Interesting wildlife news (reader generated)

It is time to create a new page of “Interesting Wildlife News.” It has been a long time since we have had a new page. The page and comment loading time has become slow.  Do not post copyrighted material.

Here is the link to the “old” wildlife news of July 24, 2018. From there you can access links to older pages still.

Please post your wildlife news in the comments below

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.

605 Responses to Do you have some interesting wildlife news? Nov. 25, 2018 edition

  1. Nancy says:

    Many people would of called an exterminator. But he has some advice on not doing that.

  2. Nancy says:

    Insane, its OUR public lands!!!………..but who’s got answers on how to stop it!!

  3. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2018

    Wisconsin CWD spreads on deer and elk farms as control efforts stumble

    • Mat-ters says:

      What is tragic is the attempt by some to set this animal up for failure, there ignorance to the catastrophic consequences of habituation of this animal, and the lack of push back to groups that abuse laws to the point they set the grizzly up for failure.

      • Hiker says:

        And just how do you know that bear was habituated? From what I read this occurred in the Yukon Territory near a small village. They estimate that there are 7,000 griz in the YT. Most of those bears should be hibernating now, but recent warm weather has brought some out. Also, this incident is still being investigated. We might not know more for awhile. It may have been just a tragic accident.

        What “groups that abuse laws to the point they set the grizzly up for failure” are you referring to? Do these groups operate in Canada? What laws are these “groups” abusing? Are these Canadian laws? Where do your accusations lead? Your posts always seem the most ridiculous, I’d laugh but two people died.

        • Mat-ters says:

          Hiker, My comment stands as is…. It is evident that I was talking in generalization by the end of the comment where I finish with “set the grizzly up for failure” It is certainly not based on this particular bear. This bear has shown us how dangerous the species is and shows us that letting it expand into poorer and poorer habitat is indeed the wrong thing to do. It has to be managed.

          • Hiker says:

            “habituation of this animal” Not sure how general this statement is. Everyone should know by now how dangerous a Griz is. Any attack makes national news. How often do we hear about attacks by deer? Yet they are more common. You are more likely to be hit by lightening then attacked by a bear.

            “It is evident that I was talking in generalization by the end of the comment where I finish with “set the grizzly up for failure” It is certainly not based on this particular bear” You always make general statements, maybe try being more specific. Every bear attack is different to some degree and should be treated that way. More details are needed in this case. Had these people seen this bear before? Did they assume that bears were all asleep? Was this bear in poor condition when it hibernated? All important questions to answer before we (you) jump to conclusions.

            “This bear has shown us how dangerous the species is and shows us that letting it expand into poorer and poorer habitat is indeed the wrong thing to do” I don’t know where better habitat for a Griz exists. If I were a Griz I would choose the wilds of Canada.
            By the way, do you have any comment on my statement about Canadian law? You stated “groups that abuse laws”. Just wondering what laws you were referring to.

            As always, looking forward to your reply.

            • Mat-ters says:

              Hiker, It’s quite evident that the US ESA is one of the most abuse laws there on the planet. Reform is needed!

              Yes lots of questions….the late season non-hibernated bear probably isn’t as rare as some may suggest here.

              A few decades ago I was deer hunting in WI. My perch was on the edge of an ash swamp…. among the deer I saw that opening day was a fisher that put on a show to the east of me. Later that day, I heard something to the north west and looked to see bits and pieces of something black going through the swamp headed north. Being that I had saw the fisher earlier, I didn’t think that much of it. I didn’t put up the binoculars (or brown enough to put the scope) on him. As I’ve done for decades, I sat the whole day. On the walk out, I discovered that what I had saw was a pretty good-sized bear had gone through. I have a lane from the stand that walks me out of the swamp. In the freshly melted snow from mid to late afternoon….was a perfectly preserved print of that bear walking in my crusty foot prints from the morning. The next day I took a handful of kids and one of the sister-n-laws down for the ¾ mile walk to see the bear print. I showed them how my tracks going in before morning light were made in snow that was not as packy as it was when the bear came through on my walk out. I would have had a good look at the bear had I been looking west when he went through, He was on the shooting lane for about five yards from the south before heading north northwest where I had saw him. And wouldn’t you know, THIS YEAR walking into the same spot in the swamp the Friday morning after thanksgiving was another bear track in the fresh overnight dusting on the ice in the swamp. The unmistakable tracks made a good picture with todays modern phones!

              Those weren’t the first nor be the last time we will see a bear during the gun season, which traditionally starts the Saturday before Thanks Giving every year. When I was, kid the old timers always talked about the bear that came out of a deer drive a few years before every time we did certain deer drive. They also talked about how the deer hunters were allowed to shoot bears decades ago. Almost, every year or so that talk in town is how someone had seen a November bear….. It’s not all that rare and most certainly has about as much do with “climate change” as the ESA has to do with saving the Bald Eagle.

              As far as Canadian law on the Grizzly…. History tells us that man has always killed Grizzlies. It is “unnatural” to restrict the limited harvest of Grizzlies.

              • Hiker says:

                Science tells us that Griz were expanding east when White settlers encountered them. The Griz had expanded out of Eurasia and halfway across NA before being driven to the brink of extinction in the lower 48. The Native Americans that I have worked with in the West have explained to me the reverence that they had for bears. I am not sure how many they were able to kill since the Griz population was expanding before WE arrived. With bows and spears my guess is that they kept a healthy distance from them. So much for history.

                You didn’t really explain your reference to Canadian law. I think, based on your posts, that you used this latest bear attack to once again attack the ESA, EVEN THOUGH THE ATTACK HAPPENED IN CANADA AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ESA.
                To say that “It’s quite evident that the US ESA is one of the most abuse laws there on the planet.” is a joke. People in this country overwhelmingly support protection for endangered species. It’s only a vocal minority who have a problem with it and that’s because the ESA stops people from abusing habitat. The list of abuses is long, starting with grazing cattle on OUR public land, leading to overgrazing and killing predators to “protect” cattle. The ESA has been the best defense against these abuses. Are you saying that people who believe in protection shouldn’t exercise their rights to protect the commons from being abused for the profit of a few? Are you taking the side of overgrazing cattle barons against the people of the USA. More money is generated from tourism where Griz live then any other source! People come from all over the world just for the chance to see a bear, any bear. I guarantee that seeing a bear tops the list for the vast majority of tourists. Are you saying that their hopes and dreams are less valuable than those who demand that coyotes are killed to “protect” their cattle? If Europeans can coexist with Griz why can’t we? There are thousands of Griz in Romania alone. Yes Griz are dangerous, they deserve healthy respect. Living amongst them is risky and requires being alert and humble. Maybe that’s the problem.

              • Ida Lupine says:

                This is beautifully written, Mat-ters, and I hope that people will be able to see wildlife like this in the future too.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  Some native cultures KILLED predators and bears as a right of passage to adulthood. The amount of government dollars spent on JUST grizzlies to keep them out of trouble is immoral. Those that think a government worker killing a grizzly after numerous trouble is the answer to the issues need to be held accountable for their burden on the taxpayer and should be shamed for setting them up for continuous and eventual failure of the population.

            • Mat-ters says:

              In my neck of the woods its not deer we are worried about……dare turkeys….



  4. Yvette says:

    Unfortunate and bad news: A Lamar pack favorite has been killed for someone’s ego.

  5. Ida Lupine says:

    It sounds more like for id than ego.

  6. Ida Lupine says:

    Grizzlies and other bears living close to more populated areas are managed – either by relocating them if they habitually come to close to human inhabited areas, or killed.

    I understand that this family lived in an extremely remote area, risky for more reasons than just encounters with wildlife.

    We can’t reasonably expect to kill off all wildlife anywhere humans go, can we? Even as small as the nearby village was (pop. 200), it has the usual problems with disposal of garbage, an attractant for wildlife too, according to the NYT. But this kind of tragedy is rare, they say.

    • Immer Treue says:

      According to article, the only way into this area is by fixed wing aircraft or helicopter, so it is remote, and not the source/subject of generalization.

      Bear was not yet hibernating as another warm autumn…is global warming genuinely occurring?

      If bear still not hibernating at the time, most likely very high level of hyperphagia in this animal. No berries, so what’s left? Garbage and human refuse.

      I want to preface this statement with it’s not meant to attack the victims, but also another possible variable. Families refuse may have attracted bear. Were the marten and whatever else was trapped, cleaned/proecessed near the cabin? Bears should have been in hibernation by this time. These people were purported to be very adept Bush people. If so, was any sign of a grizzly apparent prior to this tragedy?

      Doubt we’ll hear for a while or possibly at all, but we’re mother and daughter consumed at all, as per an act of predation, or just killed, as per they could not avoid the bear or protect themselves from the bear that may have been protecting a source of food? Echoes of the guide killed by grizzly when attacked while butchering elk.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        You’re right. I’m not trying to attack the victims either.

        That other guy left the carcass out until the next day, did they say?

    • WM says:

      I think grizzly bear attacks or charges are MUCH more frequent than you believe Ida – we just don’t hear about it unless somebody dies or is seriously injured. My apologies if I have told this story on this forum before, a few years back.

      It strikes me there are few here who have truly had encounters with a grizzly bear, or even black bears. I had one in Yukon Territory, near Kluane Lake, years ago that still has me thinking it could have ended differently had I not chosen to act as I did. Traveling from Alaska in my little Toyota pick-up back to Washington state, I stopped to stretch my legs,and I started down an old logging grade into the woods. I could see a grizzly at a distance of about a quarter mile (about 450 yards). He came charging at me full speed. I was about 150-200 yards from my truck. I made the decision one typically does not want to make in this situation, but he was already heading my way fast – acting like prey- and ran back to the truck as fast as my relatively young legs would take me, keys in hand and made it just in time to close the door before the bear arrived. It circled the truck, pacing back and forth, and pressing its feet hard to the ground, hackles up on its back, for about 5 minutes. It was at a distance of about 40-50 feet. I could not determine its sex as it was always facing toward me and never stood up. It appeared to be a younger bear, maybe 400-500 pounds (male?).

      I took pictures thru the window with my little Olympus XA camera with a wide angle lens, as my larger Canon SLR with its many lenses was in the back of the truck. I still have the pictures, though with the wide angle the bear looked further from the truck thru the windshield than it actually was. I keep reminding myself of that when I look at the pics.

      The bed of the pick-up also had about 20 cases of home canned (in jars) salmon and smoked clams. I’m sure the bear could smell it, but its behavior around the truck did not seem consistent with finding a meal.

      I seriously doubt I would be writing this had I chosen to stay for a bluff charge, rather than run. I have had numerous encounters with black bears in WA, ID, CO, WY and AK, over many years, none as scary as this, except coming out of the Hoback in WY (SW of Teton NP) at night to avoid an early fall blizzard, while on a backpacking trip. We believed there was a grizzly feeding on an elk kill in a willow patch on our trail. Pretty scary stuff in the dark, when a bear can see and humans cannot.

      The irony of the Yukon grizzly experience, is that I had just spent several weeks backpacking on the Kenai Peninsula in AK, where I had been carrying a 12 ga shot gun, which adds about 8 pounds to one’s gear (including shells). I did not see a grizzly but saw where they had been along the banks of the river I my trail followed much of the way. And, yes, I had a big bell on my frame pack, that jingled as I walked up the trail, hoping the sound could be heard over the rush of the river. This was before the invention and use of bear spray.

  7. Elk375 says:

    Here is a comment from the Alberta Hunting forum from a Yukon hunting guide about the grizzly attack.

    I spent years at Einarson Lake guiding for Shockey

    I know exactly where this happened

    I killed a grizzly there. We aired that show. I had no choice. I killed him at 11 feet. I thought it was 15 feet. The CO’s said 11. The day before I personally shot in front of that griz numerous times. I placed propane bottles on the shore and shot them as the bear approached. We used a boat horn. Nothing worked. My hunters used a ladder to climb on the roof of the cabin. I have raw footage of all of it. One scene has me throwing a rock at a griz, hitting it, and it still stayed.

    330 am I got between the bear and my hunter friend. The bear came at his cabin so fast I was only wearing my boxer briefs and a headlamp when I killed him.

    Those animals don’t eat daily. When they find something, they take it. And they fight for it

    There are a lot of grizzly there. And its as remote as you can get. Places no man has ever walked before. For sure.

    That man lost everything basically on my doorstep. I can see and fully understand Jim’s FB post. It’s true. Griz have more value than people. Even a child. So sad on so many levels.

    • Nancy says:

      “That man lost everything basically on my doorstep. I can see and fully understand Jim’s FB post. It’s true. Griz have more value than people. Even a child. So sad on so many levels”

      No doubt at all this was a terribly tragic incident but, I take issue with Griz have more value than people. Even a child”

      Both these adults were more than aware of the remote location THEY had decided to spend months at (with their less than 1 year old child) trying to trap/kill and make a profit, off the lives of other species who I’m sure, would much prefer to be alive, keep their skin and go about their lives.

      And looking over some of the videos another guy has posted in the past (got a regular YouTube channel going) he cares nothing for the lives he dispatches, bragging about the kill, because there’s still a demand out there to rob wildlife of their lives and their hides, for profit.

      But I’d like to know if this trapper’s cabin, with his trap line kills, perhaps hanging here and there, drying out, might of attracted this late to hibernate bear, to that spot?

      • Hiker says:

        I once had a bear break into my car to eat the sheepskin seat covers. I never bought those again. Attractants are discussed everyday during the summer in any National Park with bears. We may never know what brought that bear to that cabin, but if you live and work in bear country you must live with respect for something that could kill you. When I lived in L.A. there were many neighborhoods that I would not enter at night. It’s the same concept. If an area is dangerous be careful. And it’s not just bears, any large mammal is dangerous. Even a squirrel can bite you and give you rabies. I always carry hiking poles now because several animals have attacked people in my area because of rabies. A man was attacked by a rabid fox a few hundred yards from my house. Never assume you are safe.

      • Nancy says:

        and for those that viewed the above video, this is no where even near an example of what hunters consider “far chase” but its still condoned.

        “When in the field, the initial question for every fair chase hunter is whether the animal has a reasonable opportunity to elude the hunter. If the animal does not, the hunt can never be “fair chase”.

        For example, a fair chase hunter does not shoot an animal hampered by deep snow or entangled in a barbed-wire fence”

        • Immer Treue says:

          Had a discussion with a friend a couple weeks back about his brother who goes for those super long range shots. Marksmanship has always been a part of hunting, but when does that ability, skills plus equipment, make fairchase a moot point. Certainly a feather in the cap, but to your living target you may have well been on the moon.

  8. Nancy says:

    “The Billings Gazette reports coyotes have caused more than $550,000 in damages this year, killing almost 300 calves, three cattle, four goats, 92 sheep and almost 1,500 lambs”

    Sounds like business as usual (and blame) – as in the lack of providing better protections for young livestock (around calving & lambing seasons)

    An interesting read on the subject of livestock depredation:

    • Hiker says:

      When coyotes are killed to “protect” cattle it tends to break up their pack structure so that more individuals are available for breeding. They just make more. Not only that but experience in hunting is lost so that easier prey, like cow calves, are more often taken. Add to that extreme adaptability and you end up with more coyotes. It is a never ending cycle of killing that solves nothing, all at taxpayer expense.

      • Immer Treue says:

        To add some redundancy, the oft used definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, and over again expecting different results. Why not attempt something novel, such as leaving coyotes alone, unless caught in the act for a five to ten year period of time. No M-44’s, no WS, no killing contests. Compare/contrast before and after, come up with new ideas as technological advances continue.

    • Yvette says:

      A couple of different perspectives to add to the discussion:

      I was a skeptical that coyotes are a problem for cattle since they are too small to take down an adult. It’s the calves that are the victims. The next article is from ‘Farm Press’ so if they slant it will be to the ag industry. They seemed to write this article fairly, IMO. I liked that they noted:

      “McPeake warns that livestock producers shouldn’t rush to blame coyotes. “Coyotes are scavengers,” says McPeake. “The calf could have been dead before the coyote came along.”

      On another subject, this Farm Press article says that is a hunting season for coyotes in Arkansas. I did not know that.

      • Nancy says:

        “McPeake warns that livestock producers shouldn’t rush to blame coyotes. “Coyotes are scavengers,” says McPeake. “The calf could have been dead before the coyote came along.”

        One only has to travel the back roads (and often the main roads) in my area to see dead cattle laying in fields. These are not cows that died from predation, these are cows that died of diseases, calving problems or weather, and are left to rot. Until ranchers are made accountable (the proper disposal of dead livestock) the war on predators, at taxpayer expense, will continue.

        • Ida Lupine says:

          This is a question I have always wondered about. Which came first – the predator/scavenger or the cattle?

        • Yvette says:

          Nancy, he also noted it’s impossible to discern whether it was a coyote or dogs. When poor dogs get dumped in the country they will form packs sometimes and have attacked livestock.

          It’s easier to point the finger at canines or any other predator than it is to blame oneself for failure to take care of business.

  9. Ida Lupine says:

    More on 06’s daughter, from Wapo. Glad to see these kinds of things more in the mainstream media:

    Immer, I wanted to say another thing – I don’t know where you have the idea that JB and WM have ‘bent over backwards’ trying to help me – I have had very little interaction with either one of them over the years, and I would not expect to. With the exception of a rare few posts.

    Believe me, I fully realize my opinions mean absolute zero.

  10. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 04, 2018

    Montana Seven mule deer bucks were found to be suspect of chronic wasting disease in the last week

  11. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 04, 2018

    Ohio Changes in CWD Sample Submission for IHC Testing, Ohio is considered free of CWD?

  12. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2018

    Minnesota DNR 11 New CWD TSE Prion Cases This Fall

  13. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2018

    Missouri Detects 11 New CWD TSE Prion Disease Cases So Far This Season Total 86 to date

  14. SUNDAY, DECEMBER 02, 2018


  15. Yvette says:

    “This is sad and I hope Colorado WL managers get this figured out.
    Over the past few years, herds in the region have been slowly dying off, and wildlife officials are concerned about the iconic ungulate’s ability to survive in healthy numbers in the long term.

    The issue involves a mystery: About half of the elk calves born in Southwest Colorado die within six months. Of the survivors, another 15 percent perish before they turn a year old.

    And researchers don’t know why, The Durango Herald reports.

    The problem encompasses wildlife mismanagement: After record high elk populations in the 1990s, the Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife) ordered a mass hunt to cut back the animal’s numbers.

    These same elk herds are now struggling to recover.”

    • Immer Treue says:

      This is a good article, but drops the ball a bit in regard to the elk calves followed by some, for a change, fairly well presented comments post article.

      Hunting and predation have always been a part of the rut equation, but what are some of the other variables for extremely low calf survival? Some put forward: drought; hikers (like hunting and predation, pretty much has always been there; the newer variables include snowmobiles, ATV’s and a subject for much discussion on TWN, mountain biking. Can’t blame this one on Obama or wolves.

    • Mat-ters says:

      More natural removal of predators working for all wildlife……

      • Immer Treue says:

        You’re just like the person who you’ve recently given a smoke up the posterior enema. Read the entire article.

        “Caribou are threatened across Canada, with years of habitat loss and human-caused disruption as key reasons for their decline.”

        And once again from your Emma Marris
        “Conservationists in Alberta reluctantly supported the wolf kill programme when it began, says Carolyn Campbell, a conservation specialist at the Alberta Wilderness Association in Calgary. But her group later stopped its support for the programme because because drilling and logging continued, posing other threats to caribou. “It is a completely unethical approach to just declare a war on wolves when they are a symptom and not a root cause,” Campbell says.”

        Unless man is willing to remove all the variables in caribou demise, it’s just a fools errand, and killing wolves just to kill wolves.

        • Mat-ters says:

          Give it up Immer….. we have learned so much from our experiences and study of wolves on slate and Michipichoten. The earth has been warming for 12000 years when we have 400 foot glaciers where I now live! Prime caribou habitat can only be achieved in colder climate as the animal naturally requires. It’s funny how you and buddy skippy said killing wolves wouldn’t save the caribou…and you were wrong. You can’t blame habitat loss on Michipichoten can you!

          • Immer Treue says:

            Typical altered “reality”, but it doesn’t “matter”to you. An entire article from one of your fall to sources means nothing, followed by an outlier argument about a small island, and then you bring in someone else who has no dog in this discussion. You also bring into the “discussion” the whole global warming thing, about which I have said nothing.

      • Hiker says:

        Matters (or doesn’t) why do you have such a major bias against predators? Did one attack you or someone you know? Did one threaten you? Predators have been a crucial part of this world since … single celled organisms. Your simple minded attacks against predators now condones using poison? How many other species have died from this poison? Don’t we have enough crap in the ecosystem?

        • Mat-ters says:

          Ohh contraire, the only major bias is in those that pimp predators to no end. Leaving out man and the killing of predators & game are a major reason places like Yellowstone got out of wack in the first place. JUST on the other side of the Northern Yellowstone boarder is the Gallatin National forest game herds and predators are managed and guess what NONE of the problems we have seen in Yellowstone like bludgeoning game herds existed OUTSIDE the park….why BECAUSE man and the management of predators exists! NOW the game herds suffer because of the lack of predator management in the park….the place is a predator pit. MAN has been part of the ecosystem for thousands of years.

          • Mat-ters says:

            The once healthy 1200 moose population
            that roamed the northern range is GONE!

            • Hiker says:

              The moose population dropped after the great fires of ’88, long before wolves were reintroduced.

              • Mat-ters says:

                That is a blatant lie! You can do better. I’d stick with climate change! I’m going to be taking off for some travel this afternoon w / limited internet so I’ll be cutting my posting some. The counts on the Northern Range were part of the annual elk count…. now they admittedly go further out of the park to count elk AND use the excuse that “moose are not a priority” for the reason they don’t count or more likely don’t publish the numbers….their embarrassed. Those numbers speak for themselves!

                • Hiker says:

                  Once again accusations. Check your facts. The Yellowstone fires of ’88 burned much of the winter habitat for moose in the park. Prove me wrong instead of just saying I’m lying. If I’m lying then scientists lied as well.

                • Immer Treue says:


                  For those who live in an alternate “reality”.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  Come on hiker! This is eerily similar to the lolo, yellowstone fire debacle we are all familiar with (if your not bias). “They are still laughing at the “wolf science” biologist that tried the “Yellowstone fires” theory with an educated crowd in Billings a few years ago.
                  You see Hiker, for years they were preaching YOUR Idaho “Lolo” elk range sportsman that the great Idaho fire of 1937 created excellent habitat for elk “for a period of 10 to 40 years after the fire” (1947 to 1977) From 1977 on they (wolf scientist) claimed that the elk population degraded the habitat and that and ONE bad winter was the cause of the elk herd plummeting from 19000 to 2000….once again discounting the fact that wolves had moved in. Then in that meeting I talked about above the poor wolf pimp biologist brought up that the fires of 1988 “degraded the habitat” as YOU said. …… Much to his dismay a middle aged man brought out is “literature” from Lolo and explained to everyone that according to that “literature” Yellowstone should be prime “for a period of 10 to 40 years after the fire” (1998 to 2038)……. HIKER, they gave the guy from the audience a standing ovation & 3/4 of the audience left!
                  Hiker, I have not seen the fires theory used lately until IMMER slipped it in on this blog. Either you can use it to explain Yellowstone’s collapse but then please explain Lolo……for future reference most of your ilk have stuck with the “fire theory’s” to explain Lolo for they can’t blame saturated grizzlies as the cause in Lolo. After all is said and done, you still have global warming you can blame. WOLF SCIENCE!” YES I did somewhat plagiarize here!

              • Mat-ters says:

                From the article Immer posted December 17, 2018 at 5:27 am

                “Biologists say there are solutions, but at this point few are workable. Forest fires, once a natural process, used to provide moose with better food and habitat while suppressing all kinds of parasites. But today, big fires put people and property at risk. ”

                One has to laugh at wolf science!

                • Mat-ters says:

                  Hiker, I’m not sure you have put this together….

                  Your article from Yellowstone says fires are to blame for no habitat…. and the article Immer posted says lack of fires are to blame for no moose habitat. Gotta love it!

          • Hiker says:

            Man still is part of the ecosystem. That has never been in doubt. Do you not realize that all wolves were killed in Yellowstone, elk herds were eating themselves out of house and home, government hunters were called in to thin the elk herds. Then, as if by magic, wolves are returned and things are more balanced. I think you need to research this more on your own, as I did when I worked there.

            Also, no answer to my question regarding your obvious anti-predator bias, just denial. How can you deny your bias in one sentence then label Yellowstone a “predator pit” in another. What does that even mean? Does that mean a place where predators are free to live as they have for literally millions of years. Does evolution mean nothing to you?

            • Mat-ters says:

              “man is still part of the ecosystem” Haaaaa This is fought at every turn by the like of some here. Anyone could realize that the Elk in Yellowstone needed an apex predator …. like they had in the past! Yup, Elk culls were allowed IN YELLOWSTONE in the past. As are the bison culls TODAY man is still needed EVEN WITH predators!

              Where have I denied a bias as to proper predator management. The bobcat population in WI should be (some what) the model to proper management! ANYWHERE these animals are protected to the point of habituation are a sign of improper management. These liberal Judges embarrass themselves with their uniformed rulings.

              • Mat-ters says:

                Reforming the ESA to stop the abuses should be a non-partisan goal!

                • Mat-ters says:

                  Hiker, are you a predator pit denier? (look in mirror here) How is the Madison whole elk doing in Yellowstone? Why are they counting elk further and further out of the park each year? Why did they discontinue the moose annual count along with their elk count on the Northern range?

              • Nancy says:

                Mat-ters, Do let us, who post here on the TWN and care about wildlife news/issues, when you are able to work your way out of this category?

                “Psychology confirms what bloggers have known since 1994: Internet trolls sit on their high horses mulling over individual, tiny, fetishized details. Trolls see parts. They don’t add up all of the facts. They don’t picture their victim as a whole person who they can crush mentally, physically, or spiritually. It’s not that they can’t see the whole. They’re in a privileged position, so they don’t have any reason to think about it”


                • Mat-ters says:

                  Nancy, honestly, my comments are pretty mild compared to the return barrage.. Your comment may not bode well to the integrity and civility of a few here. Personally I think the rhetoric isn’t that bad. Some may think we’re tributes in the hunger games….not me. I dish out is what is directed at me. I hope your not taking a few of my comments the wrong way….. some, I may add, are almost WORD FOR WORD to that what was written to me.

  16. Ida Lupine says:

    If it isn’t one human activity that’ll get ya (negotiating lanes and lanes of nightmarish traffic and obstacle course), it’ll be another (wildfires):

  17. Ida Lupine says:

    “It’s of particular interest that he chose to travel back through a fresh burn area rather than retreat through urbanized areas to escape the fire.””

    I find it sadly ironic that this poor cat would rather have walked through fire than risk heavily populated areas. Nobody can say this cat had not learned to fear humans. Can’t say I blame him. 🙁

  18. Hiker says:

    Yes Matters (says who?), elk numbers in Yellowstone are down from the past. But are you saying they should be left high so that elk starve in the winter? That was what was happening in the forties and fifties that led to park management shooting elk. Maybe elk numbers are where they SHOULD be, low but not too low. Also, you leave out how wolf numbers in Yellowstone have dropped as well. There is fierce competition between packs (kinda like humans) that results in many wolf deaths. Do you really think humans need to go in and kill wolves in Yellowstone? As it is now if they wander outside the boundary they are at risk. If predators need management inside the park what do YOU suggest? Should they be shot (in front of tourists), trapped (imagine a hiker stepping in a trap), poisoned (poor pet dog who finds that)? What is your proposal for “managing” predators IN the park?

    • Mat-ters says:

      “Left high” what a joke! Their is countless article written as to how “healthy” and balanced Yellowstone was when the population was at 9000 wintering elk NOW they admit to only 900 being the park as an equivalent. THEIR is your bias! YES, the drop in wolf numbers is an indication of the predator pit isn’t it! “At risk”! thank for more bias! ITS NATURAL for wolves to be thinned by man!

      • Hiker says:

        Yes, “left high”, my statement based on your anti predator stance! They were high, without predation they would be left high. It’s quite simple if YOU use your head and think instead of just react. Honestly, every time you reply you just prove how uninformed you are. “NOW they admit to only 900” not sure where you found that number, maybe from some alternate facts website, sure isn’t official. “YES, the drop in wolf numbers is an indication of the predator pit isn’t it” no it is not, it is an indication of natural processes at work. Weird how that has to be spelled out to you. I suggest you quit reacting in your typical fashion and do some actual research. ” Their is countless article written as to how “healthy” and balanced Yellowstone was when the population was at 9000 wintering elk “. I’m sure those articles could be counted, but exaggerating is your signature move. Please post ONE article that states that 9,000 wintering elk inside Yellowstone is balanced. ““At risk”! thank for more bias!” if my bias is stating the obvious then I agree. How else do I describe the status of a wolf leaving the park? Did I once state that a wolf leaving the park should not be shot legally by a hunter? Like it or not this last wolf killed outside Yellowstone was taken legally. That was never something I was discussing. I am talking about “managing” wolves INSIDE the park. Strange that you offered no proposals for that given how you feel that they SHOULD be managed in the park.

          • Hiker says:

            Excellent article Matters (maybe a little), However not exactly supporting your argument. Not once in the entire article do any of the scientists use the word balance. The only time it’s used is in the title
            “Hunting Habits of Wolves Change Ecological Balance in Yellowstone”. So the author of the article feels that way.

            Of course this leads to something else. If I’m not mistaken the article states that wolves are partly responsible for these changes. ONLY BECAUSE THEY CAUSED ELK NUMBERS TO DROP. That drop in numbers led to many changes that most scientists think benefit that ecosystem. Now it’s entirely possible that 9,000 elk is a balanced number for wintering elk in Yellowstone (the article says 11,000 and doesn’t mention the time of year). That’s not the point of the article you posted. The article stats that wolves are part of why this happened and there have been many benefits to this.

            So, thanks for the article that supports the activity of predators in Yellowstone. Is it possible that you posted this because you’ve had a change of heart and you no longer have such a problem with wolves? If so, welcome!

    • Nancy says:

      Hiker – try and keep in mind, Mat-ters likes to cherry pick his information and I would imagine most of his info comes from hunting sites where hunters, many who pay big bucks $$ to come hunt western states, are disappointed and then find the need to blame predators for their lack of success.

      In my area, I heard the hunting success rate was rather low this year and I’ll venture a guess that it might have something to do with the fact that cattle ranchers have increased their herds, twofold, not because Americans are eating more beef but because their markets are now opening up around the globe (China comes to mind) for their product.

      Been staring at 200 head or more of cattle, across the way on a big ranch, for the past month, cattle that have never been a part of the landscape there after October.

      And, this ranch (can name a couple of others now) use to be a migratory path for herds of elk, leaving the valley in the fall, heading to the west to winter, hoping to take advantage of what forage was left.

      It started long ago, this “management” of prey animals for human predators. Not rocket science to understand its not so much about management as it is a manipulation of other species, for the benefit of a few humans.

      • Hiker says:

        Thanks for your input Nancy, as always your posts are thoughtful. To be honest I get a strange pleasure in reading whatever crap Matters (I don’t think so) posts. I think it’s because I don’t like his bullshit, baldface, lies and I really enjoy calling him out with facts anyone can look up. His arrogant manner comes across as holier than thou while at the same time accusing others of something similar. His raging anti predator stance comes across so clearly that it’s funny when he tries to deny his bias. I wonder if he truly fails to see that most wildlife lovers don’t love individuals or even individual species. We are in love with the natural process and watching that play out. To us the numbers fluctuate as they always have and, hopefully, always will. We enjoy leaving the wild alone, as spectators, as much as possible. Sometimes we step in, but only when needed. Everything dies, including animals we know. One day the great bear 399 will die. But I find solace in knowing that she truly lived, I watched her and her cubs, I shared those moments with people who will remember her. She, and others we know, have become symbols of the wild. But it’s the WILD that we love.

        • Mat-ters says:

          Hiker, looks like Nancy has more common sense then yourself….. She knows full well that I can back up what I post …but calls my numbers “cherry picking”.

          You , and your ” his bullshit, baldface, lies” comment only embarrasses you and makes me smile for I know I have won the argument when you pull out the mud and start tossing… trouble is, most of it lands on you!

          • Hiker says:

            Nice one. The trouble is I like the mud, it reminds me that I am an animal just like the wolves, bears, moose, elk, etc. Just like you.

            What you call “back up what I post” is what I call lies. Pure and simple. The numbers you post are beyond ridiculous!

            By the way I think you are the one who first slung the mud calling me a liar at 4:53 a.m. this morning. I did not lie but only repeated what I learned from my training and research.

      • Mat-ters says:

        This comment from the article pretty much says it all!

        “Increasing numbers have coincided with the trend of more elk migrating north from the park and into Montana. More than three-quarters of the herd was spotted north of Yellowstone this year, a percentage that’s been fairly consistent in each count since 2013. Prior to 2006, less than half the herd regularly migrated north”


        Nancy, put those percentages from your article on to the population numbers and they will tell you that Yellowstone is the predator pit real scientist like DR Kay had predicted! AGAIN “your article”

        Also, from what I hear some of your “wolf scientist” wont answer two basic questions….

        Has counting elk further and further out of the park in quadrants NEVER counted before compromised the integrity of there counts?
        How many elk were in these additional quadrants prior to adding and moving count locations?

        • Hiker says:

          They are counting elk, period. These counts take place in the winter cause elk are easier to spot in the snow. The herd summers in Yellowstone and many winter outside. The same occurs in the south where many elk migrate from Yellowstone to The National Elk Refuge or elsewhere in Jackson Hole. The main point is that their numbers are going up, all while being preyed upon by the big bad wolf. The elk don’t know where the park boundary is, and many people thought that when Yellowstone was made it wasn’t big enough. They thought Yellowstone should include where the elk migrate to. Yellowstone is a cold place in the winter, with lots of snow. What the article doesn’t address is WHY elk are leaving in the winter in greater numbers. It’s also interesting that these elk are leaving in the winter after living with wolves for years. Why leave in larger numbers since 2013 if there are fewer wolves in the park?

          You said “Has counting elk further and further out of the park in quadrants NEVER counted before compromised the integrity of there counts?
          How many elk were in these additional quadrants prior to adding and moving count locations?” How would these elk counters know that more of this herd are wintering outside the park? Maybe because they’ve been counting there for years!

          You said “IN a nut shell THEIR COUNTING MONTANA elk NOT YELLOWSTONE ELK!” Typical conclusion from someone with blinders on. Take those blinders off, Matters (only to himself)! Join us in the real world where we can discuss these things without making idiotic statements about whose elk these are. I would think this would make you happy since it sounds like they will increase the number of elk hunted in that region.

          • Mat-ters says:

            Haahahahahahhhaaa This isn’t rocket science hiker. They admit in the article that the elk head “north from the park and into Montana”! This isn’t a new revelation. MOST of these winter ranges are (AND THEY ADMIT) ALREADY out of the park and the article admits that MORE THAN 3/4 of the herd heads north where wolves are managed! I/m disappointed that you don’t get that these elk have nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with Yellowstone! I’d recommend you study the HD313 surveys and what they represent in part where the elk are and where they go in the summer…..

            In context, when the population was at 19000 roughly “less than” half migrated North OR at least 9500 ended up summering in places the Lamar Valley & lower Slough Creek… NOW the say a population of 7500 (which they have admitted lows in the 3000’s “more than” 5675 HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH the Lamar Valley and lower Slough Creek or at most 1825 move back into Yellowstone. May I remind you that these are numbers from Nancy’s article! A special note needs to be made on the articles use of “less than” and “more than” for anyone can guess the true numbers that migrate. The elk are speaking to you hiker….they’re saying they like managed wolf populations better than the predator pit called Yellowstone.

            I suspect that someone like IMMER is secretly steaming at Nancy for posting an article that lays out what I have been talking about for some time now and not posting one of the numerous more generic articles boasting of the Increase and come back in the Northern Yellowstone elk herd!

            Also, please please please get me any a record of any or all ecologists and biologists that tell us that today’s moose wows on the northern range of Yellowstone are because of the 1988 fires…..I’m looking forward to it!

            • Hiker says:

              Immer posted a link about moose in Yellowstone, you must have missed it.

              This is from the parks website which most likely has the support of a few scientists.

              You said ” …today’s moose wows on the northern range of Yellowstone are because of the 1988 fires…”
              not sure what you meant but I assume you disagree about how the fires of ’88 caused problems for moose in Yellowstone. Please read the link above.

              You said “these elk have nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to do with Yellowstone”. And then almost immediately contradict yourself by posting these numbers… “or at most 1825 move back into Yellowstone”. So which is it? Does this herd use Yellowstone or not? By the way the number 1825 that you posted appears NOWHERE in the article

              If your purpose was to confuse me then I admit it worked. You don’t seem to make much sense.

              I especially enjoyed it when you said “Haahahahahahhhaaa This isn’t rocket science hiker.” I just love when you speak in such a condescending manner, it warms my heart.

              • Nancy says:

                “If your purpose was to confuse me then I admit it worked. You don’t seem to make much sense”


                “The timing and routes of Northern Yellowstone elk migration closely follow the areas of seasonal vegetation growth and changes in snow depth. After winters with high snowpack, elk delay migration. In years with lower snowpack and earlier vegetation green-up, elk migrate earlier”


              • Mat-ters says:

                Hiker, I’m sorry that you took my Haahaa as a condescending comment. It’s more of Déjà vu moment of me recognizing what appears to be your attempt & now Nancies to not admit that these the majority of these elk have nothing to do with Yellowstone. You may not know that the total nuances of the range they live on in the Lamar and Yellowstone valley areas extends into Montana and the Gardiner area. The general theme is some one like Immer post how this once great herd is making a comeback even with wolves….when the reality is the majority of the herd is now expanding in the northern part of the range 15 to 20 miles NORTH of the boarder where management of wolves is now happening! Ack stupid if you want but the truth finds its way. Even some of your experts admit that they northern herd should be dissected for study …. I agree! It would open eyes!

  19. Immer Treue says:

    Data Map of Minnesota Wolves

    The orange data results from a collar that transmits every 4 hours, the other colors from collars every 20 minutes, thus the discrepancy in densities. Sure wolves can move great distances, especially when dispersing, but are pretty much homebodies in regard to their territories.

  20. Hiker says:

    Matters, interesting reference to fires in your post above. One problem however, I was talking about how the fires of ’88 destroyed WINTER MOOSE HABITAT leading to their drop in numbers. You see Matters (but not really), MOOSE in Yellowstone relied on old growth habitat for their WINTER forage. When that habitat burned so did their WINTER food. You are referencing fires in Idaho benefiting ELK for a number of years after. Kinda like comparing apples and oranges. Elk do benefit from fires, they like the grass that comes in after and even eat the bark off burned trees. It was well known when I worked in Yellowstone that if you wanted to see elk during the summer one of the best places to see them was where it had recently burned.

    “From 1977 on they (wolf scientist) claimed that the elk population degraded the habitat and that and ONE bad winter was the cause of the elk herd plummeting from 19000 to 2000….once again discounting the fact that wolves had moved in.” Are you saying wolves moved into Idaho in 1977 in sufficient numbers to decimate one elk herd killing 17000 elk in one winter? That must have been one legendary wolf pack. If a pack of wolves needs 5 elk a week they would’ve been set for at least 65 years. Or it may have been around 3,400 packs of wolves. You should proof read your nonsense before you post.

  21. Ida Lupine says:

    I saw a huge (to me) herd of about 25 elk or so, mostly females and young with the male at the back of the herd if I recall, on the way to Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone. One of the most beautiful sights ever. This was in September near the park closing.

    Saw a moose and a black bear at a distance, bison, coyote, but no grizzlies or wolves or lions. 🙂

    • Ida Lupine says:

      But the grizzlies were around, because there were warnings of where they had been seen. We stayed away. I would have loved to have seen one, but I won’t ever take a chance and have an injury and the bear killed.

    • Hiker says:

      So glad you had such a great experience Ida. Nothing beats seeing these critters in their natural habitat.

  22. palouse says:

    Could we get back to “Wildlife news” instead of all of this personal bickering? Isn’t there a more appropriate forum for you to thrash this out? You are not doing this site any good. While there may be people involved whose insights I generally find worthwhile, I am inclined to block a few in order for this thread to have any value to me anymore. There are, I’m sure, NEWS items out there that would be of general interest. Thank you

  23. palouse says:

    I should clarify that my previous comment had little/nothing to do with the vast majority of posters on this site. Just tired of a few clogging the bandwidth with irrelevant bickering. I appreciate and learn much from this site. Thanks Ralph

  24. Hiker says:

    In case you missed this. This bear has used much of Grand Teton NP for many years. She has raised many cubs (I lost track of how many). She is adept at hunting elk calves and sniffing out gut piles from elk kills. Amazing she hasn’t charged a hunter and been shot. I would also add that she has become a celebrity and contributes to the tourism economy. I have see her and her cubs many times over the years along with at least thousands of other visitors. One of her daughters, 699 I think, has also become a minor celebrity and seemed to be following in her mothers footsteps. I haven’t heard about 699 in a while. Anyone know what she’s up to?

  25. Hiker says:

    Reposting this link that Ida put up a few days ago. Amazing story of a true survivor who adapted to living amongst us. I grew up near here and have family in the area. This is a busy area lots of traffic yet this animal found a way!

    • Hiker says:

      Until the fires appear to have boxed it in.

      • Hiker says:

        Must have been severe injuries if they haven’t interviewed this guy yet. Yes, mountain lion attacks are rare but I sure wouldn’t want that to happen to me. Mountain lions usually attack from ambush so how prepared can one be?

        From the article:
        “here have been 14 recorded mountain lion attacks on humans in California dating back to 1986, according to Fish and Wildlife records. The most recent involved a 6-year-old boy, who survived a Sept. 2014 attack in Cupertino.”

        What isn’t generally known is that CA. stopped hunting of Mtn. lions and the population climbed. There are parts of southern CA. where I would NOT go jogging.

        I’ve seen three Mtn. lions in my time as a National Park Service Ranger, two in CA.

        • Mat-ters says:

          And they have had to kill “THOUSANDS” to keep them out of trouble….animals that were set up for failure…. all on the taxpayers dime. Should have come out of the pockets of those that set them up for failure.

          • Mat-ters says:

            Hunting quotes were at around 50 when they passed the law…NOW, they kill hundreds per year by glorified “trophy hunters” Typical failed leftist wildlife management…. BUT what would we expect from CA!

            • Hiker says:

              While I disagree with your numbers you are CORRECT that they kill many (about 100) Mtn. lions per year. I found this long article about it. It has numbers of depredation permits and takes, “about 45 percent of permits result in takes”. Like always there are many ramifications that may be unforeseen.


              I think part of the problem is people underestimate how resourceful Mtn. lions can be. They are very adaptable, found all over the U.S.

              • Mat-ters says:

                I didn’t read your article yet…. but I will judge it’s bias by the numbers they admit to for people feed up with constant continued and reacurring issues where they have taken matters into their own hands. The numbers speak for themselves…you could have posted the numbers admitted to. Also, those most affected by issues know that CA fish and game officals are looking the other way & ignoring those that do …. manage lios!

                • Hiker says:

                  I posted above that they kill about 100 lions/year. These are lions killed with a depredation permit. These permits must be issued if someone asks, the gov. has no choice. So… they are managing these lions, just in a different way. I’m sure you are right that many people take matters into their own hands. They must be careful, without a depredation permit they could get into trouble.

                  Read the article, so many things they mention, it will give you many things to consider. For instance they talk about WHY lions kill so many animals at once without eating them. Fascinating look at animal psychology based on physiology.

                • Hiker says:

                  I gotta add that after reading this article I am more inclined to AGREE with you about allowing sport hunting of Mtn. lions in CA. Honestly didn’t feel that way before.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  Hiker, Yes my “s” on hundreds was a stretch when talking about those killed under the permit system. I’d have to research it again BUT, I believe those lions killed by wildlife services ARE NOT included in the permit/system numbers. We see it all the time when talking about the number of wolves that need to be killed in Minnesota… some will post what wildlife services kills ….and not include what state employees kill …. or not what the permitted public kills. Convolution is the name of the game.

                  Thank you for some wildlife sanity here at TWN. The CA cougars ARE NOT a success story in the area of responsible wildlife management and the voters of CA should be held accountable. BUT MORE SO the disgusting groups that burdened the state in the first places.

  26. Ida Lupine says:

    More good grizzly reading:

    I didn’t know about the group Vital Ground, here’s their website if anyone is interested:

  27. Hiker says:

    Any thoughts on this? One big mess. When I worked at the National Elk Refuge one of the rationales for feeding was to keep the elk away from hay stacks meant for cattle. Sure enough, if the refuge managers waited too long to feed the elk they would leave the refuge and many would find their way onto local ranches. Then, a few years after I worked there, the refuge spent a lot of money to increase irrigation to grow grass that they left standing for when the elk arrived for the winter. Last time I was there in the summer you could see the spray of water from the highway. But what would be a reasonable solution to the problem of CWD in the area?

    • Immer Treue says:

      Treat wildlife like livestock, and problems arise.

      • Hiker says:

        Yes, I agree, many problems. Any solutions? Stop feeding and there are ramifications. Continue and we may have a nightmare out of a horror movie on our hands.

        Also, the feeding started long ago basically because ranching removed winter elk habitat and blocked elk migration. Many elk were starving in the winter. Fast forward decades later and things are the same.

        • Hiker says:

          Except elk aren’t starving there in the winter now.

        • Immer Treue says:

          Part of the circular logic of maintaining a surplus number of elk for human harvest, Keeping that population in the sweet spot of the sigmoid growth curve. Feeding wildlife just isn’t a good idea, but it has also became big business. It’s also created a couple other cans of worms in regard to predation.

          • Hiker says:

            All too true. It really is a circular…..trap. It has become big business. How many people come for the elk in one way or another? Tourism, hunting, viewing wildlife that feed off elk; there are many complications.

            • Mat-ters says:

              Anyone knows that diseases are a natural part of the wild kingdom and have been so for ….. forever. Just think of the diseases that have inflicted …man HERE the short list of some of the diseases that we know about from the past. ….smallpox, tuberculosis, syphilis, AIDS, influenza, bubonic plague, cholera, malaria, yellow fever, two noninfectious diseases (hemophilia and porphyria), MAN especially WHITE man …. has done a great job in eradicating diseases for people. Thank you sportsman for keeping wildlife at manageable numbers where extremes don’t lead to the last resort of Nature of keeping wildlife numbers in balance…. I always have to laugh every time I see Immer’s Sigmoid comment when the real villains in keeping game herds WAY above what is espouse are nature preserves (like Yellowstone was). I laugh when you see these very people fight and protest bow hunting in our state parts. A poster here (Patty Randolph – as I’m sure other do) brags about how she don’t let hunters into her property.

              Through hunting our state and federal lands (where hunting is allowed) have not been the problem for over population of deer and elk, NOT EVEN CLOSE!. Immer knows full well that ungulates NATURALLY congregate in the winter as a natural defense mechanism. This feeding has allowed NORMAL populations to return to summer ranges. Some on this thread need to look in the mirror when they are looking to shell out blame for disease affecting wildlife.

              • Immer Treue says:

                Ungulate yarding (congregation)a natural defense mechanism. Perhaps a bit, but your bromides are taking over again. Yarding is much more a function of limited food supply in deep snow/cold, more often than not on east/southerly slopes. Sun, extra bodies for heat, reduced metabolic rate all assist in quest to survive winter.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  ?? your point…. ITS NATURAL to congregate and yard!

                  The banning of 1/2 gal spread out over an area larger then 3′ winter baiting has pushed more deer into the death camps some phony animal lovers are advocating for!

                  DON’T get me wrong…. I can honestly say I have never shot a deer over bait…unless you call a food plot bait, or unplowed corn field bait.

                  MY point is PUBLIC LANDS for the most part are off the table as an issue with too many deer or elk….if it’s not then herd managers need to be canned.

                  Private lands … well for the most part they are managed fairly well… The example I have is where I live. This year I shot two does…. and pleasantly told one of the neighbors that I was going to shoot 10 if they didn’t shoot any for may leasehold of the Ag acres isn’t getting a fair shake. They shot two! Private lands and game preserves controlled by animal lovers are unequivocally the issue around here! Especially where we see dead deer on the roads!

                • Immer Treue says:

                  My point is your scattered rationale, as usual. Yarding is not much of a natural defense vs predation, in particular in deep snow or crusted snow conditions.

                  Then you bring up Yellowstone as a place where elk numbers were way above where they should have been (I think, trying to decipher what you wrote). The numbers are where they’re supposed to be now, but it’s wolves and grizzlies that did it, not “sportsmen”.

                  As usual, you drag in the name of someone who has no dog in this fight.

                  You don’t like sigmoid growth curves. Too bad, that’s what they’re called, and wildlife specialists try and maintain that “sweet spot” for surplus numbers for hunting. Unfortunately, other than for hunting, and perhaps predators those numbers are bad for about all other shareholders.

                  The other stuff, whoosh! You’re like a three year old who can’t concentrate on any one thing because you’re occupied with the bathroom dance.

    • Nancy says:

      Here’s an interesting,long read on the subject, Hiker. May have been posted before but worth another glance because it certainly sheds some light on the controversy, given the fact that CWD is now showing up in ungulate populations where predators are kept at bare minimums…….

  28. Hiker says:

    Montana seems to want to prove they can manage their Griz.

    I wonder if this will pressure Wyoming to follow suit.

  29. Yvette says:

    Not quite wildlife news but it certain will affect wildlife of all classes. Fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles, and mammals.

    The Trump administration is working to repeal and replace the Obama Clean Water Rule with one that will leave many waters without federal protection under the Clean Water Act. Please note:

    The agencies’ proposed rule would provide clarity, predictability and consistency so that the regulated community can easily understand where the Clean Water Act applies—and where it does not. Under the agencies’ proposal, traditional navigable waters, tributaries to those waters, certain ditches, certain lakes and ponds, impoundments of jurisdictional waters, and wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters would be federally regulated.</b? It also details what are not “waters of the United States,” such as features that only contain water during or in response to rainfall (e.g., ephemeral features); groundwater;</b? many ditches, including most roadside or farm ditches; prior converted cropland; stormwater control features; and waste treatment systems.

    The definition of ‘waters of the United States’ or ‘navigable waters’ was muddied when Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion in Rapanos v. United States that the Clean Water Act regulates anything with a ‘significant nexus’ to waters that “are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made’. That left regulators to try and determine what is ‘significant nexus’.

    The Obama WOTUS rule attempted to clarify and improve. The Obama WOTUS received so much backlash from the industry and agriculture that it was significantly watered down before becoming law. EPA reviewed more than 1,200 publications from peer-reviewed literature. The result of the intense literature review supports that streams, non-tidal wetlands and open waters do have an effect on on larger downstream water. Noting two of the points EPA found from this literature review: 1) “The scientific literature unequivocally demonstrates that streams, regardless of their size or frequency of flow, are connected to downstream waters and strongly influence their function. 2) Wetlands and open waters in riparian areas and floodplainsare physically, chemically, and biologically integrated with rivers via functions that improved downstream water quality.

    I suppose we need to start researching whether our land, water, and all wildlife habitats will recover or suffer irreparable damage from this illiterate moron of an alien posing as a man.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Just awful. It’s now the Environmental Destruction Agency, and the Endangering Species Act!

      It’s like a nightmare. I was reading in the NYT that even Presidents Bush had put protections in place and valued our wetlands. It’s something that should be non-partisan:

      “Environmentalists say the proposal represents a historic assault on wetlands regulation at a moment when Mr. Trump has repeatedly voiced a commitment to “crystal-clean water.” The proposed new rule would chip away at safeguards put in place a quarter century ago, during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, who implemented a policy designed to ensure that no wetlands lost federal protection.”

      • Ida Lupine says:


        “The wetland protection policies put in place decades ago by the first President Bush, an avid fisherman, followed on his own campaign pledge to save wetlands, saying, “all wetlands, no matter how small, should be preserved,” and proposing a “no net loss” policy. That initial policy was later weakened by Mr. Bush’s own E.P.A., but environmentalists have credited him for elevating the issue.

        Fifteen years later, the second President Bush gave regulatory teeth to his father’s proposal, implementing an E.P.A. rule requiring stronger wetlands protection that his father had once envisioned.”

        What will the Trump cheerers do when their water is undrinkable, or dries up.

      • Yvette says:

        In 1977, President Carter signed EO #11990 requiring Federal agencies to take steps to avoid impacts to wetlands when possible. But yes, it was Bush #41 who signed the policy of ‘no net loss of wetlands in 1989. That is the policy that set into motion the protections of wetlands we have remaining today. Essentially, no wetland or waters of the U.S. can be drained, dredged, or filled without a 404 permit (except for the exemptions) and if a permit is issued the wetland lost must be replaced. This is not always a 1:1 replacement since functions and values of the wetland must be considered. It’s still a fairly new science and wetland scientists are learning that simply building a wetland may not replace the functions, services and values of the wetland lost. And that equation is only considering the value to humans. Basically, the no net loss approach is to first, avoid, if you can’t avoid, then minimize the impact without loss, and mitigation is used if avoidance or minimization isn’t possible.

        Since the arrival of Europeans to what is now America, we’ve lost over 50% of conterminous wetlands. 220 million acres of wetlands have been lost and there is about 120 million acres of wetlands remaining. That is old data from a 1990 Thomas Dahl paper. The 120 million acres remaining is from 1985 data. It’s likely a higher loss now. And that is considering only loss of actual acreage leaving out functions and services.

        One of the important reasons to not allow Trump’s new water rule to go into full law is that wetlands and other waterbodies function differently based on hydrology, climate, and geology. There are prairie pothole wetlands over the Ogallala Aquifer that are dry part of the year and then fill. These are highly important nutrition sources for migrating birds. They are also important to other species. It’s a natural wet and dry cycle and many plants and animals depend on that cycle to function naturally.
        The arroyas in the desert SW run fast and furious only during part of the year. They are ephemeral streams and an extraordinary important water source for the region. From what I’ve read of Trump’s water rule both of these important water systems will lose protection under the CWA.

        • Hiker says:

          To bring this wetlands talk back to specific wildlife issues: the loss of beaver during the trapping days led to the loss of much of the temperate wetlands across the continent. So many animals use wetlands for at least part of their lives, they are invaluable, especially in the arid west.

  30. Hiker says:

    Interesting article about mtn. lions in CA.

  31. Yvette says:

    This is an enjoyable NG article on the Andes Puma. Lots of photos. It’s National Geographic! They look a bit different than the Mountain Lions here in the states.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      These were gorgeous photos, Yvette. The one of the mother curled up with her cub is beautiful. 🙂

  32. Immer Treue says:

    Arctic Reindeer/caribou populations crash. Rather spare on infometion: warming? No mention of predation.

    • Mat-ters says:

      Ida, may I suggest a book that I recently read…. “It’s Better Than It Looks: Reasons for Optimism In an Age of Fear.” via Gregg Easterbrook Good read!

  33. Immer Treue says:

    Lengthy but important read

    “It means that as the pool of hunters continues to shrink, the number of those partaking in ethically-questionable events is growing and that doesn’t bode well for hunting,” Sutton says.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      “Still, in light of what’s happening with wolves, there’s little wonder, observers say, why conservationists have dubious trust that state management in Wyoming will work out well for bruins.”

      It really is what amounts to nothing but sadistic torture, and everyone including decent hunters should be opposed to it and want it stopped. This ugly side of humanity should not be encouraged.

      And it’s little wonder why wildlife advocates are reluctant to compromise with these people.

      • Jeff N. says:

        A certain commenter on this site might suggest that the video in the article, posted by Immer, clearly shows man’s “god given” right to manage predators with the tools provided. After all, it’s legal and that’s all that really matters.

        • Mat-ters says:

          Jeff N… The biggest abusers of predators are the ones that set them up for failure and turn these beautiful animals into vermin … A good example is the cougar in CA which was recently discussed here! Man has been thinning predators here in North America for thousands of years…. The prey animals speak to us when we have gone to far with misguided predator protection. The elk & moose on the Northern range of Yellowstone are another recent discussion example of such. Who is sticking up for those animal – hunters!

          • Immer Treue says:

            Mat-ers the Black Knight


            • Mat-ters says:

              I love the analogy you have picked for yourself Immer….. The perfect example of an arm being cut off is when you blame to many deer for the moose issues in your neck of the woods ….when they are at their lowest point in 30 years…. and DR Mech is saying wolves are at their highest point. Next, we can go to Wielgus wolf science where no-one comes to his scientific aid when his “killing wolves causes more depredation” science is exposed! You know I can go on don’t you Immer….. Love it!

              • Immer Treue says:

                Your inability to remain on topic is the product of an addled mind, steeped in your own private proof of bromides.

                Since you avoid the main topic of the originating thread, and continue to beat a dead horse, here are two more strokes of the sword.

                It’s the deer. Parasites they carry into Minnesota’s North Woods have emerged as the leading cause of death for moose, state and tribal biologists have concluded.


                The pronouncement that brain worm is the largest source of moose mortality is hardly news. In fact, when discussions about the moose decline began, the old school biologists all said the most likely culprit was brain worm, long known to be the primary affliction of Minnesota moose. Back when we had more of them, it wasn’t uncommon to see moose infected with brain worm, easily identifiable because they would act confused or semi-tame and their head would be cocked to one side, a symptom of the illness. It’s also long been known that deer pass brain worms via their feces to a tiny snail the moose ingest while eating vegetation. This means deer and moose don’t mix.

            • Jeff N. says:

              “The prey animals speak to us”


          • Nancy says:

            “The prey animals speak to us when we have gone to far with misguided predator protection”

            You had me rolling on the floor over that comment, Mat-ters!

            “According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, which has managed the state’s big game animals for more than a century, the elk population in North America stood at about 10 million animals before European settlers came and systematic wholesale hunting began. Colorado became famous for its trophy hunting, and European gentlemen traveled here to try their luck. Sir George Gore, for whom Gore Pass near Kremmling is named, came from Ireland to hunt in western Colorado. He shot elk and deer from the bed of a wagon. He only took prime hides and large antlers, and left the meat to rot. By the early 1900s America’s elk were all but extinct, and people began to take notice. A handful of refuges for elk and deer were set aside, notably in Jackson Hole, Wyo., and Yellowstone National Park. In 1910, the U.S. Forest Service estimated there were only between 500 and 1,000 elk in Colorado, most of them living between the Gunnison and White rivers. If it had not been for the protection offered by those places, the elk herd of North America could well have gone the way of the passenger pigeon”

            In the 30’s Wildlife Services was set up to eradicate predators to benefit ranchers & farmers, even though predators (not man) play a much bigger role in the ecosystem.

            Habitat loss all over the west is a major factor in the decline in elk, moose & deer, not predators.

            Diseases will be the next big hit:


            Own up to the fact that predators play a vital role and are just as important to the landscape, to many of us, as getting your prey animals back over a century ago.

  34. Yvette Wiley says:

    The neonicotinoids strike again. I remember reading fairly recently about the mystery of the decline of bobwhite quails. I took notice because I remember there was a healthy population where I lived back in the early 90’s. This was/is an important ‘game’ bird and they are delicious, but I simply enjoyed the bobwhite to just watch and know they were there.

    In the early oughts I noticed I rarely saw them anymore but attributed it to the region. Plus, I didn’t live in the country so I was there on a daily basis.

    I wish we would take up more of the European approach to some of the environmental issues. They use the precautionary principle and we do it bass ackwards. Use it and then prove in court that is exactly what is doing the damage.

  35. Yvette says:

    This is interesting. Humic acids in soils may fight CWD.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Isn’t that something. Wow! 🙂

    • JEFF E. says:
      well probably not entirely rare. I have heard that the dna is unique and may be an indicator of a different subspecies.
      having said that it has been known forever that wolves will exploit any available food source. I don’t know why it would be such a surprise that fish is on the menu

      • Ida Lupine says:

        I had heard about them, but it’s nice to see it, and how good they are at it.

        They have more in common with us all the time – we exploit every available food source too!

      • rork says: mentions that wolves usually only eat the heads of the salmon. How they “know” not to eat the other parts, thus avoiding “salmon poisoning” (infection with the parasite Neorickettsia helminthoeca) is pretty cool. David Thompson mentions Indians beating their dogs to teach them to not eat raw salmon, and they told him why. Coyotes on the Columbia also only eat head parts from what we’ve noticed. Our dogs, perhaps cause they were made mostly of non-local wolves, are not as picky. What happens on the east coast with Atlantics I’m not sure.

      • Immer Treue says:

        It’s probably more in the documenting. Look like suckers, guessing it’s sucker mating run, or egg laying. Probably also learned behavior.

        Canines are goofy. Sometimes they eat it, sometimes they role in it, sometimes they do both. Ive seen dogs gobble up perch laying on the ice via ice fishing.

  36. rork says: talks about ways to get more conservation funding. Getting it from people extracting resources from public land (drilling, grazing) is hard since Montana gets two senators just like MI does, despite having 1/10th the population. Gas drilling pays well in MI. Taxing more kinds of outdoor gear or activities might be easier to achieve (binoculars, mountain bikes). I’m good with further increasing taxes on fishing and hunting gear. It mentions recruiting outdoor enthusiasts.

  37. Immer Treue says:

    And now for something completely different. Tyrannosaur evolution. A very good presentation by eminent paleontologist Dr Stephen Brusatte

  38. Nancy says:

    The last episode of a great BBC series – Planet Earth – if you haven’t seen it.

  39. Louise Kane says:

    One of those heinous culls and or open season being considered in Canada against Cormorants.

    I see them in the bay every summer and wonder at their agility and grace. Once a wounded bird was struggling in the water, its flock nearby. Rue ran toward it and as I got the dog under control I saw the determined bird aiming for my dog’s face with its beak.

    When Wild Care showed up I helped retrieve the bird. I was told to help by going up behind the bird as cormorants can stretch their necks like snakes and go right for the eyes with their bills. I paid attention and kept behind the bird. Such a strong, sleek, powerful animal. I’ll never forget the feel of its compact body and powerful neck.

    Humans and their incessant attacks on wildlife in the name of management leaves me feeling hopeless. The irony is that we need to manage ourselves. The problem is not wildlife population but human saturation….

    • Yvette says:

      Love that story, Louise.

      “The irony is that we need to manage ourselves. The problem is not wildlife population but human saturation….”


  40. Immer Treue says:

    Yellowstone Wolf Report/Mortalities

    • Ida Lupine says:

      “The wolf that died after being kicked several times by an ungulate was a female pregnant with five pups (three males, two females) that all died,” read the report. “They were within a week of birth.”

      Disease and turf wars too.

      Thanks Immer! These are the things that I think a lot of people don’t take into account (or don’t want to) when talking or complaining about ‘wolf numbers’. Nature knows best.

  41. Hiker says:

    CWD creates many problems:

    To even suggest this disease is similar to any other displays dangerous ignorance.

  42. Ida Lupine says:

    🙂 Something to smile about.

    Immer, when you said my comments are like ‘Ohhhh, Robbbb’, now I can’t get this song out of my head. I assume this is what you meant, just something to have a laugh about. Not the worst thing to be called, I guess: 🙂

  43. Yvette says:

    Good work, Florida Fish and Game. I don’t know why people have the desire to inflict such torture and suffering, but at least this group is facing consequences. I hope they get maximum prison sentences for their crimes.

    The Marion County Jail log indicates that bail for Dustin Reddish is set at total of $97,100 on eight charges. Haley Reddish is being held on seven counts, with total bail at $95,100. William Wood faces nine charges, with his bail set at $107.100.

  44. timz says:

    This Sunday 60 Minutes is doing a segment on Yellowstone Wolves. Doug Smith(Yellowstone wolf biologist) is the main interviewee. (is interviewee a word?)

    • Mat-ters says:

      “Moose numbers have declined roughly 10 percent in Maine” The one thing we know is that it is natural to have fluctuations of ticks… in 2014/2015 the deer herd in Central WI had a huge uptick in…. ticks on deer. There is a reason that moose do better in more northern climates. As the earth naturally warms we can expect more natural struggling declines! The 10 percent in Maine is a far cry from the 95%plus? collapse of the Northern Yellowstone moose herd…

      To blame the 1988 fires is duplicitous!

      • Immer Treue says:

        Although some Rocky Mountain moose populations have continued to grow and spread into new habitat, those in Yellowstone have declined. Estimated at roughly 1,000 in the 1970s, by 1996 (the most recent data) the Yellowstone moose population declined to less than 200, with the northern range population down by at least 75% since the 1980s.

        Then why?

        • Mat-ters says:

          Please give me your sources as to your numbers of moose in Yellowstone. The one thing I know is that on the Northern Range of Yellowstone (Yellowstone and Lamar Valley system) the moose population was around 1200 moose in the early 1990’s ALONE. BASED on the moose counts they once published along with elk numbers on the Northern Range.

          Immer, the narrative that the 1988 fires are the cause of today’s collapse is pure wolf science. Please give me the sources to refute the fact that the early 1990 population on the northern range was around 1200 moose and has now collapse to NOTHING! Also, please give me sources to biologist and ecologist that say that those 1988 fire are the major cause to the collapse. Hikers NPS propaganda does not give a scientific sources to the 1988 claims. Please show me …..


          Apparently there are no fires in Colorado….global warming is so selective.

          • Immer Treue says:

            And I have more


            What are your sources supporting your claim(s).

            • Mat-ters says:

              My sources, the Northern Yellowstone Range Elk and Moose counts from around 1990 to around 2006, they speak for themselves. The Montana moose hunting unit’s statistic around the north end of the park also can be cited! At that time (around 2006)? they realized that Dr Kay’s EIS was embarrassingly correct. They then discontinued publishing the moose numbers because they didn’t fit the wolf pimping narrative, citing that “moose were no longer a priority” and only published the elk numbers….
              I have to laugh at your sad attempt to run from the problems your unmanaged predators create. There is way too much evidence from places like Yellowstone, Lolo and NNW MN that unmanaged predators are bad for balanced ecosystems in many ways and have no historic equivalent in the presence of mankind… most notable, in the interest of balance for all wildlife! Today’s laugher is to point to an increase in the northern herd as a comeback of elk….when the reality is managed wolves is the biggest reason for the increase!
              The geographic positioning of the current and recent historic elk populations on the northern Range speaks to all of us! They told us historically… you should have hunted us, you damaged Yellowstone…. currently they say…. you should hunt predators we have no interest in your predator pit!

              • Immer Treue says:

                So, you have no documentation to support your claim.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  And here we go again….. Mat-I-ters has to do the leg work. I enjoy coming to this site because it is predictable how things are handled. Immer, If you had concrete evidence that moose numbers fell off closer to 1988 than the late 2000’s they would be displayed with prominence. I’m OK with leaving this “as is” knowing the moose hunting statistics for units like those north of the park AS I DO…..


                  Merry Christmas!

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Poor Mat-ters.

              • Hiker says:

                Interesting how you started talking about moose then switched to elk. Standard matters tirade with no reasoning, only anger and emotion. I wonder how the Earth balanced itself before we came along! Good thing humans arrived so we could “fix” everything.

          • Hiker says:


            This link has science references at the bottom of the page. I suggest you read the entire article before labelling it propaganda.

            Also, I’m confused what YOU think happened to the moose in Yellowstone. Do you think wolves wiped them out?That would be interesting since, according to the article, there were 200 moose in 1996, one year after wolves were reintroduced. That would mean that in one year the handful of wolves in the park killed 800 moose. Obviously that did not happen.

  45. Immer Treue says:

    Would have missed this, save complaining from an anti-wolf site.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      I’m not big on hunting, but those photos are absolutely gorgeous, culture too. It’s nice that the birds are eventually set free as well.

      • Ida Lupine says:

        Are those the Przewalski’s horses too? Amazing. I don’t like to see wolves hunted, but it doesn’t seem like the goal is to wipe wolves out, or to kill them because they don’t like them, as it is many times in the West.

  46. Mareks Vilkins says:

    How Native American tribes are bringing back the bison from brink of extinction

    But the work has only begun. In 2014, two years after the bison came to Fort Peck, 13 tribal nations – representing eight reservations both in the US and Canada – signed a ‘Buffalo Treaty’. The treaty outlined the importance of bringing back free-roaming bison to both the US and Canada. “We used to always have an empty chair for the buffalo, for the spirit of the buffalo [at the dialogues], in our talking circles,” said Little Bear, who facilitated the dialogues. “It’s hard to explain but the buffalo was basically asking us, ‘you know, I’ve been gone for 150 years, why do you want me to come back?’”

    By the end of the dialogues, the tribes agreed why. “The concern was the young people hear only stories, they hear the songs, they see the ceremonies, but they don’t see the buffalo out there,” added Little Bear.

    …. Magnan said Fort Peck’s “dream” is to have 2,500 buffalo in their conservation herd running on more than 40,000 hectares. Already the tribe has passed a resolution to purchase more land.

    “It’s amazing … with limited budgets and widespread poverty, [Native American tribes] are the leader in wildlife restoration when compared to the state wildlife agency,” he said. “In reality, it was not the buffalo that left us, it was us that left the buffalo. So we have to do something.”

    • Yvette says:

      Mareks, this is about an hour north of where I live. It’s not tribal but it’s a neat place. However, I’m not sure of the status of the Lesser Prairie Chicken. A few years back a management plan went into place to keep the LPC off of the ESA. In one of last graduate classes a lady came to guest lecture on the LPC management plan she she was most definitely pro-oil and pro-agriculture. She truly carried a chip on her shoulder and bad attitude.

      There use to be an aviary at this preserve but they lost funding. I don’t know why. Some of their birds came to the aviary at the tribe I work for.

      Seeing the bison roam free is awesome, though.

  47. idaursine says:

    I’m at a loss – can someone please explain to me why, as part of the ecosystem for millennia, that the wolves only became ‘unmanaged predators’ and a situation that needed ‘correcting’ at the arrival of European colonists (and ever since)? And ‘beasts of waste and desolation’ according to Teddy Roosevelt?

    I’m sure there was hunting of wolves before then, but not with the express goal of wiping them off the planet as they had done in Europe? For the religious among us, do we think God’s plan and creatures need correcting?

    (I don’t use the reply button all the time because I don’t want people to feel singled out and attacked, so many times I just put a general question out there).

    • Yvette says:

      You’re right, idaursine. Wolves were killed before European settlement, but not with the sheer hatred and heinous methods attributed to the colonists.

      One thing that strikes me is when Europeans arrived they introduced to things that I believe factored in to annihilation of wolves in the East: 1) domestic livestock and 2) private ownership rather than communal use of resources. The loss of a cow or pig that might get them through the severe winters could potentially be a matter of life and death. Plus, the earliest settlers were shallow on hunting skills. Wolves were exterminated from England by 1500. There is a lot of hatred driven by mythology and the way the wolf is portrayed in Christianity. The fear that keeps the myths alive were brought to this continent. Hatred rises from fear. One of the things that the early settlers did was dig deep pits and hang raw meat over the pit for bait. The wolf would go for the bait and fall in the pit. The settler who dug the pit would kill the wolf. There is one account of an incident where the John James Audubon was present when the ‘farmer’ jumped into the pit and sliced the principle tendon of the two wolves who were in the pit. This was called ‘hamstringing them. The two wolves were then hurled out of the pit and attacked by the farmer’s dogs. There was little they could do with their hamstings sliced. This was ‘sport’ for them. This account first appeared in John James Audubon’s third volume of the ‘Ornithological Biography’ or “An Account of teh Habits of the Birds of the United States of America, vol. 3 1835, pages 338-41.

      Take into account that poor Europeans kept arriving to the continent to escape monarchy and extreme poverty. As more and more immigrants arrived they moved westward. As they did, the mythology, hatred and heinousness in exterminating wolves traveled with them. It is forged to the hip with private ownership and domestic livestock.

      Like you, I fail to grasp the viciousness in the extermination. They weren’t satisfied with just killing them. They tortured them; hamstringing, and by dragging them to a slow death behind a wagon or horse.

      Now let’s look at the current era. Is it any different than the pictures we see posted of the wolfers today? They pose with their victim, and often, with total disregard and disrespect for the life that was. Look what the USDA Wildlife Services hunter, Jamie Olsen, did a few years back. He trapped coyotes and then sicced his dog(s) on the coyote in the trap. He kept his job, btw. Not a lot different than what John James Audubon and the farmer did when the farmer sliced the hamstring tendons of those two wolves and sicced his dogs on them.

      One would think we would have evolved more than we have over the last several hundred years.

      • Yvette says:

        Ugg, ‘to’ is ‘two’. SMH.

      • idaursine says:

        It isn’t much different at all, you’re right. 🙁 I think that is why I carry on so much about wolves, and bears too – the human viciousness that was done to them was way over and above anything required to prevent livestock loss, and it is more akin to superstition, but it doesn’t make any reasonable sense, if it had to do with religion.

        Of course, we haven’t treated our fellow man that much better over the course of history.

        The bible speaks of wolves and sheep as metaphor.

      • Hiker says:

        Excellent reply. I think the anti-wolf thing goes way back. It is found in many kids stories like “Little Red Riding Hood”, “The Three Pigs”, and “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.

        I also think it is tied to tales of wolf attacks from Europe centuries ago. Many biologist’s feel that these attacks were done by feral dogs rather than wolves. Even today there are very few attacks by wolves, and no deaths I know of. Contrast that with Griz. and how bears are portrayed to children, ie. teddy bears, “Winnine the Pooh” etc. This is despite the fact that Griz. are more dangerous than wolves. Wolves compete directly with us for food, especially if you are a hunter or rancher. It seems some of us can’t stand to have competition.

    • Mat-ters says:

      Idaursine, The fact that predators have always needed to be “managed” in all of history long or short should be telling you something. Inevitability is something that couldn’t stop the killing of CA cougars, or wolves and grizzlies in the GYA & Idaho….or even wolves in the great lakes. Eventual habitation is something ignored on this thread and a testament to the lack wildlife understanding and common sense. The semantics of Louise Kanes comment on “Trophy hunting” is pure inanity. It’s based, not on a truth of wanting to stop something, its based on a hate for those that do the inevitable and lacks love of all wildlife. Her comment tells us of the lack a conscience of true history and the human condition. It bewilders me that those you forced predators upon overwhelming reject them YET you take the stance that historically they were idolized. The truth is Natives had no sense of conservation …. just preservation…. they conflict.

      The answer to your question is a resounding yes! Our wildlife …. all species …. depend on us.

      • Hiker says:

        “The fact that predators have always needed to be “managed” in all of history long or short”.

        Typical Matters lie; management, I guess, means eradication to him. Matters, don’t you know that wolves were wiped out in most of the USA? Is that the “management” YOU want?

        “It bewilders me that those you forced predators upon overwhelming reject them YET you take the stance that historically they were idolized. The truth is Natives had no sense of conservation …. just preservation…. they conflict. ”

        Matters- can you please explain what any of this means? Honestly do you ever proof read your posts? How do YOU know how Natives felt about predators? Have you talked to any? I have and can tell you from personal experience that the MANY Natives I worked with DID revere predators!

        ” Eventual habitation is something ignored on this thread and a testament to the lack wildlife understanding and common sense.”

        Another set of lies, Matters, habituation (not habitation), does not necessarily flow from predator protection. I saw many wolves in both Grand Teton and Yellowstone that instantly ran from my presence. Also, these same parks worked hard to keep bears from becoming habituated.

        • Mat-ters says:

          Ohhh come on Hiker! Who in the heck is calling for “eradication”?? Other than a dog whistle to the rabid trophy hunter hater, I find the word useless and trying to use the word to establish fear is a testament to your lack of a soul…..wink!

          • Hiker says:

            YOU stated that wolves have always been “managed”. In the past they were eradicated. Isn’t that what YOU meant? If not then I’m confused.

            YOU should know by now that I am Not a ” rabid trophy hunter hater,”.

            If anyone is rabid about their posts here it is YOU.

            Every state where wolves were reintroduced allows wolf hunting. Wolves that leave Yellowstone or Grand Teton N.P. can be legally shot. Your past posts seem to indicate that YOU want predator hunting in these parks. Is that not true? WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE? What would Wolf management look like if YOU were in charge?

            BTW this last post of yours was written better, seems you are now proofreading what you post.

      • Immer Treue says:

        Typical Mat-ters/22 reply, in particular, when you bring up someone who has no dog in this particular fight.

        Habituation has been brought up many times on this blog. Why should an animal run just because a hominid is around? There’s a natural curiosity and respect out there that must be experienced to be understood. A philosophy of shoot to establish respect/fear is testament to your lack of soul.

        • Mat-ters says:

          Such a hateful post Immer, It saddens me that you retort to such a low depth in the spirit of the holiday season.

          God bless you and Merry Christmas anyway.

      • WM says:

        @Hiker “I think the anti-wolf thing goes way back….”

        Indeed it does for centuries (that is right centuries), throughout Europe, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, anywhere wolves were or are today or yesterday. Persecuted, some would say, as they found domesticated animals upon which humans relied much easier and safer prey. That is what irritates the hell out of me, because some of the folks who comment here want to have selective history to elevate wolves to some kind of benign entity that do not impact human environments. Wolves have always been a pain in the ass to humans.

        The first provisional government in the West came about as a result of the need to regulate wolves, east of what is now Portland, OR, on the Champoeg Prairie on the Willamette River in the early 1840’s. They needed help controlling wolves feeding on livestock – imagine that.

        • WM says:

          edit: …human[occupied] environments…

        • Hiker says:

          You forgot North America where the Natives didn’t need to protect livestock and somehow were able to hunt despite the presence of wolves. No persecution from them!

          • WM says:

            True, American Indians did not manage stock, as other developing cultures did, even those that were nomadic. Of course they didn’t even have horses until the Spanish showed up. The fact is invaders did show up and essentially made the rules. That has happened everywhere in all times throughout the world. Footnote: Asia had horses; Laplanders had reindeer. Many places had sheep and goats for many centuries. Ever hear much about the history of Rome, Italy?

            • Hiker says:

              Romulus and Remus, the mythical founders of Rome, were said to have been fed by a she-wolf. What’s your point.

              • WM says:

                Wolves there for a long time. Depredation, and part of the mythology and culture for centuries (romulys and Remus raised by a she-wolf must have been a real contrarian fairytale of the time – because outside the City they were probably feared and loathed for depredation. Depredation today receivescompensation for livestock lost to wolves there and nearly every freeking place wolves are in supposed co-habitation with humans. How about depredation by wolves in Greece?

                You can’t avoid the realities Hiker, despite all the bullshit rhetoric.

                • Hiker says:

                  I read your link and it stated that if livestock owners used shepherds or sheepdogs their losses were much lower. Seems straightforward to me, guard your stuff.

                  “You can’t avoid the realities Hiker, despite all the bullshit rhetoric.”
                  Not sure what realities I’m avoiding. I know full well that wolves attack livestock. They rarely attack people though.
                  In the West, if you graze livestock on OUR public lands you should be prepared to protect them from predators. These ranchers already pay very little and don’t cover the costs. That means you and I and every other taxpayer foots the bill. WHY? I’m tired of the bullshit rhetoric that seeks to protect these welfare ranchers while they destroy OUR land.

                  BTW very little of our beef comes from the West, most of it is produced in the East where the grazing is much better. Also, we export LOTS of beef. Is it worth it to degrade OUR public lands so we can ship the products overseas. Seems shortsighted to me. Kinda of like growing as much GM crops as possible so we can ship it elsewhere. Did you read that with our new trade wars with China soybean producers in OUR country are burning their crops in the fields. They can’t sell it or even store it. All storage is FULL!!!

                  Furthermore, The ancient Romans were proud of their foundation myths. That story of Romulus and Remus lasted for hundreds of years. I think the wolf was a symbol to them. THEY were the wolves compared to their enemies.

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  Depredation today receivescompensation for livestock lost to wolves there and nearly every freeking place wolves are in supposed co-habitation with humans. How about depredation by wolves in Greece?


                  1. of course, as usual one-dimensional WM will put a spin on basic relevant facts concerning livestock depredation

                  here’s the latest report about livestock depredation covering all countries in Europe:


                  then one can take a look at England where there are 0 wolves but dogs kill 15 000 sheep annually

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  2. sheep and goat industry in Greece is doing just fine – from 3.6m sheep and 2.6m goat (in 1911) to 10m sheep and 5m goat(in 2007). Never mind WW-1 and WW-2 and what Americans did to Greeks post-WW2


                  then WM conveniently omits 1m stray dogs in Greece

                  or that the wild ungulate numbers are low due to overharvest and poaching

                  for how many sheep is there enough room in Greece?

                • Mareks Vilkins says:

                  3. then one can take a look at Poland and Germany where the wolf populations are not harvested


                  … livestock makes up only 0.6% of all biomass consumed

                  4. somehow WM will never make reference to Mech / Bangs observation that the surprising thing is not that the wolves take down some occasional livestock but how rare are those incidents

          • Mat-ters says:

            Native Americans lived with dogs…. You embarrass yourself and blemish your understanding of the human condition when you say “no persecution from them”. Laughable!

            • Hiker says:

              What does living with dogs have to do with your argument? Are you saying these dogs the Natives had were used to hunt wolves? Where is your proof of that? I’ve read accounts from early European explorers that stated that part of the bison hunt involved the women guarding their kill ALL NIGHT from wolves. Nowhere did it state they used dogs for this. Seem like dogs were a good early detection system for their villages.

              • Yvette says:

                I don’t have time to fully join into this discussion right now but wish I could.

                Hiker, The only thing I can take time to respond to right now is that Mat-ters, like many people, make the mistake of lumping all indigenous people in the U.S.A., and really, all of North America, into one pot. That is equivalent to saying Russians are just like the Italians or the English are like the Greeks. It’s all Europe, right? So they must be the same. “insert eye roll’.

                That is on par with dumb Don-the-Con Trump saying all tribes in America is a race. ‘insert big eye roll’.

                Culture is place based. The traditional foods, clothes, housing, and many other mores arise from the region. That is true regardless of aboriginal continent.

                Mat-ters is a good one to ignore 98% of the time. The other 2% of the time the comments add a little fun practice in rhetorical argument.

              • Mat-ters says:

                Wow, Their (NATIVES) dogs were EATEN by wolves… There are reasons the UP voters of MI voted 2 of 3 FOR the hunt in the 2016. Wolves killing dogs is just one of them! They are informed and understand the consequences of wolves….

                I am utterly flabbergasted that you have not put this together … obviously, this website has not done its job in informing you of both sides of the wolf debate. Looks like the wolf/dog relationship has escaped or ignored your grasp.

                • Hiker says:

                  Not sure I understand your point. Natives had dogs that were eaten by wolves….. what does that have to do with anything we are discussing? Are you saying Natives hated wolves because they ate their dogs? Where’s the proof? Or is this another Matters supposition? Did a wolf once kill one of your dogs? Is that why you hate wolves?

                • Mat-ters says:

                • Immer Treue says:

                  What’s your point?


                • Mat-ters says:

                  “Are you saying Natives hated wolves because they ate their dogs?” I guess what I’ll say is your understanding of the human condition is off kilter. …. They would have hated wolves as much as they hated deer elk and bears & as much as I hate wolves! I don’t! I just would protect my dogs and children that played in their mists …. with vigor!

                  Why do you think Natives weren’t smart enough to understand wolves posed a real threat to their children and pets? Are you a raciest like Trump? (tongue in cheek)

                • Nancy says:

                  And I’m utterly flabbergasted that you really don’t seem to have much of a life Mat-ters, other than spewing hatred for the natural world if it doesn’t conform to your biblical standards.

                  Take a deep breath Mat-ters and then try and relate to what’s left of wildlife and wilderness areas.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  Nancy, What a dark dark post. Spreading hate for the bible isn’t something I would have expected to see on this site, even more that I’m the only one calling you out on such. The biblical/Christianity hate that we have seen here from the likes of Yvette was also tolerated.

                  The unrealistic glorification of Natives & what they truly endured and would have had to endure EVEN WITHOUT white settlement is mind boggling. Those holding up a place like the predator pit known as Yellowstone as a tribute to Natives knows nothing of history and human nature…. ESPECIALLY those standing in the picket lines at the buffalo culls. The typical flash point of pointing to Wounded Knee as how evil the Christians are IGNORES and is MINOR to documented tribe on tribe and tribe on christian atrocities that are part of a true history. Something like the Crow Creek massacre is somehow twisted as a spin off of the evil Christian bible thumping Whiteman LAUGHABLE!

        • Rich says:

          Actually humans have been by far more of a pain in the ass to other humans than wolves. Consider for a minute all the human lives and property that have been destroyed by other humans in wars, ethnic cleansing, crusades, plundering, crime, torture, brutality, rape, and all the other miseries laid on humans by humans and then compare that with the actual legacy of wolves. Where are the Little Red Riding Hood stories about the cruelty and treachery of humans? Perhaps a sober appreciation of the actual scale of comparative destruction rather than being irritated by “selective history” would put things in proper perspective regarding the real threat to the human occupied environments – a threat that gets us closer to doomsday every year. Clearly any human would much safer camped unarmed in Yellowstone with wild wolves than in many centers of human civilization.

          • Nancy says:

          • Nancy says:

            Summed it up well, Rich.

          • Mat-ters says:

            What planet are you living on? You need to take off those wolf lover glasses and smell the roses! Humans live in harmony and balance FAR better than wolves. Their the leading cause of their own deaths for goodness sake!
            The “family values” animal some here try to pull Ignores reality. You don’t have to go far to find documentation to refute the attempt to glorify this beast. PBS wolf articles are full of stuff like incest, polygamy, co-habituating with the neighbor boy, don’t only kill the sick weak and old, glutton killing, wanton waste of game, patricide, polygamy, sibling murder, cannibalism…….to name a few of their more pleasant attributes.


            • Hiker says:

              Matters, are you referring to the stories of our HUMAN history? Everything you state that wolves did, humans have also done.

              I’m not saying that you are wrong about wolves. I AGREE WITH YOU that some here glorify them. They are animals, just like us. In fact very much like us. Even siblings help raise and feed each other in wolf packs. Of course that wasn’t the case with me but I know many others who did this. I believe that the destruction of wolves in our past is BECAUSE they are so similar to us. They are a fierce competitor.

              Also, I think many people want to protect wolves because they are so rare. For many humans it is a thrill to witness these beasts in their native habitat. Their are entire businesses that cater to this. Kinda of like Westerners who go to Africa for a wildlife safari.

            • Mat-ters says:

              Also, the ethnic cleansing attempt on the coyote fell short ….didn’t it.

              • Hiker says:

                Not sure what you mean here. If you mean the eradication of coyotes has failed, you’re right. In fact they have expanded their territory in the East where wolves once lived. Coyotes, like rats and pigeons, seem able to adapt to human presence better then their larger relatives.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  Ethnic cleansing …. a little over your head ??? The theme was to put human wrongs to wolves equivalence …. wolves kill any and all coyotes they can get their jaws on (ethnic cleansing). Yawn!

            • Nancy says:

              “incest, polygamy, co-habituating with the neighbor boy, don’t only kill the sick weak and old, glutton killing, wanton waste of game, patricide, polygamy, sibling murder, cannibalism”

              Got to love it! All human traits. Did you struggle to come up with those thoughts, Mat-ters or did you have your own little experiences in life to draw from?

              • Mat-ters says:

                Actually Nancy, it was pretty easy to put the rare human troglodyte and evil attributes to the wolf …… you made me laugh…. for when I went over the lists above the only one that I could come remotely close to was Hikers siblings help …. something very dear to me! I am blessed!

                Have a happy holiday season.

                Honestly, Don’t let the doom and gloom of those that pull articles out of the bowels of billions upon billions of hours spent by good sportsman, hunters and ranchers afield get you down. Please don’t be part of those that promote their hate.

                • Hiker says:

                  Matters how about teamwork, caring for their young, fighting together against a common enemy, establishing and protecting their territory. There are many things we share in common with wolves that some would be proud of. Look in the mirror, a sibling to wolves is looking back.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  I see …. always the dog owners fault. I’m almost sure the Natives brought their dogs into their tee pees out of love for the wolf.

              • Mat-ters says:

                Hiker, Your “establishing and protecting their territory” is once again…..racist….. at least that’s what they tell Trump! WInk..,.

            • idaursine says:

              Those things are all human concepts and societal rules (which throughout our history we have broken and created the need for these rules in the first place!) – and do not apply to wildlife.

              Territorial disputes of wolves have a direct correlation with human wars, to me – only taken to the nth degree of violence and cruelty.

              And perhaps(as in an unmeddled state of affairs it is usually only the alpha pair who breed?) if humans hadn’t tried to wipe them out, and have coyotes take their place.

              The more humans upset the world, the more tragicomic things become. Talk about chasing their tails!

              • idaursine says:

                Or maybe I should say it a better way, in that all or most animals share territorial dispute behavior, with humans taking it to the nth degree of violence, cruelty, and destruction?

                Only we have the ability to destroy all life on earth.

                • Hiker says:

                  wonderful reply.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  Idolizing the wolf, as some do, and pretending they are some kind of miracle worker of the environment is absurd. They are what they are! Unmanaged they ALWAYS bring game herds WELL below what biologist have always told us was “healthy”….so many examples! We should be embarrassed to what they have done in Yellowstone.

  48. Louise Kane says:

    Merry Christmas
    Here’s to hoping trophy hunting is banned someday soon

        • Hiker says:

          Doesn’t seem to matter, to matter, it’s wolves are bad blah, blah, blah! Most of us here just want to protect the last intact places left in our country. Is that such a crime? Based on his posts Matters seems to think so.

          • Nancy says:

            + 1 Hiker. Fact is dogs, feral or not, kill more livestock than wolves but those facts are beyond Mat-ters comprehension.

            And of course the biggest killer of livestock continues to be weather & disease which leaves a tremendous amount of dead livestock on the landscape (especially out here in the west) for predators to get accustomed to AND take advantage of, when looking for a meal, dead or a live, which is often the case when it comes to calving and lambing seasons.


            Mat-ters has an agenda and he’s a very good, “God fearing” troll, spreading his spiel in hopes of swaying those that actually care about what’s left of wildlife and wild lands, to his way of thinking.

            So tossing out what I perceive as one of Mat-ter’s many links to why wolves are bad:


            Hours of videos by someone with Mat-ter’s mentality when it comes to opposing natural predators, making comebacks, in what’s left of wilderness areas, unless of course, it’s going to benefit “man”kind’s ability to prosper/profit from the venture 🙂

            • Hiker says:

              As usual reason and facts on display with your posts. I have a different philosophy on prospering with wilderness. Every time I visit I prosper. Every time I view it I prosper. Every time I think about it I prosper. Since I live on the edge of a Wilderness Area I am VERY prosperous.

            • Louise Kane says:

              as always, wise Nancy

        • Mat-ters says:

          As we rode up the coolie on the mule deer hunt we heard the first volley of shots ring out…. all Darby said was “quick” as she sped up taking the horse up a non-existent trail…. I wasn’t the horse”man” my cowgirl cousin was(is) so I picked and choose my way to the ridge line taking far far more time to get to the top as she did. When I got there, a second round of shots started ringing out. Looking out over the ridge to the next I could see the shooters, they were shooting north to our right into a coolie below and up the ridge from us. She tossed her rifle into the scabbard up on the horse and away she went. She headed across the plateau….watching her ride across the plateau gave me thoughts of why her nickname of Darby was so so fitting (as in Kim). She disappeared off the plateau which gave me a chance to think…. I thought we were the only ones hunting on the ranch that day. What were those “hunters” shooting at and why were they shooting so far? Why did Kim take out her rifle (she wasn’t really hunting)? As I headed north, I could see the shooters on foot headed down they were about 1/2 mile away headed into the coolie about a ¼ mile to my right. I was skirting the plateau Darby had ridden over and as I came over the top of the arch of plateau I could see her horse “star” standing probably right where she had gotten off…… as I road just a little further I could see Kim sitting with the rifle pointed down into the collie in front of her. I stopped got off the horse unlike Darby there was no way I was going to let the reigns from my horse go without tying her to something….. I had a small whitebark to my left and walked over with the horse and tied it up good…… I took the rifle and started walking forward getting a better view of what Darby was seeing…. I was about a 100 yds away and she hadn’t moved since I got off the horse…. She had a better view of the coolie so I knelt and took a position. What was going on below Darby was a mystery to me.

          • Mat-ters says:

            I couldn’t help but think about the night before…. We had just gotten to Darby & Charlies when they got a call from a ranch hand to the south. They (also)had just got in as we did and had seen three sets of canine tracks in the light fresh snow near the cattle gate between the two ranches. When he got off the phone the talk turned to how our other cousin (Tim) had missed the tracks on his way home. You see, typically its Charley Kim, Tim and the rest of the gang that see things out of place….. sure, they do go through the ranch to the south more than they go through ours, Darby says. The talk then turned to things that happening during that (early) summer on a ranch to the Southeast of both ranches. They were having huge issues with a pack of dogs. They lost some calves and had many cattle runs(stampede) some of which resulted in broken bones and lame cattle. To add insult to injury they were dealing with a high percentage of open cattle (from the following calving season). Their vet suspected that it was stress related based on bloodwork done on some of the open cattle. They dismissed it thinking it was more related to virus and out right ignored some signs of their cattle. (unexplained tail drags, a few outright bite marks on flanks, ornery cattle towards their herd dogs/dogs, lame cattle). After the early summer evidence, it was clear that ranch was having issues with dogs. They also mentioned that the only issues they had seen of dogs was moving a dozen or so cattle back to the other ranch that had gone through (pushed through) a border fence.

            • Mat-ters says:

              All of a sudden Darby’s gun and horse slightly jumped, POW came almost instantly & Kim continued to look through her scope. She slowly stood up, as I, and I went to collect my horse. I scabbard the rifle, hopped on, and road over to her. As she called for her horse, she explained that she shot a dog. As she put her things together on the horse, she said she was going to take a closer look. I was surprised that she left the horse and started walking down and even more surprised that she only walked about 40 yards. I road down and took a look off the horse. The dog was collarless & had German Shepard type size and markers. I was impressed by Kim’s melon shot. As we road back across the plateau we caught site of the neighbors headed back to their horses on the next ridge as it became more visible….. It came out latter that they had shot 2 dogs in their volleys, one being (based on its collar) one of three dogs owned by the rancher having dog issues & the other being a (probably) sibling of the one Kim shot. Base on discussions the next couple of day these dogs cause AT LEAST 40,000 dollars damage in livestock in lost calves, lost pregnancies, lost value of injured cattle ON JUST ONE RANCH in that area alone. That does not include other ranches in the area including the time spent by my cousins moving the neighbor’s cattle

  49. Mat-ters says:

    Just think…. If the drop of deer harvest in certain parts of WI was tied to slandering Donald Trump we would all know the idiosyncrasies of the 2018 WI deer harvest & the location of wolves in the state.

    • MAD says:

      Plos One is an excellent journal that is free online to everyone. And it is a legit, peer-reviewed journal also. I am partial to it since they published one of my wife’s articles.

  50. Hiker says:

    Matters I watched your video posted above and all I can say is wow. Why you feel this video contributes in any way to our discussion is beyond me. All I can think is that you hate wolves and therefore they should be killed.

    If I were a dog owner from the video I would hang my head in shame. What kind of horrible person leaves their pet out at night in wolf country? You should read the comments to the video on youtube. Most agree that people are the ones responsible not wolves.

    Also, wolves are not the only ones to kill dogs. Mtn. lions, bears, coyotes, ELK, MOOSE, DEER, people, cars, etc. If you own a dog take care of it.

  51. Mat-ters says:

    Half a million people afield…..

    Compare that to half a million on the road…. or even on the hiking trail! What a safe and enjoyable sport.

    • Hiker says:

      I’ve always respected those who legally hunt for their own food.

      • Mat-ters says:

        Hiker, Out of curiosity, Does that mean that you do not respect those tribes that killed predators as a rite of passage to adulthood and used only their hides, teeth and feathers as clothing,tools, bedding and religious symbols? Isn’t that racist?

  52. MAD says:

    It’s disheartening because I believe there will never be honest, legitimate action taken in relation to predators in the state of Montana because of local politics and money.

  53. Immer Treue says:

    Someone with whom many of us have sparred in the past, has passed away. No rejoicing in death. The times I locked horns with Mr. Fanning in regard to wolves, he was always a gentleman. Peace.

    • timz says:

      These are words of a gentleman?
      “Speaking against wolves in Grangeville, Idaho in 2003, Fanning said the introduction of Canadian wolves into the Northwest was a criminal conspiracy by a bunch of “pot-smoking, wine-sucking, vegetarian lawyers,”
      Good Riddance

      • Mat-ters says:

        timz, Bob cared for all wildlife not just predators…. he understood that some would abuse the ESA for political and financial gain… Rest in piece Bob!

        • MAD says:

          While my condolences are with his family and children for losing someone close to them, I refuse to show respect or pay honor to a lying, misleading person such as he.

          He didn’t “care” about elk to preserve them as a species. He cared about preserving them so him and his trophy hunting buds could shoot them – big difference.

  54. Immer Treue says:

    Wolf attacks “double” in Washington.

    WM, as a native WA’er, how are sentiments playing out?

    • WM says:


      I think I will reserve comments until the WA Annual Wolf Count becomes official. But per the article you cite, it is interesting livestock producers call into question whether the number of depredations actually doubled, or it is just that the documentation is more easily accepted by WDFW. If the latter is true, the number of losses eligible for compensation in the past is low, as are the tally of losses.

      Dr. Rob Weilgus, an acquaintance of JB and former Director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University, had an interesting piece in the Spokane paper in December. He, some may recall, lost his job for confusing his role as a scientist and an over the top wolf advocate, making policy statements above his pay grade. He continues his crusade now as a private citizen after being canned. I have warned of the risks of this role confusion on this forum before.

      Also, CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) had a very expensive print advertising campaign in the Seattle Times last month, including an open letter to the WA Governor, to spare wolves. Governor Inslee (strong D in a blue state) has been careful picking his way thru issues to support because he wants to be our next President. He has a bug up his butt over climate change, which he thinks is THE issue which will give him traction. Some of us do not doubt his dedication or the importance of this issue, but do doubt his judgement on priorities.

      Happy New Year!

      • WM says:

        I should amend. Weilgus’ article was November, not December.

        Wolf depredation removals have been consistent with the WA Wolf Plan, notwithstanding legal challenges by CBD and others. Kind of irritating to see so much litigation in this area, as it detracts from legitimate claims, as I have said before. It pisses off the anti-wolf crowd, and I suspect also the WDFW folks just trying to do their job – under the duly adopted Plan. It will get worse as wolf population grows and populations expand from the eastern side of the state to the interior and maybe even piss off some Indian tribes who run cattle and sheep, or don’t want their elk herds thinned.

        • Mat-ters says:

          “thinned” poor choice of words. Destroyed!

          • WM says:

            Well the interesting thing about wolves on reservations – like the Yakama which encompasses the entire eastern flank of Mount Adams to the Yakima River, or the Colville Reservation which encompasses a sizable acreage of the Columbia Basin is that they can thump as many wolves as they want, when they want, as sovereign nations. Some tribes may even be able to hunt wolves off reservation lands per treaty obligations, it would appear:

            Some tribes may not wait for herd “thinning” or letting them be “destroyed,” to use your term Mat-ters, before they act to remove wolves (if acceptable to their culture- Colvilles have already weighed in, and from my experience with the Yakamas they will likely want to keep their elk herd at capacity).

            • Mat-ters says:

              In other words ….. wolves on reservations will be treated appropriately & not as their god or with any more reverence than any other species. Their trophy elk herds are a great organic resource for their members and stand not to be abused.

              YOU GO NATIVES! Your ancestors would be as proud, as am I.

              • WM says:

                Mat-ters, You draw 2 incorrect conclusions in your post. Not all “Natives” or tribes have the same view of wolves spiritually or practically. So, some may indeed see them as some diety and wish to protect them – Eastern Canadian tribes and maybe some Great Lakes tribes fall into that catagory.

                Second, not all, nor even many tribes to my knowledge view elk herds as “trophies.” Some just view them as a traditional and reliable and low/no cost food source. It may become more difficult to access that food source if there are fewer of them, and/or they are much more skiddish, perhaps scattered on higher, steeper ground and in the brush more often. That also makes them more difficult to harvest and remove from where they are killed.

                Of course, if tribes on reservations or even those with off reservation reserved treaty hunting rights find the actions of state wildlife agencies or the feds interfere with their treaty hunting, like having too many wolves on state and federal lands, that jeopardize their elk/deer take, that may not make them happy either. So, its complicated.

                I wonder what Navajo (and Hopi) who raise sheep and cows will do when Mexican wolves become larger in number in the Southwest.

                Just like the salmon fishing rights in the NW rivers – who gets how many and when. That is why there are alot of California sea lions (which some non-Indians value and tribal fishers do not) are mysteriously dying by bullets on the Lower Columbia River and other locations where they feed on salmon/steelhead returning to Coastal fresh waters rivers where tribal fishers place their nets. I saw a couple dead sea lions at the mouth of the Quayalliute River near Mora Campground in Olympic NP a couple years back and wondered if the Makah fishers (this tribe harvests whales under treaty when they can too), might have been doing a little target practice. This is a large Olympic Peninsula River, known for its steelhead (sea going rainbow trout).

      • Immer Treue says:

        Thanks, as usual, a sober take on the situation. I don’t take issue with anything you write, the inevitability of increasing wolf numbers as they disperse will yield an increase in depredations.

        My issue is two-fold. One, is Wielgus at least partially correct. As more money is spent on removal of wolves guilty of depredations, we find dead cattle and dead wolves. Two solutions: remove all wolves, though I don’t think this will happen; initiate more of what Wielgus proposes, money spent up front as preventative measures, fewer dead cattle and dead wolves. I admit that I don’t know that much about Wielgus. It appears he was accepted as long as his studies did not produce conflict with the status quo.

        Finding dead cattle. Is it really that difficult, or, as one looks at all the possible afflictions that befall livestock, are there just so many dead stock out there, it’s all but impossible to differentiate between wolf killed (Im fully aware of protocol for determination of wolf killed stock)and cattle that just die and are scavenged or they cannot be found… in a sense back to the old additive/compensatory statistics.

        Last, The question of the inability to find dead live stock. The woods up here are thick, open areas in the winter (frozen lakes) are easily accessible. My point is, when something dies up here, Ravens are alway more active in that area, and bald eagles are proof in the pudding that something has died. It can look like a scene taken out of Roy Chapman Andrews La Brea Tar pits descriptions. Follow the birds, and you find recently dead deer. I would assume the bird compliment in Washington is similar to here, and would guess the woods are a bit more open in Washington, or grazing would not occur, thus dead “things/stock” would be easier to locate.

        Happy New Year to you.

        • Nancy says:

          “Finding dead cattle. Is it really that difficult, or, as one looks at all the possible afflictions that befall livestock, are there just so many dead stock out there, it’s all but impossible to differentiate between wolf killed (Im fully aware of protocol for determination of wolf killed stock)and cattle that just die and are scavenged or they cannot be found… in a sense back to the old additive/compensatory statistics”

          You nailed it and defined it with those thoughts, Immer. Especially on public lands.

          For decades, maybe going on a century now? Cattle and sheep have been dumped on public lands by private entities (with little if any supervision) for profit, lands that were designated as “multiple use” but seem to favor the livestock industry, due in part to political lobbyists/organizations, especially out here in the west.

          Lands that in reality, have become the last stronghold, in a human saturated world, for many wildlife species.

          Where I live (in Montana) I have no problem finding dead cattle on the landscape, that die for a variety of reasons, that have nothing to do with predators but…. predators continue to take the blame, while taking advantage of a free meal due to lazy livestock raisers.

          • Immer Treue says:

            “Lands that in reality, have become the last stronghold, in a human saturated world, for many wildlife species”

            Public lands. I continue to read the run elsewhere that a greater % of wildlife live on private lands than public lands.
            This is most likely because the better land was taken by ranchers/farmers etc. if this is so, then why move stock to public lands, in particular if taxpayer money is used for the interdiction of wildlife that lives on these more “marginal” lands?

            • Nancy says:

              Allotments on public lands out here in the west are worth their weight in gold, so to speak, because just a small percentage of “ground floor – hey, got here first” ranchers, leased the majority of those allotments and this goes way back when grazing on public lands got divided up.

              I’m pretty sure the “jury” isn’t in yet as to what damages have been done to some? or a lot? of these public lands when it comes to cattle grazing, the destruction of natural habitat and wildlife and little if any maintenance on those lands.

              I’ve witnessed (over the past 25 years and counting) an obvious shift in ungulate behavior (elk & mule deer, both migrate in and out) on the landscape where I live but WTF do I know since I hold no advanced degrees in biology or anything remotely associated to “western” range management that is pretty much geared towards the raising of livestock on lands that too often can’t even begin to support those non native species? (like cattle & sheep)

              Yet support them we do, as in taxpayer’s dollars (subsidies) year after year, decade after decade, especially when it comes to the federally funded predator control program Wildlife Services.


              My sincere hope for the New Year is more folks find The Wildlife News website, read the articles, spend some time debating and get worried and then energized to do something about the issues surrounding what’s left of wilderness areas and the wildlife there 🙂

        • WM says:

          Immer, if you read up on Dr. Weilgus (Google search including some video) you will find him to be a rather colorful character. From there draw your own conclusions. For the sake of clarity, I believe WSU just withdrew funding for his lab which resulted in his “retirement.” I think I mentioned before there are strong critics of some of his scientific conclusions drawn on small and possibly not representative data. I am among them.

          • Mareks Vilkins says:

            example how WM twists facts


            A WAR OVER WOLVES
            Outspoken researcher says his university and lawmakers silenced and punished him.

            • Mareks Vilkins says:

              Wolf researcher who accused WSU of silencing him gets $300K to settle lawsuit and go away


              • Mat-ters says:

                Settling lawsuits only begets more lawsuits! Rich lawyers love settling. Mareke, your acting like WSU settling this lawsuit vindicates the rancher hater. IT DON”T. All it does is increase the cost of an education! Shameful to both sides of the suit!

              • WM says:

                Mareks, the cost of defending a claim by Dr. Wielgus alone would have been much more than the settlement. Then there would have been uncertainty on his ability to prevail on any claim. Cheap resolution for the state. Might have kept his lab open for less than a year, so WSU administrators and WDFW are likely glad he has moved on. Silver lining. He can speak or write all he wants unfettered as a private citizen now.

                • Nancy says:

                  Wondering if perhaps you’re ignoring the “bigger picture” here, WM?

                  “Furthermore, by agreeing to carry water for a state representative seeking to shut up a professor, WSU abandoned its commitment to uphold its professors’ freedom to pursue truth wherever it may lead, and whoever its conclusions may irk.

                  When a university accedes to calls to punish professors for their research and expression, it sends the message that academic pursuits are subsidiary to appeasing powerful or endowed interests. It diminishes academic freedom from a core institutional principle to a minor factor in the university’s calculus, one that the school will readily abandon once pressure mounts”


                • JB says:

                  Shortly after my wife and I started work at our current university she published a paper that found that banning smoking in bars and restaurants had no significant effect on receipts in those establishments. Though the analysis was based upon data from Minnesota and part of her dissertation, a state representative (who hailed from a district with many tobacco growers) wasted no time in contacting the President of the University claiming that she had ‘sullied the name of the University’. Our then president contacted her to reassure her that the University stood by her work.

                  That’s how academic freedom should work.

                  On the other hand…

                  When eDNA of Asian carp was found in the Great Lakes, one of my colleagues spoke out suggesting that Asian carp simply wouldn’t be the kind of problem they’ve been elsewhere, as the conditions required for their reproduction was rare in the GLs. This position went against what leadership at the state DNR was saying and he was subsequently blacklisted from funding (i.e., though he once regularly received funding from the agency for doing reproductive studies, he didn’t get any money after that point).

                  The lesson I learned was this: if you’re going to do politically relevant work at a state university, ensure any work that’s controversial is only relevant in other states.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  Case of NIMBY. Or don’t sh!t where you eat/sleep. I don’t know if Wielgus was right or wrong, but one would think that his findings would have compelled similar studies that could address the possible issue of insanity toward carnivore “management” ie, is it more productive learning how to live with them rather than just killing them.

                  JB, that whole study of smoking in bars, airplanes, etc would be an interesting read. I know passengers and employees complained about smoking on planes for years, and nothing was really done until it was discovered that the build up of tars on cabin control equipment was problematic.

                • JB says:


                  Economic Effects of Clean Indoor Air Policies on Bar and Restaurant Employment in Minneapolis and St Paul, Minnesota.

                  Source: Journal of Public Health Management & Practice. 16(4):285-293, July/August 2010.

                  Objectives: Clean indoor air (CIA) policies have been adopted by communities across the United States and internationally to protect employees in all workplaces from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Concerns have been raised that banning smoking in workplaces, particularly in bars and restaurants, will result in severe, negative economic effects. Although objective studies have consistently found no significant economic effects from CIA policies, the concerns persist that CIA policies will negatively affect hospitality businesses.

                  Methods: Employment in bars and restaurants in Minneapolis and St Paul, Minnesota, was independently evaluated over a five-year period during which CIA policies were established in each city. An interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate the short-, intermediate, and longer-term economic effects of the local CIA policies, accounting for the rest of the hospitality industry.

                  Results: The CIA polices were associated with an increase of three percent to four percent in employment for restaurants in Minneapolis and St Paul, after accounting for the rest of the hospitality industry. The CIA policies were inconsistent in their association with bar employment. A comprehensive CIA policy in Minneapolis was associated with an increase of five percent to six percent in bar employment, and St Paul had a one percent nonsignificant decrease in bar employment. The CIA policies continue to yield the best protection against workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke for bars and restaurant employees and were not associated with large employment changes for the short or longer term in two urban Midwestern cities in the United States.

                • WM says:

                  Nancy, For the most part I don’t disagree with you. An important part is how one presents their findings. In-your-face personalities, regardless of what they have to say, sometimes rubs folks the wrong way. And, yeah, biting the hand that feeds you sometimes has consequences.

          • Mareks Vilkins says:

            it’s not a secret that WM applies the same rant to every predator biologist who is outspoken about unnecessary bloodshed of wolves, cougars etc.
            R. Wielgus, J.A. Vucetich, Rolf Peterson all are to be damned.

            WM is jealous of them because they have the courage to speak against the Establishment whereas snowflake WM will keep his mouth shut when he visits his wife’s anti-wolf relatives in Idaho – just to appear amicable.

            As deathbed nears the coward is crying and full of remorse. There’s a designation for such people: piece of slime.

            • WM says:

              “unnecessary bloodshed of wolves,” Mareks. Every wolf reintroduction or repopulation plan in the various US states has a lethal control provision, which aids in controlling unacceptable domestic stock depredation, numbers, and even range. It was a pre-condition of even letting the programs go forward to gain political acceptance in the West and the Mid-west. Then getting a foot in the door, some want to change it even more. Sort of like not honoring a deal. I find that troubling.

              Like it or not, that is the American way – cooperative Federalism, and all. Of course, you don’t have to like it sport, living in Latvia as you apparently do.

              And, I think I was reasonably objective in calling out the tenuous and delicate balance of scientist pushing the boundaries as an advocate crossing a line. It does have consequences. Sorry you can’t find the decency to discuss this at an intellectual level, Mareks. You demean yourself and this forum.

              Didn’t really appreciate the “piece of slime” comment above, either, Mareks. Kind of immature don’t you think, even for you?

  55. Immer Treue says:

    Wisconsin wolf numbers grow as volunteers assist in determining range and numbers in the state.

  56. idaursine says:

    Happy New Year to you as well, WM, and to everyone here at TWN.

  57. rork says:
    Page 45 shows 50% increase in upper peninsula buck harvest in 2017 compared to 2016, and a 10% increase in the lower. This despite wolves in the UP having plateaued in 2011, and almost no management. It’s about the weather, or else someone is fabricating data. Our dog and livestock losses are trivial, partly because nobody is leasing government grazing, so there’s less livestock (a strategy that could be tried elsewhere). Complaints about wolves destroying deer have decreased. That 2 of 3 UP people voted for wolf hunts says nothing about wolves, only about the attitude of voters there. Same votes would have been gotten from rural Ohio where there are no wolves. The voters of my state twice passed referendums to outlaw public wolf hunting, and we have now proven we don’t need it in the UP, though it wasn’t the intention.
    PS: no hunting is not the same as no management. I’m OK with giving out special permits even. I don’t need wolves to be hunted in the middle of giant public forest though. Our UP is not the same as everywhere else. Generalizing about another place from one example is fallacy when it comes to predators, as we were taught in the 1930’s by Saint Aldo.

    • Immer Treue says:

      How can this be? According to Don Peay @ 2014

      “Well, as we now know, there has been an 80% reduction in the greater Yellowstone elk herds, moose are for all practical purposes gone from Yellowstone, and now the bison are the final prey… and they are declining as well”.

      • JEFF E says:

        what I found curious, at least in this story, is no mention of the bison/brucellosis lie that has always been the rational….

      • Mat-ters says:

        Immer, are you acting like all is well in Yellowstone? By what standard?

    • idaursine says:

      What a dirty job. 🙁

    • Ida Lupine says:

      People say things have changed in the 500 or so years since European colonization, but we are still allowing killing off the buffalo, wolves and coyotes, and bears – today under the guise of population control, or ‘exceeding carrying capacity’, a situation we have created for wildlife.

      If it were not for the fragile laws we have in place to protect them, things would go right back to the way they were pre-ESA. If you look at the recovery map for wolves, it is ridiculously the bare minimum, with screeching and exaggeration daily about how inconvenient to human activities wildlife is.

      WA has a conundrum; a hunting season and too much killing would put the population below the numbers the state has dictated. Not much else to do except for something unethical like a backroom delisting with no judicial review.

      I was glad to see mentioned that there is no way to tell if cattle have been predated before or after death, i.e. scavenged. I’ve been wondering about that for years.

  58. Immer Treue says:

    Lethal Control Treailer

  59. Louise Kane says:

    People that run over animals for sport should be in prison. Unfortunately, state fish and game departments continue to legitimize animal/wildlife cruelty by refusing to outlaw killing contests, running over animals with snowmobiles, and in not at least giving every animal some kind of protected status. This sickens me as it should everyone. I hope I don’t hear anyone stating this is an aberration. Wake up, these heinous activities seem to be proliferating. The internet is just making us more aware. Wildlife laws are a national disgrace. Its getting hard to keep track of the obscenities “allowed” or legal under state law.

    • Ida Lupine says:

      Yes. This is depraved. I have no idea why society accepts it, and it does, because it allows it. And the cowards hide behind hunting laws or other laws.

    • Nancy says:

      A lot of research over the past few decades points to important conclusions regarding children who are raised in abusive families, as the primary reason for these children to think its somehow okay to abuse/bully/kill animals in horrific ways, when they reach adulthood.

      Because of a lack of protections for animals (other species) I have to wonder if its often become a release valve for those that might otherwise seek loftier ambitions because of the abuse they suffered as children. Serial killers of own species, comes to mind.

      Sadly, too many of these adults, who might of been abused, bullied and neglected as children, end up finding like minded individuals (if they didn’t stray far from their financially depressed, communities) and are more than willing to take it out on wildlife, particularly wildlife like predators.

      Who thankfully since have found a voice and champions, FOR their reasons to finally be back on what’s left of THEIR landscape, which was always to try and keep checks and balances because hey, we humans are doing a very sorry f”ing job of keeping our species in check on this wonderful planet called earth.

      • Mat-ters says:

        Nancy, I get the feeling that you would like nothing better than to tie conservatives and trophy hunters to these “serial killers” in any way possible. May I point out statistics that can not be ignored. Call it me being a “raciest” if you want…. I’m just pointing to statistics that are a reality!

        Please correct me if I’m wrong….and source it!

        The murder rate in the US is “around” 5 per 100,000. The murder rate for African Americans on African Americans is around 50 per 100,000. Pulling out those murders and others from leftist liberal strong holds from the populous the “rest” of the country (Hillaries deplorable’s) would hover BELOW 2 per 100,000. With those numbers in mind overlay liberal leftist voting block to these murders & murderous populous. Where does these “trophy hunters” reside? If these murderer’s are your animal abusers…where do they reside? Based on your assessment … what voting block are abusing animals??? My disclaimer is I’m only siting real statistics and applying it to your profanity laced post.

        The half million deplorable “trophy hunters” that took to the WI forests and woodlots with their guns last November (in search for some great organic resource & trophy) take offense to your post!

        In order to address “over population” of homosapiens what are your solutions….?

        • Hiker says:

          Interesting how you equate murder rates with what Nancy posted. Why did you jump to that correlation? Nowhere did she say anything about murderers. Quote all the statistics you like, just realize we see thru your lame attempts to paint people in a negative light.

          Also, it’s interesting how you speak for a half million “deplorable” (your words, not hers) hunters. Amazing how you are the voice for so many! If only we had know, all this time, Matters knows and speaks for 500,000 people. Absurd.

          Don’t you think that it’s reasonable that a child who has been abused may have problems down the road? How else do you explain the actions of the few who were being referred to in this thread?

          • idaursine says:

            I also think that people who have been abused sometimes can be more sensitive to the plight of others, and other creatures, because of their experiences. No everyone is emotionally stunted because of their experiences, some learn lessons.

            We cannot generalize either extreme – very few people are all good, or all bad. I still believe that some people are just born without compassion and empathy, and no amount of excuses, education or therapy will change that. Does it make them bad people? I think that is what being human is.

            • Hiker says:

              Well put, everyone responds differently. Like Nancy states above; if someone is around others who abuse animals as if it is normal they MAY act that way too, if they have that predisposition, for whatever reason.

              • idaursine says:

                Yes, I too believe that people are individuals – their behavior a case-by-case situation. We are all equal as human beings under the law, but each unique individuals.

                It could be normal, or it could appall the child too. It does a terrible disservice to assume that a violent, dangerous human being is really just an abused good guy at heart, and then just let him out again to run amok. I don’t think running over coyotes should ever be excused, and their comes a point when it is too late to change a mind, IMO.

                Some people I truly believe only respond to the simplest crime-and-punishment to stop their bad behavior. Fines and or prison time.

                • idaursine says:

                  sorry, ‘there comes a time when’. And no parole either, simply because the prisons are overcrowded and NIMBY.

                  The fact that prisons are so overcrowded says it all, IMO.

          • Mat-ters says:

            Hiker, My post was preemptive in nature…. I certainly don’t disagree with her on the fact that some homes incubate those that abuse and have disrespect for life of all kinds(including animals and small babies)…. as I said in my post, if there were any way of tying “Serial killers” (murders) to hunting she would be on top of it.

            Clearly these “incubators” are in all areas of the country. Hiker, Do you argue that there are a higher percentage of incubators in the basket of deplorables or in the leftist strongholds of this great country? My answer to that question is my point!

            • Hiker says:

              Your post to Nancy was hostile. Your “argument” is silly. Who knows where there are more people CAPABLE of abusing animals?

              However, given a firearm, access to wildlife, and the attitude that it’s ok for abuse, then you’ll find it. Is this more likely in “leftist strongholds” that are typically urban and see very little wildlife or where hunting occurs already?

              You attempted to make this political. You failed.

              I was abused. I lived in the heart of suburban L.A. I beat up other children. Mostly those who were equal in strength. I think I wanted to prove my worth. I grew out of it and haven’t struck anyone for over 35 years. Who knows what I might have done to innocent wildlife if I had access to them?

              • Mat-ters says:

                I admire you for breaking the chain of violence and joining the extensive group of those that use words and actions vs fists and guns, of which I am a lifetime member. One group that I’m proud NOT TO BE A MEMBER of is the animals before people crowd.


                This DOES NOT MEAN I hate animals …. not in the least and despise those that abuse animals! I loved my dogs! BUT, I understand animals place in this world. Putting animals before people is immoral! If my maker says something different than that then I don’t want to be part of that world. I don’t believe such is the case AND believe that those that do will need to answer for that some day!

                The heart of my posts here on TWN center on this. Some unequivocally go to far and are immoral!

          • Nancy says:

            Hiker – Mat-ters is here to disrupt and no doubt why he feels the need, often, to make off the wall comments that have little to do with the discussion.

            Mat-ters sole purpose here is to antagonize, saves having to actually research a topic and understand where other people might be coming from. Classic troll mentality 🙂



            • idaursine says:

              I saw that in the second link, the author states that there does come a time when, if the animal abuse isn’t stopped when the abuser is young, it may be too late.

              More time should be spent on the victims of the abuse, not handwringing over the abusers. Make people accountable for their behavior, not excuse it. Nobody said life was fair, and we all have to deal with ‘stuff’.

              Something is very wrong somewhere – either in the low importance society places on animal abuse, or how children are raised.

  60. Ida Lupine says:

    It could be so for some people, but I notice a trend where we as a group don’t wan to face that some people are just born this way – without empathy or compassion, and violent, even killers. We think that everyone is good, and that there must be a reason for why someone behaves the way they do, and that it can be fixed by teaching or therapy, or something. I don’t think it always can be fixed. This is the kind of attitude that allows this kind of thing to continue.

    There are many people who may have experienced violence or abuse, and it doesn’t make them heartless killers.

    Also, we have been taught that animals are lesser than human instead of different than human, and that they don’t have the same feeling or sentience of humans. I don’t know if it is religion or a conceit, but even with those who claim not to be religious it seems to be a holdover.

  61. Ida Lupine says:

    There was a recent story about a therapy-dog-in-training who was beaten to death by an inmate(s) at the Warren County Correctional Institution in OH.

    I was heart-sickened to read it, the thought of that poor, defenseless animal being put into a maximum security prison with violent inmates, and no one to help her. Of course, it could have been done by the guards in that overcrowded and drug-ridden place. It was very naïve, and shows we think everyone can be helped when maybe they can’t be.

  62. Ida Lupine says:

    Speaking of Evie, I never thought anything would be done for her, but I was wrong! And never happier to be:

    • idaursine says:

      Todd Wilkinson is a wonderful writer. I have not had any direct interaction with Mr. Fanning, but I have read some of his (dangerous) rhetoric, IMO. But then again, I suppose blustery rhetoric blows from both the East and West. 🙂

    • JEFF E says:

      oh for the good old days of the free for all’s at Newwest.

  63. Mat-ters says:

    insightful? An article that doesn’t say a thing about what happened to the 1200 moose that once roamed the Northern GYA AND exploits the fact that HUNTING of wolves is the reason the Northern herd is now coming back in areas OUTSIDE the park is not insightful.

    Pretty ironic that hunting of wolves, which Robert advocated and fought for, is the reason the Northern Elk herd has expanded on the northern most part of the range outside the park not in the predator pit called Yellowstone.

    • Hiker says:

      Again with the moose. You keep bringing that up but have yet to respond to our previous posts showing how their numbers dropped after the fires of ’88 and BEFORE wolves were there.

      Read this already!

      Then get back to me!

      • Mat-ters says:

        Hiker I don’t care what is in the National Parks Service propaganda page (which I did read) the need an excuse for what has happened to the moose. Tie that page to a “scientist” and your heading in the right direct. I asked for, and did not receive scientist/biologist & papers that say this is case and the major reason 95& plus of the NY moose herd has disappeared. Nice try.

        • Hiker says:

          Scientific evidence is posted at the bottom of their page. Obviously you didn’t read ALL of it. I’ve stated this before, but you seem to be too think-headed to understand.

  64. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Found: man who vanished before the Soviet Union collapsed to live as a hermit

    Former paratrooper conscript Timofey Menshikov wanted to escape modern life – and vodka – now faces reunion with family he left behind.

    A modern-day hermit has been located living alone in a tiny hut in the wilds of Yakutia, the coldest region of the world.

    Asked why he fled as the curtains came down on the USSR, he said: ‘What did I go away from? From vodka, to be honest with you.’

    He lives without a phone – ‘I don’t need one’ – and pays no taxes or fines, he says, but he has two dogs and a cat for company.

  65. idaursine says:

    I prefer to shed my tears over things like this. Only discovered around 45 years ago and already extinct! The ‘weather’ doesn’t look very good:

    “A small songbird native to Hawaii, the Po’ouli was discovered over 45 years ago. In 1981, its population topped some 150 birds, but saw a decline driven by invasive alien species, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

      • idaursine says:

        Sad. Gone forever. You wonder what has meaning in this crazy world. Always the fault of some ‘invasive, alien species’. 😉

        • Mat-ters says:

          idabear, As we have talked about before,

          The more I learn about species development & understand the resilience of nature the less afraid one should be of survival of the fittest…. among them homo-sapiens. If your truly interested in these unique type species instead of standing with those that brought wolves to Isle Royale (purportedly in the name of “science”) you should have stood with me and rejected it in the name of “the island effect”. Sad indeed.

          • Hiker says:

            Did you even read her link? “Then there is Snail Enemy Number One: the rosy wolfsnail. A predatory Florida snail introduced to Hawaii in the 1950s to control agricultural pests, it has an enormous appetite for other snails.”
            INTRODUCED to Hawaii by humans! Once again you prove your ignorance!

            Also, Hawaii is one of the most remote Island chains in the world! Comparing that to Isle Royale, which is about 15 miles from shore, is just plain dumb! When the lake is frozen in winter the island is no longer an island.

    • Immer Treue says:

      Echos of Wielgus?

      “Taking this position in 1992, apparently, was controversial. Once at the conference in the gorgeous city of Fortaleza, Ceara, Northeast Brazil, I learned I would not be delivering my paper. Instead, I joined a few professors in a small room wasting our time: debating agrarian reform and drawing recommendations destined to oblivion.

      Fear in the countryside

      This is just one example of what happens to unwelcomed ideas. Governments ignore or suppress them. Powerful media refuse to publish them.“

    • rork says:

      The author seems against pesticides and fertilizers – if they are synthetic. Makes fuzzy remarks about GMOs. Downplays the increased yields of the green revolution. Seems a bit anti-science and ideological. Science is allowing more fine tuned (precision) agriculture, better varieties, less fuel use, less tilling. Between 1982 and 2007, soil erosion on U.S. cropland decreased 43% says USDA (sorry to not have newer data), and farmers before 1940 were destroying the land near me. Heard about GMO chestnut trees or mangoes, improvements to photosynthesis efficiency, or C4-rice initiatives?
      He should also decide if he wants to talk about India or Iowa – land ownership patterns are rather different. Near me most farmers farm 6 or more farms, all but one of which they do not own the land of – they lease. We could have 6 farmers on those farms again and that way not use the dreaded “large machinery”, and be less precise, more erosive, more expensive, and burn more gas.
      I garden as if life depended on it, buy local, and buy very little animal derived food. OK, I bought some suet today. Ran out of deer fat.

  66. idaursine says:

    Unethical hunting guides:

    You’d think some of these clients would be embarrassed; this is a lot like the guide who maimed/captured and released mountain lions so that it would be easier for clients to get them. Disgusting.

    • Hiker says:

      It seems to me that their punishment is too lenient. All these wildlife violations are treated too softly. Where is the jail time? These laws need teeth if they are to be successful.

  67. Mat-ters says:

    Some have taken a sabbatical from posting here in the past. Most here will be happy to know I to will join that group….. with a possible exception or two…this will be my last for a while.

    Before I go, I’d like to address a post by Hiker.

    “Doesn’t seem to matter, to matter, it’s wolves are bad blah, blah, blah! Most of us here just want to protect the last intact places left in our country. Is that such a crime? Based on his posts Matters seems to think so.”

    What a bunch of bunk! Have I never ever said all wolves are bad? NOPE, I have said that protecting them to no end is bad and immoral. I have said that as they expand form good to marginal to bad habitat they need to be managed. I have said that unmanaged wolves WILL always become habituated as they will continue each year to test their limits. I have said that it is immoral to continue to promote “donate now” buttons in the name of wolves (or grizzlies) when they have reached the limits of good habitat and moving into marginal habitat. I have said that the grey wolf is not and never was an endangered species and those saying they are are endangers species denier or lap-in up EAJA dollars off the taxpayer(abuse). I have said that that it is immoral for environmental groups to continue to promote wolves in areas when they know they are a burden on the locals. I have said that protecting wolves doesn’t do anything to enhance the “protect(ion of) the last intact places” on this planet. I have said, It is a crime to claim that unmanaged wolves are ecological miracle workers as they expand around people their pets and livestock! I have said that eventual management by anything but hunting is immoral if put on the backs of taxpayers. I have said that EVEN IN good habitat/marginal they need to be managed around people for the sake and compassion all wildlife (as they were in all of North American history since around the dire wolf times).


    Thank you for giving me a profound understanding of the flimsy arguments for abusing our well-meaning Endangered Species Act and a better understanding of why some radicals have a hate for wildlife that are not predators. (wink)

    • Hiker says:

      And yet all you post is negative concerning wolves. This despite ALL evidence to the contrary.

      I’ve read all your posts and this is the first time I’ve seen you say ANYTHING about morality.
      “morals usually connotes an element of subjective preference”. Your subjective preference differs from mine. You’ve stated before that wolves need to be managed (hunted) in National Parks. I disagree. It’s that simple. When you bring morality into the picture you attempt to cloak your PREFERENCE in legitimacy. Just because YOU feel something doesn’t make it right or correct. In this country we have laws. Right or wrong the ESA protects wildlife and where they live.
      That’s something you have to live with. Good luck with that.

      In parting I will truly miss your posts. Whether I disagree with you or not you provided a different perspective on things. And I did AGREE with many things you posted. The value of human life being one of them.

      • Mat-ters says:

        I have not said wolves should be hunted in national parks…. I believe quite the contrary! I did say that the ecosystems like Yellowstone WOULD MOST CERTAINLY benefit from hunting. There is a difference! “Morality” talk – that’s meant for those that hold their moral “trophy hunting” nose so high they would cut it off going down grandma’s basement stair steps.

        Hiker, I just finished the book “A Conflict of visions” – Thomas Sowell. Great book for a white privileged racist like me (not to say I’m white as some believe here)! Inspiring! I believe Thomas Sowell is to economics as Dr Charles Kay is to ecology! I’ve read a few of Mark Levins books and want to read his latest best seller, etc ….. that’s where I’m headed with my free time.

        To be honest, I will miss sparing with you and others. Please don’t take my writing to serious here & to tell the truth I intentionally (most of the time) never re-read a post before hitting PC … for the benefit of the wildlife intellectual! (wink) Take care!

        • Hiker says:

          As confusing as ever! What’s the difference between not believing wolves should be hunted in National Parks and saying that those ecosystems would benefit from hunting? You HAVE said that wolves need to be managed in Yellowstone. You also said management should include hunting. You can’t have it both ways.

          I really don’t understand your talk about morality. If you intend your posts for an audience shouldn’t you make them clear? Your previous post on Jan. 9th used the word morals or immoral 4 times! This is the part of your posting I will NOT miss. You seem to enjoy being deliberately obtuse.

          “Please don’t take my writing to serious here ”
          I take your posts very seriously, especially when they are so full of errors or outright lies!

          “I intentionally (most of the time) never re-read a post before hitting PC … for the benefit of the wildlife intellectual! (wink) Take care!”
          I suggest you change your methods in life. Proofread yourself before posting. Reread other posts. Be sure of what you want to say. This has always been a weakness in your arguments. You can do better.

          • Immer Treue says:

            The entire concept of predator (wolf) management is different than deer or elk. Elk and deer: Differentiations between genders is easy; differentials between young and older males is easy, thus relative easy to slide population numbers one way or the other by concentrating on population segments.

            None of this is possible for predators/ wolves. Heck, there are folks out there who can’t tell the difference between a coyote, malamute, Siberian husky, German Shepherd, or for that matter, a golden retriever and a wolf. Gender differential, forget it. Other than attempting to knock down numbers, which may accidentally increase numbers, it’s probably best, other than removing repeat problem animals, to just leave them alone.

            Sure the population may expand, but self regulation due to food availability is the key. If you have a lot of deer or elk, you will find more wolves. The bottom line reads if you make a game farm out of certain wildlife, checks and balances are required other than man.

            • Nancy says:

              + 1 Immer.

            • Mareks Vilkins says:

              Space to survive: Even wolves need room, new USU study finds

              the conventional thinking is that large carnivores are limited by the abundance of prey in a given area,” MacNulty said. “But what these wolves are ultimately limited by is the amount of space they have to raise their pups in safety.”

              For those concerned about wolf populations, even when you have super abundant prey like in Yellowstone, there are limits to wolf population growth. There is an intrinsic limit to the number of wolves that occupy a given space,” MacNulty said, adding that because rival packs will attack and kill rival wolf pups, their numbers are self-limiting.
              “What this paper does say is, though there is this notion that wolves will increase like a locust without any sort of natural limit, that idea is not supported by the data,” he said.

              • Hiker says:

                “In Wilderness is the preservation of the world” Thoreau.

                “Seek the Wolf in thyself” Metallica.

              • idaursine says:

                Yes! 🙂

              • rork says:

                I think it might depend on where. In upper MI it sure seems density dependent (right now), but above lake Superior and other places where food gets thinner (or more difficult, like moose), the wolves may never get to the density limit. I did not invent this idea. I’ve wondered if the density limit gets lower since they want bigger areas, but that might be hard to know.

  68. Mareks Vilkins says:

    Wild Migrations: Atlas of Wyoming’s Ungulates

    This book is the definitive synthesis of these epic journeys as seen through the eyes of the biologists and wildlife managers who have studied the ungulates, or hoofed mammals, of Wyoming.

    Now for the first time, scientists armed with new satellite technology are discovering and describing ungulate migrations in detail never seen before.

    Each spread in this full color book investigates an ecological, historical, or conservation aspect of migration through clear and compelling maps, graphics, and photos

  69. Mareks Vilkins says:

    The first record of leopard Panthera pardus LINNAEUS ,1758 from the Pleistocene of Poland

    The leopard is one of the most successful species among large carnivores which should be linked with adaptability to habitats, opportunistic hunting behaviour and the fact that this cat consumes any animal it can hunt down. Leopards were widely distributed across most of Europe. Like in the past, in modern times they occupy many varied habitats, ranging from evergreen rainforests to semi-deserts. The leopard is able to live very high in mountains but usually avoids open tundra so it seems rather unexpected that this species could survive in open, cold “mammoth steppe” (SASSOV & R AYCHEV 1997; FISCHER 2000;TESTU 2006). Most localities of this species are known from the central and southern part of Europe and

    Biœnik Cave is the only known site with leopard remains located north of the Carpathians. Although localities with a similar northern latitude are known from Western Europe(SCHMID 1940;FISCHER 2000),the new record from Biœnik Cave shows that in the late Middle Pleistocene and early Late Pleistocene the leopard was present north of the Carpathian arch.

  70. Yvette says:

    USFWLS workers are getting called back so hunters have access to USFWS refuges. Given what has happened in other national parks this is probably a good thing.

    • idaursine says:

      After I thought about it, I thought that maybe they could keep an eye on things. 🙁

    • Hiker says:

      The Trump is being clever here: forcing parks to remain open (never done during past closures), allowing hunting and drilling. He’s keeping some people happy while depriving most of us of essential services. TSA people are quitting in droves, many feds are on unemployment. Also, during past closures employees were paid later for the time they didn’t work. During the shutdown of ’95 I essentially got over a week paid time off (and I wasn’t allowed to use the Park I was working at and living in). This closure is costing more than The Wall. It’s a bad joke for an idea that is ineffective at best and a colossal waste at worst. To me it’s like watching a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum that costs billions. Truly disturbing.

      • WM says:

        I am not disagreeing with your comment generally, but per your assertion above, in which national parks is hunting or drilling allowed?

        • Hiker says:

          Hunting and drilling not allowed in N.P. Just that N.P. are being kept open and hunting and drilling occurring on other public land despite no fed government.

          • Hiker says:

            Sorry, I do know of one N.P. where hunting is allowed. In Grand Teton N.P. hunting is allowed in some of the southern parts of the Park every fall.

            I was once leading a wildlife tour in Grand Teton and stopped on the side of the road to see some elk. No one left our van. A hunter pulled up next to me and said hunters were complaining that I was ruining their hunt. I was there less then 5 minutes…. On the side of the road…. in a National Park.

            I was “interviewed” for about 20 minutes by Wyoming Game and Fish later that week to see if I had broken the law by interfering with a hunt. I couldn’t believe that actually happened. Hunting is taken VERY seriously there.

      • Yvette says:

        Oh Hiker, don’t even get me started on that wall. It is an ecological disaster. I’ve been talking about since last spring. It cannot go up. In 2008, a porous fence caused major flooding during monsoon season. Any structure, solid wall, slats, steel or porous fence is likely to cause extinctions. And cause flooding in the Rio Grande Watershed.

        This wall may be the major fight of my life.

        Hiker, this is trump’s MO. ‘Wear them down until they give in”. With all of his failed real estate ventures he wouldn’t pay contractors. They would sue. He would wrangle them on and on in court until they had no more money to fight and were worn out. Trump cares about nothing and no one but Trump.

        I had planned on trying to travel down to the Santa Ana WL Refuge and the National Butterfly Center, which is ‘next door’ last fall. That didn’t work out. Hopefully I can get there in the late spring or summer.

        The feds started ripping out vegetation (on private land, no less!) that is critical to the butterfly migrations, last spring/summer.

    • idaursine says:

      It’s just been a continuous ‘creep’ ever since delisting. If anyone was naïve enough to think these states would ethically manage their carnivores, or care about the health of the species.

      It is my fondest hope that this never, ever, ever happens to grizzlies, because it will be the same fate for them.

    • Hiker says:


      • idaursine says:

        It is outrageous, and very offensive. I hope Park visitors, consumers and others will make their displeasure known, instead of accommodating this ever-increasing unethical behavior.

        The sad thing is that this was so predictable (and preventable) right from the start!

    • Nancy says:

      Here is Butch Gillespie’s email for anyone who wants to share theirs thoughts (and outrage) on this bill that will allow nonresident aerial gunning of predators.

      Rather than hold livestock growers responsible for the protection of their “product”, politicians continue to invent new ways to kill wildlife that are critical to the ecosystem.

      I also sent him this link:

  71. idaursine says:

    Thought I’d share, on the news this evening:

  72. Hiker says:

    Alaska, VERY different from the rest.

  73. Louise Kane says:

    plug in require overhauling wildlife policy in every state
    thanks to William Ripple for this

    This state allows hunting of the Alexander Archipelago wolf of which there are less than 200. Really, managing wildlife by states subjects them to artificial barriers, inherent bias and politics that don’t make good policies. we need a national act that states must follow -something that sets regulations at the least for public lands.

    • Yvette says:

      ++ Louise. I’ll have to read Ripple’s new study this weekend. And I think a few of us have been saying the hunting paradigm needs to evolve for the world we now live in.

      Read the article I just posted. It briefly mentioned the lack of genetic diversity in the Lobo and that is something I’ve wondered about since there are only 113 or 114 in the U.S. If Trump’s wall of death goes up there will soon be none.

  74. Immer Treue says:

    New Mexico Bans Coyote Killing Contests on State Lands

  75. idaursine says:

    I always feel heart-wrenched when I see pictures of coyotes, or occasionally see them in the wild – they always look so persecuted by humans! Even in that swimming video I posted, the poor animal seems to be running away from something or someone.

    Truly unconscionable treatment of animals in our modern times, and thank goodness these despicable bloody killing contests are being banned.

    • Hiker says:

      There are a few WILD places left where a coyote can be a coyote and not be persecuted. I often here them howling behind my apartment. One was maybe ten yards from the door two nights ago, singing its heart out. I heard them on Sunday at the base of some cliffs and the echo was eerie.

      • idaursine says:

        Awwww. I love hearing them too. It sounds exactly like the legends, yip-ee-ai-o. It’s too bad they are not respected. I remember I was on the phone, and I heard one right outside my back porch. They are welcome. But when I do see them (rarely), they always seem to be running for cover.

  76. rork says:
    2 separate wolf poachers caught in upper MI. Both wolves had collars, and the researchers noticed when things weren’t right.

  77. Yvette says:

    Most of you will enjoy this article. Seriously enjoy it.

    • Nancy says:

      Nice read, thanks for posting it Yvette.

    • idaursine says:

      Wonderful. Nice illustration too. Thanks!

    • idaursine says:

      I also wanted to say that the Mexican wolf is very distinctive looking, with the fur tufts at their ears, aren’t they? No mistaken identities with coyotes, I don’t think.

  78. Nancy says:

    “The agency has no evidence suggesting the wolves are being baited” Interesting that they had to point this out. Hmmm.

    Now just to give everyone and idea of how “big” Cooke City is and its relationship to wilderness areas
    click below, zoom in a couple of times and drag a bit to the left.,-109.879074,13

  79. idaursine says:

    Was this the wolf that was shot only 5 miles outside the northern boundary of the Park?

    If people don’t like these logical conclusions that people would naturally come to, since baiting is and been historically a tactic, I wish they would take more of a stand against killing wolves near Park borders.

    They can’t have it both ways, IMO – ‘catering to both’ (or all three!) hunters, anti-wolf types, and wildlife watchers! Otherwise, I hope the watchers will take their business elsewhere.

  80. idaursine says:

    Just plain fear-mongering propaganda. I hope people are smarter than this.

    Here’s more, wolves ‘roaming the streets’. *Eyeroll*:

  81. idaursine says:

    So the streets of Cooke City have descended into lawlessness *eyeroll*. So they haven’t seen any evidence of baiting; well, let’s see – how about ‘accidentally leaving our cattle and elk carcasses’? We’ve heard it all before.

    It’s not that I don’t understand the ranchers’ position, but they take it to extremes, and get the majority of the governments attention and compensation for it, whether very low grazing fee and rights to the public lands, or beck-and-call extermination programs.

    Look how closely this tiny population of Mexican wolves is watched! I wish the majority of ordinary people would be as diligent. And we all remember the recent trapping and beating to death of a Mexican wolf. Look at the source and the detail:

    A Mexican wolf again is very distinctive looking – to me, a much thicker, shorter muzzle than a coyote, the muzzle is almost turned up, and very alert, tufted ears and longer fur.

  82. idaursine says:

    In case anyone has forgotten:

    “A man in New Mexico admitted that he knew exactly what he was doing when he set a trap in the Gila National Forest, on the allotment of public land where he grazed his cattle.

    When he found a wolf caught in his trap, he knew that the tracking collar the wolf was wearing meant that he was a very rare Mexican gray wolf.

    He then killed the wolf with a shovel.”

    Until these ranchers (and they make them all look bad) act in a civilized manner, with all of the available options they have to go to – no one should ever bow and scrape to accommodate them,or listen to their whining about how tough it is for them. They already get more than they should, IMO.

    I’m glad that the wildlife advocate agencies walked out in Oregon, rather than support this kind of thing.

  83. rork says:
    Latest and greatest wolf genetics paper, somewhat readable I think though under-the-hood-math often terribly complicated (we’ve come a long way). I tested and it’s visible to the public. Tidbit or two:
    – the bottleneck for the Mexican wolves is very bad, for others pretty bad.
    – our dogs have polluted wolf genomes for a long time, how good or bad is difficult.
    – wolf ancestor to dogs is extinct.
    I was a bit disappointed at so little data, for wolves, and North American dogs. It’s likely hard to get money. We sequence thousands of humans. I thought understanding dog genome vs phenome relations was a sharp tool to dissect human disease, and that folks were active there. We have all these breeds with varying susceptibilities to various diseases is the idea.

    I was alerted by a nice person who cares deeply for wolves (and lynx and everything else). Thank you so much Latvijas Vilki. I am in your debt again.

  84. Hiker says:

    Why some states fail when they want to manage wildlife:

  85. idaursine says:

    ^^There’s a name for people like this.

    They tried that ‘jesting’ before about moving wolves to other states, only when some said bring ’em in, they really didn’t mean it. 😉

    They’ve already howled about bring grizzlies to the Cascades.

  86. idaursine says:

    In fact, I can think of several, epic fail being two.

    Some are howling about wolves on Isle Royale too, only it is none of their business – no hunting, no ranching.

  87. idaursine says:


    “Getting those carcasses off the landscape should improve human and bear safety.” – Clayton Lamb

    I wish someone would immortalize proper disposal of household trash, no feeding of bears, and removal of dead cattle and sheep in legislation; but I do hope that now that problem bears are going to be moved to California, that WY is held to their law. 🙂

  88. idaursine says:

    That continues to show that a hunting season is not necessary – that there are procedures in place already for the so-called ‘problem’ bears.

    I’m worried that a lot of land around this stupid border wall is going to be taken by eminent domain. It won’t keep anyone out for long, but it will cause serious harm to wildlife. 🙁

    • idaursine says:

      What a gorgeous photo.

      But I wish, reading the article, that the writer would not refer to inbreeding, a situation that humans have put much wildlife in by isolation, fences and barriers, and habitat commandeering as incest (with its human moral implications)!

    • Hiker says:

      I was just there with my family and after four days of rain the burned areas looked so green with new grass. I went hiking twice at Big Sycamore Canyon, in the Santa Monica Mtns. National Recreation area, a NPS unit. There were many people hiking and biking throughout the many trails. I saw turkey vultures, ravens, red-tailed hawks, marsh hawks, white tailed kites, gophers, rabbits, squirrels, and even one deer! I hope the Mtn. Lions can adapt and survive.

  89. Louise Kane says:

    This was a terrible tragedy….
    I’ll never forget the sadness I felt learning of the planned execution of these wolves. Humans can be so terrible

    • idaursine says:

      Yes, and I worry that some are gunning for OR-7 too, I hope he is being protected and watched careful. It will be unconscionable if he is deliberately killed. If even the Yellowstone wolves have been deliberately targeted, I worry.

      I don’t like that the wolf haters pretend to be hunters, and hide behind ‘legal hunting season’, when the simply want to destroy wolves, and in the process the people who want them and like to see them in Yellowstone. I don’t know why it continues to be treated like ordinary hunting. That sorry excuse who killed ’06.

      People have made mistakes and have mistreated wildlife terribly in what you would think is in the distant past, and in the modern world this kind of thinking should not persist as it does.

      • idaursine says:

        Watched carefully, I should have written.

        Also, anyone who is giving out tracking collar info to these people is just willfully naïve.

  90. idaursine says:

    Here’s one rancher’s method of deterring wolves, and claims OR-7 has been seen annually at his ranch:

  91. Louise Kane says:

    slap on the wrist. when people do things like this they are not new to the crimes. nor are they likely to change their nasty behaviors. They lack moral character, integrity, humanity, and can not be trusted. They should be jailed. Until these crimes are treated as harshly as they are meted out against wildlife, they will continue. What rotten apples.

    • Hiker says:

      More horror stories from the stinking swamp that Trump promised to drain! What a bad joke that continues for our country.

  92. idaursine says:

    “Montana state Sen. Mike Phillips, D-Bozeman, introduced four bills to protect wildlife and the Humane Society of the United States is hoping that they gain the support needed to pass the legislature.
    One bill creates a buffer zone to prevent the trophy hunting of wolves on the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park.

    Another calls for a study of the economic benefits that wolf- and grizzly bear-watching tourism bring to Montana.

    Another bans cruel, unsporting and wasteful killing contests for species such as coyotes, foxes and bobcats. The Humane Society of the United States released an investigation of a wildlife killing contest in Oregon yesterday [add link to blog].

    The fourth bill criminalizes the deliberate striking and killing of wildlife with off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles.”

    Thank you!

  93. Louise Kane says:

    Dear Interested Party:

    The purpose of this e-mail is to inform you that, due to the partial government shutdown from December 22, 2018 to January 25, 2019, the 30-day period of public review and comment for the Coconino NF proposed changes to the monitoring strategy has been extended. Originally this opportunity was available from December 24, 2018 through January 23, 2019. We are now extending this period to the end of next month, February 28, 2019.

    The proposed changes, specifically the transition from management indicator species to focal species, identifying and monitoring for these focal species, are specified in the document previously sent to you, “Coconino National Forest Monitoring Transition to Focal Species.” They
    are also posted to the web at

    Thank you to those of you who have already submitted comments on this proposed change or otherwise responded to the December 21 notice. The forest will carefully consider all comments received on this proposed administrative change before finalizing this change. You may send your comments via e-mail to:, or via letter to:

    Annette Fredette, Forest Planner
    Coconino National Forest
    1824 S. Thompson Street
    Flagstaff, AZ 86001


    Laura Jo West
    Forest Supervisor
    Coconino National Fores

  94. Nancy says:

    “Bradley had butchered a pair of cows a few days earlier and dumped the leftovers, far from her home and away from her cattle, in an empty field where a grizzly found it”

    Home range of a grizzly is 70 to over a 100 miles. As long as ranchers continue to dump dead cows (or leave dead livestock laying around) where bears can find them, bears (and wolves) will take advantage of that free meal AND get a taste for livestock.

    • Hiker says:

      The problem, as I see it, is that these Western ranchers are attempting to make a living on marginal habitat. The arid west is not the best place to practice modern ranching. They abuse public land and then whine about problem bears. They raise beef on OUR dollar then ship it overseas. They think of themselves as independent capitalists then demand access to cheap grazing on OUR land! Welfare ranching must stop.

      • Mat-ters says:

        Hiker, execrating such lopsided rhetoric on this thread may make you a hero to some but, those in the west and communities that utilize BLM grazing don’t share your attacking verber. These arid lands make excellent buffer zones to the great ranch lands of the west. Successful 4th and 5th generations of ranchers have learned to harmoniously and sustainable raise cattle units in perpetuity within their environments. I don’t think that your “OUR” squared comment reflects the local sentiments especially the school districts that benefit from this great way to seasonally utilize these transition areas to the fine ranching communities. May I suggest that you and the others that soak up your pomposity do the right thing & work with these BLM lease holders and retire those that would be more strategically beneficial to wildlife. Great wildlife groups like RMEF and DU don’t squawk, croak and spew venom at ranchers …… yet get the job done!

        Just finished “Debating Immigration” by Carol Swain. Excellent book .. educational! Don’t look like I’m missing much here.

        • Nancy says:

          Lopsided rhetoric? Hardly. Add this to your reading list, Matters and then get back to those of us here who are eyewitnesses to the destruction of pubic lands & wildlife, by those 4th & 5th generation ranchers.

          • Mat-ters says:

            Nancy, Isn’t reading George on ranching the same as reading Jim Acosta on Immigration? I listen to both ABC and Fox for my news for good reason….. If you were balanced you would know the opposite side of the Ranching argument as I do! Just whom is on that other side of the Ranching equation Nancy? I’m willing to bet you have no clue??? But then again I’ve been wrong before…but not very often. You have no interest in sharing Federal lands with the local people do you…..? you want it all for yourself so you can run wolves as thick as sin and run any local rancher of off their own private…. Lands that if they had to pay property taxes and didn’t get breaks on payroll and gas taxes, the lands would be subdivided and sold off for things other than ranching and NOT YOUR disgusting predators! You and George could be your own worst enemy and are too obdurate to know better?? All driven by hate for ranching and hunters. All along the food chain this government has correctly not burdened the producers and distribution with taxes…YES…. that is everywhere! Beef is a going no where on the menu. I have a good mind to see how George treats the huge payroll taxes paid by ranchers in his book. I did put it on my reading list….

            Now, I have more reading to do…. Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Michelle Obama, Bill O’reilly

            • Nancy says:

              “For example, he used to use caustic, sarcastic humor to put people down. “This really drove people away,” says Einbinder. He also recalls sending angry emails late at night after lying awake and ruminating about things that had happened during the day. A counselor helped him see why this wasn’t such a good way to handle problems”


            • Hiker says:

              Matters, ranchers in the West don’t pay their fair share.
              ” I have a good mind to see how George treats the huge payroll taxes paid by ranchers in his book.”

              Are you’re saying that it’s worth it for everyone to pay taxes to have welfare ranchers overgraze vast areas in the West? Just so we can have slightly more beef and some payroll taxes? I thought you were an anti-wolf, pro-hunting guy. Can’t you see that all those cows are eating grass that could feed YOUR prey?
              You said “All along the food chain this government has correctly not burdened the producers and distribution with taxes”. Have you considered the reason for this is that these ranchers are well connected politically?

              • Nancy says:

                Yeah not sure what that “huge payroll tax” would be since most of the ranchers around here have Maybe 1, 3 at the most, fulltime employees. Most help is seasonal.

                Family (brothers, fathers, wives, children, relatives) do the bulk of the work and like any business I doubt they draw a salary (putting it back into the business) They are housed and fed by the ranch which no doubt are sizable write offs.

                Property taxes on Ag land is a fraction of what the average property owner pays around here.

                • Mat-ters says:

                  oHHH cOME oN Hiker, as with Nancy on this subject you have no clue what the other sides argument is! “The typical Center of Biodiversity play book tells the predator lover to say the market rate is “10 times” their rate….. ANY lease getting “10 times” the BLM rate would be in a PRIME location (valley floor) where grazing could be sustained ALL seasons with simple rotation to different parts. This prime location is bid-ed up with the knowledge NO trucking of cattle would be needed and all watering needs are easily met and minimal oversight for predators is needed. In contrast, the BML lease is for a one- or two-month single rotation where the cattle are trucked to and from the location. ONLY limited ranches in the vicinity of the lease would be interested in it, driving down its value. Depredation in these areas warrants constant range riding, also driving down its value…. Sometimes watering needs to be trucked in at these places OR cattle removed during dry periods…again more driving down of its value. Those like Nancy that want you to believe that these “welfare” ranchers are getting something for free…hogwash!”

                  Distruction??? Only agenda driven dullards think that seasonally managed part-time cattle are destructive vs unmanaged fulltime bison….. You gotta love it. These cattle are good for fire suppression AND the other wildlife that utilize the fresh regrowth as naturally happens with migrating bison! Get off the agenda driven train and start to with and demanding responsibility from your radical groups to change their ways and start a new strategic BLM leaseholders retirement and promote strategic use of BLM lands that make good transition to private lands.


              • Mat-ters says:

                “Have you considered the reason for this is that these ranchers are well connected politically?” One has to laugh…. taxing the food chain is a great way to saddle the hungry inside and outside of this country with the burden of a bloated, fiscally incompetent Federal Gov-ment. What compassion you have Hiker.(wink)

                ….back to my reading, wasted to much time already.

                ohhhh , one more thing….. History tells us that in the past the Democratic party understood that illegal immigration added workers to the lower end of the pay spectrum which did two things, kept wages lower (especially the poor) due to supply and demand & adds to unemployment. They supported good boarders. Also, in the past, business & the chamber of commerce leaders loved illegal immigration for it added workers that would work for very little… & “got our crops picked” They supported open boarders.
                …..NOW in today’s climate the Democratic leaders have turned that paradigm on its head and now love illegal immigrants …. because they (Dems & Libs) are “compassionate”!? Compassionate to whom?? The illegal immigrant woman that are taken advantage of to get here illegally?…. They (D&L’s) in their victim hood world want voters and couldn’t give a hoot for those in their party that are adversely affected.

                It’s funny to watch Pelosi flip off a huge and shrinking swath of her own voters to deprive Trump and his voters (some of whom have move parties because of this issue) a political victory…..

                At least illegal immigrants have been given a status higher than the wolf … as should be! Sir Roger Scruton would be proud! He hit the nail on the head in his book: Animal Rights and Wrongs… one of the book I just read!

                • Hiker says:

                  Hi Matters! you said “taxing the food chain is a great way to saddle the hungry inside and outside of this country with the burden of a bloated, fiscally incompetent Federal Gov-ment. ” Yet that same “Gov-ment” supplies the poorest with food stamps.
                  Don’t make it so easy for me! You gotta come up with something better than that!

                  All I’m saying is that most ranchers in the West pay a very small fee to graze their cattle on public land. That fee doesn’t cover the cost of said grazing. Therefore WE, as tax payers, subsidize their profits. Also, the amount of beef that is produced in the arid West is a small percentage of the whole. I doubt if these welfare ranchers paid a higher fee it would have that much of an impact on prices. After all, a lot of that beef is exported after we have paid (in more ways than one).
                  I also find it interesting that you have a problem with Democrats, apparently, changing their minds. It doesn’t matter what they stand for now?
                  Even though the shutdown was hard on hundreds of thousands of citizens (Gov-ment employees mostly), I’m glad they haven’t backed down yet. If they cave on this what will Trump demand next? If you think the wall will be effective you haven’t watched the news lately. Anyone with a ladder or shovel can beat that “great big, beautiful, wall”. And anyone who believes the price tag has a short memory. Remember when we were told the Iraq war would pay for itself? One trillion dollars later….

                  “….back to my reading, wasted to much time already. ” Enjoy your reading. I miss you already.

                • Immer Treue says:

                  “Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshiping.”

                  ― Hubert Reeves

        • Hiker says:

          Welcome back Matters! Unlike you I seem able to read a few books and continue to “spew venom at ranchers”. I’m glad that you are back to read my “lopsided rhetoric”. Always a joy to make fun of your ironic statements!

          Honestly, don’t you see that when you describe my posts in a negative way you are describing YOURSELF!

          The fact that you are willing to defend welfare ranchers is laughable. It seems you still believe that it’s sustainable if it’s done for a hundred years. Maybe you should read some American history for a change or just remember the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s.

          “those in the west and communities that utilize BLM grazing don’t share your attacking verber” I love how you are a champion of so many!

          How can you argue with my “our land” comment? Is public land somehow not belonging to the American people? Are we expected to “do the right thing & work with these BLM lease holders” when these people REFUSE to change! Ranchers should be required to remove ALL carcasses from PUBLIC land. Is it not littering? Wouldn’t you get a ticket if YOU were caught dumping garbage on OUR land?
          I’ll repeat myself: “The arid west is not the best place to practice modern ranching.”

        • Rich says:


          What happened to your promise to go bye-bye? You can’t even keep the commitment you made a few days ago to go away. That reflects an immature mind. Admit it – you are drawn to this forum like a moth to a flame. It is time to man up and recognize the comments here far exceed your reading and comprehension level.

          • Immer Treue says:

            Most of the online news and outdoor sites he used to haunt have closed their comment sections. There are few places remaining for him to vent and spew. So he graces us with his presence -Sarcasm intended.

          • Mat-ters says:

            Rich, I play a salient role in posting here. We must nevertheless present all possible interpretations for each observation, so that competing theories can be formulated and defended. In science, as elsewhere, intellectual inertia, the fashions of the moment, the weight of institutions, and authoritarianism are always to be feared. Heresies play an essential role by keeping our minds argumentative and alert. “Wink (to Immer)” Have a good day

  95. idaursine says:

    Also, I have no doubt that conflicts with wildlife and ranchers’ cattle will always have to be resolved.

    But it makes no sense to me to have an immediate hunting season for animals removed from the Endangered Species list, and to have it tie in to recreational killing, and really nothing to do with ranching!

    Ranchers already have remedies in place to the point of literal overkill – they’ve got government ‘Wildlife Services’ to come in, state departments of fish and wildlife to come in, and on their own lands, they can shoot and trap problem animals. There’s a lot of unethical behavior that goes on too, such as baiting, poaching, killing contests, and the SSS crowd.

    So if it was strictly a matter of ranchers and cattle, it would be one thing, but it is not.

    That woman who continues to dump carcasses should be issued a citation. Do ranchers think that too is their right?

  96. idaursine says:

    ^^a citation from the police, environmental police, F&W, citizens arrest, anything!

    I wish that the people making these decisions would take a good, hard realistic look at the darker underbelly of this, instead of never wanting to admit than anyone would ever be dishonest or unethical, or not honor their word.

    Once an animal is delisted, the states can do whatever they want, and they do. You’ll lose any progress that was made, and the bears will be endangered again.

    It happens over and over again, the congressional override to delist wolves, the lying about cooperative sage grouse protections.

    Advocates do not have a sense of trust.

  97. idaursine says:

    And I should add, until that dark underbelly element is acknowledged and addressed, an animal should *never* come off of the Endangered Species List.

    If the states want control, that should mean no Federal help from Wildlife Services. But I think the states are again being disingenuous here; they’ll still want money from the Feds all the while decrying them. We’ll see.

  98. idaursine says:

    I’m actually heartened by the legislative proposals by Mike Phillips; he does point out the uncivilized killing derbies and contests, the deliberate running down in snowmobiles, and the general whooping it up reveling in the killing of wildlife. How to prove it in court will be the thing.

    We know that a kind of “I Didn’t Know the Gun was Loaded” defense will be tried.

  99. idaursine says:

    I’m sure the ranchers can take a little venom. And have been known to spit out a little venom of their own.

    Yes, some of us are guilty of impotent rage in the frustration of it all, but many out West actually go out and really do destroy wildlife, take over wildlife refuges, treat other living things like garbage, intimidate those who would challenge them, literally run roughshod over historic sites for the sake of stupid ATV access, and yet get a handshake and a kaffeeklatsch, even preferential treatment, from F&W latest at Joshua Tree.

    I’m going to continue to read the wonderful article by Maximillian Werner with a refill of a cuppa.

  100. idaursine says:

    ^^oops, that should have read ‘from F&W and the authorities. Malheur comes to mind, and the latest disrespect at Joshua Tree.

  101. Larry Keeney says:

    Disrespect at Joshua Tree, the Malheur and now concertina wire to entangle and kill ANY species attempting to cross the Mexican/US border in the course of exercising their own habitat for survival. I am talking about any wildlife from jaguars to lizards and the birds that see the wire a seemingly obvious place to perch. Everyone should write to Rep. Raúl Grijalva to advocate for a complete listing of all animals found dead from entanglement in wire.

    • idaursine says:

      It does seem that those who don’t want any kind of wildlife on the landscape are falling back on the ‘public safety’ trope, especially when science and facts are not on their side.

      To read about having to go all the way back to a film “Night of the Grizzlies” as part of their legal defense shows how little they have.

      A lot has changed since the ’60s, having park visitors not feed bears and take care with their food and garbage as attractants have made a huge difference.

      I worry about the grizzly’s food source, can we expect an animal that large to live and be healthy on just moths? That seems like the suggestion we are asked to accept. They should have deer and elk, berries, salmon and whatever else they have adapted to eating.

  102. WM says:

    Wolf poop researcher says WA population closer to 200, than the “official number of 122.”

    Emperical evidence Dr. David Mech’s assertion that state wolf population counts are conservative by greater than 10 percent, and that the error grows with larger wolf range and dispersal.

    Eastern WA – Western WA opposition/support for wolf recover evident in dialogue in the Legislature.

    • Hiker says:

      I read that news report and I have questions.
      How many dogs were used? How was this study funded? Do they do DNA