Have you seen interesting wildife news? June 3, 2010

Note that this replaces the 10th edition. That edition will now move slowly into the depths of the blog.

Antelope on the Big Desert NW of Mud Lake, Idaho. March 2010. Copyright Ralph Maughan

Please don’t post entire articles here, just the link, title and your comments about the article. Most of these violate copyright law. They also take up too much space.

318 Responses to “Have you seen interesting wildife news? June 3, 2010”

  1. Save bears Says:

    Nice Prairie Goats Ralph..

    Wink!

    • Cord Says:

      SB,

      Careful, that might offend someone who “doesn’t follow the lazy vernacular of “prairie goat””

    • Cody Coyote Says:

      They aren’t even Antelope. There are no members of the Antelope family in North America. They are Pronghorn, a different beast.

      Just as there are no Mountain LIONS… whom are panthers, cougars, puma or catamount. But not lions. Vultures are not really buzzards, either.

      The vernacular of wildlife in the common tongue has fallen to a low standard. I try not to speak Western Redneck unless I have to…

    • Save bears Says:

      Well us biologists have a tendency to talk western redneck Cody…

    • Save bears Says:

      Hell Cody,

      No worries, every body run around calling Bison, Buffalo, and when I was in school we used the terms Lion, Antelope and all kinds of other terminology, that probably don’t agree with some..

    • JimT Says:

      CC, ,

      Actually, there are current investigations going in in the Northern Kingdom of New England that are tending to confirming the first catamount presence in a long long time.

      Ditto in southern Arizona for jaguar, only there they have seen live jaguars and found bodies.

      So, we have at least two “lions” according to your self generated list…:*)

  2. WM Says:

    SB, Cord,

    {My last comment appears to have gone with the 9th edition which is working its way to the bowels of the blog.}

    I offer the very last portion of that comment again (a response to Mike).

    Mike, ……and, so you don’t get confused or blindsided with the vernacular of the West, in which the term does not always give clues to its origin:

    marmot = whistle-pig or land beaver
    cow = slow elk
    forest grouse = chicken (you get a clue here if called forest chicken)
    male steelhead = buck; female = hen (bet you can’t tell the difference between the two)

    There are more but I’m in a hurry right now. Maybe somebody else can expand the list for you.

    • Ryan Says:

      Antalope – speed goat
      Moose – Swamp donkey
      Elk – Small bull = Pisscutter, raghorn,
      Spruce Grouse = Fool hen
      Cow or Doe- Slick head
      Fawn or Calf- Toe Head
      Salmon close to spawning – Darkie, toby, boot, tar baby
      Steelhead – metal head, fast water trash fish
      Chinook – nookie, king, springer, fallie, tulie, spring
      Pink – Humpy
      Chum- Dog salmon
      Sockeye- Red
      Coyote – Song Dogs
      Sage Grouse – Sage hen, prarie chicken
      Blacktailed ground squirrel – sage rat, squeek

    • JB Says:

      “Spruce Grouse = Fool hen”

      That one cracked me up!

  3. Si'vet Says:

    mossyback
    skinhead
    booner
    toad
    hog
    pot gut
    WM see what you’ve started

  4. Si'vet Says:

    Cody, there are no true western rednecks that name was given to a group of miners back east that were rebelling against the owners over pay and working conditions so when the would go to brawl they wore a red bandana around their necks so they could differentiate each other during the frey.

  5. Si'vet Says:

    Cody forgot to add.. LOL
    I don’t know how to do the smiley face.

  6. JimT Says:

    Not a focused wildlife story since it contains an NPR story on the “tossing under the wheels” of Liz Bernbaum by Salazar. There is a current wildlife seminar just concluding at the law school at CU in Boulder, and folks are almost to a person just disgusted with the blatant politicking by Salazar in this instance.

    I have tried watching the vids of the wildlife being killed by this oil gusher….too anguishing to watch for long.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127370816

    • WM Says:

      JimT,

      Have you been attending, and, if so, how was Harris Sherman, Undersecretary of Agriculture. responsible for the Forest Service, received at the conference?

    • JimT Says:

      Bestword I can say is slippery. A professor from U of Wyoming whose name escapes me…she works on grazing stuff and very well regarded…took him to task on the damage to a laundry list of things..habitat, watersheds, water quality, mono culture…that ranching on public lands has negatively impacted, and he mumbled some things about studies and positive movements….but completely didn’t answer her question.

    • WM Says:

      Possibly Deb Donahue at U of WY law school? Sherman is an adept politician, who has been around the block a few times- those are his roots – and he is a survivor. He is not one to over promise and under deliver, in my experience. If he moves out on anything it will be after careful study. He has been in his position all of, what, about 6 months now?

      There is still hope, but I doubt it will satisfy all. One has to remember there are Western state Congresspersons in powerful positions who will no doubt be obstacles to major change. Enforcing existing regulations would be nice, however.

  7. Nancy Says:

    Si’vet,
    Having roots back east, I heard the term “redneck” came from what a farmer’s neck looked like (between the hat and the shirt) after a few days in the fields, compared to the rest of the body which was usually covered and quite white. Then it slowly evolved into defining ones lack of intelligence.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Nancy,

      I head that too, only it was supposedly the South.

    • JB Says:

      Having grown up around farmers, I can attest to the “redneck” effect. Of course, today’s combines have air conditioning, GPS, and MP3 players, so I’m not sure if the redneck effect is still even applicable.

  8. Nancy Says:

    Virginia to be exact Ralph. And there was talk at one time about splitting the state (doing a northern & sourthern thing) even West Virginia got its share of hardcore jokes when it came to rednecks. But the real rednecks were even further south, as in the Carolinas.

    My sister developed a southern “twang” to her speech which no one in the family could really relate to. But then again, it took me awhile to drop the “ya’ll” , when I moved west (that and removing the keys from my car when stopped by a neighbor’s place)

  9. WM Says:

    There is even an essay (in the book Abbey’s Road) by Edward Abbey on “In Defense of the Redneck” which is highlighted on the following link that seems to tie alot of what ya’ll been sayin’ and maybe yer all right.

    http://www.savetheredneck.com/history.htm

  10. SEAK Mossback Says:

    Here’s a recent article that appears to have gotten a lot of press, including even a financial website or two because of the analogy they use to describe the benefits of portfolio diversification in salmon stocks.
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=salmon-runs-portfolio

  11. Si'vet Says:

    Nancy,Ralph, JB, you one uppers, I’m the winner kind of. Until I read a book on it I thought it was a farmer/trailer trash deal. Wrong, Wrong, actually it kind of started over in Ireland, but here in the US, the Virginian miner is the real deal, red bandana’s, go to original rednecks. And actually it’s supposed to be a compliment. Finally after all these months I win. LoL

    • Angela Says:

      I think you are all right. It can be used by rural folk with a sense of pride, sort of like other groups defuse derogatory slang by using it themselves, but is used as derogatory when referring to groups of people you feel are uneducated or less sophisticated. In fact, the same sentiments seem to persist today in politics, except that corporations and politicians sometimes co-opt groups of people for their own ends, resulting in people rallying against policies like universal health care that would actually be in their interest.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck
      “By the 1970s, the term had turned into offensive slang and had expanded its meaning to mean bigoted, loutish and opposed to modern ways, and was often used to attack Southern conservatives and segregationists.”

  12. Si'vet Says:

    Forgot to add smiley face..

  13. Mike Says:

    ++Antalope – speed goat
    Moose – Swamp donkey
    Elk – Small bull = Pisscutter, raghorn,
    Spruce Grouse = Fool hen
    Cow or Doe- Slick head
    Fawn or Calf- Toe Head
    Salmon close to spawning – Darkie, toby, boot, tar baby
    Steelhead – metal head, fast water trash fish
    Chinook – nookie, king, springer, fallie, tulie, spring
    Pink – Humpy
    Chum- Dog salmon
    Sockeye- Red
    Coyote – Song Dogs
    Sage Grouse – Sage hen, prarie chicken
    Blacktailed ground squirrel – sage rat, squeek++

    Thanks. I’ve documented every one of those species with photosvideo, and I still call them by their normal name. 😉

  14. Si'vet Says:

    Mike you win..

  15. Mike Says:

    The effects of lead bullets on wildlife:

    http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/index.jsp

    We’ve recently had a discussion on the effects of guns on wiping out widllife(which was unfortuantely sidetracked into personal attacks). Here’s a twist on the whole gun thing.

    How many here continue to use lead bullets, and thus risking the poisoning of numerous widllife species?

    “Dr. Barnett Rattner, USGS contaminant expert comments, “The magnitude of poisoning in some species such as waterfowl, eagles, California condors, swans and loons, is daunting.”

    Lead bullets poisoning Yellowstone ecosystem grizzlies:

    http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=3892

    Tragically, not only have guns played a large role in wiping out rare species and cheapning life(see prairie dog hunting)but the bullets have another horrifc side effect – one that causes lingering death laced with a long list of destestable symptoms.

    “The highest level of blood contamination he sampled in a grizzly bear was roughly 28 micrograms per deciliter, Rogers said. “That’s a pretty large chunk of lead they’ve eaten,” he said.

    • Save bears Says:

      Mike,

      The thread got sidetrack because you introduced information into the thread that had nothing to do with the subject you are now once again putting forward. Saying guns are dangerous, has nothing to do with poaching in Glacier or hush toned attempts to sell guns. Then you accused me of having a disdain for life, when you didn’t even know what you were talking about.

      If you want to prove a point about guns being dangerous, as if you need to, then stick to that subject and don’t interject information that is not pertinent to that subject matter..

      In my personal opinion, you were simply trying to take a swipe at hunters, of which the guy you said claimed he poached, if true is not a hunter, he is a criminal..

    • Mike Says:

      ++Saying guns are dangerous, has nothing to do with poaching in Glacier or hush toned attempts to sell guns. ++

      The point was that yes, people are out there next to our national parks with guns either poaching or claiming to poach.

      You don’t think poaching next to Glacier national park has anything to do with the effect of guns on wildlife? Strange.

      ++If you want to prove a point about guns being dangerous, as if you need to, then stick to that subject and don’t interject information that is not pertinent to that subject matter..++

      I’m not usre if it was pertinent, but painted a picture of a smarmy gun culture having negative effects on national park land.

      ++
      In my personal opinion, you were simply trying to take a swipe at hunters, of which the guy you said claimed he poached, if true is not a hunter, he is a criminal..
      ++

      Many poachers also hold hunting licenses…..

    • Save bears Says:

      If they are poachers they are not hunters and legitimate hunters do everything in their power to get these people out of the woods, you seem to have a difficult time understanding that the majority of criminal activity reported is by hunters. In the state of Montana over 90% of the illegal poaching is reported by licensed hunters, hunter are more adamant about getting criminals taken out of the equation..

      You continue to try and push your agenda about poachers being hunters, and are simply blind to the truth..

      Ask anyone that is a hunter the contributes to this blog and you will find we all don’t condone poaching in any way, shape or form…

    • Mike Says:

      ++If they are poachers they are not hunters and legitimate hunters do everything in their power to get these people out of the woods, you seem to have a difficult time understanding that the majority of criminal activity reported is by hunters. ++

      This is a very pedantic outlook, Save Bears. Of course you can be a hunter and a poacher. Sure, there are plenty of ethical hunters. Of that there is no doubt. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t hunters who poach.

    • Chris Harbin Says:

      While the above posts about rednecks are highly entertaining (there are plenty here in KY), I believe that this is a catch-all wildlife thread. So I don’t see why Mke could not post something different – besides that was a thread that probably should have been sidetracked!
      SB, I have no grievance with you or that you hunt but I did not see in the immediate post where he mentioned you name or you having a disdain for life – perhaps it was earlier.
      Finally, I agree that hunting (like a lot of things) can both legal and/or criminal.

    • Save bears Says:

      Mike,

      Once they poach, they are not hunters, they are criminals, they broke the law, and us legitimate hunters do everything in our power to report and get rid of them, that is why, when you ask a hunter what the penalties should be say…Ban them from hunting for life, make it a felony, so they can’t own guns any longer, ensure they have no access to public resources any longer, why in the hell can’t you understand that????

    • Save bears Says:

      Chris,

      Go back to the other “have you seen anything interesting wildlife news”

      Mike was quite down on me, with his posts, as was I with him, because he made accusations that he did not back up, and when questioned, he didn’t like it..I posted something about a “prairie goat” and was immediately accused of shooting prairie dogs, which I have never done in my life..and he still has failed to say anything more about how he didn’t know what the heck he was talking about, but still chosses to make disparaging statements..

      it is clear, that Mike and I have a completely different view of the world!

  16. Rita K. Sharpe Says:

    I always rather thought it wasn’t about the gun but it was about the person behind the gun.

    • Save bears Says:

      Rita,

      It is 100% the person behind the gun, the gun is an inanimate object that will do nothing with out someone deciding to do something with it…

    • Mike Says:

      You are right, Rita. Unfortunately many, many people who own guns lack self awareness and respect for life. An example:

      (do not watch if you are offended by trashy behavior)

    • Elk275 Says:

      Mike if they want to shoot prairie dogs then that is they business. I have a friend that has a ranch in North central Montana; he loves prairie dog hunters as the little critters eat lots and lots of grass. It is private land. I like to shoot gophers on the weekends and there are many landowners that welcome gopher shooter’s. Gophers can and do ruin ditches, pastures and carry disease. I know one lady who does not like hunting but welcomes gopher hunters. Her place is overrun with gophers. One could shoot gophers everyday of the week and never put a dent in the population. Come spring many, many gophers will die in the ground and never emerge.

      My subdivision and the subdivisions around mine hire professional gopher exterminators. They pump propane down the gopher holes and then ignite the gas.

      Gophers are vernacular for Richardson Ground Squirrels.

    • Angela Says:

      Saying you kill animals because they “carry disease” is a cop out. This is an excuse used by anyone who wants to get rid of wildlife for any reason, whether they are cliff swallows nesting on a building, ground squirrels for sport, or wolves. Show me some statistical data on humans dying because of contracting something from a ground squirrel in the last 30 years. I’d respect a person more if they just admitted they get a thrill out of killing animals. I doubt you spend your weekends doing it for humanitarian reasons.

      “Ectoparasites such as fleas tend to have strong species-specific host preferences, so they rarely jump from ground squirrels onto humans or domestic pets. Some squirrels are heavily infested with fleas when they first emerge from hibernation or from the natal nest, but the number of fleas declines rapidly and many animals have none. Although two species of fleas (Opisocrostis labis and Oropsylla rupestris) and a species of tick (Dermacentor andersoni) are known vectors of sylvatic plague, there have been no confirmed reports of plague in Alberta for over 60 years. Of several thousand fleas collected in a 3-year study in Saskatchewan in the early 1950s, none carried the disease-producing organisms associated with sylvatic plague, tularemia, or Rocky Mountain spotted fever.”

    • Mike Says:

      ++Mike if they want to shoot prairie dogs then that is they business. I have a friend that has a ranch in North central Montana; he loves prairie dog hunters as the little critters eat lots and lots of grass. It is private land. I like to shoot gophers on the weekends ++

      Killing just to kill is not right, Elk.

    • Ken Cole Says:

      Killing for the sake of killing is the ideology of cancer. It’s sick.

    • jon Says:

      Angela, you said Saying you kill animals because they “carry disease” is a cop out. This is an excuse used by anyone who wants to get rid of wildlife for any reason, whether they are cliff swallows nesting on a building, ground squirrels for sport, or wolves.

      You couldn’t be more right. They try hard to find excuses to justify the shooting of animals for fun or sport, but what it really comes down to is that they love killing animals with their guns. I have seen many videos like that. They actually get a kick out of shooting prairie dogs. It is truly disgusting.

  17. Nancy Says:

    Well, this thread has taken some interesting twists and turns this evening so in keeping with the theme, because work comes early:

    Good night Jon Boy, good night Ralph, goodnight Mike, goodnight SB, goodnight Rita, goodnight Si’vet, goodnight WM, goodnight SEAK etc.

  18. Si'vet Says:

    Mike, does this mean your going to quit taking personal snipes at hunters.
    And since the studies are not conclusive does that mean with just another couple hundred thousand dollars in grant money over the next few years we will be closer to having a conclusion, or maybe a few hundred thousand more $$$ dollars and a few years after that. And by the way, the whistle pig video you posted, I’ve seen before, they are using a Berger bullet called the varmint gernade, 100% lead free. Mike just here to help. For those of you who hunt, Barnes makes the Barnes x bullet, 100% lead free, not quite as accurate as the nosler and they seat just a bit little longer but they work well. I’ve used them in a 130 grain 270 at 3200 fps, and when I hunted elk with a rifle, 175 grains in a .338 at 3100 fps, and they worked awesome. through shoulder bone, on 3 nice toads, between 167 & 171 retention. I can’t remember the TKO but is was up there. Wind drift is a bit of an issue.

  19. Si'vet Says:

    Rita, you nailed it, not the gun, it’s the operator..

  20. jon Says:

    Certified nut and extreme wolf hater Toby Bridges says “Mr. Bangs…Please Come Take These Wolves Off Of Us…We Don’t Want Them Anymore”

    http://www.lobowatch.com/citizeninquiry.html

    • jon Says:

      My mistake, I jumped the gun. The person who wrote that letter to Ed Bangs is named Billy Hill and he is from Trout Creek, Montana.

    • jon Says:

      A little info on Billy Hill

      Billy Hill. This rancher, former logger and former outfitter is running for the Sheriff’s office in Sanders County, MT

      For those that live in MT, have any of you ever heard of this fellow Billy Hill?

    • Angela Says:

      Billy Hill? Is he a redneck? lol

  21. Si'vet Says:

    Jon, who or what determines that someone is a certified nut. Is it you? Do you have a link with a list of people who have been proven in say a court of law as certifiable nuts. Please post.. Have you ever taken time to talk with Toby? I have, had the opportunity in Bozeman to talk with Toby for about an hour out in the lobby one on one, uninterupted. And for 45 minutes, before we introduced ourselves I had no idea who he was. We talked about the weather, game we had seen or hadn’t seen on our travels to Bozeman, talked about turkeys, the elk mount in the lobby with white in it’s mane, and then we drifted towards wolves. At no time did I get the feeling he was a nut. He was a proud dad, grandad who loved the out of doors, and loved to be outdoors. Jon can you give me some clues on how to spot a certifiable nut. I know your pretty good a spotting a fish and game officer who’s a guilty pedophile.

  22. Si'vet Says:

    Angela, I think so, my question is,, is he a certified redneck..

  23. Si'vet Says:

    Angela, are there certified women rednecks??

  24. Si'vet Says:

    Jon I’m trying to remember, why is it I always refer to you or your comments in my posts… Do you happen to recall?

  25. Mike Says:

    Horrific photos of oil tortured wildlife in Gulf:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/3/872775/-PICS-of-Oil-Soaked-Wildlife;-All-the-Rage-in-the-Known-Universe-is-Inadequate.-(UPDATED-2X)

    These should be posted on the front page of every newspaper across the country for weeks. The question I ask is….why are we still buying giant SUV’s?

  26. Richard Giallanzo,nj Says:

    Si’vert;
    I agree as I said before sb did this in a few threads, yes Mike should tell the proper authorities!!! I agree

  27. Richard Giallanzo,nj Says:

    I hear yea sb, why don’t we ask Mike if he called the proper authorities,just ask straight out, or Mike put this to bed and tell these guys if you called, the forest service? How’s that sb !!!

  28. JimT Says:

    This thread is rapidly degenerating, but I did want to remind Elk 275 that earlier, he said you could shoot gophers all day, and there would still be more. That is what they assumed back in the day with the passenger pigeons and a few other bird species whose extinctions were caused by women’s hat fashions.

    There is a great section in Terry Tempest’s latest books on the societal ways of the prairie dogs, and their perspective on your (for m) too casual description of burning the families in their dens, or gassing them. Maybe it would give you a different perspective on so called varmints.

    And yes we deal with this issue every day here in Boulder County…farms, ranches, open space….They are part of a healthy ecosystem, and need to be considered as well in land use decisions. As I have said before , IF you read the history of private property rights development in the law over the centuries, you will see that never has there been an unbridled right to do what you wish when you wish with your property. That notion died out with the King’s Woods, serfs, and thralls.

  29. Si'vet Says:

    Thanks, Jon I did not know that. Is it just if you extremely hate wolves and are willing to spend the the time and money to stand up for what you believe in that makes you a nut. Or is it if you extremely hate anything and your willing to defend it that makes you a nut. Since him and I talked, I have done some investigation, mostly just word of mouth, and so far your the only one who used the term certifiable nut, I’ve heard the terms, extremist, dedicated, reliable, tenacious, abrasive, channeled…

    • jon Says:

      Certifiable or just plain ol nut, makes very little difference to me si’vet, but the guy is a nut never the less.

  30. jon Says:

    Can bison exist in today’s world like deer, elk, or antelope?

    http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2010/06/03/ag_news/columnists/erin.txt

  31. Rita K. Sharpe Says:

    jon. “Can bison exist in todays world like deer,elk,and antelope?” I don’t think so,to any cows.They keep moving the bison around from one place to another .They are not free to roam.

  32. Rita K. Sharpe Says:

    Thank you,Jon for posting the article.

  33. jon Says:

    Sarah Palin blames environmentalists for gulf oil disaster

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/sarah-palin-blames-enviro_n_598977.html

  34. jon Says:

    http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/06/04/shooting-and-coyote-competitions/

    Killing coyotes for sport/fun and winning prizes and cash for doing so, does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

    • Barb Rupers Says:

      This was discussed in considerable detail last fall regarding the Idaho “sporting event” but it was not limited to coyotes. Nikon pulled its sponsership.

    • Save bears Says:

      Barb,

      As I have said in the past, I don’t condone this, but the only ones that were allowed to take a wolf, were those legally licensed, coyotes don’t require a tag, wolves do, it was misleading to say it was a wolf hunting contest..

    • jon Says:

      Barb, check out this video. This guy is supposedly a hunter and he calls himself the killer of wildlife in his videos. This is a video of him killing coyotes for cash and prizes. I guess these type of people are the ones that give real hunters a bad name.

    • Barb Rupers Says:

      Appalling.

    • Angela Says:

      I keep wondering why these boys don’t do something useful like joining the army and going to Afghanistan. Punks.

      OK, so kill all the coyotes you can. Then complain about ground squirrels. Hmmmm.

    • Angela Says:

      “Ah don’t spend my life on the internet…”

      And yet here he is being an arrogant asshole making a video of himself to put on the internet.

      Barbaric.

  35. Cody Coyote Says:

    OK—no disparaging of Rubythroated Western Hominids now. I want to bring out a new concern, that is actuall an olf concern. I spent about 8 years of my environmental acitivist life fighting the horrendous Noranda Corp’s New World Mine above Cooke City Montana about 3 miles from the Yellowstone boundary. In 1996 we declared victory , Bill Clinton came, and we all moved on. Now the acid-scarred Cooke City mning district is back on the screen.

    Te Montana Department of Environmental Quality wants to complete the reclamation of the tailings ponds along Soda Butte Creek at the old maclaren minesite. While they plan to store the acid-leaching tailings in a better impoundment near the site, the M-DEQ has ths plan to HAUL some unknown hundreds or thousands of tons of mine tailings all the way to Whitehall Montana for processing to recover $ 25 million + in salvageable gold Te operating plan for this is not in sharp focus yet but there is an informational public meeting in Cooke City next Tuesday June 8 , 6:30 pm at the Fire Hall.

    One of the strongest objections to the Noranda-new World mine was the use of the Beartooth Highway US-212 as an industrial haul road, not back through Yellowstone but out over the Chief Joseph Scenic Highway and Dead Indian Pass near Cody WY, the destination being somewhere in the Columbus MT to Billings MT corridor where smelters and railheads existed

    So the obvious question to me at this point is the route and useage of any new hauling of old ore or taiings to Whitehall MT from Cooke City MT. The obvious route , and by far the easiest grade and driveability, is back thru the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone Park and out thru Gardiner and Livingtston MT to I-90 or US 10, a haul of “only” 189 miles of mostly flat driving . But commercial trucking is not allowed in Yellowstone.

    So the only other alternatives are the Hundred Switchbacks of the alpine Beartooth Hwy to Red Lodge or the aforementioned Chief Joseph Highway to the Cody junction then up to Greater Montana and Whitehall. That is 275 miles one way.

    The article I’m psting below states that ” This is another example of Governor Schweitzer’s restoration economy and its a demonstration of Montana ingenuity at its best.” Mind if disagree with that statement just a wee bit ? But I really don’t know because the logisitical specifics of this New World Mine: Next Generation proposal are a little thin at the moment. I just know tha any of those highways make for lous industrial haul roads. I hate to even encounter a motorhome on them ,let alone a semi tractor with a belly dump or worse.

    There is a run up story at: http://www.yellowstoneinsider.com/20100604580/news/articles/montana-to-clean-up-tailings-site-in-cooke-city-should-help-yellowstone-waters.php

    Just sending up a yellow flag here. Or gold.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Cody

      So the reclaimation work will be at the site of the old gold mill. I remember when I was 8 or 9 and the mill was standing and the core sample sack still had core samples on the selves. My father wanted to show my brother and I a blasting cap: he found one laying on the ground and then we had a lecture on the dangers of ever touching them. I have always missed the mi, but into day’s environment it certainly does not need to be there.

    • JimT Says:

      CC,

      Have you been in contact with the folks at Earthworks about the mine? If not, I would encourage you to do so, and find out if it is on anyone’s to do list.

  36. Chris Harbin Says:

    Hopefully something good will come this. I know the girl who now has the dog and he is doing well, a is she. Must be tough to be a student with three pets!
    http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100604/PETS/6040355/1008/NEWS01/Dog+thrown+from+bridge+sparks+nonprofit+aimed+at+combating+animal+cruelty

    • jon Says:

      Very sad to hear, but glad the dog is ok Chris. Whoever did that, I hope they burn in hell and get theirs. Nothing worse than a person who abuses animals.

  37. RLMiller Says:

    Just picked up via Twitter: “9th Circuit upholds critical habitat for Mexican spotted owl, says FWS can include areas likely to be occupied over reasonable time span.” No links yet.

  38. Mike Says:

    For anyone interested there is now an official gallery up showing a grizzly momma with three cubs in Glacier National Park:

    http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-Grizzlies/index.html

    These were taken last fall in Many Glacier. The third cub was of tremendous size.

    • Save bears Says:

      Mike,

      Now your gallery is an “Official” Gallery? Hmm, interesting.

    • Elk275 Says:

      Very nice pictures Mike.

    • WM Says:

      Mike,

      For whatever other differences we have, those are nice images, as I believe I have mentioned before.

      With the fairly high res large files you are posting, good luck hanging on to the copyrights from pirates, unless you have them watermarked or otherwise protected. Some yahoo in China or Russia will snag them and you will see them on a postcard or calendar one day.

    • WM Says:

      Sorry, I meant to say REALLY nice images…..

    • Save bears Says:

      They indeed are nice images, but I am trying to figure out what an “official Gallery” is, and what meaning he had in mind, I have seen these images on another system, and despite what I feel, the are good..

    • Mike Says:

      I only use the term “official” because the other page was hastily slopped together IMHO.

    • Mike Says:

      Thank you for the comments. 🙂

    • Angela Says:

      Mike, the first photo of the grizzly in the snow is amazing and beautiful. Might be a good one to submit to some wildlife photo contests.

      Those three cubs are all from the same litter? Do yearlings ever stick around?

  39. Si'vet Says:

    Mike, that 3rd cub is a toad. In 7 or 8 years he’ll be a hog. It would be interesting to see if they can keep track of him and just see how big he gets. It’ll be tough if in fact he is male, he could end up traveling a bunch to find his own territory, early on.

  40. jon Says:

    Found this interesting audio interview with a wolf hater.

    https://www.blogtalkradio.com/buckshot59/2010/06/01/buckshot-survival-hour

  41. Mike Says:

    Donation page for one of the major groups rescuing birds from the Gulf spill:

    http://www.ibrrc.org/donate_online.html

  42. cc Says:

    Subspecies of Brown Pelican recently recovered and removed from ESA protection now at risk again in Louisiana:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37524560/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

  43. Salle Says:

    BLM director seeks input for new direction in National Wild Horse and Burro Program

    http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/sanjuans/jsj/community/95534064.html

  44. Chris Harbin Says:

    I recently read an article concerning the wildlife rescues from oil spills. The jist of it was that the intentions are great, and there may be a need to have the perception that something is being done to right an incredible wrong, it is more or less a waste of time and money. the author had several reasons not the least of which was that “cleaned” wildlife are likely to get oiled again. I on’t necessarily agree with the author but it was thought provoking. I will try to find a link to the paper.

    • Angela Says:

      Here are a few articles on the subject. I vote for euthanizing them if they are heavily oiled–I just think it is more humane. Is it good for the public to see people “rescuing” these birds? I think it can make a lot of people complacent, assuming we just wash the wildlife and they are okay. What good is it if their habitat has been destroyed and their food poisoned?

      http://seanetters.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/is-washing-oiled-birds-really-helping-them/
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,693359,00.html

      Sylvia Gaus, biologist at the Wattenmeer National Park in Germany speaks from personal experience, and cites numerous scientific studies in her recent interview with Der Spiegel: “the middle-term survival rate of oil-soaked birds is under 1 percent,” Gaus says. “We, therefore, oppose cleaning birds. Gaus is not alone; after the 2002 Prestige spill off Spain’s Coast, the World Wildlife Fund argued that birds weakened enough from oil contamination to be captured are generally beyond help.
      “Therefore,” a spokesman stated, “the World Wildlife Fund is very reluctant to recommend cleaning.”

  45. jon Says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100521/us-food-and-farm-killing-geese/

    I am quite disgusted at how much wildlife has to die in order to cater to the farmer/rancher.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Regarding WY Gov. Freudenthal’s bitching about favorable judicial forums [link above], he seeks a favorable court when he sues. Everyone does.

      Regardless, the wolf case should have been handled in Montana, not Wyoming. The federal headquarters of the wolf project is in Helena, MT.

      He’s a hypocrite.

    • Layton Says:

      Gosh Ralph, it seems to me that I got a LARGE chewing out here on this blog for suggesting that folks in favor of relisting wolves were “shopping” their lawsuit into Malloy’s court.

      Are you sure that “everyone” shops around for the right judge? 8)

    • Save bears Says:

      Well it sounds like if one of the two they arrested killed him, they were not sport hunters, you did note they were cited for numerous wildlife violations, sounds like typical wildlife criminals..glad they were caught.

    • Angela Says:

      how sad–I was just looking at some youtube tributes to him last week.

  46. Save bears Says:

    Don’t know if this was posted, but Alberta has finally listed Grizzly bears as threatened:

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CN_CANADA_GRIZZLY_BEARS_MTOL-?SITE=MTKAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=ap_template.html

  47. Wyoming Governor complains about ‘venue shopping’ « The Wildlife News Says:

    […] Ralph accurately states: “Regarding WY Gov. Freudenthal’s bitching about favorable judicial forums, he seeks a […]

  48. Mike Says:

    Saved pelicans threatened once again from oil spill:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37524560/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

    I wanted to throw up on my morning walk when I saw two people in my neighborhood driving an Excursion and an extended Escalade with no other passengers.

  49. Elk275 Says:

    Mike

    It seems like you live in an upper income neighborhood.

  50. Chris Harbin Says:

    Here is a link to the article regarding oiled wildlife. It relates a bit to what Mike posted just above regarding rehabed wildlife getting caught again.

    http://brd1.ucsc.edu/Jim/Estes%20Publications/1998%20Estes%20Conservation%20Biology.pdf

  51. jon Says:

    Article by extreme wolf hater Toby Bridges telling you how to poison wolves.

    http://www.lobowatch.com/KillinTime2.html

    Wolf control now has a new, until now secret, weapon. I have a feeling that if Malloy goes against the wishes of today’s hunters, there’s going to be a whole lot of very sweet gut piles and wolf-killed carcasses dotting the landscape this fall. Along with some supplemental feeding of wolf pups come next spring. – Toby Bridges

  52. jon Says:

    Wyoming has had enough of wolves.

    http://www.lobowatch.com/WolvesNearYou.html

    • Layton Says:

      Jon,

      You seem to have the time and the expertise to look at most anything on the “net”. What IS the truth about the alleged “theft” of Pitman Roberts funds??

      I know that the original intent of the PR excise tax fund was to build/maintain facilities for sportsmen that are spending the money in the first place — how were the wolf advocates able to get their hands on the $$? Or, OTOH, did it really happen??

      Seems like this guy and others are making a lot of claims, are any of them justified??

      Inquiring minds want to know.

    • Jon Says:

      I don’t know layton and I don’t particularly care. If the money was indeed stolen, they better have some evidence to back that claim up. I find it funny that Jim Beers waited all of these years to finally come out and make the claim that the usfws supposedly stole money from the pitman roberts fund. I don’t know the truth, but people like Jim Beers have an agenda and I wouldn’t be surprised if this claim he is making turns out to be a complete lie. If it isn’t, oh well, nothing we can do about that. If it turns out to be true, I wonder why Beers waited all of this time to finally come out. If he really thought this was wrong, why did he wait all of this time to finally come out huh? Answer me that layton.

    • Save bears Says:

      “Oh well there is nothing we can do about it”

      I have had dealings with Beers over the years, far more than I ever wanted, and I don’t like him, but if what he says is true, I can assure you, shit is going to hit the fan as it should, the pitt Robertson was a program suggested as well as supported by the sportsmen of America. It is basically a self imposed tax, that has benefited more than just the hunting community, if in fact it was mis-appropriated, then everyone that supports wildlife has been ripped off. The facilities and habitat that have benefited has been enjoyed by all…

    • Save bears Says:

      As far as why waited, only Jim knows, but unless you have worked in the upper level of government, you have no idea of how much is being held back, it is often thought of as cash in the bank, or political leverage, which whether we like it or not, is how things work..

      There definitely needs to be a house cleaning in many areas of the government and USFWS is no exception…

    • Jon Says:

      sb, I did not know you know Jim Beers. How long ago did this alleged theft happen? I personally do not believe anything will happen to Jaime Kennedy or Ed Bangs or Richard Clark or those others who were involved in this alleged theft. From what I understand, beers was fired and kept his mouth shut and got paid for keeping his mouth shut. He is as guilty as those he is accusing if it really does turn out his claims are true.

    • Jon Says:

      I meant Jamie Rappaport Clark who I believe is vp of dow. I could be wrong.

    • Layton Says:

      “I don’t know layton and I don’t particularly care”

      A statement like that certainly illustrates an attitude — you’re like a bulldog when trying to DISprove something that is said by a less-than-fanatical-supporter-of wolves has to say, but the truth doesn’t necessarily concern you..

      Seems pretty typical to me. Wolfies like you have their heads in a really different place — and FACTS don’t mean much. Then you blame the OTHER side for the same behavior.

      How do YOU spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e??

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      In my tenure with FWP I had occasion to deal with many of the players in this issue, both pro and anti. The main reason I am no longer with FWP is due to the fact I would not doctor study results concerning brucellosis transmission between predators and prey species, which was not well accepted by many of the higher ups…

      As far as how long ago, I have no direct knowledge of how or when, but I have read quite a bit about it and it seems it runs about the same time as the wolf re-introduction plans were being finalized.

      As I have said, I am neutral on this issue, I don’t want any animal wiped from the face of the earth, but I also know for a fact, there was a lot of back room dealing going on within the various agencies, both state and federal concerning the wolf re-introductions…

    • Jon Says:

      Layton, I don’t necessarily care about what Ed Bangs does or Jaime Rappaport Clark. If this turns out to be true, it wll probably anger hunters a lot more than non-hunters. If they did indeed do this, they will get theirs. My concern is about protecting wolves. You don’t like that, too bad. My side is not perfect by any means, but Jim Beers is doing this simply because he does not like wolves and does not want them around. If he really thought what they did was wrong if they did indeed do it, he would have came forward and admitted it a long time ago when it happened, not all of these years after. Jim Beers accepted money to keep his mouth shut. As I said, he is as guilty as those he accuses of doing wrong. I stick up for the wolves, that is the side I am on and will continue to be on for years to come.

    • Jon Says:

      sb, have you ever met Ed Bangs or Jaime Rappaport Clark? I wonder if they know that there are some who are trying to throw them in prison.

      Congress had already turned down funding for both these projects – so USFWS took it upon themselves to dip deeply into Pittman-Robertson funds to finance these projects…without any authorization whatsoever. And if these two misappropriations of funds is not enough of a slap in the face to the sportsmen who provided those monies, USFWS also used “your” money to establish a “slush fund” to provide bonuses for Director Clark, division chiefs, and managers at federal and regional levels. And they rewarded themselves well. Those who had excelled at their jobs generally received $25,000 to $30,000. But even those who only mustered a mediocre rating in how they performed their responsibilities usually received a bonus of around $5,000. What the heck, it was free money…so why not?

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Yes, I have met both of them and they are aware of what is going on.

      You know, 15 years to come forth with whistle blower information is not unusual, in fact it is far more normal that you might realize, normally it is a good amount of time, before information is reported in the news from the actual time of the crime in the government, remember the “Cash in the Bank” or the “Political leverage” That is the norm…

      There is so much going on behind the scenes in these issues, it would make your head spin around like an owl and you would be puking green pea soup if you knew the half of it…

      I can guarantee you, there is a “war room” at the dept of the interior, very similar to the ones we have at the Pentagon…

    • Jon Says:

      Corruption goes on at most agencies and I am sure there is a lot of backroom deals going on as well. Everyone has an agenda except for those few who remain neutral on the wolf issue. I would also like Beers to show people the evidence he supposedly has.

      During his Bozeman presentation, Jim Beers did not mesh words when he stated that those responsible for the wolf disaster must be held accountable. And a large number of those in attendance voiced that former USFWS Director Jamie Rappaport Clark (now Executive Vice President of Defenders of Wildlife) and Wolf Recovery Project coordinator Ed Bangs both need to do time behind bars.

      (Beers claims that wolves carry 30 known parasites & diseases – most of which are a danger to humans).

    • Jon Says:

      Oh, I believe you when you say there is a lot going on behind the scenes. I wonder how Bangs and Clark feel. They must be scratching their heads wondering if there is any evidence out there of them doing wrongdoing. I would assume they are somewhat fearful of going to jail and losing their jobs. bangs I think has a few more years left and than is going to retire. I don’t know how old is he, but I would assume 50s. I really don’t see these people doing jail time though. If it does happen, Iwould be a bit surprised. Those bigwigs at an agency always seem to get away with “murder”.

    • Save bears Says:

      If anyone goes to jail, it will be the lowest aid on the totem pole, willing to take it for the team, you won’t see any high level people even worry about jail, they have to much “political cash” in the bank, Around the halls of the Dept of the Interior, when those kind of conversations come up, the standard answer is, hey Bob, remember when…..Or I guess you forgot this, how about that…

      There are just to many folded up letters in various strong boxes and safes, that are considered a “get out of jail free” card, it is sad, wildlife management and public lands protection is one of the lowest things on the agenda. To many deals being made every single day, we see it with BP, we seen it with the Iran-Contra situation…

      The only people that actually care about public lands and wildlife preservation are those lowest on the totem pole!

    • WM Says:

      SB, Jon, and All,

      Most know parts of this story, but let me take it back to square one so that some who pick up the middle of this thread understand what is going on.

      I have not researched this issue in any depth, but it appears Toby Bridges and other anti-wolfers are relying on the assertions of Beers to gain some traction to file a lawsuit against FWS, naming Jamie Rappaport Clark in her capacity as Director & program chief back in the mid-1990’s as a defendant, and others for the misappropriation of revenues generated from the Pittman-Robertson excise tax. The intent is also to drag Ed Bangs into the skirmish because of some alleged sloppy paperwork involving the import of Canadian wolves.

      To clear the air, P-R taxes are generated on hunter supplies guns, ammunition, archery equipment, etc. at the time of manufacture. P-R should not be confused with Dingell-Johnson which applies to a similar tax on fishing supplies. Although Beers’ speaks of P-R he also labels them as an excise tax on fishing equipment, which is, to my knowledge, incorrect.

      {Beers’ entire account –his words only- can be found on the infamous bad bear blog website at this link http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/05/20/criminal-activities-by-federal-bureaucrats-pertaining-to-wolf-introductionprotection/#more-10680 It is an interesting read, probably with alot of truth, even if one is skeptical of some of the history and bias by Beers. It is an insider story and extremely critical of how your tax dollars are spent with little accountability by the expending agency. And there is some pretty good historical summary of the environmental movement from the early 1970’s up through 2000}

      To summarize quickly, the general claim asserted is that the curiously unnamed, second female director of FWS (Jamie Rappaport Clark), and possibly earlier in her professional responsibilities as the ESA Division Chief, covertly misdirected use of these funds, when Congress apparently refused to fund wolf reintroduction. There are additional assertions of Beers that funds were used for other purposes contrary to the Pittman-Robertson Act even prior to this time, including a claim FWS took a larger percentage of the fund than was permissible and buried it for other uses because it was not a part of an annual budget appropriation and accountability process (basically short-changing the states) . He contends he was in a capacity of auditing fund use, tried to reconstruct the financial trail from really shitty records, and as a result of his findings of impropriety was retaliatory discharged from his position. This resulted in a settlement of his employment claims and involuntary early retirement from FWS. Terms of the settlement apparently prevented him from discussing his separation from FWS. Beers alleges at least 12 violations of federal law involved in reintroducing wolves from Canada to MT and Central ID, including some peripheral allegations against DOW for their involvement (the agency for which Jamie Clark now works in its number two leadership position), and some third party audit collusion. {Somebody correct me if I am wrong on any of this summary.}

      My threshold question is whether P-R funds, which basically have a fairly broad category of uses, if they are within the allocation formula as among the different states, and federal administration set-aside, were, in fact, misappropriated under a broad interpretation of the law?

      First, I cannot imagine a director of FWS not having legal research done to determine whether the uses chosen were not within the scope of the law. Second, even if this is a gray area, we are not talking alot of money that has been expended, in a relative sense, compared to the many programs FWS administers ($45-60M seems to be the number that was improperly used). Third, the fact that it has taken Beers so long to break the story, of illegality, may suggest there would be legal problems in prosecuting such a case – a) Who will file this suit and in what capacity – could it be some kind of whistleblower claim by Beers? Would it be a claim by states against the federal government for misappropriating funds that should have gone directly back to them or remained within FWS for proper administration of P-R? ; b) Is there a problem of “laches,” which is a legal defense that basically says you waited too long to assert your rights as against the government?

      Fourth- and this is the really big question- what are the other remedies that would be sought? Do the plaintiffs, however they are, want the P-R funds restored (ok – then what does that mean, taking money from another part of the federal government to repay? big deal.) Do they want Clark or others to do jail time? Probably won’t happen. What does that mean for wolves? Do they want them eradicated because they were reintroduced with the use of misappropriated funds? Well, for certain that will not happen. They are still an ESA species which requires statutory attention.

      With all this falderal, what the hell do they expect to gain? I see $$$$$ for Beers if he is successful in a whistleblower claim, maybe a little for the states. By the way, I expect the guy is making a pretty good living doing the talk circuit with his story. Paranoia always sells. Otherwise, it is just more saber rattling about the “illegal reintroduction” of the wolf. So what? Sort of a distinction without a difference and I guess they win a skirmish, for whatever that is worth – kind of like Confederates at Gettysburg.

      {Footnote: This is probably the basis for the claim that Rockhead, err, excuse me, Rockholm was talking about a couple of weeks ago. This is hardly big news even if a claim is filed and eventually won by Beers and whomever. Or, is there more?}

      I say turn GAO loose on this for a second round, or file the suit and see where it goes!

    • Carl Says:

      WM, Thanks for the update.

    • jon Says:

      wm, rockhead’s documentary is coming out in 2 weeks. He said he has 15 hours of footage. I believe the money made from the documentary is going to pay for the lawsuit they apparently want to file. lol The Jim Beers presentation will be on there. Jim Beers spoke for 4 hours I believe in that presentation they had in Montana few weeks back. Supposedly, the evidence will be in the documentary. I as well as I said do not see Jaime Clark Rappaport and Ed Bangs doing jail time. Maybe if Beers didn’t wait all these years, maybe him and his side would have stood a chance, but not now.

  53. Nancy Says:

    Jon, (in reference to Romeo) A couple of years ago, I watched 5 coyotes play tag with 2 ranch dogs one afternoon on the meadow across from me. At first I thought the coyotes were setting them up for “lunch” but an hour went by, dogs chasing coyotes, coyotes chasing dogs.
    Finally, the game ended and the dogs turned and headed for home. A couple of the coyotes followed for a distance and then went back to their pack members. It was a pretty amazing thing to witness.

    • Jon Says:

      Yes, I am sure it is, but too bad that Romeo was taken away from those who enjoyed his company and enjoyed seeing him. This just goes to show you that not all wolves are vicious creatures that just kill.

    • Angela Says:

      Neat!

  54. Jon Says:

    This is disturbing, but not surprising.

    Long said Montana was trying to keep a big-game wolf hunt on the table even if the federal court re-lists the wolf. He said the hope is to use private hunters instead of state and federal livestock agents to control wolf numbers.
    That drew fire from Jerry Black, who said that was essentially trying to circumvent the Endangered Species Act.
    “If they (wolves) are re-listed, they’re re-listed for a reason,” Black said. “They (FWP) can’t go around looking for loopholes.”

    http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_0cc9a28e-6ed1-11df-a253-001cc4c03286.html

  55. Barb Rupers Says:

    I found this in my inbox. Ed X. Berry has a PhD in atmospheric science and supports Mark French for congress in Montana. It did not appear in the KXLY article or comments.

    Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 9:59 PM
    Subject: [kxly] Re: Dog killed by wolf in north Idaho, could be growing trend – News Story – KXLY Spokane

    Ed Berry (unregistered) wrote:

    We have elected officials who can start eliminating this problem tomorrow. But they have no idea they have this power or they are unwilling to use it.

    Your local sheriff has Constitutional power to stand up to the feds to eliminate a danger to the citizens of his county.

    His power is secured by the Supreme Court case, Mack – Printz v. USA, that restored the Tenth Amendment. I asked Sheriff Richard Mack personally if sheriffs have the power to do the following and he said “Yes!”

    Your sheriff has the power to tell the feds he is sending his posse into the national forests, national parks, wilderness areas and any other areas the feds think they control in his county. Your sheriff will tell (not ask) the feds to not interfere with his posse who have orders to hunt and kill all the gray wolves in his county. Your sheriff will further tell the feds that he will arrest and put in jail any federal official who interferes with his posse.

    We must start open season on wolves 24/7/365. Think of this as a jobs program for hunters.

    Your sheriff will know how to coordinate with sheriffs in other counties so all the relevant sheriffs become a united front against the feds.

    If any sheriff is too much of a weenie to stand up to park rangers, then he is too much of a weenie to stand up to a federal marshal to protect the citizens in his county.

    Your job is also to ask all sheriff candidates if they will promise to so eradicate the wolves in your county. Vote for the candidate who will.

    Edwin X Berry, PhD
    Atmospheric Physicist

    http://www.climatephysics.com
    American Meteorological Society
    Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180

    Link to comment: http://www.kxly.com/news/23588359/detail.html#comment-54968098

    • Jon Says:

      Barb, check out this interview I found. That guy rockholm (you might know of him) is in it. Funny to listen to these people talk about wolves and their hatred for them. One thing that amazed me is when he said wolves on average in Idaho are 200 pounds. lol Listen to the interview. The guy also thinks he is some big time video maker the way he talks of his videos.

      https://www.blogtalkradio.com/buckshot59/2010/06/01/buckshot-survival-hour

    • Angela Says:

      I’m just curious–are there records kept of livestock and wildlife killed by domestic dogs? It’s not a pretty sight when dogs chase a deer into a barbed wire fence. For those who keep poultry, domestic dogs are often the most common predator.

  56. Tony Povilitis Says:

    Feds to let Arizona Game Department capture jaguars (again)
    Wow, can you think of a less trustworthy agency given the Macho B fiasco?
    For details, go to:
    http://jaguarhabitatusa.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-to-authorize-more-jaguar-captures/

    • Angela Says:

      That’s the most disturbing thing I’ve seen since the oil rig blew up. I can’t believe it!

  57. Angela Says:

    Eating the meat of animals hunted using lead ammunition can be more dangerous for health than was previously thought, especially for children and people who consume large quantities.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100531082601.htm

    • Elk275 Says:

      Angela

      A good bonded bullet such as Nosler Accura Bonds will retain 95% of there weight and exit the animal, half of the weight loss will be copper. All of my life I have eaten animals killed with lead core bullets and I am still alive and healthy; I will continue to hunt with them as they offer the greatest ballistic confident and reliable expansion. It is much to do about doing.

    • Angela Says:

      Just passing it along. Even if people don’t keel over after accidentally swallowing some lead shot, it’s probably best to keep it out of the food chain as much as possible. But so is depleted uranium.

    • Save bears Says:

      Lead poisoning is a real threat, I know, I got it once! And now I have a titanium hip because of it!

      LOL

    • Jon Says:

      Different subject, but I have a friend who had his hip replaced. How long did it take yours to heal? You get that injury from the military?

  58. jon Says:

    Smokers Would Rather Give Up For Their Pooch’s Health Rather Than Their Own

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205156.htm

  59. Nancy Says:

    Ranch dogs are not immune to chasing and killing wildlife or livestock, Angela.
    A friend’s son worked the night shift calving for a local ranch awhile back and had to bring in a newborn calf with problems from the field. He put it in the back of his pickup along with his red heeler.
    When he got back to the calving sheds the dog had consumed a good part of the rear end of the calf, which sadly, was still alive. The description reminded me of the pictures I’ve seen of how wolves attack young cattle. Canines will be canines….. when given the opportunity at a quick meal.

  60. Si'vet Says:

    Jon with regards to Jim Beers, have you ever had a family, been in the twilight of your working years. Did’nt think so. You obviously weren’t in Bozeman, as a family man your family always come first, there’s nothing more important, and if you have to take care of family first, then expose corruption, so be it.

    • Jon Says:

      Uhm no, stop making excuses for the guy. He took money to keep his mouth shut. He may have done it to protect his family, but he failed to do the right thing and he thinks he is going to do it finally 15 after the fact? Don’ fly with me. He is as guilty as those he accuses. I also have seen no evidence what so ever of this supposed theft. We will see if he’s lying or not when someone asks him to present the evidence of this alleged theft. You know, I keep hearing about this evidence he supposedly has, why hasn’t it come out yet? I would not be surprised if Beers was the one who is corrupt.

  61. Jon Says:

    Ken Fischman, NIWA spokesman, said Beers has been speaking to draw anti-federal government support while portraying the gray wolf as the symbol of government intrusion on personal rights.
    “Wolves have become the scapegoats for almost every imaginable discontent some people have in this era of high unemployment and financial crisis,” he said. “Perhaps we should call them ‘scapewolves.'”

  62. Si'vet Says:

    Jon please, he spelled it right out in Bozeman, he’s a family man, remember. Oh that’s right you weren’t there, you just live on bits and pieces of what you’ve heard. fly with you Jon, again your confused, all you do is wallow. I prefer to stay up right. Your right guilty people always blow the whistle. I think you eluded above, the truth maybe forth coming, but I see you’ve always started to make excuses, so you can throw a little dirt in your tracks.

    • Jon Says:

      A family man who made a deal with the devil to keep his mouth shut and than after 15 years he finally comes out about this alleged theft. If he has evidence, show it already. You were right, right si’vet? Did mr. Beers show you this evidence he keeps on talking about? What is he waiting for si’vet? Did Beers tell you when he is going to release this evidence he supposedly has? I think he is bitter he got fired. No doubt about it he is anti-federal government (ok by me) and anti-wolf (not ok). Read what ken Fischman said in my comment above this one mr. t-bone. That sums Beers up perfectly for me.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      As I said, I don’t like Beers, I have never had a good interaction with him, but unfortunately making a deal with the devil is sometimes the only way to survive when your in the government..that is the way it works..

      And if you disagree, then all I can say, is you live in an entirely different world than most of us that have been government employee’s

  63. Save bears Says:

    Jon,

    I can honestly tell you, if I knew then, what I know now, I don’t know that I would have been so willing to buck the system…not only have I lost my job with the state agency, and been black balled, my military pension has been up in the air, now take into account I spent 26 years in the Military, got shot, spent over a year in the hospital, had my hip replaced.

    My refusal to doctor studies has been nothing but heartache for me and my family, I have been in court since I was let go by the agency, and have had nothing but trouble, fortunately, I have some really good friends in some of the higher places in government that have been helping out, and I am making ground, but buck the wrong part of the system, and you are thrown to the side…again, given to do over again, I don’t know, what I would do…I am sure when it all comes out, my case will prevail, but it has not been an easy road to hoe…

    • Jon Says:

      sb, would you do the same thing all over again knowing the heartache it caused your family and you or would you just do what the higher ups told you to do ?

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      At this point, I can’t honestly say what I would do…I know things are getting better in life, I am talking with the Washington Dept of Game about a position, which is the reason I am looking at selling my Montana home and moving to Washington to work in the same area I did when I did my field studies to get my degree, there is a position open in that area and I am one of the finalists because of my experience in that area..

      But again, I don’t know…and really it does not matter, I made my choice and am living with it…

    • Angela Says:

      SB, that really sucks about your job, but at least you have your pride. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife? That’s here in my neighborhood. I know a few people who work there/have worked there. There is politics everywhere of course, but it probably depends mostly on who you work with inside the agency.

      I am lucky enough to work for people that have morals and ethics. It’s pretty unusual in the private consulting world.

  64. Jon Says:

    26 years in the military huh sb. You must have served all over been to country to country. It is a shame when the agency you work for for so long and give your heart and soul to turns sour when you don’t want to do something they want you to do when you know it’s wrong. You can either be a sucker and do what you’re told even though you know it’s wrong or stand up for yourself knowing that it might cost you you job. Atleast you keep your integrity even though sometimes you may question was all of this worth it. Sometimes the good people who stand up for what they believe in and doing the right thing are the ones that get royally screwed.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      The only reason my case has gone anywhere, is because I was an officer, I went into officers training right out of high school, so I do have some pretty good friends with a lot of clout.., when I return from the first Gulf war wounded, I went through rehab and then went to college to get my degree in wildlife biology, and I can honestly say, my work in the biology field, with all of the associated politics has been nothing but a disappointment, it sure was not the dream that I grew up thinking it was!

      I can also tell you, it is now what you are reading in the news and the press releases..!!! Far from it!

    • Save bears Says:

      That was “Not” what you are reading in the news and the press release, not “Now”

  65. Jon Says:

    sb, I can’t disagree with you. When politics are involved, you know the job will most likely suck at times. This day in age, you have people within the agencies who have agendas and wanting you to skew studies and all of that shit, you can’t help, but be disappointed in the field you went to school for.

  66. Si'vet Says:

    SB, sorry about the misfortune. You know, I picked up a little on Jim’s emotions in Bozeman, I got the sense that if he knew in 1999?? what he’s knows today about the effect wolves would have, he may have foregone some of the things he agreed too and blew the whistle then. I think many people were caught off guard on the effects the introduced wolf would have, possibly at the time Jim was one of those folks

    • Save bears Says:

      Si’vet,

      Wolves have been one of the most volatile animals every to come on the scene when it comes to wildlife management, and right now, I don’t see a way out, because it won’t matter what Molloy does, and it won’t matter what the states do…right now the state of wildlife management is in a crisis in this country and the wolf, as in the past, is the focus…followed by grizz and on down the line.

      Neither side is ever going to be satisfied with any outcome..

    • Jon Says:

      sb, what exactly do you think Beers is trying to accomplish? I have heard that they are trying to get money to fund a lawsuit to put those criminals (Bangs, Doug Smith, Jaime Rappaport Clark, etc) behind bars for this so called illegal wolf introduction. I don’t know if this is a empty threat or if they really do indeed to go ahead and file a lawsuit. If you ask me, it’s a little too late. People like Beers and rockhead and others do not want a balance with wolves, they said they want them gone, eradicated from their states. Beers has said in order to control the wolf population, you would have to kill 80% of the population and have open seasons on them year round. Do you agree with this savebears?

    • Save bears Says:

      Do I agree with what? That Beers wants the wolves gone, yes, I agree with that and I know it for a fact…..There are a lot of people that want the wolves gone…I am not one of them, but I do think that there needs to be hunting seasons and they need to be managed as big game..but as I have repeatedly said, I don’t believe in wiping any animal off the face of earth…

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Remember, a lawsuit is not a criminal case, you can’t be put in jail unless you are proven to be guilty of a crime in a criminal case, right now Beers has no ability to bring a criminal case, unless he actually has evidence of criminal wrong doing…knowing the government the way I do, he could have, but he is going to have to bring it to the table and then it is going to have to be evaluated, which will take time…and only time will tell..

    • Jon Says:

      Apparently, he does or so I hear sb. I guess we will have to wait until he puts it out there if he does indeed have it. I truly wonder if guys like Beers truly believe in their heads that they are sending Bangs and Rappaport Clark to prison. I guess we will have to see what happens down the road.

    • Jon Says:

      sb, few comments before I go, you constantly hear from some that wolves are here to stay. With the aggressive hunting seasons on the way and aggressive killing from ws, I am sorry to say I do not believe this to be true at all. Wolves have a pretty grim future if you ask me. There will never be a balance between either side and I think it’s time we just accept it. People talk about change, but making that change happen to satisfy both sides will never happen imo.

    • WM Says:

      jon,

      ++I have heard that they are trying to get money to fund a lawsuit to put those criminals (Bangs, Doug Smith, Jaime Rappaport Clark, etc) behind bars for this so called illegal wolf introduction,++

      How did Doug Smith get added to the list? As far as I know he is just a research project leader at YNP (and a very good one at that) and an NPS employee (not FWS), and, was not affiliated with the alleged illicit funding of the reintroduction.

    • jon Says:

      wm, I have seen some wolf haters say that they want Doug Smith held accountable as well and sent to prison for his helping hand in bringing the wolves over. Did he not help bring these supposed “illegal canadian wolves” over?

    • Angela Says:

      Some people are pretty xenophobic, aren’t they?

  67. JEFF E Says:

    http://www.class.uidaho.edu/kpgeorge/issues/wolves_reintroduction/reintroduction_question.htm
    I posted this earlier.
    Si’vet was any of this information covered in Bozeman?
    Also The wolf reintroduction funding came from multiple sources, including congress. In 1994
    congress did vote for no funding purportedly because of pressure from the Wyoming delegation.
    That was the only year out of several, maybe a dozen or more, that congress did not provide funds for some aspect of wolf re-introduction.
    Was that information presented Si’vet?

  68. SEAK Mossback Says:

    I had conflicting feelings about the wolf introduction long before it happened. It’s convenient to blame the feds for the actual introduction but I think the return of the wolf was written with the endangered species act, combined with reduced strychnine baiting in Alberta and B.C.

    In February 1969, I was riding through the Lamar Valley 2 miles east of the Buffalo Ranch when a couple of big dark canids (not even close to coyotes – we’d seen hundreds of those) crossed the road and went into the river bottom. I had a broken leg in a cast from a skiing accident at the old Undine Falls community ski area, so was a little slow getting out with the super-8 but got some footage of one standing in the willows in the river bottom and the pair trotting across the valley toward the mirror plateau. It turned out there had been other reports and even a photo or two, and there was a buzz of excitement that the wolves were back. Nothing much more followed in later years. Then came talk of reintroduction.

    Then, when I went to school at UAF (Fairbanks) it was right in the middle of a big controversy over proposed wolf control in Unit 20A (Tanana Flats) where moose were extremely scarce where there had been a large population before the winter of 1968-69. The wolf control plan was debated and seemed fairly well rationalized, but there was such an uproar that it looked like it might get snuffed out politically. At that point, I realized that wolves added back to the Rockies could greatly complicate a relatively simple and successful wildlife management system (i.e. manage by controlling hunter harvest), especially if wolves became a sacred cow as seemed to be happening in Alaska. The control project in Unit 20A eventually went forward and turned out more effective than I ever imagined. It ended in the early 80s with substantially improved calf survival and the moose and wolf populations have both remained very abundant ever since without further intervention. An apparent key factor in sustained success has been location of the major moose calving area where there are few bears and very few grizzlies. That condition may be somewhat unique to that unit and I’m not convinced wolf control in other areas will be able to create similar lasting shifts from low to high predator-prey equilibriums, let alone ever achieve the Swedish dream (which would be dangerous anyway without enough access and hunting pressure and calf harvest).

    Also, although we had heard about the much publicized predator-prey “balance” in Isle Royale, Dr. Mech showed up in Fairbanks on his first visit to the state and gave a talk about wolves completely annihilating deer from limited areas of NE Minnesota during severe winters in the early 1970s. Of course, I never foresaw some of the ecological benefits of wolves that are becoming apparent in Yellowstone nor how visible and publicly popular they would be in the park.

    Essentially, I think return of the wolf to the Rockies was destiny and was just as well done in a reintroduction effort that at least brought in a reasonable gene pool. In some ways it seems strange the wolf was ever gone. On the other hand, hunting is a very important part of the economy and culture and we should expect wildlife management agencies to try to maintain the substantial, productive ungulate populations that people grew used to. Wolves, along with other predators, may begin to hold some populations at a perpetually low level that allows very limited hunting – similar to moose in much of interior Alaska. There may be other cases where there is never any noticeable significant effect of wolves in reducing prey abundance, similar to white-tailed deer in most of northern Minnesota. The problem is sorting out actual status, trends and causes from all the imaginary B.S. coming out of loudspeakers in Cody, Jackson and Cheyenne (that’s completely at odds with current elk population statistics) . . . . and basing management on the former rather than the latter.

  69. Tim Says:

    Public comments sought on draft
    Columbian sharp-tailed grouse recovery plan
    http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=jun0410a

  70. Cody Coyote Says:

    A good sized male Cougar was darted well inside the Cody WY city limits Friday morning. It was sleeping in a back yard; got startled by a surprised resident and fled; was tranked a short while late by Wyo G & F. It is unknown to me what the G&F did with the sedated lion. I assume it was relocated, but…..?

    Here’s a very brief Billings Gazette story link …the local Cody paper won’t have a (presumably) more comprehensive story till later today ( Monday ).

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_05bcdf72-70ef-11df-8b51-001cc4c03286.html

    This is probably the same Cougar that has been seen off and on since early Spring in that quadrant of town , but had so far eluded capture. The location of Friday’s capture was a good 3/4 mile from open country / city limits , well inside a cluster of neighborhoods but with lots of cover. The big cat may have been a parttime resident. There is no shortage of prey base for urban Cougars in Cody …we have over 200 mule deer that live in town and hardly ever leave , if ever. The Does are dropping their fawns now, in town. The newest generations of deer apparently never see open country …they live in town 24/7/365 .

    Two weeks ago, a very pregnant lone cow Elk ran across the 4-lane highway at the Dairy Queen on the west end of central Cody. In my entire life in Cody I’ve never ever heard of an elk in town before. Cougar, coyote, black bears, even moose, but this is the first elk I’ve heard of. Strange.

  71. Jon Says:

    Some good news for now atleast.

    Federal judge blocks Alaska’s wolf-kill plan

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100608/ap_on_re_us/us_killing_wolves

  72. Save bears Says:

    And to follow up Jon’s good news, some news that could be considered bad or not so good….

    Glacier Makes it easier to remove problem bears..

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_6503e63c-7285-11df-b013-001cc4c002e0.html

    • Jon Says:

      sb, does hazing bears work? I read the article and there is something I want to get off my chest and that is this animals are supposed to be afraid of humans. I was reading a hunting magazine a while back while I was at the doctor’s office and there was an article in it about Montana grizzly bears. In the article it said that hunters wanted to hunt bears to teach them to be afraid of humans and the bear expert said, you can’t teach a dead bear to be afraid of humans, the bear is dead. I myself find it hard to accept that a grizzly bear is going to be afraid of humans if people pose a threat to it. You piss a bear off, do you honestly think it is going to run away or attack? Unless you scare the bear off with a gun or something like that, that bear is coming for you, so I don’t like this false idea of thinking that all animals are supposed to be afraid of people. If this was indeed the case, you would have no bear attacks on people. Also, bearsare supposed to be afraid of humans so they tell us, does that mean a bear with cubs is going to run away scared if some person poses a threat to its cubs? Some people talk as if bears run away from people all the time. Last question sb, hunters are allowed to hunt grizzlies, since grizzlies are supposedly supposed to be afraid of humans like the experts tell us, will a grizzly always run away when someone poses a danger to it or will it attack? Time and time again sb, the world has taught us that not al animals are afraid of people even though the so called experts tell us they are. I don’t like experts giving us these false ideas and having us believe that animals are afraid of us when clearly, some of they are not. Hippos have been hunted by humans and crocodiles and lions and tigers as well just to name a few and all of them still kill people.

    • Save bears Says:

      JOn,

      Hunting has nothing to do with bears being afraid, in my experience about 90% of bears will run away from humans and the majority you will never see or really even know they are there, but every once in a while you will run into a bear that has been conditioned to humans or is just flat out pissed off.

      The people that spend all of their time studying bears are pretty good at what they do, and most of the time their information is accurate…

      Hazing can be very effective, if done properly, Dr. Hunt has had great success in hazing bears, using her bear dogs.

      There are many instances, that a bear’s natural fear of humans will be overwhelmed and they will protect their food sources or their cubs, males will defend territory…but in my experience, they will avoid contact if possible.

      Of course now, park bears are different, they are exposed to humans all of the time and have become tolerant most of the time..which is why I always recommend spray, it is an effective deterrent…in a last chance situation..

      I have run into bears several times in the wild outside of the parks, and they run, unless one of the mitigating circumstances is present, food, or cubs, or if the bear is injured..

      But, again, the information the bear specialists are publishing is accurate for the most part..

    • Save bears Says:

      One last thing, there are no guarantee’s when your dealing with any wild animals, deer, moose, elk, cats, bears, have all killed and injured humans.

      The animal I have the most fear of in the woods, is the Moose, them damn things are just down right mean, and if they have calves, take cover!

    • Jon Says:

      sb, that is true, they are wild animals, but I don’t like when people tell others that these wild animals are harmless and that they are afraid of us when that is not true. Some instances not all. All of those animals I mentioned have been hunted and killed throughout the years by humans and they still kill a good # of people. I am only going by what it said in th hunting magazine. Supposedly, there has been a few bear attacks in MT, and the hunters in the magazine said they wanted to hunt the bears to teach them to fear man. The bear expert jumped in you can’t teach a dead bear anything, it’s dead. I am only telling you what I saw in the magazine. No one on the planet is going to tell me that crocs or tigers fear humans when it is a fact that they have both been hunted and still continue to kill people. These animals will kill you given the chance, not run away like these experts tell us leaving us to believe that wild animals are harmless when they are not.

    • Jon Says:

      sb, you must know who Chris Servheen is. Anyways, he says that hunted bears won’t necessarily avoid humans. Bears are not taught anything by being killed. Wyoming elk hunter Ron Leming was almost killed by a grizzly sept 2008 in Wyoming.

    • Angela Says:

      “the bear expert said, you can’t teach a dead bear to be afraid of humans”

      Jon, in one sense this is completely false. The “teaching” is called *natural* selection. For thousands of years man has hunted animals and the animals that were stupid enough to get too close lost their lives. Those that avoided humans had/have the highest survival. Just like the elk are now being selected by wolves. It continues today, and with high-powered rifle scopes, the distance some hunted animals will flee has gotten farther and farther. In areas where grizzlies are actively hunted, my guess is that they are more afraid of humans. At least I noticed that for black bears in SE Alaska. I already explained that story.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      You may not like it, but statistic prove you wrong, yes, bears will kill humans, but it is very rare. Yes, I know Chris, in fact I talked to him today…as well as quite a few of the other bear specialists..

      IGBC is currently holding their administrative meeting in Whitefish, MT, which is where I am right now…

      As far as how many people are killed as opposed to how many people visit the wilds each year, the statistics are minimal that you will be killed by a bear, in the history of Glacier National Park, there has been 10 people killed in 100 years of existence, which averages out to one every 10 years, which is still skewed, because we know that 2 were killed in 1967, which is the famous event called night of the grizzlies..

      Jon, I don’t exactly know what point your trying to make here, bear and wildlife specialists are always teaching people to stay away when possible, don’t approach wildlife, don’t feed wildlife, as well as all of the other safety rules..but when you deal with millions of visitors a year and the rare events that do happen, the odds are very low that your going to be killed or maimed by wildlife.

    • Angela Says:

      Jon, just make sure you don’t run when the elephant/grizzly/gorilla makes the first bluff charge and you’ll be okay. Lol.

    • Save bears Says:

      Angela,

      I believe in natural selection, but I also think that goes hand in hand with evolution, grizzly bears are a top apex predator, and over the thousands of years, they have learned that humans are a top apex predator, I believe that black bears are completely different in their behaviors than grizzly bears, I have witnessed, black bears run from a kitten meowing…and a baby crying, I have never witnessed this in a grizzly bear…I have witnessed a grizz run from humans, as well as explore an investigate humans, one animal I have see grizz run from quite frequently is moose, they will take them down, but they are not all that anxious in most cases..

      Of course both black and grizz are opportunistic and will exploit every situation they can…as I said, there are always exceptions, but on the whole, I have seen both species run far more often than I have seen them come in..

    • Save bears Says:

      Angela,

      Heck, I wouldn’t even run from my Golden’s when they were at their prime, a 125 pound golden retrieve hitting you in the middle of the back at full speed is not a pleasant experience!

      LOL

    • Jon Says:

      sb, all I am saying is that not all animals have a natural fear of humans. Our natural instinct tells us grizzlies are dangerous because they are big and are capable of killing us, but yet, we are constantly told they are harmless and they are scared of us and that bear attacks on humans will never happen when they have in the past. I don’t fault any animal for being capable of killing us, but I also acknowledge and accept that wild animals can and will sometimes kill us for whatever reason.

    • Jon Says:

      That must be a joke sb, a 125 pound golden retriever? You are joking. lol

    • Save bears Says:

      What do you mean joking, my water dogs, were 125 plus at their prime and my field dogs were in the 90 pound range, 125 is not an uncommon weight for pure bread well taken care of dogs…I had one, that loved to wrestle, man she knocked me out several times over the years, she would roll on her back and then kick out with her hind legs and hit me square in the four head! and out I would go..

      I have raised several Golden’s over the years, that were big strong dogs, both field trials dogs as well as water fowl dogs..

    • Jon Says:

      125 golden retriever? I don’t believe that. I had a golden long time ago, weighed maybe less than 80 lbs and he looked big from a distance, but 125 lb golden retriever?

    • Angela Says:

      yes, I was speaking of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution.

      I think we need to remember that every single encounter situation is different and each individual animal may have had its own experiences that affect its behavior.

      I think the general public has become much too frightened of wildlife in the past few generations. I’m not talking a healthy fear of running into a grizzly, but fear of the unknown because they have never really been around wild animals or spent time in the outdoors.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      You don’t have to believe if you don’t want to, I raised those dogs for years and just lost my last two last summer, I have had dogs, that varied from about 75 pounds to 125 plus, I have a friend who has a handicap retriever working dog right now that weighs in at 119 and another guy I know that raises Golden’s that has a water dog that weighs in at 130 plus, there are many variations in the breed, but they can be a very large dog if you get a good line..

      You know Jon, Just because you have not seen it or experienced it, does not mean it has not happened, or it is not true..I raised Golden’s for over 30 years, many from some very good quality lines and we have had some monsters, as well as some average and of course some runts, but don’t try to tell me..

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Here is a link to a Golden story, he is recognized as the most celebrated dog in the world, he was the first dog on the scene on 9/11 and is credited with the most hits in his search for survivors as well as victims, Please note his weight, it was 110 pounds..

      http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/bear.html

      His name was Bear…

    • Angela Says:

      Here’s how to deal with a brown bear. I love this guy.

    • WM Says:

      I have had two golden retrievers – both males. The first weighed about 90 lbs., the second is 72 lbs. (he’s just 2 and pretty lankey and still filling out). Goldens can be highly variable in their characteristics, based on their breeding lineage -including color, size and confirmation. The AKC breed standard seems to be under 100 lbs, but has not been changed in something like thirty years. There has been alot of time for larger dogs to be bred for consumer and working purposes (they don’t give a rat’s pitutie about breed standard), well in excess of 100 lbs., with common desired features include the large broad head, heavier powerful swimmer chest and taller), and become much more common. When were looking for a new dog about a year ago, we “interviewed” a rescued golden that was pushing 140 lbs., but his size was more than my wife wanted to handle.

      My current golden is a deep reddish copper color and has a white blaze on his chest (unusual but apparently within standard, according to a breeder who stopped me when I was walking the dog and wondered if he was neutered – which he was). He is a rescued dog, and a bit of a celebrity, having made it into a recently published book on goldens that have been rescued, called “Lost Souls:Found, Inspiring Stories About Golden Retrievers,” by Kyla Duffy and Lowrey Mumford (2010), Happy Trails Books. His story was not as compelling as others profiled, but he is very photogenic and his image graces the book in several places throughout.

      Golden retrievers can weigh 60 – 130 lbs, in my experience, about the size range of the gray wolf.

    • jon Says:

      sb, thanks for that link. I never thought in my wildest dreams that goldens can get that big. 110 lb golden is a pretty big animal to me. Mines weighed 60-70 lbs. I had 2 of them and they were both amazing dogs. The last one I had, he had a brain tumor and went blind in one eye. It was either put him to sleep and or bring him home and he would last another couple of months. He also bit his tail off and we had to put a cone on his head so he would stop biting his tail and allow it to grow back. That would have been too hard for me to have him home for a couple of months knowing that he will die in a short period of time, so I had to decide to put him to sleep. He was suffering I am sure. I never even said goodbye to him. Hardest thing is letting them go when you want them with you. I was devastated for a long long time and even when I think about him today, I will shed a tear. You grow attached to your animals. They are like family members to me. They say you can replace a dog, that is not true. Each dog has its own personality and is special in their own way.

    • Save bears Says:

      I agree Jon,

      Loosing them is really hard, the last one I had to put down, had been with me for over 14 years, she was my dog and extremely smart. They do indeed become more than a pet…

  73. Si'vet Says:

    CC, same thing is happening all over Id. Mt. Wy. It’s called path of least resistance,live where you feel you have the best chance of survival. Jon has posted many times that hunters need to quit crying and hunt harder, that the elk numbers are still thriving, just harder to find. Wrong, like I posted months ago, they are in populated places that they have never inhabited before, fields, fringe out skirts of town, along busy roads etc. My son watched a cow get up from dropping her calf “this” morning about 10;30 am with his binocs from a little cafe parking lot, on his way home from a camping trip. By the time breakfast was over, the calf had had it’s first good lickin up and wobbly.

    • SEAK Mossback Says:

      It’s the same way in some towns up this way. In Petersburg and Prince Rupert which have lots of wolves around, the deer crowd into town and the wolves sometimes follow with chases on streets, etc. – and they usually discover pets. The Anchorage Bowl is loaded with moose.

    • WM Says:

      Elk behavior including wolf avoidance by seeking safer places with humans IS pretty well documented. I believe I have said before Banff, Alberta has had to deal with this problem for years. That is, in part, what brings the elk into town and makes them a pest. They shared this information with the folks of Estes Park, CO at the east entrance to Rocky Mtn NP, when they visited during the wolf management planning process (which already has an elk problem, but would be worse with wolves. RMNP formally rejected the idea of having its own wolf reintroduction about a year ago – too small plus the elk problem). Same outcome when NPS when was looking at giving Olympic NP some wolves of their own, that could drive more elk into Sequim (they already have a few), north of ONP, and possibly Port Angeles, also north of ONP.

      I am going to guess when CO gets its wolves along the Front Range, north of Denver, that Boulder will get more deer in town, as will Fort Collins and Loveland. And, as SEAK says wolves in town (probably just at the fringes at calfing time and winter) might mean fewer pets.

    • WM Says:

      ..calving time…

  74. WM Says:

    Very interesting interview with a photographer mauled by a grizzly in Yellowstone 3 years ago. Fast defensive attack by mama with a cub, with no time to use the bear spray on his belt.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37569424#37569424

    This was his second attack (1993), again by a surprised bear. Bear bells anyone?

    • Save bears Says:

      WM,

      It was Jim’s third attack, he was swatted and knocked down in a similar situation in Alaska..

      I know Jim, and he is nothing but a shell of what he used to be, I watched the interview this morning and he is not quite as belligerent as he used to be. Of course if you will notice, there were no direct questions asked, about his behavior, which was very poor…

    • WM Says:

      Photographer trying to get the perfect photo? I don’t mean to sound crass, but this guy strikes me as a rare surviving nominee for a Darwin Award (in which recipients or nominees die from their stupid acts and exit the gene pool, like Tim Treadwell). Three strikes and you should be out. Of course, not everyone is so lucky.

      I have only had one close fortuitously negative encounter with a grizzly, and had I not had a vehicle to retreat to the story might have ended differently – Lake Kluane, Northern Yukon Territory, CA (just SE of Tok Junction, AK) about twenty years ago. I was no surpise to the bear, it just didn’t want me there. No warning. Headed toward me like a rocket, ears back and moving fast. I suspect it was a younger boar, who we later concluded was on a kill. According to my experienced AK friends, standing my ground suspecting a bluff charge would likely not have worked. They later gave me a copy of “Alaska Bear Tales” by Larry Kanuit. A bit sensational, but it does put things in perspective.

    • jon Says:

      wm, would you consider cougars to be more dangerous than bears? I just want your personal opinion if you don’t mind.

  75. Nancy Says:

    There are also a few pages dedicated to Jim’s life and his near fatal encounters with griz, in the May/June issue of Montana Magazine.
    I cringed as I read about each incident but I have to say, I admire Jim’s continued efforts, regardless of the setbacks, when it comes to wildlife’s struggle to hang on in what’s left of wilderness areas that haven’t been plowed under or sold out.

    If you do know Jim, SB, would you please let him know he’s appreciated simply because he’s taken the time to understand.

  76. Richard Giallanzo,nj Says:

    I think this is worth mentioning, I heard today Goldman sachs,shorted their stocks on transocean or Halliburton did not hear it clear enough,was in the car at the time. The interesting time was a day before the accident, also Halliburton bought a company days before the accident, the company was in oil recovery of oil. Jon if you read this please look into this, I will do the same,look at the implications of this.

    • william huard Says:

      Jon
      Unfortunately it doesn’t take very much to get you killed if you are a mountain lion in Colorado. Two strikes and your dead.

  77. vickif Says:

    I just got home from the Washington coast. I visited Elwah, and contemplated how things will occur there when the dam comes down.
    The area is gorgeous, and I know some houses will likely be impacted by the flow increase. There will be no shortage of debris to create habitat.
    I also visited numerous hatcheries, fascinating.
    I am wondering, because there was no biologist there to ask, how they will create a returning population of kings? Will they release the fry? Will the actually manually fertilize the eggs in the river?
    I can only assume that in order for a breeding population to return to the Elwah above the dam, they would have to be hatched there.
    Anyone know?

    • WM Says:

      vickif,

      Here is the detailed fish restoration plan of nearly 200 pages. The approach is very flexible, and employs several different strategies throughout the restoration period as the slow removal of the dams occur. Preference are for stocks that have occupied the river, including those fish that have been stopped by the lowest dam. As I have said before on this forum, it will take some very strong salmon and steelhead to make it through Goblin’s Gate above Lake Mills. This is no quick fix, and likely to truly be a a survival of the fittest, selection effort for some parts of the river. It will be a fascinating science experiment to watch.

      http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescience/upload/Elwha_FishRestorationPlan_2008NOAA%20TechMemo.pdf

      The really interesting stuff begins at p. 21 (pdf p. 43).

      Did you get a little wet on your trip?

    • vickif Says:

      WM,
      We got wet, but mainly along the coast. The canopy really helped some when we went farther in. The area is an amazing place. It is also a pretty remarkable model of what we need to preserve, and what we need to change. The human encroachment and industrialization is becoming too obvious.
      I was intrigued by the state ran oyster and clam “preserves”, where they had planted. It was quite the sight.
      Thank you for the link. I will read it over lunch. I question how long it would be for the current returning fish to create a viable and thriving population. I seem to recall reading that they think only about 100 of the salmon (king) actually return the the dam. Would they travel farther upstream to spawn if they could? I assumed they would stop at their point of origin.
      There is a lot of crazy water to tackle there. So the fish most certainly require fortitude!
      Thanks again!

  78. WM Says:

    And the wildlife issues from the Gulf oil spill continue to unfold.

    New hazards to clean-up workers – poisonous snakes and very limited, even near non-existent, anti-venom supplies for some species (coral snake), and no drug manufacturer to replentish supplies.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37576973/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/

  79. howlcolorado Says:

    http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_a708dabe-723b-11df-912a-001cc4c03286.html

    Always fun to read such articles and the comments.

    Those “bigger, more aggressive canadian wolves” keep getting brought up. It’s fascinating that this keeps coming up. Nubilus is just as Canadian as occidentalis.

    • jon Says:

      That is one of the complaints you hear from the wolf haters all the time. “The wolves that were brought here are non native and they average 200 pounds”. No matter how much real truth you tell them, they are going to believe what they want to believe howl.

  80. Richard Giallanzo,nj Says:

    To Wm;
    Forget the snakes most ,they are probably dead anyway, BP is not giving up the MSD on the dispersants, that is a crime,but who cares what big bussiness does!

  81. jon Says:

    I think people should really think twice about donating their money to organizations like the humane society.

    http://www.kstatecollegian.com/opinion/donations-to-humane-society-not-what-they-seem-1.2174297

    A lot of these organizations like humane society and peta are known to kill a lot of animals.

    • william huard Says:

      Jon
      This article was written by a sophomore college student and bears no resemblance to the truth. The humane society does not kill animals, in fact they operate several wildlife rescue centers and one of the largest rescue operations (Black Beauty Ranch in Texas). The HSUS has an agenda where they expose egregious forms of wildlife abuse like canned hunting, factory farming etc and they lobby the legislative branch to enact reform. Hunting groups and Agriculture interests use the old talking point that they don’t actually support local shelters and handle direct care which is false.

    • howlcolorado Says:

      Dumb Friends League based in Denver kills as many animals as they adopt out. Would you withhold donations to them?

      If you answered yes, would you withhold if you knew that added up to 6,000 cats alone adopted out, and 6,000 killed? The numbers are a little mind-boggling on both sides.

      I am not inclined to support PETA because I don’t think they do a job worth supporting. I am less inclined to support Defenders financially because there are reasons to believe my donations could do more elsewhere. My donations tend to stay more local. Local wildlife sanctuaries, local groups. But that’s a personal decision and a desire to keep some form of accountability in terms of being able to go and SEE what is being done with my donation.

    • jon Says:

      William, I know for a fact that peta kills the animals they rescue. I have heard stories that the humane society does as well. I do not think true animal lovers should donate their money to these types of organizations. I commend the hsus for exposing canned hunting and things like that, but if it turns out to be true that they kill animals, I will never support an organization like that.

    • Ryan Says:

      http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia.html

      What about this article written By newsweek, did a sophmore in college write this one too?

    • howlcolorado Says:

      In the idealized world where we could save all domestic animals born in this world, I am sure we would.

      It’s just not reality. Want to stop PETA euthanizing animals in their shelters? Stop breeders from breeding as much as they do, or stop pet stores being set up in malls, or provide education on a mass scale and lots of support for people to adopt.

      This is a Wildlife blog, so this probably isn’t appropriate discussion here, but domestic animal issues are infuriating to deal with because it’s just unwinnable. It is certainly a weak area to attack an organization like PETA or the Humane Society because unless you are very small, there is no way to save every pet surrendered.

    • william huard Says:

      And Jon-
      Don’t think for one minute SCI and Bud Pingeton’s Sportsmen group aren’t deathly afraid of HSUS. They stopped dove hunting in Michigan which is sportsmen’s backyard. This is just one example of HSUS stopping an archaic and degenerate type of hunting for “sport”.

    • Ryan Says:

      “They stopped dove hunting in Michigan which is sportsmen’s backyard. This is just one example of HSUS stopping an archaic and degenerate type of hunting for “sport”.”

      William,

      Have you ever eaten dove? I have, its good. I’ve killed them, its no different than killing and eating any other bird.

    • jon Says:

      I believe they are William. I have nothing against animal rights organizations, but I find it a little hypocritical when they kill animals they rescue.

    • howlcolorado Says:

      I don’t eat meat and I will never hunt, so I have no opinion regarding the taste of dove.

      Yes, I know, completely unrelated. However, getting back to Jon’s original post. This is a case of a group using a strategic partnership for a good cause with a good message to support a cynical political agenda.

      Someone has to pay for these messages to be sent out. Taking a wild baby bunny home is just not smart. People do actually need to be told that. The Humane Society is willing to support this financially, so good partnership.

      This does not do anything to the credibility of the Division in the eyes of anyone except for those who already distrust them.

      It’s sort of a non-story and a great example of the media screwing up. That is an entire soap box of issues for me regarding the press, so I won’t even step up on it.

    • WM Says:

      Ryan,

      You know the answer to the question posed in this article – take the cows off permanantly, introduce wolves and their elk numbers will be reduced, and the rest will stay out of the riparian zone. Revegetation will allow trophic cascade with song birds and all, and the ecosystem will go back into balance and the steelhead, assuming there is enough water in the stream, will be happy. But what to do about the wild horses – federal property isn’t it? Shoot them and feed them to the wolves. All in favor of this plan raise their hands.

    • william huard Says:

      Ryan
      I have absolutely no problem if people hunt dove and then eat them. Killing the international symbol of peace by twisting their neck after shooting it for target practice may be sport to some who don’t have anything better to do with their time- it’s cruelty pure and simple- and we should be more civilized as a society. Jon- I am not a member of PETA- they would be viewed as extremist by the majority of animal welfare groups. You will be hard pressed to find a better watchdog group than HSUS, and you will not find evidence of them killing animals. As howl said, let HSUS be the watchdog and give to your local animal shelter.

    • Ryan Says:

      “Killing the international symbol of peace by twisting their neck after shooting it for target practice may be sport to some who don’t have anything better to do with their time- it’s cruelty pure and simple- and we should be more civilized as a society.”

      William,

      What are you talking about? I think your getting dove hunting confused with canned pigeon shoots.

      I don’t like the HSUS, they are an anti hunting/animal rights groups, with a more even message, but the exact underlined goals as PETA.

      Don’t believe me, look at what Wayne Pacelle has said on the record..

      “One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”

      “If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.” Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP Humane Society of the US (HSUS), formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Associated Press, Dec 30, 1991; “Only 7% of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States… We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.” (Full Cry magazine, October 1990)

      You’ll have to humor me if I think the HSUS is a wolf in sheeps clothing, duping unsuspecting donors who think they are helping their local animal shelter, but are instead donating the largest animals rights organization in the US.

    • WM Says:

      William, I think Ryan is correct.

      And, by the way, the mourning dove – muted brown in color, bundant across the nation, and hunted in many states for food and not just target practice- is not the same species as the white birds which we associate with the peace symbol as you suggest.

      Often, those white birds which are released at events in which peace or purity is acknowledged or celebrated are, in fact, homing pigeons. The idea is that after release, they go back to their home station to be used again – trained birds.

  82. jon Says:

    Here is the link to the story.

    http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_9969b554-686d-11df-9524-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story

    Lake said he plans to introduce a bill that would call for reducing wolf numbers in the state to 150.
    “That was the number originally sold to us as the maximum number we would have in the state,” Lake said. “We can work with 150. We can’t work with whatever number there is now in the state.”

    Not surprising at all.

    • Ken Cole Says:

      If a bill like that passes it puts the whole delisting at risk since would be a fundamental change to the State’s management plan.

    • Save bears Says:

      Ken,

      Yes, it would, but I don’t think you realize how many people as well as politicians are saying the hell with the law, we are going to manage them as we see fit and I think with Ken in Office, he will do very little to stop it…

    • jon Says:

      sb, the federal govt. will step in if something like that were to happen I would think. The wolf population should be allowed to grow, not be held at a certain # just to satisfy the wolf haters and them wanting an extremely low wolf population in their state.

    • Save bears Says:

      What are they going to do Jon? Send the army in? The tide right now is moving to asserting states rights, there are several lawsuits pending by many different states and many politicians around the country are running on platforms of getting the Feds out…

      And if anything, the only thing the Feds could really do is hold back money, and the states are saying, they will hold back taxes, so it is getting nasty…short of invading a state, there is really not much the Fed’s can do, if some one rebels..which many states are making that kind of noise, look at the recent situation in AZ…

    • jon Says:

      sb, what has been going on proves that states are not able to properly manage predators like wolves. I hate the federal govt as much as the next guy, but if they are going to stop states like Mt and Wy from killing most of the wolves in their state, by all means, give the control to the fed govt. What is to stop the states from wiping out most of their wolf population sb? Nothing except the feds. Wyoming for instance wanted to shoot wolves on sight throughout much of the state. You call this a responsible management plan? This is why we need the feds.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      I did not say I am siding with anyone, I am simply stating what I am seeing going on in the states, and I have occasion to be in each one of them quite often..it is not that unusual to see the population piss at the Fed’s but when you see ALL of the politicians running on platforms to push the Fed’s out, now we are talking some serious stuff here.

      You do know that the majority of states in the country right now, have some sort of lawsuit pending against the Federal Government, challenging their power over the states..

      When you start seeing politicians pushing this, and many of them are going to be the ones serving in Washington DC…it is going to be very interesting…and you might just be surprised how many in the USFWS is not so supportive of wolves…I know quite a few employed in the agency that just wish this would all go away…

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon, already read it a couple of times, you post all of the links, but believe me, I read most of the articles, and I am not sorry to say, I am not a big fan of George.

    • jon Says:

      I would not be surprised if some from the usfws are not supportive of wolves. Ed bangs is a flip flopper. He changed his tune on wolves I see based on some of the early comments I see him made to some recent comments. It’s only a job to him anyways. He could care less about wolves when it comes down to it. I am sure he wishes he was retired with all of the nonsense that had gone down with this wolf issue. Why aren’t you a fan of George sb? You met him beforehuh?

    • jon Says:

      sb, you said you talked to some hunters in your area. Has anyone told you they want wolves exterminated from where you live? Many pro wolfers where you live or not really?

    • Save bears Says:

      I met George several years ago, in Jackson Hole, WY , and I just didn’t like the way he carried himself and his ability to act like he knows more than most of those he was talking to..take into account many of the people he was talking to, are recognized as some of the best and most respected in their fields of study.

      Jon,

      Where my home is in Montana and where I am currently staying in Idaho, I can honestly say, I have met very few that want wolves around, that includes hunters, and just general people…if I was to add it up, I would have to say, I get 50 negative comments to every 1 positive comment I hear.

      Going into a coffee shop is always an interesting experience I can assure you…the conversations always turn to wolves in many of the areas I visit, and the general tone is not good…

    • mikarooni Says:

      I find it interesting that so many people, including many conservatives up to and including the FOX News folks, understand that there was a conflict of interest in having the MMS be the agency that both collected the fees from drilling operations and scrutinized those same drilling operations for safety and environmental protection. These people correctly understand that the MMS was caught in a tug-of-war over whether to clamp down on companies like BP to force them to ensure safety and environmental protection or loosen the reins and thereby collect more in fees. These people correctly understand that even regulators with good character, which admittedly many in the MMS lacked, would be having to watch themselves constantly.

      Yet (and I’m neither slamming fish and game departments nor pushing Geo Wuerthner or his article), these same people find it hard to understand that fish and game departments are in the same position with regard to their reliance on hunting and fishing fees for their revenues while simultaneously being responsible for the conservation of wildlife as a whole. There is no way a fish and game department can be free from conflict, even in the trivial case of being responsible for the unbiased conservation of elk populations, when it is also being pressed to support itself through the sale of tags for the harvest of those same elk. When you add the further complication of these departments simultaneously 1) having to rely on hunting and fishing fees for their revenues, 2) supposedly staying unbiased in their decisions on the conservation of the elk populations whose harvest generates much of those revenues, and then 3) being given responsibility for the conservation of a predator species from which they generate no revenue and that actually competes with revenue generating hunters for the harvest of those elk. The situation is a patently untenable conflict of interest that begs for the intervention of a separate unbiased regulatory influence, specifically the FWS under the ESA. Otherwise, we systematically invite a conservation disaster that echoes the BP fiasco in the Gulf.

    • mikarooni Says:

      I also need to add that 150 in each state (MT, ID, and WY) does not add up to a sufficient number to reliably sustain the genetic diversity of the species over the longer term without some continuing reintroduction of outside genetics. I believe that some of the numbers being proposed by the conservation side may be unnecessarily high; but, 450 scattered in remote pockets across the 3 states is definitely too low, probably by a factor of at least 3, and the science is there to back up that contention.

    • Evan Says:

      All excellent points, Mikarooni. The conflict of interest for the managing govt. agencies is pretty blatant when you step back from the anti-/pro-wolf war.

  83. jon Says:

    “They should be killed. All of them,” Stamey said. “You should be able to shoot, poison, kill any predator that comes on your property, period.”

    The wolf hatred never ceases to amaze me.

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      He is not just talking about wolves, he is talking about ALL predators, and unfortunately, that feeling in permeating the state of Montana and Idaho right now and growing every single day..

    • jon Says:

      Correct sb.

    • Save bears Says:

      What’s a bit scary, is I have not seen anyone running for office in WA, OR, ID, MT or Wyoming saying anything positive about wolves this elections cycle, and I have heard or read speeches from all of these states… It is almost as if the politicians, know it could be a death wish to say anything positive about wolves, and I think it is going to far worse in the future..

    • Mike Says:

      Jon – that goes beyond wolf hatred. Those are people that hate themselves. They are blind, confused and rather than enhancing their minds they seek to control “lesser” creatures to exact some sense of power.

  84. jon Says:

    So it begins again

    Wallowa County seeks wolf plan changes

    ENTERPRISE — In response to repeated livestock depredation by wolves, the Wallowa County Board of Commissioners have drafted a letter asking the governor to declare a state of emergency.

    http://www.lagrandeobserver.com/News/Local-News/Wallowa-County-seeks-wolf-plan-changes

    • jon Says:

      Vicky Fleischman of Enterprise presented a statement and a petition with 726 signatures requesting the commissioners enforce ordinance 99-013 and “remove all wolves from Wallowa County.”

    • jon Says:

      This kind of attitude is exactly why states should NOT BE ALLOWED TO MANAGE animals like wolves. As much as I despise the feds, we need them for instances like this where certain states want wolves gone.

    • WM Says:

      jon,

      I don’t think it is quite the state that wants them gone (yet), but rather local residents in a specific rural area who perceive they are affected by wolves. There is a big difference. They seek an amendment to the state’s wolf plan. But, we also must remember this is a free society, and they are expressing their views to their respective local, state and federal governments, with each successive level being more remote and distanced, and some would say less sympathetic to the on-the-ground effect of wolf presence (justified or not).

      Jon, Oregon Country (what is now the state of OR, WA, parts of MT, ID and WY) got its first provisional government in 1843 because there was not a governmental entity to deal with conflicts between wolves and the first settlers whose stock was being killed or harassed. It began with a series of meetings on the banks of the Wiliamette River at Champoeg (also called French Prairie).

  85. jon Says:

    Older story, but good one.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,495805,00.html

    Big exotic cats should not be treated this way at all. They don’t belong in very small enclosures for human entertainment.

  86. Save bears Says:

    Well it sounds like Glacier needs to go back to the drawing board, or just quit with their studies of wild animals, cripes, something is definitely wrong in the park…

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MT_MOUNTAIN_GOATS_KILLED_MTOL-?SITE=MTKAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=ap_template.html&CTIME=2010-06-11-18-35-31

    • Elk275 Says:

      In the case of the first mountain goat the darter should have hit the animal in the muscle mass instead of the rib cage. But then it could have ended up like the second goat.

      The second mountain goat is dead on an inaccessible cliff. I have shot several mountain goats and seen 3 or 4 other goats shot and read many articles on the goat hunting. A wounded goat will always find a cliff and roll off committing suicide. If a goat was hit with a dart and the effects of the drug were starting to set in it would have the same tenancies as if it was hit with bullet and look for a cliff and roll. It is a sight to see a goat plunge down a mountain bouncing from rock to rock and a sight that I would rather not see again. The park service should have suspended the research permits until the researchers discussed goat capture with those who have done it successfully before.

    • Save bears Says:

      Elk,

      I agree, they should have re-evaluated after they shot the goat in the wrong area…I have been goat hunting and shooting them close to a cliff is going to result in a goat going over the cliff..

      They need to step back and look at their methods as well as their motivation..

    • Mike Says:

      Wow!

      Study conclusion:

      Mountain goats stressed by climate change in GNP do not like tranq darts. Now get out and leave the animals alone.

  87. Si'vet Says:

    I’ve seen several very successful goat capture programs, using salt and cannon nets, on flat ground, not a single issue, the real outdoors isn’t a zoo..

  88. Nathan Hobbs Says:

    SLC gets a taste of what the Gulf Coast is dealing with when a oil pipeline bursts spilling an estimated 20,000 gallons of crude into a local stream.
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700039797/Oil-spill-in-Red-Butte-Creek-threatens.html

  89. WM Says:

    National Wildlife Federation supports delisting of wolves in Great Lakes Region

    http://www.ourmidland.com/sports/article_46366262-769e-11df-bd75-001cc4c03286.html

  90. jon Says:

    Jim Beers wolves were brought back to eliminate hunting.

    Nothing like a conspiracy theory from a anti wolf nut. No Jim Beers, wolves were brought back because they once there, but people with the same attitude like you killed them off for your own selfish and ignorant reasons.

    http://lobowatch.com/WhyWolves.html

    • WM Says:

      Well, that’s smart. Give Toby Bridges the first six out of seven paragraphs in what is supposed to be a story that is about the upcoming hearing before Molloy. Writer Cheney ought to be ashamed of himself. I venture to guess when the first dog (or wolf) dies from xylitol poisoning the MFWP law enforcement guy is probably not the only one looking in the direction of Bridges. It may generate a little self-help of a different kind.

  91. Cody Coyote Says:

    A lone wolf causes the loss of a Forest Service horse:

    http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2010/jun/14/bc-wy-wolf-attack-horse/?features&travel

    Bridger Teton Forest Service backcountry workers surprised a wolf, who spooked the horses. One of the horses ran into a cattle guard and broke its leg and had to be put down. It’s unclear whether the horse merely spooked or was actually being threatened by the wolf.

    What’s amazing is that the wolf was allowed to leave at all. It wasn’t punished. No attempt was made to capture or ” control” the wolf.

    Imagine that . Wyoming with it’s de facto Zero Tolerance policy towards naughty wolves actually gives one a free pass.

    Well, Judge Molloy is hearing the big wolf case on Wednesday….

    • WM Says:

      Cody,

      Always hard to tell what really happened from a short news article. Maybe we will see more. The wording used by the reporter was that there was a question of whether the horse was “attacked.” Some form of the word was used 4 times including title of article, rather than “threatened” as you state.

      Query, will this dead horse be charged as a wolf-caused mortality in the next annual wolf report stat chart for WY, or treated as a special case with a footnote?

      Replacement cost for the horse comes out of the FS budget, a taxpayer expense. Now if this had been a private party, say a hunter or a rancher, that could be problematic. A rancher, for example, might have to sell $10K of beef at a 10% profit margin to cover the cost of the loss of a $1,000 horse. A recreationist would have to absorb the cost themselves.

  92. jon Says:

    http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_c6c8d0a0-776f-11df-929e-001cc4c03286.html

    The author talks about Toby Bridges in this article and xylitol.

    • jon Says:

      Xylitol can be lethal to dogs, wolves, foxes and other canines by causing a sudden drop in blood sugar, often followed by fatal seizures or liver damage. Bridges said he wasn’t calling for people to poison wolves, but predicting some would.

      The prediction has caught the notice of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks warden Capt. Jeff Darrah.

      “The question I would ask, if a guy’s not saying or advocating he’s going to do it, why would he put it out on his website?” Darrah said. “It would be illegal to put it out purposely to kill wolves or any animal. The standard line from Fish, Wildlife and Parks would be if you take Xylitol or any other poison and lace meat with it and put it out there to kill wolves, that’s a crime. This has been put out by Lobo Watch as a way to kill wolves. If wolves start dying as a result of this activity, that’s where I’d look first.”

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Seems like Bridges could be in real trouble if dead dogs (most likely), or wolves (unlikely) start showing up. It’s not like poisoning of this kind (xylitol) happens without specific Internet directions of its possible misuse.

    • Angela Says:

      My first reaction to that blog post was to email the USFWS and notify them.

    • Save bears Says:

      Angela,

      I am sure that USFWS as well as Montana FWP is well aware of what is being said, probably long before the media reported it..

    • Angela Says:

      SB, I’m sure you’re right, but it can’t hurt to let them know that the public is also aware that someone is advocating illegal poisoning of gray wolves. I forwarded the link to them over a week ago and asked about it. I got a reply saying there *would be a response*….soon…

  93. jon Says:

    Yellowstone proposes shooting bison with brucellosis vaccine

    http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2010/06/12/commodities/livestock/lvstk21.txt

    • ProWolf in WY Says:

      Is there no vaccine that ranchers could use on their own cows?

    • Save bears Says:

      Cattle are already vaccinated prowolf, but it is not 100% and the bison vaccination is not very effective either..this is simply a smoke screen to appease the ranchers..

  94. Mike Says:

    Bill Maher nails it here:

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/14/875801/-Bill-Maher-goes-there:-f*ck-your-jobs-to-oil-(-coal)-workers

    “You know, maybe your job needs to go when it starts killing things”

  95. JEFF E Says:

    New worries for Wyoming ranchers
    http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_2ec3d141-01c9-5a4d-ae55-fe41f93e93b4.html
    I bet if some of their cattle get loose never a word is said

    • Barb Rupers Says:

      Isn’t Wyoming an open range state? I note that yak are in the genus Bos (cattle).

      And how much forage can 15 free ranging yaks consume? Is this a serious threat to ranchers?

      Perhaps a little cross breeding between yaks and European cattle wouldn’t hurt the gene pool for Bos in NA (since we seem to be stuck with them in most of the West for now). Look at the yak’s native habit: high elevation, little forage, and a dry climate.

    • Save bears Says:

      Well, If I remember right Wyoming is a free range state with what they call a fence out law, similar to Montana……they would definitely make for some interesting cross breeds!

  96. Nancy Says:

    Yattle – it has a nice ring to it. A friend’s mother got run over by an energetic yak they had on their ranch – we called it the Big Yak Attack!

    Its interesting how “real” cattle ranchers are offended by this but could care less when they open the gates from public lands in the fall and just let the cows (they didn’t get rounded up) wander back to their ranches. And, its up to us non-ranchers to keep them off our property or avoid them on the roads………….

  97. jdubya Says:

    Pressure mounting to kick Salazar out…..hope it works!

    http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4081

  98. jon Says:

    Advocates: Wolf case a test for endangered species

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gvpLOtu1zSieNGU7OAEbSTg-V2vwD9GB99AG3

    Anti-wolf website angers conservationists (Toby Bridge’s website lobowatch)

    http://www.keci.com/Anti-wolf-website-angers-conservationists/7465687

    How Sweet It Is? –

    http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/hunting-andrew-mckean/2010/06/how-sweet-it

    But the freshest indication that wolves are tipping people over the edge of reason comes from Missoula hunter Toby Bridges, whose blog Lobo Watch has become the most virulent of the anti-predator forums.

    Last week Bridges further whipped up the frenzy against wolves with his suggestion that hunters may want to take matters into their own hands, especially if Molloy recommends that wolves be protected from hunting. Bridges is suggesting that the best wolf-control substance can be obtained at health-food stores. It is the artificial sweetener Xylitol, which can be fatal to canines.

    • jon Says:

      Jerry Black put it best, ” To me, it comes down to almost a culture of killing, and a lot of this killing is based on hatred, not need,” says Black.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      When dogs start showing up dead of Xylitol, Toby Bridges is going to be hot water with the law. It’s dogs that will die from this.

    • jon Says:

      ” The other side needs to know, that if push comes to shove, sportsmen in this state, and sportsmen in the Northern Rockies are going to take care of this problem,” says Bridges.

      Seems like a threat to me Ralph. You should put that video up in a new post.

      http://www.keci.com/Anti-wolf-website-angers-conservationists/7465687

    • WM Says:

      I am as pi$$ed off at the media as I am Bridges for publicizing this. It does three things: feeds his ego for his brazen advocacy for illegal conduct and inevitable destruction of public (wolves) and private property (dogs), which will undoubtedly motivate him to other measures as he finds them; it gives others ideas who likely would not have them but for the publication of this crap; and, it drastically increases the polarity and potential for violence, eventually against people, through the wolf issue.

    • JEFF E Says:

      Let’s not forget that Toby is also a co-founder of the Montana Chapter of the ever responsible Sportsmen for (some) Fish and (some) Wildlife…

  99. jon Says:

    http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_d75f1638-789e-11df-8593-001cc4c03286.html

    “Montana’s #1 Poacher – Gray Wolf”

    That is hilarious. Calling wolves poachers.

  100. jon Says:

    http://www.keci.com/Wolf-hearing-draws-protests/7473134

    Many big game hunters are unhappy because wolves are killing elk.

    Isn’t that what wolves are supposed to do? Are these people seriously complaining because wolves are killing elk?

    • Save bears Says:

      Jon,

      Yes, they are.. and they will continue to…that is your problem, you don’t seem to understand what is actually going on…this is a situation, that the majority has never had to deal with, in this current generation, and your surprised they are mad?

      I think you know, I am not against wolves, but I can tell you when I took my graduate studies, wolves were never even mentioned..now it is a part of the curriculum…and a major part of it, now that is only 15 years…

      Until you understand, there are several different sides of this unfolding chapter in wildlife management, you are going to continue to have people criticize you Jon..

      Are their people that hate wolves? yes, quite a few, because they feel they have been shoved down their throats, are there many who are concerned? yes, because hunting opportunities are shrinking…

      And there is a whole group that don’t understand either side, they know something is going on, but can’t understand why and the only way they are going to learn anything is with truthful, factual information and education, neither extreme is doing them selves any favors, people want to know why their is such a big deal about wolves, and the extremes are not doing anything to explain it, they are just screaming at each other..and screaming at each other to see who is the loudest, and that never has accomplished anything..

  101. Cobra Says:

    SB,
    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It seems to me that emotion runs extremes on both sides. I think the biggest problem is neither side will take the time to listen. Whenever one side says something that doesn’t fit with the others beliefs they shut down or start the insults. I’m on the ground here right in the middle of all of this and have good friends on both sides but I believe what I see with my own eyes. I can live with (SOME) wolves and think it’s kind of neat to see and hear them. I do however have a special place in my heart for elk, they’ve been large part of my life and I would be lying if I said it doesn’t upset me to find wolf kills that are not consumed. Most up here use elk yearly to get through the winter as you know I’m sure, when they find these kills they feel like something has been stolen and just thrown away. I like to hunt elk that’s for sure, but I really get a kick out of watching the calves this time of year, they play tag just like kids. People that haven’t grown up this way don’t understand how someone can love game so much and then just go out and shoot one. It something that can’t really be put into words but I wish both sides would try to understand the other. Elk and elk hunting to some are just a past time, but to many of us it’s our life and one of the reasons that make life worth living.

  102. jon Says:

    sb, you don’t give people enough credit. Plenty of people know what is going on. You act like people have no idea what is going on, but a good deal of people do. We see nothing wrong at all with wolves killing elk and well, others do. Hunters and big game trophy hunters are complaining that wolves are killing elk thereby reducing elk hunting opportunities for them. Livestock owners are complaining that wolves are killing their livestock. We heard it all sb. Most know what is going on. People can feel like wolves were shoved down their throats, but no matter what place they were put in, you will always have a group of people complaining wolves were shoved down their throats. Wolves BELONG in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and who is to say they don’t belong there? If someone does not like wolves living in their state, deal with it or move to another state with no wolves. Just because someone does not like wolves living in their state, does not mean that wolves shouldn’t have the right to live there because the citizens of that state are complaining about them for whatever reason. Wolves eat elk, that is what they do and that is what they survive on. I would love to see wolves put back in other states. The more wolves, the better!

  103. Ralph Maughan Says:

    Jon,

    It’s probably best to just let wolves drift into other states. No state is going to buy the trouble among people that a reintroduction causes.

    I don’t think the more wolves the better. The proper number of wolves is the number needed to keep elk, deer, and moose, etc. wary and wild.

    On the other hand, anyone who likes wolves has got to love their prey, that is, elk. I’m amazed that some elk hunters don’t see what should be obvious. No elk and deer, no wolves (or cougar). That should be the end of it.

    God, I am tired of this acrimonious silly argument, but then it is really not about wolves. It is about the values of different subcultures.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: