a Borg-like ideology where nobody has any responsibility for their own actions, good manners are thought as restrictive and inhibitive to creativity (such as the young woman painting national monuments), and dumbing down.

          Tourists from Canada and other places ought to have respect coming to our Parks. Or maybe it is America’s lackadaisical attitudes about correcting bad behavior that now makes it acceptable for other visitors.

      • rork says:

        It’s not about punishment. Liability would come if you did nothing about bears who have acquired a human tooth, and they eat some more people.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          I don’t know if they would acquire a ‘taste’. I think that is another wildlife myth; there is no proof of it. I have the feeling you are in science in some capacity, so I’m surprised you would further that kind of thing. We know what we as humans can do to avoid it. If people would follow the rules, the Park staff and visitors be a little proactive and aware, it might never be an issue. Bears are omnivores who will eat whatever food is available, especially getting ready to hibernate. The carelessness of that hiker is to blame. I don’t think we’re all that great that any wildlife would go out of their way to get us – all that is needed is that we stay out of their way and keep an eye outp perfume, drugsI know when I was there, there were warnings immediately as you walked into the ranger station where Grizzlies had been seen, and how to identify them by their conspicuous hump (not that I’d want to run into any bear). I took the warnings seriously and planned my hikes where they hadn’t been seen – and checked every day, had a little chit-chat with the ranger on duty about grizzly sightings. Not foolproof, but it’s something.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Oops I didn’t delete a sentence entirely – I was gonna say that humans stinking of cheap perfumes and the myriad of drugs in our systems these days, I don’t think we’d be that appealing as we think we are to wildlife.

            • Kathleen says:

              Heck, they aren’t appealing to other humans! It just kills me when I’m out hiking in the wilds and another hiker or group of them passes and all you can smell is the chemically-perfumed laundry detergent and/or dryer sheets or whatever that their clothes are permeated with!

              • Ida Lupines says:

                It’s funny; when you are out hiking, your hearing becomes more acute, and your sense of smell. In more populated areas, artificial noise drowns out everything. You can hear people for a ways before you see them, and wafts of perfume and artificial scents I can do without, at least when I’m outdoors. Evergreens, lakes or ponds, and leaf litter are all I want to smell. There’s no telling what animals with better senses of smell can distinguish! PU! 🙂 lol

          • Ida Lupines says:

            ^^or when they’re coming out of hibernation.

            But I am incredulous that people are so far removed from the natural world today that they might not consider these things, and continually blunder through wild areas, especially since we read about people putting bison calves in the back of an SUV. National Parks are not Zootopias.

            An interesting piece from the HCN, and how the film sanitizes predators:


            • Ida Lupines says:

              Then the camera pulls back to reveal a school play about the distant past. “Over time we evolved and moved beyond our primitive savage ways,” a narrator intones. “Wait, who did?” I think. “The tiger? The kid two rows over eating a hot dog? Don’t carnivores still deal with blood and sharp teeth?”

              Spot on.

        • rork says:

          I should have said “are more likely harm another person” which was the general point.

        • Kathleen says:

          “Some commenters in both the first and third groups cite the idea that bears develop a taste for human blood once they’ve imbibed and must be exterminated, but this has been dismissed by Chris Servheen, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s grizzly bear recovery coordinator. ‘That’s for horror stories in movies,’ he told Slate in 2012. ‘Bears don’t get a taste for human blood. There’s no studies that show that.’”

          From “A human-bear tragedy in Yellowstone” (this was about the execution of the bear known as Blaze).

          • Ida Lupines says:

            It’s hard to believe that this kind of mythology still exists. Just ask yourself – why would any sensible animal want to be bothered with humans? We’re obnoxious.

  9. Louise Kane says:

    the same sold suspects now trying to insert the “Sportsman Heritage Act” into the energy bill as an entire package. Please take a moment to contact your senators and object to this heinous piece of legislation.

  10. Louise Kane says:

    the act and it’s wildlife killing and maiming provisions can be found here as well as a link to write to your senators.

  11. Peter Kiermeir says:

    House Republicans Unveil Another Anti-wolf, Anti-endangered Species Appropriations Bill

  12. Gary Humbard says:

    I hate to see dogs get killed, but call it Karma or what goes around, comes around. IMO, dogs should not be used for the purpose to help humans kill wildlife.

    • Kathleen says:

      The dogs were victims here–not of wolves, but of humans who exploit them to succeed at killing black bears. What a messed up system. This will only fuel wolf hatred–note the ‘snarling wolves’ pic chosen to accompany the article.

    • Nancy says:

      “Most of the social history of hunting revolves around the justifications for and enforcement of noble monopoly.

      Non-nobles sometimes chafed at being prevented from hunting for sport, but they were more frequently troubled by the fact that the noble monopoly on hunting for sport prohibited commoners from hunting for food or stopping wild animals from damaging their crops.

      Conflicts over hunting were, therefore, part of a larger negotiation over relations of power between nobles and peasants.

      The three main types of hunting — hunting vermin, hunting for food, and hunting for sport — touched on different aspects of those relations”

      That bit of research, into the past re: hunting, kind of explains “main types of hunting” which are still too prevalent today around the world, given the ancestors of Europeans that settled this country and other countries (and had that mentality) and the views on hunting anything and everything, other than human 🙂

      Hard to relate to these SOB’s that have no problem putting their “best friends” in harms way, to fulfill some sort of sick hunting fantasy.

      • BOB says:

        Getting a little snarky there Nancy.

        Two days ago it was the Native American’s who settled this country and now today it was the Europeans?
        Just guessing here but I doubt your going to relate to hunters on any level given your comments degrading hunters. You need to spend some time living on one of Montana’s reservation and observe some Native hunting habits to understand your theory about European ancestors is BS.

        • Nancy says:

          Jeez Bob, didn’t think you’d respond so quickly, a little break in T-shirt sales at Trump’s Rally in Billings?

          • BOB says:

            Does the stereotyping help you sleep at night?

            • Nancy says:

              When it fits, yo dormir como un lirón, BOB 🙂

              • BOB says:

                Looks like I misread your 6:56 p.m. comment, Nancy. You and Donald do fit well together, both like to stereotype people both like to call others names and make over the top outrageous comments. Your just a poorer female version of Donald. Good luck with the T-shirt sales, maybe some day you can break into property sales.

  13. Kathleen says:

    Two items for those interested in the wolverine ESA listing discussion/controversy. “How not to write a wolverine article for the popular press”

    is a critical response to an article appearing in Huffington Post, “In extinction’s way: the wolverine and climate change”

  14. rork says:
    Looks like a try to limit what we can ask of ships dumping ballast water. It’s how we suspect we got round goby, zebra mussel, and quagga mussel, into the great lakes.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Wow. Same with cruise ships, dumping crap into the ocean, and then blaming the wildlife for lack of shellfish and fish. Which is why I will never, ever go on one, even if my life depended upon it. Besides being unappealing (my idea of a vacation isn’t a floating Las Vegas), I don’t want to be a part of willful, mindless pollution and excess, nor catching norovirus.

    • Chris Harbin says:

      I am so sick of the Republicans adding anti-environmental riders on to important unrelated legislation. Similarly I’ll about the unending attempts to undo environmental legislation, especially those that are long standing. Every other day brings a new attempt to destroy the ESA. If they can’t vote for a Supreme Court justice, they should not be allowed to vote on anything until after the election.

    • Angela says:

      and tons of invasive species in San Francisco Bay too

  15. Kathleen says:

    Rachel Carson on the balance of nature. She was born on this day in 1907.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Russian princes turned part the nearby mountainside into private grounds to hunt the big cats. But it was not royal sport that saw the region’s leopards wiped out by the 1920s; a campaign to eradicate the unpopular wolf using traps and poisoned meat indiscriminately killed all predators.

      Aren’t they beautiful; I hope the reintroduction program goes forward.

  16. Ida Lupines says:

    Riders in and of themselves are how the government works. If the purpose is to made an end-run around environmental legislation and to enable killing of wildlife without going through the proper channels, personally I wouldn’t care if the rider was by Democrat, Republican, or eff-all. 🙂

  17. Kathleen says:

    Has this been posted? “Rhino ranchers”??? WTF!?!

    “South Africa Just Lifted Its Ban on the Rhino Horn Trade:
    A lawsuit brought by two South African rhino ranchers to invalidate the country’s rhino horn ban is upheld, and the government’s appeal is denied.”

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Wow. It just gets worse and worse, doesn’t it?

      I read last night that an endangered lowland gorilla had to be shot at an OH zoo because a 3 or 4 year old somehow got past three layers of fencing and moats. Where were the kid’s parents? 3 or 4 years old is very young to be wandering around unattended. Why is it so easy to get into a wild animal’s enclosure? Must be for the ‘thrill’ factor of getting up close and personal with the poor zoo animals – I note that this zoo is open for business as usual today. Can’t miss out on the Memorial weekend $$$$, I suppose.***oops update – as of this morning, they decided to close for today. I guess it would have been bad PR to remain open, probably because of public outcry.

      Zoos are a holdover from the Victorian era whose prime purpose is entertainment and to gawk at the unusual. Trying to legitimize them as preserving endangered species and to ‘educate’ is another human rationalization. They do very little of either. And they move these poor animals from zoo to zoo and tranquilize them to easily, I think.

      Also, what a sad story about the poor elephant that spent her entire 69 years in a cement enclosure, alone, with no kind of mental stimulation whatsoever.

      There’s an update too about the little boy who went missing in Idaho – whom the wolf-haters stated was taken by a wolf or other wildlife. New information has been found (they won’t release what) and that the parents have been ‘less than truthful’. Surprise, surprise.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        ^^but you can bet that if it were a wolf or mountain lion it would be all over the wires just like the WY elk story.

        Chris, I agree that riders are poor way of governing, but that’s how we do things. Canada and Europe frown upon them, but how the mighty have fallen in the US.

        Bob, wouldn’t it be great tho if a Democrat did attach one to an important piece of legislation to protect the environment or wildlife, and also interfere with the democratic process by barring judicial review of it? Turnabout is fair play, isn’t it? Can’t you just hear the howls of protest. Sweet!

        • Chris Harbin says:

          Just because “it’s just the way we do things” does not mean it’seems best way or even a good way to do things.

        • BOB says:

          Once again you and Chris are hung up on the I love these people and hate those people simply because of what party they belong. Hate is mostly born of ignorance, case in point the first wolf rider was introduce by a republican and a democrat.
          What difference does it make what party introduced the rider?
          Chris at least dislikes all riders.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            You have to be realistic; I don’t like riders either, but what I said was that at least for today it is the preferred method of the government.

            Dislike is more appropriate, and borne of experience, not ignorance, especially repeated experiences. All I meant is that if a rider was introduced for one issue, nobody should be surprised or upset if the same method is used for something they don’t agree with.

            The wolf haters (borne of ignorance?) like the wolf delisting rider, but they’d howl bitterly if a rider was attached that protected wolves and more importantly undemocratically barred judicial review is what I meant.

            What’s good for the goose and all that.

            • BOB says:

              Nobody should be surprised or upset with the same method being used, but they are upset.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              Until such time as it can be changed to approving a bill on its individual merits or the line-item veto, that is – people have tried, but to little avail.

          • Nancy says:

            “Hate is mostly born of ignorance”

            Hey BOB, try and get it right, especially when it applies out here in the west 🙂

            “Fear is the only true enemy, born of ignorance and the parent of anger and hate” Edward Albert

            • BOB says:

              I’m talking about the hate of other humans and making blanket statements about groups.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        More on the story of the lowland gorilla shot at the Cincinnati Zoo. Still no mention of where the kid’s parents were, but a bystander tried to stop the kid.

        • Nancy says:

          A raw video of the boy in the water and the gorilla’s reaction – “hey kid, let me get you on your feet, you okay?”

          Wonder how long after that moment, this gorilla was shot dead?

          The shouting & screaming and the mother yelling “Mommy’s right here” but where was fricken Mommy, when this kid went over the ledge and cost this gorilla his life?

          • Kathleen says:

            The video can still be viewed here, filmed before the zoo patrons were evacuated from the area.

            I agree that the parents were negligent– along with the zoo. But the morally criminal act is keeping wild animals captive for the entertainment of the paying public. That always gets lost in the subsequent finger-pointing.

          • outdoorfunnut says:

            I find it interesting that the dragging and whipping of the boy through the water was edited out via ABC when they played the footage right after it happened. THEN, some are saying on other sights that when they did get around to playing that part of the clip they played it in a slower motion than what actually happened. I did watch the clip on a couple of differ TV spots and most certainly they were at different speeds. When I saw the clip played on NBC (I think) my reaction was that the gorilla was going to snap the boys spin they way he whipped around. Watch the water, when you see the clip on ABC.

            ABC can play what they want BUT cutting out the part where the gorilla is whipping the boy around and only showing the part where he is picking the boy out of the water tells me they were trying to portray the shooting as unnecessary…

      • Kathleen says:

        “Zoos are a holdover from the Victorian era whose prime purpose is entertainment and to gawk at the unusual.”
        Yes, and whose prime purpose now it to make money. That’s why zoos love white tigers. As genetic anomalies they have no conservation value, but they sure do bring in the gate receipts.

      • Linda Horn says:

        A number of zoos have live streaming webcams that can be viewed online and by visitors. Imo, that’s a smart alternative for potentially dangerous animals.

        • Kathleen says:

          An even better alternative is sanctuary instead of zoo captivity, like The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee. It’s an awesome place that takes in retired and sick circus and zoo elephants and provides access to them via three elecams:

          Because the animals have been on display their entire lives, the public isn’t allowed into the sanctuary: “The Elephant Sanctuary is a true sanctuary – a place of rest and refuge for elephants that have spent much of their lives on display or performing. The needs of the elephants have always been and will always be our top priority.”
          ~from their FAQ page:

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Yes. I hope, with the dire outlook for ever-shrinking wildlife populations in the wild, and then the questionable keeping of them in zoos, that the public will demand better. With the state of wildlife today, I really don’t care if children have an opportunity to see them. I’m more concerned how people destroy them in every manner possible.

            The fence keeping that kid away from the animals was only 3 feet tall and 15 feet away. 3 feet!!!! If they hadn’t had trouble before, it was only a matter of luck. 3 year olds aren’t particularly agile or dexterous as an older child. I also wonder why a bystander couldn’t have stopped him.

            Also, where was any staff? Probably cut for budgeting purposes. The fencing and protections for the animals and the people was totally inadequate at this zoo, and I hope they are held accountable, and even sued. As we know, the government’s, in this case the USDA’s, view of ‘adequate’ is always challenged by those being regulated.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              You know, the more I think about it, the more I think the zoo is negligent. If I hadn’t seen how ridiculously inadequate the barriers were, I’d have continued to blame the kid’s parents. But, the zoo has the obligation, inviting the public to their exhibits, to be sure protections are in place not only for the visitors, but the precious endangered animals. They failed big time.

              No I hope they get sued the crap out of, because $$$ is really the only motivator for human beings to prevent this kind of thing in the future.

              The zoo needs to look at some kind of crowd control or restrictions too, because you can’t think that people are always going to behave properly or not make mistakes. There was someone who willfully jumped into a tiger enclosure recently too. Those poor captive animals! How bizarre.

              The zoo says they are thinking of putting up ‘a couple more’ warning signs – how shockingly and disappointingly cavalier about the whole thing.

              I am happy about an awakening public and their outcry.

  18. Ida Lupines says:

    Speaking of holdovers (from the Biblical era this time). Have you ever heard the like of grown men afraid of snakes? Any other time it would be an irrational phobia to seek the help of a therapist about:

    Turning a Massachusetts Town into ‘A Colony of Pit Vipers’ *eyeroll*

    I should say that I am thankful that I do not patronize zoos, and have never set foot in Sea World. I did not miss much.

  19. Immer Treue says:

    Evidence continues to build that forest fires may contribute to MN moose population increase, ergo, habitat.

    Also addressed is moose don’t seem to do well in old growth areas, indicative of once was caribou habitat.

      • outdoorfunnut says:

        “They do best at very low population densities which do not attract wolves, because they cannot tolerate very much predation.” Not enough of the locals using Letharia vulpine aaah Immer?

      • Chris Harbin says:

        That was a sort of sad story. I am reading a book about the natural history of the San Juan Mountains and it said Colorado’s last grizzly was killed in that area in 1956. I was surprised they lasted that long down there.

    • outdoorfunnut says:

      So what is your end game Immer? Do you want caribou…(suppress fire)? Do you want moose (Get rid of deer)?

      • Immer Treue says:

        No end game. Man opened the area up in the 1850’s and thereafter, and like a Rube Goldberg apparatus, things changed. Throw in a variable such as weather phenomena, and things can change rather rapidly. But man is rather myopic in regard to cause and effect, always looking for a quick fix, or an easy target to blame.

        • outdoorfunnut says:

          Ohh contrair, Immer. Are you sure you have no end game Is stopping any kind of management of predators one of your goals? I’m thinking you’re quite clear on that?? Even if their has never been a period where man has not consistently removed them from the landscape… in the last 12000 years?? All other chips may then fall where they may?

          • Immer Treue says:

            You continue to think, but please think for yourself, and perhaps something coherent will coalesce.

  20. Ida Lupines says:

    You know, sometimes I have to admit I sometimes sell people short. There is hope, and more and more people are demanding that we change our old methods of coexisting with wildlife, and find their treatment in zoos and wildlife parks unacceptable. They also can admit when humans have been wrong or at fault in wildlife conflicts. Go Cincinnati, go!

    • Ida Lupines says:

      No matter how you look at it, humans are at fault. The parent(s) weren’t watching a 3 – 4 year old, that is much too young. You might have more understanding about an older child who got away from a parent, but not a little 3 year old. How did they figure out how to get into the enclosure? He obviously wasn’t being watched for some time.

      The mother is saying that there were too many people blocking her from getting to her child. Not much of an excuse, but if that is true in this case, then the zoo isn’t doing their part to make sure people travel through the exhibits in an orderly fashion and even staggered small groups might be necessary as our population continues to grow. Money is the driving factor here, getting as many people in as possible.

      I totally, totally agree about keeping animals in captivity against their wills in zoos being a morally criminal act, kidnapping and slavery come to mind. Just watch Blackfish and see them abducting baby orca calves from their mothers, with no regard for their death and you’ll see just what amoral means.

  21. Gary Humbard says:

    There are some aspects of zoos that can benefit wildlife. The Bronx Zoo was instrumental in the re-introduction of bison in some areas of the Great Plains and if done right, can be influential in educating the public about conserving wildlife and their habitat worldwide.

    Ultimately, I agree that the only good cage is an empty cage, however, if a visit wakes up even 10% of the population to provide more resources to protect wildlife, isn’t that a good thing. A South African who purchased reserves to protect wildlife in Africa, went to Baghdad to help restore the zoo there because he wanted to not only help the animals but bring back some quality of life for the Iraqis. He saw citizens come out of their homes for the first time and begin to heal the local area. When people care for animals (albeit in cages) it does something for the soul.

    There is a wildlife park nearby where the majority of animals (except predators and large animals such as elephants) have large areas to roam and where visitors drive through the park. However, the average American doesn’t have access to a park such as this, thus a zoo is the only means to connect to wildlife.

    Prosecuting the parents will do nothing to bring back the gorilla, but they certainly should not be allowed to return to the zoo for a very long time.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Yes. I think people should connect to them to learn in the proper way though, not as entertainment – but there’s the conundrum, I guess. But certainly animals being protected for breeding purposes should be treated with more care.

    • Kathleen says:

      “A US study found no compelling evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote attitude change, education, or interest in conservation in visitors. The study authors urged zoos to stop citing a zoo-funded study which claimed an educational benefit from visits “as this conclusion is unwarranted and potentially misleading to consumers.”[17]”

      [17] L Morino et al. Do Zoos and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical Evaluation of the American Zoo and Aquarium Study. Society and Animals 18 (2010) 126-138

      From the Captive Animals’ Protection Society
      (UK)page “10 facts about zoos”

    • Nancy says:

      Gary, an excellent article on zoos and a gentleman who’s studied (and helped) their “inmates” for years.

      “If you’re already feeling irritable, watching people at a zoo may not improve your mood. And it is sobering to imagine them from the perspective of the animals.

      During a trip Virga and I took to Central Park Zoo, a boy stood by the side of an aquarium, pointing, and yelled “SEA WIONS!” approximately 37 times in a row.

      A middle-aged nanny tried to get the attention of an otherwise-engaged macaque by ululating at it repeatedly, while the toddler in her charge, for whose amusement this was being done, peered insensibly at some bushes.

      There are, as well, regular ringside child-care meltdowns of varying explosiveness, and hives of elementary-school students who, behaviorally speaking, stand around hollering at one another until they’re herded to the next exhibit”

      IMHO, the best way (if zoos really do need to exist in the future to promote concern for threatened or endangered species) would be to design habitats that have little if any, exposure to humans. One way glass comes to mind. Parks where humans board vehicles for a trip thru to see wildlife (as in Yellowstone) or online visual tours.

      • Louise kane says:

        Traditional zoos are a sorry Buisness
        I lived down the street from the Washington, D.C. Zoo
        I went once and will never forget the solitary wolf that paced endlessly in a bowling alley lane size enclosure and the look of defeat on its face or the roar of the frustrated tiger night and day

        I’ve hated zoos since
        The sight of people gawking harassing and otherwise imposing themselves on the animals privacy is disturbing and highly unsettling

        Zoos are prisons
        Why humans think an animal should thrive in such an atmosphere but that humans behind bars is punishment eludes me

        • Ida Lupines says:

          I went once and will never forget the solitary wolf that paced endlessly.

          Yep, I’ve seen that also. And the poor elephants too.

          Hopefully, one day zoos will be done away with for good. Until then, everything they do – every cruelty, every indifference, every violation, should be hammered.

          Now they’re saying that all is not lost, they still have Harabe’s sperm. Apalling, it’s like telling a woman whose had a miscarriage ‘don’t worry, you can still have other children’.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            And there truly is no excuse for those 2nd, 3rd and 4th rate roadside horrors. There should never be more captive tigers in the US than there are in the wild, or a tiger living in a NYC apartment!!!

            Wild animals should not ever be kept as pets.

            • BOB says:

              Where do you think pets came from, Ida?
              Should the descendant of a wild animal be a pet?
              How long does it take for a pet to become wild?

              • Ida Lupine says:

                Funny you should bring that up. It takes many generations for an animal to be domesticated, and only at man’s interference, which is ethically questionable.

                I have a pet cat, and when she is gone, I’m not getting another pet for the very reasons above. I’m questioning the ethics of tinkering with genetics. Plus, domesticated pets are just one more thing that harm wildlife. I’ll be fine with just admiring the wildlife in my neck of the woods now. Or help out at a shelter.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  All the ways humans use other creatures are forms of slavery, even taking an animal to be your companion animal, and there’s a lot of neglect and abuse associated with that, too, by many irresponsible pet owners. We’ve pretty much stopped or are barred from treating other humans as slaves, hopefully someday that will extend to other creatures too.

                  How presumptuous to think that we know better how another being should live, when most likely they’ve been at it a hell of a lot longer than we have been on this planet!

                  Our time and resources would be better spent maintaining habitat and stopping poaching.

                • outdoorfunnut says:

                  That’s sad Ida, Man and beast have a lot to offer each other. From seeing eye dogs, drug sniffing and cancer sniffing dogs. In return they are feed and protected from being eaten by disgusting predators. Our second dog was always so proud of himself when he would fetch the ball or chase the neighbors cat out of the yard. The seniors at the local nursing home get a kick out of Thursday pet day and the dogs / cats seem to love it also. My spouse and I were always saying “the dogs got it made”. Those that think the life of a wild animal is better than in a zoo has not spent enough true time ….in the wild.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  I’ll say one more thing and then I’ll sign off.

                  I don’t see how the animal benefits much from the relationship with man. They are serving us, but what do we offer them? Not much. Drug and bomb sniffing dogs are put in harm’s way, so are police dogs. Many times, except for the feel-good human interest stories, they are expendable. They are not here for our loneliness, health, entertainment, or any of that, IMO. I’ll help out at a shelter for animals that I consider the refugees of mankind, but I won’t ‘own’ another pet in my lifetime anymore.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  Animals are considered property under our law, so that says it all, I think. Sorry, that was two things. Goodnite,

          • outdoorfunnut says:

            How do you explain that the wild animals counterparts in the wild typically don’t live as long as the ones in the zoo. With gorillas its 25% longer in the prison…”zoo”.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              It’s a quality of life thing. Think of it from your own viewpoint – would you rather live free the way you want to, or behind bars for a longer time and miserable?

              We can’t project what we think makes one happy upon another being, and to justify taking away their freedom.

              • outdoorfunnut says:

                “taking away their freedom” Thanks for the chuckle Ida. Who is interested in freedom when two of three upper Michigan voters voted for a wolf hunt in last years referendum?

        • Kathleen says:

          “Why humans think an animal should thrive in such an atmosphere but that humans behind bars is punishment eludes me”

          In a word, speciesism.

  22. Kathleen says:

    From Stephen Wise of the NonHuman Rights Project:

    “The major problem is that the Cincinnati Zoo is legally permitted to treat such extraordinarily cognitively complex and gentle animals as slaves in order to sell tickets to gawkers, and that Harambe, like every other nonhuman animal, was a legal “thing” that lacked the capacity for any legal rights, even the fundamental rights to his life and liberty.”

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Thank you for posting that. It also mentions a chimpanzee that received a beating with a steel rod so badly it left him deaf, on a movie set. For something as trivial as a movie!!!! What’s maddening is that there is no end to the excuses.

      In this case, the zoos protections are terribly inadequate, and I hope they are made by court order to make them better. They throw up their hands now because there was nothing they could do under the current circumstances, but if they had animal and human welfare foremost in their minds instead of money, perhaps this might not have happened at all. You can’t expect that visitors are always going to follow the rules, not make mistakes, or that children are not going to be curious.

      • outdoorfunnut says:

        There auto be a law …. government is not big enough & we need the department of zoo management to hire engineers to design animals displays to out fox creative three year olds and airhead parents….. get ur done!!! Lobby Hillary, Bernie and Donny if you got enough money in you pockets you can …..get ur done…don’t forget to leave your heart showing on your sleeve.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          Certainly the fencing ought to have been upgraded since 1978! I’m curious to know if the barriers had fallen into disrepair, with crumbling cement, etc. When you’ve got a powerful animal in an exhibit, I think the zoo has an obligation to the public to make it as safe as possible. The major responsibility is on them.

          In one instance, despite the fact that drunken teenagers had entered a tiger enclosure after hours with no supervision, the zoo was still found negligent and had to pay restitution of 900,000K in one instance, and an undisclosed amount in the other. Cheaper to fix the fence.

          • outdoorfunnut says:

            So that design out foxed all three year olds and airhead parents for almost 40 years. Must have been a hell of a good design! Do you know the fence was in need of repair or is it just agenda driven gossip? The 900,000k lawsuit speaks for itself. That judge / or jury are what’s wrong with this country and part of the reason it’s cheaper to make things in Mexico and ship it here.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              I think the ‘design’ this zoo has been lucky, that’s all. Their gambling just ran out.

              They call it the ‘industry’ standard, which tells me a lot. The zoo keeps trying to defend itself and by so doing digs themselves in deeper and deeper culpability. Business decisions do not work well with animal welfare, as we see all the time. Zoos cannot have it both ways; either they are places of entertainment with human amusement taking priority; or they are enlightened, 21st century contributors to ‘biology and science’ where the animals welfare, and today, protection from extinction, is their first priority.

              I think most people would be willing to give up a little having the perfect photo op and amusement park thrills for more protections for their children and the precious wildlife. Zoos can’t be doing the same things as 38 years ago.

              • Kathleen says:

                Ida (in response to to your 9:46 am post) – “Gorilla World’s barrier setup exceeds required protocols and has been in place for 38 years without incident, Maynard said. Exhibits are inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture twice a year and by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums every five years for accreditation, he said.”

                So there actually *are* standards that have to be met (and were met in Cincinnati because they got a pass from federal inspectors); perhaps those standards will change now that this incident has occurred and social media has changed the landscape of how people react to such incidents and the pressure they can bring to bear…and the public’s decreasing tolerance for dispatching a beloved or famous nonhuman like Harambe. Sadly (from my perspective) there is much more condemnation of the zoo and the mother–even from animal rights activists–than there is for the root cause: the cruel captivity of wild animals for entertainment and profit. I saw a particularly egregious meme posted by an animal activist–a picture of a gorilla with text that read: “I’m dead because a b*tch didn’t watch her kid.” But for all we know, incarceration in an “exhibit” was a living death for Harambe.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  I know; I’m not faulting the mother at all because this stuff can happen. I wasn’t there; I don’t know if she was watching him enough, but I’m sure he was excited by the exhibit. There really needs to be more protections.

                  I’d like to see zoos done away with personally, but while they are here the experience of the human should not take priority. If zoos have any self-proclaimed great aspirations to protections of the species, they are not showing it by creating these kinds of environments.

                  About WM – I was a little concerned that we haven’t heard from him also. We need different views from all. When there’s trolling and just argumentative posts, I tend to bypass them anyway, so I’m not really bothered by them. And I know attorneys enjoy arguing. 🙂

                  But with a constant influx of new people, different views, and lack of change – there’s bound to be redundancy.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  The other thing that bothers me terribly is the media introducing information about the family that has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Just adding fuel to the fire.

          • Nancy says:

            Ida – I know, its tempting but DON’T FEED THE TROLL!!!!

            • Jay says:

              Good advice–next time BOB eggs you on, you should follow it.

              • Nancy says:

                Like I said, tempting 🙂

              • Immer Treue says:

                The whole thing about the “troll” issue is irony that exists on this site. The evolution of posting here as it has become, is somewhat analogous to a Stephen Jay Gould essay of why there are no longer any .400 hitters in baseball, who also makes the connection for less diversity rather than more in evolution…burst of evolutionary activity to fill niches, followed by a “weeding out of extremes”, and then long periods of stasis.

                I’ve been reading an essay or two of Gould every morning, and his and Niles Eldridge’s theory of “punctuated equilibrium” in regard to evolution makes more sense very day,,with analogical connections to many things in life.

                Yet, the redundancy of comments and discussions proved frustrating to the likes of JB (JB, this is intended as a compliment). Another poster who appears to no longer grace the pages, WM, eloquent in discussion, and about as fair and partial as anyone who posted here, was all but chased off the blog.

                SEAK M was a great poster who no longer posts here, I’ve heard mention of Bob Hoskins, ma’iingan…

                Oh well.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  I don’t think WM was chased off – I got the feeling because he did not agree with Ralph’s very reasoned assessment about the ’19 elk killed by wolves’ hysteria piece that stormed over the news. I think he left voluntarily.

                  To me, he’s not entirely evenhanded in his discussions, but leaned more towards wolf hunting and defense of unreasonable fears of depredation – in a word, overkill. And even general wolf dislike for no reason at all. While he does contribute to the discussion, he’s also been part of the name-calling and back-and-forth arguing that did not contribute positively to the discussion in any way, and a bit of a baiter. Let’s not saint him.

                  I see tha ma’iingan still is posting here. There’s no telling why people come and go.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  I disagree with you. Again.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  Right after that exchange with Ralph, he hasn’t been seen since. But who knows, there maybe a reason that has nothing to do with this blog. He’d be a very poor attorney if he allowed anyone to chase him off, and I don’t think he’s a poor attorney.

                • Kathleen says:


                  If you’re a baseball fan (ahem! Cubs & Mariners!) you’ll find the whole thing fascinating. Otherwise, at about the 7:30 mark, he gives a good explanation of the ‘right wall’ that’s the limit of human performance and how the average relates to it. Very interesting.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Cardinals, for a long time…
                  And in a nutshell from video and Gould’s essay, “the variation has shrunk.”

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Last I’ll say on it, perhaps WM was less prolific in the past, but the way he was attacked on that post or another, if I was WM, I’d have done the same thing and said, see ya.

                  WM understood there were two sides to the coin, and wasn’t afraid to expose the opposite side or the fault in the other. It was done with eloquence and was always worth the read. Some will disagree with me, but that’s ok. In my opinion, Whether you agreed with WM or not, he was always open to discussion, but you had to be willing to support your argument in like fashion.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  I did agree with him sometimes. And even if I didn’t agree with him, he many times is pleasant. I hope he does return.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              Thanks Nancy.

              I was thinking of one of the few times I have visited zoos, and a silverback slammed himself up against the glass or plexiglass of the enclosure – so powerful, it was a little frightening.

              And the sound of a tiger’s roar went right through me one time, and the sight of a mountain lion too. These are wild creatures and that should not be minimized.

    • Louise kane says:

      Plus one

      • Louise kane says:

        Meant for Kathleen on zoos and animals lack of basic rights to liberty and life

  23. Immer Treue says:

    We hear too often about the non-indigenous/invasive Canadian Gray that is not like the wolf that was there…

    More proof in the pudding that wolves don’t pay attention to imaginary lines and have the ability to travel great distances in short periods of time.

  24. timz says:

    elk knocks woman on her ass. Go elk!!

    • skyrim says:

      Betcha’ a buck that cow had a calf somewhere nearby in the grass and timber

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Shhh! The Interior Dept. or the NPS will put out a hit on the poor elk, because she hurt the pride of the woman. The elk didn’t show the proper respect to a human.

  25. Kathleen says:

    From Marc Bekoff:

    “Why Was Harambe the Gorilla in a Zoo in the First Place?
    Amid the debate over who was at fault in the death of a beloved animal, we need to step back and ask a different question”

  26. Yvette says:

    I didn’t know WM was gone or MIA. He added a lot of insight from several perspectives, but he also had a tendency to be inflammatory with his posts. He also tended to get too emotional on wolf issues, immigration issues, anything left of a moderate Republican (if that is definable in this day and age). I’ve participated very little in the last few months but not because of anything that happened on here. I miss reading JB’s input to things. Everyone is busy, I suppose.

    One of the things I liked about TWN is there are well informed, experienced, and educated people that post. I hope it stays that way.

    • JimT says:

      Does not bode well for wolves, but then again, Dan Ashe hasn’t done diddly for predators or much of anything else during his tenure…

    • JB says:

      This quote is telling about the Service’s goals:

      “Mike, he was a unique guy,” Thabault said. “He really kept a lid on wolf stuff in Wyoming, for sure. He was a great asset, and he’s going to be a tough guy to replace, definitely.”

      What makes an employee valuable to the FWS? Making strides toward recovery? Their unabashed support of endangered wildlife? Nah, it’s their ability to ‘keep a lid’ on issues related to endangered species. [sighs audibly]

  27. Kathleen says:

    Another dead grizzly…

    “GREAT FALLS (AP) — Wildlife authorities shot and killed a female grizzly bear after she twice killed sheep on a ranch southeast of Valier.

    “Fish, Wildlife and Parks grizzly bear manager Mike Madel tells the Great Falls Tribune that federal wildlife officials shot the 6-year-old bear from a helicopter on Sunday as it was bedded down near the west shore of Lake Frances, with is southwest of Valier.”

  28. rork says:
    US Fish and Wildlife Service looking to see if the moose subspecies from MI over to ND (Alces alces andersoni)need listing under endangered species act. Our guy (Russ Mason) seems OK with it. He is good, often speaking painful truths to the people. Even if there’s not immediate threat of extinction, future weather may mean we should make plans.

  29. Immer Treue says:

    New “Ambassador” pups for the IWC.,12723

  30. Kathleen says:

    Yellowstone follies…to be continued…

    “Yet the incident makes many regular park visitors and staff wonder: What is going to happen next? Or maybe less politely: How stupid can tourists be? No wonder some park workers refer to visitors as “tourons,” a combination of the words tourist and moron. Last summer it was bison gorings and people falling from cliffs that made headlines. This year is anyone’s guess.”

  31. Ida Lupines says:

    Is this not the sweetest, most heartfelt thing ever? Poor little guy. Don’t we all feel this way:

  32. Kathleen says:

    Maine North Woods potential national monument:

    and House Committee on Natural Resources Facebook post:

  33. Nancy says:

    Hey BOB:

    • BOB says:

      Is that a Native American guitar in the back ground?
      What I say… street performers… some of them are good and some not so good.

      • skyrim says:

        You’re a dick…………
        There I said it. Ban me for life.

    • BOB says:

      Had to laugh at the fact not a single comment about all the wild animals that had to die for that performance. What a trophy collection.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Give me a summer, sans prosecution, and I could gather that amount in Raven or eagle feathers without killing an animal.

        • BOB says:


          • Nancy says:

            BOB – kind of knew when I posted this video… to you 🙂 you’d waste little time ripping this man, his music & the presentation, apart.

            But keep in mind BOB, its the flute that captures the heart here.

            Watch it again and check out the crowd, faces.

            The lyrics, in case you forgot them or it was never part of your “two step” dance mentality, while growing up out here in the west:

            “El Condor Pasa (If I Could)”

            I’d rather be a sparrow than a snail
            Yes I would, if I could, I surely would
            I’d rather be a hammer than a nail
            Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would

            Away, I’d rather sail away
            Like a swan that’s here and gone
            A man gets tied up to the ground
            He gives the world it’s saddest sound
            Its saddest sound

            I’d rather be a forest than a street
            Yes I would, if I could, I surely would
            I’d rather feel the earth beneath my feet
            Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would

          • Immer Treue says:

            Did you read what I wrote?

          • Yvette says:

            Yes Bob, it can be done legally. Here ya go.



            Bless your little heart.

          • outdoorfunnut says:

            A half century of the outdoors MOST would dream of & I have ONLY seen ONE dead eagle (and road kill at that) & 1000s of live ones …. . Me thinks Immer might be telling fish stories. Those are eagle feathers & nothing wrong with his “trophies”. I’m thinken the only way Immer is collecting that many prime feathers without killing them is if her husband is doin the shooten.

            Also, I have a hole in my hunting and hiking caps where I pick up most of the feathers I come along on the trail….. then, I have an 15 x 30 sheet of styrofoam in the garage that the feathers are stuck into…. Pretty cool and certainly an interesting piece of art after a few decades of collecting. NOT ONE eagle feather which would probably be illegal to pick up anyway.

            • Immer Treue says:

              As I’ve said before, keep thinking, but please be careful not to hurt yourself. Both to you and Bob, sans prosecution, as feathers are illegal to possess,I said I could, within a year, have enough eagle or raven feathers for that bonnet, with the Seth of no bird occurring. It would be very easy, with no “shootin.”

              • Immer Treue says:

                death, not Seth of no bird…

              • Immer Treue says:

                It’s entertaining when you make the comments you do, because the more you comment, the more and more obvious it becomes that you don’t know what you are talking about. And again, no harm to any bird.

              • rork says:

                Guys, birds loose their feathers. It’s called molting. I collect many, some illegally cause I’m not a tribal member. Mostly red-tail, some osprey, baldy, and bard owl, and golden very rarely (they merely pass through). I give them to a friend so that they end up in native hands where they might serve a purpose.

      • skyrim says:

        ditto above…….

    • skyrim says:

      The Shoshone Bannocks used to perform at Old West Days in Jackson. My favorite part of the entire event. The deep seated pride in the performers affected me a bunch.

  34. Immer Treue says:

    Feds consider MN moose for endangered list.

  35. Ida Lupines says:

    This sounds like the MO of a well-publicized (self) wolf hater. Is he in lockdown somewhere, I hope? These are the things that nobody wants to acknowledge about delisting of predators. It also can harm people’s dogs.

  36. Immer Treue says:

    Rancher awarded over 200K for illegal shooting of his guard dogs.

  37. Gary Humbard says:

    Pile on me but I totally agree with Michael Leach. Of course, when you go to a wild environment, you should know the do’s and don’ts, but the fact is the father did it to “save” the bison calf. Is it not hypocritical to feed wild birds and other wildlife instead of them fending for themselves?

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I can’t believe this story is still getting traction. There is no defense for this behavior. The ‘dos and don’ts’ are posted and stated repeatedly, so there’s no such thing as not knowing. It is in a national park where there are professionals whose job it is to take care of the wildlife. I was aghast at a news report that tried to imply that the two had knowledge of animals because they like to visit animal parks or some such thing. They are not zoologists! Shades of the experienced hiker. It’s different.

      Bird populations are/were in serious trouble because of human encroachment and development. The problem is actual – not a presumption. Also, people who feed birds don’t take one in the house because we project or presume that something might be wrong, unless we know for certain that something is wrong. Normally, I’ll call Audubon for assistance before I do anything. For the most part, we leave nature to take its course other than providing a little food to get through a harsh winter. In the warmer months, they naturally fend for themselves. (I had a hummingbird trapped in the garage, but obviously that was a real danger.) This man’s interference caused the death of an animal because of his own presumptions – the little calf would have caught up to his or her herd, it looked like, from the video. Humans should not interfere.

      I’m tired of having the priority being a human being’s delicate feelings. Admit your error, take your lumps and move on.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Birders are told not to interfere, that (the natural, non-human assisted) loss of an animal is part of nature’s course. And bird feeding and bird watching really do help the bird populations, this has been documented. I should say that humans should not interfere unless there is a real threat to an endangered population; and then every animal counts.

        It’s sad to say that it looks like the parks are taking a tough love approach for people who can’t mind their business – if you interfere, or put yourself in harm’s way the animal may die because of you.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          One more thing – bird feeding and bird counts are encouraged by science as a citizen science way to enlist help for bird threatened bird populations and to monitor them.

          Wounded pride for a bad decision doesn’t warrant the same amount of empathy that having an animal’s life taken because of the bad decision does.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            ^^sorry, ‘to enlist help for threatened bird populations and to help monitor them’.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            Bird feeding and bird counting really do actually involve children and teach them about wildlife in a fun an enjoyable, intellectually stimulating activity.


            • Ida Lupines says:

              oops, make that ‘actively involve children’, not actually.

              For some reason, reports are saying the bison calf had been abandoned by its mother. In the video clip I saw, the little calf made it across the creek at the back of the herd just fine, no small feat I am sure for a little one, and its mother had returned for him or her! So it really didn’t appear that way to me. Bison are made for the cold.

              I’m am really tired of humans hogging the spotlight and making everything about them, all the time. I have no idea what really went on with these two men. I have empathy for the little calf who had to die because of ignorance, and second hand embarrassment for the perpetrators. I have outrage at the Cincinnati zoo for trying to palm off a flimsy barrier and the lack of a backup plan to a public who obviously doesn’t know better.

    • Kathleen says:

      Yes, it’s wrong to feed wildlife, but birds are a different story. Certainly no one would approve of what the guy in this video does with deer–whistling for them like domesticated dogs?
      Yet many animal advocates had nothing but praise for him (until they found out he was a hunter!) proving only that a great many people don’t understand wild lives and how human intervention/interference can have a negative impact. At the end of that piece are 3 links–one really good one from the Cornell ornithology lab–on why it’s OK to feed birds year-round.

  38. MAD says:

    Nice little piece by George Wuerthner in the Billings Gazette related to forest fires and thinning practices.

  39. Kathleen says:

    New praying mantis species named after a member of SCOTUS:

    How birds navigate (it’s complex!) and reminds me of the Henry Beston quote: “We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear.”

    • Ida Lupines says:

      ^^Absolutely! How arrogant a species we are.

      I was reading with dismay about a woman who was killed by a shark in Australia. The article said that it was going to be hunted. How are they ever going to find the one, or are they just going after a pound of flesh? It’s hard to believe this still goes on in the 21st century – revenge against animals. It is an unfortunate event.

      An increase in shark attacks is most likely due to an increase in people at the beaches and in the water? After all, at last count the human population was 7 billion plus.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        “Cappelluti said any shark caught in the wake of Collyer’s death that fitted the description of the one that attacked her would be shot.”

        fitting the description? *eyeroll*

        “A large shark was caught by baited drum lines on Wednesday, close to the site where Gerring was attacked, then towed further out to sea where it drowned.”

        So that means two have been killed in retaliation. I guess ‘two eyes for an eye’ is the adage they go by.

        • Kathleen says:

          In the first attack, the shark took a surfer’s leg…video here (not of the attack):

          Subsequently, “Western Australia’s Department of Fisheries set baited drum lines…at the site of the attack, to trap the shark as part of its controversial serious threat policy.” There was no confirmation that the shark caught was the one who attacked, but apparently size matters enough to pose a “serious threat.” So a shark is dead for being a shark in the ocean–his/her own natural home. I guess we’re saying that there’s just no place left on earth for the animals who inconvenience humans or pose a threat to humans. They *need* to live in the ocean, but we *want* to play in the ocean…and humans are entitled. It’s speciesism, plain and simple.

          • Ida Lupines says:

            It’s ridiculous, isn’t it. I guess what can you expect from a country founded as a penal colony.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              The other question I have is whether or not these deaths fall under ‘additive’ or ‘compensatory’ mortality (the ‘they were gonna die anyway at some point anyway’ theory.) I guess that only applies to non-human animals.

              As you can see, my tolerance for humanity’s lofty and sacred view of itself isn’t very high lately.

            • rork says:

              Ida: That is too much like an ethnic slur, which would be horrible enough in private, but to do it on this website is unbelievable. Leave to our politicians, please. I am amazed it still is visible.

              • Ida Lupines says:

                No it isn’t. Unless you are sensitive to insulting colonials. That mindset is the root of all evil in my opinion. I can slur my own ethnic group if I want to, in disgust of their activities.

                As far as ‘making mistakes’, you are too kind.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  The vestiges of it are still what is harming wildlife and indigenous people today, IMO.

  40. Kathleen says:

    Was this posted?–an Aussie guy hospitalized after getting tossed by a bison in YNP. And the beat goes on…

    • Kathleen says:

      That seems to be an old story…rather confusing, because the story is dated yesterday. My apologies for an inaccurate post. But just wait long enough and *someone* will get tossed or gored.

    • Immer Treue says:

      The gun that goes off in the middle of the night, or when nobody can hear, might speak up when alcohol loosens lips for bragging rights, otherwise, tough to snag someone.

      • Nancy says:

        Agree Immer.

        Sad though that other living beings, too many to count, pay the ultimate price for thoughtless human actions.

  41. Attacks on Endangered Species Act Hiding Behind Bad Attitudes and Bad Science.

    Wolves in the Western Great Lakes remain under Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection following a federal court decision in December 2014. Judge Howell criticized the states for inadequate regulatory mechanisms. The court ruled the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service failed to address the impact of combined mortality such as disease and human killing.

    Prior to this ruling, more than 1,500 wolves have been killed through recreational hunting and trapping resulting in a substantial reduction in wolf populations. This added human-caused mortality constitutes a threat to the species.

    Despite the known threats to wolves, the State, along with proponents of killing wolves are again calling for delisting wolves. Their reasons are not supported by the best scientific evidence. There is no call to improve federal agency science that caused wolves to be relisted by the above-mentioned lawsuit. There is no call to ensure stakeholders, such as non-consumptive users, be represented in DNR and federal wildlife agencies. The argument that wolves take funding from other species, even given the possibility that keystone species protect a wide variety of other animals, seems to be a held belief amongst scientists within these agencies, some university scientists funded by agencies, and even those in wolf education. Where is the call to increase funding for all species at risk? Nothing’s changed. They present no new evidence and they make the same tired and unsupported claims. Those trumpeting delisting would be wise to fix the problems the judge identified. If not litigation will resume and that’s what the U.S. Constitution had in mind when it established separation of powers.

    In a summit scheduled for September of 2016, State of Wisconsin officials and GOP politicians, known for their endorsement of trophy hunting and opening public lands to free-running hounds, will try to advance their argument for delisting wolves. It is also worth noting the State of Wisconsin does, in fact, manage wolves under endangered status, and wildlife services in conjunction with the DNR is implementing a wide array of non-lethal farming practices that work. We commend them for this success.

    However, some claim culling wolves is necessary to protect livestock and pets. Evidence suggests that harvesting wolves as a means to manage depredations is unscientifically sound (Vucetich et al). An additional study forthcoming from University of Wisconsin indicates culling and hunting have lousy track records for preventing livestock losses and have increased them in at least three regions.

Some claim culling wolves will prevent poaching. Last month, Guillaume Chapron, PhD and Adrian Treves, PhD released a new study suggesting the opposite. They found that the wolf population growth slowed when the state had authority to cull wolves, independent of how many wolves were culled. The scientists inferred that poaching increased when the state had power to kill wolves. This evidence is consistent with the findings on inclination to poach wolves.

    The States have no scientific justification for management flexibility. Instead they seem to want that flexibility to kill more wolves for trophies, improve attitudes towards the agency and to appease donors & special interest groups. Wolves would once again be killed statewide using unscientific and unethical practices. These include hunting into breeding season, trapping in areas of prime habitat and the use of hounds throughout Wisconsin. The WI DNR does not refute information about dogs being killed but with their state managed wolf hunt, dogs will be used, which is dog fighting.

    Delisting decisions should be based solely on the best scientific evidence and without commercial private interests or politicians using fear and false data to get votes. Some Federal legislators are calling for wolf delisting by attacking the ESA, which is the most popular environmental law in the nation. We call on you to ask your Representatives, on all levels, to uphold democracy, transparency and science-based policy because current proposals and policies lack all.

    • rork says:

      Pretty good.
      The justification for management flexibility is that wolves are not endangered locally. What is your plan for getting them to places like New York and Maine, to solve the bigger problem?
      Note: I do not endorse wolf hunting.

  42. Cody Coyote says:

    Some ominous news about the relentless march of Chronic Wasting Disease in Wyoming was released today by Wyoming Game and Fish , and my eyebrow went up.

    One of the recentlyd eceased mule Deer that tested positive for CWD was found INSIDE the city limits of my town of Cody . We have roughly 300 urban deer in town on any given day , and too many of them look quite poor. I chalked that up to parasites and simple starvation. I had a yearling die in my alley two weeks ago. Now I wished I hadn’t handled it with my bare hands when I moved it out of the way.

    Another CWD deer was found in the Wapiti Valley halfway from Cody to the east boundary of Yellowstone.

    Here’s the text of the Wyo G&F press release that came out this afternoon :

    Chronic Wasting Disease found in deer, west of continental divide again

    For the first time in several years an ungulate has tested positive for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) on the west side of the continental divide.

    6/7/2016 2:31:08 PM
    Cheyenne – A doe mule deer near Thayne was found dead and a Wyoming Game and Fish Department employee sent it to the Wildlife Health Laboratory in Laramie for testing, and it came back positive for CWD. The mule deer was found near Thayne  in deer hunt area 145.

West of the continental divide, a moose tested positive for CWD in Star Valley in 2008 and in 2012 three mule deer tested positive in the city limits of Green River.

    “Seeing a deer test positive for CWD west of the continental divide again is concerning,” said Scott Edberg, Deputy Chief of the Wildlife Division. “We have tested thousands of deer, elk and moose in this area and have not seen a positive for many years. Game and Fish will look closely at this case to see if we can gain additional information and will continue to monitor aggressively in the area.


Since 2003 Game and Fish has sampled more than 2,400 animals for CWD in and adjacent to deer hunt area 145.

In the just-completed round of testing, two additional doe mule deer near Cody also tested positive for CWD. One deer was found dead east of Wapiti in deer hunt area 111, the other was in the city limits of Cody in deer area 113  and showed signs of illness. These two deer and the deer found near Thayne represent new CWD positive deer hunt areas. Over 2,600 CWD samples have been collected in and adjacent to deer hunt areas 111 and 113 since 2003.

These tests come on the heels of Game and Fish updating its CWD management strategy and receiving direction from its Commission to intensify efforts to further manage the fatal disease.

    “Game and Fish is always concerned about seeing CWD spread. We have a very active monitoring program and finding these infected deer shows the program is effective. The challenge now is to build on work to slow the transmission of CWD,” said Edberg. “Game and Fish is moving ahead with developing strategies for building on CWD management, surveillance, and research.”

“We thank all of the people who keep an eye out for wildlife exhibiting signs of illness. Removing those animals is one way we know can help slow the spread of diseases like CWD. Please call Game and Fish if you see any animal that seems sick or dying,” said Edberg.

    To learn more about the disease visit our website.
    (Wyoming Game and Fish, (307) 777-4600)


    • rork says:

      Are you allowed to move carcasses over the divide? I’m ignorant. And I know that laws won’t stop everyone from making mistakes.
      PS: Don’t fret the handling much.

  43. Immer Treue says:

    Raw video footage of pick-up of the IWC’s two wolf pups. Includes customs and vet check (the vet is world class) at the Ely airport, and arrival at the Wolf Center.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      How did they get them? Were they born in a zoo, already in captivity, or were they taken from the wild?

      • Immer Treue says:

        Born in captivity from a facility, not a zoo, in Canada.

        • Ida Lupines says:

          A facility? Sorry, it’s all too anthropomorphized for me. These animals should be in the wild, and more efforts should be made to protect them and their habitats.

          • Immer Treue says:

            What in the world do you think the International Wolf Center does?

            • Ida Lupines says:

              This is the perception I have. Wolves are kept in captivity here and can never be released in the wild again, but are ‘ambassadors’, which is another way of keeping them in a zoo environment. If they came into ‘possession’ of these poor animals because they were injured, it would be one thing – but flying them in from a ‘facility’ to a smoggy overdeveloped city, with baby cribs, bottles, and immediate habituation, it’s just a glorified zoo. “Educating the public” is an overused, futile excuse. That’s what I think. Am I wrong?

              • Immer Treue says:

                It’s obvious, from your comment, you have never been here, which only reinforces you don’t know what you are talking about.

                On another matter, from where do you think the red wolves and Mexican wolves came, as there were no more in the wild. From perusing your comments about zoos, though I might find some agreement in what you say, captive breeding programs for many animals, including cheetahs, is done world wide for the purposes of genetic variability and hopeful eventual reconstitution of the wild, just as with Red and Mexican wolves.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  I will never go there, you can be sure of that. I prefer to see, or at least know, that animals are in their natural environment.

                  Red and Mexican wolves are captive bred out of desperation, it appears, and because they are in a hostile environment. On the verge of extinction. This place doesn’t do captive breeding, at least I hope not, treating them like human children.

                  Yes, I know all about captive breeding programs. But these animals will never be returned to the wild at this wolf center. Is it even a sanctuary?

                  Does the public ever really learn about wildlife and ‘graduate’ I wonder? I don’t see a progression.

                • Yvette says:

                  Ida, is there ever anything that pleases you? You know, the world if f’d up. Our wildlife’s habitat is f’d up in many places. Sometimes we dumbarse (not snarky, I mean it) humans have to do the best with what we have left of this world. We are forced to strategize and deal with people, policy and politics. Guess who loses? Please explain to me your plan on how to successfully release these two pups to the wild. How long do you think they would survive? What is your long term strategy for these two pup’s survival in the wild? How will you deal with the humans who are salivating to take them out?

                  I probably should delete this post before I hit send but I’m not going to. I’m in a pissy mood and am tired of people who yak, yak, yak, but fail to make their walk match their talk. Ida, I think you’re a great person but you get too carried away sometimes. Once in a while we all have to put ourselves into check.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  You really can’t get more hostile of an environment than the next door ‘neighbor’ to the a Carolinas wildlife refuge, who thinks it is his and his family’s own personal hunting grounds. And had a pregnant female wolf trapped and killed on his property. And the program may be about to be abandoned by the federal gov’t, I believe? Not to mention coyote hunting ‘confusion’.


                • Immer Treue says:

                  You’ll never go there, eh?
                  That says a lot more that you know nothing about the IWC.
                  Wolves at the IWC are neutered.

                  And again, deducing from your comments about treating them like children, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  When it comes to wildlife, no. It’s a simplistic response. I do what I can, and much of it is out of my control, we have to put our faith in ‘leadership’. It’s not a fair to blame a caring individual, for the obvious mess we’re in. You’d have to be hopelessly naïve to think otherwise. The Harambe mess is just about the last straw, I think.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  One more question for you Ida, then I’ve got chores to do. Without looking up the question/answer it was mentioned in the video that one or both of the pups was a bit dehydrated. How did they know?

                • Ida Lupines says:

                  It’s pretty much an easy assumption that an animal could get dehydrated. Big deal.

                  I wasn’t speaking about these particular pups being released, obviously, that’s become impossible.

                  But more effort should go into protecting habitat and stopping hunting of them in the wild. That’s what I mean. We put so much effort into killing them, hunting seasons, studying mortality – why can’t we leave them alone.

                • Kathleen says:

                  Because of their isolation, arctic wolves aren’t endangered by hunting or loss of habitat (according to several sources–and not listed at IUCN red list of threatened species, tho other sources say the subspecies IS endangered because of climate change–???). So yes, it does look like these pups were bred strictly for captivity. Why? I happen to agree that the term “ambassadors for their species” is used predominantly by those who exploit animals for profit–zoos, exotic animal shows, etc. And I’m not unfamiliar with the Internat’l Wolf Center–I became a member for awhile back in the mid-’80s when I got into wolf advocacy…so I understand their work. But I also understand that they need to keep gate revenue coming in ($12 admission for adults) and nothing brings in paying customers like baby animals.

                  IMO it’s legitimate to ask why these wolves are being bred strictly for lives of captivity–that goes for what’s probably the vast majority of *all* breeding, whether wild or domestic. In our newspaper, someone is advertising “English cream golden retriever” puppies for $2000 (while wonderful “excess” dogs are killed for lack of space in shelters). Elsewhere in western Montana, people breed bobcat and lynx kittens for “pets”–$1750 each. I just saw an article today about how Maine is trying to tighten up control of wild animal ownership, and guess who is up in arms? Breeders.
                  “Many varieties of reptile are prohibited in the proposed changes, and about a dozen speakers Tuesday argued they would have to leave the state if the rules passed, so that they could maintain their collections and breeding businesses.”

                  Despite the important work that IWC does, it isn’t out of line to question the commodification of animals.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Odd, but I bring something up on this forum that has to do with a wildlife issue near and dear to most posters hearts, and I receive comments in return that are negative.

                  If you haven’t been to the center, and seen the wolves, then you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                  If you haven’t been to Ely and refer to it as a smoggy over developed city, you don’t know what youre talking about.

                  If you find it offensive the pups are handled like little children, you don’t know what you’re talking about. One of the reasons I asked the dehydration question.

                  Nothing attracts people/kids like puppies, perhaps so, but pups come into the IWC once every four years. you don’t know what you are talking about.

                  12 bucks a pop too much, get a membership, and all that comes with it, and get in for free. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

                  The IWC offers programs, classes and seminars to get people off their asses and into the field to learn something about wolves, as well as working with schools, individual teachers, and have developed a curriculum that can be used by different grade levels, piecemeal or in entirety.

                  When you think there are kids who haven’t even seen a cow out in a field, and you slam the IWC and Zoos (they are trying to get more animal friendly), and it might be their one chance to develop some empathy and care about the particular animal and help break this vicious cycle of the way we treat animals globally, you don’t know what your talking about.

                  Look past the money. Without education, these animals are all doomed. I read a comment somewhere that “I don’t mind funding education, because I don’t want to live among stupid people!”

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  “The IWC offers programs, classes and seminars”
                  few sentences from IWC letters to supporters:

                  “For just 30 short years, the IWC has been valiantly fighting the root causes of wolf poaching by teaching the world the facts about this controversial apex predator. Changed attitudes lead to changed behavior.”

                  well Immer, can you tell how many poachers stopped their SSS hobby after being educated by IWC?

                  By outreach one can inform those who are unaware of the wolf issue but it will not change the attitude of wolf killers. There will always be enough wolf killers who will gladly take opportunity to kill predator.

                  Teaching will not stop wolf killing, the size of quota, the wolf-hatred etc. It will only increase fundraising crowd (in cities) among those who were ignorant, indifferent etc. non-involved public. Now they might donate few bucks but no action at rural centers will follow (where wolf killers live and wolves are killed).

                  What was the IWC’s stand on Isle Royale issue? and about federal court ruling that placed the gray wolf back on the endangered species list?

                  can you point to at least one ex-poacher who has been transformed by IWC? Chad McKittrick?

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  some tip from Chris Rose – author of “How To Win Campaigns”


                  Campaigning lowers the barriers against action and increases the incentives to take action until …

                  … the rabbit pops down the hole …
                  … the dog jumps through the hoop …
                  … the President signs the decree …
                  … the commuter takes the train …
                  … etc …

                  Education, in contrast, is a broadening exercise. It uses examples to reveal layers of complexity, leading to lower certainty but higher understanding.
                  education broadens towards discovery, complexity and reflection

                  Campaigning maximises the motivation of the audience, not their knowledge. Try using education to campaign, and you will end up circling and exploring your issue but not changing it.

                  Of course all campaigns have some ‘educational’ effect but it is education by doing, through experience, not through being given information. Moreover, information is not power until it leads to mobilisation. If information truly were power, the world would be run by librarians.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Though not impossible, philosophically it is difficult at times to prove a negative. Has the IWC done anything to curtail poaching? Who knows.

                  What is much more easy to prove, is the positive, that since the inception of the IWC “traveling show” and permanent facility,
                  In 1985 there where 2200.
                  1985 WI few to none, now > 700
                  1985 MI few to none, now > 600
                  1985 Northern Rocky Mountain states, other than a few possibly around Glacier NP and a few dispensers from Canada, none.
                  Now we find thriving populations in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and growing populations in Washington, Oregon, and California.

                  The IWC can’t take credit for all of the Lower 48 wolf population increase, but can YOU prove it has NOT had any positive effect on this growth?

                  In regard to poaching, it’s taken 100’s of years to grow the negative attitude toward wolves, one can’t expect that attitude to vanish in 30 years, but the seed must be planted.

                  The IWC, and a few other institutions are educators, not advocates, while organizations such as Howling for Wolves (have done positive things for wolves) are more campaigners and advocates. It requires both.

                  Just as all,the hubbub about wolves “saving Yellowstone” are premature over the past 25 years, the studies and data plus all the variables are being put into the meat grinder to make heads or tails of what is happening there.

                  I guess in regard to what’s happened with wolves in the lower 48 during the past 30 years, the time parameters of the IWC existence, one must ask is your glass half empty, or half full?

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Sorry,in editing I chopped off in 1985 MN < 1500 wolves.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:


                  you repeatedly have been pointing out that in MN poaching rate / level is pretty constant – about 10% of population annually is taken out thanks to SSS.

                  Wolves can handle 10% outtake. But together with legal hunting season + WS special operations to control depredation – those 10% can be a straw that breaks camel’s back

                  Poland has wolf hunting ban since 1998 – and poaching rate is smaller now (not constant/ the same as in 1995). Explanation? Educated guess is that as hunters see that ungulate numbers are not impacted they grudingly co-exist with wolves and Eurasian lynx (twice the size of Canadian lynx).

                  Poland (apart from mountaineous region) is similar to GLA – forested lowland .

                • Mareks Vilkins says:


                  the wolf population growth in Lower48 was secured thanks to ESA and the ban on wolf hunting.

                  IWC helped along the way (outreach function) but my impression is that IWC tries to stay out of sensitive issues – like wolf relisting etc

                • Immer Treue says:

                  ESA aside, there were no wolves to speak of west of MN in 1985, or for that matter east of MN.

                  David Mech is the key here. A founding father of the IWC, his philosophy (whether one cares for it or not) pervades.under his tutelage, a number of biologists have developed the same unbiased attitude, some of whom also participated in the Western wolf reintroduction.

                  Mech and the IWC are synonymous. Wolf expansion/reintroduction Mech/IWC cause, correlation, or a bit of both?

                • Mareks Vilkins says:


                  yes, Mech has important / decisive role in the creation of the IWC but I would separate his influence upon leading wolf biologists / wildlife managers from his participation in IWC which is focused on educating general public (not biologists) about the wolf issue.

                  Apart from IWC Wolf Symposiums

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Mech/IWC/Wolf Symposia all available to the general public. The two in which I attended were well received by general public.

                  It’s all part and parcel of what the IWC is, and cannot be separated from the IWC mission.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  I mean, Mech and reintroduction is not synonymous – it took more than two decades to secure reintroduction and there were too many personalities involved to reduce it to Mech’s role.

                  Mech’s research & books were influential but for outreach in those early years Barry Lopez’s “Of Wolves and Men” was at least as influential as Mech’s work ( to which BL made references and made it popular)

                • Immer Treue says:


                  You’ve sort of hit the nail on the head. Prior to Lopez Of Wolves and Men @ 1978, there was nothing, save Mowatt’s Never Cry Wolf, and Crisler’s Arctic Wild, in popular literature. All that could be found was technical work and publications by folks such as Douglas Pimlott, Durwood Allen, Mech, and perhaps a few others. The three mentioned were all used by Lopez.

                  What the IWC has become is a focal point for the collection and distribution of wolf information. All things positive about wolves have been evolving over the years, and the IWC is probably the most important vector for an unbiased distribution of wolf information.

              • Christopher Harbin says:

                Ely, MN is hardly a soggy underdeveloped city. It is more like the end of the road in Northern Minnesota.

  44. Ida Lupines says:

    Oh my walk matches my talk, I can assure you. Yakking is more than 90% of what the rest of the public does, and it is important to speak out. But there’s only so much a nobody can do, so those table-turning questions are unfair. I write letters, support, and screech.

    And that should read above ‘a nursing female red wolf’, not pregnant.

    I feel that sanctuaries just clean up after the primary mess, and that’s where I have the problem. The primary mess needs to be checked beforehand. But I am sick to the death of zoos purporting to be benefiting wildlife and perennially educated the public. There are only a handful who do, if that.

  45. Louise Kane says:

    conferencing of house and senate energy bill with nasty anti wildlife riders possible. Please take a moment to read and share this. Its easy to comment and to send a note to your senators from this site. Thanks

    Kathleen like your reasoned response on its not out of line to question to the commodification of animals by IWC or any other zoo. Also highly agree with you on shelter animals, thousands of “fancy” breeder animals bread while millions of equally fancy animals are euthanized. Anyone want to see heartbreak check out the GSD cross posting page, an endless cycle of misery where fancy bred dogs end up in shelters dumped for any reason.

  46. Ida Lupines says:

    The video you provided Immer showed smog and a typical urban sprawl. It’s a likely conclusion that the pups would be dehydrated after a relocation and a flight. Anyone who’s had to care for a sick pet knows that. I no longer am convinced that people learn from captive animals, it’s more a money-making venture – it is no longer important IMO that people get to see them, in these days of looming extinction, it’s more important for the animals to live unmolested and in peace, away from us. For some people, it wouldn’t make any difference anyway, they aren’t and won’t ever be interested in wildlife or wildlands. That’s a myth. There are studies, or one that came out fairly recently, that said that visiting animals in captivity does nothing to increase knowledge of or improve their situations in the wild. I’m not surprised.

    My empathy goes to the wildlife now, and other victims of the modern world; people have gone to the well too often, with no change in their behaviors. It’s getting worse – what’s with all the bad behavior at YNP?

    I hope they are not going to drain the hot springs now because of the danger they present! *sarc*

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I know the smog and typical urban sprawl was probably the airport, and then trucking them to a new location, but still. Of course they might be dehydrated.

      If we teach anything it should be the value of wilderness and habitat, a weaning people away from thinking of animals only in captivity – reading a cross section of the comments about the Harambe mess, people think zoos are better than natural habitat – (3 squares and a roof over their head) – safe from poachers and having to hunt for food! Why not think about resource to protect from poaching instead? So much for learning.

    • Immer Treue says:

      It’s tough to bite my tongue, but I will. The video,as I stated is RAW FOOTAGE, that documents the trip back and forth. They had to stop for fuel there and back, and generally those planes will pick up and drop off mail. I live 3 miles as the crow flies from the IWC. Other than smoke from Canadian forest fires, there is no smog up here.

  47. Yvette says:

    A good blog article by Aysha Akhtar in the Huffington Post,

    I think she brings up a viable thesis with biophilia. (New to me, in that term, so now I have to read and research).

    “With each generation, we extend our circle of empathy bit by bit to include those who were previously ignored—like battered women, the mentally disabled, and the transgender community. Our ever-widening empathy reflects our growing understanding that our well-being is tied to the well-being of others. I suffer when you suffer. We suffer when they suffer. The lives and struggles of far-flung strangers affect us all.”

    “Biophilia is the hypothesis that humans naturally have a deep affiliation with animals and that this affiliation is rooted in our biology. It is a love of all life in its simplest definition. It is part of who we are as fellow animals.

    Wilson was not limiting our biophilia to just animals, but to all of nature. However, it is in our relationships with animals where our biophilia is strongest. Our feelings about animals have crossed a critical threshold. Even though we are hurting animals more now than ever before in human history, our empathy for animals is also at an all-time high. We are questioning our long-held beliefs about who animals are and how we should treat them.” I would add that we are learning through research that non-human animals know, feel and understand far more than we ever gave them credit. I also believe there are groups of people who always knew this; it was always in their religions and culture in some form.

    We continue to evolve and maybe this biophilia hypothesis is part of the explanation why some of us feel the loss of a non-humans life and the loss of habitat so deeply. It is innately connected to our health; mental, physical and spiritual.

    • Immer Treue says:

      “We are questioning our long-held beliefs about who animals are and how we should treat them.” I would add that we are learning through research that non-human animals know, feel and understand far more than we ever gave them credit. I also believe there are groups of people who always knew this; it was always in their religions and culture in some form.”

      I’ve chewed on this idea over the years, and I’ve voiced it on this blog and elsewhere, that ethologists will begin to tease apart the riddle of animal behavior and cognition that will begin to make many people very uncomfortable.

    • Nancy says:

      “Biophilia is the hypothesis that humans naturally have a deep affiliation with animals and that this affiliation is rooted in our biology.

      It is a love of all life in its simplest definition. It is part of who we are as fellow animals”

      +++++ 1 Yvette.

      Thanks for posting those thoughts because it is still way too easy for our species to forget that we are all Earthlings, sharing one planet.

  48. Ida Lupines says:

    I wonder though that animal life and wilderness deserve to ‘be’ regardless of their relationship to us. I’m sick of us being the center of the universe, and everything revolves around us, our well being, our health, our little clones, even shallow needs. Our needs first and then, if there are any crumbs left over, we might deign to consider other life. Some things have nothing to do with us.

    The Great Lakes has been one of the fortunate areas of our nation that has always had a wolf population. Why on earth then do we need an ‘International Wolf Center’ of wolves in captivity? Wouldn’t it teach more to go out and see them in their natural habitat in Minnesota, or is that just for hunters? Something is wrong with a picture that is more about hunting and killing in natural habitats, and keeping wolves in captivity to learn about. I cannot justify in my mind keeping animals captive, or euthanizing zoo animals who are deemed ‘excess’, just to maybe educate children. It’s a big farce.

    How about Isle Royale to see them? I notice the western wolf haters are already up in arms about that, when they tell others to mind their own business.

    If I want to see and learn about wolves, it will be where they are at their most natural and wild – YNP or the Great Lakes.

    • Immer Treue says:

      You’re asking all the questions that the IWC answers/performs for the paying public. All you have to do is look at their programs but you can’t see beyond a number of well kept captive wolves. It’s not about wolves in a pen (actually a wooded five acre enclosure). But then you’ve said you have no intention of visiting.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I don’t. I’m someone who never visited a zoo as a child, never even had a pet. We couldn’t afford to and didn’t have the transportation. Never set foot in Sea World (and never will). I didn’t go to a zoo until I was a young adult, and have only been a handful of times.

        The San Diego Zoo (until I learned they beat the elephants into submission with a sledgehammer to the head), and a couple of mediocre middle range zoos. Do I feel I missed anything? Not at all, and I am glad I was not indoctrinated into it a young age.

        Could anyone argue that I am a staunch animal advocate and lover of wild places, despite my ‘underprivileged’ upbringing? I don’t think so. I was born that way, I did not need to be taught.

        But I did make it to the Rockies, which knocked my socks off. 🙂 I think you’ve all heard just about enough from me. Have a good evening,

        • Ida Lupines says:

          And the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which I love and feel really does make valuable scientific contributions for the benefit of marine life.

          Immer, it could just be the timing, so soon after the Harambe shooting. I’m appalled that the general consensus is making it all about saving a human child, or God forbid, somebody should take responsibility, when it really is about a zoo that has inadequate barriers to protect both visitors and captive animals, and whether zoos are even ethical in the first place.

          If people have an innate love of nature, biophilia, why is the world in such a state today? Those people must be in the minority. And we certainly don’t want to love nature to death.

          I wish we could see each other as we really are, instead of who we’d like to be.

          • Yvette says:

            Ida, study evolution and history. You will find the answer to the question you ask.

            • Ida Lupines says:

              I have to some extent.

              Is this love of nature only one-sided, so that we trap animals in zoos or keep them for our own needs, like tigers or chimpanzees as pets, or a room full of dead trophies? Dead trophies do not seem like biophilia. Or reciprocal, so that we consider their well-being and love them enough to leave them in peace and free from our interference? History would say that it is one-sided, with a few exceptions.

              We love the faces of baby animals (I always thought that was because our brains are wired to care for our own human babies, and baby animals remind us of that). But when the animals are no longer cute babies, we discard them or lose interest. We love growing plants (or many of us do), but do we need to bring invasive species to other places (and, historically, other countries to ‘recreate’ old homelands)? I like the theory of how this is a remnant from when we were hunter/gatherers, our love of plants and flowers. I feel that myself, and want to learn more about plant medicinal properties and wild foods. All cultures have this, I’m not sure what moved them away from it, when you think all of the basic medicines I call them originally came from plants or fungi. Aspirin, penicillin, digitalis, morphine and others.

              I can see how this hypothesis originated, and for sure many people have it – but there are many who do not seem to, and our rush towards progress and technology would seem to contradict it.

      • timz says:

        I needed one more elective course to graduate so I took the wolf ethology course thru the IWC and the local community college in Ely. It was a great course and experience.

    • Moose says:

      “If I want to see and learn about wolves, it will be where they are at their most natural and wild – YNP or the Great Lakes.”

      Your chances of seeing a wild wolf in the GL region is very very small.

    • Immer Treue says:

      I’ve seen starving deer carry on with similar behavior. After a heavy April snowstorm a few years back, I had a fawn(from prior Spring) walk right up to my 95 pound German Shepherd, when normal behavior would have been to flee.

      • JEFF E says:

        yah, “nature is a harsh mistress” to quote a quote.
        I think in the case of the buffalo calf I would have considered naming it “veal”…

    • Ida Lupines says:

      I’m a little skeptical of this story. At any rate, it’s dismaying how selective we are with our empathy. It’s dismaying that empathy seems to be such a thing that we insist we have, but evidence doesn’t always support that we have any idea what it is. Do people protest the annual bison slaughter? Do they care about slaughterhouse conditions for veal and cattle? Do they care about the millions of cats and dogs euthanized because people don’t feel compassion for them, and yet blame PETA and shelters because they can’t accept their own responsibility for a pet? How about the annual killing contests? Snakes are cute and cuddly I guess.

      The entire purpose of these continuing saga articles is to defend the behavior of the tourists (and thereby, our own behavior too). If the tourists had stayed out of it, who knows what would have happened. It would have turned out the way nature intended regardless.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        I have to eyeroll. Don’t gasp in horror at the wild. If you want to see nature red in tooth and claw, just see what happens when there’s a job layoff at your company. Now there’s survival for you. lol

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I’m sorry the little calf had to be ‘euthanized’. I wonder why he couldn’t go to a sanctuary. But if people refuse to abide by the guidelines and rules that are for their own protection too, it looks like the Park unfortunately is having to take a hard line.

  49. rork says:
    We are going to try and re-introduce arctic grayling in Michigan, again. Maybe we will be better at it this time. Going to try the upper Manistee – perhaps a better choice than Au Sable, though conditions are similar (almost 100% ground water). Details are scant. I wanna know if we are going to do some trout killing, for example. It was the grayling that stopped brook trout from invading initially (Btw: from the north), but it’s double-negative feedback – the trout can stop the grayling too (I think).

  50. Kathleen says:

    “The first bird extinction in Galapagos”

    This is depressing. Here on our own property, we are noticing many fewer hummingbirds year by year. A dozen years ago I would take a freshly-filled hummingbird feeder out and get mobbed. I remember trying to count hummers once, got to 10 or 12 and lost count. Now, it’s not that common to see four at a time. Just last night for the first time I saw *two* bats simultaneously when we had years where 3 or 4 lived on the house. Fewer butterflies…fewer native bees…I don’t think it’s just the vagaries of this year’s weather as it seems to be a trend. I have *yet* to see the first squirrel! (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Anyone else noticing this?

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Oh, how sad. I hate to read this stuff. The last bird I had read about going extinct was the dusky seaside sparrow. What a shame. And after the Harambe shooting, I truly have ’empathy fatique’ with humanity right now.

      I’m not sure if I have less hummers this year. My neighbor just did a bug spraying without taking his bird feeders, including his hummingbird feeder, down. The red flowers I put out did attract a gorgeous blue swallowtail and a tiger swallowtail butterflies. I think the hummers are nesting right now.

      I went to clean the feeder and I sure got given what-for by a territorial male! I’ll keep an eye out for them to see if I have less than usual. I do have quite a few squirrels, and happy to see a native red colony of 3 too.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, I guess my little colony of red squirrels is called. 🙂 They are very sweet, vocal, and chipmunks too.

    • Louise kane says:

      I spent a short stay in the Galapagos overwhelmed by actually getting to travel there. It was just before the government opened up cruise ship travel
      When we landed on the islands it seemed tremendous care was given to protect the endemic species
      All visitors were ushered in by licensed operators, on entering shoes were washed in baths and the visitors were escorted on paths
      I wonder if the rat infestation is accelerated since the government mysteriously decided to allow cruise ships in
      Having seen the cultural economic and environmental
      Damage that cruise ships brought to the Caribbean first hand, it was a sad day the Ecuadorean government allowed those floating monstrosities into the Galapagos

      I thought other birds went extinct in those islands from overhunting?

    • Immer Treue says:

      Interesting. After first viewing, it was easy to pick out where the model who formed the back was positioned. Using frame-by-frame back and forth was needed to see how this intricate “puzzle” was assembled.

    • Nancy says:

      Many artists, thankfully and often, do have a way of projecting their art/thoughts, along with concerns? we humans ought to be thinking about when it comes to the planet & all life?

  51. Kathleen says:

    Again…another life wasted in a national park! The bear was not “euthanized.” Euthanasia means “good death” and implies an act of mercy–this was neither. The bear was EXECUTED for human carelessness. It is *way* past time for national parks and MT FWP to quit “reminding” human animals and start handing them big fat fines to help them remember how to behave when they’re in nonhuman animals’ habitat.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      And yet we still continue to see ourselves as a kind and compassionate species. Read through the comments on these types of articles sometime; you’ll get a shock. I don’t think keeping animals in captivity is teaching out little demigods anything, except that when people do encounter animals in the wild, they expect that separation and protection they get (or used to get!) at a zoo. The 4th wall, if you will. The level of anthropomorphization is astounding. I guess that is only useful as a weapon to accuse animal rights and welfare activists of.

      Besides the little bison calf, there’s a video going around of a rescued injured owl stretching his wings, that the video author is promoting and the viewers are convinced is ‘hugging’ his human savior. While the bird may express affection in his own way, birds do not have arms to hug with as a human would.

      And with all the euthanizing and poaching, we’re still going to open up delisting! The imperviousness to logic and stubbornness is also dismaying.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Let me clarify by saying I don’t doubt at all that animals feel, suffer, enjoy their lives, show affection, and other emotions that we are only now just learning more about, when we are able to put aside our superiority complex. They just don’t do all that always in ‘exactly’ the same way humans do – and in some ways, they process information lots better than we do.

        There were videos popular awhile back with dogs and cats making ‘guilty’ faces – guilty of what? It’s almost animal abuse to do these things, I think.

  52. Ida Lupines says:

    Mareks, what would we do without you. I don’t know either if captivity education is really helping. As I said, I don’t see much progress or any graduating, just (awww the baby animals are so cute!)and the poachers are still poaching, the anti-wolf lobbyists are still lobbying, Ranchers still have F&W at their beck and call, and hunting keeps expanding. The tiniest bit of recovery we are to celebrate really is a joke.

    I wonder how much association Dr. Mech still has with the IWC? I’m reminded of the RMEF, whom the Muries disassociated their name with eventually, because the RMEF was not upholding their mission of wolf protection, but became wolf destroying. I’m not saying that’s the case with the IWC of course – just that things can get static without change.

    I just cannot support keeping wildlife in captivity, subjected to human needs. I can’t help but see Cecil, Blaze, and now Harambe as evidence of terrible failures. I’d much rather see animals in their natural habitat. I’m not convinced at all that captivity helps people understand conservation or extinction.

  53. Immer Treue says:

    Debate Rages over Wolf bounties in Alberta

  54. Immer Treue says:

    Allow me to try this again, as evidently, I entered an incorrect letter in my email…
    Debate Rages Over Wolf Bounty in Alberta

  55. Ida Lupines says:

    Ha! Pfffft. Jay once, tried to pin me as a Trump supporter, and now Immer, who I am surprised at, has resorted to the same tactics and tries the guilty by association tactic with Sara Palin! I know I made the mistake of questioning anything of Dr. Mech, but seriously now.

    I guess I should consider that a compliment, that you both have no other rational argument but to try to namecall and downgrade someone. Or to try to shut someone up. Good luck with that. lol

    I won’t be dragged into these things further. Have a good afternoon.

    • Immer Treue says:

      No! Read what you wrote. There was no coherence at all, and the analogies you made were ludicrous. I shudder to compare anyone to the likes of Palin (her ideology), but in your comment, did you think before you wrote, or just wrote what came out?

      • Jay says:

        It’s a shame, there used to be some real wildlife discussions on this site, now it’s basically a forum for a single person to post every little thought that pops into her head. Guess it’s time to to go the way of WM, SaveBears, and all the rest who have jumped ship.

        • Gary Humbard says:

          Jay, not so fast to jump ship. I visit this site to LEARN news regarding wildlife and their habitat, but I must admit lately it seems to be a “soap box” for a particular individual. Moderation must be practiced for anything in life and I hope visitors to the site such as WM, Rork, Immer Treue, Yvette, Kathleen, Jeffe E, Cody Coyote and Nancy to name a few keep the news and their experiences coming.

          Ida, I truly appreciate your passion and although I’m only a visitor, I ask that you use moderation, and “tone down” and do some research before making comments. We humans make mistakes, but looking at the “big picture” probably 90% of us are responsible individuals and try to do the right thing each and every day.

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Seeing how much I respect your opinion Gary – I will try to tone down my comments. I know you seem to understand.

            As far as Jay, don’t know him from Adam, don’t care about his threats, so splish-splash for him. Wow, I just can’t believe how much influence I seem to have, that I’m solely responsible for whether people visit the blog or not!

          • Ida Lupine says:

            Also, it isn’t just me – lots of people here ‘have their moments’ if you catch my drift.

            Savebears wasn’t my fault – I actually miss his comments, and I miss JB’s too. And just the thought of little old me driving off WM is comical.

          • Nancy says:

            + 1 Gary 🙂

            TWN is a GREAT website, IMHO, for wildlife news, links, concerns, sources, updates, related wildlife issues & personal experiences, not to mention, worthwhile discussions.

            Monotonous dribble, gets old.

            Catching my drift, Ida?

            I’d be willing to bet most people who find this site or visit often, care a great deal about wildlife and their habitat and tell 10 people about what they’ve discovered re: the info posted here.

            • Ida Lupine says:

              OK, I guess I’ll follow advice I was given that if you have nothing good to say, don’t say anything at all – that ought to eliminate 99.99% of my comments. 🙂

              It certainly shows, that so many people care about wildlife and habitat. Wouldn’t want to burst that bubble now would we.

  56. Immer Treue says:

    This from Judge Lynch in the court transcript: “You went out of your way to kill this bear. But the most important thing is this is going to stop. And, unfortunately, you may be the first example, but the unnecessary killing of these threatened species is going to stop. And you, sentencing you to this is necessary to deter all those individuals who might undertake or engage in the same conduct of I guess what they might consider a sport (link).”

  57. Immer Treue says:

    Ok, let’s try that again.

    About time.!Will-Lynch-Sentence-Help-Turn-Tide-for-Cabinet-Yaak-Northern-Rockies-Grizzlies/c1ou2/5759569d0cf24c9615a61f0a

    This from Judge Lynch in the court transcript: “You went out of your way to kill this bear. But the most important thing is this is going to stop. And, unfortunately, you may be the first example, but the unnecessary killing of these threatened species is going to stop. And you, sentencing you to this is necessary to deter all those individuals who might undertake or engage in the same conduct of I guess what they might consider a sport (link).”

    Now if only the judge in this case would have been similarly minded, although not a federal case.

  58. Gary Grimm says:

    Related to the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, the bill introduced recently in the U.S. Senate, we produced a video in 1993 titled “Visions of Wilderness – 1993 Ecosystem Protection in the Northern Rockies Bioregion that speaks to wilderness, ecosystem protection and the importance of wildlife travel corridors. The video is available on Vimeo at the following URL:

  59. Gary Humbard says:

    I think I read an article about how a naturalist a few years ago looked in the sky near Glacier NP and noticed hundreds of huge birds soaring overhead and discovered they were golden eagles.

  60. Ida Lupine says:

    I think I need to give Jay a little refresher, although it might have been before his time. Savebears did not ‘jump ship’, he was banned from the ship. I believe it was because he threatened someone, I think Ken. In fairness, I don’t think he meant it. There used to be many heated discussions, I think Louise would remember them with Savebears quite well. If you think it is bad now, I think some memories are very short.

    WM has tangled with Mareks, and for that I’d high five Mareks if I could, also for Mareks’ emperor has new clothes comments about the IWC. I’m convinced WM left in a huff after taking issue with Dr. Maughan’s article criticizing the story of the 19 elk ‘sport killing’. He hasn’t been seen since! I doubt it’s because the level of discourse has descended.

    So intellectual snobbery is phoney, I’ve been reading these comments here for many years, I think since 2011 at least. I’ll still read them, but because I was politely asked to tone it down, I will. I wonder if ODFN and Bob’s comments are considered drivel.

  61. Ida Lupine says:

    Probably not. And I won’t be discussing it further, I’ll keep quiet as I was asked to. And if ODFN is actually Reality22 as you say, I’ve never seen such irrational, frothing-at-the-mouth wolf hate as in his or her comments!

    At any rate, here’s a little of that 1/100th of a percent I was talkin about:

    A conservative newsblog actually defending wolf protections. A little soft I thought with a glossing over of the government bounty program and cruel torture of wolves (one of our ‘mistakes’ I guess, back when we had it so tough founding this country) – but impressive never the less:

    Enjoy your day, all –

    • Immer Treue says:

      “Ironically, killing wolves in a given area does not decrease the depredation of animals and livestock. In fact, losses to farmers go up. Kill just a few wolves, a new study finds, and livestock losses actually rises”

      A study, just like one day does not a week make, and I believe that same study suggested decreasing wolf population by at least 25% will cause depredations to decrease.

      Predator control and sport hunting are often used to reduce predator populations and livestock depredations, – but the efficacy of lethal control has rarely been tested. We assessed the effects of wolf mortality on reducing livestock depredations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming from 1987–2012 using a 25 year time series. The number of livestock depredated, livestock populations, wolf population estimates, number of breeding pairs, and wolves killed were calculated for the wolf-occupied area of each state for each year. The data were then analyzed using a negative binomial generalized linear model to test for the expected negative relationship between the number of livestock depredated in the current year and the number of wolves controlled the previous year. We found that the number of livestock depredated was positively associated with the number of livestock and the number of breeding pairs. However, we also found that the number of livestock depredated the following year was positively, not negatively, associated with the number of wolves killed the previous year. The odds of livestock depredations increased 4% for sheep and 5–6% for cattle with increased wolf control – up until wolf mortality exceeded the mean intrinsic growth rate of wolves at 25%. Possible reasons for the increased livestock depredations at ≤25% mortality may be compensatory increased breeding pairs and numbers of wolves following increased mortality. After mortality exceeded 25%, the total number of breeding pairs, wolves, and livestock depredations declined. However, mortality rates exceeding 25% are unsustainable over the long term. Lethal control of individual depredating wolves may sometimes necessary to stop depredations in the near-term, but we recommend that non-lethal alternatives also be considered.

      Also, the whole reference to the wolves in Yellowstone video…Changing the Course of rivers has been largely debunked as correlation does not necessarily represent cause. Among others David Mech, Shannon Barber-Meyer and Arthur Middleton, have all voiced the claims made are not true.

      This is what made WM such a great commenter. He would look at a post, pro or anti wolf, dissect it, and explain the faults of the post/study. Taking small portions of a study to make a point, or jumping on the horse prior to the barn door being open, does not help the cause of wolves.

      Matter of fact, during the discussion between Marek’s and me,he brought up the issue of campaigning ” maximizing the motivation of an audience, but not their knowledge.” The Wolves Changing the Course of Rivers “thing” is a prime example.

      • rork says:

        Motivating may get action on legislation, but sometimes you are trying to change custom and culture. I’m often contrary here not because I’m less of a wildlife advocate, but cause I hate advocates using arguments that aren’t good. It’s why I repeatedly object to claims using the Wielgus paper.

  62. Ida Lupine says:

    Immer, you made a comment recently that left me incredulous. You said ‘Wolves make things hard for people’. Just how exactly do they do that in the modern world, where humans have thrive like never before?

    It’s comment like that that make me wonder just exactly who’s side you are on – the wolves or those who would like to see them wiped out again, because wolves are inconvenient only. There’s trying to cooperate and come to realistic ‘settlement’, and then there’s such a thing as too much compromise.

    Also, I must ask, are you a blog moderator?

    • Ida Lupine says:

      oops ‘where humans thrive like never before, especially in wealthy countries like ours, and ‘exactly whose side are you on’.

    • Immer Treue says:

      In regression, no I’m not a blog moderator. That said, I do like honest conversation and discussion, and I miss the people who commented on this blog who would keep conversations honest, in other words, those who had little patience for fools.

      Most of my contributions to this site have been in regard to wolves. I chose to live in an area, one of the few in the lower 48, that had wolves, an area of the country that was wild enough to at least maintain a small population of wolves, when none existed elsewhere. How about you?

      I’ve contributed to wolf education. I developed a wolf curriculum for my classroom, and was a guest speaker in lower grades. I’ve also written a piece that was in the IWC magazine. How about you?

      If you are a small operator in wolf country, wolf depredation on your stock can be well over and above the averages in regard to the damage that wolves can do. I doubt wolves have driven anybody out of business, but yes the impact on these smaller farmers and ranchers can make things harder for these people.

      YOU made a comment something like if you wanted to see a wolf, you’d go into the wild to see one, not a zoo. Best time to see one up here is in the winter, camping out on lakes, and the temperatures may get down to thirty below. I’ve been out and observed wolves and wolfpacks in those conditions. How about you?

      To borrow a bit from the late great Stephen Jay Gould, “To be sure, truth has a certain moral edge over falsehood, but few people care much about corrections…orthodoxy exhorts us to be careful lest a tendency to embellish or romanticize (wolves changing the course of rivers)stifle the weakly flickering flame of truth.”

      I enjoy a good discussion and action, and grow weary of those, who in appearance and reaction are nothing more than Laura Petrie on the old Dick van Dyke show and her “Oh Rob!”

      Over the years on this site, people have had the patience of “saints” dealing with you, and explaining things to you. You apparently can’t even get off your duff and use google earth prior to making comments that expose you as at the very least, lazy.

      Wolves don’t need friends like you.

      • JEFF E. says:

        I have been studying wolves, intensely, for the better part of 45 years. At that time that I started, there was no internet,and what was learned had to be winnowed out by going to libraries, seeking out the material, and studying it,all on my own time.That is still my preferred method. Not just plug in a google, or other search engine, search term and abracadabra, instant expert.
        After stumbling on this website, before it became a blog, and sense then, I have seen many, many come and go. Quite a few had a tremendous amount of knowledge about wolves and wildlife as a whole, and not everyone of them was a fan, but still tended to add to the discussion. Not so much now days. Seems that the forest has been hidden by the fence posts.

        Oh for the good old days when the NewWest site was in it’s heyday and was able to go and bitch slap on a regular basis such dim bulbs as “truck-stop” Chandie, “honeywagon” Marion, three twigs, “pencil neck” hemming, “little” Barry Coe, “altered” reality, and quite a number of other nut bags whose names escape me at the moment. Who was the one that ran for Gov. of Montana, on a strong anti-wolf message and did not get even ,what 10% of the vote.
        Essentially could not even get elected dog catcher.
        Or the others that were members of Sportsmen for (some)Fish and (some)Game.
        Never here any thing about them anymore.
        Oh well…..

        • Immer Treue says:

          Mr. Bob Fanning.

          Gosh, there was a time libraries had little, very little on wolves. Like you, about 40 years ago, I began collecting what I could on wolves. There wasn’t much out there.

          Perhaps we’re approaching a time when at least the noise of verbal wolf wars are abating. Can that much more be said?

          Awaiting new studies to support or refute the supposed recent findings of some. Hopefully a middle ground will be found in the future, where neither extreme will be happy, and whether hunting and trapping seasons resume, wolves will just be left alone during off seasons. Things change.

          Yeah,,there were some wild and wooly times on NewWest!

          • JEFF E says:

            It was difficult to find information. Universities, especially those with strong biology dept. were good bets.
            I also supplemented the book learning with what you might call a “hands on approach”…..

      • Ida Lupines says:

        Please don’t exaggerate and continually condescend. Nobody has had the patience of a saint with me. I don’t have or want Google earth. I try to avoid too much technology whenever possible nowadays.

        Like Jeff, I prefer to use a map or the library. I don’t have or want a smart phone. I do not like zoos. I have been a wildlife advocate for decades, or else I wouldn’t have happened upon this site. I’d have no problem going out and seeing wildlife in cold weather, I live in a very cold climate in winter. Alas, wolves were destroyed in my neck of the woods. Maybe a nuanced person would not try to keep wolves from being reintroduced elsewhere?

        As for TC, I said I would post less, so no promises broken there. I’m a person of my word. I’ll just observe from time to time, and I’m sure other disagreements will come along. But I’m staying out of it. I’ll continue to read though, and comment occasionally.

        I wonder also if Rork requires such political correctness when he’s visiting Tom Remington’s blog?

        • Ida Lupines says:

          And it goes without saying, but comments the blog moderators feel are inappropriate are removed, and anything I post that is inappropriate would fall into that category. I remember a guy named Mike who used to be the target of many lowdown comments here, and he was a bit incendiary with his also, to be sure. I wonder what ever happened to him?

          WM has picked quite a few arguments in his time here, and in doing so squelches any dissent, so he isn’t as even-handed as Immer would like to portray. I don’t ever try to ‘chase anybody away’ (like I even could, the whole idea is ridiculous.) I believe in letting people have their say, and if it gets to be too much, I’ll usually be the one to just ignore or sign off.

          But as I said, I will still contribute from time to time, and continue to read. I’m the first to admit there are things I need to learn more about, and I’d never want to make anybody feel they couldn’t speak freely.

        • Immer Treue says:

          You don’t have or want goggle earth or too much technology, look at a bloody map!

    • TC says:

      Wolves do make life challenging for some people – there is no refuting that fact. They do not make your life difficult in suburbia on the East Coast. And a nuanced person would understand that fact can stand along side the fact that there is a place for wolves and there are ways to coexist with them and allow them to thrive; they belong as much as any of their prey species.

      A new low. And a promise to stay on point and perhaps post a bit less often broken, again. Kudos.

  63. rork says:

    Feather anecdote: While I was fishing yesterday evening on 4-mile Lake (south-east MI), near where about 100 cranes had gathered, a bald eagle flew by and lost a primary wing feather near the tip of it’s wing, which fell on the water. There were scores of crane primaries on the down-wind side of the lake – the birds are looking a bit tattered.

  64. Gary Humbard says:

    RMEF’s impressive conservation accomplishments. I’m not sure how they calculated the one billion dollars of conservation work (funds spent, volunteer work, etc.) but however they did, it’s quite impressive. Gaining access to public lands that are surrounded by private lands is beneficial to all of us too.

    • Louise kane says:

      In the vein of keeping it real
      RMEF wolf and predator policy makes it hard to label their organization as conservationist
      That piece is a good bit of propaganda
      I saw lots of it while working at the federal government
      Self promotion along with agency partnerships to make the agency and organization to create a feel good aura

      Interesting how they don’t reference how the billion dollars was spent or how the term conservation is applied

      I seem to remember that a prominent conservationist organization/founder distanced themselves from the RMEF for their dogged persecution of wolves and Predators

      • Louise kane says:

        The olaus Murie family wrote a letter to rmef in 2012 asking them to not use their name in their “Conservstion” award in response to the rmef predator policies

        • Kathleen says:

          “To keep wolf populations controlled, [David Allen CEO Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation] said, states will have to hold hunts, shoot wolves from the air and gas their dens.” (Predator, Protector —as Costs Mount, Some Researchers Point Out Benefits. Bend Bulletin Jan. 7, 2012)

          • Louise kane says:

            Gassing pups in their den and shooting wolves from the air

            Conservation organization at its finest
            A true model to follow

            Maybe part of that billion was used to promote these healthy policies

            • jon says:

              Hunters are not conservationists Louise as you well know. They are destroyers of wildlife.

              • Louise Kane says:

                Well I am not a fan of hunting thats for sure, but not all hunters are sick twisted demented humans. And I do believe that hunters can also be very interested in conservation. I think at some point, many hunters experience a dilemma of conscience in harvesting animals for utilitarian and food purposes. May father evolved to a point that he could not kill fish, and he was a former commercial fisherman. His closet friends (people I considered my second Dads) were hunters and not one of them was a sick sadist, they were utilitarian.

                There are people that post here who are hunters but I also believe them to be intelligent conservationists, Rork for example.

                I see hunters in classes
                I’m not sure Id call the wolf pup killers hunters in the truest sense of the word.

                I hope for a day when hunting means shooting with a camera.

              • Louise Kane says:

                I would agree that the truest outcome of hunting is that something dies. The enjoyment in that is hard to comprehend and with 6 billion of us, I think we need to reconsider the impact that humans have on all species. Me, I’d like to see most if not all public lands off limits to all killing and see how populations of wildlife acclimate and what kind of balance might be restored. Id also like to see wildlife corridors connecting. The model now of states managing wildlife as game reserves is woefully shortsighted. No wonder many species are plummeting. aside from ecological considerations, humans have made it so traumatic and dangerous for most species, that many are considered nocturnal when really they are just as diurnal as humans but the only “safe” time for them to emerge is at night. I think that is a pretty awful concept when you really think about that impact. What a life we have created for most species, they exist only to be shot, poisoned, chased by baying packs of dogs, tracked by gps, fish finders, cell phones, helicopters, and all manner of technology that prevents escape, snared and trapped at their necessary watering, feeding and denning sites. Its a shitty life humans make for wildlife in an already incomprehensibly difficult wild world of natural predators, illnesses and survival obstacles. we have harvested so much that bird and fish species are beginning to starve. Do we really need krill as fertilizer?

                • Gary Humbard says:

                  “I would agree that the truest outcome of hunting is that something dies”.

                  I will argue that the truest outcome of hunting is the conservation, restoration, preservation and enhancement of the landscape and the wildlife that inhabits it. First, the overall “success” rate for the average elk hunter in my state of Oregon has averaged ~18% during the past 20 years and although some states such as Wyoming may average 40%, most of the states average ~20%. There is a commonality that 10% of the deer hunters get 90% of the deer so the premise that hunting ultimately results in death is not accurate. If you are not a vegan, your eating habits result in death every time you purchase meat, poultry, dairy or fish.

                  TR (an avid hunter) set aside 234 million acres in national forests in addition to numerous NWR’s and NP’s. Few NGOs have protected more land and wildlife (possibly Nature Conservancy) than RMEF. Hunting organizations are leaders against the states taking control of federal public lands and when hunters are successful, they are less likely to rely on livestock products.

                  I cannot attest to the alleged comment made by David Allen mentioned above by Kathleen, but I have serious doubt that RMEF supports gassing wolf dens. Personally, I would like to see a stop to all predator hunting, and for pro-hunting organizations to support non-hunting organizations in their ability to have more control in state wildlife agencies. Clearly, lawsuits to re-list wolves in areas that have successfully recovered are contentious for pro-hunting organizations, but in the “big picture” hunters and non-hunters have more common goals than differences.

                • Louise Kane says:

                  great post Kathleen, thanks

                • Louise Kane says:

                  “I will argue that the truest outcome of hunting is the conservation, restoration, preservation and enhancement of the landscape and the wildlife that inhabits it.”

                  we can agree to disagree Gary

                  Hunting organizations that buy up land and partner with orgs like the nature conservancy do so without altruistic motives. Perhaps the land is not developed but the true purpose is not so much to conserve wildlife, but to preserve hunting grounds. The partnerships I saw evolve through my years in the federal government most always were conducted to preserve fishing or hunting rights with the convenience of claiming conservation of land and wildlife resources.

                  The obvious byproduct of most hunter “conserved” lands is the intolerance of predators and the creation of a system that is unnaturally balanced by human tinkering that balances populations of animals for maximum game harvest.

                  Some call that conservation success. I see it differently. Conservation land without human tinkering (hunting or other manipulation of other species) really impresses me.

                  Kathleen’s post about the RMEF is correct and the Murie foundation did ask to have their name disassociated with the award because of the foundation’s outrageous anti predator policies.

    • timz says:

      I agree with those in the comments section of this story when they reference “bull droppings”.

  65. Louise kane says:

    The 2017 senate Environment and appropriations bill is being marked up tommorrow
    Wolves need your voices
    There is an ammenfment introduced by senator udall to strip all if the anti environmental language and wolf riders from the bill
    The wolf riders would return wolves to state management in Wyoming by reverting to USFWS rule that delisted them and you guessed it
    Another no judicial review rider
    I’m a surprising statement dan Ashe argued against the riders stating that tinkering with the esa by delisting through confessional fiat and bypassing the courts was a slippery slope

    The first fair statement he has made of wolves and their management

    Please consider s moment of your day to contact your senator and urge them to vote for the udsll amendment

    Non germane riders that bypass court decisions usurp the role of the judiciary in interpreting agency rules and the system of checks and balances that are the underpinnings of this democratic society

  66. Jeff N. says:

    Good article on the Mexican Gray Wolf and the obstacles faced in recovery efforts.

    • Salle says:

      That’s a really good article, Jeff N..

      I like that Mike Phillips was given a lot of ink in it. He’s a wise and very intelligent agent in wolf recovery in both the public and private sectors. It’s great to know he’s still working on recovery efforts with the high degree of sanity he brings to the conversation.

      Thanks for posting the article link.


  67. rork says:

    A paper about wolves reducing plant damage by deer awhile back has been covered in the lay press, and it’s a fairly good job:
    They interview some people and get a few more interesting facts (that deer have already reduced their favorite species in some areas).
    And one of the authors has a copy of the paper up in public, so everyone can see it now:
    It’s an easy read compared to some – no GLM’s with negative-binomial link functions – and a nice experimental design.

    • Nancy says:

      ◾I hear and I forget, I see and I remember. I do and I understand. —Chinese Proverb

      “Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer trails.

      I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed, first to anaemic desuetude, and then to death. I have seen every edible tree defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn.

      Such a mountain looks as if someone had given God a new pruning shears, and forbidden Him all other exercise. In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage, or molder under the high-lined junipers” Aldo Leopold

      • Nancy says:

        And will happily add to that post, these good thoughts:

        “Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread.

        A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.” Edward Abbey

      • Ida Lupines says:

        A deep chesty bawl echoes from rimrock to rimrock, rolls down the mountain, and fades into the far blackness of the night. It is an outburst of wild defiant sorrow, and of contempt for all the adversities of the world. Every living thing (and perhaps many a dead one as well) pays heed to that call. To the deer it is a reminder of the way of all flesh, to the pine a forecast of midnight scuffles and of blood upon the snow, to the coyote a promise of gleanings to come, to the cowman a threat of red ink at the bank, to the hunter a challenge of fang against bullet. Yet behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf.

        This is just so powerful and gorgeously written. Other parts are difficult to read. A short, but very powerful writing.

        Thx Nancy.

  68. Mareks Vilkins says:

    “The Republican crusade against public land must end”

    Raúl M Grijalva

    The most recent development in the ongoing battle for our public lands is the recent introduction of the badly misnamed Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act.

    BLM has roughly 200 law enforcement officers – fewer than one for every million acres of land it oversees. The Forest Service has approximately one officer per 386,000 acres. The law enforcement presence on American public lands more closely resembles 1894 than 1984.

    Enforcement action is reserved for the worst of the worst: arsonists, grave robbers, drug traffickers and, yes, people who spend decades illegally grazing their cattle at public expense.

    Turning enforcement powers over to local control doesn’t even make sense on paper. The Forest Service estimates that it would take the states 15 to 20 years to reach its current law enforcement capacity. Despite their small numbers, federal conservation law enforcement officers are highly specialized, highly skilled professionals.

    Experienced law enforcement officers have significant institutional knowledge and relationships that cannot be replaced. Were the Republican bill to become law, existing collaborations within and across federal agencies and state lines – not to mention working relationships with the regulated community – would have to be rebuilt from scratch.

    The Chaffetz-Bishop bill delegates enormous power while allowing states and localities to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore on US public lands. The bill has no performance standards and no language requiring a course correction, even in the case of a clear dereliction of duty. It leaves federal agencies – and ultimately taxpayers – on the hook to clean up any legal messes. This complete absence of accountability creates an environment ripe for abuse, especially where state officials and local sheriffs have already declared their intention to ignore federal law on BLM and Forest Service lands.

    • Gary Humbard says:

      I had a few problematic encounters with hunters while working for the BLM as they did not like the fact that I had legal authority to access areas behind locked gates during hunting seasons. Although they did not point their guns directly at me, they certainly threatened me and my co-workers. Each time I would call for law enforcement assistance, either county deputies or state police would respond well before BLM law enforcement would show up. Since there are so few of them, they are spread out or even off work that day.

      IMHO, law enforcement of federal lands needs to be handled by agencies who have done it successfully for decades and that means at the county and state levels.

      I’m not sure the debacle at the Bundys ranch can be attributed to BLM law enforcement, but certainly the Bundys felt empowered enough to occupy the Malheur NWR. I would bet local citizens who believe the federal government needs to be limited would be much more inclined to work with non-federal law enforcement agencies.

  69. Kathleen says:

    “We’ve Broken the Planet”: A Case for Liberation Ecology and the Rights of Nature

    Excerpt: “While “liberation ecology” has been used in the past to describe the authority of human communities to serve as good stewards of the planet, it must go further—towards an expansion of community lawmaking which recognizes nature not as property to be well-used and conserved by humans, but as possessing the highest rights protections capable of being afforded by our system of governance.

    “Without a true liberation ecology activism—in which community democratic authority is expanded to enable people to ban that which harms human and natural communities, and to begin to construct a new system which affords those communities the highest protections of the law—dependence on the old order will guarantee the destruction of the planet continues.”

    • Immer Treue says:

      I sure on the anti-wolf sites paroxysms of joy are being spurted. If the individual(s) are apprehended, and I realize this is a gigantic if, it will be interesting to see what happens. Poaching is just that, poaching.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I doubt they will be apprehended, but what should be done is any poached wolf and pups ought to be deducted from the hunting quota for the year.

  70. Ida Lupine says:

    or for next year’s quota. It doesn’t say how many pups were killed, perhaps I missed that (you know me). Or how, or if they were collared. Idaho seems to be collaring a lot of young pups, I’ve read.

    • jon says:

      These people are sick sadistic psychopathic cowards.


      Trade Count: (0)
      Join Date: Feb 2014
      Posts: 392
      Location: west side(dark side)
      its not the arrow its the indian

      Re: Concerned Citizen Saves Several Ungulates
      « Reply #3 on: Today at 10:32:34 AM »
      Love it. The only good wolf is a dead wolf. If someone ever tells me they managed the wolf population I’m buying them a beer. I think getting them in the dens is the most effective way to manage them. Props to whoever got um good work keep it up.

      • Amre says:

        Yep, pretty ugly stuff. Hunters always say they want to simply manage wolves like all other wildlife-and I believe many, if not most, mean that and have at least some good intention-but things like this sorta’ve contradict that, don’t they?

  71. Immer Treue says:

    Wisconsin wolf population at reco d high.

  72. Ida Lupines says:

    Apologies if this one has already been posted, but I hadn’t seen it before. Another case of a food-conditioned animal having to be killed. How do they prevent the inevitable next case if they can’t stop the root of the problem, which is people feeding and getting too close to wildlife?

    Just killing each time a problem arises isn’t a good enough answer. Disney supposedly has been downplaying the danger of alligators, telling guests they are like mascots. The place is in the middle of swamp habitat. Human conflict with wildlife is getting way out of hand now, and those supposedly responsible for the parks and places with captive wildlife take too passive an approach, until killing is necessary.

    • Ida Lupines says:

      Went to Disney World once, saw it, and that was enough. Not my thing. Prefer the natural swamp. Went to Vegas, saw it, and that was enough. Not my thing. Prefer the natural desert. But the drive to Vegas from CA through the desert was incredible.

  73. Mareks Vilkins says:

    What Would a Global Warming Increase of 1.5 Degrees Be Like?

    • Kathleen says:

      “‘When will people (and institutions) stop with this sick need to show power and control by confining, taming and showcasing wild animals?’ the Rio de Janeiro-based animal rights group Animal Freedom Union said…”
      When, indeed.

      • Ida Lupines says:

        +1 It seems humanity is really putting its collective, despotic foot down and showing the world who rules lately, doesn’t it. 🙁

    • Mark L says:

      As I understand it, wild jaguar attacks on humans are about as rare as wolf attacks (almost nonexistent). Its the acclimation to humans that’s the problem. We are truly our own worst enemy.

    • timz says:

      “The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is asking anyone with information to call the Citizens Against Poaching Hotline. Callers can remain anonymous.”

      They however are not offering the reward.

  74. Louise Kane says:

    Moral of the story
    wild things are never safe from humans because no matter how many good people are out there contact with humans always ends tragically for wildlife

    Romeo a good example

    or as some people say a fed (fill in the blank) is a dead….

    • Kathleen says:

      These situations are so frustrating…and sad. The people who set this tragedy into motion are the misguided ones who fed the squirrel in the first place–as you noted, Louise–but will *they* ever realize that? And understand that it wasn’t this or any animal’s job to bring “joy to the neighborhood”? And that by food-conditioning him and not respecting his wildness they set him up? No, they will just condemn the cranks who don’t want nuts in their potted plants. I’ve been round and round with an elderly relative on this very topic.

  75. Louise Kane says:

    another animal looses it life because parents at a zoo are reckless and irresponsible.

  76. Nancy says:

    Baby elk in training?

    Not exactly wildlife news, simply a wildlife observation. 🙂

    Last evening I watched a small bunch of cow elk, all w/babies (about a dozen or so) running, over on the ranch across from me. Couldn’t see any threat but they were hell bent for a small group of aspens.

    This afternoon, counted about the same number of cow elk moving thru another area of sagebrush but only half of them had babies in tow (thought it might have been the same bunch)

    To get an idea of what I’m viewing – picture veins of willows going here and there (depending on the small creeks & springs, nourishing them) and in between are huge areas of grassy meadows, laced with sagebrush.

    I don’t often see elk out during the day (usually early morning or late evening) so I kept my binoculars trained on the area.

    A few minutes later, I watched a baby elk rushing thru the sagebrush and minutes after that, 4 cow elk, rushed back in that direction, heads held high. They disappeared into the willows, they had left earlier.

    One cow elk appeared again just outside of the willows with her baby and the other cow elk, kept looking back but, had no babies with them.

    An episode of “Drop and Stay Hidden” command, necessary for any large prey animals, hoping their young will make it thru childhood, if they would just obey that command.

    A couple of years ago, I watched 3 cow elk, run a big black bear off, in that same section of willows.

    So what’s next for these baby elk? (And a host of other ungulates, learning how (when you’re still tiny) to get under (or over, when you are older) the vast network of fence lines, so prevalent out here in the west, blocking in/out domestic livestock.

    I’ve witnessed that tragedy too.

    • Kathleen says:

      Hmmm…thought the wolves had ‘decimated’ the elk? Well, what’s next for those babies is being ripped to shreds by those beasts of waste and desolation…or possibly by the barbed wire fences–which undoubtedly outnumber the wolves and don’t even eat what they kill.

    • Elk375 says:

      “To get an idea of what I’m viewing – picture veins of willows going here and there (depending on the small creeks & springs, nourishing them) and in between are huge areas of grassy meadows, laced with sagebrush.”

      I know exactly what you were viewing. On May 30, I stayed at a small Hot Springs Resort 5 miles north of that same spot and the following morning on the way home I drove by that same spot was on the right and on the left was a small house. I waved and said “Hi Nancy”.

      • Nancy says:

        Were you by chance on a motorcycle, Elk?

        • Elk375 says:

          No motorcycle for Elk, I was driving my 20 year old Ford truck.

          It was a great deal at the hot springs lodge. Thirty Five dollars to stay at the lodge which included swimming and breakfast. I checked in to the lodge, had dinner and I went to the pool to soak in the late evening. As, I was walking back to the lodge the owners or manager was walking back to their cabin and they told me since I was the only one staying there that they left the bar open with pen and pad. Just record what you drink and we will settle up in the morning. In the morning they cooked me a breakfast that would have fed 5 hungry lumberjacks for the day. I settled my bar bill, one dark beer and drove to Dillon.

          • Nancy says:

            Kind of like my first introduction to the area, 25 years ago. Stopped at a tiny little bar (that’s no longer in business) after a day of exploring the countryside. The owner hobbled over from his cabin and said in the future (if he shouldn’t show up) just make your self a drink and leave the money on the counter.

            If my rig is around next time you come this way Elk, don’t just wave from the road, stop in 🙂

  77. Kathleen says:

    “Ranking Member Grijalva Introduces Bill Creating Great Bend of the Gila National Monument to Protect Arizona Tribal History”

    • Professor Sweat says:

      Cautious optimism here. I’m wary of the accuracy of survey results since the collaring program was nixed, but good news nonetheless.

  78. Louise Kane says:

    Red wolves need help, less than 75 in the wild and NC trying to get the USFWS to declare them extinct and abandon a recovery program. This information was in my mailbox this morning. Please share and call your senators, especially North Carolina residents.

    Hello all,

    Some information from the Red Wolf Coalition:

    1. House Bill 1144 was approved in committee this morning. It will go to the floor of the Legislature on TUESDAY, JUNE 28th. HOWEVER, the Red Wolf Coalition has learned that the disapproval bill for the coyote hunting regulations was REPLACED with a bill that supports the 2015 NC Wildlife Resources Commission resolutions asking for termination of the Red Wolf Recovery Program in NC.

    Here is Section I of HOUSE BILL 1144 – PROPOSED COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE H1144-CSMH-23 [v.2]:

    SECTION 1. The General Assembly of North Carolina hereby expresses its support for the Wildlife Resources Commission’s resolution dated January 29, 2015, requesting that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service declare the red wolf (Canis rufus) extinct in the wild and terminate the Red Wolf Reintroduction Program in Beaufort, Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties, and the Wildlife Resources Commission’s resolution dated January 29, 2015, requesting that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service remove red wolves released onto private lands in the red wolf recovery area located in Beaufort, Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties.

    2. This bill will go to the Senate next week. It is S884.

    For those on this list who are NC constituents, please consider calling your state reps. Find your NC representatives here –>

  79. Kathleen says:

    It took the death of a human to address a “decades-old problem of elk on Interstate 90” east of Missoula.

    Excerpt: “Director Mike Tooley said the Montana Department of Transportation is exploring a $1.5 million fencing project that will funnel roaming elk under the interstate through four existing underpasses in the eight-mile stretch between Drummond and the Jens exit.”–spurs-state-action/article_b6a05e84-9fbc-54b3-96b8-78cf8456c400.html?utm_content=bufferf6173&utm_medium=social&

  80. Professor Sweat says:

    Walker wailing with record-high wolf counts this year. I know a lot of people in WI who voted for him, but also complain about too many deer.

  81. Gary Humbard says:

    We feel pretty confident he won’t stay here,” Stephenson said. “He’s traveled a long way — he came pretty close to Bend and La Pine and has moved on. Wolves typically avoid humans and cities.”

    I’m disappointed OR-33 didn’t stop by my La Pine residence and have a “leg of deer” that KEEP eating my newly planted shrubs and trees.–33-visits-ashland-attacks-livestock-skips-town/86212170/

  82. Kathleen says:

    “Animal agriculture is a socio-political ‘cancer’ that exacerbates climate change, world hunger, desertifies land that was once suitable for growing crops, and thereby plants the seeds of political and economic instability.”
    –Robert Grillo

    Check out the photo. This is an article from a year ago, but I just ran across it…re: the far-reaching impacts of animal ag.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Killed 90 species… Got a word for her that was used for Trump in Scotland, in particular after seeing her “trophy” room.

      • Louise Kane says:

        One of the most obnoxious self serving people I have ever read about. She is not very good at detracting from the fact that she is a serial killer/loser.

        I can’t decide which quote is the most duplicitous.

        “I’m attacked because I’m a woman, because I have boobs and hips,” she says.”

        “I’m tired of hearing the words ‘trophy hunter’,” she blasts. “We’re helping to preserve wildlife; we hunt lions because we want to see populations of wildlife continue to grow.

        “People think hunting is all about having trophies, but it’s not – this isn’t cricket. In that final moment before I pull the trigger, there’s a calm that comes over me; I really breathe it in, and when I walk up to an animal I’ve killed, I put my hand on its face and thank it for its life.

        “It’s a very spiritual thing.”

        If this woman believes in heaven and hell, she better start praying.

        • Mark L says:

          Do ‘homely’ women have this desire too, or is it only reserved for the hotties that crave internet attention and are about to go through menopause? I’m saying this as a distasteful joke, but looking at the photos, I don’t see any women that are overweight or homely…just prettiness and death, Odd Ever her defense is that she has boobs and hips (why not pick another body part?…cause that’s where she wants the attention to be)
          Yep, it IS a very spiritual thing…

          • Louise kane says:

            I’m not sure that it has anything to do with physical beauty

            But that old adage certainly holds true
            About inner beauty

            This woman is an ugly personal

            Interesting thought on wanting internet attention

            Anyhow she is a vile example of why trophy hunting deserves the negative attention and disdain it gets and why it should be banned

            Who needs to kill to keep calm and then equates that to spirituality
            What a repulsive thought process and person

    • Professor Sweat says:

      “She is, she says, vehemently opposed to poaching, too, having previously “held a gun” on men she found in the illegal pursuit of elephant tusks…”

      Just because money changes hands officially and one is granted a license, it doesn’t make it any different. When we hunt, we kill for our own selfish purpose. Granted, some reasons are somewhat better than others, but it’s killing nonetheless. She claims to have held a gun to poachers in the field, but she would see her reflection in their eyes if she was willing to look closely enough. She’s not the one eating hippo meat.

  83. Louise Kane says:

    Mark Bekoff interviews the author who wrote of the mountain lion who crossed the country

    sadly the lion was hit by a car in Connecticut
    but the chronicle of his journey and the interview are great stuff.

  84. Louise Kane says:

    Public safety and wildlife protection act

    its a step in the right direction
    banning inter state transport of conifer and leg hold traps.

    why congress fears just banning the manufacture of them or sales of them is baffling. Its time for traps to go.

  85. Louise Kane says:

    Bill Maher interviews 16 year old activist with a segment on the public trust

  86. Ida Lupine says:

    “He [Dr Bill C. Henry, a professor of psychology specialising in human-animal interactions at Denver’s Metropolitan State University] describes the motivations behind hunting as being similar to that of an “adventure sport, where people push themselves outside of their normal environment and get the opportunity to prove themselves” – something he notes can also be seen in women’s growing involvement with extreme sports such as the likes of ultra marathons and sky dives.”

    And the animal is just an object, like a piece of sporting equipment so that someone can ‘prove themselves’? This is the so-called rationale that I hate – making it either a feminist issue, or a means (one-sided, of course) for people to develop their abilities. We don’t need to kill other living things to do that – it isn’t spiritual to take part in destroying life and killing!

    I hope no one is buying this crap.

  87. Kathleen says:

    “Woman who survived mauling wants to take on New Mexico law that required bear to be killed”

    This is the woman who was attacked by a mom bear during a marathon in Valles Caldera: “Williams, 53, said it was wrong for the state to kill a bear that acted on its protective instinct. Williams and many others around the country said the bear was defending its two cubs in a wilderness area, not stalking her.”

  88. Ida Lupines says:

    “During a run Monday morning through stands of ponderosa pines in a sun-lit canyon near her home, Williams said New Mexico’s law is unnecessarily strict. When people enter the wilderness, she said, they assume responsibility for their safety, or they ought to.”

    What a lovely person. Thank you, Ms. Williams! Many of us feel the same way – only in the rarest of circumstances should an animal be killed, especially in modern times when wildlife is under pressure from encroachment by humanity.

  89. Nancy says:

    In a nutshell:

    “Dr. Kathleen Ramsay, a veterinarian, said in an interview last week that changes in the law are unlikely.

    ***** One reason is that New Mexico has many problems that would be higher on the priority list than saving wild animals, she said.

    Like maybe the reintroduction of a long gone native predator, back on the landscape:

    “Ramsay, now caring for the two cubs of the black bear that attacked Williams, spent 11 years on the state Board of Veterinary Medicine.

    ***** Trying to make any change in the state was a “nightmare,” she said, “never mind changes in law.”

    Hope Karen Williams has a good support team behind her trying to deal with the “small town politics as usual” (and for decades when it comes to wildlife issues) in her state.

    Might be worthy of an update/ or an article, on the Wildlife News site…. Ralph, Ken, Brian?

  90. Kathleen says:

    A grizzly has killed a human in the West Glacier area. The photo accompanying the brief article shows crime scene tape (!?!). Will this end with another dead bear?

    • Elk375 says:

      It was a mountain biker.

      • Louise Kane says:

        there is a legal defense for negligence called assumption of risk. Is a bit more complicated than this in practice, but essentially if you assume a risk then you can’t sue for negligence. Its not fair to punish wildlife for being wild. It is terrible that a man died, but he assumed a risk and suffered the consequences. The mountain bike and rider surprised the bear and the bear reacted. In an evolutionary sense how would bears or other creatures survive without a defense instinct or reaction?

        • rork says:

          When bears are killed, it is not to punish them.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Splitting hairs, “bad behavior” (our interpretation) brings the supposed retribution in the guise of prevention of future attacks by said animal. In this case, there is no consensus of which animal as doubt exists as toward whether a grizzly or black bear is the culprit.

            • Nancy says:

              I’m sure a few here can recall this YouTube video, from not that long ago?


              The human species continues to push and push other species, to smaller and smaller areas and then we throw in our Right to “joy ride” on what’s left of those areas, especially out here in the west, with our “toys”

              Like ATV’s (that come now in the size of small cars these days) mountain bikes, snowmobiles, etc. because to many of our species, just don’t have the time to get off their fricken butts and just walk around, what’s left of wilderness areas. IMHO 🙂

            • Nancy says:

              Huh… I’m sure a few here can recall a similar but fortunately, less tragic event not long ago, when it comes to humans, on mountains bikes, interacting with the native wildlife, with their kids in tow, in THEIR neighborhood?

              • Immer Treue says:

                There was another video of a Mt Biker being chased down a trail by a grizzly. I’ll see if I can dig it up.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Here is the other video, purported to be a fake. You can look at both videos here. Be fun…you be the judge.


                • Nancy says:

                  Immer – first video that comes up, reminds me of some sort of video game (guy gets chased by a bear) the second video? Guy, with head cam, gets railroaded by a grizzly that appears on the hillside.

                  Into the video, as he is hiking back up, can see cubs running across the hillside. Looks like a family of bears interrupted.

                  Biker that took a nose dive (with the head cam) coming up to the other biker and that biker, is freaked but ready and appears to also have a can of bear spray at the ready?

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Not saying the first video is real, but if so, it is possible to get a Mt Bike rolling pretty fast on that type of terrain, an old double track perhaps, but in the video you provided, with rocks and all, if bear had chased, I doubt there would be much chance for escape.

            • rork says:

              “in the guise of prevention” is inaccurate when it’s the only consideration worth thinking about.

              • Immer Treue says:

                “”in the guise of prevention” is innacurate when its the only consideration worth thinking about.”

                Peel the onion a bit deeper, I agree if prevention pertains to a predatory predisposition,, but no to an instinct shared with our own species to protect our young. If we are to have things wild, I submit we must understand that young of all species born in the Spring, can and will produce protective reflex mechanisms from parents.

                • JEFF E. says:

                  I think the mindset (which I do not necessarily agree with), is that animals have an inherent predisposition to avoid humans, as a threat, but when it is learned that we are really no threat at all and really quite easy to kill, then that becomes learned behavior that is then passed on to succeeding generations; hence the word prevention.
                  I would submit that this would apply more to a predatory event as opposed to a defensive event but that is probably splitting hairs to the F&G or other regulatory bureaucracy that makes these decisions. More often than not the response is one of scorched Earth, and probably more than anything else distills down to money, as in lawsuits.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Do we once again find ourselves bound to the tenet, that the population is more important than the individual?

                  I must ask, as of this posting, did the bear or the fall kill the cyclist? What would transpire, in such a case as red winged black birds attacking a cyclist, in the guise of protecting their nest, causing said cyclist to crash and either incur great injury or death? Red-winged blackbirds can be very aggressive.

                • JEFF E. says:

                  Not sure what your first sentance refers to in referance to this event.

                  I doubt that the presiding bureaucracy cares what the actual cause was, only the perceivingness.
                  and I would presume the same response would apply to red wing black birds,that is the nature of bureaucracies, although we are beginning to tread into the non-sequitur morass that so frequently drowns discussion here.

                  Holy Hitchcock Batman. 8^))

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Simply put, is the overall population of Grizzlies more important than one sow, and her defensive posture, and her cubs?
                  The loss can be absorbed.

                • JEFF E. says:

                  yes the loss can be absorbed but is still unfortunate. I still would maintain that the driving force in the decision to euthanize is mostly pocketbook driven.

  91. Ida Lupine says:

    It was a mother and cubs. The man probably surprised her on a mountain bike. At least with hiking, the noise people make might have alerted her beforehand:

    • Ida Lupine says:

      All of the reports are irresponsibly sensationalizing the attack by referring back to an incident from 1967 in Glacier – turning their reports into a B horror film, which they always seem to do.

      Personally, if my number comes up – I hope it’s in the wild and not at the hands of a lunatic gunman as part of a captive audience, or a terrorist attack.

      Was the man at least carrying bear spray? I hope they do not kill the bear (but am not very hopeful that they won’t). If it was to save his life, I might disagree – but killing her won’t bring him back. She is mother with cubs, and still protected by the ESA. Killing yet another reproducing grizzly female and killing her cubs or dumping them off at another tiresome zoo prison sentence would be harmful to the species’ population.

      I just read that now they aren’t sure if the bear was a grizzly or a black bear. When in doubt, wipe ’em all out! I hope is not the rule of thumb.

      It is an unfortunate accident, but we must remember this is a wild place! I’m surprised that the man worked for the Forest Service.

      • Kathleen says:

        “All of the reports are irresponsibly sensationalizing the attack by referring back to an incident from 1967 in Glacier – turning their reports into a B horror film, which they always seem to do.”

        I agree. Always a reference to the “night of the grizzlies”–never any background on the conditions that set it up: lax rules about tourist trash and the park’s own open dumpsites that served as tourist attractions themselves.

  92. Kathleen says:

    Was this ever posted here? I sometimes don’t check in for several days and might have missed it — a cub of the year believed to belong to bear 399 (“the most famous mother bear in the world”) was struck by a car and killed 10 days ago–apparently in Grand Teton N.P.

    • Jeff N. says:

      I was just in Grand Teton in early June and was lucky to see 399 and her white faced cub one morning near Willow Flats. This is a sad development.

  93. Ida Lupine says:

    I do think there is a holdover element from the past element to human/animal conflicts. What would be the purpose of killing after the horse has left the barn? To protect others? This bear and her cubs have moved on. This was not an ‘attack’ or an act of aggression. I wish the media would stop presenting every human/animal conflict as an attack. The man surprised the animal and she reacted to protect her cubs. It most likely wouldn’t happen again.

    The best way to prevent further conflict is to keep stressing that the human being take proper precautions, especially when out in wilderness. You can’t keep killing wildlife in today’s world, when they are already under extreme pressure from humans and their many activities.

  94. Kathleen says:

    “Tanzania gives hunting permit to a firm despite video of animal abuse”

    NAIROBI—The trophy hunters’ transgressions were all caught on tape — capturing baby zebras, running over an impala with a truck, watching wildebeests writhe and bleed before killing them, letting children participate in the hunt.

  95. Kathleen says:

    “The latest: Helicopter to search for bear in deadly attack”

    This doesn’t sound good for the bear. If she was a mom with cubs, it was purely defensive on her part. Why search?